Autogynephilia, explanation or bigotry?

Autogynephilia is a controvertial notion, an 'explanation' for CDing that some embrace but many others consider offensive harmful and unscientific.

Here's the wiki on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogynephilia

And this is a two-part article critical of it and it's inclusion in the official psychiatric diagnostic manual:
Part 1
http://www.bilerico.com/2009/01/auto...derogatory.php

Part 2
http://www.bilerico.com/2009/01/auto...rogatory_1.php

I'm curious what the opinions of people here on this are.

At first glance, autogynephilia appears as an interesting concept. :battingeyelashes:

However it's a mere definition. It explains nothing. :eek:

As for me, I can define myself as autogynephilic, but don't buy the theory of Ray Blanchard at all. It is just junk. :2c:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by battybattybats

Autogynephilia is a controvertial notion, an 'explanation' for CDing that some embrace but many others consider offensive harmful and unscientific.

Here's the wiki on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogynephilia

And this is a two-part article critical of it and it's inclusion in the official psychiatric diagnostic manual:
Part 1
http://www.bilerico.com/2009/01/auto...derogatory.php

Part 2
http://www.bilerico.com/2009/01/auto...rogatory_1.php

I'm curious what the opinions of people here on this are.

---

There's a lot of information there! I will not pretend to have had the time to digest it all but an initial reaction, if the article is stating there is perhaps a high degree of narcissism amongst crossdressers, would be really! tell me something I don't know!
I do not however think there is anything abnormal or 'wrong' about this. I certainly do not think it is exclusive to crossdressers. I know plenty of GGs and males who like the sight of themselves in a mirror. Additionally is there not also a psychological theory that males and females often choose partners who have varying degrees of physical resemblance to themselves..

I really have trouble with so called experts who have never personally experienced what we as crossdressers actually go through. I really have trouble with psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, etc. trying to explain what or who I am. If you have not walked in my HEELS, you are not in any position to lable me or give me advice.

You sisters of our sisterhood can provide more honest, reliable, personal, real life, actual experiences and information that the so called experts - thats my opinion for whatever its worth.

JoAnne Wheeler

Thank you for a very enlightening article Batty, whether its in the right section or not. Yes our "Sisters of this Sisterhood" can also offer OPINIONS on why we CD, but thats all they are, opinions. Until 1 thing is proven to cause all of us to wear the frillies, we can all have an opinion on what causes it. Hugs, Amber

Gianna Israel wrote an interesting article that I identified with pretty well. If I were forced to choose a label, it would be Transgenderist.

battybattybats,

"Controversial" is an understatement. Autogynephilia has been discussed, debated, and argued ad nauseum in and out of the gender community without a whole lot being resolved. For some people it may provide a plausible explanation...

As to whether or not it is bigoted... Blanchard performed his research based upon one's sexual attraction. If this makes Blanchard a bigot, then it makes all the other researchers bigots who use sexual attraction as a factor in their research.

One cannot deny that there are crossdressers who are heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or other sexually orientations. In an effort to understand more about crossdressing, it might be useful to see what similarities or differences there are based on sexual attraction, age, marital status, religion, education, or a number of other demographics... Or it might not...

Robyn P.

Like so many other theories, it only becomes a problem when it is an attempt to define everyone, and I think unfortunately that is what's often done. Lots of folks want one, simple explanation for everything; unfortunately, there isn't one. There are many reasons we crossdress. Sure, autogynephilia may be correct for some. But it doesn't 'fit' for a lot of others. The last time I came across this theory, the person who initiated the thread made all kinds of 'adjustments' to the theory so that it could fit everyone in one way or another. When you constantly have to adjust your theory, there's something wrong with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by battybattybats

Autogynephilia is a controvertial notion, an 'explanation' for CDing that some embrace but many others consider offensive harmful and unscientific. I'm curious what the opinions of people here on this are.

---

Great subject!:thumbsup: I love the term "transwomen" :daydreaming:
It reminds me of a quote from somewhere I can't remember:
"We attemp to become what we most desire"
Maybe it was one of my own ("The Mad Cow kicks in" Denny Crane):eek:

I'd much rather be referred to as a poufbunny.:heehee: Autogynephiliac is just sounds so cold and clinical.:puke:
:love:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobynP

As to whether or not it is bigoted... Blanchard performed his research based upon one's sexual attraction. If this makes Blanchard a bigot, then it makes all the other researchers bigots who use sexual attraction as a factor in their research.

One cannot deny that there are crossdressers who are heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or other sexually orientations. In an effort to understand more about crossdressing, it might be useful to see what similarities or differences there are based on sexual attraction, age, marital status, religion, education, or a number of other demographics... Or it might not...

---

Few if any objected to his including sexuality as a factor for analysis of correlation or even causation.

But the criticism is that his work is based on an untested premise of causation. That he assumes that sexuality is a primary differnce and rather than seeing if that is so with proper scientific methodology he is building his further explanations for conflicting data upon that assumption. Making the facts fir the theory rather than making the theory fitting the facts!

Which if that criticism is apt it'd mean his theory is as scientific as Intelligent Design. And his assumption being based not on science but a personal bias would then indeed be bigotry.

Seeing as every one else has used all of the professional tems, I'd like to say it reminds me of a bunch of puppy poop!!!! Have a great day...BJ

Putting a name, however Greek, on something does not make it science, which probably means its bigotry. Blanchard has been debunked by most gender researchers and by self-analytic members of the TG/TV/CD community. On the other hand, sometimes I do prefer myself as a woman.

I'm with Lexi, the sometimes miss, on this one.

When we're speaking of the mind, the psyche, there just cannot be any one rationale for anyone's behaviour. Many will come to the same behaviour patterns from different backgrounds or thought processes or who knows how many different paths.

What makes a juvenile go delinquent? A disadvantaged childhood? An over-cossetted childhood? We see delinquents from the ghettos but also from the high-falutin' suburbs. We also see morally upright citizens emerge from all manner of backgrounds.

We know from conversations here that some of our members are indeed narcissists, but we also know that many of us have very deep self-esteem issues, the very antithesis of narcissism.

Strictly speaking, a scientific theory has to be judged on factual, repeatable data, with non-existent or very little difference in variables among the test subjects. If I rememeber correctly, a lot of Blanchard's "data" was based on interviews with drag queens in one area of the country. I doubt if he interviewed any girls like us, many of whom wouldn't be seen dead on the street or share their predeliction with anyone. Nobody will be able to know how i came to the desire to emulate women by asking RuPaul or Dame Edna why they do it. We are totally different lab rats from the get go!

Psychology is a "soft science". And it's "theories" just cannot be considered universal in any way!

Auto? yes! I do it on my own...

Gyne? yes! It's about women and womanhood...

Philia? yes! It's a fondness and liking for the subject...

But autogynephilia as a theory defines me not!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoAnne Wheeler

I really have trouble with so called experts who have never personally experienced what we as crossdressers actually go through. I really have trouble with psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, etc. trying to explain what or who I am. If you have not walked in my HEELS, you are not in any position to lable me or give me advice.

You sisters of our sisterhood can provide more honest, reliable, personal, real life, actual experiences and information that the so called experts - thats my opinion for whatever its worth.

JoAnne Wheeler

---

I agree with you JoAnne!! With out the actual experience the experts can only guess at the realities. I would prefer a counselor that has some real time experience. One reason I love this forum!!

Kelsy

Auto gyne what? I think I used to have one of those but the wheels fell off a long time ago.:)

All I can say is, I had no idea what sex was when I remember first having thoughts of thinking I should be a girl.

I do think it is an interesting concept though, but it may only explain a small part of the cases of cross dressers and gender dysphoria. I would also guess it would be more towards cross dressing than transsexuals, simply because of the lost and changed libido during transition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobynP

For some people it may provide a plausible explanation...

Robyn P.

---

You're right, some of us may have personal history and tendencies that can be explained with a phenomenon called autogynephilia. However, that theory is totally uncapable to explain the situation of majority of trans people. Especially in case of TS it's totally bullshit and it may even cause serious damages to them if it's used as a basis of the diagnosis.

I believe the vast majority of CDs do exhibit autogynephilia because sexual fantasies among the CD community is obviously widespread. And since we are predominantly heterosexual, it would be strange to otherwise believe we would not be aroused and fantasize about the woman in the mirror.

However I doubt if autogynephilia is the cause of CD behavior except perhaps in a small number of cases. This is because most CDs develop before puberty and I am sure most of us were naive about the details of the female body and sexual relations when we first emerged.

I think this theory reflects how psychology believes there must be a strong motivator behind taboo behavior and the sex drive is always the favorite suspect. Modern psychology was largely created by Freud's theories were everything seems to revolve around the genitals. This idea has lead psychology down a dead end for decades and although now largely rejected there are still lingering effects.

My other thought is how difficult it is for anyone to escape binding sexual and gender orientation together. People cannot imagine one without invoking the other, and CDs themselves are guilty of this weakness too.

The answers to causation lie in behavioral theories and the adaptation (or lack thereof) of the individual to his/her assigned gender role. Autogynephilia is largely a secondary behavior which reinforces the transition away from the assigned gender role.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satrana

I believe the vast majority of CDs do exhibit autogynephilia because sexual fantasies among the CD community is obviously widespread. And since we are predominantly heterosexual, it would be strange to otherwise believe we would not be aroused and fantasize about the woman in the mirror.

---

Very true..

The problem comes when, instead of this being seen just as a symptom, it's taken to be the fundamental cause - and it is then used to label people as 'sick'... :sad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kelsy

I agree with you JoAnne!! With out the actual experience the experts can only guess at the realities. I would prefer a counselor that has some real time experience. One reason I love this forum!!

---

I've heard that one of the advocates for autogynephilia though is a transsexual herself!

I have not spent a great deal of time reading the literature regarding crossdressing, transgender, and so on. Honestly, I am not looking for that explanation in my life. I do what I do because I enjoy doing it, I started young, too young for it to have anytype of sexual connotation at all. Then it was done in innocense and without looking for explanation. It was far easier for me to admit that for whatever reason my physical did not match me. Certainly, I came to that conclusion later in life, or I might have been some sort of genius by Piaget's standards. I entirely had all the wrong plumbing, and so on, and was/am a female within. The sexual fantasy and eroticism that followed during puberty as I am sure it did for most of us was then and is now such a major source of confusion for me. I have experienced these stages of what has been discussed in that article. As a professional that uses the DSM on a regular basis and have also had some indirect involvement on research with mood disorders with the last update beg for those to use discretion. Like many who are in the trenches remain very cautious when making any sort of diagnosis. Where I have the most frustration when using this document (DSM) is that this is a person first in front of you and not a catagory for explanation. My profession often looses insight in order to offer a diagnosis. We do this to be sure that insurance is going to pay for the services rendered, but we also do this without insight into the impact that this will have on the person after the diagnosis. They will struggle to get life insurance in the future, they will have many other difficulties as this diagnosis will follow them forever.

As humans we need clairty and explanation for what we do and why. That is the human experience. I just feel that sometimes we are too quick to label, to judge, and to use these tools and knowledge to hurt and harm others, and cause a person or us to feel somewhat inferior and damaged because we crossdress, or do whatever we do.

Six months or so ago, my therapist gave me some materials on autogynephilia, for me to peruse and see if i felt any of it described me.

As i read through it, i thought, "What in blazes are they talking about? It's like Freud for crossdressers. Everything's about sexual gratification." Maybe there's some people out there for whom it fits, but it sure as heck doesn't fit me.

Sometimes i think my crossdressing is what lets me move, act, talk, and behave the way i feel most comfortable. I need to be Bobbi, because guys aren't supposed to behave as i would like to, but girls can, so i become a girl so i can be myself. (How's that for twisted?)

And somewhere, a therapist's metaphorical cash register goes, "ka-ching!"

Autogynephilia is complicated. But I have never taken issue with the basic concept, especially since it describes much of the way I feel, and how I have felt most of my life. I am sure that it is one big reason that I crossdress, but not, perhaps, the only reason. If a crossdressing man happens to not have these particular traits, so be it. He has other reasons to crossdress. Blanchard never said it was the only reason behind crossdressing. But I think the concept is quite valid.

To shed more light about the subject discussed in this thread, I have looked in my archives for a thoughtful paper I had read at the time I have been studying the autogynephilia concept.

It is this one by Beth Orens.

http://www.starways.net/beth/ag.html

I find it an excellent critical analysis to the whole autogynephilia concept, and her aim is the following :

<< I think there are more than a few transwomen who have had similar experiences to mine. I think that some of the outrage against the Blanchard model stems from the fact that they know intuitively that it is wrong, but simply have not found any way to counter his views other than vitriol and denial that they ever have such fantasies. While I understand this, I think it is clear that the only way to defeat a flawed hypothesis is to replace it with a better one. And this is my intent. >>

As for me, I mostly agree with Beth Orens point of view. :hugs: