Printable View
Yeah, Reine. I think she was cracking on me. I guess while I understand the concept of autogynephilia, I just don't feel this terrible rage towards Blanchard over it. Har har.Quote:
If back pedaling was an Olympic Sport I'm sure you'd have a shot at the Gold. :lol2:
I think another long word not used here is Transvestic Fetishism.
I have read the previous and most has been spoken so I digress.
Oh FFS (charming acronym) people are subjects, not objects. We express our sexuality subjectively. Are women who have breast implants or want them, and are sexually excited about having or wanting them, suffering from autogynephilia? Not likely, because we all view ourselves as sexual subjects not as sexual objects. It is only other people who objectify us.
What Blanchard and other people like him, including the ones who validate his supreme stupidity and offensiveness, will not allow is that someone who is born with a penis can be a female subject or feminine subject in any meaningful way and express their subjective femaleness or subjective femininity in a sexual manner that is satisfying to them. Blanchard’s opinions imply that every person with a penis is either a healthy authentic male or a sick male. He probably views people with vaginas in a similar or dimmer light. Blanchard’s opinions reduce some people to penis objects who objectify themselves as vagina objects. He denies the basic humanity of TG and TS people.
Do people who masturbate get excited because they imagine having sex with themselves? Perhaps Blanchard and a few others do. Everyone else imagines themselves as a sexual subject who is expressing their sexual subjectivity.
Is it difficult for TG and TS people to find compatible sexual partners and maintain relationships with them? Yes it is. The primary reason is that most people (who are not TG or TS) don’t respect the authenticity of TG and TS self-identification, and they don't respect the natural expression of personal TG and TS humanity and personal TG and TS subjectivity.
auto
a combining word meaning self
gyno
a combining word meaning self
philia
a combining form used in the formation of compound words that have the general sense “unnatural attraction” (necrophilia),
why would anybody "like" being defined as having an unnatural attraction that is compared to necrophilia
what is wrong with being a fetish crossdresser or having any nondangerous fetish (unlike like dangerous fetishes that hurt others including corpses..heh)
, if you do enjoy dangerous fetishes, then you can fantasize in your mind about any type of sexual pleasure,
The term autogynephilia was created AS a perjorative term...it does not at all describe the reality that I and others have personally experienced..transsexuals care DEEPLY about the word because most of us view it as quackery and folks like Dr Blanchard are part of the group that is working to define us in the next DSM...it matters..how it is defined medically has all kinds of reprecussions for those of us that seek treatment or surgery..doctors can hurt us...go look up Dr John Money...
so i would respectfully ask that we simply not use that term..what term should we use?? who cares...just not a term coined by a self serving man using incredibly flawed research...
but it doesnt mean that there are alot alot alot of girls that either enjoyed sexual pleasure or a release of anxiety through their testosterone laden existence...
my educated GUESS is that for ts women that felt sexual things about themselves it is about coping with the confusing feelings regarding just knowing you are a girl but genetically being a boy....
Reine, your grasp on things CD/TG is amazing!Quote:
Originally Posted by ReineD
As a cd'er I do also feel the same way Kaitlin expressed. I used to think that something was wrong with me for having those feelings, that being turned on either by cloths or by fantasizing myself as a female negatated or discredited the deeper desire of my identifying "with" or "along side" females.
As humans we are very beautifully complex, especially with our emotions and minds. Since childhood, I have only felt comfortable "letting in" strong female role models in my life to identify with. For me, that is the core reason I am a crossdresser. Yes, after puberty, the rest kicked in and I am happy with that, even though it certainly complicates what was already complicated at best. But, I have settled in and am very happy being an ever changing, complicated me.
I really hate the term, since it's really quite simple. It essentially is making the word "pervert" (in a derogatory sense) academic. Additionally, it's denying the concept of gender identity altogether, tying it into sexuality and using it as a way to deny transition for transgender girls. Read up on the writer of it, that person has a personal agenda, has been panned across the board by the trans community as well as peer reviews and has caused probably more damage than any one person to all trans people in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth
Note: I have no problem applying such a term to crossdressers, since they are NOT transgender, but it's never done that way. It's done the opposite.
That is a blanket statement that I disagree with. Whereas some crossdressers may not be truly transgendered, others truly are.Quote:
I have no problem applying such a term to crossdressers, since they are NOT transgender.
i agree marla..and thats why i think we should not use a term that could have real life negative implications for folks that want to have surgery or live their lives in their proper gender..
its interesting that alot of girls are correctly saying that they want to define themselves...this makes alot of sense...unfortunately what's missing is that there are people out there trying to define us and they don't share our agenda, and the term autogynephilia helps them and hurts us..
the doctors and lawyers WILL define you whether you like it or not..
Hmmm.....so, it seems, will everybody else.Quote:
the doctors and lawyers WILL define you whether you like it or not.
I think the biggest problem with the supporters of the autogynephilia theory is the same with every other psychological theorist; they all think their own idea is the only correct one out there, and that it applies to everyone. You find it with Freud, Erikson, Jung, Piaget, every single one of them. And when someone comes up with an exception to their 'rule', they come up with increasingly bizarre explanation of how it 'really still fits' their theory. Lets face it; we are a very complex organism, and we are learning new things about ourselves all the time. Yes, autogynephilia explains some crossdressers. But it's completely wrong with others. And the search for a 'unified' theory goes on........
Nicely put!Quote:
Originally Posted by sometimes_miss
If Blanchards "theory" is so disputable and outmoded, then what has replaced it? Theories are not facts, that's why they're called theories.
I believe there is a definite distinction between feminine expression and the term listed by DSM-IV & V as "transvestic fetishism". ...where that diverges, or whether they're even related, I know not. Anybody want to quote me on this thread, this is the paragraph I wish to be quoted on.
As for the term "autogynephilia" ....it seems to imply 'sex with one's self as seeing one's self a woman'. Is sex not involved, but just the state of femaleness?
Then they simply haven't realized what they are yet. It still doesn't make someone who gets pleasure from clothing in a fetishistic sense entirely different from one who is inherently a different gender between their mind and body.Quote:
Originally Posted by TGMarla
Mind you, do NOT forget that when you put your argument that "there is no difference" that is the core of the argument against being TG as a medical condition which is why treatment is NOT covered by insurance (since it's just a 'perversion' and only for pleasure, not something that needs to be helped with), as well as them being excluded from GLB rights (like the ENDA bill).
So, I hope you understand that any argument of the two being 'the same' angers me, since it undermines ALL trans rights in America, only for selfish reason, so that people who have not figured themselves out yet can take down the ship with themselves, even before it begins sailing.
It is a little more than that. Blanchard defines AGP as being paraphilic, which describes "sexual arousal to objects or situations that are not part of normative stimulation and that can cause distress or serious problems for the paraphiliac or persons associated with him or her" (Paraphilia). An AGP would not be able to have sex with a partner without engaging somehow in the paraphilia. So the partner in this situation is an accessory rather than the (edit:Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie B
objectsubect) of desire. This creates an empty sexual experience for the partner.
I agree with most of your points, but not this one. Women do not get sexually aroused over having breast implants or undergoing any other physical "improvement". They get excited about the sexual reaction they think these improvements will cause in a male.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pink Person
The term describes a condition and it is not meant to be perjorative any more than other psychological terms. Blanchard theorized that non-homosexual TSs were all AGPs but this is not fact. You and others are proof of this since you are not AGP. And I venture to guess future studies will disprove Blanchard's theory. But it doesn't mean the condition doesn't exist. There are far too many people who say that it describes them to dismiss the term entirely. See "this thread".Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaitlyn Michele
There will never be a unified theory since there are far too many differences among the members of the TG community. People will need to become comfortable with the idea that certain conditions apply to some people, but not all.Quote:
Originally Posted by sometimes_miss
You describe a paraphilia. Yes, a sexual fetish is also an arousal brought on by an object or a situation, but it is a disorder only if it is debilitating. It can also be an enhancement to a sex life if it is mutually enjoyed between partners. It is when the fetish replaces or becomes more enjoyable than the sexual relationship with a partner that it is a paraphilia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie B
Dear Reine,
I’m not sure what your objection is. Is it that the excitement that women feel about their artificial breasts is not sexual or that it does not constitute autogynephilia? I believe I already said it doesn’t constitute autogynephilia. I believe I already said it is the excitement that a person feels as the subject of sexual activity. If you are asserting that their excitement isn’t sexual that is very high minded of you. It made me laugh.
Pink
Both, but I didn't frame my response very well. I took it you were likening GGs with breast implants to the TGs who say they are AGP. The former as you pointed out is not true, but the latter is since it is the TGs themselves who speak about their own erotic responses and no one else is in a position to disagree with them. If the act of masturbation, no matter the source of the fantasy, is the preferred form of sexual release and consequently sex with a GG partner becomes rare or dutiful because it cannot compare, then it does fulfill the definition of a paraphilia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pink Person
I'm sorry you are taking it this way. But believe me, the excitement is not sexual. The motive for implants may be to attract a male sexually, but it is more about a woman wanting to feel better about herself. A GG looking at her new breasts in the mirror is not sexually excited at all. Ever. Just like a guy who looks at his flaccid penis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pink Person
This is why I said these are dangerous people. And why you open up alot of anger even when casually talking about them and and their "theories". It's so frustrating. I won't be at DSM V and they wouldn't listen to me if I was there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaitlyn Michele
Thank you, Kaitlyn.
Hugs,
Melissa:)
For ME, anyway!:sad:
Normally, I'd say you're rite, Pink P. However, when it comes to CDs, things CAN GET very WEIRD! :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pink Person
Sherry is the object of my sexual fantasies. I don't think of her as "me". I "objectify" her, if u will. I know she doesn't mind, but I DO!:brolleyes:
Yes, Katie, u r SO RITE! I believe Sherry has become my "fetish". I feel very little of her has to do with fem expression! For years, I have been concerned about "her" affecting my ability to enjoy sex with REAL women. And, after a couple of affairs, that seems to be the case!:doh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie B
It's NOT so much a case of my, "falling in love with myself", as it is, falling in love with my fem alter ego/creation! Whatever u choose to call Sherry.
If THAT'S not sick, I'm not sure what is! Blanchard's theory not withstanding!
I have no clue who this Blanchard or any of the other names are, but I'll try to reply to the OP's question.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReineD
I've been aroused by fantasies of myself as a woman in the past. In general I am attracted to books, movies and comics that deal with the issue of changing into the opposite sex or switching bodies.
So this seems to resonate with the term autogynephilia (which is just a Greek term for loving your female self and seems a good term as such, as I said I don't know any of the stigma that seems to go with it.
Do I love a female version of myself though? No. I'm attracted to other women more than any image of myself.
I also think it's not a transsexual feeling. I don't want to be, don't feel or identify as a woman.
I've been on a journey, with a lot of help from this forum, in trying to figure myself out. What I'm starting to think is that most of my crossdressing and transgender behaviour and fantasies are related to inhibitions and taboos in our culture preventing me to express my feminine side. So as a release I end up asking myself what it would be if the bounderies were gone and one could move fluidly from the male to the female side.
I have found that since I've started accepting that I'm a man who wants to be very feminine, I feel more integrated, and clearer, and a lot of these old fantasies have lost their allure. I've also found I've become more confident in dating women.
As I currently see myself, it seems that more than anything, my crossdressing and fantasies are a result of not really fitting into the constraints on looks and behaviour that society sets for me. I'm happier with long hair, shaved legs and soft flowing clothes in bright colours.
Next to that I'm fascinated by how men and women can be so similar and so different at the same time, but not as something that arouses me, but because both very masculine men and feminine women are an enigma to me. I do not really identify with either but I feel an urge to try and understand. This coupled with a vivid imagination also leads to strange fantasies, sometimes more disgusting me other times turning me on or leading me in entirely different directions.
I can't speak for anyone else, but my reply is that I do recognize some of what is being described, but for me it seems mostly to be of a symptom of not having found my identity yet.
You know, that may still just be a part of development. Jung would say that Sherry is your anima, but that it is still in the 'Eve' phase of development, recognized as just the first of four distinct levels.Quote:
Originally Posted by docrobbysherry
from wiki
This would mean that your anima still has the "Helen," "Mary," and finally "Sophia." phases to explore.Quote:
Eve
The first is Eve, named for the Genesis account of Adam and Eve. It deals with the emergence of a male's object of desire, yet simultaneously generalizes all females as evil and powerless.
"Helen" may just be one little 'doorway' away. You can sometimes find these doorways by changing her 'look' now and again, and exploring different sides of the picture. (eg: Try a "gothy" Helen look or a pure "Mary" ourfit, or a more "Sophisticated" manner of dress and see how it makes you feel looking at it in the mirror.)
Blanchard's theory of AGP as a motive for transition cannot be accurate, judging by the sheer number of transsexuals who express outrage over its inclusion in the DSM. The theory has been around sometime now (1989) and I wonder if you, or if anyone else knows if there has been any significant research done to finally disprove it, or if not, why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaitlyn Michele
I realize that conducting research was difficult in the past due to members of the TG community being so deeply closeted, and this is perhaps one of the reasons why Blanchard's theory may be flawed, but is this not changing with the proliferation of the internet?
So where are you, young researchers and why are you being so silent?
Thanks for all the thought and energy that has gone into these responses. I did not think my post would create such a storm.
By the way, I know about Blanchard but did not wish to mention him because I wanted to consider the idea of autogynephilia in isolation, so to speak, without the unpleasant baggage that Blanchard produced with his over-prescriptive categories.
It's a theory, that's all. We should be able to think about it in a level headed way.
We keep going on about all the different labels that can be stuck on to peoples preference can anybody tell me what normal is??
We are all different in ways and preferences, and have multiple choices in all aspects of life and the way we dress,and sex
look back in history ,the Romans wore skirts, the Scotts the kilt, in Africa the caftan etc etc
so what is normal???
:hugs:
J-JAY
A little late but I thought I'd post my :2c:
The problem I have with Blanchard's theory of Autogynephilia and Transexualism is that it is all about "Sex" like so many have already stated. For me (and so many TSs that I know) my gender issues preceeded puberty by almost 10 years.
I have always wanted to be female. My earliest memories are of wanting to play with dolls and wear girl's clothes. I remember walking home from school in first and second grade and wishing I had long hair like they did. All during this time I would sneak into my mother's room and play dress-up by myself. So for years pre-puberty I dreamed and prayed that I would wake up the next day and God would haved saved me from my daily nightmare.
I also remember the day years later when in the middle of my dressing-up I became physically excited and..... I didn't even know what had happened. I was distraught and it began a period of self-loathing and guilt.
Now I have read on these forums that many people have started dressing when they reached puberty and maybe they can relate to Blanchard's theory. But I can't because the sexual aspect of it ruined what up to that time had been my dream of becoming female.
So I guess my point is that the theory may have relavance to some but not to all of us. Sex and gender to me are two different issues and I have struggled with both of them.
Once you get beyond realizing that there's a the fetish aspect of CD'ing, you realize that there is something real going on.
For me , my cd'ing started by observing my female cousins enjoying aspects of feminine style, which goes way beyond dressing to attract males....they enjoy it too much. it's them, and who they are. I'm just jealous because of their free-mindedness about it. There always seems to be no boundaries with women . "How come they can wear dresses and get their ears pierced, but I cant?"
As I stated earlier, "autygynephilia" seems to require sexual gratification. Fine, whatever excites one's self, I say.
Some guys find it within their identity, and therefore persue that direction. So be it.
Me, I never went far enough to the point of saying "this is me...and I can't live as a male" but I came to the conclusion that I am both. I like my guy side too much. Sexual gratification is not important.
As I stated earlier, "autygynephilia" seems to require sexual gratification. Fine, whatever excites one's self, I say.
Society frowns upon crossdressers because: One, it shows weakness....caving into sissy desires, thus a failure of being a macho man=being a weak-ling,..........and two, caving into what is percieved as kinky desires, which scares the living daylights out of lots of people. It's ok for the media to expose the fact that there were president Bill Clinton's semen stains on Monica Lewinsky's dress, and he walks away from impeachment, but a guy is treated with suspicion and derision if he wears nail polish.
You look at any non-human mammal, or other wise, and they don't wear clothes ....therefore gender identity is a human created concept. Things happen when one has an extremely intelligent brain, , an an imagination, and with a congnitive sense of one self.
In the end So much of what people thin is what is percieved, not the truth.
(To Reine)
My research indicates that some women do derive sexual pleasure from their breasts in sexual situations. I will concede that glancing in the mirror generally doesn’t qualify as a sexual event.
(To Everyone)
I believe that autogynephilia is an imaginary disorder. It doesn’t exist for anyone, not even the people who confess to having it. If self-love does exist, it is subjective self-love, not objective self-love. It is love of the person we really are or love of our essential nature, not love of an imitation or artificial version of ourselves. TG and TS self-identification and expression do not spring from a desire to be something we are not. If other people would allow TG and TS people to be themselves then the false issue of self-induced sexual isolation would fade away.
I disagree with it being an imaginary disorder and that it doesn't exist for anyone (there are also people that don't believe bi-sexuality exists). By it's very definition states:Quote:
I believe that autogynephilia is an imaginary disorder. It doesn’t exist for anyone, not even the people who confess to having it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogynephilia
* Transvestic autogynephilia: arousal to the act or fantasy of wearing women's clothing
* Behavioral autogynephilia: arousal to the act or fantasy of doing something regarded as feminine
* Physiologic autogynephilia: arousal to fantasies of female-specific body functions
* Anatomic autogynephilia: arousal to the fantasy of having a woman's body, or parts of one.
At least 2 if not 3 of those things apply to me and have so even during puberty. When I was 12 it's not like the internet even existed, and even if it did it's not as if I looked that up and said "Hmm, I'm bored.. what condition could I believe I have in my hypocondriac ways? Ahh, autogynephilia! that sounds twisted enough". I had those feelings long before I even knew other people shared those same feelings.
Well of course it's subjective, if it were objective that would mean it was real (I.E. I could physically turn myself into a woman at will). It's a fantasy, an idea, but most sexuality is in the mind.Quote:
If self-love does exist, it is subjective self-love, not objective self-love.
I know several GGs (lesbian, bi and straight!) whose wearing a 'strap-on' certainly arouses them!Quote:
Originally Posted by ReineD
This is an interesting take on the subject that attacks it as a defining model of GID severely. http://www.tracieokeefe.com/Autogynephilia.htm
Pink and Jo Ann, it's perfectly OK to jump rite in on ANY thread!
However, u both may have missed my earlier post:
Pink, u can believe in autogynephilia. Or NOT! I don't think that's important.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pink Person
But, I believe I'm living proof, that the rest of your argument just isn't valid!
In my earlier post, I explained my involvement with Sherry, my "alter ego". To me, she IS an object, and NOT any part of myself, that I can relate to! Which results in GUILT for my CDing!:sad:
If she isn't an, "--imitation or artificial version of myself", I don't know what/who is!
While I agree with MOST of your post, Jo Ann, I can't with this last paragraph.Quote:
Originally Posted by jo_ann
The mind is CERTAINLY the body part that is MOST important for arousal.
However, with the latest scientific advances, (or fetish devices, pick the term U prefer), I CAN physically change into a female!:eek:
Or, at least enuff to satisfy MY FANTASIES! ( I think my pics speak to my gender change!):o
I may be the ONLY CD here that "objectifies" themselves. But, how many do u and Pink need, to prove it's possible?:brolleyes:
My definition of subjective self-love means love of yourself as the inner subject of your being or love of your internal essential self. Objective self-love means love of yourself as an object of thought or love of an artificial version of yourself that exists outside of your true self. If you were born male but your true self is TG or TS then you aren’t autogynephilic no matter what you do for sexual gratification.
Hey, Reine, we're crossing each other's paths a lot recently.
You wrote:Actually, there will eventually be one. Not that everyone will want to accept it, there will always be the few that still think the world is flat, too.Quote:
There will never be a unified theory since there are far too many differences among the members of the TG community. People will need to become comfortable with the idea that certain conditions apply to some people, but not all.
But it won't be what people think. Perhaps something along these lines, but bear with me, I've never tried to write this down before:
Crossdressing is: 1. A manifestation of a person's sexual and or social role self identification and/or desire to assume the opposite physical sex person's identity or self image so that it fits who they believe themselves to be. 2. Some people get sexually aroused by wearing the attire of the opposite sex, whether to feel as if they are that sex, to feel more intimately connected to the person who's clothes they are wearing (to become 'one' with the other person, for example), or perhaps to enhance the feeling of being free to enjoy the customary role of the opposite sex in any given situation.
Confusing enough? I think so. It needs more clarification, and there's always more possibilities, but right now, the definitions I've seen are way to limiting.
[QUOTE=jo_ann;1853453]I disagree with it being an imaginary disorder and that it doesn't exist for anyone (there are also people that don't believe bi-sexuality exists). By it's very definition states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogynephilia
* Transvestic autogynephilia: arousal to the act or fantasy of wearing women's clothing
* Behavioral autogynephilia: arousal to the act or fantasy of doing something regarded as feminine
* Physiologic autogynephilia: arousal to fantasies of female-specific body functions
* Anatomic autogynephilia: arousal to the fantasy of having a woman's body, or parts of one.
The first three of these seem to apply to most CDs and certainly to me. The first one speaks for itself. The second involves putting on makeup, walking in high heels, sitting in a demure way in a short skirt etc. And the third, for me is to achieve fullfillment in a female way without any of the usual male manifestations. The fourth one is a step too far for me, but not for some people.
Lucy
Not to jack the thread, but just to add to my earlier reply...Quote:
Originally Posted by docrobbysherry
You know, you might just be having trouble relating to that part of yourself because of the mask.
It might expedite matters for you to take it off and look at your self once in a while, in makeup or something. (That is, if you do really have an unfortunate regret about it. I don't see a reason to be ashamed if you're completely content that way either.)
Eye contact and facial expression can be powerful things. I certainly understand the distraction your own 'familiar face' can be to the losing of the ego into the image. It's one reason why I do a lot of makeup.
But the other reason is that it enhances the visibility of facial expression. It's like an amplifier for the emotive signals displayed by the face. (The way I make up, it's like an amp set to 11, lol)
You're naturally going to have trouble seeing yourself in her if you can't see either of your faces.
I would just like to say thank you for this thread. It has been helpful, educational and a refreshing read.
Honey,
I've seen this before and this is where I first began thinking of AGP as also being applicable to non gender-dysphorics. It does fit in with the notion of AGP as a paraphilia, in that it is independent of gender identification, like any other paraphilia.Quote:
Originally Posted by battybattybats
In most of the cases cited by O'keefe, the people seem to have had unsatisfactory sex lives with their primary partners, which caused them either to end their relationships or seek for satisfaction elsewhere while staying in the relationship. Whether this was caused because they were paraphilic or not was not addressed. An otherwise healthy kink or fetish becomes a paraphilia when it "causes distress or serious problems for the paraphiliac or persons associated with him or her." I take it this means an inability to have satisfactory sex with a partner without the preferred object or situation. In other words, the emotional connection with the primary partner does not culminate in a sexual experience that satisfies, making it necessary to explore different situations or partners.
It is a complex issue.
You are only addressing CDing, which is a subset of the TG community. And even within you definition, you use the word "some" which proves there can never be a unified theory. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by sometimes_miss
I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I just happened to have the book within reach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie B
The DSM-IV usually uses this type of language around crossdress-y issues:
Criteria (both or all must be met to diagnose)
A. (The 'whatever' behavior or urges themselves, getting worked up thinking about crossdressing, or whatever.)
B. The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
This phrasing is used frequently throughout different 'harmless to others' categories, and basically says 'if the subject doesn't see a problem with it, or doesn't make a problem out of it, that means there is no problem with it."
I have talked about AG in several of my posts. I use the definition as it being a desire to be a woman based on a very strong hetrosexual attraction to one's "female self" as opposed to the conventional Transsexual desire to be a woman because one 'feels :like a woman(ie. a woman in a man's body)
Both types are known to get SRS and the AG term is used for a SRS recipient as ANOTHER TYPE of TS.
AG is one of SEVERAL reasons for CDing as there is no single cause, CDing is but a manefestation or 'symptom" of several different conditions.
The controversy with AG arises from several definitions floating around--Thats why I STRESS to ALWAYS explain the definition of terms one is using in one's writings so the reader and the author are 'on the same page', so to speak. Its really a good term to describe an obsession wits one's female self to various degrees, even to the point of persuing SRS. Yes it is ONE motivation for a guy to crossdress---but not THE only one of course.
I cannot imaginge why some would be "offended" by the term. An honest scientific persuit of the truth needs terminology to work with concepts and ideas.--it is what it is and we cannot let personal feelings interfere with our studies.
I was not quoting the DSM. I gave a definition for a paraphilia. Obviously if the paraphiliac lives alone, no one else is affected. As Wen pointed out, the DSM considers a condition diagnosable only if the behavior causes signigicant distress in the individual or it is disruptive to his or her everyday functioning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie B
Please understand I am not talking about partners not approving of the amount of time spent on the computer (although this as with many other things can become a compulsion to the extent that it can damage a relationship), or TGs or anyone else occasionally pleasing themselves without their partners, or couples engaging in any type of kink.
But if a married TG can no longer have a sexually satisfying intimate life with a partner because the TG becomes AGP, the partner is affected as well. This would cause stress in the relationship and it might even cause the marriage to end. It seems to me this would be a disruption to everyday functioning .. the inability to have a healthy sexual relationship with a partner.
Because the Hypothesis of Autogynephilia states that TSs are all either 'homosexual transsexuals' or 'autogynephillic transsexuals'. It's not just the term but the model of explaining the transsexual phenomenon attached to the term that is offensive to all the women-attracted TSs (Blanchard and his cronies seem to think they don't exist) to FtMs (somehow left out of these peoples work).Quote:
Originally Posted by Marina Twelve
The scientific evidence that some and maybe all TG people have differing neurology that leads to the partial-to-total self identification, brain body map and need to express themselves as the opposite sex to some degree is completely dismissed in favour of a blanket - 'everyone either is gay and wont face it or just wants to do themselves' Hypothesis.
The disregard of this evidence and denial of the experiences of those who dont fit into it is offensive.
And where a married man, married to a woman, was Gay?Quote:
Originally Posted by ReineD
See the definitions have still not taken into account the argument that was used to remove being Gay from the paraphillia list!
That argument was that the disruption to life quality, the depression and suicidal ideation co-morbidities and failure to maintain a proper normal functional straight relationship were due to societies discrimination against Gays and the last the point that they were gay and so should be in a functional gay relationship.
The definition is broken!
If the sex-life of the married TG is failing it may be because of the partners issues with TG and not the fact the TG is TG.
It also could be because of the TGs issues with being TG because of the discrimination they have internalised and so again being TG is not the issue but merely an arbitrary subject within the issue.
It's about time that Homophobia and Transphobia got added to the DSM. It's about time that the nature of whether the disruption to everyday functioning is intrinsic to the condition or caused by external bias and bigotry was counted for everything the way it is with being gay!
Some consistency and cogency shouldn't be much to ask for.
Well said, Batty.Quote:
Originally Posted by battybattybats
Yes, these reasons could also be true for a failing sex life. But the OP was wondering if others, like her possibly, also relate to being AGP. I added another question to the mix asking how the wives fit into all of this, since I've also spoken to supportive GGs who report failing sex lives due to their husbands preferring to pleasure themselves than being with their wives. There was never any thought these husbands might be gay. I posted a link in one of my posts above to a thread where many TGs reported having more intense and pleasurable sexual experiences by themselves than with their partners.Quote:
Originally Posted by battybattybats
It was my hope to invite those who relate to this situation to post their thoughts, and this would also answer the OPs question.
I also thought of this. If there is a carry-over of shame due to experiencing a lifetime of external bias and this somehow affects a husband's sexual relation with his/her partner, then a thread focusing on this, and not Blanchard, would be helpful in beginning a dialogue which would lead hopefully to some insight and resolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by battybattybats
Marina Twelve and batty batty bats both well said.. I don't think this term can be taken as black and white, nor will it ever have good vibes when it's brought up. Because of what it's based on "a quack psychologist trying to explain away transgenderism", it will never be well accepted.
I also don't think any one term can describe a person much less a group of people, this is a varied and complicated issue that has a long way before it can be defined because it's so hard to know what each person is feeling, sometimes the individual cannot even express themselves.
However I don't want this term to ever die simply because some of the attributes describe some people quite well. I almost wish there was a movement to draw some of these terms out, and create a new definition.
Something that needs considering...
Repressed things often emerge first or are least able to be purged from sex!
Being Gay is not just about sex. Its about love, romance, long-term partnerships and science shows its even about the whole function of the emotional centres of the brain!
But what does a struggling Gay or Bi man do? Fantasise about it sexually, perhaps look at Gay porn, masturbate to the fantasy, maybe start to cruise the local beats.... oh and are three times more likely to attempt suicide, more likely to suffer depression etc.
Till they gain more self acceptance. Then the rest emerges, the suicidal ideation drops away, the depression becomes lees likely etc.
And what is found with CDs?
As they struggle its more likely they see it as just a sex thing. TGs are listed at a 4+ times higher than average attempted suicide rate, higher depression etc.
And as self-acceptance increases non-sexual dressing becomes more common and the other aspects emerge more and the negatives go down etc.
So is it the CDing comes purely from a sexual urge or is it that the sex is the chink in the armour that the pre-existing TG aspects get through?
In the vast majority i'm certain its the latter.
The TG community here (CD, TS, and everyone else around and in-between) could begin by letting go of Blanchard's hypothesis and talking about if and how AGP relates to them, keeping in mind there will be varying degrees.Quote:
Originally Posted by jo_ann
It would be interesting to invite other members of CD.com to share their thoughts and personal experiences, (as the OP did. Sorry if I sound like a broken record.)Quote:
Originally Posted by battybattybats
But maybe people would feel freer discussing this in the GM forum?
I think scientists have a tendency to make all encompassing theories and categories. It seems this Blanchard person has fallen into that trap of trying to explain too much with too little.
I don’t know anyone who is opposed to having a sexual partner. I know some people who are opposed to having sex with me but I don’t know the name of the mental illness that afflicts them.
This thread has been very enlightening! There are certainly thousands of different reasons why we are CD, TG, TS or some blend. One thing that many of us have in common is that we are searching to find out why we are the way we are. Some of us can say, "I am what I am," and do not need to know why. As different theories are proposed, we look at them and look at ourselves and wonder if we have found the key that unlocks the mystery inside of us. I know I do this all the time...
One very important part of this discussion about AG often overlooked (and maybe this should be a new topic) is that some CDs determine that they are really TS and transition. However, there are people who transition, realize they've made a mistake, and transition back.
Is there a difference, a real, fundamental difference between CD and TS? Or is everything kind of blurred together under the TG umbrella? (This is a very important question for most wives...) Is it possible to transition for the wrong reason? Or is any reason acceptable for transition? Many in our community think there should be no barriers to transition especially coming from the medical community (such as removing TV/CD/GID from DSM). The concept of AG has acted like a lightening rod forcing us to look into ourselves. Individually, we may or may not agree that AG "fits me" or is even acceptable for anyone. However, we do owe it to ourselves and our spouses to examine our motivations for our behavior(s).
Robyn P.