Autogynephilia, anybody?

I came across this term in Helen Boyd's book a while back, and was intrigued because it was close (though not right on target) to what I feel about my CDing. For those not familiar, it means being turned on by either the idea of having a woman's body or by the idea of being a woman.
I don't see it discussed on this forum and I was wondering why. Was it done to death years ago or is it still too new to be in common circulation?
It's not an explanation for CDing, but it's an idea of what our motivation might be. And it's distinct from the fetish CDer, who is basically turned on by the clothes themselves.

I've only seen the word 'autogynephilia' used to categorize a type of transsexual, not crossdressers with a fetish. Even though I'm not too sure about the whole theory because he says the types are autogynephilia and homosexual ts, and we all know that gender and sexual preference are different.

The term isn't used because it is generally understood to be demeaning and derogatory. Part of that is included in the way you describe autogynephilia, reduces the experience of anyone with a gender identity issue as a sexual deviant. Part of that has to do with the political bias of the terms originator... though I don't remember all of the details. Part of it has to do with the diagnostic connotation behind "fill-in-the-blank-a-phillia."

All together it isn't exactly a term that is held in high regard among the CD/TG/TS community.

Autogynephilia was discredited, wrongly in my opinion, years ago because the rest of the sexual-psycological community ostracized Ray Blanchard, the originator of the theory, for bringing forth an idea that flew in the face of accepted norms when it came to transexualism. There is a fallacy that one either is, or is not, a transexual. Room is not made for those of us who fit into a vast grey area where we experience a lot of transexual tendencies, but do not opt to go the whole nine yards and get sex changes. I am really quite sure that many transexuals relate to the idea of autogynephilia. But many crossdressers, who may well have transexual tendencies, also fall into this category. It is not exclusive to transexuals. I think any open discussion of the condition is valid, and in my opinion, welcome. I think that a great many of us have long fantasized about actually having female genetalia, and many more who have and will not admit it.

All it takes to prove the theory is one person who takes a look at this idea, and says, "Hey, that describes me!" So if you ask me, it's completely valid.

Ruth the term is used for people wanting to be the other sex. Crossdressers want to be with the other sex, wear the clothing of the other sex, and certainly get people to think we are the other sex (to pass).

there's a great blog that delves deeper into this subject:
http://autogynephiliac.blogspot.com

I believe the attributes that this term has tied to it are important (since I find many of them describe me). Unfortunately, it has horrible stigma tied to it in the transgender community.

Hi Ruth - I am reading Helen Boyds book at the moment and could not get my head round that word Autogynephilia either. We all know our own feelings and I dare say some girls are in turmoil over the wish to transition, but only they can decide. Great forum idea though !!!!

Here's an article by Anne Lawrence, M.D., Ph.D. about it:
http://www.annelawrence.com/publicat...del_of_GID.pdf

Here's an overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogynephilia

Others whom I also respect (Lynn Conway, Ph.D.) are completely opposed to the idea of autogynephilia.
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/

I don't understand why highly educated women with transsexual history cannot at least agree to disagree on this subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jo_ann

there's a great blog that delves deeper into this subject:
http://autogynephiliac.blogspot.com

I believe the attributes that this term has tied to it are important (since I find many of them describe me). Unfortunately, it has horrible stigma tied to it in the transgender community.

---

Goodness!

http://autogynephiliac.blogspot.com

This is an outstanding blog! I have learned much here, but it is rare for me to get so much out of one source. Thank you so much for your contribution!

Meghan

Not really for me, I think, I like crossdressing but, I'm not really turned on by the thought of dressing or being a woman, to be honest it's something to relax at the end of the day for me, like an escape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hope

Part of it has to do with the diagnostic connotation behind "fill-in-the-blank-a-phillia."

---

Excuse me! Mind your mouth, mister. There are some of us here who have fillintheblankophilia, and we do not appreciate your tone. :D


Anyway...


Inquiring minds want to know: why can't I just be an executive transvestite, without people in white lab coats inventing excuses for me? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and other times it's a... well... sometimes a dress is just a dress. :straightface:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ruth

It's not an explanation for CDing, but it's an idea of what our motivation might be. And it's distinct from the fetish CDer, who is basically turned on by the clothes themselves.

---

Ruth, where did u get the idea that fetish CDs r, "---basically turned on by the clothes themselves"?:eek:

The more I can create an illusion of being a REAL female, the more exciting the dressing experience! :D

Sometimes the clothes DO feel arousing! But, for me, they're usually just the icing on the cake!:straightface:

I have NEVER experiencing anything as stimulating in my CD life, as seeing myself appearing to be a naked, or near naked, female in the mirror!:o

The danger of being an autogynephiliac, is a bit like losing track of reality, for me! :sad:
Apparently, Sherry is more attractive to me than real GGs R!:eek:

Having a great sex life with/by yourself, is one thing. But, I don't think that turning away from real human companionship is a healthy trade off!:doh:

Oh, by the by, I may be an autogynephiliac but I don't think I'm a "trans" anything!
Take THAT, Dr. Blanchard!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TGMarla

I think that a great many of us have long fantasized about actually having female genetalia, and many more who have and will not admit it.

All it takes to prove the theory is one person who takes a look at this idea, and says, "Hey, that describes me!" So if you ask me, it's completely valid.

---

Hey, that describes me!

I was reading the entry on Wikipedia on the subject and came across this passage:

Quote:

---

Philip was a 38-year-old professional man referred to the author's clinic for assessment....Philip began masturbating at puberty, which occurred at age 12 or 13. The earliest sexual fantasy he could recall was that of having a woman's body. When he masturbated, he would imagine that he was a nude woman lying alone in her bed. His mental imagery would focus on his breasts, his vagina, the softness of his skin, and so on—all the characteristic features of the female physique. This remained his favorite sexual fantasy throughout his life.

---

This describes me nearly perfectly. Until this day I never knew there was a term for it. Although I knew it was probably not a usual fantasy for a heterosexual, it never occurred to me that it was deviant in the pejorative sense of the word.

It is my understanding that Blanchard's 'autogynephilia' theory was not well accepted in the TG community because Blanchard categorized TGs as either being homosexual (M2Fs wanting to have sex with men), or non-homosexual in which case they were autogynephilic (loving themselves as women). Blanchard defined autogynephilia as "a man's paraphilic tendency to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman." Blanchard suggested autogynephilia as an explanation for transsexuals wanting to transition.

The term 'paraphilia' in the definition is key as it means having unusual sexual desires or fantasies to the point where it interferes with the ability to enjoy equally satisfying sex with a willing partner. You can well imagine why there was such an uproar in the TG community. Also, Blanchards' research methods were questioned since his sample group was small and consisted of self reported gender-disphorists.

But, in later years other researchers suggested that autogynephilia was a valid condition attributable to some, not all non-homosexual members of the TG community, members who did not wish to transition.

I've read countless times here that for many CDers, nothing compares to the sexual thrill that accompanies the CDing so it appears to me as if autogynephilia is more widespread that some people like to think.

:iagree:

Well said,Reine!

The issues swirling around this thread are certainly hard to lock down. I've read all the posts very carefully and tried to see if I fit.

I don't think so.

I am personally very attracted to women (read GG). I enjoy the interaction of myself as a male with women (well, one woman, as I am in a long-term, committed relationship).

However, it is also clear that there is a very feminine streak slicing through my psyche. It is nothing short of thrilling to be feminine (but not sexually thrilling). Notice that I'm separating the words feminine and woman. I have read here many times as others remind us that being a genetic women is not an option, although many of us come as close to it as might be imaginable! (those of you who do that are soooo very impressive!).

I'm not one of that group. I enjoy being as feminine as possible, even as I retain male plumbing. I do hope that over time I am able to present a very convincing feminine personality and visage, not as a fantasy, but as a reality. My fantasies have never involved me as a genetic woman.

I have to admit, I'm almost disappointed, as yet again I don't seem to fit.

tina

I've heard it used by some to dismiss people with gender issues as just being perverts. It's often derogatory, but then so are most other words used to refer to people with gender issues. But I'd say that autogynephilia is more derogatory than most terms to me. Although I know plenty fetishistic crossdressers who are nice people, I don't like people assuming that I'm some horny dude who gets turned on by dressing like a woman when I'm pretty much the opposite of that.

But the term autogynephilia applied to transwomen is absurd. What's the alternative -- being turned on by your male qualities? Of course I'm more excited about being a woman.

Why is this thread in the MTF crossdressing forum?

There is a MTF transgender forum off the main page, just scroll down abit.

All the Best,
Ann / SS, good ol' fashioned crossdresser

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skirtsuit

Why is this thread in the MTF crossdressing forum?

There is a MTF transgender forum off the main page, just scroll down abit.

All the Best,
Ann / SS, good ol' fashioned crossdresser

---

AGP could be a motivating factor for some CDs. It is not strictly a TS condition. Many self identified CDs have said they feel they are autogynephilic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skirtsuit

Why is this thread in the MTF crossdressing forum?

---

Maybe because that's where it belongs.

Autogynephilia is basically another way of saying "fetishistic crossdresser." Transsexuals aren't generally motivated by some kind of turn-on they get from being feminine.

I'm not sure we should be categorizing ourselves into completely separate categories. I believe gender identity, sexual orientation and the appeal of wearing feminine trappings (what's currently "appropriate" as womens' clothes, jewelry and makeup) are independent scales instead of "check one, M or F".

Most people are at the same end of all the scales, corresponding to their physical sex. That status is so common those that enjoy it are sometimes afraid of people with mismatching feelings, possibly fearing our expression will result in corrupting or otherwise victimizing their children. There are also cultural pressures, ironically shifting as a result of fashion changes (togas, roman army skirts, 18th century ponytails under wigs etc). Fortunately the percentage of people willing to tolerate our public gender expression has been growing in recent decades.

Gender identity and physical sex at the opposite ends of the scales results in frustration that may lead to pusuit of a surgical reasignment. A gender identity somewhere in a broad range in the middle of the scale might result in secretly dressing, dressing adventures in public or living (without surgery) as a woman full time. Combine a mid range gender identity with a similar mid range sexual orientation (or opposite their physical sex) and a person might have erotic fantasies where they imagine themselves as the other sex. The trappings help us realize what it's like for the opposite physical sex weather for intimacy or going about other daily business.

Awareness of the high expense, medical risks and painful post operative recovery period probably discourages some potential reassignment patients.

If I say I'm right-handed, I'm categorizing myself only in the aspect that I'm right-handed. By identifying oneself as having some of the attributes of autogynephilia, one does not categorize oneself in any other aspect, except for being sexually drawn to the thought of having feminine genetalia. So it's still a very valid conversation, and it does not necessarily place one into a narrow box. Autogynephilia is something that I believe is common across a broad spectrum of transgendered males, not strictly transexuals, crossdressers, or any other artificial category one chooses to throw out there.

I think autogynephilia is a two-bit term that is used to trivialize and invalidate TG people and their behavior. Some people like Blanchard seem to derive sexual pleasure from pissing on people that they don't like and can't understand.

Here's one well-written critique of Blanchard's taxonomy:

http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/autogy...-critique.html

It's outside of my realm, since I don't experience any 'philia' associated with dressing, but it's an interesting read.

The gem of the essay is this line imo:

"A diagnostic label is often an intellectual fetish - something that provides an irrational sense of security and control to the person who uses it." :D

Wow, no shortage of opinions on this topic! I think Blanchard knows quite a bit and has keen insight to many crossdresser's weaknesses. Perhaps he is a bit cruel in his generalizations. We are still people. I find that any autogynephilia that affects me is, alas, related to the reality that, to be honest, no one else appreciates helen-I don't consider this pure narcissism as I really don't like myself or how I look, but in the fantasy state, I am OK.
I truly love women, but I sense that I will never be close physically to one who values Helen for who she is and I know that transgenderism and committed crossdressing (I still view it as transvestism) is so ingrained I can't change now at 62. Nor should I be expected to or required.
I confess envy for those who can 'lightswitch' from crossdressing to be a 'normal' male to maintain conjugal relationships. I can't do that any more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raquel June

I don't like people assuming that I'm some horny dude who gets turned on by dressing like a woman when I'm pretty much the opposite of that.

---

So, you're a horny chick who gets turned on by dressing like a dude?



Just to throw this out there... some gals assume that I am some horny dude... and I'm toooootally okay with that. It pays off. :) Wink wink, nudge nudge, know what I mean?

First off Blanchard is a frackin self centered blow heart ego-fk'in manic TOOL.

Forget for a sec whether or not the term "might" or "might not" fit "some" CD or TS people.

He main and only goal is to promote his own bloated ass and asinine screwed way of looking at the world.

His " Autogynephilia" boils down to everybody who does anything that even remotely falls under his catch all psycho-babble-bullshit rhetoric theory is either one or the other.

Homosexual TS
1) You are a GAY MALE [You like OTHER MALES]
Yessss Neo -
You are NOT a straight Female because Mr Blanchard does NOT think you have a Female mind or identity.
No to him you are still a MALE. But because you like boys in the bedroom you can be a "TS" in his book.

Non-Homosexual TS
2) You are a Straight MALE [You like FEMALES] ewwwww
You like FEMALES - how dare you!!!!!!! But there is hope!
Because if, according to Mr. Potato Head, you like girls then you are definitely NOT a TS.
Infact, you like girls soooo much that even the though of seeing yourself in the mirror as a girl gives you a stiffy.

You are screwed in the head and disgusting. BUT Mr. Prozac has a soft spot for you [and in his head] and feels that if you want it sooo much you might as well get it too.
Hense you are the other white eat, the lesser of the two, but still worthy of being called a TS to in his book.

SAD SAD part - all his great work :lol2: revoles around just one thing.... SEX -
The horizontal hustle - bumpin Uglies - gett'in down - ect.
It has NOTHING to do with your Gender Identity or who you fell you are or might be the other 23 1/2hrs out of the day.


This thread makes it painfully obvious that a lot of people on there either have no fracking clue, don't know any of the facts, and/or just like to talk to be heard.
Which is something hard to do considering that no one can hear you when your head is so far up your frackin ass.

Like it or not - Mr Bullshit has no ones best interest in mind but his own. And he will do what ever it takes to further his warped ideas and line his pockets while running amuck among the so called [and usually self proclaimed] psycho medical elite.

Have a nice day! :D

I will put these back away.......... For now

http://samantha.arcaco.com/deathstrike.jpg

Without resorting to foul language and name-calling, whatever opinion one might have of the man himself, Blanchard and Lawrence did identify a trait that many transgender people feel: they are emotionally drawn to the image of themselves with female anatomy instead of the male anatomy they were born with. Now, whether the further categorization of such people as this or that was valid or true is open to mature debate. But it does not negate the fact that many transgender people do exhibit this trait. And all the derisive comments, name-calling, self-righteous anger, and low-brow language does not change that fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TGMarla

they are emotionally drawn to the image of themselves with female anatomy instead of the male anatomy they were born with.

---

I agree with you that the level of the debate has not been very mature so far.

Anyway, I can't see much insight in this sentence as for MTF crossdressing people :
"they are emotionally drawn to the image of themselves with female anatomy instead of the male anatomy they were born with".

Because that's just another means to say "crossdressers like to see themselves crossdressed".
I simply mean that they would not crossdress at all if they preferred to see themselves dressed as males in their male anatomy. :battingeyelashes:

Too often complicated words like "autogynephilia" are just created to disguise ignorance into a "high level" insight.

I prefer not "crossdressing" a simple reality into a fuzzy, complicated and unproven theory such as Blanchard's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TGMarla

Blanchard and Lawrence did identify a trait that many transgender people feel: they are emotionally drawn to the image of themselves with female anatomy instead of the male anatomy they were born with.

But it does not negate the fact that many transgender people do exhibit this trait.

---

Oh sure while that may be true in some cases.
What you forgot to mention is that Blanchard and his Lapdog only acknowledge and directly tie that solely to SEXUAL thoughs. IE: Self Gratification

Let me spell it out for the cheap seats.......
Their theories have nothing to do with how a person thinks, feels, acts or what they believe to be true in themselves. They do not care about Gender or Gender Indentity.

All Blanchard cares about is SEX SEX SEX and bases his "findings" and "theories" :lol2: solely on who you happen to be shacking up with. Be it another Guy or a Girl.
Because to Blanchard that is all you ever are and will be in his eyes - A GUY.

*** Who would of thunk it?????
A person who studies sex came up with a theory revolving around sex as to why we are the way we are... WOW! Now there is a shocker! :lol2: *** [ADDED]

Go ahead tell me I am wrong [and actually be able to prove it]
And I will bow down at the feet of Mr. Blanchard... The SEXOLOGIST.
You know a Sexologist.... A person who studies Sexual [as in the act of having sex] behaviors, NOT Gender.

Because I put about as much weight into what a Sexologist says about who I am as I do a Mixologist*. *Thats an over gloried bartender for those that don't know, :D

PS: See I can be nice. I didn't even once call him Mr Potato Head or an Idiot in this post :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SamanthaM

His " Autogynephilia" boils down to everybody who does anything that even remotely falls under his catch all psycho-babble-bullshit rhetoric theory is either one or the other.

---

I understand your anger. There are many people in the TG community who share it. But, as you point out and others do as well, Blanchard's error was in classifying TSs into one of only two categories: homosexual or hetero-autogynephilic. I agree it is not as simple as that. I also do not believe Blanchard extended his theory to include CDs.

But, if you take your focus off of Blanchard's conclusions and just look at the term autogynephilia alone, it does apply to many CDs. There are many CDs whose preferred form of sexual release is through masturbation while fantasizing. There are many marriages where the wife after some years does not feel she is enough for her husband. It is hard to say whether the husband's loss of libido with his wife is due to aging, or whether it has switched to wanting to masturbate while thinking of his femme self.

This is an issue that is of great concern in many heterosexual relationships and it should be discussed. If the CD is single, it does not present a problem, unless of course he wants to develop a relationship with a GG and he finds that he cannot.

So please, for this discussion do not think of it as a definition of who Blanchard thinks TSs are or are not, but as a real condition, an aspect some CDs' sexuality that does very much exist, which BTW brings us back to the OP. The original post has nothing to do with debating where the term was first coined and by who and how it was correctly or incorrectly applied. The OP asked input from others who also relate to feeling this way, and whether others feel there is a difference between a sexual turn-on over the clothes vs. the self as a woman.

I'd personally love input as to how the wife fits into all of this. :)
:hugs:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

If the CD is single, it does not present a problem, unless of course he wants to develop a relationship with a GG and he finds that he cannot.

---

Well here lies another problem in his "theory".
According to him - Anyone who falls under the second category of non-homosexual / autogynephilia is only doing it so they can have sex with themselves.

According to him - these people once post-op will have no want or need to find a sexual partner because their preferred sexual partner is now themselves and they [all] will end up alone.

Once again proving that all his work is centered around SEX and who you are [or aren't] having it with.

And also why he completely omits F2M TS' because he can't neatly put them into his slot A or slot B theory.

PS:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

The OP asked input from others who also relate to feeling this way, to whether there is a difference between a sexual turn-on over the clothes or the self as a woman.[/i]
:hugs:

---

OK. Well what if ones sexual feelings/thoughs have nothing to do with the wearing of the clothes or the though of ones self as a woman??

Who knows?
Maybe I'm the odd duck here, the monkey in the wrench, the fly in the ointment.
But the though of being sexually turned on by the woman I see in myself is just as,
if not more creepy then the though of me being sexually turned on by my sister. :puke:

Sam, I was editing my post while you replied. Would you please go back and read my last 2 paragraphs. :)

Oops, never mind, you edited too. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SamanthaM

OK. Well what if ones sexual feelings/thoughs have nothing to do with the wearing of the clothes or the though of ones self as a woman??

---

Then I would say that this thread has nothing to do with you since you do not relate to feeling this way, and you can simply say so and move on.

But many others in this forum do relate, and as with everything, it is best not to put down how other people feel when they feel differently than you do. Blanchard's limited definition of a transsexual's sexuality is not in question here.

The question is how others relate or cope with being autogynephilic to any degree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

Sam, I was editing my post while you replied. Would you please go back and read my last 2 paragraphs. :)

Oops, never mind, you edited too. :p

---

And edited some more, so hit refresh again, lol.

Geez, we've got to stop meeting like this. I edited too. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

Geez, we've got to stop meeting like this. I edited too. lol

---

DAMN!!!!! I was going to write that....... OK Im going to get coffee and not post or edit for 10 minutes :lol2:

Thank you, Reine.

Blanchard merely identified the trait. His expanded theory may be way off-base, but that does not negate the existence of the trait in many trans people, TS or CD or whatever.

The fact that for centuries, man incorrectly thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth did not mean that they did not exist, and that they did not have some kind of relationship to each other. Simply because Blanchard was way off-base in many of his theories does not mean that AGP does not exist and is not valid.

So back to Ruth's original post....yes Ruth. A lot of us feel that way.

And thank you, Marla. :hugs: So yes, back to the OP, and if Ruth doesn't mind my asking, how does the wife fit into all of this if a married CD is autogynephilic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SamanthaM

DAMN!!!!! I was going to write that....... OK Im going to get coffee and not post or edit for 10 minutes :lol2:

---

Hilarious! You're on the same wavelength!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

And thank you, Marla. :hugs: So yes, back to the OP, and if Ruth doesn't mind my asking, how does the wife fit into all of this if a married CD is autogynephilic?

---

Very interesting question...

In the real world I run into horny antisocial crossdressers at clubs quite a bit, and it embarrasses me to be in any way associated with most of them. On a good day they sit there not talking to anybody waiting to be picked up and acting socially crippled if you do try to talk to them. On a bad day they approach me like I'm their best friend and ask me what's under my skirt, or if I'll "make a woman out of them," or what sexual favors I like. I have never in my life been treated with such disrespect in public as I have been by several horny crossdressers on several occasions. Just last month a crossdresser at a club I frequent roofied a GG I had been dancing with earlier because he assumed she must be lusting after guys in dresses. I'm not saying that's you. I'm not saying that's anybody on this forum. But that's the world I see, and I don't need you giving me shit for saying I don't want to be referred to in the same category as fetishistic crossdressers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MissConstrued

So, you're a horny chick who gets turned on by dressing like a dude?

---

Hmmmm... :) Being the opposite of that makes me a non-horny chick who gets turned off by guys dressing as women. Not that there's anything wrong with that. And I'm not asexual; there are definitely people who are very capable of making me horny.

I was going to say almost exactly the same things as SamanthaM....

Whatever autogynophelia is, and however anyone feels they relate to it, is fine for any individual. Any discussion of Blanchard, Lawrence, J. Michael Baily("The Man who Would be Queen") and to some extent, Dr. Kenneth Zucker as serious, unbiased researchers, well, that is going too far.. Blanchard uses the term as a springboard to discredit the very existence of those of us who know who we are. Baily conducted most of his "research" in bars frequented by sex workers. Lawrence mystifies me completely, I must say. And CAMH in Ontario, where both Blanchard and Zucker have worked, is basically of the opinion that most transsexuals lie. The conditions they put on those who need to transition are from the dark ages, relatively speaking. It never ceases to amaze me when people who make my condition their job spend the majority of their time completely ignoring how WE feel and live.

Blanchard, Helen Boyd, Janice Raymond, Germaine Greer....All of them are somehow offended, for their own personal reasons, by my existence. And they've made it their life's work to make their "research" fit their biases. They are dangerous people. As I said, however you identify, if you think the term fits you, more power to you. But it's use was coined by Blanchard to make transsexual's lives more difficult. That is why it's been attacked so passionately. We know who we are. And these people refuse to listen to us. To hell with them.

I'm not sure what this is doing in the main, CD section. Maybe the word is something some can relate to. But it's use, and main reason for being, is beyond demeaning and offensive. I can't just walk by and say nothing when I see it, or Blanchard's name. fighting back against this crap is always necessary.

Hugs,

Melissa:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melissa A.

I'm not sure what this is doing in the main, CD section. Maybe the word is something some can relate to. But it's use, and main reason for being, is beyond demeaning and offensive. I can't just walk by and say nothing when I see it, or Blanchard's name. fighting back against this crap is always necessary.

---

Melissa, please read post #35. The OP's intent was not to discuss the validity of Blanchard's theory, but to get feedback from others who can relate to the condition of autogynephilia as she does.

I hope others who decide to join in this thread will decide to begin a new thread if they want to discuss Blanchard's theory on the motives for transiton. Let's bring the focus back to the OP's request in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ruth

I came across this term in Helen Boyd's book a while back, and was intrigued because it was close (though not right on target) to what I feel about my CDing. For those not familiar, it means being turned on by either the idea of having a woman's body or by the idea of being a woman.
I don't see it discussed on this forum and I was wondering why. Was it done to death years ago or is it still too new to be in common circulation?
It's not an explanation for CDing, but it's an idea of what our motivation might be. And it's distinct from the fetish CDer, who is basically turned on by the clothes themselves.

---

I understand that, Reine, but if you look at the original post, there are also questions about why it is or isnt discussed, whether or not it is very new phenomena. and a mention of a particular writer. The people I mentioned in my post have published books and research papers, and my fear is some of their stuff may be accepted without question. And it does need to be questioned. I realise I wasnt the first to weigh in negatively, and I am sorry for getting on my soapbox. I did mention that for those who feel the term applies to them, that's fine. But I also felt some mention of the context and the sources was needed. I am sorry if I offended or stepped on toes.

Hugs,

Melissa:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TGMarla

Blanchard merely identified the trait.

His expanded theory may be way off-base, but that does not negate the existence of the trait in many trans people, TS or CD or whatever.

Simply because Blanchard was way off-base in many of his theories does not mean that AGP does not exist and is not valid.

---

I'm not saying it does not exist or is not valid.
After all, all he did was just completely rip off the definition of a "Fetishist Crossdresser"
and just slightly twist it so it would conform to TS' that didn't fit into his original "All TS's are really just Gay Men" theory.

Hiding and Omitting ALL F2M TS was hard enough.

But hiding any TS that happen to like women was to hard for even him I guess!!
So he had to scurry like a rat running from a sinking ship to come up with something, anything that would help his original theory still hold water [ya right, lol] but still explained these strange freaks of nature that were interfering with his original freaks of nature.

Because, after all, why would a person who CD'es want such a term as AGP when they already had the same thing. Unless of course the newer term just sounded better.
Which makes about as much sense as his body of work. :D

PS:
If back pedaling was an Olympic Sport I'm sure you'd have a shot at the Gold. :lol2:

Did I mention I have a black belt in Sarcasm ..... and the boots to match :lol2:

i wouldnt use the word because of the negativity around it...

I could say that all Transsexuals who never had a sexual feeling relating to their innate femaleness are simply not transsexual, but have a disorder called unfetishgynophelia...

of course i just made that up and so did Dr Blanchard....

for better or worse, the term just sets people off....

the fact that many transsexual women feel a sexual feeling when they truly feel their womanhood makes all the sense in the world...add testosterone to the mix and you get alot of unwanted erections...but then like pavlov's dog, you learn that it feels good, and more importantly it relieves your anxiety...

years ago, saying this outloud would get you immediately off the list if you were looking to get hormones and transition...so girls learned the script..

this myth did great damage to me...i have suffered for years and years thinking that i was cursed to stay a bitter man because i had these erections..i was told that i had fantasies...so just like with my maleness, i tried to work with that, and i got more and more anxious and depressed...

then i met 2 women that have transitioned for dinner, and i talked openly about this and they just laughed and laughed and said join the club..

so if the question is what do i think of autogynephilia...i try not to...

if you ask if i've been sexually aroused and what i think about it...i think it makes perfect sense, what sexual feeling was i supposed to have as a woman with a penis?? I never ever had a thought about using it to penetrate a lover..it just never occured to me.. of course, i was totally functioning down there and without that release of anxiety i would be dead...

i just wish i had somebody to talk to about this 10 and 20 years ago...

I doesn't feel to me like there's much of a distinction between CDing and Autogynephilia, at least to my mind anyway.

AND the word Autogynephilia is just icky! :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Samantha Girl

I doesn't feel to me like there's much of a distinction between CDing and Autogynephilia, at least to my mind anyway. :p

---

You better be careful Sam, them there words might ruffle more then a few feathers in this here hen house. :heehee:
Some might even want to take ya out behind the woodshed for a good lickin' -
And I don't mean that in a fun way neither. :lol:

If I were to respond, expand, or do anything regarding that statement it might be the last thing I do here for a bit .......... or ever :lol2:

[How is Washington treating you so far? Probably less rain then we're getting in Jersey]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melissa A.

But I also felt some mention of the context and the sources was needed. I am sorry if I offended or stepped on toes.

---

:hugs:
You didn't offend or step on my toes. I understand your point too, and although the OP did ask why the term is not often discussed, the main thrust of her question I thought was her intrigue about the concept and if it might be an explanation for some motives behind the CDing. The OP identified with the feelings, as have others here.

But then the focus of the thread shifted to a debate between those who want to answer the OPs question and others who (rightfully) feel the term is not a valid label for TSs who are not attracted to men. These are two completely separate discussions. Everyone agrees that Blanchard's views were limited but expressing outrage over his misconceptions belongs in a separate thread since the concept of autogynephilia in itself does exist. We frequently see it expressed on this board and not strictly by transvestic fetishists.

Just take a look at many of the responses in these recent threads:

http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/...ghlight=thrill
http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/...ghlight=thrill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SamanthaM

So he had to scurry like a rat running from a sinking ship to come up with something, anything that would help his original theory still hold water

---

I don't know if by "backpeddling" is you are referring to the following, but Blanchard did write about the validity of his theories 15 years after he originally coined the term. I quote from the last paragraph on his website: Origins of Autogynephilia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blanchard's website:

"All or none of the foregoing propositions may be true, false, or something in between. Their accuracy is an empirical question that can be resolved only by further research. In the meantime, it is important to distinguish between the truth or falseness of theories about autogynephilia, on the one hand, and the existence or nonexistence of autogynephilia, on the other. The latter is also an empirical question, but it appears, at this point, to be settled. The primary evidence that autogynephilia exists is the self-report of biological males who say “I am sexually excited by the idea of having breasts,” “I am sexually excited by the idea of having a vagina,” “I am sexually excited by the idea of being a woman.” There is no particular reason to believe that these individuals are merely distorting the familiar transvestitic narrative to make it more acceptable to others."

---

I take it Blanchard is saying his original research may or may not be true, and he suggests there should be further research. He also observes that many biologic men identify with experiencing sexual feelings when imagining themselves as women, which we've all seen expressed on this board time and time again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaitlyn Michele

the fact that many transsexual women feel a sexual feeling when they truly feel their womanhood makes all the sense in the world...add testosterone to the mix and you get alot of unwanted erections...but then like pavlov's dog, you learn that it feels good, and more importantly it relieves your anxiety...

this myth did great damage to me...i have suffered for years and years thinking that i was cursed to stay a bitter man because i had these erections..i was told that i had fantasies...so just like with my maleness, i tried to work with that, and i got more and more anxious and depressed...

so if the question is what do i think of autogynephilia...i try not to...

if you ask if i've been sexually aroused and what i think about it...i think it makes perfect sense, what sexual feeling was i supposed to have as a woman with a penis?? I never ever had a thought about using it to penetrate a lover..it just never occured to me.. of course, i was totally functioning down there and without that release of anxiety i would be dead...

i just wish i had somebody to talk to about this 10 and 20 years ago...

---

Thank you for your honesty in sharing this, Kaitlin. I've learned a lot from it and I'm sure others have too. :hugs: I wonder how many CDs feel the same way.

Thanks,
I truly do appreciate the time and effort put forth in this and your other posts on the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

I don't know if by "backpeddling" is you are referring to the following, but Blanchard did write about the validity of his theories 15 years after he originally coined the term. I quote from the last paragraph on his website: Origins of Autogynephilia

---

Actually....... uuuuuu ....... No, it wasn't that or him that I was referring to. :cute: