Another WHY thread, with references!

I found this peer reviewed journal article on Autogynephilia discomfortingly persuasive, and would appreciate your thoughts on it. The author, by the way, has both academic and "street" cred, being an MD, psychologist, and a transexual.

http://www.annelawrence.com/becoming_what_we_love.pdf

This came up recently in a local trans group. The basic thesis will be somewhat controversial, and I am sure she will be accused of sweeping generalizations. I do not know how universal her argument really is, but I do know that many points of the article resonate with me.

Can we dispense with the "don't worry, be happy" posts? I do not believe that curiosity is pathological.

Liz

This looks like it is a thesis so the writer has covered all avenues of thought.
It would appear to have more credibility as she is transsexual and I assume has experienced what she is writing about.
It does need reading carefully and referencing to other texts.
I have not read it in depth yet but if the thread develops into a long discussion I will certainly revisit it.
I am interested in what others have to say also.
Their views most likely will be different to mine.

At the risk of incurring wrath, the thesis and explanations do resonate.

Sweeping generalizations? And made up statistics, and a perspective that is not objective. I don't know who the peers are but the whole article is a grind it out and get it published mishmash.

First the number s have only increased due to the internet and the fact that men (and women who don't seem to be even thought of here) now have the ability to see that they are not a singular person in a huge ocean. The numbers? They are pure speculation.

This is nothing but a publish or perish (or even worse a graduate thesis) paper.

So I read the paper, and my biggest takeway was - "and?"

So - some of us are in love with our images as women. And so clinicians should do what exactly?

Oh right, "understand our motivations better", and...?

edit: btw, the article is an extremely good description of many things about me. That doesn't make it right - but it was a little unnerving. But still "and?"

I am not ready to argue the merits or the paper quite yet, but I do wish to correct the assertions here about some graduate thesis or publish or perish grist.

This person got her MD in 1974. Since 2000, she has been in private practice in transgender medicine. Her resume, which can be seen at:

http://www.annelawrence.com/lawrence_cv.pdf

includes a long list of papers in respected journals. I know you do not intend ad hominem attacks, but I really want to focus on the substance of the paper.

Sure, it is no unified theory of transgenderism, but try to look at it with an open mind. To reveal something of my own bias, I think it legitimizes those of us who admit to a fetish component to our crossdressing. There is an air around here (and sometimes downright assertion) that if we don't think of ourselves as female, that we are some sort of second class crossdressers.

So yes, I am predisposed to like the paper. Please give it some thought.

Liz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elizabeth Ann

So yes, I am predisposed to like the paper. Please give it some thought.

---

Well, the paper describes some things about me exceedingly well. However, I don't really see how it proves that we're in love with some idealized image, and that it's a paraphilia, except not really a paraphilia - it's a romantic self image issue. (Whatever she called that.)

1. Hey, this is the 21st century. Give me some biology or something.
2. Hey, any century - give me some conclusions! What should someone do about this? This is well described in the paper as a life-long condition, often starting in childhood. What, if anything do we do differently about it from a "homosexual trassexual"?

If the point is to distinguish between two populations of patients, so the physician doesn't do the wrong thing, great. But what should they do differently?

I don't have a problem with the idea, per se - but what's it mean, exactly, and how would one test this? It is an idea with a very accurate description attached to it.

The paper is vague and not only that it is now 5 years old (which with all the vetting that needed to be done makes it even older)

Quote:

---

the increasing prevalence of male-to-female (MtF) transsexualism in
Western countries is largely due to the growing number of MtF transsexuals who have a
history of sexual arousal with cross-dressing or cross-gender fantasy.

---

Right there it is a huge jump to a conclusion that cannot be supported.

There are a lot of papers published that scientists may "like" but they don't buy into them without more substantial proof. You see "you " in it. Well that is great. But you are 1 out of millions. I would put it on par with a horoscope. Usually it is vague enough to be close so you believe (or want to believe) it. And please note that the author specifically says Transsexuals not Cross dressers or TG's

I think the majority of MtF TS's would find the whole idea it is "largely due to the growing number of MtF transsexuals who have a history of sexual arousal with cross-dressing or cross-gender fantasy." to be unfounded and incorrect. Also I believe that most would object to the assumption that they were homosexual and that is why they are transsexual. (technically if they are TS and they like men, they would be....? straight right?)

Quote:

---

The increasing prevalence of male-to-female (MtF) transsexualism in Western countries is largely due to the growing number of MtF transsexuals who have a
history of sexual arousal with cross-dressing or cross-gender fantasy.

---

Starts off wrong, and has the gall to reference Blanchard. Well, she is a backer of his work, which is the reason she's written such papers and books. I won't even take the time to read it all, as it's old and I've read her stuff before.

There is no evidence what so ever that the prevalence of male-to-female (MtF) transsexualism is increasing. I doubt there is an increase, and it likely seems that way because of it being kept hidden.

It may seem to be increasing only because transsexuals may be out in the open more, which could be due to the Internet.

As for having a history of sexual arousal with cross-dressing or cross-gender fantasy, that seems more of an example for crossdressers, not transsexuals.

Although there are some exceptions, seems to me that most transsexuals have some inkling about there gender well before sexual arousal comes into the picture.

And since we are, by nature (for a great many), sexual beings, sexual arousal can come from any number of paraphilias. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Can anyone say that a lot of women do not find clothes erotic? If that were true, then the various fashions available to women would be more like those available to men. Few and plain. Even if it is mostly men who design the clothes. If women can find the clothes erotic then why can't someone who is transgender?

Yet there are some exception. CDs who believed themselves to not be TS, yet find themselves transitioning. But the reality is, gender for most is set at birth. For some it takes a long time for their gender identity to surface, for others it can surface even before they learn to speak well.

Another problem in trying to equate paraphilias with transsexualism is that they are saying sexual orientation is not separate and distinct from gender identity. IMO, and in many others as well, they are separate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorileah

This is nothing but a publish or perish (or even worse a graduate thesis) paper.

---

^this. Anyone can write something and have it published somewhere, and the louder and longer you proclaim your ideas to be correct, the more likelihood that it will get heard/read by more people. That doesn't make it correct. He even states the most incorrect, mass believed quote, Mahatma Gandhi’s famous description of reactions to his nonviolence movement: “First they ignore
you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” Which people like to believe, because it sounds nice. But the world doesn't work that way. Blanchard, and Lawrence, need to find acceptance to this theory because it affirms their own experience, so they want it to be proclaimed the only correct reason why some men feel female instead of male. And I believe that Elizabeth Anne (original poster on this thread) needs that same reassurance to accept his own condition, so it is posted here as a thread declaring it's validity simply because it has references, whether those references have any validity or not, is of course, the eternal question.

Elizabeth, you're preaching to the choir. Everyone here is perfectly o.k. with you crossdressing, for whatever your reasons, and we will support your feelings even if at a later date you discover a different reason. If Blanchard's theory fits you today, well then, great. Be happy with that. But please try to understand that one person's cause for crossdressing is not more valid than anyone else's.

Blanchard and Lawrence's works have been circulating the net for many years. They have no more validity now than when they were first written. However, we will continue to see these threads as more of us 'discover' them as 'new to us', and believe we have found something enlightening which we must share with everyone else. So I guess, for those of us for which Blanchard's ideas 'resonate' with, it's a nice thing to keep it to kick around once in a while.

But me, I kicked it out the door a long time ago.

I think you're asking the wrong group of people for a response to a science paper. Take a look at the response you've received thus far. In a matter of hours it has been massively criticised (including accusations of academic dishonesty, which is a massive claim in academia).

This paper likely took the author many months if not years to write. Then it was peer-reviewed (again, a process which usually takes months, if not years), and published in a B-level journal (not the best possible, but you certainly cannot publish rubbish in a B-level journal).

It's probably safe to say that no criticism that could be thought of in a matter of hours by random people on the internet would stand up to proper scrutiny; obvious errors simply do not accidentally slip past the author's many revisions, discussions with colleagues, presentations at conferences, and critical review by experts in the field.

- Becky

Sorry Rebecca, I missed the science part of the paper (is there a large section studies, how many?: How were they chosen? Is there another control group? Blind, double blind study? Did you study non-surgical TS's? Did you study TS's who have no thought of ever having surgery? were there people in the study who considered themselves nothing more than cross dressers?). If you check I think at least two people who have responded negatively are scientists and know how to read a research paper (and some of us even know how to critique one). This is an opinion paper, nothing more. And in science 5 years post publishing without someone supporting (or refuting) your findings is extremely rare.

And where was the claim to academic malfeasance? A publish or perish paper or a graduate thesis would not be considered dishonesty. It would be...well normal.

All we are saying is that the paper has very large questionable holes in it. And some of us don't buy the concept, in fact I would suspect that a large portion of the TS community would refute it and that in itself would bring into question the conclusions the author makes or poses.

With that, I am out of this. I think several of us have voiced our opinions (which is what the OP asked) and they are now "published" here. Bring me stats and proof and support in the last 5 years of that paper and I will consider it (Classic example is the vaccine and autism report several years ago that was accepted and then refuted)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sometimes_miss

Elizabeth, you're preaching to the choir. Everyone here is perfectly o.k. with you crossdressing, for whatever your reasons, and we will support your feelings even if at a later date you discover a different reason. If Blanchard's theory fits you today, well then, great. Be happy with that. But please try to understand that one person's cause for crossdressing is not more valid than anyone else's.

---

This is deteriorating into how many fetish CDers there are compared to TSs or TGs, as if "fetish" is a dirty word. Lawrence is saying that sexual beginnings can lead to a need to express femininity for life.

Admittedly, the TSs and the TGs who knew they were TS as children (like AlmostALady) will not see themselves in Lawrence's conjecture.

BUT, many of the crossdressers will and no one can deny there are/have been countless posts in this forum from CDers who say they become aroused when they dress, who fantasize about wanting breasts and vaginas, who say they would transition in a flash if they could, who fantasize about having sex with men while dressed or who are sure to say they see themselves as lesbian when dressed, some of whom even want to take "a little bit" of hormones just to grow their breasts. Come to think of it, the "fantasy of being a woman threads" count among the threads with the most hits here. And all of these threads are in the MtF CD section ... not in the TS section!

To continue with a general count of erotically motivated crossdressers, there is also a multitude of sexually-oriented T-websites when we leave this forum, from dating sites, to chat rooms, to cam sites, to fetish clothes for sale, to huge boobs sites with extra large nipples, to places where CDers can post pics of themselves in sexually appealing clothes and stances ... to all the Yahoo private discussion sites. (I joined one once just to see what it was about. It was an eye opener).

So no one can deny there are significant numbers of CDers who DID NOT start at age 5 but who began at puberty for sexual reasons, and for whom the dressing was sexual for many years.

Lawrence in her paper takes it one step further and she suggests that CDers who previously dressed for erotic reasons may come to a point where it is no longer sexual, because the crossdresser has form bonds with her feminine self over the years resulting in a deep attachment, not unlike the deeply affectionate and loyal bonds that married couples form into old age. I don't think this is out of left field and it may in fact, account for so many late onset TGs, people who had no clue when they were younger that they had anything other than a male identity.

Realizing that one is TG in middle age from an erotic beginning during the teenage years is not a less valid way to have arrived at being TG, than having known since childhood. In my opinion.

So I don't understand why the TGs and the TSs who have known since childhood, would say that Lawrence's theory is not valid? Are you saying that when a crossdresser begins dressing for erotic reasons at age 12, she should always be considered fetishistic and it is not possible for her to develop deeper attachments to her femme self in time?


... unless I've read this all wrong. :p


========================
Elizabeth, you might also be interested in reading this study. I haven't het, but it is new .. 2012: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2894986/

The paper from the nih you linked, Reine is lots better.

I read the whole paper. I think she nailed it. Try reading it without looking for support for your existing view. I found myself profiled exactly there. I found comfort in knowing something I did not before. I think there is room for more work with greater surveying of the population. It's a difficult area of study when many are unwilling to be found out. If you did not find yourself there, then perhaps you are not the portion of the crossdressing population described.

Let's remember that the A.L. paper in the OP is directed towards "autogynephilic transsexualism".

If one identifies as transsexual and finds that the paper accurately depicts their beginnings as autogynephilic then that's well and good. Your experience is your experience.

If one identifies as a crossdresser (not transsexual) and finds the paper accurately describes them, then again, note that the paper was supposed to be identifying autogynephilic transsexualism.

You might be interested in Moser's critique of the autogynephilia theory.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/...69.2010.486241

Jack Molay has put together a bunch of info on this page of his Crossdreamers blog

http://www.crossdreamers.com/2008/01...ssions-of.html

There are two parts to the AGP theory: an observation and a etiology. The observation is the part that many of us can identify with. The etiology, erotic target location error, is based on the 19th century pseudo Darwinian idea, which in turn is based on traditional religious morality, that any sexual act that doesn't lead to procreative sex is a perversion, mental illness, fetish, paraphilia, or whatever. I reject the idea of paraphilias but at the same time believe that ALL sexual arousal is fetishistic.

Quote:

---

It is not un-common for
nonhomosexual MtF transsexuals to report having a low sex drive, losing their
virginity late in life, having been sought out by female partners rather than seeking
them out,…

I further hypothesize that, when nonhomosexual MtF transsexuals describe
themselves as having been unmasculine or “not like other boys,” they often may be
referring to an unwillingness or inability to seek out female sexual partners with an
avidity comparable to their peers, rather than to the presence of female-typical
interests or behaviors.

---

This is me to a T. Every woman I've ever been with sought me out. Friends and relatives laugh at this assertion, but it's 100% true. I think there's something attractive to certain women about a guy who isn't after them. A challenge. Although I've never had a homosexual experience, I am not averse to it. I've said this before, but I dress up as women I am attracted to, so therefore I am attracted to myself. Has anyone else heard of "The Man Who Folded Himself" by David Gerrold (the same guy who wrote "The Trouble with Tribbles")?

http://www.gwilymnewton.co.uk/wp-con...id-Gerrold.pdf

In it the protagonist time travels and brings new meaning to the phrase self-love.

Dressing relieves stress, and can also be erotic to me. I feel more like a woman every day, and I love that person.

Pretty much as Reine explained, I could be one of the paper's case studies, Lorileah.

My CD beginnings were actually a "fantasy" of becoming female at age 50. Soon after, my dressing began, then excellerated, and finally became overtly sexual. Where it has remained over 12 years later.

What is so odd about me, but fits the paper's thesis, is my wearing a silicone female suit. My "fantasies" of becoming female never left me until I first got the suit. Seeing myself as a naked female that first time was quite a shock. And soon after, thots of becoming a female simply disappeared! Which is why I refer to them as fantasies now. Because at the time I felt them, they didn't SEEM to be fantasies. Only now that they r gone do I believe they were sexually oriented. And, wearing my suit seems to have fulfilled them in some fashion.

Said I was out but I have to ask the question. How do you think this would go over in the TS section and not the Mtf section? Since the paper seems to target the Ts's and not the middle stream TGs. I considered moving it at the beginning because of that but the flames would have burned the forum to the ground.

Pretty good read, thanks for a well rounded perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorileah

I considered moving it at the beginning because of that but the flames would have burned the forum to the ground.

---

I'd estimate the resulting blast yield to be about 20 kilotons, so I think you are correct.

Actually, one of my biggest problems with Lawrence's paper is that she doesn't really talk about the political implications of her idea. And the political / social implications are what make these ideas go down so hard.

This paper, that Reine linked was interesting:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2894986/

Blanchards ideas, at least in some form, are back in play. The NIH paper explicitly discusses the political and social ramifications of all this - I think that's only fair because otherwise it's very easy to speculate on hidden agendas.

The NIH paper doesn't reproduce one of Blanchard's observations - that 100% of non-homosexual MtF's are transvestic fetishists, and 0% of homosexual MtF's are. However, their study showed that transvestic fetishism is like 3x more likely for non-homosexual (hetero, bi, asexual) than for strictly homosexual MtF's. This is a pretty big difference. It is also interesting that it follows an axis of homoexual / non-homosexual. (I frankly thought that observation in the Lawrence paper was stupid - but there it is in the NIH data.) They also observed some differences based on ethnicity.

It does support some of Blanchards ideas though:
- there are differences between MtF populations based on their sexual orientation. If nothing else, this is a big sea-change from the notion that gender and sexuality are independent from one another.
- self image appears to be a significant component for MtF's, and the outcomes here tend to be different based on the sexuality of the individual.

There were lots of other interesting observations in the NIH paper, along with appropriate caveats about their sample size, locality, non-random nature of the samples, etc.

Anyway, we may hate these friggin' ideas - but they are back in play by serious scientists, evidently.

The NIH paper made me take another look at Lawrences paper, and she may have a point. She may be putting the cart before the horse, but the relationship she describes may well have some basis in reality for many of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorileah

I considered moving it at the beginning because of that but the flames would have burned the forum to the ground.

---

I'm glad that you kept it here, Lori. I'm not an expert, but I've always believed the theory was more applicable to the Type III & IV TGs than the Type V & VI TSs. Already there are people in this thread with whom this resonates, and it would be a pity to put this thread in a place where all the points will be slammed, for everyone.

Another thing to consider ... many of our TSs here will be the first to say there are some non-TSs (or rather, Type III or IV TGs) who seek to transition, for different reasons perhaps than the Type V or VI TSs. This is not unheard of, they ask questions in the TS section all the time.

These Type III and IV may well identify as TS even if only for a period of several years. Might there be a possibility then, that these are the TSs referred to in the paper? The people who identified as TS but who were Type III and IV?

http://harrychart.goiar.f-m.fm/Origi...ginalChart.jpg

Not to single out any person or viewpoint, but this thread is hitting a raw nerve with a lot of the residents from the great State of Denial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

Another thing to consider ... many of our TSs here will be the first to say there are some non-TSs (or rather, Type III or IV TGs) who seek to transition, for different reasons perhaps than the Type V or VI TSs. This is not unheard of, they ask questions in the TS section all the time.

---

Well, really, the ideas in these papers suggest that the "spectrum" notion from Benjamin doesn't really exist per se - and that instead there is a bimodal distribution of the MtF TS population based on sexual orientation. This is a fairly radical departure from the prevailing theory.

The NIH paper, anyway, didn't really weigh in on who was a "real" TS, although they did weigh in that these ideas have sociological implications.

I don't see any way these two theories can really be reconciled. I'm still not sure I buy the conclusions of the Lawrence paper. I think it is an extremely good description of what a lot of us experience. I'm not sure that I buy "infatuation with our image" as the cause. It could well be a byproduct, no? The NIH paper provides some evidence that those feelings are likely real enough though.

edit: @Starr - the NIH paper talks about how unpopular this view of non-homosexual MtF TS is in our community. It is not a popular view, and it may not be right, but there is some evidence for it.

Although others seem to disagree I think AL and Blanchard too have many valid observations. Some of the AL observations fit me extremely well.

The thing with the social sciences VS the "hard" sciences (eg engineering, physics, etc) is that for the latter you can construct an experiment to test an hypothesis and either falsify the original hypothesis, or get more evidence it is true. In the end however, absolute proof of truth is always elusive, just out of reach. The social sciences can make no similar tests, all they can do is hypothesize and cite case studies that support their idea. There are always alternate hypotheses and case studies that don't conform. The fact that there are "different ideas" don't automatically make them wrong, only different.

Arguing who is a "real TS" serves no purpose in our community; society in general is opposed to us and infighting helps nobody. Sort of like blacks arguing who of them is "blacker". Humanity is a study in diversity and each one of us is unique in many respects. How some other person chooses to define their life or transition has NO impact on your life or transition. Feeling that their position "diminishes" your life displays more insecurity than objective perspective.

Just my $0.02,
Sandra1746

...many things they mention could be true....that's the problem with it. People read it and think...wow that's it! Problem is, people once thought the world was flat because what they knew seemed to fit. One major issue with the data is, how did they get it in a time when men were men and anyone else was gay. If you believe something you can always make the data match even if you are aware or not). There may be something to it, but then again people believe in fortune teller's because sometimes what they say are true (they ignore what's not true though).