Autogynephilia, explanation or bigotry?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by battybattybats

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

JoAnne Wheeler

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

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

battybattybats,

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

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

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

Robyn P.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by battybattybats

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobynP

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But autogynephilia as a theory defines me not!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoAnne Wheeler

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

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

JoAnne Wheeler

---

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

Kelsy

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobynP

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

Robyn P.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satrana

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

---

Very true..

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kelsy

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is this one by Beth Orens.

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

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

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

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

If the term fits...wear it. If not, so what. We are who we are, we feel what we feel, we act as we act. I'm still happy as Lisa and the introduction of technical terms and theories are interesting reading hasn't changed that my concept of self.

I think the controversy arizes from those who are NOT autogynophyles. Sorta reminds me about the debate over CDing being a "fetish" condition.---if it indeed IS a fetish for you, you have no problem with the explaination, if you are not involved with fetish objects, you may not consider a "fetish" as an explaination for CD at all.

Truth is there are many DIFFERENT conditions, often unrelated, that induce some of us to crossdress. Many of us , however have a tendancy to think of "crossdressing" and even transsexulisim as distinct conditions with distinct causes. They only agree with the theory that applies to themselves as THE cause of CDing or THE cause of Transsexualisim.----They fail to realize that crossdressing and even , in some cases, Transsexuality, are but outward expressions or "SYMPTOMS" of SEVERAL different physio(?)/psychological conditions, rather than a "condition" in its own right.

Its roughly analogus to considering "Fever" or "Cough" as a disease and trying to fit ONE "real cause" to it---then getting into arguements over the different theories.-----Not considering that a fever or a cough are only SYMPTOMS of many very different diseases---each with a different basis.

I am sure that we could define several DIFFERENT kinds of transsexualisim, with Autogynophilia(AG) being but ONE of them---there is no reason to argue AG does not exist---it just may not be the TYPE of Transsexualisim one may have in mind. Crossdressing, for example may be a synptom of some forms of "fetishisim", "Thrill seeking", "identity play", "Stress releif","Taboo tripping" and even TS itself----THOSE are the "real conditions" CD is but a symptom common to them all. TS may also have variants that express themselves in a similar manner, from a congenital, anomaly, to a self directed hetrosexual obcession, to some forms of Bi and Homoxuality.

Maybe both Orens and Blanchard are full of crap. And maybe both are dancing around the truth. There are no two of us who are exactly alike, so our reasons behind our transgenderism are not exactly alike, either. I don't know if autogynephilia is more a reason or a symptom when it comes to me, but I do know that I don't fit snugly into either Orens's or Blanchard's moulds.

What I do know is this: And I'm going out on a limb here. It's not comfortable for me to divulge this. I am sexually aroused by the thought of physically being female. The thought of having breasts, female genitelia, slender feminine arms and hands, long pretty hair, no facial hair...the whole gamut....is arousing to me. The thought of having sex as a woman (note: NOT as a homosexual male!) is arousing to me. As a man, I find no sexual attraction in men. But if I fantasize myself as a woman, I find the whole idea much more attractive. Confusing, no?

Maybe I crossdress because I'm autogynephilic. Maybe I'm autogynephilic because I'm a crossdresser. I'm not sure. But I'm both. And whereas I have some transexual tendencies, I'm not transexual. Or I have opted to not be transexual. I'm also not homosexual, nor am I a lesbian trapped in a man's body. Were I female, I'd likely have sex with men. But as a male, I have no desire whatsoever to have sex with men. So neither theory fits me to a T, and I'm sure the actual truth of the matter is as varied as the individuals to whom it is supposed to apply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LisaLedoux

If the term fits...wear it. If not, so what.

---

But Lisa - the problem comes when members of a medical autocracy tries to define ALL of us, and our treatment regimes, as a result of it - which has been attempted before and is being attempted again..

When I started CDing about 10 years ago, I would say it was VERY MUCH about being turned on by thots of BEING a woman. And of thots of having sex as one. Including fanatasies about how I would feel being touched and the other physical feelings of having sex as a woman.:o

But, that was then, this is now! While I still seem to get turned on, it's more about seeing what appears to be a woman! And the thot that I am her doesn't hurt! But, I don't seem to have the old mental images of the feelings a woman would experience. It's much more visual for me now.:eek:

Things r changing for me! Maybe the same thing happens to many CDs?

All these theories seem so set in stone. Nailing the "what" and "why's" of CDing may be a bit like catching trout barehanded!:brolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anouk

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

---

There can be serious damage done to anyone who is misdiagnosed with anything in DSM-IV, not just autogynephilia. I don't think we are the only ones that have been harmed by medical incompetence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by battybattybats

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

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

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

---

First, every scientist brings their personal biases to their research whether they know it or not. This explains why research is published so that other scientists can attempt to duplicate the research to validate or refute the findings. There have been many scientists in all fields that have published their research only to see it being invalidated...

Not being a psychologist or a research scientist, I have not examined Blanchard's data, research, or evaluation methodology and am not qualified to determine if what he says is BS. However, there are a number of anecdotal statements by enough people to make his theory plausible. But, like you said, he may have things backwards.

Second, I'm not sure how this is an example of bigotry and not just poor research... Does he propose in his research findings criminalizing people with gender issues and putting them in jail?

Robyn P.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobynP

There can be serious damage done to anyone who is misdiagnosed with anything in DSM-IV, not just autogynephilia.

---

There are enough "disorders" in the latest DSM now to diagnose 100% of the population with at least two or three. And I'm not kidding. There are drugs for nearly all of them, with the rest on the way.

Psychiatry, like any profession, seeks to justify its existence, and expand its customer base. If you go to a shrink, would you really expect him to tell you there's nothing wrong with you? That you don't need counseling at $x an hour, and that you don't need prescriptions? Come on. No-brainer here. Give him an hour and that big honkin' DSM, and he'll sure as Sunday mornin' find something wrong with your noggin.

Realize that it's just business, then go on about your life happily ignoring the quacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TGMarla

Maybe both Orens and Blanchard are full of crap. And maybe both are dancing around the truth.

---

My thoughts exactly. Oren's idea is probably even more unlikely than Blanchard's.

The thing about autogynephilia is that it was originally developed from studies of TS although common sense would make me believe that it is more applicable to CDs than TSs. Nevertheless studies have indeed shown that many TS women have eroticised about having a female body so there is a solid foundation on which the theory was developed.

However in the TS community there is a knee-jerk reaction to anyone inferring that there is a sexual component to their behavior. TS are supposed to be at the "serious" end of the TG spectrum where only the emotional/spiritual aspects are to be considered. Linking to sexual motives leaves the TS community open to the charge that they are just CDs who have fooled themselves into chasing the ultimate fantasy. Obviously the TS community is eager to close that door hence the violent reaction to the autogynephilia theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satrana

Nevertheless studies have indeed shown that many TS women have eroticised about having a female body so there is a solid foundation on which the theory was developed.

---

I wonder at this though, have they genuinely eroticised having a female body or is the explanation that having the right body for their mind allows sexual eroticism?

Ordinarily is some particular unusual object scenario or state is required for arousal this is considered a fetish.

But if the person has a female mind in a male body inability to be aroused without contemplating and fantasising as having the correct body to remove the dischord of being in the wrong anatomy is quite logical.

But which is so or are both covering some of the TS population?

And is this different or not for CDs or some CDs?

This is what the criticism of a lack of control groups and exploring and testing alternate explanations is about.

Ah, I finally found where I put this link. http://www.tracieokeefe.com/Autogynephilia.htm This points out several cases of 'autogynephilia'/'autoandrophillia' in the general community! (some may find the preamble a bit jargon-laden and skip to the introduction or the case studies)

The term definitely describes who I am sexually attracted to, but I once dated a college professor whose field of study was geography and she told me that most people are attracted to someone who has the same facial features as themselves.

I think the attraction I have to myself as a woman is due to my need or tendency to have always felt more female than male.

On top of being TG I am biplor which makes hanging on to reality a bit of a challenge anyway..:).

If I were a woman, I would probably still enjoy loving myself, but then isn't that the first step in being able to love everyone else..:).

Hugs,

Randi

I have a different way of looking at a lot of situations, but this is just my opinion of how to really assess those situations.... Please don't pass an immediate judgement or form an immediate opinion, or lump someone or some group into a "category"' etc. until you have walked a mile in that person's shoes. If everyone (especially these so-called "experts",) would do that,then I would say it (the research and findings)would be a whole lot more accurate.

It's BALDERDASH. Sounds like excuses to RE-label and Re-catagorize and RE-define behaviors that have already been defined for ages. There is no new info here just as others have put it JUNK.

Everything gets REPACKAGED nowadays. EVERYTHIG, products, heathcare, medicine, TV shows, Hollywood, Education, Morals, Politcs. If you can find a new way to present something and pass it of as NEW then the media of our age will do just that. Half of what is published as breakthroughs is just re-hashed BS that has new package. Becareful the old phrase if its too good to be true? IT still applies.

Well, forgive me, I haven't yet read through most of the posts in this thread, so I'll just chip in my own thoughts. I found a link, in another thread, to an article by Anne Lawrence on this subject: "Becoming what we love: autophilic transexualism conceptualised as an expression of romantic love"
and I found the argument quite persuasive (though no doubt not everyone would), it somehow chimed a chord with me

To quote from the abstract (summary) at the begining of her article:

"Despite growing professionalacceptance, Blanchard’s formulation is rejected by some MtF transsexuals as inconsistent with their experience. This rejection, I argue, results largely from the misconception that autogynephilia is a purely erotic phenomenon. Autogynephilia can more accurately be
conceptualized as a type of sexual orientation and as a variety of romantic love, involving both erotic and affectional or attachment-based elements. This broader conception of autogynephilia addresses many of the objections to Blanchard’s theory and is consistent with a variety of clinical observations concerning autogynephilic MtF transsexualism."

:2c: I don't say that answers all those who hate the idea...but it has been food for thought for me anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MissConstrued

There are enough "disorders" in the latest DSM now to diagnose 100% of the population with at least two or three. And I'm not kidding. There are drugs for nearly all of them, with the rest on the way.

Psychiatry, like any profession, seeks to justify its existence, and expand its customer base. If you go to a shrink, would you really expect him to tell you there's nothing wrong with you? That you don't need counseling at $x an hour, and that you don't need prescriptions? Come on. No-brainer here. Give him an hour and that big honkin' DSM, and he'll sure as Sunday mornin' find something wrong with your noggin.

Realize that it's just business, then go on about your life happily ignoring the quacks.

---

I'd agree with that 100% but I've seen some that have been helped so I'll say I agree at least 90%. I've seen personally the "help" some have recieved for depression and its a joke, a very cruel joke.
Even the Abilify commercial now running in TV adds states that 2/3rds of people treated for depression still have symptoms. Try some alchohol, its less harmfull to the kidney and liver and in moderation works just as well.

I have a relative that was almost killed by these fools drugging him up so much he almost died. I told him to get off that sh*t because I could see what he couldn't and he was in serious danger from his meds harming him.
When he told his Dr. he wanted lower doses the Doc said I'm thinking of raising them actually:eek:
He's since had a neuro tell him what I did, get off all of these meds because his brain can't handle proccessing that much, he was loosing his ability to walk from being so overdosed.

(Most) of these Docs I also think are a joke, along with the drug companies, its all a scam. Yes there are some good, but I think the majority are lousy.

As for TG issues, I'd trust a paper written by a TG professional more than than average doc that learned his/her info from a book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jess_cd32

Try some alchohol, its less harmfull to the kidney and liver and in moderation works just as well.

---

NOOOOO!! Alcohol is a depressive - if you're suffering from depression, alcohol will only make everything worse! :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicki B

NOOOOO!! Alcohol is a depressive - if you're suffering from depression, alcohol will only make everything worse! :eek:

---

It is a physiological depressant... not necessarily a mental depressant.

There's thousands of years of experience behind the old adage, "eat, drink, and be merry." Getting a buzz on after a long, hard day does, in fact, make a lot of us feel better. Until the next morning, anyway.

:drink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MissConstrued

Getting a buzz on after a long, hard day does, in fact, make a lot of us feel better.

---

But maybe you're not clinically depressed? Trust me on this, advice like that is extremely dangerous...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicki B

But maybe you're not clinically depressed? Trust me on this, advice like that is extremely dangerous...

---

Boy do I have alot to respond to in this thread...

First, as a substance abuse counselor, and alcohol abuser, I can assure you that overindulging in ANY drug is a recipe for disaster... especially if you're suffering from moderate or even slight depression. Every drug has incidental side effects, and alcohol is no exception. Waking up tired, being worried about what you did the previous night, blacking out, wishing you felt better, and having an upset stomach are all incidental side effects that you pay the price for when drinking.

I'm not saying alcohol is the worst drug on the planet, but the assumption that its ok to indulge in any drug because its "harmless" has led many a person to addiction or worse.


Ok, on to the real subject

I hate to say it but that autogynephelia absolutely describes me. Normally I don't like to be categorized, but when the shoe fits, wear it.

However, I would hesitate to use the term to describe the majority of crossdressers. Hell, I don't even know if I'd use it to describe even a smaller minority. True, some of us here are for strictly emotional/transvestitic fetishes, but others of us may not be. I wonder if the experimenter is guilty of sampling bias. Did he question all CDers of all ages? Did he question previous females AND previous males?

I would submit that ANY crossdresser younger than 25 is motivated in part by sexual drives and fantasies. So applying a ubiquitous term to the whole of us is shoddy research at best.

Science is about discovering small, undeniable truths amongst a mountain of evidence, not attempting to apply a mountain of evidence to a small truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by battybattybats

I wonder at this though, have they genuinely eroticised having a female body or is the explanation that having the right body for their mind allows sexual eroticism?

---

I guess everyone is different but as I understand it the eroticism follows similar patterns observed in CDs.

For me this is all a big red herring though. We are sexual creatures and we all develop wild sexual fantasies which titillate our desires. I don't believe that a TS eroticising about having a female body means anything except she is enjoying the prospect of being sexually active as a female. This does not in any way invalidate their belief that they should be female.

I dont think it is anyone's business to analyze and validate an individual's decision to change their gender. To me this is no more different than someone changing their occupation. It is a big decision that will affect your lifestyle but no-one should have the authority to decide whether you are worthy or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicki B

NOOOOO!! Alcohol is a depressive - if you're suffering from depression, alcohol will only make everything worse! :eek:

---

Back when I was a Tri-Ess member I saw a few too many members who liked their alcohol just a little bit too much for my liking, that made me feel like they were in part, self medicating with alcohol. And I've seen similar things on the boards.

In other words, I personally think transfolk should avoid the stuff, as much as they can.

As for AG, although some feel it applies to them, I am not personally fond of it, or Blanchard's ideas about transstuff.

Veronica
Rondelle (Ron) Rogers Jr.

20-25 years ago, prior to my first marriage, Blanchard would have diagnosed me as the typical example of an autogynephilic crossdresser. And I would have bought - probably enthusiastically at first - his "enlighting" explanation. :heehee:

I believe now the issues raised by this diagnosis of autogynephilia are many. :eek:
Please consider, just as examples, these few small facts :

1) At the moment, being in my 60's, I do show almost no more this autogynephilic behaviour, if at all, and nevertheless I enjoy crossdressing much more than ever, being a TGirl often dressed for several days in the row and with no sexual urges when dressed.

2) Wanting to be born a girl, I have been crossdressing for life since about age 5, and I made no connection in my mind between sexuality and crossdressing, at least in the 5-20 yr-old range. I discovered what was (accurately) the sexual act only aged 22, and I did never masturbate before that age, as not precisely aware of what is was.

3) Being aged 22 and ever after, I exhibited the average standard sexuality as a straight male, and showed at times a superimposed so-called-autogynephilic behaviour as well.
Note that feminine clothes do not have any specific "fetishistic appeal" for me. I just want to wear them.

--

Now I'm inclined to believe that the fact that I showed an autogynephilic behaviour, whereas being also a crossdresser, was a mere coincidence and possibly just due to specific environmental conditions.

--

Obviously, I would not draw any conclusion just from only my own experience. However any general theory must account for my own CDing behaviour as being not that different from that of many other "part time TGirls".


MY CONCLUSION :

I believe there is extremely difficult to explain whatever life style just from any sexual background. I believe there is a large INDEPENDANCE between one's sexuality and the general lifestyle they may choose.

Any human being is a sexual being , but also much more than just a sexual being.

Autogynephilia does exist, I met it. But it is a mere definition. Maybe, at best, it can have a limited application field in the crossdressing area.
It is not the alpha and omega of the transgender phenomenon. :2c:

It’s interesting how we (or should I say “they” in the medical and scientific professions) need to constantly find reasons for people being the way they are. I suppose that’s important in some situations. If a person breaks one of the laws that we’ve established (but also, interestingly, do not entirely agree upon), it helps us understand the “why” and (hopefully) better deal with things from a legal perspective. Within our community, those of us who see therapists because we’re searching for a better way to cope can likely benefit from identifying with even parts of some theories. And then there’s the constant need for validation. The quest for omniscience, however, is always going to be a frustrating effort when it comes to really understanding what makes us each so unique. If you’re healthy, happy and harmless, it’s okay sometimes to simply say, “I don’t know.”

As I recall, autogynephilia is not a popular concept with the TG community.

And Ray Blanchard has been heavily criticized and rebuffed by his peers.

Blanchard's research techniques are questionable, and he deals heavily in anecdotal evidence. His research is predicated on the notion that transsexualism is abnormal. Often his conclusions do not follow from the data. He also tends to omit from his study groups anyone who does not fit a pre-defined notion.

Yvonne