Autogynephilia, anybody?

[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.

[Violetgray]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[TGMarla]

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.

[MelanieCA]

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:

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.

[MissConstrued]

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.


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.

[sherri52]

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).

[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.

[Meghan]

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

[Alice Green]

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.

[Lyndi]

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 !!!!

[Elsa Larson]

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.

[ReineD]

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.

[TGMarla]

[Always Susan]

Well said,Reine!

[suchacutie]

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

[docrobbysherry]

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"?

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

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

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!

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

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!

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

[Melissa A.]

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

[Sophie_C]

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 really hate the term, since it's really quite simple. It essentially is making the word "pervert" (in a derogatory sense) academic. Additionally, it's denying the concept of gender identity altogether, tying it into sexuality and using it as a way to deny transition for transgender girls. Read up on the writer of it, that person has a personal agenda, has been panned across the board by the trans community as well as peer reviews and has caused probably more damage than any one person to all trans people in the world.

Note: I have no problem applying such a term to crossdressers, since they are NOT transgender, but it's never done that way. It's done the opposite.

[TGMarla]

I have no problem applying such a term to crossdressers, since they are NOT transgender.

That is a blanket statement that I disagree with. Whereas some crossdressers may not be truly transgendered, others truly are.

[Kaitlyn Michele]

i agree marla..and thats why i think we should not use a term that could have real life negative implications for folks that want to have surgery or live their lives in their proper gender..

its interesting that alot of girls are correctly saying that they want to define themselves...this makes alot of sense...unfortunately what's missing is that there are people out there trying to define us and they don't share our agenda, and the term autogynephilia helps them and hurts us..

the doctors and lawyers WILL define you whether you like it or not..

[TGMarla]

the doctors and lawyers WILL define you whether you like it or not.

Hmmm.....so, it seems, will everybody else.

[Sophie_C]

That is a blanket statement that I disagree with. Whereas some crossdressers may not be truly transgendered, others truly are.

Then they simply haven't realized what they are yet. It still doesn't make someone who gets pleasure from clothing in a fetishistic sense entirely different from one who is inherently a different gender between their mind and body.

Mind you, do NOT forget that when you put your argument that "there is no difference" that is the core of the argument against being TG as a medical condition which is why treatment is NOT covered by insurance (since it's just a 'perversion' and only for pleasure, not something that needs to be helped with), as well as them being excluded from GLB rights (like the ENDA bill).

So, I hope you understand that any argument of the two being 'the same' angers me, since it undermines ALL trans rights in America, only for selfish reason, so that people who have not figured themselves out yet can take down the ship with themselves, even before it begins sailing.

[Pink Person]

Dear Reine,

I’m not sure what your objection is. Is it that the excitement that women feel about their artificial breasts is not sexual or that it does not constitute autogynephilia? I believe I already said it doesn’t constitute autogynephilia. I believe I already said it is the excitement that a person feels as the subject of sexual activity. If you are asserting that their excitement isn’t sexual that is very high minded of you. It made me laugh.

Pink

[ReineD]

Is it that the excitement that women feel about their artificial breasts is not sexual or that it does not constitute autogynephilia?

Both, but I didn't frame my response very well. I took it you were likening GGs with breast implants to the TGs who say they are AGP. The former as you pointed out is not true, but the latter is since it is the TGs themselves who speak about their own erotic responses and no one else is in a position to disagree with them. If the act of masturbation, no matter the source of the fantasy, is the preferred form of sexual release and consequently sex with a GG partner becomes rare or dutiful because it cannot compare, then it does fulfill the definition of a paraphilia.

If you are asserting that their excitement isn’t sexual that is very high minded of you. It made me laugh.

I'm sorry you are taking it this way. But believe me, the excitement is not sexual. The motive for implants may be to attract a male sexually, but it is more about a woman wanting to feel better about herself. A GG looking at her new breasts in the mirror is not sexually excited at all. Ever. Just like a guy who looks at his flaccid penis.