Who? He does not sign my pay check nor have any direct bearing on my life. Why should I be afraid of this man? He simply has his own beliefs. They may be wrong but they are what he believes. I have my own beliefs. They may be wrong but they are what I believe. We can agree to disagree.
The problem is, you quote Blanchard as a source yet contradict his definition of this non existent condition. He defines this term that you seem determined to thrust down our throats (but that no other respected sexologist accepts) as a paraphilia (a harmful sexual deviation).Originally Posted by Adina
Blanchard tried to bully the Harry Benjamin association (now WPATH) into accepting his rejection of Gender Dysphoria and into using his classification of us as sexual deviants. When that didn't work, he thought that resigning from the association would cause immediate concern amongst the medical and scientific community. Instead it was met with silence from respected scientists and clinicians.
Despite that, I am still afraid of Blanchard because of the ammunition he gives to TERFS who attempt at every turn to cause harm to Transsexuals.
Check out this link if you are wondering about joining Safe Haven.
This above all: To thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any
Galileo said "You cannot teach a man anything" and they accuse ME of being sexist
Never ascribe to malice that which can be easily explained by sheer stupidity
The beauty of science is that it's about what's true, not about what some person thinks is true. A scientific theory is based on evidence and can be tested by anyone by performing experiments and collecting data in a reproducible manner. Blanchard's theory on transsexualism typology may or may not fail in that last department, that's beside point here in my opinion. The point is he cannot decide what's true, only empirical evidence can. I can question scientists' motivations, for example because they're an asshole or transgender themselves, but I cannot question the scientific method. No need to be afraid of individual scientists.
AGP seems fairly common for men who cross-dress for some sexual motivation. Whether or not it persists when such a cross-dresser turns out to be a "late onset transsexual" is not really something I can decide.
By the way, Blanchard didn't 'try' to relabel Transvestic Fetishism in DSM 5, it IS relabelled Transvestic Disorder. This obviously makes sense, because not everyone who is a transvestic fetishist has a transvestic disorder. Do you get sexually aroused from cross-dressing? Fine. Does it cause clinically significant distress or impairment? Sorry, but you have a disorder. Are you sexually aroused by thoughts or images of yourself as female? You're autogynephilic as well. Bottom line: DSM is not the book of human variances, it's a tool to diagnose people who actually need a clinical diagnosis.
"Transvestic Fetishism" as described has no relation whatsoever to a transsexual. Two completely different things. Only similarity is the wearing of women's clothes, although with completely different reasons to do so.
It is the result of someone with a particular bias attempting to explain something they don't understand.
All I ever wanted was to be a girl. Is that really asking too much?
I don't see why they wouldn't be two completely different things. Who said they weren't?
Blanchard....
In the late 1980's, Blanchard began teaching that all transsexualism is either (i) an extreme form of homosexuality, in which men acquire female physicality in order to be able to have sex with large numbers of other men, or (ii) a sexual paraphilia ("autogynephilia"), in which men acquire female physicality in order to heighten their masturbation experiences (by being in love with their own bodies). In a sweeping claim of having discovered the cause of transsexualism, Blanchard eliminated inner gender identity or gendered feelings (GID) as factors or mechanisms in transsexualism, replacing them with a model of transsexualism as a pathological male sexual disorder.
All I ever wanted was to be a girl. Is that really asking too much?
Do you assert that sexual arousal in a male imagining themselves either as a woman or with the body parts of a woman is non existent? I'm genuinely confused as to whether this is what you are saying or not?
No one is saying that. What don't you understand??
It is the TERM (AGP) that is being thrust down throats... it is the TERM that is the problem. of course some folks have this arousal being talked about... but there is no constructive meaning to the TERM AGP
"AGP" is a crazy worthless theory....poor research, bias, ignorance, politics and history have conspired to make this idea something that has no value at best and causes harm at worst (Your words)...the term itself has past meaning that eliminates the possibility of any reasonable discussion.
btw...MTF transsexuals are female...so your idea that males imagining themselves as women does not apply to transsexuals at all
(although the way you said this highlights your obvious point of view that "late onset transsexuals" are crossdressers)
Many of us have felt sexual arousal when imagining being female which btw includes that you would dress and present as your proper gender. Nobody denies it, there is nothing to deny. And what's more , it doesn't get cured, it doesn't get fixed, it may become less or go away over time like any type of sexual arousal (is every SO sexually attracted to each other forever??)... you cant control what makes the tingle tingle..
The truth is that sexual arousal is messy...it is what it is... fetishes, philias, "normal"...whatever...it can evolve and devolve... its something to consider and talk about if you experience sexual attraction to presenting female...its each person responsibility to live their best life and figure out for themselves whether the arousal means anything at all. It's so messy for transsexuals that many feel attracted to females and then "change" to attracted to male when they transition....it doesn't mean anything with regard to being ts, and this sexual feeling doesn't mean anything either..
I ask you. What is there to gain from the discussion? What specifically are you trying to figure out for yourself and what do you personally hope to gain from it?? Or are you trying to communicate your own point of view?? If so, what is it?? What's your point??What does any of our points of view on this do for you?
I have been persuaded to re-open this thread, but will be keeping a close eye on it.
Last edited by Rianna Humble; 01-05-2015 at 06:08 PM.
Check out this link if you are wondering about joining Safe Haven.
This above all: To thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any
Galileo said "You cannot teach a man anything" and they accuse ME of being sexist
Never ascribe to malice that which can be easily explained by sheer stupidity
Nobody is saying that. The DSM-5 describes autogynephilia within the context of Transvestic Disorder (Section 302.3), which may exist “with fetishism” (arousal by fabrics, materials or garments) or “with autogynephilia” (arousal by thoughts or images of self as female).
But your original position was:
Blanchard tried desperately to establish a causal link between his concept of autogynephilia and transsexualism, and for a while it was accepted. However, research and study of transsexual patients quickly outpaced Blanchard’s theories, which he has maintained and failed to update. In other words, autogynephilia and transsexualism are not specifically linked, although there may be a “comorbidity” (i.e.: the simultaneous presence of two conditions in a patient).
Not nearly as much as Blanchard and his followers would like everyone to believe.
Transgender therapies, to include GRS, are not designed to resolve AGP any more than open heart surgery will resolve lung cancer. Trans therapies are administered to resolve Gender Dysphoria, and as we have already discussed AGP is not a cause of Gender Dysphoria.
An understanding of AGP does very little to help us understand gender nonconformity, except as a paraphilia as described in the DSM section I alluded to and not as an expression of gender identity. AGP will be present in a very small and specific subset of the population who are subject to a paraphilia and who may or may not also have gender identity issues. Two entirely separate issues.
I've gone to find myself. If I should return before I get back keep me here to wait for me so I don't go back out and miss myself when I return.
Yes on Disorder vs Fetishism in the DSM5. I don't have a current copy of the DSM-V and I'm still using working copy revisions. Both the ICD-9 and ICD-10, however use the older language, and the latter does correspond with DSM5 302.3 directly.
Your point on disorder versus fetishism is valid, of course. One of the major approach differences in the DSM5 is the move to criteria specifiers supporting diagnoses of disorders (i.e., only, and not non-disordered "conditions").
Whether the presence of significant distress and impairment really constitute disorder is a much longer discussion. The short version of the discussion is that it depends on intrinsic versus extrinsic views of the source of the distress, that there are cultural, social and even political aspects in play, and that all of this is rather beside the point of the thread anyway.
I probably should not have introduced 302.3 into the discussion. It is not appropriately used for transsexuals. I introduced it because of the relationship to Blanchard and because autogynephilia made it into the specifiers. The DSM, in the discussion of the specifiers, makes the statement that: "The presence of autogynephilia increases the likelihood of gender dysphoria in men with Transvestic Disorder."
The outrage isn't over the idea that someone might be aroused by picturing themselves as a female. That obviously does happen. There are people who freely and openly admit to it. No problem. The term, however, and Blanchard's typology is all encompassing. One is either a homosexual or non-homosexual (autogynephilic) transsexual, and that is that. It takes identity almost completely out of the picture and substitutes sexual motivation. That theory has been thoroughly and completely discredited. (Again not the idea of self as female arousal per se.) The sexism in the typology continues, as the concept and the term only apply to males. And it is overbroad, attempting to cover all types of so-called gender issues, including fetishes, simple cross-dressing, as well as transsexuality.
The new DSM further confuses things in some regards. On one hand, the GD diagnosis is something of an improvement. The text clarifies dysphoria as distress over incongruence. It removes identity itself from the list of concerns. On the other hand, I think it continues – if it doesn't actually make worse – the conflation of transsexuality with other gender conditions. Blanchard wasn't involved in the workgroup responsible for the GD diagnosis. And the Transvestic Disorder diagnosis is more stigmatizing than the old diagnosis. The inclusion of autogynephilia language as well as the reference to gender dysphoria is a rather backhanded way of attempting to tie the two together.
There is some confusion in the thread over Blanchard versus Bailey, specifically in some confusing Bailey's book being discredited versus Blanchard's underlying work being discredited. Bailey and Blanchard were joined at the hip, however, with Blanchard regarding the publication of Bailey's book as support for his theory as well as perhaps a revivification. Blanchard has not been discredited so much as his theory has become regarded as an odd footnote in the history of gender. Blanchard (who resigned from WPATH a decade ago) is pretty well ignored by the gender therapy community. I'm tempted to say he has become marginalized, but his DSM role obviates that.
Last edited by LeaP; 01-05-2015 at 10:11 PM.
Lea
Lea, this is a brilliant summary, and entirely accurate in my opinion. Well done!
I've gone to find myself. If I should return before I get back keep me here to wait for me so I don't go back out and miss myself when I return.
I am monogamous, so I do not wish to have sex with large numbers of men (nor women). Cody, I hope you're reading this
I used to CD 4-5 times a week, with 75% of it being masturbatory, before I transitioned. Since I started transitioning and accepting myself as a woman, the amount of masturbatory CDing dropped to 25%. My desire to masturbate is practically disappeared since starting on hormones. And I see no great loss, but only relief that I don't need to masturbate regularly, and I can focus my energy on actually living life.
So called "fetish" behavior in a transsexual is a normal female sex drive trying to claw it's way out, possibly being twisted by years or decades of (1) testosterone, and (2) male socialization. Being born in the wrong body carries both penalties, and during transition we try to break down both of those.
Last edited by Michelle789; 01-05-2015 at 11:25 PM.
I've finally mastered the art of making salads. My favorite is a delicious Mediterranean salad.
I really suspect that Blanchard mistook a common symptom of our condition for a cause of our condition. I think this is why the term autogynephilia, linked as it is to his theory, is so problematical.
In the end, Blanchard is just another straight, cis guy trying to control women by shaming them because of their sexuality.
" In the end, Blanchard is just another straight, cis guy trying to control women by shaming them because of their sexuality. "
Except that he considered a transsexual to be a man.....more like he didn't understand and rather than try he allowed his biases to dictate the outcome of his studies.
Last edited by Angela Campbell; 01-06-2015 at 04:31 AM.
All I ever wanted was to be a girl. Is that really asking too much?
Adina your mailbox is full..
I was going to post this to you
Nobody with any credibility asserts that people born biologically male with penises and testosterone don't have arousal in some cases from imagining themselves as female. Nobody.
In fact, its quite common!!! And what has happened over time is that people realized it doesn't matter with regard to gender identity... What happened in the past is many transsexuals were devastated by Blanchards so called "findings", they were denied the care they needed, plus they were told they could not possibly be transsexual...what a terrible thing.
The TS people in the forum know this intimately. It's discussed in therapy, in groups and in private. Do you really not know this??
We share our experiences and all realize that this arousal is more like a sad side effect of testosterone, confusion and frustration...perhaps anxiety too....
It actually turns out that its not a big deal..
Your persistent use of "AGP" and "Blanchard" loses any chance to talk about It with any type of trust and compassion
Your insistence that somehow this is denied is uninformed at best. So many people on the public thread including me have said the same thing.
this is not a case of science just missing the mark and good things growing from the effort..
this is a case of a bad doctor and his buddy, doing very little or no real research and then making up biased and phobic assumptions and feeding them to a world that is already biased and phobic...
It's not about being afraid of Blanchard. We just don't need him.
We can understand ourselves without the likes of incompetent people like Blanchard and Bailey and understand ourselves without people bringing their flawed ideas up and talk about them instead of what's real.
====
Last edited by Kaitlyn Michele; 01-07-2015 at 07:01 AM.
I believe there’s an element of truth to both of these statements.
Blanchard got his start working in the Canadian prison system with hardcore sexual offenders whose criminal behaviors were often expressions of their own various paraphilias. Many of these incarcerated patients had comorbidities of pedophilia, voyeurism, sadism, etc. And many engaged in homosexual behavior (whether they identified as homosexual or not), and this was also considered a paraphilia at that time.
This was Blanchard’s background when he began his practice as a sex therapist, and his methodology and biases informed his faulty research in transsexual behavior (with little, if any, recognition of trans identities).
Paula, you’re right. Blanchard’s cisgender privilege made him an excellent gatekeeper, but that was the norm for therapists involved in treatment of transgender patients during that era. He was operating in an environment that tolerated his haphazard and short-sighted views. Unfortunately for him, the trans health community grew up and moved forward, and he did not.
Angela, you’re right. He didn’t understand and he allowed his biases to dictate the outcome of his studies. This is what has made his theories irrelevant. By using the scientific method to properly conduct his research in the first place and to further refine and develop it as new data became available he could have overcome his own errors. He then might have claimed his legacy as a pioneer of transsexual studies instead of being discarded as a footnote of trans history.
I've gone to find myself. If I should return before I get back keep me here to wait for me so I don't go back out and miss myself when I return.
For a non-activist review and commentary on Blanchard's theory, see the following article from The Journal of Homosexuality, July, 2010. The author, Charles Moser (PhD) belongs to the Department of Sexual Medicine, Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, San Francisco.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/...6241#tabModule
Lea
"Late onset"remains a tremendous mystery to me, 5 years after it set upon me. I've read just about everything available on it, and it's either, as has been said here, a half-lifetime of denial and/or lack of self knowledge, or, perhaps, some kind of chemical/hormonal change or psychological trauma that causes and/or reveals gender identity issues late in life. All I've learned is how little we truly know about how this phenomenon works; what to do about it is the question every late-onset person has to deal with alone. The longer I read (and write) research, the more suspicious I become of glib typologies and presumptuous, sweeping readings of datasets.
No-one has really dissected the term itself. AutogynePHILIA denotes a paraphilia, i.e., an abnormality. The chair of the Paraphilias sub-group for the DSM5 was ... Ray Blanchard. So the term, far more than merely connoting attraction or arousal of oneself as a woman, defines an abnormal sexual preference (politely, and "perversion" in much of the literature). As such it also carries implications for self-absorption, and because it assumes male identity - female identity being a delusion - further supports the notion that we poor, deluded men reinforce gender stereotypes and the oppression of women. Fun stuff the more you dig!
Lea
Philia means love. Para means abnormal.
I received a PM because of this posting.
There seems to be a misunderstanding based on equivocation. The prefix para means different things depending on context.
•Medicine
denoting a disordered function or faculty.
"paresthesia"
Origin
from Greek para ‘beside’; in combinations often meaning ‘amiss, irregular’ and denoting alteration or modification.
Last edited by Frances; 01-07-2015 at 10:33 AM.
So PHILately is a paraphilia too? What about the gender-neutral terms gynephilia and androphilia?
I do not really get your point. I mean, we can all agree that "sexual arousal (in males) by thoughts or images of themselves as female" is a real thing, right? The word autogynephilia aptly describes that concept. All the rest (the parts where you call it a perversion) is just interpretation. Again, I'm not suggesting that Blanchard is right with its typology and I recognise the ramifications of his work, but arguing about the word autogynephilia or it's 'creator' doesn't change the fact that it exists.
By the way, according to the article you linked to previously (good read, thanks for that), Blanchard himself suggests that “autogynephilia might be better characterized as an orientation than as a paraphilia”
Zylia, please! Let’s not get silly and derail this thread. “Philately” comes from the combination of 2 Greek words, “phil” (loving) and “atelia” (tax exemtion, a reference to the use of a stamp). Now if the word was “philateliphilia” then you might have a point. As has already been pointed out, a paraphilia is an ABNORMAL attraction.
The point, again already explained several times, is that there is no causal link between autogynephilia and transsexualism. The problem is that the influence of Blanchard’s hapahazard studies persists and inappropriately categorizes trans women (not men) as confused homosexuals. The ramifications of that miscategorizing of trans women for health care, civil rights, open access to society and personal safety are significant.
Sure, it exists. But the reason it is (again) being discussed here is because the OP made the assertion the AGP pertains to transsexualism, particularly "Late onset" or "non classical" transsexualism. It does not, and “late onset transsexualism” is an idea that inherently discredits trans identities and experiences by relegating it to a mere behavior of confused old men.
The OP also asserted that Blanchard’s theories on AGP were an important milestone in the development of our understanding and treatment of transsexualism. They are not. Blanchard’s theories have only served to confuse the issues associated with transgender identity, and some of the posts in this thread are examples of that confusion.
I've gone to find myself. If I should return before I get back keep me here to wait for me so I don't go back out and miss myself when I return.
Terminology is important. One can make a case for reclaiming problematic terms – it's certainly been done before. I see no benefit in doing so in this case.
Hopefully the last return to etymology re the prefix "para":
It is important to understand the importance of Blanchard's resignation from WPATH ( at that time still HBIGDA). It was triggered by the Association's open letter questioning the science, ethics, and effects of Bailey's book. While nominally his resignation letter is a protest against biasing Northwestern University's investigation, it is clear that he took the Association's challenge as a personal affront.... a prefix appearing in loanwords from Greek, most often attached to verbs and verbal derivatives, with the meanings “at or to one side of, beside, side by side” ( parabola; paragraph; parallel; paralysis), “beyond, past, by” ( paradox; paragogue); by extension from these senses, this prefix came to designate objects or activities auxiliary to or derivative of that denoted by the base word ( parody; paronomasia), and hence abnormal or defective ( paranoia), a sense now common in modern scientific coinages ( parageusia; paralexia). As an English prefix, para- 1, may have any of these senses; it is also productive in the naming of occupational roles considered ancillary or subsidiary to roles requiring more training, or of a higher status, on such models as paramedical, and paraprofessional: paralegal; paralibrarian; parapolice.
On the importance of the concept, terminology, and even Blanchard himself, Michelle is right on the mark. Blanchard is cited relatively frequently. That plus his role on the DSM has given his work continued life beyond any relevance it has in current research and clinical practice. In essence, what has been created is the appearance of competing theoretical factions in the science community. The reality is that Blanchard's views are held and defended by only a tiny minority who are not leaders in current research or practice. The situation is comparable to the few in the scientific community who defend intelligent design – not as a religious concept, but as a scientific concept. They, too, are largely ignored. These ideas will likely go the same route as did scientific racist theory as their proponents drop out of their positions of influence and die off.
Last edited by LeaP; 01-07-2015 at 11:16 AM. Reason: Syntax
Lea
The real issue with Blanchards so called research was that it was based on so called self reporting quiestionaires of 362 people which had come through his clinic over a 10-15 year period. The Questionaire was entirely sexual arousal focused, which meant that no answers such as "no" but rather degrees of arousal. His research resulted in a hypothesis not a theory, it has never been proven. His research methods have been discredited because of they were constructed to effect a result to confirm his anecdotal impressions as a clinician.
That does not mean that sexual arousal, fetishism etc may play a part in the medical history of persons that may include becoming aroused by the thought of being a woman and all resulting fantasies.
Being transsexed is something quite different.
"Never forget the many ways there are to be human" (The Transsexual Taboo)
Posting Permissions
