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!
