Autogynophelia

[Kaitlyn Michele]

Hi reine.

on the beth oren article, it describes very accurately how i've felt about my arousal. Her self analysis reflects exactly how it worked for me. so i posted it...

I find that some of her assertions are sweeping as well, and her assertion about Kate Bornstein is kind of offensive.

unlike dr blanchard and B Oren, i won't make huge sweeping generalizations about things that i don't really know.

i didnt comment because i usually talk so much!!! oops
kate

[LisaM]

Reine,

Maybe I am missing something but can you help me with those of us who felt like/wanted to be girls before puberty. There was no arousal then. I question if you could call it a paraphilia.

What does AGP say about those of us who were horrified when we did reach puberty and had an arousal reaction?

I understand the desire of finding boxes we can be classified into but what happens if they don't fit? Do we all feel better if we or our spouses can fit into boxes that make us feel better?

[ReineD]

Lisa, if you've read any of my posts, I never suggested a paraphilia as a reason for transition. Please go back and read them. Rather my focus has been on AGP when it is present and as it relates to a CD and her GG partner, which is also the focus of my participation in this forum.

But, if you want to go off topic a bit and discuss the concept of AGP as a motive for transition, earlier today I did read Ann Lawrence's "Becoming What We Love". I know that Lawrence is also slammed in the TS community, but reading her paper does offer another perspective. It was published in "Perspectives in Biology and Medicine", volume 50, number 4 (autumn 2007): pp. 506–20. This link was in Beth Orens' writing. I'm posting a few short excerpts here for those who do not wish to read the entire paper.

http://www.annelawrence.com/publicat...at_we_love.pdf

Lawrence does follow Blanchard's nomenclature with "homosexual" and "non-homosexual" TSs. I know this is not the way TSs think of themselves, but if you can get past those terms and substitute "hetero" TS (attracted to men) and "lesbian" TS (attracted to women), then you can focus more on her concepts.

First, this is Lawrence's understanding of the reasons people in the TS community reject the concept of AGP:

Imagine how heterosexual men would respond to the assertion that their attraction to their lovers, fiancées, or partners was based solely on erotic desire or lust and nothing more: I suspect that most would not only regard such a description as woefully incomplete, but would consider it insensitive at best and deeply offensive at worst. The MtF transsexuals who object to Blanchard’s ideas, whether they acknowledge autogynephilic arousal or not, seem to be saying something very similar: "Our desire to change our bodies and live as women involves much more than just erotic desire or lust; to claim otherwise is both wrongheaded and deeply offensive to us."

Lawrence then addresses your question specifically:

It seems plausible that some nonhomosexual MtF transsexuals may experience relatively little erotic desire but may nevertheless experience substantial feelings of attachment to and affection for their idealized images of themselves as female. This would be consistent with the reports by some putatively autogynephilic MtF transsexuals that erotic desire was only a minor aspect of their wish to be female. It is not uncommon 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, and experiencing little sexual excitement with cross-dressing after a few years’ time.

CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT OF EROTIC-ROMANTIC ORIENTATIONS

Nonhomosexual MtF transsexuals often report that their desire to be female began early in childhood, well before the onset of puberty (Lawrence 2003, 2006). They frequently interpret this to mean that their desire therefore cannot be sexual. There is evidence, however, that both erotic desire and affectional bonding can develop in early childhood. It seems plausible that children in whom these erotic-romantic feelings were directed partly or wholly toward the self would experience the desire to become what they loved during childhood. There are two case reports of boys younger than age three who expressed a desire to wear cross-sex clothing and who experienced penile erections when they did so (Stoller 1985; Zucker and Blanchard 1997).These boys plausibly displayed an early form of autogynephilic arousal. Affectionate feelings that are not explicitly erotic also develop in early childhood. Hatfield et al. (1988) demonstrated that many children as young as age four or five can clearly describe feelings of “longing for union” directed toward opposite-sex age-mates and that the intensity of their feelings is comparable to that reported by adolescents. These observations suggest that erotic-romantic orientations can develop well before puberty and that they could plausibly manifest as cross-gender wishes and behaviors in children predisposed to want to become what they love.

Lawrence seems to not agree with the concept of the female trapped in a male body. I don't know what the position is on this within the TS community. Beth Orins disagrees with Lawrence and says that Lawrence came up with her concepts from a lack of a worthwhile model, citing Blanchard's deficient model as the only one that is available. Yet Orins does not propose an alternative model.

What seems to be contentious in all of this is the idea that the love of oneself as a woman is a "paraphilia" and further that paraphilias are classified as erotic disorders in the DSM along with a slew of unsavory fetishes. Lawrence recognizes this as a sticky point and she does not pathologize autogynephilia. In fact, she says that when Blanchard first came up with AGP, he described it as an alternative type of romantic love or sexual orientation, but for unexplained reasons the purely erotic aspects of AGP have received the most attention.

Historically, the paraphilias often have been regarded as exclusively erotic phenomena, and those who experience them have been assumed not to be fully capable of love. For their part, many MtF transsexuals seem to have been preoccupied with the erotic aspects of autogynephilia, albeit in a dismissing way, because they regard these aspects as especially stigmatizing. Wanting to change one’s sex for any reason is stigmatizing, but wanting to do so for erotic reasons is especially so: to employ the distinction proposed by Margolies, Becker, and Jackson-Brewer (1987), an erotic model of transsexual motivation exposes transsexuals not only to society’s xenophobia (fear of that which is different), but
also to its erotophobia (fear of that which is sexual)—and to the internalized versions of these feelings, too.

I believe it is useful to return to Blanchard’s original definition and to think about autogynephilia as an “amatory propensity”—that is, as a variety of “romantic love,” involving more than just sexual arousal—and also as a special type of sexual orientation. Doing so allows us to see Blanchard’s autogynephilia based model in a different light, one that I believe is more consistent with the life experiences of MtF transsexuals.

The entire paper is well worth reading.

[Rianna Humble]

Lisa, if you've read any of my posts, I never suggested a paraphilia as a reason for transition. Please go back and read them. Rather my focus has been on AGP when it is present and as it relates to a CD and her GG partner, which is also the focus of my participation in this forum.

But, if you want to go off topic a bit and discuss the concept of AGP as a motive for transition, earlier today I did read Ann Lawrence's "Becoming What We Love". I know that Lawrence is also slammed in the TS community, but reading her paper does offer another perspective. It was published in "Perspectives in Biology and Medicine", volume 50, number 4 (autumn 2007): pp. 506–20. This link was in Beth Orens' writing.

I don't think that you are being fair when you state that Lisa is going off-topic to discuss the concept of AGP as a motive for transition. The original post simply asked:

I want to see what other girls out there are feeling about this term.

That means that any discussion of whether AGP is the motive or even a motive for transition is as valid as your discussion of what effect AGP might have on a couple.

The OP simply wanted to know what other forum members who are or who identify as girls feel about AGP.

I think that the operative phrase in your post is "when it is present". I would not dispute your contention that AGP does exist in this community, but it is definitely not the only reason for people needing to transition.

:2c:

[ReineD]

I don't think that you are being fair when you state that Lisa is going off-topic to discuss the concept of AGP as a motive for transition. The original post simply asked:

This thread touched on the two aspects of AGP: as an issue between a CDer and his wife, and as a motive for transition. The thread lay dormant for awhile and I thought the discussion had veered more towards the first aspect.

It was only in this spirit that I made the comment about being a bit off topic, meaning to not confuse the two separate issues. I should have been more precise and said, if you want to discuss 'Aspect B' instead of 'Aspect A' and for this, I apologize. Sometimes, especially in threads where the main topic is vast and has more than one aspect, we can all talk at cross purposes and it helps to clarify what we wish to discuss.

I think that the operative phrase in your post is "when it is present". I would not dispute your contention that AGP does exist in this community, but it is definitely not the only reason for people needing to transition.

It is not my contention that AGP exists. It is my (and other members') observation based on posts that you will find all over this forum in many other threads. I also wholeheartedly agree that it is not the only reason for people who transition. I do thank you for your input and I'd love to hear from others too, both CDs and TSs!

[MrKunk]

I don't know if autogynephilia is the right way to describe what I feel but I have felt really feminine on and off for years.

[TxKimberly]

Talk about a waste of time and money... Who really cares "Why". After all... If anyone knew would if change a thing in your life? Going forward? No. You would still do what your driven to do and nothing will change that. Personally I'm not wasting my presious time figuring out why.. I have way to many other things to do... Too many pretty things to buy... So much more makeup to try on! Before I retire or expire! Which ever comes first! Lol.

As usual, I am SO with Karen on this one . . .

[ReineD]

The question isn't 'why' so much as 'what is' and 'what isn't'. I do know that it is helpful for the GGs, and perhaps even some of the TGs, to gain a better understanding of it all.

[Rianna Humble]

I would not dispute your contention that AGP does exist in this community, but it is definitely not the only reason for people needing to transition.

It is not my contention that AGP exists. It is my (and other members') observation based on posts that you will find all over this forum in many other threads. I also wholeheartedly agree that it is not the only reason for people who transition.

If my words seemed critical of your position, I apologise. Perhaps I should have said that I would not dispute your observation.

[Kaitlyn Michele]

"There are two fundamentally different types of male-to-female transsexualism, and they are equally valid. The homosexual type are erotically aroused by other (biological) males, and the autogynephilic type are erotically aroused by the thought or image of themselves as women."

this is a basic premise of Dr Blanchards theory.

This statement is speculation. The fact that guys get off on thinking of themselves as women does not imply all the other things made up by Blanchard...he has to ignore all kinds of facts to come up with his theory...When you get to coin a word that ends up in medical dictionaries, theburden of proof is on you. dr lawrence's writings are the same...she is just speculating .. note how many times she says, "its plausible"...

ok i give in....its plausible..but to be true, then lots of data has to be ignored, including the testimony of tons of people..

the question isnt whether the behavior we are discussing exists....it exists...and there is tons of anecdotal evidence about it..and you deserve to know about it..

but when you say this info is helping you, you are counting on a demonstrably false model that does not stand up to the many many things it ignores....

you get to decide what you think in the end

[Vicki-Z]

Yes, as long as there are new members to this forum, and older members move on. We are doomed to perpetuate the discussions on a number of topics. Such is the nature of support forums.

Thank you Reine for pointing this out. I see people quite often mentioning that different post topics have already been discussed before and why are we discussing it again. They may have discussed it before but a lot of us haven't. Being fairly new to this forum myself I realise that a lot of my posts may have been discussed before but for me and other new "girls" it's new to us. We greatly appreciate the comments and advice from our more experience "sisters".

Vicki

[swiss_susan]

Autogynephilia, is the correct spelling and refers to the love of oneself as a woman. I have no problem with the idea, in fact I love it.

I think that is what we are all searching for to some extent.

[jo_ann]

I think the term is oversimplified, and not clearly defined. To me the definition implies "I dress up like a woman, I get turned on by the female version of myself". That may apply to some (even myself during my much younger years), but I think for many of us, it's simply the fantasy of becoming a woman. Sometimes it's not even about "being a woman", but the transformation of man2woman.

Fictionmania is probably the 2nd (only to this site) most popular TG-related website, and because of that I believe there are many of us out there. The reason why it has so much hatred is because of the research done by a quack scientist, saying that some transition for fetish reasons, which is absurd. Anything in life can get a bad rap if there's enough negativity attached to it.

[shirley1]

I read two pages and couldn't be bothered to read the rest of it. So what auto erotic ???

I had a bloody male sex drive to deal with, what do you do with it ??? People lie when they say they don't have any sex drive very few people are total asexual. Its rare.

I am close to it now as I have been on hormones for 18 months now, so its died off.

So how come so many transsexuals manage to father kids then like it involves sexual intercourse ???

What did they do imagine themselves as women while having sex ?? possibly probably !!!

The problem is people don't want to admit to it, having sexual fantasies is not wrong, natal females do it everyone does well most. I don't buy into this I only had sex with my partner because I had too that's crap, you did it you had sex with a woman, so therefore you either had a male sex drive or were auto erotic ie same thing fantasied to do it. Its not rocket science a gay man would struggle badly to make love to a woman.

[Satrana]

Ms. Orens then concludes that it is her sexual reactions to feelings of fear that cause her to be AGP.

In my 20 years of researching crossdressing this is a new one for me. Tension arising from doing something taboo can heighten your feelings but fear as a source of attraction to your female self-image makes no sense to me at all. That is akin to saying women being raped enjoy the experience. Fear actually ensures the brain will not become sexually switched on. To become aroused you have to be doing something that you consciously or unconsciously enjoy or desire.

[docrobbysherry]

I've some experience with parts of the above discussions. Since I didn't have the desire to start dressing until late in life, I've always known SEX was a/the main reason behind it!

I've read a number of post by CDs of having fantasies of being with a man when dressed. Even tho they r NOT attracted to men.
I can speak to this, as I had these same fantasies when I first began to dress. The thot of BECOMING a female was very exciting for me, back then. Most of my fantasies revolved around those thots. I thot I must be GAY to have those thots!
I'm not.
At that time, I was VERY unhappy with my dressed image. The man-in-a-dress was a big turn off! I WISHED to be a pretty female that I, and other men would find attractive! In my fantasies, I WAS! Maybe other CDs go thru this same sequence of experiences?

Then, suddenly Sherry appeared in my mirror! She looked so pretty and so hot! I took pics to see if I was imagining HER! I wasn't!

The results for me have been AGP in spades! All thots of becoming a female and being with men have disappeared from my fantasies! Why?
Apparently, I DON'T need fantasies when I have the REAL THING in Sherry!

And, to paraphrase Reine, " It's only an issue, if it comes between a CD and her partner(s)". Which it HAS for me. When I've been with real GGs, lately!

I believe any CD who denies that this AGP issue affects them in SOME WAY, could be inviting problems down the road!

[Kaitlyn Michele]

Satrana..

Ms orens was speculating... and so are the people that made up the word agp..i can speculate too because I have had the exact same experience ms orens described, well before i was able to orgasm...,but i'm not going to make a broad unsupported conclusions

however, because I have experienced the very thing you say makes no sense, i can say for a fact that your statement is incorrect...

also, i have to note that you make the same mistake dr blanchard made

if the premise is people may enjoy taboo/danger sexually, then you say rape is dangerous, since women don't enjoy rape, people must not be able to sexually enjoy danger/taboo..

its called faulty inductive logic

[ReineD]

Up til now, my understanding of TSs & CDs came from my participation in this forum and the handful of TSs and CDs that I know personally. I'd never read any of the books or the studies. Up til this thread, my opinion of Blanchard was based on the many criticisms there are of his research from within the TS community. I didn't respect him very much, even though I did see a lot of evidence in posts here that AGP is alive and kicking (if not among the TSs, then among the CDs, although it is difficult to tell since people don't divulge their particular gender ID next to their names). And then we have all the different understandings here of what AGP really means, or how it plays out in people's lives.

So beginning a few posts ago, I began to read the clinical research and book excerpts I can find, not only about transsexuals and transvestites, but GID among adults and children, and the research history during the last century. A side note here ... the idea that gender variance is a paraphilia has been around for a long time now in the psychiatric community and it didn't originate with Blanchard.

Much of the things I am reading, I had gleaned already from the many posts I've read here, but I am developing a better understanding of it all, and the role that Blanchard is playing in developing the field. He is prolific in his research. I'm not nearly done reading and learning, but I did run across a book that Blanchard wrote in 1990 where he first began talking about transvestites and the various subgroups among TSs.

This book disappointed me, not in the insight it provided in terms of the descriptions of CD and TS desires and motives (Blanchard didn't appear to believe that TSs need to transition strictly for erotic reasons), but in the tone he adopted in his clinical descriptions. Twenty years ago Blanchard did come off as regarding GID as an abnormality. This irritated me, especially reading it 20 years later, when I've come to see that being anywhere along the gender spectrum is a function of who we are, how we were born. But then I don't think anyone who hangs out here as much as I or anyone else does would think any differently.

At any rate, I can well understand how disheartening (to say the least) it is for a TS to be told she is not normal and further, that she has a mental disorder.

But we are at the beginning of (I believe) significant inroads made in the field and it will take time for the clinicians to move beyond the notion of binary gender, and to accept that any variance is not a mental disorder. Research is painstakingly slow, especially given the funds that are required to conduct it and that up until recently and even still today, so many people are in the closet making it difficult to have large, representational samples available for study.

So it doesn't surprise me that people are all at different places in their understanding, especially with there being a multitude of different points along the continuum and with having many variables that come into play such as personality traits and personal living circumstances.

I'd hate to see this thread come to blows simply because we all come at it from different perspectives.

At any rate I did find an interesting pamphlet published by the University of Toronto Department of Psychiatry (2000) that discusses the case for and against publicly funded transsexual surgery. Interestingly enough, Blanchard is the voice of reason here. He argues in favor of insurance companies paying for the surgeries. He maintains that SRS is a valid treatment for transsexuals who cannot achieve peace of mind in their original gender role. His opponent, Dr. J. Paul Fedoroff, believes that SRS will not help TSs overcome their "psychiatric disorder".

http://individual.utoronto.ca/ray_bl...try_rounds.pdf

As always, the contentious issue is the fact that GID is still considered to be a psychiatric disorder. But, it is recognized as such by the American Psychiatric Association and by the World Health Organization. Not just by Blanchard. I've no doubt that as more research of genetics and brain wiring is developed, the time will come when it is no longer seen as a mental disorder. We just need to be patient and do what we can to help further the research should the opportunity present itself. But the bottom line is that if GID is not included in the DSM, then won't SRS be considered elective surgery and it will not be covered through insurance?

[Satrana]

if the premise is people may enjoy taboo/danger sexually, then you say rape is dangerous, since women don't enjoy rape, people must not be able to sexually enjoy danger/taboo..

its called faulty inductive logic

It would indeed be faulty logic if you had quoted my reasoning correctly but you did not. You replaced the word fear with danger. Danger is the anticipation of a possible negative outcome, fear is a real emotional response to a direct threat.

A man who has dangerous sex such as in a public space will typically have heightened arousal since the sense of danger will have increased his heart beat, blood flow and adrenalin release. A woman who is being raped is not thinking to herself "Gosh this is dangerous"

A man who fears that he is impotent in bed will probably be impotent even though there is no physical reason to be impotent.

A person subjected to a fearful experience such as rape cannot be aroused by the experience - fear creates trauma and paralysis - the body is primed for a survival flight or fight response. It does not cause sexual arousal.

The faulty logic is to claim fear as a basis for sexual arousal. You must be in some way attracted to or desiring the person/object/situation for your brain to enter a state of arousal.

This book disappointed me, not in the insight it provided in terms of the descriptions of CD and TS desires and motives (Blanchard didn't appear to believe that TSs need to transition strictly for erotic reasons), but in the tone he adopted in his clinical descriptions. Twenty years ago Blanchard did come off as regarding GID as an abnormality.

20 years ago is an eternity in gender theory. If you want to have a real good laugh then get hold of a copy of Glen and Glenda which Ed Woods made 50 years ago. His explanation of crossdressing is a million miles from our current understanding and since he was one himself, it is easy to think he should have known better.

20 years ago I was completely clueless why I crossdressed and what it meant. If Blanchard had asked me probing questions then he would be got back a lot of nonsense. That was true of almost all TGs - we were isolated, confused and lacked insight and support. Psychology was also a different beast 20 years ago and was more interested in neatly fitting TG into standardized classifications. I suspect Blanchard has changed positions on many of his earlier ideas.

[Kaitlyn Michele]

sorry for a misquote...
i won't argue semantics...i feel its unfair of you to call ms orens experience and her speculation regarding it "akin to a woman being raped enjoying the experience"..its a very mean spirited statement towards ms oren, and there is simply no basis for this statement, and it supports a faulty logical conclusion regarding her idea.(that is makes no sense)..if it wasnt part of your logic, then what was it?

..and by the way, you might do some more research. the concept is not a new one...i saw a therapist that spoke about it at a workshop i attended a couple years ago..she noted the exact behavior but didnt make any broad generalizations about it..

Reine. thanks for your continued thoughtfulness and for posting your link...i had not read it before..i have thought about this alot lately and the link you provided was very interesting.

I liked this statement which was made by Dr Blanchard
"A gender identity disorder, as Gertrude Stein
might have said, is a gender identity disorder is a
gender identity disorder."

[Rianna Humble]

In the document linked by Reine, it is unfortunate to see that there are still psychiatrists who treat GID as a delusion despite all the evidence to the contrary. It was good to see Dr Blanchard systematically dismantle the sophistry of the Dr Fedoroff.

If the price of that is to see GID continue to be labelled as a psychiatric disorder - albeit in a class of its own - then perhaps the price is worth paying in the short term.

[anouk]

As a crossdressser I can identify some weak "autogynephilic" features in me. On the other hand there are heeps of genetic women that have same kind of features so is it really relevant theory to make any distinction?

Concerning transsexuals the theory is both useless and injurious in most cases.

[Pink Person]

Cisgender people love to demonize transgender people. I will call this disorder transdemonizationphilia. Unfortunately, some transgender people also like to demonize themselves.

Transgender fantasies aren’t any more harmful than cisgender ones. They might even be beneficial if they protect transgender people from the oppressive hostility that is directed at them from the cisgender population.

Relationship conflicts between transgender people and cisgender people are primarily caused by cisgender people inside and outside of any given relationship.

Cisgender people should spend more time pondering their own guilt, denial, and sickness before projecting them onto transgender people.

P.S. There is no such thing as a cisgender crossdresser, since this appears to be a common misconception. All crossdressers are transgender, to some degree, by definition.

[Empress Lainie]

[SIZE=4]When I read such psychobabble as Dr. Federer whose comparisons are ludicrous, it does make me think our best solution is just mass suicide.

These people simply deny the truth to further their own careers.
[/SIZE]

[Rianna Humble]

[SIZE=4]When I read such psychobabble as Dr. Federer whose comparisons are ludicrous, it does make me think our best solution is just mass suicide.[/SIZE]

True, but I don't think we have much hope of convincing them to commit suicide