It's the nature of all forums.Originally Posted by ReineD
As for autogynohysteria or whatever; oh yeah, I'm in love with myself! I just don't like myself "in that way." But I can still be friends with myself.
Seriously, so many boxes. One day they'll have a box for everyone. Then we'll all be in boxes. Yay.
pj, there is a significant segment of the population that is gender dysphoric. Some individuals find ways to incorporate it in their lives with their loved ones happily, but this is not the case for many. Think of it .. most TSs in this forum who have transitioned say that a transitioner must be prepared to lose ALL in order to be herself (or himself if he is FtM). How many CDs and TSs live alone because there is such a lack of understanding in our society? This is pretty sad.
As much as we all like to vilify those who do try to define, they do so in an attempt to achieve a deeper understanding of issues in order to help TGs across the spectrum achieve happy and fulfilling lives. Definitions are necessary in order to build knowledge and to communicate ideas.
I don't know why some people are so reluctant to examine and define the issues.
Reine
Fair enough. I'm not reluctant to examine or explore or define, I just have a iconoclastic nature that rears up when I feel pigeonholed. It's difficult to define when you fit more than one category. Or relate to some parts of many categories.
I see your point.Hopefully there will be more research done that will expand on the current knowledge ... which I agree is limiting. But it is a start.
Reine
It seems a bit circular logicky to me - reminds me of this comedian here, he was saying he went to the doctor and said, "I've got an itchy anus." The doctor goes, "Ah, that would be pruritus ani." Comedian guy goes home and looks it up, it's basically just latin for itchy anus...
I mean giving a male who fantasizes about being female a complicated name that just means "male who fantasizes about being female" isn't all that helpful for anything really.
Your defination is too broad. Don't you think a doctor would treat pruritus ani differently if it was caused by hemorrhoids rather than poison ivy?
Joni
"Yes, to dance beneath the diamond sky with one hand waving free" Bob Dylan
Does this definition apply to me? Is it BS. I have read about others who believe it's BS. I do get excited when I dress or become en femme. It seems that I would be autoG. Does the excitement from dressing stem from a desire to be a woman. Is it because I feel I am a woman, that the excitement is just because I feel that’s the way I should feel sexually (as a woman) ? Did I even make any sense right there? Basically is there more to it than just the excitement?
I think it would be easier for me to be AutoG, but I also feel more than that. I do get the excitement, but I also feel more comfortable as a woman.
Thanks for listening!
Autogynephilia is, for the most part, a label created by psychologists who want to police who's a 'real' transsexual and who isn't ... and who define 'realness' at least partly by "I think they'd be hot when they're finally finished with surgery, and they would only sleep with men after."
I wish I were kidding. But if you read the specs, and the other work of the people who created the category, it's pretty clear they think anyone who'd be a lesbian after transition isn't a 'real' transsexual, because 'real' transsexuals are just confused gay men who hate their gayness enough that they have to change themselves to stop being gay (!!!!). I really, really wish I were kidding on that one.
Of course, I could just be bitter because these same people think I don't exist -- only people assigned as male at birth can be 'true' transsexuals in their light, because they think (a) it's a sexual fetish and (b) people assigned female at birth can't have fetishes .... needless to say, I think both those premises are batshit crazy, but, well. I know a lot of ciswomen with fetishes, for one thing!
IMHO, 'autogynephilia' isn't a useful psychological term, it's just perjorative language. The only way a sane, genderpositive psychologist would ever apply it (and I know, because I asked mine) is if someone (a) is really, really turned on by the act of crossdressing itself -- like, instant wood, plus near-inability to function sexually when not dressed -- AND (b) this tendency was negatively affecting their life in general to the point that they want to get treatment for it.
Without both those criteria, even sexual reaction to CDing isn't autogynephilia, according to my psych, and is in fact no-treatment-necessary, because it's not a disorder ... it might be a CDing urge, it might be genderqueerness or somewhere on the trans spectrum, but just getting hot from dressing isn't an actual mental disorder.
Elliott from Chicago
Full-time papa to Beka (2.17.09). Part-time returning college student.
Future college math/science teacher, after a total career reboot. Happily married to a cisman. Trying to socially transition pre-everything.
I'd agree - the label shouldn't define you. Its just another arbitrary classification, created in an effort to codify one aspect of TG behaviors.
I agree with the two comments offered in response. Labels cause me nothing but grief. The mainstream community including the psychologists and psychiatrists really have no detailled understanding of gender-bending and cross-dressing. They want to be able to slot everyone.
My desire to desire in women's clothing is not sexual, at least not on a level that I'm conscious of. I dress because I feel complete in women's clothing even without the make-up and the wig. I feel at peace in a manner that I never felt in suits, jeans, or shorts. Label that....
Labels are commonly used to compare others. Usually to say, "I'm better than they are because I'm not a xxxxx."
May you live long and prosper.
Infinite diversity in infinite combinations.
"Smiling makes my face ache." F. N. Furter
Hey this sounds like me.
Should I get a T shirt made?
If we don't use this term surely people will only come up with another? Labels don't define attitudes. That idea went out of fashion with Orwell.
Look at the term queer. It was once used pretty much exclusively as a term of abuse. It was reclaimed as attitudes changed.
I'm not saying I expect attitudes to change but I feel have to be honest and say I relate a lot to the term.
I suspect this debate could break the terms and conditions quickly.
Drop me a PM.
I think that "labels" that they use for humankind are plain B.S. I, personally, despise being pigeon-holed into some kind of "group" Everyone is different, so why in the hell do these psyco babble idiots try to call out so many people as being the same??
Perhaps becuase by accepting definitions, the people in question actually have to admit to something?
Why would many of us bother to examine the issues, when we can barely acknoledge that this thing that makes us who we are isn't a terrible beast that needs to be taken out back and shot?
I just think it's pathologilising something that doesn't need pathologising. Is there a medical treatment for tranvestism/crossdressing? Erm, no. So why would you need to invent a subranch of something that isn't a medical issue in the first place? What do you call non-autogynophelic crossdressers then?
It is a medical issue... if you're considered AGP, you're not likely to be qualified for SRS.
Thanks for your post blaire, made me think about it a bit more and read a lot more. I think I was looking at it from the wrong angle really (ie, AGP as a sort of motive for CDing rather than as the underlying reason for wanting SRS). It's a bit clearer now. Not sure I agree with it, but at least I see the point of it now...
