Why is the label Autogynephilia so touchy?

[Anonymous]

To me the issue is not that autogynephila exists but who Blanchard labelled as such and the poor science behind it. First ( as a social scienctist) look at his study sample. Predominantly bar girls and sex workers. Ignoring the multitude of ts women who work in science, technology, law and all walks of life leads to a bias that almost immediately invalidates any subsequent study conclusions. To then take such findings and apply them to real people is reprehensible.
Now let’s look at the resultant etymology. Basically you are either 1) An early transitioning ts woman into guys OR 2) You are an autogynephiliac (a paraphillia). That’s it. No exceptions.
However much you might identify some aspect of autogynephila within yourself there are plenty more simply not identifying with Blanchards description of themselves as autogynephiliac at all. (I’m being very polite here).
Simply put Blanchards etymology is an over simplistic, poorly researched piece of pseudo science masquerading as fact. It is used to invalidate the identity of a large group of ts women. They are naturally angry over it.
I hope this explains why he is not one of the ts communities favourite guys.
Gwen

[Anonymous]

Gwen, I thank you for being polite, I would expect nothing less from you.

You say that Blanchard had only a poor sample to study, he states at least 163 , some were professional people in fact. They were all presenting at his clinic for treatment of their GID issues .I contrast this with the study of 7 or so transsexuals brains a few years ago when many in the TG community jumped for joy at the “proof” that our brains were female. Is this selective acceptance of opinions that suit us and rejection of those that don’t?

Many prominant TS women also accept the AG condition, Willow Arune, Anne
Lawrence etal and these people suffer abuse while prominent web celebs such as Lynne Conway are deemed to be right.

I wonder about the balance in the argument.

[Anonymous]

I accept that some tg women identify as autogynephiliac and good for them. There are many more that don’t and they are unfairly labelled with this when they definitely do not identify with it. His etymology is badly flawed and again is then used to invalidate the identities of transwomen. ‘You’re not real women, you’re men with a fetish…….” Would you like to be labelled with something you have not the slightest connection to? Probably not. Well that’s what he did to us.
And his sample was still skewed……..

[Anonymous]

Hi Christina,

The research Ray Blanchard supposedly did to support his theory re HIS obsession that gender non-conformity is an issue of sexuality, & NOT Gender Identity, is fraudulent.

Blanchard dismissed 98%, (I’ll repeat that figure – 98%), of his clients who presented at The Clarke Gender Identity Institute, Toronto, as unsuitable for his research – 98% didn’t meet his sexuality obsessed definitions.

Of those remaining 2%, about 60% fitted his sexuality obsessed THEORY of Autogrnaephilia. A little more than 1% of his total client base fitted Blanchard’s theory.

Blanchard, J Michael Bailey (trannyhawk) – who loves to demonstrate his “Fuck-saw” to new undergraduate students (- kids), Kenneth Zucker – child abuser – Reparative Therapy – ‘punishment’, beat the girl out of the child (I know from personal experience that one doesn’t work – a mother who beat me with a 2 metre length of power cord, daily, until I was 17).

These learned homophobes are obsessed with identifying gender dysphoria, non-conformity, transsesxualism as issues of (homo)sexuality & auto-eroticism. Der!.

It’s not that we don’t have a sexuality. We’re as diverse as the rest of the community, probably more diverse.

Autogynaephylia is an invention lacking any legitimate academic/theoretical basis.

Dr Phill, a BIG fan of Kenneth Zucker & his (‘punishment’) use of reparative therapy to change the behaviour of children, was forced to withdraw his REPEAT screening of his session with Zucker & parents of Zucker’s victims, & the original broadcast was withdrawn in Australia.

These academic perverts are fixated on shit. Aversive therapy (rebranded as Reparative Therapy) was discredited in the 60s. Ask Lou Reed how effective it was if suppressing his homosexuality

So now they’re painting this crock of obsessions with pretty bull-shit.

Blanchard, Bailey & Zucker are heading a number of committees with the purpose to entrench autogynaephylia into DSM-V (yet to be published). To achieve this these mongrels have pushed to have homosexuality re-classified as a mental illness, so they can ‘trade’ that to achieve their aim to codefy gender dysphoria as a serious mental illness

Sounds pretty, but it’s the invention of a sexuality obessed dirty mind.

I’m not a girl because I want to fantasise about a man lying on top of me.

Transsexualism is a cultural norm, except in the judeo-christian religions, where we’re “an abomination”. I’m happy being an abomination. My femaleness in not MY sexual fantasy. It’s Blanchard et al’s.

[Anonymous]

Christina, you are obviously very angry about this issue. With good reason no doubt . I understand that you work in the Mental health area and so are more informed than I on issues such as this. I am interested though, more in the existance or not of AG as a real issue in SOME people’s lives. You have had a good go at the individuals involved but what of the question of AG as a reality or no.
One only has to look at the photos and comments that people post to represent them selves on TgR ( mine included) to see that many are interested in some degree of what would be fairly described as fetishistic images. I see nothing wrong in this. I wonder why it is ok for the average bloke to look at a calender photo of a woman and be aroused but not a pair of shoes or a photo of someone in hair curlers ( have I given the game away!!)

I do not have any trouble with the concepts of words like paraphilia , fetish or deviant. It is the connotation put on these, the “therefore” that is the problem. As you say, we as Tg folk are as diverse in our interests as any group in society . Some would argue that we should try to exemplify the noblest traits in order to uphold the dignity of” the Transgendered” but I think this is nonsense. It not anyone’s duty to speak or act for others other than to be decent in dealing with people as we would expect from any member of society.

The word paraphilia is used often in context to TG issues ( in the DSMiv)and though it includes paedophilia and and non- consenting others ( frottage, peeping etc.) it also includes bondage masochism and sadism. While I denounce paedophiia and the infringement of the rights of others, many people find pleasure in differing degrees of bondage etc. and this is usually seen as an acceptable pursuit.

I have in fact read that the DSMv committees are intending to reduce the emphasis on paraphilias and ” free up” the document . In fact Blanchard ,as Chair of the Paraphilias Sub committee was quoted as saying
” We tried to go as far as we could in depathologizing mild and harmless paraphilias , while recognizing that severe paraphilias that distress or impair people or cause them to do harm to others are validly regarded as disorders” That doesn’t sound like the words of the Nazi that he is often painted?

I understand that as a non op Tg person, these issues do not directly affect my life and I do support the rights of others to live life as they wish,with due regard to harming others etc. I am interested though why some subjects get such a hot reaction and just want to explore the thinking behind this. What I have read of Blanchard et al does not strike me as totally unreasonable though I do ( as I stated) agree that his description is too narrow.

I do feel also that angry outbursts not only bring on the ire of our founder and leader but also may intimidate others from having their say and so would ask that a cooler tone be offered.

[Anonymous]

Christina_2, thank you for your posting. I’m glad that I was not alone in detesting the anti trans writings of Blanchard and Bailey and I personally find it distressing to see their rubbish being peddled here. I fact before I saw your posting I was going to pull the plug on TGR as I don’t regard this topic as trans women friendly and if that is where this site is going I’m not going to stick around.

Christina, I have explained to you why these writings make trans women angry. Please don’t be surprised at the visceral responses you may get. Personally I have read these many years ago and my reaction was shock and to this day I feel sick reading their work. Why? Because it is 100% wrong and invalidates my identity. Autogynephilia existed before Blanchard or Bailey but never before was it applied to over one half of the ts female community. According to Blanchard I am a man with a paraphilia and Bailey backs it up with “The man who would be queen”. This makes me very, very angry because if you are peddling Blanchard’s writing then you are labelling me a man (as per his definitions) and I will not put up with that for a moment. The anger has nothing to do with autogynephilia. It has everything to do with who Blanchard and Bailey accused of being such. I KNOW they are wrong, with the whole of my being. An entire generation of trans women have been harmed by these guys. Please stop peddling these insulting anti trans writings.

[Anonymous]

I have no issue with accepting that some individuals cross-dress as a form of auto-eroticism, & other’s may enjoy erotic play & fantasy as one aspect of cross-dressing. Unless this behaviour creates some psychological conflict, or becomes life limiting, what’s the problem?

The exclusive focus on the normal, healthy sexual needs I have as being the sole reason for my gender dysphoria, & also that it is a significant psychological dysfunction is intolerable. These experts just don’t get it. It’s about living your life.
Autogynaephilia applies a focus for my life which is peurile in its need to pathologise my diseased & debased sexual fantasies.

Of course I want to be treated like a woman, just like all women are. If all I want & enjoy is within scope of what most other women want, what’s dysfunctional about it.

[Anonymous]

Hi Christina,
Re-read your posts.

I believe you are mistaken in wanting to trust a ‘scientific study’ of our psychology (in complete isolation from ANY physiological issue) is beneficial & allows for a better understanding of gender dysphoria. More important is the fact that Blanchards agenda is to pathologise us.

Gwen has noted, according to Blanchard et al, we, ALL of us, are either effeminate homosexual men, or autogynaephilic – i.e., A MAN, who wants to be treated sexually as a woman, by men only, & are therefore in fact homosexual men in denial. This INCLUDES ALL intersexed individuals. I thought we’d moved on from Kinsey’s obsession with sex.

All Blanchard et al are interested in is our TRUE sexual preference (as defined by Blanchard), & if we don’t conform to his definitions, we’re in denial.
Blanchard is saying we’re all really homosexual men. Homosexuality is not a mental illness, so what’s the problem?

I am not a sexual deviant as defined by Blanchard. His need to deny, or even study the diversity of our sexuality is pathological. How can a teenaged girl newly diagnosed with Complete Androgen Insentitivity fit Blanchard’s definition of Autogynaephyllia?

All this label does is debase all of us, but especially Gwen & myself.

[Anonymous]

I have included a link to a paper by Tracie O’Keefe on Autogynephilia and Autoandrophilia in the normal (non gender diverse) population. After the intro there is a section on case histories that you may or may not find relevant but the second section is on Blanchard, Bailley and Anne Lawence. She puts the whole thing into perspective quite dispassionately I think.
p.s I tend to confuse Bailley and Blanchard when I comment….they are both one horrid blur to me.

I hope this helps things.

Gwen

http://www.tracieokeefe.com/Autogynephilia.htm

[Anonymous]

Gwen you see , this is what worries me. Never in my post did I try to “peddle” the work of Blanchard. In fact I explicitly said that I do not champion his work and also expressed several problems with the simplicity of his labels and yet you are prepared to leave TgR simply because I happened to want to talk about it in a balanced and calm matter!!

Are we to be allowed only to talk about “safe” or inane topics because someone is going to get upset and plan to leave? It has happened a lot in the past and I think that it is sad and that we should be able to be a bit more courageous and keep our cool enough to hear others views? Isn’t that what diversity demands?

I would also ask you to look further at my opinions since 2006 to see that I am not slow to support TG folk and their lives.

I have not countered your opinion, nor that of C2 , merely tried to clarify some of your assertions. I have not read all of the argument on AG yet but I did not find it as bad as I had initially heard. How does that reading deny a transwoman’s reality? I do not deny your reality at all by my questioning. I also have no problem with you disagreeing with my opinions.

I was thinking about the idea of looking more closely at difficult issues and it has reminded me of the way we are fed simplistic, inane slogans by the media and politicians such as Tony Abbot, about issues that are complex and not easily dealt with. This shits me. I often hear people repeating these inanities to me and then they get angry when I try to put a middle of the road and perhaps more balanced viewpoint or to clarify what I heard about the issue. This simplistic view is a cancer that is wrecking our society and dumbing down debate and discourse IMO. It is with this in mind that I posed my initial question.

You have indeed agreed with my assertion that AG may in fact be a reality in the lives of some TG folk as I believe it is in mine.

My argument is , if it does exist ..so what? Why is it a problem compared to so called ” normal ” ( read typical )sexuality which , in men, is often exploitative and misogynist in nature?

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the Tracie O’Keefe article. I have not read it all yet but will do so.

Can I just point out though that Transgenderism has been seen by the general Psychiatric community( as in the early DSM’s) as a paraphilia for a lot longer than Blanchard has been around and researchers such as Hirshfield and Benjamin were just as narrow in their views as Blanchard et al.

Adenda: Having now read the article I would like to point out that O’Keefe seems to have no issue with the idea that AG exists, in fact she talks about it in a positive way throughout the article. I agree with most of what she says and she is positive in some regards to Lawrence and indeed Blanchard at times.

It is , as you pointed out Gwen, a dispassionate and balanced opinion piece, everything that I argue for and try to emulate. Thank you for posting it.

[Anonymous]

Christina, no you did not counter my opinion, you just failed totally to acknowlege it except in a defence of Blanchard. You keep on asking why trans women are upset by it all but then seemingly ignore my explanation and act surprised when I am not alone.
Tracie explains it all far better than I ever could….and there are many more academic criticisms of Blanchard’s work.
I will not comment again on this…….I have to defend my identity every day in part thanks to him. If you lived my life you would understand.
Gwen

[Anonymous]

The problem I find (generally) is how we as a society queue to allow ‘experts’ to manipulate our psychology. Even Freud, at the end of his career, was recanting much of his early theorising – only to be scorned & ridiculed by his latter day peers.

Blanchard’s all emcompassing denigration – with his sexual deviant label, of any form of gender non-conformity is offensive. Little more than 1% of his victims conform to his theory.

Gwen & I are women. We’ve been compelled to look at our own psychology, to understand why we’re women. We’ve been assessed & deemed to be lacking any underlying mental illness. Shock & horror – we’re happy with who we are now that we’re living our own lives.

For Blanchards opinions on this paraphilia to have any validity, he needs to demonstrate indulging in this form of sexual expression. This isn’t being done.

Christina, if you’ve gained some insight into who you are, wonderful. Like Blanchard, I feel you’re seeking to make one size fit all. I don’t believe in or accept some continuum & we’re all on the same journey. You seem to lack understanding to what Blanchard is doing – his sole motive is to pathologise us as having a significant personality deficit & aberrant sexuality. The fact Blanchard et al have sought to again codefy homosexuality as a personality disorder (& a paraphilia) should show where these homophobes are coming from. The repressed sexuality, & denial, is Blanchard’s. His team – Bailey has been investigated for professional misconduct with clients more than once.

Projection & denial are wonderful defence mechanisms. Everyone else is the problem.
How does the child, identified as female at birth, raised as a girl, lacking any masculinising effects of testosterone due to a genetic blocking of it’s effects, fit Blanchard’s definitions. Blanchard insists ALL intersexed are autogynaephylic. Say all that needs saying.

These people have no interest in helping or supporting us. The same old story – we needed to be cured. Why?

[Anonymous]

Christina, I regret that this thread has become a three , now two- way debate about the motives and character of Blanchard et al. It was never intended that way, there have been 182 views and yet only 3 of us dared post. I would like to hear more from ” the sidelines” about their views of the idea of AG in their lives, not just whether Blanchard is a bastard. In History , many bastards have still had things to say which are worth hearing.

I never said that I supported ALL of Blanchard’s work and I think that Bailey is insensitive in the title of his book at the very least.

I am concerned that you have personalized this as an attack on your integrity as a woman, it was never intedend thus. I believe that I am very careful about the words I use so as not to imply personal attack, I use words such as ” some, may, many , IMO” so as not to come across as the last word on any given subject. As I said above, just look at my record of views on the rights of TG folk to their own views of themselves.

I do take offence at your assertion that I am trying to ” make one size fit all” This is nonsense as I have stated clearly that I find B’s definition too narrow. In my life I try to follow the Taoist tenet of ” not EITHER OR ..but AND and AND!”

I know this is a touchy subject but when can we discuss these things without a blowup? Must we avoid ” mentioning the war”in fear of offending someone? Can we be mature enough to talk calmly and robustly about issues that touch our lives?

I am not a transsexual ( yes, I have some insight into my life, thank you) but live publicly in that space of androgynous transgenderism in my community and speak out about relevant issues when required. This brings it’s own difficulties for me so I have some empathy into the difficulties others may face in their lives.
I see some aspects of AG in my life ( and perhaps in the lives of many other TG’s) . I want to explore this. Is this so bad? Are those like me somehow less ” worthy or real” than a transsexual person? I don’t think so nor will I be shouted down when I want to discuss ( calmly and reasonably) ANY issue that I am interested in. If you find this too outrageous then I invite you to decline to react. Having said this, I of course, welcome your input , as long as we don’t blow it and become personal to the point of enmity.

Does anyone else Have a point of view here?

[Anonymous]

Personally I have decided that only one word describes me, it encompasses all that is me including my sexuality, gender and everything else about me.

I have come to the conclusion that all these doctors are wrong I’m a LESBIAN.

Hugs Pamela!