Why is the label Autogynephilia so touchy?

[Anonymous]

Well ladies this has been an interesting thread indeed. I’ve been reluctant to reply too quickly in the light of your collective eloquence and my consequently not wanting to speak while relatively uninformed. I would also like to compliment you each on the civil manner in which you have managed this discourse given your depths of feeling on the matter.

So what do I think? Well my response is based on the Tracey O’Keeffe writings, and my personal experience and philosophy only. Blanchard et al remain largely unread by me but the thoroughness of your discourse has also given me something to hang my hat on.

Clearly AG exists, but it exists for so-called normal heterosexual males and females as much as for the transgendered, perhaps more so. It is a subset of the totality of human sexuality, it is not something which necessarily results in, or is the result of transgenderism. To suggest the latter would be highly offensive. Bailey and Blanchard give me the impression that they see a causal link between AG and TG, and that offends me. There could be some value in their work if there were instances of individuals experiencing AG strongly enough that they became convinced that they were TG when they actually were not; and that this was recognised before SRS were carried out and later, perhaps, regretted. I don’t imagine that this occurs frequently, but once too often would be too many.

I do wonder how literally we should interpret AG as being to fantasize about having the genitalia opposite to that with which one was born. If a literal interpretation is the go then I think we have a multi-faceted but none too complex issue. What if someone were to suggest, if they haven’t already, that we take the definition more metaphorically and include comporting as a member of the opposite sex as an example of AG? The whole subject would then become labyrinthine and utterly unwieldy, but I imagine that there are erstwhile Blanchards and Baileys willing to try anything to undermine us. They will always fail, simply because we are who we are. Oh dear-would the last sentence have said all that I need to say?

[Anonymous]

I agree with you Felicity_Lane that we are who we are. As a qualified psychotherapist I understand that labels can sometimes be helpful, especially if it allows someone to access help & services, but labels can in many instances be of little or no use, & indeed sometimes detrimental. I would pay no attention to Blanchard et al. Like Pamela_3 I see myself as a lesbian, & I am very comfortable with who I am, & have no need of any other label.

[Adrian]

Over the years I have come to recognise a number of view points that invariably trigger vigorous debate at the best, and divisive destructive behaviour at the worst. Interestingly this thread starts from a position taken by Ray Blanchard that appears to embrace two of these flash points.
So it comes as no surprise to me that this thread has been very active, and I commend those involved for not descending into negative territory.

The flash points?

1) View points that link sexuality with gender.
The terms used to describe sexual orientation (gay, lesbian, BDSM, etc) have no relationship with the position of people on the gender spectrum. I say this not from scientific evidence but from simple observation. Knowing that someone perceives themselves as being in a lesbian relationship does not define their gender – it defines their sex and sexual preferences. So when Blanchard attempts to couple these two unrelated dimensions by claiming that a sexual orientation is related to being gender dysphoric then it is as silly as claiming that all gay men are crossdressers. Silly – and of course totally offensive to all those who do not happen to be gender dysphoric and exhibit autogynephilia. That isn’t to say that some people do not fall into this category..just like there are some gay crossdressers.

2) View points that are based on a binary view of gender
Any argument that is based on the assumption that human brains must either be of male gender aspiring to be everything male, or female gender and adopting everything female is again suspect. Those who have binary genders (into which category fall most of the medical profession) seem unable or unwilling often to accept that they are a particular case rather than the norm. Blanchard steps right into this mistake by coining a definition of “men sexually aroused by the thought or image of themselves as a woman”. Blanchard is not talking about a binary physical anatomy (sex) he is talking about how people feel (brain) and as such his terminology is based on a concept that people can feel as a man or as a woman but nothing else. Along with all other definitions and classifications that assume our brains have to conform to a tidy binary definition, such a view point will cause offense to a significant number of people.

Personally, for these reasons, I too find Blanchard’s views offensive – but I am happy to agree that Autogynephilia exists and indeed may be quite common in our community.

[Lisa_W]

OK, I have been following this debate with some interest & I have just read the article by O’keefe. I am familiar with Lawrence’s writings. I have not read Blanchard nor Bailey. But I think that I know of Blanchard’s work with a pair of twins from Canada – a despicable affair

To my understanding, as described by O’keefe, AG is a sexual fantasy. Her sample size is pitifully small – 5 people from each gender. That has absolutely nothing to do with me or my life. I know that I am a woman trapped in a male’s body. It has nothing to do with a sexual fantasy. Since commencing HRT I have no interest in sex whatsoever. That does not change the fact that I am still a woman in a man’s body. Does that mean I have AG, or that I consider myself to be a woman but with male genitalia?

IMO what is being described is a small section of the rainbow that reflects our community. You cannot conclude what the whole rainbow is like, if you just concentrate on the infrared section or ultraviolet. The rainbow has to be taken as a whole with each colour accepted, valued & studied. I am sorry – that maybe a little too trite.

It appears this whole process is degenerating into an exercise of developing theories to explain the sexuality of smaller & smaller numbers & then inaccurately extrapolating those theories to cover the whole GD community.

We may as well publish our own opinions – after all they are like a…holes – everyone has one!

Has anyone stopped to consider what these “researchers” have to gain by publishing controversial theories & using very limited sample sizes to back up their theories – perhaps more research dollars or scientific kudos.

We are supposed to be in the era of evidenced based medicine with double blind crossover trials. I know that that type of trial is impractical in studying GD but there must be an adequate sample size of many hundreds of people to support a particular theory before that theory can gain any credibility.

I remain open minded to the whole debate but increasingly sceptical to the lack of scientific rigor which is applied to certain theories & definitions derived from those theories.

[Anonymous]

I think there is a lot of guys who take the fetish to far. But i think women ‘get off’ on themselves anyway. I see girls at nightclubs and they are thinking more about themself in their sexy dress than they are of men.

This type of study at the end of the day is just mean. It’s like men or tg arent allowed to be pleased with their sexiness.

Maybe wearing cycling lycra or speedos just isn’t enough for some people. It’s a pretty small choice. Why shouldnt cross dressing men be able to feel sexy?

I’m starting hrt now because im a bitch. I need more love and attention than a man and im soft and emotional. I can be pleased with how i look sometimes. but no more than a woman would. well… maybe a little lol.

that study is just narrow minded and at the end of the day is probaby just based in hate.