Skip to main content

Foreword to Anne Lawrence's new book by Ray Blanchard

I include the opening remarks to Anne's new book without commentary:

"One day, around 1987 or 1988, I spent the afternoon in a reference room of the Robarts
Library of the University of Toronto. I was trying to find a word—or failing that, to
invent one—to denote a phenomenon I had gradually apprehended during clinical
interviews with many biologically male patients interested in sex reassignment surgery.
That phenomenon was the tendency of certain males to become erotically aroused by
the thought or image of themselves as females. The word I finally invented, after fruitless
searching through various kinds of dictionaries, was autogynephilia . I could
scarcely have imagined, on that long-ago day in that quiet room, that I would be writing
the Foreword to a complete book on the subject 25 years later.

My early writings on autogynephilia were published in specialty journals with
limited circulations. They were intended for a small readership of clinicians who
specialized in the assessment and management of gender dysphoric patients. The
general availability of the Internet in the home and workplace was still several years
away, and access to print journals for people unconnected to major universities was
difficult. I therefore had no expectation that the readership of my autogynephilia
papers would ever extend beyond the small group I had originally envisioned.
One person who did manage to fi nd and read them was the author of the present
volume, Dr. Anne A. Lawrence.

She was open to my ideas, which—although actually rooted in eight decades of prior clinical thinking—were bitterly opposed as heretical
innovations by the increasingly politicized transgender community and the clinicians
who served it. My ideas included the notions that gender identity and sexuality are not
separate and unrelated phenomena but rather two sides of the same coin; that there are
two major, etiologically and phenomenologically different types of male-to-female
transsexualism; and that neither of these types is sui generis —rather, one is related to
ordinary homosexuality and the other is related to autogynephilia.

The contemporary dogma in the transgender and allied health communities was that male-to-female
transsexualism is caused by a feminine gender identity—a proposition that is obviously
and utterly circular without some auxiliary hypothesis such as neuroanatomic
intersexuality. On this orthodox view, gender identity is about one’s sex but not about
sexuality, and to connect it with an erotic preference like homosexuality or autogynephilia
is conceptually (and politically) incorrect. Dr. Lawrence did not merely accept my ideas; she pushed them towards their logical conclusion and, in a 1998 essay published on her Web site, startled even me with the audacious title of her essay, “Men Trapped in Men’s Bodies: An Introduction to the Concept of Autogynephilia.” And so it was that the word autogynephilia began its slow escape from the library.
Challenging the emotionally invested beliefs of any group often has its price, and
Dr. Lawrence began receiving hate mail shortly after her views became known.
Worse consequences than hate mail awaited J. Michael Bailey, who published a
book dealing in large part with autogynephilia in 2003. This book, The Man Who
Would Be Queen , so enraged some male-to-female transsexuals that a small group
of them made a coordinated and sustained effort to get Dr. Bailey fired from his
university faculty and ruined professionally. The events of this extraordinary campaign
have been documented in a long and meticulously documented essay by medical
historian and bioethicist Alice Domurat Dreger.

In light of this history, it is remarkable that Dr. Lawrence has written a book that
describes autogynephilic transsexuals in a way that differs in important regards
from the way many in this group wish to see themselves or wish to be seen by others.

Her motives for completing this project are twofold. First, she is convinced that
psychologists, psychiatrists, and other helping professionals can provide better care
to autogynephilic gender dysphoric men if they understand the nature and
significance of autogynephilia. Second, she believes that there exist many isolated
and confused autogynephiles who would be comforted and reassured by the knowledge
that there are others in the world like them and that, in the long term, autogynephilic
transsexuals would lead mentally healthier lives if they had a
self-understanding based on objective reality.

The book with which Dr. Lawrence’s volume is most readily compared is Magnus
Hirschfeld’s 1910 classic work, Die Transvestiten . Both books include multiple
autobiographies written by persons who might nowadays be grouped under the
umbrella term “transgendered,” both also include direct clinical observations of
transgendered persons by the authors, and both contain substantial sections of theoretical
interpretation and conjecture. If I were forced to recommend to someone that
he or she read only one of these two books, I would—despite my deep admiration
for the great Magnus Hirschfeld—recommend Dr. Lawrence’s volume. Men
Trapped in Men’s Bodies is more focused, organized, and clear. It is simply a more
efficient and accessible introduction, for modern readers, to the phenomenon of
autogynephilic transsexualism. It does not, and does not attempt to, provide an
account of homosexual transsexualism in natal males or females—a topic that
would properly require a volume of its own.

Some days of one’s work life one remembers with a shudder of horror, others
with pleasurable memories of satisfaction at a job finally completed. Today, as I sign
the Foreword to this excellent book by my friend and colleague Anne Lawrence, is
like the long-ago day when I shut the last of the dictionaries and decided simply to
invent the word I needed— autogynephilia" .

Comments

  1. By limiting and defining the language and nomenclature you control the narrative.

    Essentially what is being done here, openly and without reservation is the defining of women who love men as homosexual, and simply dismissing them in favor of the "autogynophiiliac".

    Insult is then added to injury by conflating this woman with a man aroused by his own image as a woman.

    Is it any wonder that those women who have actually LIVED this experience so vehemently reject this self serving "research"?

    But hey, if it works for you....

    ReplyDelete
  2. "I absolutely refuse to buy into the autogynephilia arguments that Blanchard and Lawrence use to explain late transitioning non homosexual transsexuals."

    Then why post more of what you so strongly disagree with? You sure have me fooled.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anne Lawrence is one of the true tragedies of modern transsexual history.

    I can see why she did what she did, though.

    She "found herself" in a time where the only paradigm open for transsexual women were the asexual, feminine, androphilic American housewife. This led them to suppress or lie about their sexual fantasies and desires, and especially the arousing aspect of imagining yourself as a woman while still having a male body.

    For her Blanchard became a kind of savior, because he gave her a theory that accepted the fact that such crossdreaming exists, and that she should be allowed to feel what she felt.

    The price she has paid is extremely high, though.

    Because even if Blanchard embraces her "autogynephilia", he does not accept her female identity. She is still a mentally ill man according to his theory. As for androphilic transsexual women, he considers them homosexual men, not real women in any sense of the word.

    I suspect Blanchard's extremely simplistic, reductionistic and sexist theory fits the mentality of Lawrence. She likes clear and distinct boxes like "autogynephilia" and "homosexual transsexual".

    The fact is, however, that neither Blanchard's own data, nor Lawrence's own case studies prove the theory - quite the opposite. And this is probably why she does not discuss any of the arguments made by her opponents in this book.

    Ray Blanchard and Anne Lawrence have caused much suffering and anguish in the trans community, and the fact that American psychiatry have let them continue to stigmatize transsexuals is horrifying. They bear the main responsibility for Anne Lawrence herself being designated as mentally ill in the DSM-5.

    She may be an original character, but she is not "mentally ill". She is also a woman, for real, even if she fight so hard to deny herself the right to be counted as one.

    Hadn't it been for the fact that the book costs some 100 dollars, I would recommend that trans people to buy it. The theory stinks, but the cases she presents are valuable.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I only posted verbatim not because I agree with the conclusions jack. I also did not purchase the book...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Then why did you post such rubbish?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

looking past cross gender arousal

Jack’s latest Crossdreamers post got me thinking about cross gender arousal and how it could be avoided; also whether it even matters. This with particular focus on the inability to relate of someone on the outside looking in.

You see, sexuality is a very complicated thing to begin with and when you then add gender identity ambiguity it becomes a recipe to really confuse someone.

So imagine that you are a little boy who identifies as a girl but then along comes puberty and short circuits everything by having the sex you identify with also be the sex you are attracted to. For in essence this is what happens to all all male to female gender dysphoric trans persons who are attracted to women.

So I ask myself: can I imagine a scenario where this inherent contradiction would not produce sexual confusion? The answer is that I cannot.

I am in the unique position, like many of you, to have experienced an early identification with the feminine become sexualized later on. This brought confusion…

understanding the erotic component

I have written about crossed wires before in two separate posts. The idea is that one cannot pass through puberty and the development of sexual feelings for females and not have your pre-existing gender dysphoria be impacted through your psychosexual development. The hormone responsible for your libido is testosterone which is present in much stronger concentration in males and is why gynephilics are most likely to experience erotic overtones as the conflict between romantic external feelings and their pull towards the feminine become permanently intertwined.

Because I came from a deeply religious family where sex was not discussed much at all, I grew up with little access to information and was very much ignorant of matters relating to the subject. With no firsthand experience in intercourse until I married I was then faced with the reality that my ability to perform sexually had been deeply impacted by my dysphoric feelings. This began years of turmoil and self-deprecating thoughts …

a blending

An interesting thing is happening to me: as I have fully embraced being transgender my male and female anima are becoming blended. The female side is no longer an unwelcome appendage which, as a result, has allowed me to craft a more genuine and happier male image.

I dress when I want to and sometimes I cut outings shorter than before. I am my own master in this regard and feel in control.

Don't get me wrong in that the dysphoria is not going away and is sometimes like a wild stallion that threatens to jump the fence but I have learnt to understand it’s demands after all these years hence a transition for me is definitely not in the cards. At this point I am not even foreseeing a social one.

The two sides are no longer in conflict and they are now intertwined to create a fusion that is unique to me. That answer finally came when I reached a full level of self assurance about who I am and learned to embrace that I am trans and yes, that includes my dysphoria's erotic undertones…