Skip to main content

plain old bad science...

The bad science of Blanchard, Lawrence and Bailey has been discredited in my eyes. It took me a while to sort through it but two critical issues and their treatment of them did the trick. Namely:

• Apparent sexualisation in prepubescent boys as young as 3 or 4 years old
• Continued identification with the female once sexualisation has waned or is wholly absent

I have read papers written by Anne Lawrence who postulates thusly:

• Points to supposed penile stimulation in very young boys as proof of sexualisation with thoughts of feminization
• Sexualisation wanes in AGPers much like the love between a couple becomes less erotic and more comfortable over time; ie. Love grows but sexual activity is reduced

On the first point:

I was once 3 years old and my memories of wanting to be feminine had nothing to do with sexuality. I enjoyed playing dress up with my sisters and wanted to wear my mother’s shoes (much to her chagrin I might add). Sexualisation came with puberty and once my lessons in socialization where wholly absorbed, my guilt and shame over my feelings began a cycle of purging and denial. I was experiencing my femininity through a male filter and this confused me to no end.

On the second point:

The gender disphoric’s persistent connection to a feminine identity in the absence or reduction of sexualisation is sufficient proof that this connection is valid and innate. In my own case this identification has actually intensified with age and I now find myself needing to live as a woman as much as possible in order to balance my mental health. This is further proof that the mistargeting or alternate orientation theory of AGP is not a valid explanation. We are not a bunch of paraphilics.

For a time, I was willing to buy into AGP theory when I was in the process of dealing with my shame and guilt. Now that these are gone, I can deal with these issues more clearly.

Over time AGP theories will be proven to be completely wrong; most especially if someone one day finds a biological marker for GID.

Comments

  1. you are looking at the "science" through the straw of your own experience. Hence, more bad science.

    ReplyDelete
  2. maybe so but I am not postulating any theories but instead saying there's more than meets the eye. All I know is that simplifying the equation for all so called autogynephiles with some weak argumentation just does'nt cut it.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Oh please its 2016!"

I have mentioned before that I have a lovely young couple living above the unit next to mine. Well the other day as I was getting in the door, she and I overlapped for the first time with me dressed as a woman.

We had a nice conversation and at some point I mentioned the obvious which was that I had told her future husband that they might see me in a different guise from time to time so they wouldn't wonder about who the strange woman was. She just looked at me almost rolling her eyes while smiling from ear to ear and said:

"Oh Please it's 2016!"

For the record she was also very complementary regarding my choice of attire.

I could care less at this point in my life what people think but it is still lovely to see the millennial generation's freedom of spirit and acceptance so lacking in previous generations. Yes they have their own foibles, as does every generation, but this area certainly isn't one of them.

the pseudoscience behind gender dysphoria

The real science as to what causes gender dysphoria still awaits.

Harry Benjamin was on to something except he didn’t have the scientific evidence to back up his suspicions hence, like a true scientist, he negated to draw conclusions. His hunch, based on treating so many patients over his lifetime, was that one is born with a predisposition to be gender dysphoric.

However, with inconclusive brain scans and no DNA marker (as of yet) we are left with believing the word of people who need help and only want to lead happy and productive lives.

The best we have been able to muster since Benjamin's death in 1986 was to amass statistics on who gets a boner imagining themselves as a woman which is in equal parts pathetic and disappointing. For this is not really science at all but is instead playing with interview data that doesn't point to anything definitive or conclusive. I have dealt with this problem at great length in my blog.

The whole thing started with Kurt Freund's obses…

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…