Skip to main content

my final thoughts on the literature

It’s easy to see why Blanchard, Bailey and Lawrence have angered many in the transgender community. They had the audacity to suggest that gender identity and sexuality are not that distinctly separate and that there is more similarity between the two types of transsexuals that they propose, namely started out homosexual and started out heterosexual.

The homosexual transsexual is angry because they insist that they are women based solely on gender identity with no eroticism involved.

The heterosexual transsexuals are angry because they are virtually painted as paraphilic wankers who are essentially men with a sexual abnormality.
Firstly let me say that I agree with the basic findings of Blanchard that namely:
• There is not that much difference between transsexuals other than original orientation
• There is fantasy and eroticism present in both groups (whether admitted or not)
Some in the TS community claiming to be “true” transsexuals have little basis for their gender identification since their only proof lies in their insistence that they are actually women. The problem with this claim is that there is not a single shred of proof in either the DNA or in brain studies (size of the Bsc region may be tied to female hormone ingestion over time) that proves that in absence of HRT or SRS they would be anything other than normal males.

But let us bring GID into the picture for a minute. If gender disphoria is the common thread that ties all transsexuals together things start to make more sense. I don’t have an explanation for what causes GID but it can be used to explain things.

Let’s take a fictitious case study of 2 sets of boys; one group with gender disphoria and one group without. Each group consisting of one boy headed for heterosexual orientation and the other boy headed towards homosexuality.

The group without GID would produce one heterosexual male and one homosexual male.
The group with GID would produce what we normally find with transsexuals:

• The homosexual would be typically more feminine and more likely to be identified as girly. This type would today be identified as a trans kid and, given the right family circumstance and support structure, would be allowed to transition relatively early. This would eliminate the disphoria and produce (in the ideal case) a normal well adjusted woman instead of a disphoric gay male.

• The heterosexual would be more likely to find dissonance between what society tells him and his internal GID struggle. This boy would be more likely to ignore or battle against his gender issues in order to conform to societal expectation until everything explodes in his face; usually decades later.
It’s obvious why the former group wants to distance itself from the latter in the Blanchard model. By association with the second group, homosexual transsexuals feel that they are being treated as being less legitimate than they are. After all, who wants to be associated with paraphilic perverted men right?

But here is the problem. All transsexuals routinely downplay or lie about their erotic and fantasy aspects in their desire to be women; this is irrespective of original sexual orientation. The work of Blanchard and Lawrence and other studies routinely show this. In order to appear more legitimate most transsexuals will omit any sexualisation present in their desire for transition.

So do gender identity and sexuality exist in complete isolation? I firmly believe the answer is no. This is where I think Blanchard has it right.

Where I believe he has it wrong is that in an attempt to explain his theories at all levels, Blanchard stretches out the model of paraphilia to an absurd level. He argues that it’s possible for children as 3 or 4 years old to experience sexual eroticism related to their gender exploration. This completely runs counter to my personal experience and is counter intuitive given that sexualisation normally begins at or just after puberty.

Interestingly, Anne Lawrence states in her new book that she is not opposed to autogynephlic transsexuals transitioning solely on the basis of their sexual abnormality as long as the end result is a well adjusted woman. She has done that herself. Even if the person can delude themselves with other reasons for the transition, the result is what matters.

Anne Vitale has a more elegant approach in her work. She sees no distinction between transsexuals and only sees individuals who suffer from gender disphoria. The severity of the disphoria will determine how likely the person will require a process of partial or complete transition.

This model makes sense to me because not only does it make all transsexuals completely legitimate but it deals exclusively with GID and not how early or late an individual transitions or even whether eroticism was present or not. In the end sexualisation does not matter and does not make the claim for transition less worthy.

Do we know where GID originates? No we do not. What matters is that it exists and it must be dealt with. The milder the disphoria, the more likely you are to a cross dresser or gender variant person. The more severe the disphoria, the more likely you will transition.
I have a contact over at Pinkessence who is an archetype of the early transitioning homosexual transsexual that Blanchard describes. She has read Michal Bailey’s “The Man who would be Queen” and she found it rings true for her; including her experiences with eroticism and fantasy in feminization. I must admit that I have found much solace in our email exchanges given my own struggles.
In the end none of this will have an impact on how I live my life but I needed to come to some conclusions in order to feel comfortable about myself and my identity as a gender disphoric. I needed to understand myself through the literature.
I believe that I have now done this to my satisfaction.


  1. Oh "Joanna". I am so happy for you that you have it all figured out and that you "have now done this to my satisfaction, (your understanding of your GID)

    You can now go forth and enjoy your dual gendered nature.

    Sadly, (in my mind only, of course), you have simply done what most deluded individuals do, which is to simply buy into what ever quack theory works for them or fits their particular delusion.

    You really do not understand why women are angered by being told by men how or why they feel a certain way. Just like a man you insist that women MUST feel a certain way because THEY say so.

    You seem completely unable to understand that when you base your entire thesis on a false and totally unsubstantiated premise, EVERYTHING that follows from that premise is FALSE.

    Here is a clue. Your assumption/premise, that "there is more similarity between the two types of transsexuals that they propose, namely started out homosexual and started out heterosexual" totally false.

    As you and your peers are so fond of proclaiming, sexual orientation has nothing to do with gender identity. But please do carry on. It is fun to be told " how it is", by those who have no clue.

    I hope you will forgive my exasperated humor.

  2. Firstly AQV show me your science.

    Secondly I NEVER say that orientation is not pivotal. In fact it is extremely so. However I am arguing that heterosexual orientation does not preclude people from having and suffering from gender disphoria and as much as it suits your cause to have me remain a perverted wanker to convince you that you are a true woman, it does not compute with my experience and never will. Please re read my posting from Anne Vitals where she clearly makes a case for not distinguishing between types of transsexuals. I have something from birth that I have tried to eradicate but now accept and I won't have your personal transexual politics rain on my ability to feel satisfaction with my conclusions.

    In addition all of the literature you have pointed me to has been insufficiently convincing to bring me away from my present thinking.

    Even if Blanchard has got some things wrong he's got some things clearly right.

  3. Firstly jS, CALM DOWN.

    "Show me your science"??? ROFLMAO!!! You sound like the Catholic Church proclaiming the flatness of the earth because they said so.

    "I NEVER say that orientation is not pivotal. In fact it is extremely so." Really?!? How so? How does sexual orientation enter into, or cause, or relate to GID. If a you say, "it is extremely pivotal", why/how is it that the vast majority of gay men and lesbian women are not GD?

    And pul-eeese. Do not project your own self perception as "a perverted wanker" onto others. I have never made that reference to you nor do I see your condition having anything to do with pedophilia or other sexual perversions. Why do you keep bringing that up?

    Further. I do not subscribe to any "trans" politics. Honestly, normal living and simple logic work just fine for me. Far be it from me to rain upon your parade.
    Just stop trying to make those women who have nothing to do with your gender issues part of your "discussion". Apples and oranges.

  4. I respect you as an intelligent woman so there's no disrespect meant towards you at all. I have always stated that transsexuality is a very real condition but for me I honestly and truly do not find evidence to say that late transitioning started out as heterosexual disphorics have any less claim to valid transitions as women like you. I am one of those disphorics myself teetering on the edge of wanting or perhaps needing transition and after looking at so much literature, examining my own life plus my overlaps with transsexuals tells me what I have stated makes sense.

    In the end and in the absence of any conclusive scientific evidence you had to go with your own gut and transition. I may or may not have to do this but in the end its not the science or lack thereof that makes us do what we need to.

    No malintent meant...

  5. The majority of gay men and lesbian women are not GID? Guess what neither are the vast majority of heterosexual men which is precisely the point. Only a small sliver of society actually has this condition and the discourse should focus exclusively on this and this only.,,,

  6. Who said later 'transitions" are any less valid. Anyone can "transition" to whatever they please, whenever they please. All they have to do is walk into a surgeons office and pay for whatever they want.

    You wanna be a tomato or a tortilla? Fine, go for it! Just don't insist that I pay for your 'transition", or to recognize you as a tomato when clearly you are not.

    You see from my POV, we live in free society where people are free to do whatever they want within certain prescribed limitations. Nobody is stopping you from transition. Surly what I think should not matter.

    I think what does matter is, will YOU be happier or healthier or better off if you do transition. Those are the questions that matter. What mattered to ET's was could they simply stay alive. Could they survive without transitioning?

    Clearly those of us that made that journey in our early years could not. Those of us that transitioned are here to talk about it. Those that did not, are no longer among the living. That is the difference. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation or erotic ideation. Those are the concepts invented to 'mansplain' why men remained as the men that they are.

    I am sorry but you and your fellow LT's have no clue what it means to "have no choice". I do understand that this means nothing to you and that this is not your issue. I understand that you do have some serious issues that you must deal with and that you are doing your best to resolve those issues.

    My only advice to you is to not confuse those issues with the issues of others whose issues were/are much, much different from yours.

    FYI. I find no mal-intent in your words. I hope you will not find any in mine.

  7. Again...what you have done in the above post is subscribe to that fallacious premise, ("that gender identity and sexuality are not that distinctly separate and that there is more similarity between the two types of transsexuals that they propose, namely started out homosexual and started out heterosexual.")

    You then go on to compound your misconceptions by building and expanding on that false premise and adding yet more...."The homosexual would be typically more feminine and more likely to be identified as girly". Pure poppycock, with no connection to reality.

    Look. I am not here to deconstruct the biased silliness concocted by BB&L. That has been done extremely well by others. What I am urging you to do is to understand that while it might well apply to your average garden variety TG, it has nothing whatsoever to do with those born transsexual. Again this is not about more legitimate or more valid. The error in your ways is in trying to draw the connection.

    The best one can do is to is to recognize that the severity of the dysphoria is much more relevant than sexual orientation, 'validity' or other self serving jagonautics.

  8. Ofcourse sexual niche and how one happens to identify can condition eachother, this is all in psychological space.

    Yes, psychological distress is imperative.

    But probably the biggest source of stupidity in the AGP communities is the failure to recognise the power of historical psychological construction. It is understanding how the fetishism can genuinely become more than fetishism (historically constitutes the conditions of AGP GID), and the psychological growth can be self-sustaining and not necessarily constrained by sexuality.

    Also that dysphoric AGPs desire to account for their fetishism in special circumstances apart the vast majority of simple fetishists, is just plain ridiculous. The very same fetish is there (varying in niches), the most you can speculate is that the condition of your presexualized fetishism, is that there was more to your emasculation anxiety, namely that you "actually were" feminine.

    Born transsexual? No one is born with an identity, self identification is something that people do and it is inherently vague and contextual(there is nothing self evident). People merely come to identify with what they think either sex supposed to identify with.

  9. Wxh I completely agree with your assertion that no one is born with an identity but please don't propose that we are born with fetishes or develop them pre pubescently. As a non disphoric you are trying to prove something that suits your own psychological construct. You can propose that to me all day long and you'll have no luck here anymore than you do at crossdreamers where you have a great many detractors. Just enjoy your fetish but I have bigger fish to fry....

  10. To be more specific, you may not be born with an identity but something causes transsexualism and in the absence of genetic markers we do net yet know. But given the tenacity and strength of this condition there is certainly more than talking yourself into it. The strongest reparative methods barely make a dent. Absence of proof does not mean there isn't a provable cause beyond human psychological delusion. We will eventually find that the earth is NOT flat....


Post a comment

Popular posts from this blog

my last post

This will be my last blog post.

When I wrote recently that this blog had another seven years of life in it I was trying to convince myself that it was true. It was in fact a little bit of self delusion.

With almost 3,000 posts to date I have accomplished what I set out to do which was to heal myself and in the process share some of the struggle I had been through with others on the chance they might find some value in my words. After seven years of writing, my life still isn't perfect; no one's is. But I have discovered a path forward completely free of the trappings which society would have had me adopt so I could fit in.

Over the last 25 years of my life I have turned over every stone I could find while exploring this topic and in the process realized that we haven't even begun to scratch the surface of this deeply complex subject. What I have ultimately learned is that my instincts have more value than what someone who isn't gender dysphoric writes about me. We are …

One transgender woman's take on AGP

This entry from the transhealth website dates back to 2001 and it offers a very nice dissection of the now mostly debunked but still controversial AGP theory and how this transgender woman could care two cents about it. People who have been trying to marginalize the experience of gynephilic transwomen have pushed for the stigmatizing idea that they are actually perverted men.

Well this soul, who couldn't give a hoot either way, isn't buying any of it and her frankness at times had me chuckling to myself as I read her posting.

If we ever met I would give her a hug for seeing through the BS but mostly for being herself:

"About a year ago I was reading on Dr. Anne Lawrence’s site about a new theory of the origin of trans called “autogynephilia.” This theory asserts that many trans women—and transsexual women in particular—desire reassignment surgery because they are eroticizing the feminization of their bodies.

The first thing that struck me about it, of course, was that it …


While this blog is most definitely over, I wanted to explain that part of the reason is that it was getting in the way of writing my next book called "Notes, Essays and Short Stories from the North" which will combine philosophy, trans issues, my observations on life, some short fiction and things that have happened to me over my life and continue to (both trans related and not).

When it is complete I will post the news here and will be happy to send you a free copy upon request in either PDF or eBook format. All I ask is that you provide me with some feedback once you're done reading it.

I'm only in the early stages so it will be a while.

Be well all of you....

sample pages...