Skip to main content

feeling good plus an epic fail

Lindsay in a comment to my last blog entry made me realize something important: you need to stick to what you are doing and establish it as a routine. In other words, even if my disphoria appears to be receding, I keep my cross gender expression constant and part of my life so that I no longer experience the roller coaster ups and downs.

My previous method was to cave in to my disphoria by indulging it and then tossing everything out. I now know this is an abject failure as a management tool.

What needs to happen is that I keep Joanna time a part of my life routine pure and simple and, since I don’t need to worry about guilt any longer, the schizophrenic indulge and purge cycles will be a thing of the past.

Yesterday after work I got dressed, went to the hardware store to get a few things for N’s dishwasher installation and ended my outing with a short trip to MacDonald’s for a strawberry milk shake and a sit down with my android tablet. It was pleasant and yet it was short and, because my frequency and extreme comfort is there, I can draw from the positive energy that it provides me as never before.

I cannot overstate what a difference the last year of reflection has done for me. It has literally saved my life because I have been able to take some ownership of my disphoria instead of allowing it to run amok in my life.

On another note, I read on the rationalwiki the following entry on Autogynephilia:

“...This leads to the biggest criticism from a scientific standpoint, in that the theory is speciously unfalsifiable. While at first, it seems like it would be possible to find a transsexual who is attracted to women, but does not erotically fantasize about having Lady Parts; the theory invites one to beg the question, and take it as fact that one is simply lying about not having such fetishes, because being attracted to women would mean you have autogynephilia, and thus be a pervert.

Entirely apart from being unfalsifiable, the "autogynephilia" label is used derogatorily to separate the "genuine" transsexuals from the "fake" transsexuals, a practice that has been around pretty much as long as transsexuals have ever been around, in order to denigrate undesirable transsexuals. This works within the theory, because the autogynephilia group is based on exclusionary criteria, so nearly anything can be used against a transsexual in order to castigate them from the "genuine" transsexuals into the designation of "autogynephilia". While it is obvious within the theory that even a single passing interest in a woman would "disqualify" one as "genuine", it is less apparent — because it's implicit in the categorization process — that even simply not looking feminine enough can be used to cast doubt upon the transsexual's actual motivations for transitioning.

Worse so, when any transsexual denies having any erotic fetishes about themselves, then this is used as conclusive evidence to show that they indeed actually are autogynephilic, because only an autogynephilic would lie about this. A wonderful catch 22 for anyone suspected of autogynephilia... which of course, could be any transsexual.

And finally at the tail end of all of this criticism, is that even the "genuine transsexuals", are labeled by the theory as if they were men. This allows proponents for the theory that are against homosexuals to dismiss all transsexuals very simply, either they're perverts or they are homos. None of them are allowed to be considered genuinely female, despite neurobiological indications to the contrary.

Autogynephilia, while being entirely unscientific as a theory, still has a use in describing a limited subset of transsexuals. There most definitely are people for whom autogynephilic is reasonably descriptive. But attempting, as this theory posits, to apply this broadly upon individuals as a catch all when they fail to match your expectations of what a genuinely transsexual person would be, is a most inappropriate application of reason....”

It is such an abomination as a theory and it bears repeating that, since I have removed myself from its trappings, I can now look at this as complete junk science that will one day be in a museum of absurdities along with frontal lobotomies as a cure for what ails you.

Not content with simply being a stupid and mean spirited theory, it also refuses to touch on the existence of FTM transsexuals; thereby completely failing the test of true science.

Comments

  1. Perhaps the best description of Blanchard's term "autogynephilia" comes from http://tsroadmap.com/info/autogynephilia.html which was posted originally nine years ago. The final section of the page sums it up nicely: '"Autogynephilia" is based on interlocking pseudoscientific claims and methodologies'.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I could'nt describe it better myself Maura....

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is exactly the type of uneducated tripe found on such "trans" sites such as Jack Molay's. Create a 'straw man' argument, and then shoot it down using big words and poor grammar. Just what the hell is a " theory [that] is speciously unfalsifiable.(sp)?

    And here I thought that you had moved beyond such drivel.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh but I have and I am pointing it out. There's no such thing as Autogynephilia and perhaps this article is not the most compelling argument against it but it did catch my attention nonetheless..

    ReplyDelete
  5. I didn't have any problem getting the gist of the "rationalwiki" entry. It was pointing out the contradictions of the AGP theory that make it scientifically invalid. It's really just a restatement of what others have already pointed out. I had to use a dictionary on some of the words, but I thought it reasonably clear.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hmmmm....."no such thing as Autogynephilia ".

    OK. So what word should we use to describe this?

    "The paraphilic tendency of a biological (cissexual) male to be sexually aroused by the thought of becoming a female, sometimes considered a form of gender identity disorder or transvestic fetishism."

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh my my AQV...and I was giving you so much credit. Ok I'll be an autogynephilic if it makes you happy and secure...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ray blanchard made up that term. I have noticed that you seem to pipe up in my blog whenever you somehow feel threatened. I'm starting to sense a pattern here...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Threatened? Are you kidding? Why is it when you have no answer for a simple question, you come up with some limp-dicked attack on the questioner?

    ReplyDelete
  10. If you bothered to read the the theory you would realize that in it you are known as a homosexual transsexual so blanchard doesnt have any nice words for anyone. I am through with all of that anyway however I will post here what I see fit since it is my blog..

    ReplyDelete
  11. You are becoming highly predictable I'm afraid

    ReplyDelete
  12. @aqv I don't see where Joanna attacked you, at all. And why the insults? Do you think insults help to prove your point?

    Lindsay

    ReplyDelete
  13. Look. You want to talk about predictable and insults? OK First you disinter this old dead horse known as Blanchard's AGP, followed by some nonsensical folderol discrediting it. I offer my opinion that both the theory and all the pseudo-sophism used to discredit it is so much BS.

    You then make the claim that AGP does not exist which begs my question as to what to call all these men who get aroused by their image of themselves as women. You apparently took that as a personal dig which it clearly was not, and then go on to make further unsubstantiated claims that I am "insecure" and somehow "threatened".

    I mean get real !! You want predictable? How about I ask either of you a simple question, and instead of a simple answer, I get passive aggressive claims predictably impugning both my character and my motives.

    Like I said, I thought you had grown beyond that.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Heaven help us if we have a different opinion than aqv,...

    @aqv - You're the master of the implied insult. Maybe it's possible that you don't realize you're doing it. I don't see any questions you've asked that haven't already been answered or that deserve to be answered.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Perhaps you mind check your male privilege, Lindsay. Perhaps you are not aware how dismissive you are being every time you pronounce my questions as being unworthy of being answered. Truth is, you do not have an answer, or realize how ridiculous and indefensible your position is.

    ReplyDelete
  16. ooooooh all this thinking hurts my blond brain. LOL

    glad to hear you are managing things by basically taking one day at a time in sort of going with the flow. sort of like when one is caught in a "run"or undertow in the ocean. one needs to swim parallel with the "run" to get to a point where they can get past it. to a calmer point in order to get back to land otherwise one gets exhausted trying to fight ones' way out of it. as you have found out swimming with the flow is less taxing.

    ReplyDelete
  17. AQV you can't have it both ways. You don't like Blanchard anymore than I do and Autogynephilia is his term and part of his unifying theory of transsexualsm where he groups transsexuals by orientation.

    To answer your original question: the propensity of a male to get aroused by dressing as a female is called tranvestic fetishism pure and simple. Since I know I'm not that I am not threatened by that at all. To call that Autogynephilia you need to buy into EVERYTHING that blanchard postulates which, you are on the record here as saying, you don't agree with,

    I don't follow you when you say I had grown beyond that....beyond what? I don't subscribe to blanchard and used an internet reference where the theory was put down. That was it. Your anger is not justified here nor is the male privilige reference.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Diana I am very calm and very happy these days

    ReplyDelete
  19. Why am I not surprised with your response? You always seem to interpret disagreeable comments as personal attacks, and "predictably" respond in kind.

    Yes, 'transvestic fetishism' is a good term to describe "the propensity of a male to get aroused by dressing as a female". However, just because you disagree, (as do I), with much of BB&L's 'junk science' does not mean that "autogynephylia does not exist. Perhaps you failed to notice that the author of this junk science refutation of Blanchard's theory states, "There most definitely are people for whom autogynephilic is reasonably descriptive..."

    I agree... You "don't get it". When I said that I "thought you had grown beyond that", I was referring to your seemingly compulsive analysis of everything and anything trans. Perhaps this is what your friend "N" finds so tiresome.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @aqv - I've read through the comments several times. I don't see where anyone is interpreting your comments as personal attacks. You seem to be interpreting our opinions as a personal attack on you and you are using inflammatory language to try to get us upset. When you use terms like: "uneducated tripe", drivel, limp-dicked, and "passive aggressive" to try to discredit the people you don't agree with you do nothing to support your case it just makes you look desperate. Please try to be civil.

    Lindsay

    ReplyDelete
  21. Actually I was going to say the same thing about your propensity to become angry when I propose something here that you happen to disagree with. You may have noted that the lack of concrete scientific evidence surrounding this topic makes it highly probable that people are going to have different points of view.

    I would also add that whether N finds me tiresome or not is entirely my concern as well so that's an unneccesary comment.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Uhuh. Yet you judge my comments to be angry, Why? How? Where? Can it be because my opinion of the "rationalwiki" rationale is that it is anything but rational? I noticed that you omitted my use of "BS" as an acronym for the more indelicate term, Bulls**t. I guess that is because bull s**t is a term that men use easily, comfortably and often and so you find such language more acceptable. I mean clearly, terms such as "drivel, uneducated tripe, passive aggression and limp dicked" are obviously expressions of anger. (example of high satire for the verbally challenged).

    I suppose that I should apologize for being so obtuse and insensitive for not recognizing you and the author of this blog as women. I mean how/why can I not understand that just because you live, work, act and necessarily use your male 'junk' for your own gratification that you are not a "woman" just because you say so and wear women's clothing.

    Yepp. I must be a bigoted insensitive "trans*phobe". Obviously I must be terribly insecure and threatened when I point out the fallacies, inconsistencies offered by you guys trying to "prove" that you are women. At least 'Joanna' recognizes himself as a dysphoric man and s learning to deal with that. This is a huge step in the right direction that might enable him to achieve a small amount of personal peace.

    Based on his reaction to my comments, he still has a way to go when it comes to projecting his own internalized anger onto others. I mean what am I supposed to be angry about. The only anger I have seen displayed is that anger most typical on men, displayed for all to see, when their unfounded pronouncements are questioned.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @aqv - biologically we are just am much women as you are, you've just had your "junk" inverted. We made different life choices than you did. It doesn't mean we're any less female than you or that our GD is or was any less intense than yours. Everyone handles the joys and pains of life differently. You had to have SRS to survive, we've found other solutions.

    Your ideas are only opinions. We have the right to disagree with them without being denigrated.

    Lindsay.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Yupp. And if that works for you, "Lindsey", maaaaaaa-velous, for you. The simple fact that you live, work and f**k like a man makes it beyond obvious that you are a "woman". Right? NO, wrong. You are a man. A misogynistic one at that. By claiming that you are "just as much of a woman" as I am, is just your clearly self-centric delusion.

    As a man, you could not care less how much harm such fallacious claims can cause. Why not put that pair between your legs to some useful purpose and just admit that you are a man with paraphilic transvestic tendencies. Then you can advocates for your right to "self-express" in any gender-bending manner that you choose.

    "Anonymous said...
    There are transsexuals and there are transvestites. They're not the same. Not by a country mile. Claiming we're the same demonstrates a vast willful ignorance.

    Regardless of arrogant presumptive transvestite fantasies, "class" may make a "lady", but a woman is a woman, class or no. If you like having a dick, you are a transvestite, not a woman.

    - an old aunty"

    from: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=944795231126319421&postID=6482639824620893153&isPopup=true

    ReplyDelete
  25. @aqv - so if I'm reading you correctly, you're saying to be a transsexual, you need to have had SRS. But you also say that after SRS you no longer consider yourself to be transsexual. What do you call a transsexual before SRS? If a transsexual decided not to have SRS, then she's no longer transsexual? What an interesting corundum.

    I don't think anyone here is claiming that transsexuals and transvestites are the same. I don't know of anyone who's knowledgable that does. Do you think that just because the so called transgender umbrella includes both groups it makes them the same? That seems to be a myth that is being perpetuated by you.

    I look forward to your response. Please try to reply without using profanity.

    Lindsay

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "@aqv - so if I'm reading you correctly,"

      No. You are not. You are just making things up in an effort to avoid the reality that I have made plain to you.


      "...you're saying to be a transsexual, you need to have had SRS."

      Nope. I am not saying that. You are.

      "But you also say that after SRS you no longer consider yourself to be transsexual."

      Again, these are your words not mine, although many post-op women might agree with that statement.

      "What do you call a transsexual before SRS?"

      I would call them 'transsexual', assuming they are actually changing their sex and not just getting off on the idea, like so many pseudo, false, or wanna-be's .

      "If a transsexual decided not to have SRS, then she's no longer transsexual? What an interesting corundum."

      No. Not a conundrum. An oxymoron. Transsexuals do not, cannot "decide not to have SRS". Women do not "choose" to keep an unwanted, hated, male appendage.

      Delete
  26. Sure "Lindsay". No problem except that I do not consider your question worthy of an answer. How about you answer my questions first.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @aqv - OK, I'm not sexually aroused by the thought of becoming female. So your question doesn't apply to me. I also disagree with the phrase "Gender Identity Disorder".

    Looking forward to your reply,

    Lindsay

    ReplyDelete
  28. "I'm not sexually aroused by the thought of becoming female. So your question doesn't apply to me."

    I never said it did. Yet both you and Jo both took it personally. I realize that you will no doubt deny that, but your angry reactions show otherwise.

    Try and remember that my generic question was prompted by Jo's unsubstantiated assertion that there is "no such thing as Autogynephilia ".

    ReplyDelete
  29. "Do you think that just because the so called transgender umbrella includes both groups it makes them the same? That seems to be a myth that is being perpetuated by you."

    Nope. In fact I am offended by being forcibly included in your "so called transgender umbrella". How would you feel being included in the pejorative, "white cracker", or 'racist bigot', just because you happen to be Caucasian?

    And just who is trying to "perpetuate" the myth that you are "just as much a woman as you are"? Pul-eeeese! You are making my sides hurt. ROFLMAO

    ReplyDelete
  30. I still think there is no such thing as autogynephilia because that term was invented by Ray Blanchard and along with acceptance of that term comes a whole series of pseudo scientific assumptions about transsexualism. So if we are going to call a spade a spade, I would prefer the term transvestic fetishism. Please note so that it is clear that many, many transsexuals have experienced eroticism at the idea of feminization while they were still male bodied and that most assuredly does not make them fetishists. The studies repeatedly bear this out.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I still think there is no such thing as autogynephilia because that term was invented by Ray Blanchard and along with acceptance of that term comes a whole series of pseudo scientific assumptions about transsexualism"

    I do not agree that one must totally dismiss the term, 'autogynephiliia', just because it was "invented" by someone you dislike. The term is easily translatable from its Greek origins. "Philia" = love, "auto" = self, and "gyne" woman/female. Simple translation is love of self as a female.

    Now the word 'love' is open to various interpretations: "...eroticism at the idea of feminization...", is just one that you happen to have limited yourself to. Another might be recognition of self as a female.

    And....Thank you for bringing this discussion back on topic.

    AQV

    ReplyDelete
  32. I dont dislike blanchard personally and I do not know the man. My problem is trivializing the disphoria felt by non homosexual late transitioning transsexuals into a paraphilia solely on the basis of the presence of some eroticism. Many of these transsexuals are not fetishists and yet for Blanchard they ostensably are.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "...yet for Blanchard they ostensably are."

    And...who, besides you and a bunch of trannie anarchists, really care?
    I certainly do not and neither should you. Yes. His bad ideas do have their followers and adherents, but they are not you...or me.

    They are really quite different in that they truly are in love with the image of themselves as women....and, they find that idea/image, arousing. And again....so what? Who cares? They are just one of the many varieties of gender variance or sexual proclivities thatmake p your "all-inclusive LGBTIQ rainbow umbrella.

    "True Transsexuals", or those who absolutely MUST alter their physiology to match their psyche, do so in order to enter the mainstream of society and function just as any other man or woman without any special privileges or protections.

    The only time this becomes a problem is when the two different conditions are conflated.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I would like to also avoid these battles in my comment section. Fact is that no matter how much we all vehemently argue our points there is not enough evidence which exists for anyone to score a checkmate on any of their points. If there were we would'nt see the internet full of some much conjecture and people like Blanchard gain so much ground with the psychiatric establishment. This is a highly complex issue with many many layers and in fact the only topic that interests me is where gender disphoria originates and not who is or isn't a woman.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "...where gender disphoria originates".

    Again. Why does this matter to you? It sounds like you are looking for something, anything, that will somehow absolve you of your guilt and shame.

    This 'something/anything' odes not exist outside of yourself. "Whose life is it anyway?"

    "Score(ing) a checkmate", is not the point. If that is your goal, then I will reluctantly withdraw from your "game", and concede to you your pyric victory.

    IMO, the reason that theories like Blanchard's gain so much ground is that it serves the purpose of stirring the political pot, allowing the pro-trannies such as Rose, Helms, Sandeen, Cooke, Williams, and Keisling to ply their wares. Not to mention that it enriches all involved despite the terrible toll extracted from those very people they are so loudly proclaiming to help.

    They are the Al Sharptons of the "trans-community' How "separatist" is that?

    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…