Skip to main content

Autogynephilia revisited

I have not written about Autogynephilia for a while because it no longer represents a topic of great concern for me but I wanted to add some clarifying notes about some of the problems I see with the theory in light of my current state of mind.

The work of Ray Blanchard studied the sexual excitation experienced by some transvestites and transsexuals and coined a term meant to describe the love of one’s own image as a woman but that is just an observed symptom and not an explanation of what is actually going on. In other words, experiencing an orgasm does not explain the desire to dress up in the first place.

He ended up classifying transsexuals into two main groups; namely autogynephilic and androphilic. The first group being woman loving and the latter being man loving.

For Blanchard it was all about sex and not necessarily about innate gender identity. You were either in love with your own image as a woman and turned on by that or conversely turned on by men and compelled to transition in order to increase your chances of finding a male partner.

Firstly, gender identity and sexual orientation are not necessarily linked. Anyone who has ever known a very masculine gay man or a very feminine lesbian can understand this. However these people are not interested in transitioning or being the other sex so there must be something else going on here.

Why are some people interested in emulating or being the sex they were not born as?

We have no answer.

But my main objection with AGP theory is that it is rooted in the observation of a desire to transition and then simply classifying according to type. That is not an explanation of why the desire exists and how it originates.

Harry Benjamin wisely did not focus on sexual drivers because he wanted to understand the origins of the transvestism and transsexuality. For him it seemed to be a symptom of the condition. Men had penises and had erections so it seemed logical to have an orgasm if you were drawn to the idea of being or imitating the opposite sex. Besides, some androphilic transsexuals were also experiencing eroticism prior to their own transitions so this was not the right line to be following.

Benjamin never succeeded in explaining the origins of transsexuality or true transvestism but he instead developed a classification system for his patients depending on their level of disconnect with their birth gender; ostensibly a gender disorientation scale.

He never understood whether the basic transsexuality created the true transvestite or whether the true transvestism developed into a desire for transition and I quoted him here recently on this very thing.

One thing is for sure in that some autogynephilic transsexuals do very well after transition and others do not. We do not know why. Anne Lawrence (Blanchard’s main disciple) is an example of an autogynephilic who has gone on to successfully transition without reservation or regret.

But many decades later, Blanchard’s work has shed no more light on the origins of gender dysphoria than Benjamin did. The main difference has been that he has focused exclusively on what he felt were sexual drivers for transitions; you were either an autogynephile attracted to your own image as a woman or a gay male desiring to attract same sex partners by becoming a woman.

Nothing mentioned about a core gender identity.

But what about the people I mentioned before whose orientation and even gender demeanour do not line up with their birth sex? Why are many of them not dysphoric? Why is a flamboyantly gay male not interested in being a woman?

There is more than meets the eye here.

Blanchard’s drafting everything in terms of sex is very simplistic and it does not resonate with my own personal experience as well as with the experiences of many others I have read about and discussed with personally over the years.

Eventually all of his work will be debunked and the work of people such as Jamie Veale, Julia Serano and others seems to be resonating with many people.

I believe it’s only a matter of time.

Comments

  1. Hi Joanna,

    It's good to see you posting again!

    I think that some people who crossdream are truly AGP per Blanchard's definition, but there are some who aren't. I have no idea what the percentages are. I was originally drawn to AGP because I thought it applied to me but it didn't take long to realize that it didn't apply to me at all. I soon realized that I was just having normal fantasies for someone of my gender.

    I don't think I'm even a cross dreamer. It's seems to be redundant (actually a double negative?) for someone who's transsexual, and probably a lot of other transgendered, to think of themselves in this way. They are just having healthy fantasies for their gender.

    Lindsay

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have a lot of problems with the theory all around Lindsay. Sexual fantasies are different for everyone and we all masturbate over different things. Human sexuality is so utterly complex that is far too simplistic to draw up an all encompassing theory to explain late transitioning heterosexual people. Blanchard's work is junk science.

    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…