Skip to main content

We like our certainty

I’ve been fascinated by the idea of labeling of late. We all seem very interested in understanding ourselves as people so by knowing what category we belong to we are somehow comforted.

However labeling is a double edged sword and things are not always as clear cut as they seem.

For example, when Ray Blanchard was doing his work with pre-op transsexuals he found that roughly 15% of his androphilic (man loving) group was experiencing what he was terming autogynephilia. Anne Lawrence (one of his principal acolytes) confirmed this herself in a series of interviews conducted in the early 2000’s with a significant group of pre-op and post op transsexuals. You can find segments of these interviews and emails on her website.

But why did this occur and why was there no definitive pattern to Blanchard’s typologies? Because real life does not work like that and the theories postulated to explain certain behaviours in transsexuals were in the end too simplistic.

I found it odd when reading the writings of Anne Lawrence that she was a keen adopter of Blanchard’s work and gleefully self identified as an AGPer but then successfully transitioned and continues to live life happily as a woman. Does that even make sense?

If, as Blanchard postulated, Lawrence was a fetishist male who was in love with her own image as a woman why was her surgery even approved? Was she not more like the regret filled Renee Richards who now calls herself an intense CD who would have benefited from better drugs and psychoanalysis?

For Blanchard, Anne Lawrence is actually a man who fantasized and masturbated about becoming a female; however the end result was a happier Anne Lawrence after surgery. This does not make sense to me at all because if you are actually a man then you should not desire to have the surgery in the first place and this is all fetish based then why not just simply dress up as a woman to your heart’s content?

As I quoted Lynn Conway saying a few posts ago, all of this is more complicated than meets the eye.

Then we have de transitioners like Philip Porter who lived successfully for 26 years as a female only to go off female hormones and then realize he wanted to be a man again. Porter fit the perfect profile of a very feminine and early transitioning androphilic and yet he is happily (in his fifties) living life as a gay man.

Things are indeed not that simple and there are always exceptions to what we think should be the rules. But people want explanations and they want certainty. It’s more comforting to know that you are a normal male or female and not something in between so we look for definitive answers where none actually exist.

Human sexuality and gender expression are exceedingly complex concepts.

I have been trying to find answers to my own behaviour my entire life with no success but I carry on with a lack of certainty regarding an origin which no longer really matters to me.

Life is what it is and, more often than not, it defies definition or explanation.
Anne Lawrence

Comments

  1. Definitions provide certainty and thee is a level of comfort that one can find in the certainty of a definition but trying to force a label onto something that does not fit exactly is like trying to force a size 10 foot into a siz3 8 shoe only more difficult because both definitions and people change.
    In some ways society is coming to understand that having the gray areas between hard catagories is a good thing but in other ways we seek hard definitions.
    People change their desires and inclinations as well as their positions all the time and in many ways. As I kid I would not eat fish or veggies. That is not the same today. People even change their politics.
    Pat

    ReplyDelete
  2. In human affairs (unlike the sciences) life is a series of greys instead of absolutes and every time you think you have found perfect consistency to some element of human behaviour you soon find evidence that your theory was wrong.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

prejudice disguised as objective rectitude

So here is Professor Jordan Peterson perhaps justly calling out the excesses of political correctness gone mad. But then he extends it to not indulging transgender people the basic dignity of being addressed in their preferred pronoun. To do so for him would cost nothing and to stand on literal principle seems to serve little use other than to send a message of disdain.

If you have transitioned or even live as the opposite gender is costs me nothing to address you in your preferred pronouns. What difference does it make to me and what am I trying to tell you when I don't?

Peterson wants to stand on his rights to call reality what it is except that in this case the exact objective escapes me. But of course the right wing Federalist is in love with him because he calls a spade a spade.

If I see a rock I can call it that but then the rock doesn’t have any feelings. To address a transgender woman "her" and "she" is not undermining my rights as a person in any way b…

"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…