Skip to main content

where we went right, then wrong and then right again....

How did gender variance become associated with sexual deviance and mental illness?

The main reason is that sex and gender have been intrinsically linked due to the prime directive of societies which is survival through procreation. This allowed little room for variants since they did not contribute to this basic need.

In addition religious societies did not take a kind view of this kind of aberration. Anyone inclined to differ from this model would have extreme difficulty in living authentic lives; this was especially true in Judeo-Christian societies. Some ancient cultures hold some reverence for a third gender and the fate of these people has been markedly different.

The truth is that the vast majority of people expressing gender variance are intelligent and highly functional so the issue of mental illness begins to lose traction.

The question of sexual deviance was partly answered by Alfred Kinsey during his study of the sexual habits of American Society. What came out of this major work was that people had a wider range of sexual preferences and practices than previously understood. Kinsey’s work found that individual fantasies and tastes of many veered significantly from the accepted understanding of what was then considered to be normal human sexuality. His findings were published as Sexual Behavior in the Human Male in 1948, followed in 1953 by Sexual Behavior in the Human Female.

In a separate but parallel stream was the work begun by Magnus Hirschfeld in 1910 and continued by Harry Benjamin which in addition to sexuality studied gender identity. This culminated in the 1966 publishing by Benjamin of “The Transsexual Phenomenon” which raised awareness but most of all empathy for transgender and transsexual people everywhere.

Where we began to veer in the wrong direction was with the work of one particular 20th century sexologist named Kurt Freund. He was the first to employ the use of plethysmography (measurement of bloodflow to the penis) in his native Czechoslovakia as a way to have an objective measurement of sexual arousal in males. Freund used the device on sex offenders and on homosexuals and over his career, refined its use as part of his broader research on male sexual interest.

Other researchers and activists disputed this method as the best measure of orientation, pointing out that neither identity nor behavior are perfectly correlated with measured or self-reported arousal. Freund acknowledged this, and in fact demonstrated it in his studies, but maintained that orientation per se was best defined as the object of arousal.

Freund was mentor to one Ray Blanchard who took his position at the now infamous Clarke Institute in Toronto. Blanchard collaborated with Freund and formulated a similar approach only that now he was applying it in his reviewing the legitimacy of candidates for gender reassignment surgery. Blanchard's focus was now on sexual arousal as an indicator and primary driver for the desire to have such a procedure since pre-transition transsexuals, by virtue of their identity issue, sometimes experienced body conversion fantasies that one could easily exploit. The detailed questioning on the sexual fantasies of these candidates became the focus of his published work in the late 1980’s and gave birth to the much contested term “Autogynephilia”.

Blanchard’s work fell into virtual obscurity until it was picked up by Anne Lawrence in 1998 and by J Michael Bailey who in 2003 resurrected it in his book ‘The Man who would be Queen”. It understandably raised the ire of many in the transgender community due its "pull no punches" lack of tact, lack of credible science and insinuations that transgender people were basically sexual deviants.

As this work falls justifiably back into obscurity it still serves as a cautionary tale for many today.


Kurt Freund

Comments

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.

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…