Tuesday, 24 May 2016

Blanchard and the androphilics who support him

I find it a bit surprising when I see some androphilic transsexuals espouse the work of Ray Blanchard. One only needs to read the work carefully to understand that they are not doing themselves any favors by doing so. I suspect that they like the part about gynephilics being attracted to their own image and conveniently ignore the rest.

But just read this statement from Blanchard acolyte and CAMH sexologist James Cantor:

“Autogynephilic transsexuals tend to transition later in life (typically in their 30s or 40s), are externally unremarkable in childhood, are attracted to females, and having a more mixed adjustment after transition. Autogynephilia is extremely controversial within the transsexual community, because of the unfortunate myth that only androphilic transsexuals are "true" transsexuals, while the autogynephilic ones are just wannabes”

I have seen Blanchard’s work being defended by androphilics and they have tended to focus on what they want to hear. They consider themselves to be ‘’true’’ transsexuals and the rest are perverted men. But this is not exactly what Blanchard and his followers believe.

Anne Lawrence, a self-identifying autogynephilic transsexual and Blanchard defender, states in her writing that autogynephilic transsexualism is just as valid as ‘’homosexual transsexualism’’. Its just another typology.

In her 2004 article entitled ‘’Autogynephilia: A paraphilic model of Gender Identity Disorder" Lawrence even wrote something very honest and truthful:

“Nevertheless, it remains possible that cross-gender wishes might sometimes precede autogynephilic arousal by many years. This suggests the possibility that autogynephilia might sometimes be an effect rather than a cause of gender dysphoria. Since there is no accepted theory that explains how any erotic preference develops, one can only speculate about how gender dysphoria might lead to autogynephilia”

Of course she gives credence to the term Autogynephilia but you could just as easily just replace it with the term cross gender arousal. The point is that we don’t know where the arousal comes from but it most certainly could be the product of a gender dysphoria that is already present.

In later writings Lawrence seems to deviate from this earnest questioning and much of her time is spent trying to present Blanchard’s work in more palatable ways for gynephilics who rightfully and vehemently reject it if for no other reason than it's not science.


Sexologist James Cantor

No comments:

Post a Comment