Skip to main content

an old broken record

Kay Brown runs a site that purports to be science based and she regales in citing statistics about who is attracted to whom or what and how early or late people transition. It is also clearly focused on making favorable distinctions towards homosexual transsexuals at the expense of heterosexual transsexuals perhaps because Ms. Brown happens to be one of the former as well as an advocate of Blanchard's two type model of transsexualism.

I had not visited in ages and yet I was not surprised to see her continued support for Autogynephilia which is really just a rebranding of cross gender arousal and giving it one sole and exacting purpose.

For those still not in the know (although I can’t imagine there are many of you left) this theory uses sleight of hand to basically state that all heterosexual transsexuals transition solely due to their erotic attraction to the idea of converting themselves physically into women. Ostensibly this means that their motivation comes from a perverse form of sexuality instead of an earnest attempt to reconcile with what they believe to be a true core gender identity.

Of course this is not exactly provable and yet Ms. Brown continues to emphatically insist it is undeniable truth while removing possible commentary from those who might respectfully disagree.

Yet it is not particularly hard to inspire doubt in this theory:

1) Is there such a thing as cross gender arousal? absolutely

2) Is it possible that the eroticism experienced is a symptom of pre-existing gender dysphoria? Of course (even Anne Lawrence freely admits this)

3) Is it possible that there are other drivers besides cross gender arousal involved in a decision to transition? positively

Hence we are at a stalemate unless someone sends me something other than statistics on what turns transsexuals on.

It’s actually hard to believe that a young smart transgender person would base an important decision such as a transition solely on sexual feelings and I would like to think they are using a broader range of criteria which most importantly includes whether it will make them happy.

Those of us who are older were more likely to have fallen victim to its spell and indeed Anne Lawrence (its biggest proponent and admitted sufferer) has tried hard to sell the idea to a trans community who thinks there is considerably more to being transgender than a fetish. As a retort, well-informed activists like Julia Serano have done a very thorough job at finding the fissures in its structure.

But even if this theory (and it is still officially considered that last time I checked) were somehow correct and it turned out that gynephilic transsexuals were happier post-surgery then that would be sufficient motivation. The problem for me is Ms. Brown's insistence that its all based on irrefutable evidence which leaves her looking disingenuous because, as I have shown in my points above, the theory cannot be resolutely proven without the perfect magnifying glass into someone's brain.

Nevertheless, it's looking like Autogynephilia is well poised to die out with the baby boomers who created and propagated it so it doesn't concern me all that much, however intellectual dishonesty does and I like to correct it when I see it most especially if it makes another transgender person suffer.

Fortunately for gynephilic gender dysphorics like me (and I suspect most of you), we have been afforded the ability to think with our brains as well as our penises.

Now please read Rachel the trans philosopher's take on AGP which I think has much merit...

https://transphilosopher.com/2017/02/28/autogynephilia-the-gift-that-keeps-on-giving/

Comments

  1. I've thought about your post for a couple of hours this morning and find the subjects, both of Autogynephilia and Kay Brown very interesting. I completely agree that Blanchard et al are entirely incorrect in their theory and, like Trump, try to skew their data and observations to support their assertions. Not very scientific.

    But regarding Ms. Brown, I don't really care if she thinks that she transitioned solely because she is gay and finds her transition erotic. I wonder if she still does. Perhaps she feels compelled to adamantly say that since otherwise she'd have to admit something else? We'll probably never know.

    I read that she is married andI wonder what her husband thinks. Does he think he is homosexual, while married to Kay a transwoman?

    In the end most (I almost wrote "all") agree that Blanchard is both harmful and way out of line, and his pseudoscience will go the way of the dodo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. just to clarify Emma: androphilics do not experience eroticism (or at least very few do) versus a larger number of gynephilics that do. However, Blanchard still made everything about sex by stating that androphilics were simply homosexual men in search of heterosexual partners as impetus for transition. My point in all this is that the two-type model is overly simplistic and makes assumptions with insufficient knowledge to back it up. Go back and read about Kurt Freund to understand the origin...

      Delete
    2. Thanks Joanna, for your clarification. I will go back and study more. :-) At least you know my heart's in the right place!

      Delete

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.

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…