Skip to main content

the death of Autogynephilia

Autogynephilia never really existed so it cannot be killed.

It wasn't something you could measure under a microscope the way a germ could be yet it tried to ascribe an exclusively sexual motive to some transitions without conclusive proof thus failing the litmus test for science.

What does exist of course is cross gender arousal which is a meeting of dysphoria with a burgeoning sexual identity. It causes confusion until the feelings can be sifted through and a way forward can be found; each path unique.

What I have concluded is that those of us who transition do so in spite of this arousal and not because of it.

The Blanchard two type model of transsexuality is also severely suspect and, the more I research this subject, the more exceptions I find leading me to think there was academic wishful thinking involved coupled with a predisposition to marginalise.

Caryn, who has offered her very perceptive commentary here before, is only one more example of someone who breaks this simplistic model along with the small but prominent sampling I featured in one of my posts. To be more specific, she was a young transitioner who wasn't clearly identifiable as being either gynephilic or androphilic.

For those still unsure, I suggest that you reflect on all of the evidence like a forensic examiner and note the missing data which prevents any form of firm conclusion that AGP was ever correct. As for myself I am beyond 100% certain that this theory was in reality a house of cards; which makes me very glad for this was my last piece of the puzzle that once past, would greatly clarify my thinking on the nature of dysphoria.


Comments

  1. I get the impression that Blanchard and his ilk operate within the same paradigm of some radical feminists. They presume that there is no such thing as a feminine identity in anyone, at least not naturally or legitimately. There are simply bodies, all of whose consciousness are basically the same, but for social experience. Bodies can have sexual compulsions, but, philosophically, a gender essence or core is just not a thing. So, it doesn't matter to them how much we protest that our experiences are different from those the impute upon us.

    I think we at least have ample evidence that there is a correlation between mind and matter And I implore anyone who doubts this proposition to drink a bottle of vodka. The human neural system might be too complex for the mind it generates to pinpoint each precise physiological correlate for each mode of consciousness, but something in our bodies correlates with our identity, even if it interacts with our culture or environment to settle into its mold. That a body can generate a gender identity is not an idea we have to strain and struggle to reach, though its detractors cling to its null hypothesis like dogma.

    As transgender people, we don't need to respond in kind. We can consider their model of mind openly, and without fear of what it would mean for us if it were true. (It wouldn't necessarily mean anything normatively.) We need only point out that any paradigm of our subjectivity that simply rejects any self reporting that contradicts it as a lie is hardly a scientific framework.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "There are simply bodies, all of whose consciousness are basically the same, but for social experience. Bodies can have sexual compulsions, but, philosophically, a gender essence or core is just not a thing" - I think that you are correct in this assumption and is why many conservatives will always argue along biological lines exclusively. The problem for me was formulating something as fact when there was lacking evidence which only makes you disingenuous. It is why I respect agnostics more than atheists because at least the former acknowledges that there is doubt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So there is no confusion, that assumption is theirs - the Blanchardites and some radical Feminists - not mine. I disagree. I think there likely is a correlation between states of mind and arrangement of matter. It's just so complex that it's difficult to pinpoint what's happening neuro-physiologically in a human body/mind. The science of doing so is in its infancy.

      Also, I happen to be an atheist myself, though I might understand the term differently from you. I do not see evidence that there is a god. This, I do not have a belief in a god. But I could always be wrong. About anything. It would not comport with the spirit of science not to admit that much. I'm always open to new evidence and arguments. But I don't think agnostic quite describes me, as to me it implies that I have no basis to make a judgment call one way or the other.

      Delete
    2. Caryn my response to you was not clear. Yes I know that this is their statement and the science is indeed in its infancy and that the relationship between the human body, consciousness and what happens in the human brain is so complex that it is very difficult to write full proof prescriptions as to how things are supposed to work. The anomalies we see every day in nature speak to that very complexity.

      Delete
    3. "We need only point out that any paradigm of our subjectivity that simply rejects any self reporting that contradicts it as a lie is hardly a scientific framework...." very well stated!

      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.

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…