Skip to main content

make up your mind

If being transgender is all about an aberrant sexual drive then why does declining testosterone (the hormone responsible for libido) not affect our cross gender identification as we age?

The answer might be as simple as: maybe because there is more to being transgender.

However, Anne Lawrence, a proponent of Autogynephilia in her 2007 essay titled "Becoming What We Love" tries very hard to defend her case:

“Blanchard (1991) described this phenomenon in nonhomosexual MtF transsexuals: “In later years, however, autogynephilic sexual arousal may diminish or disappear, while the transsexual wish remains or grows even stronger. . . . It is therefore feasible that the continuing desire to have a female body, after the disappearance of sexual [i.e.,erotic] response to that thought, has some analog in the permanent love-bond that may remain between two people after their initial strong sexual attraction has largely disappeared” (p. 248). This insight plausibly explains the reports by some non-homosexual MtF transsexuals that they no longer experience sexual arousal to the idea or reality of being female but still feel a comforting “nonsexual” (i.e., non-erotic) affectional bond to the idea or reality of being female and living as women. If these transsexuals were to misunderstand autogynephilia as a purely erotic phenomenon, they might erroneously conclude that their continuing attraction to being female had nothing to do with autogynephilia”

The first error is to presume there is such a thing as AGP and the term is used here as if it is a given without providing proof. The second is the attempt to try and remain within the AGP model by associating the declining sexual component with what happens to romantic love after many years. To which I would respond: make up your mind, your impetus is either based on an erotic phenomenon or it isn’t. But they try and make AGP malleable enough so we can remain firmly rooted in sexual aberrance as the cause for thinking we are transgender; nice try but it's not so simple.

This is the a bait and switch game of inventing a condition which drives transitions instead of pre-existing gender dysphoria driving identity which then causes the post pubescent arousal. Anyway it's all pure conjecture because no one has any proof and none can be offered.

The first hurdle is you need to conclusively prove that AGP exists which is impossible. But by talking about 3 year olds with erections and losing eroticism with age maybe they hope no one will notice that it's all a shell game.

Fail.


Comments

  1. It's all so silly. The maneuvering they must do to keep the hypothesis viable actually renders it unfalsifiable. No evidence can possibly undermine it. Thus, people who understand how science actually works do not bother taking AGP proponents seriously.

    I remember when I first read of it, I thought, okay, so some trans people have cross sex arousal, and for those that do, it's just a part of their trans experience. This was a liberating revelation for me. Then I kept reading.

    I'm not sure what to do with the hypothesis that if a person who has cross sex arousal that is the person's one and only cause of building up a female identity, even if the female identity predates puberty because some toddlers can have erections and that gynephilic transsexuals have actually fallen in love with their own image instead of a woman outside their own heads and pair bond with themselves romantically and that any non-exclusIvely androphilic trans woman who says this does not comport with her subjective experience is lying. Except to dismiss it as apologetic babble by people so invested in their own idea they can't listen to anything that counters it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The most laughable thing about AGP is that it hangs its premise on the existence of arousal. There is arousal ergo there is false identification and transition. If it considers an alternate route everything falls like a house of cards. They have the most trouble with our early years and our later ones because those are the ones that grate against their case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A mind sufficiently invested in a belief can go to almost any lengths to convince itself that the belief is compatible with whatever other facts might undermine it.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

how times change

How times have changed.

Whereas transition was something not to even contemplate for us, here is a young trans person who felt the opposite pressure. She looks and sounds extremely passable but decided it wasn't for her despite the social media presence of young transitioners potentially inspiring her to.

We are all different and I happen to think she's rather a smart cookie as well...


indoctrination

As transgender people, organized religion hasn't really been our friend however on the other hand it has often had little to do with true spirituality. I needed to learn this over time and much of what I was taught growing up was steeped in the judgmental superstition of society instead of what some creator would demand of me.

Regardless of your belief system, you are a child of the universe and have been endowed with uniqueness and goodness of spirit. You have probably never wished anyone ill will and you have tried your best to live within the absurd coordinate system of humanity. Yet somehow belonging to the LGBT community was entirely your fault.

As I have grown older this inherent irrationality became increasingly evident to me. I knew I was a fundamentally good person and yet I was different in a way which was not of my choosing. Hence with this comprehension my self appreciation and esteem grew in proportion.

Religion for me today seems forever trapped in the misinterpretat…

let's please read carefully

This post is prompted by a recent comment I received to one of my older posts and I wanted to address it.

I used to wonder why some transgender people accepted Blanchard’s work until I think I figured out why: they may not have examined it closely enough. They would experience cross gender arousal and then accept it was Autogynephilia without properly understanding what the term meant and what the theory said: it is an invented sexual “illness” which makes people transition. In other words, it is the arousal itself which causes this desire and not a pre-existing gender identity which does not align with birth sex. Of course, Blanchard has no explanation for the origin of his proposed “illness” only that it is a form of sexual deviance.

My counter proposal? we transition despite this arousal. In other words, the transgender identity is pre-existing and the arousal is the result of the mismatching of burgeoning sexual feelings towards females and this misaligned identity; it is not per…