plain old bad science...

The bad science of Blanchard, Lawrence and Bailey has been discredited in my eyes. It took me a while to sort through it but two critical issues and their treatment of them did the trick. Namely:

• Apparent sexualisation in prepubescent boys as young as 3 or 4 years old
• Continued identification with the female once sexualisation has waned or is wholly absent

I have read papers written by Anne Lawrence who postulates thusly:

• Points to supposed penile stimulation in very young boys as proof of sexualisation with thoughts of feminization
• Sexualisation wanes in AGPers much like the love between a couple becomes less erotic and more comfortable over time; ie. Love grows but sexual activity is reduced

On the first point:

I was once 3 years old and my memories of wanting to be feminine had nothing to do with sexuality. I enjoyed playing dress up with my sisters and wanted to wear my mother’s shoes (much to her chagrin I might add). Sexualisation came with puberty and once my lessons in socialization where wholly absorbed, my guilt and shame over my feelings began a cycle of purging and denial. I was experiencing my femininity through a male filter and this confused me to no end.

On the second point:

The gender disphoric’s persistent connection to a feminine identity in the absence or reduction of sexualisation is sufficient proof that this connection is valid and innate. In my own case this identification has actually intensified with age and I now find myself needing to live as a woman as much as possible in order to balance my mental health. This is further proof that the mistargeting or alternate orientation theory of AGP is not a valid explanation. We are not a bunch of paraphilics.

For a time, I was willing to buy into AGP theory when I was in the process of dealing with my shame and guilt. Now that these are gone, I can deal with these issues more clearly.

Over time AGP theories will be proven to be completely wrong; most especially if someone one day finds a biological marker for GID.

Comments

  1. you are looking at the "science" through the straw of your own experience. Hence, more bad science.

    ReplyDelete
  2. maybe so but I am not postulating any theories but instead saying there's more than meets the eye. All I know is that simplifying the equation for all so called autogynephiles with some weak argumentation just does'nt cut it.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

One transgender woman's take on AGP

Never Say Never....

my last post