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...


  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.

    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...

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


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Of your own making


Language matters