It's more like I want someone to want me, and maybe make love to me, and not just throw up and run a mile when I eventually pull my pants down, so I'd better eventually get that thing sorted out to make it a more socially acceptable receptacle for them, and make it actually work for me at the same time.
I am sure you are right about this. I dream of having a female body, being accepted as a woman and loved as a woman, but I must admit that the genitalia part is not that important. For Anne Lawrence this is clearly a big deal, and she has made the mistake of believing all crossdreamers are exactly like her. Most are not.
(Not that there is anything wrong in dreaming about having a vagina, mind you...)
And the trouble with us all ending up like He-man or Jessica Rabbit is, well Jessica Rabbit is very sexy and all, but probably kinda flimsy, and probably quite preoccupied with keeping her hair in good condition or having her finger nails well taken care of
She was "drawn that way", remember? She is the only woman in the world that does not have to worry about her looks ;)
There is nothing wrong with this quote, except this A word. But I'm cofused now, should paraphilia be celebrated? Is it paraphilia (with non-erotic components) at al
For me it becomes impossible to celebrate a paraphilia. Our dreams and identities are placed in the same category as necrophilia and pedophilia, and although I may feel empathy for people having those feelings, I am not capable of celebrating them. At the moment you buy the idea that what we feel is a sexual perversion and a mental illness, you have lost.
What we really need is deep psychological research about transgender people. We can learn a lot about humans in general, studying crossdreamers, from deep introspections that sheds some light on fundamental forces in psyche.
I agree. And this is the part where I actually miss old fashioned Freudian psychoanalysis. Freud and Jung learned so much about their clients by talking to them. Today, it seems,clinical spcyhology is more about classification, positive conditioning and pills.
I corresponded with Dr. Lawrence. I told her that I had been a long time crossdreamer (the word didn't exist then), but large parts of my experience didn't fit at all with Blanchard's theories. She sent me back an email where it was very clear that she was putting her own spin on everything I said to fit into Blanchard's theory.
She noted that I looked surprisingly feminine (she actually used the word “striking”) for such a late transitioner so early into transition. She suggested that I might not be autogyne transsexual at all. Rather I might be a “type 1” or “true sexual”. According to her, I might be just highly effeminate gay man who had been so highly repressed that (he) had ended up living a heterosexual and masculine appearing life.
This is interesting. Blanchard would never have said this, that's for sure, because she violates the basic premise that all transgender women who have loved women have to be an autogynephile. Here she is actually repeating Jaimie Veale's theory of identity repression, which states that some MTF transgender repress their love for men because of internalized homophobia.
She is clearly struggling, though, because you are not the only "autogynephile" that looks feminine. If you follow the various transgender youtube vloggers, you will have a hard time separating the androphilic from the gynephilic/bisexual based on looks.
I am surprised they haven't given up on this idea that you can use looks and mannerisms to distinguish one category from the other. It reminds me of local Norwegian researchers who used military recruit statistics to stort the Norweigan population into Germaic Longsculls and Alpine Broadsculls. Sure, you can use observations and measurements to do so, but the divide does not tell you anything about the qualities of Norwegians.
So how does that ‘prove’ that heterosexual (ie female attracted) trans women have AGP but homosexual (male attracted ones) do not?????And where does this 'homsoexual transsexuals NEVER have AGP fantasies' come from? The results clearly show many do.That's his own damn published results....
I suspect that some of the reasons Blancahrd has gotten away with this are:
1. His clan have their own periodical (Archives) where friends "peer review" your papers
2. Most researchers do not really read the papers that thoroughly, and even if they do, they are obliged to refer to previous research when writing about "autogynephilia"
3. Given that Blanchard's theory has become the starting point for all research on "autogynephilia" (Veale's included), his terminology and classification steer their research in a particular direction. They are forced to debate the issue on his terms.
4. Non-researchers who refer to his research has never read his papers. All they need to know is that autogynephilia is a perversion and that scientists have said so. (Note, for instance, how many of the TERFs and religious fanatics refer to "autogynephilia" as a fetish, even if Blanchard has explicitly said that this is NOT a feitsh.)