#1 [url]

Mar 24 17 1:09 AM

I see that she is using the terms "androphilic" and "non-androphilic" now as opposed to Blanchard's "homosexual transsexual". I guess someone have told her that even in this day and age you should at least try to hide that you are a bigot.

Have you read the paper?

Quote    Reply   

#2 [url]

Mar 24 17 3:41 PM

*groans* Anne Lawrence. I had her work thrown in my face round about 2004 - that was 13 years ago and I still have a visceral reaction. The thing is that here was an example from our community, supposedly well educated, and proposing all sorts if stupid shit that bore little resemblance to me own experience. I read it thinking she had some insights for me - wow did I get a surprise. :(

Quote    Reply   

#5 [url]

Mar 26 17 2:53 PM

Well I guess I'm just confused then.

If at 16 I first visit Fictionmania.tv or equivalent and read any of various stories about a man reluctantly turning into a woman to get off, that makes me autogynephilic, non-homosexual, even if the story is just about puberty-related secondary physical changes and novel social rather than sexual situations?
http://www.oocities.org/westhollywood/Heights/8603/bates.html

I even went as far as buying stuff like this: https://www.giantbomb.com/soulsim/3010-12783/
image
Though I don't remember actually playing it much, and then I kept that CD hidden away for years. I wonder whether it still works..

If at 23, when I think I've put most of that really 'weird' stuff I did as a teenager behind me, and I make my first trip across the Atlantic for a conference, and while I've mostly got my head firmly buried in computers, well the idea still pops up that if I happened to turn down the wrong corridor in the mall and come face to face with a certain store named 'Spells R Us' well it wouldn't exactly be the worst thing that could happen to me. I would still dump everything else right now and just go and live my life as a girl given half a chance. 
image

If at 29 I'm away on holiday and I stay up late chatting with an older guy, and when he gets up to leave and I realise he's left his wallet behind and I go and try to get it back to him and the thought somehow bubbles up in my head, "you know, if a certain someone were to invite me back to their room right now I probably wouldn't say no..", am I still a non-homosexual fetishist? 

If at 31 things start to go a bit haywire physically and socially, and the towing hooks of the cars in front seem to somehow sort of remind me of penises, and I start projecting all these things at other people which I eventually realise are rather misplaced hypergamous pair-bonding instincts kicking in, like going to the wedding of someone else, whose actually a few years younger than me, and slipping off somewhere quiet to cry because it should really just be my turn already and I'm already physically getting a bit 'past it', well that's still just a misplaced male based desire to eroticise myself as a member of the opposite sex?

Could it not be that I'm really about 95% neurologically female but just slightly bisexual? I mean, a lot of girls are actually pretty cool in their own way you know... and even the ones as outwardly feminine looking and acting as Portia de Rossi aren't always entirely straight, but don't necessarily work things out for themselves until their late 20s or later. 
image

Can't I just rather get turned on by older men and still admire younger women at the same time?
Just because I was far more into computers than I was into teenage boys when I was 16 I don't count?
image
By an insane software engineer??
image

Last Edited By: Xora Mar 29 17 6:48 AM. Edited 4 times.

Quote    Reply   

#6 [url]

Mar 26 17 11:42 PM

If you are Anne Lawrence the answer to all your questions is "Yes". Whatever you feel that does not fit their binary is "pseudo-something-or-the-other". You are lying to us or you are lying to yourself. Their theory is full of "epicycles"

On the other hand, if you are not Anne Lawrence something wonderful happens. You suddenly see the complexity and diversity of human nature, and you see that nature really does not like boxes and binaries. Instead i mixes and remixes genes, drives, desires and ideas with abandon, creating new and wonderful combinations in every new creation. That is what evolution is really about, as I see it. Diversity, not a narrow path to evolutionary superiority (which among evolutionary psychologist is the hypermasculine man and the hyperfeminine woman)

The end result of the wonderful journey Blanchard, Bailey and Lawrence imagine will probably be something like this:

 image

image

Anyone who stops us from realizing this potential are evolutionary unfit perverts, according to their approach.

What you say about sexual attraction to both men and women makes perfect sense to me. Men and women are not two separate species. Our genome is the combination of genes from a woman and a man. No wonder our feelings are not clear cut and boxed in stereotypes.

The stereotypes are products of the mind, not of nature.

By the way, did you know that one of the most popular search terms for staight men looking for porn refers to the male sex organ?  I am just saying...

Quote    Reply   

#7 [url]

Mar 26 17 11:57 PM

Society promotes gender polarization. What is for men is not for women and vice versa. I doubt anything really necessary or innate, but something we police in others and ourselves. I think this is fairly obvious, or haters wouldn't be hatin'.

Quote    Reply   

#8 [url]

Mar 27 17 12:02 AM

Society also, is no more or less of a natural constraint on diversity than any other selection pressure. Lets win though, right everyone? We're clearly the next step in evolution, here to replace the older, out of date models. That's just our secret agenda though, we'll be all nice about it up front.

Quote    Reply   

#9 [url]

Mar 27 17 3:37 AM

It's only people like Anne Lawrence that actually fetishize their having a vagina, I actually don't.
http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/anne-lawrence-experiences.html
I mean, I don't think I'd mind, and I'm not that emotionally attached to what I have at the moment, but I don't spend hours and hours trying to imagine what it ought to look like, which is something s/he clearly did pre-transition. Honestly the actual sight of genitals of either configuration doesn't really do that much for me, I'm more into the feeling of what the result of their combination would probably be, than what they actually look like in isolation.
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.

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, so her kind can only really survive in more densely populated areas that can support showgirls and trophy wives, rather than the more robust kind of women you really need for working in the fields, keeping things clean and making clothes, or doing that other thing women are generally known for, like actually carrying their children for 9 months...
That really is just a man's idea of what an idea woman should be like, rather than a real woman's target body image.
That's a rich man's sexual-selection fantasy, not the target of a genuine evolutionary process.

Last Edited By: Xora Mar 27 17 4:35 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#10 [url]

Mar 28 17 2:31 AM

Oh, and this..
image
That about sums it up. You can't exactly expect me to go through the 'exotic becomes erotic' psychological stage as a teenager when I'm stuck in a single-sex school and just trying to get through one day at a time without being singled out and humiliated. http://popsych.org/is-the-exotic-erotic-probably-not/
The last thing I'm gonna do is think that most boys are anything less than a menace to be avoided, even if I still think I am one, or probably ought to be one.
Like this stuff is already confusing enough, OK!

Last Edited By: Xora Mar 28 17 2:48 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#11 [url]

Mar 28 17 3:48 AM

jackmolay wrote:
If you are Anne Lawrence the answer to all your questions is "Yes". Whatever you feel that does not fit their binary is "pseudo-something-or-the-other".
You are lying to us or you are lying to yourself. Their theory is full of "epicycles"

 

Ooh, I like epicycles, not that I still subscribe to a geo-centric model of the solar system, but I had a lot of fun with a spirograph growing up.
(I can't believe we've started having the 'flat earth' debate all over again on YouTube nowadays. I thought the old http://www.talkorigins.org/ debate was bad enough, but this is just getting ridiculous.)
image

I actually wanted one of these, that I used to see in the Argos catalogue, but that would probably have been pushing things a bit beyond what my dad would have been comfortable with.
image

Of course, I had to buy it myself second-hand at as school fete, and it was already missing a few parts, but still it worked quite well..
Then when I got into BASIC programming as a teenager one of the few slightly interesting things I wrote was a spirograph type program. 
You'd give it 3 or 4 parameters, set it going, and see what it came up with, very primitive, but our computer 'science' education never got much beyond QBasic and Microsoft Access at that stage. 
You'd have to stay after school if you wanted to try your hand at using Visual Basic 5.0. and what's that stupid Java thing ever going to be used for anyway, you should obviously just learn C++ if you are at all serious about it, but not till you get to university, as it's not on the curriculum..
Then when I actually got to university, they wanted to start all over again with Pascal and Delphi, and nobody really taught me any C++ beyond a few bits of the STL.
So I'm still none the wiser beyond what I gleaned from reading this while on holiday in 2005 or therabouts. So don't ask me to write you a new operating system, I wouldn't have a clue..
image

It's not fair though, I never got to play with the LOGO turtle we had at primary school, or the BBC buggy thingy, those things seemed to be just for show, look at all the cool technology that we have sitting on a shelf at parents evenings, oh, but it's far to valuable to actually be used by the students in any lessons.
image

image

We've actually got a copy of this book on a shelf somewhere. Inherited from my grandparents. It's actually pretty cool, but I dunno if it's really worth $400.
Poly-Cyclo-Epicycloidal and Other Geometric Curves http://www.richardneylon.com/Gallery/Alabone7905.htm
image
Now that's what I'm talking about.. Why can't we make any really cool stuff like that any more?
image

Last Edited By: Xora Mar 30 17 2:03 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#12 [url]

Mar 28 17 9:05 AM

If I understand Anne Lawrence correctly, she argues that there are some non-erotic components in paraphilias, and under this banner she tries to fit all diverse life stories into one single category: paraphilia. Even if for some people it's about gender, not about sexuality, it's still a paraphilia!

The same Anne Lawrence also writes:

When we recognize and honor the autogynephilic feelings within ourselves, we do not declare ourselves sick or debased. Rather, we affirm that a life built on passion and authenticity is truly a life worth living.

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 all? It's more likely, that we have an incredibly complex phenomenon, that comes with some manifestations in sexuality. Max Moris argues, that Anne Lawrence didn't go full way and stopped at the point, where most interesting things start to reveal. (Felix writes about Morris's essay here: http://transcendmovement.com/sexual-origins-of-transgender/). I think, it's because if she had made this step forward, all A.. theory would simply fall.

Maybe this is inevitable, when sexologists start to study something that do not belog entriely to sexology, they nevertheless try to fit all the complexity and diversity into two tiny boxes: "homosexual" or ... "non-homosexual".

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. We can learn a lot from different clusters in transgender spectrum. Xora described well one of such clusters. Spirograph, Turbo Basic, C++ with and without STL, even Delphi are things from my life. But what makes us similar in thhis area? And what maks us so different in other areas, maybe QBasic vs Turbo Basic? :) I'm joking now, but there is a seed of serious question here.

I think that only after good psychological basis is set, here should come sexologists, so they would be without temptation to make simple solutions. This simple answers is hurtful on many levels. I want to stress only one: A.. model discourages self-discovery and introspection, even if in not so obvious manner. "You have paraphilia with some non-erotic components, be cool about that. Period.".

 

Quote    Reply   

#13 [url]

Mar 28 17 2:25 PM

Anne Lawrence is the mistress of repackaging, when it comes to having narratives fit into her theories. When she first jumped on Blanchard's bandwagon, almost 20 years ago, I initially became fascinated by what she was posting on her website. At least she was talking about things that sounded like they could fit into my own experience. Up to that point, the Benjamin Standards had pretty much dominated all treatment of transgender people, and those standards essentially avoided the whole topic of sexuality. Sex was something to be discovered a few years after one becomes post-op, and it shouldn't be on one's mind at all prior to that. In other words, there was no sex in the word "transsexual" in those days.

Well, Lawrence started talking about sex in the context of being transgendered, and I am thinking that finally I have found somebody who gets who I am. Therefore I was completely amazed at the intense controversy that quickly arose during the whole discussion of Lawrence's ideas. It was only later that I began to understand the underlying theoretical framework behind it all. My experiences were real enough, and apparently shared by many others, but Blanchard's theory about it all is complete bunk.

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. My first thought was that I hadn't written my narrative clearly enough, so I wrote her again, trying to lay things out more clearly in a different format. She didn't respond to me that 2nd time, but subsequently she included both of my emails in her published narratives. They appear as two separate people giving separate accounts. I am not sure if Dr. Lawrence did that by accident, confusing my emails as coming from two different people, or she did it deliberately to increase her pool of narratives.

Regardless, the whole discussion on autogynephiia side tracked me for a number of years in terms of me dealing with my own transgender issues. About 3 years ago, while early in my transition, I decided to reach out to Dr. Lawrence again. I reminded her that she had used my emails in her narratives, and sent her some pictures of me. I also told her of what happened to me over the intervening years and how poorly it all fit with the autogynephilia model. Her response was interesting. 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. It was at that moment that it dawned on that these people will recast any narrative and shoe horn it to fit into their theories. This is absolutely the junkiest of junk science.

Quote    Reply   

#14 [url]

Mar 28 17 4:20 PM

You have to remember that AGP went from affecting a small subset of trans women to now covering 90% (Kay Brown says 99%). I call this 'AGP inflation'.

But lets go back to basics to what AGP is actually defined as, here are the actual tests Blanchard used (notice the duplications, causing score infaltion and the errors)..

Core Autogynephilia Scale
1 Have you ever become sexually aroused while picturing yourself having a nude female body or with certain features of the nude female form? Yes (1); No (0); Have never pictured this (0).
Items 2-6: If you have answered "yes" above, which of the following statements were also true?
2. You became sexually aroused while picturing your nude female breasts. Yes (I); No (0); Have never pictured yourself with nude female breasts (0).
3. You became sexually aroused while picturing your nude female buttocks. Yes (1); No (0); Have never pictured yourself with nude female buttocks (0).
4. You became sexually aroused while picturing your nude female legs. Yes (1); No (0); Have never pictured yourself with nude female legs
5.You became sexually aroused while picturing your nude female genitals (private parts). Yes (1); No (0); Have never pictured yourself with nude female genitals (0).
6. You became sexually aroused while picturing your female face. Yes (1); No (0); Have never pictured yourself with a female face (0).
 
7. Which of the following pictures of yourself has been most strongly associated with sexual arousal? As a nude woman (1); As a woman dressed only in underwear, sleepwear, or foundation garments (for example, a corset) (1); As a fully clothed woman (1); Have never become sexually aroused while picturing yourself as a woman (0); Have never pictured yourself as a woman (0).
8. Have you ever been sexually aroused by the thought of being a woman? Yes (1); No (0)
 
Autogynephilic Interpersonal Fantasy Scale
12. Which of the following pictures of yourself has been most strongly associated with sexual arousal? As a woman who is alone and in private (I) (0); As a woman who is being admired by another person (1); Have never become sexually aroused while picturing yourself as a woman (0); Have never pictured yourself as a woman (0)
9.  Have you ever become sexually aroused while picturing yourself as a woman in the nude being admired by another person? Yes (1); No (0); Have never pictured this (0).
10. Have you ever become sexually aroused while picturing yourself as a woman dressed only in female underwear, sleepwear, or foundation garments (for example, corset) being admired by another person? Yes (1); No (0); Have never pictured this (0).
11. Have you ever become sexually aroused while picturing yourself as a fully dressed woman being admired by another person? Yes (1); No (0); Have never pictured this (0).


Note their conclusion that if you EVER had a non zero score in this then no matter what your other (perhaps the vast majority) of sexual fantaises and even experiences were about, then you are AGP.
Plus, having this just once, ever...even if it was 20 years ago and you were drunk...means you are AGP.
The issue of intesity and ferquency doesn't come into Blanchard's  interpretation, it is a pure binary, contradicting the actual  test used which has a spectrum of results.

Now lets look at Blachards actual scores (min score 0, max score 8).
  HomoAsexualHeteroBisexTotal
Transsexual Sample 117181958212
  55.2%8.5%9.0%27.4% 
Core AutoSD3.013.22.912.71 
 S29.060110.248.46817.3441 
 SS1060.032184.32160.8939425.9578 
 X2.1745.325.88       3.62
 CV139%80%55%46% 
Ok, two things are apparent, how few 'heterosexual' trans women there are....Plus though the mean values (X) show a fair difference, the coefficients of variance for the 'homosexual' trans women is huge. Which means a very wide variation in scores. In fact many 'homosexual' trans women will have higher scores than the so called 'heterosexual ones'.The statistical test used was NOT valid for varying samples sizes (especially of that magnitude), in fact another one should have been chosen.However despite that the results did NOT show that hetero/asexuals/bisexuals could be grouped together.

Then the other AGP test
Interpersonal Fantasy AGP TestSD1.67 1.37 1.47 1.12 
 X1.98 1.33 1.95 3.38       2.31
 CV84% 103% 75% 33% 

Notice the lack of difference between the 'homosexuals' and 'heterosexuals'...... The only odd result is for bisexuals, so odd you would question it.And, even using the incorrect statistical test in fact Homosexuals, heterosexuals and asexuals clustered together. So AGP test #1 showed a lot of homosexuals had AGP fantasies and that hetero/asexuals/bisexuals could not be grouped together…
AGP test #2 showed the  homosexuals had the same rate of fantasy as the heterosexuals and asexuals and that those 3 could be grouped together.

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....

Notice nothing in the study about age of comining out (the 'late onset' nonsense)...so where does this'conclusion about 'older trans women all being AGP' come from apart from their fertile imaginaiton that is?

I wouldn't have gotten away with this sort of crap as a physics undergraduate..... 

Quote    Reply   

#15 [url]

Mar 28 17 11:31 PM

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 ;)
image
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.



 image
 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.)

Quote    Reply   

#16 [url]

Mar 29 17 2:54 AM

A real woman, or a real techy? https://ngendr.org.uk/2017/03/06/real-woman/
image


Lost friends, family, and 150 Lbs while changing my sex! http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1247787
image


Oh, and as I'm kinda 'red-pilled' I like this one too: http://blog.jim.com/culture/lancelot-guinevere-romance-and-the-red-blue-purple-black-and-white-pills/
image

Coz I know how bitchy I could be, how little I really care about men, if I let it all out, and maybe NAWALT but this one surely is..
It's really so much more like you want to be wanted by them than it is that you actually want them, if that makes any sense at all.
So why isn't there anyone around to properly rein me in when I need them to?
Oh Lord, please just protect me from the consequences of my actions, or my inaction, or whatever..

Last Edited By: Xora Mar 29 17 4:04 AM. Edited 2 times.

Quote    Reply   

#17 [url]

Mar 29 17 9:29 AM

Jack, I think Dr. Lawrence is indeed struggling. That's probably why she sort of retired and went rather quiet for a while. She is probably more vilified in the trans community than either Blanchard or Bailey because she is one of our own.

And you are also right that Blanchard won't go to places that Lawrence might be willing to explore at this point. While following Blanchard's tweets, I have been struck by his determination to stick faithfully to his original theoretical framework without any modifications. I would have thought that the overwhelming evidence against him would have caused him to adjust pieces of his theory in order to attempt to preserve the whole, but Blanchard is an incredible ego maniac who just can't let go of anything that he has previously written. I recall somebody recently asking him if there are any "homosexual" transsexuals that experience self arousal, and his response essential was no. Yet I know personally two MtFs who have been exclusively into men, who will say otherwise. Blanchard I believe treats his writings as if they are universal truths equivalent to religious dogma that he likes to expose from up high.

On the other hand, Lawrence has to actually live in the trans community that so detests her. I agree with you; I believe that she originally universalized her own experience and projected that on the entire trans community when she became Blanchard's devoted disciple. But she has read and heard way too much at this point. I think she is trying to salvage her image in the trans community at the same time trying to preserve some elements of the snake oil she has hitched her reputation to.

Quote    Reply   

#18 [url]

Mar 29 17 11:23 AM

"Jaimie Veale's theory of identity repression, which states that some MTF transgender repress their love for men because of internalized homophobia"

Oh yes, I did that. I classify myself as bisexual and about 75% female attracted ans 25% male attracted. I actually, long before I even became a part timer, had sex with men as a man. After I went part time I did more of that and I did struggle with it for awhile. But I did come to terms in the end , especially after I transitioned.

So I understand those others who do as well.

I suspect this is behind the phenomena of trans women apparently 'switching' sexuality when they transition (and also many trans men doing the same by the way), it has always been there just suppressed (except maybe in fantasy). You then you transition and in freeing your true gender identity it becomes easier to free your sexuality as well.

Quote    Reply   

#19 [url]

Mar 29 17 11:38 AM

LisaM wrote, "You then you transition and in freeing your true gender identity it becomes easier to free your sexuality as well."

That was my conclusion as well. Also the whole gender binary stuff is very hard to unlearn - but as woman you're supposed to be attracted to men... right?

Quote    Reply   

#20 [url]

Mar 29 17 12:12 PM

Bobbi: I agree ..sort of.... I see a lot of trans women, going out in public as part timers for the first times, going through what one friend called 'being like a 16 year old girl'. Then experimenting, maybe even having sex with men ...then after that period settling back to their core sexual identity. Of course for some that experimentation opens them up to their long suppressed true sexuality.

Even though I still struggled at times, the experimentation I did with guys before even going part time helped me work it out a lot quicker.

Not an easy process. By the way it happens in reverse too. I know of trans women, who pre transition had lived as gay men, then after that became attracted to women.

Then there are the experiences of many trans men, long lesbian pre transition, then becoming (and accepting) attracted to men after transition.

This adds to the confusion and difficulties of being trans and transitioning. The easiest path is being male attracted pre transition and remaining so after that, the other paths are more complex.

Quote    Reply   
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help