#21 [url]

Apr 27 17 1:30 PM

rubbercripple wrote:
April: I am saying that it is untrue to say there is a lack of empirical support/evidence.

Rubbercripple, if you're going to post here supporting Blanchard's theory you had better start quoting the "evidence" you talk about. All you do here is echo back what we say. We've seen this before with other trolls and your strategy doesn't work.

Lindsay


"The thing is you see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear, dig?" the Pointed Man

Quote    Reply   

#22 [url]

Apr 28 17 12:03 PM

April, I have suggested that a claim in the post by Jack about a lack of empirical evidence is untrue. Would you agree that anyone who suggests there is a lack of empirical evidence are actually invalidating people's experience of autogynephilia as documented for example by Anne Lawrence? There has been further research after Blanchard, you know this April.

Quote    Reply   

#23 [url]

Apr 28 17 12:38 PM

Rubbercripple, you need to start citing your empirical evidence. You will not convince anyone here unless you do. If you have truly read any of Jack's writings, you'd know that Jack has cited numerous examples debunking Blanchard and company. Others here have done so as well. Read Julia Serano's writings.

Lindsay


"The thing is you see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear, dig?" the Pointed Man

Quote    Reply   

#25 [url]

Apr 28 17 4:30 PM

I have read Nuttbrock study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2894986/), on which this article relies. This stydy sounds reasonable to me, at least on the first glance.

Significant numbers of participants reported transvestic fetishism at odds with Blanchard’s predictions (23% of the homosexuals reported transvestic fetishism; 27% of the non-homosexuals did not report transvestic fetishism).

Yes, there are correlaions, but no evidence of existence of exactly two types. We can make conclusion about two distinct types if we see bimodal distributions. No such analysis was performed, there are only correlation coefficients.

I will illustrate the difference, for better understanding:
image
We see here four different types of samples.
image
Four sets of data with the same correlation of 0.816. Only two sets of data can be interpreted as having two types of samples. So, correlation alone doesn't say anything about different types.
These limitations notwithstanding, we nonetheless conclude that a classification of the MTF population, based solely on sexual orientation, is fundamentally limited. An adequate understanding of this population will only be achieved if social dimensions of the transgender experience, as framed by age and ethnicity in particular, are fully considered.

Does it look like empirical evidence of Blanchard's theories? Not at all. There is no social factors for Blanchard, androphilic MtFs can't have AGP, and all not exclusively androphilic MtFs have AGP. No external factors can change this.

Now, for the so-called evidence. "The Nuttbrock paper confirms, absolutely confirms, the Freund/Blanchard two type taxonomy for Male-To-Female (MTF) transsexuals, one that is exclusively androphilic and one that is autogynephilic". From what exactly place of Nuttbrock's paper did this came? How can "fundamentally limited" became "absolutely confirms"?

Quote    Reply   

#26 [url]

Apr 28 17 9:06 PM

I have never heard of this term until today. I have thought to myself that my inability to perform sexually unless fantasizing about being a woman was another reason I wasn't truly transgender. I've since cast that off with my acceptance of my gender dysphoria. It feels validating that this is not an uncommon thing even in other genders and demographics.

Quote    Reply   

#28 [url]

Apr 29 17 8:10 AM

From Kay Brown's blog. (Which is what I was trying to say about " evidence " regarding the piece Jack posted....there are other observations out there.) "Science depends upon repeatability, and these results regarding sexual orientation and autogynephilia have been replicated by Buhrich (1977), Freund (1982), Blanchard (1985), Doorn (1994), Smith (2005), Lawrence (2005), Veale (2008, 2014), and Nuttbrock (2009), in separate studies spanning four decades, collectively involving over a thousand transsexuals to date. In fact, this is one of the most repeated and reconfirmed scientific finding regarding transsexuality. The largest study, Nuttbrock et al. found that fully 82% of gynephilic transwomen acknowledge being autogynephilic, specifically, being sexually aroused by wearing women’s clothing."

Quote    Reply   

#29 [url]

Apr 29 17 9:13 AM

"Significant numbers of participants reported transvestic fetishism at odds with Blanchard’s predictions (23% of the homosexuals reported transvestic fetishism; 27% of the non-homosexuals did not report transvestic fetishism)." (Nuttbrock, 2009). 82% is a number from Blanchard's research (Blanchard, Clemmensen, & Steiner, 1985), not Nuttbrock's.

What is actually repeatedly found by various researches, is just a correlation. Gynephilic transwomen have a higher chances of being aroused by wearing women's clothes. Also, all of this studies, even Blanchard's own, shows that there are no clear cut categories, significant number of people can't be confidently placed in one or another Blanchard's category.

Saying, that there are two clear categories, determined by sexual orientation is equal to: "We can predict presence of Y chromosome by sexual orientation. All people who are androphilic have no Y chromosome, and all gynephilic people have it". Studies repeatedly shows significant number of gay, lesbian and bisexual people. This hypothesis is obviously wrong, there are no 100% link between sexual orientation and presence of the Y chromosome. Where we should place gays, who are androphilic, but have Y chromosome?

Quote    Reply   

#30 [url]

Apr 29 17 10:10 AM

At least Nuttbrock's study used a better test subject sample than Blanchard. Even though, using the same flawed methodology and the same insulting terminology, they found much less correlation than Blanchard. In the last two paragraphs of the "Discussion" the authors admit the flaws in their findings. What I would find interesting is a similar study using random sampling, language that doesn't denigrate the test subjects and compares the results versus cis-women.

Lindsay


"The thing is you see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear, dig?" the Pointed Man

Quote    Reply   

#32 [url]

Apr 29 17 11:14 AM

rubbercripple wrote:
So if people say there are not two types of transsexual how many would everyone here say there are?


I know exactly how my therapist would answer that question: She would answer it with another question:

"How many trans people are there in the world"

Each of us is unique. I know of nobody else with an experrience that exacttly matches my own. Our only commonality is some form of genderr dysphoria. That is why there are no hard rules here, no boxes, or cookbook soulutions. This can't be reduced to an all encompasing theory or model that include everybody. It is about each of us finding our comfort zone in our individual way.

Quote    Reply   

#34 [url]

Apr 29 17 11:32 AM

Lindsay wrote:
 compares the results versus cis-women.


I'm sure this last point is really very important - Asfar as I can see, this is the second part of where the theory of Autogynephilia falls down

1) Its proponants are so simplistic in its applications. Transwomen are one thing or another..  and AGP 100% explains one half of this...  and Transmen don't feature at all.
2) If AGP is the erotic feeling that comes with acceptance of oneself as women then how is this different from when a woman feels 'turned on'....

Because I think many people - in fact I'd claim the majority though I don't claim everyone - gets some of their sexuality from their appreciation of their self. In this case, sexuality is a sharing of one's own sexuality with another person's is the bedrock of eroticism..  

Just 'taking' the sexuality of another person just seems like taking to me...  (but then I'm now a self defining Demi-sexual)

So in my eyes every woman who fits with my idea of the majority also expereinces  AGP, and so though I don't deny it exists , I do reject the idea this is a degining cause of being transgendered since it exists (or the male version does) in many CIS people
 

Quote    Reply   

#36 [url]

Apr 29 17 1:16 PM

rubbercripple wrote:
How do you know what anything feels like for a woman or anyone?

 

Fine words from someone who adheres to a theory that claims to know what everyone else feels

Quote    Reply   

#38 [url]

Apr 29 17 2:15 PM

rubbercripple wrote:
How do you know what anything feels like for a woman or anyone? Transmen don't feature in this because this was about males and what is demi sexual?

How do you know that they don't know?   

Regardless, and to be scientific, there is
evidence that transwomen have intersex brains, which means they probably do know.  

And despite what Blanchard et al think there is evidence that orientation and gender identity are independent of each other.  Sexuality, for instance, the evidence indicates is controlled by neurons in the hypothalmus.  Gender Identity on the other hand, and shown by the research from the previous link, the evidence is pointing to a section of the Thallmus.  

Completely different structures of the brain.  
Sexuality is about who you want to go to bed with, and gender identity is about who you want to go to bed as.

PS: Demisexuality is a type of sexuality in which one is COMPLETELY UNABLE to feel any type of sexual attraction to another person without a forming a bond with a person over a long period of time.  

Quote    Reply   

#39 [url]

Apr 29 17 2:43 PM

Lost247365 wrote:

 


PS: Demisexuality is a type of sexuality in which one is COMPLETELY UNABLE to feel any type of sexual attraction to another person without a forming a bond with a person over a long period of time.  

Its probably fairer to say I'm a socialised Demisexual...  I am capable of feeling sexual attraction to someone I don't know well.....   I just have social....  dare I say it moral...  reasons for just not wanting to act on any attraction unless thre is a strong mutual bond with someone..

I think that is different from saying there is no attraction at all..  but hey  we are getting off the topic of the thread there...  maybe I'll start another one to discuss 'demi-sexuality'

Quote    Reply   

#40 [url]

Apr 29 17 2:44 PM

rubbercripple wrote:
So if people say there are not two types of transsexual how many would everyone here say there are?

So you're trying to argue that transsexulality is binary? How many things about humans do you know that are binary. Almost everything follows a bell curve distribution. The curves may be bimodal for females and males, but there is usually a large amount of overlap. There are even intersexed individuals, so even sex isn't strictly binary.

Lindsay


"The thing is you see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear, dig?" the Pointed Man

Quote    Reply   
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help