#41 [url]

Apr 29 17 7:51 PM

Lost247365 wrote:

lal2828 wrote:OK, try to see this from my case then.  


I am female, assigned at birth.  I dress as a female.  I do not get aroused dressed as a female.  Some would say, "Right, because you are female."  However, I keep affiliating with males, alpha or beta, and especially MTFs, but not because I want to hump them either (or females for that matter!)  It's because I feel we have too much in common.  Surely, a sense of gender identity has something to do with it.  Like, why would I still be here?

Maybe because you are just awesome like that?

THANKS!! image

Quote    Reply   

#42 [url]

May 1 17 5:48 PM

Vaydra (Lost) 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. "

WOW! I do not think this completely describes me however I can somewhat identify with this in a pair-bond context. I do not see myself with anyone else other than the lady I have been with for the last 30 years (and I have imagined her as a man too :) ). Like I said I do feel sexual attraction to others - but long term I do not see myself with anyone else. I guess this is not completely the same concept. :/

Quote    Reply   

#43 [url]

May 1 17 5:56 PM

Lindsay wrote: "compares the results versus cis-women"

This is the major issue that I have with AGP - it is a clumsy attempt to shoe-horn a very specific description of some patients of Blanchard into a overall picture of human sexuality. If you have a set of theories to describe how gender identity is formed in the brain then the research samples should fucking include a baseline! I did not see any research from Blanchard that included responses from people who do NOT identify as Trans. Am I missing something?

Quote    Reply   

#44 [url]

May 1 17 11:38 PM

I see that rubbercripple is at it again. Asking for proof that debunks the autogynephilia theory, and when given such proof, ignoring it. 

I am not going to add much to what have been said, as there has been some really great answers in this thread, beyond saying that the main point is that the fundamental premise of the theory -- that there are two mutually exclusive categories of male to female transgender people -- has been falsfied. There are simply too many reports of crossdreaming among androphilic trans women for this to be possible. Heck, Blanchard's own numbers tell the same story.

I have already provide rubbercripple with a lot of information regarding the scientific criticism of Blanchard, in email and in this forum, and I see no reason for repeating these again. Those who are interested can go to this page for some essential reading: http://www.crossdreamers.com/p/the-autogynephilia-debate-resources.html .

I would not put much trust in Kay Brown. She is a transgender separatist with a desperate need to distance herself from the "autogynephiliacs", and who has -- for some bizarre reason -- come to the conclusion that the best way of doing that is to accept a theory that labels her as a sex driven gay man. That says a lot about how toxic Blanchard's theory has become. I think I can count the number of trans women who support her in this on one hand.

And when she uses Jaimie Veale's research to prove that Blanchard is right, you know that she is of the type who can get any number to prove anything she likes. Jaimie Veale's research gives clear evidence that Blanchard's theory is wrong. See this paper: http://www.jaimieveale.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/TaxometricWeb2.pdf 

rubbercripple asks how many categories of transgender there are, and the answer is -- as April has indicated -- as many as you like. You can categorize transgender people according to eye color, heigth, weigth, occupation, favorite films, and sexual orientation and they will all be correct. But they will also all be pretty meaningless. You could argue that it would be helful to define distinct categories according to etiology (cause of transgender condition), but no one has managed to do so. Now that they see that the traditional dichotomies (early onset/late onset) are caused by social, psychological and cultural factors, the great majority of researchers (and trans activists) see that although these categories may -- for the moment -- help you identify the best type of health care, they do not say anything about what makes people trans.

 

Quote    Reply   

#45 [url]

May 3 17 12:29 PM

Jack: I think Kay Brown was saying there had been a number of studies not who's right or wrong. I quite like Kay, I don't necessarily agree with it all. Can't beat a bit of separatist rebellion though 🙂

Quote    Reply   

#46 [url]

May 5 17 4:00 AM

Muddled-cripple

This thread is very muddled. When you talk about autogynephilia you have to state clearly what part of it you are talking about.

For example... if you say there's no empirical evidence to validate the autogynephilia theory you have to state whether you're talking about

1) PART 1 OF THEORY: There's no evidence that there is a class of male who sexually fantasises about being a woman.

or 

2) PART 2 OF THEORY: That there are two main types of transsexuals.

or 

3) PART3 OF THEORY: That most autogs transition for sexual reasons.






 

Quote    Reply   

#47 [url]

May 5 17 7:06 AM

Thanks Felix!

I would argue that there's at least one more part to the theory: That transsexuals (transitioning or not) are primarily motivated by sexual fantasies or sexual urges.

Wanting to bring one's gender expression into alignment with one's gender core is not necessarily a sexual desire.  It can instead be a question of authenticity and self-fulfillment.

Of course, whether there's such a thing as a gender core is another argument altogether, and to some extent it's an ontological or metaphysical one that would seem difficult to settle with evidence.  

But the question of motives is something that can be approached empirically.

Last Edited By: Kippi May 5 17 7:38 AM. Edited 2 times.

Quote    Reply   

#48 [url]

May 5 17 8:18 AM

Thanks to the both of you. Felix, I don't believe anybody is contesting Part 1. I accept that as fact, and not a theory. I believe pretty much everybody believes that, even the most vocal critics of the theory. The points of contention are what you call "parts 2 and 3", which are really related. Much of the recent comments in this thread have specifically dealt with "part 2". It's basically that you can't categorize all of the trans population into 2 neat boxes driven purely by sexuality..

Despite all the focus here on those labeled as "autogynephilics" the categorization methodology is really saying something about ALL trans people, and that leads us to "part 3", which Kippi addressed here, but I want emphasize that it goes even a step further. The theory is really misnamed because it is a theory about ALL of transsexualism. Every last trans on the planet is really motivated by sexual reasons, even the ones Blanchard calls "homosexuals". Sexual desire drives the dysphoria and the desire to transition. You can almost read the phrase "misplaced sexual desire" between the lines here.

Last Edited By: April May 5 17 10:19 AM. Edited 3 times.

Quote    Reply   

#49 [url]

May 5 17 10:07 AM

I won't claim to have unpacked all the debatable assumptions underlying the autogynephilia theory, but April has just pointed out something others have also found in Blanchard's theory: not only does it reduce everything to sexual desire, it also stigmatizes that desire as an illness, a fetish, etc.

Again as April has pointed out in other posts, this often explicit value judgment is why the theory has been seized upon by TERF's, social and religious conservatives, reactionaries and bigots, who are looking for ways to rationalize their transphobia.

Quote    Reply   

#51 [url]

May 5 17 1:17 PM

Rubbercripple,

Until you brought up the Nuttbrock study you had not listed any sources to support your empirical data. Maybe Jack should have said "no compelling empirical data".

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   

#53 [url]

May 5 17 2:29 PM

So as to prevent people from getting confused, why don't you explain what you mean and in which context?

Do you mean that there is empirical evidence of 


  1. The phenomena of people fantasizing about being the opposite sex from which they were assigned at birth?

  2. That there are two types (and only two) of trans-sexuals: autogynephilic transsexual and androphilic transwomen/ gynephili transmen who want to be the other sex in order to appeal more to their desired partners.

  3. That autogynephilia is the ultimate etiolgy of the so called "autogynphephilic" transsexualism?
Based upon the point at which you and Jack first started saying empirical support/evidence, it would appear that what you mean is that there is evidence for case 2.

Is my assessment of your position correct?  If so, then no, there is no empirical evidence of that at all.  Further, Barbara did a good job going over and refuting what you are discussing here and here.  However, at this point, it seems that you are trying to argue for case 1.  

There is no argument about case 1 existing as this entire forum is dedicated to those of us who do exactly that: Crossdream.  The points of contention are numbers 2 and 3.




Quote    Reply   

#55 [url]

May 6 17 5:08 PM

The roots of Blachard's rubbish go way back further. At the core gender = sexuality. If your are feminine you want to have sex with a man and be penetrated. If you are a man you want to have sex with a women and penetrate. Which does raise the question of who does the penetrating in a gay male relationship......

So naturally (and this was created long before Blanchard) trans women were just seen as extremely feminine gay men, part of the gay male syndrome.

Funnily enough some of this stuff came from Virginia Prince, the creator of 'crossdressing clubs' and the crossdressing model. Transphobic and homophobic at the same time, Prince was virulently against transitioning (and especially GRS) and only 'heterosexuals' were allowed. I contend that this model greatly damaged the trans community and created divisions and wounds only starting to heal now.
Along the way you have actors such as Stoller, Money, Green and the rest all endlessly pushing this 'gender behaviour = sexuality' nonsense. Plus that it was all changeable hence the atrocities to intersex people, trans people especially kids, GNC kids through their gay/trans conversion therapy.

To them internal gender identity doesn't exist, only sexual orientations and targets ..which is logical nonsense since how can you have a sexual orientation (or target) unless you know (a) your own gender and (b) someone else's....otherwise dating would get very interesting indeed...

Blanchard has long being suspected of being a self hating gay man in the closet, plus he is Catholic. He follows the Catholic line that any sex that is not PiV for procreation is a paraphilia, an 'erotic target error' and he stated that if he got his way being homosexual would be right back in the DSM.. Given his background it should be no surprise that he is obsessed with sexuality and projects that onto others, like the angry man who thinks everyone else is angry.
They all have some questionable elements about their own sexuality, Bailey was formally accused of having sex with one of his pre-op 'subjects' he used for his horrible book.. Zucker with his endless taking of pictures (without permission) of his child subjects (victims) and his rather creepy paper on the attractiveness of GNC boys.

Blanchard simply pulled together different lines of thought, (1) the standard ‘trans women are just extremely feminine gay men’ and (2) added that those who were female attracted had a sexual paraphilia.

To make it all work he had to add in the bisexuals, breaking his own (and many others) consensus that all bisexual men were really gay and the poor old asexuals…who, by definition don’t really have sex drives, sexual targets and fantasies.

When he did his useless paper in 1989, full of errors from beginning to end (sample errors, statistical errors, circular logic, multiple hypothesis and all the sorry rest, about as scientific as flat earth theory) AGP trans women were a tiny minority…but they soon realised it was such a useful tool to vilifying trans women so the definition got ever expanded. In the original paper there was nothing about ‘late’ or ‘early’ transtioners that soon...without single shred of scientific proof …got added in and get this, to them a ‘late onset’ trans women is someone who comes out in adolescence…

To them ’onset’ is the age of coming out, love to see them applying that to lesbians and gays, so no one is gay until they come out?. Then the ‘femininity’ and ‘physical appearance’ (etc) got added in, and so endless on.

That nut Kay Brown now argues that 99% (sometimes she argues 99.9%) of trans women are AGP.. even as teenagers and advises that parents tell their trans children that they are really sexual perverts if they don’t meet her exacting standards (a trans girl has to be boy obsessed and wants to become a hairdresser.. and yes she actually says that)

So from a minority AGP grew into this monster covering nearly all trans women. And of course it gets expanded ever more. Bailey being the classic example arguing that since paraphilias are often linked so AGP trans women are more likely to be sexually violent to women (yes he has said that on record).. Kay Brown arguing that AGP trans women are sexually obsessed about trans kids and want to abuse them. It just goes on and on and on.

It gets ridiculous such as Bailey arguing that one form or another of trans women is actually physically different…. I mean this is beyond nonsense and makes the flat earther’s look sensible.

And despite their endless claims of science; they have never, once, proven anything they have claimed. Even Blanchard’s original paper did not prove his own hypothesis despite its total shonkyness.

Blanchard made a whole career out of hating trans women, when he was in charge at CAMH (prior to Zucker) he was infamous for rejecting people for HRT (etc), Zucker carried that on with mass gay/trans conversion therapy and no one, but no one hates trans women more than Michael Bailey does (which given the accusation made against him raises the issue of ‘he protesteth too much’).

So AGP is really just a tool of transphobia, to vilify trans women (especially) as dangerous sexual perverts in the public mind and justify prejudice and legal sanctions against them.. It is no accident that the most anti-trans organisations (like the FRC) extensively quote and reference Blanchard, Bailey, Zucker, etc.

Bailey has stated many times he thinks greater public acceptance of trans women is a bad thing, that non-acceptance (even hostility) is a good thing because it keeps the numbers down.

He stated in the WPATH SOC 7 FB forum:
” WPATH has become an egregious organization that makes the world worse in the name of making the world better for the transgendered."
So he genuinely believes that society has to make things worse for trans people to make the world a better place. Not very far from calling for our incarceration or even extermination isn’t it?

So if you buy into this disproven and debunked (by many) BS you are really just pushing transphobia and supporting those bigots that attack us..

Quote    Reply   

#56 [url]

May 6 17 6:35 PM

LisaM wrote:
The roots of Blachard's rubbish go way back further. At the core gender = sexuality. If your are feminine you want to have sex with a man and be penetrated. If you are a man you want to have sex with a women and penetrate. Which does raise the question of who does the penetrating in a gay male relationship......

So naturally (and this was created long before Blanchard) trans women were just seen as extremely feminine gay men, part of the gay male syndrome.

Funnily enough some of this stuff came from Virginia Prince, the creator of 'crossdressing clubs' and the crossdressing model. Transphobic and homophobic at the same time, Prince was virulently against transitioning (and especially GRS) and only 'heterosexuals' were allowed. I contend that this model greatly damaged the trans community and created divisions and wounds only starting to heal now.
Along the way you have actors such as Stoller, Money, Green and the rest all endlessly pushing this 'gender behaviour = sexuality' nonsense. Plus that it was all changeable hence the atrocities to intersex people, trans people especially kids, GNC kids through their gay/trans conversion therapy.

To them internal gender identity doesn't exist, only sexual orientations and targets ..which is logical nonsense since how can you have a sexual orientation (or target) unless you know (a) your own gender and (b) someone else's....otherwise dating would get very interesting indeed...

Blanchard has long being suspected of being a self hating gay man in the closet, plus he is Catholic. He follows the Catholic line that any sex that is not PiV for procreation is a paraphilia, an 'erotic target error' and he stated that if he got his way being homosexual would be right back in the DSM.. Given his background it should be no surprise that he is obsessed with sexuality and projects that onto others, like the angry man who thinks everyone else is angry.
They all have some questionable elements about their own sexuality, Bailey was formally accused of having sex with one of his pre-op 'subjects' he used for his horrible book.. Zucker with his endless taking of pictures (without permission) of his child subjects (victims) and his rather creepy paper on the attractiveness of GNC boys.

Blanchard simply pulled together different lines of thought, (1) the standard ‘trans women are just extremely feminine gay men’ and (2) added that those who were female attracted had a sexual paraphilia.

To make it all work he had to add in the bisexuals, breaking his own (and many others) consensus that all bisexual men were really gay and the poor old asexuals…who, by definition don’t really have sex drives, sexual targets and fantasies.

When he did his useless paper in 1989, full of errors from beginning to end (sample errors, statistical errors, circular logic, multiple hypothesis and all the sorry rest, about as scientific as flat earth theory) AGP trans women were a tiny minority…but they soon realised it was such a useful tool to vilifying trans women so the definition got ever expanded. In the original paper there was nothing about ‘late’ or ‘early’ transtioners that soon...without single shred of scientific proof …got added in and get this, to them a ‘late onset’ trans women is someone who comes out in adolescence…

To them ’onset’ is the age of coming out, love to see them applying that to lesbians and gays, so no one is gay until they come out?. Then the ‘femininity’ and ‘physical appearance’ (etc) got added in, and so endless on.

That nut Kay Brown now argues that 99% (sometimes she argues 99.9%) of trans women are AGP.. even as teenagers and advises that parents tell their trans children that they are really sexual perverts if they don’t meet her exacting standards (a trans girl has to be boy obsessed and wants to become a hairdresser.. and yes she actually says that)

So from a minority AGP grew into this monster covering nearly all trans women. And of course it gets expanded ever more. Bailey being the classic example arguing that since paraphilias are often linked so AGP trans women are more likely to be sexually violent to women (yes he has said that on record).. Kay Brown arguing that AGP trans women are sexually obsessed about trans kids and want to abuse them. It just goes on and on and on.

It gets ridiculous such as Bailey arguing that one form or another of trans women is actually physically different…. I mean this is beyond nonsense and makes the flat earther’s look sensible.

And despite their endless claims of science; they have never, once, proven anything they have claimed. Even Blanchard’s original paper did not prove his own hypothesis despite its total shonkyness.

Blanchard made a whole career out of hating trans women, when he was in charge at CAMH (prior to Zucker) he was infamous for rejecting people for HRT (etc), Zucker carried that on with mass gay/trans conversion therapy and no one, but no one hates trans women more than Michael Bailey does (which given the accusation made against him raises the issue of ‘he protesteth too much’).

So AGP is really just a tool of transphobia, to vilify trans women (especially) as dangerous sexual perverts in the public mind and justify prejudice and legal sanctions against them.. It is no accident that the most anti-trans organisations (like the FRC) extensively quote and reference Blanchard, Bailey, Zucker, etc.

Bailey has stated many times he thinks greater public acceptance of trans women is a bad thing, that non-acceptance (even hostility) is a good thing because it keeps the numbers down.

He stated in the WPATH SOC 7 FB forum:
” WPATH has become an egregious organization that makes the world worse in the name of making the world better for the transgendered."
So he genuinely believes that society has to make things worse for trans people to make the world a better place. Not very far from calling for our incarceration or even extermination isn’t it?

So if you buy into this disproven and debunked (by many) BS you are really just pushing transphobia and supporting those bigots that attack us..

Is there anyway to thumbs up an individual post?

Just one thing, asexuals can have a libido (sex drive) and can have sexual fantasies.  The thing is that our libido is just not directed toward others and usually taken care of via self stimulation.  As for fantasies, we have zero desire to live out our fantasies in real life.  

By definition, the thing that makes one asexual is lack of sexual attraction/sexual desire toward others.

Last Edited By: Lost247365 May 6 17 6:54 PM. Edited 5 times.

Quote    Reply   

#57 [url]

May 7 17 10:10 AM

It's difficult to understand the likes of Kay Brown without getting into the whole issue of transsexual separatistism. There is a tiny, but rather vocal minority in the transgender community that are known as "transsexual separatists". They tend to be a pretty nasty lot. I would say most TERFs seem rather sane next to them. I have been literally stalked in my social media a few times by them. But they tend to be anonymous key board warriors for the most part, rather than the very public as Kay Brown. Their views vary, but the commonality is an idea that the trans community has a few "true transsexuals" and the rest are just male interlopers. They tend to see everybody who isn't an exact clone of them as being a lesser trans. They tend to go after, out and highly public trans people, who don't fit their ideals of what it means to be trans. I tend to think they are largely driven by internalized transphobia. They believe they are really women born in the bodies with all the tragic nobility that implies, .and everybody else is just a confused male. It's a way of trying to elevate one's self on the shoulders of others. When considering that motivation, it is clear why Blanchard's theory might have appeal to them. Interestingly, I have encountered trans separatists who have actually embraced Blanchard's theory for those they choose to demean but reject it's application for themselves. They will say that there are confused men with fetishes, as well as, effeminate gay men who want to have sex with heterosexual men. But then there is this very tiny minority of "true transsexuals" who just women born in the wrong bodies. I have been accused by them of being both a male with a fetish, and a gay drag queen by them.

Quote    Reply   

#58 [url]

May 8 17 5:08 AM

The divisions talked about here do seem very sad, as if finding happiness in life is some kind of competition... I don't really get the wish to be a separatist either.. In so far as my crossdreaming makes me want to transisition (which is stops short of) I would want to be a woman in the wider world and to be accepted as such, not just by a small group of people who have made a similar journey. It may feel safe to stay in a small pond but it doesn't feel very satisfying

Quote    Reply   

#59 [url]

May 8 17 8:04 AM

April wrote, 'There is a tiny, but rather vocal minority in the transgender community that are known as "transsexual separatists".'

I know "hard core transsexual separatists" and I know some who have fallen for this BS because of experience with gate-keepers and peers. It is so easy to fall for this BS if you need something from the CAMH here in Toronto. Or at least it was until the province brought in a new policy called Informed Consent. Essentially your primary HC provider (i.e. family doctor) can proscribe the treatment you need if they agree to follow the guidelines set down.

https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php?topic=153654.0
http://sherbourne.on.ca/lgbt-health/
http://sherbourne.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Guidelines-and-Protocols-for-Comprehensive-Primary-Care-for-Trans-Clients-2015.pdf

Hopefully this approach will encourage more doctors to listen to their patients, inform, assist and treat as the PATIENT directs as opposed to a system that encouraged doctors to make such judgments on behalf of patients (as if they were children). It starts to treat Trans with some dignity, at least if you can find a sympathetic doctor to help you.

Page 5 the PDF "The trans population has suffered a great deal of prejudice, misunderstanding and harm from the medical community, and systemic oppression experienced by trans clients has often resulted in the denial of service. The health care provider’s role in assessing a client’s eligibility and readiness for hormone therapy can create an unfortunate dynamic, with the provider positioned as the ‘gatekeeper’ to treatment.
In response to this, a number of community health centres in the US have implemented what has become known as the ‘informed consent model’ for hormone provision. In this model, the focus is on obtaining informed consent as the threshold for the initiation of hormone therapy, with less emphasis on meeting DSM diagnostic criteria for Gender Dysphoria or requiring a mental health assessment unless significant mental health concerns are identified."

Such TS Separatists need to get over themselves - they are not special.

Quote    Reply   

#60 [url]

May 8 17 10:13 AM

I think Kay Brown is far from being a nut as LisaM said, more like a realistic person if you ask me. It's pretty low though, to call people over for being realistic. What is Kay separating herself from anyway? Also, can anybody tell me about the " third sex" please.

Quote    Reply   
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help