1) You've not given me an answer.
2) There's no specific context. I'm asking you how you define the term. Do you ask someone for context if they ask you to define "table"? Surely the definition of "trans" doesn't depend on a specific context, here?
3) That's because so far all the definitions given, as I already said, amount to "they feel like a woman". How else would I describe it if not self-reported feelings and nothing else? That follows directly from the definition!
It seems like you simply know you can't come up with a definition that makes sense, so you're trying to blame your failure on someone else, namely me.
I did not.
But that's not what I'm looking for. Why would I read something that won't answer my question?
Stop dodging.
I still agree with the diagnostic criteria already linked to more than once. You've already decided that it is all 'just feels' so I decline your game. It seems to me you know you can't argue with the actual definition, and thus stick with your 'understanding' against all explanation.
Agreed.
But I don't see the relevance. Unless these are claims that the Blanchard guy has made. If they are I think that discredits him, but not the theory, nay reality, that autogynaephilia exists, is common, and manifests in varying degrees from fun to severe sex dysphoria.
Well I've already linked to discussions of Blanchard's claims there, although I understand your confusion. He and his supporters equivocate
consonantly which does not help. They also used poor naming judgement because 'autogynophilia' is used both as the overal name of the hypothesis and a specific aspect of it. (Some researchers resort to calling the hypothesis 'BAT' to help differentiate it from the trait.)
If my links aren't good enough, I'll just quote from Rolfe's link she just reposted and say that Blanchard's view is that, "Some of these adults had gender dysphoria during adolescence, but
all of them had the root cause of their condition: autogynephilia." and, "Blanchard provided persuasive evidence that the other male gender patients were autogynephilic. We currently favor the theory that there are
only two well established kinds of gender dysphoria among males, because no convincing evidence for any other types has been offered." The emphasis obviously mine.
As for the 'can't apply these metrics to cis women', if you feel arousal by dressing in sexy women's underwear, you're engaged in the same arousal that trans women feel, in the same way that straight women and gay men are both aroused sexually by the thought of sex with men. Further, using this autogynophilia as a metric would be like saying you are a woman based on wanting sexual interactions with men, which denies the existence of lesbians and gay men. One pair of '**** me' heels would be enough to say that a cis woman was engaged in the same behavior and though that autogynophilic trans women (which is not all of them, despite what Blanchard et al insist) engage in.
Using trans women behaving as cis women do as the cause of trans women being trans women is circular.
From Charles Moser's
Blanchard's Autogynephilia Theory: A Critique
“Have youever felt sexually aroused when putting on women’s underwear, stockingsor a nightgown?” (p. 243). All the items in this scale use the term “ever,”emphasizing that even one episode in the distant past factored into the score on this scale.
...
Blanchard (1985b; Blanchard,Clemmensen, & Steiner, 1985) and Lawrence (2004, 2005, 2006) dismiss their denials and insist that they are still autogynephilic.
....
If the impetus for gender transition is a paraphilia (autogynephilia), then reduction of the sex interest should decrease the desire for the transition. Low testosterone, either due to anti-androgens or other causes, is associated
800C. Moser with decreased sexual interest in individuals with or without a paraphilia. Estrogen acts to decrease testosterone levels, but most transsexuals are pre-scribed anti-androgens to reduce further their testosterone level, often to the undetectable range. The result is often decreased sexual interest, as expected, but this rarely causes any discomfort or regret. Most MTFs report their drive for gender transition is unabated; Blanchard (1991) also observed this same phenomenon.
Support groups comprised of individuals with similar sexual interests appear effective at reducing ego-dystonic arousal to unusual sexual interests (see Kleinplatz & Moser, 2004; Moser, 1988). Many, if not most MTFs, participate in these support groups either online or in person. It seems“ego-dystonic paraphilic arousal” is rare among individuals who are diagnosed with traditional, noncriminal, paraphilias and there is no evidence that “ego-dystonic paraphilic arousal” is more than temporary phase for most transsexuals.
Like the
Serano critique and
Wyndzen examinations, Moser's work illustrates several fatal flaws with the work.
And again, that is not to say that the research itself was of no value, but that the hypothesis/conclusions are not supported and have not had any utility in treatment.
Tyr appears to have absolutely no idea what Blanchard's typography actually says. Every time he mentions it he grossly misrepresents it. If you read the article I linked to above, which was co-authored by Blanchard, you can find out what he's actually saying. It's nothing like what Tyr is saying. He makes up a straw man and then attacks that.
You should read you link. It also says, back to back, "Autogynephilia is a paraphilia, meaning an unusual sexual interest nearly exclusively found in males.
We repeat: Autogynephilia is a sexual orientation–to be sure, an unusual orientation that is difficult to understand. There is no evidence that parents can change their children’s sexual orientations. And we don’t think they should try."
Well which is it? Is heterosexuality a paraphilia was well then? See the above quotes from your very link.
Your link is mostly Blanchard and company trying to deal with his hypothesis' complete failure to deal with a HUGE segment of trans gender people, but it does not change his specific claims on trans women.
