Trans Women are not Women

[Francesca R]

Why do you believe that?

Observation, deduction (induction) and what (some) male friends have told me. We even have a member in this thread stating that in his lesbian fantasy he is female.

I haven't scoured any literature about it.

I have to go back a few decades to a point where I might have thought that sort of joke was funny, but if I can recall those golden days of junior high school, it was really more of a snide, anti-gay, slur. It's a way of expressing solidarity with gay people in an absurdist fashion, as a way of mocking gays.

In other words, "Not only do I have gay friends, I myself am a lesbian, just trapped in a male body."

In my experience there is a large number of men who would personally recoil from male homosexuality but who think female homosexuality is highly arousing. The two orientations are not viewed the same way. I don't think it is a slur as you describe.

My theory is that at the core of a good bit of hetero male attraction to lesbianism is an erotic desire to be female, IE autogynaephilia. Strictly it's more specific than that--an erotic desire to be female and gay. Like I said it is surely open to challenge.

 

[cullennz]

Observation, deduction (induction) and what (some) male friends have told me. We even have a member in this thread stating that in his lesbian fantasy he is female.

I haven't scoured any literature about it.


In my experience there is a large number of men who would personally recoil from male homosexuality but who think female homosexuality is highly arousing. The two orientations are not viewed the same way. I don't think it is a slur as you describe.

My theory is that at the core of a good bit of hetero male attraction to lesbianism is an erotic desire to be female, IE autogynaephilia. Like I said it is surely open to challenge.

I'm guessing I have known more men then you and that is frankly pants

Having said that lesbian sex is obviously different. Purely for the lack of biological organs doing the whole penetration thing

 

[Francesca R]

that is frankly pants

I believe you said the same thing about autogynaephilia two days ago when you had to first look up what the word meant.

Thanks for the insight.

 

[cullennz]

I believe you said the same thing about autogynaephilia two days ago when you had to first look up what the word meant.

Thanks for the insight.

You believe right as that seems also a load of pants made up by some left wingers trying to come up with weird theories

Edit: As I said. I think I know men more than you

I am one

 

[Meadmaker]

I finished the Serano paper, critiquing Blanchard's autogynephilia theory. The last two sections dealt with the nature of autogynephilic fantasies and the effect of labelling MtF transgenders as autogynephilic. As a scientific paper, in these two final sections, it totally collapses. There's just no substance to these sections. There are some bad analogies, no real data, plenty of commentary about how our society causes all sorts of our sexual behavior, and a final conclusion that we shouldn't talk about autogynephilia because it makes transgenders look bad. (i.e. it "needlessly stigmatizes" them.)

These sections aren't "wrong", as such. They're just statements of unscientific opinions.

So, overall impressions of the critique and how it affected Blanchard's work:

Blanchard's work seemed to create some very rigid categories, and I think that more modern research has shown that he was a bit too rigid. There's more diversity in thought, fantasy, sexuality, and general psychological makeup of transgenders than he described in his work.

I would say that, in large part, that could be explained by the subjects of his research, and the climate at the time it was performed. He was working in the late 1980s, and was dealing specifically with patients seeking surgical transition. These were people who were coming in to the clinic and saying, "Please cut off my balls and turn my penis inside out. I'd be happier if you did that." At the time he was studying transsexuals, that's what the term meant.

In the days since then, the "price of admission" to the transgender population has dropped quite a bit. During his time, you had to seek surgical alteration. Today, you have to put on a dress and call yourself Susan. Or....not.....if you don't want to. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the population that he studied is not representative of the populations studied by later researchers. People have said that his work is "discredited", but nothing in this paper or anything else I have read justifies that conclusion. I think that it was limited by the available research subjects when he conducted his studies and reached his conclusions, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that the research itself was invalid or conducted badly.

So, where does that leave us? In my opinion, autogynephilia as a phenomenon is certainly not discredited. Indeed, Serano acknowledges it and relabels it "cross gender arousal", and confirms that it is extremely common among males who wish to be identified as transwomen. So, I would conclude that the sort of people that Blanchard described certainly exist. There are guys who have been sexually fantasizing about being women for a long time, and now want to live as women. That part of his work is not discredited, at least not by this study nor in anything else I've read. There are also people who have been effeminate homosexuals who now want to be considered female. That part of Blanchard's work has also not been discredited. The only part of his work that has been called into question is whether there are MtF transgenders that don't fit into either category. Blanchard would say that the number of such people would be extremely small. Subsequent research would say that there are more of them.

 

[Rolfe]

I think that's a fair summary, Meadmaker. I know Blanchard (and his colleagues, he's not a one-man-band) still doesn't buy the existence of other causes beyond penny numbers, and as he still keeps in touch with his field I think that has to be given due consideration. On the other hand he has been retired for going on ten years.

All the criticisms I've come across seem driven by the fact that the critics are offended by his designation and very keen to dismiss it any way they can. It often boils down to "this is a bit offensive so you shouldn't talk about it". I don't think that flies.

Bear in mind that ROGD wasn't even on the radar until about 2011, and Blanchard is fully on board with that and includes it in the articles he's been writing in recent years. So it's not as if he's resistant to expanding the categories.

As well as the possibility of PTSD involvement (which may not be the case, just a speculation), the other new group of MtF transitioners I think I recognise are the "for-the-hell-of-it" category. I don't know what you'd call them. No dysphoria, absolutely no intention of ever having surgery and often not interested in hormones either. They're particularly interested in LARPing "woman", apparently for the attention it gets them and the kicks they're getting out of barging into women's spaces and categories, and upsetting and angering women.

Alex Drummond may be in this category or he may be AGP, I wouldn't know how to tell. Perhaps that category are all AGP guys who in the past would have kept their kink private but now see it as the gateway to a whole new experience of narcissistic exhibitionism.

Either way, they're doing transsexuals no favours at all. I was talking on twitter yesterday to a middle-aged MtF transsexual who said she was now becoming very reluctant to to into a ladies toilet (whereas she hadn't had any problems over the past 15 years) because she now worried that the women were looking at her and wondering if she was someone like JY or even Karen White. I can totally sympathise with this.

 

[Francesca R]

In Mexico there are female only gyms.

In Mexico City, a significant section of every metro train and station platform is female only (well, also children under 12) as well. I read that this was only enforced in peak hours but I travelled on it outside the peak and observed it being enforced. I remember the same on some of Mumbai's trains last time I was there too, although if anyone has ever seen never mind travelled that city's trains in rush-six-hours it will be obvious that the policy like many passengers goes right out the window.

These cities have much worse records of public safety than in richer countries. There is a view that too much sex segregation is not only bad ("unfreedom") in its own right but also that it normalises sex-specific violence, which is, yes, a euphemism for male violence against female.

(I have no idea what Mumbai or CDMX's position on self-ID based access is though.)

 

[Francesca R]

I have a degree in biochemistry. When I first heard the word "cis" used in this context it was some time in the mid-1990s. I thought it was quite a good, erudite joke. I took it as that, and didn't particularly mind. But as I've seen it becoming more and more pervasive, and realised how it reclassifies women to be something less than women and denies us our identity, I have come to join with many many more women in finding it grossly offensive.

I am not particularly troubled by the prefix cis, but I don't encounter it much offline. I don't use it either or if I do then probably by mocking the terminology, which I did here by proposing a trans woman with an arm and a leg switched (I made that one up. Before that I was also trying to come up with a version of syn- and anti-women, and (R)- and (S)-women to go alongside, blame the chemistry)

As far as this thread and forum is concerned, members are freely allowed to offend in this way (it doesn't break any rule) so one would have to find a way to navigate that if one is to participate. Expressing offence is probably handing others a button to push in that regard, YMMV.

 

[Ziggurat]

My theory is that at the core of a good bit of hetero male attraction to lesbianism is an erotic desire to be female, IE autogynaephilia. Strictly it's more specific than that--an erotic desire to be female and gay. Like I said it is surely open to challenge.

I believe it was Seinfeld who said that guys like watching lesbian porn because they agree with both of them. That doesn't require wanting to be a woman. Instead, it's simply getting to watch women engage in sex without seeing another guy in the way taking up space. The fantasy is frequently imagining that the viewer is going to end up joining in as a man, not as a woman.

 

[Francesca R]

That doesn't require wanting to be a woman.

I agree with that.

 

[Belz...]

I believe it was Seinfeld who said that guys like watching lesbian porn because they agree with both of them. That doesn't require wanting to be a woman. Instead, it's simply getting to watch women engage in sex without seeing another guy in the way taking up space. The fantasy is frequently imagining that the viewer is going to end up joining in as a man, not as a woman.

Or substituting yourself for one of them, still as a man.

 

[GlennB]

I believe it was Seinfeld who said that guys like watching lesbian porn because they agree with both of them. That doesn't require wanting to be a woman. Instead, it's simply getting to watch women engage in sex without seeing another guy in the way taking up space. The fantasy is frequently imagining that the viewer is going to end up joining in as a man, not as a woman.

Another vote for this.

 

[theprestige]

I agree with that.

You keep suggesting the opposite, though. You keep suggesting that if Seinfeld joked about lesbian sex, it means he's an autogynephile.

 

[Francesca R]

You keep suggesting the opposite, though. You keep suggesting that if Seinfeld joked about lesbian sex, it means he's an autogynephile.

More specifically in relation to the phrase I quoted a page or so ago which you responded to. Not so much with "I wanna get in there with those two".

 

[TomB]

I believe it was Seinfeld who said that guys like watching lesbian porn because they agree with both of them. That doesn't require wanting to be a woman. Instead, it's simply getting to watch women engage in sex without seeing another guy in the way taking up space. The fantasy is frequently imagining that the viewer is going to end up joining in as a man, not as a woman.

A guy can watch lesbian porn in several different ways.

One way is simply voyeuristic as suggested by Seinfeld. He gets to see female bodies and faces and hear female voices, which he finds attractive without seeing male bodies and faces or hearing male voices.

He can imagine joining in as an additional (male) participant.

He can put himself in the role of one of the women, but maintain his image as a male. (VR or POV mostly for a different view perspective.)

Or he can put himself in the role of one of the participants as a female. (VR or POV with some mental role playing.)

Even in the last option, it doesn't mean he wants to be a woman. Curiosity about what it would be like to be female is not the same as actually wanting to be female. Also, while this would be an autogynophelic episode, it would not be dysphoric.

 

[Rolfe]

Women like gay male porn, that's a given. I mean, have you seen the sort of stuff the slash fanfic crowd comes out with? So if liking homosexual porn involving lesbians can be described as a form of autogynaephilia, every single female slash fanfic afficionado would by definition be autoandrophilic. And the guys who write these definitions say autoandrophilia in females is virtually non-existent. My conclusion therefore is that liking homosexual porn involving the opposite sex does not fit into this category.

I think it's a combination of "I agree with both of them" and there not being a "rival" of one's own sex involved.

 

[Francesca R]

every single female slash fanfic afficionado would by definition be autoandrophilic.

Pretty sure some of them would be yes.

And the guys who write these definitions say autoandrophilia in females is virtually non-existent.

I doubt that it is non-existent. Never encountered it though, and I have encountered men turned on by the idea of being female.

Self-revelation as either autogynaephilic or autoandrophilic is probably hindered by social desirability bias.

 

[TomB]

I finished the Serano paper, critiquing Blanchard's autogynephilia theory.

I've been casually working my way through this critique by Moser.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00918369.2010.486241

There are a couple of things in it that catch my eye.

First, a couple studies showed women scored as autogynephelic on similar scales to Blanchard's:

Using different instruments, two independent studies, bothemploying similar but not identical items to Blanchard’s (see 1985a, 1989a)instruments, found significant numbers of women scored as autogynephilic(Moser, 2009b; Veale, Clarke, & Lomax, 2008). Moser (2009b) found 28% ofhis sample reported frequent arousal to multiple items on his AutogynephiliaScale for Women.

The implication of this is not that women are autogynephillic, but that natal women (the term Moser uses, for those who don't like cis-) respond to the questions similarly to transwomen who Blanchard characterizes as autogynophillic. The question then is what exactly is this evidence of? Was he measuring what he thought he was measuring?

The second thing that stands out:

There are non-homosexual MTFs who do not report any history ofautogynephilic arousal. Lawrence (2005) found approximately 10% of hernon-homosexual MTF sample reported that they never experienced autogy-nephilic arousal prior to SRS. Blanchard (1985b) reported that almost 27% ofhis sample of non-homosexual transsexuals did not acknowledge a history ofsexual arousal while cross-dressing. Blanchard et al. (1987) classified 82.2%of their heterosexual male transsexuals to be fetishistic (autogynephilic), sug-gesting that 17.8% were not. Bentler (1976) noted only 18% of his “Asexual”MTF group and 50% of his “Heterosexual” MTF group indicated that cross-dressing was sexually arousing presurgery, suggesting a majority did notfind it sexually arousing. Again, it is difficult to dismiss all these findings assystematic distortion and misrepresentation.

The point here is that a significant percentage of the subjects in Blanchard's own study did not conform to his hypothesis. According to Moser, Blanchard dismissed these individuals as misrepresenting their condition without evidence. If correct, Blanchard's study would have some rather large error bars.

 

[Francesca R]

The implication of this is not that women are autogynephillic, but that natal women (the term Moser uses, for those who don't like cis-) respond to the questions similarly to transwomen who Blanchard characterizes as autogynophillic. The question then is what exactly is this evidence of? Was he measuring what he thought he was measuring?

There may be competition for what the definition of autogynaephilic is, I understand it as an erotic desire to be a woman when one is not a woman. That means natal woman. So natal women can't meet that definition.

Some may argue that trans women are every bit as much women as natal women implying the definition can not apply to trans women either. I don't agree with that.

Or they may argue that since natal women do actually likely experience erotic desire to be women as well (true I think) then all the whole autogynaephilia business shows is that trans women are the same as natal women in this respect, which is what trans women have been saying all along. I find that rather circular and affirming the consequent to say the least.

 

[theprestige]

There may be competition for what the definition of autogynaephilic is, I understand it as an erotic desire to be a woman when one is not a woman.

My understanding was that autogynephilia is a pathology - the elevation of such erotic desires to a fetish, that acts as a limitation on the person's ability to enjoy sex generally, and even perhaps to enjoy life generally.

However, looking more into it, I see it seems to be a much broader and less rigorous taxonomic convention.

That being the case, maybe "autogynephelic" isn't such a useful term after all. If any man who ever even joked about indulging in self-insert lesbian erotica is an autogynephile to some degree, then the term doesn't actually make any meaningful distinctions between transsexual men and other men. Even if Blanchard is right, that autogynephilia is a motivation for sexual transition, it must more often than not, not be a motivation. Most men have such thoughts, but very few men feel the need to transition.

Maybe it would be better if autogynephilia were a pathology. If your sex-change erotica is to the point where it limits your ability to enjoy other kinds of sex, or even enjoy other aspects of life. If your enjoyment of yourself as the opposite sex is such a powerful and limiting idea that actually transitioning is a reasonable option to consider. Maybe that's what we should be talking about, when we talk about autogynephilia.

We could say that anyone who enjoys the idea of administering a bit of a spanking to a willing rump is some kind of sadist, but there's an important distinction between someone who likes a little light S&M in their sex life, and someone whose sadistic ideas call for medical or psychological intervention.

Given the extreme lengths transsexuals must go to, to treat their condition, it might be better not to dilute certain terms down to things most men have experienced to some degree. I would say that very few men at all have experienced anything like what transsexuals have to deal with. If "autogynephile" applies to most men, then it doesn't tell us anything interesting about transsexuals. If it does tell us anything interesting about transsexuals, then it's not a term that applies to most men.