Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?

[smokedout]

FWIW on my shallow knowledge if anyone's saying that AGP is THE cause of the desire to transition that seems crude and simplistic to me. But equally, rejecting AGP as ever having any component part in a desire to transition also seems really unlikely. Why wouldn't there be an erotic component to gender identity? Or to gender transition?

Unless you are committed to the idea that a person just "is", and were born, a different gender than the one which they have been assigned in which case it becomes necessary to obliterate AGP because it relates so strongly to the act of transition rather than the magical state of being the correct gender.

Do you think AGP is a component of some people's desire to transition? Or is it never?

No I wouldn't say never, there are few absolutes when it comes to human beings. But if autogynephilia is a product of gender dysphoria, rather than the cause, then even if it is present it is not the underlying reason why someone might want to transition.

I think it's also difficult to nail down exactly what autogynephilia is. Is it solely erotic arousal at the thought of being the opposite sex, or could it also be arousal at the idea of being sexual in a body you do not feel dysphoric about - Blanchard has always struck me as woolly about this. Because if the second were a motivation to transition would that really be autogynephilic, or just a motivation to have a sex life you can enjoy because you are in a body you feel comfortable (or non-dysphoric) in?

 

[Athos]

No I wouldn't say never, there are few absolutes when it comes to human beings. But if autogynephilia is a product of gender dysphoria, rather than the cause, then even if it is present it is not the underlying reason why someone might want to transition.

I think it's also difficult to nail down exactly what autogynephilia is. Is it solely erotic arousal at the thought of being the opposite sex, or could it also be arousal at the idea of being sexual in a body you do not feel dysphoric about - Blanchard has always struck me as woolly about this. Because if the second were a motivation to transition would that really be autogynephilic, or just a motivation to have a sex life you can enjoy because you are in a body you feel comfortable (or non-dysphoric) in?

More's the point, why does it matter?

 

[bimble]

huh. I just googled 'where have all the transvestites gone' and the top link was to Miranda Yardley 's site.

 

[smokedout]

I think you've just smoked yourself out. Why is your thinking so black and white, why can you not deal with nuance? The corollary of 'yes, lots of young girls are suddenly seeking to transition to be men, this is of concern' is not 'these girls are all deluded liars'.

We can always help transgender people better if we can understand why they think the way they do about themselves.

I think you prefer to tell transgender people why they think the way they do about themselves, rather than understand it.

At a rough calculation around one in ten thousand under 18s was referred to a gender identity clinic last year, just over half of them girls. Of course not all will be diagnosed with GID and even fewer will have any medical intervention before adulthood. There is also anecdotal evidence of more girls experimenting with gender identities, although clearly few go on to seek any professional help. I'd say this could mean one of three things:

Increased awareness of and less stigma surrounding transgenderism is making it easier for young transgender people to come out and ask for help.

A generation is emerging which has a more fluid approach to gender identity as something which is not fixed but something you can experiment with and explore.

It has become fashionable for young girls to call themselves transgender even if they aren't, or adopt non-feminine gender identities, possibly. some argue, in part because of social pressures which are founded in misogyny, and possibly because it is seen as more socially acceptable than identifying as lesbian.

I'd suggest the rise is probably a bit of all three. The first two seem quite promising and only the third strikes me as a cause for concern, and it involves factors which are really just speculation at this stage. But if there is truth in it, then as long as those seeking treatment stays so low and clear diagnostic protocols are maintained then any long term damage to the individuals experimenting with their gender can be minimised. I think it would be a great shame if the engineered social panic over this led to the first two reasons I gave being undermined or nullified.

 

[smokedout]

More's the point, why does it matter?

Because if you are a member of a marginalised group that historically has been cast as sexual deviants then it might matter if someone was accusing you of being motivated by a sexual fetish you didn't actually experience. Of course this probably doesn't matter to you, the self-selected arbiter of how transpeople should respond to discrimination, stigmatisation and prejudice.

 

[co-op]

No I wouldn't say never, there are few absolutes when it comes to human beings. But if autogynephilia is a product of gender dysphoria, rather than the cause, then even if it is present it is not the underlying reason why someone might want to transition.

Yes, which comes first is important if you want to establish an aetiology of “where does transgenderism come from”?(apologies for the crap terminology). But I genuinely don’t care because I think either pathway is equally valid and fundamentally I don’t care about the aetiology; I don’t think transpeople have to be “explained”. IMO They just are and my narky side says only a repressive with an agenda needs to do so. But reading Miranda Yardley’s posts makes me think I have just scratched the surface of this compared to someone who has actually transitioned so I’m going to do more thinking about that.

I think it's also difficult to nail down exactly what autogynephilia is. Is it solely erotic arousal at the thought of being the opposite sex, or could it also be arousal at the idea of being sexual in a body you do not feel dysphoric about - Blanchard has always struck me as woolly about this. Because if the second were a motivation to transition would that really be autogynephilic, or just a motivation to have a sex life you can enjoy because you are in a body you feel comfortable (or non-dysphoric) in?

Again I can see there’s a debate there but why does it really matter unless there’s some major consequence; both seem completely valid to me, it seems unlikely that even a person strongly experiencing AGP would “really” know which came first because our erotic urges and our identity is so intertwined and frankly both first and second options you outline seem pretty damned hot in the right circumstances. Just going intiuitively here I think there’s an element of erotic AGP in most performative sexual identity, ie in everyone. Not in every sexual encounter for sure, but in quite a few - how can the experience of a sexual partner be irrelevant to ones own experience? And how can that experience be imagined except by imagining it as though you were experiencing it?

But I’m no expert on AGP and my instinct is to critique academic sexual categorisation.

 

[smokedout]

Again I can see there’s a debate there but why does it really matter unless there’s some major consequence; both seem completely valid to me, it seems unlikely that even a person strongly experiencing AGP would “really” know which came first because our erotic urges and our identity is so intertwined and frankly both first and second options you outline seem pretty damned hot in the right circumstances. Just going intiuitively here I think there’s an element of erotic AGP in most performative sexual identity, ie in everyone. Not in every sexual encounter for sure, but in quite a few - how can the experience of a sexual partner be irrelevant to ones own experience? And how can that experience be imagined except by imagining it as though you were experiencing it?

I think the consequence is that the autogynephile theory has allowed some to attempt to cast transgenderism as a male sexual rights movement, and that this has had wider social consequences for transpeople. This is a problem that is likely to come up whenever transgender people talk honestly about their sexuality if it immediately becomes an attack point used to negate any other aspects of gender dysphoria. Miranda just did it on this thread with Julie Serano's explanation of her early sexuality - suddenly everything else is inauthentic, she's a male fetishist and that's all there is to her experience of gender dysphoria. If transgenderism becomes portrayed as a purely sexual phenomena then that sets the stage for a reactionary attack on trans rights or healthcare. This is what both trans critical feminists and the conservative right are aiming for, which is why they never shut up about it. And as far as most transpeople are concerned it's not even true, it doesn't describe them. So I think it does matter sadly.

 

[TruXta]

Been reading a few of the articles linked to ++ - sadly not had the time to read much of Blanchard's original papers. Must say that the language used in a lot of the psychiatric literature makes my blood boil a bit. Paraphilia and so on. And that whole "erotic target location error" thing makes bad evolutionary psychology look like quantum physics.

 

[Athos]

Because if you are a member of a marginalised group that historically has been cast as sexual deviants then it might matter if someone was accusing you of being motivated by a sexual fetish you didn't actually experience. Of course this probably doesn't matter to you, the self-selected arbiter of how transpeople should respond to discrimination, stigmatisation and prejudice.

Just seems like you're engaging on other's terms. Why does it matter whether or not some trans people have a sexual driver? Gay people have a sexual 'motive', but nobody seems to see any need to deny that as a precondition of their fair treatment.

Another tiresome and dishonest dig in there, I notice.

 

[TruXta]

Just seems like you're engaging on other's terms. Why does it matter whether or not some trans people have a sexual driver? Gay people have a sexual 'motive', but nobody seems to see any need to deny that as a precondition of their fair treatment.

Another tiresome and dishonest dig in there, I notice.

I think the point smokey is trying to make is that the framing of some trans people's sexual motives as fetishes and paraphilias comes with a firmly, if these days somewhat covert, moral judgment as something deficient, wrong or pathological.

 

[Athos]

I think the point smokey is trying to make is that the framing of some trans people's sexual motives as fetishes and paraphilias comes with a firmly, if these days somewhat covert, moral judgment as something deficient, wrong or pathological.

And mine is that denying that some trans people have autogyneohilic feelings is a dead end, given there's able evidence of it. As is trying to set up some distinction between those who do and those who don't. Why not just concede that it's inconceivable that gender identity and sexuality don't ever interact, but argue that that fact isn't a legitimate basis to discriminate against trans people?

 

[smokedout]

And mine is that denying that some trans people have autogyneohilic feelings is a dead end, given there's able evidence of it. As is trying to set up some distinction between those who do and those who don't.

Nobody has denied some transpeople experience autogynephilia, and the distinction was set up by Blanchard and is supported by Miranda on this thread.

 

[TruXta]

And mine is that denying that some trans people have autogyneohilic feelings is a dead end, given there's able evidence of it. As is trying to set up some distinction between those who do and those who don't. Why not just concede that it's inconceivable that gender identity and sexuality don't ever interact, but argue that that fact isn't a legitimate basis to discriminate against trans people?

I might be missing something - did smokedout deny that ATG is real?

 

[Athos]

Nobody has denied some transpeople experience autogynephilia, and the distinction was set up by Blanchard and is supported by Miranda on this thread.

What point have you been trying to make about it, then?

 

[smokedout]

Why not read what I already wrote.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

This stuff is always quite messy. I think a lot of what Miranda is coming out with(being familiar with their output before urban) is in reaction to more toxic trans politics, the sort of stuff that has put pressure on Ru Paul to not say the word "tranny" even though that word was used to used to refer to transvestites not transsexuals generally and there's even been moves to prohibit cross dressing in trans lefty sects which is fucking insane because transvestites don't tend to do that for shits and giggles it is an important part of their identity, though they are not transgender. I don't want to speak out of turn but reading this thread it seems a lot of people sticking their oar in have a very vague knowledge of the nuances involved here, and throw the word Transphobe around far too easily, lots of us know of the different perspectives and find it less easy to take a strict line on anything really, just because it's a a cis person pointing out difficulties it doesn't mean they hate Trans folks.

 

[krtek a houby]

I see you have drawn a distinction between 'feel like a woman' and 'feel like you want to be a woman'.

That's your opinion. It's down to the individual. Your experiences can no more dictate to others than mine can.

 

[Shechemite]

That's your opinion. It's down to the individual. Your experiences can no more dictate to others than mine can.

What? She’s describing how you’re using language.

 

[krtek a houby]

What? She’s describing how you’re using language.

Is she really. Good to know.

 

[Athos]

Why not read what I already wrote.

I did. It's unclear.

 

[co-op]

I think the consequence is that the autogynephile theory has allowed some to attempt to cast transgenderism as a male sexual rights movement, and that this has had wider social consequences for transpeople. This is a problem that is likely to come up whenever transgender people talk honestly about their sexuality if it immediately becomes an attack point used to negate any other aspects of gender dysphoria. Miranda just did it on this thread with Julie Serano's explanation of her early sexuality - suddenly everything else is inauthentic, she's a male fetishist and that's all there is to her experience of gender dysphoria. If transgenderism becomes portrayed as a purely sexual phenomena then that sets the stage for a reactionary attack on trans rights or healthcare. This is what both trans critical feminists and the conservative right are aiming for, which is why they never shut up about it. And as far as most transpeople are concerned it's not even true, it doesn't describe them. So I think it does matter sadly.

What you say here is only true if AGP is being used as the sole explanation for transgendersism - as I've said before that seems obviously too crude and anyway, why does transgenderism need 'explaining'? But equally, trying to write off AGP because it's been used as a way of pathologising TG is too crude too.

I think MY was entitled to quote JS; JS was being invoked as an authority on how AGP either didn't exist or was irrelevant and yet her own description of her own sexual awakening seems really consistent with AGP. Again, I'm totally in the 'and so what?' camp here. It's just as likely that TG > AGP as the other way round (maybe more so) but in an ideal world who should care about that anyway?

I get that in the non-ideal world we're actually in the idea that mtf TG is basically no more than just another sexual fetish is an attack on the seriousness with which transwomen will be taken, and will therefore be part of any political attack on transpeople more generally.

That's never something I've argued for and absolutely don't. Although I've come across AGP and read some of MY's stuff before I hadn't appreciated the extent to which she appears to locate AGP absolutely as The Central Issue here and I can see why transpeople would have an issue with that.

 

[TopCat]

That's your opinion. It's down to the individual. Your experiences can no more dictate to others than mine can.

She quoted you. Not an opinion.

 

[bimble]

Is she really. Good to know.

Yes. You said this:

Only the individual can do that. There's no template, you just feel what you are or should or want to be.

What a person is and what they want to be - are those not the same thing then?

 

[Shechemite]

Is she really. Good to know.

Christ you’re thick

 

[smokedout]

What you say here is only true if AGP is being used as the sole explanation for transgendersism - as I've said before that seems obviously too crude and anyway, why does transgenderism need 'explaining'? But equally, trying to write off AGP because it's been used as a way of pathologising TG is too crude too.

I think MY was entitled to quote JS; JS was being invoked as an authority on how AGP either didn't exist or was irrelevant and yet her own description of her own sexual awakening seems really consistent with AGP. Again, I'm totally in the 'and so what?' camp here. It's just as likely that TG > AGP as the other way round (maybe more so) but in an ideal world who should care about that anyway?

Had Miranda quoted Julie Serano more fully it would have been clear that she is quite open about having experienced autogynephilia, but that she believes it is a symptom of gender dysphoria not the cause. Since it does not usually appear in transmen, there is no evidence of it in trans-children*, it only appears infrequently in androphilic transsexuals and many non-androphilic transsexuals say they haven't experienced it or that it went away after transition or adolescence, I think Serano is correct - it is obviously not something fundamental or universal to the transgender experience.

A recent large scale study did not replicate Blanchard's findings, but interestingly did find that age and ethnicity were siginifcant predicters of autogynephilia. This suggests it could be a fetish which has developed in reponse to social attitudes and taboos within a given time/culture and leads the authors to speculate that autogynephilia “may be a historically fading phenomenon.”

Yardley and Blanchard would both agree that at the very least autogynephilia is much less common in androphilic transsexuals, and it is here the theory runs into real trouble, although it's often overlooked. Blanchard claims that transgenderism in androphilic transsexuals is caused by 'exteme homosexuality'. There are suggestions they may be motivated to appear as a woman so men are more likely to have sex with them. What this suggests is some kind of gay essence, an essence which is intrinsically feminine in nature - according to the theory the more 'gay' you are then the more likely you are to become transsexual. It's reactionary nonsense.

* Lawrence does offer up two case reports of boys younger than age three who expressed a desire to wear cross-sex clothing and who had erections when they did so. This strikes me as being as creepy as it is desperate.

 

[bimble]

Looking at the methodology of that study, i do find it all very peculiar.
It says "Transvestic fetishism during a given stage of life was coded as 0 (no sexual arousal from any type of feminine dressing either in public or in private) or 1 (sexual arousal from one or more types of feminine dressing either in public or in private). ..
What is the actual difference between the 'symptom' the study searches for above and the well known fact that women in general are supposed to 'feel sexy' by wearing matching / frilly underwear for instance, or dressing up in heels and lipstick.

 

[smokedout]

Looking at the methodology of that study, i do find it all very peculiar.
It says "Transvestic fetishism during a given stage of life was coded as 0 (no sexual arousal from any type of feminine dressing either in public or in private) or 1 (sexual arousal from one or more types of feminine dressing either in public or in private). ..
What is the actual difference between the 'symptom' the study searches for above and the well known fact that women in general are supposed to 'feel sexy' by wearing matching / frilly underwear for instance, or dressing up in heels and lipstick.

Possibly not much, similar arousal has been found in cis-women, although the sampling methods of this study have been criticised.

 

[bimble]

Possibly not much, similar arousal has been found in cis-women, although the sampling methods of this study have been criticised.

The sciencification of this just makes me laugh to be honest. A survey of 29 people is not really needed to confirm that the advice to women in our society on how to 'feel sexy' generally starts with the instruction to buy some expensive lingerie.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Looking at the methodology of that study, i do find it all very peculiar.
It says "Transvestic fetishism during a given stage of life was coded as 0 (no sexual arousal from any type of feminine dressing either in public or in private) or 1 (sexual arousal from one or more types of feminine dressing either in public or in private). ..
What is the actual difference between the 'symptom' the study searches for above and the well known fact that women in general are supposed to 'feel sexy' by wearing matching / frilly underwear for instance, or dressing up in heels and lipstick.

This is a good question. The whole edifice looks like nonsense on stilts to me.

There are all kinds of objectionable assumptions in here, from the idea that homosexuality is a 'mistake' to the pathologising of fetishes, when fetishes are all over the place, particularly wrt clothing - a person with no kind of fetish whatever wrt clothing is probably in the minority in our society.

 

[bimble]

a person with no kind of fetish whatever wrt clothing is probably in the minority in our society.

I agree, and feel vaguely sorry for any such person.