Date: 8/09/2015 11:15:53
From: dv
ID: 772542
Subject: Dichotomy in M2F transsexuals

Some interesting analysis on the categorisation of M2F transsexuals as either gay or autogynephilic.

http://alicedreger.com/autogyn

1. “To what degree do you think that the trans experience can be divided into the two categories suggested by Blanchard: i.e., are transgender individuals either gay or autogynephilic?”

First, it’s important to point out for those new to this that Blanchard and Bailey were only looking at male-to-female transgender individuals, so we are only talking about transgender women. I also need to explain for novices that Blanchard suggested (and Bailey agreed) that there are two types of male-to-female transgender individuals, the one being autogynephilic and the other what Blanchard called “homosexual transsexuals.” These are natal males who are androphilic, i.e., attracted to males.

As I say in the book, I find Blanchard’s term “homosexual transsexual” confusing, because after transition, these individuals are women having sex with men. Calling them “gay” is even more confusing to me than calling them “homosexual.” If I had my way, we’d talk about androphilic and autogynephilic.

So let’s do that, and answer the reader’s question: To what degree do I think the male-to-female transgender experience can be divided into these two types—androphilic and autogynephilic?

I think it is certainly possible there are other ways you can get to be a transgender woman, but I think what I’ve seen from the scientific clinical literature and socioculturally suggests this division makes sense. I want to emphasize that I think both of these developmental paths are perfectly legitimate ways to become women, and regardless of how someone becomes a woman, if she identifies as such, we owe her the respect of recognizing her identity and addressing her appropriately.

It seems to me unfortunate that sexual phobias have caused many transgender people over the years to feel they must only talk about their genders and never their sexualities. This, I think, has been extremely oppressive and lacking in respect and understanding. My suspicion is that what happens for transgender women is true for almost all of us—namely that gender and sexual orientation are intimately related to each other. (When I’m having sex with my partner, I am doing so as a woman.) So I don’t think it should surprise us that there is an erotic component to gender transition decisions.

—-

Reply Quote

Date: 8/09/2015 11:33:58
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 772573
Subject: re: Dichotomy in M2F transsexuals

Having looked up “autogynephilic”, I didn’t find the description of the meaning very enlightening.

Can you give us a straightforward account of what this word means?

Reply Quote

Date: 8/09/2015 11:37:42
From: Bubblecar
ID: 772577
Subject: re: Dichotomy in M2F transsexuals

The Rev Dodgson said:


Having looked up “autogynephilic”, I didn’t find the description of the meaning very enlightening.

Can you give us a straightforward account of what this word means?

From Wiki, seems straightforward:

Autogynephilia (/ˌɔːtoʊˌɡaɪnəˈfɪliə/; from Greek αὐτό- (“self”), γυνή (“woman”) and φιλία (“love”) — “love of oneself as a woman”) is a term coined in 1989 by Ray Blanchard, to refer to “a man’s paraphilic tendency to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman.”

Reply Quote

Date: 8/09/2015 11:38:02
From: dv
ID: 772578
Subject: re: Dichotomy in M2F transsexuals

The Rev Dodgson said:


Having looked up “autogynephilic”, I didn’t find the description of the meaning very enlightening.

Can you give us a straightforward account of what this word means?

Well really, that is all in the article.

“The term “autogynephilia” denotes being sexually aroused by the idea of being or becoming a woman. “

More details and examples are given in the article.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/09/2015 11:44:26
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 772583
Subject: re: Dichotomy in M2F transsexuals

We’re supposed to follow links to read the full article now?

Having had the word explained to me, the suggestion that transgender impulses can be sub-divided into these two groups seems as gross and ludicrous an example of the either/orist fallacy as I have come across recently.

So I’m glad I didn’t waste time reading the article.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/09/2015 11:48:38
From: dv
ID: 772591
Subject: re: Dichotomy in M2F transsexuals

The Rev Dodgson said:


We’re supposed to follow links to read the full article now?

Well, yes. Certainly, reading my very brief introductory note would not have been very informative.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/09/2015 11:55:27
From: Peak Warming Man
ID: 772607
Subject: re: Dichotomy in M2F transsexuals

It’s hard to keep tract of things these days.
Saying that you’re going to have a BLT for lunch can get you some funny looks.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/09/2015 12:00:02
From: dv
ID: 772620
Subject: re: Dichotomy in M2F transsexuals

Peak Warming Man said:


It’s hard to keep tract of things these days.
Saying that you’re going to have a BLT for lunch can get you some funny looks.

Did we do the “turnover and lettuce” joke?

Reply Quote