Talk:Autogynephilia/Archive 1

message: I haven't seen this anywhere in the literature or anything that I've read, but how about adding in a comment about autoandrophilia as a parallel construction for f2m TSes? --DanaJohnson 03:14, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Kindly don't. Because Blanchard once stated that because women never have any paraphilias (a rather questionable statement, but hey, what do you expect?), to him and his clique all transmen are really lesbians with a coming-out problem. And that is all he ever said about transmen, and his followers never said much more about the matter, either. Which ignores the mayority of transmen, who don't idenitfy as straigt men; but ignoring facts is after all their favorite way of theory-forming. Of course, gay and bi and pan transmen are neither older nor "uglier" than straight ones, nor are they usually turned on by the thought of themself in boxers and trousers, so maybe the oversight was not quite so unintentional.  So if even the father of this monstrosity of a theory didn't bother applying it to us, I'd kindly ask that nobody else does, either. Especially not here, because the WP ist really not a place to expand freaky theories when nobody else has done so before. -- AlexR 11:12, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: I had a feeling you were not one of his greatest admirers. I think the only merrit this theory has ever had is that it gave some people a way of accepting their sexual feelings; although it is rather sad that it was this theory that did so. Then again, the trans*community and the "expert" f...ooled each other and themselves so completely, I am not surprised by anything any more. Although Blanchard and Co probably come close. But as Einstein said: "Two things are infinite ..."  What do you think about adding http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/LynnsReviewOfBaileysBook.html to the links? -- AlexR 00:57, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, nobody ever suspected him of having done much reseach on transwomen, either, now, do they? (Well, except Bailey&co maybe.) But welcome to the Wikipedia, nice to see another transman here - until now it's just me and the girls ;-) Just do get yourself a username, easier to talk to people that way. -- AlexR 15:41, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Autoandrophilia?

message: First of all, I point out that I am not an expert on the subject, nor do I have any particular bias in it. I have tried to be as fair as possible. However, unlike rewording and expansion, deletions need justifications to prove you're not trying to cover up things. I'll go over all of them.
This I could not correct:
:This categorization includes all transwomen who are not exclusively attracted to men, including asexual transwomen. Blanchard argues that in these cases the transsexual feelings have their origins in this paraphilia.
What does "this paraphilia" refer to? Not being exclusively attracted to men? Being asexual? Being a transwoman? And since "paraphilia" is a POV categorization, shouldn't we first mention that Blanchard claims it to be a paraphilia, and then how Blanchard uses it to argue inclusion? This could be made clearer.
::Well, problem is that any closer look at the theory tends to reveal it's holes. This is one of them. He simply clutters all transwoman who are not exclusively attraced to males into the autogynophilica category, despite the fact that completely asexual transwoman, for example, hardly fit in at all. The paraphila is still supposed to be the sexual attraction towards oneself as a woman. -- AlexR 17:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reference:  The term nonhomosexual will be understood, in this paper, to include hetereosexual, bisexual, and analloerotic gender dysphorics. [...] The above-mentioned findings all tend to support the hypothesis that the main types of nonhomosexual gender dysphoria are variant forms of one underlying disturbance. [...] The present study, therefore, tested the prediction that all three types of nonhomosexual gender dysphoric will be more likely than the homosexual type to report symptoms of autogynephilia. and later, on page ,  This result confirms the central prediction of the present study, name, that autogynephilic behavior will be reported more frequently by nonhomosexual than by homosexual gender dysphorics. and On this variable, the mean score of the homosexual group was significantly lower than the means of all three nonhomosexual groups, which did not differ from each other. -- AlexR 07:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Nonhomosexual transsexuals

message: :Also highly controversial is the claim that "autogynophiliac" transwomen are usually "older and uglier" than "homosexual" transwomen, a claim that has, among with many equally problematic ones, been greatly emphasized in Michael Bailey's The Man Who Would Be Queen (2003).
I removed this not just because I couldn't find it (I have no doubt it's in the book) but because this stresses Bailey's representation, which is already cited heavily. Bailey's book is written as "popular science", i.e. what he claims is not necessarily a part of what is the supposed "science" in this theory.  And what Bailey emphasizes is not the same as autogynephilia as a topic itself — such observations properly belong to a separate article on his book.
::Actually, the book was first advertises as being "the cutting edge of science" and only after it turned out that anything resembling sciences was a triffle hard to find it was labeled first "popular science" and then a "personal account". Blanchard has made similar statements, too - I'll look for references. -- AlexR 17:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Old and ugly"

message: Regarding the transmen comments in the text:
*First of all, I will try to find the source for Blanchard's statement again - I have read that claim myself, though, so yes, it is true and I think we can safely leave it there. Nevertheless, source will look better. 
*Regarding the number of non-straigth transmen, problem is that little research is done on the subject, and most research is inheritly flawed. (If you ask people who are trying to get, say, a letter of recommendation, don't expect honest ansers. Reason for that is not that transpeople are pathological liars, as BBL claim, but that experience has shown that answers who do not fit into the caregivers stereotypes can have grave consequences, like withholding of medical treatment. And if you try to find people who are through with everything, most just have been so annoyed by caregivers that the return rate is pretty bad.) Nevertheless, rates of either one third straight, one third gay, and one third undecided/bi/pan/asexual or rates of half straight and half not are the absolutely usual reply from any group in Western Europe and North America I ever heard of - and I have been collecting reports on that for years. I'll also try to find an online reverence, nevertheless. -- AlexR 17:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Transmen

message: During the debate on IRC the question of "lying" transsexuals came up. Here's another reference:  The analloerotic group in the present study probably included a handful of subjects who were not truly analloerotic but rather were consciously motivated by the desire for sex reassignment to deny all sexual behavior, whether or not this was accurate. This possibility is raised both by formal studies demonstrating the general unreliablility of self-report in gender patients (Blanchard et al., 1985, 1986) and by casual examination of the present data. Of course, there is next to no insight as to why people might feel compelled not to tell the truth during procedures necessary to obtain medical treatment or paperwork for legal stuff (namely, because they would not get what they need if they tell the truth; an experience many transpeople actually made). The paper he cites - his own - does not show anything like that, either, rather, it confirms the stereotype of the "lying transsexual".  See  for a report on the paper and its flaws. Quote: Contrary to the way this study has been characterized, it does not provide any evidence that 'heterosexual' transsexuals are obsessive or lying. The results are consistent with the idea that fulfilling a certain societal expectation is important to transsexuals, especially in an environment where they are being evaluated for much-desired hormones and sex reassignment surgery. -- AlexR 07:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lying

message: The previous revision by 69.39.103.154 (09:01, 31 May 2005) had some redundancies, and a somewhat tendentious reference to a 20-year old book. I don't believe there's any controversy in stating that some people have sexual fantasies about inhabiting a differently configured body. One can find plenty of instances in fiction and non-fiction alike throughout history. Jokestress 17:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it seems rather far-fetched to connect sexual fantasies to a strong conviction that you have been born and lived your entire life with the wrong body. 惑乱 分からん 10:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual fantasies 

message: A third opinion was requested [here]: Talk:Autogynephilia#"Two Type Theory of Transsexuality" Debate over whether one or all theories about the causes of transgender and transsexualism need(s) its/their own article has escalated - a neutral third opinion is desperately needed, preferably before this moves into article space. -- AlexR 22:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Opinion 

message: This article reads like the recognition of autogynephilia as the cause of non-homosexual male transsexuals is a hate crime. Concidering the solid academic proof, the tone is not very NPOV. It also refuses to go into much detail with regards to the psychology of it including the self-concept and masturbatory habits. 209.226.121.100 03:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm ... If there is "solid academical proof" kindly add references for it -- I sure never saw anything of the kind. I am also slightly irritated by your claim that "self-concept" and "masturbatory habits" are somehow closely connected. I dunno, but there are not many people I know that claim their gender identity is based on their wanking phantasies. In fact, I don't know any. That claim is a BBL exclusive, and there is no proof for it whatsoever that I am aware of. If you think the article misses something, add it. IPs just whining on talk pages and slapping NPOV and "Missing information" tags onto the page are hardly to be taken serious. So unless you actually can cite some of your "solid academical proof" and stop arguing with nonsense as "hate crime" the tags go out -- and don't expect too much of a debate on that level, either. -- AlexR 09:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We may not like that Anne Lawrence and many of her followers embrace the theory, but that's the way it is. -- 24.28.91.123 03:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a very useful article