Talk:Autogynephilia/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Understandability 2 Autoandrophilia? 3 Neutrality 4 NPOVing 4.1 "Nonhomosexual transsexuals 4.2 "Old and ugly" 4.3 Sexual fantasies 4.4 Transmen 4.5 Lying 5 Sexual fantasies 6 "Two Type Theory of Transsexuality" 6.1 Third Opinion 7 Not a very useful article

Understandability

Hmm. Could something be done to bring this article accessible to those readers who are not au fait with the terminology of the specific field? Just asking. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick

Hi Cimon, Can you say more about what specific terms are confusing? Looking over the edit I just made, I'm guessing what's confusing is "correlations do not establish causality" and "control group?" There is a wikipedia entry on correlation/causality; maybe we can add a link to it? Unfortunately I couldn't find a wikipedia entry about control groups. I don't have time right now to make one; maybe somebody else could? ~ Katie

Hi Katie. While Gender dysphoria and sexual fetishism have links to articles which explain their meaning, the article perhaps should provide a short definition of what they mean (in a way that would additionally provide context as to the specific way they are relevant to Autogynephilia, if at all possible, maybe). That is my thought. The article itself doesn't really confuse me, but it does make me think very hard before comprehension. Some readers might not be willing to make the effort. Anyway, no rush. The article is understandable as it stands. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 05:21, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)

Possibly the links could be changed to links linking to Wiktionary instead of Wikipedia? Wow... how many times did I just say link? lol.

Autoandrophilia?

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)

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)

Oh, holy crap. Did he really say that women don't have paraphilias? Just how far up his own a$$ is his head, anyway? Just to be clear, I was making the suggestion from a linguistic point of view for completeness only, not because I really think the theory has any merit -- I'm a transwoman, and I find the whole thing distasteful and offensive.

No need for you guys to suffer the same level of crap that we girls are getting from Blanchard, Bailey, and company if you don't have to. Consider the suggestion rescinded! :/ Dana 16:15, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

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)

Blanchard apparently didn't do much research on transmen, then. I myself am a transman, and to be precise, a pansexual female who desires to become a homosexual male. Women have no paraphilias? Riiight. ~Tacubus

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) (Trannyfag, too.)

Neutrality

Is it just me, or does the tone of this artical lean a little to close to critical? Maybe someone with Autogynephilic expirience could add a more balanced view? User:82.34.65.188

Yes, the article is critical - as it ought to be, since the theory is not even remotely scientifc, and not advocated by more than a handfull of people. Any what do you mean with "autogynophilic experience"? Somebody who feels that the label describes them accurately? There are not many of those, and they are hardly balanced, either. Since I wanted to do some work on the article anyway, I will leave the NPOV warning until I manage to get at it, but will remove it then unless somebody comes with an argument why it should remain. Because, yes, the article is critical - but I fail to see where it violates the neutralitiy rule. After all, that rule does not state that criticism, especially when that is as widespread as in this case, should not be mentioned. -- AlexR 09:43, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Really. This article needs a BIT of NPOV'ing. I'm all right with transsexuals explaining their views, and their opponents explaining theirs', but this article is clearly the former. Puh-leez. -- anon User:193.166.89.77

How about getting a clue before complaining? This theory is not only not taken seriously (to put it mildly) by trans*-people, but also not by the vast mayority of caregivers and researchers. On the other hand, there are transpeople subscribing to this theory. So the line you attempt to draw (although I am not quite sure who or what "opponents of transsexuals" are supposed to be; Blanchard claims, oddly enough, that he is supportive to transsexuals) simply does not exist. -- AlexR 00:33, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can see there's been a lot of debate on the NPOV subject, and changes have been made, but to me the article still reads like a denouncement of the theory rather than a mere presentation of the ideas it presents. I could understand a small note on the controversies surrounding the issue, but at present, criticism and condemnation account for over 70% of the page space. I don’t want to over step my bounds, but I’ve decided to reinstate the warning.User:82.34.65.188

Thanks for your input. Please sign all your contributions with four tildes , this automatically adds your username and a time stamp. It helps us sort out who's who and when's when. Better yet, get an account! It's free and easy (see Wikipedia:Why create an account?).
Make sure you properly understand Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. In particular, this article need not be "a mere presentation of the ideas it presents", especially not if (as in this case) the theory is clearly controversial. An admitted shortcoming of Wikipedia's process is that there will be inherent bias if not enough supporters of all sides are present. We believe that, given enough time, such biases will be corrected automatically by a growing user base. If you believe the theory's tenets are underexposed, or that the criticisms presented here are invalid, not sourced properly, or not effectively answered, please try to add that information to the article (and in doing so, check your facts and cite sources). Simply adding an NPOV tag will ultimately not do; though it would be desirable, you can hardly expect the detractors of this theory to do your homework for you. Be bold. If we disagree with your edits, we will say so. Actions speak louder than words — don't just say what's wrong with the article, fix it! JRM 03:20, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure I'd really be up to the task. My knowledge of the subject is rather limited, and any attempt I could make at providing a counter view would be light-weight at most. I know it's not ideal, but I really do think that raising awareness of the article's bias with a NPOV tag is the best thing to do until someone with a real grasp of the other side of the issue comes along

Fair enough, but NPOV tags are used to resolve active disputes. All of our articles are subject to bias and inaccuracy—you're basically saying "I know very little about it, but I think this article is not neutral". Our readers should always be aware of possible bias in our articles, though, and we have a disclaimer to say so. The NPOV tag really suggests that an active dispute is going on, which is hardly the case; I've weakened the tag to {{POV check}}, which alerts people without giving off such strong signs. I trust this acceptable? JRM 09:35, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think there is a point in putting in any of these warnings, including POVcheck. The IP(s?) is not able to point to any particular point, and does not even seem to be aware of either the controvercy nor the participants. If we'd slap every article with a warning tag that somebody thinks might be biased half of our articles had them, at least.

Also, the conclusion that nobody who worked on the article has "a real grasp of the other side" does not exactly show any familliarity with the subject, either - we have a good grasp, thank you very much. The IP should read the texts for themselfes, both the original study, which remains very much the only study ever done to support the theory, and Baileys book are available online, from the links. Of course, it is much easier to stir up a debate when one has not much of a clue, but I think unless somebody comes up with anything resembling an argument, instead of an "I think it might", all such tags can be safely removed. As I will do, unless something does come forward soon. -- AlexR 16:28, 18 Jan 2005 (:::UTC)

The very fact that a controversy exists at all, coupled with the obviously one sided nature of the article as it stands sugests to me that some sort of POV warning is necessary.

You want examples? Let's count the criticisms shall we.

1)"Some suggest that, since correlations do not establish causality, Blanchard may be mistaking a symptom of gender dysphoria for its primary cause"

2)"A lack of control groups in Blanchard's work lead some to wonder how different bisexual, lesbian and asexual transsexual women are from bisexual, lesbian and asexual cisgender women."

3)"The theory has been questioned on the grounds that it does not properly account for the behavior and self-identification of a great many transsexual and transgender women."

4)The motivation for transgender and transsexual people who may not feel open to discussing these matters during procedures has not been investigated, it is more likely that these people are under pressure to report certain "correct" symptoms in order for proper legal and medical treatment.

5)"Many expect "autogynephilia" will be - discredited as a diagnosis in time."

There's more, but I think this sample is enough to prove the general tone of the article leans a little closer to hostile than it perhaps should. If this were a real controversy you'd think there'd be more in the way of counter points and rebuttles. Granted there are a couple of limp "Proponents say" sentances, but they only realy serve as further amunition for the theory's obvious detractors. J. Michael Bailey seems so insulting in his comments that the only reason I can see for even citing them in the first place would be to discredit the overall validity of theory.

The very fact that the word "Proponent" has to be used at all, when terms like 'Opponents', 'critics' etc. aren't even mentioned leaves me in no doubt of the article's 'base-line' view. Criticism is the defult. It remains unattributed, because it eminates from the article's contibutors.

In other words the critisims in the article are being presented as nothing more than a series of personal attacks. Does that strike you as unbiased? User:82.34.65.188 The IP

Well, I guess all you have shown with this reply is that you have no clue whatever about the theory, its (few) proponents, and its (many) critics. The claim that criticism "eminates from the articles contributors" (and, by implication, nobody else), and that the criticism is nothing but personal attacks (no personal attacks are present in the article), shows that only too clearly. You also seem to be unaware that the main textual body of this theory consists of a few articles by Blanchard, only one of which is anything resembling a study, Bailey's book, and a webpage by Ann Lawrence. Since that is not exactly much, maybe you ought to read through these, then read through some of the criticism (The Lynn Conway page [1] links to a lot of it), and then come back and do some debate that is based on facts, not your personal feelings.

For some theories, even if their proponents somehow have degrees, it just isn't possible to write an article that is favourable to the theorie and still sticks to the facts. "Flat earth" and "Gay germ" come to mind. And of course the plain fact that a controvercy exists if of course no reason to slap a warning label onto an article dealing with what the controvercy is about. -- AlexR 13:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry it's taken me so long to reply to this. I haven't really had a lot of time for wiki recently.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand; First off, let me just say in retrospect, my wording was a little misleading in my last comment. What I meant by "personal attacks" would probably be better served by a term like "personally motivated criticisms"

Sexuality and gender identity are issues that raise strong feelings for many people, and I can’t help but wonder if that doesn’t leave them with some element of bias. Surely the stronger a person’s feelings on a subject are, the more personal it will seem to them, and the less objective they are likely to be while discussing it. It's hard for people to remain neural when clouded by their own opinions.

Given that every human being has a gender and a sexuality, actually, by your reasoning no human being should write about them, then. Hardly feasible. Also, you seem to assume that the researchers have no particular feelings on the matter, but experience shows (and so do a few texts on the subject) that they might not only feel at least as much as gender variant people themselfes, they are also less inclined to reflect on this, leading (among other things) to often problematic theories. However, this theory is also based on a pre-existing notion, namely, that something like a primary gender identity does not exist, but that gender identity somehow develops after a child becomes aware of the reactions of others to it's own behaviour, and in case of the autogynophiliac, after it does develop a rather specified paraphilia. Let's be very polite here and say that there is no basis whatever for that theory, a problem which, incidentally, none of the papers does discuss, either. [AR]

In regards to my take on the subject at hand, as an (hopefully) impartial observer I really have no strong opinions on the theory one way or another. To me, it seems a plausible explanation to the psychology behind the gender issues of some male to female transsexuals. Not all, Necessarily, but some. Human psychology is a complex system after all, It stands to reason that there may be multiple paths towards what is generally seen as the same “disorder”. The Theory could be absolute bunkum of course, but given the obviously tiny amount of research dedicated to testing it so far, it’d be crazy to write it off entirely. Given the depth and breadth of human experience, can you honestly say that there hasn’t been a single M to F transsexual who has identified with the Autogynephilia model to at least some extent?

Nobody has, as far as I know, claimed that it is impossible for a person with all the characteristics and probably the history of an autogynophiliac to exist; in fact, many claim that Ann Lawrence in one of those people. (I myself cannot either confirm or deny that; I am quite suspicious of the claim because it is often intended as an insult; however, if only some of the stories that are told are true, then this is at the very least a good explanation for her behaviour.) However, the problem here is that this theory attempts to place all transwoman in precisely two narrow categories, which contradicts both the expieriences of the overwhelming mayority of transwoman and the overwhelming body of scientifc research done. And make no mistake - the theory itself, that trans(whatever) is based on a paraphilia and/or homosexuality, was not exactly new; this was the leading theory back when research started on the phenomenon of gender variant people, and it has never been proven, despite several attempts to do so. One would think that at least some evidence of this or something similar would have turned up in about 50 years of research. The fact that nothing did, and experience simply shows otherwise, is also the reason the theory has not been investigated very much - it is just too much contradicted by what is already well-known. [AR]

Incidentally, and at the risk of further displaying my ignorance of the subject matter, what are the currently favoured theories regarding the basis for Transsexuality? Most of the sites I’ve looked at on the subject seem to brush over the root causes.The IP 02:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The current theory is gender identity disorder, which does happen to have a large body of evidence behind it. However, this is not a theory which states the origins of gender variance. Several reasons have been proposed over the years, including sexual perversion, surpressed homosexuality, schizophrenia, multiple personality disorder, other mental illnesses, sexual abuse, and a few others. Also, physical conditions have been investigated. Problem is and was that for (almost) each and every theory, while it was possible to find a few transpeople to whom the theory might have applied, unfortunately for the theory, there was never one which applied to even a significant minority of transpeople, not to mention a mayority or even all. And usually there were also significant numbers of cisgendered (non-trans) people where the same problem was present, but who did not have a gender identity different from their sex. Check Transsexual#Physical causes the most current theory which is based on physical differences in the brain. However, given the very small sample size, it is not clear whether this does indeed apply to all gender-variant people, or, again, at least to a large part of them. -- AlexR 04:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It's cleared a few things up for me. The opening statements of the "Causes of transsexualism" section were especially interesting. Given the stated stance of "Scholars of gender theory, gender professionals and transsexual rights activists" in regards to the search for a cause of transsexualism, it's unsurprising that a theory such as Autogynephilia would be regarded with a large degree of hostility by the transgender community. If the search itself is pointless (even insulting) then why pay any credence to an obviously fringe theory?

Errr ... you misunderstood something, most definitely. To be precise, you misunderstood two things: First, not everybody thinks that searching for a cause is a bad thing, althoug some people do. And second, it is not just transgender people who do not view this theory as viable ("hate" is not quite appropriate in most cases, either), but the overwhelming mayority of scientists and caretakers as well - including those who are looking for a cause of trans*. Now, I have stated that already quite a few times, so why do you choose to ignore that. Also, what makes you think you can insist on putting a neutrality warning into this article if you have not even read the WP artikels on the subject? Really, this starts looking like trolling to me. [AR]

I do have to question this rational though. Sure there is a large element of cultural bias where gender is concerned, especially in regards to forms of dress, accepted behavioural patterns, expected roles in society etc. But when it comes down to actual bodily dysphoria, in relation to physical gender then surely we can all agree that we're dealing with something undeniably un-healthy to the individual? Given the amount of emotional anguish it seems to cause transsexuals to have such a disparity between their perceived body image, and the biological reality they are confronted with, you’d think there would be a greater deal of interest in to the reasons behind their situation. To dismiss it as irreverent seems like a cover up.

To you, maybe - but may I point out that this argument runs along the same line as looking for causes for homosexuality? The search for causes usually includes a wish for "healing" people, implying that something is inherently wrong with it. That is obviously a view that some people consider as highly problematic. Also, the suffering you describe could be easily considerably diminished if people (whether homosexual or transgender or both) were treated like human beings. In places where that happens, the anguish and suffering is greatly reduced. Also, there are practical considerations - many of the "causes" found so far have lead to "treatment" of those causes, in the hope of making trans* disappear. Now, that does not work, but it does cause a lot of suffering and anguish, so many people are highly skeptical of the benefits of such research. Having said that, most transgender people I know hold a much simpler view - it might be interesting to know where it comes from, but first and foremost we have to deal with the problems at hand. [AR]

All this in mind, given the apparent attitude of many experts in the field it comes as no surprise that very little real research has been done on the subject. I guess that the main body of evidence does seem to lean towards physical differences in brain matter being the major cause of physical Gender dysphoria, but to be honest, given the relatively small amount of actual research on the subject I don’t think we’re dealing with a closed book situation here. Until further research is conducted I’m not prepared to discredit any theory, Autogynephilia included. Just because it doesn’t fit the experiences of all, transsexuals doesn’t mean it isn’t applicable to some.

Even if Blanchard, and Bailey see it as a universal theory, I’m prepared to look at it on a case by case basis. In areas like human psychology I don’t think it pays to generalize. The IP 21:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now you are repeating yourself, and ignoring again what I said. The main body of evidence is not about brain differences, it just happens to be the only theory that actually produced some results; which is why it is widely publicised; unlike the other theories for which no evidence was ever found. That does not mean, though, that search for them has stopped. Also, nobody claimed there was a closed-book-situation here. And once again (and for the last time): This is not a matter of some transsexual people not fitting in, but the vast mayority not fitting in. That is a difference you choose to ignore. Also, it does not matter at all what you are prepared to discard - if the vast mayority of those who do know something about the subject, including scientists and caretakers, do discredit it, then that is good enough for Wikipedia. -- AlexR 23:10, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok Alex, I'm not gonna get involved in a flame war here. I don't like being called a troll, and I don't appreciate being called clueless. It's clear you're not willing to keep an open mind about this, and given your obvious bias I don't really see much point in continuing the discussion. Maybe once I get my head around the subject a little more, I'll deal with the NPOV situation a little more directly. For now I'm just going to back off gracefully. The IP 03:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NPOVing

The dub-headings were inserted by me after much of what is below was written, simply for the sake of clarity. Therefore, signatures may appear to be missing; they are simply to be found further below, though. AlexR 07:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Nonhomosexual transsexuals

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)

Reference: [2] 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 [3], 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)

"Old and ugly"

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)

Sexual fantasies

Less controversial than Blanchard's theory is the recognition that some people sometimes have sexual fantasies about being the other sex. These people may or may not also be transgendered. When viewed as a psychopathology, these fantasies may be thought of as a type of paraphilia. The pathologization of socially unacceptable erotic interests has a long history, and recent clinical diagnoses such as "ego-dystonic homosexuality" and "nymphomania" have fallen into disrepute. Many expect "autogynephilia" will be similarly discredited as a diagnosis in time.

I have deleted the first three sentences from this paragraph on two grounds:

1. "[...] some people sometimes have sexual fantasies about being the other sex. These people may or may not also be transgendered" is incredibly weaselly. There is no doubt that "some" people have fantasies in this direction "sometimes", but if we can't be more specific, there's nothing to gain from claiming it is "less controversial" than Blanchard's theory. If it is, why do we need all the weasel words?

See below [AR]

1. They are not necessary for the conclusion. The shorter paragraph still establishes the point ("autogynephilia may be considered as scientific as the phlogiston theory one day") without needing to tie in to transgenderism explicitly. We do not need to contrast autogynephilia with other theories for that.

Indeed not, one reason it is a good thing when a neutral person looks over the article - it is very hard to be trans(whatever) and write a neutral article about this particular theory. (Although most cisgender people, after a closer look at this, report similar problems. I wonder why ...) -- AlexR 17:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Note that there is still a lack of direct citations of sources, and a lot of "some critics" and "some claim" remains. Why?! We have lots of brilliant references. I have left HTML comments for the most egregious cases that I believe should really be fixed. If you can clear that up, please do; I did not have time to read all the references. Note that the distinction between "references" and "external links" here is also unclear, since some of the pages mentioned as links are clearly related to our references. I'm not sure how this should be cleared up. JRM 02:15, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)

The genre of erotic transgender transformation fiction on the internet is vast, actually, even bigger than animal transformation fantasy I suspect. Here are some links to various fiction archives that popped up from a google search: [4], [5] (nearly 10,000 stories at this one), [6], [7]. Yahoo has almost a thousand transgender-related groups, [8], many of which involve fantasies of transformation. I'm from the TSA side of things so I don't have a lot of specifics at my fingertips but I think this is more than ample evidence that "some people sometimes have sexual fantasies about being the other sex." I'll re-add those lines shortly and add one or two of these links along with. Bryan 06:41, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but ... You see, there is a general problem: The old TS/TV theory did not have any place for sexual arousal in people who were "propery transsexual", and only those were allowed to change gender. Any erotic interest was firmly interpreted as being proof of that person not being "properly transsexual", (diagnosis then was "transvestism") hence not being allowed to change gender (by not getting medical treatment and required papers for a legal change of gender). This theory is increasingly replaced by the theory of gender identity disorder, but while GID by now usually does not exclude sexual arousal in connection with a "true" gender identity that is incongruent with the sex of that person, this is one of the somewhat unchartered fields. In the GID theory, gender identity comes first and sexual arousal comes second, with GID not necessarily being present when it comes to sexual arousal in connection with cross-gender phantasies; transvestic fetishism and GID can be completely unrelated to each other.

On the other hand, Blanchards theory assumes that sexual arousal comes first, and it can be so strong that a different gender identity may arise from it, exactly the other way around. People with a cross-gender identity are therefore only particularly bad cases of being aroused by a certain sexual image.

So if one looks from the "sexual arousal" point, Blanchards theory might be appealing, because it explains the sexual arousal (which is rather common) also in people with a cross-gender identiy, something that at the time the theory was made up was not covered by the prevalent TS/TV theory, which might explain why a few transwoman do subscribe to this theory, too. Hence the old sentence (which was indeed improvable) "Less controversial than Blanchard's theory is the recognition that some people sometimes have sexual fantasies about being the other sex." This referred to the point of view of people with a cross-gender identity, not people in general, and was then modified to cover all people with such fantasies. As a consequence, the whole paragraph needs to be completely rewritten, explaining the problem, and cannot be simply restored.

Oh, and just for the record - I have serious doubte about both theories, although I consider the first one still somewhat incomplete, particularly in this regard, while the second one - well, I just know too many people whose very existence contradicts it all too clearly. -- AlexR 17:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I took a couple of psych courses waaay back when, but I know nothing about any of this stuff as far as rigorous (or not-so-rigorous) psychological theory goes. I just think that there should be some mention of the people out there who write and enjoy TG erotica, regardless of whether it ties in with the "official" meaning of autogynephilia in psychology circles, since I've come into contact with so much of it over the years and I expected this article to be about that when I first saw it. If this is something that's completely unconnected with the stuff currently described in this article, how about sticking it in a paragraph with perhaps its own section header or even a horizontal rule to separate it from the rest? If someone else comes along and writes a ton of stuff about it I'd suggest splitting the article, but it hardly seems worth it for just a one or two line mention. Bryan 17:55, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that it is not exactly uncomplicated to write about the relationship of TG erotica and autogynophilia, as is probably obvious. There are obviously relations, and that should be mentioned. However, I would very much suggest that an article on such erotica would remain different from this one, because we have a) the behaviour (or, to be precise, many facets of that behaviour) and b) the various analyses of this behaviour; this article is one of those, but not the only one - there are at least the "TS/TV theory" and it's follower, GID, paraphilia theory (in turn related to the TV part of the former), and "autogynophilia". Hence it seems prudent to make an article about the erotica themselfes, and refer to them in those various articles. Do compare transvestic fetishism though, that is one technical term for this, and an article already existing. -- AlexR 20:23, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a good article, though even farther afield from my areas of "expertise" so I can't add much. However, it appears that transvestic fetishism is almost entirely about clothing, whereas the fiction sites I linked to are almost entirely about physically transforming into the opposite sex. I don't think it would fit very well at all under the transvestic fetishism article. Can you suggest a possible name for an article about this? I don't like trying to come up with titles that might be neologisms. Bryan 07:37, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes and no - that is a technical term, and what was investigated were of course actions, not fantasies. However, from my (admittedly not particular deep or wide) experience people who do the clothes thing think about the body thing a lot, too. They just don't do it - or at least, most don't, since there are quite a few transwoman who are by now transitioned, but used both cross-dressing and such fantasies to relieve the pressure. Very tricky subject, that. You could probably make a point when you add it to that article, but you might as well make one on its own and just link. Currently I can't think of an appropriate title, but I'll think about it and ask around. -- AlexR 09:12, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From my POV, I definitely think this should be somewhere, and in a more appopriate article than transvestic fetishism — because while clothing may imply fantasies about transformation, the opposite is not necessarily the case, and certainly not to the point of fetishism — but that is a legitimate topic of its own, and does not belong in an article on a minority theory. We could mention any links that it has with the theory, but it certainly doesn't belong within it.

For the record, fantasizing about "what it would be like for the other side" (not making any judgements on what sides exist, incidentally :-) seems to be incredibly common to me, even having very little to do with transgenderism or transvestitism as such. Both are typically associated with real-life behaviours and desires, and "fantasy" as such doesn't count for much: you can fantasize about anything without necessarily identifying yourself with the fantasy. Great writers do it all the time. Writers of on-line erotic fiction may typically be somewhat less great (no offense to anyone :-) and many of them will, in fact, write about things they identify with, but that doesn't count for much if you can't tie it in with real-life behaviour. Certainly autogynephilia deals with real life, and is not to my knowledge an attempt at explaining things explicitly put forth as fantasy. The essential question is: is someone writing that fantasy out of a genuine desire to see it happen in real life, or just because the idea was interesting/arousing to them? You could incorporate fantasy outlets in a general theory, but you couldn't start from them. Freud might disagree, but then, Freud was a quack. :-)

JRM 10:17, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

Moving to the left again for reasons of legibility
Well, actually, Blanchard does consider any cross-dressing (transvestitism) for sexual reasons (aka transvestic fetishism, the "fetishism" shouldn't be taken to literally here) as well as sexual fantasies about being of "the other" sex as just a milder case of autogynephilia (or androphilia). (He also seems to consider any case of cross-dressing, if done more than once and not out of necessity as being sexual in nature.) Now whether that is correct is an entirely different question. I'd say that is grossly oversimplifying it (but hey, he sure knows how to do that!). Consider the following cases from the perpective of the GID theory, to which most people subscribe, that is, that a gender identity exists either before or independantly of sexual orientation/desire/paraphilia. (persons brought up as males only, making it only half of the story):

• A person who is, from childhood on, convinced that "he" is really a "she" and ought to be, to all intends and purposes, be treated as such. If there is indeed such a thing as an original orientation towards men or women (the lifes of transpeople actually cast some doubts on that, or at least onto the prevailing theories), she can have any of those or both.
  • In the best case, she insists on it as a child, has parents who listen, and might transition during childhood, including some medical help, and therefore never experience "male" sexuality herself. In fact, any sexuality will probably set in after transitioning, which obviously will influence behaviour as well as fantasies; there will be, relatively to the gender role, no cross-dressing and no fantastic stories, either. ("When I have a vagina" will be something like "When I am at college", a matter of time, not an "if".) Cases like this are becoming increasingly more common.
  • In the worst case, say, the same person growing up in the 1950's, that person learns that she is "really" a he and tries desperately to conform to male stereotypes. Very often, that includes marrying, children, and a "male" job. People like this often wait until retirement before considering transitioning. Now, in the meantime the feeling of being a woman of course does not go away, and there has to be some sort of relief. And that can take lots of forms, from non-sexual cross-dressing to sexual cross-dressing to fetishism to several paraphilias, and of course the consumation (or writing) of "feminization" stories, or at least such fantasies.
• Now consider a person whose gender identity is not clearly male, but not clearly female, either. Here you already have a wide variety of possible "results", from remaining in a male gender role all the time and only fantasizing about "feminization", to sexual and/or non-sexual cross-dressing to a various degree, to actually transitioning to a non-male gender role, to transitioning to a female gender role. Add to this the various ages where this can happen, the various social environments, the various degrees to which that person is aware of their feelings, and of the options open to them, and you get lots of possiblilities.
• And then think the same thing through for people with a male gender identity which is clearly dominant, but where an occasional wish of being recognised as being female is present.
• And then you have the large group of people who do cross-dress (sexually or non-sexually) and/or have "feminzation fantasies", but whose gender identity is clearly and unwaveringly male. These are probably the only cases where you can truly talk about paraphilia or fetishism as being the basis of the behaviour or fantasy. But then, how to distinguish those cases from the ones above? Theoretically simple, practically often impossible. A few examples from my limited experience:
  • Man who happen to like particular items of feminine clothing very much, and then consider wearing it themself. (For some reason I don't want to know more about the reason why in a lot of these cases that is about underwear like the one my grandmother used to wear).
  • Men who happen to like a partiular material very much, which is usually worn by women (nylon or silk, very often). So when they dress in that material, some of them consider making their outfit more "complete". And with nylons, for example, the only thing that "fits" are female clothes. Can also happen with shoes and the like.
  • Man who wish to be submissive, but cannot bring "submissiveness" into any agreement with "being a man". Therefore, to be submissive, one has to be female. And since no "real man" would want to be female, you get "forced feminization". (If I am allowed a very personal remark here: with those, I always get a bout of severe feminism, and I am usually not particular liable to that. I am also very glad that I am not a potential object of their desire any more. *shudder* That is one very significant advantage of being a gay man as opposed to being a straight woman.) Similar ideas are also known from men who:
    • wish to be with a man (in that case, it can even be a very early stage of coming out as a gay man),
    • wish to be penetrated by whomever and can't find a woman to do it (or do find one, but still "men are not penetrated"),,
    • wish to be cuddled, or pampered, ot spoiled, or whatever.
  • I've also had two requests myself for information on female hormones by people who had been ordered by their domina to enquire about them and if possible take them. I know of several more of those requests; seems each trans*-group gets them. Giving out the information, especially that female hormones tend to have a devasting effect on erections and that the results (particularly breasts) can not be hidded from the unsuspecting wife did, AFAIK always stop those ideas.

I'd say all this might belong into an article about TG erotica, because these are not always theory, or people do progress from theory to practice. Also, those examples do, I think, make clear where the appeal of Blanchards theory lies. The GID theory still tends to neglect the sexual aspects of all this, while autogynephilia/androphilia is a unifying theory in that regard. Problem is, if fails on too many other points. Ah well, dunno who said it, but definitely appropriate quote at the end: Reality is the brutal murder of a beautiful theory by a gang of ugly facts. ;-) --AlexR 12:04, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Transmen

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)

Reference:

• These include the epidemiological observation that fetishistic cross-dressing, seen here as a symptom of autogynephilia, is extremely rare in biological females, as are all three types of nonhomosexual gender dysphoria. from [9] There is an even clearer statement from him out there, only I have not found it yet. -- AlexR 07:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lying

During the debate on IRC the question of "lying" transsexuals came up. Here's another reference: [10] 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 [11] 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)

Sexual fantasies

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)

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)

"Two Type Theory of Transsexuality"

I think it would make sense for this article to be expanded to incorperate the OTHER half of Blanchard's theory. While the notion of autogynophilia seems to garner that much more attention simply because it's that much more purelent, I think the concept of "Homosexual Transsexuals" also needs to be addressed to provide a complete picture of just what Blanchard et. al. were suggesting. Because both are part of the same model I think it would make better sense to include them within the same page rather than sticking in an inappropriate fork.--Princess Boy Laura 18:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. A separate article on two type theory of transsexuality, dealing with both Blanchard's ideas, J. Michael Bailey's The Man Who Would Be Queen etc. etc. might be the best way to deal with this... -- The Anome 17:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do tend to agree that there should be a main article dealing with all of the model as a whole inclusive of all it's contributors and supporters, but then, if there's an article dealing exclusively with Autogynophilia shouldn't there likwise be one dealing with HSTS (Homosexual Transsexuals) especially since that half of the theory seems to be accepted a lot more widely, at least amongst some heterosexual transwomen (transkids.us comes to mind). --Princess Boy Laura 18:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this needs a different article -- the concept of "homosexual transsexuals" is, unlike the one of "autogynophilic" ones, hardly a BBL exclusive. This particular theory therefore is best known under "autogynophilia". If we would start an article about BBL "homosexual transsexuals" then we would have to start one for every particular theory of every brand of transsexual of every particular researcher -- hardly something desireable. Or do you really want to read transsexual woman who have been sexually abused as children (that would be transmen, just in case somebody is confused), transexual men whose mothers have been exposted to artificual hormones while pregnant, transsexual men with overbrearing mothers and absent fathers (both about transwomen), and whatnot? Somehow, I don't think so. -- AlexR 04:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If the "homosexual transsexual" model is even broader than the BBL axis, shouldn't that only make the concept more noteworthy and more worth having its own article? Furthermore, whether we find a model repugnant isn't what's at stake here, if it were, why would we keep the autogynophilia article around? What matters is whether these theories are noteworthy. (Although I really don't see what's so offensive about suggesting natal-hormone exposure as a possible etiology of transsexuality; really, I more see it as a possible argument that we were born this way and didn't simply make a choice.

Furthermore, I think the homosexual transsexual model is important to the personal identification of many transpeople and that simply ignoring it would be an erasure of their identity, which is really the last thing the trans community should be trying to do. At the very least, many straight transwoman including myself do identify with effeminate gay men; really, I've found it validating expression of my identity to be able to suggest that I'm fundamentally the same as an effeminate gay man, but that I'm effeminate to the point that I could only feel comfortable living as a woman. I would reject the BBL assertion that we're transitioning out of some sort of sexual conveniance however and think it's ludicrous to explain away everything about us with some warped sexual causality and rejecting our identities as so many delusions and lies. Even if it's not BBL exclusive, I think the homosexual transsexual model should be addressed in some capacity, hopefully through its own model.Princess Boy Laura 03:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the problem is, if we start articles about every single theory about transpeople, we are looking at very many articles, not just the one about "homosexual transsexuals". And this article here exists to explain the whole model of BBL, not just the "autogynophilia" half. But since this word is most known and recognizable, this article is under this title.

You will also be able to find somebody who feels validated by about every theory out there, including the truly outlandish. Unfortunately, you won't find any of those theories which explain even a significant minority of transpeople, let alone a majority. I still don't think that is a good reason to make an article about each and any of those theories. I suggest either an article about proposed theories about the origins of transgender, or a short note in transsexualism or transgender.

As for transkids.us, you are aware that this is a BBL propaganda site? And you are aware, I hope, that many straight transwoman still don't feel exactly like sex-working, stupid, and thieving "effiminate homosexuals", either? (Which is pretty much what Bailey claims.) I would also point out that while many transpeople hang on to a theoriy of origin because they feel validated by it, chances are very close to 100% that many other transpeople who could claim the same thing instead fight this identification with hand and feet? Hence those things have to be NPOV, and NPOVable -- something I doubt very much for most of those theories -- especially if they get their own articles. -- AlexR 05:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, what matters is whether these theories are NOTEWORTHY, and I'm sure a good lot of them have gone completely untouched by both the clinicians and transpeople. The Homosexual Transsexual model though is actually fairly common and well accepted amongst some elements of the straight transwoman community. Like you suggested, it's a lot broader than just the BBL take on it. In any case, if this article does exist to explain "both halves" it's doing a rather bad job at it considering that the only mention of it is a single sentence in the introduction. Why should the autogynophilia model that much more exposure?

It sure is common, but as to its acceptance, we seem to have a disagreement. Now, I know there is more contact between straight transwomen and gay men in the US than for example many European countries, hence it might be more accepted in the US among the trans-community, but then, your claim is the first of that which I hear as to it being widely accepted. As I said, it has no more claims to "wide acceptance" than several other theories, so if it is one, it is all. (And I think the only theory not proposed so far is Aliens.)

I've seen no convincing evidence that transkids is any more than what it purports to be; a bunch of pissed off straight transgirls bitching out the crushing autogynophilia menace. I've seen a bunch of claims thrown around from TS Roadmap, but then, I honestly can't take them very seriously. Every time they mention the Clarke they have to cut and paste that shpiel about the guy it's named after being a eugenicist, as if it REALLY matters to anything going on there today. THAT'S propoganda. I've corrosponded with the people at transkids.us and really, just think they're more just REALLY stubborn than anything else.

Hmmm ... that claim of yours of course depends on there being an "autogynophilia menace" in the first place. I have not noticed it, much less seen it as "crushing". But of course that is precisely the BBL propaganda -- first go down on the "undeniable perverts" (which, if they exist, are a very tiny minority -- most lesbian transwoman just don't fit the model) so when they have finished those, well, guess who's next? That would be you.

In any case, most of the transwoman who DO embrace the model would reject the bits about being stupid boy crazy prostitutes. Even if they do have problems with Bailey's characterisation of them though, many transwoman can sympathise with the idea that being a straight transwoman and an effeminate gay man are two related conditions, and once again, I don't think its your right or anyone elses to erase our identities. If other transwoman wish to articulate themselves in a different way, so be it. And I think it would be as NPOVable as anything else. If they've managed to put together an article on the abortion debate of all things, this should be no problem, especially because transpeople are USED to promoting their own internal diversity.Princess Boy Laura 16:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No kindly don't become pathetic -- nobody is trying to erase any identities. However, since this is turning into a debate of personal POVs, I personally think that there is a definite difference between an effiminated gay man and a transwoman. So does the prevalent model of GID -- the point there is that of gender identity. An effiminated gay men would have a male gender identity, a transwoman a female one. Naturally, this does not preclude many similar or same experiences. Of course, you are free to disagree here, but if you insist on putting your personal theory into an article, expect the article to be NPOVed. And I still think that it would not be a good idea to give every theory its own article, so if you have to have your article, how about Proposed causes of gender identity disorder? -- AlexR 23:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, you're the one whose being "pathetic" by trying to stall any recognition of a well recognised if not well accepted theory beyond any of Wikipedia's standards standards simply because you want to keep a lid on it as well as any other clinical model that might offend your personal sensibilities. It doesn't matter if it's not divinely inspired asbolute truth, it doesn't matter if it doesn't explain all existant phenomena across, and it CERTAINLY doesn't matter what the implications might be on a bunch of relatively unknown theories. The Heterosexual transsexual theory is both well-known and in some circles, even will-accepted. There's no reason that it shouldn't have it's own article, you're just arguing from the point of view that it's flawed and damaging and that you don't want to have to expose people to such things. If that were the way encyclopedia's worked, all of religion would be censored out.

In any case, don't put words in anyone's mouth. Blanchard never spoke of autogynophilia as menacing, he clearly thinks of himself in a sympathetic role (See his review of "The Man Who Would be King") That withstanding, his theory is both disgusting and crappy. Transkids is run by a bunch homosexual transsexuals who are tired of having their identities erased and tired of being associated with older, less-attractive and less femme transwoman. They just have a tendency to get bitchy and call everyone they don't like an autogynophile as an insult. They're not BBL propogandists, they're trolls. For the record, they pretty much just diagnosed me as not-being trans because I didn't want SRS. Despire anything though, they're still HSTS.

First of all, why is it so necessary to you that all transpeople would even need to share a common etiology. I don't know what might make a butch of transdykes tick, but I can speak for myself and those who identify in the same way as me. The reason why some effeminate boys grow up to be effeminate men and some grow up to be effeminate women has more to do with their socialisation than gender identity, unless we can posit that gender identity can develope over time. Here in the west male gender variance tends to be shunned much more than in other parts of the world while homosexuality atleast has some tacid acceptance; thus, there's more breathing room for the majority of such boys to assimilate into society as gay men and concentrate on filling in the male gender role. In east Asia, Thailand especially, the situation is reversed; transwoman are way more common than gay men. This is because transgenderism is so much more a staple of that culture and provides a lot more breathing room for the individual to express themselves. It's only after we've grown into ourselves that anyone can be able to claim that they're a man or woman or a gender-queer transgenderists. Gender identity IS flexible.

Not that my take on any of that matters, I'm just asking that the theory be anunciated in the words of the most relevant sources and that it receive the same recognition or lack thereof in terms of importance (not truth) as the the autogynophilia theory as it is of at least equal noteability.Princess Boy Laura 14:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

*Sigh* You didn't bother to read what I wrote, did you? I am not "trying to stall" any recognitions or anything, I am not "trying to keep a lid" on anything, either, and I am not arguing with "personal sensibilities" either -- you do. Also, kindly point out where I was "just arguing from the point of view that it's flawed and damaging and that you don't want to have to expose people to such things". Because I have not said such a thing. Sorry, but this non-conversation is getting nowhere, and I have not even mentioned all the highly questionable other claims you made, both about my alleged position (which bears little resemblance to my actual position) as well as those of others.

PLEASE, are you really going to bring this down to the level of, "No, you do?" You've spent all your time here, argueing against these theories instead of showing any desire whatsoever to DOCUMENT them. Do you not know what a encyclopedia IS? Repeatedly you've made crap arguments like, "I would also point out that while many transpeople hang on to a theoriy of origin because they feel validated by it, chances are very close to 100% that many other transpeople who could claim the same thing instead fight this identification with hand and feet?" and "Unfortunately, you won't find any of those theories which explain even a significant minority of transpeople, let alone a majority," the point is not how well received theories are within the trans community, it's how NOTEWORTHY they are.

All I said is that if every "well recognised if not well accepted theory" gets its own article, we have several articles to write, not just the one about your favourite theory. Hence my - constantly ignored by you - proposal to write Proposed causes of gender identity disorder (or similar) as one article for all those theories. But of course your personal theory is so much better than any others, which might, God forbid, associate you with "older, less-attractive and less femme" transpeople, that you have your own personal article about your personal opinion, and when somebody points out that this might not be the ideal solution, you just slander that person and make ridiculous accusations against them. Tell me, is it really Wikipedia you have in mind, or are you just looking for a soap-box for your opinion? If the latter -- which seems to be the case -- you have come to the wrong place. So if you want to do something, write a good, NPOV article. If you don't want to do that, why should I care? So unless you do, EOD for me. -- AlexR 19:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Come now, you're the one who's turned the autogynophilia model into a soapbox. A full two paragraphs of the section on "Acceptance by transpeople" is nothing but criticism unsupported by form of citation. Hell, even the contreversy section is longer than the explaination of the theory itself. And you're talking to me about NPOV? Don't make me laugh! At the very least you could have reported the research methodologies enough to show why Blanchard et al. would have arrived at the conclusion they did. Every time anyone's brought up the NPOV point, you've just gotten hostile and angry and protected your right to keep a critical point of view. Furthermore, you've never answered my question, so do it NOW before you go off onto anything else. Why create a "Proposed causes of gender identity disorder" as long as the autogynophilia theory has it's OWN page? Is THIS theory just THAT much more special? Every other theory can be contained within this one little page while the Autogynophilia article can run free without so much as a mention of Anne Lawrence?

And for the love of God, quit putting the words of everyone I happen to paraphrase into MY mouth. It's Trans Kids who blanketly claims that all non-straight transpeople are old, unattractive and less feminine, not me. I haven't had to put up with THIS kind of foolishness since middle school...Princess Boy Laura 22:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

May I simply suggest that there is room in this article for a number of different theories, and there is no need to split anything off for a long time, as it is quite short. The topic is quite interesting, and having more perspectives in one place will make an intricate subject more accessible to the general public. Haiduc 02:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if all sorts of theories were to be housed in this one article, the name would obviously have to be changed as Autogynophilia is fairly exclusive to the specific theory put forth by Blanchard et. al. I'm mostly just gunning for that you know, the other half of that particular theory, the homosexual transsexual bit, out to receive equal encyclopedic recognition instead of just this completely token mention: "He calls those transwomen who are exclusively attracted to males: "androphilic" or "homosexual" transsexuals." To tell you the truth though, I really don't know about any other theories. There's Gender Identity Disorder, but that's a diagnosis, not a causality. There's been a few studies on the brains of transpeople being different than cisgendered people, but these have been rather limited in scope.

The two-type theory of transgenderism is the only one I know about of any real consequence because it's STILL employed by the Clarke Instute whose guidelines are used as the basis for SRS funding in Ontario. SRS isn't funded anymore (stupid Harris government) but even with ensurance, you've got to get the Clarke to tick you off as an autogynophile or a homosexual transsexual before you can get your surgery paid for... Likewise, I've known shrinks to hold biases that seem sympathetic towards this sort of stuff. There are also a few transpeople who identify as autogynophiles (Namely Anne Lawrence) and bunch who identify as Homosexual Transsexuals. I have no idea about any other theories though because this is the only one I've ever really been exposed to. There's a lot of identity politics and gender theory, but that's another thing entirely from establishing scientific causality.Princess Boy Laura 05:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I already mentioned several other theories, which do exist even if you have never heard of them. As for the BBL model still being employed by the Clarke, AFAIK, that is true. Thing however is that this applies to Canada, yes, but far less, if at all, to the rest of the world. And while this article exists to explain this particular theory because it has some bearings, and particularly because is very much promoted both outside the "experts" circle and inside the trans-circle, which is unique. And it does not explain much about the "homosexual" half, I guess (after all, I hardly wrote all of it) because this part had been discredited very long ago. In case you did not notice, "effimiate (or emasculate) homosexuality" has at least since the 1970s something that excludes a diagnosis of transsexualism; as I already said, the prevalent GID model clarly distinguishes between "gender identity" and "sexual orientation".

Show me anywhere any portion of the theory has ever been "descredited". I mean, it's not even scientifically falsifiable to begin with. During the time the Clarke controlled funding, over 90% of applicants were turned down, leading to a massive selection bias. Likewise, patients were quite literally forced to submit themselves to tests designed for pedophiles (Namely the use of a penile plethysmographer as a slideshow of gender specific clothing and naked bodies went by to measure their arousal, and detailed accounts of their sexual history, fantasy and orientation.) Oh, and let's not forget Maxines famous, "All gender patients lie," Furthermore, what good could you POSSIBLY find out from any people's anywhere if all your look at is what turns them on? The whole theory is nothing but a practical joke played on us by psychiatry.

Not by psychiatry as a whole - by BBL. And I would say that the theory - or rather, the hypothesis - is sufficiently discredited by what you say. Although why you think this has any bearing to our discussion, I don't quite understand. [AR]

And I've never seen ANYWHERE that starting off as an effeminate gay man somehow precluded people from transitioning. I've seen the Harry Benjamin Institute the policy that denied transpeople with transvestic fetishes the right to transition, but then, that's what Blanchard claims he "fixed". And I should point out, Gender Identity Disorder is not a model. It's a diagnosis and a list of symptoms in the DSM-IV. Last I checked, there was nothing about sexual orientation even in there. And to be fair, Blanchard and the Clarke did "theoretically" accepted the GID diagnosis as well the Harry Benjamin guidelines. He simply claims that these prolonged feelings of being the other sex are dilusions and that the Harry Benjamin guidelines are minimum standards so it's okay to force a transperson to live full-time (including work, study or volounteering full-time) for over a year before getting HRT.

Of course that theory is a "model". That hardly precludes it also being a diagnosis. Every diagnosis is a model, particularly in psychology. Also, I never said starting as a gay man does preclude people from transitioning, we were not speaking about pre-transitioning gender roles. The point in what I say is gender identity, which would obviously be different in a transwoman and a gay men, no matter how effiminate. So if a person identifies as a gay man, it is not a particularly good idea for that man to transition to a female gender role. That has been done in the 70s, and in some places later, where gay or lesbian people were encouraged to transition, so it would at least not look homosexual any more. Which regularly ended in a desaster. Hence, it is perfectly common to check whether a person is not "just" a very effiminate man or a very butch lesbian, because in the past transitions of such people were such a desaster.

Oh, and the acceptance of the HBIGDA-SoCs is very theoretical at the Clarke - if you don't fit in the BBL model, your chances of getting anything there drop significantly, and it takes an even longer time to get anything at least. Not that I would call such standards as just somehow toughend HBIGDA-SoCs in the first place ... [AR]

These bits about "gender identity" and "sexual orientation," or really more matters of identity politics and queer theory popular now with transpeople and transpositive clinicians. Although, it really doesn't ammount of a scientific model as much as a point of view, albeit a generally very positive one.

This is why GID is called a "model", along with other models (this one, for example). However, science always tries (well, should try) to find better models which fit the facts better. Which is why the currently most widely accepted model is that of GID -- and that has not necessarily to do anything with "identity politics" or "queer theory". In fact, the fact that it was also adopted by "identity politics" and "queer theory" just shows that for a change, this model is not mostly based on ignoring obvious facts. [AR]

It is also ridiculous to claim or imply other theories have no or little bearing -- of course they have. They might not have the official bearings BBL has, because even those institutions which stick to them hardly make it as "official" as the Clarke, but most certainly most of them are still around, and transpeople around the world still encounter them. And some transpeople even identify with one or the other of them.

Care to give me a reputable citation on that?

Do you have any reputable citation for there being more people than you and that BBL site who identify as "homosexual transsexuals"? But yes, I have. Not that it matters all that much -- the point is that those theories exist at all. A trip to the next university library will show you quite a collection. [AR]

Hence the question is still not wheter identities should be invaldidated or similar crap, but the question is, do we need one article for each and every theory out there, or should we do those in one or maybe a few articles. (Not this one, obviously.) And I still see no point in doing a seperate article for every theory out there, because there are too many of them. And just because you identify with one and have managed not to hear about others is, I repeat, no sufficient reason to insist on one particular article, and, as you have done so far, completely ignore the question of other theories. -- AlexR 05:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

But why not THIS one? What makes the autogynophilia theory that much more prestigious that it must stand alone amongst the masses of transphobic clinical models? Or rather peices of them disected? You go to such length to argue that every other theory on the son should be clumped together under this no article while autogynophilia has it's own seperate page like so. The only reason it gets so much attention is because people are so repelled by it; it's the most transphobic thing ever published since "The Transsexual Empire," but that's really all it has on any other theory. It's not special. Certainly no more special than the second half of the theory that, at least in Baileys stuff, is given way more attention. If Blanchard didn't focus on it so much, it's because the HSTS theory was already considered true by the time he got their (Indeed, only androphilic patients were originally accepted, and to this day only straight transmen are allowed.) There's no reason for putting AGP on a different level.Princess Boy Laura 15:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason this theory has its own article is a) that there is a very wide controvercy about it, not the least through Bailey latest book, and b) that there is indeed an intitution, the Clarke, that officially deals with transpeople, and where this crap is actually officially applied. The article about it is under the most recognisable title. And probably nobody bothered to write much about the "homosexual transsexuals" because this has been so long out of use in anything reasonably reputable practice that it has become something like the ether theory of trans. Quite shocking and even slightly amusing how stupid our ancestors could be, but hardly relevant today. Now, if you disagree with that, feel free. But I still don't see why this particular theory needs its own article, because exactly the same applies to all those other theories out there. -- AlexR 20:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm just going to stick my answer here because things are getting illegable. Anyway, I really don't think there IS much of a controversy. Outside of the Clarke's stronghold in Ontario, it's largely irrelevant except as an emmotional trigger because it's just so nasty. And within the Clarke, people are still diagnosed as autogynophiles and HSTS... Well, sort of. I had a friend who had to get a recommendation from them so that her insurance would cover her SRS and apparently the folks at the Clarke couldn't tell "which one" she was. She had refused to reveal her sexual orientation and they couldn't tell from any of other facts about her case. But, she managed to get the letter anyway. Nevertheless, both halves of the theory still hold equal validity there; as I'm sure you know, being an HSTS is the only diagnosis allowed for transmen to this day. They still beleive the two-type theory of transsexuality is cutting edge scientific theory. In any case, would it be okay then to include the HSTS stuff within THIS article if it's SUPPOSED to represent to the two type theory as a whole? With a redirect for "homosexual transsexual" etc. pointing here?Princess Boy Laura 05:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this would be a good idea - as I already said - since this theory is not a BBL exclusive, unlike Autogynephilia itself. Hence it would be better to stick it into an article about theories of origin. One can link, you know, to sub-sections of article. As for there not being much controvercy ... I must say that is not quite correct. Check Lynn's site, it's in the links. -- AlexR 06:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking at Conway's site in the links, all I see is another transwoman kicking up a fuss because she doesn't like the theory along with a few links to bunch of other people condemning Bailey and his work. What's contriversial there? Everyone thinks Bailey's wrong except for Bailey? A bunch of people being offended is not a contriversy. There is nothing to make the AGP etiology that much more special than the HSTS etiology. Using what Wikipedia guideline are you suggesting that Autogynophilia have it's own page while everything else be housed together? It's not like there's any limit to the number of pages that can be published or anything.

If the model really needs a contreversy, take transkids; at least there's some dialogue there between people who SUPPORT the model and the mainstream. Hell, they even argue BBL: "While Dr. Bailey's controversial book makes some unfair characterizations of hsts he defines the issues and concepts more accurately then anything we've seen elsewhere so it makes a decent introduction."Princess Boy Laura 14:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Brought here by a request for comment at WP:LGBT; it seems to me that the obvious thing to do would be to create Proposed causes of gender identity disorder and then split off articles about individual theories as they get too long. Think of it not as a debate about the relative merit or importance of these theories but a simple length issue. For articles (like this one) that are long enough to stand on their own, put a summary and a link at Proposed causes of gender identity disorder and link to that page from the article about the individual theory so that people can see it in the context of the other theories that have been proposed. I also think this article could be moved to two type theory of transsexuality with autogynephilia redirecting here. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 15:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense to me.Princess Boy Laura 15:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for commenting! Maybe "autogynephilia" is indeed not the best title, however, if we call it Two types of transsexuality everybody will ask, what about the rest? Or, do these types exist at all? Both not speaking for the title. And probably there are other sets of theories out there where somebody claims that there are exactly two causes. Can't think of a better title, either, unfortunately, since BBL or similar might be a well-known abbreviation in transgender-circles, but I seriously doubt anybody will look for it under this title. Which is why I suggest the article stays here until somebody has a better idea. -- AlexR 16:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess there are two different issues: psychological models of transgenderism, and identity models of transgenderism. I think a single article looking at all models of transgenderism would make the most sense, so as not to 'prestige' any particular models, and to group the information together into a single article without worrying about exhaustive cross-referencing between pages. Autogynephilia could redirect to this article. This could arguably be included under the main transgender article, unless this makes the article too long.

As for the Blanchard et al model, it is already briefly referenced in Ray Blanchard's entry in Wikipedia. Since this seems to be his major work, why not include a more detailed discussion of his paper on that article page? His entry is otherwise very short and could easily handle the additional load, assuming some of his other work were also listed on that page. CastorQuinn 01:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is the point - there are actually several models of the cause of T* out there, and none currently widely accepted; certainly not this one. (And it doesn't have much chance of becoming it, either.) However, this is, also thanks to Bailey's book, the one is the one most discussed currently. The others are usually more opinions than theories or even hyothesis, like "sexual abuse in childhood" or "overbearing mother, absent father" and similar, with no or very, very little papers published on them; case studies usually, extrapolating from one or two cases on all. Hence I don't really see how this could go together with any other articles or "theories"; the others don't even have articles, because there is not exactly much behind them. I also don't think we should give this particular one a weight it does not have by including it in Transsexualism. Which is, anyway, far too long already.

We can't out it in Blanchards article, either, because he is not the only one who sticks to it. There are not exactly many who do, but since Bailey's book cause the most recent debate about it, it hardly belongs there.

As for the difference you proposed between "psychological models of transgenderism, and identity models of transgenderism", I don't see it - the identity model is the current psychological model. It does, however, not say exactly much about causes because they are unknown. Which is why this one is a seperate article, since this theory primarily proposes causes. -- John Smythe 14:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

What are you doing deleting my reply?Princess Boy Laura 17:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Was not my intention, but a technical glitch, obviously -- I never saw it or got an edit conflict. Seems to happen occasionally; 2nd time it happens to me (which means it is rather rare). Have just restored it. -- AlexR 19:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay then, it's cool...Princess Boy Laura 19:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Third Opinion

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). There are very clearly more than two editors now involved in this discussion, so I will remove the request from the third opinion request page. CastorQuinn 01:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a very useful article

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)

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)

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)