Talk:Transvestic fetishism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fetishes on cross dressing

  • Return Petticoating article - Someone redirected the "Petticoating" article to this page. The "Petticoating" article deserves to be included in Wikipedia. Originally, both it and the current "Transvestic fetishism" articles both had their own pages (perfectly fine), but then several vandals (Mdwh and Dr Zak, among others) moved the "Petticoating" article to the "Transvestic fetishism" page and redirected readers from the original "Petticoating" article to this one on "Transvestic fetishism." Both pages should appear among Wikipedia's articles, as they originally did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpscholar (talk • contribs)

The discussion was at Talk:Petticoat Discipline. The upshot, as far as I can see it that there is nothing wrong with an article on petticoating per se. There were however serious problems with your article, it's unreferenced, ill-defined and written in the style of an essay.

The fact that your article its getting pasted all over Wikipedia doesn't help much either. Dr Zak 01:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, Gpscholar, but the one who persistanly moved the Pettycoating article into this one was you. I also doubt that anybody would mind an NPOV article about that pettycoat-thingy, under an appropriate title. And as your moving mania shows, you should know enough about WP to retrive the article in question. Therefore, this complaint is obviously made in bad faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexR (talk • contribs)

Contents

[edit] Proposed merge

I have proposed that the article on Autogynephilia be redirected to this article. It seems that this article is about the actual psycological diagnosis in the DSM IV which coresponds to Autogynephillia. What do the people who edit this article think of this proposal? 66.92.130.180 16:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a very good idea, because it confuses this humbug-diagnosis of autogynephilia with one that is indeed in the DSM. Not to mention that the other article is about women who get SRS, while this one here is specifically about people who won't get it. And the other is about one specific outsider theory with no merrits whatsoever, which should not be thrown into with any other articles. -- John Smythe 19:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
If anything should be merged at all it's the articles on Ray Blanchard and Autogynephilia. Autogynephilia is a controversial concept/theory (to be polite) related to gender dysphoria, and Ray Blanchard's fame AFAIKS rests on having invented that theory. Transvestic fetishism on the other hand has nothing to do with gender dysphoria, on the contrary, it involves men dressing up as women. Dr Zak 21:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, well, so the theory goes ... but you can bet that there is a considerable number of transwomen who tried to tell themselfes that they were just transvestic fetishists. There is a considerable number who tried to cope by cross-dressing in all variations.
I am not sure about a merge with Ray Blanchard either; there are after all a few more who promote this theory, it isn't called B(lanchard)B(aily)L(awrence) for nothing. -- John Smythe 23:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
All of the above is somewhat true. But I have found the following information on the matter. The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism (2003), page 169, third paragraph. This accursedly simplistic book is a primary source in this source at the location I have refred to transvestetic fetishim is equated with autogynephillia. Perhaps the catch is the severity of the condtion. Certainly most men who crossdress who are avdily hetero, comfortable and successful as men etc would not desire a sex change. What this article is about does not seem to be what it's title is about. The article seems to be about casual cross dressing that does not yet rise to the level of the true diagnosis of transvestetic fethisism. As a matter of fact here is what I would do with the article on transvestetic fethisism.--Smartgirl62 14:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think they should be merged.

Proposed post merge version of this article between these lines.

[edit] Transvestic fetishism: Proposed post merge article.

Transvestic fetishism is a sexual fetish for the clothing and/or role of the opposite gender. It is one of a number of Transgender behaviors and is primarily a psychiatric term as defined in the DSM Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

Transvestic fetishism, fetishistic transvestism and sometimes transvestism are also often used to describe any sexual behavior or arousal that is in any way connected to clothes of the other gender. In the most extreme form this behavior has been called “Autogynephillia”. In plain language this term means men who are attracted to the image of themselves as women. Hence they seek gender reassignment surgery.

Also, not every sexual behaviour where clothes of the other gender are involved are transvestic fetishism, they are also often used in sexual roleplay without being a fetish. Also, many transgendered people, mostly transwomen, also cross-dress, in sexual situations, before coming out.

A folded cream-coloured full slip
A folded cream-coloured full slip

Some male transvestic fetishists collect women's clothing, e.g. nightgowns, slips and other types of nightwear and lingerie. They may dress in these feminine garments and take photographs of themselves to live out their secret fantasies. Many men love the feeling of wearing silk or nylon and adore the silky fabric of women's nightwear and lingerie.

Most transvestic fetishists are said to be heterosexual men. As of late there are in fact studies which affirm this. Even those who seek gender reassignment surgery will remain married to their wives if they can. The studies which affirm these observations are not without controversey however.

When is it a psychiatric condition?

According to the DSM IV-TR the diagnositc criteria for this condition are.

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, in a heterosexual male, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing.

B.The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

Specify if: With Gender Dysphoria: if the person has persistent discomfort with gender role

Controversy

Continued inclusion in the DSM The DSM is the diagnostic and statistical manual of the American psychiatric association. Mental disorders are classified and cataloged in the DSM. Work on the DSM V has begun and there are discussions about the validity of transvestetic fetishism being a paraphillia and gender identity disorder being a mental illness. By 2010 these disorders may not be considered...disorders any more. There are mental health workers who say that it should not be an article of shame and pathologizeation to be arounsed by womens clothes. Afterall how is that so different from being aroused by a photograph of a woman?

Reactions among transwomen

The model is highly controversial and conflicts with the commonly accepted model of gender identity disorder. Some suggest that, since correlations do not establish causality, Blanchard may be mistaking a symptom of gender dysphoria for its primary cause. The model has also 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. Proponents of the concept, who are classic, primary, "homosexual transsexuals", have asserted that "autogynephiles" are willfully deceiving others in claiming to exhibit behaviour that does not fit within it. Specifically they repeat the well known, canned, history of a "homosexual transsexual". A number of transwomen, who could be described as autogyneophilles have accepted this theory. They take the diagnosis of DSM Code 302.3 Transvestic Fetishism ( autogynephillia ) as an adequate description of themselves. Where as the alternative theories deny their desire for sex reassignment all together.

References ( I will fill this out for the actual article)

Related topics

How does the above read to you all? This seems concise and to the point and covers both concepts fairly and wihout bias.

As for my opinoion of this as a model for why some transsexuals are the way they are. I think this model is overly simplistic and faluty. A more in depth model is needed to really know what the heck is going on. Many people feel insulted by this description of what they are as being a paraphillia. A sexual disorder on the same level as peadophillia, or beastiality. I would say they are right to be offended by that. Historically what would count as a paraphillia seems to vary with time and place. So I give no weight to the idea that those designations have any meaning. --Smartgirl62 14:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Errr ... you are aware, I hope, that at least in the German WP there is an article on TVF as well as one on autogynephilia? -- John Smythe 17:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
ErrRerr.. We don't have to do what the Germans say we beat them remember. :-) Seriously the evidence I have preseted in particular a link to a book written by one of the psychologitwho studies all of this says that they are the same thing. Now I am no psychologist myself. But I think they know their own theories. Here agin I post the link. The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism (2003), page 169, third paragraph.--Smartgirl62 21:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why the idea of transvestic fetishism is controversial - this is about a fetish, not merely cross-dressing, and so shouldn't apply to transsexuals. This proposed merged version seems to confuse the two very different concepts of transvestic fetishism and transsexuality, as if they were the same thing. You have also put in other changes, such as stating that there are studies affirming that "Most transvestic fetishists are said to be heterosexual men", without giving any references (unless you have some to put in?) Mdwh 22:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad proposal -- too much content missing

What's the point of this proposal? Most of the information from the other article is missing. Now, it does not belong here anyway, but you know, removing material is a bad, bad, bad idea. -- John Smythe 19:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well most of the content of the other article was POV garbage. A bunch of misdirected sour grapes. Wikipedia is not the forum for refuting or arguing for anyting. Articles should just be a dry and concise presentation of facts. Keeping trash is never a good idea. I take it you are in favor of the status quo on this issue. No need to yell Mr. Smythe. --Smartgirl62 13:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • yawn* I am not yelling, and this article does stick to the facts. I also don't know what you think the status quo of the issue (which issue?) is, so I can't tell you whether I am in favour of it. I also don't quite see where the "sour grapes" are supposed to be; it isn't as if people could possibly gain something from being called either pervertes or thiefs. And if there are no potential gains, then there are no sour grapes, either. Whatever, I guess I won't bother with your rants any more; they are conspicuously lacking any arguments, and you are loosing the VfD anyway. -- John Smythe 13:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You think anything I have wrote is a rant. Apparently you have not seen very many rants. Nice technique though. Calling someones argument a rant is a good way to make other people ignore it. --Smartgirl62 13:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Totally not inline with self-identification

The problem that I see with such a merge, is that autogynephilia is a proposed etiology for transsexualism (which has its own DSM and ICD entry), while transvestic fetishism is exactly that, a fetish. TVF is an intense sexual interest in wearing female CLOTHING, while autogynephilia is an intense sexual interest to BECOME female. There is a very explicit difference here, and I don't see how mingling the two would make any sense, clarify anything, or help anyone.

At worst, it would cause an autogynephiliac transsexual to read this page and go "Oh, I just have a fetish for wearing women's clothing", when in reality they would best receiving treatment as a transsexual as soon as possible. I am not an autogynephiliac transsexual, but even I at some point wondered if this was "just a fetish", which is what I went on for at least a year as an explanation. But after reading about TVF, it was clear that this is was not what I was suffering with (yes, "suffered," my issues were causing me considerable distress and difficulty in life), and after reading about "autogynephiliac transsexuals" vs "homosexual transsexuals" from Anne Lawrence (who agrees with Blanchard quite strongly) I figured I had to be an autogynephiliac transsexual, since I sure wasn't so pronouncely placed in the homosexual transsexual category that it could be called, also Blachard and Anne Lawrence tend to have a very strong "you're A or B" attitude towards this issue no different than "you're either man, or you're woman", and anyone in the TG spectrum should easily dismiss the latter, why not the former?

I'm certainly not strictly homosexual transsexual, I've had only male-female sexual relationships in my life (as a male), but yet I see now just how unfufilling and undesired they were to me. Yet, my transsexuality is so deep that I absolutely despise my penis, I am presenting full-time as a female before I've even had hormones, and before I made my decision, I was a complete and miserable mess, who was apathetic about everything. The Autogynephilia response may represent a number of transsexuals, but it leaves out more than just the homosexual transsexuals, and the position that "if you're bi, then you're autogynephiliac" is perposterous. What kind of person working with TGs would ever even THINK that such a declination were possible? I mean, don't they deal with people in between all the time? --Puellanivis 01:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Let it be known that I am the same person as Smartgirl62. I have decided to step out from behind the curtain. :-)
First to the poster above if you really want to know if you are HSTS or AGP you need to go to a psychologist. They will interview you for about six months, then ask you a LONG list of questions like those found in Man Who Would Be Queen page 192. Then they will diagnose you. If you get your hands on the actual DSM IV-TR you will see the way GID and transvestic fetishism are presented in the DSM with TVf as a subheading under GID. If they just diagnose GID then you are not an autogynephile. If they diagnose TVF then you are definately an autogynephile. Only a psychologist who is versed in this theory and who feels such a theory is valid will give you this information.
The only difference between TvF as described by this article and autogynephillia is the presence or absence of gender identity disorder due to that fetish.--HFarmer 15:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The 2nd picture

Does the second picture really represent "Transvestic fetishism"? The person depicted look more like a woman then a man to me which would make it not an example transvestic fetishism. I could be wrong though.--Cab88 10:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Click on the picture, then go to its commons history. Then go to other contributions by the same person and you'll find this self-portrait. --AliceJMarkham 12:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please review an addition

User:71.231.210.181 has included the text:

A small number of people with Transvestic Fetishism, as the years pass, want to dress and live permanently as women, and desire surgical or hormonal sex reassignment. In such cases the diagnosis should be changed to Transsexualism.

with an accompanying reference. Remembering something that happened long ago, I may have overreacted and deleted that text. Upon questioning, I've restored the text and would like more qualified people to comment. (Everybody is more qualified than I am, should be easy?) Shenme 04:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring my edit. 71.231.210.181 05:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


Yes Yes we have heard this all so mnay time before i really do fail to see why we must be continued you labled as some quite of weird peoples we are not this way at all we are just peoples like anyone else except that we want to and desire to dress and be just the opposite of the way we were born that is we want to dress in what is still refered to as women or girls clothing and really folks is it so very awful to want to be who and what you are suppose to be male and or female we are al humnas and should be accepted as what we are inside as well as out it is not some fad or weakness we are what we are and thats the way it really should be if and when you want to be or become the opposite of what you were born as theyn who is really to question it at all being labled only makes it all the harder!

Jay! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleventhdr (talk • contribs) 15:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)