Tags
This post is a person– who may believe either a gender identity or a Blanchard-Bailey theory of transness– doing their best to write what a gender identity theory supporter believes. Confused about what an Intellectual Turing Test is or what “gender identity” and “Blanchard-Bailey” mean? Click here! Please read, then vote at the end of the post.
How do you define woman/man?
I do not think there exists an objective True Definition of “woman” or of “man”, as I do not think there exists an objective True Definition of any word. As a linguistic descriptivist, I think the truth of a word is how people use the word. As an activist (sort of) or as a consequentialist (sort of) or as a human trying to construct norms that advance the flourishing of humanity, I think we should choose definitions based on the effect they have on the world.
Putting on my descriptivist hat, the definitions of “woman” and “man” are obviously highly contested. I think all of the following definitions enjoy relatively widespread usage:
– A woman is someone who says she is a woman. (the trans advocate position)
– A woman is someone who has most or all of the physical characteristics associated with women. (I think this is probably the most common in practice)
– A woman is someone who has most or all of the physical characteristics associated with women, but only if she has those characteristics naturally. (I think this is probably the definition that people who totally reject trans people mostly use in practice.)
– A woman is someone with a female reproductive system. (e.g. when talking about abortion rights or pregnancy, if one doesn’t explicitly try to be trans-inclusive)
– A woman is someone with XX chromosomes and a vagina and breasts and mostly estrogen etc. (This definition is I think generally thought of as the standard trans-exclusive definition, but as many people have pointed out there are edge cases besides trans people who don’t meet all these requirements, and in practice those edge cases are usually gendered correctly most of the time.)
More broadly I think definitions are usually based on prototypes, and the *prototype* of a woman is indeed “person with XX chromosomes and a vagina and breasts and mostly estrogen etc.” People who depart from the prototype a little are usually still included in the definition; people who are farther might be excluded. I think the conflict over the proper definition is mostly about how far away from the prototype the boundary between “woman” and “not woman” should lie.
Putting on my social justice hat, I think we should choose the definition that makes people the happiest, and I think on that metric an identity-based definition is by far the best. Trans people generally care a great deal about being categorized in accordance with their identity and feel substantially happier when gendered correctly than when misgendered. (And of course, making people happier has a lot of further good consequences as well, like making them more likely to participate in your discourse, contribute to your community, be pleasant to spend time with, etc.)
I do think that there exist times when it makes more sense to discuss groups of people based on sex more than on gender (like if you are discussing medical stuff, or if you believe there are major psychological differences between the sexes). I don’t think this should be made impossible, and I don’t think that an identity-based definition of gender makes it impossible. Some alternatives:
– Use more specific language like “people with uteruses” or “people with estrogen-dominant systems” or “AFAB people who haven’t undergone HRT” or whatever group you’re actually talking about. (Cumbersome, but precise.)
– Start with a disclaimer that “right now I’m going to be using ‘women’ to refer to people with [X characteristic]”. (You still run the risk of making some people dysphoric, but this is loads better than not including the disclaimer.)
– Specify “cis men” and “cis women”. (Yes, these aren’t *exactly* the categories you’re looking for in most cases, but it’s pretty close, and it also has the benefit of simplifying things. The existence of trans people doesn’t just complicate things linguistically, it actually makes the landscape you’re describing more complicated because social and medical transition have effects on the things you want to talk about. If you want to make a generalization, sticking to the less complicated case can help.)
Also I’ll note that when I say “identity-based view on gender”, what I really mean is “start with the conventional understanding of ‘man’ and ‘woman’, but when someone has a strong sense of gender identity, use that” – in fact many cis people don’t have a strong felt sense of gender identity, so using *only* identity is insufficiently informative.
What are your opinions on the cotton ceiling?
I do not think it is immoral to have sexual preferences that exclude trans people (or any other kind of people), and I think that a lot of people would have trans-exclusive sexual preferences even if transphobia didn’t exist. However, I also think that in a world without transphobia, trans-exclusive sexual preferences and behavior would be significantly less common. (I don’t have a good estimate of how less common, but I think I would be least surprised if about half of trans-exclusive sexual preferences were due to transphobia.)
For one thing, especially when it comes to dating rather than just sex, people tend to care about what other people in their lives think of their partners. If society is transphobic, people may be socially punished for dating trans people and thus choose not to do it even if they otherwise would.
Also, if you have negative feelings or beliefs about trans people, that can also prevent you from being attracted to trans people even if you would be otherwise. If you’re attracted to someone and then stop being attracted to them after learning they’re trans, I think this is likely to be related to transphobia.
Finally, different people’s gender filters on attraction work in different ways – for some people genitals are really important, for others genitals don’t matter but you need to generally “look like a woman”, for yet others gender presentation is the most important part, and for some identity is a crucial bit. My impression is that there’s some correlation between the trans-inclusiveness of someone’s beliefs and feelings and the trans-inclusiveness of their gender filter – so while increasing trans-inclusiveness in society wouldn’t make everyone’s gender filters trans-inclusive, it would in general increase that inclusiveness.
I don’t think it is good to shame people for their sexual preferences or treat these preferences as evidence that they are Really Transphobic and Bad. I don’t think that sexual/dating preferences are a good target for activism; rather, I think the right way to solve these problems is to work on increasing trans acceptance in society in general, and sexual/dating preferences will follow. But I’m also okay with trans people using words like “cotton ceiling” to describe their experiences, because this type of exclusion can be a pretty major and painful part of their lives and I do think the exclusion is partly driven by bigotry, and It’s good to have words to talk about things.
Why are trans women disproportionately likely to be programmers?
I don’t actually know the relevant statistics but I’ll take it as stipulated that is is the case. I don’t really know why. One obvious factor is that tech as an industry is just unusually friendly to trans people – it’s a particularly liberal industry and “headquartered” in a particularly liberal place, more generally it’s unusually tolerant of weirdness and neurodivergence and a common refuge of people who were unpopular in school, and it also pays quite well – so (a) trans people and other weirdos are somewhat likely to gravitate in that direction (b) gender dysphoric people already in the industry are perhaps more likely to transition (c) trans people from unwelcoming places will find it easiest to relocate to a more welcoming place, and actually come out, if they are in a well-paying industry which is willing to pay for relocation and sponsor immigrants.
(Then again, the above mostly applies only to people who are already realizing they’re trans around the same time they’re starting their career, not the later-in-life transitioners.)
There’s also the thing where trans people are disproportionately likely to be on the autism spectrum (which possibly makes it more likely that one will like programming?), which itself is a subset of “different kinds of brain-weirdness are correlated”, but I do not know why transness and autism in particularly are correlated, nor do I know to what extent autism and programming are correlated.
I’m not sure just how overrepresented trans women are in tech, so I’m not sure whether the above would be sufficient to explain it. I confess I don’t have an actual theory, though.
Why do many trans women experience sexual fantasies about being or becoming a woman?
I have some uncertainty about this because determining the direction of causation between things that happen *inside the brain* is necessarily tricky, but I think that AGP-type fantasies are a *result* of gender dysphoria rather than a cause. This seems more plausible to me than the reverse for a bunch of reasons.
(I draw heavily on Julia Serano’s critique of Blanchard’s theory in this section, though I’m not just parroting her. I would be really curious to know how proponents of this theory respond to a lot of Serano’s criticisms.)
To begin with, even for trans women who do experience some sort of AGP, they often have a general interest in being a woman *first*. Serano points out that in Blanchard’s own data, the average age of onset of desire to be female among AGP-type trans women is before puberty – whereas active sexual fantasies generally start around puberty. (Of course you could say those answers are actually false since they’re socially desirable, though.)
(Another narrative I’ve heard is “I noticed I felt drawn towards the idea of presenting feminine, so I sought out a relevant forum online, and among other things it contained porn, so among other things I started looking at that porn”. Which also points to another thing – porn and sex-related stuff is just a major cultural reference point for trans-related stuff. It makes sense that someone might encounter this, or conceptualize their desire in these terms, even if the desire isn’t sexual at its core.)
There have been some studies (e.g.) that are sort of replication attempts of Blanchard’s research (eliminating the thing where Blanchard was *both studying and gatekeeping his patients/research subjects* which seems like a terrible idea for the same reason Blanchard doesn’t trust them! Whenever Blanchard goes on about how the research subjects are untrustworthy because they are trying to make sure they get to transition, I want to be like, you’re the one who put them in this position!!). Anyway, it seems there is indeed a correlation, among trans women, between gynephilia and autogynephilia (which makes intuitive sense), but it’s not as stark a contrast as Blanchard found – there are androphilic trans women with AGP, and gynephilic trans women without. (I understand one may want to distrust the latter, but why distrust the former?) This doesn’t look like two totally distinct groups of people.
(To be honest, I have a general bias in favor of the notion that People Are Complicated and Don’t Fall Into Neat Categories and If You Try You Will Always Oversimplify, so I find really strict taxonomies implausible to begin with. In my defense, I think there’s good reason to have this bias.)
I also think that AGP theory doesn’t adequately describe trans women’s behavior.
– Among trans women with AGP experiences, they don’t all react to the same specific thing. Some people are aroused by the idea of having a vagina; others get erections when crossdressing; others watch transformation porn but don’t get aroused while crossdressing. You would think that people would do only the specific things that arouse them – but in fact people can have some AGP-like things and also have a nonsexual desire to do things they don’t have a sexual response to, and be at least as motivated to do that thing as to do the arousing thing. People who have little enough social desirability bias to report some AGP-type experiences will also report that presenting feminine was never itself arousing but just felt *right* and this was a major motivation in the absence of any sexual reward.
– You would also expect that the stronger someone’s AGP, the more motivated they will be to transition. But there are cis men with a lot of AGP who don’t feel motivated to transition, and there are gynephilic trans women with not that much AGP who feel very motivated to transition (and, I’m pretty sure, also gynephilic trans women with *no* AGP, though this is harder to prove).
– It is acknowledged by everyone, I think, that AGP usually subsides post-transition (where “post-transition” can even mean “after beginning to present feminine all the time”). Normally if you were doing a thing for a sexual purpose and it stops being sexually appealing to you, you stop doing the thing, but that’s generally not what happens with trans women. (I do see how in this model a trans woman with AGP who detransitioned would probably start having the sexual desire again and just transition again – but this doesn’t seem to really be what happens either? We don’t see people cycling between presenting-male-and-AGP and presenting-female-and-no-AGP. What we see is people transitioning, usually being like “ah yes this is better”, and staying the course.)
Anne Lawrence has argued that the thing where sexual AGP-type fantasies go away after transition, as well as cases where gynephilic trans women don’t have a strong sexual component to their dysphoria, can be explained by seeing AGP as *love* in addition to a sexual fetish. I don’t buy this because… I don’t think it’s an actual *explanation*, it’s just a roundabout way to describe the phenomenon of having dysphoria and then having the dysphoria relieved. The theory of AGP as a sexual fetish makes some predictions, which for reasons listed above I don’t think are borne out. The theory of AGP as romantic love, as far as I can tell, doesn’t really make any predictions different from a model based on dysphoria/identity. Blanchard’s explanation of mismatches between his theory and self-reports is that the self-reporters are deceiving him or doing their best to deceive themselves; Lawrence’s explanation is that actually they’re telling the truth, but they’re mislabeling it as “identity” rather than “love”, even though “identity” apparently feels indistinguishable from “love”. This is taking an actual theory, noticing that it doesn’t totally fit, and stretching it beyond recognition into something that’s hard to call a theory at all.
I do think there are some people who have really strong and persistent sexual desire to have a female body, such that it would actually be enough motivation for some people to transition based on that. But lots of trans women instead have relatively sporadic AGP, paired with a strong and persistent *non-sexual* desire to be women. It is not plausible to me that the stronger non-sexual desire is a consequence of the weaker sexual desire.
As for why dysphoria would cause AGP…
Some of the things discussed as evidence of AGP are in the category “sexual fantasies in which one is a woman”. For instance, Blanchard talks about bisexual trans women having fantasies in which a generic faceless man admires and/or has sex with them; he takes a supposed lack of “admiration of the male physique”* as evidence that they’re really “pseudobisexuals” and not really attracted to men – but this is a totally normal type of fantasy for cis women? Other things in this category include imagining being penetrated when actually penetrating a cis woman, as well as imagining oneself masturbating as a cis woman. (This last one is not a common cis woman fantasy because it’s a common cis woman *reality*. If a cis woman thinks “hm, fingering myself sounds great right now” she can just go and do it! A trans woman without a vagina can’t, so it becomes a fantasy.)
*later research finds they totally have admiration of the male physique, but whatever
But to be fair, Blanchard focuses heavily on arousal at the mere thought of being a woman, not even doing anything particularly sexual. This is indeed not a common cis woman fantasy; cis women have cis women bodies all the time, so it’s kind of hard to fantasize about it! (Though apparently cis women still don’t score zero* on the core autogynephilia stuff.) It makes a lot of sense to me that this would be correlated with gynephilia among trans women. Gynephilic people often find breasts and vulvas arousing [citation needed], and you can’t really imagine yourself with a female body without imagining those things. You think of yourself as a sexy woman, you now are thinking about a sexy woman, this is arousing. More generally, it seems really plausible to me that because gender and sex and sexuality are in general closely related, strong gender feelings can give rise to sexual feelings as well.
*just a note that yes I do keep linking to the same study – I don’t mean to give an impression of this being better-researched than it is, I just want to point people to where I’m getting information from.
It *also* seems plausible that if someone has this general type of AGP where they have a very strong and persistent sexual desire to have a female body, that can in fact motivate them to transition. I think this happens sometimes, but it’s not the norm. More often one has a strong and persistent nonsexual interest in various aspects of transition (including social transition), and the sexual fantasies that come with this are limited in scope and strength and duration and only apply to a subset of the things one wants to do.
—
The first item on the poll refers to what side you think the author of this post really believes, while the second item refers to what side you believe. When taking the poll, if you can POSSIBLY round yourself off to Blanchard-Bailey or gender identity, please do so. Please do this even if you have major disagreements with the side you are leaning towards. Only use “neither” if you really really really cannot in good conscience round yourself to either.
jossedley said:
This essay is the first one that shoehorned a “why I think Blanchard is wrong” analysis into one of the questions, and seems to have done so in a thorough and knowledgeable way.
I have no idea whether that means this author is a real gender identitarian or a B/B/ advocate familiar with the arguments. In my headcanon, it’s actually written by Ray Blanchard.*
* FWIW, since I don’t have any basis to judge these but am trying to anyway, my headcanon is spinning out of control – I’m fairly close to writing erotic fanfic where author number 2 meets author 4 while stuck in an airport, and they strike up a conversation on the map vis a vis the territory and one thing leads to another.
LikeLiked by 5 people
tcheasdfjkl said:
I love your headcanons. Please write your fanfic.
(I’m typing on a phone using gesture typing, and initially my phone interpreted the above as “I love your husband”, which is much more awkward…)
LikeLiked by 1 person
loki said:
seconded, I want fanfic
LikeLiked by 1 person
jossedley said:
Here it is – I hope this isn’t offensive! If so, I apologize – I absolutely support everyone’s right to live their life and am not trying to make fun of anything. This is just where my mind went on this one, and I honestly thought it was engaging, at least personally. (I”m sure I’m also crud at writing erotica – sorry!)
———————-
The Lay-Over
2 glanced over at 4, took a deep breath and said: “I’m just going to put this out there. You’re cool, and getting stuck in this airport has been one of the best things that has happened to me. You’re smart, and funny, and I’ve learned more about Lachan in the last three hours than I have in my whole life up to know. So please don’t take this the wrong way, but would you be interested in fucking around?”
4 looked up at 2’s clear green eyes, and was surprised to hear the answer: “You know what? Yes, I would,”
There was no problem sneaking into the bathroom (you never know in Fayetteville, of course, even at one in the morning), and in a moment, their bodies were tangled together, trying to make every moment count. 4’s lips were just as soft as they had looked, and 4 used them like an explorer, mapping each inch of 2’s body, committing it to memory. 2 stroked 4’s hair, pulling their heads together. They lost balance, but never felt the fall into the wall in their eagerness to know one another, 2’s other fingers began running along 4’s torso and waist, stopping short, just short.
4 asked 2, voice straining with repressed need: “May I take off your pants?” 2’s consent was unequivocal and enthusiastic. As the pants slid down, 4 thought about what Lachan would say what 4 found. As 2 continued consenting enthusiastically, the two slid onto the floor, entwining arms and necks, legs and bodies.
4 locked fingers with 2, placed those soft lips on 2’s neck, just below the ear, and said:
“One last thing – what’s your gender identity?”
2 looked up as said: “For you, I’ll identify as anything you want, baby.”
“No really, this is important!” 4’s face shifted from excitment towards frustration and concern, and 2 tried as well as possible under the circumstances to take back the joke and answer seriously.
“No – I understand and I’m sorry. I don’t have one.”
“What you you mean – you’re nonbinary? Genderqueer?”
“No, I just don’t have a gender identity. You can see how my body presents, and you’ve gotten to know my personality, but I seriously don’t have an identity.”
4 looked crestfallen and started to get up, a hand still wistfully tracing a pattern on the center of 2’s chest. “I’m sorry. Of course I respect your identity, or I guess lack of one, but I’m only attracted to people with male identities.”
2 looked surprised: “You were that confident that I had a male identity?” 4 answered “Well, I was hopeful. You did use the men’s room when we were at that coffee shop.”
Those green eyes focused, and a dimple formed on 2’s cheek. “Hey, it’s a layover. I won’t tell if you won’t.”
4’s hand started to slide down 2’s stomach. “Ah, what the fuck I guess just this once.”
—
At the TSA center, two employees watched the bathroom security cam.
:”I say we let them finish,” said Bobby. “There will be trouble if people find out about these cameras for anything short of a foiled terror attack, and anyway, they’re pretty hot.”
“You’re right about the trouble,” answered 9, “but I can’t really say if they’re hot personally until I know how what I’m watching. Can you check if they put preferred pronouns on any of their forms?”
LikeLiked by 3 people
jereshroom said:
Personally, as someone who isn’t a particular fan of gender identiity as a concept, I could see myself writing something like this — my only lies would be the part about being a descriptivist, and “I think we should choose the definition that makes people the happiest, and I think on that metric an identity-based definition is by far the best.” So if this writer thinks at all like I do, they could lean B-B. (Though I don’t really.)
It’s well-written and seems consistent with what I’ve heard from gender advocates, but I’ve still got to guess it’s false.
LikeLike
Tracy W said:
Not quite on the topic of the ITT itself, but does anyone else with a uterus cringe at language like “people with uteruses”? It always strikes me as implying there’s something wrong with a uteruses, because it pattern-matches to the person-first language some disability advocates argue for. No one requires person-first language for neutral things (“Post Brexit, British passport holders will face more hassles at borders”) or positive things (“Nobel Prize Winners all have the opportunity to make a speech at Stockholm”). To me, the person-first language for women echoes back to those 19th century ideas that having a uterus was somehow defective.
I of course generally refer to groups as they want to be referred, so if a group of people suffering from a disability want person-first language I use that, even though it makes me cringe a bit. But I’d expect the same courtesy back. And yet no one who advocates “people with uteruses” seems to mention checking how many people of the target group are happy with that terminology.
LikeLike
trentzandrewson said:
I cringe at ‘people with uteruses’ because I dislike the idea we need category labels for [cis women,trans men] and [cis men,trans women].
On the other hand, one thing it took me becoming a Blanchardian to recognize and accept is that there are in fact a lot of trans men for who a [cis women,trans men] category makes more innate sense than a [cis men,trans men] category in some ways — e.g. they have types of sex I could not have — and that these people are equally trans and have a condition in the same sphere of conditions as my own. Pre-Blanchardianism I was working under the assumption that, say, a trans man who seeks out and enjoys receptive PIV sex (maybe the biggest immediate difference between HSTS and AAP guys, in that there is a really strong correlation between type and enjoying it from my anecdata, though that might be better explained by the whole presence/lack of androphilia thing) was simply Not Trans because of how alien our experiences were. For that reason, I can now recognize why someone might want to write an article ‘for people who enjoy receptive PIV sex’ rather than ‘for women’.
But even recognizing that there are absolutely contexts where ‘pregnant people’ and ‘people with uteruses’ and ‘people who enjoy receptive PIV sex’ are preferable to ‘women’, I do not use those language constructs and spend as much time trying to be places where they are not as possible, and get intense dysphoria attacks in places where they are used (I was blindsided by ‘people with uteruses’ on the Wikipedia article for premenstrual dysphoric disorder and spent the rest of the day in the fetal position). Being in a [cis women,trans men] category is not something I can experience contentedly.
LikeLike
Tracy W said:
Yes, good points, naming is complex and there are always going to be people who feel left out and hurt by any terminology. Thus I think a bit of caution and a lot of research is called for before telling people what terms they should be using for themselves, or for large groups of which you are a member yourself.
LikeLike
sarah said:
Really enjoyable post, I felt like I learned from this.
OP’s replication link is paywalled, but the pdf is available for free at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5552324_Sexuality_of_Male-to-Female_Transsexuals
LikeLiked by 2 people
loki said:
I’m leaning false just because of how point-for-point it follows Serano. I can totally see it as real and even as something I might write, but I can’t help but see someone who maybe doesn’t feel confident in their ability to craft their fake leaning just a little too hard on the text.
Also, it feels like less of a pro-GI piece and more of an anti-BB piece, which means writing more about BB than GI, and I feel like that would totally be my instinct when I had to argue for the other side.
Plus this might just be me but I feel like if someone is both identarian and into language they would be incapable of getting to the ‘people with uteruses’ bit without a longer digression on how annoying it is that we don’t have functional trans-exclusive terminology for the thing.
I did find it really believable tho, I wouldn’t be hugely surprised if I am wrong
LikeLike
loki said:
I of course mean trans-inclusive
LikeLike
No one said:
Isn’t this the level of meta that makes an ITT totally pointless?
“This reads exactly like something a real *Group A* would write, but since I know that this is an ITT, that must mean it’s fake.”
LikeLike
loki said:
The second bit, sure. The first bit, that it feels a bit more like ‘I agree entirely with this article/writer’ and less like a personal opinion, less so.
LikeLike
No one said:
Definitely. And this isn’t to suggest your comment is without value.
Even the second bit itself is enough to make me think deeper about the requirements for a functional ITT, to which I’m leaning the definition could stand to be amended to “Can convince a member of that group *who is not aware they are performing in an ITT* that they are a member”. Even the original Turing test would be useless if you tried it with the programmer who built the AI, who then said “Yeah, it functions exactly like a human being, but it can’t fool me because I’ve seen the code it’s running on, so it fails.”
But yeah, as per the rules of the game your comment is pretty sound, and I don’t mean to detract from it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
silver and ivory said:
This was extremely well-argued and unusually well-researched. If this person is Blanchardian, they deserve the win.
LikeLike
trentzandrewson said:
This is blatantly an identitarian, and I will be surprised indeed if this guy’s Blanchardian argument is any good, though having said that there’s a non-zero possibility I’ll eat my words by completely falling for their insincere post.
I’m not seeing the ‘intensive research’ everyone else is talking about. There’s a lot in this, but a lot you can get by googling ‘autogynephilia debunked’ and reading the first couple links. This person has clearly not even read Kay Brown, and she’s…not hard to find.
On Romantic Love:
People arguing against Blanchardianism have a noted tendency to translate ‘paraphilia’ to ‘fetish’ when the sphere of paraphilias that include A*P is better translated as ‘sexual orientation’.
I am going to get so much shit for this specific example but it is the first one that came to mind: Pedophilia is a paraphilia. Pedophiles do not want to fuck every child they see any more than teleiophiles want to fuck every adult they see. Pedophiles feel roughly the same way towards children that teleiophiles feel towards adults — there are children they are sexually attracted to and children they are romantically attracted to, usually but not always the same children. The balance of romantic to sexual attraction changes the older the chronophile in question is attracted to — nepiophiles are usually not interested in romantic relationships with toddlers while hebephiles and ephebophiles (as in actual consistent primarily-attracted-to-teenagers-and-will-pick-them-over-adults ephebophiles, who are much less common than ‘yeah there are some hot 16 year olds’) are perfectly interested in long-term relationships with preteens and teenagers, but in general there are stronger connections going on than sexuality. If you were to refer to pedophilia as a fetish, you’d be much less accurate than if you were to call it a sexual orientation.
A*P is a sexual orientation, or at least better understood if you call it a sexual orientation rather than a fetish. A*Ps are in love with an idealized wo/man who is, in fact, themselves. I have observed AGP in a friend (eh, best word I can think of is friend, if you browse /lgbt/ you know who I’m talking about) who I am confident is truly asexual — not simply analloerotic, but asexual — and it presents as a very strong romantic and platonic attraction, the same one I’d expect to see in a homoromantic asexual cis woman towards her girlfriend.
The most, uh, interesting critique I have heard of the romance hypothesis is “shouldn’t AGPs be into sleeping around and have multiple idealized woman-selves?”, from someone who has apparently never heard of the concept of oneitis. (And the AGPs I’ve met are more oneitis-prone than average.)
In general, people seem to have strong immediate negative reactions to the romance hypothesis that aren’t grounded in reality (much as how they have strong immediate negative reactions to A*P that aren’t grounded in reality). I think the root of these objections is the translation of ‘paraphilia’ to ‘fetish’ rather than ‘orientation’.
On Androphilic AGP Women:
What is meta-attraction? The writer critiques the meta-attraction hypothesis later in their answer, but doesn’t consider the possibility of it at all here, which doesn’t make any kind of sense.
Meta-attraction is what is also referred to as ‘pseudo-androphilia’ or in the context of bisexuality ‘pseudo-bisexuality’ — there’s been a lot of the second term used and criticized lately because of Blanchard’s reference to it in a recent tweet. Meta-attraction is the most neutral term (both in terms of avoiding any possible value judgements and being equally applicable to AAP), so it’s the one I use.
Identitarians often use “there are straight trans women with AGP, checkmate Blanchardians” as some sort of immediate argument-winner…I really don’t see why. It is very well explained in Blanchardianism.
On Veale, et al:
See this critique of it by Lawrence and Bailey: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/J_Bailey2/publication/23456978_Transsexual_Groups_in_Veale_et_al_2008_are_Autogynephilic_and_Even_More_Autogynephilic/links/0046352cb3d2069812000000.pdf
Essentially, both MTF groups in Veale, et al had Core Autogynephilia Scale scores consistent with an AGP etiology, one just had even higher scores.
On Early-Onset A*P:
It has not been claimed for a very long time that pre-pubertal A*P is impossible. I’m starting to consider that everyone should be forced to read Men Trapped In Men’s Bodies before entering debates on Blanchardianism, though admittedly this would be slightly difficult to orchestrate because the price of a physical copy legally qualifies as extortion and the website hosting a free PDF is destroythetranscultthatrapeswomenandbrainwasheschildren.terf so I can understand not wanting to give them your pageviews.
I’m not even sure it’s ever been claimed systematically that pre-pubertal A*P is impossible, given the first case reports of it are from the early 1970s before AGP was a concept. Much like meta-attraction, this is a very easy thing to find Blanchardian explanations regarding, you’d probably need to search harder to not find them.
I think this is another case of ‘people saying fetish where they should be saying sexual orientation’. There are definitely some kids who are straight or gay before they hit puberty, and along the same lines some kids are A*P before they hit puberty.
LikeLike
trentzandrewson said:
Forgot to add my tally:
GI #1: Blanchard, mid-confidence
GI #2: Blanchard, high confidence
GI #3: Identity, low confidence
GI #4: Identity, low confidence
GI #5: Blanchard, low confidence
GI #6: Identity, high confidence
GI #7: Identity, high confidence
GI #8: Identity, high confidence
A few entries ago I was concerned I was marking too many people down as Blanchardian. Now I have the opposite concern, but to a milder degree given I doubt there is a 50/50 respondent split.
LikeLike
loki said:
I wouldn’t discount the possibility that there are people rounding themselves off to one or the other position who haven’t done all of the reading – which would include people who think the Blanchardian position is probably more accurate from what they have read, but haven’t read like, whoever Kay Brown is.
I think the fact that people are being asked to round themselves off to being more on one side than the other is relevant. This is going to mean not everyone agrees with their own side 100% and not everyone will know all of the latest thinking.
LikeLike
trentzandrewson said:
The whole ’rounding off’ thing is certainly significant, but I’m confident writers are much less likely to be people who had to round themselves to a category than voters.
Kay Brown is the writer of the blog Sillyolme, one of the major pro-Blanchardian websites in this decade. She has a FAQ that serves as Blanchardianism 101 and is a very common first resource for people who are reading more about the topic. It also provides counterarguments for several of the points in the OP, most prominently the one about straight trans women with AGP etiologies. Her blog is reasonably well-known by people on both sides of the debate, in that people arguing against Blanchard-Bailey often dispute Brown’s self-identification as HSTS by pointing out her extremely high achievement in a STEM field (retired CEO of a major visual technologies company), because apparently the “Blanchard says trans women in ‘masculine’ fields aren’t ‘real’ women!” argument is negated if the trans woman in question is part of the outgroup. The significance of that here is that even very basic research would lead to finding her blog, and that would make many of the OP’s arguments invalid; as a result, the “wow this is super researched and airtight and explains everything!” responses do not ring true to me at all.
(The writer could of course be a Blanchardian who knows those things and pretends they don’t.)
LikeLike
tailcalled said:
So I’ve been rounding myself off to Blanchardian, but I kinda want to hear your take on some problems I see with classical Blanchardianism.
It seems likely to me that “HSTS”/”A*P” is a significant and important axis of categorization if you wish to understand transness. According to my knowledge, it is entirely possible for this to be discrete rather than continuous, but this is only obvious conditional on there being different etiologies for the two groups.
I don’t fully agree with the standard proposed etiologies, but there are parts of the A*P etiology that seem not *as wrong* as others. The idea where a person with ETLI has a lot of sexual genderbending fantasies, and develops gender dysphoria as a result of these fantasies, *in such a way that the gender dysphoria afterwards exists independently of the fantasies* seems much more plausible than alternatives.
Why? 1) You can explain many of the things that I consider strong evidence in favor of BB (e.g. correlation between BIID and transness). 2) It is vastly more common to hear people describe that they experience this than the other aspects of A*P-etiologies. 3) I have a hard time seeing what the other parts of the A*P-etiologies add to the mix.
I still have some important objections to the etiology above (my suspicion this etiology is true for some but not all A*P-cluster trans people), but they’re not as big as my objections to other parts.
What do I object to?
* I don’t see the sexual motivation coming in, except through the dysphoria it gives rise to. In young people, the dysphoria generally seems to be nonsexual, even if it may have arisen from sexual fantasies. Decision to transition seems to come from the dysphoria, with no direct influence from sexual motivations.
* Similarly, the idea of getting romantically attracted to one’s idealized opposite-sex self doesn’t seem very meaningful to me, nor does it seem to explain anything new. I don’t think this is just rejecting it because it sounds weird, because I have very high weirdness-tolerance, even for a rationalist. (You might disagree, because of my comments on /r/GCdebatesQT, but I have pretended to be less weirdness-tolerant there to seem less weird.)
Those things don’t seem to add up; they seem to contradict my experiences and my observations in my friends to a huge degree (mainly in the sense that I just plain *don’t see it*), whereas the etiology I don’t object as much to contradicts my experiences and my observations in my friends less.
Do you have any examples that can make those parts of the etiology more obvious/understandable?
LikeLiked by 2 people
trentzandrewson said:
“I don’t think this is just rejecting it because it sounds weird, because I have very high weirdness-tolerance, even for a rationalist”
We’re in the transhumanist part of the rationalist blogosphere, I’d expect some really bizarre weirdness-tolerances. 😛 But my own weirdness tolerance is completely broken (“I’m not saying the Timecube guy is right, I’m just suggesting we should consider his hypothesis”) which is one of the reasons I refuse to ID as rationalist or aspiring-rationalist or anything in that sphere despite having a lot in common with people who do, so I may be really bad at figuring out where other people’s limits are on that topic.
At any rate —
My interest in Blanchardianism ultimately stems from its explanatory value. It is obviously a less interesting theory for that reason to people for whom it explains less, like someone who for whatever reason hasn’t observed the HSTS/A*P difference (e.g. they’re A*P and hang out in overwhelming majority A*P communities) or someone who perceives their A*P experiences as transient and self-limiting. My theories on how A*P works, due to my lack of first-hand experience and the fact I’m more interested in nobody-even-bothered-to-research-this AAP than AGP, quickly devolve into wild speculation based on shaky anecdata. That said, I do not buy ‘A*P goes away with transition’, despite how unquestioned an axiom it is.
I don’t buy that it goes away because not only have I encountered enough narratives best explained by ‘it’s permanent’ (e.g. long-term post-transition woman happy with her new life detransitions because she fell in love with a cis woman and gynephilia competes with AGP), I’ve read narratives that explicitly rely on its permanence. I’ve read Men Trapped in Men’s Bodies — there’s a whole lot of “I’m five years post-op and I still jill off to forced fem every night” in there. There is generally more evidence, to my eyes, to suggest A*P is forever than that it can go away. There are some intriguing narratives to the contrary (that early transitioner on /agpg/ who said she lost the ability to get off to AGP and it ruined her sex life), but you can find narratives with all kinds of unusual things in them.
I also can’t buy ‘HRT sex drive reduction makes A*P go away’, because…trans men. AAP tends to be less florid than AGP (fanfiction instead of transvestism), and it doesn’t seem to get much more florid in the first months-year of T. The trans men I’ve encountered who really do engage in fetishistic transvestism also do that very early in transition and lose interest in it when they’re living as men full-time, much like trans women who progressed from the same point.
So AGP (specifically, because AAP seems to maintain at its relatively less obvious point forever, but I need a hell of a lot more data because so many of the AAPs I’ve encountered are early- or pre- or non-transition) does not go away, but in the majority of cases it gets a lot less obvious. The romance hypothesis provides the best explanation for this that I’ve seen. There might be a different model that provides a better explanation! If there is, I want to hear it. But aside from ‘AGP becomes less florid but still exists’ I’ve also got my Cara observations, which fit the romance hypothesis but are utterly failed by everything else. (I guess you could make the argument Cara is way too neuroatypical to try and draw conclusions about neurotypical people from her experiences.)
As for your first objection, something in it gives me the feeling you’ve answered your own question. A*P causes dysphoria, dysphoria causes transition. You can follow up the argument with ‘and then A*P somehow disappears entirely’ or ‘and then A*P presents in a slightly different way, usually, so you don’t have to jill off to forced fem every night to get to sleep, usually’. I have encountered a larger number of narratives explained by the second than the first.
LikeLike
candiceelliott said:
I’m not interested in the Turing Test aspect here… but I do care about things when I see someone creating a challenge to the Two Type Taxonomy using silly objections that only serve to produce classic FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) as we see here, especially in regards to autogynephilia. So, taking the expressed desire that someone who supports “Blanchard” (though that is granting FAR too much credit for what has been growing scientific knowledge for decades before he joined Kurt Freund in studying what Freund had already labelled “femmiphilic fetishism”), I will address several key points:
“autogynephilia after knowing that they wanted to be female / developing gender dysphoria i.e. that autogynephilia is a consequence of gender dysphoria”:
First, people DO experience autogynephilia BEFORE developing significant gender dysphoria and definitely before developing a sustained cross sex identity as was documented by Doctor and Prince (herself autogynephilic):
“Among our subjects, 79% did not appear in public cross dressed prior to age 20; at that time, most of the subjects had already had several years of experience with cross dressing. The average number of years of practice with cross dressing prior to owning a full feminine outfit was 15. The average number of years of practice with cross dressing prior to adoption of a feminine name was 21. Again, we have factual evidence indicative of the considerable time required for the development of the cross-gender identity.”
Children as young as three years old have been observed to express autogynphilia. Here was see the case of a five year old:
But one does not have to experience actual sexual arousal for DESIRE to be active and motivating.
No, Exclusively androphilic transwomen are NOT autogynphilic… if they were, then we would see the same % reporting it as gynephilic and bisexual, but they don’t. For example, in Lawrence 2005:
Not only are the ‘androphilic” group reporting far less autogynephilia, but on closer examination, we can see that several who claim to be exclusively androphilic were in fact having sex with women… and still were post-op! What could be going on? Well, first… there is the problem of Social Desirability Bias:
Then there is the whole “interpersonal autogynephilia” thing that leads to nearly 40% of originally gynephilic transwomen taking a shine to men AFTER transition (as noted by Lawrence above) which is all about being into admired and desired by men “as a woman”:
I keep going… but then I’m going to end up linking nearly all of my essay on my blog! So just go and read it !!!
LikeLike
Pingback: Intellectual Turing Test Results | Thing of Things