new book readings, talks, interviews & debunking pseudoscience

I just published my latest email update, chock-full of new news. you can read it online here: https://mailchi.mp/64d1973d6b99/new-book-readings-talks-interviews-debunking-pseudoscience

and if you want to receive my email updates directly to your inbox, you can sign up here.

It is a fairly long update, so I won't reiterate it all here. But highlights include:

1) links to several recent interviews (in print, podcast, and YouTube forms) with me about my new book Sexed Up: How Society Sexualizes Us, and How We Can Fight Back – this includes two of the book events I did back in July. These interviews, as well as all the book excerpts, reviews, etc., can also be found on the Sexed Up webpage I just linked to.

2) On September 22nd, in honor of, Bisexual Visibility Day, I will be reading a few bi+ specific passages from Sexed Up at Fabulosa Books (489 Castro St, San Francisco, CA). The event begins at 7pm; masks are recommended but not required. Here is the Facebook invite for the event: https://www.facebook.com/events/1091569688453976 – please come out if you can!

3) Just in time for the 2022-23 academic year, I've updated my booking webpage to include a bunch of new presentations, some Sexed Up-themed, others covering trans, bisexual, LGBTQIA+, and feminist issues I often write about. If you are part of a conference or college organization that's looking for speakers, definitely check it out!

4) Debunking anti-trans pseudoscience, in two parts:

First, J. Michael Bailey and his protégé Kevin Hsu recently published a study in Archives of Sexual Behavior that attempts to refute the existence of “autogynephilia in women.” Jaimie Veale and I wrote a response that the journal just published: Autogynephilia Is a Flawed Framework for Understanding Female Embodiment Fantasies: A Response to Bailey and Hsu (2022) [PDF link]. In it, we point out numerous methodological and interpretive flaws with their study—including how their results are incompatible with Blanchard's original taxonomy—and make the case that “autogynephilia” is a flawed framework for considering both trans and cis women's sexual fantasies and desires.

Second, some of you may recall my 2019 Origins of "Social Contagion" and "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria" post, which is essentially a timeline of all the major events regarding the invention and dissemination of these ideas within anti-trans activism. I just updated the timeline with a newer entries, many of which are recent studies that undermine or outright disprove the basic tenets of these theories. All those new entries can be found in the Post-Publication Note toward the beginning of that post.

So that's what's in the update – please check it out!

2 new essays on anti-trans activism & the "sexual predator" trope

A few months back, I published an essay entitled Transgender People, Bathrooms, and Sexual Predators: What the Data Say. It cited numerous research studies showing that trans people and trans-inclusion policies pose no threat to cis people in sex-segregated spaces. It also chronicled how similar campaigns to smear an entire marginalized group as supposed "sexual predators" have occurred previously, for instance, against Black people, Jewish people, and gays and lesbians. In other words, this is a standard trope that bigots and haters love to wield.

In the wake of recent events, I have two new "sequels" to that essay. The first is my formal response to being named in that anti-trans manifesto that was going around last week. (For the record, I am doing okay, all things considered.) In my response, I discuss how anti-trans activists' increasing attempts to smear trans people (and particularly trans women) en masse as "sexual predators" is directly responsible for expressions of violence such as this. You can read it here: On Being Explicitly Named in a Violent “Gender Critical” Manifesto.

The second new essay chronicles anti-trans activists' increasing promotion of "autogynephilia," a debunked psychology theory that they use to ... wait for it ... smear trans women en masse as "sexual predators." I also describe their recent attempts to wield "autogynephilia" in tandem with the fake diagnosis "ROGD" in order to undermine trans healthcare more generally. You can read that one here: Autogynephilia and Anti-Transgender Activism.

By the way, both are on Medium (these are no-paywall links), so please read & share widely & give them lots of "claps" (up to 50, I believe).

[note: If you appreciate my work and want to see more of it, please check out my Patreon page]

TERF Wars collection features my updated critique of "autogynephilia"

This week, The Sociological Review (an academic journal) published a special issue entitled TERF Wars: Feminism and the fight for transgender futures. (If you are reading this now, that link will take you to the issue; in the future, you may need to scroll back to Volume 68 Issue 4, July 2020.) 

It contains my essay Autogynephilia: A Scientific Review, Feminist Analysis, and Alternative ‘Embodiment Fantasies’ Model. That link will bring you to a PDF of my accepted manuscript. If you have institutional access, here's the final publication. While I'm not allowed to post the final publication publicly, I am allowed to share it upon individual request, so shoot me an email if you'd like a copy.

In the article, I provide an updated overview of the scientific case against autogynephilia theory. Following that, I forward an alternative "embodiment fantasies" model that explains all the available evidence better than autogynephilia theory, and is far more consistent with contemporary thinking regarding gender and sexual diversity. Finally, given the theory's recent popularity among trans-exclusionary feminists, I demonstrate how autogynephilia relies on essentialist, heteronormative, and male-centric presumptions about women and LGBTQ+ people, and as such, it is inconsistent with basic tenets of feminism. 

While writing it back in 2018-19, I found that I couldn't fit every argument I wanted to into it (due to word count), so I spun some of these additional ideas into two long-read Medium essays: Making Sense of Autogynephilia Debates and Autogynephilia, Ad Hoc Hypotheses, and Handwaving. (btw, those are both "friends links" that circumvent the paywall.)

If you add all that up, it's almost half a book's worth of writing on this theory (yikes!). While I believe this has been important work (as autogynephilia continues to be routinely cited in anti-trans propaganda), I wasn't paid for any of it. So if you appreciate this work, please consider supporting me on Patreon, which helps make projects like this possible!

Finally, if you're interested in the TERF Wars: Feminism and the fight for transgender futures collection, but do not have journal access, you'll be happy to know that it can be ordered in book form via that link. And it will soon be available via more typical book outlets.

Autogynephilia: a theory that ignores lived experiences and basic mathematics

I have probably written more about Ray Blanchard’s autogynephilia theory than all but a small handful of people. I have done so for multiple reasons: 1) as a scientist, I am appalled by the theory’s lack of scientific rigor, 2) it denies many trans people’s lived experiences, 3) it makes far too many unnecessary (and incorrect) assumptions (i.e., it ignores Occam’s razor), 4) it is not scientifically falsifiable, as exceptions to the theory are routinely dismissed as being due to “lying” or “misreporting” by trans subjects, 5) it needlessly sexualizes and stigmatizes people on the trans female/feminine spectrum, and 6) it does not even attempt to account for people on the trans male/masculine spectrum.

In this brief post, I will highlight several of my more thorough analyses of autogynephilia theory. Other writings related to this topic may be found on my Trans Psychology webpage.

JOURNAL ARTICLES

Autogynephilia: A scientific review, feminist analysis, and alternative ‘embodiment fantasies’ model [PDF link]
In this 2020 peer-reviewed article, I provide an updated overview of the scientific case against autogynephilia. Following that, I forward an alternative "embodiment fantasies" model that explains all the available evidence better than autogynephilia theory, and is far more consistent with contemporary thinking regarding gender and sexual diversity. Finally, given the theory's recent popularity among trans-exclusionary feminists, I demonstrate how autogynephilia relies on essentialist, heteronormative, and male-centric presumptions about women and LGBTQ+ people, and as such, it is inconsistent with basic tenets of feminism. 

The Case Against Autogynephilia [PDF link]
An earlier peer-reviewed article (from 2010) that appeared in the International Journal of Transgenderism. In it, I provide my most detailed analysis of why autogynephilia theory's taxonomy (its two "subtypes") and etiology (the assertion that FEFs cause gender dysphoria and desire to transition in lesbian, bisexual, and asexual trans women) do not hold true. In addition to refuting the theory's main tenets, I forward simpler non-pathological alternative explanations that better account for Blanchard’s and other researchers' findings.

Autogynephilia Is a Flawed Framework for Understanding Female Embodiment Fantasies: A Response to Bailey and Hsu (2022) [PDF link]

This is my and Jaimie Veale's response to Bailey and Hsu's article How Autogynephilic Are Natal Females? (both published in Archives of Sexual Behavior). Their article attempts to refute the existence of “autogynephilia in women.” We point out numerous methodological and interpretive flaws with their study—including how their results are incompatible with Blanchard's original taxonomy—and make the case that “autogynephilia” is a flawed framework for considering both trans and cis women's sexual fantasies and desires.

OTHER RECENT ARTICLES

Making Sense of Autogynephilia Debates
My 2019 essay in which I briefly summarize the evidence against autogynephilia theory, then explain the main reasons why many trans women so strongly object to it (besides the fact that it is incorrect), and the numerous rationales and ideologies that lead some people to continue to support and promote the theory despite its lack of scientific validity.

Autogynephilia, Ad Hoc Hypotheses, and Handwaving
In this 2020 essay, I delve into several esoteric arguments that autogynephilia's proponents continue to forward in their attempts to resuscitate the theory. Most of the article addresses the questions: Do cisgender people truly experience “autogynephilia”/FEFs, and are FEFs capable of causing gender dysphoria in anyone? I end with a critique of the "Dregerian narrative" (the assertion that transgender activists are "attacking science").

Autogynephilia and Anti-Transgender Activism

This 2021 post chronicles anti-trans activists' increasing promotion of "autogynephilia" in their efforts to smear trans women en masse as "sexual predators." I also document their recent attempts to wield "autogynephilia" (often in tandem with the fake diagnosis "ROGD") to undermine trans-related healthcare more generally.

OLDER ESSAYS

Reconceptualizing “Autogynephilia” as Female/Feminine Embodiment Fantasies (FEFs)
A blogpost I wrote in 2015, and which was later updated for my latest book Outspoken (you can freely download that chapter here). This extends upon what I wrote in my 2007 book Whipping Girl, offering non-pathologizing explanations for why “autogyephilic fantasies” (what I call FEFs) exist, and why they are more prevalent in some trans subpopulations than others.

The real “autogynephilia deniers”
A blogpost I wrote in 2015 in response to James Cantor (one of the few proponents of autogynephilia theory who is still actively practicing sexology) wherein I list all of the major research and review articles that together demonstrate that the theory is incorrect. I also highlight numerous instances where anti-transgender individuals and organizations have cited autogynephilia theory in their attempts to invalidate, stigmatize, and slut-shame trans women.

Psychology, Sexualization and Trans-Invalidations [PDF link]
A speech that I gave in 2009; an updated version of the essay now appears in both my latest book Outspoken and on Academia.edu.  An accessible analysis of why there is so much focus on trans female/feminine people’s (real or presumed) sexualities in the lay public, media, and in the fields of psychology/sexology, while their trans male/masculine counterparts remain under-theorized in these regards. I discuss Blanchard’s autogynephilia theory in the context of these more foundational stereotypes and biases.

A Matter of Perspective: A Transsexual Woman-Centric Critique of Dreger’s ‘‘Scholarly History’’ of the Bailey Controversy [PDF link]

A recurring complaint made by autogynephilia's proponents is that trans women who oppose the theory must be "anti-science" and/or attempting to "ruin" scientists' careers. This narrative was popularized by Alice Dreger in her 2008 article "The Controversy Surrounding The Man Who Would Be Queen: A Case History of the Politics of Science, Identity, and Sex in the Internet Age." This is my Archives of Sexual Behavior peer commentary in response to that article, in which I point out the numerous oversights and biases inherent in Dreger's narrative (which has since been repurposed numerous times).

Like I said, many other writings related to, or addressing, autogynephilia theory can be found on my Trans Psychology webpage and in my books Whipping Girl and Outspoken...

[note: If you appreciate my writings and want to see more, please consider supporting me on Patreon]

trans women are women! plus free book chapters & a NY Times interview

Yesterday I sent out my latest email update - you can read it via the link and/or sign up for my email list here. Here are some of the highlights:

I was interviewed in the New York Times as part of their Pride 2017 coverage - the article is called Julia Serano, Transfeminist Thinker, Talks Trans-Misogyny. You can read it via that link; if it's behind a paywall, here is a PDF version.

I wrote a new Medium essay called Debunking “Trans Women Are Not Women” Arguments. If you like the piece, please click the "heart" icon at the bottom of the article - that way more people on Medium will see it!

I recently made three chapters from my latest book Outspoken: A Decade of Transgender Activism and Trans Feminism freely available for download - all of them challenge psychological theories and diagnoses that needlessly pathologize transgender people (which is why I wanted to make them readily accessible). Find out how to download them (btw, the linked post also includes excerpts from my novel-in-progress).

I am able to make these book chapters and the Debunking “Trans Women Are Not Women” Arguments piece freely available thanks to my Patreon supporters. If you support me there (for as little as $1 per month) you'll have access to behind-the-scenes updates & polls, and unpublished writings & recordings. If you pledge at higher levels, you may be eligible for rewards such as free e-books, signed copies of any of my previous books, and/or choosing the topic of a future blogpost. So if you appreciate my work, please consider supporting me there!

The real "autogynephilia deniers"

Note: updated links and additional entries were added to this post in October, 2019. A more thorough review of autogynephilia theory and the many lines of evidence against it can be found in my peer-reviewed article Autogynephilia: A scientific review, feminist analysis, and alternative ‘embodiment fantasies’ model [PDF link]. The underlying rationales that lead some people to still support the theory despite its lack of scientific validity are explored in Making Sense of Autogynephilia Debates. Finally, toward the end of this essay, I provide examples of how the theory is routinely cited by those who wish to undermine transgender people, rights, and/or healthcare—many more recent examples of this are discussed in my 2021 piece Autogynephilia and Anti-Transgender Activism. 

A little over a week ago, James Cantor (a sexologist who works at CAMH) published the following provocative tweet:

Autogynephile-deniers are the anti-vaxxer's of sexology.

— James Cantor (@JamesCantorPhD) July 4, 2015

Of course, the trope of "autogynephilia deniers" has existed for about as long as the theory itself has.

Reconceptualizing “Autogynephilia” as Female/Feminine Embodiment Fantasies (FEFs)

[note added November, 2016: This essay (with additional material!) now appears as a chapter in my third book Outspoken: A Decade of Transgender Activism and Trans Feminism. If you want to read that updated chapter, it can be downloaded here]

Note added 7-14-15: a follow up post (of sorts) detailing all of the recent scientific papers demonstrating that Blanchard's theory is incorrect can be found in The Real "Autogynephilia" Deniers.

In 2010, two review articles appeared in the peer-review literature: My article The Case Against Autogynephilia was published in The International Journal of Transgenderism, and Charles Moser's article Blanchard's Autogynephilia Theory: A Critique appeared in the Journal of Homosexuality. Both of our papers presented numerous lines of evidence that disprove the main underpinnings of autogynephilia theory, namely, the assertions that trans female/feminine-spectrum people can be readily divided into two clear-cut categories based upon sexual orientation and the presence or absence of “autogynephilia,” and that “autogynephilia” is the primary underlying cause of gender dysphoria and desire to transition in trans women who experience it. (Note: subsequent analyses by Talia Bettcher and Jaimie Veale have further demonstrated that autogynephilia theory is incorrect.)

Where our papers differ is that, while Moser continues to use the term “autogynephilia” to refer to sexual fantasies and patterns of arousal in which the “thought or image of oneself as a woman” plays a contributing role, I instead argue that we should no longer use this term for the following reasons:

Alice Dreger’s disingenuous campaign against transgender activism

an introduction added September, 2015:

This post started out as “Alice Dreger and making the evidence fit your thesis” (which can be found in its original form below). Dreger’s new book Galileo’s Middle Finger had just come out, and it contained her critical portrayal of the backlash against J. Michael Bailey’s trans-misogynistic book The Man Who Would Be Queen. Most people outside of certain transgender and/or sexology circles are probably unaware that this particular part of Dreger’s book first appeared in 2009 as an article in a research journal along with numerous peer commentaries—one of which was written by me, and most of which criticized Dreger for being highly selective with the evidence she presented and/or for blatantly misrepresenting trans activists’ concerns and motives in the process. So I initially penned this post to inform potential readers about those past critical reviews of Dreger’s depiction of this particular matter.

And I thought that would be it. I had no reason to believe that she had any kind of vendetta against transgender people or trans activism per se (although some trans activists certainly did think this). Frankly, my impression at the time was that she had a story that she wanted to tell about “activism gone awry and constituting a threat to scientific freedom,” and that her narrative would be easiest to sell if she played down the trans community’s legitimate concerns and played up a handful of incidents that seemed to bolster her case.

But now I believe that I was wrong. Not about Dreger’s disingenuous portrayal of the backlash against Bailey’s book—I stand by that assessment. Rather, now I do think that she has a vendetta against transgender activism, as she has since penned a series of articles wherein she repeatedly 1) criticizes ideas and policies that are forwarded by, and generally accepted amongst, transgender activists, 2) presents selective and/or distorted evidence (usually via “straw men” and false dichotomies) to bolster her argument, 3) points to instances where some trans activists have supposedly “gone too far” (in her mind, at least) in order to paint us as unreasonable and/or extremist, 4) ignores all reasonable and knowledgeable trans activists and advocates whose view points would illustrate that the topic is way more nuanced and complicated than she is presenting it, and 5) inevitably drops in a few comments to make it seem like she is “trans-positive,” or an “ally” or “advocate” of the trans community, when in reality the only trans people she seems to respect are those who buy into psychopathologizing theories about trans identities and sexualities.

crowdsourcing for instances where "autogynephilia" is used to sensationalize or invalidate trans identities - please help & share with others!

As many of you may know, over the years I have written a lot about Ray Blanchard's theory of autogynephilia, which wrongly argues that trans women are sexually-motivated in our transitions - I debunked the theory in the article provided in the link, and further discuss how it sexualizes and invalidates trans women here.  

I am currently working on a piece that (in part) compiles instances where people outside of science/psychology cite "autogynephilia" in their efforts to sensationalize trans people or to promote anti-transgender agendas and policies. 

I have a few examples of this in hand - most notably, from Sheila Jeffreys's recent book, one from an anti-trans Catholic organization, that horrible Rolling Stone article about Lana Wachowski published before she came out as trans, and of course, last year's New Yorker article in which Michelle Goldberg used the theory to slut-shame me. 

I have seen many more examples than this, but I have found them to be especially difficult to track down online, as the bajillion webpages and posts discussing and debating the theory itself overwhelm any and all search engine queries I have attempted.

So that's where you come in (hopefully!). Perhaps you know of articles, news items, or stories along this line? If so, please pass along a link, a description, or a few key words so that I can search for it myself. You can do so by:

1) leaving a comment below
2) Tweet it to me @juliaserano
3) email it to me - my address can be found here: http://www.juliaserano.com/contact.html

Thanks in advance! -julia

two articles (plus thoughts on autogynephilia as the transgender equivalent of slut-shaming)

note added 9-1-14 regarding point #2 in this post: The following week I had a chance to more thoughtfully and extensively reply to that Michelle Goldberg article. The Advocate ran my op-ed entitled “An Open Letter to The New Yorker," which is my formal response to the article. Following that, I published a blogpost called Final thoughts on that Michelle Goldberg article, faux journalism, and recognizing bias, which linked to other critical reviews of the Goldberg article and includes my closing thoughts on the matter.

Two things happened today:

1) I have a new article out on Ms. Magazine blog today called Empowering Femininity, wherein I revisit some of the ideas I initially forwarded in the chapter of Whipping Girl called "Putting the Feminine Back into Feminism." Check it out!

2) Some of you may be aware of a New Yorker article by Michelle Goldberg that came out today entitled "What Is a Woman? The dispute between radical feminism and transgenderism." It is basically about how Trans-Exclusive Radical Feminists (TERFs) are increasingly becoming marginalized within feminism, and it is mostly written from their perspective (e.g., about ways in which they have been personally attacked or "censored" by trans activists). Let's just say that it is not the piece that I would have written on the matter.

I do not have the time or energy to write a formal response to the entire piece, but since I am one of the few trans voices included in the article, I feel compelled to make a few points "for the record" as it were:

update on debunking psychiatric theories/diagnoses on trans people

So I *finally* got around to updating my webpage Debunking Psychological Diagnoses and Theories about Transsexual and Transgender People today. It includes PDF links to my article The Case Against Autogynephilia, a recently published article on the DSM expansion of Transvestic Disorder, and two still-somewhat-newish pieces about how the "Fetish Concept" hurts both trans folks and our partners.

You can check out the updated page here: http://www.juliaserano.com/TSetiology.html

Follow up on DSM-still-considers-trans-folks-"disordered" post

First, thanks to everyone re-tweeted, re-posted, shared links, and commented on my Trans people still “disordered” according to latest DSM blogpost yesterday. The response has been overwhelming, and I'm sorry that I haven't been able to respond to people's comments and questions...

As I alluded to in that post, I was disappointed that the DSM's Transvestic Disorder diagnosis received so little attention at the time. But this latest interest/outrage encourages me that we may be able to work toward completely removing this diagnosis from the next revision of the DSM (DSM-VI?).

There are a few things that I want to add here as a postscript:

Trans people still “disordered” according to latest DSM

[This essay has recently been revamped (with additional material!) as a chapter in my third book Outspoken: A Decade of Transgender Activism and Trans Feminism]

This morning, I woke up and found my Twitter feed full of article links celebrating that transgender people are no longer “disordered” according to the DSM (that is, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - often referred to as the "psychiatric Bible" because it contains all of the official psychiatric diagnoses). The DSM gets revised every 10-20 years or so, and diagnoses sometimes get modified, expanded, or completely removed. The change that people are now celebrating is the fact that the previous diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder (GID) has now been changed to Gender Dysphoria.

Admittedly, the new Gender Dysphoria diagnosis is an improvement over GID for a number of reasons - Kelly Winter of GIDreform.org describes some of these improvements, as well as many of the lingering problems with the new diagnosis. Despite the remaining drawbacks (for instance, that gender variance is still formally pathologized in the DSM), many people seem excited that transgender people are no longer described as being "disordered" in the DSM. But the problem is that this is patently untrue.

My adventures in sexology (plus a Call for Submissions!)

My life has taken a number of interesting turns over the last ten years. And I am not talking about my transition here - if you would have told me 20 years ago that I would eventually transition to female, I would not have been especially surprised. However, if you would have told me back then that I would someday spend a great deal of my free time writing about feminism, and that some of those writings would be taught in gender studies classes, I never would have believed you in a million years.

The same holds true with regards to me being taken seriously in (some) sexology circles. I first became interested in the field as I was beginning to work on Whipping Girl (WG). Specifically, I saw a connection between how trans women and others on the trans female/feminine spectrum were sexualized in the media and how we were similarly sexualized in certain sexology & psychology theories. So, I did a lot of research on those theories and critiqued them in WG (specifically in Chapters 7, 14 & 17). At that point, I felt like I said what needed to be said, and I was ready to move on.

But after WG came out, I had a Michael Corleone-like moment: “Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in.”

Why feminists should be concerned with the impending revision of the DSM

Originally posted on LJ 5-6-09

FYI, I just posted a piece called Why feminists should be concerned with the impending revision of the DSM over at Feministing.com. It's mostly about Ray Blanchard's suggestions to revise the Paraphilia section. Feel free to check it out if you're interested... j.

Am I the only person offended by this?

Originally posted on LJ 2-12-09

ok, so the following is a rant that I posted on a trans-themed email list. It is in reference an exposé written by folks within the gender variant community about a proponent of autogynephilia theory who happens to be a trans woman. Now this person has said some messed up things about people I respect, and she is accused of a number of other things which I have heard second hand that, if true, are very disturbing. Having said that, I wrote the following post in response to certain aspects of that exposé that really really bothered me as a trans woman and activist. For anonymity reasons, I have omitted/deleted names of the person in question, as well as those who published the exposé. I ask those who wish to leave comments to respect this anonymity...

Am I the only person offended by this?

BAR piece on Zucker, Blanchard & DSM workgroup

originally posted on LJ 6-1-08

So I'm sure that most of the folks who check out my blog are aware of the recent appointments of Ken Zucker & Ray Blanchard (among others) to the DSM working group that will hash out new gender/sexuality related "mental disorders" for the DSM. I have written at great length about some of the major problems with Blanchard's views of trans women and others on the trans feminine spectrum. Needless to say, I was not happy with their appointments.

An article recently came out in the Bay Area Reporter on the issue (full disclaimer: I am quoted in it) which went into great detail about the obstacles these appointments pose for trans activists. It also discussed some of the more over-the-top reactions it generated within the trans community, which included fears that the APA would put homosexuality back into the DSM or that Ken Zucker would advocate reparative therapy for young trans children in it (the DSM doesn't include therapies, only diagnoses).

more Bailey/Dreger stuff...

Originally posted on LJ 3-7-08

Hi everyone,
For those interested, I wrote a column that was just posted on Feministing.com that discusses a few recent developments regarding Alice Dreger’s “scholarly history” of the Bailey affair.

Also, I am happy to say that my “peer commentary” on Dreger’s article was accepted for publication, giving me the surreal experience of being able to say that I have a paper coming out in a sexology journal. Anyway, you can download a PDF version of my commentary here:
http://www.juliaserano.com/av/Serano_DregerCommentary.pdf