An introduction to the autogynephilia debate

So someone has brought up Ray Blanchard's concept of autogynephilia in a discussion of gender variance and transgender women. They are all sexual perverts, they tell you. The science proves it! 

The autogynephilia theory says that MTF crossdressers

and trans women who love women are men driven by a desire 

for their inner woman. Yepp,it is yet another attempt at 

invalidating a marginalized group by sexualizing them.

Photo: Voyagerix

Actually it doesn't. 

Here is some essential reading that will bring you up to speed on the topic of cross-gender arousal, crossdreaming and transgender identities. 

Welcome to the seedy side of sexology. Welcome to the autogynephilia debate.  

Start with my summary of the AGP controversy. 

Julia Serano, leading trans philosopher and trans activist, presents cross-gender arousal in her highly influential book Whipping Girl, which has just been published in its second edition. 

She understands crossdreaming (i.e. arousal from imagening yourself as your target sex) as an expression of a subconscious identity. Serano has written about her approach to what she calls female embodiment fantasies here. 

Serano has also commented on the claim that trans activists are denying the existence of trans-gender arousal. And here is a more academic paper by Serano: "The Case Against Autogynephilia."  

What Dr. Zhana Vrangalova Taught Me About Transphobia in Science

This is the story about how science can be used to persecute transgender people, and on how some seemingly well-intended LGBT-allies can contribute to transphobia.

Zhana Vrangalova
Photo by Enid Alvarez, New York Daily News

In this post I will give you the story about Dr. Zhana Vrangalova's support for the transphobic autogynephilia theory.

The Vrangalova story is interesting because it is such a clear an example of how scientific theories can be used to recruit even  the most well-meaning helpers to the oppression of trans people.

And yes, in this post I will prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the autogynephilia theory is transphobic.

Context

Those of you who do not know the ins and outs of this stagnant backwater of transgender research, may make note of the following:

1. The auogynephilia/AGP theory, created by Dr. Ray Blanchard of Toronto, says that there is a separate category of trans women who are motivated by a sexual paraphilia (perversion) that drives them towards transitioning.  They are, according to Blanchard, sexually attracted to the idea of themselves as a woman. The word is also used to describe male to female crossdressers and crossdreamers who do not transition.

2. Dr J. Michael Bailey is a supporter of Dr. Blanchard, and the author of The Man Who Would be Queen, a book that popularizes Blanchard's theory, dividing the world of trans women into two: "autogynephile transsexuals" (non-homosexual perverted men, according to Blanchard & Bailey) and homosexual transsexuals (extremely effeminate gay men).

3. Zhana Vrangalova is a sexologist; she has PhD in Developmental Psychology from Cornell and is currently an adjunct professor at the NYU Psychology department.

---

SIDEBAR This is not a blog post about the scientific value of the autogynephilia theory. This is a post about how it is used to harm MTF crossdreamers and trans women. I have elsewhere documented that  the science is bad, and that it has been thoroughly falsified by other researchers. You will find links to papers and blog posts showing this here. I have also written several blog posts on the scientific defects of the autogynephilia theory.

---

LGBT-support and autogynephilia do not mix

On June 13 Vrangalova tweeted a link to an interview the religious site Patheos had made with Bailey, adding the statement "There are 2 types of trans women".

I have been following Vrangalova since she often tweets interesting links to all things sexology. She has become an active spokesperson for the polyamorous amongst us. I also knew her as a supporter of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) rights, so her promoting Bailey in this way surprised me.

After all, the autogynephilia model is considered to be one of the most invalidating and stigmatizing theories around right now. It is routinely used by right wing religious  fundamentalists and left wing trans-exclusionary "radical" feminists to harass and invalidate trans women. It has been dismissed by transgender activists as toxic and unfounded, and has very little support among front line health professionals in the field.

The Vrangalova Dialogue

I responded in accordance with this, hoping I had been mistaken about the dear Doctor's intentions:

All you need to know about "autogynephilia"

Here is all you need to know about Ray Blanchard's "autogynephilia" theory about transgender women and male assigned people who dream about being "the other gender".

With irregular intervals there pops up a new article discussing Ray Blanchard's "autogynephilia" theory, often written by someone who knows enough about crossdreaming to be interested, but not enough to see through the jargon of Blanchard.

Autogynephilia times two.

Photo: Dmitrii Kotin

This is a comment I wrote as a reply to Joseph Burgo's recent article on autogynephilia.

"Autogynephilia", huh?

Blanchard argues that there two separate types of transgender, both defined by the sexual orientation of the transgender person. The theory covers both male to female crossdressers and trans women, but the vocabulary refers mostly to trans women.

The first type is the "homosexual transsexual" (by which he means trans women attracted to men). These are effeminate gay men who transition in order to attract straight men, according to Blanchard.

The other is the "autogynephilic transsexual" (those who are not attracted to men). These he considers heterosexual paraphiliacs (perverts) who are sexually attracted to the image of themselves as female. Neither Blanchard nor his supporter J. Michael Bailey, recognize any of these as women.

Blinded by Science

Needless to say, the Blanchard model invalidates the identities of trans women. And from where I am standing it is also clear that the theory does not reflect the real lives of non-transsexual crossdreamers and crossdressers.

We live in a culture, however, where scientists are expected to be disinterested and objective, while the trans activists are -- for obviously reasons -- both emotionally and existentially involved in what's being said about them. This has led some to believe Blanchard (who is not transgender) knows more about transgender issues than transsexual women, crossdreamers and crossdressers.

Let me therefore make this perfectly clear: The theory has been thoroughly falsified and dismissed, also by scientists.

Here are some of the main arguments raised against it:

1. Crossdreaming is not limited to men who love women

The "autogynephiliacs" are defined by what I have called crossdreaming. Crossdreamers may get aroused by the fantasy of being their target sex. The androphilic trans women ("homosexual transsexuals" in Blanchard's misleading and offending terminology, i.e. those who are attracted to men) never experience such fantasies, according to Blanchard.

Do bisexual men exist?

Beyond the binary

Do bisexual men exist?

You should think that this was a meaningless questions, as there are enough bisexual men around to tell you that yes, they do exist.

That does not stop scientists from developing theories that deny their existence, though, especially if the fundamental thinking in a specific discipline is based on a different "truth".

The binary of sexual orientation

As far as I can see, the dominant ideology among many sociobiologists and biologically oriented psychologist has been  that men are strictly homosexual or heterosexual, while women may have a more fluid sexual orientation.

This is, I believe, a  result of the old evolutionary theory that men are constantly trying to spread their seed to as many as possible, while women are more oriented towards love and nurturing. This is why men are believed to be focussing solely on the visual clues of an attractive body, while women might even find footage of bonobos frolicking exciting.

This was at least the conclusions made by J. Michael Bailey and his team over at Northwestern University.

The return of the bisexual man

The International Herald Tribune now reports on a new Northwestern study, led by Allen Rosenthal (an associate of Bailey's, I believe),  that indicates that bisexual men do in fact exist.

There are other studies pointing in the same direction:

Radio show on Michael Bailey's book on transsexualism

In 2002 J. Michael Bailey published a book on transsexualism and autogynephilia called The Man Who Would Be Queen.

It is not really a scientific work, more of a popularization really. It was, and continues to be, very controversial.

I am not going to repeat my own arguments with the theory of Bailey's here, but point you to a 2007 radio show over at the San Francisco public KQED radio.

The guests are:

• Dr. Alice Dreger, associate professor of Clinical Medical Humanities and BioEthics at Northwestern University. She is the author of "The Controversy Surrounding The Man Who Would Be Queen: A Case History On the Politics of Science, Identity and Sex in the Internet Age".


• Dr. J. Michael Bailey himself , professor of Psychology at Northwestern University


• Joan Roughgarden, professor of Biological Science at Stanford University and author of "Evolution's Rainbow". She is the one having promoted the social selection paradigm in evolutionary biology. I have written about her and her work in my Sex, Gender, Nature series. She was the one who drew my attention to this radio show.


• Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality

TS Roadmap has a transcript of the show.

Autoandrophilia, on women who fantasise about having a man's body

From time to time this questions pops up: Are there women who get turned on by the idea of having a man's body?

The term sometimes used for male assigned persons who dream about having a female bodies is autogynephilia ("self-woman-love"). The term comes from a transphobic and misleading  theory developed by one Ray Blanchard, but since we know that many search for terms like these, we will refer to them in this article. 

A search for autoandrophilia (Greek aner, man) on the Net brings up very little, however, and in many cases the term is used for gay men who tries to impersonate the men they are attracted to.

Given that Blanchard and his followers only studied MTF (male to female) transsexuals when discussion eroticism of this sort, there hasn't been much discussion online regarding this phenomenon either. It apparently isn't controversial enough to merit much activism.

Then there is the problem of identifying female to male crossdressers. Nowadays it is very easy for women to crossdress without being "outed". Jeans and a T-shirt? Works fine. She can even wear a suit like attire and look very business-like, yet feminine. (The tie would be a dead giveaway, though).

All of this has led some to doubt the very existence of what I refer to as erotic crossdreaming in people assigned female at birt ("autoandrophilia"). Apparently, we still are culturally inclined to believe that what transphobic researchers refer to as "fetishes" and "perversions" are limited to the XY part of the human race. Women are pure, men are pigs. A parallel phenomenon is found in the male idea that gay male sex is disturbing, while lesbian sex is OK.

O'Keefes tales of autoandrophilic women

Anyway, I have found a few reports on erotic crossdreming ("autoandrophilia") among heterosexual women, and I take the liberty of giving a few quotes below.

The first ones are fetched from Dr Tracie O'Keefe's Autogynephilia and Autoandrophilia in Non-Sex and Gender Dysphoric Persons.

Note the "Non" prefix in the title of this paper. Dr. O'Keefe belongs to the minority that believes that erotic fantasies of this kind are pretty normal and can be integrated into a healthy sex life.

Clair

Clair was married to a man with autogynephile fantasies. Sometimes he wanted to play out the role of being a man in bed.

"She enjoyed having sex as a woman with men but also particularly enjoyed living out her sexual fantasy of being male with a penis. She was a self-declared bisexual who, apart from having sex with Robert [her husband] and other couples, would also go off to visit female sex workers herself. She particularly enjoyed the fantasy of raping someone else. This was generally played out with female sex workers who would be accommodating and compliant with the fantasy to her satisfaction. The only male she carried out this sex fantasy with was her husband Robert and at the time of penetrating him she said she clearly envisioned herself as a man with a penis, dominant, powerful and aggressive. Clair was quite clear that although she might run these fantasies in her mind they were just sexual fantasies. "

She had no wish to become a man in real life.

Suzie

O'Keefe presents Suzie as "a wholly feminine petite woman" and "a typical heterosexual twenty-five-year old professional accountant."

She had found her fantasies during sex, particularly visualisations and kinesthetic imagination, about her having a penis very distressing.

O'Keefe says:

"During psychotherapy Suzie decided to split up with her boyfriend and leave her parents' home to try and explore who she was and what might be available to her from life in a wider world. The penis fantasies that only happened during sex did not diminish but she was quite sure that it had nothing whatsoever to do with her experiencing sex or gender dysphoria or wanting to be a man."

Sheila

Shelia described herself as "a twenty-three-year-old confused bisexual with a big question mark".

She had a boyfriend with whom she had a traditional "passive" love life, but where also having secret affairs with women without her boyfriend's knowledge.

O'Keefe says:

"She found her elicit affairs with women, however, very raunchy and she always played the dominant role, often role-playing herself as having a penis and behaving almost like a man. She commented, however, that, although she imagined having a penis, wearing a strap-on and having sex with women with it, there was still part of her that wanted the sex to be lesbian sex because that was part of what got her excited.

"She said, 'I am unsure I'm cut out to be a lesbian because I don't really know what it entails. At least this way I'm not really committed because I'm not a woman having sex with a woman but a woman half pretending to be a man having sex with a woman.' "

By the way, having sex with a woman did not count as cheating in her book!

Julia

There are also lesbian "autoandrophiliacs".

O'Keefe again:

"This highly educated and enormously well read forty-eight-year-old woman 'queer identified dyke' (participant's words) lived alone but was in a very rewarding successful two-year relationship with a woman of her own age. She also reported that she had slept with men and very much enjoyed the experience."

O'Keefe reports that when Julia was younger she had felt disappointed that she had not been a boy, often passing as a boy and being pleased by that. She had imagined having a penis and said if she had access to male hormones she might have considered taking them.

She had sex games with her female partner where they both fantasised about being males, wearing strap-on dildos.

"It is not that we want to be men," she said. "We are enjoying as part of our rich and varied sex lives fantasy games that involved exploring male energy through homoeroticism and I can do that because I am now powerful as a female."

Other research

I have found only two other studies of FTMs that look at the difference between classic transsexuals (in these studies called homosexual -- i.e woman-loving -- transsexuals) and autoandrophilic transsexuals (called nonhomosexual, meaning man-loving and bisexual, transsexuals).

The problem with this research -- as with so many of such studies -- is that they focus on people who have applied for sex reassignment surgery only. They do not cover the lives of all those transgendered people who do not ask for such treatment. This means that you do not capture those that actually manage to include their crossexuality in their love life.

J. Michael Bailey has collaborated with Meredith L. Chivers on a paper on "Sexual Orientation of Female-to-Male Transsexuals: A Comparison of Homosexual and Nonhomosexual Types". Yes, this is the same Bailey that wrote controversial "Queen" book on autogynephila.

The gynephilic, woman-loving, FTMs were found to be more masculine-oriented than the androphilic and bisexual FTMs. According to this research gynephilic FTM transmen had been more cross-gendered in childhood and preferred more feminine partners. They experienced greater sexual rather than emotional jealousy, were more sexually assertive, had more sexual partners, and had more interest in visual sexual stimuli than the androphilic, man-loving, FTMs. With respect to treatment, they had a stronger desire for phalloplasty [getting a penis].

In short: the gynephilic FTMs seem to adhere more closely to the stereotypical behavior of men.

Transsexual subtypes

In the article "Transsexual subtypes: Clinical and theoretical significance", Yolanda L.S. Smith, Stephanie H.M. van Goozen, A.J. Kuiperc and Peggy T. Cohen-Kettenis look at both FTM and MTF transsexuals.

This is what they say of transsexuals in general (i.e both MTF and FTM).

"In this study the two subtypes were indeed found to differ on many characteristics. Replicating some of the previously observed differences, we found that compared with nonhomosexual transsexuals, homosexual transsexuals reported more cross-gendered behavior, appearance and preference in childhood, and they reported less sexual arousal while cross-dressing in adolescence, applied for SR at a younger age, and fewer were (or had been) married.

Unlike Blanchard et al. (1995), we found no differences in height, weight or BMI [body mass index]. Contrary to our expectations, we found the homosexual group not to be different from the nonhomosexual group in the extent of gender dysphoria and body dissatisfaction at application. Despite a less extreme cross-gendered childhood, the nonhomosexuals seemed to suffer no less from their situation than the homosexuals, while having an equally strong aversion to their sex characteristics when they applied for SR [sex reassignment surgery].

As expected, the homosexual transsexuals' appearance already better matched the new, desired gender, and they functioned better psychologically than the nonhomosexual group.Thus, our data largely support the idea that homosexual and nonhomosexual transsexuals are different subtypes with distinct characteristics. "

Note that this applies to both FTMs and MTFs.

This is what they have to say about the FTMs in particular:

"Unlike their male counterparts, nonhomosexual FMs [man-loving female to male transsexuals, i.e. those that could be considered "autoandrophiliacs"] appear to suffer so strongly from their gender dysphoria that they apply for SR in young adulthood, despite their less extreme childhood cross-genderedness compared with homosexual FMs. As sexual arousal while wearing men's clothes is almost absent in adolescence, other factors must contribute to the development of their SR [sex reassignment] wish.

Our data show higher levels of gender dysphoria in both FM groups than in the two MF [male to female] groups, but they do not provide indications of what those other factors might be.

It is of interest, though, that a few FMs reported to have been sexually aroused in adolescence when dressing in male cloths, as this has never been reported before. Furthermore, the more favorably appraised appearance in both FM groups probably facilitates living in the opposite sex role, increasing the chances of and possibly explaining a similar age at application for SR."

What does it mean?

There seems to exist a mirror image of the "autogynephiliacs", in the sense of FTM "autoandrophiliacs". The Blanchard et al and Goozen et al studies do not tell us much about their erotic fantasies, though.

Smith & Co argue that there is little cross dressing going on, but in the few cases they found crossdressing is followed by erotic arousal. They do not say anything about crossdreamers and crossenacters, i.e. women that get aroused by the idea of having a man's body or by acting like man. The reason for this is that they only asked about sexual arousal in connection with cross-dressing (bummer!). O'Keefe has documented that such fantasies exist.

I would guess that crossdressing does not have the same symbolic value for FTMs as it has for MTFs, simply because women can dress up like men anytime and get away with it. Therefore it makes sense that the erotic feelings arise as crossdreaming or crossenacting instead.

Erotic crossdreaming is a human trait, not a "male" one

Could the very existence of "autoandrophiliacs" be of help for "autogynephiliacs"? I think so. There is so much guilt and shame involved with having erotic crossdreaming fantasies, especially when it comes to initiating relationships with women.

For those assigned male it helps to know that there are also women  and transmasculine people out there with secrets of this kind. That makes it all less dangerous.

O'Keefe's message is useful also in another way. Her's is the message that a lot of women and men have these fantasies. It is normal. Still, since nearly all of us keep quite about them, we tend to believe that only men can feel this way.

According to O'Keefe erotic crossdreamers are not freaks, but natural expressions of the variety of life. I kind of like that.

May 2019 UPDATE: New post on women who have sexual fantasies about being men.

See also:

• The Rayka & Jack Dialogue on Crossdreaming (my discussion with an Iranian FTM crossdreamer and girlfag)
• New web site on girlfags and guydykes (+ the story about the blind men and the elephant)
• "I am something that does not exist!" (On queer schwulwomen, girlfags and guydykes)
• On crossdreaming lesbians and sexy trans women
• The Kama Sutra on Transgender People
• Girls who will be boys; on F2M crossdreamers, autoandrophiliacs and girlfags
• Is it true that 1/3 of non-transgender people fantasize about being the other sex?

UPDATE ON TERMINOLOGY

Since this blog post was written I have stopped using the terms "autogynephilia" and "autoandrophilia" to describe people. The reason for this is that the terms implicitly communicates an explanation for why some people get aroused by imagining themselves as the opposite sex . This explanation, that this is some kind of autoerotic paraphilia,  is both wrong and stigmatizing. Instead I use the neutral term "crossdreamers".

Click here for a discussion of the dark side of the autogynephilia theory.

Minor edits January 4 2023

The evolutionary advantages of feminine men and masculine women

In an earlier post I noted that crossdreamers ("autogynephiliacs", men who dream about being women) may actually be at an evolutionary advantage. I criticized Joan Roughgarden for not doing the obvious: exploring the possible social and evolutionary role of the crossdreamer within her theory of social selection.

(If the sentence above makes absolutely no sense to you, do read the post about Roughgarden and autogynephilia.)

---

UPDATE ON TERMINOLOGY

Since this blog post was written I have stopped using the terms "autogynephilia" and "autoandrophilia" to describe people. The reason for this is that the terms implicitly communicates an explanation for why some people get aroused by imagining themselves as the opposite sex . This explanation, that this is some kind of autoerotic paraphilia,  is both wrong and stigmatizing. Instead I use the neutral term "crossdreamers".

---

Bailey and the feminine man

It turns out I am not the only one who has looked into this possibility. I have found a paper written by J. Michael Bailey and his friends, where they try to explain how homosexuality can survive as a genetic trait. Homosexuals are, after all, less likely to get offspring.

Their hypothesis is that there are other family members that get some -- but not all -- of the same genes. These are feminine, but heterosexual men, who for some reason have more sexual partners than the average Joe, and who are therefore able to spread their seed more liberally.

Notice the irony in all of this. Roughgarden has really nothing good to say about Bailey -- the man who popularized the autogynephilia (AGP) concept in his "Queen" book. But here he is, presenting a theory that fits well with Roughgarden's new approach.

Joan Roughgarden and autogynephilia

The final part in a series about Joan Roughgarden and her studies of sex, gender and nature. In this post I look at what Roughgarden's alternative view of evolution and sex can mean for male to female crossdreamers.

Joan Roughgarden's reflections on biology and gender began with a gay parade in San Fransciso:

"In June 1997 I marched in my first gay pride parade. I walked up Market Street in San Francisco, from the Civic Center to the Ferry Building. The parade was one of the biggest I had ever seen, and the sidewalks on both sides were packed six deep. I had heard that 1 in 10 people is gay or lesbian, but had always felt this number exaggerated. At this parade, though, I began to realise for the first time that the number of gays may indeed plausibly reach that figure."

The biologist in her found this to be quite of a problem:

"My discipline teaches that homosexuality is some sort of unexplained anomaly. If the purpose of sexual contact is reproduction, as the standard explanation has it, how can all these gay people exist? One might argue they are somehow defective, that some developmental error or environmental influence has misdirected their sexual fantasies. If so, gay and lesbian people are here for a brief time during our species' evolution, awaiting removal when natural selection prunes those with lower Darwinian fitness."

Same-sex behavior is common

Roughgarden finds, though, that same-sex behavior is common in nature, and have probably been so for a very long time, which means that Darwin's view -- that males and females have preordained roles of "horny handsome warriors and discreetly discerning damsels" -- is wrong.

In her words:

"In many species, including ours, females are not necessarily less eager than males, nor do females all yearn for Arnold Schwarzenegger. Females often solicit males, and males often decline. Moreover, in many species the supposed sex roles reverse. Even Darwin acknowledged species of birds, like the jacana, in which the females are highly ornamented and the males dull and drab, reversing the peafowl story.

The Catcher in the Lie

One very interesting observation made by Ray Blanchard and his followers is that what they call "heterosexual autogynephiliacs" (men who are attracted to women and who love the idea of themselves having a female body) may fantasize about having sex with a man, even if they are sexually attracted to women.

The faceless men

When this is the case, however, the man is normally faceless. They do not fantasize about a real man, as women or homosexual men would do.

That many crossdreamers (called "autogynephiliacs" by Blanchard & Co)  dream about faceless men is correct. I see it in myself, I see it confirmed in tales told in transgendered discussion forums and I see it in much transgender erotica.

This phenomenon is actually one of Blanchard & Co's strongest arguments for classifying "autogynephilia" as a paraphilia, a perversion where the man's desires towards women are redirected towards the idea of themselves being that woman.

The other man is faceless in this narrative, they argue, because he is no more than a prop for the sexual fantasies of the "autogynephiliac." He is a prop that confirms the femininity of the "autogynephiliac" within those fantasies (For referenes, see my previous blog posts).

---

UPDATE ON TERMINOLOGY

Since this blog post was written I have stopped using the terms "autogynephilia" and "autoandrophilia" to describe people. The reason for this is that the terms implicitly communicates an explanation for why some people get aroused by imagining themselves as the opposite sex . This explanation, that this is some kind of autoerotic paraphilia,  is both wrong and stigmatizing. Instead I use the neutral term "crossdreamers".

Click here for a discussion of the dark side of the autogynephilia theory.

---

I guess you could also take this way of reasoning one step further, arguing that the masked man in the dream is the "autogynephiliac" himself. He is making love to himself.

It should be kept in mind that the starting point for Blanchard is a very strict distinction between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

This is why the idea of "autogynephiliacs" pops up in the first place, and I am starting to suspect that their explanation of "autogynephilia" is an attempt to explain a phenomenon that otherwise would ruin their neat binary model of human sexual behaviour.

The "autognephiliacs2 themselves may tell them all sorts of confusing things, like "I am attracted to women as a man, and men as a woman" or "I find men ugly, but as a woman I dream of being taken by one..." or "I dream of becoming a lesbian, but I must admit that I am curious about how it would feel having sex with a man when being a woman."

Blanchard & Co find it hard to explain why masculine looking men with seemingly few feminine traits want to have sex with men. This does not fit with the model.

Paraphilia

Blanchard therefore makes an alternative theory to explain this phenomenon. The masculine male to female transgender persons are in fact suffering from a paraphilia, a perversion. They have internalized their natural object of desire: women.

As I have noted elsewhere: For this to be true, he must demonstrate that "autogynephiliacs" actually are unable to form a lasting bond with a real woman, or that their relationships are less "real" than the bonds between "normal" heterosexual men and their spouses. If their object of desire has been internalized (they are in love with themselves), they cannot establish a good relationship with a real woman out there.

I cannot see that this have been proven. I have lived with the same woman for over ten years. I love her very much and have indeed a very real (although not precisely "normal") relationship.

Yes, I do see that the way many of us keep our "other side" hidden from the one closest to us out of fear of losing them may be taken as a proof of us being dysfunctional. But dammit! All people keep secrets, also from their loved ones. There are just too many taboos around to do otherwise!

Wife to husband: "You know, I think my colleague Fred is one hot hunk of man. I fantasized about having sex with him today. Not that I would, but you know..." Some things are better left unsaid. Whether an "autogynephiliac" can share his weird secret with his significant other, depends on the circumstances.

So I am not willing to accept that all relationships between "autogynephiliacs" and women are less "real" than other relationships. It seems to me that all are struggling!

What about post-op transsexuals?

Moreover, Blanchard never seems to get around to talking to "autogynephiliacs" that have gone through sex reassignment surgery to see whether they have been able to establish a good relationship with a woman or a man.

Some of them do report a change in sexual orientation after the hormones and the surgery. They do become attracted to men, and even pair up with them.

Following Blanchard's theory these relationships must be false for the transsexuals that start out as "autogynephiliacs." The "autogynephiliacs" are using these men for their pleasure and nothing more. But has this been proven? Is this really true?

I cannot imagine why an "autogynephile trans woman" who is attracted to women will share a home with a man just to use him as one gigantic dildo. It just does not sound realistic to me.

An alternative explanation

Maybe there are other and more simple explanations?

Let's argue that longing for submission and penetration is a genetic trait that are more likely to be found in females than in men. I mean submission in the neutral sense here, as (1) being the "catcher" instead of the "pitcher" in the sexual act, and (2) that the man is the one that actively courts and the woman is the one that wants to be wooed.

(Number 2 in the paragraph above is actually a bit questionable. "Normal" cisgendered women in modern day Scandinavia may be as proactive as men when it comes to love and courtship. But on an aggregate statistical level, let us suppose that women are more likely to be more reactive than proactive, relatively speaking, when it comes to the development of male/female relationships.)

Next, let's say that a"utogynephiliacs" have this trait, in spite of their Y chromosome. After all, many "normal" men may display some traditionally feminine traits without being considered effeminate: "He is a kind and patient man, a good listener."

There are women who display typical masculine traits as well , being those physical (excessive hair growth) or behavioral (the tomboy). They still feel like -- and are accepted as-- heterosexual women.

Then there are lesbians who apparently do not feel the need for penetration, which indicates that the opposite may be true, as well.

If "autogynephiliacs" who feel attracted to women have inherited a submissive trait, the need to "mask" the male in their fantasies is understandable. They long to submit and give in to another human being, but cannot accept the idea of having sex with a real man.

Still, according to the traditional tale of masculinity and femininity, being a woman means giving in to a man. In their fantasies they are a sexual active woman who wants to be the catcher. They therefore include a man, but make him featureless.

(It should be noted that there are other "autogynephiliacs" who do not dream of being taken by a man. They solve the whole problem elegantly by dreaming of lesbian sex. In those cases I guess the urge for penetration is absent or less intense.)

To this Blanchard & Co might say: "Ok, but that's exactly our point! The "autogynephiliac" is an heterosexual man. He should go out and conquer women! He shouldn't long for someone to push him up against a wall and - you know...."

I can tell you that this is exactly how many "autogynephiliacs" feel as well.

"I am not a real man," they think. "I am a wuss, a sissy, maybe gay even. I can't go out and find myself a woman. I wouldn't be man enough for her." etc. etc.

But is this submissiveness necessarily evidence of perversion?

"Shemales" and girls

First, let's look at the facelessness of the men, the facelessness that apparently turns them into sex toys for "narcissistic" and "self-possessed" "autogynephiliacs".

The love objects of "autogynephiliac" sexual fantasies are not necessarily faceless.

Including men is not the only way "autogynephiliacs" solve the need to fantasize about submission. Others (or the same man) can imagine themselves penetrated by a woman with a strap-on. This can be a fantasy about a real woman with a face.

Some actually practice this kind of "pegging" with their girl friends. It is a common theme in TG erotica.

Others dream of having sex with a "shemale".

I know this is a derogatory term, but it is the only one that fits when it comes to describing the transsexuals of such fantasies. Fantasy shemales are pre-op MTF trassexuals or that can take the active part in the sexual act.

The TG erotica sites are full of tales about men being taken by "shemales", and "shemale" sex is apparently the fastest growing branch of the porn industry. And while the "heterosexual" "autogynephiliac" wouldn't take any pleasure in gay porn, some of them find transsexual adult entertainment exciting. The transsexual models are not faceless.

The Blachard disciple Bailey describes a meeting with a "shemale" he -- as a heterosexual man -- finds very attractive in The Man who would be Queen. If he can imagining himself having sex with such a woman, so can any man without being accused for being a dysfunctional pervert.

There are also "autogynephiliacs" who dream about becoming "shemales" themselves. Given what I have read in transgender stories and captions, these fantasies are nearly always about being the catcher.

My point is that the reason for the facelessness of men in "autogynephilic" fantasies is not necessarily that the "autogynephiliac" is suffering from a paraphilia where they are only able to make love to themselves as a woman. It could simply be that he has a strong feminine trait that makes him dream about submission.

I know, that last sentence is wrong in so many ways, but I am trapped in our traditional language here. This "feminine" trait may actually be a neutral emotional trait, common to both sexes in varying degree. The word "submission" is also wrong, as it gives the impression that this is all about power. It might just as well be a need for growing closer.

Still, in our culture this submissive role is supposed to be adopted by the woman and the active one by the man, and in order for that to make sense in his "gynephiliac" mind, he must mask the man. If he instead fantasize about being taken by a woman or a shemale, he has no problem imagining their faces. He wants to have sex with women!

Cannot "normal" fantasies contain faceless persons?

Another thing: Is having sex fantasies including faceless people really a proof of perversion? People think about sex a lot, and most of that time they there is no real sexual partner to draw into these dreams. Is it really true that the figures involved in these fantasies all have clear identities in "non-autogynephiliacs"? Really? Do we know that?

And even if that is the case: Is masturbating alone to a Playboy model being less self-absorbed than the "autogynephilic" fantasy of being taken by a faceless man?

I don't get it! If masturbating to the fantasy of having sex with Angeline Jolie is OK (and in the 21st century it is, right ? At least outside a stable relationship...) then what makes the "autogynephilic" fantasies so problematic? The Angelina Jolie of a teenager's fantasy is no more real than the actors in the dream of an autogynephiliac.

The heterogenity of nature

"All right," Blanchard & Co may say. "But this only proves that our subject is a heterosexual man at heart, which is what we have argued all the time. He is still suffering from paraphilia, because as a heterosexual man he should not dream of taking the submissive role."

Says who?

This is only true if you think religious morality or scientific orthodoxy require that there are only four distinct categories of sexual human beings:

Heterosexual men (active)	Heterosexual women (passive)
Homosexual men (passive???)	Homosexual women (active???)

Nature isn't binary. Nature is analog, with a tremendous amount of variety between species and between individuals. If you really want to base your view of sexuality and gender on evolutionary theory (which in many ways can be very fruitful) the strict homo/hetero and male/female regimes seem far too restrictive.

Evolution is driven by variety and change, a constant barrage of mutations. Sex itself is an evolutionary tactic designed to produce new and exciting combination of genes. This is why all men and women display a mix of "typical" feminine and masculine traits, although most often in different proportions.

Both sexes are made from the same mold. Men have seemingly useless nipples. That does not make them freaks. Women become leaders of the pack. That does not make them less attractive.

Among animals, there is wide variety of gender roles: Among our closest relatives, the bonobos, everybody have sex with everybody, regardless of sex or age. There are birds that have three distinctive types of males with different "gender roles" and others where the birds have more sex with individuals of their own sex than with their "spouses". There are animal species where there are no males at all, only females or hermaphrodites, and others were the individual animal may change sex. Anything is possible! And it is all "natural"!

My point is that a theory that explains "autogynephilia" as a different mix of feminine and masculine traits is simpler and more elegant than a theory that have to develop an "epicycle" of misdirected desires and internalized women.

A counterargument would be that my alternative version of "autogynephilia" continues to be a disorder. The "autogynephiliac" is still "ill" in some way or the other. I may agree to this -- he is certainly suffering -- but he is not necessarily a pervert.

Disorder vs. paraphilia

If his complex of male and female traits is dominated by the female side, he is indeed a woman in a man's body, and he is suffering for it. The corrective measure would be to give her a female body.

If his mix of male and female traits is less clearcut, he is also suffering from a disorder. But this disorder is as much a result of his surrounding culture as it is from nature. Nature does not care or -- alternatively -- she loves all her children, to speak metaphorically. She certainly does not judge us morally.

It is the surrounding culture that makes "autogynephiliacs" miserable, because there are no words that can help them and others make sense of their lives, and there are no roles for them in society that gives their sense of self meaning.

Which is why the Blanchard "autogynephilia" theory is such a paradox.

On the one hand it has given us a term that makes a group of men visible. For that I am him and his followers  grateful. At the same time the very world view the theory is based on is what makes "autogynephiliacs" suffer.

Here's the current reality:

Man to son:

"Alfred, you have to stop this nonsense, becoming a nurse and whatnot. And what is this crap about you allowing Bill to walk all over you? Talk is not the solution here, son. You have to fight back and prove that you are a man. Women don't like sissies!"

Imagine the following alternative reality:

One mother to the other:

"Yes, Alfred is a crossdreamer. He was such a nice boy as a kid, you know, helped me out in the kitchen and everything. He is seeing a very clever girl at the moment. Monica. She is a NAVY Seal. Yeah, I believe she is the one with the trousers in that family, which fits him perfectly. Alfred is at home looking after the kids. The kids love him, you know. I am so happy for him."

or...

"Alfred is the tough one of my kids. He is active in sports, an ex-marine, CEO of his own ICT company, a pillar of society, but his wife tells me that he shows her another side of his personality at night. Not that she will tell me what this is all about, but I believe she fell in love with his more feminine side."

or...

"It turned out Alfred was a woman all along, you know. I should have known, when he started borrowing my shoes. Thank God that's not a problem anymore! He's taking hormones now, and should have his female body ready in time for my and his father's wedding anniversary. I am looking forward to that. We have already discussed the dress she is going to were at the party..."

Postscript

Just to make sure: I cannot prove that my alternative narrative (which inspired by both ancient belief systems and contemporary transgender thinkers) is the correct one. My point is that there are other theories that fits the observed phenomena as well as the one given by Blanchard.

I am working on a few blog posts on "pre-modern" societies where the transgendered were given specific roles in society, roles that gave their fate meaning. The point is not to say that those societies got it right, just to prove that there are many other ways of imagining this.

The jury is still out on this one.

Autogynephilia on a Napkin Part 1

Those of you have read my previous articles on autogynephilia and the autogynephilia controversy may have become more confused than ever regarding what this is about.

And those of you that feel that this term fits you may be living under the impression that you are (1) women trapped in men's bodies, (2) confused heterosexual men, (3) perverts or (4) all of the above.

Now, in this blog post it will all be made clear through some drawings I made on a paper napkin in a local restaurant. 

All right, here we go:

In these figures the Venus and Mars signs denotes gender (i.e. the gender identity of a person, whether he or she considers him or herself male or female, or -- in the cases where the theorists do not accept the gender concept -- their "true" sexual identity). The square denotes a male body with male sex organs, the circle a female body.

[Note of September 2010: I am no longer using the term "autogynephiliac" to describe male assigned people who harbor feminization dreams. Instead I call them male to female crossdreamers.]

The traditional view

In this first figure we see the classical image of gender relationships: There are manly men and feminine women who get attracted to each other, make love, have kids and a family, a Volvo, a divorce etc. etc.

During the previous century it became increasingly clear that this image did not fit everyone. The medical authorities, at least in some countries, came to accept that there are in fact, in some cases, same-sex attraction.

Because of this the tale above was extended to include homosexuals:



Basically this is the story about manly men being attracted to manly men.

Finally, during the last century, there was also a growing realization that there was a third category, namely people who believe they have the wrong body. There are natural XY men who argue that they felt like XX women inside. Their gender identity seems to be female, while their biological sex is male. This is the "woman trapped in a man's body" theory.

This gave way for sex reassignment treatment and surgery, which helps harmonize the gender with the sex, like this:



What all these theories have in common is that they agree that there ought to be a match between gender and sex, between the mind and the body.

The problem of homosexuality

The most radical of these expansions of the traditional view of gender and sex is actually not the transsexual narrative, but the homosexual one.

Gay men may look manly, but they do not behave like men ought to according to the stereotype. This especially applies to the ones that take a submissive position, "the catchers", "the bottoms", the ones that agree to anal penetration. The reason for this is that it looks like they take the traditional role of the female.

Now, I know that this is a cliche, but we are talking about how people think about gays here, not necessarily what gay men really do.

(It is interesting to note that the old Greeks, in Athens in the fifth century B.C., did not consider themselves homosexual, even if most of the free men had sex with young boys. As long as they took the active part, they were men enough, they reckoned. It was only prepubescent boys, women and slaves that could take the submissive role. If you go to Greece, Turkey and the Balkans today you will still find men arguing that a man penetrating a man is not gay.)

Anyway, some scientists doing research on sex find this narrative disturbing. This applies to some of the so-called essentialist, researchers who believe that gender should have a biological foundation only. The evolutionary concepts must focus on the traditional male/female narrative, they argue, because that is the only model that naturally produces kids, and off-spring is necessary of the transmission of genes.

It is not that these researchers necessarily are homophobic. Most of them are not. It is just that from their evolutionary point of view homosexuality must be an deviation, an exception to the general rule.

If you read Michael Bailey's controversial book, The Man Who Would be Queen, it is clear that he suspects that homosexuals are not "manly men".

They are men that for some reason has acquired feminine traits, including the submissive role. He admits that he has no proof for this, which is fair, but he finds that many gay men tell tales about feminine behavior in childhood, even if they are not particularly feminine as adults. In Bailey's case feminine behavior is defined by traditional Western customs: no rough and tumble play, less aggressiveness than in the case of men etc.

In his book he has an amazing list over feminine traits. Here are some examples:

• Pronounced hip movements when walking
• Limp writs action
• Upper arms held fairly closely to the body
• Buttocks close to chair back when sitting
• Graceful hand motions.
• etc... (you get the picture)

Feminine homosexual transsexuals

Blanchard, Bailey & Co. now use this belief as a starting point for their alternative theory of transsexualism.

Given that they think of at least some homosexual men as feminine, it is natural for them to also classify transsexuals as homosexuals. Feminine homosexual men are not attracted to other feminine homosexual men, according to this theory. They are attracted to masculine heterosexual men.

Heterosexual men are not attracted to feminine men, so these homosexuals transform themselves into women to get access to the real thing.

In the traditional narrative, male to female transsexuals are actually female; in this theory they are not. They are feminine homosexual men. After surgery they become homosexual men in a woman's body!



(This is all very confusing to me. Why on earth Blanchard cannot accept that these "men" have a gender identity disorder -- meaning that they have a real female persona -- is hard to grasp. After all, being a feminine man is to have strong feminine traits, so many of them in fact that they manage to pass as women. But there you go...)

Continues in part 2.


UPDATE ON TERMINOLOGY

Since this blog post was written I have stopped using the terms "autogynephilia" and "autoandrophilia" to describe people. The reason for this is that the terms implicitly communicates an explanation for why some people get aroused by imagining themselves as the opposite sex . This explanation, that this is some kind of autoerotic paraphilia,  is both wrong and stigmatizing. Instead I use the neutral term "crossdreamers".

Click here for a discussion of the dark side of the autogynephilia theory.