tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642548439896244587.post7342550793620695953..comments2024-03-24T13:12:39.210+13:00Comments on Bluestocking <i>Blue</i>: Helen Boyd InterviewViviennehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06137595207723645418noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642548439896244587.post-52754716465977820442014-01-11T12:11:29.918+13:002014-01-11T12:11:29.918+13:003. I agree. Although it's been interesting in ...3. I agree. Although it's been interesting in my recent discussion with some radical feminists that they would seem to agree with Blanchard: there are no female-to-male transpeople. Why would someone as perfect as a woman want to become something as vile and despicable as a man?<br /><br />4. I think women can be sexual paraphiliacs, as well as sexual criminals. I think the latter is a very uncomfortable fact which society likes to quietly turn away from. On the other hand, that doesn't make it commonplace, and I do not believe it is.<br /><br />5. I dismiss the word "sissy" as I dismiss a dozen other terms which were used with contempt when I was a boy, and which I have now outgrown. They were used with cruelty by children who had themselves been subjects (I now see) of cruelty in their turn.<br /><br />I do not see Blanchard as a schoolyard bully, and his use of the word "sissy" or any remotely similar term is not offensive to me. But to take your metaphor a little further, the bully is only powerful within certain very specific circumstances. Outwith those circumstances, their power vanishes. Blanchard has some influence in his sphere, but his influence is not absolute, and his sphere is pretty small.<br /><br />So what remains of Blanchard's argument? I still see merit in parts of it, just as I see merit in parts of yours. I think the civilised way forward is that we should agree to differ on our various points.<br /><br />Vivienne.<br /><br />Viviennehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06137595207723645418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642548439896244587.post-43605084102237757192014-01-11T11:51:30.925+13:002014-01-11T11:51:30.925+13:001. Blanchard's adherence to the idea, that peo...1. Blanchard's adherence to the idea, that people who choose not to reproduce are Darwinian aberrations, is outmoded and unhelpful. On the other hand, there is not one shred of evidence that transgender people make better fathers than anyone else.<br /><br />2. I think homosexuality is a variant of normal human sexual expression. I agree that homosexuals suffered (and some still do) because of societal persecution. I tend to think that societal acceptance of trans people would go a long way to making us all feel a bit better about being transgendered.<br /><br />On the other hand, there are two sets of views in conflict again. I don't think it is OK for someone to just declare themselves a woman, and then expect all the rights and privileges associated with that sex. It's a bit like saying: I'm a kleptomaniac. I cannot prevent myself breaking windows and stealing stuff. I therefore demand acceptance from society, and I resent its disapproval and sanction when I am simply living my life according to my own moral framework.<br /><br />I think each individual has a moral responsibility to conduct themselves in a way which is not offensive to other members of society. We hear a <i>lot</i> about the rights of transgender people. We don't hear anything about their responsibilities, and yet, rights and responsibilities are opposite sides of the same coin! Nobody organises parades demanding transgender responsibilities!<br />Viviennehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06137595207723645418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642548439896244587.post-9133165361511361702014-01-11T11:36:29.861+13:002014-01-11T11:36:29.861+13:00Hi Jack,
Thanks for your very thorough and detail...Hi Jack,<br /><br />Thanks for your very thorough and detailed replies, and I hope that the toll that the festive season took involved fun and laughter.<br /><br />I can understand you choosing the word "crossdreaming" as an alternative to the stigma associated with "autogynephilia".<br /><br />I think the fact that we each see different things in Blanchard's interview reflects our different perspectives.<br /><br />At its best, science can indeed be objective and disinterested. However, science is carried out by humans, who have their own agendas and beliefs, and tales of scientists "massaging" their data to fit their theories (rather than the other way around) are plentiful.<br /><br />It's reasonable for me to elaborate on what I thought of Blanchard. I did not see him as a saint, or as a great visionary, or as a paragon of scientific brilliance. I saw someone who had looked, long and hard, at an issue, drawn some conclusions, and had some evidence to back them up. I did not see malice, or ignorance, or stupidity. I did not see judgment of AGP people as less valid than anyone else.<br /><br />I did not ignore the cultural context, but, where it comes into conflict with science (as it does), then my loyalty lies with the science.<br />Viviennehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06137595207723645418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642548439896244587.post-35894001612231132362014-01-07T04:15:27.101+13:002014-01-07T04:15:27.101+13:003. The interview reveals that Blanchard still does...<br />3. The interview reveals that Blanchard still does not accept the existence of female to male crossdreamers. That alone is enough to discredit him as a serious expert in the field in my opion. <br /><br />What is even more damaging, though, is the fact that he -- in spite of this -- tried to get "autoandrophilia" into the DSM, the reason being the need to placate feminists! He was actually willing to stigmatize a whole group of women as mentally ill in an attempt to keep his beloved autogynephilia term in the manual. And you still consider this man a serious scientist?<br /><br />4. The argument for not believing in autoandrophilic women is that no women can be sexual paraphiliacs. Again Blanchard reveals how little he knows about the field he is studying. Female rape of minors is well documented in the litterature, but he is just ignoring it, as it does not fit his traditional views of sex and gender. And what about female BDSM enthusiasts?<br /><br />5. You dismiss the use of the word "sissy" because you think it does not apply to you. Well, I learned to know the word intimately as a kid, and I can assure you that Blanchard's interpretation did nothing to alleviate the damaging effects of that abuse.<br /><br />Blanchard defends his use of the word sissy by saying:" Nobody says you throw a ball like a cross-gender identified boy." What kind of sick joke is this? That sentence alone proves that what drives Blanchard is not scientific disinterest, but pure sexist prejudice. <br /><br />Someone have taken your schoolyard bully and made him professor. In other words: They have given him the power to define who is in and who is out. That is truly sickening to me.<br /><br />So what remains of Blanchard's argument? The fact that crossdreamers exist. On that we can agree. Jack Molayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03629363646482611722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642548439896244587.post-10636784413492134902014-01-07T04:15:00.696+13:002014-01-07T04:15:00.696+13:001. In the interview Blanchard for the first time e...<br /><br />1. In the interview Blanchard for the first time explicitly argues that paraphilias of the sexual kind should be classified not on the basis of the suffering felt by the individual, but on the basis of Darwinian fitness ("reproduction"). This means that any sexual orientation, identity or practice that does not generate offspring must be considered the end result of a mental illness. Indeed, because of this, Blanchard admits that he wants homosexuality back in the DSM as a parahilia/perversion.<br /><br />And the bizarre thing is that male to female crossdreamers are probably not less likely to get kids than other men. Many of them are considered exemplary fathers. They are evolutionary fit!<br /><br />2. Blanchard does -- finally -- accept that for a paraphilia to be considered a mental illness it should cause some kind of distress: " There are two ways by which a paraphilia could be converted into a paraphilic disorder: the individual is distressed by their desires, or they are acting in a way that is noxious to people."<br /><br />He uses paedophilia as an example, but by this account, even homosexuality is a mental disorder, as it is noxious to many people, as are libidinous women to others. By reintroducing public acceptance as a criteria for defining a mental illness is opening the door wide open for bigots everywhere. <br /><br />Most other experts in the field agree that the suffering felt by homosexuals were caused by social persecution and oppression, not their homosexuality. This was also why they fought so hard against the division between benign and not benign paraphilias. They knew that the very inclusion of homosexuality in the manual would be enough to stigmatize them. They were right. The current acceptance of same-sex marriage would have been impossible if homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the "experts".<br /><br />Remember also that Blanchard's definition of a paraphilia is "‘any powerful and persistent sexual interest other than sexual interest in copulatory or precopulatory behavior with phenotypically normal, consenting adult human partners" (http://bit.ly/1bKLOx). <br /><br />This definition, combined with the pseudo-Darwinian argument, leaves out all types of desire except vanilla sex between men and women. Indeed, according to this definition an attraction to disabled people, trans people, old people as well as teenagers are paraphilias. And with the possible exception of the disabled, he has tried to get all of these introduced into the DSM. The reason hebephilia did not make it into the DSM, in spite of Blanchard's strong attempts, was probably because the other panel members realized that this would mean that they themselves would be considered perverts.Jack Molayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03629363646482611722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642548439896244587.post-25687670199675487482014-01-07T04:14:36.150+13:002014-01-07T04:14:36.150+13:00Sorry about this late response. The holiday season...Sorry about this late response. The holiday season takes its toll.<br /><br />"'Crossdreaming' seems like an effort to put the cart before the horse, to cook up a pleasant-sounding word to validate something you believe to be true."<br /><br />There is no way I can respond to this in a polite and meaningful manner, beyond repeating what I have already said: The word "autogynephilia" includes the Blanchard theory's stigmatizing explanation, so I had to come up with another one. By using the A word you amplify the negative effect it has on transgender people, precisely because it is not a neutral, descriptive, terms.<br /><br />I am slightly suprised that you do not see how the Motherboard interview demasks Blanchard and his theory http://bit.ly/1aab1oR. It is as if the two of us have read two completely different texts. <br /><br />I suspect this is because you argue on the basis of the idea that science can be objective and disinterested in a way regular folks cannot, and that Blanchard -- as a scientist -- follows the rules of science. In other words: You read the scientific arguments made in the interview and ignore the cultural context.<br /><br />Let me give you a few examples.Jack Molayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03629363646482611722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642548439896244587.post-40146907055014156052014-01-05T11:08:05.645+13:002014-01-05T11:08:05.645+13:00When you have a more tolerant society you see grea...When you have a more tolerant society you see greater freedom of expression which would include public crossdressing and other transgender behaviours. I think this is precisely what we're witnessing - it's not 1950 anymore. When there is sufficient freedom the question of whether crossdressing has a "hold" on you or not doesn't arise; it's just something you, like others, choose to do and the associated difficulties diminish. However, I would suggest this doesn't necessarily come without any social cost; everyone would need to be a lot cooler about people like Howard doing his thing. And just how many separate toilet facilities do we have to build?!<br />DuncanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642548439896244587.post-73696693679718770552014-01-03T17:57:28.906+13:002014-01-03T17:57:28.906+13:00Hi Darya,
Many thanks for your very articulate po...Hi Darya,<br /><br />Many thanks for your very articulate post. I am wholly willing to admit that your experience (like Helen's), utterly trumps my own. I do not doubt you know what you are talking about.<br /><br />I do consider myself a feminist, although I am aware that some genetic women might be offended by this: how could I possibly be? I have learned a lot about the relationship of the genders to each other in Western culture, and there is still a lot of "systematic shaming" going on. When a man and a woman have a one-night stand, he has "scored" but she takes "the walk of shame". Why should this be?<br /><br />I must say (as you can read above), I fault <i>everyone's</i> science in this field. There is a noticeable lack of anything resembling science anywhere! Some people think that <i>eminence</i> is a reasonable substitute for <i>evidence</i>, and it isn't.<br /><br />I particularly enjoyed your phrase "I am humble before my own adventure in this". I wish I had written that! I am still learning about myself, especially from people like yourself who have interesting perspectives to share.<br /><br />Do please take a browse through the archive and comment on anything else you find interesting.<br /><br />Vivienne.Viviennehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06137595207723645418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642548439896244587.post-30320805967704353782014-01-03T17:41:37.859+13:002014-01-03T17:41:37.859+13:00Hi Ralph. Nice to have your inputational responsif...Hi Ralph. Nice to have your inputational responsification.<br /><br />I haven't read very many books aimed at the wives of crossdressers, but I am prepared to bet that almost all of them try to stress how wonderful it is to have a husband who wears a frock, and who you can then relate to as some sort of girly best friend. I think this is missing the point about the agony many women feel when they find out their husband is a crossdresser. It turns many marriages (including mine) inside out.<br /><br />"My Husband Betty", on the other hand, unflinchingly and openly addresses both the good and the bad of crossdressing. Crossdressing is not all bad (I believe). On the other hand, a book which fails to acknowledge how it makes a woman feel to see her husband in a skirt and heels, is fit only for the dustbin. How she feels about her self, her own sexuality and identity as a woman; her husband, his identity as a man, his identity as a woman; and their future as a couple.<br /><br />Because it's been written by a woman, who admits to going through those doubts, those arguments, those fights, I think it is likely to be helpful overall. On the other hand, some women may be looking for a book which will help them find out how to stop their husband from doing it, and those women will be disappointed. And I think it has a positive message: a marriage can survive this.<br /><br />MHB is all about crossdressing. I believe that when it was written, Betty did not have plans to transition. It seems that "She's Not the Man I Married", only a few years later, is much more about the transition. I admit that I was a little disappointed to find that Betty had transitioned. I had hoped there was a "sweet spot" where crossdressing desires could be fulfilled just long enough to be sated, without needing to go any further.<br /><br />I recommend MHB to everyone curious about crossdressing, because I think it contains the truth. The truth is not always nice, nor welcome, but I personally would prefer the truth to any alternatives.<br /><br />Vivienne.<br />Viviennehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06137595207723645418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642548439896244587.post-3406881991732130412014-01-03T17:26:48.595+13:002014-01-03T17:26:48.595+13:00Hi Duncan,
This is a challenging comment!
It'...Hi Duncan,<br /><br />This is a challenging comment!<br /><br />It's definitely true that what I describe is a polarised view of masculinity. I think it is becoming more acceptable for men to express tenderness, vulnerability and sensitivity, but it certainly isn't the norm, at least if the locker room banter at work is anything to go by. Nonetheless, my male friends all tend to be non-alpha males.<br /><br />The emotional side of crossdressing is only one dimension for me; another is the sensual side. I think I have been imprinted by my upbringing to expect men and women to behave in certain patterns, which explains both the attraction to crossdressing and the self-loathing I sometimes feel for giving in to it. I wonder, if I had been allowed to freely express emotions and clothing preferences growing up, whether crossdressing as an activity would have any hold on me at all. Of course, it's impossible to answer, but I still think the question is worthy of consideration.<br /><br />Vivienne.Viviennehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06137595207723645418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642548439896244587.post-56903663507309198862014-01-03T06:41:07.498+13:002014-01-03T06:41:07.498+13:00Vivienne,
As someone who briefly embraced the idea...Vivienne,<br />As someone who briefly embraced the idea of Autogynephilia as the cause of my gender adventures in this lifetime, I applaud you for sticking somewhat to your guns on this one.<br /><br />However, part of my adventure has also turned me into some form of feminist, thanks in large part to Helen's influence. I think she's spot on about the old men telling everyone else they're perverts. The Blanchard/Lawrence/Money/Bailey crew are hopelessly, inextricably rooted in Freud, Psychiatry and the DSM.<br /><br />I'm on team Jung, so let me declare that upfront. I'm also on team Serano(as In Julia) in terms of the systematic shaming of the feminine in a Patriarchal culture.<br /><br />I used to a run a shop for trans women/Crossdressers/fetishists in Los Angeles, and just based on my experience, I think AG is bollocks.<br /><br />I've watched older gay men come into my shop and transition to female. I've catered to countless gay crossdressers as well as drag queens, and IMHO, that line is not a fine one. I've also watched heterosexual family men of all ages suddenly desire to have sex with men, and even partner with them.<br /><br />I won't fault Blanchard or Lawrence's science, though I've heard others do so, but I will definitely fault Money and Bailey's methods which I find crude and sometimes cruel, in Money's case.<br /><br />I am humble before my own adventure in this, and the wide world of human sexuality, which is yet another reason I love Helen's New York skepticism about every bubbly new "revelation" some of us spout on occasion.<br /><br />Thanks for a great interview with her. I like your blog!Darya Teesewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16128115775349804171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642548439896244587.post-49482602833699717102014-01-03T05:19:55.580+13:002014-01-03T05:19:55.580+13:00Wow, what a boom in holiday traffic! A fascinatin...Wow, what a boom in holiday traffic! A fascinating article, and fascinatinger (yes, it's a word because I say so) discussion.<br /><br />My only take on autogynephilia is that there is no one-size-fits-all diagnosis. Some men dress because they believe they are innately women; some men dress because doing so occasionally is enough to help them relax; some men dress because it sexually excites them. Only that last group could even be considered for AGP, and I am perfectly OK throwing a name or a causal theory around a basic fetish.<br /><br />Moving on to our guest artist... Nearly ever discussion I have ever seen about getting wives to be more accepting has included a recommandation for her book. I'm not so sure that's always a good idea, although I suppose I'll have to read it cover-to-cover before I'm really qualified to have an opinion. But just based on the excerpts I've read and the specific reasons people recommend it, I think that it would not be much help to women whose husbands are in the "hobbyist" level of crossdressing. That is, those who consider themselves straight men but only dabble in the world of womanhood for brief times. Betty and Helen's experience is more about the discovery of transition, not just crossdressing. It's exactly what wives of crossdressers fear most, that their husband is turning into a woman, and this book validates that fear. Helen's own reluctance to discuss the details of Betty's transition suggest that she, too, hasn't fully come to grips with it yet.<br /><br />Vivienne and others who have read the whole thing -- would you say the book would serve equally well to wives of non-transitioning, part-time crossdressers?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642548439896244587.post-88306009932258012952013-12-31T09:40:36.824+13:002013-12-31T09:40:36.824+13:00OK. I read the Motherboard interview. My impressio...OK. I read the Motherboard interview. My impression the interviewer was somewhat hostile, but otherwise reasonably fair, in that Blanchard's responses were printed without (so far as I can tell) censorship.<br /><br />I was prepared for Blanchard coming across as a wide-eyed maniac, frothing at the mouth. But instead he comes across as someone who is sure of his ground, reasonably prepared to defend his position, and making reasonable attempts to do what he thinks is right. He does not come across as uninformed, misguided, malicious or offensive.<br /><br />I found myself agreeing with quite a lot of what he had to say! He didn't imply I am a sissy or use it in the way you suggest he did. He certainly didn't put me off or make me think I am a fool to listen to him.<br /><br />I didn't agree with everything he said, of course. (Where's the fun in that?) I think DSM5 is a turkey. I recommend you read these two short but incisive articles about it:<br />http://blog.oup.com/2013/07/dsm-5-reception-medical-community/ <br />http://blog.oup.com/2013/07/post-dsm-5-tristesse-reception-plus-minus/ <br /><br />Anyway, those are my thoughts. I would like to hear yours.<br /><br />Vivienne.<br />Viviennehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06137595207723645418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642548439896244587.post-36915140946875941992013-12-29T10:56:28.705+13:002013-12-29T10:56:28.705+13:00Hi Jack. Thanks for your reply.
My comments about...Hi Jack. Thanks for your reply.<br /><br />My comments about the science of transgenderism were not in the least aimed at you. I freely admit I haven't read all of the scientific literature about transgenderism; not even a large fraction of it. However, what I have read seems to consist of two "factions", whose activities seem to be these: first, slinging mud at the other faction. Second, the repetition of certainty. Good science admits to certainty very sparingly, which is why I tend to use circumspect phrases when I make my assertions. Thirdly, the constant bending of the findings to fit the idea they think is true (or wish were true), rather than the other way around. Good science doesn't have an outcome in mind at the start. Fourth: they cannot disentangle the theories from their proponents.<br /><br />It seems that quite a lot of people expend their energies attempting to discredit or undermine their critics, instead of trying to find the truth. A search for the truth admits the possibility that one is wrong, which I do frequently.<br /><br />What put me off spending more time on your site was your neologism. "Crossdreaming" seems like an effort to put the cart before the horse, to cook up a pleasant-sounding word to validate something you believe to be true. It may be true! You may be right, of course. I will need to spend more time on your website.<br /><br />Of course, to give some credit to the scientists, making good science out of this lot is extremely difficult. So much of it is subjective: "How long have you felt like a woman?" "Always." Tick. Scientific value? Nil. The reason I use the word "crossdresser" to describe myself is that it is a description of behaviour, which is objective. I am a man who enjoys dressing in women's clothing and cosmetics. The reasons why, the motivations, the dreams, are subjective, and therefore any measurement of these has a powerful reporting bias.<br /><br />The AGP theory explains why most crossdressers insist they are not gay, and how much they love women, yet are very willing to meet other crossdressers for sex. (When I first started this blog, those sorts of websites were all I could find). It explains why people can have successful lives as men for decades: marrying women, fathering children, being a soldier, before deciding to transition. In other words, it fits the facts as I observe them. Is it watertight? Not in the least.<br /><br />As for crossdressers lying, they are remarkably good at it, and here I include myself. The successful ones balance a secret life of glamour and fulfilment against a façade in an outer life which explicitly disapproves of the activity. Are they all lying, all the time? Of course not. Are they innately immoral people? Of course not! But are they skilful and practised liars? Definitely.<br /><br />By applying the AGP template to Betty, I am not invalidating her female identity in the least. Let me be absolutely clear: I am certainly not calling her (or anyone else!) a mentally ill pervert. I am merely observing that she started out as a man, and married a woman, and then began to transition. As for proof, I have nothing- except two powerful and revealing books about her written by her spouse.<br /><br />I will take a look at the Motherboard interview.<br /><br />Vivienne.<br /><br />Viviennehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06137595207723645418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642548439896244587.post-25567033358922982352013-12-29T02:50:53.794+13:002013-12-29T02:50:53.794+13:00" However, I know good science when I see it,..." However, I know good science when I see it, and my problem is that I don't see it. I don't see facts. I see a morass of opinion, wishful thinking, flag-waving, and ad hominem attacks. "<br /><br />Hm. I am a little surprised by this comment. I suppose you are refering to my comment here at your blog. I hope you realize I am not presenting the whole argument in such a short piece of text. I have spent several years over at crossdreamers.com painstakingly documenting the weaknesses of Blanchard's theory, as well as presenting a lare number of much more credible alternative explanations.<br /><br />It is certainly true that we have not found the final explanation for what causes the various transgender conditions, but it absolutely clear that the autogynephilia theory has been falsified. <br /><br />As for simplicity and clarity: What is simplistic about a theory that tries to uphold gender stereotypes by developing a convulted theory of "erotic target error", going on to dismiss all evidence to the contrary by accusing all crossdreamers of lying? But this is not all: The same theory requires all gay men to be effeminate and all androphilic transwomen to be nothing but a subset thereof. Anyone who knows anything about homosexuality knows that this is nonsense. And I repeat: There is nothing in the data provided by Blanchard and his followers to prove any of this. Nothing. Zip. Nada.<br /><br />By calling Betty an autogynephiliac you are invalidating her female identity and calling her a mentally ill pervert - without any proof whatsoever.<br /><br />As for nedless multiplication of terminology. "Autogynephilia" is a useless term, as the word itself implies the explanation given by Blanchard: "Love of oneself as a woman." Anyone who find this term offensive, but still wants to describe crossdreaming, needs another term. By all means, you do not need to use the word "crossdreamer". Veale describes it as "cross-gender arousal", I believe. But using the word "autogynephilia" for transgender persons, is like using the N-word for people of color. <br /><br />I strongly urge you to read the recent Motherboard interview with Blanchard, where he was enticed into presenting his views in plain language. A person who insists on using words like "sissy" to describe you, and who believes homosexuality should be kept in the manual for mental illnesses, does not deserve your support. http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/heres-how-the-guy-who-wrote-the-manual-on-sex-talks-about-sex<br />Jack Molayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03629363646482611722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642548439896244587.post-90672282344055251722013-12-27T23:29:32.130+13:002013-12-27T23:29:32.130+13:00Viv,
"We tend to conceive..." - what fol...Viv,<br />"We tend to conceive..." - what follows is deservedly so qualified. <br />You offer such an outdated concept of masculinity one almost wonders what world you think you're living in. Yes, the masculine qualities you list are certainly still very much in evidence, but men absolutely have permission these days to be tender, nurturing, sensitive, etc. Or do you really not think so? If you don't see much evidence of it, you're not hanging out with the right guys. I've never had much difficulty in avoiding the "silverbacks" and alpha males and finding reflective and empathetic men to befriend. <br />Having said that, I'm trying to understand how dressing up as a woman might be some sort of a solution to feelings of social alienation. Are you saying that when you transform your appearance so as to resemble as closely as you can some idea you hold of an attractive woman, then you somehow give yourself permission to feel emotions you were taught were "unmanly" and so inappropriate for you and which your current society still would prefer you didn't express? Is that really what's going on?<br />And then you ask, "Or is there still something more to it?", on a blog where you repeatedly express your belief that Blanchard's AGP theory offers some kind of explanation. Isn't that something more?<br />Puzzled yet again.<br />DuncanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642548439896244587.post-61808759793177536112013-12-27T18:49:10.960+13:002013-12-27T18:49:10.960+13:00Hi Paula,
Thanks for posting your heartfelt comme...Hi Paula,<br /><br />Thanks for posting your heartfelt comments on Christmas Day. I wonder if you would just clarify this remark: "It distresses me to hear male sexuality being discussed under a microscope of female sexuality". I am not quite sure what you mean, but I would be interested to talk more.<br /><br />"My Wife William". I suspect such a book is a long way off, and for the following reasons. First, male-to-female behaviour seems far commoner than female-to-male behaviour. I think that's because it's considered much more acceptable for a woman to adopt male clothing and mannerisms (a tomboy) than vice versa (a sissy). Therefore women can "access" aspects of masculinity without societal disapproval (and maybe with encouragement). Therefore those women who need more masculinity than society is comfortable with are few.<br /><br />Second, such a woman would need to marry a man; and indeed a man who would not run away, feeling his masculinity threatened, but instead stay to find out, as Helen Boyd has done, what it's all about.<br /><br />I don't think we know remarkably little about men. I think we know a lot; we just tend not to believe it, or like to believe it. (By "we" I mean wider society). We tend to conceive of men as the alpha: the silverback, the leader, the breadwinner, the warrior, the driver, the smart one. In fact, men are capable of tenderness, nurture, sensitivity, empathy, vulnerability and reflectiveness, but I think most men learn to hide those sides of themselves. I often think that crossdressing isn't just about the clothes, but the emotions (this is certainly true of me). And I wonder: if everyone could wear what they liked, and express whatever emotional nuances they chose, would transgender behaviour vanish? Or is there still something more to it?<br /><br />Please let me know your thoughts.<br /><br />Vivienne.Viviennehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06137595207723645418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642548439896244587.post-9530702726311525242013-12-27T18:28:02.379+13:002013-12-27T18:28:02.379+13:00Dear Jack,
Your comments appeared in reverse orde...Dear Jack,<br /><br />Your comments appeared in reverse order, so I have replied in what seems to be reverse order.<br /><br />As with all of my "interviewees", I sent Helen Boyd an early draft and a completed draft of this post for approval, before I uploaded it, and repeatedly stated my willingness to change or delete anything she objected to. She has responded very positively, and I am sure she would have protested at anything she didn't like.<br /><br />"You cannot even begin to imagine..." is a very strong statement, considering how little you know about me. What troubles me (and indeed, is a central theme of this blog) is how upset some people become when discussing their gender. It's as if insisting that something is true (or not true) can somehow bring about the reality.<br /><br />My observation about Betty is merely that: an observation. It is not an accusation. It is not a criticism. It is not an attack. It is not an insult. I am wholly prepared to accept it may not be true, which is why I carefully qualified my statement.<br /><br />With respect, I reserve the right to make my own observations on my blog, in the interests of reasoned debate. Further, I welcome the views of people who may disagree or offer alternative points of view, provided they can do it civilly.<br /><br />Vivienne.Viviennehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06137595207723645418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642548439896244587.post-58767152072842692392013-12-27T18:07:33.799+13:002013-12-27T18:07:33.799+13:00Dear Jack,
Many thanks for taking the time and tr...Dear Jack,<br /><br />Many thanks for taking the time and trouble to comment on my blog. I hope you will have a browse around and comment on some of my other topics.<br /><br />With respect, I disagree with your very first line: "Here are the facts". My area of expertise doesn't actually include gender or sexuality. However, I know good science when I see it, and my problem is that I don't see it. I don't see facts. I see a morass of opinion, wishful thinking, flag-waving, and ad hominem attacks. Actual science is very thin on the ground. What I need are agreed definitions, standardisation of terms and approach, clarity of discussion and careful, circumspect analysis. So, in this area, there are no "facts", and therefore what you present are your beliefs.<br /><br />Could Blanchard's theory be hogwash? Absolutely! As described above (and elsewhere on this blog), his is a theory which seems to fit the facts as I can observe them; and in addition it has the virtues of simplicity and clarity. Does that make it "right"? No. Does it mean there isn't a better way? No. Does it say anything about him as a person? No. On the other hand, does the fact that it makes some people angry or upset make it wrong? No.<br /><br />I tend to cling to Blanchard, not because I think he is right (in fact, I can think of several flaws in his arguments, not least the relationship between homosexuality and crossdressing), but because I haven't found anyone who presents a better theory. <br /><br />To take your more specific points, (1) I think you are right that there is a new generation of transwomen who would previously have been late transitioners, who have become early transitioners because of increased awareness, and increased accessibility of treatments and acceptance of transitioning. That is indeed a cultural change, but it doesn't negate the AGP theory in the slightest.<br /><br />(2) I agree that it is quite possible for women to be crossdressers, and I have discussed it here in this blog. With respect, the term "crossdreaming" obfuscates, rather than clarifying. One of the themes of this blog is the needless but deliberate multiplication of terminology which muddies the waters around this topic.<br /><br />(3 and 4) Agreed. I am still deliberating over this issue, which will be the subject of a future blog post.<br /><br />(5) I think it is tempting for some people to think that what makes a woman feel sexy about herself is the same as what makes a crossdresser feel sexy about him/herself. I am far from certain that this is so, though I accept there may be some overlap.<br /><br />I am not "duped" by Blanchard, his "gang", or anyone else. In fact, one of the core reasons for this blog is for me to try to make sense out of all this and not allow myself to be duped by <i>anyone</i>. The blog remains a work in progress, and my views will continue to evolve, spurred, no doubt, by reasoned discussion with people like you and other commentators.<br /><br />Kind regards,<br /><br />Vivienne.<br />Viviennehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06137595207723645418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642548439896244587.post-36716201961092595492013-12-27T01:31:23.818+13:002013-12-27T01:31:23.818+13:00Here are the facts:
1. The division between early...Here are the facts:<br /><br />1. The division between early and late onset is caused by culture. The gynephilic MTF trans women love women and try for as long as they can to live up to the expectations of straight women. Androphilic trans women do not. In the new generation of trans women (take a look over at youtube), the gynephilic ones transtion as early as the androphilic ones, because the Interent gives them access to information the earlier generations lacked. They look as feminine as the androphilic ones, for the simple reason that their bodies have yet not been ravaged by testosterone.<br /><br />2. According to Blanchard autogynephilia is an expression of a masculine sexuality. Women cannot be paraphiliacs, according to him, and there are no female "autoandrophiliacs". I personally know a lot of female to male crossdreamers (I never use the AGP term to describe people who experience cross-gender erotic fantasies). There is a whole creative comics culture made by and for ftm crossdreamers called yaoi. These women often call themselves girlfags. The most influential ftm trans activist of all time, Lou Sullivan, was a crossdreamer like you are. You will find more info over at my blog. http://www.crossdreamers.com/2013/05/ray-blanchard-and-missing-girlfag-dsm-5.html<br /><br />3. According to Blanchard gay men cannot experience autogynephilia. Wrong again. I have documented that many do. Indeed, Blanchard's own research documents the same, even after he (and Lawrence and Cloudy) have tried desperately to reclassify most of them as autogynephilic liars. http://www.crossdreamers.com/2013/11/autogynephilia-bad-science-revisited.html<br /><br />4. Blanchard never mentions lesbians in his research, as they are both homosexual and women. Turns out there are many, many butch crossdreamers out there. http://www.crossdreamers.com/2013/11/on-crossdreaming-lesbians-and-sexy.html<br /><br />5. What about XX women? Do they get aroused by the idea of being an attractive woman? Of course they do! It is only in the universe of people like Blanchard that they only correct sexual response is to the visual impression of the body of a person of the opposite sex. Women get aroused by the idea of being sexy, of being lusted after, in the same way as you. Dr. Charles Moser has presented a study that documents "autogynephilia" in women. http://www.crossdreamers.com/2010/07/on-mosers-critique-of-blanchards.html<br /><br />Do not let yourself be duped by Blanchard and his gang. Boyd is spot on in her analysis of him. He is an old pervert obsessed with perversions. You are not an autogynephiliac. Your inner feminine self is real. Don't let this man invalidate your identity!Jack Molayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03629363646482611722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642548439896244587.post-67966030223909714782013-12-27T01:29:39.097+13:002013-12-27T01:29:39.097+13:00"From my perspective, with limited informatio..."From my perspective, with limited information, it looks as if the autogynephilia theory applies quite well to Betty."<br /><br />Wooah! Hold your horses there! You cannot even begin to imagine how offensive that sentence is to a transsexual woman. So even if you believe the theory applies to yourself, you should be very careful when applying it to others.<br /><br />The autogynephilia theory has been thoroughly debunked by both scientists, therapists and transgender people.<br /><br />Blanchard operates with two different types of mtf transgender, a variation of the early onset vs. late onset typology presented by others. According to these approaches the late onset are masculine looking and gynephilic (love women), while the early onset are feminine looking and androphilic. According to Blanchard they are all straight or gay perverts. (Yes, Blanchard considers even homosexual men perverts or "paraphiliacs.")Jack Molayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03629363646482611722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642548439896244587.post-13194354965596732602013-12-25T14:42:41.615+13:002013-12-25T14:42:41.615+13:00I was fascinated by Ms Boyd talking about losing t...I was fascinated by Ms Boyd talking about losing the men in her life as I recalled watching the men in my life disappear one by one. It was a stressful foreboding, knowing that my own masculine facade would face increasing scrutiny. As a transsexual I always knew my myself to be female or at least definitely not a male. Still I had a male body and that certainly impacted how I perceived the world, It was not until I transitioned that I realized the perceptual differences between a female body and a male body. It distresses me to hear male sexuality being discussed under a microscope of female sexuality and I have yet to hear a reasonable discussion on the topic. I'm still waiting for "My Wife William" as well. It's quite remarkable how little we know about men. Even when MtFs talk about being male its usually from the sense of what it's like for a female trying to be a man. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09843490566382162297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642548439896244587.post-47851018133184512612013-12-24T16:57:00.623+13:002013-12-24T16:57:00.623+13:00Hi Jenn. Thanks for replying.
As I see it, there ...Hi Jenn. Thanks for replying.<br /><br />As I see it, there are two flaws in your point. The first is that even if cis women and trans women could be shown to behave similarly, they are different at a genetic level; apples and oranges. The second is that many transwomen have lived large parts of their lives as men; in some cases quite successfully. How is an objective observer, watching their behaviour, to judge whether what they are doing is innate, or merely careful mimicry? And if you interview them, how can you know whether the answers are genuine, or simply what they want you to hear?<br /><br />Vivienne.Viviennehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06137595207723645418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642548439896244587.post-42224575946186114432013-12-24T16:46:35.173+13:002013-12-24T16:46:35.173+13:00Hi Teela. Thanks for dropping by. I hope you find ...Hi Teela. Thanks for dropping by. I hope you find something interesting in my archive. Vivienne.Viviennehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06137595207723645418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642548439896244587.post-49528097914600202522013-12-24T16:46:00.053+13:002013-12-24T16:46:00.053+13:00Hi Tasi. Thanks for posting. I will check it out. ...Hi Tasi. Thanks for posting. I will check it out. Vivienne.Viviennehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06137595207723645418noreply@blogger.com