Galileo's Middle Finger - Part Two

This is the second of my articles discussing the book Galileo's Middle Finger, by Alice Dreger. If you haven't already, it makes sense to start reading at Part One, which discusses intersex individuals.

Dreger: When people ask me how transgender is different from intersex, I usually start by saying that that intersex and transgender people have historically suffered from the opposite problems for the same reason. Whereas intersex people have historically been subjected to sex "normalizing" hormones and surgeries they have not wanted, transgender people have had a hard time getting the sex-change hormones and surgeries they have wanted. Both problems arise from a single cause: a heterosexist medical establishment determined to retain control over who gets to be what sex.

Manly: legs

Here she is, shortly into chapter 2, Rabbit Holes, and characteristically getting right down to the nub of the issue. (For my own, similar take on intersex vs transgender, I refer you to this post, though you might need to scroll down a bit).

Dreger: In the great majority of cases, medical scans won't detect any intersex feature in a transgendered person's body. Nevertheless, many people believe that transgender must be a special form of intersex involving the brain.

This fits with my comment that some transgender individuals look to the existence of intersex individuals to provide justification for their behaviour.

Dreger: Although there is very little science to support it, this has become the most popular explanation of transgender, probably in part because it is the easiest one for uptight heterosexuals to accept. (...) In practice, this story of transgender can function as a kind of get-out-of-male free card for men who seek to become women anatomically. When that card is played, the comforting narrative of "true selves" is preserved.

And there are scientific papers (such as this one) which seek to demonstrate anatomical differences in the brains of trans people. Though mostly their brains are very similar, some studies purport to demonstrate subtle differences in tiny regions of the brain (for example, some regions in MtF transsexuals are less like men and more like women). Most of these studies have small numbers of non-randomised participants, and even if these findings are robust (and I am nowhere near convinced that they are), correlation is not causation.

Science may indeed unlock some of these puzzles in time, but the only thing I am convinced of is that the science is pretty unconvincing so far.

Controversial: Bailey

It's at this point in the narrative that Dreger introduces Professor J. Michael Bailey, the author of the controversial work The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism, published in 2003. Bailey drew on the work of Ray Blanchard, and is therefore supportive of the autogynephilia model, to which I subscribe, as you probably already know. See here for a fuller discussion of this model. In that link, I also discuss how the autogynephilia model makes me feel uncomfortable about myself, because it insists the root of my crossdressing is in sexual desire.

Dreger points out that the French translation of autogynephilia is amour de soi en femme (love of oneself as a woman) which is a much nicer expression.

But where I feel uncomfortable about the autogynephilia model, a lot of people felt a lot worse.

Dreger: Before Bailey, many trans advocates had spent a long time working to desexualize and depathologize their public representations in an effort to reduce stigma, improve access to care, and establish basic human rights for trans people. (...) This is similar to how gay rights advocates have desexualized homosexuality in the quest for marriage rights, portraying themselves in living rooms and kitchens instead of bedrooms, in order to calm fearful heterosexuals.

Indeed, a few retrograde clinicians, like Paul McHugh, a psychiatrist at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, still actively use the idea that male-to-female transgender is really about perverted sexuality and mental illness to argue against access to sex-transitional hormones and surgeries.

For Bailey or anyone else to call someone with amour de soi en femme an autogynephile or even a transgender woman-- rather than simply a woman-- is at some level to interfere with her core sexual desire. Such naming also risks questioning her core self-identity in a way that calling the average gay man homosexual simply can't. One really must understand this if one is going to understand why some trans women came after Bailey so hard for naming and describing autogynephilia. When they felt that Bailey was fundamentally threatening their selves and their social identities as women-- well, it's because he was. That's what talking openly about autogynephilia necessarily does.

Lynn Conway by Charles Rogers

It's worth digressing here to make a couple of remarks. Just because a scientific theory makes you uncomfortable, doesn't make it wrong. And just because you insist upon something, doesn't make it right. If you want to convince me, you need to do a lot better than insist. I respond to evidence, not vehemence. This has occasionally caused me to get into uncomfortable debates with other trans people when I dare to question them about their views and beliefs. Sometimes, when they are unable to explain themselves, they resort to some variant of: "Of course, you couldn't possibly understand. You're only a crossdresser, where I am a woman".

But back to the book. Dreger goes on to describe how a prominent transwoman called Lynn Conway, at the University of Michigan, started "what became a war" against Bailey, assisted by Andrea James and Deirdre McLoskey. Together they began to systematically ruin Bailey's reputation. They campaigned to have the book removed from consideration for the 2004 Lambda Literary Award. They cooked up stories about him practising psychology without a licence, doing research without appropriate ethical oversight, and even having sex with one of his research subjects. And Dreger digs deeply and thoroughly into all of this, interviewing as many of the original people involved as possible.

Dreger: As a result of all this, Bailey came across pretty clearly as an abuser, a trans-basher, and a sexual pervert.

After nearly a year of research, I could come to only one conclusion: the whole thing was a sham. Bailey's sworn enemies had used every clever trick in the book-- juxtaposing events in misleading ways, ignoring contrary evidence, working the rhetoric, and using anonymity whenever convenient, to make it look as though virtually every trans woman represented in Bailey's book had felt abused by him and had filed a charge.

But why did Conway, James and McLoskey feel they had to do all those things?

Dreger: "Narcissistic injury," the physician-researcher Anne Lawrence said to me, by way of explanation. "Followed by narcissistic rage." That, she told me, was the only real way to explain what happened to Bailey. The whole thing had been an attempt to kill the messenger bringing a message that Lawrence guessed wounded the accusers' sense of self.

Captivating: the book

By this point, we are barely a third of the way through the book. Several things stand out. First, the book is extremely readable, and the narrative is told in a personal, conversational style. Second, Dreger's scholarship is impeccable: many hundreds of hours of interviews and research have gone into this book (you should see the references), and Dreger seems uncompromising in her search for the truth. Third, it's clear that a great deal of her personal energy has been invested, not just in writing the book, but in sympathising with the people in it, befriending them and becoming part of their lives. Fourth, writing this book has taken considerable courage, and Dreger has herself come under fire, risking her own career and reputation (drawing parallels with Galileo, of course).

Overall, the book is a phenomenal read; gripping as a thriller, scholarly, yet incredibly human. There are so many points in the book where I thought: I can't believe I am actually reading this! I can't recommend it highly enough.

We part company with the book at this point, partly because this blog post is already way too long, and partly because the book leaves the subjects of gender and sex as Dreger finds other (compelling) subjects to sink her hungry scholastic teeth into.

I think the world of gender is changing more rapidly than it ever has before. The emergence of transgender celebrities like Laverne Cox and Caitlyn Jenner has caused mainstream society to become much more aware (and thankfully, accepting) of trans people and trans issues. Nonetheless, I am very uncomfortable about what happened to Bailey: vilified for his views, not because they were wrong, but because they made people uncomfortable. Dreger points out (and I don't know why I didn't think of this before) that as a result of Conway's attack on Bailey, "no one in sex research will touch male-to-female transsexualism with a ten foot pole any more. Which must have been just what Conway meant to do". That explains why there isn't good science: because scientists fear personal retribution if they publish results which are unpopular.

The way to enlightenment is not to silence people, even the ones who disagree with us, but to engage in open, civil, respectful debate; to seek out the best evidence, and incorporate it into the picture, recognising that the picture isn't complete and may yet change as new discoveries come to light.

Dreger's book has inspired me to be a little more upright, a little more outspoken in defence of the truth, a little more questioning of the "facts", than I was previously. And perhaps, therefore, a little more willing to extend my middle finger, just like Galileo.

The Story So Far...

A couple of things prompted this blog post. First, it's the end of the year, which always makes me want to take stock of things which have happened over the last 12 months. Secondly, I came across another blog, Stop Crossdressing, quite recently, and having read quite a few of the more recent posts and discussion, I found myself wanting to repeat on there a lot of things which I've posted on other people's blogs. (Stop Crossdressing has been taken down since I wrote this post).


Vivienne



So I decided that a bit of summing up is in order. I've learned a tremendous amount about myself over the last 12 months, and I've profoundly re-evaluated my views about crossdressing. My plan is that, by putting this all together in the one place, I can crystallise my thoughts (always helpful, I have discovered), and also refer other people to here if they want to know my point of view. Regular readers won't find much that is new, but new visitors will hopefully find all my points here in one place.

For ease of reference, I have grouped everything into headings. Some of this stuff is overlapping, so please read to the bottom before you write in to complain about something!

We are all the same

First, we are all the same (provided we are talking here about men who wear women's clothing). Regardless of whether you call our behaviour crossdressing, transvestic fetishism, crossplaying, or whatever, just about everyone who comes to this site (and just about everyone mentioned on here) has the same inner motivations, which arose, at least in the first instance, for sexual arousal. (I am a "lumper", not a "splitter").

For some of us, those motivations are so strong that they overthrow us; for others, they are less strong and can be managed more easily. But all of us, all the time, feel the same desires and tendencies. For some of us, the fiery sexual component has mellowed into a gentler gratification which may not even involve arousal, but for some of us, it's still all about the sexual arousal.

For all of us, I feel sure, there is no other activity which provides the same relief and pleasure.

Alongside the assertion that we are all the same, but independent from it, is my deeply-held belief that no group is somehow more proper, more meritorious, more deserving of sympathy or recognition, than any other. I believe (and have repeatedly stated) that we have more that unites us than divides us, and that we ought to be generally respectful and courteous to one another at all times.

Crossdressing as an addiction

The concept of addiction is an attractive one for some commentators. Certainly crossdressing behaviour can have features resembling addiction, in that crossdressing desires are sometimes unrelenting and all-consuming. The person would rather be free of those desires, and they cause tremendous self-loathing. And the framework of addiction offers the prospect of rehabilitation, and eventually cure.

But for many common addictions (tobacco, alcohol, drugs, gambling) the initial activity is unpleasant. I still think smoking is loathsome, and I remember drinking my first beer, and hating it. I had to work at it to tolerate it, then enjoy it (which I now do). I have no desire whatever to take drugs, or to gamble (I don't even play the Lottery). On the other hand, I was drawn to crossdressing from my earliest memories, certainly before starting primary school, and the very first activities were pleasurable from the very outset. So I don't consider crossdressing to be an addiction in the same mould as those other things. However, it can certainly become one, if allowed to get out of control.

The morality of cross-dressing

The act of a man wearing women's clothing or cosmetics is morally neutral. I don't consider it intrinsically harmful in any way. In particular, I reject claims that there is somehow a biblical or Christian prohibition against crossdressing.

But crossdressing can be tremendously damaging and harmful. The reason is that many crossdressers seem to pursue crossdressing excessively, and it takes away time and money and other resources which could be better spent looking after a family, or a spouse, or a job. When crossdressing reaches the stage where it prevents someone being able to live a normal life, it's too much.

I frequently use the analogy of golf. Like crossdressing, golf is morally neutral. A couple of rounds a week is fine, but there are some guys who want to play golf all the time; they spend excessively on memberships and green fees, and on the latest clubs and equipment, and their wife might be called a  "golf widow". For those guys, golf is interfering with their ability to lead a normal life and has become excessive. But that doesn't make golf itself intrinsically immoral.

Who is in charge

Amour de moi en femme?

Without doubt, I wish I could be free of my crossdressing desires. They have caused me a considerable amount of personal unhappiness, self-loathing, and marital strife. I am not a "happy crossdresser". It seems I have two choices: either crossdressing is in charge of me, or I am in charge of crossdressing. It's clear for me which of us needs to be in charge.

Deciding that involves making an active choice about the priorities in my life. My marriage is more important to me than my crossdressing. My children are more important to me than my crossdressing. My career is more important to me than my crossdressing. On the other hand, setting aside crossdressing permanently costs too much in terms of mental and emotional effort: I become moody and tense all the time, and am no fun at all to be around. I know that my crossdressing feelings won't go away, no matter how long I desist.

So what I am seeking is a middle ground: to permit just enough crossdressing to assuage my yearnings, but not to pursue it to such an extent that it interferes with my normal life. You might well point out (and I would agree with you) that I am seeking to have my cake and eat it too; that such a balance won't be easily struck. But that's what I am aiming for.

Nobody can sum up my feelings better than old Polonius: This above all: to thine ownself be true.

Autogynephilia

Autogynephilia (or autogynaephilia if you speak British) is the word coined by the sexologist Ray Blanchard to describe "a man's paraphilic tendency to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman". Initially I resisted this description of myself, but after coming across Cloudy's blog On the Science of Changing Sex, I accept it as the only theory which fits all the facts and behaviour as I observe them, in myself and others.

The reason this troubles me is that I had considered that crossdressing was not a sexual thing for me; instead, it seems mostly to be about emotional expression and sensual pleasure these days. However, Blanchard's theory is that it has its roots in sexual arousal, and, though it makes me very uncomfortable to admit it, this is absolutely true for me. On the other hand, although the root of autogynephilia is sexual, sexual gratification isn't (by any means) the only reward which it provides, and emotional and sensual pleasures are comfortably within its purview.

Autogynephilia is also (I believe) the reason that late-transitioning transsexuals (like Caitlyn Jenner for example) desire to change sex, although in most cases by the time transitioning occurs the sexual aspect to it has mellowed into a sensation of comfort or belonging in the female role.

Addendum 22nd September 2015: I am extremely indebted to Alice Dreger's wonderful book, Galileo's Middle Finger, for providing the French translation of autogynephilia. In contrast to what I think is a very clunky and uncomfortable term, in French it is amour de soi en femme, (love of oneself as a woman) which sounds positively lovely.

Crossdressing is common

If you look at my post here, you can see fairly reliable figures from the UK's Office for National Statistics about the prevalence of homosexuality in the population. I had previously read a figure of about 1% of males being crossdressers. A more recent figure from Anne Lawrence says that "up to 3% of men in Western countries may experience autogynephilia". I suspect this might be a bit of an overestimate; one swallow does not a summer make, and I suspect that regular, frequent crossdressers are fewer. We are probably on a continuum of frequency or intensity of crossdressing expression, which makes drawing any line pretty arbitrary. (Are you autogynephilic if you dress once a week? Once a month? Once a year? Or are you autogynephilic if you don't dress at all, but are troubled by daily thoughts about it? How do you decide? I touch on these difficulties in my linked blog post).

What Anne Lawrence also says (and I am sure she is right) is that the number of people who change sex from male to female is rising sharply. Lawrence suggests that this increase is largely accounted for by late-onset transitioners, who previously would have been denied sex-reassignment surgery.

In any case, there are a lot of us out there.

Crossdressing is lifelong and incurable

I believe crossdressing is innate to me. Crossdressing desires have been present from my very earliest memories. Though they have faded from time to time, they have never completely gone away. I do not believe that they ever will. I do not believe that someone can be "cured" of crossdressing in any meaningful way; not any more than one can be "cured" of homosexuality.

One one occasion I met an older crossdresser, who told me that in his youth he had been subjected to electric aversion therapy as a means of attempting to cure his crossdressing. He pretended he was cured just long enough to escape the treatment, before returning to crossdressing, which he had pursued for the rest of his life. It had cost him his marriage, and he seemed deeply unhappy, even though he was dressed at a social gathering. And no amount of military discipline could permanently make a man out of Jan Hamilton.

There is a small amount of evidence that anti-androgens (such as spironolactone) can have some effect at suppressing crossdressing tendencies. However, since the hormonal balance of the human body is akin to an orchestra, to meddle with it carelessly is likely to cause far-reaching and potentially permanent side-effects. I therefore don't recommend anyone to take any hormonal medication without thorough discussion with their doctor first.

Crossdressing tends to be progressive as one gets older; a clear and detailed description of how crossdressing manifests in each decade of life is given in Helen Boyd's wonderful book (which I wholly recommend to everyone) My Husband Betty.

Putting crossdressing aside

Many of my correspondents, and some of the other bloggers I link to, are people who have chosen to set crossdressing aside from their lives. Their motivations vary, from religious or spiritual reasons, through to repugnance at crossdressing, through to a desire to retake control of their lives.

I want to be clear that I wish these individuals nothing but success. I think I have quite a lot in common with many of them (and you know who you are!), and the reason for this is that I share with them a determination that crossdressing will not overwhelm me, and a strong moral sense which keeps me away from the less savoury behaviour of some of my fellow crossdressers.

I don't think that crossdressing can be put aside permanently without considerable effort. It’s sort of like being on a diet. At first, it’s OK to go without chocolate and pizza and the other things you enjoy, but after a while you come to miss them more and more. No matter which way you dress your salad or your rice crackers, you can’t make them delicious or satisfying. And then you find that you are using up all your patience and your energy resisting the urge to have a slice of pizza, and you are moody and tense all the time. You may even accept that chocolate and pizza make you overweight, and all those vegetables are highly nutritious and doing wonders for your digestion (and all that is indisputably true). But still, nothing hits the spot like a fresh hot pizza dripping with melted cheese.

It can be done; some people can manage it for ever, but it costs. I believe people who say they have successfully given up crossdressing and no longer feel the urge to do it are lying to themselves and everyone else; just as I believe people who say they prefer salad instead of pizza are lying to themselves (and everyone else too). You can deliberately choose the salad for all sorts of reasons, and I wish you nothing but the very best of luck, but to insist you don’t like pizza any more makes me highly doubtful.

Intersex and transgender

Intersex isn’t the same as transgender because sex isn’t the same as gender. Sex is a biological distinction (chromosomes, hormones and physical characteristics). Gender is a social distinction (roles and behaviour). And to add a third term, sexuality is about who you want to go to bed with. Usually they coincide pretty neatly, but not always.

It’s absolutely true that sex is not black and white, and neither is gender nor sexuality. Intersex people cannot reliably be assigned to either female or male; some of them have unusual chromosome patterns (karyotypes, such as XXY), and some of them have other syndromes which cause them to develop features of both male and female anatomy. Almost all of them are assigned at birth in to one or other sex, and raised accordingly. I believe that's because parents want their kids to be spared the agony of growing up different. On the other hand, some intersex people, when they become adults, are very uncomfortable with the sex they were assigned to.

I think some transgendered people do probably identify with intersex people (without knowing the science well enough) and use the existence of intersex people to justify their views, beliefs, behaviour, whatever. I can also understand how transgendered people might be slightly envious of intersex people (you might wish you were a man with breasts or a woman with a penis) and why intersex people might be uncomfortable with that.

I think what makes some intersex people uncomfortable about themselves is not the same as what makes transgendered people uncomfortable about themselves. I think most members of both groups are uncomfortable about themselves; I know I am. However, I flatter myself that I do understand the science as well as just about anyone.

I imagine a transgendered person saying to an intersex person: “See, I am just like you: neither male nor female.” I imagine the intersex person replying “You’re nothing like me. You started off as one, and now you want to be the other. Whereas I started off somewhere in the middle.”

As a lumper, I say to both: I understand that you both have different feelings and different biology. But, seen from the outside, you are both people who don’t neatly fit into the categories of male and female. Therefore, perhaps you have quite a lot in common after all (rejection, loneliness, doubt), even if you got there by different routes.

Crossdressing and LGBT

And that brings me on to LGBT. The whole notion of LGBT is exactly this: an attempt to lump together people whose behaviour and predilections don’t quite fit with the "mainstream". Before I started this blog, I had joined a closed internet forum for LGBT academics. I had thought that I would have something in common with them. I was, at the time, desperate to open a dialogue with like-minded individuals, but found (almost) nobody like me there. Though I posted about my own thoughts and fears and concerns, all I seemed to get was a polite concern; nobody (and we are talking about gay and lesbian academics) seemed to feel I had much in common with them. I had hoped to strike a chord, but failed.

As it happens, this blog has done quite well, and I have all but given up visiting that forum. But in the months when I lurked, I realised indeed that I had little in common with the regular posters. I dutifully tried to pitch into some of the conversations, and was treated politely and with tolerance, but without ever developing a sensation of feeling I belonged. And I never felt like attending any of the social gatherings which were held quite regularly. It seemed to me that all I had in common with them was my sense of isolation and self-loathing.

I think, though, for the "general public" (if indeed there are any left when you subtract all the trannies and queers and gays and whatnot), crossdressers are considered to be lumped in with homosexuals. How often have you heard an accusation that because a man wants to wear a frock, he must be gay? And how often have you heard crossdressers insist and demand that they are not gay? Where men are concerned, I think most gay men are attracted to masculine men, not feminine men. So crossdressing isn't an especially effective way to find oneself a gay male partner; Jaye Davidson said something of this kind, and I guess he would know better than most.

Crossdressing isn't an expression of inner femininity

I've left this until the end because I think it is one of the most controversial, and counter-intuitive things which I have discovered. It bears repeating. Men don't crossdress because they are innately feminine. Crossdressers don't want to be like women; they want to be like men think women are. It's true that many crossdressers (and here I include myself) didn't behave like typical boys when younger, and were aware something about them made them different from others, but they didn't actually consider themselves to be girls.

Instead, crossdressers are attracted to women (remember: crossdressers are not gay). It's just, for crossdressers, the attraction to women extends to themselves as a woman (the technical term for this is an erotic target location error). In other words, crossdressing is an expression of heterosexual desire, turned inwards. Anne Lawrence puts it more prosaically, and I refer you to her whole article here:

Thinking about autogynephilic MtF... as men who “love women and want to become what they love” offers a more accurate and more richly informative model for clinicians.

In other words, autogynephilia isn't just a sexual fetish, and to dismiss it as such angers nearly everyone, who insist there is a lot more to it (I know I think so). But it can be conceptualised as a whole suite of romantic or attractive feelings, directed towards oneself as a woman, even though most of us are also capable of directing these feelings outward to a female partner. I suppose that makes me feel a little better about the label of autogynephilia applied to me: it isn't just about the sex thing.

I personally believe that the reason some male crossdressers seek out sex with other male crossdressers, is that the sex partner each is attracted to is not the other one, but themselves in the female role, doing things which they consider it erotic for women to do. Add to that the sexual overlay that many men consider it erotic for two "women" to have sex together, and you have a powerful mix indeed. And indeed, each participant will tell you he is quite sure he isn't doing it because he is gay. See here for Helen Boyd's comment.

I also believe that many crossdressers are more sexually attracted to the woman they see in the mirror than with the woman they may be married to, and Helen Boyd offers plenty in support of this assertion too.

My final piece of evidence in support of this assertion is mentioned above: if you want to suppress crossdressing desires, you don't take more androgens (which, you might think, would make you more "manly"). Instead you take anti-androgens, which suppress male sexual appetite and behaviour. Why does that work? Because crossdressing isn't driven by femininity, but by masculinity.

===========

Anyway, that's been a lot of useful discovery for just a little over a year. For regular visitors, please do keep coming, and posting your comments; I find them extremely stimulating and valuable. For new visitors, do please browse through; one of my personal favourite, but least-visited posts, is this one.

All the best for 2013,

Vivienne.

Cloudy, with a chance of insights

Ask yourself this question. The answer will be potentially quite revealing. Take your time; there are no prizes. (The question is only for transgendered males!)

Would you rather be beautiful, but not necessarily passable as a woman; or 100% passable as a woman, even if that meant you were plain?

A week or so ago, I came across a new blog, On the Science of Changing Sex, written by Cloudy. Cloudy is a 55-yr old postoperative transsexual woman who transitioned four decades ago. Cloudy's blog is all about science; so much so that it could be pretty hard going if science isn't really your thing.

My first feeling on encountering Cloudy was Aha! Here is somebody like me with whom I can have a really fruitful dialogue (and indeed I opened one that day and got a response immediately). But as I read more and more of her blog, and the underlying science, I became somewhat dispirited, and it's reasonable for me here to go into some of the reasons why.

My blog here has always been about a dialogue (a dlog, rather than a blog?): about finding out more about myself, and allowing others to post their insights. Over the last year or so, I've been on a tremendous journey of insight and understanding. I've learned a great deal about myself, and about crossdressing. As you will know if you've read much of this blog, there are some themes which run right through it.

First, the theme that I don't consider myself to be all that similar to other male crossdressers out there.

Secondly, there seems to be a bewildering multiplicity of terms for people who show behaviour which is not in alignment with their birth sex. As a subtheme of this, people seem to become upset out of all proportion where discussion of their gender is concerned. For examples, see here and here. Cloudy herself admits that she has disallowed comments on her blog because too many of them were personal attacks on her.

Though I had read many theories and conceptual frameworks about crossdressing, I couldn't find one that made any sort of sense; one that "clicked". They all seemed to be full of psychological mumbo-jumbo. Well, now I think that's changed.

Before I go any further, let me state here that my intention is not to offend anyone, regardless of their perspective; I say as much on my About Me page. Secondly, I am somewhat disturbed by what I've read and what it says about me. Thirdly, I believe absolutely that science is the tool by which we can best make sense of the world around us. What that means is that no amount of wanting something to be true or untrue will make it so.

If you really want the science, head on over to Cloudy's blog and read this page. On the other hand, I intend here to chew it down a bit and present it in simpler terms.

Let's start with transsexuals. That is, people born in one sex who decide to change sex. (All of what follows is true for males who want to become women and females who want to become men, but for simplicity we will stick with male-to-female). (For a bit of a discussion about my take on the difference between sex and gender, read the comments under this blog post). Remember, this is a simplification, but it's a helpful one.

Transsexuals fall into two groups which can be easily discerned statistically. We can call them "early transitioners" and "late transitioners". For early transitioners, they display very transgendered behaviour from a very early age (e.g. a boy will persistently act and behave like a girl, even in the fact of powerful deterrents). They change sex very early, usually by about 20; and more than 90% by 25. They display persistent sexual attraction to what they consider to be the "opposite" sex; that is to say, a male (who considers himself to be internally female) will be attracted to males. They do not experience any sexual arousal from cross-dressing or imagining themselves being or becoming the opposite sex. Of transsexuals, about 10% are in this group.

Late transitioners, on the other hand, typically have gender-typical behaviour in childhood. They may experience gender dysphoria, but keep it hidden. They change sex much later, usually by 35-40, though with a wide range extending into old age. They are usually attracted to the opposite of their birth sex; that is to say a male (who considers himself to be internally female) will be attracted to females. They very commonly experience sexual arousal from cross-dressing, or from imagining themselves to be the opposite sex. They can commonly function well as men pre-transition, and may marry, and have children. They can be successful in masculine (even hyper-masculine) careers. Interestingly, they tend to have a higher IQ than the general population. Many of them remain attracted to women post-transition. Of transsexuals, about 90% are in this group, making such people far commoner.

So much for transsexuals, you might say. What about cross-dressers? The theory says that, for "ordinary" cross-dressers, like me, the difference between us and late-transitioners is not a matter of type, only of degree. In other words, cross-dressers and late-transitioning transsexuals are driven by the same motivations. Some of us go "all the way", and some of us don't.

The terminology from the literature is a bit disappointing, but if you want to read just about anything on Cloudy's blog, you will need to know the basics. Early-transitioning transsexuals are commonly referred to as homosexual transsexuals, HSTS. That's not to say they are like gay men, but instead that someone born a male is attracted to other males. Late-transitioning transsexuals (and transvestites) are known as autogynephilic, AGP, from the Greek meaning "someone who loves himself as a woman", a term which I slightly disparaged in my earlier blog post here. The reason Cloudy echoes these clumsy and unappetising terms in her blog is that these are the terms which are most commonly used in the current scientific literature.

Applying Cloudy's criteria (and you can follow her suggested test here) to everyone I've written about on this blog yields some interesting results. Jan Hamilton, Emma Ballantyne, Richard O'Brien, Grayson Perry, Charlie Jane Anders, "My Husband" Betty Crow (the partner of Helen Boyd), Lord Cornbury, John Pepper, Vernon Coleman; all of them fit into the AGP side. Jaye Davidson alone escapes: he isn't naturally a crossdresser, just an androgynous man who got a job once as an actress. It's much harder to categorise Billy Tipton, since Cloudy's questionnaire was designed for male-to-female transgendered people.

And there is one more person on this blog who fits into the AGP side: me. This brings me back to the question at the opening of this blog post, which was posed by sexologist Dr. Anne Lawrence, and quoted in Cloudy's blog post here. So what's your answer? Mine, if I am honest, is that it's more important (for me) to be beautiful than to be passable. I've been asking myself why this is my answer for about two weeks now, and the best answer I can come up with is that I fit the AGP side of the model. As an alternative (but less subtle) question, ask yourself: have I ever felt sexually aroused by cross-dressing? If the answer is "yes" (and for me, it is; it so is), then that strongly suggests an AGP makeup.

So much of this model fits. It fits with why I think high heels are sexy. It explains Charlie Jane Anders' quote "What's the difference between a transvestite and a transsexual? About two years." It neatly sidesteps all the different bloody terminology (which seems intended to confuse and obfuscate) for people born male who wear women's clothing ("There is more that unites us than divides us" is a frequent refrain of mine anyway). It fits Helen Boyd's painful and forthright observations about some crossdressers: eternally selfish, frequently overspending, sexually interested only in themselves (not their wives). It fits with what most customers want who go to that makeover shop. It explains why Betty Crow and Charlie Jane Anders are progressing to full-time crossdressing. It even fits my phenotype (white, successful, high IQ).


Photo: Suzi White

Why it makes me feel so uncomfortable is that I had been cheerfully going along reassuring myself that I wasn't like those "other" trannies out there; that there was something different about me; that crossdressing wasn't a sexual thing. According to this model, I am just like everyone else (perhaps a little less "affected" or "afflicted" or whatever term you prefer). This disturbs me, because the natural history (according to the theory and supported by lots of other things I've read, not least Helen Boyd) is that crossdressing becomes more predominant as one gets older (and in some cases, leads to full transition). I could previously ignore that consequence because I thought there was something different about me. I had thought that, if I was able to find just the right frequency of dressing, I would be happy in my "ordinary" life. This model suggests that point won't be reached; there will never be enough.

And if I had just a little more, of whatever it is that I have, my dressing might get out of control: to the point where it gets in the way of my ability to be a useful and productive husband and father. That's not something I relish in any way, and may explain why some of the people I've found on the Web that I have most in common with are people trying to quit crossdressing: these are people who are trying to keep a foothold so that crossdressing doesn't overwhelm them (but the science suggests we are incurable in every reasonable sense). It seems now that the reasons I find myself drawn to them is because of my sense of fear that maybe crossdressing will one day get the upper hand.

Reading Cloudy's blog has made me go and take a long, uncomfortable look at myself, and I can't say I am delighted with what I find.

The emergence of this model (proposed by Kurt Freund and Ray Blanchard) caused an enormous stink. It seems that late-transitioning transpeople (which we would now call AGP) were amazingly upset at the implied notion that they were different from (and perhaps inferior to?), early-transitioning transpeople. It provoked a storm in the literature, which continues still. I get that. I get why someone who felt worse than me about the implications of the model as applied to them could get so upset that they would reject the model completely (rather than rejecting their carefully-constructed self-image).

Until now, my "bible" of crossdressing has been My Husband Betty. Helen Boyd offers this about autogynephilia (from 2003):

The term has been described as the "Unified Field Theory" of transgenderism, but Blanchard's application of it to transsexuals is the epicentre of the debate. From what I understand, MTF transsexuals often gain pleasure from imagining their female bodies, but that pleasure is more about the fantasy of finally having a body that will match their internal gender identification. Transvestites and crossdressers also often admit to autogynephilic feelings, but because of the newness of the term and the general lack of research on crossdressers, there are no statistics. As one crossdresser put it: "Some guys are only ever in love with the woman they see in the mirror".

There is so much more to write; so many ramifications to follow to the ends. That will need to wait for future blog posts (like maybe this one).

I was able to talk to my wife about why learning about this model disturbed me. She was reassuring: she pointed out that just because there is a model out there, and that I happen to fit it, it doesn't change who I am; it doesn't change what I do; it doesn't change what will happen in the future. She was right, of course, and I am extremely grateful for this insight, which frees me from what had seemed like a gloomy inevitability.