May 7, 2013

Misfits: Gender Swap

There are not that many TV episodes and movies out there who depict the sexual aspect of the "what if" scenario of crossdreaming.  This is probably because crossdreamers are invisible in the public debate, or they are classified as weird crossdressers on the one hand and weird/suffering transsexuals on the other.

The two sides of Cutis in Misfits
We are again saved by British television.

Misfits is  series based on the same concept as American TV series like Heros, Alphas and Mutant X, but it is much darker, funnier and explicit in comparison.

The superheroes of Misfits are juvenile delinquents doing community service.

SPOILER ALERT! If you have not seen the series, you definitely ought to. Note that the following paragraphs include spoilers!

In the episode called Gender Swap, Curtis, who has been banned from organized sports, used his newfound ability to change into a woman to get on the women's track team.

As most often is the case in Misfits, this episode (and the one to follow) breaks a lot of taboos regarding sex and gender, while at the same time delivering a strong message on misogyny and the treatment of women.

I have edited some selected clips from the episodes here for reference:



(If the video is blocked, you can download it here.)

I have no way of proving this, of course, but I doubt that the script writers are crossdreamers. At least they do not have to be to develop a plot like this one.

Howard Overman and his team has probably argued something like this:

- Hey, what kind of unlikely scenario are we going to develop for Colin now? He has lost his power to turn back time. What other amazing ability can we give him?

- We can't. So let us do the exact opposite. Let us give him the super power that is left when every one else have chosen their favorite?

- And that is?

- The ability to change sex!

- OK, I can work with that. It will give us a chance to challenge some gender stereotypes and some misogyny, I guess. Ah, yeah, I can see it now. He's having the period, right, and is drugged with Rohypnol.

- You are getting far too serious. What is the first thing a bloke would do if he turned into a girl?

- We cannot!

- We can do anything we want!

- Ah, you naughty you!

And so on and so forth.

What makes this scenario interesting for me, is that the fantasy of masturbating as a girl or having lesbian sex as a girl flows naturally from the admittedly absurd idea of a man changing sex at will. You do not have to be a crossdreamer to be fascinated by this.

This may also explain why true transgender of all shades -- transsexual and non-transsexual -- end up crossdreaming. Gender confusion of any intensity will make use of this script, simply because it is impossible not to imagine it, unless you are completely asexual or suffer from a sexual suppression of an epic scale.

In other words: gender variance + sexual desire = crossdreaming.

Misfits can be seen on Netflix in the US and some other countries.

62 comments:

joanna Santos said...

Another interesting post jack and I agree that both gender disphorics and transsexuals BOTH crossdream which is something I have been saying on my blog. But your formula of gender variance + sexual desire = crossdreaming is brilliantly elegant and succinct.

Senrub said...

"What makes this scenario interesting for me, is that the fantasy of masturbating as a girl or having lesbian sex as a girl flows naturally from the admittedly absurd idea of a man changing sex at will"

"
This may also explain why true transgender of all shades -- transsexual and non-transsexual -- end up crossdreaming."


I think these statements made by te author of this post, show clearly just how totally biased and self serving is the thinking of this "crossdreaming" man, Jack Molay.
"Gender confusion of any intensity will make use of this script, simply because it is impossible not to imagine it, unless you are completely asexual or suffer from a sexual suppression of an epic scale"

Jack Molay said...

@Senrub

Mercedes Allen wrote an interesting post about autogynephilia a couple of years ago.

She said:

"When it comes to defining Autogynephilia, it becomes all about sex fantasies. Several years ago, I had been diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder. I have transitioned and am accepted as female in my everyday life. Given the wrong therapist, I could have been diagnosed with TF / TD [transvestic fetish/disorder] instead. After all, in my pre-transition sexual fantasies (upon which the diagnosis of TF / TD hinges), I’d always been female… just as in every other moment of self-identification in my life. After all, what else would I be? I could never make enough sense from forcing myself into a male identity (sexual or otherwise), so arousal was impossible without a female sexual identity. But the thought of being female was not of itself a cause of arousal. Distinctions are important. I would think it would be much the same for any cisgender woman. The framework of autogynephilia makes it possible or even likely that one can observe female self-identification in someone who is male-bodied, and assume causality when it’s simply a reflection of a deeper problem."

Trans woman and transactivist Julia Serano argues in a similar way in her excellent book The Whipping Girl

A very common fantasy among transgender children is to be changed into their target by magical or other means. Add the sexual desire of an adult to this mix and crossdreamer fantasies are what you get.

The medical establishmet's use of terms like fetishism and autogynephilia has -- until recently -- made it impossible for trans people of all shades to admit to having such fantasies, as "real girls" apparently do not fantasize about having sex. The whole idea is based on a sexist Victorian understanding of what it means to be a woman.

Senrub said...

You seem to be attempting to have it both ways. Either you accept the theories of Blanchard, Bailey and Lawrence, or you do not.

Autogynophilia is defined as the arousal of men imagining themselves as women. It has nothing to do with female arousal.

Jack Molay said...

@Senrub

The fact that transgender people get aroused by the idea of having the body of the target sex is a fact. This also applies to transsexuals.

I have referred to respected transsexual women like Mercedes Allen and Julia Serano to dispel the myth that this is something that only happens to crossdressers.

You will find the same on the female to male side.

So Ray Blanchard is right when he says that crossdreamers -- who he call "autogynephiliacs" --exist. But he is wrong about practically everything else.

He argues that such fantasies are the result of an erotic target location error, where a typical male sexuality is misdirected inwards. The man is in love with the idea of being a woman.

I, on the other hand, follow Serano and Mercedes, and interpret erotic crossdreaming as a natural expression of human sexuality.

So yes, I do argue that this has something to do with female arousal, in the same way the fantasies of female to male transgender people have, at their core, some kind of masculine sexuality.

But please do not read this as the simplistic version of "a woman trapped in a man's body" narrative. It is a good metaphor, but we cannot ignore the effect growing up in a male body and being raised as a man have on a person. The crossdreamer fantasies will be influenced by this.

Note that Blanchard denies the existence of female to male "autoandrophiliacs". The reason for this is that his theory rests on autogynephilia being a perverted outlet of an aggressive male sexuality.

In his book female bodied persons cannot express this kind of sexuality. He is, basically, an old fashioned sexist. But I can tell you, the fantasies of girlfags and transmen can be very "manly" indeed!

I am not sure what you are getting at. Maybe you are trying to use the autogynephilia theory to separate true transsexuals from the fetishist.

But you cannot have it both ways, either. If you accept the autogynephilia theory, all transwomen are either perverted heterosexual men of effeminate gay men. I know that that is not true, as do you.

This leaves us with a wide variety of people engaging in crossdreaming. Some are gender dysphoric, and other are not. Some male to female crossdreamers are truly women (and often transition). Others are not gender dysphoric and identify as men. In other words: You may argue that there are two groups of transgender people, transsexual and non-transsexual, but they have crossdreaming in common.

Is it possible to argue that this crossdreaming has two completely different origins? I guess. But is it likely? No.

Lindsay said...

Hi Jack,

I think that Mercedes Allen makes a very important point that I hope isn't being missed:

"I could never make enough sense from forcing myself into a male identity (sexual or otherwise), so arousal was impossible without a female sexual identity. But the thought of being female was not of itself a cause of arousal. Distinctions are important."

It seems to me that she has defined the difference between the fetish and transsexual crossdreamers. The fetishists are turned on by the thought of having sex as a woman. The transsexuals having a female gender aren't. They are turned on by the same things cis-women are. It's a subtle difference but one that becomes more apparent as you think about it. It's apparent that Bailey, Blanchard and Lawernce have totally missed this distinction.

Lindsay

Jack Molay said...

@Lindsay

"The fetishists are turned on by the thought of having sex as a woman. The transsexuals having a female gender aren't. They are turned on by the same things cis-women are."

I don't get it. I have been talking to a lot of crossdreamers, transsexual as well as non-transsexual, and I fail to see their difference.

One important source of input is found in the stories and captions they write, and to the extent I can identify those who experience gender dysphoria or identify as transsexual on the one hand and all the others on the other, I can only conclude that their fantasies overlap.

Sure, there are a few MTF crossdreamers who have fantasies outside the realm of what is considered "feminine". But in the age of "Fifty Shades of Gray" it is impossible to say that women do not harbor submission or S&M fantasies.

Besides, an amazing number of crossdreamer stories are about being a woman on all levels, far beyond the purely sexual. I admit some of them present quite stereotypic views of what it means to be a woman, but that is to be expected, as they have been raised as men.

And what does it mean to be "turned on by the same thing as cis-women are"?

I know a lot of women, and the variation in their preferences is clearly wider than the difference between the average man and the average woman.

Allen says that the thought of being female was not of itself a cause of arousal. She's right. But this is the case for all of us. You have to ask: What is the reason the thought of being female causes arousal, and that cause cannot be all that different. After all, great many trans women start out as crossdressers and crossdreamers. It is the crossdreaming that sets them on the path of self discovery.

Lindsay said...

Hi Jack,

Let's focus on one sentence by Mercedes:

"But the thought of being female was not of itself a cause of arousal."

I totally agree with this statement. I'm not aroused by the thought either. But there are a lot of people here who are. The "autogynephiliac" is the perfect example, I think he sees being a woman as degrading and therefore erotic.

So can you see the difference?

Lindsay

Sam Z said...

I guess i have to join on this.

I believe what Lindsay and Mercedes say is very true and i definately see the difference between transgenderism and "fetishism".
I know this because i have talked to cis-people who admit being aroused by these same fantasies more or less, but of course they have normal straight fantasies too.
So now it is arguable, that they at least have a parallel gender and sex identity... but this is where it gets tricky...
Outside the sex-fantasy / sexual context there is no interest in living as or being a female. If i didn't experience sexual arousal to this fantasy, i'd have zero interest in fantasizing and i speak for others too i have spoken with.

Here's what a poster said on a forum:

".. I have no concept of a female alter-ego inside of myself. No female identity or personality. It doesn't feel incorrect to have been born as a male, to have a penis, etc. Frankly, I'm GLAD I was born this way. These feelings exist on a purely ***ual level and that's it. My understanding is that most TG folks have a strong feminine identity that goes well beyond sexual feelings.
When people tell me I have a handsome, masculine face and body, it makes me feel GOOD, not BAD. It's not like I secretly wish to be
seen as pretty or beautiful. In fact, I seek to cultivate this
masculinity appearance and energy through weight lifting, martial arts, etc. I'm not doing these activities to "fit in" or hide secrets, but rather because I genuinely like to see masculine features when I stare in the mirror...


So one is being aroused by body-swap or the experience of being the opposite sex.. and the other is being the opposite sex in order to feel arousal in the first place.

Yes, you can feel sexy for others but you still are not sexually attracted to yourself, that is narcissism / autosexuality and none of my cis-friends did understand what the phrase "cis people experience arousal being who they are" means.

However, they definately know the feeling about feeling attractive for others but that is not sexual arousal. The arousal comes from the sex itself and not the role you are in. This is why I think the term "aroused by" being the sex you are is misleading. And autogynephilia as a sexual orientation for transpeople is wrong. It's simply a transwoman or man who experiences hetero- / homosexuality as the person who they are.

And ofcourse, if your target is asking TG / TS identified about their sexual preference, then of course their sex fantasies are at least partially about being women in them, no doubt. I guarantee you'll find people who have purely sexual "crossdreaming" fantasies, who are cisgendered in any other way, like myself.

Senrub said...

How is Blanchard's position, "...such fantasies are the result of an erotic target location error, where a typical male sexuality is misdirected inwards. The man is in love with the idea of being a woman". (Which I am thinking that you disagree with).....

Different from this..."
Autogynophilia is defined as the arousal of men imagining themselves as women"? Which is how you define autogynophilia/crossdreaming.

Sean Sweeney said...

@senrub - The difference is in the 'why'. Jack has generally supported a multiple axis description of gender. You, in effect, do not have one gender... you have have a gender in relation to socializing, one in relation to sexual conduct, one in relation to your own body. So your sexual conduct identity might be wired to typically female norms (you perhaps feel that you should be penetrated in a vagina you don't actually possess). Your other aspects may be wired in a typically male form (you enjoy being viewed as male in social settings). Your sexual identity in that case is not misdirected male desire, it is an actual female identity in that setting. Trying to be aroused by typical male urges simply does not work, because that part of you is not wired for those ways of acting.

Blanchard's theory states that your primary relationship is with yourself. That you are a typically aggressive male, who has focused on an inverted image of yourself as the answer to your sexual desire. You actually want to do the normal male things, but can't express that and so put yourself in the sexual scene by being the target of those actions. One is a damaged male, the other is trying to express an normal healthy sexuality with the wrong physical equipment.

Jack Molay said...

@Lindsay

"I'm not aroused by the thought either. But there are a lot of people here who are. The 'autogynephiliac' is the perfect example, I think he sees being a woman as degrading and therefore erotic.
So can you see the difference?"

I am not sure where to begin.

"Autogynephilia" is a theory that says that all gynephilic male to female transsexual women are autogynephilic. All of them, Julia Serano and a large number of transactivists included.

So if you use that word in a sentence, you are not referring to "men sees being a woman as degrading and therefore erotic." You are most likely referring to the majority of transsexual women.

This is why I only use the word "autogynephilia" to refer to the theory only, and not to what I call crossdreamers, i.e. men and women who get sexually aroused from the idea of being the other sex.

Many crossdreamers engage in what we can call "creative crossdreaming". They share their fantasies through short stories and so-called TG captions. This means that I can say the following with great confidence:

There are crossdreamer fantasies that include degradation and humiliation, for sure, but the majority do not, as far as I can see.

The fantasies of most crossdreamers are about becoming a woman, being a woman, being loved as a woman and living as a woman. These fantasies are no different from what you find in the autobiographies of post-op transsexual women.

I know that some of my fellow crossdreamers love to present this as a fetish, and for some of those that are not gender dysphoric being a fetishist only may seem a relief, but to me this is much, much more.

Again, I strongly urge you all to read Julia Serano's book The Wipping Girl. You, Lindsay, probably need to hear the voice of a transsexual woman describing her pre-op submission fantasies, before you let go of this simplistic fetishist vs. real trans woman binary.

To make this absolutely clear: I am not saying that Sam Z is a transseuxual woman or that Serano is a male crossdreamer.

There is a huge difference between finding crossdreaming an exiting addition to ones sexual fantasies, to suffering through the hell of gender incongruence.

I am just saying that if you want to understand the fundamental difference between the two extremes, the existence or non-existence of crossdreaming fantasies will not provide the answer.

Jack Molay said...

@Senrub

"How is Blanchard's position, ...different from 'Autogynophilia is defined as the arousal of men imagining themselves as women'"

Sean has already answered this one, but let me try from another angle.

1. The major difference is that the word autogynephilia implies the explanation for the phenomenon: "love of oneself as a woman2, while the term crossdreaming is neutral. It can be used by anyone regardless of what they believe is the cause for this condition.

2. As Sean points out I have proposed an alternative explanation for crossdreaming in this blog.

It is based on an understanding of human sexuality and gender identity as the end result of a large number of biological, personal, social and cultural variables.

The simple version is this: I do believe all crossdreamers have something in common and that part of this "something" is at least partly inborn. This is why they all crossdream or have crossdreamed, from Sam Z to Julia Serano.

However, the intensity of these feelings vary immensely, as do the content of the fantasies, and the sense of gender dysphoria. This tells me that there has to be a certain combination of traits or variables for someone to become transsexual.

Please read this blogpost of mine, which describes this in more detail.

Senrub said...

I do not get this. You are making pronouncements based on what you have heard from others and ignoring the facts.

""The fetishists are turned on by the thought of having sex as a woman...."

Nooo. They are turned on by a "fetish". A sexual paraphilia.

"The transsexuals having a female gender aren't. They are turned on by the same things cis-women are."

Which is HAVING SEX A A WOMAN!!!

Senrub said...

@Jack. So you believe that "all cross-dreamer",(those that dream of being the opposite sex), have something in common.

Is that dreaming about, wanting to be, being aroused by, being the opposite sex?

Is that not a closed conditional argument?

An apple is red.
You are red.
Therefore, you are an apple.

Does that mean that a red apple is the same as a red car?

Jack Molay said...

*Senrub

I am definitely referring to facts.

I am referring to books and articles written by transsexuals who argue that they have been crossdreaming. I make use of fantasies of crossdreamers, such as they are presented online. On this blog, I have presented a large number of papres and studies that point in the same direction. In addition to this, I am myself a male to female crossdreamer who suffers from severe gender dysphoria, very similar to the one reported by transsexual women (and trans men for that matter).

So I am not sure what more you want from me.

You are certainly not presenting any facts, only statements like "The are turned on by a 'fetish'. A sexual paraphilia."

Is my reasoning a closed conditional argument?

Well, it could be. Similarity does not prove a common "etiology" (cause). Dolphins, sharks and ichthyosaurses all have the same body shape but they are mammals, fish and reptiles respectively. A fever can be caused by many diseases.

In this case there is, however, additional factors that I have already mentioned.

Many, if not most, transsexual women experience crossdreamer fantasies before transitioning. From the reports I have, most of them seem to stop crossdreaming after transitioning, for the simple reason that they now have a body that is congruent with their inner self. But there are also those that continue to engage in creative crossdreaming, post-op.

You now have two indicators of this being a gradient and not a binary:

1. You find a wide variety of crossdreamers, from male-identifying dreamers on the one hand, who find this to be an innocent fetish, to full blown transsexuals who find themselves born the wrong sex at the other end.

In between you find people who find it hard to settle into any one sex identity, either because they have repressed their "inner woman" or "inner man", or because they are genuinely gender queer.

(This is probably also to simplify too much, but this is to be a comment, not an essay)

2. Many crossdreamers move along this scale, from identifying as crossdressert, thorugh a gender queer phase, into identifying with their target sex. This was the journey of Julia Serano.

Because of this it is obvious to me that people like me and people like Serano have conditions that are related.

Is it possible that there are crossdreamers who are not transgender in any sense of the word, and who are purely fetishist in the same way someone are turned on by silk stockings?

Again, I guess it is possible. But every time I see a crossdreamer fantasize about corsets and lace, I am reminded of the fact that this is more than a fascination for lace.

The crossdreamer wants to be the woman wearing the lingerie, not a man touching it. This goes far beyond pure fetishism.

(Ironically, this is one of the places where I agree with Blanchard. He also recognizes that "autogynephilia", as he calls it, cannot be understood as a fetish).

This does not mean that crossdreamers cannot be fetishists too. That should come as no surpirse. We are all fetishists. Even animals have fetishes.

Sam Z said...

@Jack,

I guess it might be hard for you to sympathize with what some of us are proposing here since you are one of the dysphoric ones. But somehow i see a clear difference here..

Again, there are fundamental differences between, having to be a woman in order to be aroused / to have sex with someone.. and to get off to only being a woman having sex in porn (someone who is hot and with whom you would be with and not want to be like for real).
That has nothing to do with identifying with women overall, the interest is not to be a woman in order to live life from everyday situations to sexul stuff. I suspect there are some terminology confustion too here..

Another thing i wonder is if many more "classic transsexuals" would identify with us if the phrase "aroused by being a woman" would be changed into something else.. For me, when i heard that phrase the first time, i got confused too because it sounds kindof perverted. The phrase itself sounds like autosexuality and therefore might be associated with what the "autogynephilia" theory proposes.
I guess this is why you created the term "crossdreaming" so people would not get confused by that theory, but then again the context is the same - being aroused by being a woman.

I don't know, maybe we wont come to a common understanding but sharing each others insights is the most important thing here.

Jack Molay said...

I found this comment over at Reddit that illustrates my point about the diversity of crossdreamers perfectly:

http://www.reddit.com/r/crossdreaming/comments/1db9cy/_/c9oyu9f

Senrub said...

Again, I must have missed something. Where does Serano or Lawrence or Blanchard make any reference to "crossdreaming"?

Seems like you are again conflating their words to conform to your personal machinations.

@Sam. Let us set aside your fantasies and consider that transsexuals, true, classic transsexuals, must change their sex in order to survive. There is your "fundamental' difference.

Senrub said...

""Autogynephilia" is a theory that says that all gynephilic male to female transsexual women are autogynephilic. "" Jack.

No....Autogynophilia is a word describing a man in love, or aroused by his image as a woman.

Your "theory" is a personal stretch.

Auto=self; gyno=female/woman; philia=love

Sam Z said...

Senrub, my main concern is actually what you are trying to raise awareness of too.. I think there are a lot of things mixed up.
And being "aroused" is a pretty misleading concept of oneself. Nobody i have talked to is sexually aroused by oneself. If so, they are autosexuals and there are only a few of them. Feeling sexy and attractive for others is how i understand others should feel and not sexually aroused by ones attractiveness. Being in love with ones image as a woman is possible too and therefore the term Autogynephilia is true. But the theory behind it has to be false.

Senrub said...

@Sam-Z I agree, Autogynephilia is a valid term. It has a clear meaning. Arousal also has meaning which can be easily discovered by 'google-ing' it.

Then there is 'arousal theory' where every dumb, dick, and hairy, strive to out theorize one another in their efforts to justify their doctoral thesis.

I see little difference with this whole trans/autogynephilia debate.

Words have meaning. It is when apologists, trans-genderists and trans-activists begin to parse and conflate the meaning of those words in support of their personally satisfying theories, that the disagreements begin.

Add the emotional investment of those trying to justify or normalize their aberrant behavior in the eyes of a skeptical society and you then have the type of behavior often seen in the 'trans-community' who tends to shout down and attempt to intimidate those who simply disagree with their theories and have the temerity to speak out.

Lindsay said...

@senrub

You appear to be new here. You should really take the time to read more of Jack's posts before you start tearing into him.

Why don't you tell us more about yourself so we can better judge where you're coming from? From your last post you're starting to sound like a HBS troll.

Lindsay

Senrub said...

I take issue with the conflation of words and ideas which is the trademark of socialists and fascists alike. I do not attack individuals by calling them trolls, I just point out their trans-parent tactics and behaviors.

Jack Molay said...

@Sam Z

"Again, there are fundamental differences between, having to be a woman in order to be aroused / to have sex with someone.. and to get off to only being a woman having sex in porn (someone who is hot and with whom you would be with and not want to be like for real)."

Yes, there is, and as I pointed out above, only a minority of transgender people are transsexual. What I am saying is that their crossdreaming is related, and must have something in common as regards the underlying cause.

This is exactly why I -- unlike so many other crossdreamer -- believe that most, if not all, crossdreamers have some kind of subconscious alternative sexual identity.

That does not make all of them transsexual, for many it is just one or a few sliders that are pushed in the female direction.

Jack Molay said...

@Senrub

Serano gives an extensive description of crossdreaming in the Whipping Girl, using the same explanation as mine.

She writes:

"The first thing that needs to be said is that those who embrace the crossdresser identity are likely to be a heterogeneous group encompassing a spectrum of individuals who have a feminine gender expression and/or a female subconscious sex, and who experience those inclinations at varying intensities.This would explain why some crossdressers transition while others eventually do..."

She also writes:

"After twenty years of exploration and experimentation, I eventually reached the conclusion that my female subconscious sex had nothing to do with gender roles, femininity or sexual expression -- it was about the personal relationship I had with my body."

Jack Molay said...

Serano on sexual fantasies among MTF spectrum trans people who become aware of their cross-gender desires after they have already consciously accepted the fact that they are "boys" (i.e. Blanchard's "autogynephilics"):

"[They] tend to have greater difficulty reconciling their female or feminine inclinations with societal messages that insists that men and women are "opposite" sexes, and that girls are inferior to boys....

To cope, they may develop sexual thoughts and fantasies that associate their desire to be female/feminine with subordination, humiliation, and sexual objectification. If anything, these fantasies share more in common with the exhibitionistic, submissive, and rape fantasies experienced by many women rahter than the sexually aggressive and objectifying fantasies commonly associated with men."

She then goes on to describe her own juvenile SM fantasies.

Serano does not use the word crossdreaming. The word was coined after she wrote her book. But what she describes is an exact match for what I have called crossdreaming.

The fact that Lawrence does not use the word crossdreaming is obvious. She is a disciple of Blanchard and will therefore disagree with everything I have said here.

Jack Molay said...

@Senrub

I said:

"Autogynephilia" is a theory that says that all gynephilic male to female transsexual women are autogynephilic. "

You said:

No....Autogynophilia is a word describing a man in love, or aroused by his image as a woman."

Both statements are true, as far as this is what Blanchard means. I have read everything Blanchard has written on autogynephilia. It is absolutely clear that all lesbian and bisexual transsexual women (who he calls men) are autogynephiles.

Read this post about Moser's critique of Blanchard.

Or maybe you should start with my dummies guide to autogynephilia.

Jack Molay said...

@Senrub

Now that I have gotten the references out of the way, let me address your final statement:

"Add the emotional investment of those trying to justify or normalize their aberrant behavior in the eyes of a skeptical society and you then have the type of behavior often seen in the 'trans-community' who tends to shout down and attempt to intimidate those who simply disagree with their theories and have the temerity to speak out."

This statement can only be interpreted in one way: You belong to, or support, the so-called Harry Benjamin Syndrome or Classic Transsexual crowd.

I did actually practice a very tolerant policy towards HBS commenters in the past. As you may have noticed, I have also given you the benefit of doubt, until now.

Unfortunately I have learned the hard way that HBSers never engage in a fruitful discussion aimed at learning and help. If anyone has a fascist mindset in the transgender community, they have.

I am sick of tired of having millitant, reactionary, sexist transsexual women harass and persecute other transgender and transsexual people.

The fact that you are trying to reinterpret autogynephilia in order to use it as a weapon against other transgender and transsexual people, says it all.

I have already repeatedly made clear that I do not accept tranphobic comments here at Crossdreamers.So you are hereby banned from this blog.

To those of my readers who do not know what HBS is all about, read this blog post.

Senrub said...

You accuse me of re-defining the term, autogynophia. You seem to agree that the definition that I noted is the accepted understanding of the word.

"Jack Molay said...
@Senrub

I said:

"Autogynephilia" is a theory that says that all gynephilic male to female transsexual women are autogynephilic. "

You said:

No....Autogynophilia is a word describing a man in love, or aroused by his image as a woman."

Both statements are true, as far as this is what Blanchard means. I have read everything Blanchard has written on autogynephilia. It is absolutely clear that all lesbian and bisexual transsexual women (who he calls men) are autogynephiles."

Is that not what I said earlier? You agree with and quote Blanchard when it suits your purpose then turn around and distance yourself from it when called on its fraudulent nature.

You then take my statement pointing out your intolerance of those that call out your duplicity, and use it as an club and a prime example of such behavior. IE accusing me of "...millitant, reactionary, sexist transsexual women", (attempting to), "harass and persecute other transgender and transsexual people", and...
(and), "re-defining autogynophilia", which you clearly agree that I did NOT, (despite your accusations that I did).

Perhaps the reason that you have been unable to engage in a productive discussion with those you so disparaging call HBS'ers, is that you label and then dismiss them as, "millitant, reactionary, sexist transsexual women"

You then use this false association with a proverbial 'straw-man' as a thinly veiled excused to erase, censor and ultimately silence dissent and disagreement.

How very Alynski-esque of you.



Senrub said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Senrub said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Senrub said...

Why does this link to an alternative thesis, frighten you so?

http://tgmeds.org.uk/downs/phenomenon.pdf

Lindsay said...

@senrub

If you would actually read Jack's blog you'd see that he and many others here are supporters of Harry Benjamin's thesis and work. Jack and many others are not believers of the Harry Benjamin Syndrome. If you would actually read Benjamin's thesis (you show us the link to it...) you would see that he doesn't support the ideas of HBS at all.

Lindsay

Senrub said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jack Molay said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jack Molay said...

@Senrub

Stop posting here. All your comments will be deleted.

This is a place for help and understanding, and the HBS crowd -- in the exact same way as Blanchard --brings nothing but hatred and suffering into the transgender community. That applies to transgender of all kinds, trans women and trans men included.

Senrub said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sam Z said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sam Z said...

@Senrub and Jack,

You should have these debates more publicly and post it here on crossdreamers. Senrub representing the traditional view on transsexualism while you, Jack, could represent the liberating arguments to what being trans is. After all, this is only a debate and not about who's right or wrong.

@Senrub

Do you deny any accusations of you having any sexual fantasies in the role of a woman during your pre-op period (assuming you are a transwoman)? I know there are ciswomen and cismen with gender-swap fantasies, but does that necessarily mean any gender-swap fantasy transpeople might have are the same kind cispeople have occasionally and deny a legitimate gender expression of who they are?
Lastly, are you aware that being "aroused" by ones feminity isn't sexual attraction towards oneself?

Senrub said...

@Sam=Z. Thank you for your reasonable attempt to ask an honest question.

Before I answer your question, I must address the language used to couch the question.

Consider the implication of the word, "accusations". Using this word puts me in the position of someone accused of wrong-doing and having to "defend" myself. As you say, this is debate, and examination of ideas and points of view.

Another "trigger" is your use of the word "trans-woman". While I understand that this is an acceptable term within your trans-community, women who may have a medical history such as myself, find that term highly offensive.

Let me explain why. Firstly it 'others' us. It drags us, against our will and stated objections, into an unwanted association. It presumes again, over our stated objections, that we are just like you or share some vague relationship. Clearly, we are not.

This is the basis for the discord and hostility to which Jack alludes. "Elitist, separatists, bigot, militant, reactionary, sexist...", are but a few of pejoratives used by Jack and others accusing us of acting hatefully. Is this not a glaring double standard?

Now to your question. Do I deny, "having any sexual fantasies in the role of a woman during your pre-op period"?

In short, no. In my case, I was "pre-op" for less than a year. During that period, I was essentially a-sexual, IE no sexual ideation, (fantasies), or sexual activity. I think that the implication of your question is to inquire as to whether I had fantasies, or more accurately, sexual ideations, of myself as a woman. Yes. I had fantasies of myself having sex as a woman with a man.

However, lest my words be misunderstood, I do not see these fantasies as being any different than the ones I find highly arousing now...IE those same fantasies of me having sex with my husband. Nor do I see these fantasies as any different from those of any garden variety female in relation to her man.

And lastly, yes, I am "aware that being "aroused" by ones feminity isn't sexual attraction towards oneself". However, I must admit that I am not aroused by my own femininity, despite the fact that others might be.

Lindsay said...

@senrub

" Yes. I had fantasies of myself having sex as a woman with a man."

What you describe isn't all that different than what someone with AGP describes. I think the difference is that a transsexual (if you're post op I don't consider you a transsexual anymore, you've had your birth defect corrected) being female, is just experiencing her normal sexuality. Whereas someone with AGP is just enjoying their fetish.

I personally think that both types are drawn to this site. There are transsexuals here who through upbringing, social pressures, etc... have repressed this fact and we need to identify them and get them to move beyond where they are currently stuck.

I don't think we should discriminate against someone because they have repressed their transsexuality, we need help them.

Lindsay

Senrub said...

I beg to differ, Lindsay. There IS a difference between a woman being aroused by the idea of having sex with her man, and the idea of a man being aroused by the idea of being 'feminized' or "being a woman", (AGP).

I certainly do not discriminate against anyone. However, I do and will continue to draw a clear distinction between a man with AGP and post-corrected woman.

Further, I agree that those suffering from AGP or, (IMO), more accurately GID, need to be helped.

Although I do agree that AGP does in fact accurately describe those men that fantasize, or are aroused by themselves as sexy women, I do not agree with BB&L's machinations in trying to explain, normalize or justify what most people would consider, (at the very least), odd behavior.

Sam Z said...

I pointed this out (being AROUSED by ones feminity) because i was under the impression that it confuses the more "classic" transsexuals to think gynephilic transsexuals are that different?

I see no big difference between you, Senrub, or Lindsay for instance. You both basically share the same fantasies and views on transsexualism.

Furthermore, i think Senrub, who is now mostly like any other woman, should feel the way the majority of heterosexual women feel. You should note, that feeling sexy (or "aroused") for others is what most straight women feel.. or don't you feel attractive for your husband? Or is it simply that you don't care that much about appearance than a TS-gynephile?
And isn't asexuality pretty normal during the pre-op phase because of the anti-androgens and such? This isnt propably any different between the two groups of transsexuals?

I must admit, being mostly a cismale myself, i don't know how to relate to your experience but this is just my understanding, sorry if i was insensitive before.

Sam Z said...

"I beg to differ, Lindsay. There IS a difference between a woman being aroused by the idea of having sex with her man, and the idea of a man being aroused by the idea of being 'feminized' or "being a woman", (AGP).

I certainly do not discriminate against anyone. However, I do and will continue to draw a clear distinction between a man with AGP and post-corrected woman."


I kindof agree with you, i know a lot of males with objectifying fantasies of being sexy "sluts" in their fantasies, including myself. And that is not really how a real woman acts or feels, but it is a way to get off. We are the type of AGP:ers, who enjoy this and it has never anything to do with an inner identity expression of sexuality.

But your fantasy of having sex as a woman with a man is pretty much how many AGP:ers feel too. It might be, that gynephiles are just more appearance-fixed and that's why feeling sexy is important in order to be aroused as a woman, i don't know at all..
But i really see no that big of a difference comparing both groups of transsexuals / transgenders.

Senrub said...

Sam...just a couple of things...

I DO see huge differences between myself and Lindsay.

Just because we MIGHT have some similar views, and I strongly emphasize, MIGHT), vis-a-vie TS-ism, we are clearly different. The simple fact that Lindsay is a man married to a woman with children is just one.

For example, the fact that we both might vote Republican, does note in anyway make us the same or even remotely similar.

"It might be, that gynephiles are just more appearance-fixed and that's why feeling sexy is important in order to be aroused as a woman, i don't know at all."

I do not know either. The truth is I have no clue. In fact I do not even know what you mean by 'gynephiles'.IE, lovers of women...Do you mean men that love women, (het-men), or women that love women, (lesbians), heterosexual cross-dressers/dreamers, (trans-bians)????

Lindsay said...

@senrub

"I certainly do not discriminate against anyone. However, I do and will continue to draw a clear distinction between a man with AGP and post-corrected woman."

If you'd take the time to read Harry Benjaman's thesis, you'd see that he clearly states that it is a continuum with no distinct boundaries. I don't know how you can make statements like this without knowing the individual involved. Somewhere on this continuum there is a range where most people are transsexual and another range where most people aren't. Just because someone is in the range where most people are transsexual doesn't mean they are and vice versa.

I'm not sure where you'd draw the line. Are you saying that the only way to prove you're not a male with AGP but a woman is to have SRS? Until you have SRS there's still doubt in your mind? How do you determine if someone is a male with AGB or transsexual? Do you have to be passable? Had plastic surgery? Been on hormones? What if not having ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus and cervix isn't good enough? Do you have to like frilly dresses and heels? Long hair?

It seems to me you are trying to turn a very complex problem into a yes or no issue.

Lindsay.

Lindsay said...

@senrub

"I beg to differ, Lindsay. There IS a difference between a woman being aroused by the idea of having sex with her man, and the idea of a man being aroused by the idea of being 'feminized' or "being a woman", (AGP)."

I wasn't saying that there isn't a difference. I'm saying that the descriptions are similar. I think we actually agree on this! I believe I went on to state why I think they are different.

Lindsay :)

Sam Z said...

Senrub,

Lindsay might be a man married to a woman, but that is a very superficial aspect for you to exclude the fact that she is still a transsexual woman. It's like comparing a transsexual who is very feminine to a transsexual with few or many masculine activities - the other one is also still a woman. My point being exactly the opposite: You might vote republican and Lindsay might vote democrat, but you are still the same gender inside, if not the outside.
What are the great lengths one has to go to become a real transsexual? The ones Lindsay listed earlier?
I bet Lindsay might have transitioned earlier just like you did if circumistances were different for her.
And by gynephiles i mean M2F lesbian transwomen since "male gynephiles" are heterosexual males by definition.

Senrub said...

As a matter of fact, I first read Dr. Benjamin's, "TTP", just about 3years ago. I found his analysis fascinating if somewhat dated in its thinking.

Despite the existing conventional wisdom of the time wherein cross-dressing was assumed to be just a variation of homosexual behavior, Benjamin was able to discern the obvious that this cross-gender behavior was a cat of a different color altogether.

I do believe that the continuum to which you refer his Type's I-VI. If I read it correctly, (and please understand that I read this three years ago), it was that despite some measure of overlap between the different "Types", the first three were considered transvestites, the last two, (types V-VI, high intensity), he called transsexual, and the middle or Type IV could go either way.

Putting aside the terminology which some people seem to get all hung up on, I see those first three categories or types as including those that you would call 'trans' or Gender Variable.
I see those last two categories which Benjamin calls TS as those whose dysphoria is so intense or unbearable that they ultimately seek SRS.

It is that middle category, Type IV, which is the most troublesome in my view, in that they struggle, often for their entire lives to somehow cope with, or maintain that middle ground. In my eyes, these are your full-time cross-dressers and/gender queers.

I see a clear distinction between those that are somehow able to manage their gender dysphoria, (GD), Types I-IV, and those who ultimately are forced to transition.

Further I would argue that there also exists a discernible difference between those for whom the experience of having been born cross-sexed is so intolerable, like myself, that they must transition or literally, "die trying"...and those, like for instance Lindsay or Joanna, (who commented early on in this thread), who have reasons which allow them to find another alternative.

Certainly you will concede the reality that some people have choices and others do not.

Calling a simple and easily verifiable distinction such as a man married to a woman, as opposed to a woman married to a man a "superficial distinction" is beginning to enter into a realm of non-reality where I am not prepared to go.

Lindsay said...

@senrub

"The simple fact that Lindsay is a man married to a woman with children is just one."

"Calling a simple and easily verifiable distinction such as a man married to a woman, as opposed to a woman married to a man a "superficial distinction" is beginning to enter into a realm of non-reality where I am not prepared to go."

It seems to me that this is irrelevant to the discussion. It's just an attempt to raise emotions .

I agree with your analysis of Dr. Benjamin's work, but he also stresses that there is no clear boundary between the groups. Although rarer there are TS's scattered in groups 1-4 as well as nonTS's in groups 5-6. Your clear distinction is at best a wide fuzzy line.

I'd also like to stress that you don't know anyone here. You can't possibly know from what's typed in these comments what "type" we are. How severe our GD is. What other priorities keep us from SRS. I think you and I are very similar. We could be good friends. We just have had different priorities and have decided on different paths to happiness. I'm happy for you! :-)

Lindsay

Senrub said...

Again Lindsay, I must respectfully disagree. To call the difference/distinction between a man and a woman, "irrelevant to the discussion", (a discussion about "Misfits: Gender Swaps") is either beyond ludicrous, or just another example of attempting to dismiss reality into a Pink Fog of "Gender Babble".

I do apologize if you find my stubborn insistence that we maintain at least a tenuous connection to simple facts, emotive or upsetting in any way. Upsetting you, or anyone here is not my intent by any means.

Let us not de-rail this discussion into yet another side track, (such as gender-blending /fluidity), where we would most likely agree that there is plenty of overlap and personal variation.

On the other hand, I do agree, (as did Dr. Benjamin), that there exists, "at best a wide fuzzy line", between the individual "types" which is the categorical distinction used by Dr. Benjamin. However it is clear, that the good doctor clearly saw, and noted, a difference between those in the first categories, types I-III, (those he generally referred to as transvstites, which I would call cross-dressers)...and those at the other end of his "continuum", the types V-VI.

Insisting that these differences do not exist, or that they are indistinguishable/"all the same", is to preclude any ability to apply different protocols for appropriate diagnosis and treatment.

What is good for the goose is not always good for the gander.

As to our similarities, I am not so sure. Consider this. You were able to find a coping mechanism for your GID. Clearly, I was not.
Perhaps that difference in outcomes was/is a simple difference in pain tolerance. Perhaps not. Perhaps as Dr. Benjamin proposed, it was a difference in the intensity of the GID. Maybe even there existed some difference in the levels of androgen insensitivity, (AIS, PAIS. CAIS), seen by some as a form if inter-sex.

The truth is, your guess is as good as mine. On the other hand, perhaps the truth is in the pudding.

As to your concern that I am attempting to diagnose you or anybody else here, That is most emphatically NOT my intent. I do hope that we can continue without these tiresome innuendoes.

Lindsay said...

@senrub

"Again Lindsay, I must respectfully disagree. To call the difference/distinction between a man and a woman, "irrelevant to the discussion", (a discussion about "Misfits: Gender Swaps") is either beyond ludicrous, or just another example of attempting to dismiss reality into a Pink Fog of "Gender Babble"."

When did I say that? I'm responding to your repeated: "easily verifiable distinction such as a man married to a woman, as opposed to a woman married to a man." Marital status and whether or not we have children is not important to this discussion. It wouldn't be in a discussion between two cis-women.

"Insisting that these differences do not exist, or that they are indistinguishable/"all the same", is to preclude any ability to apply different protocols for appropriate diagnosis and treatment."

So are you saying you're a licensed therapist? Oh and by way the main thrust of Jack's blog is differences. We're all different. Very few if any people who frequent this site would ever argue that we're all the same or indistinguishable from each other. This blog is talking to all of Benjamin's types, 1-6. He has done a fine job of describing all the differences and the options. You're the one who is fixating on a single "type", which is your type. You seemed terrified of the rest of us somehow contaminating you. I've had intelligent conversations with all of Benjamin's types here. From your first post on this topic it has been clear that you're the one trying to differentiate yourself from the rest of us perverts. You seem to only see 2 categories of transgendered, classic transsexuals and perverts, separated by a wide gap.

"As to our similarities, I am not so sure. Consider this. You were able to find a coping mechanism for your GID. Clearly, I was not. Perhaps that difference in outcomes was/is a simple difference in pain tolerance. Perhaps not. Perhaps as Dr. Benjamin proposed, it was a difference in the intensity of the GID. Maybe even there existed some difference in the levels of androgen insensitivity, (AIS, PAIS. CAIS), seen by some as a form if inter-sex."

As I said previously, you don't know me at all. You know nothing of my GD and how I cope with it. Isn't having your penis inverted just your coping mechanism? I know that isn't good enough for me. Don't you regret not having ovaries, a uterus, etc...? Don't you regret not having been raised as a girl or being pregnant or menstrating? Let me stress this point, you know almost nothing about everyone on this site yet you're very quick to make judgements on all of us. What I know is that the only thing that would make me truly happy is being a genetic female. Being a post-op MTF just wouldn't cut it.

Lindsay

Senrub said...

When did I say that?

"It seems to me that this is irrelevant to the discussion. It's just an attempt to raise emotions".

You are again correct. It was Sam Z that made that assertion...
"Lindsay might be a man married to a woman, but that is a very superficial aspect for you to exclude the fact that she is still a transsexual woman"

I apologize for the confusion.

And... I apologize for upsetting you by being so badly misunderstood.

What had been a reasonably constructive dialogue is now in danger of degenerating into the usual self imposed, 'trash the tranny' flame war. You can count me out.

It is obvious that you are heavily invested in your ideology and any dissenting opinion is demagogued into some personal attack on you personally which it clearly is not.
The only one making judgments here is you. You choose to see it that way which is your prerogative.

I will make one final correction to your erroneous misconceptions about both my intent and more importantly Dr. Benjamin's analysis. What you seem to be missing is the Type IV transsexual which is the one that either deals with their GID, *somehow*, either though periodic x-dressing or therapy or maybe even hormones....or ultimately joins the ranks of the "later in life" transitioners, even going so far as to seek out SRS no matter the cost in terms of family, career or otherwise.

Finally, I am always amazed at how desperately people strive for the "title" or label transsexual.
Believe me, I would gladly cede it to you were you not so anxious to burden me with it. You go to so much trouble to create this warm fuzzy, accepting umbrella of trans, and then work desperately to drag every woman within reach into it whether they choose to join you or not.

Then to add insult to injury, if one were to be so foolish as to make the effort, as I have, to actually engage in a constructive dialogue, you accuse them of the most heinous crimes and then disparage their unimaginable pain and suffering as the "privilege" of having their penis inverted.

Good job Lindsay in showing your true colors.

I refuse to be baited any more and sincerely hope you will allow me to quit this "conversation" without any further unpleasantness.

Good day to you all. You have my sincerest sympathies.

Sam Z said...

I don't get att all how i am a "trash the tranny" type of chauvinist. All i said was that we shouldn't let some superficial events like "getting married with a woman and staying in the closet" determine if one isn't classified as a transsexual. How would you feel, Senrub, if i started to judge your life where you've been acting "maleish" to disprove you are really a woman? That is exactly, like in the example of Mercedes Allen, why people get misdiagnosed because something don't fit the frames of a perfect woman..
i'm not going to argue anymore either since i might not know much about how dysphoria feels and don't have to deal with what you have let's leave it with that.

But i still agree many people get misdiagnosed, especially in the US, where surgery is easier to obtain than in europe for instance, where you would have to be much more committed and diagnosed for mental diseases etc. So yes, no doubt transitioning doesn't necessarily make these things disappear.

Senrub said...

@Sam Z. OK let me make one final clarification in response to your stated misapprehension: "I don't get att all how i am a "trash the tranny" type of chauvinist. All i said was that we shouldn't let some superficial events like "getting married with a woman and staying in the closet" determine if one isn't classified as a transsexual."

When I made reference to what had been up to that point a marginally constructive discussion degenerating into a "trash the tranny" flame war, I was referring to the introduction of such inflammatory language, (such as "pervert", and "cut it off"), used by "other" participants in this now ended discussion.

It is sad that potentially productive debate, where parties with different understandings and perspectives can discuss there differing POVs are shut down by those projecting their own fears and prejudices onto others.

Like you, I never saw this as an argument, but rather an attempt to educate and point out the many conflations, duplicities, falsehoods and outright lies used enforce what is essentially a political agenda.

To get a succinct review of this agenda and the huge damage it causes to ALL parties, check out comments make by a Kathryn Dumke, a very late in life transitioners, near the end of a rather lengthy comment thread. She is, in my humble, UN-professional, and yet somewhat studied opinion, an excellent example of a Type IV transsexual. She remains married to her wife of many years and parent to, (I believe,) at least two now grown children.

http://ben-girl-notesfromthetside.blogspot.com/

Be aware that there is some seriously heated language in this comment thread. So if you have some sensitive feelings or a fragile ego, then best stay away.

Nevertheless, if you can skip past to mutual 'hate fest', Ms. Dumke's comments make sense.

Lindsay said...

@senrub

You seem to have read my comments negatively. That was not my intention. Maybe you should reread them with a more positive attitude. Or maybe you just want them to be negative.

Senrub said...

Bait not taken.

Corrected link:

http://ben-girl-notesfromthetside.blogspot.com/2013/05/public-detransitioning-and-its.html

Jack Molay said...

Some good news:

In spite of keeping the transvestic disorder category, the DSM now accepts gender dysphoric MTF crossdreamers (or "autogynephiliacs" to use Blanchard's toxic terminology)as genuine transsexual women.

In other words: Crossdreamer fantasies are understood as a symptom of an underlying gender incongruence by the gender dysphoria sub-working group.

This is in line with what I have been arguing for a long time.

Moreover, autoandrophilia did not make it into the DSM.

Blanchard has been losing quite a few battles in DSM-5.

It is only a matter of time before his final pet, "autogynephilia", is dead as well.

In the long run it will be impossible to label crossdreaming a sexual disorder in one section of the manual and argue that it is not a disorder in another.

http://www.crossdreamers.com/2013/05/some-good-news-from-dsm-and-gender.html

I think I am finally seeing light at the end of the tunnel, and this time it is not an oncoming train.

Senrub said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Flexor said...

It's pretty interesting in misfits to have a character that can go back and forth between genders like that, instead of a shape shifting character, which would be more a main stream power and wouldn't have the same affect. It's kinda like how I have sometimes had a dream where I am myself, but with female body parts (I have yet to have a dream where I am the female version of myself) and dreams where I am a woman but felt I was living someone else's life. Plus we look are most scifi shows and they have transgender parts in them, though they usually never last more then an epsisode and/or are short lived. Also strangely all the episodes of Misfits that I've seen are the transgender ones. Great Article ^_^

Jack Molay said...

@Flexor

I agree, it is interesting that they went for a power that lets you switch between sexes instead of a shape shifter model (found in shows like Buffy, Supernatural, X-files).

Unfortunately the makers of the series turns this superpower into the one at the bottom of the barrel, the one no one else would like to have. I would say it is one of the most interesting :)

There are some interesting series where the transgender play one of the main roles, like the British Hit and Miss and the American Orange is the New Black.

And then there is SheZow for kids, of course.

Join the Crossdream Life Forum!