tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post3869789591618263999..comments2024-03-26T16:19:11.382-07:00Comments on Crossdreamers: On how American psychiatry persecutes transgender crossdreamers and crossdressersSally Molayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02015510914816971645noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-873123689211167162013-06-10T23:46:37.701-07:002013-06-10T23:46:37.701-07:00@Sam Z
There was some speculation that Blanchard ...@Sam Z<br /><br />There was some speculation that Blanchard himself might be gay, and this was why he distinguished between paraphilic autogynephiliacs and "homosexual transsexuals", the latter group never labelled paraphiliacs by him.<br /><br />The fact that he has spent so much time trying to find an evolutionary explanation for homosexuality pointed in that direction. <br /><br />His recent <a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/heres-how-the-guy-who-wrote-the-manual-on-sex-talks-about-sex" rel="nofollow">interview with Motherboard </a>makes it clear, however, that he consider all of us deviants, also homosexuals.<br /><br />It is also clear that he has no respect for any type of transgender, using derogatory terms like "sissies" and "trannies". This man is a walking disaster causing much embarrassment for his profession.<br /><br />He could still be gay himself, I guess. After all, Anne Lawrence has dedicated her life to his theories, in spite of being a crossdreaming trans woman herself. But I am beginning to doubt it. There is too much contempt here, too much sexism. Jack Molayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03629363646482611722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-51944117800453342192013-06-10T02:21:22.188-07:002013-06-10T02:21:22.188-07:00Jack, do you believe Blanchard even is a supporter...Jack, do you believe Blanchard even is a supporter of homosexuality or does he concider it to be a paraphilia too? Since he denies Transsexual M2F lesbians I figured he might be even more old fashioned...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09273905611748020119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-61300539934612524852013-01-07T21:57:14.805-08:002013-01-07T21:57:14.805-08:00Obviously they are concerned for the safety of our...Obviously they are concerned for the safety of our victims - you know, the fantasy version of us in our own psyches. They're only trying to protect our inner female from our outer male. She's very vulnerable in there, at our mercy... Psychiatry IS for treating the suffering, a help-based service, correct? Seriously, I was just skimming the "Essentials of Abnormal Psychology" textbook ( V. Mark Durand / David H. Barlow 4th ed. 2006. ) It's a basic intro-level textbook with prominent DSM connections throughout, as if the emphasis on DSM caterogization gives or removes validity to the situation, becoming greater than the actual psychology. They do try to point out at least the dilemma of each individual being a unique case and how that conflicts with DSM. Of course it may have been updated (?) - but i guess this info is still true to some extent: "those with one paraphilia TEND to have at least a few more, often several at a time." Perhaps accidentally alluding to a mix of violent aggressive ones involving innocents and solitary harmless fantasies. No official distinction. Here's a tough example from wiki regarding erotic asphyxial deaths - see where it fits (?): <br />"In some fatality cases, the body of the asphyxiophilic individual is discovered naked or with genitalia in hand, with pornographic material or sex toys present, or with evidence of having orgasmed prior to death. Bodies found at the scene of an accidental death often show evidence of other paraphilic activities, such as fetishistic cross-dressing and masochism. In cases involving teenagers at home, families may disturb the scene by "sanitizing" it, removing evidence of paraphilic activity. This can have the consequence of making the death appear to be a deliberate suicide, rather than an accident." I can't say that should be ignored, and don't see how it can be catagorized without demonizing us innocent crossdreamers. The requirement to categorize here i think is the root of the problem, period. Taken on a personal level, its also been the root of my problem with myself - I'm fine with my quirks as long as i don't buy into labeling them. Perhaps a solution could involve a new DSM sub-category: "paraphilias in individuals who lack empathy", thus sorting out the good guys and bad guys? Of cource more time, effort, expense and concern would be required to pull it off. And a great deal of shouting from us. I think it all boils down to medical coding, for payment / insurance purposes - only. Appropriate for the future of the profession - I suppose if it is to exist everyone first and foremost must be paid.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-38746917685987763402012-12-19T01:48:26.066-08:002012-12-19T01:48:26.066-08:00@ACH
They actually used similar arguments to keep...@ACH<br /><br />They actually used similar arguments to keep slavery, deny poor people the vote, deny women the vote etc etc. But what I find fascinating is that in 50 years time they will probably defend gay marriage as passionately as they now oppose it. Jack Molayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03629363646482611722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-53674855101872637122012-12-18T22:38:22.355-08:002012-12-18T22:38:22.355-08:00It's worth remembering that when transvestism ...It's worth remembering that when transvestism was added to the DSM, crossdressing <i>was a crime</i> in much of the US.<br /><br />One of the most bizarre things about the paraphilias section is that not only is it a medicalization of morality, in social contexts where a "between consenting adults" standard is increasingly common it's not even our morality that's being medicalized.<br /><br />On the issue of being listed next to pedophilia, I suspect that this is one of the pressures against removing TF from the DSM: If they remove it, a lot of religious conservatives will use this in promoting their anti-gay slippery slope argument. Can't you hear them now, "First, they removed homosexuality. Now they've removed transvestism. What's next?" And then they'll happily provide their answer...ACHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06643809450938135601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-36661369491783922632012-11-22T18:10:22.651-08:002012-11-22T18:10:22.651-08:00In our therapy in Cambridge, we leave labels behin...In our <a href="http://www.thebritishcbtcounsellingservice.com/cambridge-counselling/" rel="nofollow">therapy in Cambridge</a>, we leave labels behind and try to focus more on the real feeling of a person. It was never about gender preference, it's always about being our own person. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07627854936766475985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-19760162087116588642012-10-31T14:28:04.910-07:002012-10-31T14:28:04.910-07:00What also irks me is the lack of scientific rigor ...What also irks me is the lack of scientific rigor in the work of Bailey and Blanchard. Since this is already such a difficult condition and bias can easily infiltrate the so called research it can readily slip into shoddiness. The more I scratch the surface the more I am convinced that much of what is being postulated is not going to hold up in the long term. Don't get me wrong in that I yearn for an explanation as to what drives this condition but I would prefer that the conclusions be more solidly based.joanna Santoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16722222181799879120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-79067661854071778182012-10-31T03:49:19.925-07:002012-10-31T03:49:19.925-07:00@Deborah
Yes, I am getting more angry. That is tr...@Deborah<br /><br />Yes, I am getting more angry. That is true. And the main reason is a feeling of helplessness in the face of a misuse of power for which there is no appeal.<br /><br />Mind you, I am not contesting the right of Blanchard to present his theories for the scientific community. Science is also about testing unorthodox theories and findings up against the sharp eyes of your peers. <br /><br />What I am protesting against is the fact that a theory for which there is no real proof or scientific consensus is used in an official manual that influences the treatment of transgender all over the world. This stigmatization causes guilt and shame we could be without.<br /><br />You may read Blanchard in original. I included many of his papers in the library of Crossdream Life. You can start reading his work <a href="http://www.genderpsychology.org/autogynephilia/male_gender_dysphoria/blanchard_typology.html" rel="nofollow">here.</a><br /><br />Note, however, that Blanchard always writes in scientific journals, which makes it easier for him to hide his sexism behind the scientific jargon. Still, the fact that he calls androphilic transwomen homosexual men, is a dead give away to me. <br /><br />His good friend and colleague J. Michael Bailey let the cat out of the bag when he wrote a book presenting the theory in a more popular manner (<a href="http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/JMichael-Bailey/TMWWBQ.pdf" rel="nofollow">The Man Who Would Be Queen)</a>, where androphilic transwomen were reduced to sex hungry gay men "well suited to prostitution" and gynephilic tranwomen were reduced to ugly perverted men.<br /><br />But you can find all of this in Blanchard's paper as well, although written in a more palatable language. <br /><br />Madeline Wyndzen has a great <a href="http://www.genderpsychology.org/autogynephilia/j_michael_bailey/" rel="nofollow">analysis of his book here. </a> I also recommend <a href="http://www.genderpsychology.org/autogynephilia/ray_blanchard/index.html" rel="nofollow">her discussion of Blanchard.</a><br /><br />For a critique of Blanchard I recommend the papers of Serano and Moser, both of which are included <a rel="nofollow">here.</a> I have discussed <a href="http://www.crossdreamers.com/2010/07/on-mosers-critique-of-blanchards.html" rel="nofollow">Moser's critique here,</a> Serano's <a href="http://www.crossdreamers.com/2010/09/julia-serano-on-concept-of.html" rel="nofollow">here.</a><br /><br />There was a time when I was grateful for Blanchard having given us the "autogynephilia" concept, as I -- like you -- finally found a term that made my own suffering visible. Indeed, this whole blog would have seen the light of day, hadn't it been for Blanchard. <br /><br />But his explanation for crossdreaming is not only wrong. It is toxic, which is why I find myself spending more time on debunking not only his theory, but also his overall strategy of forcing his stereotypes down our throats via the DSM.Jack Molayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03629363646482611722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-85555779529572245752012-10-30T06:05:07.883-07:002012-10-30T06:05:07.883-07:00Your hostility does seem to be becoming increasing...Your hostility does seem to be becoming increasingly intemperate, Jack.<br /><br />I think there is an important distinction between cold scientific detachment and malicious vilification. Blanchard's term 'paraphilia' is not synonymous with 'pervert': 'pervert' is charged with judgement and contempt, 'paraphilia' isn't.<br /><br />Categorisation is not the same as condemnation. It is right that psychologists identify and investigate minority sexualities - this is something you do yourself, Jack. <br /><br />I am grateful to Blanchard for identifying my sexuality. Without 'autogynephilia' I would not fit, not being a crossdresser or a transsexual. Without 'autogynephilia' there would be no 'crossdreaming' - surely your term is a renaming of Blanchard's category.<br /><br />I haven't read enough Blanchard to know to what extent subtle antipathy informs his interpretation, but I'd need proof (through direct quotation) to convince me that he is as crudely hostile as you make out. Similarly with Anne Lawrence, who identifies as autogynephiliac herself. <br /><br />Love,<br />Deborah xxDeborah Katehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17251775114982350453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-44283514617924341122012-10-28T05:25:55.936-07:002012-10-28T05:25:55.936-07:00Of course I agree jack. We have no business being ...Of course I agree jack. We have no business being in the DSM especially if we are high functioning, not harming anyone else and simply only questioning our gender. I am clearly not a fetishist so I don't really worry about what the document says but before I was less sure I admit that I found references to transvestism being being a paraphilia somewhat troubling.joanna Santoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16722222181799879120noreply@blogger.com