tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post4866685586685159496..comments2024-02-25T22:43:04.662-08:00Comments on Crossdreamers: On Lou Sullivan and what female to male crossdreamers mean for our understanding of transgenderSally Molayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02015510914816971645noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-59645082680526666582012-02-27T11:16:06.516-08:002012-02-27T11:16:06.516-08:00@Jack,
Thanks a ton for replying!
Firstly, let me ...@Jack,<br />Thanks a ton for replying!<br />Firstly, let me tell you that I am a transsexual female from western Europe and I must tell you that I don't at all believe in any of the North American scientific concepts of transgenders. More so because I am a lesbian and according to BBL theory,I cannot be a real woman.<br />Yes,from my own experiences, I am confident that gynephilic transwomen are not "perverted men". Far from that. If possible,dring pre-op stages, maybe some are a bit like "perverted women" or "nymphomaniacs" because of excess testosterone.<br />Secondly, I do get your idea that there are "transgenders" who aren't exactly transsexual but still probably experience some gender-discordant traits.<br />Examples would be the gynephilic feminine men and effeminate gay/bisexual men or the stud butch lesbians.<br />I am not totally sure however if they are really transgendered.<br />The reason is that many of them themselves object to being called as transgendered.I assure you that many effeminate gay males might take offence literally if you ever called them transgendered.<br />We are perhaps mixing up personalities with gender identities here.<br />It is possible for a man to have a feminine personality but still feel 100% male, much as it is possible for a woman to have a masculine personality but identify 100% female.Jasminenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-20565844356670472362012-02-27T02:07:00.201-08:002012-02-27T02:07:00.201-08:00@Jasmine
"I am definitely a woman in the wro...@Jasmine<br /><br />"I am definitely a woman in the wrong body regardless of my sexual preferences.Just because I take the 'male' role sometimes does not give you excuse of labelling me as a male sexual fetishist. I am a woman."<br /><br />Of course you are, and I have never said that you or any transwoman or transman should be reduced to being a fetishist.<br /><br />Actually, this post was partly written to refute the theory of Ray Blanchard. He argues that all gynephilic transwomen are perverted men sexually attracted to the idea of themselves as a woman. I find that extremely offensive. <br /><br />As for the dynamics of being dominant or submissive in bed, this is a variable that is only loosely associated with sex identity. Many men and women, trans and non-trans, thrive in both roles, others prefer one or the other.<br /><br />See my post about the "virile women" of <a href="http://www.crossdreamers.com/2012/02/kama-sutra-and-transgender.html?m=1" rel="nofollow">the Kama Sutra</a> for examples of women who enjoy the proactive role in bed. They may still have a female gender identity.<br /><br />Still, what I <i>have</i> found, discussing this with transgender people from all over the world, is that for <i>some</i> of them their atypical sexual instinct leads them to a better understanding of their own transgender condition. <br /><br />For Lou Sullivan the fantasy of having sex as a man with another man, was an integrated part of his male sex identity, in the same way some male to female transsexuals long to express stereotypical feminine gender behavior. <br /><br />This does not mean that their sex identity can be reduced to being the top in bed or dressing up as a woman. <br /><br />It seems to me that in them these longings and behaviors are different ways for the underlying sex identity to find a voice. In other transgender and transsexual persons this identity plays out differently.<br /><br />In this respect transwomen and transmen are no different than non-trans people.<br /><br />Lou Sullivan was a man. But there are other transgender female bodied persons who do not identify as men. They identify as women, but they still want to take the stereotypical proactive male role in bed, and they get turned on by the idea of being "the man" in bed. (See the discussion under the Kama Sutra post for examples). <br /><br />In other words: Crossdreaming (getting turned on by imagining yourself as the opposite sex) is a condition that may affect both transsexual men and women and transgender people who are not transsexual. <br /><br />What this ultimately will mean for our understanding of the various transgender conditions, I do not know.<br /><br />For me one thing is clear, though: It is not sexual instincts, sexual orientations or sexual kinks that define someone as a man or a woman. Our understanding of them as men or women must be based on their own experience of belonging to a specific sex or gender.Jack Molayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03629363646482611722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-84580770214326114472012-02-26T02:21:52.498-08:002012-02-26T02:21:52.498-08:00@Jack
This article is based on stereotypes it seem...@Jack<br />This article is based on stereotypes it seems. What has topping or bottoming in bed got to do with gender identity?<br />Are you kidding? I am a MTF feminine lesbian in male body and I am versatile.I have topped my partners before.<br />But I am not a man,never felt as one. I am definitely a woman in the wrong body regardless of my sexual preferences.Just because I take the "male" role sometimes does not give you excuse of labelling me as a male sexual fetishist. I am a woman.Jasminenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-5855922717278390452011-06-15T00:50:51.231-07:002011-06-15T00:50:51.231-07:00"If an arousing idea necessitates the presenc..."If an arousing idea necessitates the presence of self-representation, it is auto-erotic."<br /><br />I see. It is clear now that we use words like "fetish" and "auto-erotic" in different ways. That poses no problem for me, but I can see that we both have a communication challenge. <br /><br />What we write is easily misinterpreted by others, which -- in some cases -- can undermine what we are trying to achieve, namely: understanding and respect.<br /><br />In my writing I react to the way the <i>medical community</i> -- and not you -- use the words. <br /><br />In the DSM a fetish becomes a "paraphilia", an abnormal mental disease - at least if it stops a person from having "normal" sex. <br /><br />"Auto-erotic" is understood as a disorder, as in being incapable of loving another person.<br /><br />To my knowledge everybody have sexual fantasies, unless they are completely asexual or has forcefully suppressed them. <br /><br />A woman fantasizing about being courted by a bearded pirate in the Caribbean while having sex with her husband (these things happen quite often, I am told :) is not auto-erotic in the way <i>I</i> use the word; she is just using her mind to spice up her love relationship with her husband. <br /><br />The crossdreamers are using fantasies in exactly the same way, but since the M2F crossdreamer, for obvious reasons, is more likely to be alone (it is harder to find a compatible partner) these fantasies are now understood as proof of a kind of narcissistic disorder.<br /><br />Merriam-Webster defines a fetish as "an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression" <br /><br />You focus on the first part of this definition, and delete the second. Using the definition this way would mean that we are <i>all</i> fetishists. I think you are right.<br /><br />A man getting aroused by tits and asses has a fetish, in the same way as a man getting turned on by an ankle or sexy lingerie or rubber has one.<br /><br />What's kosher and not kosher is a question of culture, not nature. What matters is what gives pleasure and brings people together.<br /><br />But the people I am arguing against are focusing on the second part of the definition: <br /><br />They present a stereotypical and normative way of having sex (normally WASP vanilla heterosexual intercourse)and argue that any other expression may "interfere with complete sexual expression". <br /><br />"Complete sexual expression" is then understood -- by definition -- what they at any time consider normal. <br /><br />The irony is that many M2F crossdreamers long after having "normal" vanilla sex as a woman, which is why even the most gynephilic of them conjure up male "pirates" in their fantasies. Which again is taken as proof of them being "perverts". Damned if you do, damned if you don't!<br /><br />It seems to me that words like "fetish" and "auto-erotic" have become contaminated by bigotry to the point of becoming useless for our purposes. <br /><br />You are using the terms as tools of liberation, tolerance and healing, but most psychiatrists use them as tools of exclusion and imprisonment.Jack Molayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03629363646482611722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-35396500797489583832011-06-14T10:49:46.913-07:002011-06-14T10:49:46.913-07:00If an arousing idea necessitates the presence of s...If an arousing idea necessitates the presence of self-representation, it is auto-erotic. Auto-eroticism could be present when having sex with a partner.<br /><br />Looking forward to the next post!wxhluyphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17997134183477787458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-31353313783889422272011-06-13T07:23:51.156-07:002011-06-13T07:23:51.156-07:00"Sorry, but this is still problematic! It see..."Sorry, but this is still problematic! It seems here that a pre-op transwomen find it normal to have to represent themselves (let alone as a gender) to have sex?"<br /><br />I am not sure I know what you mean here. My point is simply that even pre-op androphilic transwomen will get aroused by the idea of being a woman, but they will -- correctly in my opinion -- not interpret this as autogynephilia, but as arousal caused by the idea of having sex with someone else <i>as a woman</i>. <br /><br />Pre-op androphilic transwomen are more likely to have had sex in the receptive position, and with another human being. Sex is therefore not interpreted as autoerotic.<br /><br />Gynephilic transwomen, on the other hand, have most likely not have sex with another human being in the receptive mode. This is hard to arrange, given that they are not that interested in men, and that a majority (?) of women find stap-ons and the like quite unusual. The gynephilic transwoman's "feminine" sex-life pre-op is therefore most likely solitary. This sex life is therefor considered autoerotic. <br /><br />My point is simply that androphilic and gynephilic transwomen enter completely different life trajectories due to cultural and social conditions. We have to take this into consideration when interpreting what we see.Jack Molayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03629363646482611722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-34631999920256853052011-06-12T10:20:44.967-07:002011-06-12T10:20:44.967-07:00You said: "(I believe pre-op transwomen may g...You said: "(I believe pre-op transwomen may get aroused when fantasizing of being a woman, but they rightfully consider it a normal sexual desire for having sex with a human being.)"<br /><br />Sorry, but this is still problematic! It seems here that a pre-op transwomen find it normal to have to represent themselves (let alone as a gender) to have sex?wxhluyphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17997134183477787458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-69679401555931556142011-06-12T10:19:33.024-07:002011-06-12T10:19:33.024-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.wxhluyphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17997134183477787458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-61762599102473943452011-06-07T00:20:09.138-07:002011-06-07T00:20:09.138-07:00@wxhluyp
I said: "A male to female transgen...@wxhluyp<br /><br /><br />I said: "A male to female transgender person will have to imagine herself to be a woman in the flesh in order to fantasize about having sex as a woman."<br /><br />You said: "But it may not be the case that imagining oneself feminine is arousing in itself, rather than it being an invested connotation."<br /><br />The human psyche is an ambiguous place, and the associations between stimuli and arousal may come in all shapes and sizes (BDSM comes to mind). Maybe the desire can become completely disassociated from the idea of intercourse and become truly autoerotic. But I doubt that is the case for most crossdreamers. It seems to me they want to be loved, desired and made love to, like the rest of humanity.<br /><br />I said: "(I believe pre-op transwomen may get aroused when fantasizing of being a woman, but they rightfully consider it a normal sexual desire for having sex with a man.)"<br /><br />You said: "This looks like they can only appear androhpilic to the extent that it satisfies they're autogynephilia."<br /><br />I stand corrected. I should have said "desire for having sex with a human being."Jack Molayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03629363646482611722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-23474832809285862292011-06-07T00:12:39.409-07:002011-06-07T00:12:39.409-07:00@James
"But then, you have to also consider ...@James<br /><br />"But then, you have to also consider why a masculine man would not have autogynephilia if he also wants to take the stereotypical role of woman, ie., being penetrated."<br /><br />Well, my point was to make clear that the idea of being a woman can be arousing because it is associated with sex, as opposed to it being a fetish or a erotic target location error.<br /><br />The fact that there are receptive males who are at ease with their male body is another matter entirely. Sexual orientation, the active/passive dimension and the transgender issues seems to be independent variables.Jack Molayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03629363646482611722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-2031591846793536572011-06-06T18:38:03.597-07:002011-06-06T18:38:03.597-07:00"A male to female transgender person will hav..."A male to female transgender person will have to imagine herself to be a woman in the flesh in order to fantasize about having sex as a woman."<br /><br />-But it may not be the case that imagining oneself feminine is arousing in itself, rather than it being an invested connotation.<br /><br />"(I believe pre-op transwomen may get aroused when fantasizing of being a woman, but they rightfully consider it a normal sexual desire for having sex with a man.)"<br /><br />-This looks like they can only appear androhpilic to the extent that it satisfies they're autogynephiliawxhluyphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17997134183477787458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-71113944214853599882011-06-06T10:32:45.689-07:002011-06-06T10:32:45.689-07:00Jack,
"
And if being a woman can bring you th...Jack,<br />"<br />And if being a woman can bring you the kind of sex you desire, the very idea of being a woman becomes unavoidably arousing."<br /><br />But then, you have to also consider why a masculine man would not have autogynephilia if he also wants to take the stereotypical role of woman, ie., being penetrated.<br />Why only crossdreamers and feminine males would feel a need to be woman (in varying degrees), but the same sex role could be enjoyed by a masculine gay man without really feelings this way.<br />Could it be that hardness-softness is a spectrum and since the feminine male and crossdreamer is already soft,the desire to have passive sex makes him feel more soft and consequently feel as if he needs to be woman?Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-59615225082607271372011-06-06T00:36:29.478-07:002011-06-06T00:36:29.478-07:00@wxhluyp dis distinguished between "the diffe...@wxhluyp dis distinguished between "the difference between arousal in the masculine of feminine particularity, or the arousal in imagining ourself through the masculine or feminine particularity"<br /><br />This is where the underpinning world view becomes so important. <br /><br />If you believe that the gender dysphoria has some kind of biological core (shaped by culture), the difference is not that clear.<br /><br />A male to female transgender person will <i>have to</i> imagine herself to be a woman in the flesh in order to fantasize about having sex as a woman.<br /><br />The arousal that follows from being that woman may nevertheless be of the same nature as the "autogynephilia" of women: "I am beautiful. I am sexy. I am desirable" <br /><br />Many ciswomen constantly search for that feeling, through shopping and grooming.<br /><br />This is a complicated matter, though:<br /><br />I took part in a discussion on this over at The Science of Changing Sex (Cloudy has taken down the comments, unfortunately). <br /><br />Anyway, the discussion was about the difference between gynephilic and androphilic M2F transsexuals, Cloudy's point being that androphilic transwomen do not experience autogynephilia.<br /><br />(I believe pre-op transwomen may get aroused when fantasizing of being a woman, but they rightfully consider it a normal sexual desire for having sex with a man.) <br /><br />One androphilic transwoman taking part in that discussion described autoANDROphilic fantasies before transitioning and autoGYNEphilic afterwards. For her it was the desire to be desired that was arousing.<br /><br />Hence autowhateverphilia could simply be fantasies about be desired and having sex with others. To have sex as a woman, a male bodied person, has to be a woman (or play the role of the woman). <br /><br />And if being a woman can bring you the kind of sex you desire, the very idea of being a woman becomes unavoidably arousing.Jack Molayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03629363646482611722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-21451504554528299552011-06-05T09:50:29.546-07:002011-06-05T09:50:29.546-07:00We mustn't confuse androphilia with autoandrop...We mustn't confuse androphilia with autoandrophilia, gynephilia with autogynephilia. The difference between arousal in the masculine of feminine particularity, or the arousal in imagining ourself through the masculine or feminine particularitywxhluyphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17997134183477787458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-36033885130805320252011-06-05T02:43:25.509-07:002011-06-05T02:43:25.509-07:00In other words, a feminine person (whether female ...In other words, a feminine person (whether female or male bodied) would always have different degrees of what Blanchard calls "autogynephilia" while a masculine person (whether male or female bodied) would always be having what is called as "autoandrophilia".Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-59600685445085544452011-06-05T02:41:00.564-07:002011-06-05T02:41:00.564-07:00I personally know a lot of homosexual men who woul...I personally know a lot of homosexual men who would definitely be autoandrophilic because they are spending so much time body-building at the gym.<br />However, there is a bisexual male my neighbor, who always grooms himself and wears costly jewelleries and kinda is very girly. He is autogynehpilic as he really gets excited by femininity most of the time. He has told me that he does not feel any inclination to have large muscles and these typical guy things never appeal to him though he may like some men for sex!!<br />I believe that autogynephilia does not exist merely among the gynephilic transsexuals.A significant number of gay and bisexual effeminate males might also be having the same autogynephilia, yet they would not be called so by people like Blanchard, simply because their sexuality would be called as feminine.Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-1683427380947293222011-06-05T02:08:59.454-07:002011-06-05T02:08:59.454-07:00Yepp, the body building of both heterosexual and h...Yepp, the body building of both heterosexual and homosexual men comes to mind; clearly tactics of affirming a male sexuality or sensuality. Then there are women spending hours shopping, dressing and grooming together before a party, reaffirming each others femininity.Jack Molayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03629363646482611722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-14477319253100069922011-06-04T18:22:04.082-07:002011-06-04T18:22:04.082-07:00Also crossdreaming must take into account male aut...Also crossdreaming must take into account male autoandrophilia and female autogynephilia. Or more importantly gender as performative in self-identification.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-27838622622962151012011-06-03T01:44:52.773-07:002011-06-03T01:44:52.773-07:00Blanchard and his friends are anchored in a kind o...Blanchard and his friends are anchored in a kind of evolutionary psychology that presupposes that there is a genetically programmed difference between men and women as regards seuxality. This difference goes beyond attraction to the male or female form. <br /><br />They believe that male sexuality is more agressive, more proactive and more intense than the female one. <br /><br />Women are -- to follow Darwin -- empowered to choose their partner, but they are more reactive and more passive than men ("coy"). <br /><br />Men seduce, women are seduced. Men conquer, women are conquered. <br /><br />The fact that Blanchard (and Bailey) equal sexual orientation with feminine and masculine looks and mannerisms (gay men are "feminine") tells us that they have reduced the diversity of human sexuality along these simplistic lines.<br /><br />Blanchard's theory is based on the premise that "autogynephiliacs" are heterosexual <i>masculine</i> men whose male sexuality has gone overboard: They definitely want to conquer woman, to the extent that they internalize her, and becomes her. The erotic target location error theory requires that they have a <i>male</i> sexuality.<br /><br />The reason Blanchard has never believed in the female to male autoandrophiliac is -- I belive -- that female sexuality, according to this way of thinking, cannot become aggressive, dominant and pro-active, unless the woman is a lesbian, that is: she has a masculine sexual orientation. <br /><br />Remember: In this model gynephilia=masculinity and androphilia=femininity. <br /><br />The female to male androphilic crossdreamer is impossible because a "heterosexual" female bodied person must be passive and reactive by definition. <br /><br />She cannot have an aggressive male sexuality, because that means that the "masculine" vs "feminine" axis is independent of the sexual orientation dimension. Blanchard's theory does not allow for that.<br /><br />A female to male androphilic ("heterosexual") crossdreamer should feel no need to "conquer" the male sex (and become one), as this need to "conquer" is a masculine trait, not a feminine one.<br /><br />You may, of course, disagree with Blanchard and say that sexual orientation and the dominant/sumbissive dimension are independent of each other. You can then say that the male to female and female to male crossdreamers have both "misdirected" their desire. <br /><br />But for this to be true you must believe that woman cannot be aggressive and men cannot be receptive. <br /><br />Given that Blanchard believes all gay men are "feminine" and receptive and all lesbians are "masculine" and aggressive, this would turn all homosexuals into "paraphiliacs" as well. And he does not want that. <br /><br />He has actually spent a lot of time trying to prove that homosexuality makes evolutionary sense. He does not want homosexuality included as a perversion in the DSM.<br /><br />The very existence of the female to male crossdreamers mean that the evolutionary Darwinian argument for labelling crossdreamers as perverts falls. <br /><br />I am sure it would be possible to come up with other theories for why crossdreamers should not dream of being the other sex, but these would have to apply in the same way to "homosexual" and "non-homosexual" FTMs as well as MTFs.Jack Molayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03629363646482611722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-57979336494022588762011-06-02T14:02:06.041-07:002011-06-02T14:02:06.041-07:00In the latter case the idea is that a crossdreamer...In the latter case the idea is that a crossdreamer's dream of having a woman's body, has the same cause as a regular man's desire to have sex with a woman. That is: There is nothing feminine about his desire at all.<br /><br />But in the case of female to male crossdreamers this makes no sense. Ariadne's "biggest dream and desire is to penetrate somebody", preferably a man. That can hardly be interpreted as a misdirection of a typical "reactive" female sexuality!<br /><br />I don't see how this does contradict the theory of misdirected desir. This the same for men or women = The woman desires the man but wants to be him instead of focusing on the man.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com