tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post7703178612859206676..comments2024-03-26T16:19:11.382-07:00Comments on Crossdreamers: On Moser's critique of Blanchard's autogynephilia theory Part 2Sally Molayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02015510914816971645noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-47516631959279842152010-10-05T08:57:03.200-07:002010-10-05T08:57:03.200-07:00I think it is not accepted anywhere.But i do it fo...I think it is not accepted anywhere.But i do it for my own pleasure and satisfaction rather than caring for foolish people.But if you go out dressed up ,you will face teasing and harassment for sure.Greathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03973649379539793082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-69598499938128962082010-10-05T00:22:49.432-07:002010-10-05T00:22:49.432-07:00@miss sudah
I see from your blog that you live in...@miss sudah<br /><br />I see from your blog that you live in India. Do you think it would be different to be a crossdresser in India than in -- let's say -- Europe or the US? In other words: It is hard to get acceptance for this?Jack Molayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03629363646482611722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-24437712755378390822010-10-04T13:41:41.921-07:002010-10-04T13:41:41.921-07:00I always used to consider myself as a transvestite...I always used to consider myself as a transvestite until i heard about this term autogynephilia.Since i was 5 years old the feeling of being a woman used to give me tremendous pleasure.Other men may derive pleasure by looking at the beautiful women but for me being a beautiful women,who dresses up gorgeously,have truly soft and feminine skin,with fuller breast who could breast feed and even give birth provides immense excitement and pleasure.Greathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03973649379539793082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-89532802504529964352010-09-10T00:15:39.460-07:002010-09-10T00:15:39.460-07:00BLOGGER STOPPED THIS COMMENT FROM BEING PUBLISHED:...BLOGGER STOPPED THIS COMMENT FROM BEING PUBLISHED:<br /><br />Kathryn Martin has left a new comment on your post "On Moser's critique of Blanchard's autogynephilia ...": <br /><br />This discussion is quite substantial in my view. <br /><br />I believe that only a phenomenological approach to developing a morphology of Crossdreamers, Transgendered people if you will, can yield a result that has any real validity. Part of this will of course be the research that has been done of the structural differences of transgendered brain compared to the general population.<br /><br />I am looking forward to some of the research being done by Miqqui Alicia/Michael Gilberts at York University. <br /><br />She says:<br /><br />I intend to focus on three groups: early-declared transsexuals (those who demonstrate and announce their transsexuality in childhood), late-declared transsexuals (those who announce their transsexuality in adulthood) and crossdressers. Within each group we will find populations that are female born [FTM], and populations that are male born [MTF].<br /><br />....<br /><br />Goal: To what extent can a transgendered individual experience her/his personal identity as being formed by the outside world, and to what extent does changing social roles change the individual’s self-identity.<br /><br />....<br /><br />Goal: The exploration of what we can learn about the dynamics of inter-gender communication, sexism, male prerogative, and unconscious gender assumptions from a group whose members have first lived within the confines and social milieu of the “opposite” gender.<br /><br />http://www.yorku.ca/tpi/<br /><br />Miqqui intends to do a phenomenological study which will yield some answers to the questions promulgated in the goals.<br /><br />What do you think?<br /><br />KathrynJack Molayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03629363646482611722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-80764688018351447662010-09-09T09:29:55.249-07:002010-09-09T09:29:55.249-07:00This discussion is quite substantial in my view. ...This discussion is quite substantial in my view. <br /><br />I believe that only a phenomenological approach to developing a morphology of Crossdreamers, Transgendered people if you will, can yield a result that has any real validity. Part of this will of course be the research that has been done of the structural differences of transgendered brain compared to the general population.<br /><br />I am looking forward to some of the research being done by Miqqui Alicia/Michael Gilberts at York University. <br /><br />She says:<br /><br /><i>I intend to focus on three groups: early-declared transsexuals (those who demonstrate and announce their transsexuality in childhood), late-declared transsexuals (those who announce their transsexuality in adulthood) and crossdressers. Within each group we will find populations that are female born [FTM], and populations that are male born [MTF].<br /><br />....<br /><br />Goal: To what extent can a transgendered individual experience her/his personal identity as being formed by the outside world, and to what extent does changing social roles change the individual’s self-identity.<br /><br />....<br /><br />Goal: The exploration of what we can learn about the dynamics of inter-gender communication, sexism, male prerogative, and unconscious gender assumptions from a group whose members have first lived within the confines and social milieu of the “opposite” gender.</i><br /><br />http://www.yorku.ca/tpi/<br /><br />Miqqui intends to do a phenomenological study which will yield some answers to the questions promulgated in the goals.<br /><br />What do you think?<br /><br />KathrynKathryn Dumkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16054997856180869508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-30507411651595274972010-09-09T00:36:35.759-07:002010-09-09T00:36:35.759-07:00@Kathryn
Blanchard is very good at building typol...@Kathryn<br /><br />Blanchard is very good at building typologies. He is able to see patterns in complex phenomena.<br /><br />Having done research in the social sciences myself, I know that that ability can be very useful. I have had a lot of fruitful discussions with colleagues on the development of terms describing the phenomena we observe. The discussion itself leads to the development of the explanation.<br /><br />The problem is that the phenomena we observer are at least partly shaped by our preconceptions, and if we are blind to those preconceptions we may take our observations for "objective facts".<br /><br />A lot of the research done within evolutionary psychology these days takes the feminine/masculine dichotomy for granted and therefore repeats the stereotypes of the past (see Cordelia Fine: Delusions of Gender).<br /><br />The second problem is that Blanchard isn't really that interested in explaining what he observes. He has actually never claimed that his "target location theory" is anything more than a hypothesis that requires further research. However, people read this hypothesis and believes it is proven by his findings. It isn't.<br /><br />Somehow Blanchard had never gotten around to proving his theory right. I think this is because he finds the making of typologies much more fascinating. <br /><br />Too bad.Jack Molayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03629363646482611722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-54933656845956709282010-09-08T17:18:59.127-07:002010-09-08T17:18:59.127-07:00You say:
On the other hand, all researchers have ...You say:<br /><br /><i>On the other hand, all researchers have to simplify in order to develop a theory. You cannot say it all in one go. So for me this is not so much about Blanchard presenting simplified models, but the fact that he does not question some of the basic premises for his thinking, especially categories like heterosexual vs. homosexual and feminine vs. masculine.</i><br /><br />I agree with you on your point that simplified models must be used to gain a starting position or several starting positions. <br /><br />In my view the real issue is that in this field to speak of science is really very problematic for two reasons. <br /><br />Firstly, before you can develop any methodology that appreciates the subject matter of your inquiry, you must develop a theory of knowledge in which you understand interaction between the inquiring subject and the object of the inquiry. <br /><br />Secondly you must understand that the only "scientific" aspect of your inquiry is the rigor with which you apply your methodology to your inquiry.<br /><br />If you take the conclusion "they lie..." then it simply says nothing about the veracity of this statement and therefore it's applicability, if you don't examine the assumptions on which such a statement is built. <br /><br />Allow me to say that Blanchard is too much of an "autobrilliantiphilliac" (someone who is romantically involved with his own perceived brilliance), that a critical examination of those assumptions is the point where his world is nailed shut with thick boards. The end of his world you might say.<br /><br />I guess I agree with you altogether<br /><br />KathrynKathryn Dumkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16054997856180869508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-26768563377885343602010-09-07T23:46:22.470-07:002010-09-07T23:46:22.470-07:00@Kathryn
It is indeed a huge problem. Blanchard a...@Kathryn<br /><br />It is indeed a huge problem. Blanchard and other scientists of his kind use relatively limited data to develop extremely simplified theories.<br /><br />The number of variables in biological, psychological and social systems are mind boggling, and quite a few of them influence both sex and gender.<br /><br />On the other hand, all researchers have to simplify in order to develop a theory. You cannot say it all in one go. So for me this is not so much about Blanchard presenting simplified models, but the fact that he does not question some of the basic premises for his thinking, especially categories like heterosexual vs. homosexual and feminine vs. masculine.Jack Molayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03629363646482611722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-60861812082031149432010-09-06T06:24:46.184-07:002010-09-06T06:24:46.184-07:00Thank you for this article.
The difficulty with...Thank you for this article. <br /><br />The difficulty with Blanchard's theory is that it is simply too neat. I have not read his book/paper as of yet but it would appear that his main thrust is to create a box and neatly pack the world into it. "They lie...." is a device by which he fits that which doesn't fit so as to not jeopardize his postulate. That really is bad science because it makes it impossible for a theory to emerge. Essentially it leaves his work at the "I wish it was so!" stage.<br /><br />The other problem is that this type of science is pseudo science at best. The problem lies with the anecdotal nature of the facts collected. In the first instance it relies on the self description of the data source which is further manipulated by the structure and composition of the questionnaires which are used by the researcher. Secondly, the use of questionnaires on the data source makes an attempt to standardize, that is make measurable and comparable information that by it's very nature cannot be standardized.<br /><br />What researchers in this field fail to understand, in my view, is that their theory of knowledge expects them to be comparable to experimentation with measurable repeatable facts and by that miss the boat on how what they call data should be evaluated.<br /><br />Research in these areas must be descriptive only and not fall into the trap of presuming that any individual result is repeatable and therefore applicable to anyone. Given the enormous consequences pseudo theories such as Blanchard's can generate for the subjects of his research, i.e DSM-V classifications etc. we as society have to be suspicious, cautious and most reluctant to accept anything in this field.<br /><br />I cross-examine people for a living, Blanchard would not last 15 minutes under full and proper examination, mainly because he essentially mis-characterizes the nature of his data and uses devices to occasion a result.<br /><br />On a more personal note, I would be classified as gynephiliac. I am not "auto" because I am neither romantically involved or erotically involved with my self as a woman. When I dress I want to be attractive, not to men or women or myself but to people.Kathryn Dumkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16054997856180869508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-26077230238461151982010-07-31T09:47:34.332-07:002010-07-31T09:47:34.332-07:00That's why long time lovers become more like e...That's why long time lovers become more like each other as times go by.<br /><br />But I believe it is important to keep in mind that the dynamics of opposites attract is balanced by the fact that common interests and similar personalities increases the chances of a relationship surviving. There are always enough differences to make life exciting.<br /><br />Many men and women know this. They may be very attracted to the stereotypes of the opposite gender, but when it comes to settling down they go for someone more compatible, which is why there is hope for people like us, Mosa!Jack Molayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03629363646482611722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-14446749977476425852010-07-31T09:33:09.217-07:002010-07-31T09:33:09.217-07:00"I think preference to some extent is about a..."I think preference to some extent is about acknowledging that which complents and completes us.<br />"<br /><br />Is this the reason why I feel I simply don't need a partner at all?<br />I always feel I am sort of an androgynous guy and I am too feminine to be a real man but aso too masculine to be a real woman.<br />But I see no reason why I can love someone beautiful. If I see a beautiful male, I feel like imitating him. And if I see a beautiful female, I want to be like her too on a level!!<br />I simply don't think I am a narcissist to be this way, but my desires come inside me quite naturally. I simply cannot even comprehend how people can love someone else (even their complement), without wanting to be like them on a level.Mosanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-91932412532058110102010-07-31T07:59:20.326-07:002010-07-31T07:59:20.326-07:00Z: "As long as it's fully consensual- it ...Z: "As long as it's fully consensual- it really doesn't matter." <br /><br />I agree, and in Scandinavia at least this is becoming the most common way of looking at it. But there are also those that believe that fighting their inner demons means projecting them upon others and the attacking them. That is all too human, I afraid.<br /><br />Amanda: " I think preference to some extent is about acknowledging that which complents and completes us." <br /><br />This is very interesting. Before we reduce the question to gender to a "we are all alike" philosophy, we must look into the biological, psychological, cultural (and probably also spiritual) dynamics of gender. This is much more than a social construct. The dreams and desires of sex and gender are living and changing processes, where opposites meet, collide, reconcile and then depart again. We grow in the meeting with "the other", whether this is a real person out there, or the other, hidden, part of ourself. Damn it! Ultimately, this is what life is about, isn't it?Jack Molayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03629363646482611722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-78647127372230359782010-07-30T17:38:32.189-07:002010-07-30T17:38:32.189-07:00I am sorry.. I am still living as a male even thou...I am sorry.. I am still living as a male even though I wish to experient with living as a female I still have to refer to myself in ways that are not comfortable. To be honest, it is more a vocabulary problem than anything.<br /><br />What is a nice way of saying that a person neither feels like a true member of the male gender nor knows for certain that they should have been a member of the other gender? It is often just easier to accept the labels we have given even though the word doesn't quite fit because the other term would be inaccurate.<br /><br />Most people who really knew me as I am today would consider me an androgyne. I feel that I am closer to a woman than a man but not really either. I often feel like this ugly little thing.Amandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05741610959166791705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-88528963206907851962010-07-30T17:28:38.960-07:002010-07-30T17:28:38.960-07:00Honestly, I would have to agree with Ivano and say...Honestly, I would have to agree with Ivano and say that sexuality is complicated.<br /><br />I grew up in a world where men were turned on by pictures of women,etc and what I saw in other men was very alien to me. How I feel about something depends upon a number of emotional factors and often very little on looks. How a person feels to me is very important and how I feel about them. Seeing people show affection is a huge aphrodisiac to me. So, there are very few blacks and whites and a lot of room to get stuck in the grays especially given that I have gone through periods of my life with very weak sexual desires.<br /><br />My feeling is that, if most people are anything like me, is that most of us tend to have a partner preference but socialization does play a role (and other factors) and so to some degree, we can go either way. That said, I suspect that a very masculine person would ever be as satisfied with a masculine partner as they would with a feminine one. I think preference to some extent is about acknowledging that which complents and completes us.<br /><br />But what do I know?Amandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05741610959166791705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-42818645496203925702010-07-30T01:32:20.196-07:002010-07-30T01:32:20.196-07:00Things Blanchard's theory ignores when applyin...Things Blanchard's theory ignores when applying this to transsexual people:<br />-Anything other than gay or straight<br /> Asexuals kind of blow the theory to hell, bisexuals seem to be an annoying complication (provided you have to acknowledge the bisexuality- rather than sweeping it under a rug of "they don't REALLY like the man, they just want a more complete picture of themselves as women" :?)<br />-[cis]Women finding their own body to be erotic<br />-Polyamory<br /> Even if you love yourself- that doesn't mean you can't love others!<br />-Actual trans people<br />I'm sure I'm missing others.<br /><br />I kind of have to agree with Dale & your quote. Why does it matter who what how a person is attracted to people? If their body makes them miserable, let them change their body rather than demonizing them. (saying all of [group] are either gay men trying to "trap" straight men or only interested in themselves is fairly demonizing)<br /><br />I think people just want to make things taboo so they can justify attacking them. Who cares what someone gets turned on by? As long as it's fully consensual- it really doesn't matter.Drekihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11035522983979695217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-49676228808759721942010-07-29T09:41:08.837-07:002010-07-29T09:41:08.837-07:00This article helped me a lot. Now I get the pictur...This article helped me a lot. Now I get the picture of how the term sexual orientation can be misleading.<br />Personally, I love women but also love to be desirable to men though I am not attracted to male bodies physically.<br />Well, one of the mistakes of the concept of sexual orientation is that it has combined physical attraction with emotional drives, both of which can trigger sexual desires in humans. But, the two are different. My feelings for men are on emotional level, and though the male body is not as beautiful to me as the female body, I enjoy thinking of sex with guys for the purely emotional bonding. <br />As a bisexual guy hence I could say hence that our sexual desires are much much more complicated than simply a matter of sexual orientation and that, most people ahve an inherent tendency to love both genders.Ivanonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-50888732786925394672010-07-28T13:22:25.368-07:002010-07-28T13:22:25.368-07:00Crossdreaming is much more common than people beli...Crossdreaming is much more common than people believe. Anne Lawrence presents crossdresser numbers in the order of 2 to 3 three prosent of the male population in the US. Many crossdreamers do not crossdress. That could bring the percentage of crossdreamers up to 5 percent, which equals the percentage of male homosexuals. <br /><br />I have prepared an article on transfans, and I believe many of them are crossdreamers. You will see that there are many of them as well. So maybe it isn't that unusual, after all.Jack Molayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03629363646482611722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-5178321778139305332010-07-28T08:47:04.091-07:002010-07-28T08:47:04.091-07:00All fascinating stuff, as usual!
My gut reaction ...All fascinating stuff, as usual!<br /><br />My gut reaction to it is that all of this stuff, on both sides of the issue, is repugnant and pernicious, in that it is disagreement about the exact number, size, and shape of the pigeonholes that of course everyone must be stuffed into. How about just getting rid of the pigeonholes entirely, stopping the blanket statements that imply that there are exactly two (or three, or five) kinds of MTFs (or of people), and just recognize that there is a wide and fascinating and blurry spectrum of natures and desires, and that all of them should be celebrated?<br /><br />But on the other hand I can see that by discussing these things people are at least acknowledging that natures and desires outside of the consensus norm *exist*, even if they are acknowledging them mostly for the purpose of classifying them. And that's better than the closet anyway. :)<br /><br />A couple of phrases I found telling: your "Maybe it does not matter. Maybe this is all part of the wonderful variety of life" seems right on to me. More important to embrace the variety than to decide on the right set of pigeonholes.<br /><br />And, from the tagline this this weblog: "This is a phenomenon so unusual that it is rarely talked about." I agree on the "rarely talked about". How sure are you about the "unusual"? :DDale Innishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02771522211082181738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-31822970072549164142010-07-28T04:38:01.067-07:002010-07-28T04:38:01.067-07:00I guess it depends on what you believe is the star...I guess it depends on what you believe is the starting point. If you, like for instance Ray Blanchard, believes that there is an absolute dividing line between being heterosexual and homosexual, any attraction a gynephilic crossdreamer must feel for men is a delusion. The male figure is a prop in a fantasy used to affirm the femininity of the dreamer.<br /><br />If on the other hand, you open up for the possibility of true bisexuality (and why shouldn't there be, given all the variation we see in sexuality?), another story becomes possible. <br /><br />There has been a part of you that have always been attracted to men, but which has been suppressed due to the stigma attached to homosexuality. The inner femininity will not be denied, however, and find its expression through feminization fantasies. <br /><br />The more you accept this hidden side of yourself, the more likely it is that the original bisexuality resurfaces. <br /><br />It is amazing to see how much different points of view changes the narratives.Jack Molayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03629363646482611722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-28932627446671741902010-07-28T04:17:13.285-07:002010-07-28T04:17:13.285-07:00"During my exploration of my own crossdreamer..."During my exploration of my own crossdreamer psyche, I have slowly come to the point where I can see that it actually might be possible for a crossdreamer to switch allegiance in this way, i.e. the point where the male body actually becomes physically attractive, but I must admit that I do not understand how this happens. I suspect there may something inherently wrong about the way we look at sexual orientation."<br /><br />I have experienced a level of shift myself. I'm not sure at this stage if it is a permanent shift or temporary. I have messed around with estrogens over time so these are a factor too. What I found was over time a new AGP fantasy was creeping in where I had to desire men. This seemed to be a self imposed brainwashing exercise generated by the push of AGP. The use of self hypnosis files also played a part too. Once a fantasy has been taken to it's extreme you find the next one to do - taking you to the next level. All very bizarre I fully admit. Paraphilia - the curse of the intelligent. But maybe it's not a paraphilia???Cheryl Sussexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02512809610979507630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-86655250578692366072010-07-27T07:04:30.168-07:002010-07-27T07:04:30.168-07:00For people not having access to a journal article ...For people not having access to a journal article they would especially like to read, it is considered okay to email the author asking for a copy.ACHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06643809450938135601noreply@blogger.com