The evolutionary advantages of feminine men and masculine women

In an earlier post I noted that autogynephiliacs (men who dream about being women) may actually be at an evolutionary advantage. I criticized Joan Roughgarden for not doing the obvious: exploring the possible social and evolutionary role of the autogynephiliac within her theory of social selection.

(If the sentence above makes absolutely no sense to you, do read the post about Roughgarden and autogynephilia.)

Bailey and the feminine man

It turns out I am not the only one who has looked into this possibility. I have found a paper written by J. Michael Bailey and his friends, where they try to explain how homosexuality can survive as a genetic trait. Homosexuals are, after all, less likely to get offspring.

Their hypothesis is that there are other family members that get some -- but not all -- of the same genes. These are feminine, but heterosexual men, who for some reason have more sexual partners than the average Joe, and who are therefore able to spread their seed more liberally.

Notice the irony in all of this. Roughgarden has really nothing good to say about Bailey -- the man who popularized the autogynephilia (AGP) concept in his "Queen" book. But here he is, presenting a theory that fits well with Roughgarden's new approach.

Here is the summary:

"We show that psychologically masculine females and feminine men are (a) more likely to be nonheterosexual but (b), when heterosexual, have more opposite-sex sexual partners. With statistical modelling of the twin data, we show that both these relationships are partly due to pleiotropic [more than one effect] genetic influences common to each trait.

"We also find a trend for heterosexuals with a nonheterosexual twin to have more opposite-sex partners than do heterosexual twin pairs. Taken together, these results suggest that genes predisposing to homosexuality may confer a mating advantage in heterosexuals, which could help explain the evolution and maintenance of homosexuality in the population."

The amazing thing about this article is that in order to explain this phenomenon Bailey and Co have to turn the traditional narrative of the strong and manly man conquering the coy and passive woman upside down. By doing so they actually make room for the alternative male roles Roughgarden are looking for.

They ask:

"The traits most reliably associated with homosexuality relate to masculinity–femininity; homosexual men tend to be more feminine than heterosexual men, and homosexual women tend to more masculine than heterosexual women. Could this sex atypicality be advantageous when expressed in heterosexuals? "

The sexual success of the feminine man

And the answer is:

"Although perhaps counterintuitive, there is evidence that females are more attracted to males with certain feminine behavioral traits such as tenderness, considerateness, and kindness. They also prefer men with feminized faces , although the preferred degree of feminization differs across the menstrual cycle and between short-term and long-term mating goals.

"There has been less research on what masculine traits in females may be attractive to men, but it should be noted that masculine traits such as competitiveness and unrestricted sociosexuality (willingness to engage in uncommitted sexual relations) could contribute to a mating advantage. Indeed, psychologically more masculine women have a greater number of opposite-sex sexual partners in their lifetime." (References removed for readability)

If you do not know evolutionary biology this may not sound so revolutionary to you, but I can tell you that this is more than "counterintuitive". What Bailey and Co do here is to break with the stereotypical gender roles this research field is dominated by. I don't know whether they are right or not, but I salute their bravery!

But this case also displays the weakness of modern evolutionary biology. It seems to me anything can be explained by anything, even if you undermine the very foundation sexual selection theory is built on.

If women are attracted to feminine men as much as they are attracted to masculine men, it is -- in fact -- impossible to say that one male configuration is more optimal than another. That also means that the idea that women use the looks and manners of men to determine who's most genetically fit, is hard to uphold. After all, these men have so little in common. They cannot all be equally fit.

However, the results are clear if we are to believe the researchers: Feminine men and masculine women are more likely to get laid!

Gay genes give you feminine heterosexual men

The genetic influences on the different traits are more correlated with each other than the environmental influences.

Bailey and Co again:

"Our evidence is consistent with a mechanism whereby some genetic variation underlying homosexuality could have been maintained over evolutionary time. The genes influencing homosexuality have two effects.

"First, and most obviously, these genes increase the risk for homosexuality, which ostensibly has decreased Darwinian fitness.

"Countervailing this, however, these same genes appear to increase sex-atypical gender identity, which our results suggest may increase mating success in heterosexuals.

"This mechanism, called antagonistic pleiotropy, might maintain genes that increase the risk for homosexuality because they increase the number of sex partners in the relatives of homosexuals."

Bailey & Co are not the first to suggest something like this. Jim McKnight proposed that there exists a marginal group of females who drop the optimal males for "homosexually-enabled heterosexuals" with charm, intelligence and empathy. The difference between McKnight and Bailey & Co seems to be -- interestingly enough -- that Bailey is open for the idea that a large proportion of women may go for the sensitive men.

Snapshots

The problem with this counter-theory is, of course, that it doesn't explain why there are not more feminine men around. If women find feminine men so attractive, these should be able to out-compete the muscular football brutes.

Traditional evolutionary biology believes in an optimal situation where the differences between individuals disappears as the strongest traits survive.The real answer to this question is probably found in Roughgarden's work: Nature loves variation, because the flexibility leaves more alternative routes of survival.

Bailey and Co, however, try to explain this by saying that what we are seeing is a snapshot in an evolutionary process towards "fixation at the genotype". In time homosexuals and feminine men will disappear from the gene pool, Darwinian losers as they are.

"(...) antagonistic pleiotropy may considerably slow the progression towards genetic fixation, thereby maintaining genetic variation for a much longer time than would be predicted solely from the genes' fitness-lowering phenotype (homosexuality in this case). Given that we are observing only a snapshot of evolution, antagonistic pleiotropy may help to explain extant observations of genetic variation. It should be noted that linkage disequilibrium between separate genes influencing the different traits here cannot be distinguished from genuine pleiotropy in the current design."

Stereotypes

The weak spot of much of this research is that it is based on clichés. Although Bailey is actually leaving the dominant heterosexual male model in this paper, elsewhere Bailey loves the stereotypes, and especially the one of the feminine gay man.

McKnight even mentions "charm" as a gay trait. I find such oversimplifications questionable. For each feminine, charming, gay man I know, I find five others who are more bland, to put it that way. This seems to be the case for heterosexual men as well.

And how do you measure femininity? Bailey & Co focus on outward appearance and mannerisms in his "Queen" book. In this paper he and his colleagues widen the scope to include inner traits like tenderness and kindness, but I still have the feeling that this has to be coupled with feminine looks in order to pass the muster.

The feminine man

I must be one weird person who finds this extremely entertaining.

Bailey & Co present a theory that fits well with our discussion on metrosexuals and Natalie's theory of a common innate femininity of gay males and autogynephiliacs.

Natalie claims that gay men and autogynephiliacs share a "camp gene" or a complex of genes that give them an inborn femininity, but since autogynephiliacs are women-lovers, their femininity get another expression that the one of gay men.

Still, we may be talking about the same complex of genes. If we are to believe Bailey & Co, and given that the feminine men and masculine women get more offspring than the average, they make sure that the "camp genes" and the"gay genes" are carried over to the next generation. Not all genetic combinations will lead to gay and lesbian kids. There will be more heterosexual boys and girls with "sex-atypical gender identities" as well.

The Dawn of Aquarius

I am taking the liberty of adding some pure blue sky speculation here.

We are now in the midst of a cultural shift, where women are becoming financially independent. They have higher levels of education than men in many industrialized countries. They seem to be moving from the submissive over to the dominant position in society.

This trend may increase the genetic survival rate of "masculine" heterosexual women. This is no longer a male dominated society where the coy and timid women are more likely to find mates. We will have new generations of assertive women who have the power to chose who they want, and who -- because of their financial independence -- can make stronger demands on the men they chose to live with.

I am pretty sure that this is going to happen, because I live in a Nordic country where this already has happened. Not that Nordic women in any way look masculine, but they have their own kind of independence and assertiveness.

Assertive women may go for the gentle type, as such partnerships are more likely to survive. Indeed, the divorce rates in the US are now going down at the same rate as the traditional house wives are disappearing.

The next bit is anecdotal, but I have observed that liberated Scandinavian women find it harder to establish long lasting relationships with men raised in societies with more traditional gender roles, like Germany and Austria. Assertive German and Austrian women, on the other hand, just love the feminine flexibility of Scandinavian men. They don't even have to ask them to do the dishes.

If the new assertive women go for the feminine easy maintenance guys, we may actually see that these genetic traits (feminine men and masculine women) become even more successful in the evolutionary race for survival.

Men with strong inner women will continue to be harassed by men following the traditional male role, but if the "fem-males" survive up till high school they should have good chances at outperforming their competitors.

The autogynephiliacs

But Bailey & Co do not mention autogynephiliacs in this paper. Given all that he and we know about autogynephiliacs, it says a lot that he doesn't. After all, aren't the autogynephiliacs the most feminine of heterosexual men? These men dream about being women! What more can you ask for?

The reason Bailey does not make this connection, is that he is locked into the "autogynephilia as a fetish" theory. Even if this paper argues that women look for "tenderness, considerateness, and kindness", in his "Queen" book he is focusing on femininity as outward appearance. According to him the autogynephiliacs look and act masculine. That's why their "femininity" cannot be real. And compared to androphile transsexuals they also find it harder to pass as women if they chose to transition. The AGP transsexuals look and act like men, according to Bailey.

Bailey is using the autogynephilia theory to explain the differences between man-loving and woman-loving transsexuals, and when you have chosen that trajectory it isn't easy to contemplate the similarities between the two groups.

If Natalie is right, however, the reason the autogynephiliacs act in a masculine manner is that they have learned that displaying feminine gestures will scare women away. The women may still be attracted to the feminine parts of their personality, though.

As for the argument that autogynephiliacs in general (including the majority that even does not contemplate transitioning) look more masculine than gay men, it is simply a theory that cannot be proved or disproved. I am not even sure if it is relevant, as femininity is so much more than looks.

It is likely that AGP transsexuals on average look more mannish than classic transsexuals. They do, after all, transition much later in life, and older women normally look less feminine than the younger ones. Moreover, if you have spent 40 years training to behave like a man, feminine mannerism and a good dress sense may not come easy. That does not stop her from being a woman.

AGP as a sub group of feminine men

It is certainly true that we cannot say that all of these successful feminine straight men are autogynephiliacs. Autogynephiliacs are probably at one end of the feminine heterosexual male spectrum, and many of them are indeed love shy virgins with "reduced Darwinian fitness" (Don't you just love that term?). There are quite a few socially awkward AGP techno-nerds who need to work hard on the feminine charm bit if they are to get lucky.

Still, as I noted in my previous post, a large number of autogynephiliacs have girl friends and wives, and they do get kids. Even the AGP nerds find mates. I did!

Moreover, given the new woman dominated society, the shy and inhibited autogynephiliac may suddenly find himself hunted down by aggressive women looking for helpful and loyal life partners. Who knows, maybe this kind of evolution will give us more autoandrophiliacs, giving the autogynephiliacs their perfect lovers?

If this is the case we will also find that these amazing couples get an increasing number of homosexual kids. I do hope the Pope is not reading this blog! This post will confirm his worst fears.

OK, I am joking -- at least partly. As always, when I present research of this kind it is not necessarily because it "proves" anything, but because alternative theories help us get beyond the traditional view of the autogynephiliac as a fetish freak. And I believe this paper does, in spite of what Bailey may be thinking.

Reference:

The article, "Genetic factors predisposing to homosexuality may increase mating success in heterosexuals", is written by Brendan P. Zietsch, Katherine I. Morley, Sri N. Shekar, Karin J.H. Verweij, Matthew C. Keller, Stuart Macgregor, Margaret J. Wright, J. Michael Bailey and Nicholas G. Martin and can be found in Evolution and Human Behavior Volume 29, Issue 6, November 2008, Pages 424-433.

The study was based on a questionnaire sent to a community-based sample consisting of 4904 (1824 male and 3080 female) Australian twins reared together, ranging in age from 19 to 52 years. We can only hope that they answered truthfully when asked about their sexual orientation, gender identity and number of opposite-sex partners.

For a broad discussion on straight and gay feminine men, see Edward M. Miller: "Homosexuality, Birth Order, and Evolution: Towards a Equilibrium Reproductive Economics of Homosexuality"

A survey of crossdressers

The term autogynephilia was introduced by the psychologist Ray Blanchard. He defined it as "a man's paraphilic tendency to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a female".

There is an overlap between this group and the crossdressers. Not all autogynephiliacs are crossdressers. But a lot of crossdressers get erotically turned by dressing up as a woman.

Knowing more about the crossdressers will help us get a better insight into autogynephilia.

My online friend Colin has set up some tables based on an interesting survey of cross-dressers in 1992 compared to a similar sample from 1972. Some of the questions relate to gender identity. Colin suspects a lot of crossdressers fantasize about having a woman's body.

Image: Jude Law as crossdresser in Rage.

SURVEY OF 1032 CROSS-DRESSERS

Demographic, Childhood, and Family Variables: 1992 and 1972 data

Note the large number of married crossdressers, and the fact that most of them believe their fathers provided a good masculine image. They were not raised as crossdressers, if anyone suspects that.

TABLE I	(%)	(%)
Age	1992	1972
20-30	10	20
30-40	33	34
40-50	28	28
>50	29	18
Religion	1992	1972
Catholic	24	23
Protestant	38	57
Jewish	3	4
Agnostic/Athiest	10	13
Other	25	3
Education past BA	1992	1972
yes	65	63
Occupation	1992	1972
Unskilled	12	17
Skilled	16	21
Business	26	24
Arts	4	7
Technical	21	14
Professional	21	17
Marital Status	1992	1972
Married now	60	64
Separated, Divorced, widowed	23	14
Never married	17	22
--	--	--
Ever been married	83	78
Fathered children	69	74
Raised by both parents	76	82
Father provided good masculine image	76	72
Raised just as a boy	86	83

Sexual and Cross-dressing variables: 1992 and 1972 Data

The fact that most identify as heterosexual, should not come as a surprise. That as many as 29 percent some kind of homosexual experiences probably points to a desire to have sex as a woman.

72 percent report that crossdressing brings sexual excitement and orgasm occasionally to nearly always. It is fair to say that these probably are autogynephiliacs.

66 percent began cross-dressing before the age of 10. If most of these crossdressers truly are autogynephiliacs, this means that autogynephilia appears before puberty and is not the result of increased testosterone production in puberty.

A large majority of them believe that they express a different part of themselves when crossdressing, i.e. they believe they have an innate feminine side.

71 percent have crossdressed in public, although they do not necessarily do this often. Note that most of the respondents are members of crossdresser clubs. This may influence their tendency towards going out dressed as women.

Their wives are normally aware of their habit. Only a minority was told about it before marriage though, even if the number of crossdressers revealing their condition at an early stage is increasing. Their wives have mixed views about their men's crossdressing.

The authors draw attention to the "purges" of crossdressers:

"There appears to be pervasive guilt associated with transvestism, for we found three quarters of our subjects reported a purge of their feminine attire at some time in their history (75 vs. 69%). This is invariably described as a product of intense feelings of wrongdoing and shame."

TABLE II	(%)	(%)
Sexual Orientation	1992	1972
Heterosexual	87	89
Bisexual	7	9
Homosexual	1	1
Asexual	5	1
Some homosexual experiences	29	28
Sexual Interest in women	1992	1972
Above average	17	24
Average	57	62
Below average	26	14
Age began cross-dressing	1992	1972
Before age 10	66	54
Between 10 and 20	29	37
After age 20	5	8
View of self when cross-dressed	1992	1972
Express different part of myself	80	78
Just myself with different clothes	20	22
Cross-dressing brings sexual excitement and orgasm	1992	1972
Nearly always	21
Often	19
Occasionally	32
Rarely	12
Never	9
Enjoy feminine clothes when orgasm is not feasible	1992	1972
Frequently	41
Often	24
Occasionally	24
Rarely	8
Never	2
--	--	--
Prefer complete cross-dressing	93	85
Frequency of public cross-dressing	1992	1972
Frequently	14	8
Occasionally	48	23
Rarely	38	69
--	--	--
Have appeared cross-dressed in public	71
Activities while cross-dressed	1992	1972
Ride on bus, train, etc.	10
Eat in restaurants	28
Plays, lectures church	18
Tried on feminine clothes in stores	22
Used ladies' room	26
Seen by acquaintances who knew me	17
--	--	--
Experienced a "purge" of cross-dressing	75	69
Wife is aware of cross-dressing	83	80
Wife's acceptance or antagonism	1992	1972
Completely accepting	28	23
Mixed view	47	57
Completely antagonistic	19	20
--	--	--
Wife knew of your cross-dressing before marriage	32	27

Cross-gender Identity, Hormones, and Sexual Reassignment

Colin points to the fact that 60% of current cross-dressers prefer their masculine and feminine selves equally. This means that their gender identity is male and female.

The authors add:

"A marked change from 1972 data was seen when our subjects were asked whether they preferred their masculine selves, feminine selves, or both selves equally. Sixty percent of our sample preferred 'both selves equally,' compared to only 12% in 1972. This unusually great change may be a reflection of a theme strongly advocated in transvestite magazines and newsletters--that it is healthy and desirable to have an integration of the masculine and feminine components of one's personality. Personality integration, of course, is also a major objective in many forms of counseling and psychotherapy."

Only a minority consider themselves "women trapped in a man's body", although this percentage increased from 1972 to 1992. It is interesting to note that as many as 43 percent would like to use female hormones, although only 9 percent had done so.

Colin adds: "Also interesting is that 17% want a sex-change if money and partner were not a factor."

As many as 45 percent of the 1992 sample had sought counselling.

TABLE III	(%)	(%)
I feel myself to be a	1992	1972
Woman trapped in a man's body	17	12
Man with feminine side	74	69
Fetishist, favor women's clothing	9	12
Preferred gender identity	1992	1972
Masculine self	11	29
Feminine self	28	56
Equally	60	12
Female Hormones	1992	1972
Not interested in using	48	41
Would like to use	43	50
Using hormones now	4	5
Used hormones in the past	5	4
--	--	--
If I were single and financially able at the present time, I would have a sex change operation even now	17	14
Consulted psychologist or psychiatrist	45	24
Helped by counseling	67	47

An important research objective of the project was to identify variables discriminating between so-called "Nuclear" (stable, periodic cross-dressers) and "Marginal transvestites" (more transgendered or transsexually inclined).

The authors say:

"We divided the present sample into two groups using the following question: "I feel myself to be: (a) awoman trapped in a man's body (b) a man who has a feminine side that seeks expression occasionally (c) a man with a sexual fetish for feminine clothing."

"Group 1 was defined as the 747 cross-dressers who selected item (b); Group 2 was defined as the 172 cross-dressers who selected item (a). (...)

"No difference between Groups 1 and 2 were seen for the following variables: married now, ever married, fathered children, parents divorced, separated, or deceased, parents overprotective, parents discouraged rough-and-tumble play, hugged and stroked as child, sexually aroused by specific items of women's clothing, enjoy cross-dressing even when sexual release is not feasible, age of first cross-dressing, prefer complete cross-dressing, experienced a "purge" of cross-dressing, consulted psychologist concerning cross-dressing, and belong to cross-dressing, organization."

10 strongly discriminating parameters were found. The most important were, according to the authors: cross-gender identity, commitment to live entirely as a woman, taking steps toward body feminization, low sexual arousal to cross-dressing.

"Neither age nor experience as a cross-dresser were found to be correlates of cross-gender identity. Although the present generation of transvestites describe themselves much as did similar subjects 20 years ago, the percentage migrating toward full-time living as a woman is greater."

If you do crossdess, please feel free to add a comment on where you stand on this map, and the challenges you are facing!

Reference

Richard F. Docter , Virginia Prince: "Transvestism: a survey of 1032 cross-dressers."

The authors says this about the sample:

"Our subjects were 1032 self-defined periodic cross-dressers, all of whom were biological males, ranging in age from 20 to 80. This volunteer nonrandom sample was acquired from throughout the United States by announcements at transvestite club meetings, conventions of cross-dressers, and in magazines and newsletters for cross-dressers. Nearly all subjects received the self-responsive survey form at one of these events; a small percentage were mailed to individuals who volunteered to participate. An unknown number of survey forms were reproduced by support groups and distributed to interested members. Our best estimate of the overall response rate is that roughly 30 to 35% were completed and returned. The data were collected over a 2-year span ending in 1992. All participation was anonymous. ... Eighty percent said they were affiliated with either a cross-dressers' club or national organization."

Joan Roughgarden and autogynephilia

The final part in a series about Joan Roughgarden and her studies of sex, gender and nature. In this post I look at what Roughgarden's alternative view of evolution and sex can mean for autogynephiliacs.

Joan Roughgarden's reflections on biology and gender began with a gay parade in San Fransciso:

"In June 1997 I marched in my first gay pride parade. I walked up Market Street in San Francisco, from the Civic Center to the Ferry Building. The parade was one of the biggest I had ever seen, and the sidewalks on both sides were packed six deep. I had heard that 1 in 10 people is gay or lesbian, but had always felt this number exaggerated. At this parade, though, I began to realise for the first time that the number of gays may indeed plausibly reach that figure."

The biologist in her found this to be quite of a problem:

"My discipline teaches that homosexuality is some sort of unexplained anomaly. If the purpose of sexual contact is reproduction, as the standard explanation has it, how can all these gay people exist? One might argue they are somehow defective, that some developmental error or environmental influence has misdirected their sexual fantasies. If so, gay and lesbian people are here for a brief time during our species' evolution, awaiting removal when natural selection prunes those with lower Darwinian fitness."

Same-sex behavior is common

Roughgarden finds, though, that same-sex behavior is common in nature, and have probably been so for a very long time, which means that Darwin's view -- that males and females have preordained roles of "horny handsome warriors and discreetly discerning damsels" -- is wrong.

In her words:

"In many species, including ours, females are not necessarily less eager than males, nor do females all yearn for Arnold Schwarzenegger. Females often solicit males, and males often decline. Moreover, in many species the supposed sex roles reverse. Even Darwin acknowledged species of birds, like the jacana, in which the females are highly ornamented and the males dull and drab, reversing the peafowl story.

Many animals, indeed, do not even sort neatly into two sexes at all. If you go snorkelling on a coral reef, about one-third of the fish you see make both eggs and sperm at either the same time or different times during their lives.... In fact the most common body plan among multicellular organisms, including plants, is for a single individual to make both male and female gametes at some time during their life. "

She therefore concluded that the condition where an individual can be unambiguously classified as either male or female is not the norm.

Sex for bonding instead of procreation

Roughgarden also came to the conclusion that mating is mostly directed at forming and managing relationships, and not necessarily about the transfer om sperm. However, strong relationships will ultimately result in the successful production and rearing of offspring.

In an article in the New Scientist she makes the following observation:

"In humans, for example, suppose Ozzie and Harriet have two children, have been married for 50 years, and make love regularly each week - say, Thursday night. After 50 years they will have mated over 2500 times, and produced two children, thus mating 1250 times per offspring produced. Sounds inefficient? Not if we suppose that regular mating allows the couple to stay together to successfully rear their two children. "

In this context homosexuality make a little bit more evolutionary sense.

Homosexuality in man is not a disease. There are just too many gay people around for that to be the case. As Roughgarden says:

"A 'common genetic disease' is a contradiction in terms, and homosexuality is three to four orders of magnitude more common than true genetic diseases such as Huntington's disease."

Roughgarden suggest that homosexuality is a social inclusionary trait - that is, it provides animals, including perhaps humans at times, with admission to social groups. It evolves whenever same-sex cooperation helps achieve an evolutionarily successful life: to survive, find mates and protect one's young from harm.

Nature loves variation

Note that there are two messages here.

The first is the one about heterogeneity, in the sense that nature loves variation. This is the reason I have spent so much time on presenting Roughgharden to you. Not because she is right in everything she says (no one is), and not because she defends autogynephilia as something natural (she doesn't), but because she expands our view of what sex and gender is in a natural context.

By doing this she undermines the ideology that forms the basis of the more simplistic and binary tales about how men and women ought to behave gender wise.

We know that tale well. It is the one about the the two distinct roles of the genders,. It is the one about sex being mainly a vehicle for procreation, which means that heterosex must be the norm. And it is the tale that leads the storytellers to label all behaviors and all desires that do not follow these well defined roles as fetishes, paraphilias and perversions.

She clearly demonstrates that most of the (mostly male) biologists writing in the areas of evolution and sex, have inherited and accepted the traditional tale about gender roles, and that they project these attitudes out upon animal behavior. In this way they can use their interpretation of animal behavior to reinforce traditional views on what it means to be a man or a woman.

Blanchard and Bailey have been born out of this tradition, and although they are much more radical and tolerant than most give them credit for, this has led them into interpreting their findings within a traditional framework.

This is why they cannot accept that classic M2F transsexuals should be considered women. They already have a hard time explaining the existence of gay men! This is also why they develop the theory of autogynephiliacs having internalized their object of desire (women). That is the only explanation that makes sense to them, because what kind of evolutionary tale can make sense of men that love women, but still dream about being women?

Opening a new door

Roughgarden opens a door to new theories and new explanations, that not only make sense from a political human rights perspective, but which also helps us understand nature.

This is a nature that has room for feminine male morphs among birds and other mammals. Such a nature may also have room for alternative male identities among humans. A nature where males mount males and females mount females, may also have room for humans that fantasize about replacing the top position for the bottom.

This does not mean that autogynephiliacs necessarily are the feminine male morphs of homo sapiens. Autogynephiliacs (AGPs) are not clearly distinguishable from other males as are the feminine male birds. No, the point is that there is so much variation as regards gender roles among animals, that we can and should be open for the same kind of variation amongst ourselves. From that perspective autogynephilia may make sense, also from an evolutionary point of view.

Roughgarden's problem

Roughgarden's problem is that the participants of her Pride Parade do not necessarily share her enthusiasm for the heterogeneity of nature. The fact is that many of her transsexual sisters hate the idea and believe in the traditional dichotomy of the sexes. Many of them do not want to take part in the Pride Parade at all, as they feel they have nothing in common with homosexuals and the "transgendered".

They could even be right in this. As I have noted before, I truly believe classic transsexuals are what they claim they are: Women. Period. Not gay men.

Nor do all homosexuals embrace the idea of a rainbow of evolution, where the colors of the gay flag represents a continuum of human sexuality and gender identity. Instead they spend a lot of time trying to decide who can be considered red and who are purple.

The toxicity of autogynephilia

When it comes to the autogynephiliacs, Roughgarden actually finds it hard to find room for them in her rainbow. This may come as a surprise, as Roughgarden is one of the scientists that has most clearly attacked Michael Bailey's book on transsexualism and autogynephilia.

In her article The Bailey Affair: Psychology Perverted (2004) she actually attacked Bailey's and Blanchard's idea of there being two different types of transsexuals:

"From a transgender perspective, Bailey’s claim that all transgendered women match one of these two profiles is clearly counterfactual. Many transgendered women come out late in life and yet are sexually oriented to men, many come out early in life and yet are oriented to women, many who are oriented to women are attractive nonetheless, many have changed direction of sexual orientation when they transitioned, many are bisexual, and many are not sexually active.

"Transgendered women also encompass heterogeneity in occupation, presentation, temperament, sexual history, and ethnicity. Furthermore, transgendered people are not as fixated on sex as Bailey evidently is. The need to locate in the social and occupational space of one’s gender identity, to live as a woman, is a stronger motivation for many transgendered women than is attaining sexual pleasure. So, the initial dilemma faced by transgendered women was to discern how Bailey went wrong, why so far off course, and perhaps try to lend some accuracy to his account."

I was therefore very surprised when I saw that Roughgarden accepts Anne Lawrence's story about autogynephilia as her own in Evolution's Rainbow, a book published the same year (2004). And she does this in spite of the fact that Lawrence has adopted the Blanchard/Bailey theory.

Roughgarden, admittedly, does not accept the absolute dichotomy between androphile transsexuals and gynephile/bisexual autogynephiliacs as Lawrence does, but she does accept the idea that the motivation of autogynephiliacs (she calls them "autoerotic") is sexual desire (pp. 270):

"I believe Lawrence's narrative brings out a valid distinction between trangender expression motivated by gender identity and that motivated by fetishism. Transsexuals can be motivated by either, and cross-dressers can too. On the gender-identity motivated to fetish-motivated spectrum, transsexuals cluster towards the former and cross-dressers toward the latter. Each transgendered person probably has his or her own personal mix of these motivations." (p. 272)

The autogynephiliacs are in minority

Nor does Roughgarden buy the idea that autogynephiliacs are in majority among the transwomen who transition:

"Although Lawrence's narrative demonstrates that an autoerotic component can exist in male-to-female transsexualism, I am not persuaded that many people match this profile... As far as I can tell, the vast majority of narratives freely told by transgendered people among themselves, and those recorded by ethnographers throughout history, demonstrate that actualizing gender identity -- not sex drive -- is the primary motive for transgender expression." (p. 272-272)

This is, unfortunately, impossible to prove or disprove, because an autogynephiliac M2F transsexual who admits to having sexual fantasies of this sort, will most likely be labelled a freak, not only by society at large, but also by other transsexuals. The temptation to stick to the traditional narrative must therefore be very high.

Since Blanchard and Lawrence couple autogynephilia to sexual orientation, I guess they would say that it is easy to identify the AGPs. All of the women loving and bisexual M2F transsexuals are autogynephilic, and then some.

They argue that many of the transsexuals who report that they become androphilic (attracted to men) after transitioning, are autogynephiliacs as well. The reason for this is that Blanchard and Lawrence do not believe their attraction to men is real. These transsexuals are attracted to the idea of being a woman desired by men, not to men in and for themselves.

Maybe this is the case, I do not know, but it is extremely hard to prove. You will have to argue that the autogynephiliacs lie to the researcher (and maybe to themselves) when they say that they are attracted to men, and then you need to prove that they are lying. I cannot see that this has been proven.

A reluctant acceptance

Still, this is important, because if the autogynephiliacs are in majority among post-op transsexuals, Roughgardens solution to the "problem" becomes very problematic. The danger is that she and other transsexual women may end up branding a large number of other transsexual women as mere fetishists.

She struggles hard with the question of how to include the autogynephiliacs in the Pride Parade:

"However, even a single case of autoerotic transsexualism raises the issue of inclusion. Here is a test of whether we're really inclusive ourselves. Do we really believe in diversity, or are we riding its bandwagon? After all, it should not matter why a sister becomes a sister. I will love her and support her anyway.

"At the same time, the sensational publicizing of autoerotic transsexualism poses a threat to the future of transgendered people. Today we transgendered people may enjoy the best prospect we've had since the time of Jesus to enter mainstream Western society and live productive, normal lives. We don't want this prospect to be undermined by bizarre sexualities. We don't want to give ammunition to those who wish to pathologize us, and endorsing autoerotic transsexualism would seem to do just that." (p. 273)

At this point Roughgarden becomes political. She no longer embraces the heterogenity of the rainbow, because she knows that society will find it very hard to swallow the idea of sex driven autogynephiliacs being real women. Since she accepts the Blanchard/Lawrence explanation of the cause of autogynephilia, she ends up leaving her own radical path of real acceptance to a position of reluctant acceptance.

Roughgarden describes the way the gay and lesbian organisations finally decided to include transsexuals, and then she adds:

"Similarly, I believe we must include transsexuals motivated more by autoerotic impulse than by gender identity, however few they may be. To do otherwise cedes the moral high ground."

This was not the kind of embrace I had been hoping for. You do not get autogynephilic transsexuals to admit to their condition by telling them that they are accepted only because doing otherwise would be ceding the moral high ground.

The problem

The problem here is not that Roughgarden leaves her gradualist approach and suddenly goes for two distinct types of transsexuals. As I have noted before, I think there are valid reasons for working on the assumption that there are two groups, even if it should turn out that they are somewhat overlapping or have a common biological basis.

Autogynephiliacs seem to be predominantly gynephilic (oriented towards women). If they transition, they normally transition later than classic transsexuals. (Although that can be of social and cultural reasons -- as they are gynephilic, most of them find it easier to try out a "normal" life first.)

The autogynephiliacs also get turned on by imagining themselves as women, while classic transsexual women normally do not. The classic transsexual women seem to get turned on by men only (or by women if they are lesbians).

The autoerotic component in autogynephilia can be caused by the fact that autogynephiliacs are gynephilic (attracted to women), though. In spite of what Blanchard and others may tell you, most autogynephiliacs are perfectly capable of loving a real woman "out there".

Autogynephiliacs may have some of the same biological basis for their femininity as do feminine gay men and classical transsexuals. We simply do not know.

And that is exactly why Roughgarden's discussion of autogynephilia is so disappointing. She gives in to the fear of the community and fails to explore the most obvious avenue of exploration: to see whether autogynephilia can have a biological and evolutionary explanation. In other words: could different forms of femininity in men give them a special role in society and in the evolutionary process?

A possible solution

It is a hard to explain how potential genetic complexes causing homosexuality are passed down the generations. The same applies to androphilic classic M2F transsexuals.

But it is very easy to explain why autogynephilia can survive in the the fight between "selfish genes".

First: autogynehphiliacs love women. For this very reason their chances of getting offspring is much higher than for homosexual men and classic transsexual women.

Second: All things considered, many autogynephiliacs can be considered good husband material. Even if they sometimes are as "hopeless" as other men, some women will find their feminine traits if not attractive, so at least helpful. They may not be Brad Pitts, but they are more likely to take care of the children.

They may have strange habits -- obsessions even -- but are probably less likely to be unfaithful. In an imperfect world, this may not be such a bad deal for a woman. Besides: So far women have had a broader perspective of what makes a good spouse: a perspective that includes more than broad shoulders and a nice ass.

Finally, most women do not know anything about autogynephilia, and many potential husbands hesitate to tell them about it in fear of being marked as freaks. This is a vicious circle indeed, but it does not stop the autogynephilacs from procreating.

Autogynephiliacs often get kids, so if their condition is genetic, it will be carried on to the next generation.

The feminine male morph

If we like Natalie accepts that autogynephiliacs have a strong feminine side mixed in with their masculine appearance, you get closer to the alternative male morphs Roughgarden are talking about.

These are men that on average are less aggressive and assertive, and who worships femininity. This is the reason so many of them get bullied when young: They do not fit the traditional male paradigm. They are not gay, but they are not "real men" either.

Still, many of them are successful in life. Many of them have steady jobs and can be trusted providers and partners. In this way they do represent an alternative male role. This is not a role that is appreciated much in our culture -- at least not yet -- but I can easily imagine earlier cultures where they have had a more defined role. (I'll come back to that in a later post).

The effeminate gay men can also fit this profile. In cultures with arranged marriages, you can even explain why their femininity is carried on to the next generation, but it becomes increasingly harder to do so in cultures where homosexuality is accepted.

Why Roughgarden does not take the final step

The reason Roughgarden misses the final step is the fact that she seems to accept the bizarre sexuality argument: Autogynephilia is not caused by evolution. It is nothing but a fetish or a paraphilia. And the reason she comes to this conclusion is not that she has any scientific basis for doing so. After all, she disagrees with Blanchard on nearly everything else.

No, the reason appears to be the other transsexuals' fear of being associated with people the "normals" are bound to consider perverts.

Such is the state of Western culture, that even today, after 100 years of sexual liberation, anyone who get turned on by the wrong thing risks being cast out. In spite of Freud and Kinsey, libertines and hippies, it is still considered suspect to have a "fetish".

To dream of becoming a woman in order to take care of kids is OK. To dream of becoming a woman in order to go shopping with the girls is OK. To get turned on by the idea of having sex like a woman, is not. Even if the same man has proved that he is a good father, a good partner and a good husband.

We have to add color and all dimensions

What this tells me, is that we have to get beyond the narrative of autogynephilia being only a fetish or only a paraphilia. In a sex fixated Western culture that narrative leads to the conclusion that autogynephiliacs are nothing but perverts, and no one can live with such a label and still feel proud of themselves.

I know for sure that the underlying cause of autogynephilia -- whatever that is -- may lead to mental illnesses and gender dysphoria. But that is not who we are. The same underlying phenomenon -- I have called it crossexualism -- also leads to a lot of positive traits, abilities and mentalities that have to be included in this tale.

By labeling autogynephiliacs as fetishists we are reducing four dimensional multicolor human beings into static sex-driven black and white flatlanders. This is not fair to the men that have this conditions, and it is definitely not fair to the M2F transsexual women for whom desire was just one of many reasons for transitioning.

Roughgarden has not closed the door: She argues that both crossdressers and transsexuals can be driven by a mix of fetish and gender identity motivations. By saying so she also leaves room for a more complex discussion of what autogynephilia is about.

My hope is that we ultimately may come to a point where the "fetish" is understood as an effect of the underlying gender identity issue. Whether that will happen, remains to be seen.

This series consists of the following posts:

Sex, gender and nature, part 1

Joan Roughgarden on social evolution

Transgender animals

Gay animals

Joan Roughgarden and autogynephilia

On the innate femininity of autogynephiliacs

Is the the femininity of autogynephiliacs genetic or is it just an erotic target location error?

Image: Tanyarat Jirapatpakon, a kathoey or Thai transsexual woman.

One good online friend asked me the other day why I was so critical towards Ray Blanchard. It was a good question. After all, I have bought his idea of there being a distinct group of heterosexual men fantasizing of becoming women (as opposed to classic transsexuals). Some of them crossdress, and minority of them even end up transitioning, getting hormone treatments and sex reassignment surgery.

Since I am an autogynephiliac myself, I know that we exist. Blanchard is right about this, and I although I dislike the term "autogynephilia", I am grateful for the fact that he made me and other autogynephiliacs visible.

Erotic target location error

I guess my main problem is with his explanation for this condition. He argues that the reason autogynephiliacs get turned on by imagining themselves as women, is because they have internalized their natural object of attraction, i.e. women, into themselves. This is an "erotic target location error".

Basically, he argues, the autogynephiliacs are heterosexual men, but somehow, something has gone wrong. Instead of focusing their desire on real women out there, they are attracted to the idea of they themselves being women. It is a kind of self-obsessed narcissism (although he doesn't use those words).

His follower Anne Lawrence has gone as far as suggesting that this can be some kind of alternative sexuality: homosexuality is same sex attraction, heterosexuality is between-sex attraction and autogynephilia is a kind of inside-yourself-sex attraction.

Evolution

I can see why Blanchard has come to this conclusion. It is partly because of his ideology. He is grounded in traditional evolutionary biology, where the basic pattern of sexuality is oriented towards procreation. In evolutionary terms only heterosexual sex makes sense, as only that can lead to the transmission of genes. (For an alternative view, see my posts on Joan Roughgarden).

Blanchard and his supporter Bailey have spent a lot of time trying to make sense of homosexuality in evolutionary terms. That is hard enough. The autogynephiliacs make it all even more complicated, and by clearly defining them as "normal", although perverted, heterosexuals they avoid further complication.

His explanation is supported by the fact that many autogynephiliacs display a kind of narcissistic behavior. Some of them get so obsessed with their secret fantasies and practices, that it gets hard for them to develop normal love relationships with another person. The idea of them being in love with themselves therefore seems to make sense.

In denial?

You could argue that the reason I am reluctant to accept this, is that the thought of being labelled a fetishist or paraphiliac (in essence a dysfunctional pervert) does not appeal to me. And that could be true. I may be living in denial. I have done so before.

Still, I have a deep gut feeling telling me that this explanation is too simplistic. Blanchard may be onto something, but this hypothesis does not ring true. There is much more to autogynephilia than this. The fact is, for instance, that many autogynephiliacs do manage to establish good and loving relationships with women.

Moreover, his isn't really an explanation. He or his supporters have not really told us how or why this internalization takes place.

Crossexualism leads to autogynephilia

To help myself think more clearly about this, I have started to distinguish between autogynephilia as a condition and a hypothetical cause for autogynephilia. I have called the hypothetical complex that underpins autogynephilia "crossexualism". I am using the cross-prefix as it is already used for crossdressing, and in my own term "crossdreaming".

Crossexualism is the cause, autogynephilia is the effect.

Depending on the individual's biological/personal/cultural or social basis, the crossexual can develop different symptoms. Some end up crossdressing. Others start exploring transgender erotica about men being changed into women (crossdreaming). Some seek pleasure in behaving like women (crossenacting).

It could also be that crossexuals may develop other conditions, like gynemimetophilia (transsensuals, men who are attracted to pre-op transsexuals). Maybe some crossexuals become transgenderists, i.e M2F transsexuals who keep their original genitalia. But this is pure speculation on my part.

AGPs are unfeminine

Blanchard and Bailey deny that autogynephiliacs have an innate femininity. They believe that classic transsexual women (who they call homosexual transsexual men) are effeminate, but the autogynephiliacs are not. They and several other researchers base this understanding on observations.

Let's for a moment forget about the methodological problems related to defining who look and behave femininely and who don't. Let us forget about the fact that autogynephiliacs in general transition later in life than classic transsexuals, and that this may influence the observer's ability to distinguish between the feminine and the unfeminine (older women may look less feminine than younger ones). Let us also disregard the fact that even natural born genuine girls may look less feminine than many transsexuals.

Let us for the sake of argument accept that autogynephile men in general look more masculine than effeminate homosexual men, and that autogynephile transsexuals on average are more manly than classic transsexuals. The autogynephiliacs -- on average -- find it harder to pass as a woman than the classic transsexuals.

Do AGPs have an inner woman?

If this is the case, does this prove that autogynephiliacs have no innate femininity? Or to put it in other terms: Does this prove that the "inner woman" of the autogynephiliac is something that has been introduced into his/her psyche from the outside, while the "inner woman" of a classical transsexual is inborn?

(Just to make sure: Blanchard does not believe that classic transsexuals are women, but he does believe that they are more feminine that other biological born men, so I guess you could say he does accept some kind if innate femininity. To me they are women.)

The reason Blanchard & Co couple the looks of these people with their potential femininity, is most likely because he believes that the femininity of homosexuals and classical transsexuals is hormonal. A demasculinisation of a man may bring about both feminine looks and feminine manners. The looks, manners and psychological femininity are interconnected.

A different approach from Thailand

This brings me over to an interesting discussion taking place on this blog. There are now more than 80 comments on my Beyond the perversion post, encompassing a large number of useful exchanges. One of these discussions was initiated by a sexologist working in Thailand.

Natalie points to an article on the femininity of homosexuals and argues that the genetic condition that causes the femininity of gay men is the same as causes the femininity of autogynephiliacs.

She argues that the main difference between gay men and autogynephiliacs is their sexual orientation, not that the femininity of the homosexuals is essentially different from the one of the AGPs.

Gay gene vs. camp gene

She simplifies this by talking about two genes: "the gay gene" and "the camp gene". The feminine gay man has both, the autogynephiliac has only the latter.

I don't believe that one gene can cause homosexuality or a complex phenomenon as autogynephilia, but let's say that there are specific complexes of genetic and hormonal factors that cause both of these phenomena. If this is the case, would Natalie's line of argument make any sense?

If it did, you would have an alternative explanation for autogynephilia that fits the obervations made by researchers like Blanchard and Lawrence, but that do not reduce autogynephiliacs to fetishists or paraphiliacs.

Jack in Will and Grace

I voiced my scepticism in this way:

"I am no expert on gay men, both I know a few. Few of them are very effeminate (you know, like Jack in Will & Grace), but some are. Still their femininity is not like anything an XX woman would display, especially not if you move into the realm of flamboyant exhibitionism (like the one of drag queens). Truth to be told, I do not know how to understand this type of homosexuality. I like them, but I do not 'get' them!

That makes it hard for me to decide whether the cause of effeminate display among homosexual men is the same as the one for AGP.

My first reaction is no, because very few AGPs displays the same mannerisms as Jack in Will & Grace. Quite the opposite, actually, we often seem very masculine, both in the way we look and the way we move.

I have clear feminine traits, but they are found in my personality and in my interests, not in any form of 'campness'. I am as far away from camp as it is possible to imagine. Really :-)

But that does not exclude the possibility that there is a factor X that causes both effeminate behavior among gay men and the dream of becoming a woman among AGPs."

My point was that there ought to be a connection between the outward expression of femininity and the inner femininity.

Natalie did not agree.

Gender identity is different from gender expression

Here is her response:

"I wouldn't say 'camp' is a form of behavior which is unwomanly. It is just that women normally don't intend to display it as it has no purpose whatsoever in their ordinary lives. However quite a lot women do engage in that, especially, when it comes to earning fame through glamour and beauty in fashion, film and music industry.

And the very same goes for drag queens. Most drag queens perform it as a form of art, to impersonate females or create an effect parallel to the glam females and hence get a lot of spotlight, attention and wider fame on stage. For them, finding sexual partners or having stable family isn't as essential as their need for media spotlight. Same goes for many XX women from the fashion industry too who are rejecting all traditional female roles for fashion.
But does that rule out they are women and feminine?

Camp is just an outward display or affectation but the genetic makeup which causes it has to be nothing but XX feminine.

Gay males, on the other hand, don't appear femme in the first place but still most are, or at least have been, at a certain stage of life. Fashion may be an area of interest to them or not, but, to form stable relationships and to become potentially attractive clients in the homosexual market, they masculinize themselves and try to avoid every shred of that feminity their problems started with.

But I do suspect that had they not found [in] their early childhood [that] unmanly behaviors were inviting censure from Western society, they would have become more feminine or camp as well. I say this as in my country, just 42% of the kathoey [Thai transsexuals] report they have the mind of a true girl though all of them report feeling different from manly men and also feel they are quite feminine.

Which leads me to conclude that many of these are just feminine gay men who have been put into kathoey category by the Thai society just because they are feminine. Yet they happily grow up as girls.

So, I would say, femininity is present and is the same for all of them- gay and bigender males, drag queens all the way to homosexual transsexuals. The degree of femininity displayed depends on which part of feminity they like most and which serves their purpose of survival provided they are not forced to repress it. But their basic genetic makeup or combinations of genes have same underlying base of femininity.

And so, finally, if autogynephiles are also feminine in some way, they must be having the same combination of genes which make them unmanly. They aren't camp just because they aren't drawn to it and they don't need it as any accessory tool."

Survival strategies

My interpretation of what Natalie says is that homosexual men have two choices:

(1) To suppress their feminine side in order to attract gay men (which is more common in Europe and Northern America), or

(2) to accentuate their feminine side to attract heterosexual men (which is more common in Thailand). These gay men teach themselves feminine mannerisms. According to Natalie the mannerisms are not inborn.

Autogynephiliacs may be equally feminine at heart, but they do not display their feminine side outwards, as they are not rewarded for it. They are attracted to women, and women like masculine men. Or, at least, the autogynephiliacs believe that women are attracted to stereotypically masculine men only. Because of this they never learn feminine mannerisms.

Note that Natalie used the term "homosexual transsexual". I don't use this term myself because it may lead you to believe that the classical transsexual women are in fact gay men. They are not, as I see it. But you could, even if you follow Natalie's line of argument, say that the classic transsexuals are complete women as this femininity is inborn. It is not a result of a free choice or cultural conditioning. The kathoeys that report they have "the minds of a true girls" are classical transsexuals, because they do have the minds of true girls.

According to Natalie, there is another group of kathoeys that are not classical transsexuals, but feminine gay men. Even if male Thais take part in a kind of macho culture, the Thais are fairly tolerant towards the kathoeys. The feminine homosexual male may therefore adapt the role of kathoey with success.

The same may apply to some Latin and Middle Eastern countries, where a man is not considered homosexual if he takes the active part in the sexual act. Feminine gay men may therefore find active heterosexual male partners. Acting feminine pays off.

Identity and mannerisms

I remained skeptical. I argued that this requires that there is no biological causality between genetically based femininity and mannerisms. I.e.: their femininity is biological, but their "campness" is an act.

Some report that many (but not all) autogynephiliacs s find it especially hard to pass after transition, simply because they do not appear feminine or behave in a feminine manner. Natalie's point, though, is that there is a difference between gender identity and gender expression (cp. Betty's comment).

Gender identity is your fundamental and personal experience of being a man or a woman. Gender expression is how you present this identity to the world. There are natural born women who identify as women, but who nevertheless do not appear very feminine in public. In the same way a feminine man can appear masculine in public.

Looking at girls

Natalie again:

"I guess there is a certain difference in how homosexuals and heterosexuals look at girls. Homosexual men, more specifically, in most places outside Europe or North America, look at females just like ordinary girls do and try to imitate them as far as possible for presenting their beauty, as their primary purpose is to appear pretty.

They have not much difficulty in imbibing the campness and feminine behavior with just a bit of practice on a highly subconscious level.

However, heterosexuals usually look at women sexually. And so do the autogynephiles although they themselves have a feminine component inside.

So, while these homosexuals would go on making their inner feminine persona presentable and so would concentrate on their outward mannerisms, autogynephiles go on to eroticize this inner woman due to their sexuality. And because they don't see women that way, they fail to behave feminine too.

But that does not mean they are not feminine. I have heard many AGPs have felt different from other boys in childhood and also have had a strong femininity. It's that they haven't noticed their femininity like other girls and homosexuals or Classic transsexuals, because they simply did not need to pay attention to it and also worse, they were obviously made to believe they are boys.
In a way, they were more blind to their female component until their sexuality in puberty showed them...."

Repressed femininity

What Natalie does here is to turn the traditional story upside down: Autogynephiliacs have, for some reason or the other, repressed their inner femininity. Following your basic dynamic psychology this would mean that this suppressed part of their personality needs to find another outlet, and in the case of autogynephiliacs this is through sexual fantasies.

If I understand Natalie correctly, there is another reason for this as well: Gay men imitate women because they share the same objective: to attract men. Auotgynephiliacs cannot do that, because their objective is to attract women. In our culture a man who behave like a woman is automatically labelled as effeminate and gay, and the autogynephiliacs need to avoid that label if they are to succeed as woman-loving males.

This does not have to be a conscious choice. Early attempts at feminine behavior would have been punished - if not by parents, so by play mates.

So: according to Natalie the autogynephilic eroticism is the effect, and not the cause as it is with Blanchard, Bailey and Lawrence.

Childhood femininity

In order to prove this, you would have to prove that autogynephiliacs have this feminine component from childhood on. The research does not indicate this. In fact, on an aggregate level the pattern is that classical transsexual M2F women identify as girls at a very early age (younger than five years old), while the autogynephiliacs do not become aware of their condition until puberty.

I suspect that autogynephiliacs do become aware of their condition long before puberty. In my case I had childhood fantasies of becoming a girl as early as the age of 10 or 11, while puberty started at around 15 (I was damned late!). My dreams of becoming Supergirl was not explicitly sexual in nature.

(Lawrence actually agrees that autogynephilia may appear before puberty, but she argues that it is sexual in nature, all the same).

I cannot remember having dreams about being a girl at the age of five. Natalie may still be right, though. This innate femininity may express itself in many ways in childhood, and not necessarily as a dream of being a girl at that stage.

The outsiders

Natalie argues that many autogynephiliacs report that they felt different from other boys in childhood. I get the exact same reports: Even if they do not express feminine behavior, they do display what I -- for lack of a better word -- would call non-masculine behavior.

I hated rough and tumble play, I hated sports, I was the quiet one, and throughout life I has kept this "feminine" approach to life: being the integrator and the peace maker, rather than the aggressor.

Like classic transsexuals, autogynephiliacs report of school days where they were being bullied and persecuted for being different. Like classic transsexuals many of them were called sissies and faggots, in spite of their budding love for girls.

Parental conditioning

It could also be that autogynephiliacs do want to be girls at an early age, but that they have been forced to suppress this longing because of parental conditioning. If that is the case, we will have to explain why this kind of repression is less likely to occur amongst classic transsexuals.

One possible answer could be that there is both a gradual and a dynamic dimension to the innate femininity of all these various types of biological men.

By gradual I mean that some men are more feminine than others. As I have noted before, I feel like I have a mix of typical masculine and feminine traits. I have a strong inner woman, but I do not think that I am a woman trapped in a man's body. I also have a strong inner man. That makes me different from a classic transsexual woman.

That would mean that what I have called crossexualism above (the unknown cause of autogynephilia) could be a subcategory under the broader inner femininity concept of Natalie.

By dynamic I mean that the femininity of men can unfold throughout time, as may other psychological traits. For some reason androphilic feminine biological men become aware of their femininity at an earlier age than the gynephilic ones. This could be an effect of their sexual orientation. They are programmed by nature to attract men and that force is so strong that it defeats the many suppression attempts made by family and friends.

(And yes, in case you wondered: Children are sexual beings. They are training for adulthood, and start flirting before they can walk.)

I am not going to conclude on this in this post. This is a work in progress. But I must say I find this discussion very interesting, and I will definitely explore Natalie's ideas in more detail.

I would like to thank Natalie and the rest of you for all these fruitful interventions. Keep'em coming!

Transgender and Transsexual Glossary

There is much confusion about what terms means within the area of transgender and transsexual issues, which makes discussions harder than they have to be. Some terms are also very controversial.

Below I have given a list of definitions for terms used in relevant discussions. Please note that I do not necessarily support the ideologies underpinning all of these terms. This is a blog for learning and discussion, and I will take the liberty to refine and expand the definitions as I go along. Please add comments on the definitions given and suggest terms that should be included.

Since this is a blog about autogynephilia, a condition that only afflicts biological males, the coverage of F2M terms and issues is somewhat underdeveloped. I plan to do something about that.

AGP: See autogynephilia.

Androgyne: a person who live without appearing or behaving particuarly male or female.

Androphile: one who is attracted to men (see sexual orientation).

Asexual: lack of sexual attraction, or interest in or desire for sex. Sometimes, it is considered a lack of a sexual orientation.

Autoandrophilia: biological female who get aroused by the image of herself as a man (cp. autogynephilia and crossexual).

Autogynephilia: (controversial term, also AGP). Term coined in 1989 by Ray Blanchard to refer to "a man's paraphilic tendency to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman." On this blog I do not necessarily consider the condition a paraphila (see paraphilia). Blanchard operates with four types of autogynephilia:

• Transvestic autogynephilia (at this blog called crossdressing): arousal to the act or fantasy of wearing women's clothing
• Behavioral autogynephilia (at this blog called crossenacting): arousal to the act or fantasy of doing something regarded as feminine
• Physiologic autogynephilia (at this blog called nothing at all): arousal to fantasies of female-specific body functions
• Anatomic autogynephilia (at this blog called crossdreaming): arousal to the fantasy of having a woman's body, or parts of one

BDSM (or Bondage, Domination, Sado-Masochism) sexuality characterized by the consenual exchange of power. This is echange of power can be either physical (e.g., spanking), psychological (e.g., teasing), or both. Often BDSM involves gender-related play when the partner with power adopt a male role and the partner without power adopts of female role. There are autogynephiliacs who take part in (or fantasize about) role playing where the dominant is a strong woman or a she-male and where the autogynephiliac takes the submissive female role (See shemale, Added Jan 26 2010)

Bigender: (controversial term) a tendency to move between feminine and masculine gender-typed behaviour depending on context, expressing a distinctly "en femme" persona and a distinctly "en homme" persona, feminine and masculine respectively.

Blanchard, Ray: the researcher that coined the term autogynephilia. See these posts for more information.

Boydyke: A "female bodied" person (biological female) who intentionally or non-intentionally expresses and/or presents culturally/stereotypically masculine, particularly boyish, characteristics. Also, one who enjoys being perceived as a young male (passing).

Butch: (may be understood as derogatory) Used to identify a person (biological female) who expresses and/or presents culturally/stereotypically masculine characteristics.

CD: See crossdressing.

Cisgendered: man or woman who has a match between an his or her gender identity and the behavior or role considered appropriate for his or her sex, also known as "normal people".

Classic or classical transsexual women (controversial term, also known as primary transsexual, secondary transsexual, true transsexual, core transsexual, CT): In this blog a term used to distinguish one type of M2F transsexual women from autogynephile transsexuals (see autogynephilia). There are two main uses of this term: (1) A woman that that has been born with a male body. She can be androphile, gynephile or bisexual, as can any woman. (2) An androphile M2F transsexual woman, as opposed to autogynephiliacs who are thought to be gynephile, bisexual or asexual. I am using this term as (1). Blanchard sticks to alternative (2) using the rather confusing term "homosexual transsexual".

Closeted (or in the closet): Not disclosing (coming out) or being secretive about an individual's own sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

Crossdreaming: Term made by me to describe a specific type of autogynephilia (see autogyenphilia) where a man get aroused by the idea of having a woman's body. Blanchard calls this anatomic autogynephilia.

Crossdressing (or cross-dressing): the wearing of clothing and other accoutrement commonly associated with the other gender within a particular society. If M2F crossdressing is associated with sexual arousal it can be categorized as autogynephilia (see autogynephilia). Blanchard calls this transvestic autogynephilia.

Crossenacting: arousal to the act or fantasy of doing something regarded as feminine (in the case of men) and masculine (in the case of women). Blanchard calls this behavioral autogynephilia in the case of men (see autogynephilia).

Crossexuality: Term coined by me to describe a hypothetical condition that can lead to crossdressing and crossdreaming (see autogynephilia). Crossexuality is the cause, autogynephilia is the effect.

CT: See classic transsexual.

DG: see drag queen.

Drag Queen: a person, usually a man, who dresses, and usually acts, like a woman often for the purpose of entertaining or performing. Drag queens often identify as homosexual (androphilic) males, as opposed to crossdressers, who are most likely gynephilic males (see crossdresser, androphilic and gynephilic).

Dyke (also Femme Dyke, Butch Dyke, Bi Dyke): A "female-bodied" person or a woman who identifies with other women, and is attracted to women; this is a term that is used by many different types of people often taken back in a positive way for self-identification; can be political; and a term historically used only in a negative context to ridicule and label lesbians who were perceived to express and/or present culturally/stereotypically masculine characteristics.

Effeminate: Used to identify a person (usually male) who expresses and/or presents culturally/stereotypically feminine characteristics.

Fetish: (on this blog used for sexual fetish) the sexual arousal brought on by any object, situation or body part not conventionally viewed as being sexual in nature.

F2M or FTM: Female to male: Refers to the state of the biological sex before and after transitioning.

Gender (controversial term): (1) In social studies: the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women. (2) In biology: the state of being male or female. The biology of gender is a scientific analysis of the physical basis for behavioural differences between males and females. In this blog I will use the term in both ways, trying to remember to tell you which is which.

Gender bender (controversial term): informal term used to refer to a person who actively transgresses, or "bends," expected gender roles.

Gender binary (controversial term): classification of sex and gender into two distinct forms of masculine and feminine. At the moment I tend to believe that some cisgendered and transsexual people more or less follow the dichotomy of the gender binary, while others don't.

Gender dysphoria: a condition where a person feels that he or she is trapped within a body of the wrong sex. Dysphoria is defined as an unpleasant or uncomfortable mood, such as sadness (depressed mood), anxiety, irritability, or restlessness. See also gender id

entity disorder.

Gender expression: the physical manifestation of one's gender identity, usually expressed through clothing, mannerisms, and chosen names (see gender identity) (Added Jan 29 2010)

Gender identity or core gender identity (controversial terms): the gender a person self-identifies as (see gender 1).

Gender identity disorder (controversial term): formal diagnosis used by psychologists and physicians to describe persons who experience significant gender dysphoria (discontent with the biological sex they were born with). Some argue that there is no disorder, as they understand gender as a social construct. I am pretty certain that there is a biological basis for classic transsexuals (see classic transsexual women). Given that their gender identity is different from their biological sex, that would meant that the word disorder is appropriate. I am also open to the idea that crossexuality and autogynephilia have a biological basis, but this has in no way been proven (see crossexuality) .

Genderfuck (controversial term): a form of gender identity or gender expression, using parody and exaggeration to call attention to its transgression of gender roles, seeking to expose them as artificial, often by manipulating one's appearance to create gender dissonance or ambiguity in stark opposition of the gender binary. Used for crossdressing with contempt for any concern about passing; e.g., a male wearing a skirt, but with a beard and unshaved legs. As I have noted elsewhere: While there is clearly many facets of the gender roles that are culturally determined, I strongly believe there is a biological core to gender identity.

Genderqueer (controversial term): term for gender identities other than man and woman. People who identify as genderqueer may think of themselves as being both man and woman, as being neither man nor woman, or as falling completely outside the gender binary. See queer.

Genuine Girl (or GG): Natural born woman (see cisgender).

Girlfag: a biologically female individual who feels a strong romantic or erotic attraction towards gay males or male bisexuals or their milieu. A girlfag might partly or wholly feel "like a gay man trapped in a woman's body".

Guydyke: a biologically male person who feels a strong romantic or erotic attraction towards lesbians, female bisexuals, or the culture of women loving women. Guydykes experience lesbian feelings and are commonly referred to as lesbian-identified men or lesbian men.

Gynandromorphophilia: see transfan.

Gynephile or gynophile: a person who is attracted to females (see sexual orientation).

Gynemimetophilia: see transfan.

Harry Benjamin Standards of Care (also: HB SOC or SOC) A list of rules dictating what is considered by a consenesus of mental health professionals the appropriate way to treat transsexuals. Despite the power of this document, many of it's standards have not be subject to an experimental study to confrim their effectivenss.

Hermaphrodite (no longer used for humans): see intersex.

Homosexuality: romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex. On this blog an M2F transsexual woman is homosexual if she is attracted to women, an F2M transsexual man is homosexual if he is attracted to men. To avoid confusion I use the word androphilic (attracted to men) and gynephilic (attracted to women) instead. Blanchard uses the term homosexual transsexual (HSTS) to describe M2F transsexuals that are attracted to men. I find that very confusing.

Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRTA): the taking of sex-related hormone s (e.g., estrogen, testosterone). Most often the term is used for post-menapusal women taking estrogen. The term also applies to a transsexual taking hormones of the target sex. (Added Jan 28. 2010)

HSTS (controversial term): homosexual transsexual male. The real meaning of this term is androphilic M2F transexual woman (see homosexuality).

Intergender (controversial term): see genderqueer.

Internalized Transphobia: The belief that being a transsexual or transgendered is inferior to being cissexual. The internalization of negative messages, feelings about oneself and one's group, and the beliefs about how people like you should be treated, which often leads to self-hate and difficulty with self-acceptance.

Intersexuality: in humans refers to intermediate or atypical combinations of physical features that usually distinguish male from female. This is usually understood to be congenital, involving chromosomal, morphologic, genital and/or gonadal anomalies, such as diversion from typical XX-female or XY-male presentations, e.g., sex reversal (XY-female, XX-male), genital ambiguity, sex developmental differences. An intersexed individual may have biological characteristics of both the male and female sexes. If transexuality and autogynephilia have biological (brain) foundations it could be argued that these conditions also are intersexual. In this blog, however, I will not use the term in that way, in order to avoid unnecessary confusion.

LGBT (also GLBT and LGBTQ) refers to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (and queer) people. LGBT emphasize a diversity of sexuality and gender identity‐based cultures and is sometimes used to refer to anyone who is non‐heterosexual instead of exclusively to people who are homosexual, bisexual, or transgender. Some classic transsexuals as well as intersexed people resist being included under the LGBT umbrella, as they feel they have nothing in common with homosexuals and autogynephiliacs.

Male lesbian: (term coined by Dr. Brian G. Gilmartin in his book Shyness & Love: Causes, Consequences, and Treatment:) a heterosexual man who wishes that he had been born a woman, but who (even if he had been a woman) could only make love to another woman and never to a man. The "male lesbian" does not feel himself to be "a woman trapped inside the body of a man" and do not want a sex change operation. They envy the perogatives of the female gender and believe these perogatives fit their own inborn temperaments far more harmoniously than the pattern of behavioral expectations to which males are required to adhere. (added Jan 26 2010).

Metrosexual: a a heterosexual man (especially one living in a post-industrial, capitalist culture) that has a strong concern for his appearance or a lifestyle and who displays feminine attributes stereotypically associated with homosexual men. (Added Jan 31 2010)

M2F or MTF: Male to female. Refers to the state of the biological sex before and after transitioning.

Non-op: transsexual who has not and will not have sex reassignment surgery. May also refer to transgendersists and autogynephiliacs. (See transsexual, sex reassignment surgery, transgendersits and autogynephiliacs).

Pansexual: sexual orientation characterized by the potential for aesthetic attraction, romantic love, or sexual desire towards people, regardless of their gender identity or biological sex.

Paraphilia: a biomedical term used to describe sexual arousal to objects, situations, or individuals that are not part of normative stimulation and that may cause distress or serious problems for the paraphiliac or persons associated with him or her. What is defined as "normative stimulation" may vary a lot with time and cultural background, something that

makes this a close to useless term in my book.

Passing: The ability to be accepted as a member of the sex you are transitioning into.

Perversion: (derogatory) types of human behavior that are perceived to be a serious deviation from what is considered to be orthodox or normal. Although it can refer to varying forms of deviation, it is most often used to describe sexual behaviors that are seen by the majority as abnormal or repulsive. Since this is a cultural relative term, I find it useless when discussing the true nature of autogynephilia.

Post-op: transsexual who has had sex reassignment surgery (see transsexual and sex reassignment surgery)

Pre-op: transsexual who has not had sex reassignment surgey (see transsexual and sex reassignment surgery)

Queer: (1, derogatory) Effeminate gay man. (2, controversial) Umbrella term for people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual,pansexual, transgender, transsexual, intersexual, genderqueer, or of any other non-heterosexual sexuality, sexual anatomy, or gender identity. See genderqueer.

Sex: (1) In social sciences sex refers to the biological differences between men and women, as opposed to gender which refers to the cultural expressions of the roles given to biological males and females. (2) In biology, sex is a process of combining and mixing genetic traits, often resulting in the specialization of organisms into a male or female variety (known as the two sexes).

Sexual orientation: a pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both genders. Subcategories are : heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual. Some argue that heterosexual and homosexual are exclusive categories, others that these orientations exist along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexual to exclusive homosexual, including various forms of bisexuality in-between. Some people identify as asexual. To avoid confusion I will often use the words gynephile and androphile in this blog (see gynephile and androphile).

Sex reassignment surgery (also known as SRS, genital reconstruction surgery, sex affirmation surgery, sex-change operation): the surgical procedures by which a person's physical appearance and function of their existing sexual characteristics are altered to resemble that of the other sex. I have seen the term "gender reassignment surgery" used for M2F transsexual women, but I cannot see how you can do surgery on a gender identity that is already female.

Shape Shifter (also metamorph): Used by some people who choose not to identify as transsexuals, to express their belief they are not changing their gender, but changing their body to reflect their inner feelings and gender identity. (Added Jan 26 2010)

She-male (derogatory term used in pornography): A genetic male who has physical characteristics of both male and female. This term should never be used for a real life transsexual or transgenderist (to whom it may refer). I will only use it to describe a transgenderists as a target in sexual fantasies. See transgenderist and transfan. (Added Jan 26 2010)

Sissy (or sissy boy, derogatory): A term codified by the mental health community for bioloigcally male children with gender identity disorder (in the sense of displaying feminine behavior). (Added Jan 26 2010)

SRS, see sex reassignment surgery.

Third gender or third sex (controversial terms): (1) individuals who are categorized (by their will or by social consensus) as neither male nor female, as well as the social category present in those societies who recognize three or more genders. It should be noted that such phenomena could just as well refer to roles understood as a mix of the male and female. (2) In zoology: Evolutionary biologist Joan Roughgarden argues that, in addition to male and female sexes (as defined by the production of small or large gametes), more than two genders or distinct morphs exist in hundreds of animal species.

TG: See transgender.

Trannie chaser or tranny chaser: (derogatory) see transfan.

Transfan: man with a sexual preference for preoperative male-to-female transsexuals , transgenderists or even crossdressers (see transsexual and transgenderist). Many argue that transfans are closeted homosexuals. I suspect that many of them are autogynephiliacs.

Transgender (contoversial term, also TG and trans): (1, common use) Umbrella term applied to a variety of individuals, behaviors, and groups involving tendencies to diverge from the normative gender roles connected to their original biological sex, including transsexuals. (2, original use) People who want to live cross-gender without sex reassignment surgery, excluding transsexuals. (3, derogatory) Autogynephiliacs. I originally used the word as (1), but got so much flack for that that I am now using the term "transgender and transsexual issues" instead.

Trangender Pride Flag (controversial): Flag designed by Monica Helms. First shown in 2000. The flag represents the transgender community and consists of five horizontal stripes, two light blue, two pink, with a white stripe in thecenter.

Transgenderist (controversial term): transgendered people who derive pleasure from and value their genitals as originally developed. Like transsexuals, many are interested in obtaining electrolysis, hormones and even cosmetic surgery to bring their outward presentation in line with their inner sense of self. However, transgenderists are not interested in sex reassignment surgery. Transsexual men and women who for health and other reasons do not obtain SRS are not included in this definition. Some deny that transgenderists exist, arguing that they are either misled classic transsexuals or autogynephiliacs. Note that some use the term for any member of the transgender community (whatever that is).

Transitioning: Wikipedia defines this as the process of changing genders - the idea of what it means to be female or male. I am using the term for the process of changing ones biological sex, arguing that an M2F transsexual woman is a woman/has the female gender both before and after the transition (see also sex reassignment surgery).

Transman, see transsexual man.

Transpeople (controversial): at this blog used for both transsexuals and autogynephiliacs.

Transphobia (also genderphobia): The fear of transsexuals or transgendered, often assumed to be homosexuals. Expressed as negative feelings, attitudes, actions or behaviors.

Transsensual: see transfan.

Transsexual (also spelled transexual, controversial term): (1) a condition in which an individual identifies with a physical sex that is different from his or her biological one. (2) A person who has undergone sex reassignment treatment and surgery (SRS). The main controversy regarding this term is based on the idea that there seems to be two types of transsexual M2F women: (1) classic transsexuals (see classic transsexual women) and (2) autogynephiliacs (see autogynephilia). Some use the term exclusively for classic transsexual women, some for both, and some for all who have had SRS. I use it for both classical pre-op and post-op transsexuals and for autogynephiliacs who have changed sex.

Transsexual man: A person who has or has had a biologically female body, but who identifies as/is a woman. Also known as a F2M transsexual. See transsexual and F2M.

Transsexual woman: A person who has or has had a biologically male body, but who identifies as/is a woman. Also known as a M2F transsexual. See transsexual and M2F.

Transvestic fetishism (controversial term): having an erotic interest in crossdressing. See crossdressing and autogynephilia. I am not going to use this term.

Transvestism: see crossdresser

Transvestic fetishism: having a sexual or erotic interest in cross-dressing. It differs from cross-dressing for entertainment or other purposes that do not involve sexual arousal. It has been classified as a form of autogynephilia (see autogynephilia, crossdressing and fetish).

Transwoman, see transsexual woman.

TS: see transsexual.

TV: transvestite. See crossdressing.

Woodworking (or stealth woodworking): for a transsexual to live in a manner that conceals her (or his) past sex.

Alternative transgender and transsexual dictionaries:

Diane Wilson

Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League

All Mixed Up

Gender bending in online virtual worlds

The blogger and online gamer Dale Innis added some very interesting comments to my recent "Autogynephilia on a Napkin" post.

There are whole universes out there where men can become women by a touch of a button: In online gaming (massively multiplayer online games/MMOs like World of Warcraft) and virtual worlds like Second Life.

He says:

"One interesting thing about this is that even many men who identify as men in the real world, and have no history of any sort of gender unhappiness, still often play as women.

Whether this is because they're desires to be female are just very very mild (and were therefore not even noticed until they got to an environment where it was easy), or because they are moved by a different set of causes than people who are TG in whatever sense in real life, strikes me as a very interesting question."

Yes it is! Unless there is any practical reason for for a man to become a woman online (gaming advantages or the like), there must be something else that drives a man to select a female identity or avatar. Even if that "drive" turns out to be mere "curiosity", that curiosity is in and for itself interesting.

In World of Warcraft Dale has heard the "if I have to stare at someone's bottom 10 hours a day, I'd rather it be a hot chick" argument more than once. Sure! But you are looking at your own virtual female bottom.

This goes beyond games and virtual worlds. I have noticed that people joke about online gender bendings all the time: "The sexy 18 year old college girl you chatted with last night might be a 50 year old fat and bald man."

The jokes do not necessary prove that a lot of people switch genders online, but the fact that people are telling them proves that many are able to imagine the scenario. That tells me that genderbender fantasies are much more common than people tend to believe.

The problem is that so few are willing to admit that they would do such a thing, even to a researcher, which means that underreporting will be a huge problem.

Dale says:

"I know from personal experience that males playing as females in both Second Life and World of Warcraft is pretty common. Females playing as males (again just from personal experience) also happens in both, but seems more common in WoW than in SL, maybe (pure speculation) because WoW is the more traditional-male-flavored environment (battle, as opposed to shopping and decorating and socializing).

It would definitely be interesting to get some hard data! I don't think the stigma attached to virtual gender crossing is all that large (at least not among the people I hang out with?), but it's certainly non-zero, which would tend to corrupt the data."

In another comment Kaseido recommend using Second Life for trying out a female identity.

S/he says:

"There are a lot of us, and some fairly active groups - but the culture of 'don't ask, don't tell'about RL [Real Life] is pretty supportive of us, in most places.

For me, and a number of friends, and a lot of us in general, it's a chance to really live our female selves, and to explore what we're really attracted to in safety.

The SL [Second Life] Flickr groups can give a good sense of what it's like, and anyone from here who does come in, please feel free to drop me an IM - Kaseido Quandry in SL."

Tom Boellstorff writes about Second Life sex changes in Coming of age in second life: an anthropologist explores the virtually human.

He tells about one man who appears as a woman in Second Life that he did not want to show his female avatar to his wife. He told Boellstorff:

"I'm kind of worried she'll be jealous. My avatar is one part an expression of myself, one part expression of my desire. Half my idea of of myself, half my idea of the woman."

Sounds like an autogynephiliac to me!

Boellstorff also tells the story about the person who posed as a male crossdresser in Second Life, while being a woman in real life! It seems that when the hard material facts of real life disappears, wo/man's true nature appears.

Some more reading:

Gender and Emotions in Virtual Worlds
Flip the Switch – Gender Mechanics in Second Life
Gender Bending in Role-playing Games

The Autogynephilia Debate 2: On Mr. Autogynephiliac

This is the story about a video blog on autogynephilia and the reaction of transsexual activists. I also dare asking the question of whether AGP transsexuals can be called "real women".

(Continues from The Autogynephilia Debate Part 1.)

Mr. Autogynephiliac's controversial video blog

Over at YouTube, a 18 year old young man who calls himself Mr. Autogynephiliac, has established a video blog on autogynephilia. He is from the new generation of Internet savvy youngsters who use the social web to find themselves, helping others like him in the process. I admire his openness and his bravery -- you can feel his confusion and pain -- and the fact that he invite others to help him understand what he is going through.

Unfortunately, some TS activists cannot even stomach that someone uses the very word "autogynephiliac". Still, it is hard to attack an 18 year old male that admits to being transphobic while at the same time feels the urge to become a woman, and at first their protests didn't gain much traction.

If you watch his vlogs, it is pretty clear that his condition cannot be reduced to some innocent fetish -- a man that gets off by wearing women's clothes. It is clear that his whole identity as a man (or woman) is at stake, and that his gender dysphoria is as real as it is for any classic transsexual. So for a while he was able to publish his musings about his life and autogynephilia unmolested.

Samantha Zero as a role model

Mr. Autogynephiliac even managed to get an absolutely wonderful video comment from Samantha Zero, a M2F vlogger who has made a lot of insightful videos about transitioning. To me her video was a revelation, because here is a transwoman that openly admits that she had had autogynephile fantasies before transitioning (i.e. having sexual fantasies about becoming a woman) but who does not fit the stereotypes of autogynephiliac women presented by for instance Michael Bailey.

Samanta Zero is a young, intelligent and beautiful woman that could be a role model for may autogynephiliacs who wonder about transitioning. The problem is, of course, that she does not fit the traditional TS narrative. Nor does she identify as a transsexual. Given her intelligence, charisma and enthusiasm that seemed to make her video a threat.

Mr. Autogynephilia walks into a minefield

At this point Mr. Autogynephiliac made the mistake the activists needed. He prematurely made a video presenting his own theory of autogynephilia. I am probably partly to blame for this, as he had found many of the elements of his theory here on this blog.

When presenting the theories of Blanchard & Co, I have probably not been clear enough about what are their ideas as opposed to mine or alternative views on autogynephilia.

A transgender/transexual continuum?

The essence of his thinking deserves further discussion, however.

He tries to make sense of the two types of transpeople presented above, by arguing that they represent different mixes of gender orientation. Hence a "primary transsexual" could, according to him, be about 75 to 100 percent female, while the "secondary transsexual" (the autogynephiliac) is about 50 to 75 percent female. (Let's not get hung up in the numbers. They are nothing more than guesstimates on his part.)

He writes:

"Secondary transsexuals have a weaker feminine side. They would benefit from transition but would still remain very self conscious about their femininity. He may also chose to continue living as an Autogynephiliac with a 'transvestic fetich'.

Primary transsexuals according to this theory would benefit much more from transition. It would remove the dysphoria which they feel towards their masculine bodies and would go on to live as very comfortable and feminine women." (Quote from his YouTube video-presentation)

All right. He seems to argue that there is a continuum between autogynephiliacs and what I have called "classic transsexuals". That has not been proved in any way, but is a possibility. I, for one, is exploring that avenue, although I think that if there is such a continuum, we are talking about two clearly identifiable, but overlapping clusters of people.

Among scientist who have argued for a continuum between various forms of gender variations we find James Weinrich and Harry Benjamin.

Pure and unclean transsexuals

But there are some TS activists who cannot stand that idea. They are not even willing to discuss it. It seems to threatens the purity of their own femininity. They do not want any ambiguity as to what being a woman means, and most of all: they do not want to be associated with autogynephiliacs, mostly because they consider us perverts.

And Mr. Autogynephiliac used a type of language in his presentation that made it easy to shoot down. In general his use of terminology reflected the confusion he so courageously had presented in his other video blogs. But it is one thing to talk about your personal experience and beliefs, another thing to present something that looks like a scientific theory. The rules of the games change.

In one bullet point he said that "Gender dysphoria=Transgender=Transvestism", in spite of the fact that he elsewhere in the same presentation he makes it perfectly clear that he means that transgender issues encompasses much more than transvestism (i.e. crossdressing).

Next he used the words "male" and "homosexual transsexuals" when describing what he calls "primary transsexuals". Having discussed this with him, I know that he meant nothing more than that these persons were biologically male before transitioning, which is true, but when he uses these terms while referring to Blanchard most readers who have read Blanchard will believe that Mr. Autogynephiliacs share all of Blanchard's ideas.

Blanchard does not, as my regular readers will know, accept that classical transsexuals are women in any sense of the word. They are feminine homosexual men and nothing more. The gist of Mr. Autogynephiliac's presentation, however, leads to the conclusion that they are, in fact, women in a man's body, but his terminology seems to indicate that they are men.

In this respect the flame war that followed is understandable. Mr. Autogynephilia had presented his theory too early and had not worked hard enough on his typology. He even used the word "fetish" to describe autogynephilia, not understanding that this word makes it impossible to argue that autogynephilia is another type of gender dysphoria. No transsexual, classic or otherwise, would like to hear that they have transitioned because of a fetish only.

Samantha Zero removes her video

Samantha Zero was furious and took down her video, which is a terrible shame, because it could have made a huge difference, especially for young autogynephiliacs, but I am afraid there is no way she will put it up again.

In her response to Mr. Autogynephiliac she strongly recommended that he made "more statements that start with 'I think', "I feel', 'I believe, instead of 'you should', 'you are', or 'if you'" She made it totally clear that she is not a man, no matter what sort of label anyone would like to impose upon her. She was right on all points.

Promoting dialog as opposed to ideological warfare

Still, I cannot help thinking that it must be possible to treat an 18 year old man with the respect he deserves, and give him constructive advice instead of calling him and idiot that should shut up. (These are my words, but they do in fact sum up many of the comments from some of the activists pretty well, Samantha not included).

The reason I am worried is not that the activists criticize the video of Mr. A., but the way they are doing it. There is a pattern here, and here are some of the techniques they are using online,at his vlog and elsewhere:

Master suppression techniques

First, they label anyone who does not have a thorough knowledge of their own favorite literature as ignorants who do not have the right to offer an opinion on this topic. They argue that arguments must be based on science. Strangely enough, the only science who makes it into their libraries is the type that supports their own point of view.

Second, they argue that only transsexuals themselves have the right to make arguments about what it is like to be a transsexual. This would mean, that I, as a man, should have no opinion about women, or that a liberal should offer no view on what makes a conservative tick. Of course I can never fully understand how it is to be a M2F transsexual, but to the extent their lives are relevant to mine, I must at least try to empathize.

Third, they either deny that autogynephiliacs exist (i.e. that Mr. A. and me are misled or lying) or that we are nothing but fetishists. That is, they are not even willing to discuss the possibility of there being another type of transpeople than their own. Note the irony in all this: M2F transsexual women who deny others the right to define their lives, feel no qualms about defining the lives of autogynephiliacs.

Fourth, they seem to believe that any statement on transgender issues is to be interpreted as an article of faith, and not as an intervention in an ongoing debate. The truth is that we know remarkable little about sex and gender in general, not to speak about transgender issues, which means that we all should show a little humility when discussing such issues. This applies to Mr. A as well as his opponents.

In some cases they also threaten with what I will call "online violence". In my case it was destroying my blog.

In the debates I have seen all of Berit Ås' Master Suppression Techniques (Norwegian hersketeknikker, directly translated as "rule" or "domineer techniques") used against autogynephiliacs and also by transsexual women against other transwomen. This has to stop!

What can we do about it?

For those of us who do communicate online about autogynephilia the question is what we can do about this. I am not going to look over my shoulder every time I publish a post, being afraid of another hateful attack. I spent nine years in school being bullied for being a weirdo, and I am sick of it.

On the other hand I really believe that these people have life experiences and ideas I and other autogynephiliacs can learn from, which is why I think a complete breakdown in communications will not benefit anyone, not even them.

So what can we do?

First, I think we have to draw a line somewhere, and that line goes against what I have called online violence. We are not going to accept threats of reporting our sites to ISPs or the owners of our publishing platforms (Blogger, Wordpress, YouTube etc.) We will not be censored! If anyone of you are threatened this way, let me know. There are proper procedures for handling such complaints.

Second, I believe we should be pretty liberal about what we accept as comments at our own sites. Unless we are talking about pure hate-posts and abuse, I believe we should let anyone speak their mind. Anyway, their posts say as much about them as they say about autogynephiliacs.

Third, we should not accept as a rule that we cannot link to their sites. If they make a great point about a theme that is of relevance to us, we should be able to link to it in a blog post. I, for one, want to hear what they have to say. This is what web communication is about. If they asks us to be removed from resource pages, link collections and blogrolls, however, I believe we should respect that request.

Continues in Part 3.