Why?

[Anita]

Thanks Anita. I actually always thought if I can get to middle-age (which I'm doing late) then the rage should become manageable - and so it's proving. Maybe you just come to accept something about the shape of your life.

For some people, it works that way for depression, too. It has for me. I'm lucky in that I still have the ability to go out and do all the things that were important to me at 25 (i.e. playing music), but I don't have all the Rock star baggage that went with it then. It's very freeing.

I'm pretty new here and am kind of blundering about in some ways. So I didn't mean to be shocking, but I guess I'm not so attuned to sensibilities as I would be if I'd been here a while. Anyway, I'm sorry about that. I did kind of feel that this (sexuality etc) was an issue that was sort of sidelined in a way that was brought out in Shannon's post.

No harm done, Anthony! Old posts re-surface from time to time--Lorna's video post comes to mind. I meant 'shocking,' in the sense of "Oh, has Shannon come back online after all this time?"

It's kind of nice to see Shannon's input again. I always liked his posts.

That's true. I mean sexuality is this amazingly powerful force which isn't rational. We're in a society where, notionally, we're all supposed to be rational, acting rationally is the ideal - and non-rational or irrational forces are, in that way, the elephant in the room. Sexuality is the king and queen of such forces and so...

Yes, sexual force is really high-energy fuel. Even between couples who know each other well, there can be surprises that occur when sexual intensity is going on. It can be both delightful and shocking all at the same time.

Sexual crimes seem like attacks on the private self of a person - intrusive and invasive - (I mean rape can destroy a person's life). I think that's a lot of it, the sort of getting inside people that such crimes involve that makes people recoil.

Those are some of the worst, granted. Then there's the teacher that falls for the 14-year-old girl in one of his classes, and she's flattered by the attention and goes along with it. That creates a horrendous scandal. I can't condone the abuse of authority that he did, but I know that I'm no saint, either. I would hope that I could avoid acting on those feelings, but 14-year-old girls are not children--they can be sexual dynamite, because they don't fully understand all the implications of what they're doing.

I think it's partly self-protection. Just stating that such a crime is evil allows you to avoid any such parallel forces within oneself. And I can certainly vouch for having various noxious sexual fantasies (unacted upon) over the years.

Well, even adultery gets trashed, and that's one we can at least express some understanding for. I've struggled with being attracted to a co-worker or a bandmate, when it was clearly not appropriate to do anything about it--they were married, or both of us were in relationships with someone else. So when someone gets caught with someone else's wife, we still punish them in the press, but we can privately say that we can kinda sorta understand that one.

FWIW I think there's a massive amount of injured pride in a lot of sexual crime - kind of the more you're hurt, the more you want to hurt back - and the internal damage such crime provides becomes attractive because it lasts.

I think you're right here, and I wish it weren't so.

But with such a powerful force is it any wonder that there are other variants? Surely not. And why, in a society as complex and variable as ours should not such variants find their place so long as they do no harm to others - and shock, horror, even benefit those who practice them? And as it happens my CDing (with its sexual aspect) is holding my rage.

I wish that people in general could see the part about "if it does no harm." But when people don't understand a powerful force, they assume the worst about it. We can be scared by sexual power, both inside ourselves and in others.

As a younger man, I felt all the jealousy and possession when some other man was trying to hit on my girlfriends. It was a shock to discover that some of that feeling came from girl-me wanting that attention for myself!
That was totally outside my conscious understanding at the time, and it was certainly not something I could rationally figure out.

When I did discover it years later, all I could do was smile and acknowledge it. This was one aspect of my personal CDing that might not be understandable even to other CDs on here, let alone the general public. But it was true for me, and I benefitted from being able to accept it in some way, and move on with my life.

[Gillian]

There is no way that this subject can be looked at from only one or two sides. There are probably as many reasons for CDing as there are days in the year, and then some more also. The problem is how to be honest and not get explicit about how we deal with our sexuality. Lets face it, depending on how you were raised depends on how you view sexuality. In an ultra religious home things would be different, than if you were raised in a brothel, I use two extremes to make a point. I admit that I am a Christian, but I don't adhere to most conservative points of view. So what is wrong with masturbation? Well, if you talk to the conservative, they will give you a misinterpetation of one bible verse. Onan refused to raise up seed for his dead brother, and spilled his seed onto the ground. The point is he didn't raise up seed for his brother. If there is any real issue to masterbation, it is what are thinking about while you are doing it. Are you selfish, and not giving of yourself with your SO? So you want to dress up as a little girl, what is the thought and intents of your heart while doing it?
I have to be honest with myself and this site has helped me to focus on the issues rather than what is on the surface. Confession time, I am a masturbator, and I usually do it while dressed up in lingerie and some other form of female clothing. Anyone throwing any stones at me yet?
Elizabeth said, Lingerie is held up to us as a sexual item. Indeed lingerie is a stimulus we are not accustomed to. As babies and children, girls are exposed to satin, nylon, spandex, and lace. These not unusual fabrics for girls. They are accustomed to having their legs covered in tights which stimulate the entire surface area of the legs, buttocks and genitals. But to a young boy, these are new and unique feelings and sensations. Guess what I was wearing the first time I had an ejaculation. The mental bonding was very strong and is still with me. So I guess I have this little fetish. My SO knows all about it, and she doesn't get bent out of shape about it either. She knows that I masturbate also, and would rather I do it than just use her for my sex whim, other than for romance. Would anyone rather I be something else that would hurt someone?
Again Elizabeth says,I propose that a young boy going though puberty can sexualize anything. Because of our interest in wearing the clothes to begin with, the combination of our new sexuality along with all these new sensations the clothes brings us. Because we are stimulated by the clothes, we make an assumption that the clothes are sexually stimulating us, when in fact it's only our craving for unique experiences as humans. I guess that I was one of those young boys. Does that mean that I can not be a part of this forum because I don't think your way, of course not!
Where I get confused is when I see desires change over the years and I still see myself getting dressed up. Again in Elizabeths comments,If you were born male and went through puberty than you have seen what testosterone can do. It takes one from thinking girls are "yucky" to wanting to masturbate thinking about having sex with one. It is this hormone that causes us to sexualize things. Get rid of the testosterone and the only things that leaves is the sexualization of the clothes with the sex drive. The desire to dress remains. Whether there is a misconnection between cause and effect, this I know for me to be true. I like to underdress in lingerie, and not just for the reason of masturbating, though I still do it. I have become comfortable with the clothes and who I am, for all it is worth. My acceptance of myself has helped me to become a kinder and gentler person. I see my own short comings in the light of day, and say don't judge some one else, because I don't know why they are that way. And not judging is a good thing. I want to be loved, accepted and respected, given my tastes in lingerie, that can be difficult in a world that so often wants to be judge, jury, and executioner. So, why do I do it,"because" that's why!

[Davita]

Hear! Hear! Gillian.

We are who we are and we hopefully can accept that. We should also simply accept the others as they are who they are for whatever got them there.

Everyone does good things and bad. Both terms are relative to one's own lives. We change; we change inside and out. We may start out being one person thinking one way and as we grow, we change how we think about just about everything. As I have said to others, sex, gender and sexual preference are each on their own gray scales. Where we are on any of the scales at any time simply helps define who we are or simply helps others think they know who we are.

[Anthony Simon]

Hi girls,

I want to offer some thoughts on this matter as we have not discussed it in a while, and it is of major importance to our membership. I can only offer my own personal observations and opinions as no one can really say definitively what is going on. What we do know is that there is a correlation between dressing up as women and our sexuality.

<snip>

If you were born male and went through puberty than you have seen what testosterone can do. It takes one from thinking girls are "yucky" to wanting to masturbate thinking about having sex with one. It is this hormone that causes us to sexualize things. Get rid of the testosterone and the only things that leaves is the sexualization of the clothes with the sex drive. The desire to dress remains.

They are separate things that we have made a phony correlation and that is why no one has ever confirmed Blanchard's heavily flawed study from 1989, which is the basis of his "autogyniphillia" theory. I propose no such thing exists and hopefully I will prove this in my own dissertation at some point.

Love always,
Elizabeth

Being new to these debates I had to google "autogyniphillia" (change a couple of letters and it could be love of early versions of a helicopters):

"In 1989 I [Blanchard] coined the term autogynephilia from Greek roots meaning “love of oneself as a woman” and defined it as a male’s propensity to be erotically aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman."

What he says isn't an explanation, it's a description. Reading the rest of Blanchard's article "The Origins of the Concept Of Autogyniphillia" ( http://www.autogynephilia.org/origins.htm ) it is striking, to me, how much he remains on the surface. I don't get the sense of deep analytic comprehension of what's going on - in particular he never deals with the enormous power of the drive to dress up. It's a compulsion not a "propensity".

There's a sense, as he goes through the literature, of people who don't really know what they're talking about, but being psychologically important names they get treated with respect. I just feel there's a lack of any real insight. But is that necessarily a surprise? It's how academe works (often IMHO). To me his theory seems more like an exercise in labelling than anything else.

He seems to avoid the actuality of males having a female side (which is a commonplace) and the fact that, to a greater or lesser extent this needs expressing (which isn't). That's the major thing wrong with it. Like he doesn't think there's a drive like that (or that it's insignificant).

[Carolynn]

There is a lot wrong with Ray Blanchards autogynephilia. You are right in that it is a descriptive term, as is most jargon in any science, even behaviorial science, However, he has gone a bit farther and classified it as a paraphilia, and considers it in the same class as other sexual deviancy including being gay (note there are two types of autogynephilia, one of which is dressing up for gay sex) and more damning, he equates it with pedophilia. In his view, and that of his colleague and crony, Ken Zucker, any deviance from a narrow definition of 'normal sex" means one is a sick puppy.

For years his outfit, termed the Clarke Institute, now the CAMH (Center for Addiction and Mental Health) was part of the govt. evaluatory structure to determine if a TS was to have surgery at Govt. expense. If you claimed to meet his preconceived ideas, you got your surgery, and were rejected if you didn't. Ray Blanchard and Ken Zucker and other contributors to the very silly Archives of Sexual Behavior (edited by Zucker) are the people who were selected to revise the portions of the new DSM-v for the American Psychiatric Association (that they are not voting members of since they are psychologists, not psychiatrists) that pertains to GID, transsexuality, and gender dysphoria including crossdressing. While the GID diagnosis is called Gender Incongruity now, and surgery is allowed as a way (the only way) to remove the disorder stigma, the main definitions of the Gemder Incongruity remain the same as the disorder. These are the same people that coined GID in the first place some 18 years ago.

What was called GID was and is a severe depressive response to social pressures to conform to the binary gender system so beloved of religion and conservatives, but the fact that it can be cured by a medical procedure is proof of it not being a mental disorder. Gender Incongruence in the DSM-v is Zucker/Blanchard et.al. hanging on to an outmoded diagnosis in any way possible. As far as crossdressing and transvestism is concerned, Blanchard would still see you as expressing a paraphilia.

Blanchard's greatest and most vocal supporters include Anne Lawrence (a TS who was a anesthesiologist until she was canned for pretending to be a physician to photograph mutilated genitalia of an African woman who had undergone cultural genital mutilation, which she admits fascinates her and was her reason for own surgery) and J. Michael Bailey (wrote The Man Who Would Be Queen which depended heavily on his own prejudices and Blanchard "theory").

They have all made their living from a prurient interest in sexual differences and causing pain to minorities who turned to them for help, so just what does that way of life make them? Hmmm?

[Anthony Simon]

From what you're saying, Carolynn, it sounds as though Blanchard et al get to categorise CDs/TSs as fitting into a certain sort of box (that of autogyrephilia) and then assert that fitting into box makes us sexual perverts (=paraphilics). That he makes us sexual perverts looks likely to be the reason he's become the recognised authority in that it amounts to giving a scientific (or scientistic) gloss to the received wisdom in society.

But that's going to be difficult to change (I mean if that is the basis of his acceptance as an authority), in that it implies you would have to see a significant challenge to that received wisdom - i.e to society's views of TSs/CDs - before any such change became possible.

I have the impression that his transmission of narratives is coloured and over-sexualised. It doesn't sound to me like actual people talk like this, rather that he's recording them in a skewed way. Or perhaps he's egging them on, coaching them, to produce the performance he requires. I think that might be it.

I can identify with the type of fantasy he's describing but the quality of the description is totally alien to me (even when I felt guilty, it didn't feel like that). Going by the quotes by him in the Wikipedia autogyrephilia article CDs really are sick people - there is a rotted quality.

[Leeza]

Carolynn said

hanging on to an outmoded diagnosis in any way possible.

Reminds me of a person who has made it big in his profession on false assumptions and afraid to let the truth get in the way.

It is too bad, but it happens in a lot of fields and it is the patients that pay the price.

Leeza

[Carolynn]

Anthony,

There are critics that think he made some of them up sorta whole cloth, or that the "interviews" were mixes of several respondents and he edited it together into one summary. He "recorded" them in his own writing style.

Leeza, the fact that no one can replicate his findings is not unusual, as he did nothing in the way of research. Autogynephilia is an assertion, accepted as fact the same way that so many "birthers" accepted the statements of conservative pundits about Obama's birth. Tell a lie enough times or persuade others to popularize it for you and people accept it as truth. It's the same way urban legends are perpetuated.



** Redundant quoting removed pursuant to: Etiquette Guidelines - http://crossdressers-haven.com/forums/v ... hp?t=10059

[Elizabeth]

Hi girls,

Here is a brief critique of Ray Blanchard's original work. It is so flawed(Blanchard's research, not the critique) it is unbelievable to me that anyone would consider this to be science of any kind. He "begs the question" from the very beginning by making assumption after assumption based only on what he wants to prove. He later discounts the actual evidence and says the subjects of his study "lied", even though he offers no proof that anyone lied.

If one is to rely survey information to conduct a study, then one has to at least report what the results of that survey were. Blanchard instead accuses his subjects of lying and confirms his beliefs. It's really stupid. Any first year psychology student would know better than to cite such flawed results.

Anyways, here it is:

http://www.genderpsychology.org/autogyn ... blanchard/

Love always,
Elizabeth

[Ralitsa]

Elizabeth,
you allude to your own dissertation, are you working on some research in this area? No doubt you can find probably the best and most accurate information right here. None of us have any incentive to lie or hide our reasons for what we do. If you are working on something, and need some volunteers to be officially interviewed I would be willing to participate. I haven't at all looked at what the supposed experts have to say about us, but perhaps we need to set the record straight.

[Gillian]

Gee, I thought that was what all scientists did. Make assumptions and control the results to prove there point. It seems that arrogance travels the full gambit of the research community.

[Elizabeth]

Elizabeth,
you allude to your own dissertation, are you working on some research in this area?

I am not conducting such research, except anecdotally, but I do hope to when I get to graduate school.

Love always,
Elizabeth

[Anthony Simon]

There is a lot wrong with Ray Blanchards autogynephilia. You are right in that it is a descriptive term, as is most jargon in any science, even behaviorial science, However, he has gone a bit farther and classified it as a paraphilia, and considers it in the same class as other sexual deviancy including being gay (note there are two types of autogynephilia, one of which is dressing up for gay sex) and more damning, he equates it with pedophilia.

<snip>

Ray Blanchard and Ken Zucker and other contributors to the very silly Archives of Sexual Behavior (edited by Zucker) are the people who were selected to revise the portions of the new DSM-v for the American Psychiatric Association (that they are not voting members of since they are psychologists, not psychiatrists) that pertains to GID, transsexuality, and gender dysphoria including crossdressing.

As I understand it the DSM is "the bible of American pyschiatry", which means that Blanchard's ideas have become the standard accepted "expert opinion" on crossdressing, transsexuals etc.. I want to suggest that this has results beyond those of individual crossdresser or transsexual. The role of the expert in society - either medical or academic - is to give, theoretically, unbiased up-to-date opinion on the subject in question. And the expert has a responsibility to uphold that role.

Thus, while the general population is expected to have its views and be biased in one way or another, the expert is supposed to take a cool analytic view - to stand back from the prejudices of the common man and, in some way, act as a balance to them. In short he's supposed to be the voice of reason.

What you get with Blanchard is, so far as I can tell, him taking the prejudice of society about CDs etc - that we are sexual perverts - and incorporating it into his "expert" view on us. Because this has become the accepted "expert" opinion of American psychiatrists as a whole, it means that, in this case, the prejudice of the common man is supported by the views of the "experts" rather than balanced by them. In some sense, then, Blanchard (and through him American psychiatrists) are telling Americans "You're right to believe that CDs etc are perverts". That is they are supporting such a viscerally held perception, rather than acting as a balance and holding it back - as they should if they were genuinely to act as a voice of reason.

Is it any wonder then, in (say) the case of the Baltimore attack, that people just held back and watched? After all "the experts" are telling them that CDs and TSs are perverts. Even if, doubtless, Blanchard et al wouldn't condone physical violence as a result of their position, the reality is they're supporting the prejudices that underlie and drive such violence.

IMHO then, Blanchard et al have an unstated role in the physical violence against CDs, TSs etc and deserve to be called to account for it.

[Carolynn]

Thus, while the general population is expected to have its views and be biased in one way or another, the expert is supposed to take a cool analytic view - to stand back from the prejudices of the common man and, in some way, act as a balance to them. In short he's supposed to be the voice of reason.
snip>
Even if, doubtless, Blanchard et al wouldn't condone physical violence as a result of their position, the reality is they're supporting the prejudices that underlie and drive such violence.
snip>
IMHO then, Blanchard et al have an unstated role in the physical violence against CDs, TSs etc and deserve to be called to account for it.

Let's see now, which planet are you from again? Scientists, philosophers, etc. are humans and prey to all sorts of illogical silliness, just like the rest of us. There are physicists who are experts in their fields in studying string theory, black holes, etc., that attribute these things to God, when all around them they see processes that have measurable effects and have theories why they do. We have humanists who prattle about the inherent goodness of our intelligence, while wars, bigotry and murders are parts of our everyday life.

Big brains do not equal either logic outside narrow confines, nor do they make anyone an "expert". If I recall correctly, an ex-spurt is a drip under pressure applied by a plumber. And an "expert" means the same, just different spelling and the pressure is applied by people looking for a guru. Tell someone they are smart, witty, intelligent or funny and they will usually do all they can to try to live up to the expectations of others since approval from others is addictive.

Most "experts" are designated as such by people with an axe to grind (or sometimes by themselves) that the writings and theories of their "expert" happen to support. Since that person with a reputation seems to support their views, they hitch a ride on his coat-tails to lend authenticity to their own prejudices about life or whatever. Doesn't matter if it is politics, science, philosophy, social science, or psychiatry, all experts easily become talking heads and the more they talk the larger their heads.

Psychiatrists that I have met, either as instructors during my early college career, or the three I asked to support the petitiion to remove Zucker et.al. from the DSM-v committee, give every evidence (from the expectations of my view of the world) as being among the more screwed up people I have ever met. They seem to feel that their level of education as medical doctors as well as doctors of the mind gives them a leg up on the rest of humanity and they are always "right". As doctors, they view the human mind and body from the mechanical point of view, and believe in better living through chemistry, as that is the easy way. The rest of humanity should all be in some state of analysis with them. They seem completely unaware of the contradicitons and economic self interest of this view of the world.

As far as Blanchard, Zucker and cronies are concerned, though they have had great input into the DSM-v, there were other voices that have somewhat moderated their views, most equally respected in the profession, and this has had some effect on the DSM-v. However, if you read the pertinent sections, you find weasel words in those sections that leave the less discriminatory wording open to interpretation, and preserves the intent of the Blanchard-Zucker et.al. clique. And in the meantime, they get to add their role in rewriting the DSM-v to their professional creds, instead of completely falling on their faces. They are fooling fewer people though.

There was much political maneuvering behind the scenes of the DSM-v, some of it not so private, and different points of view were taken somewhat into account. Some in the TS community wanted GID and all reference to transsexuality to be removed from the DSM-v. Others did not want removal, since they view inclusion in the "bible" gave them the opportunity to be covered by insurance and disability if they can't hold a job, if it is listed it is a medical issue. Some thought since the AMA saw being TS or GID as a legitimate medical problem, they didn't need psych input and wanted SRS to be on demand. Others maintained that SRS on demand could mean that people who had problems (such as borderline personality disorder) might jump on SRS as their cure all and learn it was not after surgery (and there are some that make it through the process anyway) and then might try to sue their surgeon for malpractice. So they wanted psychological evaluation to protect the surgeon. And so on. Many views were argued, and the DSM-v changes are the results of that argument. Far from perfect, but a slight improvement in that it is possible to get rid of the Disordered diagnosis which makes jobs easier to obtain.

There are lots of differences across national borders in what is acceptable and what is not. France, Britain, Germany, Canada, and the US and the asian countries like Thailand have different parameters, though increasingly there is some adherence to the WPATH Standards of Care.

I think of more import is the portions of the DSM-v that stigmatize people for different ways of living their lives. Crossdressers are just one of these. They also tried to include people who are attracted or married to amputees (apparently believing that any woman or man who stays with a man or woman who had to have an amputation due to accident or war is mentally il)l. I don't recall seeing that as having made it into the recent draft, but Body Dissociative Disorder did (belief that some part of your body makes you imperfect and so must be removed). Blanchard and Bailey tried to equate that to SRS in an address last year to put the disordered label back on transsexuality.

Well, anyway, I recommend everyone find time to read the sections on gender incongruity and paraphilias. You can bet those that think of us as being "sick-os" will do so.

Carolynn

[Absaroka]

Back to the discussion of rage and crime. It is important to remember that rape is first and foremost an act of violence, and only secondly a sexual act. The agenda is to hurt someone and to demonstrate dominance over that person.

No one who is merely interested in sex would be able to see the look on a rape victims face and continue with the rape unless they liked seeing someone absolutely terrified.

Sex crimes are generally considered to be sexual acts that are primarily sexual but break the law. Statutory rape with a willing partner, sex with children who aren't resisting, sex with animals or the dead, and far too recently things like homosexuality and adultery.