Are there really two types of transgender people, or are there only different blends of characters and personality traits? This may seem like a purely academic question, but the answer has actually strong repercussions for how people look at both crossdreamers and transsexuals.
In a new paper, Dr. Jaimie F. Veale, brings new evidence that the various shades of male to female transgender are indeed variants of something related, and not two distinct categories.
One common idea regarding male bodied transgender people (including transsexual women) is that there are two distinct types.
Since most of this research is on transsexual women the types are often referred to as late onset and early onset, referring to when they used to go to the heath system to get help transitioning.
Both health personnel and researchers noticed early on that the ones transitioning late in life where more likely to be sexually attracted to women, while the early onset were more likely to be attracted to men.
Since all healthy women were supposed to be attracted to men, the early onset ones soon became the model for the perfect transsexual woman. Indeed, as some transsexual women scrambled to get access to the group of real women, the two categories became more than practical descriptive categories used to discuss the different variations of transgender. Now they were referring to tow distinct phenomena, with completely different causes, an A team and a B team.
In her new paper on Dr. Ray Blanchard's variant of the two type typology, Dr. Jaimie F. Veale refers to this as the difference between what she calls categorical constructs (as in the difference between cats and dogs) and dimensional constructs (as in the difference between black and white cats). A categorical difference is one of either/or, while a dimensional difference refers to a continuum.
Is the difference between early onset and late onset transsexual women a difference that exists only in our heads -- a practical concept used to group people of one very diverse population? Or is it an absolute difference that is found out there?
If it is categorical it should be achievable to develop a test to determine whether a person belongs to one or the other of these two completely distinct populations.
Blanchard believes that his types refer to be a difference of the categorical kind. To him the difference between the two groups is determined on the basis of sexual orientation, and sexual orientation only.
In his universe gay men are fundamentally feminine, and the "homosexual transsexual" (as he calls the androphilic, man-loving, transexual woman) even more so. An early onset transsexual woman is therefore a kind of hyper-effeminate gay sissy (He actually uses the word sissy!).
The late onset group is defined as being "non-homosexual". He seems to believe that bisexual and heterosexual men all belong to the same group sexual orientation wise. Since non-homosexual men cannot be feminine in his universe, their condition is explained as a "paraphilia" and "an erotic target location error." These men (Blanchard does not accept that trans women are women) are actually having the hots for their own inner imaginary female. Blanchard calls this condition "autogynephilia", meaning "in love with oneself as a woman."
As one can see, this means that the two groups of androphilic and autogynephilic trans women have little in common, except from the belief that they are women.
Both Blanchard and Veale belongs to a scientific tradition that believes that one can settle such controversies by using the scientific methods of natural science. Veale therefore uses the same methods and the same categories as Blanchard in her analysis.
This is a tricky tactic. Anyone who has read Blanchard critically will soon see that his results are very much determined by his model and not by the observed facts. In other words: By accepting Blanchard's premise, you might easily end up replicating his findings, even if the model is wrong.
Veale is aware of the problem, though, and seems to navigate skillfully around the most rocky reefs. The advantage of using the same methodology as Blanchard, is that it becomes much harder for him and his supporters to dismiss her research as unscientific.
Veale has already in earlier research made her position clear. She does not believe we are dealing with two distinct categories. She believes that what we see are variations of the same underlying phenomena.
This does not mean that she denies that there are differences between the two groups. Her new study confirms that there are clear patterns here, but she believes that these differences can be explained by the way androphilic and gynephilic (woman-loving) trans women are treated by the world around them and by other psychological factors.
The present paper is based on a sample of 308 respondents filling in an online questionnaire. The study aims at testing the solidity of Blanchard's research, and in particular the idea that there are two distinct groups of transsexual women.
But how do you do this?
It is not as hard as one may think. As long as you believe there is a categorical difference (cp. cats and dogs) instead of a dimensional difference (Siamese and Persian breeds of cats), you need to prove that there are dimensions where the two categories do not overlap. Cats and dogs have fur, four paws and a liking for meat, but they cannot interbreed, they are evolutionary far apart and behave differently along a large number of dimensions.
Blanchard has tried to prove that there are such differences between the "autogynephiles" and the "homosexual transsexual". If the two groups overlap along these dimensions, his theory has been falsified.
Some of you might argue that this has been done already, and repeatedly, and you will be right. But this is not a theory that will die easily, probably because it fits well with common prejudices about sex and gender.
Veale also uses statistical methods (which I am not going to describe here) to determine if it is statistically likely that the distributions of responses to the scales on the questionnaire are due to there being distinct groups.
Veale is testing Blanchard's theory by using four scales:
"Blanchard’s (1989) typological theory proposed two distinct etiological pathways of MF transsexualism based on sexuality, which should manifest in a taxonic latent structure of MF transsexuals’ sexuality, especially in measures related to this theory. This study’s finding of evidence for a dimensional latent structure is inconsistent with Blanchard’s theory."
Veale refers to other studies as well as her own, and concludes that there is no one to one relationship between sexual orientation and "autogynephilic" fantasies and/or "transvestic fetishism". Indeed, even Blanchard's own numbers shows that a small, but significant, number of androphilic trans women report such fantasies.
Veale notes that "Another notable finding is that androphilic and nonandrophilic MF transsexuals did not differ in Autogynephilic Interpersonal Fantasy."
Veale's explanation of the diversity of transgender lives is very much in line with the one I have presented here in this blog:
She writes:
According to the Identity-Defense Theory some transsexual children are more likely to repress their gender identity than others, which at least partly explain the difference between early and late onset. Veale notes elsewhere that introvert gender variant kids are more likely to try to follow the gender behavior expected by their parents, as introverts are more likely to be people pleasers. Indeed, Veale goes as far as indicating that this may also influence their sexual orientation: A repression of gender variance may go hand in hand with a repression of same-sex attraction.
In other words: You may perfectly well divide a group transgender male bodied persons and transsexual women into two parts based on sexual orientation or early/late onset. Doing so will reveal some interesting patterns, some of them being related to sexual arousal associated with imagining oneself as a woman, others related to varying enthusiasm for transgender erotica.
Jaimie F. Veale: "Evidence Against a Typology: A Taxometric Analysis of the
Sexuality of Male-to-Female Transsexuals" Arch Sex Behav March 2014 ref DOI 10.1007/s10508-014-0275-5
Related blog posts:
Jaimie Veale's study of gender variant people throw new light upon crossdreamers
What explains the difference between the two types of MTF transgender?
The Massey University Study of Transgender People
On Moser's critique of Blanchard's autogynephilia theory
Julia Serano on the concept of autogynephilia
 |
| Different but the same Illustration photo by Tomwang112/thinkstock. |
In a new paper, Dr. Jaimie F. Veale, brings new evidence that the various shades of male to female transgender are indeed variants of something related, and not two distinct categories.
The two types of trans women
One common idea regarding male bodied transgender people (including transsexual women) is that there are two distinct types.
Since most of this research is on transsexual women the types are often referred to as late onset and early onset, referring to when they used to go to the heath system to get help transitioning.
Both health personnel and researchers noticed early on that the ones transitioning late in life where more likely to be sexually attracted to women, while the early onset were more likely to be attracted to men.
Since all healthy women were supposed to be attracted to men, the early onset ones soon became the model for the perfect transsexual woman. Indeed, as some transsexual women scrambled to get access to the group of real women, the two categories became more than practical descriptive categories used to discuss the different variations of transgender. Now they were referring to tow distinct phenomena, with completely different causes, an A team and a B team.
Are the differences categorical or dimensional?
In her new paper on Dr. Ray Blanchard's variant of the two type typology, Dr. Jaimie F. Veale refers to this as the difference between what she calls categorical constructs (as in the difference between cats and dogs) and dimensional constructs (as in the difference between black and white cats). A categorical difference is one of either/or, while a dimensional difference refers to a continuum.
Is the difference between early onset and late onset transsexual women a difference that exists only in our heads -- a practical concept used to group people of one very diverse population? Or is it an absolute difference that is found out there?
If it is categorical it should be achievable to develop a test to determine whether a person belongs to one or the other of these two completely distinct populations.
Blanchard's two types
Blanchard believes that his types refer to be a difference of the categorical kind. To him the difference between the two groups is determined on the basis of sexual orientation, and sexual orientation only.
In his universe gay men are fundamentally feminine, and the "homosexual transsexual" (as he calls the androphilic, man-loving, transexual woman) even more so. An early onset transsexual woman is therefore a kind of hyper-effeminate gay sissy (He actually uses the word sissy!).
The late onset group is defined as being "non-homosexual". He seems to believe that bisexual and heterosexual men all belong to the same group sexual orientation wise. Since non-homosexual men cannot be feminine in his universe, their condition is explained as a "paraphilia" and "an erotic target location error." These men (Blanchard does not accept that trans women are women) are actually having the hots for their own inner imaginary female. Blanchard calls this condition "autogynephilia", meaning "in love with oneself as a woman."
As one can see, this means that the two groups of androphilic and autogynephilic trans women have little in common, except from the belief that they are women.
Using Blanchard against Blanchard
Both Blanchard and Veale belongs to a scientific tradition that believes that one can settle such controversies by using the scientific methods of natural science. Veale therefore uses the same methods and the same categories as Blanchard in her analysis.
 |
| Dr. Jaimie Veale |
This is a tricky tactic. Anyone who has read Blanchard critically will soon see that his results are very much determined by his model and not by the observed facts. In other words: By accepting Blanchard's premise, you might easily end up replicating his findings, even if the model is wrong.
Veale is aware of the problem, though, and seems to navigate skillfully around the most rocky reefs. The advantage of using the same methodology as Blanchard, is that it becomes much harder for him and his supporters to dismiss her research as unscientific.
Arguing for a continuum
Veale has already in earlier research made her position clear. She does not believe we are dealing with two distinct categories. She believes that what we see are variations of the same underlying phenomena.
This does not mean that she denies that there are differences between the two groups. Her new study confirms that there are clear patterns here, but she believes that these differences can be explained by the way androphilic and gynephilic (woman-loving) trans women are treated by the world around them and by other psychological factors.
The present paper is based on a sample of 308 respondents filling in an online questionnaire. The study aims at testing the solidity of Blanchard's research, and in particular the idea that there are two distinct groups of transsexual women.
But how do you do this?
It is not as hard as one may think. As long as you believe there is a categorical difference (cp. cats and dogs) instead of a dimensional difference (Siamese and Persian breeds of cats), you need to prove that there are dimensions where the two categories do not overlap. Cats and dogs have fur, four paws and a liking for meat, but they cannot interbreed, they are evolutionary far apart and behave differently along a large number of dimensions.
Blanchard has tried to prove that there are such differences between the "autogynephiles" and the "homosexual transsexual". If the two groups overlap along these dimensions, his theory has been falsified.
Some of you might argue that this has been done already, and repeatedly, and you will be right. But this is not a theory that will die easily, probably because it fits well with common prejudices about sex and gender.
Veale also uses statistical methods (which I am not going to describe here) to determine if it is statistically likely that the distributions of responses to the scales on the questionnaire are due to there being distinct groups.
The four scales of Veale's
Veale is testing Blanchard's theory by using four scales:
- Attraction to feminine features in males (which is a dimension Blanchard has not taken into consideration)
- Attraction to transgender fiction (like in tales about crossdressing, male to female bodyswap and magical sex changes)
- Core Autogynephilia Scale (a scale developed by Blanchard to determine "autogynephilia". It is suppose to measure sexual attraction to the fantasy of being a woman)
- Autogynephilic Interpersonal Fantasy Scale (attraction to being admired by another person as a woman)
- Sex Linked Behaviors Questionnaire (a test developed by McConaghy to determine sexual orientation)
Main finding
Veale is using a large number of different methods to interpret her data, but regardless of what she does to them, she is not able to replicate Blanchard's finding of the two types of transsexual women being like cats and dogs. What she finds is different flavors of cat. In scienteese this is written out like this:
"Blanchard’s (1989) typological theory proposed two distinct etiological pathways of MF transsexualism based on sexuality, which should manifest in a taxonic latent structure of MF transsexuals’ sexuality, especially in measures related to this theory. This study’s finding of evidence for a dimensional latent structure is inconsistent with Blanchard’s theory."
Veale refers to other studies as well as her own, and concludes that there is no one to one relationship between sexual orientation and "autogynephilic" fantasies and/or "transvestic fetishism". Indeed, even Blanchard's own numbers shows that a small, but significant, number of androphilic trans women report such fantasies.
Veale's study confirms that gynephilic trans women are more likely that androphilic trans women to report such fantasies, though:
"In accordance with previous research (Blanchard, 1989; Freundet al., 1982; Johnson&Hunt, 1990; Nuttbrocketal.,2011a; Smithet al.,2005), androphilic MF transsexuals scored significantly lower than nonandrophilics on Core Autogynephilia.This difference was also seen for the Attraction to Transgender Fiction and Attraction to Feminine Males scales, which was expected given that these are measuring phenomena closely relating to autogynephilia. Veale et al. (2008) reported similar findings using this sample with groups based on cluster analysis."
Still, the fact remains, that androphilic trans women who according to the theory should not report "autogynephilic fantasies" do so. This should be enough to sink the autogynephilia theory. In addition Veale documents that there is nothing in the data that suggest that suggest that the patterns seen reflect an underlying "essential" difference between the two types.
A more nuanced understanding of sexual orientation
Veale is expanding upon previous research. This time she has done an interesting study aimed at expanding our understanding of the differences between the groups.
In one virtual experiment she pretends that Blanchard's theory is true. In a simulation she stipulates that the two groups are essentially unrelated, as Blanchard believes. She then looks at to what extent the presumed "autogynephilic" group can be attracted to men. This is basically why she has included the "attracted to feminine men" dimension in the analysis, a phenomenon Blanchard has not looked at.
What she finds is that the non-androphilic trans women (the autogynephiles according to Blanchard) is much more attracted to feminine males than Blanchard allows for. According to Blanchard autogynephiles should show zero interest in men. But many of them do, and this time it is not about the faceless props Blanchard and his supporters refer to when explaining away "autogynephilic" fantasies about having sex with men.
This reminds me of all the discussions I have had with female to male crossdreamers, where the majority also reports an attraction to feminine looking men (see my discussions with Rayka).
I am also reminded of Natalie's contribution to my Crossdreamer Vocabulary where she underlines the difference between an outer and inner gender. Being attracted to a man with a feminine inner gender is different from being attracted to a man with a masculine inner gender, Natalie argues.
Furthermore, I am reminded of studies of lesbian love, and especially butch/femme relationships, where femmes are attracted to the masculine sexuality of women, but not to masculine men.
Veale relates her finding to "the observation that MF [male to female] transsexuals sometimes report attractions to other MF transsexuals and will often partner with them", interpreting this as another sign of diversity and variance that go beyond the traditional heterosexual/homosexual dichotomy.
Recent discussions over at Crossdream Life also confirms that there are many male to female gynephilic (woman-loving) crossdreamers who gradually develop (or reveal) an attraction to men. This especially applies to some of those who transition.
Recent discussions over at Crossdream Life also confirms that there are many male to female gynephilic (woman-loving) crossdreamers who gradually develop (or reveal) an attraction to men. This especially applies to some of those who transition.
Basically, what these observations tell us is that the modern idea of heterosexuality and homosexuality being absolute opposites of each other is misleading. Instead we see different blends of attraction to masculine/feminine features (morphology) or masculine/feminine personality traits in both men and women. Such an understanding would explain why so many pre-modern cultures do not distinguish between attraction to men or women, but instead focus on the difference between being the active or receptive partner when having sex.
The purified heterosexual/homosexual dichotomy is one that only exists in our minds. The reality out there is much more complex, and that complexity cannot be harmonized with Blanchard's two type model.
Transgender fiction
Veale also notes that what really keeps the two groups apart is their interest in transgender fiction and not their autogynephilia.
She writes:
"It is also notable that the Attraction to Transgender Fiction scale had greater ability to separate potential taxa in the MAXCOV analysis than the Core Autogynephilia scale. This finding suggests that what differentiates sexuality in MF transsexuals most may not be 'core autogynephilia', but rather attraction to themes found in transgender fiction."
My own take on this is very simple: Androphilic trans women are more likely to have their sexuality affirmed than gynephilic trans women even before transitioning, for the simple reason that they can choose to have a "gay male" sex life (even if they are neither gay nor male at heart).
The gynephilic ones fall in love with women and feel therefore obligated to live up to the role of the aggressive man in bed, most often failing miserably in the process. The attraction of sexual fantasies where you get a body and a role that fits your inner identity therefore becomes much more important. This is where you explore your sexuality: In your dreams.
The gynephilic ones fall in love with women and feel therefore obligated to live up to the role of the aggressive man in bed, most often failing miserably in the process. The attraction of sexual fantasies where you get a body and a role that fits your inner identity therefore becomes much more important. This is where you explore your sexuality: In your dreams.
Veale provides no explanation for this in this paper.
No differences in desire to be attractive
Veale notes that "Another notable finding is that androphilic and nonandrophilic MF transsexuals did not differ in Autogynephilic Interpersonal Fantasy."
That is: The need to be seen and admired as a woman is the same in all groups. I suspect you would find the same if you asked women assigned women at birth. Most women like feeling sexy, and be affirmed as being attractive. That is only natural.
Veale's take on transgender diversity
She writes:
"More recent theories that explain this sexuality diversity of transsexuals and other people with gender-variant identities using social and psychological factors do not rely on a typological distinction. Nuttbrock et al. (2011a) found that transvestic fetishism, a component of autogynephilia, was positively related to age and White ethnicity. They argued that expression of a gender-variant identity in older and White people tends to be more secretive and therefore experienced as exotic and associated with physiological and emotional arousal, leading to the sexual arousal component.
"In a follow-up article, Nuttbrock, Bockting, Rosenblum, Mason, and Hwahng (2011b) found evidence that secretive cross-dressing partially mediated the relationship between transvestic fetishism and both age and ethnicity.
"Veale, Lomax, and Clarke (2010c) independently proposed a similar theory to account for autogynephilia. As well as these social factors, their Identity-Defense Theory proposed that personality factors and coping style/defense mechanism use may also account for some of this difference."
According to the Identity-Defense Theory some transsexual children are more likely to repress their gender identity than others, which at least partly explain the difference between early and late onset. Veale notes elsewhere that introvert gender variant kids are more likely to try to follow the gender behavior expected by their parents, as introverts are more likely to be people pleasers. Indeed, Veale goes as far as indicating that this may also influence their sexual orientation: A repression of gender variance may go hand in hand with a repression of same-sex attraction.
In other words: You may perfectly well divide a group transgender male bodied persons and transsexual women into two parts based on sexual orientation or early/late onset. Doing so will reveal some interesting patterns, some of them being related to sexual arousal associated with imagining oneself as a woman, others related to varying enthusiasm for transgender erotica.
But none of these differences are mutually exclusive. There are androphilic crossdreamers, as well as gynephilic trans women who find little fascination in transgender erotica. This means that there must be other factors than sexual orientation that explain why two such groupings appear. Veale argues that these differences are caused by different social contexts and not by sexual orientation.
Please note that Veale's doctoral thesis is based on a much larger sample of respondents that this paper. That thesis come to the same conclusion as this paper. The autogynephilia theory has no basis in facts.
Please note that Veale's doctoral thesis is based on a much larger sample of respondents that this paper. That thesis come to the same conclusion as this paper. The autogynephilia theory has no basis in facts.
Sexuality of Male-to-Female Transsexuals" Arch Sex Behav March 2014 ref DOI 10.1007/s10508-014-0275-5
Jaimie F. Veale: Biological and Psychosocial Correlates of Gender Variant and Gender-typical Identities, a thesis presented in fulfilment of the requirments for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology at Massey University, Albany, New Zealand, 2011.
Jaimie Veale's publications can be found at her web site.
Jaimie Veale's publications can be found at her web site.
Related blog posts:
Jaimie Veale's study of gender variant people throw new light upon crossdreamers
What explains the difference between the two types of MTF transgender?
The Massey University Study of Transgender People
On Moser's critique of Blanchard's autogynephilia theory
Julia Serano on the concept of autogynephilia
All you need to know about the “autogynephilia” theory (Resources)
"Previous theories and research have suggested there are two distinct types of male-to-female (MF) transsexuals and these types can be distinguished by their sexuality.
Using the scales Attraction to Femininity in Males, Core Autogynephilia, Autogynephilic Interpersonal Fanasy, and Attraction to Transgender Fiction as indicator variables, taxometric analysis was applied to an online-recruited sample of 308 MF transsexuals to investigate whether such a distinction is justified.
In accordance with previous research findings, MF transsexuals categorized as ‘‘nonandrophilic’’ scored significantly higher on Core Autogynephilia than did those categorized as ‘‘androphilic’’; they also scored significantly higher on Attraction to Femininity in Males and Attraction to Transgender Fiction.
Results of one of the taxometric procedures, LMode, gave slightly more support for a dimensional, rather than taxonic (two-type), latent structure. Results of the two other taxometric procedures, MAMBAC and MAXCOV, showed greater support for a dimensional latent structure. Although these results require replication with a more representative sample, they show little support for a taxonomy, which contradicts previous theory that has suggested MF transsexuals’ sexuality is typological."
The Official Abstract of Veale's Paper
"Previous theories and research have suggested there are two distinct types of male-to-female (MF) transsexuals and these types can be distinguished by their sexuality.
Using the scales Attraction to Femininity in Males, Core Autogynephilia, Autogynephilic Interpersonal Fanasy, and Attraction to Transgender Fiction as indicator variables, taxometric analysis was applied to an online-recruited sample of 308 MF transsexuals to investigate whether such a distinction is justified.
In accordance with previous research findings, MF transsexuals categorized as ‘‘nonandrophilic’’ scored significantly higher on Core Autogynephilia than did those categorized as ‘‘androphilic’’; they also scored significantly higher on Attraction to Femininity in Males and Attraction to Transgender Fiction.
Results of one of the taxometric procedures, LMode, gave slightly more support for a dimensional, rather than taxonic (two-type), latent structure. Results of the two other taxometric procedures, MAMBAC and MAXCOV, showed greater support for a dimensional latent structure. Although these results require replication with a more representative sample, they show little support for a taxonomy, which contradicts previous theory that has suggested MF transsexuals’ sexuality is typological."
It seems like we've just come full circle. She's basically come to the same conclusions Benjamin came to 50 years ago.
ReplyDeleteYes, you could put it that way. Blanchard has caused the transgender community more than 20 years of unnecessary suffering for nothing. Instead of focusing on learning more about what transgender really is, researchers as well as activists have been forced to respond to a theory that has no ground in facts whatsoever, and by doing so we have basically wasted a lot of valuable time.
ReplyDeleteThe only good thing that comes out of this is the fact that all this soul searching has made the community better armed for all the other struggles for recognition that have come and will come.
What a wonderful post. The paragraph on Identity-Defense Theory is something that I need to research.
ReplyDeleteAs far back as I can remember, I have felt female, yet growing up with old-world strict Catholics, it was something that I had to bury inside of me. I was expected to get married and have children. It is the Catholic and Italian way. Nevertheless, I was reading books about transsexuality when I was in my teen age years, wondering why I had these feelings.
It's interesting to note that I had absolutely no interest in males or females in my teens and 20's, but I did like to be around girls. I never dated until a woman found me and literally taught me how to have sex as a man....and I did. For me, getting married and having children was, in my mind, the "fix" for this problem.
Looking back on all of this, I honestly feel that I could have gone either way. Had I had an accepting family and had support groups and had the Internet been available back then, I have no doubt that I would have transitioned and I probably would have ended up in a relationship with a male.
But, that never happened. Today, I would be considered a late-onset transsexual and, as such, there are those who believe that I should be attracted to women rather than men. I think there's a cultural side to much of this for those who are Late-Onset. Growing up in an old-world, religious family, there is just so much embedded culture that tells you that males mate with women and women mate with men. You are raised to do such.
Thanks for a terrific post that I will try to mention on T-Central.
@Calie
ReplyDeleteI am glad you find Jaimie's research useful. Her work makes a huge difference, in my opinion.
As fot the Identity-Defence Theory, you can read more about it over at her web site.
Jack thanks for this post. It encapsulates nicely everything I currently believe about gender dysphoria being a continuum of intensity with the ensuing path being taken by the individual coloured by their sexual orientation. The more likely you will transition early being very much helped if you are sexually attracted to your own birth sex.
ReplyDeleteAs I have mentioned often in my own blog, the blanchard model will be discredited and a more nuanced and realistic model will take its place; one which reflects the very complex and varied situations we find in real life.
Very glad to see researchers like Veale doing this type of research.
Joanna
Another important point here is that the finding that a number of androphilics do experience erotic fantasies pre transition does in fact put a stake in the heart of Blanchard's dual model.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Anne lawrence notes this fact in her own research and yet she still buys into the AGP model is a bit bafflying. She instead uses this fact to say that AGP transitiiners are just as valid in their reasons for transitions as androphilics.
Very odd.
Yes, I agree that this raises questions about Blanchard's theory of the two types of transexual... but that always was the weakest part of the theory. Blanchard's most important contribution was to identify that in some transexuals their desire to change sex stemmed fundamentally from their paraphiliac obssession with being a woman. I can't see anyone taking down that part of the theory because in some cases it's undoubdetly true. Thanks for a great post.
ReplyDeleteThis site is valuable site throwing rare light on the subject GenderPuzzle, adding a new chapter on cross dreaming
ReplyDeleteIt is really great, those persons who studied the subject in depth and experienced in life came forward in sharing their experiences for the rest of the mankind.I appreciate all these contributors. This helps many more to identify their true gender. Society has to learn how to treat such persons having gender challenge, with respect and empathy.FactFinder
Anonymous...the paraphilic obsession is conjecture I'm afraid and I challenge you to find a scientific basis for it. If one experiences eroticism at the idea of being a woman while arned with male plumbing you could see how that could confuse a person.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the reason for wanting to be a transsexual in the first place and why are most fetish TVs intetested in experiencing only the eroticism with absolutely no interest in transition while others who self identified as TVs at one time develop into full blown transsexuals?
Blanchard has proven absolutely zero and has failed to explain how this dysphoria progresses. No progress at all since 1967 and Benjamin's original book; absolutely none.
Nice try though...
Greetings
ReplyDeleteI thought I would bring some revolutionary news, for those that would not be aware of them yet: In fact, fairly recently, Bailey's and Blanchard's 2-type taxonomy has been 100% confirmed beyond any doubt, once and for all. Yet, many people in the various trans communities are completely oblivious of this, even about the findings made simultaneously in actual biological brainresearch, where it has been proven that there are indeed two, and only two, very different types of transsexuals not only in regards of sexual orientation and life-history, but also directly neurobiologically.
What has been found is that the exlusively androphilic(that is, male-attracted) transsexual, the HSTS, have a very markedly feminized brainstructure in several areas of the brain, while the female-attracted transsexual(Whether she identifies as eclusively female-attracted, bi, or even asexual) do NOT possess any feminized brainstructure what so ever. These findings can be studied via the following link, (please read all the posts in the link, as the findings are treated in several of those posts): http://sillyolme.wordpress.com/category/brain-sex/
I also attach a link going directly to clinical psychologist and research scientist James Cantor, verifying the data: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-011-9805-6/fulltext.html
Nonetheless, and despite not having a feminized brainstructure, other anomalies were actually found in these subjects, as can be seen in above attached links, such as an imbalance in gray/white brainmatter different from both heterosexual males and females, which, interestingly, have also been found in connection with some philias, although, as the writer on the by me linked site, suggested that this could also be a marker for high intelligence; albeit I am persoinally doubting this possibility for certain reasons.
All this was *exactly* what Bailey and Blanchard predicted already from the start way before the necessary technology was avaible, that only the HSTS would have a feminized brainstructure, while the AGP would not, but would nonetheless have other biological causes, although neither Bailey nor Blanchard were sure what type of causes those would be.
(Some may argue that earlier findings showed that even gynephilic transsexuals possess a feminized BSTc; however, as is shown in the following link, this feminisation was very likely caused by Estrogen treatment: https://sillyolme.wordpress.com/2010/02/19/this-is-your-brain-this-is-your-brain-on-hormones/
- It is in these matters important to remember that some areas of the brain are plastic only in adulthodd, while others only during childhood or fetal development)
It has also been found that the autogynephilic transsexual are way more likely to be white, even in the most diverse populations. (In this study, referring to New York) while the exclusively male-attracted HSTS are more likely to be ethnic minorities or of mixed race: http://sillyolme.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/profiles-in-courage/
And: http://sillyolme.wordpress.com/2010/02/13/counting-noses/
And, the third link on the confirming data: http://sillyolme.wordpress.com/2010/03/14/love-is-love-and-not-fade-away/
In other words, Bailey's and Blanchard's 2-type taxonomy and everything that they predicted would be found and not found, have been absolutely and definitely confirmed now, and the only reason that these findings have not been even commented upon by those higher up still "critisizing" the 2-type, can only be for political reasons.
Sincerely/DasFemmeboy
Very interesting DasFemmeboy. So how will crossdreamers reconcile themselves with these findings?
ReplyDelete@DasFemmeBoy
ReplyDeleteThe premise for this research is the stereotype repeated by Cantor:
"For example, homosexual male-to-female transsexuals are sexually attracted to natal males, express greater interest in female-typical activities (even in childhood), and are naturally effeminate in mannerism..." etc. etc.
The two type model is taken for granted by these researchers. They then go out and scan brains in order to find areas of the brain that fit this pattern. When they have found a region that seem to fit, they take this as proof of the hypothesis being confirmed.
The truth is that we do not know what these regions of the brain are actually used for. What the researchers have found is, at best, a correlation.
The current research front of neurophysiology is increasingly moving away from such simplistic and reductionist models of brain/trait relationships, admitting that there is a complex interaction between many brain regions (as well as the rest of the body) underpinning most traits, sex identity included.
Actually, this is what Savic & Co argue in their paper:
"The observed differences between MtF-TR and controls raise the question as to whether gender dysphoria may be associated with changes in multiple structures and involve a network (rather than a single nodal area)."
Still, if we -- for the sake of argument -- accept the findings as they are, they could just as well be a reflection of sexual orientation as of sex identity.
If that is the case the "proof" is only a "proof" if you accept the premise that sexual orientation defines the two types of MTF transsexual, which I do not.
Veale has convincingly proved that the stereotypes presented by Blanchard are only that: stereotypes. The real world of transgender reflects diversity, not this kind of binary.
In addition to this you have another, much more serious, methodological problem: What comes first? The chicken or the egg? Are the brain patterns observed causing the differences seen or are they caused by them?
If Veale is right in her hypothesis that introvert, sensitive and people pleasing MTF transsexuals are more likely to suppress androphilic attraction, that might lead to the brain patterns observed here, and not the other way round.
Since gynephilic trans women are also more likely to transition later, the age difference may also leave a trace. The longer you stay biologically male, the more time the testosterone (and social conditioning) will have to shape your biological and neurological system. (Note that the median age for the Rametti androphilic MTF group is 24 years, compared to 32 in the Savic gynephilic group.)
Indeed, another study by Rametti & Co, shows similar changes in the brains of FTM trans men because of testosterone treatments. http://bit.ly/1jYj9gZ These effects of testosterone do not change the sex identities of these trans men and trans women, however. The gender dysphoria of gynephilic MTF crossdreamers most often intensifies as they get older.
cont...
....cont
ReplyDeleteNote that Savic and Arver (http://bit.ly/1jfaPsE ) compared the two groups with heterosexual women,as did the Rametti team (http://bit.ly/1o6egTj ). If you wanted to control whether the differences reflects sex identity rather than sexual orientation, you would need a female control group containing lesbians. Both studies failed to do so, which tells me that both research groups take Blanchard's premise for given. These are major flaws.
Note also that the Rametti study only included MTF androphilic transsexuals, while the Savic study only included gynephilic ones. The two studies are not directly comparable, and can therefore not be used for the kind of arguments Cantor is making.
I would also add that these papers only present statistical averages. In the same way you will find huge differences between women and between men (many of them overlapping with the opposite sex), it is reasonable to expect the same for these samples of transsexuals. Such differences belie the idea that the size of a particular brain region determines your fate.
To say that "Bailey's and Blanchard's 2-type taxonomy has been 100% confirmed beyond any doubt" is therefore nonsense.
@DasFemmeBoy
ReplyDeleteYour reflections on culture and ethnicity are interesting as they might indicate that the difference between the two groups are not about biology, but about culture.
Unfortunately the data underpinning these observations are too weak.
I have been in touch with MTF gynephilic crossdreamers from all over the world. We are everywhere, and in all social strata.
I have found FTM crossdreamers in literature from Medieval Baghdad as well as ancient India. Hirschfeld and others have documented MTF and FTM crossdreamers galore in 19th and early 20th century Europe.
The biggest producer of crossdreamer fiction and movies is Japan. This applies to both MTF and FTM transgender.
So although the American crossdresser culture can be explained as a time limited cultural phenomena, the trans nature of these people cannot.
I'm a couple weeks late here, but whatev.
ReplyDeleteJack has already defended against the comment from a theoretical basis, but I want to address something from a more philosophical basis.
"has been 100% confirmed beyond any doubt"
"the only reason that these findings have not been [...] can only be for political reasons."
These two lines really piss me off. Scientific theories are meant to be challenged. You simply can never declare your theory as perfect because there's the possibility someone may attempt to replicate and find an exception to the discoveries that you have made.
Also, pay attention that the claim is that no more archetypes can possibly exist. It's bull because finding evidence of something doesn't disprove the possibility of something else..
- Aubrey
Blanchards "research", was conducted in a bar, the sample was 5 people, statistically insignificant.
ReplyDelete@Sasha
ReplyDeleteIndeed! I love Deirdre McCloskey's take on this.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI respectfully disagree. I know for a fact that I have had autogynephilia for the past 39 years. So, I believe after almost for decades, I think I know what I'm talking about.
ReplyDelete