Isn't the Archives of Sexual Behavior now house publication of the Bailey/Zucker/Lawrence crowd (Zucker is, after all, the editor of the journal and a long time associate of Bailey, as well as a source of bad science himself)? My question and concern is why does the NYT keep falling in line with these people? The have as much respect for the scientific method as the supporters of 'creation science' and I hope the Times isn't about to champion their cause.

Hi Julia.

[Julia Serano's "Whipping Girl" is a terrific book. I recommend it to everyone interested in the debates regarding transsexual and transgender people.]

Bailey is much beloved by every right wing woman hating, transphobic Taliban religionist capable of having a blog.

He is regularly quoted by NARTH and is listed on the southern Poverty Law Center's Hate watch list.

Since the mid 1970s the same religious reich nutcases who have been attacking feminism and women have been attacking transsexuals most notably women of a transsexual history.

Bailey's research questionnaire was composed of questions that permitted answers that forced those questioned into one of his predetermined catagories or the other. There was no place to say neither of these options apply nor was there a place to say well yes but I also feel this or think that.

"And while Dreger presents her essay as a work of scholarly history, it’s clear that she is not an impartial, objective observer - she is currently an associate of Bailey’s and has become embroiled in the controversy that surrounds the book herself."

I really don't know enough about the science here to comment adequately.

But in response to the attack on Alice Dreger, when she started working on a book about this and other controversies last year, she (claimed she) was prone to believing the personal accusations about Bailey (e.g., ethics violations) but decided over the course of the research that they were baseless.

Hi Julia,
Very interesting post. I don't know a lot about Bailey, but as a bisexual I've been pretty skeptical of him ever since his study on bisexual men. I'm actually doing a study on bisexuality myself at the moment and there is an interesting tension between myself and my advisor over this study.
Anyway, it's great to see you on feministing. I read your interview in Bitch and really enjoyed what you have to say. I'm looking forward to reading your book, both as an ally to my trans friends, but also as a female-born woman-identified feminist who is interested in reclaiming her femininity.

When I read the article, I had thought the discussion was more about what exactly we should do with people who insist on being assholes, and trade on their professional identity to push their unprofessional and really unkind opinions. But maybe it's not as clear to other readers what a total jerk Bailey is. But I thought the way this guy was treated had a lot of interesting parallels to what we've seen with harassment of feminist bloggers lately, just with a 180 on the person's ideology.

Finally, a commentator and a book that gives voice to my own outrage over the Blanchard/Bailey fake "science" about transsexuals. I just bought a bunch of copies of Whipping Girl on Amazon to share with my friends.

Non-transsexuals should know that a true transsexual is not a man invading women's gender space, but a woman reuniting with her full womanhood that was never completely formed at birth due to a developmental hormonal malfunction while in utero. We are just as "intersexed" at birth as the more obviously intersexed newborn who has visually-detectable genital ambiguity. Just because our ambiguity is not visually apparent at birth does not make it any less real, nor any less genuine, nor any less in need of repair.

Thanks for this useful corrective. Reading between the lines of the Times piece, you realize it says almost nothing about the scientific (or not) content of Bailey's work - it merely presents a sympathetic portrait of him as a victim of personal attacks. It should be acknowledged that there was extraneous and personal harassment - posting pictures of his children captioned "prostitute" and "cock-starved exhibitionist or paraphiliac" seems far beyond the pale. But the issue at controversy is the scientific quality of his claims, which the Times glosses over at best. Questions and criticisms on that score are perfectly legitimate, but they provide no basis for judgment; your post above is helpful.

Could you say more about how Dreger is "associated" with Bailey, other than being from the same campus? I don't know all the details. The NYT piece implied she had acted in the role of an outside consultant on research ethics, but if they are personally connected in some way, she should not have been the one given that assignment.

And I second the endorsment of Whipping Girl. Great piece of work! I thought it was invaluable.

Julia!

Years ago my old band played with Bitesize in the City and I promptly bought both your CDs and still listen to them. (We also would secretly listen at your band's door in Francisco Studios, where we both practiced at the time.) This was years ago. I think you'd just changed your name.

Later, I used your switchhitter website to help some young-uns come to grips with the fact that their clan leader (gamer thing) was MTF. Though you didn't know it, you helped a lot of 12 and 13 year-old boys learn tolerance, acceptance, and (yes) love for someone they'd normally mock and dismiss. Seeing those kids defend their clan leader from online slurs was really incredible. I think I wrote you about it back then, but can't remember, so I'm telling you now.

Just wanted you to know how amazing I think you are and how proud I am that you're in my community. Right on. BTW, what the hell is "I kissed an old guy" about, anyway?

Here is a copy of the actual article that Alice Dreger published. I don't have time to read it and comment today, but just for inquiring minds:

http://www.bioethics.northwestern.edu/faculty/work/dreger/controversy_tmwwbq.pdf

Julia,
Thanks for the post/book/activism!

I agree with Kevin. The Times article (and the Dreger MS) don't address Bailey's science. They point out that some trans women may have behaved very unprofessionally in their criticism of Bailey.

However, based on tone alone, I almost get the sense that Bailey and Dreger believe that poor behavior on the part of some critics is grounds for dismissing all evidence that contradicts Bailey's work.

Bailey still hasn't addressed the very legitimate criticism that not *all* transsexual women transition primarily for sexual reasons. He either needs to modify his theory to account for this evidence, or issue a retraction-- neither of which appears likely.

"Bailey still hasn't addressed the very legitimate criticism that not *all* transsexual women transition primarily for sexual reasons. He either needs to modify his theory to account for this evidence, or issue a retraction-- neither of which appears likely."

These are his responses:

http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/controversy.htm

Trans Group Blog: Julia Serano Guest Blogging on Feministing

Lynn Conway, a member of the National Academy of Sciences who is also a trans woman, has done an excellent job documenting the manifold ethical and scientific failings of Bailey's The Man Who Would Be Queen. Her investigation of Bailey's book and how it came to be published by an imprint of the NAS can be found at:

http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Bailey's%20scientific%20claims.html

In short, Bailey used a small and convenient sample in an attempt to provide scientific validity to Ray Blanchard's discredited attempts to categorise trans women as either sexual fetishists (autogynaephilia) or homosexuals seeking to attract heterosexual men ("primary" or "homosexual" transsexuals).

Bailey obtained his sample by posing as a clinical psychologist (despite not being licensed as such) offering to provide the letters trans women needed in order to obtain sex reassignment surgery (SRS) and by trolling gay and hooker bars. These women were not made aware that he was using them as research subjects, and at least one was presented in an identifiable fashion in his book. There are at least two documented cases of his rejection of trans women whose histories did not confirm his/Blanchard's thesis. Conway has also documented his tendency to respond to methodological and ethical criticisms with invective and evasion.

While Bailey's work is particularly egregious, it is only one example of an overall tendency to disregard trans people's experiences (especially their lifelong knowledge of inconsistency between their assigned sex and their gender identity/subconscious sex). Bailey is not alone in his obsession (which he does not hide in his book) with trans women's sexual attractiveness and heterosexuality as being somehow relevant to the diagnosis of transsexuality (see the writings of Paul McHugh, who was instrumental in shutting down the Johns-Hopkins gender identity clinic, for another flagrant example). I will refrain from speculating about what it means that these (mostly) men are so concerned with trans women's attractiveness and willingness to sleep with heterosexual men.

Hi everyone,

Thanks for all the comments, I’ll try to answer some of them here:

Isn't the Archives of Sexual Behavior now house publication of the Bailey/Zucker/Lawrence crowd (Zucker is, after all, the editor of the journal and a long time associate of Bailey, as well as a source of bad science himself)? My question and concern is why does the NYT keep falling in line with these people?

Bailey is a member of the Editorial Board of the Archives of Sexual Behavior. In general, what that usually means is that he is called upon to peer review articles for the journal. I didn’t mention that tidbit in the piece because it doesn’t necessarily imply that there is a direct conflict of interest (although it is surprising that the NY Times piece didn’t mention it at all).

Also, the same writer (Benedict Carey) wrote both NY Times pieces about Bailey (this one & the article about bisexual men).

Several comments were along this line:

It should be acknowledged that there was extraneous and personal harassment - posting pictures of his children captioned "prostitute" and "cock-starved exhibitionist or paraphiliac" seems far beyond the pale.

But in response to the attack on Alice Dreger, when she started working on a book about this and other controversies last year, she (claimed she) was prone to believing the personal accusations about Bailey (e.g., ethics violations) but decided over the course of the research that they were baseless.

So maybe I should have been more clear about my stance on these issues in my original post. First off, I am against personal attacks, particularly ones that involve someone’s children. Also, I believe it’s wrong to falsely accuse someone of fraud (although it is not clear in this case that that has happened).

I chose not to comment about these charges or other similar charges made against Bailey because they are discussed at length in the NY Times and Alice Dreger articles that I linked to. Also, in doing internet searches, I found that Andrea James (one of the trans activists who Dreger focuses most heavily on) disputes many of Dreger’s claims about her – if you are interested in hearing her side of events, you can read her response: http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/alice-dreger/hermaphrodite-monger.html

It is clear that both Dreger & James have been having it out online for a while now (see for example this post from Dreger’s blog last year - http://www.alicedreger.com/in_fear.html ). I don’t know either of them personally and I am not in a position to provide insight into who might be telling the truth and who isn’t. But what I do feel is certain is that Dreger is hardly an objective voice in this matter. And one could reasonably say that she is resorting to some of the same tactics (i.e., personal attacks and unproven allegations) against James, Conway and McCloskey that she accuses them of.

It is possible that some might misinterpret from my article that I am necessarily pro-James, Conway and McCloskey or that I’m anti-Dreger, but that’s not the case. For one thing, I think all have done amazing activist work in the past. Regrettably, I feel that this whole she-said/she-said debate between them has become unnecessarily personal on both sides of the aisle. While I respect all parties’ rights to express their sides of the story online or in the press, I think that the Archives of Sexual Behavior’s decision to publish a Dreger’s article on the controversy steps over the line, because 1) of it’s extraordinary length, 2) of how personal and unobjective it comes off as, and 3) because they are presenting it as a research paper rather than an opinion piece.

The main reason why I wrote my post was not to take sides in this issue, but rather to point out how problematic Bailey’s book was in the first place – a point that seemed completely lost in the NY Times article. While I don’t think Bailey or his children should be personally harassed, I do believe that he should be held accountable for promoting his book as “science.� And I also feel that it is impossible to talk about academic freedom without also talking about academic responsibility (something which was overlooked in the piece as well)...

Could you say more about how Dreger is "associated" with Bailey, other than being from the same campus? I don't know all the details. The NYT piece implied she had acted in the role of an outside consultant on research ethics, but if they are personally connected in some way, she should not have been the one given that assignment.

Well, they are colleagues at Northwestern and Dreger has been defending Bailey for quite a while before the article came out. In addition, intersex groups that are angered by the DSD terminology that Dreger helped develop have claimed that Bailey participated with Dreger in that process (http://oii-usa.blogspot.com/2006/09/dsd-consortium-homophobia-and.html). I’m haven’t been able to verify that, which is why I left it out of my initial post.

hope that helps!
-julia

Same ol Same ol Almost...

I have to agree with Ms. Serano transsexual women are seen as sex objects in many inappropriate circumstances. It is as if people are so facinated/horrified/curious about our sex lives that they can see nothing else. It effects all of us, from UIC professors to Mexican models. All most of society cares about is passing, looks, voice, OP STATUS, etc. We are more than looks and sex organs. We are more than bodies what is most important about us is our minds, brains...the body is just a meat bag to carry around a brain in as far as I am concerned. I really mean that..

However: About Dr. Bailey
"scientifically flawed", etc. etc. etc. Enough already. The bottom line is that the only people who buy these recycled arguements are those who already do not like him or Blanchard. I mean your preaching to the chior here. To make real progress you need to gather scientific and incontrovertible evidence that BBL theory is wrong.

There are those of us who are not offended by BBL theory. I mean, so what, we are sexual beings and should not pretend that sexuality has nothing to do with our lives. I think that the sexual part of my transsexuality is explained quite suscintly by Dr. Blanchards theory. I admit it, I like men but not gay men, I pass easily as a woman and when I just go with that things are easier for me. I would be a liar if I did not admit that played a role. Like if my chaging sex would make it impossible for me to attract anybody ever again I would not stay this way.

I feel obligated to mention this to head off some of the replies I always get when I speak on this. (such as read X,Y,Z so that you will know what horrible things Bailey did/wrote etc.). I am from Chicago and met Dr. Bailey back around 2000. I saw him work. We discussed a few things. Though he was not ever my care giver I could tell from our interactions he was and probably is the most competent psychologist in Chicagoland for dealing with transsexuals.

Needless to say what I present you with is a challenge. Convince me and those like me that BBL theory is wrong. I can be convinced. At the start, even before TMWWBQ like most I thought BBL theory was total BS. Then I looked at all the evidence and changed my mind, it has some merit. My mind can be changed again if I see some real evidence. Do a real careful study of a few hundred randomly selected transsexuals. Use the technique from (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/102/20/7356) to objectively determine who is androphilic and who is not, then look at their biographies. If there are no differences in occupations, sexual activities, etc as BBL theory would predict then that would falsify BBL theory. If there are differences as predicted by BBL theory then the theory would be supported. That's the trade off, it could PROVE BBL wrong or provide strength to their case.

There needs to be a real resolution to this problem not more invective.

One last word on Dr. Conway and her investigation. It was not as thorough as many of you think it was. From my own vantage point it really looks like she only looked for what she wanted to see. Nothing personal against her.

Bailey obtained his sample by posing as a clinical psychologist (despite not being licensed as such)
WRONG.

To air it all out.

He never did that. He did say he was a psychologist be he also at least told me that he did not "do sessions". When at one point I said I wanted him to work with me to give me the first letter. He refused to do so on that basis. Though he did say he could give me the second letter if I could get the first on my own.

I admit he could have chnaged his way of doing things between 98 and 00.

offering to provide the letters trans women needed in order to obtain sex reassignment surgery (SRS) and by trolling gay and hooker bars.

Do you see the Irony in degrading the very people that Dr. Bailey is supposed to have wronged? You are just as guilty of Whipping the girl as anyone that Ms. Serano wrote about.

Again you are recycling the same caustic words used by Dr. McClosky in 2003. Think of something original.

The controversy isn't about telling an unfortunate truth or unpopular ideas. There's a multitude of reasons why at a public meeting of sex researchers shortly after the publication of "The Man Who Would be Queen," Dr. John Bancroft, then director of the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction, said to Dr. Bailey, “Michael, I have read your book, and I do not think it is science" and in its review, Publishers' Weekly said that among other shortcomings of the book, "Bailey tends towards overreaching, unsupported generalizations." Even Alice Dreger herself has said: "I should correct the misperception that I’m a defender of Professor Bailey." (panel discussion on KQED's "Forum" show, Aug. 22, 2007)

First, there's the major problems with Bailey's theoretical basis. There is a huge difference between a classification system and causality (what makes something happen). Bailey relies on the work of Raymond Blanchard, which at best (and this is/has been disputed) shows that the population of male-to-female transsexuals includes the following two groups: those who like to have sex with men, and those who are seen to be aroused by cross-dressing. Blanchard makes a huge leap in asserting that wanting to have sex with men or some sort of autoeroticism is the cause of transsexualism in these two groups. In the 20 some years since Blanchard started with this classification system, no one has replicated his work, a key part of the scientific process. In fact, Prof. Joan Roughgarden, Professor of Biological Science at Stanford University, author of "Evolution’s Rainbow," concluded: "if you go back to Blanchard’s work, you again do find that the existence of these two clean-cut categories is a figment of imagination… because Blanchard sent out a bunch of questionnaires, and he has three different studies in which the results of the questionnaires are tabulated, and you see a scattering of all sorts of answers to the questionnaires. And trying to find that they coalesce into two distinct clusters is really an exercise in pure imagination." (panel discussion on KQED's "Forum" show, Aug. 22, 2007) Perhaps this is part of the reason why prior to Bailey's book, Blanchard was only of interest to a few people at all and even specialists in transsexuality rarely cited his work.

Bailey asserts these are the two -- and only two -- causes of MTF transsexualism -- and that if you say that your life experience doesn't match these models, you're lying. Which needless to say, makes Bailey's theory un-disproveable -- taking it out of the realm of the "scientific," despite Bailey's repeated assertions in TMWWBQ and elsewhere about the scientific nature of his inquiry. For example, the book's subtitle is "The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism" and it's inside jacket promises "Based on his original research, Bailey's book is firmly in the scientific method."

Then there's the shoddy nature of Bailey's "field research" for the book, which in its entirety consisted of talking to a handful of transsexuals at a local bar, and the startling conclusions Bailey reached based on that. To make an analogy, imagine a researcher who:

- drew conclusions about the entire population of black women based on a half-dozen women he met while "cruising" a local bar (Pg. 141 of "The Man Who Would Be Queen") (because he didn't know how to locate other black women, despite the presence of several organization for black women) and based on that sampling

- argued that white women "aspire (with some success) to be presentable, while [black women] aspire (with equivalent success) to be objects of desire" (Pg. 180)

- argued black women "tend to have a short time horizon with certain pleasure in the present being worth great risks for the future" (Pg. 184)

- argued that black women "might be especially well suited to prostitution" (Pg. 185)

- argued the black women are "especially motivated" to shoplifting (Pg. 185)

- argued those who were black women "are much better looking than most" of those who aren't, and that he can tell the difference between light-skinned black women and dark-skinned white women based on whether he found them attractive (Pgs 141-142, 180-182)

I doubt we'd be debating whether those findings were politically incorrect and recognize the junk science for what it was.

The general public doesn't see the slight of hand that converts a questionable taxonomy into an non-scientific opinion about a reason why.  Nor the slight of hand that takes what is at most, anecdotes from a highly non-random sample, and turns them into assertions about an entire population.

Frankly, some transsexual advocates have hurt the case for the many justifiable criticisms of Bailey's work by their over-zealous behavior. I think some of the personal attacks on Bailey were far out of line and I'm not going to defend them. But I hope one might see how assertions such as the ones above, might be enraging to a population that already is marginalized and discriminated against. People whose lives are affected by a book that says that the story they've been telling about themselves is a lie, and that asserts that they are especially suited to criminal activity, have clear reason to be concerned. They're right in thinking "with friends like Bailey, who needs enemies?" Especially when Bailey continues to make statements such as transsexuals are "better suited than genetic women are" for prostitution (panel discussion on KQED's "Forum" show, Aug. 22, 2007) and gives the general public "scientific" tools like the following:

[quote]
I have devised a set of rules that should work even for the novice (though admittedly, I have not tested them). Start at zero. Ask each question, and if the answer is "Yes," add the number (+1 or -1) next to the question. If the sum gets to +3, stop; the transsexual you're talking to is autogynephiliac. If the sum gets to -3, she is homosexual.

+1 Have you ever been married to a woman?
+1 As a child, did people think you were about as masculine as other boys?
+1 Are you nearly attracted to women as to men? Or more attracted to women? Or equally uninterested in both? (Add 1 if "Yes to any of these.)
+1 Were you over the age of 40 when you began to live full time as a woman?
+1 Have you worn women's clothing in private, and, during at least three of those times, become so sexually aroused that you masturbated?
+1 Have you ever been in the military or worked as a policeman or truck driver, or been a computer programmers, businessman, lawyer, scientist, engineer or physcian?
-1 Is you ideal partner a straight man?
-1 As a child, did people think you were an unusually feminine boy?
-1 Does this describe you: "I find the idea of having sex with men very sexually exciting, but the idea of having sex with women is not at all appealing?"
-1 Were you under the age of 25 when you began to live full time as a women?
-1 Do you like to look at pictures of really muscular men with their shirts off?
-1 Have you worked as a hairstylist, beautician, female impersonator, lingerie model, or prostitute?

Finally, if the person has been on hormones for at least six months, ask yourself this question:

If you didn't already know that this person was a transsexual, would you still have suspected that she was not a natural-born women?

+1 if you answer is "Yes" (if you would have suspected)
-1 if your answer is "No"

Keep in mind that people don't always tell the truth. This interview could be invalid if the transsexual is really autogynephiliac, but is either (a) worried that you will think badly of her or deny her a sex change if you know the truth, or (b) obsessed with being a "real" woman. (Pgs 192-194)
[/quote]

But in response to the attack on Alice Dreger, when she started working on a book about this and other controversies last year, she (claimed she) was prone to believing the personal accusations about Bailey (e.g., ethics violations) but decided over the course of the research that they were baseless.

Dreger has encountered a lot of criticism in the intersexed community for doing some of the same things the trans community is criticising Bailey for:

http://www.intersexualite.org/AliceDreger.html

And while you and Dreger may believe the charges to be baseless, even Dreger had to acknowledge that Northwestern found at least some of them to have merit and took some sort of action, but refused to say what it was.

But I thought the way this guy was treated had a lot of interesting parallels to what we've seen with harassment of feminist bloggers lately, just with a 180 on the person's ideology.

I haven't seen any feminist blogger insist that whole populations are made up of either prostitutes or lying perverts. Dreger also conspicuously fails to note that the "obscene" captions Andrea James put under pictures of his children were taken from his book. She was wrong to bring his kids into it, and she's apologized, but the fact that Bailey would insist that his language was "sympathetic" to use to describe transwomen and then turn around and say it was "obscene" to apply to nontranssexuals speaks volumes about his utter contempt for transwomen.

"scientifically flawed", etc. etc. etc. Enough already. The bottom line is that the only people who buy these recycled arguements are those who already do not like him or Blanchard. I mean your preaching to the chior here. To make real progress you need to gather scientific and incontrovertible evidence that BBL theory is wrong.

The "choir" would happen to include WPATH, Walter Bockting, Milton Diamond, etc. etc. i.e. the majority of actual experts who work with transwomen. If Blanchard's theory isn't supported by the data, then we shouldn't accept it. Blanchard's theory does not deserve special status as the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is "we don't know."

There are those of us who are not offended by BBL theory. I mean, so what, we are sexual beings and should not pretend that sexuality has nothing to do with our lives. I think that the sexual part of my transsexuality is explained quite suscintly by Dr. Blanchards theory. I admit it, I like men but not gay men, I pass easily as a woman and when I just go with that things are easier for me. I would be a liar if I did not admit that played a role. Like if my chaging sex would make it impossible for me to attract anybody ever again I would not stay this way.

The issue is not that some people may fit Blanchard's model to some degree (although I've yet to come across anyone who completely fits either type, including you with what Bailey calls your "hallmarks of autogynephilia" I noted earlier). You're also setting up a false dichotomy with the idea that claiming Blanchard's model does not describe one is somehow equivalent to denying having a sex drive. I got SRS because, to put it bluntly, the sexual options for chicks with dicks are limited and unattractive. That doesn't make me an uber-homosexual or a narcissistic fetishist.

I think that the sexual part of my transsexuality is explained quite suscintly by Dr. Blanchards theory.

But the rest of us don't think it explains our transsexuality. Bailey calls you "honest and open" for agreeing with him while the rest of us are lying or deluded for not agreeing with him. Whatever MRI scans you might like to perform in the future, the fact remains that at the present time he has no justification for his constant accusations of lying. If you found something that's meaningful for you, great, but as long as the Blanchards and Baileys of the world insist on trying to drag the rest of us along as well, there's going to be a problem.

Needless to say what I present you with is a challenge. Convince me and those like me that BBL theory is wrong. I can be convinced.

How about we start with your attempt to address the methodological flaws I pointed out in Blanchard's TS typology studies earlier?

My mind can be changed again if I see some real evidence.

Blanchard's model is that all of us are either one or the other of two strictly defined categories, with no exceptions and nothing in between. Calpernia Addams was in the military (AG) then worked as a showgirl (homosexual) so which is she? Lynn Conway attempted transition in her late teens, self medicating her hormones and dating men (homosexual) but after being threatened with institutionalization (the 50s) tried very hard for years to fit in as a man, even going so far as to marry and have kids (AG) before transitioning. Which type is she?

There needs to be a real resolution to this problem not more invective.

The real resolution is that the trend in trans healthcare is very much away from the control-based approach advocated by Blanchard and pals, and that will only continue. The majority already rejects his typology and that will only continue. This isn't about who's going to "win," it's about how many people will get hurt before these people are finally left behind for good.

Oh, and fun fact about Archives of Sexual Behavior: Blanchard and Bailey both sit on the editorial board, along with several of Blanchard's other colleagues from his clinic. The editor of a supposedly scientific journal solicited yellow journalism to defend one of the journal's own editorial board members. Nothing wrong with that, I'm sure. No doubt the peer review process was quite rigorous.

Bailey has not yet responded to my existance. More to the point, Julia and many authors have offered glimpse of themselves in print. There are a lot of us who don't neatly fit into one of Blanchard's two groups.

Bailey never appropriately addresses this. The best he's done is to imply that we're liars. I'm a younger transitioner. I'm not lying about my lesbianism-- trust me on this one. My very existance, in and of itself creates a problem for Blanchard's typology, and in the overall scheme of things I'm not particularly unique. And again, some people (Julia, for instance) have pointed this out in easy-to-find books.

Of course, I suppose I could allow Bailey to hook electrodes up to genitals while he shows me pornographic vidoes (one of his research techniques), but:

1) These methods are about as scientifically reliable as phrenology (they're not).
-and-
2) I'm a lesbian. I didn't transition just to get a vagina, and I certainly didn't transition so I could have sex with men.

That was not my intent. My intent was to point out that you are likely to come to the conclusion that young trans women are "homosexuals" who primarily work as sex workers if you select your sample from places frequented primarily by gay men and/or sex workers.

He never did that. He did say he was a psychologist be he also at least told me that he did not "do sessions". When at one point I said I wanted him to work with me to give me the first letter. He refused to do so on that basis. Though he did say he could give me the second letter if I could get the first on my own.

There are certainly documented cases in which he did do that, whether or not he did it in your case.

There's another gaping hole in Blanchard's unfalsifiable "theory": it assumes that the timing of transition is based on some inherent characteristic in the trans woman, as if there were not plenty of other factors (lack of financial resources, hostile environment, fear, no appropriate health care provider nearby) that could cause someone to transition sooner rather than later.

Thus, a trans woman who is dying to transition at age 20 (therefore a "homosexual" trans woman, who is attracted to men by definition), but quickly decides to wait, after realising that the small fundamentalist community in which she lives would ride her out on a rail if she tried to transition, and ends up finding the strength and opportunity to transition only 15-20 years later in her life will, by Blanchardian alchemy, suddenly morph into an "autogynaephilic" trans woman simply because she is now older and her body has become more masculinised with time (thus meeting Bailey's "less attractive" criterion).

Since this "theory" brooks no contradiction — if you don't conform to these categories in some way, you're "lying" — the fact that this hypothetical woman was attracted to men all her life will not prevent the transformation.

In the 20 some years since Blanchard started with this classification system, no one has replicated his work, a key part of the scientific process.

And particularly damning, given the power dynamic inherent in much of the research done by people acting or posing as gatekeepers. The attitude that still exists amongst many is that a trans person must conform to the gatekeeper's preferred stereotypes (sometimes going to ridiculous lengths) or risk being denied treatment thatperson desperately needs. Given that lopsided dynamic, it seems reasonable to assume that the only way Blanchard could feel confirmed in his beliefs was that his research subjects knew that the only way to get what they needed was to humour him.

In the 20 some years since Blanchard started with this classification system, no one has replicated his work, a key part of the scientific process. That is false read this.

Transsexual subtypes: Clinical and theoretical significance
Yolanda L.S. Smith a, Stephanie H.M. van Goozen a,b, A.J. Kuiper c,d,
Peggy T. Cohen-Kettenis a,c,*
http://akikos-planet.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/files/psychiatry_research__transsexual_subtypes_clinical_and_theoretical_significance.pdf

Abstract
The present study was designed to investigate whether transsexuals can be validly subdivided into subtypes on the basis of sexual orientation, and whether differences between subtypes of transsexuals are similar for male-to-female (MF) and female-to-male transsexuals (FMs). Within a large transsexual sample (n = 187), homosexual and nonhomosexual subjects were compared on a number of characteristics before the start of treatment. Differences within MF and FM groups were also investigated. Homosexual transsexuals were found to be younger when applying for sex reassignment, reported a stronger cross-gender identity in childhood, had a more convincing cross-gender appearance, and functioned psychologically better than nonhomosexual transsexuals. Moreover, a lower percentage of the homosexual transsexuals reported being (or having been) married and sexually aroused while cross-dressing. The pattern of findings was different for MFs and FMs. No differences between homosexuals and nonhomosexuals were found in height, weight, or body mass index. A distinction between subtypes of transsexuals on the basis of sexual orientation seems theoretically and clinically meaningful. The results support the notion that in the two groups different factors influence the decision to apply for sex reassignment. The more vulnerable nonhomosexual transsexuals may particularly benefit from additional professional guidance before and/or during treatment. D 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Which supports some of what Blanchard said.

Blanchard's model is that all of us are either one or the other of two strictly defined categories, with no exceptions and nothing in between. Calpernia Addams was in the military (AG) then worked as a showgirl (homosexual) so which is she? Lynn Conway attempted transition in her late teens, self medicating her hormones and dating men (homosexual) but after being threatened with institutionalization (the 50s) tried very hard for years to fit in as a man, even going so far as to marry and have kids (AG) before transitioning. Which type is she?

:-? :-? I really do not like to classify people. It causes people to become offended. The question below has been posed in such a way that I must respond.

Here is the answer to that.

One source of confusion in this theory is that people took the list that Dr.Bailey put in his book and did not read the part about it being a cumulative sum over the persons history. They read it as an all or nothing thing. Like if you have one indicator of AGP is the usual mistake. Any one of those points alone means nothing. That's like judging a person only by one solitary act.

Sure Dr. Conway was married at one time. However, the balance of her life has been typical of the life of a homosexual transsexual. Ms. Adams was in the millitary but the balance of her life has been the life of a homosexual transsexual. Diedre McClosky's life, for contrast, from reading her biography everything about her points to her being autogynephilic. Not just one thing but detail after detail. By comparison

As for myself my biography is here ( http://www.geocities.com/hontasfx/why.html ). Looking at it and going by the test in TMWWBQ. In the order of the questions as written in a comment above No, no, no, no, no, yes I am a scientist (+1), yes straight men please (-1),yes see my bio (-1), yes in fact I may be who he is quoting there (-1), no I was exactly 25 when I finally transioned, yes (-1), yes I have worked as one of those things(-1) totals up to -4. So I would be a homosexual transsexual from that test.

So you see it's not confusing if you really take the time to understand it.

What can be disputed and tested is the existance of two types of transsexual and if the different types have different motivations. The problem with every test for two types done so far is that they have relied on peoples self reports of their sexual histories, and to some extent on the subjective ideas of researchers and others (i.e. in Smith's study one source of data was having various employees of the clinic she worked at rate the attractiveness of various reserach subjects).

The method I keep refering to whereby a persons orientation is determined from their brain activity (by comparing their reactions as sense by an MRI to homosexual men and women and heterosexual men and women) would eliminate that problem and do so without the flaws inherent in Pleythmoography. As many things can effect bloodflow to the genitals... certain parts of the brain react to sexual stimulus in characteristic ways. (see earlier cited study of homosexual men vs het women and straight men) It could also be used to test for the usually proclaimed "change of sexual orientation". This would be done by randomly testing supposedly non-homosexual applicants for reassignment before they take hormones and seeing if the way their brains respond changes due to hormones....and a number of other test.

I can't say it enough. An objective, independant, and experimental (not just empirical) test is what will settle this. Not more parroting of Dr. Conway's three year old points (most of which were addressed by the study due to Smith etal). Or insults hurled at anyone who dares to differ from the flock. OR of saying things that are just false. This is a scientific problem and it will only be settled by scientific means.

Ah, another person like Julie Bindel in the UK who likes to spout theories that can only be substantiated by considerable attention to pre-selecting their date.

As a transwoman, I deeply resent people mis-representing my life when it is quite obvious, to me at least, that they haven't got a flipping clue what they're talking about.

Pre slecting? I wrote "This would be done by randomly testing supposedly non-homosexual applicants for reassignment before they take hormones and seeing if the way their brains respond changes due to hormones....and a number of other test."

Basically I am proposing to have the methods of psychology used to sort into HS or AG...tested using neurology. If the neurological results from the MRI's contradicts the predictions made using BBL theory that would be a disproval of BBL theory.

YOU CANT JUST SAY THEY HAVE NO IDEA YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY PROVE THEM WRONG. PRIVILLAGED ENGLISHMAN, THE WORLD DOES NOT HOP TO YOUR BEAT BECAUSE YOU THINK IT SHOULD.

Just to make an observation to the cissexual people still following this thread:

In my estimation, there's a lot of projection in the trans community. It's like any other group of people, only perhaps more so, given the fact that being transsexual is ultimately something that has to be primarily self-diagnosed.

So.... I tend to see a lot of people trying to claim that all other trans people are just like them. I've seen countless trans women (of all varieties) argue that:

- My personality traits are X, Y, and Z
- My sexuality is A
- My motivations are B
- I've had the following medical treatments/surgeries: C, D, and E
- Therefore, I'm a "true" transsexual. Everyone other "real" transsexual woman has the same characteristics, or is lying (and not "doing" transition appropriately).

It gets really, really tired. There are as many types of transsexuals as there are cissexuals. Seriously.

In the case of Bailey, there are transsexual women who fit his theories. Absolutely. Nobody's arguing with that point. However, I think that many Bailey's defenders within the trans community are guilty of this sort of project-- "Wow, Bailey explains everything about me! It's liberating to know that I'm really transsexual, and know how I fit into the world. Everyone who's arguing with me clearly has had the exact same experiences as me, and is missing the point."

It allows one to be blind to a lot of really remarkable stuff.

Sorry to be blunt, but seriously.

Oh, and I'm still young and lesbian. Nobody's explained that yet.

Hi Boo/Hfarmer/Eastsidekate,

So... I don't much yet about the actual evidence. Certainly from clinical videotaped interviews I've seen, some transexual individuals fit his categorization.

Ultimately, though, I'm assuming the binary distinction has to be wrong. When is psychology so simple that a person can be classified as A or B? That seems pretty rare.

So my question is more: How right or wrong is he? For example, do you think 10%, 50%, 90% of transexual individuals fit that classification?

If you think many don't fit the classification, what classification system do you think would be more useful to clinicians?

I really don't know much about it, but am interested in your opinions.

Quote: PRIVILLAGED ENGLISHMAN, THE WORLD DOES NOT HOP TO YOUR BEAT BECAUSE YOU THINK IT SHOULD

By denying me a status of female in calling me (english)man, you are inadvertantly revealing a transphobic motivation to your comments on this thread.

Then, by attempting to use my nationality against me, indeed suggesting that I assume a privilege from it, you are being, if not racist, then at least, abusively nationalistic. Quite what being english has to do with the transgender experience is beyond me. However I'm prepared to defer to your obvious expertise.

I thought I was commenting on the subject at the top of the thread. You respond as if I care about what you have written and am trashing it. I'm not, others have got there long before me and I prefer not to intrude on private grief.

As I inferred, I know why I transitioned but neither Bailey nor bindel seem to have a category for me in their absolutist views. That is proof enough for me to understand that,
by making grandiose claims for completist theories, they are mis-representing my life.

And. I. Resent. That.

UCLA:
I don't have much time to respond, but I'd say that most of the transsexual women I know don't fit Bailey and Blanchard's typology (95%, maybe more...). Of course, most of the trans women I know are of from a limited set (almost all are middle-to-upper class, white, professionals, ranging in age from teens to 70s).

In terms of "replacing" the classification, three quick comments:
1) I don't think you can come up with a useful classification system (any more than you could for non-transsexual women).
2) I don't think it's necessary that clinicians have a classification scheme.
3) Scientists may well be interested in coming up with theories on why transsexualism arises. However, I think any such theory should take into account both biological and social factors-- there probably isn't a single explanation as to why people are trans, nor a simple one.

Best,
Kate

Sure Dr. Conway was married at one time. However, the balance of her life has been typical of the life of a homosexual transsexual.

According to an another version of Bailey's Cosmo quiz- sorry, scientific scale, being married automatically makes Conway autogynephilic. Bailey claims that homosexual transsexuals transition because they start out as extremely effeminate little boys and never defeminize. The whole idea of trying to hide one's transsexuality behind the veneer of a hetero life is presented as characteristic of autogynephilia, and Bailey claims his critics are all autogynephiles having a "narcissistic blow" at the thought that they aren't "women trapped in men's bodies." Ask Dr. Bailey, without mentioning any names, if he saw someone who had been married with two kids before transitioning, and claimed to have always had the gender identity of a woman, and was uncertain whether she would make a good looking woman going into transition, but still denied being autogynephilic, what would he think? If Conway had appeared at the Clarke Institute for her second transition attempt, they would mark her as AG and assume she was lying about everything that didn't fit the profile.

Ms. Adams was in the millitary but the balance of her life has been the life of a homosexual transsexual.

According to the same scale, being in the military automatically makes her AG. Her autobiography also does not paint her as extremely effeminate in childhood. It may look nice and neat in a classroom to talk about a strict "type A" and a strict "type B" and nothing in between, but reality just never looks like that.

So I would be a homosexual transsexual from that test.

While virtually all lesbian and bisexual transwomen who transitioned in their teens or twenties would score between 0 and -2.

What can be disputed and tested is the existance of two types of transsexual and if the different types have different motivations. The problem with every test for two types done so far is that they have relied on peoples self reports of their sexual histories, and to some extent on the subjective ideas of researchers and others (i.e. in Smith's study one source of data was having various employees of the clinic she worked at rate the attractiveness of various reserach subjects).

If you're going to discount people's self reports as acceptable data, then Blanchard's theory is unsupported because it has no data and there is currently no reason to accept it. If you're going to count people's self reports as acceptable data, then Blanchard's theory is still unsupported because the data is against it and there is still currently no reason to accept it. What Blanchard and Bailey want to do is count people's self reports as acceptable data if and only if they conform to Blanchard's model. This is what is known, in technical, scientific terms, as "cheating."

YOU CANT JUST SAY THEY HAVE NO IDEA YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY PROVE THEM WRONG.

Again, Blanchard's model does not deserve special status as the null hypothesis. As Blanchard and Bailey are claiming their model is correct, it is their responsibility to show that it is. By the standards you have outlined, they have not done so.

So my question is more: How right or wrong is he? For example, do you think 10%, 50%, 90% of transexual individuals fit that classification?

Blanchard's theory of transsexual typology is that all mtf transsexuals who are not attracted to men are attracted to the thought or image of themselves as women. Not some, not even most. All. If there is a single transwoman who does not fit that binary, then they are ipso facto wrong. Many transwomen partially fit either category to differing degrees, but I've yet to come across any transwoman who has claimed either category as an identity who sooner or later will not make statements about herself that contradict the category they chose. #1 Bailey cheerleader and self-proclaimed autogynephile Anne Lawrence claims to have been effeminate in high school despite Bailey's adamance that transwomen of her "type" are always unremarkably masculine until they transition. (To be fair, he also says they lie about their pasts.) A group of self identified homosexual transsexuals have a website called transkids wherein they deny being especially promiscuous or suited to prostitution. (They also have a website, claim to be homosexual, deny being autogynephilic, and claim extreme femininity in childhood without presenting supporting evidence. According to Bailey, those are all "hallmarks of autogynephilia.") What I says is if it speaks to you, great, just don't try to put it on the rest of us, is what I says.

If you think many don't fit the classification, what classification system do you think would be more useful to clinicians?

Part of the reason that this classification system — which functions by completely disregarding both the experiences of trans woman and the existence of trans men — has been generally rejected is that it doesn't work particularly well with anyone. It conflates gender identity with sexual orientation (and sexual orientation with paraphilia), and takes pre-transition fetishism as the motivator for transition rather than a symbolic expression of the need to transform. And it does all this while creating a rigid system of categories, both of which are demeaning, and dismissing anyone who doesn't fit the categories (which would appear to be most) as a liar. Meanwhile, the sexuality and gender expression of trans women who have completed transition (rather than those just starting, who are disproportionately the focus of research) actually seems to correspond pretty well to the rest of the female population (one wonders if the goal of researchers who start from a position of dismissing the experience of the trans people they supposedly want to study is to prevent any perception of trans people as "just like you and me").

The general rejection of this "theory" is a credit to the field.

The question with any categorisation system, to my mind, is "what purpose does it serve?" Unless there is some significant good done by the use of a categorisation, it's probably better not to have one at all.

Here, the categorisation is one more way in which non-trans people seek to establish interpretive sovereignty over the lives of trans people. This is but one facet with what is wrong with the role of mental health professionals in the transition process: rather than acting to help trans people (e.g., by providing emotional support to ensure a smooth transition in whatever manner the trans person feels is most meaningful), they often position themselves as regulators of transition, who concern themselves primarily with channeling the transition and gender expression of their trans patients into the directions the clinicians most prefer.

In this setting, I think it would take a fundamental overhaul of the role of the clinician in the transition process for there to be any really useful work done at all (though this shift has begun taking place, in research at least). As long as people think that they can reasonably do research on someone who is required to please them in order to get necessary treatment, there will be a lot of chaff to sort through. Indeed, much of the research on trans people seems to suffer from the same fundamental flaws as the early psychoanalytical "research" into women: denying a voice to the person being studied, underlying stereotypical assumptions, and coming from a position of power.

Perhaps, once the culture has shifted away from the tendencies sketched above, there will emerge some categorisation scheme that is scientifically valid and beneficial to trans people. It seems to me a rather small matter compared to the problems that need to be addressed in the clinician population.

My personal feeling is that there's not much point in developing such a taxonomy, and that there won't be such a need to create one once clinicians and researchers reach the point of being able to hear what their trans subjects and patients are telling them rather than imposing their preferred narrative.

@ helen

The term "Englishman" is like the term "mankind" it includes women.

@UCLAbodyimage

The discrepancy between what I am about to say and what most people here will say boils down to one thing. I recognize that the lack of a perfect fit does not mean that the theory does not fit at all. In my point of view a imperfect fit is as good as a perfect fit. The social sciences cannot be as precise as the natural/physical sciences. The fuzzyness around the edges of this theory cannot be used to prove it does not have value.

All transsexuals fit the theory to one extent or the other. None fit it perfectly. Even people who would seem to fit the theory perfectly I have noticed usually have one or two things about them that do not fit.

Myself as an example were I a hairdresser instead of a scientist I would perfectly fit the description of a homosexual transsexual as actually published in TMWWBQ.

As for the use of classification systems and why scientist use them. Suppose you are a geologist and have two rocks in your hand. One is harndened lava the other is sandstone. How can you write about these different rocks without classiying them? You can't so you invent the categories...three of them to be exact Igneous (volcanic), sedementary (sandstone etc), metamorphic (modified by pressure or heat...glass for example). By using those three types of rock they can describe the general properties of all of the rocks on earth. That is kind of what Blanchard, and Bailey were doing. Nothing sinister.

People have the ability to protest and have feelings. Blanchards worst error was in labeling one kind of transsexual as paraphilic. Bailey made it worse by the way he wrote of the homosexual transsexuals he met. He wrote of them with a sort of affection that was lacking when he wrote of autogynephiles in general. Those two facts have more to do with the present situation than any mertis or demerits of Blanchards theory.

@Boo
According to an another version of Bailey's Cosmo quiz- sorry, scientific scale,...

That version was a prelimnary version wich was never actually published and was never intended to be final. Consider the following. The transsexual known on Dr. Conway's "transsexual womens success stoires" as "Maria" is one of the people that Dr. Bailey

Sorry there was a bit of an error in the process of posting my last post here is what I meant to say. :blush:

@Boo
According to an another version of Bailey's Cosmo quiz- sorry, scientific scale,...

You mean this one http://www.annelawrence.com/agfaqs.html#2

That version was a prelimnary version wich was never actually published and was never intended to be final. That version also has two different questions that refer to occupations

+10Have you ever been in the military or worked as a policeman, truck driver, or something equally stereotypically masculine? (use your judgment)
+9 Have you worked at any of the following occupations: computer programmer, businessman, lawyer, scientist, engineer, or physician?
-8 (If the previous two questions are answered "no") Have you ever worked as a hairstylist, beautician, female impersonator, lingerie model, or prostitute?

Consider the following. The transsexual known on Dr. Conway's "transsexual womens success stoires" as "Maria" (who Alice Dreger says is "Juanita" even though there is a "Maria" named in TMWWBQ :-? )[1] is one of the people that Dr. Bailey wrote of as a "homosexual transsexual". Had worked with computers before she transitoned. That would almost make her an autogynephile in spite of everything else about her. Dr. Bailey knew things like this that is why the version of that questionarie that made it in the book is the only one that should be considered a true window in to what he really thinks. If that version posted online by Dr. Lawrence was final I would have to agree with you about BBL theory being false because that version is simply wrong most of the time. Dr. Bailey would be contradicting himself. Such is why it is not common practice to judge a scientist theories by way of his/her unpublished notes on that theory.

At least based on reading and in one case internet communication with his main critits I can say that they at least read the book. I'm not so sure you have.

[1] http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TSsuccesses/Maria.html

@ HFarmer. Quote : @ helen

The term "Englishman" is like the term "mankind" it includes women.

Maybe in general terms. However, when shouted abusively in capitalization on a thread whilst discussing transgender issues it seems to be, at best, discourteous. If you must discuss issues you plainly have little sympathy with, you really need to pay more attention to etiquette.

You can't so you invent the categories...three of them to be exact Igneous (volcanic), sedementary (sandstone etc), metamorphic (modified by pressure or heat...glass for example). By using those three types of rock they can describe the general properties of all of the rocks on earth. That is kind of what Blanchard, and Bailey were doing. Nothing sinister.

Of course, geologists who then came upon a type of rock that did not appear to fit those categories would not assume that the rock was somehow disguised or deceptive; they would simply adapt their taxonomy to include the new type of rock. That is how science works. The BBL model on the other hand began with highly selective sampling, invented rigid, discrete categories that tolerated no variance (any variance is attributed to deception), and then attempted to detrivialise their taxonomy by making assertions about causation that have yet to be reproduced.

The transsexual known on Dr. Conway's "transsexual womens success stoires" as "Maria" (who Alice Dreger says is "Juanita" even though there is a "Maria" named in TMWWBQ :-? )[1] is one of the people that Dr. Bailey wrote of as a "homosexual transsexual". Had worked with computers before she transitoned. That would almost make her an autogynephile in spite of everything else about her.

Which tells us something about the validity of the BBL model. If someone can magically transform from a "homosexual" (i.e. heterosexual) to an "autogynaephilic" fetishist based on something as irrelevant as one's profession (and indeed this flaw is pervasive in the BBL model), there is something inherently wrong with the taxonomy itself.

Which, of course, is why the BBL theory has never had any traction with anyone apart from its originators.

All transsexuals fit the theory to one extent or the other.

Only if all transsexuals are either attracted solely to men or are sexually attracted to the thought or image of themselves as women. There is presently no evidence that this is the case. There are a few poorly conceived studies which, even if one ignores the numerous methodological flaws, do not show that 0% of exclusively-male-attracted transwomen show evidence of fetishism connected to their crossgendered expression while 100% of transwomen who are not exclusively-male-attracted show evidence of fetishism connected to their crossgendered expression, and there is a collection of anecdotes. That's all they've got.

I recognize that the lack of a perfect fit does not mean that the theory does not fit at all. In my point of view a imperfect fit is as good as a perfect fit. The social sciences cannot be as precise as the natural/physical sciences.

Bailey is quite insistent that his two "types" are miles apart with no exceptions.

One of them—the type that likes only men—is naturally feminine in many respects, but not in all. The other is not at all feminine except as the result of effort.

To Bailey, someone who is not exclusively male attracted cannot be feminine except as the result of a conscious effort to ape femininity. I wish he'd been around to tell all the boys who made fun of me growing up.

That version was a prelimnary version wich was never actually published and was never intended to be final.

And one should never judge the veracity of Weekly World News articles until they've finished the editing process. Anyone who tells you they can diagnose someone's psychosexual history with any 12 step EZ quiz is full of it.

If the sum gets to +3, stop; the trans- sexual you're talking to is autogynephilic. If the sum gets to -3, she is homosexual.

If the psychiatrist at the mental health clinic I work at diagnosed people this way, I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have a license for long. (Well, who knows how much you can really get away with, but it would tend at the very least to make her diagnoses just a tad unreliable.)

At least based on reading and in one case internet communication with his main critits I can say that they at least read the book. I'm not so sure you have.

You mean the book where he says things like this?

http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/autogynephilia.htm

Blanchard established that there are two very different types of men who change into women, who have very different presentations, motivations, and probably, causes.

These males frequently came to treatment as married men who claimed to have had hidden or suppressed longstanding wishes to be female that they could no longer deny. The clinical picture of this type was much different than the homosexual transsexual.

Don't tell Lynn Conway.

The nonhomosexual types also gave somewhat different childhood histories than the homosexual type, who universally acknowledged marked and noticeable femininity from early on.

Don't tell Calpernia Addams or my friend who was a gay butchboy before transitioning.

Autogynephilia also accounts for the homosexual-like fantasies of some autogynephilic (i.e., nonhomosexual) transsexuals. These fantasies are quite unlike the homosexual fantasies of gay men and homosexual transsexuals. They do not focus on characteristics of the male partner, but on the transsexual's female self interacting with the male.

So does this mean I don't have to put up with my best friend, who found her attractions going from female to male over the course of transition, drooling over hot guy-bods any more? Whew.

To the extent that autogynephiles achieve a feminine presentation, it is with great effort. Cross-dressers attend workshops in talking, walking, standing, and gesturing like women. The work usually pays off eventually in a passable feminine presentation, but it is work.

Shoot, I never did any work. (Well, except for the time I went to speech therapy, but they said I didn't need it and kicked me out.) I guess that means every single person I know whom I haven't disclosed my medical history to is engaged in a huge spontaneous conspiracy to humor me into thinking they don't know I'm trans. Especially my mentally ill clients who are great observers and have no sense of tact whatsoever.

Autogynephiles are men who have created their image of attractive women in their own bodies, an image that coexists with their original, male selves. The female self is a man-made creation. They visit the female image when they want to have sex, and some became so attached to the female image that they want it to become their one, true self.

They call their female image "Bon-bon" to distinguish it from their original, male selves, whom they call "Skippy."

This explains the name of the transvestite organization "Society for the Second Self."

Iran, Iraq. What's the difference?

It also explains the maddening tendency of some autogynephilic research subjects to put down two answers to every question-one by the female self, and one by the male self.

What's worse is when the two selves start arguing, and you've got to be like "Hey! Keep it down in there!" and then you're like "Oh no, now there's three of me!"

Homosexual transsexuals do not do this. They have one self that is a mixture of masculine and feminine traits, and not alternating selves.

Tax return time is much less complicated for homosexual transsexuals.

Although some autogynephiles want everything, others are content with very limited feminizing steps.

Ever notice how there's a whole lot more genderqueerness over on the ftm side, but remarkably no one seems very interested in concocting exotic paraphilias to explain it?

"Most gender patients lie," says Maxine Petersen, the ace gender clinician at the Clarke. One common lie among autogynephiles, according to Petersen, is that they are homosexual rather than heterosexual. The motivation for that lie is probably the fear that a gender clinic will deny them a sex change if they are determined to be heterosexual.

So answer me something; if Blanchard's clinic is the one place where "autogynephilic transsexuals" don't have to lie, why does it have the most notorious reputation for making it necessary to lie in order to get through their program? (Hint: it has to do with exactly what their clients are lying about.)(Hint2: it's not to try and convince their clinician they don't fit the clinician's ideas about transsexuals and so be denied medical treatment, cause that would be kinda stupid)

Autogynephiles who claimed to be homosexual transsexuals could account for the apparent cases of homosexual transsexuals who practiced erotic cross-dressing.

We don't really have any evidence for this, but getting valid data is, like, hard n' stuff.

it is impossible to understand nonhomosexual transsexualism without autogynephilia.

What's that you say? Scientific claims are always supposed to be tentative and subject to new data and interpretations? Pshaw!

Something about autogynephilia creates a need not only to enact a feminine self, but also to actually believe in her.

What are you talking about? Bon-bon is REAL!!!

"I was always feminine, I just managed to hide it. I became a Green Beret as a defensive response to my femininity."

And the reason I'm telling you this can't have anything whatsoever to do with your ultra-stereotypical definition of "feminine." I'm glad we're only allowed to wear skirts or dresses to sessions at the Clarke. Science has proven that women don't wear pants. I'm glad they have to approve my new name to ensure it's feminine enough (sniff- goodbye Bon-bon). If I changed my name to Terri there would be CHAOS!!!!

I assume that these are autogynephilic transsexuals who want to believe that there is a real biological woman inside them as well as a real psychological woman.

Well go get the woodsman and cut her the heck out of there!

Blanchard's ideas have not yet received the widespread attention they deserve, in large part because sex researchers are not as scholarly as they should be and so don't know read the current scientific journals.

No sex researcher has cracked a journal in 15 years. Hey, wanna buy this piece of The One True Cross?

Will "The Cher Mondavi Story" become a made-for-television movie co-starring "Robot Man?" Probably not, and it is a pity.

Only if Cher Mondavi is played by Katee Sackhoff and "Robot Man" is portrayed by Jackie Warner.

Blanchard's ideas have not yet received the widespread attention they deserve, in large part because sex researchers are not as scholarly as they should be and so don't know read the current scientific journals.

Blanchard's ideas are themselves the product of some fringe sex researchers not being as scholarly as they should be, which is why peer-reviewed journals don't bother with this cack.

@ Elise

The Journal "Psychology Research" from the Netherlands where

http://akikos-planet.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/files/psychiatry_research__transsexual_subtypes_clinical_and_theoretical_significance.pdf

was published is peer reviewed. Stay away from blatant falsehoods. They detract from your case.

The real problem is that all the annecdotal reports you have of BBL theory not fitting peoples experinces are just that annecdotal. While what was written in TMWWBQ is of that same annecdotal nature the fact is that there does exist peer reviewed research, empirical data... (from Blanchard and independantly from Smith et al.) That empriical data can only be invalidated by the gathering of more empirical data, better data.

A fundamental problem I have always had with Blancahrds theory is one that Dr. Bailey speculates on in his book. It explains the sexuality of transsexuals but not the trans of transsexuals. (Bailey speculates about what differnce is the critical difference between homosexual men and homosexual transsexuals in his book.

The type of study that I have descibed, and I will cite it again... should suggest an answer to anyone with the intuition to see it.

Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexual men
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/102/20/7356

For those of you unwilling to even read it. The kicker line says this.
These findings show that our brain reacts differently to the two putative pheromones compared with common odors, and suggest a link between sexual orientation and hypothalamic neuronal processes.

Think of the possibility that a simmilar study using a simmilar method could localize in a living person the area of the brain that Zhou found? Suppose it was shown that transsexuals simeltaneously experience their sense of inverted gender identity due to one part of their hypothalamus...thus in providing support for the "brain sex" theory of transsexualism. BUT at the same time shows that MTF transsexuals respond to the pheromonal stimulus just the same way as either homosexual men or heterosexual men. Thus lending support to BBL theory. Those two possibilities are not mutually exclusive.

If you really want to know my mind on this the possibility I pointed out above is what I really think will happen. It will eventually be shown that while gender identity and sexual orientation are 100% separate and controlled by different parts of the brain... that they will never the less be entangled*

*I dropped a really technical term on you all there. Read this to being to understand it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
Quantum entanglement is a quantum mechanical phenomenon in which the quantum states of two or more objects have to be described with reference to each other, even though the individual objects may be spatially separated. Where as it is being used the "space" is the space of states of sexualorientation and gender identity.

@boo

There are a few poorly conceived studies which, even if one ignores the numerous methodological flaws, do not show that 0% of exclusively-male-attracted transwomen show evidence of fetishism connected to their crossgendered expression while 100% of transwomen who are not exclusively-male-attracted show evidence of fetishism connected to their crossgendered expression, and there is a collection of anecdotes. That's all they've got.

So you want from them a perfect study where the certanties are 100%

:-?

What you are asking for there is a scientific impossibility. There will always be error bars of uncertianty. It is a basic principle of all science not just physics that no measurement can be perfect. In the social sciences this is even more true because all the variables cannot be isolated and conditions controlled.

The best any study in any science can give you is an estimate of the error in their data. With a clear difference in the average values of the observables they are measureing.

What am I thinking. The way you write about all of this it seems that you are practically a creationist when it comes to things like this...no evidence that can be had in the real world would convince you.

@ Elise

The Journal "Psychology Research" from the Netherlands where smith was published is peer reviewed.

The problem is that all the annecdotal reports you have of BBL theory not fitting peoples experinces are just that annecdotal. While what was written in TMWWBQ is of that nature the fact is that there does exist peer reviewed research, empirical data... (from Blanchard and independantly from Smith et al.) That empriical data can only be invalidated by the gathering of more empirical data, better data.

A fundamental problem I have always had with Blancahrds theory is one that Dr. Bailey speculates on in his book. It explains the sexuality of transsexuals but not the trans of transsexuals. (Bailey speculates about what differnce is the critical difference between homosexual men and homosexual transsexuals in his book.

The type of study that I have descibed, and I will cite it again... should suggest an answer to anyone with the intuition to see it.

Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexual men
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/102/20/7356

For those of you unwilling to even read it. The kicker line says this.
These findings show that our brain reacts differently to the two putative pheromones compared with common odors, and suggest a link between sexual orientation and hypothalamic neuronal processes.

Think of the possibility that a simmilar study using a simmilar method could localize in a living person the area of the brain that Zhou found? Suppose it was shown that transsexuals simeltaneously experience their sense of inverted gender identity due to one part of their hypothalamus...thus in providing support for the "brain sex" theory of transsexualism. BUT at the same time shows that MTF transsexuals respond to the pheromonal stimulus just the same way as either homosexual men or heterosexual men. Thus lending support to BBL theory. Those two possibilities are not mutually exclusive.

If you really want to know my mind on this the possibility I pointed out above is what I really think will happen. It will eventually be shown that while gender identity and sexual orientation are 100% separate and controlled by different parts of the brain... that they will never the less be entangled*

*I dropped a really technical term on you all there. Read this to being to understand it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
Quantum entanglement is a quantum mechanical phenomenon in which the quantum states of two or more objects have to be described with reference to each other, even though the individual objects may be spatially separated. Where as it is being used the "space" is the space of states of sexualorientation and gender identity.

@boo

There are a few poorly conceived studies which, even if one ignores the numerous methodological flaws, do not show that 0% of exclusively-male-attracted transwomen show evidence of fetishism connected to their crossgendered expression while 100% of transwomen who are not exclusively-male-attracted show evidence of fetishism connected to their crossgendered expression, and there is a collection of anecdotes. That's all they've got.

So you want from them a perfect study where the certanties are 100%

:-?

What you are asking for there is a scientific impossibility. There will always be error bars of uncertianty. It is a basic principle of all science not just physics that no measurement can be perfect. In the social sciences this is even more true because all the variables cannot be isolated and conditions controlled.

The best any study in any science can give you is an estimate of the error in their data. With a clear difference in the average values of the observables they are measureing.

What am I thinking. The way you write about all of this it seems that you are practically a creationist when it comes to things like this...no evidence that can be had in the real world would convince you.

@ Elise

The Journal "Psychology Research" from the Netherlands where Smith was published is peer reviewed and independant of any of those people involved with the original formulation of BBL theory.

The problem is that all the annecdotal reports you have of BBL theory not fitting peoples experinces are just that annecdotal. While what was written in TMWWBQ is of that nature the fact is that there does exist peer reviewed research, empirical data... (from Blanchard and independantly from Smith et al.) That empriical data can only be invalidated by the gathering of more empirical data, better data.

A fundamental problem I have always had with Blancahrds theory is one that Dr. Bailey speculates on in his book. It explains the sexuality of transsexuals but not the trans of transsexuals. (Bailey speculates about what differnce is the critical difference between homosexual men and homosexual transsexuals in his book.

The type of study that I have descibed, and I will cite it again... should suggest an answer to anyone with the intuition to see it.

Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexual men
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/102/20/7356

For those of you unwilling to even read it. The kicker line says this.
These findings show that our brain reacts differently to the two putative pheromones compared with common odors, and suggest a link between sexual orientation and hypothalamic neuronal processes.

Think of the possibility that a simmilar study using a simmilar method could localize in a living person the area of the brain that Zhou found? Suppose it was shown that transsexuals simeltaneously experience their sense of inverted gender identity due to one part of their hypothalamus...thus in providing support for the "brain sex" theory of transsexualism. BUT at the same time shows that MTF transsexuals respond to the pheromonal stimulus just the same way as either homosexual men or heterosexual men. Thus lending support to BBL theory. Those two possibilities are not mutually exclusive.

If you really want to know my mind on this the possibility I pointed out above is what I really think will happen. It will eventually be shown that while gender identity and sexual orientation are 100% separate and controlled by different parts of the brain... that they will never the less be entangled*

*I dropped a really technical term on you all there. Read this to being to understand it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
Quantum entanglement is a quantum mechanical phenomenon in which the quantum states of two or more objects have to be described with reference to each other, even though the individual objects may be spatially separated. Where as it is being used the "space" is the space of states of sexualorientation and gender identity.

@boo

There are a few poorly conceived studies which, even if one ignores the numerous methodological flaws, do not show that 0% of exclusively-male-attracted transwomen show evidence of fetishism connected to their crossgendered expression while 100% of transwomen who are not exclusively-male-attracted show evidence of fetishism connected to their crossgendered expression, and there is a collection of anecdotes. That's all they've got.

So you want from them a perfect study where the certanties are 100%

:-?

What you are asking for there is a scientific impossibility. There will always be error bars of uncertianty. It is a basic principle of all science not just physics that no measurement can be perfect. In the social sciences this is even more true because all the variables cannot be isolated and conditions controlled.

The best any study in any science can give you is an estimate of the error in their data. With a clear difference in the average values of the observables they are measureing.

What am I thinking. The way you write about all of this it seems that you are practically a creationist when it comes to things like this...no evidence that can be had in the real world would convince you.

A fundamental problem I have always had with Blancahrds theory is one that Dr. Bailey speculates on in his book. It explains the sexuality of transsexuals but not the trans of transsexuals.

Of course, the BBL model purports to show the aetiology of transsexuality; it is at least heartening to hear HFarmer agreeing with the scientific consensus that it does not.

What you are asking for there is a scientific impossibility. There will always be error bars of uncertianty. It is a basic principle of all science not just physics that no measurement can be perfect. In the social sciences this is even more true because all the variables cannot be isolated and conditions controlled.

HFarmer seems to be missing the point here. The problem with the BBL model is not "uncertainty", but the fact that their own highly selective, small-sample, non-controlled studies actually contradict their claims that there are two discrete categories encompassing all trans women. Their own studies indicate that there are young, conventionally feminine, heterosexual trans women ("homosexual" transsexuals in BBL parlance) who have a history of erotic crossdressing, and older, less conventionally feminine, lesbian trans women ("autogynaephiles") who do not. The only feeble attempt made to explain this inconsistency between the "theory" and the evidence has been to claim that trans women are pathological liars.

The pathologizing of male to female transsexuals is rooted in misogyny. Woman hating and the hating of women's sexuality.

Julia writes about this misogyny in her book.

Jessica starts her book saying "girl" is the worst thing you can call either a woman or a man.

The need to pathologize some one who would have sex reassignment to female (There is virtually zero work done pathologizing female to males even though there is a rough parity of numbers) is based in the idea that we are going from being a superior human being to an inferior.

BBL asks the question what could be such a motivator? Their answer is sex. But the answer the vast majority of us would give is the need to be a whole person.

I have a book of photographs by a Japanese transgender photographer. One of the pictures of a woman born transsexual is captioned. "I pray to Buddha that if I am reborn in another life that I be reborn as a man who feels like a man inside or a woman who feels like a woman inside."

The need to feel whole to have a body that matches your sense of self is something Julia talks about.

As for our sexuality? We are not permitted to have one. We are pathologized no matter what form or direction our sexuality takes us in.

Many of us were physically, emotionally and sexually abused as children and raped as young adults.

There is an article in Bitch Fest regarding the female gaze towards other women and the mixture of lust combined with envy of wanting to look like or have the attributes of. Imagine how the male psychiatrists pathologize that one when they see it in male to female transsexuals.

I am lucky I went through the process some 35 years ago before the misogynistic psychiatrists had invented GID, back when Lesbian and Gay people were getting homosexuality removed from the DSM.

We were told to disappear and were judged failures if we became either feminists or lesbians. We were told to not speak out. As a result we had our lives pathologized and taken out of context. Those of us who were in the feminist movement were invisible and didn't speak out when our sisters were trashed. We did not speak out when Jan Raymond, the radical feminist who is also opposed to RU486 trashed all of us in a book which left us no room to exist. We were damned if we were feminist and damned if conformed to the feminine mystique.

I refuse to permit people associated with reactionary right wing causes and Taliban Christianity to define me.

I am a woman. I am a feminist and I am Left and I don't let my life be defined by misogynistic right wing men.

So you want from them a perfect study where the certanties are 100%

What you are asking for there is a scientific impossibility. There will always be error bars of uncertianty. It is a basic principle of all science not just physics that no measurement can be perfect. In the social sciences this is even more true because all the variables cannot be isolated and conditions controlled.

Here's the problem: like the "autogynephilia supporters" who deny AG is a paraphilia, you have constructed your own more paleatable version of Blanchard's theory to defend.

All gender-dysphoric biological males who are not homosexual (erotically aroused by other males) are instead autogynephilic (erotically aroused by the thought or image of themselves as females).

For that statement to be true, studies should show a 0%/100% split within margin of error. They don't. (And that's notwithstanding the serious methodological flaws no one's bothered to address) And yet Bailey tells "Cher":

And you must know lots of transsexuals from a straight background who deny any sexual component to their motivation; I simply don't believe them.

(note the conflation of sexual with fetishistic)

and:

it is impossible to understand nonhomosexual transsexualism without autogynephilia

They make dogmatic, absolutist statements which they refuse to acknowledge their own evidence doesn't support. That's why this is junk science (and because the studies themselves weren't measuring what they purported to).

What Blanchard's studies actually show is that a group of people who may or may not have been transsexual and were not exclusively male-attracted had sexual fantasies that may or may not have been directed towards their own feminine image at a somewhat higher rate than a group of people who were exclusively male-attracted and may or may not have been transsexual. From this any of the following is possible:

1- Exclusively-male attracted transwomen have lower rates of fetishism surrouding their transness and other transwomen, but not to the extent Blanchard and Bailey claim.

2- Transwomen have roughly the same rates of fetishism surrounding their transness regardless of sexual orientation, but transvestites who got into the sample skewed the "nonhomosexual" groups.

3- Fetishism correlates with age at transition due to repressing transsexuality, which the "nonhomosexual" groups were more likely to do for sociological reasons.

4- In Blanchard's one study of AG and typology, the higher scores of the "nonhomosexual" groups mirror the way cissexual women would have responded to the scale, thus they are female-typical in sexual response while the "homosexual" group is less so.

All of those are possible, none are really supported. None lend support to the kind of absolutist statements Bailey makes in his book. None justify Bailey's and Blanchard's insistence that transwomen who do not self-report either type (self-reports being the basis for their claims in the first place) must be lying.

Yes, it is a scientific impossibility to legitimately support those statements. Take it up with the people who are making them.

Well a fellow Oaklander and poet/writer/wordsmith - excellent! As well a "scientist" a profession that's fallen on hard times of late - esp due to the Corporatization of the Universities and Research labs.
There've always been "idiotic" studies published in prestigious journals - for reasons more often personal than properly investigated. But these days, the political/religious/patent agendas have become so intertwined that "science" can be invoked by anyone to justify totally undocumented or peer reviewed claims.
Ever since Weyerhauser discovered the efficacy of funding a wholly owned WISE USE MOVEMENT - to discourage and confound environmental "science" and public opinion we have been at the mercy of similar "faux" organizations and media.
Bailey, Dregger, Blanchard, Lawrence, etc. are all part of a Northwestern University eugenics group. We must expect more and more of this pseudo-science as the pipe-dreams of neo-facists infiltrate the public domain thru our publicly financed institutions - and government directed labs.
We suspect that much of this focus on trans/gay/intersex gender study is the beginning of a campaign to justify a renewed "pogrom" that will include the same victims as before: all the "impure" races - as in everyone except white folks.
I say this with the recognition that the The Bell Curve continues to fuel a willing minority of researchers to greater and greater extremes of dubious science.
In fact, the Nazi's did murder tens of thousands of homosexuals, lesbians, gypsies, old people, and anyone they felt were defective. Today, their counterparts in the Straussian mold are no different save that they can now bamboozle the world with genetic and molecular science in which the words get longer and affix to much less certain definitions.

Round and round and round we go about Bailey's book...

What really needs to happen is for someone to move beyond Blanchard's theories, and come up with a better, more inclusive, more accurate, more scientifically rigorous and more respectful theory of transgender motivation that makes Bailey/Blanchard look like the Stone Age thinkers they are.
What makes many trans people uncomfortable is that the "autogynephilia/homosexual" motivation theory seemingly incorporate more facts of the transgender reaility than the "man trapped in a woman's body theory", seemingly puttng the latter in jeopardy. What this says to me is that an even better motivation theory than either of those needs to come along that includes all the inconvenient facts left out by both of those theories - a theory that includes FTMs (straight, gay and bi), genderqueers, young lesbian MTFs, etc...

As for Dreger, her paper is about the reaction to Bailey's book, but I think she missed a fundamental point about why the reaction was so intense.
It's true that many normally rational scientific people reacted in an un-scientific way to the book - resorting to vicious personal attacks, etc...
Why did that happen? I believe it's because their hard-won sense of self was threatened by the ideas in the book. The book's slap-dash theories, if they are taken seriously, seriously threaten transgender people's hard-won claims to social justice and a right to be at the table on equal footing with everyone else. The felt their very sense of identity and right to exist was threatened.

a theory that includes FTMs (straight, gay and bi), genderqueers, young lesbian MTFs, etc...

That's a tall order. The one thing I noticed in your post was "respectful" not everyone of those groups will find the same things respectful. i.e. transsexuals would like to hear that gender is hard wired it the brain..while genderqeers would be offended by that. You can't please all of the people all of the time.

@ Elise

I did not constuct a "more papatalble BBL theory". Perhaps it seems that way to you thinkn I find it more palatable because under it's definitions I am a "homosexual transsexual". Have you ever considered that people like me cathc hell for not just being out and queeny gay?

I would like it as much of as anyone if it could be shown objectively (NOT JUST BECAUSE WE WOULD LIKE IT TO BE SO, Zhou's sample was not very large either) that we were all hardwired for a certain gender. It would be so easy to point to a place in the brain and say , regardless of any differences that are due to sexual orientation, that nerves XYZ connected this way cause GID.

It could make life easier, or lead to abortions of fetuses with our condition. I mean heck women get abortions for reasons of mere convience. What would stop them. Be careful what you wish for.

"I mean heck women get abortions for reasons of mere convience. What would stop them. Be careful what you wish for." HFarmer

That tends to be a statement usually coming from the right wing ant-choice faction.

With transkids it is also a red herring.

For thing that position rarely ponders the point that a kid with HBS/TS might be better off being spared ever being born than being subjected to the life time of extreme abuse such a family would inflict upon her or him (remember transsexual goes both ways).

The same family that would abort is the same family that would do the following: (Note thiese things all happened to people I knew in LA) Have the child lobotomized for being born TS. Have the child put on anti-psychotic medications and subjected to electro-convulsive treatment. Send the kid to an all male military school to make a man out of her. (She was repeatedly raped.

The child abuse stories of the lives of transkids are among the worst and most horrible.

Generally these forms of abuse are done by pro-lifers who if the child who will be born trans is lucky will suddenlly discover that in this instance they are pro-choice.

Or maybe they would put the transkid up for adoption for someone with humanist values to adopt.

What makes many trans people uncomfortable is that the "autogynephilia/homosexual" motivation theory seemingly incorporate more facts of the transgender reaility than the "man trapped in a woman's body theory", seemingly puttng the latter in jeopardy.

Blanchard's "theory" is technically a hypothesis, which has yet to be supported in the form Blanchard and Bailey actually proposed and promote it. "Women trapped in men's bodies" isn't even an attempt at a theory, it's a media-spawned cliche. I have never once in my life heard an actual transwoman use that phrase to describe herself. The only time you ever hear actual transwomen use it is to make fun of it.

I did not constuct a "more papatalble BBL theory". Perhaps it seems that way to you thinkn I find it more palatable because under it's definitions I am a "homosexual transsexual". Have you ever considered that people like me cathc hell for not just being out and queeny gay?

Speculations about why anyone supports or criticizes Blanchard's ideas are irrelevant to the question of whether they are accurate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism

You appear (note I am not basing my arguments about Blanchard's ideas on this observation, no Bulverist I) to be looking at this stuff through the eyes of a real scientist, wherein nothing fits perfectly and of course there are exceptions to every rule. Problem is, Blanchard and Bailey do not see it that way. If they did they would not accuse everyone the theory doesn't fit of lying. The trick about stereotypes is that you can always find anecdotal examples of people who fit them to one degree or another, sometimes even large numbers of anecdotes.

The fact that Blanchard's theory is unsupported does not suddenly mean everyone is hard wired for the other gender or that God sent women's souls into men's bodies or that we're the result of an intergalactic prank by Zoba the Zekthusian. All it means is right now we don't really know what causes us to be us. I'm okay with that.

For thing that position rarely ponders the point that a kid with HBS/TS might be better off being spared ever being born than being subjected to the life time of extreme abuse such a family would inflict upon her or him (remember transsexual goes both ways).

Woah! so you think it is better to never have been born?

I think that life is worth living in and of itself. That even if some circumstance (sexualorientation, disease, bad luck) leaves one childless that they can still make worthwhile contributions to humanity.

As for the "HBS" thing.. ugh read this. After careful reading and consideration of that idea it is total Bull. It took a testable truth (neurological differences ala Zhou) and constructed something that to me is more of a cult like worship of the goddess within.

A cult where broke down old trannies hate on non-op's, and anyone who admits the role that sex plays in the decision to transition.

i.e.

By contrast, transgenders who claim they are transsexual, usually do not have SAS. Thye oftentimes use excuses such as: they have health problems (something which would never stop a HBSer from having SAS); or they don't want a loss of sexual sensation (this is a non-issue for a HBSer), or my wife will leave me if I have SAS, etc. Autogynephillics have no problem with their bodies (unlike HBSers).

If that is your alternative to BBL theory that you want to have put into the DSM. :lol: NEVA gonna happen! Especially since people who advocate it are willing to lable everyone but themselves using it.

http://www.geocities.com/hontasfx/Contemplations/hbsisbs2.html

What really needs to happen is for someone to move beyond Blanchard's theories, and come up with a better, more inclusive, more accurate, more scientifically rigorous and more respectful theory of transgender motivation that makes Bailey/Blanchard look like the Stone Age thinkers they are.

We already have that. Even Bailey acknowledges that it is the scientific concensus (which he attributes to his colleages being "ignorant" and "shallow", amongst other things). The fact is that the BBL model has never been more than a contrarian viewpoint that was not even borne out by Blanchard's own data.

It is easy — once one leaves the arbitrary strictures of the BBL model — to account for all of the characteristics on which the BBL model is purportedly based. One could begin by noting that there is nothing particularly unusual about one’s sexual fantasies including oneself in the body of one’s identified sex. Indeed, it seems reasonable to assume that non-trans men and women, regardless of sexual orientation and gender expression, generally have sexual fantasies in which they are men and women, respectively. Both groups would likely have a great deal of trouble achieving arousal whilst imagining themselves in the body of a member of a sex inconsistent with their own gender identities. One would further note that these “autogynaephilicâ€? fantasies generally subside once trans women begin living in their identified sex, and therefore cease to feel the dissonance the BBL group are at great pains to ignore, and posit that such fantasies are a function of the deep, subconscious need to live and be perceived as their identified sex, rather than the other way around.

Once we remove the constraints imposed by the assumptions of the BBL model, it is also not hard to deal with one of Bailey’s admitted stumbling blocks: the fact that there are gay men who are highly feminine in gender expression but nonetheless do not transition. If we accept the BBL model, this datum is a true riddle, because it is based on the assumption that sexual orientation equals gender expression, and that gender identity does not exist. Thus, the existence of men and women – regardless of sexual orientation – who do not have any desire to transition and live as the other sex despite having gender expression typical of the other sex, cannot be explained. However, once we give credit to the accounts of trans people and others who have long reported a lifelong, persistent sense of dissonance between their assigned sex and their gender identity/subconscious sex, all of these mysteries quickly evaporate. It is only by Bailey’s refusal to accept what he admits is the consensus of the relevant professional community that the answers to questions like these become unattainable.

Not only is a model like the one sketched above — which reflects the essential contours of the scientific consensus — able to provide adequate answers to questions that lead BBL adherents to throw up their hands and change the subject; such a model is capable of providing consistent explanations of the bulk of the available data on issues of gender identity, expression, and transsexuality without the need to resort so many assumptions. Unlike the BBL model, this model has no need to assume that trans people are fundamentally deceptive or deluded, that trans men are somehow a completely different species, or that identity simply cannot be the motivation for the desire or decision to transition.

"Woah! so you think it is better to never have been born?

I think that life is worth living in and of itself. That even if some circumstance (sexualorientation, disease, bad luck) leaves one childless that they can still make worthwhile contributions to humanity. " HFarmer

Than what? Better to be aborted than to parents who lobotomize, elecrtoshock or throw out of the house at 12 or 13?

You are edging very close to the position of the anti-abortion anti-women's rights crowd.

I am saying that for the sort of people who would abort a transkid because the child were going to be born with HBS are the sort the child would be lucky not to be brought into the world by.

My parents were abusive but not to the point some people's were.

They withdrew their love but didn't commit me to a mental institution nor throw me out before I reached adulthood. I got yo complete high school get my feet under me before they disowned me.

@Elise

Indeed, it seems reasonable to assume that non-trans men and women, regardless of sexual orientation and gender expression, generally have sexual fantasies in which they are men and women, respectively. Both groups would likely have a great deal of trouble achieving arousal whilst imagining themselves in the body of a member of a sex inconsistent with their own gender identities.

Don't you get it? Most people spend their time imagineing the other person, not themselves.

Another thing is that variation is normal. The variation on sexuality that you just admitted to...(that you imagine yourself as a woman and become aroused) is normal, just as normal as being gay, or bi.

Don't try and say that everyone does what you do that is provably not so.

@Dallasuz
Than what? Better to be aborted than to parents who lobotomize, elecrtoshock or throw out of the house at 12 or 13?

Yes.

Everyone has problems and even straight, cisgendered people can and do have abusive parents. I know, one of my best friends had a father that used to beat him like a runaway slave. Hang him up and beat him with an extension cord. He was a straight masculine boy. "transkids" do not have the exclusive ownership of being mistreated.

I know how it can be.

Don't you get it? Most people spend their time imagineing the other person, not themselves.

That is not, strictly speaking, too. Most people's sexual fantasies tend to include themselves in a prominent role (apart from voyeurs). In fact, the "faceless partner" fantasy that Bailey makes so much of is not some trans-specific thing, but a very common fantasy across the board (in straight, bi, and gay nontrans men and women).

Another thing is that variation is normal. The variation on sexuality that you just admitted to...(that you imagine yourself as a woman and become aroused) is normal, just as normal as being gay, or bi.

Don't try and say that everyone does what you do that is provably not so.

So now we've moved on to personal attacks and innuendos, have we?

I had been assuming that I was discussing this with someone who was honest, if not well informed or scientifically literate. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

Also interesting is HFarmer's (boldface-enhanced) objection to the statement that "Both [non-trans men and non-trans women] would likely have a great deal of trouble achieving arousal whilst imagining themselves in the body of a member of a sex inconsistent with their own gender identities."

It would seem — if HFarmer's statements are to be construed as making any sense at all — that HFarmer is saying that only "autogynaephilic" trans women would have trouble achieving arousal with a fantasy that portrays them as members of the other sex. Thus, non-trans women, one assumes, would have no trouble achieving arousal and climax with a fantasy that portrays them as men (and vice versa). Even for someone who resorts to insinuating that someone whose arguments s/he cannot answer is an "autogynaephilic" trans woman — a standard Bailey technique — this is a bit much.

Hmmm. I'm a straight woman. My sexual fantasies generally involve faceless partners and focus mostly on my own responses. Gosh, maybe there's something about me I don't know!

Hmmm. I'm a straight woman. My sexual fantasies generally involve faceless partners and focus mostly on my own responses. Gosh, maybe there's something about me I don't know!

In which case, the million dollar question is: does it affect your enjoyment of a sexual fantasy if it involves you having a penis?

You know, I've never tried it (and I can't right now 'cause I'm at work). But, off the cuff, I'd say, yeah, it probably would. For one thing, if I were to have a fantasy involving me having an erect penis, the temptation to poke it and make it bounce would be terrible. Bound to disrupt things.

And therein lies yet another glaring flaw in Blanchard's "science." Blanchard and Bailey claim to have scientifically demonstrated that transwomen are not "women trapped in men's bodies" (whatever the hell that means), even though they have never actually compared transwomen with cissexual women in studies (except possibly one undergraduate one where the trans subjects were all drawn from prostitute bars and a crossdresser club), and they say quite openly (heck, proudly) that they know nothing whatsoever about female sexuality.

Don't you get it? Most people spend their time imagineing the other person, not themselves.

In point of fact, female sexual arousal tends to be fairly contextual. Go get yourself a copy of Nancy Friday's Women on Top or any other collection of women's fantasies or erotica. It is the norm for women to include their own bodies (and yes, they even often focus on the clothing they're wearing) in their sexual fantasies. The average man, gay or straight, usually just needs one direct visual stimulus and they're off to the races. Women, speaking in general terms where there are all sorts of exceptions, are capable of this, but usually appreciate more of a crafted scenario. Blanchard simply assumed at the outset that the sexual responsiveness of transsexual women couldn't be like that of cissexual women (because these were "transsexual males" he was dealing with, after all, so what the heck could women have to do with anything?). Hence we return to the methodological problems in Blanchard's AG typology study. The scale was constructed in such a way that a person responding in a way that is typical for normal female sexual responsiveness and a person who is responding in a way that is typical for a fetishist would end up with the same rating.

I had been assuming that I was discussing this with someone who was honest, if not well informed or scientifically literate.

I think she is scientifically literate, which ironically may be one of the problems. She's trying to reinterpret it as a real scientist would approach it instead of the way Blanchard and Bailey approach it.

Kimmy- sounds like you definitely have a man's tendency to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman. I recommend getting strung along for years at a psychiatric prison, sitting in groups with 50 year old transvestites where you are not allowed to wear pants, having to submit your name for approval to ensure it is properly feminine. Then just for good measure, we'll strap a machine to your genitals and force you to watch weird fetish porn. Ok, just kidding. I mean, obviously no sane human being on the planet would actually treat other people that way. At least not in Toronto.

I think she is scientifically literate, which ironically may be one of the problems. She's trying to reinterpret it as a real scientist would approach it instead of the way Blanchard and Bailey approach it.

What makes Bailey's "work" and the BBL model so suited for an undergrad research methods course is that the failings of the model are so elementary that no one even moderately well informed about the scientific method could avoid noticing them.

Elise I did not attack you. You basically made statements that amout to the claim that everybody has sexual fantasies in which they are their own object of desier.

Kimmy In these fantasies are you turned on by your own body? What Autogynephiles do is get all hot an bothered by their own imagined female body. The male, if their is one, is merely a prop.

@boo

More insults. How about approaching the problem like a real scientist yourself. Real scientist do not settle arguements by instults and attempted bullying.

Of course I get turned on by my own body. Or, to be more precise, by my body's responses to the fantasy, both within the fantasy and whatever I'm doing in real life. The "faceless partner" IS a prop, that's his whole reason for existence in a fantasy. The idea is to get myself off, not worry about whether some imagined male is enjoying himself. What kind of an person has sexual fantasies that don't involve their own body and its reactions?

And I can give you details if you really want them, but I'm not sure it's the place. Just rest assured that it's by no means unusual for someone to focus on themselves during a sexual fantasy, no matter their sex, sexual orientation, or other identity.

More insults. How about approaching the problem like a real scientist yourself. Real scientist do not settle arguements by instults and attempted bullying.

I'm not insulting you, I think you come off as a better scientist than Blanchard or Bailey. No one is bullying you here. No one is trying to erase you or call you a liar. Some of us have responded in kind when you attacked us, but it's hardly fair to take offense now.

I have given you what I believe to be valid reasons why the data in Blanchard's studies does not show what he thinks it does. Blanchard has never actually measured the extent to which transwomen get all hot and bothered by their own imagined female body. If Kimmy, or pretty much any woman, were measured using Blanchard's instruments, they would appear to be autogynephilic. If you think I'm wrong, point out the flaws in my arguments.

Elise I did not attack you. You basically made statements that amout to the claim that everybody has sexual fantasies in which they are their own object of desier.

The variation on sexuality that you just admitted to...(that you imagine yourself as a woman and become aroused) is normal, just as normal as being gay, or bi.

Don't try and say that everyone does what you do that is provably not so.

It's hard to read that as anything other than a clear assertion that I am both trans and "autogynaephilic" based on nothing more than the fact that I have pointed out flaws in your claims. You attempted to make it somehow about my personal history and sexual proclivities, about which you know nothing (as I have said nothing about them here, nor do I intend to).

You basically made statements that amout to the claim that everybody has sexual fantasies in which they are their own object of desier.

If that is what I appeared to say, then I must have been suffering from aphasia at the time I wrote that comment. What I recall saying is that

. Indeed, it seems reasonable to assume that non-trans men and women, regardless of sexual orientation and gender expression, generally have sexual fantasies in which they are men and women, respectively. Both groups would likely have a great deal of trouble achieving arousal whilst imagining themselves in the body of a member of a sex inconsistent with their own gender identities.

Assuming that I am correctly recalling what I said (which seems likely, as I just cut and paste it from the post HFarmer is referring to), I did not remotely imply that anyone (trans or otherwise) was seeing him or herself as the "object of desire". I thought it was rather obvious that I was referring to the perspective from which the sexual fantasy is experienced.

elise/boo/hfarmer

I just wanted to say that reading your posts has been very enlightening - I feel like I understand some of the issues in this debate much better after reading your posts.

I just wanted to say that reading your posts has been very enlightening - I feel like I understand some of the issues in this debate much better after reading your posts.

Thanks for saying so. If you're interested, you'll find a much more detailed article I've written on the whole BBL issue by clicking on my name.

Ok, so by now we know the BBL typology is oversimplified drek that sex-obsessed guys like Bailey fixate on. But is it possible to do better? Or do we just say there is so much diversity that no two of us have much of anything in common? I'm not sure I beleive that either.

In my own case, the strongest impulse to transition came from loathing of maleness in myself -- what Andrea James has called "Autoandrophobia", and I call "gender embollism": they tried to inject boyness into me and it made me so sick I just wanted to die. Transition was mainly about seeking relief from that agony. This isn't a rare experience, plenty of other trans women have expressed it too, in varying degrees -- the "dysphoria" side of thing. It's Bailey's complete insensitity to this part of my experience as well as to our stigmatization that makes him such an unsympathetic character for me.

Ok, so by now we know the BBL typology is oversimplified drek that sex-obsessed guys like Bailey fixate on. But is it possible to do better? Or do we just say there is so much diversity that no two of us have much of anything in common? I'm not sure I believe that either.

In my own case, the strongest impulse to transition came from loathing of all maleness in myself -- what Andrea James has called "Autoandrophobia", and I think of as "gender embolism": they tried to inject boyness into me and it made me so sick I just wanted to die. Transition was mainly about seeking relief from that agony. This isn't a rare experience, plenty of other trans women have expressed it too, in varying degrees -- the "dysphoria" side of things. It's Bailey's complete oblivion to this part of my experience as well as his insensitivity to our stigmatization that makes him such an unsympathetic character for me.

@UCLAbodyimage

I am glad that some good came of this.

Here's an interesting fact. For all the people who say my POV is "pro bailey". There are people on the other side that think it is "pro Conway". That is just how polarized this issue is.

DINOSAURS ARE SMALL AT ONE END, GET BIGGER IN THE MIDDLE , THEN GET SMALLER AT THE OTHER END !

"There are those of us who are not offended by BBL theory. I mean, so what, we are sexual beings and should not pretend that sexuality has nothing to do with our lives. I think that the sexual part of my transsexuality is explained quite suscintly by Dr. Blanchards theory. I admit it, I like men but not gay men, I pass easily as a woman and when I just go with that things are easier for me. I would be a liar if I did not admit that played a role. Like if my chaging sex would make it impossible for me to attract anybody ever again I would not stay this way."

Hi Julia,
This statement by HFarmer on your blog sums up the entire problem. This person HFarmer identifies as a homosexual man who sexually fetishized being female so Blanchard fits them. HFarmer is one of those gay men Bailey met in a gay bar who just wants to be seen as a woman and knows they are a man. Bravo Mr Bailey for getting your gay male target audience to support you. Yes HFarmer, you are a homosexual man in extreme drag, whoopie. You are not transsexual ,stop trying to speak for us.

Here is my problem, long before I ever knew what sex was I knew I was female. I stole my sisters clothes, refused to wear male clothes and was chased four blocks into an auto mechanics office and held screaming against the wall while they cut my hair off at 6. I had no sexuality. I lost it to GID because I couldn't stand what was attached to me. Even the idea of man on man sex makes me want to vomit. Sound gay to you ? Bailey is insane.

Those of us who are offended are offended because we are not HFarmer yet Bailey calls us liars. This is Baileys personal porno fantasy and not a study. Bailey has been promoting this as "fact" when it is nothing of the sort and finally after being outed for it's lack of science runs around saying it's not fact . Apologists like Dreger claim to be supporting Baileys free speech yet they are trying to do everything they can to completely silence Baileys detractors. Like incestuous hillbillies Dreger claims to not be promoting Bailey but is on his team. Exactly how far do we have to go till the academic nutjobs get discredited for good ? Even his subjects feel violated and used, trans women know he is full of baloney yet we have to endure his trying to promote his crap once again. When fundamentalists started to quote Bailey to me I lost it. Telling me how I masturbated to myself. JESUS H CHRIST! Gee, I wonder why TS's are so upset ????? Duh !

Hopefully this will finally end the controversy and Bailey and his cohorts can just walk away into the sunset discredited.

This statement by HFarmer on your blog sums up the entire problem. This person HFarmer identifies as a homosexual man who sexually fetishized being female so Blanchard fits them. HFarmer is one of those gay men Bailey met in a gay bar who just wants to be seen as a woman and knows they are a man. Bravo Mr Bailey for getting your gay male target audience to support you. Yes HFarmer, you are a homosexual man in extreme drag, whoopie. You are not transsexual ,stop trying to speak for us.

Because the solution to the problem of being subjected to insulting stereotypes is always to turn around and subject others to insulting stereotypes.

I was just searching around this topic and this came up.

Darlie Uhhh. I did not meet Dr. Bailey at a gay bar. (I was 19 and 20 years old back then. ) I met him at a GLBT clinic on the north side where many psych grad students do what psych grad students do.

Taking you at your word. Your gender variance and my gender variance existed before either of us was aware of sex. No contest there. That does not mean that sex was not somehow there. Just because we are not aware of that next asteriod that will hit the planet does not mean it doesn't exist. It's out there. Sex is out there. It is an integral part of a human being. That is in brief why I am not offended by what BBL writes.

It is quite possible that much of this is in part due to our sex-negative culture.