SplitDik (imported) wrote: Sun Oct 25, 2009 12:04 pm A lot of transsexual urges turn out to be "autogynerotic".

This is what Ray Blanchard, Keneth Zucker and Anne Lawrence want you to believe. In their theories if M2F trannsexual is attracted to guys, then they classify this person as gay, if the person is attracted to women, they classify them as being autogynophiliac (i.e. suffering from one of the paraphilias).

This is what Blanchard mustered after visiting gay bars and queer night clubs for 'research' (obviously).

I have not read about any of Blanchard teories in relation to F2M trans folk though. Probably because they do not have any.

While your statement probably is true for some people called TS it does not, as I believe, apply to the majority. It defines TS-ism through urge, which is not correct for the most of TS folk. These to whom it applies have a huge chance to regret their transition (if they go that far), as a lot of urges are gone after SRS, or antiandrogen theraphy.

TS issues are more related to the identity, not to the urge or sexual attraction. One does not define what they are (male or female identity wise) through their sexual orientation.

Another interesting fact to mention is that there was research done on non TS women, with Blanchard methodology applied... What was found was that more than half of the women participating in the research were found matching autogynophiliac criteria (i.e. they were identified by this methodology as being sexually attracted to their own image of being a woman).

I think there is something seriously wrong with this theory.

If TS women answer the questionaires in a certain way they are considered autogynophiliac, while if non TS women answer to exactly the same questions in exactly the same way they are not considered as autogynophiliac. I.e. for some reason it is quite normal for non TS woman to be that way, while it is not normal for TS women... according to Blanchard

Now coming back to your post. If M2F person has SRS and has "free access" to the female private parts (since they have them) then, according to that theory, they should be so attracted themselves, that every day of their life should be pure attraction?

Having spoken with quite a few TS (both M2F and F2M) and their theraphists I can only say that such theories as proposed by Blanchard or Anne Lawrence are not only wrong when applied to the whole 'TS population', but also insulting for quite a lot of them, and so far there was not much of scientific ground for these theories. Quite the opposite. There is more and more evidence found that cause of transsexuality is 'nature' based (i.e.) people are born this way, and the condition is being viewed (by increasing number of researchers) like specific case of intersex.

Doh... you guys define everything through sex and urges. :-\

evai1234 (imported) wrote: Sun Oct 25, 2009 1:07 pm This is what Ray Blanchard, Keneth Zucker and Anne Lawrence want you to believe. In their theories if M2F trannsexual is attracted to guys, then they classify this person as gay, if the person is attracted to women, they classify them as being autogynophiliac (i.e. suffering from one of the paraphilias).

This is what Blanchard mustered after visiting gay bars and queer night clubs for 'research' (obviously).

I have not read about any of Blanchard teories in relation to F2M trans folk though. Probably because they do not have any.

While your statement probably is true for some people called TS it does not, as I believe, apply to the majority. It defines TS-ism through urge, which is not correct for the most of TS folk. These to whom it applies have a huge chance to regret their transition (if they go that far), as a lot of urges are gone after SRS, or antiandrogen theraphy.

...

Doh... you guys define everything through sex and urges. :-\

I'm not going by any research, i've never read any about it. I'm just going by my own problem, and also I know at least three TS who I'm pretty sure were motivated by this.

I'm in no way questioning real transsexualism, as I also know many "true" transsexuals -- i.e. people who really are female down to their core being and way they want to relate to the world.

So you're actually agreeing with me -- I'm saying that the urge to be TS is not necessarily the right way to determine transsexualism.

But if a hetero guy (like me or the original poster) wants to have female genitalia, I'm pretty confident that the reason is not a desire to be female, or even a latent wish to be female.

The guys I know who have gone through TS and I suspect did it for autogyne reasons do in fact have a lot of autoeroticism -- yes they do play with themselves a lot, yes they like to look at themselves in the mirror, etc.

The thing that skews it a bit though is that after castration their libido is obviously usually greatly reduced (although these ladies are pretty "slutty" in their continued fixation on sex).

Anyway, I know four people (myself included) that are hetero in birth orientation with strong libidos that have strong dislike of having male genitalia, some of whom have proceeded with those urges towards sex reassignment. So I'm just sharing that experience.

evai1234 (imported) wrote: Sun Oct 25, 2009 1:07 pm Doh... you guys define everything through sex and urges. :-\

Sex and urges are an important part of who we are as people. And so is our individual identity - in which gender is a primary component.

Personally, I identify as a gay man - and I've come to the conclusion that the idea of 'vaginoplasty-only' is probably more of a fetish/fantasy for me than an actual deep-seated identity.

A desire, most certainly - but desires change with time. Identity usually does not.

evai1234 (imported) wrote: Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:16 am I checked the link and remembered that I read about this guy (i.e. group owner) before.

He has strange view to penile skin inversion vaginoplasty iterpreting it as inverted penis (for whatever reason that interpretation is done..).

In my opinion people like him are guys with female external genitalia. It is a fantasy that such people have inverted penises (as he claims), as technically what is constructed during the surgery is vagina. Male bits are gone. A bit of skin from male bits is not male bits, the same way as skin (or a bit of muscle) from ones leg or hand is not their leg or hand, and if that skin is put on the face (say, to cosmetically correct severe burns for example), this does not make ones face their hand or leg.

Now why guy would like to do this I do not completely understand. It seems to me, that this desire qualify them as transgendered, as this surgical alteration moves them towards female in the gender spectrum, however, since they do not identify as females, nor have female blood chemistry (hormones) , they are not transsexual females.

You said that things are not simple. In many cases this complexity arises from confusion. The reality may (or may not) be a lot simpler. Often simple things can manifest in complex way in psychology.

Simplicity is never essential, though it may be nice. Two genders are definitely not essential - there are many. Just because you are TS does not make anyone with any kind of mod inclination TS, even if you don't understand it. One of the things we are about here is acceptance. Certainly question but don't insist upon compliance.... you won't usually get it.

It's over a year since I had SRS. I'm 110% pleased and happy. I was a gay man but deep down TS. So I eventually transitioned.

I can and do orgasm, so I'm still sexually active (with men).

kristoff wrote: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:05 pm Simplicity is never essential, though it may be nice.

What I meant was that many things that people make to look complex are actually simple. For example - many nasty and manifesting in a complex way symptoms that person who lacks hormones is experiencing are remedied by a simple thing - HRT.

Many complex psychological issues arissing from high sex drive for some men are remedied by a simple thing - orchidectomy.

Many other complex psychological symptoms, distressing thoughts etc... especially sexuality related aften are remedied by simple solutions.

kristoff wrote: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:05 pm Two genders are definitely not essential - there are many.

In reality there are many, as genders are not discrete things but spectrum, however legally there are just two. It does not matter how one feels or what one thinks. In their legal documents they will be either 'M' or 'F', with all legal (and often medical) implications arising from this.

That said this my statement does not serve as an argument, as I agree with your opinion. It is just a note.

Just because you are TS

I am not.

kristoff wrote: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:05 pm does not make anyone with any kind of mod inclination TS

Agree, it does not make them this way, however, quite often simple things manifest in a lot of psychological confussion (as I said earlier), when underlying cause is simple (as a cause, not as condition). Original poster of this thread is example of this. At the beginning her identity looked very confused, unclear... and at the end it appeared that she was TS.

kristoff wrote: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:05 pm , even if you don't understand it. One of the things we are about here is acceptance. Certainly question but don't insist upon compliance.... you won't usually get it.

I question only very generalized statements (such as "

SplitDik (imported) wrote: Sun Oct 25, 2009 12:04 pm A lot of transsexual urges turn out to be "autogynerotic"

". It is true for certain TS group, but not true for certain other TS groups). This does not mean that I do not accept that people are very different in their gender expressions, or that I disrespect their opinions.

I apologize if it looked otherwise.

Evai1234, you are right I was confused, although I did not think so at the time. But I'm now the woman that I was meant to be. Not just a woman but the one I was meant to be. If that makes sense.

Joydivision may always remain with a penis, he may get a vaginoplasty, he may become she and have SRS one day.

Life does throw you curve balls at times.

polarthong (imported) wrote: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:32 pm It's over a year since I had SRS. I'm 110% pleased and happy. I was a gay man but deep down TS. So I eventually transitioned.

This proves that you were TS, you just thought that you are a 'gay man'. It is 'deep down' - our core self that matters, as we can wear many different masks (knowing this or not) on the surface... just for adaptation, self positioning, social acceptance etc. reasons.

Congrats. btw. It must have been very difficult. I know a few TS, and I know what their experiences are. Transitioning for many people is Hell. Especially in the countries with "traditional" views.

polarthong (imported) wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:54 am Evai1234, you are right I was confused, although I did not think so at the time. But I'm now the woman that I was meant to be. Not just a woman but the one I was meant to be. If that makes sense.

It does make sense. I think that your end result is the only thing that actually matters.

polarthong (imported) wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:54 am Joydivision may always remain with a penis, he may get a vaginoplasty, he may become she and have SRS one day.

Yep. To find what you are 'deep down inside' often is not easy task.

Thanks. I found the biggest hurdle admiring it to myself. Perhaps a kind of sociatal mysoginy was at work (better to be a man than a woman).

But once I was on that road it felt 'right'. For me, anyway. You have your moments of doubt , even on that way to surgery there's an element of mixed thoughts an emotions. But I was so happy right after surgery that I knew I had done 200% the right thing.