The Autogynephilia Debate – A Tempest in A ‘C’ Cup?

There is a debate going on in the transgendered arena over the interpretation of a series of studies on homosexual vs. "non-homosexual" M2F transsexuals.

For the record, probably the biggest issue I have with "autogynephilia" is that it’s so damn hard to spell.

The term autogynephilia is a constructed term describing sexual arousal related to viewing oneself as a female when biologically male. Biological males were interviewed and in some studies measured physically to establish a pattern of arousal when considering themselves "en femme".

Not surprisingly, many reported arousal. Surprisingly, those who self identified as homosexual (attracted to bio males) were less likely to display arousal than those who identified as "non-homosexual".

Restated simply in plain English:

So what’s the big deal?

Although the facts seem pretty clear – The insight and interpretation that arise from those facts are either not clear or have not been communicated well (which amounts to the same thing).

On the one side of the debate, there are those that suggest that the concept of autogynephilia helps give important insight into the motivation of bi-gendered people. That eroticism does play a legitimate role in ones self view as a woman and that identifying different eroticism can be helpful in providing appropriate care for bi-gendered people.

That’s a very reasonable position in my opinion. Unfortunately, although I am fairly sure that is what was originally meant – That’s not what was said.

There is no question that the studies were motivated by a profound desire to help. Many of the principal proponents have dedicated themselves to the care and growth of the bi-gendered population.

Very, very unfortunately, the studies have been couched in terms that are at best indelicate and confusing - At worst deeply offensive and divisive. And no attempt has been made to provide real information to set aside that notion.

The other side of the debate also has a reasonable position. Their point of view is this: The statements within and the conclusions drawn from the studies divide bi-gendered people into two distinct and extremely unappealing categories:

This has had the quite remarkable (and I believe unintended) effect of alienating gays, bisexuals, straights, transgendered women AND bio women.

I have my own insight as to the meaning of the studies, which I may share on another occasion.

My principal point in this essay is to highlight the communication issues:

1. The study used as its base, those people who were actively seeking care for the treatment of "gender dysphoria". This represents a subset of the transgendered population as a whole and therefore may not be representative.
2. The studies have gone through a rigorous "peer to peer" review before being published which means that other Drs. in the field have reviewed the information. This requires intellectual courage. However those of us who are articulate and thoughtful regard ourselves as legitimate peers in the study of transgenderism. Not only do we have a right to review – our opinion, shaded by personal experience, can only add insight.
3. If one is to take ownership of a defined term then one must be prepared to defend it. And, as importantly, one has an obligation to ensure it is used properly in the scientific community. (Autogynephilia is being used as a crutch by less enlightened scientists to suggest that transgenderism is nothing more than a fetish)
4. If one is to publish as an expert, one must be prepared to publish as an advocate.
5. This whole debate suffers from an absence of facts. Publish the complete papers online, so that opinions (informed or otherwise) can be drawn from the complete studies.

Sound ideas are strengthened by the stimulation of debate. And sound minds are strengthened by the stimulation of others.

Are self-stimulated minds autocerebrophilic?