Ray Blanchard’s Typology and his Theory of Autogynephilia are not separate and do explain Male-to-Feminine Transition Desire.
In fact, sex researchers since the time of Ulrichs and Hirschfeld had proposed a model of highly feminine homosexual males and masculine homosexual females. This understanding led Hirschfeld to assist in the very first transition programmes involving Genital Reconstruction Surgery.
Ulrichs and Havelock Ellis called these types ‘Sexual Inverts’ which became an unpopular term for a while, thanks to the efforts of the nascent New Gay Man cult in the 1960s. However the concept behind it has never been scientifically challenged. This posits an innate cause for feminine male homosexuality (which nobody ever argued was the only type) and dovetails nicely with the ‘born this way’ narrative. After all, if homosexuals are ‘born this way’ there must be an observable cause other than socialisation. Sexual Inversion describes that.
It does now appear conclusive that this type of homosexuality, sometimes called ‘transgender homosexuality’ is indeed a response to prenatal conditions, most probably to do with hormone dosage in utero. Blanchard, Zucker and many others have supported this, though, again, it was already current in the 1960s.
We use the terms ‘homosexual’ and ‘non-homosexual’ exclusively with regard to birth sex. That is because this is standard biological taxonomy, which is universally understood. It is as fundamental as Linnaeus.
Two Types of Transition Desire
Blanchard re-iterated and confirmed numerous earlier studies showing that the Sexual Invert type was represented amongst individuals with Transition Desire, but that these were markedly different from other types. Just as with feminine homosexual males, they tended to be lightly built, neotenous and naturally feminised on a range of parameters.
The difficulty lay in explaining why non-homosexual males, who were often extremely masculine, would want to appear to be women. Blanchard took the entirely reasonable approach that, if the homosexual group of Male to Feminine transitioners were related to homosexual non-transitioners, there might be a similar correlation between the non-homosexual group of transitioners and another phenomenon within the male population. He found this in fetishistic transvestites.
This is what led him to his breakthrough. Non-homosexual transvestism was a well-known phenomenon that had been described for years and non-homosexual transition desire was an extreme form of it, just as Homosexual transsexualism (HSTS) was an extreme form of Sexual Inversion or, if you like, transgender homosexuality.
In other words, all non-homosexual males who desire to appear to be women are suffering from a disturbance of identity that has confused them with their own Erotic Targets. This is called an Erotic Target Location Error (ETLE) and is provoked by Autogynephilia, ‘love of the self as a woman’. This leads to many complications which I have discussed elsewhere, the most important of which is that the Autogynephilic identity (as a woman) is unstable. This is unlike homosexual Transition Desire, which tends to stabilise around puberty and if it does, will persist.
Autogynephilic men exhibit weak and variable self-ideation. If they transition, they are prone to rage attacks, if their assumed identity as a woman is challenged in any way at all. With few exceptions, they cannot stand any light being cast into the darkness of their condition and will do everything they can to douse it. Because these men are often active on social media, this has led to the development of a vicious culture that will not tolerate any criticism of, commentary on, or even explanation of the science behind their pathology. Since, lamentably, social media are where many people get their ‘information’ today, this in turn has led to significant public confusion — which has been encouraged by Autogynephilic men themselves.
Autogynephilia does show indications of pre-pubertal development in some cases, which is in line with other sexual expressions. However, Autogynephilic men are prone to misinterpreting this. What may be happening is that they are experiencing early autogynephilic fantasies, just as pre-pubescent heterosexual boys experience ‘crushes’ on girls. On the other hand, another explanation is that, as adults, they invent childhood memories consistent with the adult expression of their condition. In other words, they make them up. As well as this, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fifth edition, states that Autogynephilia can set on as early as nine years old. While some Autogynephilic men will produce photographs of themselves as children, cross-dressed, these were rarely taken before that age.
Even if it were possible to verify cross-dressing episodes prior to puberty on their part, these are likely to be passing role-play. This is common amongst boys who do not grow up to be Autogynephilic. An unsupported correlation is being made between such play episodes and the later development of a paraphilia. These claims should be treated with caution, especially since an Autogynephilic man’s grasp of reality is clearly weak; after all, this is a heterosexual man, often married with a family, who one day decides he is actually a woman. Naturally he will construct a personal history that supports this delusion.
Autogynephilia is a narcissistic self-love in which the subject, a non-homosexual male, becomes infatuated with himself. This is the ETLE: his erotic desire is focussed on himself rather than on another person. But since he is a heterosexual man, he is naturally repulsed by masculinity, so men cannot be his sexual targets. Therefore he will create a second, pseudo-feminine character within his mind, to become the feminised object of his sexual and romantic desire. For most, this mental artefact will have to be supported in other ways, for example, cross-dressing, in manners and behaviours, in experiencing sexual penetration and others.
Many will already be familiar with these expressions of Autogynephilia, since it has become so common in the West today.
Fallacies about Transition Desire
Here are some fallacies that Autogynephilic apologists delight in, to mask the truth about their condition:
-Transition Desire is caused by an ‘inner sense of self’ which is in conflict with one’s external reality. It cannot be measured or quantified and only I can feel it. (The Woo Theory; sometimes called the ‘feminine or female essence’ explanation.)
Gender Dysphoria is Transition Desire at a clinical level. It has become a disorder, because it is preventing the individual from functioning in the life he would normally lead. It can be measured in a number of ways, on different parameters. The ‘explanation’ offered by the Woo Theory cannot be; it is unquantifiable and unfalsifiable. Anyone can say they feel like anyone or anything they want. It’s completely meaningless as a diagnostic. I feel like a Prosthetic Vogon today; does that mean I am actually in command of an intergalactic fleet constructing a space super-highway?
-Sexual orientation cannot be used as a fundamental typology. (The sex-denial fallacy; we really are delivered by storks.)
Gender Dysphoria can be either Homosexual or Non-Homosexual. The former is caused by Sexual Inversion and the latter by Autogynephilia. This taxonomy is justified by the consistency of the observable differences between the groups. It is obvious to anyone who is familiar with large numbers of transwomen, provided both types are present. It is so obvious that an assessment can usually be made just through observation.
-Sexuality and Gender are not related. (The denial of the bleeding obvious fallacy.)
This is borrowed from Constructionist thinking and is of course, ridiculous. In order for humanity to persist, males must mate with females so that their ova may be fertilised. We don’t have sophisticated senses of smell so we can’t tell when a female is in oestrus, and since we stood up, we have had no visual indication either. So we evolved sets of physical characteristics and behavioural traits to indicate sexual intent and availability. Together, these are Gender.
In practise, those who wish to penetrate perform masculine gender and those who wish to be penetrated, feminine. These traits are fundamentally innate and cultural equivalents are found in all human societies. It follows then that Sexuality and Gender are inextricably linked, though they might be at odds with Sex.
It is possible for Sex and Sexuality not to conform, because of Sexual Inversion and in these cases, Gender follows Sexuality. Non-homosexual males should therefore exhibit masculine Gender, but some do not, as we’ve seen. Why? Because the Dysphoria they may feel as a result of presenting in masculine Gender, is felt by the Autogynephilic mental artefact, and not by the host. In all cases involving a powerful ETLE, once the artefact is in the driving seat, it will suppress the host and his feelings. Thus, a non-homosexual man can indeed wish to appear to be a woman.
– Statistics and outliers (The appeal to authority or ‘confuse them with numbers’ fallacy)
Blanchard was at pains to fully explain and make public the results of his research and his method, and himself commented on the outliers. Many have tried to challenge his statistical method, including Wyndzen, and have signally failed. Further, Nuttbrock, while disagreeing with Blanchard on some measures, acknowledged that these were probably a result of different population samples and broadly supported him.
– Autogynephilic fantasies in natal women. (The equivocation or ‘if what turns women on turns me on, I must be a woman’ fallacy.)
It is worth noting Moser’s intervention on this, which has been debunked by Lawrence and others. Further to that, however, evidence of autogynephilic arousal in natal women would not in any way prove that non-homosexual male transitioners were not motivated by Autogynephilia, nor would it prove that they are ‘real women’, even if some women exhibited similar behaviours. It’s a straw man.
That is because it is prerequisite for a diagnosis of Autogynephilia that an Erotic Target Location Error (ETLE) be present. There is no such error in heterosexual natal women, because they are actually women, not men with a sexually-fuelled delusion. Some women may exhibit true Autogynephilia (rather than just a few similar behaviours,) but they are invariably lesbians. However, again, you have to be female to be a lesbian; a male who pursues women, even if he’s wearing a dress, is not a lesbian or even a ‘transbian’; he’s a randy man in a dress.
-Cessation of autogynephilic eroticism on ‘transition’ (The correlation-causation fallacy)
This is simply explained once one recognises that Autogynephilia is a function of male sex drive and therefore is affected by the level of testosterone in the blood. In post-GRS subjects, where the testes have been removed, we should expect to see a decrease and we should also see a decrease with age, both of which are consistent with observation. (Note, however, that removal of testes in Autogynephilic men can increase suicidality.)
The ‘stronger female identity’ (actually pseudo-feminine) is because in transitioning, the pseudo-feminine character has been elevated and is now dominant over the male host, which it will try to completely destroy. Subjects may continue to exhibit weak self-ideation but will attempt to bolster that, typically towards the artefact, through a range of measures. For example, they may demand that they not be ‘misgendered’, free access to women’s spaces, to be able to change legal gender without support from professionals, unfounded, ad hominem attacks on those who openly discuss Autogynephilia theory positively, eg Blanchard himself, Bailey, Lawrence (and even little me,) and so on.
About 20% of non-homosexual subjects, in Blanchard, were ‘analloerotic’ or, in other words, not sexually active with other people. This might be a function of homophobia — they may desire affirmative sex with men but are unable to have that (because they are heterosexual men,) so deny sex altogether.
-Not a universal theory of transgenderism, also explaining FTM and ‘non-binary’. (The conflation fallacy)
Autogynephilia theory only sets out to explain non-homosexual male Transition Desire and it does this nicely. It was never intended to address the questions of homosexual Desire or any female forms. Therefore this argument is another straw man.
While Blanchard’s research was on MtF, he has long acknowledged an FtM form of HSTS. In fact this form was described in detail by Hirshfeld. Until very recently, no non-homosexual form of FtM transition had been described, outside a tiny sample of cases. That has now changed and we see many thousands — and they all conform to a female equivalent to Autogynephilia, known as AutoAndrophilia or AAP. This is sometimes known as Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria or ROGD. This development massively supports Blanchard.
– Single cause of desire for hormone therapy and surgery. (The same cure = same cause fallacy)
There are differences between the stimuli for these between HSTS and Autogynephilia. Male HSTS complete because it allows them to function effectively in society as heterosexual women. Just as importantly, their Erotic Targets are masculine, heterosexual men (never ‘gay men), who are attracted to femininity. So they make themselves as feminine as they can as a mating strategy — just as heterosexual natal women do. It is straightforward and HSTS are markedly homogeneous.
On the other hand, non-homosexual transitioners are extremely disparate. There are five different forms of Autogynephilia and these can be mixed in any manner of ways; it also comes in three sexual variants, heterosexual, pseudo-bisexual and analloerotic. One might reasonably expect some diversity in such a population. In fact, it is a diagnostic parameter.
– Terminology and respect: ‘If you hurt my little feelings you must be wrong.’ (The snowflake fallacy)
We use the standard biological taxonomy because it is clear and precise. When one begins to use terminology that does not reference original birth sex, confusion results. After all, the ‘trans’ in transwoman is there for a reason: they were not conceived XX.