Do transmen suffer from a form of autogynephilia or do they have 'genuine' gender dysphoria?

Which organisations and what evidence are they working from?

I really wouldn't compare AGP and women who think they are transmen because they consume m/m fiction. Those women don't typically get erotically excited at the idea of having a penis or a flat chest on their own body; what they usually want is the relationship described in their fiction. They see themselves as "gay men", the whole package, because being just men is of no interest to them, unlike AGP where being a woman is the whole point by definition.

I've seen some of them admit to it, I forget the word they use, there is an AGP equivalent for women. Yes, most women have underlying reasons like sexual trauma, mental health issues and wanting to escape misogyny as why they transition but many of them are also motivated by sexual imagery as part of what made them think they were a man.

The major one being yaoi/BL. These are erotic gay comics mostly written by women, for women. They are like romance novels, where it's mostly fantasy and not much reality but there is huge, huge swath of women who say they transitioned because they were into BL and realized they were actually a man. These can be extremely explicit.

Women are absolutely being motivated to transition by sexual imagery although it functions very differently to men for sure.

I must admit I'm quite amused at @Aisha176 's insistence on separating "genuine" trans people from "not real" ones...

In young women this is not autogynophilia. It is a form of rejection of their sexed female bodies, breasts in particular are an issue as are periods. The transmen of today are the same young women who previously would have eating disorders and the identity is often accompanied by an eating disorder and a diagnosis of autism.

I was passing by, taking a look around, found this thread, figured I might as well share my perspective.

I'm not sure I buy the argument that it's to 'escape from the pressures of being a female' as is often claimed because male hierarchy seems much more brutal and unforgiving to my eyes and seems to punish the 'weak' to a much greater extent.

I'm lucky to be in a job where this male hierarchy is not much felt, so I can't speak as to its intensity. However, I think there's a difference between pressure experienced as a result of being "other" or worse "less than" (a woman vs. a man), and pressure received from what one perceives to be one's own group (a transman among men). I know that personally, I'd react way worse to perceived misogyny than to being perceived as a weak man.

When a female presents as male and uses male facilities (as many successfully do due to passing much more easily than most TW) what is their motivation for doing this?

In my case, it's just a matter of being consistent: I don't stop feeling the need to present as male just because I need to piss, for example. Also, I don't want to potentially scare any woman or girl by using the ladies', even if only for the two seconds it would take them to figure out what's going on. Although note that I'm talking only about enclosed facilities: I've never had to be naked or even in my undies around similarly dressed men; I'm not sure what I would choose to do then in the absence of a third space.

And to answer the question in the title: I personally don't experience any kind of sexual feeling from presenting as male, nor is it in any way or shape a motivation for me.

This is what is so heartbreaking. Young people who have never even kissed someone being able to self refer for medical treatment that will affect their fertility and sexual function. Therapy needs to be compulsory for this cohort

Yes, if they haven't encountered all that before, they certainly will after they start interacting with that group

-Especially young women with little or no real sexual experience. There are kids - my cousin's daughter being one - that form their "trans" identity around this stuff, and it seems supported by their whole group of friends, the whole internet - even the cosplay groups they belong too seem to be entwined, (including furry groups in some cases.)

Conversely, I’ve seen girls who identify as trans with the usual vulnerabilities (ASD/anxious/socially isolated) who then start considering their sexual proclivities within that trans bubble. Probably the end point is the same? These are all girls who have never even kissed someone, mind you.

OP, I hope you don’t mind the numerous different tangents this thread has taken. I am very grateful for this opportunity to discuss this very complex issue

https://x.com/prof_curiosity1/status/2058056297593864606

This gives a good explanation on how bright young women are indoctrinated

Oh, it’s the rolling pin dude. Yeah, I’ll stop engaging. What a waste of time.

That study showed “no improvement in psychological function”. Did you read it?

ANyway - to get back on track with this thread - to me what this question really eveals is that the use of pornography among young women is something that needs to be urgently addressed.

And I think feminists have really dropped the ball here. Partly because they have tended to focused on the harms of standard film pornography on the actors, which is a very certainly very immediate concern.

But also for less compelling reasons. One being a tendency to dismiss the idea that written content is really pornography or can have an effect on the reader. And this comes out, I think, of the sex positivity movement that seems to have at times been embraced less critically than it ought to have been by feminists. Which claims that as long as something is a fantasy, or is freeing up women's repressed sexual desires, or whatever, it is good.

The fact is that reading this stuff, be it slash fiction, or "Morning Glory Milking Farm" is being used as a sexual outlet, and that does shape women's sexual and psychological response with a reinforcement loop just as it does with men, and it escalates just as it does with men.

Especially young women with little or no real sexual experience. There are kids - my cousin's daughter being one - that form their "trans" identity around this stuff, and it seems supported by their whole group of friends, the whole internet - even the cosplay groups they belong too seem to be entwined, (including furry groups in some cases.)

None of the research any of these organisations has done supports the policies you are talking about - and many places are rolling them back on that basis.

Your claim that the UK has not done so is just false, as you know.

Aida, you keep saying this while ignoring the organisations that acknowledge no improvements in mental health. Why?

Esteemed professional medical health organisations globally disagree including The Cass report despite extreme political pressure not to.

There is no trade off, that's the point. So a serious trade off isn't justified. It doesn't show improved outcomes.

Yes but the context was parental consent for medical treatment with side effects.

Consent is not transferable.

And heart attacks & strokes are potential side effects for many drugs that don't normally eventuate.

Funny you should say that, because trans people are more likely to die early because of heart attacks and strokes, as a result of CSH.

As I said correct self selection & screening are more likely the reason.

This old trope. So PBs aren’t a “pause” then, are they?

Either they’re a “pause” and barely anyone reverses them, or you know from the start you’re selecting the correct cohort who “need” CSH. Which is it? Because if you’re saying it’s the latter (which you are) you’re acknowledging that they need to be consented for the lifelong consequences of CSH after PBs. Like sterility. And infertility. And loss of sexual function.

That's why clinical trials matter.

So why hasn’t any gender clinic anywhere around the world done a clinical study on any of its patients into the true reversibility of PBs? Because they can’t. They’ve put them all on CSH and they don’t follow up detransitioners. They’re unethical.

And scraping the barrel is very apt to describe you posting the joke of “study” by the Tavistock which showed no improvement in mental health and a third actually got worse 🤡

I was waiting for this. You know that there’s a difference between PBs used when puberty is occurring too early that are then stopped vs PBs that are used when puberty is supposed to occur?

Yes but the context was parental consent for medical treatment with side effects.

The “easily reversible” trope that applies to the former can’t be assumed for the latter, esp after than Mayo study showing fibrosis and calcification of boys’ testicular tissue after a few years on blockers as “gender affirming care treatment”.

And heart attacks & strokes are potential side effects for many drugs that don't normally eventuate.

It’s moot anyway, because 97-98% of children go on to take CSH
As I said correct self selection & screening are more likely the reason.

and no one seems to follow up the ones who don’t. Reversible? Who knows?

That's why clinical trials matter.

What they can do is prevent the escalation of mental health distress which has been shown in research

You keep saying this, but you’re making it up.

"Psychological distress and self-harm are known to increase across early adolescence. Normative data show rising YSR total problems scores with age from age 11 to 16 years in non-clinical samples from a range of countries [29]. Self-harm rates in the general population in the UK and elsewhere increase markedly with age from early to mid-adolescence, being very low in 10 year olds and peaking around age 16–17 years [53–56]. Our finding that psychological function and self-harm did not change significantly during the study is consistent with two main alternative explanations. The first is that there was no change, and that GnRHa treatment brought no measurable benefit nor harm to psychological function in these young people with GD. This is consonant with the action of GnRHa, which only stops further pubertal development and does not change the body to be more congruent with a young person’s gender identity. The second possibility is that the lack of change in an outcome that normally worsens in early adolescence may reflect a beneficial change in trajectory for that outcome, i.e. that GnRHa treatment reduced this normative worsening of problems."

Conclusions
Overall patient experience of changes on GnRHa treatment was positive. We identified no changes in psychological function. Changes in BMD were consistent with suppression of growth. Larger and longer-term prospective studies using a range of designs are needed to more fully quantify the benefits and harms of pubertal suppression in GD.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7853497/

"You’re scraping the barrel here." = over the target

Because fitting in as in 'passing' goes hand in hand with social acceptance & by extension mental health well being. I'm sure you are aware that a trans woman who retains their male characteristics gets treated a lot worse that one who doesn't.

Well that’s it, isn’t it? It’s always been about “passing”, the Dutch researchers admitted that was the primary aim. The notion that it lessens their risk of suicide was added later by activist clinicians because they knew doing so kids looked better was a hard sell.

Parental consent to medical treatment of their children that's likely to have side effects is nothing new. In fact puberty blockers have long had parental consent for precocious puberty. And some mental health medications can cause lasting physical or behavioural effects in children.

Parents consent to PBs for precocious puberty knowing their child will resume puberty at a suitable age to treat a different condition.

For gender reasons, parent consent their children to never resume puberty and the lifelong consequences of that.

Consent is not transferable. It doesn’t matter is parents, or children themselves for that matter, consent for one thing. That doesn’t mean they can consent automatically for other things. Each condition and each treatment carries a new requirement for appropriate consent.

Many relevant globally highly accredited medical associations indicate they do. Remember principles matter. One can't defer to experts just when one feels like it & expect they will continue to maintain the authoritative power they deserve.
Why are you so insistent to enable arm chair experts assume their position?

Yet many countries and organisations acknowledge there is no benefit. They have principles too.

Why are you so insistent to enable underground unregulated treatment which will be the outcome here just like it is in countries without abortion reproductive health care which have seen a huge spike in online purchases of termination drugs. If you think that can't happen with puberty blockers & hormones you are very mistaken.

This is just a load of nonsense. Children got by perfectly well without puberty blockers before this experiment took off 15-20 years ago, it’s a fad that will disappear.

Children aren't sterilised on puberty blockers.

Why would you make this claim when it is demonstrably true that children are sterilised by puberty blockers? Why persist with the lie that they aren’t? Even WPATH’s clinicians know that fertility is a massive problem and “it’s like talking to a wall” trying to have a discussion with teenagers about it.

It’s a blatant lie to say fertility isn’t affected. Why lie? Everyone knows it is.

Parental consent to medical treatment of their children that's likely to have side effects is nothing new. In fact puberty blockers have long had parental consent for precocious puberty

I was waiting for this. You know that there’s a difference between PBs used when puberty is occurring too early that are then stopped vs PBs that are used when puberty is supposed to occur?

The “easily reversible” trope that applies to the former can’t be assumed for the latter, esp after than Mayo study showing fibrosis and calcification of boys’ testicular tissue after a few years on blockers as “gender affirming care treatment”. It’s moot anyway, because 97-98% of children go on to take CSH and no one seems to follow up the ones who don’t. Reversible? Who knows?

What they can do is prevent the escalation of mental health distress which has been shown in research

You keep saying this, but you’re making it up.

Why are you so insistent to enable underground unregulated treatment which will be the outcome here just like it is in countries without abortion reproductive health care which have seen a huge spike in online purchases of termination drugs. If you think that can't happen with puberty blockers & hormones you are very mistaken

You’re scraping the barrel here.

"What does debilitating mental health problems have to do with teens who identify as trans?"

Because fitting in as in 'passing' goes hand in hand with social acceptance & by extension mental health well being. I'm sure you are aware that a trans woman who retains their male characteristics gets treated a lot worse that one who doesn't. And 'passing' is related to teens by virtue of the power they have over it that will have lifelong consequences on their mental health.

The issue you don’t understand here is consent.
Children can’t consent to being a life-long patient - including lack of fertility and impaired sexual function - whilst in primary school and early high school (Tanner stage 2 starts at 8 for girls and 9 for boys).

Parental consent to medical treatment of their children that's likely to have side effects is nothing new. In fact puberty blockers have long had parental consent for precocious puberty. And some mental health medications can cause lasting physical or behavioural effects in children.

The problem with the logic of withdrawing health care to trans children is it doesn't account for principles involved that need to be applied consistently.

There may have been a case to argue ethically if Cass showed spectacular improvement in well-being but all of the studies haven’t shown “a better health outcome”, as you call it.

No. Many studies were rejected on the premise of low numbers that points to utility requiring further research to prove. That some of the studies failed Cass' standards for admission of evidence doesn't prove there were no health outcomes. Clinical evidence also shows improvement but doesn't qualify as a smoking gun because of possible confounding variables. Its for these reason Cass was unable to discount the possibility of puberty blockers being helpful. And let's not forget puberty blockers just stop puberty they don't confer desired sex characteristics so to expect vast improvement isn't possible. What they can do is prevent the escalation of mental health distress which has been shown in research.

Why are you so insistent that this hormonal manipulation that doesn't make children happier and more functional will make them happier? Vibes? Reddit?

Many relevant globally highly accredited medical associations indicate they do. Remember principles matter. One can't defer to experts just when one feels like it & expect they will continue to maintain the authoritative power they deserve.
Why are you so insistent to enable arm chair experts assume their position?

Why are you so insistent to enable underground unregulated treatment which will be the outcome here just like it is in countries without abortion reproductive health care which have seen a huge spike in online purchases of termination drugs. If you think that can't happen with puberty blockers & hormones you are very mistaken.