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

[GaIadriel]

Not looking to stir things up although I do appreciate this may be a controversial question.

I've read so much about how transwomen are often motivated by sexual perversions etc, and my kneejerk reaction is that it's certainly feasible. However, when I think about transmen it becomes a little bit more ambiguous.

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.

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?

Categorising minorities and speculating about why they exist is deeply abnormal behaviour.

There has been a quantifiable spike in teenage girls and young women identifying as trans in the past few years, often with co-morbidities of autism and eating disorders. Those who take testosterone face a lifetime of potentially serious health conditions. Why does this not warrant a closer look? A sudden jump in the numbers of British Asian boys being diagnosed with Crohns or vegetarians with leukaemia would be investigated and not described as "abnormal".

It was abuse from men, as in fathers/uncles, during childhood. I believe as others have stated, that multiple factors are at play in becoming a trans man. But SA and physical abuse in childhood can be one contributing factor. Clients described that they felt victimised and wanted to assume another (male) identity in order not to be desired by men and as a way of standing up for oneself /protecting oneself

I did not equate short-term or ‘mistaken’ cases with long-term cases. My point was and is heterogeneity: different people may arrive at a trans identity through different routes.

Judging from your response, I am given the impression that you’re attempting to preserve the pure category of ‘real trans’ people by excluding detransitioners and ‘transitory’ cases. But who decides who is really trans before medical intervention? By what test? Duration? Degree of dysphoria? Willingness to undergo hormones or surgery? Childhood persistence? Adult insistence? Neurological essence? Ironically, Aisha, the moment you try to answer this you will have abandoned the activist slogan-world and entered the very terrain of scrutiny you are currently condemning.

Another thing: you say that detransitioners are very few in numbers - and even if that were true, it still does not make them irrelevant. Rare harms still matter in safeguarding, especially where minors are involved. Sterility, sexual function, mastectomies, endocrine disruptions, lifelong medical dependence are not trivial things.

Lastly you object to pathologising, yet you immediately offer your own causal theory: ‘genetic & hormonal dispositions that drive personality inclinations’. That is also an explanatory model. It’s fine if you believe that some people are born with a predisposition towards sex-atypical behaviour and dysphoria (generously assuming that is what you mean and not ‘brain sex’ or ‘gendered souls’), but when making a claim that trans identity is caused by innate biology, then you are indeed making a causal claim and must accept scrutiny. And if causal scrutiny is bigotry, then you shouldn’t invoke biology as proof when convenient. It’s wanting the authority of science without the inconvenience of being examined by it.

And as I mentioned in my previous post, not every trans-identified person agrees upon what makes one trans. Many genderist activists would decry the ‘innate biology / dysphoria’ requirement as bigoted and gatekeeping.

We’re collectively being told to affirm affirm affirm, don’t question, make access to medicalisation easier, support and encourage and play along. What happens when you do all that, and the young woman in question eventually turns out to be one of the ‘transitory trans’ you’re describing. For years she socially transitioned, medicalised, made irreversible changes to her body. Do we just throw our hands up and say, ‘Well, guess she wasn’t REALLY trans after all’ and move on? Because we weren’t allowed to question or examine the why when it was happening in real time, only affirm, and now she has to deal with the consequences for the rest of her life. That is indescribably callous.

Totally agree. But you cannot rationalise with an anorexic - or a trans person. Sadly the anorexic is mentally ill and will probably need intensive treatment in order to get better. Telling them that they’re not fat doesn’t help and is not advised because you are talking to the illness not the person. Having experience of trans identifying teens and of anorexia, I can honestly say that the similarities are very noticeable. Historically, being trans was considered a pathology and I believe it should be repathologised in order that young trans people can get effective help. Exploratory therapy should not be called transphobic or conversion therapy. Every trans identifying young person deserves holistic care, not mere affirmation. There are too many detransitioners speaking out now about how they were affirmed without question and how the adults in their lives let them down and now they live with the consequences of transition.

As to OP’s original question, my own thoughts are that these teens are mostly autistic and feel othered and have gone down a rabbit hole on the Internet and now believe that they were born in the wrong body. Some will have been victims of SA. Some are homosexual. And some have been bullied and want to reinvent themselves. And there is a certain allure and power to trans being protected and being able to cancel those who might argue with you. It is devastating for these young people and their families.

I think it's predominantly due to vulnerabilities - internalised misogyny, internalised homophobia, a history of abuse (particularly sexual), neurodiverse conditions, bullying etc. I doubt that many trans-identifying women have a sexual motivation, unlike most trans-identifying men.

I totally agree. And it's so fucking sad that we are criticised, shouted down and hated for having those concerns, often by the very people who should also have those concerns. That is telling.

You’re misdescribing my argument. I did not say trans people are a hive mind. I’ve in fact said the opposite: that people who adopt a trans identity may have varied histories, motives, pressures, temperaments and explanations. I haven’t proposed one sinister master theory. You’re attacking a caricature of an argument that you created.

Nothing I wrote requires conspiracy. Trauma, autism, homophobia, misogyny, social contagion, sexual shame, pornography, peer influence and adolescent distress are not conspiracies. They are ordinary human influences. You may dispute their relevance, weight or evidence base, but calling them conspiracy theories is merely a way of making inquiry sound grubby without having to answer it.

You say that trans-identified people are individuals and their stories should be listened to. I agree. But listening to stories inevitably produces comparison and pattern recognition and interpretation. If five women say, “I thought transition would save me from being sexualised” or “I later realised my dysphoria was entangled with autism” or “I mistook lesbian shame for being male,” are we allowed to notice the pattern? Or must we listen with our brains in a velvet bag? Your rule seems to be that individual testimony is sacred when it supports affirmation, but becomes dehumanising when it complicates affirmation.

The comparison to homosexuality is a misdirection. Yes, there is a long and ugly history of pathologising homosexuality. But it does not follow that ALL inquiry into the causes or development of human identity, desire, dysphoria, or behaviour is inherently dehumanising. Scientists have studied the origins of sexual orientation for decades. And more importantly and on-topic, homosexuality does not require children to be socially transitioned, bind their breasts, suppress puberty, take cross-sex hormones, undergo mastectomy, or enter sex-segrgated spaces on the basis of identity / subjective sense of oneself. Once medicalisation and safeguarding enter the picture, ‘don’t ask why’ becomes an extremely absurd position.

Regarding the autism bit: you say that autism is common, then you declare it ableist to consider autism relevant to why some people develop or express a trans identity. If autism is statistically overrepresented among gender-distressed young people, then it not ableist to ask what the relationship might be. It would be negligent NOT to ask. This does not mean autistic people are incapable of knowing themselves. It means autistic children and adults may experience things like embodiment, social rules, puberty, sensory distress, categorisation, sex stereotypes and peer belonging in distinctive ways. Some may be perfectly clear and stable in their self-understanding, whilst others may misread discomfort with puberty or feminity or masculinity or sexuality or social expectations as evidence that they ‘are’ the opposite sex. Both possibilities can exist.

You also say that if parents accept female adolescents as boys, use chosen names and pronouns and affirm them, they may bind less at home. But if binding can be reduced through changes in family recognition and social context, then binding is not merely the expression of an innate essence. It is at least partly responsive TO environment, anxiety, validation, perceived threat and social meaning. That is precisely the type of complexity that we are asking people to examine.

“Categorising minorities and speculating about why they exist is deeply abnormal behaviour”. This is nonsense and I shouldn’t even take the bait but here goes. Human beings study human beings - psychologists, sociologists, doctors, historians, anthropologists, feminists, criminologists, epidemiologists, political theorists et cetera. They all categorise groups and examine causes. Even you’ve done it in your own post(s). I’m not going to engage with this jab further.

I appreciate that you are personally close to the issue and that you are probably frightened for your daughter, and you’re responding from protectiveness rather than analysis. It goes without saying that a parent who believes her child is endangered may understandably react badly to speculation that feels hostile or objectifying. I get it. But these conversations must be had.

@GwenogJones thank you for posting the link to that young woman's story.

We need more @GermaineBloodyGreer s in the world. Thank you for taking the time to post so thoroughly on this subject. These conversations absolutely must be had

I agree that it is important to listen to all sides - apart from those profiting from medical transition (GenderGP, Gender Plus etc) as they cannot be impartial due to their vested interest in having lifelong patients.
It should not be transphobic to explore why a young person wants to block their naturally occurring hormones and take cross sex hormones. If ‘true trans’ is a thing then surely it is better to be 100% certain before doing anything irreversible. Wouldn’t everyone want this. The fact that trans people don’t want this makes me wonder

I suspect everyone knows this already but I asked AI why it never gave me a balanced answer on any trans question I asked it. It replied that it is designed to be affirmative so as not to cause upset. That really upset me!

Well done for flushing that out. Talk about saying the quiet part out loud. Your post ought to be pinned at the top of this board!

Prior to when Blanchard was most active clinically, and publishing his major works in the 80s and 90s, being trans was seen to be highly correlated to homosexuality.

It was widely noted that at least for some gays and lesbians, it appeared homosexuality was innate and signs of gender incongruence could be seen in early childhood of children who would later grow up to be adult homosexuals.

There was a small subset of those adult individuals who were extremely effeminate or butch and could 'pass' as opposite sex relatively easily, even without any medical intervention, and found it difficult fit in as their biological sex.It was for them that 'sex change' therapies were developed.

But even from the beginning of those therapies being available, there were also a set of men who weren't effeminate, weren't homosexual and passed easily as their biological sex who also sought treatment. This was surprising and enough clinics were apprehensive about treating them that these would-be patients formed communities which passed around tips on how to appear to be suitable candidates: i.e. presenting as effeminate and homosexual.

The thrust of Blanchard's research was exploring the heterosexual typology, contrasting it with the homosexual one, and establishing that the heterosexual cohort was: 1) much larger for men, 2) had different motivations, 3) was often more successfully treated, i.e. their trans identity was more stable and they were more satisfied with the results, and 4) that there was an aspect of erotic interest in the idea of being trans.

Blanchard didn't try to resolve the logical contractions inherent in heterosexual men wanting to be transgender, though he did emphasise the concept of 'gender dysphoria'. This was the idea that within a single individual there could be an erotic interest in possessing the secondary sex characteristics of the opposite sex (and desiring to present as the opposite sex) while at the same time being dysphoric about being their own sex. It's the dysphoria that's the target of treatment in the clinician's eyes. It seems obvious that there is a psychological process that involves those two aspects (erotic interest and dysphoria), but Blanchard, for the most part didn't put forward a framework of what that might be.

I'd also note that there has been a major (successful) activist driven effort to demolish Blanchard's reputation and invalidate his research, institutionally. Obviously this is necessary if your agenda is that being transgender is innate and a matter of being born in the wrong sexed-body. I won't address the arguments against that effort here (some of them, such as the assertion that 90% of women have AGP so it's an invalid concept are so silly they're self refuting), but needless to say, I reject them.

Why would I listen to someone who a) has zero respect for my son's identity and b) is ignoring my point that theorising why people with a protected characteristic exist, is weird, dehumanising and deeply disrespectful?

Your ignorance on this subject is quite something.

Trans people exist, have always existed, and do not require cis people who don't have even basic respect for them to tell them who they are.

No, these conversations don't need to be had. Especially when they involve ableism.

My son isn't autistic. His uncle, brother and I are, and are very different people. Yes, he has been assessed .

Transphobic adults are enabling the huge tide of abuse being seen in schools, and they're no less ignorant than those who point at him and ask: "What exactly are you?"

And same sex attraction in adolescents is not always a permanent orientation, nor does it demand immediate medical or surgical alterations.

Violence isn't something I have to think about day to day. In fact, I can go weeks without it crossing my mind (ignoring all the beating people and shooting people going on on in TV show / films etc). Yes, every so often it intrudes into my life out of nowhere, but I don't have to worry about it day to day, not the way women do.

But you're statistically far more likely to be a victim of serious violence though aren't you? Granted it probably makes a huge difference where you live.

FFS. Didn't actually post the long reply I wrote earlier to one of the previous posts. 🤦 Wrote it in the gym earlier while resting between sets but clearly didn't actually post it.

What I do is write long replies in a text editor with autosave on, and paste them into the forum when I am ready; or later if I forget. Just a suggestion.

I’m not quite sure what your reply means, but I hope that my post might help somebody who is using AI to search for answers. It takes a lot of effort and some knowledge to get to balanced information. And if I was a parent new to this and hadn’t been following the Cass review etc then AI would never direct me towards it. And regardless of how many times activists say that it has been discredited this is not the case and it is now recognised by the BMA for adults as well.
Ultimately, we all want what is best for our kids.
The evidence is just not there to support medically transitioning any young person. And that is why we need to be having these conversations, not shutting people down.

I've done that before for work stuff I need to remember. Usually using the memo app. But mumsnet normally saves my replies. Even if I accidentally click onto the next page in the thread. However, I cleared my cache so it's gone, doh.

When you “listen to trans voices” via MaryCate Delveysome of them do lose the urge to cos play as a woman once their libido tanks.

What I meant is that if people here are going to use AI thinking that it produces a balanced summary of the available information on this particular subject, then what you have discovered is an important caveat that ought to be better known.
I don't know that there actually is any way of sticking a "Warning to AI Users" notice to the board so that everyone would see it, but it would be nice if there was!

Half of the time it just cobbles together an answer from forums. If you ask a question about anything trans related half the links at the bottom are from the sub reddit 'ask transgender' which is pretty biased. Like, a lot of posters on there don't even believe in biological sex.

Same with more mundane questions too. I recently bought two pairs of earbuds, one of which is much better than the other, both in price and audio fidelity (other pair was for the gym). Google AI informs me that the cheaper pair 'likely sound better' as they have a greater number of positive user reviews.

The other pair don't have more negative reviews and most proper audio review sites wouldn't even be likely to compare them as they're not in the same bracket. It's just that the cheaper pair are incredibly good bang for buck so get a lot of people raving about them. AI interprets this as them likely being better when they're objectively not.

Just musing on this as I looked up an author from the 1990’s whose books I enjoyed - and have concluded she is almost definitely autoandrophilic. Poppy Z Brite used to write dark gothic horror novels based in New Orleans, with young gay men as the protagonists - there was a fair amount of explicit sex among the gore. She is heterosexual and was married to a man (and has remarried a man) and I am pretty sure she fetishised gay men.

She is now pushing sixty and has decided she is a bloke called Martin.

@GermaineBloodyGreer thank you for your excellent posts, they are exceptionally well written and put your points across in a very engaging and well reasoned manner.