Watch now (94 mins) | Programming note: Given the engaging progression of this discussion, we opted not to interrupt or redirect the conversation in another direction for the sake of capturing premium content.
I have my own experience of what a sexologist or a person with Phil Illy's framework would call autoandrophilia but I have a very different understanding of it.
To make it short, I'm a woman who had difficulty with puberty, especially my periods (didn't understant what was happening the first time which scared me deeply, pain, losing too much blood, very depressing PMS, etc.). I also struggled with the transition to adulthood because I was very playful, emotionally and sexually quite immature, very shy and so I had difficulties fitting in with other teenagers. I also always had a very vivid and rich imagination that turned into compulsive daydreaming because of the anxiety and distress caused by teenagehood.
I started wishing that I was born male and fantasizing, in a non-sexual way, about it. When my sexual awakening kicked in, my imaginary world started intagrating sexuality. Obviously, since I was projecting myself into a male character, I started projecting myself in sexuel fantasies as a man.
I don't beleive that I have an autoandrophile sexuality that made me fantasize about being male. It's the other way around. Because I was imagining myself as a man, I integrated that in my imaginary sexual life. I think this might be the case for many young girls and women.
And we can add to that the fantasizing about gay men that seems to be rather common if we look at explicit fanfictions or the whole "shipping" phenomenon that turns any male relationship into a romantic relationship.
(I'm sorry if there are mistakes or weird sentences, I'm not a native english speaker.)
I’d say as a kid, they’re focused on what you can do as opposed to being self centred when it comes to imagining being other than what they are. To me, it’s in that way that people I’ve talked to say their “AAP” presented. I’d think it might be more common than science have gathered also in males with AGP that it isn’t about love of oneself as something always, although those ones that are self centred are prevalent in the way that they make themselves heard a lot because of their personality traits, but rather feel the need to do as they see women do, interact with others as women in the world. And no, I’m not talking about the likes of Caitlin but men that actually acknowledge the variety of different ways of being a woman.
One more thing. Nearly every time the term "theory" was used, it meant hypothesis. In science, a theory is something that is very well established by a wealth of evidence.
I still don't understand why people are saying all the males nowadays, with the explosion of them in adolescence and younger, fit into the categories from before that Bailey and Blanchard hypothesized included everyone. People seem ok with saying the females are different, new, but happy to put all the males into the old categories.
And just to say, many of the older studies do not agree with the gay or agp interpretations. There is a review of surgical regret by Pffaflin (1993) which says:
"In whatever way one may explain transsexualism in terms of aetiology, it seems obvious that there is a continuum from sporadic episodes of gender dysphoric thoughts to stable cross gender identi-ty experience and behavior, supporting the notion that transsexual behavior is a form of more or less successful and stable behavior which serves to defend the self against phantasized or real trauma. Psychiatric diagnosis and treatment aims at distinguishing between those cases where, in all probability, hormonal and surgical treat-ment will further stabilize the patient, and those cases where it will
not."
This seems more like the developmental approach and list of possible issues that the Cass Review Interim Report outlines in page 57 which it says are not complete. More of the "lots of things going on" description, maybe this is there sometimes, but is it the explanatory, key underlying component, which should guide how one supports the person? Or is it just something that happens sometimes in this big complicated mix when people have these feelings and this distress (well, those who have the distress). Probably different for everyone...? It is especially interesting to contrast this with what Az Hakeem said on this series a few weeks ago, where for many of the people he treated, the way out was to realize that they didn't have to think about gender--their problems had gotten stuck in gender...
Again, thank you all for this discussion! It is good to hear people try to take ideas apart to figure out their weak and strong points, which parts are backed up with what. Grateful to you all.
Yes! And also, why does Phil get critiqued for one of the pillars of science: categorisation, and neither Bailey nor Blanchard was for the same? I’d argue that it’s ok to critique him of making up numbers out of logical trains of thought and putting them out as facts before actual research is made on this, also suggesting (rather than criticising) that he would lay the thoughts forward as theories for science to find facts about rather than making so sure statements without science to back it. But critiquing him for categorisation is just shooting GaWL in its foot as categories are a base of science.
Also, both Bailey and Blanchard are males and have deeply failed to take into account that the difference in male and female sexuality comes out of centuries of females being legally dependent economically of males. This has resulted in the fact that some women, even now, even in western countries, are deeply ashamed of even considering a right of sexual pleasure. The framework B&B put on AGP is infused of male sexual denominators which simply don’t apply to female sexuality considering how it’s socially framed. It’s like B&B have a huge blind spot to this fact which I believe bias their trains of thought, their results and how they understand them. If we could get past this blind spot I believe we would come closer to helping people with gender dysphoria more accurately.
You should look up Charles Moser - he does not get credence in the AGP world because he questions the numbers. But, he critiqued the studies in the early 2000’s because Blanchard’s work was not peer reviewed. As I do not have the ability to see the original study, but both Blanchard and Lawrence state that those heterosexual who had failed the test for determining if they had AGP had lied. Moser points out that the wording “ever” is problematic and that they were dismissed as were the homosexuals who also were in love with themselves as a woman. 1. The wording “ever” is problematic. If you thought of it 1x, AGP was assigned as heterosexuals. 2. The numbers for both homosexuals and heterosexuals suggested that both categories had AGP and non AGP thoughts.
Why? Reducing Moser’s critique; Blanchard assigned a dichotomy where one doesn’t exist. Both heterosexual and homosexual have had sexual thoughts of being in love with oneself as a woman, therefore the claim that all heterosexual boys in this are AGP is ridiculous.
Ok. Still I’ve heard of trans men referring to AAP not as a love of oneself as a man. Not as a love of oneself nor a fixation of oneself at all but as a dream of actually being able to _do_ what men do in a sexual situation. Having the streangth, the sexual agency (that most men are scared of seeing in women) and even having a penis. But not for loving themselves but for living things you just don’t as a woman. If you think of yourself as a child and maybe you saw birds and wanted to be able to fly or saw an elephant and wanted to shower yourself with a trunk, the same way but once you’re a teenager or an adult then the sexual interest come in and there comes AAP or AGP. I believe the assumption that all AAP and AGP are narcissists is wrong. Of course those are the ones that we come across most as leaders of trans orgs or as internet harassers but this is because of their personality. The more silent and peaceful ones I believe are more like what I’ve come across. Just my belief though.
As others have said, thank you for this difficult conversation. Although I take issue with a lot of Phil’s ideas, I really respect his passion for the topic, so to speak, and his courage in speaking out. I have so many thoughts, but the part of his book and this discussion that most troubled me was his idea of justifying the medicalization of children. Even if it were possible to identify the future Anne Lawrences, isn’t the point of everything that we are all doing and that even he is proposing to make gender non-conformity acceptable once again? Whether AGP or AAP are seen as acceptable sexual identities or “erotic target identity inversions,” and no matter how many people could actually be categorized that way, shouldn’t we strive for no one harming their bodies? Once you are truly peaked and don’t believe in anything such as true trans, but instead in infinite personalities and the possibility of a truly enlightened society that can accept gender nonconformity, maybe you recognize that as long as men don’t try to enter women’s spaces and sports, then it’s OK if they wear nail polish and dresses whatever they are thinking/feeling as long as they are not acting it out in public or imposing it on anyone. I know Phil has said and written that he wishes that he passed more, and that if medicalizing now would enable that, he would do it. But wouldn’t he rather the world accept him (and he accept himself) even with his masculine features when he wears a blue dress?
Having a label, political or scientific, becomes epistemology. The world revolves around the self-diagnosis. This is complicated by sexuality because the human male can objectify and sexualize a ham sandwich. If I think of myself as a ham sandwich in order to achieve orgasm, does this make me autohamsandwichsexual? And does it follow that cafeterias and restaurants must accommodate me?
Mr. Illy's stated purpose in coining the term "authoheterosexual" is to shape public policy and raise awareness. Awareness is both necessary and problematic: the public needs to understand what AGP is, that it exists, and the clinicians working with the "trans population" need to understand it most urgently of all. Resolving the existence or non-existence of autoandrophilia, let alone its etiology, will require calm discussion by adults about experiments that will be controversial. History cautions us that all this discussion can make the social contagion worse. It's a fraught conversation, so I am glad you had it.
Phil could indeed have used an editor as well as peer review. If you had held this conversation before he published it, Phil may have written a more scientific book. Instead, he ended up writing scientism. In my review of Phil's book. I called it a gnostic bible of disembodiment and self-deception. Sexuality has been sacralized for time out of mind and his book is replete with references to the transcendent nature of the experiences of "autoheterosexuals," both male and female. His label becomes the linchpin of his cosmology. I keep contending the "trans trend" has been an ersatz faith movement, another product of psychology conceiving itself as a science of the soul. I rest my case at Phil Illy.
“This is complicated by sexuality because the human male can objectify and sexualize a ham sandwich.” Why is this?
Illy said he was laid off and had lots of time to research this. He then thought that he would turn this into a book and see if he could make some $$. Unfortunately, the likes of sexologists gave it credence except the autoheterosexuality. Although, the sexologists gave it a plausible name, Erotic Target Identity Inversion (ETII). They are “conducting” studies in online forums to discover them all. See anything inherently wrong with this?
Great discussion, thank you, interesting to see how Phil thinks. He comes across as having an autistic way of thinking and illustrates how people who think this way really like to have labels and explanations to understand how they and the world works and also don't really get that most people don't think like that. I loved that you challenged him but it also showed how different people need different types of therapy and that the danger is that real damage is done when the wrong sort of therapy is given. I might not agree with him always but I can see how he reaches his opinions. I think it very likely his way of understanding things is similar to others, but instead of thinking they might be autogynephilic or transvestites, sexual or not (which after all is difficult to own up to) have got caught up in the whole gender identity ideology.
It seems to me that many of the things that Phil described are symptoms of something deeper rather than the cause that he claims. As well, he attributes everything to sex when many emotions have nothing to do with sex.
I have my own experience of what a sexologist or a person with Phil Illy's framework would call autoandrophilia but I have a very different understanding of it.
To make it short, I'm a woman who had difficulty with puberty, especially my periods (didn't understant what was happening the first time which scared me deeply, pain, losing too much blood, very depressing PMS, etc.). I also struggled with the transition to adulthood because I was very playful, emotionally and sexually quite immature, very shy and so I had difficulties fitting in with other teenagers. I also always had a very vivid and rich imagination that turned into compulsive daydreaming because of the anxiety and distress caused by teenagehood.
I started wishing that I was born male and fantasizing, in a non-sexual way, about it. When my sexual awakening kicked in, my imaginary world started intagrating sexuality. Obviously, since I was projecting myself into a male character, I started projecting myself in sexuel fantasies as a man.
I don't beleive that I have an autoandrophile sexuality that made me fantasize about being male. It's the other way around. Because I was imagining myself as a man, I integrated that in my imaginary sexual life. I think this might be the case for many young girls and women.
And we can add to that the fantasizing about gay men that seems to be rather common if we look at explicit fanfictions or the whole "shipping" phenomenon that turns any male relationship into a romantic relationship.
(I'm sorry if there are mistakes or weird sentences, I'm not a native english speaker.)
I’d say as a kid, they’re focused on what you can do as opposed to being self centred when it comes to imagining being other than what they are. To me, it’s in that way that people I’ve talked to say their “AAP” presented. I’d think it might be more common than science have gathered also in males with AGP that it isn’t about love of oneself as something always, although those ones that are self centred are prevalent in the way that they make themselves heard a lot because of their personality traits, but rather feel the need to do as they see women do, interact with others as women in the world. And no, I’m not talking about the likes of Caitlin but men that actually acknowledge the variety of different ways of being a woman.
One more thing. Nearly every time the term "theory" was used, it meant hypothesis. In science, a theory is something that is very well established by a wealth of evidence.
Good point, take that with me!
Thank you for this discussion!
I still don't understand why people are saying all the males nowadays, with the explosion of them in adolescence and younger, fit into the categories from before that Bailey and Blanchard hypothesized included everyone. People seem ok with saying the females are different, new, but happy to put all the males into the old categories.
And just to say, many of the older studies do not agree with the gay or agp interpretations. There is a review of surgical regret by Pffaflin (1993) which says:
"In whatever way one may explain transsexualism in terms of aetiology, it seems obvious that there is a continuum from sporadic episodes of gender dysphoric thoughts to stable cross gender identi-ty experience and behavior, supporting the notion that transsexual behavior is a form of more or less successful and stable behavior which serves to defend the self against phantasized or real trauma. Psychiatric diagnosis and treatment aims at distinguishing between those cases where, in all probability, hormonal and surgical treat-ment will further stabilize the patient, and those cases where it will
not."
This seems more like the developmental approach and list of possible issues that the Cass Review Interim Report outlines in page 57 which it says are not complete. More of the "lots of things going on" description, maybe this is there sometimes, but is it the explanatory, key underlying component, which should guide how one supports the person? Or is it just something that happens sometimes in this big complicated mix when people have these feelings and this distress (well, those who have the distress). Probably different for everyone...? It is especially interesting to contrast this with what Az Hakeem said on this series a few weeks ago, where for many of the people he treated, the way out was to realize that they didn't have to think about gender--their problems had gotten stuck in gender...
Again, thank you all for this discussion! It is good to hear people try to take ideas apart to figure out their weak and strong points, which parts are backed up with what. Grateful to you all.
Yes! And also, why does Phil get critiqued for one of the pillars of science: categorisation, and neither Bailey nor Blanchard was for the same? I’d argue that it’s ok to critique him of making up numbers out of logical trains of thought and putting them out as facts before actual research is made on this, also suggesting (rather than criticising) that he would lay the thoughts forward as theories for science to find facts about rather than making so sure statements without science to back it. But critiquing him for categorisation is just shooting GaWL in its foot as categories are a base of science.
Also, both Bailey and Blanchard are males and have deeply failed to take into account that the difference in male and female sexuality comes out of centuries of females being legally dependent economically of males. This has resulted in the fact that some women, even now, even in western countries, are deeply ashamed of even considering a right of sexual pleasure. The framework B&B put on AGP is infused of male sexual denominators which simply don’t apply to female sexuality considering how it’s socially framed. It’s like B&B have a huge blind spot to this fact which I believe bias their trains of thought, their results and how they understand them. If we could get past this blind spot I believe we would come closer to helping people with gender dysphoria more accurately.
I wonder if Sasha and Stella could go back, if they would ask different questions of Blanchard or Bailey?
You should look up Charles Moser - he does not get credence in the AGP world because he questions the numbers. But, he critiqued the studies in the early 2000’s because Blanchard’s work was not peer reviewed. As I do not have the ability to see the original study, but both Blanchard and Lawrence state that those heterosexual who had failed the test for determining if they had AGP had lied. Moser points out that the wording “ever” is problematic and that they were dismissed as were the homosexuals who also were in love with themselves as a woman. 1. The wording “ever” is problematic. If you thought of it 1x, AGP was assigned as heterosexuals. 2. The numbers for both homosexuals and heterosexuals suggested that both categories had AGP and non AGP thoughts.
I don’t quite follow your train of thought.
Why? Reducing Moser’s critique; Blanchard assigned a dichotomy where one doesn’t exist. Both heterosexual and homosexual have had sexual thoughts of being in love with oneself as a woman, therefore the claim that all heterosexual boys in this are AGP is ridiculous.
Ok. Still I’ve heard of trans men referring to AAP not as a love of oneself as a man. Not as a love of oneself nor a fixation of oneself at all but as a dream of actually being able to _do_ what men do in a sexual situation. Having the streangth, the sexual agency (that most men are scared of seeing in women) and even having a penis. But not for loving themselves but for living things you just don’t as a woman. If you think of yourself as a child and maybe you saw birds and wanted to be able to fly or saw an elephant and wanted to shower yourself with a trunk, the same way but once you’re a teenager or an adult then the sexual interest come in and there comes AAP or AGP. I believe the assumption that all AAP and AGP are narcissists is wrong. Of course those are the ones that we come across most as leaders of trans orgs or as internet harassers but this is because of their personality. The more silent and peaceful ones I believe are more like what I’ve come across. Just my belief though.
As others have said, thank you for this difficult conversation. Although I take issue with a lot of Phil’s ideas, I really respect his passion for the topic, so to speak, and his courage in speaking out. I have so many thoughts, but the part of his book and this discussion that most troubled me was his idea of justifying the medicalization of children. Even if it were possible to identify the future Anne Lawrences, isn’t the point of everything that we are all doing and that even he is proposing to make gender non-conformity acceptable once again? Whether AGP or AAP are seen as acceptable sexual identities or “erotic target identity inversions,” and no matter how many people could actually be categorized that way, shouldn’t we strive for no one harming their bodies? Once you are truly peaked and don’t believe in anything such as true trans, but instead in infinite personalities and the possibility of a truly enlightened society that can accept gender nonconformity, maybe you recognize that as long as men don’t try to enter women’s spaces and sports, then it’s OK if they wear nail polish and dresses whatever they are thinking/feeling as long as they are not acting it out in public or imposing it on anyone. I know Phil has said and written that he wishes that he passed more, and that if medicalizing now would enable that, he would do it. But wouldn’t he rather the world accept him (and he accept himself) even with his masculine features when he wears a blue dress?
Having a label, political or scientific, becomes epistemology. The world revolves around the self-diagnosis. This is complicated by sexuality because the human male can objectify and sexualize a ham sandwich. If I think of myself as a ham sandwich in order to achieve orgasm, does this make me autohamsandwichsexual? And does it follow that cafeterias and restaurants must accommodate me?
Mr. Illy's stated purpose in coining the term "authoheterosexual" is to shape public policy and raise awareness. Awareness is both necessary and problematic: the public needs to understand what AGP is, that it exists, and the clinicians working with the "trans population" need to understand it most urgently of all. Resolving the existence or non-existence of autoandrophilia, let alone its etiology, will require calm discussion by adults about experiments that will be controversial. History cautions us that all this discussion can make the social contagion worse. It's a fraught conversation, so I am glad you had it.
Phil could indeed have used an editor as well as peer review. If you had held this conversation before he published it, Phil may have written a more scientific book. Instead, he ended up writing scientism. In my review of Phil's book. I called it a gnostic bible of disembodiment and self-deception. Sexuality has been sacralized for time out of mind and his book is replete with references to the transcendent nature of the experiences of "autoheterosexuals," both male and female. His label becomes the linchpin of his cosmology. I keep contending the "trans trend" has been an ersatz faith movement, another product of psychology conceiving itself as a science of the soul. I rest my case at Phil Illy.
“This is complicated by sexuality because the human male can objectify and sexualize a ham sandwich.” Why is this?
Illy said he was laid off and had lots of time to research this. He then thought that he would turn this into a book and see if he could make some $$. Unfortunately, the likes of sexologists gave it credence except the autoheterosexuality. Although, the sexologists gave it a plausible name, Erotic Target Identity Inversion (ETII). They are “conducting” studies in online forums to discover them all. See anything inherently wrong with this?
Great discussion, thank you, interesting to see how Phil thinks. He comes across as having an autistic way of thinking and illustrates how people who think this way really like to have labels and explanations to understand how they and the world works and also don't really get that most people don't think like that. I loved that you challenged him but it also showed how different people need different types of therapy and that the danger is that real damage is done when the wrong sort of therapy is given. I might not agree with him always but I can see how he reaches his opinions. I think it very likely his way of understanding things is similar to others, but instead of thinking they might be autogynephilic or transvestites, sexual or not (which after all is difficult to own up to) have got caught up in the whole gender identity ideology.
It IS normal for people to have cross-gender fantasies. That's where he goes off the rails (right before the break)
It seems to me that many of the things that Phil described are symptoms of something deeper rather than the cause that he claims. As well, he attributes everything to sex when many emotions have nothing to do with sex.
You’re wasting your time trying to convince someone like Phil of anything. Read The Male Brain by neuroscientist Louann Brizendine.