transition its a bit scary but also the best thing ever. might as well do it sooner than later to max the time afterward

Well, I wrote another article, after deeply reflecting on your comments and re-reading Bailey and Lawrence…

Some of your arguments do make some sense to me. I might still disagree with the idea of using ‘fetish’ to simply describe ‘sexual arousal’ (by anything), when we already have a good working definition of what a fetish is and what it isn’t. Indeed, we have a clear separation between ‘sexual arousal’/’fetish’/’paraphilia’. BBL & co. tend to prefer the usage ‘paraphilia’ to describe autogynephilia, although they do not see it as a curable condition (but they support transition as the only means to relieve some stress/anxiety/depression on an autogynephilic individual).

What I like about your proposal is the concept that some kinds of autogynephilia can be traced to emasculation trauma, and, in some cases, these can be treated without transition — since many kinds of trauma can be successfully treated, and this particular case might be one of them. On this point, we’re both in agreement.

What I dislike is the ‘all-or-nothing’ approach: i.e. ‘all transexuality is produced by trauma; all autogynephilic transexuality is the result of a mental disease’ and the inevitable conclusion that gender identity does not exist.

I don’t really think it’s that easy, and tried to explain it better on my most recent article. To summarise: just like the proponents of ‘Transsexual Analysis’ claim that ‘trauma’ can be induced by the perception of, say, humiliation (even if no such humiliation was actually intended), and ‘sexuality’ can take many forms, some of which the person itself might refuse to label as ‘sexual’, I suggest that the same is true about ‘gender identity’: it might not truly exist by itself and be just a narrative that the person creates to explain their behaviour, but we all definitely behave, act and feel as if ‘gender identity’ truly exists. As such, it matters little if it exists or not; what matters is that we believe it exists.

“Hehe… you may not be aware of it, but I’m actually enjoying your replies,”

I very much enjoy discussion

“I maintain that to fully understand the whole range of transgender issues a multidisciplinary approach is more suited to the task”

I agree. But the issue is rather of a common masochistic emasculation fetish, and for which the commonly affiliated potential psychological issues, are adjunct and affecting a small minority of such fetishists.

“So, firstly: why do you persist in voiding the word ‘fetish’ from its accepted, clinical meaning?”

Because the “common” meaning is theoretically false, in the same way the existing common meaning of homosexuality as a perversion, an illness, was false. Regarding the notion of an accepted clinical meaning, in the relevant fields, it is not accepted. The situation is, that the wholesale rejection of the common meaning, requires the right platform.

“We don’t need to classify everything as a ‘fetish’; we ought to get rid of the word ‘fetish’ and its negative connotations.”

As of such, we don’t appear to have an adequate alternate term to fetish. In the same sense it is theoretically wrong for the term “gay” to have negative connotations (“that sucks dude, that is so gay”). I think much of the language I have developed as been necessary to grasp the phenomenon in question.

“their inner self-image of themselves as female triggers sexual arousal”

Rather the masochistic association of oneself to symbols of emasculation, for which common representation of fantasy themes will be such as embodying the female.

NSFW!

http://wxhluyp.tumblr.com/post/92350055299/ive-been-noticing-how-your-fetish-theory-is
http://wxhluyp.tumblr.com/post/90778389689/how-to-recognise-a-masochistic-fetish-as

“To give a very simplistic and naïve example: if autogynephilia were a mental disease, it would be curable using psychiatric/psychological means. It clearly cannot be ‘cured’ that way, and even Blanchard (and certainly Bailey) proposed that the only possible ‘cure’ was transition.”

For TWTs & myself, sexuality is comprised of permanently imprinted semiotic structures, where cognitive therapy may help. Transition is relevant to those for which transition is relevant to their fantasy theme niches, and thus often their wider internalized emotional affiliations. One of the autogynephilia proponents was correct in stating along the lines of “anatomic autogynephilia prefigures gender dysphoria”

“That actually confuses your three classifications, because, except for clearly asexual individuals, everybody else in the world, using your terminology, is a fetishist.”

In the sense that everybody has a preference for food. What is your preference (for food)? What is your fetish (for sexual stimulation)?

“And according to your proposed classification, transgendered individuals would only be those who are asexual (i.e. never getting aroused sexually by anything).”

Transgender affiliations don’t have any inherent relevance with what an individual is sexually aroused by. It is generally the case that transgender affiliations on part of the fetishist (as opposed to all transgenderism), will routinely emotionally be derived in the sexual conditioning.

“So, to get back to the point. It is not fruitful to affirm things like ‘there is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender’, even if you’re absolutely correct in those affirmations, at the fundamental level. ”

I see that the issue is comprised of understanding and emotional attachment. Generally one who is subject to dysphoric affiliations, are emotionally attached to such affiliations, which is greatly stronger if they are attached to, identify with and believe in the representation of such affiliations, the “inner woman”. That in the terms of the individual’s understanding, he actually believes in the “inner woman”, is crucial for his emotional development.

Perhaps a matter of eduction, thus understanding. People shouldn’t experience gender identity, but rather should come to experience the very affiliations which are represented through gender identity, in their very terms.

A general fetishist may have developed similar emotional longings to the affiliations of their desire, in the same way any other kind of fetishist does. The “normal” male who enjoys surrounding himself in paraphernalia of the fetish he understands to be a fetish. In the case of this fetish, it can be more problematic, where parallel sexual longings will often be represented as instances of gender dysphoric longings.

“When discussing gender identity, expression, sexual preferences, and so forth, I stick to the conventional level, because that’s where the discussion can be both fruitful but also functional.”

I see that conventional terms can not grasp the phenomenon in question.

“BTW, who is the author or authors of that online book, ‘Transsexual Analysis’?”

It appears to be someone who wants to remain anonymous. Likely due to a fear of trans activists. As it is, it appears to be the only source on the internet that has completely got everything right. I have linked up to it (childhood emasculation trauma), filling in the gaps from the perspective of understanding the fetishism in it’s own terms, resulting in the formulation of the fetishism as “masochistic emasculation fetishism”. TWT’s contribution has mainly been in emphasizing the role of trauma on part of dysphoric masochistic emasculation fetishists.

“We do illusory practices with our illusory body to understand our illusory minds better, which is full of illusory thoughts, illusory feelings, and illusory emotions, namely, an illusory self.”

The groundless ground.

Hehe… you may not be aware of it, but I’m actually enjoying your replies, because you cover a lot of distinct areas: etymology, psychology, sociology, philosophy, biology, and politics/ideology. I think that is a good thing. I maintain that to fully understand the whole range of transgender issues a multidisciplinary approach is more suited to the task — lest we skip some issues and flag them as ‘not relevant’ because they ‘belong to a different area’.

So, firstly: why do you persist in voiding the word ‘fetish’ from its accepted, clinical meaning? I can only assume that you disagree with the negative connotations surrounding the word ‘fetish’, i.e. it somehow implies an ‘uncommon’ (as opposed to ‘average’) form of sexual arousal, and you insist (very correctly) that all forms of sexual arousal are equally valid.

If that’s the case, I completely agree with you on the philosophical/ideological grounds. However, ‘transplanting’ one very-well defined concept from one area to another, by forcing a change of meaning, is very confusing to the casual reader who has not been keeping up with your and TWT’s theories. As such, instead of re-labeling ‘fetish’ to mean ‘any kind of sexual arousal’, why not simply use the word ‘sexual arousal’ instead, which includes all sorts of triggers — both ‘common’ and ‘uncommon’ ones?

In that case, defining things such as ‘for some people, their inner self-image of themselves as female triggers sexual arousal’ is neutral and perfectly self-explanatory. While saying ‘some people are fetishists regarding their inner self-image as females’ has negative connotations. As you said, what are ‘acceptable’ forms of sexual arousal is arbitrary. Therefore, I would prefer that we agreed to get rid of the word ‘fetish’ at all, instead of assigning it a new meaning, which is confusing. After all, I believe we both agree in the same point: getting sexually aroused by one’s self-image is just one of many possible forms of sexual arousal, and it’s neither good nor bad, regardless of how rare that situation is or not. We don’t need to classify everything as a ‘fetish’; we ought to get rid of the word ‘fetish’ and its negative connotations.

I think we can both agree with that. I just have to mentally make the switch and remember: ‘every time wxhluyp . is talking about fetish, he really means object/behaviour that triggers sexual arousal‘.

As to the definition by Blanchard of AGP, again, we both agree on the precise same point. Blanchard was convinced it was a paraphilia (although I never understood the argumentation behind that point). You and TWT, as well as perhaps the newer generations of Blanchardians, consider that it is not. Obviously I have to agree with the latter. To give a very simplistic and naïve example: if autogynephilia were a mental disease, it would be curable using psychiatric/psychological means. It clearly cannot be ‘cured’ that way, and even Blanchard (and certainly Bailey) proposed that the only possible ‘cure’ was transition. As such, positing that AGP is a ‘mental disease’ was flawed from the beginning.

So this seems to be a peaceful point in our discussion; we can both agree on the same things here.

As for your suggestion of disregarding the concept ‘crossdreaming’ and replacing it by either fetishist/transgendered fetishist/transgendered individual, the only issue I raise is the same as before: the expansion of the meaning of the word ‘fetish’ to include pretty much every sort of trigger for sexual arousal. That actually confuses your three classifications, because, except for clearly asexual individuals, everybody else in the world, using your terminology, is a fetishist. And according to your proposed classification, transgendered individuals would only be those who are asexual (i.e. never getting aroused sexually by anything). I’m sure that’s not what you’ve intended.

‘There is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender’

Ahhh this is naturally a much more interesting philosophical point for discussion! 🙂

I’m not sure if you are aware that I’m a practicing Buddhist, and, as such, of course I have to agree with you: at the ultimate level, the words ‘gender identity’ are meaningless, since there is no fundamental ‘identity’, and this can be very well established and experimented, and not simply intellectually formulated. We’re on firm philosophical ground here, and of course I have to agree with you on that point: 2,600 years of philosophical thought have pretty much established that very consistently 🙂

However, Buddhism is a pragmatic world-view. At the conventional level — not at the fundamental, ultimate level — we humans have to interact in others inside a society. We cannot expect all humans to be at a level of development where they can recognize that ‘gender’ is just a mental construct, and that the word ‘identity’ (much less ‘gender identity’) are void of existence. Most people, obviously, behave as if gender identity is ‘real’ (not only for them, but for the majority of people who interact with them). Even if they realize that ‘gender identity’ is merely a mental construct and nothing else, it is nevertheless useful and functional to ‘pretend’ it exists, since it facilitates communication and makes our interaction more functional.

A big part of Mahayana Buddhism deals with teaching students not to mix those two levels. Even if they are very well aware that certain definitions are merely arbitrary mental concepts and constructs void of meaning, others have not yet grasped that level of understanding, so mixing up things is utterly confusing. We have to ‘descend’ to the conventional level and interact with others at the conventional level in order to be able to communicate and interact in the most functional way.

Otherwise — and such examples are actually really given by teachers to students — we could commit serious damage when discussing the two levels with someone who is only prepared to accept the conventional level. Let me give you a typical example. Let’s say I approach my psychologist and tell her, ‘I believe I belong to the opposite gender of the one assigned to me at birth; I suffer from depression and anxiety a lot because of that; maybe I’m gender dysphoric?’ and get, as a reply, ‘At the ultimate level, there is no gender. Gender is a mental construct. There is no gender identity; in fact, there is no identity, either. So, once you realize the futility of creating arbitrary, abstract definitions such as “gender” and attribute them to you, you will feel free from such constraints, and, as a result, your depression and anxiety will disappear as well — because you will understand that “depression” and “anxiety” are nothing more than arbitrary concepts as well, tied to emotions, feelings, thoughts that you harbour and misguidedly believe them to be truly “existent”, when they are not’.

All that answer is absolutely correct. But it’s not useful whatsoever, unless I happen to be a very advanced Buddhist practitioner. Another important aspect is that just because we can grasp intellectually how things are in reality, at a fundamental level, that doesn’t mean that we actually realize them.

When discussing my gender dysphoria with my wife, who is also a Buddhist practitioner, we often engage in the same intellectual and philosophical discussion as you do. We both intellectually realize that ‘gender’ is an artificial, arbitrary concept, defined socially for the benefit of a more functional society, but that, in itself, ‘gender’ has no true existence whatsoever. We both also understand intellectually that the consequences of dysphoria — depression, anxiety, and so forth — are not rational: they are exaggerated reactions, also constructed artificially by our minds, in response to certain expectations/hopes that we harbour. To reduce it to a very simplistic model: I, Sandra, believe that there is an ‘inner self’ that is more female than male; because I cannot fully express that ‘inner self’, I suffer. The suffering leads to depression, anxiety, and some obsessive behaviours. But if I look at it very rationally (and I do that from time to time, as part of a technique of analytical meditation), I have to be honest and say: there is no ‘inner self’ whatsoever, the deeper I go in my mind, the less ‘self’ there is. There is nothing which is fundamentally ‘male’ or ‘female’; even if I look at the level of my DNA, there is nothing there that says that I ought to be wearing pants or skirts. These are just concepts that are triggered by a lot of things — biological, environmental, social, self-created concepts. And, finally, the depression is triggered by a belief that all this is ‘real’ — when it’s not — and somehow I’m unhappy with this ‘reality’ and wish for a different one. Because I cannot do that, I suffer.

The ‘correct’ way to look at this (something my wife can do — she’s detached from the issue, after all) is to realize that gender is merely a fleeting mental construct, and there is nothing ‘inherently male’ in my identity (there is not even an inherent identity, either). So I should just drop those expectations and hopes I have to change this ‘reality’, and, by dropping those expectations, the associated depression/anxiety/obsessive behaviour would completely disappear.

That’s something I can see very clearly from a purely intellectual point of view. But of course I don’t really realize it. I still feel that there are inherently female aspects in my so-called ‘inner self’, even if I cannot ‘see’ any ‘inner self’, no matter how deep I look into my mind. But I still act and behave as if that ‘inner self’ truly exists at some level. As you can see, I’m just a beginner; I realize that with a few decades of diligent practice, I would be able to realize things as they truly are, instead of seeing and experiencing them at the conventional level. But the conventional level is the one I’m currently in: so I need to use conventional methods (psychiatry, psychology, medication, etc.) to deal with conventional mental anguish.

So, to get back to the point. It is not fruitful to affirm things like ‘there is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender’, even if you’re absolutely correct in those affirmations, at the fundamental level. Most people work, however, at the conventional, not at the fundamental level. And at the conventional level, what they experience is ‘gender identity’, and it manifests through gender expression. Conversely, at the conventional level, we infer (or induce) gender identity by observing gender expression.

When discussing gender identity, expression, sexual preferences, and so forth, I stick to the conventional level, because that’s where the discussion can be both fruitful but also functional. It’s pointless to discuss the fundamental level, except as an intellectual exercise; but we’re not going to help anyone if we insist to apply the knowledge of the fundamental level to someone who has not yet realized it. Instead it makes more sense to stick at the level that people are in, instead of hoping to deal with them at the level they ought to be.

And, btw, I cannot take credit for the past few paragraphs: this is practical Mahayana Buddhist teaching; I get it all the time from my teachers, who are wise enough to understand the difference between both levels. They get all the time questions like: ‘at the ultimate level, suffering is realized as merely a thought; so there is not really any suffering; so why did the Buddha talk so much about suffering and insatisfaction, if no such thing actually exists?’ to which, of course, the answer is always: ‘Do not mix up the two levels. At the fundamental level there is no suffering, but most people are not at that level; so we help them at the level they are.’ To (mis)quote one amusing comment from one of my teachers: ‘We do illusory practices with our illusory body to understand our illusory minds better, which is full of illusory thoughts, illusory feelings, and illusory emotions, namely, an illusory self. So what’s the point?’ The point is that most people are at a level where they accept conventional reality as being ‘truly real’, and so it’s at that level that we ought to work with them to overcome their issues.

It is surprising that you find that usage of the term “fetish” surprising. Fetish, or rather “sexual niche”, or “sexual preference”.

“Nevertheless, a fetish, just because it doesn’t cause distress, cannot be reduced merely to ‘anything which sexually arouses an individual’ — that’s simply too wide a scope for the word.”

Parallel is how a movie “preference” represents anything which interests a movie goer. Billy gets off to X, X is Billy’s fetish.

“as said, it’s just sexual excitement in response to an object or body part that’s not typically sexual, as per the WebMD definition.”

Arbitrary instances of what is thought unusual, taking for granted what is usual. There is no given way which the object of one’s desire is meaningful, nor how it will be present within fantasy.

“Let’s not use the word ‘obscure’ here. When taking the word ‘love’ in AGP to mean ‘is sexually obsessed with’, then AGP does, indeed, denote a distinct fetish — using my definition of fetish, not yours”

Autogynephilia “is a term coined in 1989 by Ray Blanchard, to refer to “a man’s paraphilic tendency to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman.” ”

“Just because someone has an inner self-image as a female doesn’t mean they have either a mental disorder”

Which autogynephilia proponents have come to acknowledge.

“The ‘attachment’ to that self-image can be absolutely not sexual.”

Correct. The attachment myself & TWTs talk of is the attachment on part of fetishists.

“‘Crossdreaming’ is a possible description for that, but I’m sure that there are many others.”

A fetishist not subject to additional attachment to transgender affiliations, is simply a fetishist.
A fetishist subject to additional attachment to transgender affiliations, is a fetishist+trans/dysphoric-fetishist.
A transgender individual not subject to the fetish, is simply a transgendered individual.

“Transgendered persons might not have any inner self-image as the opposite gender, but still identify with transgenderism: typical examples are gender-fluid individuals, for example.”

There is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender; … identity is performatively constituted by the very “expressions” that are said to be its results. An individual relates to their self (identifies) as “male” on the basis of the relationship to masculine associations, for which nothing necessarily necessitates that the masculine association associates as masculine.

BTW, who is the author or authors of that online book, ‘Transsexual Analysis’?

‘A sexual fetish meaning something that sexually arouses an individual’

No no no, you’re going too far with that definition! A fetish has a much more limited scope: http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/sexual-fetish — as said, it’s just sexual excitement in response to an object or body part that’s not typically sexual, as per the WebMD definition. Just because you like to see a picture of a woman in heels, to take a typical example, you’re not a ‘fetishist’. If, however, what sexually arouses you are just the heels by themselves (and not the person inside), then that’s a fetish. There’s a world of difference between the two!

Granted, if you expand the scope of the word ‘fetish’ to include everything, then I start to understand your reasoning better — you’re merely replacing ‘sexual arousal’ with the word ‘fetish’. However, that use of the word ‘fetish’ is unknown (and surprising) to me.

Indeed, you claim: ‘The quaint traditional usage of “fetish” is regarding that which was thought deviant’. The word ‘deviant’ is ideologically loaded; the preferred neutral expression is simply ‘not typically sexual’, where ‘typical’ describes the behaviour of a majority of people. ‘Deviant’ implies some negative connotations and some sort of disease, maladaptation, or anything that somehow requires ‘treatment’. Fetishes are absolutely ‘normal’ if they don’t cause distress to the fetishist. Nevertheless, a fetish, just because it doesn’t cause distress, cannot be reduced merely to ‘anything which sexually arouses an individual’ — that’s simply too wide a scope for the word.

‘Crossdreaming is a politically motivated euphemism created & propogated by those that wish to obscure that which autogynephilia denoted, a distinct fetish, ideally to become interchangeable (thus superfluous) in relation to transgenderism. In the end, there will simply be transgenderism.’

Let’s not use the word ‘obscure’ here. When taking the word ‘love’ in AGP to mean ‘is sexually obsessed with’, then AGP does, indeed, denote a distinct fetish — using my definition of fetish, not yours — and, since it’s postulated that it causes distress to the individual with AGP, its definition is consistent with a plausible disease or mental condition (thus its brief inclusion in the DSM). But we’re really narrowing down the focus and pin-pointing it on a very specific issue: a minority of people who have extreme sexual desires towards their self-image as females and that, as a consequence, their quality of life is diminished in some form (compulsive/obsessive disorders, anxiety, depression for not being able to ‘be’ that female image, delusional mania, and so forth). In those instances, I would agree that the word ‘autogynephilia’ is used.

However, reality is way more broader in scope. Just because someone has an inner self-image as a female doesn’t mean they have either a mental disorder, or a fetish (using my definition). The ‘attachment’ to that self-image can be absolutely not sexual. There might not be any sort of obsession with that female self-image; it might not cause anxiety, depression, or any similar mental condition. In that case, ‘diagnosing’ what this person has or is must be separate from the much more stricter ‘autogynephilia’. ‘Crossdreaming’ is a possible description for that, but I’m sure that there are many others.

Transgendered persons might not have any inner self-image as the opposite gender, but still identify with transgenderism: typical examples are gender-fluid individuals, for example. Again, using the word ‘transgender’ is even widening the scope of individuals that can be labeled under that category.

Thus: not all transgendered people are crossdreamers. Not all crossdreamers are autogynephiliacs.

Does that make sense to you?

Because I’m sure it wouldn’t make any sense to, say, Bailey, who seems (at least in his book) to be very confused about what ‘gender identity’ is, since, for him, it has always to be something tied to sexual motivations.

“some people exhibit certain characteristics that we can label as being a fetish”

A sexual fetish meaning something that sexually arouses an individual

“In any case, in medical science, the word ‘fetish’ is only applied to non-living objects or non-genital body parts. In the case of AGP (or crossdreaming), we’re talking about an image, not an external/physical object.”

All sexuality is fetishistic, for which a “sexuality” is the totality of fetishes (niches, preferences etc) which sexually arouses an individual. The quaint traditional usage of “fetish” is regarding that which was thought deviant, yet there is no, given, “correct”, “normal”.

“As such, it would have been more appropriate to revolve the discussion around the word ‘fantasy’. Crossdreaming, of course, does not ‘impose’ that the attraction to the self-image is a ‘sexual fantasy’; it leaves that as an option (a frequent one, for sure) but not as a requirement.”

Crossdreaming is a politically motivated euphemism created & propogated by those that wish to obscure that which autogynephilia denoted, a distinct fetish, ideally to become interchangeable (thus superfluous) in relation to transgenderism. In the end, there will simply be transgenderism.

“My issue is just with the assumption that everything related to gender dysphoria is necessarily ‘a fetish’ and, by consequence, ‘related to trauma & sexual conditioning'”

As stated before, what is theorised, is not gender issues per se, but a fetish and gender issues on part of the fetishist. So for those whom have interest in any understanding in a phenomenon consisting of a fetish, and the adjunctly affiliated psychological issues affecting a small minority of such fetishists, the starting point is nothing other than the analysis of fantasies to ascertain the nature of what the fetish actually is. This fetish being a masochistic emasculation fetish, the sexualization of emasculation anxiety, for which among the causal possibilities is, one may speculate that pre-existing gender issues or homosexual feelings figured among their emasculation anxieties. Routinely the gender issues, longings & attachments on part of a masochistic emasculation fetishist, will emotionally & ideologically derive from sexual conditioning.

“The theory of crossdreaming, while certainly having weaknesses, at least doesn’t propose a single cause for eventual gender identity issues,”

Again, myself & TWTs are psychological anti-reductionists. On the other hand, for Molay, both the fetish and gender issues are an expression of an underlying identity, until put on the defensive, he will concede that the fetishists who are not subject to additional gender issues, that make up the vast majority in relation to those who do, are not repressed transgendered individuals (that whether one is genuinely gay or effeminate is an adjunct condition of emasculation anxiety, the fear itself of being affiliated with socially stigmatizing affiliations). It can’t be said that Molay doesn’t propose a single cause for gender issues, because his logic up until now, entails that there is such a thing as an “authentic” gender identity and an authentic gender identity has a biological grounding. This is because he is yet to concede that biological influence is adjunct to the psychological construction of identity, and a purely psychological psychology means conceding that gender issues can be influenced by anything and anything other than an underlying biological female essence, such as sexual conditioning. A double standard where one form of psychological conditioning is assumed until anyone argues otherwise, where the other is disallowed.

“It certainly allows fetishism, trauma, abuse, and other similar explanations to describe the issue, but it doesn’t limit itself to such explanations.”

As just clarified, it is the opposite. Molay’s “crossdreaming” ideologically limits itself from such explanations.

Ah, I think that the picture you’re presenting is getting more clearer in my mind. There is a line of thought that starts with Blanchard/Bailey/Lawrence and posits the following theory & explanation: some people exhibit certain characteristics that we can label as being a fetish, and we will define those characteristics under the umbrella name of ‘autogynephilia’. Now, over time (a bit over two decades or so), researchers (and the community) have pointed out several flaws with this approach. So we take a look at the theory again, and start tinkering with it so that it fits the observed evidence better. Over time, with successive revisions, we (and this ‘we’ means the followers of BBL) will get closer and closer to the ‘ultimate truth’ of the description of that fetish, by incorporating more information and better explanations.

And because ‘we’ use an anti-reductionist approach, we’re fine if we cannot explain ‘everything’. In most cases, ‘we’ can discard contradictory evidence simply because ‘we’ are aware that most people are simply lying about their fetish. In some other cases, ‘our’ theory does not provide sufficient explanatory power, but that’s ok, since ‘we’ are not aiming for the ‘ultimate explanation’ but just a working explanation which ‘we’ can always improve later.

Now, putting this into context and perspective, the on-going approach of refining and improving the theory is good scientific practice, and obviously I cannot disagree with the anti-reductionist approach. My issue is just with the assumption that everything related to gender dysphoria is necessarily ‘a fetish’ and, by consequence, ‘related to trauma & sexual conditioning’ — even if there is overwhelming contradictory evidence to the effect it can still be deemed acceptable under an expanded anti-reductionist view of the issue.

From my point of view, however, there is a limit to how much a theory ought to be ‘stretched’ to be made to fit contrary evidence; in essence, what I’m saying is that if there is way too much data that doesn’t fit the predictive abilities of the theory, then the theory ought to be dropped, and an alternative theory that better fits the facts should be proposed. Otherwise, it’s just pure stubbornness embedded in the fallacies of authority and history (‘because someone very clever said this 25 years ago, it’s still valid — no matter what the evidence says, we can always fit it into the theory’).

I’m not really saying that Molay’s ‘crossdreaming’ is the ‘ultimate theory’ which fits all the facts and all the evidence. What I’m defending is that reducing the whole spectrum of gender identity issues to merely a fetish (one that has been brought into existence due to trauma & sexual conditioning) is quite narrow-minded — especially if the excuse for admitting the existence of gender identity issues that are not related to fetishes is to claim that ‘exceptions to the rule are welcome under our understanding of the model’. The theory of crossdreaming, while certainly having weaknesses, at least doesn’t propose a single cause for eventual gender identity issues, it just describes the issue and provides a context for it. It certainly allows fetishism, trauma, abuse, and other similar explanations to describe the issue, but it doesn’t limit itself to such explanations.

There is also a problem I have with the original BBL proposition, i.e. that transexuality has two types, one that is ‘acceptable’ (so-called homosexual transexuals, using Blanchard’s theory) and the other one which is a ‘fetish’ (autogynephiliac transexuals). My issue here is that AGP is seen as ‘just a fetish’, while so-called ‘homosexual transexuals’ are not. The problem is that this voids the meaning of the word ‘fetish’ and pretty much empties it of significance: one might simply arbitrarily point to whatever sexual behaviour is unwelcome to the observer and label it as a fetish, and try to figure out ‘trauma & abuse’ to explain it. Thus, a male heterosexual observer might label male homosexuality as a ‘fetish’ (because he abhors it) but find female homosexuality attractive and label it as ‘acceptable’ (Bailey, for instance, has been quoted to believe that ‘male bisexuality doesn’t exist’, just because he happens to dislike male bisexuality but is fine with female bisexuality).

Such examples show that the word ‘fetish’ begins to be employed to describe whatever happens in bed that the observer ethically or morally disagrees with.

In any case, in medical science, the word ‘fetish’ is only applied to non-living objects or non-genital body parts. In the case of AGP (or crossdreaming), we’re talking about an image, not an external/physical object. As such, it would have been more appropriate to revolve the discussion around the word ‘fantasy’. Crossdreaming, of course, does not ‘impose’ that the attraction to the self-image is a ‘sexual fantasy’; it leaves that as an option (a frequent one, for sure) but not as a requirement.

There would be quite a lot to say about this, and maybe I’ll feel inspired to write more about it on a separate article 🙂

“I thought (perhaps from not having read enough on the TWT blog) that you (another collective ‘you’) were providing an explanation for all forms of gender issues”

Autogynephilia theory was good for two things, raising consciousness about a particular fetish and the emotional internalization of fetishism, but all most all the details of how it went about this were quite off the mark. For instance, it attempted to provide an explanation for all gender issues generally by reducing them to sexual motivations. Crossdreaming can be seen as a direct reaction to autogynephilia, where trans/gender dysphoric fetishists politically desire to propagate an understanding of the fetish, only in so far as transgenderism can be affirmed.

“can you explain to me, in lay terms, why TWT’s interpretation is not Freudian?”

Our understanding is anti-reductionist. Where psychological schemas, trauma & sexual conditioning can historically influence one’s being, one’s being is not necessarily constrained by and reducible back to the influences.