The problem with autogynephilia
A brief but sympathetic exploration of the ethics of autogynephilia as currently presented in western culture.
Autogynephilia (AGP) is a subtype of transgenderism and seems to account for the majority of male to female transitioners. Loosly defined, it is a male’s sexual attraction to the idea of the self as a woman. Despite being the most common of the two male to female transition motivators, it is the least talked about of every subtype of transgenderism. In fact, activists usually dismiss it as entirely non-existent or simply a tool of transphobia. In their defense you can see why they would want to keep this out of the mainstream narrative. It does not work with the popular, elementary school friendly idea of an innate gender identity. In fact, it is closer to a sexual orientation than a gender identity. In short, it is inconvenient to the cause.
I have had conversations with multiple transwomen who are autogynephilic. I have a lot of empathy for them and the unique and, I imagine, incredibly inconvenient sexuality they have been saddled with. I also have a great deal of respect for the men and trans women who are honest and self-aware regarding their autogynephilia. However, they are unfortunately the minority. Most of those with AGP believe the fact that they are ‘euphoric’ about the idea of being women is due to that previously mentioned ‘innate gender identity’. Couple this with the culturally accepted refrain that ‘trans women are women’, these men whose sexual fantasies begin and end with them appropriating womanhood, are now really women.
Most of these people do, without admitting, understand that their motivation to live as women rests between their legs. As such, they do not seek sexual reassignment surgery (SRS). While the idea of having a vagina is certainly enticing, the surgery would ultimately negate the primary motivation. Few however are not so forward thinking. A UK based therapist, Dr. Az Maxwell Hakeem, includes in his clientele men who sought SRS and immediately came to regret it. Their desire to be women was eradicated along with their testicles.
All of this says nothing of the wives, girlfriends, children, and other family impacted by an AGPs declaration he is now a woman. Because of the current black and white narrative surrounding all things trans, the female partners of AGP males who do not embrace them as women are derided as transphobic. Children must accept dad as now mom. And, more broadly, the larger world they inhabit must also embrace them as women. To be direct, organizations, institutions, and facilities previously dedicated to women must now also accommodate men who are aroused at the idea of being women.
To wrap this up, autogynephilia in and of itself is not a problem. It can be acted upon healthily, enjoyably, and consentually. But when a sexual paraphilia is wrapped up in a package of civil rights, where others are socially or even legally pressured into participating, coercion is of course the outcome. And there is nothing ethical about that.
Disclaimer: I am not autogynephilic. I’m not even male. These our my own interpretations and observations from listening to people who are autogynephilic, as well as hearing from former partners of autogynephiles.
Most AGPs wear diapers because they believe that they need to make up for the childhoods they believed the lost. They also love wearing cat ears (commonly seen in the anime they consume).
You identify the distinction between those who are AGP and those of us who really are transsexual.
The trigger for me to write my book The War on Gender ~ Postmodernism and Trans Identity (available on Amazon) was reading 'anti-transphobia' websites where people went on about how they were 'quite happy' with their 'female penises' and how having reassignment surgeries weren't necessary to being transsexual, or now rather, transgender.
One of the main criticisms the likes of Helen Joyce make is that most trans 'women' haven't had surgery, but then says that is irrelevant. If so, why does she make this distinction? Surely those of us who have had reassignment and are happy to have done so are distinct from those who wish to keep their male morphology or who regret it.
My own physical dysphoria was there from my earliest memories and was absolutely unremitting. It's quite clear to me that the neurological studies by the likes of Professor VS Ramachandran (Neuropsychologist), Gooren and Zhou (Neuroanatomy) and Dr Milton Diamond (Reviews of organic evidence, separated twin studies etc) account for the kind of experience that those like me experienced.
The problem today is that there are no category distinctions made between AGP or HSTS and neurological conditions since the institution of the 'trans umbrella' where even wondering what it is like to be the opposite sex entitles you to claim you are 'trans'.
When people accuse me of being AGP and reject my evidence that I had my dysphoria from my earliest memories they are effectively making an unfalsifiable hypothetical assertion. They try to shoehorn all transsexuals into their AGP model without allowing any of us to explore or define our own identities or consider other explanations for how we feel. I spent most of my twenties trying to find a way out of my dysphoria but even a full therapy training qualification left me with nothing but the sense that this was an immovable hard wired thing that I had. Someone recently put it to me that 'what you resist, persists'. Well, I don't actually accept that, I think Jung meant something different from what this person is suggesting. I think she meant things that you resist looking at or coming to consciousness. If trying to find a way out of a difficult space automatically causes that difficulty to persist, then I should have just accepted my transsexual feelings in the first place.
What is clear to me is that the subject of neurology is almost entirely absent from the current debate.