Tag Archives: gender

It’s time to accept it and admit it:


leandrodecarvalhophoto cc0 pixabay

Maybe not in the fullest “clinical” sense as many others who fall into that category, but I’ve come to realize over the past few years–through a lot of painful introspection yet ironically exhilarating self-discovery–that the label is both a legitimate descriptor for a certain kind of human experience, and that it does apply to me in a real way.

Before I continue, I should probably define for the casual reader what an autogynephile is.  The condition–autogynephilia, it’s referred to–is essentially when a heterosexual male comes to “map” an idealized erotic female target onto himself, becoming thus a kind of “self-lover”.  That’s what the word literally means, in fact, rendered from the Greek: auto- (self), gyne- (woman), phil- (love).  A lover of one’s self as a woman.

(Does it make sense now why all the illustrations on my blog are women? LOL)

Autogynephilia seems most often to manifest itself with sexual arousal at the thoughts of being a woman, dressing as a woman or engaging in female gender expressions, or especially, engaging in sex as a woman.  The textbook case of this is the habitual “fetishistic cross-dresser”: someone for whom masturbatory experience is enhanced or even incomplete without male-to-female crossdressing.  The American Psychological Association, following Ray Blanchard et al’s autogynephilia typology, distinguishes (in fact, pathologizes as a paraphilia, a “transvestic disorder”!) the autogynephilic transsexual from the more “classic” transgendered individual.  It’s beyond the scope of this paragraph and in fact this entire blog post to deal with the heated and ever-raging debate over the validity of Blanchard’s typology, except to say that despite his and others’ solid research data, there are indeed a few problematic aspects to the theory.  Trans activist Julia Serano has offered a strong critique of the typology in her paper, “The Case Against Autogynephilia” (Int J of Transgenderism, (3): 176-187).  Nevertheless, I’m finally prepared to accept Blanchard et al as being largely correct.

I want to pause here to describe and emphasize a few things about myself.  In his typology, Blanchard described different subtypes of autogynephiles: transvestic, behavioral, physiologic, and anatomic: those who become sexually aroused by thoughts of dressing, behaving, having the body functions of, and the body of a woman, respectively.  I fit in very few of those categories.  I’m only very very slightly physically aroused by cross-dressing (and when I do it, I do so for comfort, not out of any erotic impulse), nor by cross-gender expression like painting my nails, and rarely by fantasies of a womanly body or bodily function, even in sex.  (Although to be honest, when I’m experiencing the sublime sexual pleasure of prostate stimulation through anal penetration, my mind can’t help but go there.  Plus there’s my strong attraction to and desire to suck cocks, but that’s a different issue I think.)  Rather, I find myself in this odd and seemingly scientifically undocumented autogynephilic subtype of a man who is sexually and romantically aroused by simply fantasizing of transsexual “metamorphosis”, and who desperately wants to be seen by others as legitimately feminine in some aspects.  It’s as if I really do have a “feminine self”, and there’s some sense of sexual fulfillment to be had in that being recognized.  Long story short, I don’t have a secret drawer of bras and thigh-highs.  This is mental and emotional.  But still very erotic, and very autogynephilic.  I just want to be a beautiful woman, and be seen as a beautiful woman.
pexels cc0 pixabay
One last thing I want to talk about:

The stereotype.  Well, maybe that’s not the best word, because I think the most anybody really might think about autogynephilia per se–assuming they even knew the word–is some fat middle-aged guy wearing red thigh-highs and heels (which to be honest, is a pretty gross image, no matter who you are).  So instead, let me talk about the unfair and needless pathologizing of the condition.

I’ll start by acknowledging that a lot of married men who realize their autogynephilia late in life behave very selfishly and ultimately deeply wound many people in pursuit of their erotic self-realization.  They become fully transgender, and follow that with tens of thousands of dollars of hormone therapy, cosmetic surgeries, gender therapy, sex reassignment surgery, etc.  This is to say nothing of the emotional and psychological toll that this phenomenon can take on a partner and the family, if the man puts his erotic needs above those needs of his wife and home.  I have chatted with “trans widows” who have been abandoned by (autogynephilic) men/trans-women that pursued their dreams of transition at the expense of their families.  It’s heartbreaking, and these women are grief-stricken and furious.  So my point in saying this is that whatever ill will there is out there towards autogynephilic men, some of it is justified by the behavior of a few.  (Who knows, how many.)

But this poor behavior of a few does not warrant–nor does the research of Blanchard warrant–the pathologizing, alienating, delegitimizing, and antagonizing of a group of men who have developed a type of sexual affect that is beyond their control.  Blanchard and others refer to autogynephilia as having arisen from a “target location error”, ie, in which the erotic target is misplaced onto one’s self or something else.  An “error” it may be, but I fail to see how it can be an erotic error any more than homosexuality is an erotic “error” (which the DSM-V no longer categorizes as such).  Further: in classifying autogynephilia as being subtyped under “transvestic disorder”, the DSM-V necessarily categorizes it as “[causing] distress or impairment to the individual or … entail[ing] personal harm, or risk of harm, to others.”  I’m here to tell you–and I’m sure millions of men would back me up on this–this just ain’t necessarily the case.  One last weird thing:  When Blanchard was criticized along the lines that autogynephilic transsexuals tended to experience less autogynephilia after transition, he suggested that the condition is both a paraphilia and a sexual orientation [!].  This seems pretty odd to me, as I’m very happily married to my wife, and I think she would say so too.  I don’t need a phantom “mirror” woman-self to be in love with and married to.

I think it very unfair that autogynephilia is pathologized the way it is.  Maybe it’s psychologically unhealthy.  Maybe therapy would be appropriate.  Certainly it sometimes causes problems in relationships.  But I do not personally feel that there’s a “cure” for it any more than there’s a “cure” for homosexuality.  Nor does there need to be.

I’ve accepted it, and I’m not ashamed to be erotically drawn to my feminine ideal.

to all porn performers, I’m sorry


Let me begin by saying that I’m not here to judge anyone’s choices to view or purchase pornography. What follows are my viewpoints on my own behavior alone, and I do not extend them to anyone.

Thing is, I’ve had a mild porn addiction for about a decade now. (Is viewing 2 – 3x a week “mild”? I don’t know.)

But no matter how I try to rationalize it, no matter how normalized it becomes in society, in my heart, for me, I just know porn is wrong. Not in any religious “sinful” sense, but just in a way that sets off alarms in my own basic sense of human decency. And there are ethical problems within the industry, of course (which I won’t even go into at the moment) which make me very uncomfortable about watching porn.

Yet still I do it. It’s just so appealing at a physical level.

I’m especially sorry to all the women actors in porn. I’ve lusted after you and objectified you, and so many of you have been victimized in ways that so many of us will never know or understand. Yes yes, I know, there’s a long standing debate that rages over the sexual politics of pornography (“empowerment or objectification?”), and some might accuse me of “white knighting” or benevolent sexism, but the fact of the matter is, I know what’s right and wrong, and I know when I’m not viewing a woman in the appropriate context. I have a wife and a daughter, and I just can’t deal with the cognitive dissonance any longer of loving and respecting them while indulging the fantasy of a woman as a casual sex object. Some women porn performers might genuinely enjoy their work. If so, fantastic. More power to them. But for my part, I FEEL that I’ve done wrong by viewing it.

I don’t subscribe to r/nofap. I’m not a teetotaler about masturbation or erotica in general. That’s not what this is about. This is about me publicly declaring that I just don’t want this anymore, and to each and every performer in the industry–especially those who have been victimized in any way–I’m sorry. I’m sorry that men like me made it possible for the industry to exist in the first place. I should be better than this.

image credit: harrison.anthony25, flickr.com. (CC-BY SA 2.0)

is crossgender expression ethical?

Is crossgender expression–specifically, the expression by a man of typically “female” traits, such as wearing women’s clothes, or painting his nails, etc–ethical behavior?  As with any area of ethical inquiry, the question is hardly clear-cut, and as a feminist, an ally of sexual minority communities (which includes transgendered persons), and a man who strives to be moral, I really need to get this figured out insofar as I’m able: I need to reconcile competing value sets as well as I can.

It might not occur to some people that the ethics of feminine crossgender expression is even really a “question” at all.  In the modern, more tolerant and inclusive era in which people are free to explore and express alternate sexual orientations and gender identities, we might assume that any identity or form of gender expression is free for appropriation with little or no philosophical consequence.

But very few such things are without any philosophical consequence, especially in the sensitive arena of sex and gender politics.  I’ll admit, I myself was ignorant of how transgender expression might be controversial until I read some literature by feminists who fall on the more TERF end of the spectrum.  (‘TERF’ being an acronym for trans-exclusive radical feminist; these are feminists who, to describe it briefly, either deny the validity of the male-to-female transgender experience and/or claim that it is an ideology and set of behaviors that perpetuate sexism.)  I disagree with a fair number of TERF arguments and overall find them to be regressively radical and ironically hierarchical, but I do think there is sufficient merit in their concerns regarding female identity and gender to address the present topic.

So here’s what I aim to do:  I will lay out each point that I can conceive for thinking that male-to-female gender expression is NOT ethical, and then I will attempt a self-rebuttal.  Maybe in this manner I’ll come to some sort of insight that resolves the matter for me.  (I’ll assume for argument’s sake that there are no relationship issues involved: no deceiving a spouse or partner by hiding crossdressing, no causing a rift in a marriage with such behavior, etc.  That would render the whole discussion moot, because it would obviously be unethical.)

Why male-to-female gender appropriation is NOT ethical:

1.  It is predicated upon envy, a “sin” in the classic sense.  When a man sees female objects or bodies that don’t belong to him, that he can’t possibly hope to ever “possess” in the fullest possible sense he (perhaps sexually) desires, he grows envious.  Obviously, unethical.

2.  It is deliberate, conscious, willful, and selfish.  It is not an innocent pathology or mental illness in which the man has no idea what he is doing; he very clearly knows that he is appropriating female gender forms and is largely careless that what he is doing might have gender-political consequences.

3.  It draws from women’s exclusive set of gender forms.  The man who chooses to dress, speak, or behave “like a woman” is doing so exactly because those forms are more or less unique to women.  Accordingly, if these gender forms are unique to women, then he is appropriating things that are not “neutral” or “common” in a way that would make them free for his personal use.  He is invading feminine space and removing feminine content.

4.  It ignores the significance of the history and lived experience behind the gender forms that are being appropriated.  A man who “feels like a woman” and dresses in a skirt and paints his nails cannot ultimately know what it is like to have gone through female puberty, adolescence and menstruation, to be catcalled and sexually harassed, or to live an entire life of womanhood in a patriarchal society.  MtF gender appropriation in this sense is at best ignorant, disrespectful, and counterprogressive.

Self-rebuttals:  Why male-to-female gender appropriation is at the very least ethically neutral:

1.  While I’m not sure that it’s ethical or healthy to envy anything, neither am I sure that it’s particularly unusual or unethical.  “Oh my god, I wish I had his abs.”  “Damn, why can’t my hair look like hers?” and so on.  Now, there is likely a deeper pathology here than simply wishing you had someone’s beautiful ab muscles who happens to be of the same sex as you, but that’s beyond the scope of the present essay.  But suffice to say, I don’t think even that is unethical, as it stems from a psychological need, not simple covetousness or vanity.

2.  I think this is the most serious criticism and the most difficult one to deal with.  But even it operates under the assumption that there are always gender-political consequences of male-to-female gender expression.  This is not necessarily the case.  Not all women or feminists view the issue the same way.  Further, it assumes that all crossgender-expressing men are aloof and selfish.  This can hardly be the case.  Surely there must be a great number who are conscientious, well-intentioned, and who engage earnestly with TERF-minded women on these issues.

3.  This one is rather tricky.  If we say that one set of gender forms is exclusive to women, we run the risk of staking out an “essentialist” position, ie, that the two-X chromosome female sex has an inherent set of gender forms that correspond to it.  That’s a reductionist, sexist, and well…patently false ideology.  However, neither can we truthfully say in this context that gender forms such as makeup, nail polish, etc are totally non-exclusive to women, because the very reason the man seeks them out is because they are more or less exclusive to women; appropriating womanly forms is his entire goal.  So I’m in something of a catch-22 with respect to wanting to adhere to my simultaneous feminist and LGBTQ+ values.  But I think perhaps there is middle ground: such forms are exclusive enough to women to draw the interest of the crossdresser, but they are not so exclusive as to prescribe a woman’s essential identity.  Accordingly they are free for ethical appropriation.  Clothing, for example, cannot be used as an absolutely defining gender marker.  If a woman claims that a skirt is “hers” and hers alone by dint of her sex, then she is ironically making the same sort of argument that in olden times men would have made to prohibit her from wearing men’s garments.

4.  I don’t have much of a rebuttal for this one because I’m not sure that it amounts to an ethical argument against MtF crossgender expression in the first place.  I truly fail to see how just because a man might not understand the full lived experience of being a woman, that he cannot ethically and respectfully express feminine gender forms.  Would it not be a sexist statement for an old man welder to tell a novice woman welder, “You don’t know what it’s like to work in the shop as a man your whole life, surrounded by men…the camaraderie, the bonding, the testosterone, the difficulty of the work.  Just because you wear the mask and the gloves and hold the torch, doesn’t make you a welder.”?  Of course it’s patently sexist.  Women absolutely do have legitimate cause to be concerned that their lived experiences may be ignored, devalued, or misunderstood by men who crossdress or otherwise express “their” gender forms, but this has little to do with ethics on an individual basis.  Further, there is the question of empathy: Again, just because a man has not fully lived life as a woman, does not mean he is completely detached, unfamiliar, or otherwise aloof to a woman’s life experiences.  He could have grown up with a mother, aunts, sisters, friends, etc, observing their lives and deeply empathizing with them as they navigated life.  So to say that a man shouldn’t express female gender forms because doing so ignores the significance of the history and lived experience behind the gender forms that are being appropriated, is to deny that man’s capacity to exercise gender empathy.

image credit: AnonMoos, 2009 (WikiMedia Commons, Public Domain).

Gender and sexuality

I want to fall solidly into a clear taxonomic category.  To have an easy label.  I don’t like ambiguity when it comes to my own identity.  But I suppose individual human gender and sexuality are not by nature so easy to define, or even for the person to understand him/herself.

The question arises:  Are the ambiguities I feel a recently emerging phenomenon–something about me that’s changing–or are they simply something that I never noticed before?

I will write much, much more about this later.