Talk:Autogynephilia

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sex.svg

This sexuality related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately.

This article is of MID importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png
Editorial notes
Warning icon orange.svg This page contains too many unsourced statements, and needs to be improved.

Autogynephilia could use some help. Please research the article's assertions. Whatever is credible should be sourced, and what is not should be removed.

If this is, indeed, pseudoscience, could we then get rid of the term "theory" in the context in which it is used in this article in exchange for something else. Quotataion marks around the word "theory" would suffice, IMO. Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 21:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The Homeopathy article uses the word "theory" without putting it in quotes. Lots of pseudoscience is theory. The point however is that it is not a falsifiable theory. But being a purposed model that accounts for real evidence, and makes predictions, it is a real theory. Just its predictions are always able to be dismissed when found to be wrong. "Oh, I didn't have all the evidence". It's just like the theory of divine intervention through prayer. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 22:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
"Facts without theory is trivia, theory without facts is bullshit" - I keep forgetting who said that, but it's the working definition I use. I'm in two minds because in one sense I do want to keep the strict definition of theory, but on the other hand the casual definition works very well and is an established term. I'd certainly be against putting it in "quote marks", that "sort of thing" is getting "overused". Scarlet A.pnggnostic 08:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree... there unfortunately is an unresolvable equivocation in the word "theory". :( Nevertheless, the theory presented in this article has facts to support it... they're just simply viewed through a very strict worldview that made the observed fact conform to their already established position. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 02:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] My case

I think I have autogynephilic tendencies... Am I normal ? --Antee286 (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Describe what exactly you mean. If you mean sexual fantasies casting yourself as a woman, then I'm sure many men have these from time to time. - LucidFox (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • You're asking the wrong question. Statistically, no. Pathologically, who cares; it's normal for you and mostly harmless. (You may want to see a trans-friendly shrink, though, if you think your hormones and your brain are at odds. The mismatch can cause havoc with your mental state if you're really trans.) EVDebs (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks buddies. --Antee286 (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What does this make slashfic writing females (see fanfic)? And Freud's theory of women's #### envy (though why not men's #### envy as well)? 212.85.6.26 (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Considering it's a discredited theory? Nothing. People, seriously, you're overthinking this. - LucidFox (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Trying to think of knot-tying arguments to throw at such mind-knotted persons as promote such twaddle. (I'm aFreud I'm too Jung to understand Watson). 212.85.6.26 (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Major Rewrite

In the vein of "be bold", I did a major rewrite, since the previous version attempted to take a personally motivated POV to mischaracterize a valid branch of sexology as "pseudoscience" as they found its conclusions to be uncomfortable. Scientific discoveries should NEVER be tweaked to fit one's personal preferences. Cloudy (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Been reading too much Bailey, have you? Picon small.pngLiquid Blue
I've read every single paper by Bailey, Freund, Blanchard, Lawrence, Fisk, Stoller, Person&Oversey, etc. They are dead right. I've also read Moser, Alison, Conway, etc. They are dead wrong. Cloudy (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Bailey is an exploitative crank whose work is highly defamatory and has been tirelessly refuted—he is now in disgrace in the psychological community. Blanchard and Freund are hopelessly biased and out of date by 20-30 years if they were ever doing relevant research. Lawrence is full of cognitive dissonance and generalizes from her own experience. Person & Oversey and Stoller outright disagree over classifications, and I'm not familiar enough with Fisk to say much.
I'm also put off by your insistence that these are "scientific discoveries," when most if not all of this research faces terminal methodological errors. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 01:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I know nothing about this area, so I went googling and I didn't find much evidence that this is generally considered "a valid branch of sexology". The minimum needed to consider any field as "a valid branch of a scientific discipline" would be scientific/academic discussion on the topic, (excluding people arguing whether the topic even exists). Could you provide some please? VOXHUMANA 01:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Methodological errors? By Blanchard's definition, I'm autogynophilic! Scarlet A.pngbomination 02:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Not that sexology itself is anything more than an institutionalized pseudoscience. Its methodology is heavily reliant on questionnaires and case studies, already putting it in rather squishy territory. When you add on top of that the long-standing obsession with proving that gender/sexual "deviants" are just mentally ill lunatics, kiss any pretense at scientific objectivity goodbye. It's the sort of "research" that tells you more about the person conducting it than anything else. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I know at least one sexologist who not only took part in de-pathologizing homosexuality, but even argues that, although it's extremely criminal and fine that way, even pedophilia is not a mental disorder per se. It's Richard Green. Look him up. Just one example of course, and seems like he was a dick too in some ways, but still, I see no reason to villify all sexologists. For the record, with all due respect to real transgender people, I'm an autogynephile and content with being a male in daily life, making sweet love to sweet women, but occasionally delving into my fetish of dressing and behaving sexy. So don't villify autogynephiles either please. (I've seen many autogynephiles who were transphobic though, so some could actually be closeted transgender people, like how some homosexuals raised in anti-homo cultures end up extremely homophobic.) 84.161.221.88 (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
You know, I know there hasn't been a whole lot of research on the subject, but there's some definite indications that transsexuality has biochemical origins, and that hormone replacement often acts as a mood elevator for severe gender dysphoria. At least that's what a lot of transsexuals say about their own experience. I'm not willing to say autogynephilia doesn't exist, because hey, everyone's got a fetish for something, but at the same time, if someone wants to make a gender transition and is aware of the processes and risks involved, ytf does it matter why they want to do it? EVDebs (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
It matters to whoever is going to be paying for the hormones and surgery. Sophiebecause liberals 08:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, yeah, there's that, although to the extent I was assuming anything I figured that the transitioner would be responsible for that. EVDebs (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

[edit] The double-standard behind autogynephilia

Stereotype aside, this concept is bullshit even if it applied to every transwoman ever. How come I, a bisexual cisgendered male, can crow and obsess over my PENIS with only a mild reproachful look from society? Like, think of how often media depictions tend make men feel proud of and baby their PENIS in dozens of subtle ways -- bigger = more manly, masturbation is awesome, erectile dysfunction is the great Satan, etc. -- and moreover this phallic worship is supposed to be healthy and normal. Why aren't transwomen allowed to enjoy their sexual organs even to the point of fetish? Cisgendered males are certainly allowed to. Dr. Swordopolis (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Autogynephiles exist

I already ranted about this on Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blanchard%27s_transsexualism_typology#Autogynephiles_certainly_exist.2C_even_if_as_a_separate_group_from_transgender.2Ftranssexual_women

TL;DR: Autogynephiles do certainly exist as a SEPARATE group of people from transgender women. When viewed as a disorder, the concept has relations to transphobia, but when viewed merely as a healthy fetish, there's nothing wrong with it, and spending time on certain web forums will make you meet many many autogynephiles who are purely interested in the sexual arousal attained from feeling like a sexy woman or girl, despite not being interested in actually becoming a woman in daily life and all.

84.161.221.88 (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support