Skip to main content Link Menu Expand (external link) Document Search Copy Copied
🏳️‍🌈 beth.lgbt

Claim: Trans women suffer from “Autogynephilia” (AGP)

Summary

Autogynephilia, a term established by sexologist Ray Blanchard, is a controversial concept often used to pathologize the identities of trans women. The theory essentially categorizes male-to-female (MtF) transsexuals into two distinct groups: homosexual transsexuals and autogynephilic transsexuals, the latter being individuals who are aroused by the thought of themselves as women. This concept has been widely criticized, as it oversimplifies the diverse identities and experiences of trans women and portrays their gender identities as a sexual fetish, undermining their deeply held, authentic identities. It also has parallels to the earlier idea of ‘Narcissistic Homosexuality’ from as early as 18981.

The validity of the concept of autogynephilia has been substantially questioned through empirical evidence. Several studies have found that the phenomenon described as autogynephilia is not unique to trans women and is also common among cisgender women, debunking the theory of it being a unique characteristic or indicative of trans identities. The concept’s reliability and validity have also been questioned, with it failing to reliably measure what it claims to. It’s evident that the portrayal of trans identities should be approached with respect and sensitivity, recognizing the depth and complexity of individual experiences rather than seeking to oversimplify and pathologize them.

Introduction

Autogynephilia, a term coined by sexologist Ray Blanchard in 1989, refers to the proposed sexual orientation in which a man is sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman2. This concept has been used as a means of pathologizing trans women by suggesting that their gender identity is rooted in a paraphilic condition, rather than a genuine and deeply held identity. However, numerous studies and criticisms from the scientific community have challenged the validity of this concept and the way it stigmatizes trans women.

Inception and Criticisms of Autogynephilia

Blanchard’s typology splits male-to-female (MtF) transsexuals into two distinct categories: homosexual transsexuals (those attracted to men) and autogynephilic transsexuals (those attracted to the thought or image of themselves as women)2. This theory has been critiqued on numerous grounds.

For one, it suggests a false dichotomy among trans women that reduces complex identities and experiences to overly simplistic categories. In reality, trans women exhibit a range of sexual orientations and gender expressions, challenging the binary classification proposed by Blanchard3.

Secondly, the concept of autogynephilia tends to pathologize the gender identities of trans women by framing them as a sexual fetish or paraphilia, rather than authentic identities. This portrayal is harmful and invalidating to trans women, who typically express that their gender identity is a deeply ingrained part of who they are, not a sexual interest4.

Debunking Autogynephilia with Empirical Evidence

Numerous empirical studies have questioned the validity of the concept of autogynephilia.

A study by Veale et al. (2008) explored the existence of autogynephilia among cisgender women, questioning whether ‘erotic target location errors’ were unique to trans women as Blanchard suggested5. The results showed that many cisgender women also experience sexual arousal to the thought or image of themselves as women, demonstrating that this is not a phenomenon unique to trans women, nor necessarily indicative of a paraphilia.

In another study by Moser (2010), by the common definition of ever having erotic arousal to the thought or image of oneself as a woman, 93% of the cisgender women respondents would be classified as autogynephilic. Under the rigorous definition of “frequent” arousal to multiple items, 29% of cisgender women met the criteria for autogynephilia6. These findings further undermined the theory of autogynephilia as being unique to or indicative of trans identities.

The construct validity and reliability of Blanchard’s autogynephilia measures have also been challenged. A study by Nuttbrock et al. (2011) argued that autogynephilia is not a valid construct because it does not reliably measure what it purports to measure7.

Historically, the understanding and classification of gender dysphoria and trans identities have evolved significantly. The American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-5, for instance, replaced the term “Gender Identity Disorder” with “Gender Dysphoria,” in recognition of the fact that being transgender is not a disorder8. Similarly, the World Health Organization declassified being transgender as a mental disorder in 2019. As Drescher points out, the history of homosexuality in the DSM offers a cautionary tale about pathologizing identities that deviate from societal norms9.

Lawrence’s narrative studies of autogynephilic transsexualism also provide important insights into the lived experiences of those labeled as ‘autogynephilic’ by Blanchard’s typology10. Many individuals described complex and nuanced experiences of gender and sexuality that do not neatly fit into the narrow categories proposed by Blanchard, further suggesting the limitations of the autogynephilia concept.

Implications and Conclusions

While the concept of autogynephilia was proposed as an explanatory model for the experiences of trans women, it has faced considerable criticism for its oversimplification, pathologization, and lack of empirical support.

It is important to approach the understanding of trans identities with sensitivity and respect for individual experiences. Attempting to reduce these experiences to simplistic, binary categories fails to capture the complexity of human identity and can perpetuate harmful stereotypes and stigmatization.

As research continues to evolve, it is becoming increasingly clear that the experiences of trans women are not indicative of a paraphilic condition, but rather represent a valid, deeply held aspect of identity.

References

  1. Lunbeck, E. (2012). The Narcissistic Homosexual: Genealogy of a Myth. In: Alexander, S., Taylor, B. (eds) History and Psyche. Palgrave Studies in Cultural and Intellectual History. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. ↩

  2. Blanchard, R. (1989). The concept of autogynephilia and the typology of male gender dysphoria. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 177(10), 616-623. ↩ ↩2

  3. Serano, J. (2010). The Case Against Autogynephilia. International Journal of Transgenderism, 12(3), 176-187. ↩

  4. Veale, J. F. (2014). Evidence against a typology: A taxometric analysis of the sexuality of male-to-female transsexuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(8). ↩

  5. Veale, J. F., Clarke, D. E., & Lomax, T. C. (2008). Sexuality of male-to-female transsexuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37(4), 586-597. ↩

  6. Moser, C. (2010). Autogynephilia in women. Journal of Homosexuality, 56(5), 539-547. ↩

  7. Nuttbrock, L., Bockting, W., Mason, M., Hwahng, S., Rosenblum, A., Macri, M., & Becker, J. (2011). TA Further Assessment of Blanchard’s Typology of Homosexual Versus Non-Homosexual or Autogynephilic Gender Dysphoria. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(2), 247-257. ↩

  8. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5ÂŽ). American Psychiatric Assoc. Pub. ↩

  9. Drescher, J. (2010). Queer diagnoses: Parallels and contrasts in the history of homosexuality, gender variance, and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(2), 427-460. ↩

  10. Lawrence, A. A. (2013). Men trapped in men’s bodies: narratives of autogynephilic transsexualism. Springer Science & Business Media. ↩