The way I hear ->-bleeped-<- discussed by others they dont always consider themselves (in fact most ive seen dont think they are) TS or are still trying to figure that out.  The way I have seen people discuss the topic is just i guess sexual feelings.  Like 2 clear distinct things.  In fact most people that I have seen discuss this topic, who claim to fall under that category, see it as obviously not a valid reason alone to transition... Some are or plan on transitioning but there is more then just that ->-bleeped-<-. So i dunno I think there is just alot of confusion around the whole word and theory.  Just seems any time someone says something concerning sexual feelings ppl throw the word ->-bleeped-<- out... which doesnt seem to be the case unless the very little I have read I read wrong.

Lets face it, Blanchard had a dirty mind, and sex must be an integral part of his paradigm.  The fact he is given the credence he is, is proof that he has adherants with dirty minds, and all they can think about is erotic feelings.  Since this is all written down, then all of them must have an erotic need for writing, and are in love with their penmanship.  We need a "philia" for that to give them a good time too.

If my reasoning on this is unsound and disjointed, then I have made my point!!  ->-bleeped-<- to me is "a word to conjure by" and the alchemists of gender can stir their cauldrons with it all they wish and it won't change their lead to gold either.

Vicky:  I believe you mean "graphophilia"    Now we just have to submit it to be included in the next DSM.

Ok so the lets say the idea of ->-bleeped-<- never existed.  What do you classify people who i guess maybe imagine themselves as the opposite sex in sexual situations. Fetish? Somewhere under TG? Who knows?


I ask because everyone goes ->-bleeped-<- is a bunch of bull but when you have ppl who say they can identify with ->-bleeped-<- (and again i dont know if I do but there are obviously forums of people who do) then obviously atleast some of the theory behind it is true. 

I am just curious because everyone likes to say ->-bleeped-<- is dumb and doesnt exist. So what do you tell those ppl who used to classify under that lol.  I am pretty sure its rather real to them, even if they falsely classify under that as I think many do.

 ->-bleeped-<- is a mental illness made up by Dr Ray Blanchard and supported by Dr Anne Lawrence, Dr Kenneth Zucker, Dr James Cantor and Dr J Michael Bailey.   ->-bleeped-<- is defined as man's tendency to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman.

Support for this model is virtually none existent outside this group and just a sample of those who have debunked it are listed below and I'm sure others can find more papers on debunking this theory.

• ->-bleeped-<-: a disputed diagnosis by TS Roadmap.
• Julia Serano.
• Wikipedia article containing information on the scientific criticism of the theory
• ->-bleeped-<-: The Infallible Derogatory Hypothesis, Part 1
• ->-bleeped-<-: The Infallible Derogatory Hypothesis, Part 2
• Dr Charles Moser

My sexuality was virtually non existent and I always wanted to female up until I was 29 and the only reason why I thought this way was, because of the lack of information and knowledge that was available to me at the time.  When I finally realised that I was a female and during all that time I wanted to be or wished to be a female, I was never sexually aroused by the thought of myself as a woman.  I'm just a female who is sexually aroused by man who is making love to me.  Guess I'm no different from the majority of women out there in the real world.

So Just-Me you ask this question and I quote:

Quote from: Just-Me on May 15, 2011, 12:32:48 AM
Ok so the lets say the idea of ->-bleeped-<- never existed.  What do you classify people who i guess maybe imagine themselves as the opposite sex in sexual situations. Fetish? Somewhere under TG? Who knows?

If one persistently and consistently imagines themselves as the opposite gender then more than 'very likey', they are that gender.  Why?, because gender is innate in human beings.

Kind regards
Sarah B

Sorry I went back and edited i ment in sexual situations.  Obviously not saying all TS people are just people with a fetish.  And since I dont actually know if those people on those sites who identify with ->-bleeped-<- see themselves in the opposite sex role outside of sexual situations as well, I will just leave the hypothetical up of just strictly the opposite in sexual situation.

Quote from: Just-Me on May 15, 2011, 12:32:48 AM
Ok so the lets say the idea of ->-bleeped-<- never existed.  What do you classify people who i guess maybe imagine themselves as the opposite sex in sexual situations. Fetish?

A paraphyllia

Just-me,

Do like the idea of being female in nonsexual situations?

Before seriously considering transition and all that? Yea.  Then self doubt and reality pretty much slapped me in the face.  Started questioning those feelings dont know whats real and valid or not anymore.  So basically ignoring my past (for a few reasons I wont get into) and going with what I feel now which is rather annoying and hard to do.

And my question as to what to consider ->-bleeped-<- type feelings was just a general question then me trying to apply it to myself because people say it doesnt exist, and then well leave it at that. So was curious what ppl actually considered it.

Well, I'm not sure what all your dealing with, but sexual feelings about being female don't invalidate your gender. What is a woman supposed to imagine during sex - that she's a man? Being a sexy female plays a large part in a lot of cis women's fantasies. Sexy lingerie is for the woman more than her partner.

Quote from: Forum Admin on May 15, 2011, 09:05:07 AM
Well, I'm not sure what all your dealing with, but sexual feelings about being female don't invalidate your gender. What is a woman supposed to imagine during sex - that she's a man? Being a sexy female plays a large part in a lot of cis women's fantasies. Sexy lingerie is for the woman more than her partner.

I almost spewed coffee when I read that.

(well I found it funny)

Quote from: Kay on May 15, 2011, 12:25:52 AM
Vicky:  I believe you mean "graphophilia"    Now we just have to submit it to be included in the next DSM.

Actually, I think it's "autographophilia." They're sexually aroused by their own writing.

Quote from: Just-Me on May 15, 2011, 12:32:48 AM
Ok so the lets say the idea of ->-bleeped-<- never existed.  What do you classify people who i guess maybe imagine themselves as the opposite sex in sexual situations. Fetish? Somewhere under TG? Who knows?

I don't call them anything. It's none of my business what people think about during sex. And it's only the business of psychologists to the extent that it causes distress - in which case the treatment needs to be individually tailored to resolve the distress.

lol i know that.  Its just like i said im questioning that which I felt.  There is a long story behind it which I wont get to deep into it. But basically i dont really remember nor care about much of my childhood i ignored most things so I dont know if there were any TS/TG feelings then or not.   Most people can be like "at 5 I felt like this"  I tried to remember when i was 5. I remember like 3 things from back then lol... and.... And that which I do remember from later in my childhood I wont bother trying to figure out if what I felt was gender issues or not  since well I dont know for sure.  Like some people can go I didnt like to play with other boys for x and y reason relating to gender so I rather play video games. For me as far as i know hanging out with the boys stopped around 6th grade when I found video games were more fun then my friends.  Could that be gender issues? who knows.  All I know for sure though is video games > hanging out with the guys back then.  That has changed a bit and I am a bit more social now in law school but I dont really belong to any group really lol... so still kinda weird I dunno...

So looking back really is of no help to me...  then a few other things happened in my life which kinda kept me from questioning myself for quite awhile I think.... medical conditions are fun...  and well the one thing I do remember for sure is the sexual stuff. Everything else is just kinda eh. I downplay the few things I remember happening in my past and say coincidence and all that.  Never acted on any of the feelings.  In fact I am still trying to figure out if I was so homophobic about myself when I was little because I was hiding things from myself or I was just being an idiot lol... I always fit quite a few of the male stereotype quite well.  Its just alot of contradictions and self doubt that im working out and well there is only one clear thing I cant deny and that was the sexual part lol.

Know I woudl rather have been born a girl but again dont really know why so meh.  When someone says because I usually dont have a good answer heh.  Sure a few ideas rattling around in my head... it just sounds right though.

Quote from: Sarah7 on May 15, 2011, 12:06:14 PM
I spent a few weeks after finding out about transsexualism and transition (at 20) trying to remember and reconstruct all the times I'd shown signs for or against transsexualism. I quickly realized that the exercise was pointless. Nothing had or was going to change the way I felt. The narrative is useful for professionals who want to see some kind of "evidence," but for myself - what did it matter what I dressed as for Halloween when I was 11? (Alanna Trebond from Tamora Pierce's Song of the Lioness series in case you were wondering.)

Until medical doctors can consistently use MRIs to detect gender differences in the brain, we are stuck with a solitary method of diagnosing transsexualism - how do you feel?

Oh wow, that's so me! Mmm... write write write.

If they could come up with one of those tests in the next like 3 weeks that would be great cuz I gotta go get an MRI haha... could just ask for the additional test . 

Right now the only thing I feel is confused lol.  I was more sure that maybe I was TS (i didnt know much about it before hand aside the basic premise which sounded right to me) before getting on the internet.  Then I stupidly started comparing myself to others... and well that was my first mistake... second was letting others try to define who I am (which is where ->-bleeped-<- came from for me...  People concentrated on the sexual aspect of what I talked about even though that was not the entire thing and that kinda got me questioning it as well... i still dont even know truly the whole theory I mean i know it better now and well the way others described it was totally different and wrong but a few stuck me in that classification and I still keep asking is it ->-bleeped-<- lol), third was overthinking everything and alot of self doubt came flooding in... so i started drifting away from sites like this... and I started that diary/blog thing where I could just write my own feelings out and occasionally ppl would read it/comment on it... Been staying away from these type of sites largely till i started getting alot of hits from susan.org and came to see whats up lol.  I dont have much privacy in real life at the moment so the only place to figure things out is the internet really, but at the same time I am trying to stay away from alot of these sites as to ignore all external influences.

edit-  I now see your response was more of an open ended question that you didnt mean for me to respond to but I read it wrong the first time and responded lol.  O well

I don't understand why people get all defensive for this horrible, bad sciency, unethical theory plucked out from the ass of a fraud.

If you want to prove that gender and sexuality are the same thing then go do it, do it properly and maybe some light can be shed on what is an interesting subject. For me the really offensive part of AG theory is it comes to the conclusion that we are all liars. I don't really have any issues with the sexual attraction side of it and I have certainly known women who feel the kind of feelings that it talks about (not me, but I'm not holier than though, I just have other kinks  ) so I really wish that someone would look into it properly with an open mind which Blanchard most certainly did not.

Personally I think that GID is separate from your sexuality but if your mind is female and your body is male (or visa versa) then this is bound to affect how you interact on a sexual level, I still don't think that it's the same thing.

I sincerely apologise for the forthcoming ramble. I'm a little late coming to this thread, so feel free to ignore what follows. But these are a few of my thoughts.

Looks like a lot of people are more obsessed with creating labels than actually asking why they need to, or why these labels have to apply. You act in a certain way, let's invent a condition for it. I read through those links Sarah B posted and a couple of things struck me.

It seems that some people only pursue a hypothesis until such a time as it produces results sufficient to validate their theory. After that, they stop looking. Quite why these results are what they are seems to have been utterly disregarded in favour of being able to say "I'm right." If you ask someone why they feel the way they do, and they don't know, that doesn't give you the right to go ahead and just make up a reason and tell them that's what it is.

Everyone knows on some level why they do what they do or feel how they feel, that doesn't mean they know that they know. And in this case, it seems like no effort has been made to find out the deeper issues. This whole ->-bleeped-<- thing is just very superficial, very 'surface level'. It attempts to categorise the 'what' with no thought as to the 'why'. And that, in my opinion, is about as useful as trying to explain why light comes from the sun by saying "because it's a star", with no attempt made to understand nuclear fission.

Speaking personally, after 13 years of facing sexual situations as a 'male' and being utterly repulsed by the thought of doing it as a man, with everything being just wrong and like looking through the wrong side of a mirror, then doing it because it's what the other person wants, and seeing her pleasure in what you're doing and the way her body is aroused while at the same time wishing you could trade places and fighting the urge to go take a shower and scrub your skin off... the idea of doing it the right way definitely illicits a reaction in me (as long as I'm attracted to the person I'm doing it with - it can't just be Josephine Public here). I'm sure as heck not going to deny myself the ability to use my imagination in a perfectly natural way that everyone on earth does at one time or another just because some fusty know-it-alls have to slap a tag on it.

The only thing which even slightly worries me about picturing such situations, is whether my partner is going to keep me awake all night with the snoring afterwards.

Sexuality and gender... well, I don't honestly care what the two do or don't have in common. It's not something I lose sleep over. What I do care about, however, is that I see sexuality as part of living a normal life, and that does matter to me. And while I may not ever have the original plumbing to go with the electrical wiring... hey, a girl can dream.

All I would say to you, is go with your instincts. They stem from a far deeper place than anyone's opinion can ever reach. Don't be scared to feel because you're afraid that someone will tell you what you're feeling is wrong.

Ramble over. Normal programming may now resume

Quote from: MillieB on May 15, 2011, 03:34:43 PM
I don't understand why people get all defensive for this horrible, bad sciency, unethical theory plucked out from the ass of a fraud.

If you want to prove that gender and sexuality are the same thing then go do it, do it properly and maybe some light can be shed on what is an interesting subject. For me the really offensive part of AG theory is it comes to the conclusion that we are all liars. I don't really have any issues with the sexual attraction side of it and I have certainly known women who feel the kind of feelings that it talks about (not me, but I'm not holier than though, I just have other kinks  ) so I really wish that someone would look into it properly with an open mind which Blanchard most certainly did not.

Personally I think that GID is separate from your sexuality but if your mind is female and your body is male (or visa versa) then this is bound to affect how you interact on a sexual level, I still don't think that it's the same thing.

I totally agree that they are separated, hence the "some many variations of the theme" personas we find in this and other forums.

I for one knew I was a female long before any sexual drive appear. When T crashed to less than 100, and free T to less than 15, no sexual drive was left. I have always being attracted to females, and I have heard that a drop in T in combination with E had change  some people sexual orientation. I was apprehensive, but then I found I am still attracted to females,I want to fell in love with one, had romance, and intimacy, the sex is not there yet. So I think that in my case the sex and gender are in different areas

Absolutely brilliant

Quote from: kyril on May 15, 2011, 10:20:37 AM
I don't call them anything. It's none of my business what people think about during sex. And it's only the business of psychologists to the extent that it causes distress - in which case the treatment needs to be individually tailored to resolve the distress.

This statement puts the final nail in the coffin of the ->-bleeped-<- theory and other similar theories.

Warm regards
Sarah B

Hah, love it!
Been cruising through some of your posts :-) ->-bleeped-<-, eh?

Too funny can only be invented by a guy. Just sure it was. You know Christine Aguilera got their answer. She's GG to have her own baby, or? :-)

Her line: "I'm not cocky, I just LOVE myself!"... I think in "Bitch" or what ever that song is called.

Now what do these folks think? That a "good girl" be knocking about the kitchen in sack and ashes? Must be kidding. If not having a healthy turn-on by yourself not the most hairy dude is gonna fix it either. Be one low-down boring relationship that. Yeak!

When still in boy-guise I must have had ->-bleeped-<-. Never even occurred to me this be anything related to CD or (at the time) transsexual. No need to cross-dress when in nudies.
People and their misguided ideas.
Say no more,
Axelle
PS: One more thing, any female with no ->-bleeped-<- is just too repressed and oh sooo boring... it's a natural thing for any female, um.