response

"Do you not see the flaw in
comparing transsexual women to genetic women as if they were the exact same thing? Even if we are in some respects feminine in brain there are a host of neurological, genetic, and anatomical differences between a MTF and a GG."
Do you not see the flaw in responding to comments without actually reading them? Go up and take another look. I'll wait..."

:-? :-) :lol:

There is no need for such an ad hominem. I read your comments I just don't 100% agree with them. Chances are you will never totally agree with me either. Still keep reading I think I have a good proposal in this message. The following seem to be your main points.

The fact that a person becomes sexually aroused while cross dressed does not indicate that they are sexually aroused because they are cross dressed.
The study of Smith et. al found that some of their self identified homosexual transsexuals also admitted to being aroused while cross dressed.
Blanchard, Bailey, and other psychologist are unable to recognize their own bias...your example of this being to assume that any non homosexual transsexual who denies autogynephilia must be lying...where by they will go so far as to tell people what their sexual orientation is based on their attractiveness....or lack there of.

That just about sums it up.

I agree with point one. While it is currently not possible to pin down just what a person is thinking with any technology that we now have, and may never be in the future... It is still possible to get a basic fix on what parts of a human brain are lit up and active by way of various brain scans. One such study [1, Savic et al.] had findings that are best summarized in one of their figures.

Graphic most elegantly summarizing the results of Savic.

Graphic summarizing the findings of The referenced study. Open it in a new window or something ok :-)

I trust that anyone really interested in this topic could take 15 minutes to read the study so I will dispense with recounting the exact procedure. Basically under controlled conditions these independent researchers found that homosexual males hypothalamus will react to male pheromones almost the way a womans does?

What does this have to do with the question at hand?

This is where your second point comes in. The common stock response of HSTS's to that is to say that "obviously some of them transitioned older or were married and therefore truly heterosexual so they are now lying about being attracted to men." Which is a variation on the lying autogynephile notion. Usually this is done ad hoc with no justification to say that those particular persons are lying.

The solution to that problem is to study this matter in a more rigorously scientific way...more like the way chemist and physicist conduct research and less like a social scientist.

Suppose a similar study was done on a wide variety of transsexuals, all volunteers, all post-op. By the same technique used by Savic it would measure weather or not they were reacting to male pheromones in the same way as heterosexual females and homosexual men. This would be made more powerful if they were people who would unquestionably be considered Autogynephiles under Blanchards theory (people who because of their age at transition or an attempt to live as a heterosexual male would be written off as "pseudoandrophiles" :roll:). IF the finding was that they react to male hormones in the way that heterosexual females and homosexual males do that would weaken Blanchards theory. Undoubtedly some of the subjects would test out as being genuinely androphilic (Consider the website http://www.marriedgay.org/ In particular [2], [3]) as sometimes homosexual men do marry for reasons that do not involve sex. They latter come out as gay/bissexual and not transsexual. (Are they "lying" about being gay? I doubt it.) I also predict that many subjects would test out as reacting to the male pheromones just as heterosexual men would. This would separate the two groups by their objectively determined reaction to male pheromones and not their self reported sexual orientation... or an objective judgment on the part of a psychologist (i.e. using his own genital response as a meter of some kind ;-) ).

Are you still with me?

Then the two groups could be tested by having their brains scanned while they view or otherwise consume erotic materials of their own choosing from anywhere on the Internet, as well as a restricted but varied selection of materials from the Internet which cater to men who fantize about being women. Then instead of measuring their outward arousal the technique used in [1] would measure their brain activity and come as close as current technology can get us to knowing what they are thinking. If Blanchard is correct those who's pheromone response was consistent with heterosexual males would be aroused by erotic materials that are subjectively sure to arouse an autogynephile. If his theory is totally wrong then the results will show a totally random scatter (ie basically a 50/50 chance of a HSTS having an autogynephic fantasy as a presumed AGP where as used here it refer's to their hypothalamic response). If neither of these things happen... that is to say IF those who's brains show a response consistent with heterosexual men react to the autogynephilic erotic materials it will prove that inspire of self identifying as preferring men, that on a deep biological/neurological level they in fact are attracted to women.

If a large study such as the one I describe above were done it would go a long way to clarifying the issues. If it were done in this way what sexual orientation would not be surmised by attractive ness or taken on faith....a major flaw in all the studies done so far. If it were done this way the meaning of a persons sexual response would not be guessed based on appearance, general interest, etc... The brains of the subjects would react one way or the other most of the time their will be a certain but small amount of uncertainty in the measurement but overall the matter would be settled. A study like the one I describe above could determine once and or all if non-homosexual transsexuals are automatically autogynephilic. Which is the major claim of BBL theory.

"motivation" is a fuzzier topic. Suppose the study above is done, it take years and thousands of subjects...and an independant but parralel study is also done, the results from both agree and are conclusive in showing Blanchard is correct. It shows non-homosexual transsexuals are in fact autogynephilic? Does this then imply that they are motivated to transition by their autogynephilia. Mabey mabey not. The techniques of psychology and the human sciences are best equipped to handel such matters.

References