I have a somewhat meta-level question to people who sympathize with Blanchardian writing: what is the interest of this research? What questions could we answer by knowing to what extent sexuality plays a causal role in transition? Are there decisions we make as a result of this? Is it for the benefit of trans people themselves that they think of themselves in this way?
I come across a disproportionate interest in noting the (generally) taboo sexual fetishes that are (perhaps) more common among trans people. I would search for quantitative evidence by going to Google Trends and looking at autogynephilia as compared to some similar term for a different social group, but I’m not even sure what other term I’d plug in just because I’ve never come across something applicable. Correct me if my perception is wrong, though.
From my perspective, this discussion feels akin to questions like “is (x group) socially bad in (y abstract way that is very difficult to answer without splitting hairs over definition)?”. You don’t really learn much that is actually concrete or useful, but you solidify an ontology that associates a socially disadvantaged group with undeserved toxicity.
To be clear, I don’t mean to attack the character of OP with this post, in particular because I think I trust lesswrong more than other places to have discussions that are (and should be) generally taboo. Also, to the extent that I am familiar with Blanchard’s research, I +1 Orual’s reply.
I feel fairly convinced that the legitimization of this line of questioning is bad for societal opinion of trans people in an unearned way. Blanchard’s research is frequently cited by pundits with the strongest anti-trans political opinions. However, I only feel weakly that it is a basically useless line of questioning.
Some groups of people I have noticed being into Blanchardianism and things superficially resembling Blanchardianism:
“Human biodiversity” people, that is intellectually inclined racists/sexists. They are usually conservatives trying to build models of society which acknowledge human differences as causes of group outcomes and ignore the relevance of ideology. A major reason they do this is to have explanations to counter antiracists/feminists and progressives who are trying to achieve group equality through affirmative action. Blanchardianism is important to them partly because gynephilic trans women’s traits in many ways resemble those of biological males and gender ideology explains that through socialization forces, so Blanchardianism becomes a counternarrative they can appeal to in order to dismiss these socialization forces, which they want to do because they are sexist. And Blanchardianism is also important to them because they are ordinarily conservative so they kind of want to say that trans women are socially bad in an abstract way.
Miscellaneous people who have conflict with trans women in various contexts, e.g. people who read too much Mumsnet and JK Rowling and now hate trans women, transwidows, female athletes who have to compete against trans women, non-GAMP lesbians whose dating sites have been overrun by trans women, feminists or HSTSs or transmeds playing respectability politics against conservatives who make fun of them for trans stuff. I think these are the main ones you are thinking of in your comment.
?Some unknown subset? (perhaps disproportionately masochistic?) of trans women who don’t really feel like the standard trans narratives accurately match them, and feel that autogynephilia models are more accurate.
Autogynephilic men who either don’t want to transition and are using the term “autogynephilia” to explain how they differ from trans women, or autogynephilic men who want to transition but are repressing and are using the term “autogynephilia” to explain why they are repressing.
Blanchard and Bailey, the O.G. Blanchardians, are in group 1 (though they differ in that they are more classically liberal than conservative). I am also somewhat in group 1, though not really because I am not really politically opposed to trans stuff but instead just picked it up through other contexts. As mentioned, I think you have group 2 in mind, and they seem to be the biggest group. Phil Illy seems to be some mixture of group 3 and 4, with perhaps some degree of group 2. Zack Davis, who also comments on autogynephilia around these parts, seems to be some mixture of 1, 2, and 4. I could also be said to be of group 3, though really I would do special pleading and say that my main background is fairly unique.
Before I got into autogynephilia theory, I was still doing various sorts of trans research, but in different ways. E.g. I was looking into Zinnia Jones’ depersonalization theory, looking into why nerdiness was correlated with transness, and looking into whether genderfluidity might be due to some sort of brain hemisphere switching thing. However I also occasionally added autogynephilia to my research, and I eventually found very large effects that didn’t seem well explained by the non-Blanchardian theories I was working with at the time.
But to answer your question, one controversy that has recently come up is “rapid-onset gender dysphoria”, a phenomenon where teens come out as trans to their parents and want to transition, without having exhibited unambiguous signs of transness early on. Some parents think that this is due to social contagion and that their children should be forced to go through puberty as their natal sex and should leave the ideology that caused the transness. The O.G. Blanchardians say that this is probably what happens among AFABs, but that among AMABs it is instead probably due to autogynephilia, and that it is plausible they could benefit from transition. Because my research has found evidence of the existence of autoandrophilia, I have long argued that autoandrophilia likely plays a role too, and so the AFABs could also benefit from transition. Phil sort of takes an intermediate position, saying that both AAP and ROGD plays a role.
Thanks for the detailed reply! Indeed, 2 is the main group I was thinking of and which seems most affected by the whole...just using Blanchardianism as a way to legitimize their disdain for (perhaps not all) trans women, although that’s probably an oversimplification. I’m happy for groups 3 and 4 having a way to reason about their personal experience as well. Group 1 is the one I’m most interested in—it does seem reasonable to not just assume that all people are equal and that differences between groups could impact how we should structure society. I follow as far as:
They are usually conservatives trying to build models of society which acknowledge human differences as causes of group outcomes and ignore the relevance of ideology.
Although I don’t have very much faith that these questions can be well answered with much confidence. I totally disagree by:
And Blanchardianism is also important to them because they are ordinarily conservative so they kind of want to say that trans women are socially bad in an abstract way.
A while back, I had a conversation with ChatGPT to try to understand the conservative perspective on trans people and it finally managed to stump me when it justified its claims on the basis of religious morality. I imagine this is a similar situation—I don’t quite understand how trans women transitioning in part because of autogynephilia is actually relevant for how we should structure society or how one ought to interact with a trans person. After all, cis/het people can make big life decisions like marrying a specific person (partly) on the basis of their sexual desire, and everyone seems okay with that. Does the argument go deeper than “autogynephilia bad and standard cishet sexual behavior okay because [gestures vaguely at religion or tradition]”?
...one controversy that has recently come up is “rapid-onset gender dysphoria”, a phenomenon where teens come out as trans to their parents and want to transition, without having exhibited unambiguous signs of transness early on. Some parents think that this is due to social contagion and that their children should be forced to go through puberty as their natal sex and should leave the ideology that caused the transness. The O.G. Blanchardians say that this is probably what happens among AFABs, but that among AMABs it is instead probably due to autogynephilia, and that it is plausible they could benefit from transition.
It seems pretty legit that questions about sexuality and previous gender dysphoria could help determine whether someone should transition (i.e. if they will be happier and not want to detransition with high probability). It also seems like the decision rule could be informed by whether Blanchardianism is correct or not. Thanks!
A while back, I had a conversation with ChatGPT to try to understand the conservative perspective on trans people and it finally managed to stump me when it justified its claims on the basis of religious morality.
I don’t think ChatGPT is good at conservatism. 😅 AI ethics STRONK.
I imagine this is a similar situation—I don’t quite understand how trans women transitioning in part because of autogynephilia is actually relevant for how we should structure society or how one ought to interact with a trans person. After all, cis/het people can make big life decisions like marrying a specific person (partly) on the basis of their sexual desire, and everyone seems okay with that. Does the argument go deeper than “autogynephilia bad and standard cishet sexual behavior okay because [gestures vaguely at religion or tradition]”?
After paying closer attention to some conservatives (especially Richard Hanania) for a while, I came up with this model. More recently, I’ve also gotten into intergenerational trauma as a further model of these things. (Roughly: Conservatives see how progressives fight them to introduce a bunch of progressive stuff, they decide that this means progressive stuff is their enemy, so they oppose it.)
I have a somewhat meta-level question to people who sympathize with Blanchardian writing: what is the interest of this research? What questions could we answer by knowing to what extent sexuality plays a causal role in transition? Are there decisions we make as a result of this? Is it for the benefit of trans people themselves that they think of themselves in this way?
I come across a disproportionate interest in noting the (generally) taboo sexual fetishes that are (perhaps) more common among trans people. I would search for quantitative evidence by going to Google Trends and looking at autogynephilia as compared to some similar term for a different social group, but I’m not even sure what other term I’d plug in just because I’ve never come across something applicable. Correct me if my perception is wrong, though.
From my perspective, this discussion feels akin to questions like “is (x group) socially bad in (y abstract way that is very difficult to answer without splitting hairs over definition)?”. You don’t really learn much that is actually concrete or useful, but you solidify an ontology that associates a socially disadvantaged group with undeserved toxicity.
To be clear, I don’t mean to attack the character of OP with this post, in particular because I think I trust lesswrong more than other places to have discussions that are (and should be) generally taboo. Also, to the extent that I am familiar with Blanchard’s research, I +1 Orual’s reply.
I feel fairly convinced that the legitimization of this line of questioning is bad for societal opinion of trans people in an unearned way. Blanchard’s research is frequently cited by pundits with the strongest anti-trans political opinions. However, I only feel weakly that it is a basically useless line of questioning.
Some groups of people I have noticed being into Blanchardianism and things superficially resembling Blanchardianism:
“Human biodiversity” people, that is intellectually inclined racists/sexists. They are usually conservatives trying to build models of society which acknowledge human differences as causes of group outcomes and ignore the relevance of ideology. A major reason they do this is to have explanations to counter antiracists/feminists and progressives who are trying to achieve group equality through affirmative action. Blanchardianism is important to them partly because gynephilic trans women’s traits in many ways resemble those of biological males and gender ideology explains that through socialization forces, so Blanchardianism becomes a counternarrative they can appeal to in order to dismiss these socialization forces, which they want to do because they are sexist. And Blanchardianism is also important to them because they are ordinarily conservative so they kind of want to say that trans women are socially bad in an abstract way.
Miscellaneous people who have conflict with trans women in various contexts, e.g. people who read too much Mumsnet and JK Rowling and now hate trans women, transwidows, female athletes who have to compete against trans women, non-GAMP lesbians whose dating sites have been overrun by trans women, feminists or HSTSs or transmeds playing respectability politics against conservatives who make fun of them for trans stuff. I think these are the main ones you are thinking of in your comment.
?Some unknown subset? (perhaps disproportionately masochistic?) of trans women who don’t really feel like the standard trans narratives accurately match them, and feel that autogynephilia models are more accurate.
Autogynephilic men who either don’t want to transition and are using the term “autogynephilia” to explain how they differ from trans women, or autogynephilic men who want to transition but are repressing and are using the term “autogynephilia” to explain why they are repressing.
Blanchard and Bailey, the O.G. Blanchardians, are in group 1 (though they differ in that they are more classically liberal than conservative). I am also somewhat in group 1, though not really because I am not really politically opposed to trans stuff but instead just picked it up through other contexts. As mentioned, I think you have group 2 in mind, and they seem to be the biggest group. Phil Illy seems to be some mixture of group 3 and 4, with perhaps some degree of group 2. Zack Davis, who also comments on autogynephilia around these parts, seems to be some mixture of 1, 2, and 4. I could also be said to be of group 3, though really I would do special pleading and say that my main background is fairly unique.
Before I got into autogynephilia theory, I was still doing various sorts of trans research, but in different ways. E.g. I was looking into Zinnia Jones’ depersonalization theory, looking into why nerdiness was correlated with transness, and looking into whether genderfluidity might be due to some sort of brain hemisphere switching thing. However I also occasionally added autogynephilia to my research, and I eventually found very large effects that didn’t seem well explained by the non-Blanchardian theories I was working with at the time.
But to answer your question, one controversy that has recently come up is “rapid-onset gender dysphoria”, a phenomenon where teens come out as trans to their parents and want to transition, without having exhibited unambiguous signs of transness early on. Some parents think that this is due to social contagion and that their children should be forced to go through puberty as their natal sex and should leave the ideology that caused the transness. The O.G. Blanchardians say that this is probably what happens among AFABs, but that among AMABs it is instead probably due to autogynephilia, and that it is plausible they could benefit from transition. Because my research has found evidence of the existence of autoandrophilia, I have long argued that autoandrophilia likely plays a role too, and so the AFABs could also benefit from transition. Phil sort of takes an intermediate position, saying that both AAP and ROGD plays a role.
Actually upon further thought, the heritability section of Autoheterosexuality shows that Phil also has some elements of group 1.
Thanks for the detailed reply! Indeed, 2 is the main group I was thinking of and which seems most affected by the whole...just using Blanchardianism as a way to legitimize their disdain for (perhaps not all) trans women, although that’s probably an oversimplification. I’m happy for groups 3 and 4 having a way to reason about their personal experience as well. Group 1 is the one I’m most interested in—it does seem reasonable to not just assume that all people are equal and that differences between groups could impact how we should structure society. I follow as far as:
Although I don’t have very much faith that these questions can be well answered with much confidence. I totally disagree by:
A while back, I had a conversation with ChatGPT to try to understand the conservative perspective on trans people and it finally managed to stump me when it justified its claims on the basis of religious morality. I imagine this is a similar situation—I don’t quite understand how trans women transitioning in part because of autogynephilia is actually relevant for how we should structure society or how one ought to interact with a trans person. After all, cis/het people can make big life decisions like marrying a specific person (partly) on the basis of their sexual desire, and everyone seems okay with that. Does the argument go deeper than “autogynephilia bad and standard cishet sexual behavior okay because [gestures vaguely at religion or tradition]”?
It seems pretty legit that questions about sexuality and previous gender dysphoria could help determine whether someone should transition (i.e. if they will be happier and not want to detransition with high probability). It also seems like the decision rule could be informed by whether Blanchardianism is correct or not. Thanks!
I don’t think ChatGPT is good at conservatism. 😅 AI ethics STRONK.
After paying closer attention to some conservatives (especially Richard Hanania) for a while, I came up with this model. More recently, I’ve also gotten into intergenerational trauma as a further model of these things. (Roughly: Conservatives see how progressives fight them to introduce a bunch of progressive stuff, they decide that this means progressive stuff is their enemy, so they oppose it.)