Sexuality ...

... is very confusing for me.

Several people have asked the standard, and I guess obvious, question about whether the whole dressing-as-a-woman thing means that I also take that to the, potentially, logical conclusion that I'm attracted to men in the same way as a normal woman.

The short answer, for the record is "no", which can be slightly elaborated by explaining that, in some respects gender and sexuality can be treated as separate things, e.g. this is obvious when you consider gay men or lesbian women.

The longer answer is even more complicated though and is affected by a whole load of things; general confusion, socialisation, and also a whole host of issues around diagnosis and acceptance of a TG condition. I'm not going to go into the depths of my confusion here but I did want to at least allude to the fact that it isn't an entirely clear-cut decision/choice for me and is something that causes me alot of pain and confusion. The easy choice at the moment is just to try and not think about it most of the time as clearly any decision either way is going to be tremendously complicated!

One thing that I do want to rant about is autogynephilia which, as one forum poster commented forms part of one side of the "Tranny Warz" along with it's supporters such as J Michael Bailey, Dr Anne Lawrence, and the originator of the term; Ray Blanchard. It's worth noting before launching into this theory that I have seen comments about TS (MtF) individuals feeling the need to state an attraction to men in order to justify their desire to transition. This obviously creates concern from both those wanting to get help and those supplying it.

One of the problems I personally see with autogynephilia is that it seems to be a very narrow theory; it classifies MtF TS as either homosexual or non-homosexual. There doesn't appear to be any middle ground or other options for grouping. Also it doesn't appear to even consider FtM TS individuals or for that matter take into account wider sexuality. Quite simply you are either a feminine homosexual male who wishes to undergo transition in order to fully realise the female persona they present or you have no attraction to men but instead you have an erotic and/or romantic attachment to the fantasy of you yourself being female.

The most obvious example of autogynephilic behaviour would be sexual arousal from the act of wearing female clothing or from the fantasy of having a female anatomy. The target of this fantasy always being oneself. First off the problem here is that this theory makes it sound like anyone classified in such a way is doing so because of some sexual reason - in today's society that is a hard thing to accept. It's much better to be able to state your 'problem' is one of identity and gender rather than some sort of kink or even worse, perversion.

Given the pressure I mentioned above that some TS individuals feel to state an attraction to men and essentially fit the homosexual category here it's easy to see that this theory does nothing to help ease this situation and in fact probably makes it worse.

In her article Becoming What We Love Dr Anne Lawrence tries to defend the theory and also put a more positive spin on it by emphasising the "romantic" or "love" part rather than the sexual aspects. I'm not really convinced by the arguments she puts forward, for example one of the responses from TS subjects (who presumably disagree with this theory) is that they have had these feelings from a very young age. In the article this is dismissed by presenting evidence that children as young as 4-5yrs old can express romantic attachment to members of the opposite sex that appears similar to the feelings reported by adolescents. This sounds alot like trying to twist facts to fit the theory!

Another point that really doesn't help is at the end of J Michael Baileys blog entry where he says:

"To me, the most obvious harm occurs when an autogynephilic individual becomes a husband and father and the family then dissolves when he decides to become a woman. Helping to acknowledge autogynephilia earlier in life may help to prevent more trans women from unintentionally ending up in this situation."

This is plainly offensive to those in this situation, and I would suspect that there would be a high percentage of those from the individuals that fit into the theories "autogynephilic" category. So again, not helpful in the slightest and only goes to alienate more people!

What is truly sad though is that there may be some elements of the theory that do apply and do provide benefit to some but this will be over-shadowed by the rather unsavoury aspects of the complete theory as presented. I've personally found that the more voiciferously I present an argument the more likely it is that I've got something wrong and need to back out later. It's often better to simply say what are possible explanations and then see if those that may know better agree and affectively reinforce your theory or modify it until more complete.

I think the main problem here is that those who came up with the theory are not themselves subject to it so they lack some degree of empathy towards their subjects. Anne Lawrence does have personal experience in this area and claims to identify with the theory as a way to explain her situation. However I think her article above shows that she is twisting things to make them sit better with her personal feelings - which is what everyone always does.

So, does this theory help me - no, I don't think it does, and I think, like alot of things it's down to what you feel and think yourself. As long as those caring for you listen and help based on that then there is no problem. We can all talk about what/why/wherefore in an adult way afterwards.