Yesterday, I read an article by Noah Berlatsky entitled…
Why Are Trans Women Penalized For Body Fantasies Everyone Has?
The article claims that when a crossdreamer gets turned on by lingerie or bimbofication, they are experiencing the same buzz a cis-woman experiences for lingerie or the idea of big boobs. In other words, it’s not some kind of ‘autogynephilia’ or ‘transvestic fetish’ but simply…a ciswoman’s sexuality trapped in a man’s body.
Not only is this idea nonsense, but it’s the sort of narrative that ends up doing more harm than good to the mental health of transwomen.
…Because it causes cognitive dissonace and unrealistic expectations. They tell themselves they have a cis-woman’s sexuality but continue to experience fantasies that they know, deep down, aren’t very cis. For example, fantasies about…
_ Lactation, motherhood and/or female urination.
_ Being humiliated and abused for being a ‘sissy’ or a ‘transvestite.’
_ Wearing sanitary towels.
_ Particular fabrics such as satin or PVC.
_ Forced feminisation.
_ Exaggerated feminization.
_ A superficial attraction for men that includes stereotypical masculine traits (muscles etc.) but doesn’t include the face or true personality.
Today, I will argue that transwomen are happier when they have a more accurate conception of their sexuality. Simplistic ideas like “my love of lingerie is just the same as a woman’s,” or myths like, “once I transition, my sexuality will be free of crossgender ‘fetishism” do not bring transwomen to the state of peace and acceptance they need for optimum mental health.
Fortunately, having an accurate conception of crossgender sexuality does not mean you have to subscribe to the ideas of Blanchard. All it means is that you accept its unique nature, and the simple fact that nobody – not me, not Blanchard, nor Serrano – truly understands its origins.
There might well be a transwoman reading this article whose attraction for wearing lingerie is the same as a biological woman’s.
That means, by definition, you are not the sort of transgender woman this article was written for. This was written for transgender women who exhibit the behaviour described by the misguided theories of ‘autogynephilia’ and ‘transvestic fetishism.’ Therefore, don’t leave stroppy comments. I’m not talking about you!
The Moser Myth
The main problem with Berlatsky’s article is that it is based on a Charles Moser experiment that claims to prove that ‘autogynephilia’ exists in women.
However, Berlatsky clearly hasn’t read the original paper, because the only thing it proved was that women find the idea they might have ‘autogynephilia’ so ridiculous that they refuse to participate in the experiment. That’s why the overwhelming majority of women did not fill in Moser’s questionnaire.
How many women responded? 18 or so.
Despite this pitiful level of participation, Moser believed he had enough data to draw the following conclusion: that women also have autogynephilia.
His argument goes something like this…
- Women get turned on by lingerie.
- Women get turned on by thinking of themselves as sexy women.
- Women place themselves into the narrative of films they find erotic.
- In fact, the projection of the self into imagined bodies, outfits and scenarios is the definition of fantasy itself.
- Ergo: crossdreamers imagining themselves as sexy women are indulging in classic fantasy projection – as practiced by females the world over.
This is plainly untrue, and any crossdeamer who analyses their own fantasies knows it’s untrue. Putting aside forced feminisation and all our other weird fantasies, let’s stick to the basics: classic female embodiment.
Imagine you (a crossdreamer) are in a bar with your girlfriend (a heterosexual female) and a beautiful woman walks in, wearing a sexy PVC dress.
Your girlfriend – unless she has lesbian tendencies – is not going to look at the woman and get turned on. And if she does have any sense that she wanted to be that woman it’d be a straightforward case of envy and the desire to be more beautiful.
Even if she does get a quiver of excitement at the thought of wearing such a sexy dress and being that woman, it’s only a precursor to what really turns her on: the resulting sexual interaction with the target of her female heterosexuality: men.
You, however, will have a different reaction.
Firstly, there’s the possibility of an erotic interest purely in the PVC dress. Fetish fabrics dominate some crossdreamer sexualities and might have you looking over repeatedly at the shine and tightness of said fabric.
Secondly, the thought of being that beautiful woman is going to ratchet up the arousal level to an even greater degree.
Thirdly, as you stare at the woman during the night, your sexual fantasy won’t necessarily advance beyond SIMPLY BEING THE WOMAN. Other participants may or may not enter into the fantasy.
The difference between the crossdreamer’s concept of himself as a woman and that of his girlfriend, therefore, is that the biggest buzz for him is being the woman whereas the buzz for his girlfriend is the sexual activity which being that woman will lead to.
For females (I suspect) the idea of being a sexy woman is an optional extra – an added pizza topping – but certainly not the main course itself. With the crossdreamer, however, being a sexy woman is the crust, the cheese, the portion of fries and the diet coke. Simply being the beautiful woman in a PVC dress would be enough to send him into extreme arousal.
Thought Experiment 2
To see how ridiculous the idea of women with autogynephilia is… just imagine you’re Brad Pitt. Have you – or any other guy – ever got a hardon thinking you were Brad Pitt? No! You could get turned on by imagining you’re as handsome as Brad Pitt and having all the resultant sexual interactions…but you don’t look at Brad and get the horn imagining his face on your body.
Similarly, the idea that women look at pictures of Ariana Grande and start fingering themselves (imagining they’re Ariana Grande) is not viable.
A crossdreamer, however, would have no problem with such a fantasy.
…Noah’s premise seems like a good idea. He’s trying to prove Blanchard wrong and show that a transwoman has a cis-woman’s sexuality. Unfortunately, though, it ends up laying the foundation for all mental pathologies: conflict. In this case, a conflict between…
An idealized conception of a transwoman’s pure female sexuality
The day to day reality of her not so pure fantasies
Trying to deny the true nature of crossdreamer fantasies by describing them as female (or by trying to say that ciswomen also have such fantasies) is a disservice to transwomen. You see, paradoxically, trying to whitewash female embodiment/feminization ends up reinforcing the tenets of Blanchard: that these fantasies are shameful and invalidating.
Because the implausibility of contemporary autogynephilia criticism communicates a powerful subtext to all transwomen: that whatever happens – they must always downplay certain aspects of their sexuality. When the transwoman asks herself why this is so, she can only come to a singular conclusion…
That yes, indeed: these fantasies are shameful and invalidating.
What are we supposed to do: call ourselves autogynephiliacs?
As stated before, having a more accurate conception of crossgender fantasy does not mean using the language of Blanchard or transvestic fetishism. It means that you remain fundamentally transgnostic and committed to the facts of modern transgender science: that there is none. As I’ve repeated ad nauseum: nobody knows the causes of the transgender condition or sexual orientation.
This allows you the cover to shootdown Blanchard or Berlatsky or anyone else who claims to definitively know what causes crossgender fantasy, without having to commit yourself to any alternative.
All you have to do is repeat to yourself and others just one, simple mantra: nobody knows!