Sex, Lies, and Videotape…
… well, maybe not videotape.
One of the problems causing confusion in recognition of the two types is that autogynephilic transsexuals will, to first appearances either lie, or at the very least, distort their current, real sexual interests. The reasons for this apparent lying is worthy of its own study. But, one reason is usually that the AGP transsexual is under the erroneous impression that it is required to get needed medical services. They may feel that that an androphilic, feminine, transsexual will find it easier to access services, so may deliberately distort their own presentation to more closely match that. But, I feel that that is far too simplistic. It is far more likely that at that point in time, the distortion is actually accepted as part of one’s own personal narrative, in order to feel better about oneself, a defense against shame of being autogynephilic. Further, in at least one area of their lives, they may be expressing a wish about themselves, rather than an actuality. They may wish that they are more like the younger, prettier, more feminine androphilic transsexual. They may also do so because they want to be “real women”… and in their minds, “real women” are straight, primarily interested in men. Or, it may not be a serious distortion of the understanding of themselves, but rather their understanding of themselves is what is limited. To be specific, if an autogynephilic transsexual incorporates the ability to attract straight men into her autogynephilic ideation, she is attracted to men, right? Uh… no… she is still simply AGP, men have become a prop in her sexual ideation of being a woman. (No pulling punches, remember?)
So, if AGPs often do not report their current sexual interests in a reliable way, how is science to separate the two types when needed. Oh… and… how can we be sure that they actually are distortions?
Ok, Please read the paper at the following link, then come back:
The authors, Berger and Leavitt have fallen for a trap set by the distortions of the types above, and included many AGPs who are not in fact, primarily interested in men. But, they have accidentally given us the data to allow us to separate them. And by doing so, further demonstrate that there are in fact the two completely different group. Note that the author’s mistake was in using Kurt Freund’s Androphilia Scale, as modified by Blanchard. This instrument focuses on self-report, rather than on actual sexual history. It is my hypothesis, that using actual history is the only reliable method of differentiating real from potentially distorting self-reports of sexual orientation among self-identified transsexuals. Fortunately, we have that sexual history. So, let me reorganize the data:
Type: Avoidant Pleasure Inactive
Number n=15 n=30 n=36
Age 29.9 32.8 34.5
SD 4.2 7.5 9.6
time: 4.9 3.1 0.73
Transition: 25 29.7 33.7
Married: 0% 23% 47%
Penis “OK” 6.7% 83.3% 33%
Fetishistic 6.7% 33.3% 50%
Sex w/ female: 0% 33.3% 58%
females: 0% 33.3% 70%
Male toys 16% 46% 50%
Male playmates 16% 37% 47%
This paper was originally meant to explore the sexual practices of Blanchard’s “Homosexual Transsexual”. But Blanchard had only managed to statistically separate them out. But, if we examine the above data, we can see that Berger & Leavitt have managed to further separate them. Note that the $64K question has been asked, how much sexual experience with women did each have.
Looking at such small numbers, the standard deviation (SD) is almost the same as the range. So, the Avoidants ranged in age at transition from 20 to 30, the Pleasure from 22 to 36 and the Inactive from 24 to 42. Based on the fact that half of the Inactive had been married, and that they have not ever had sex with men, I would strongly argue that many, if not most, of L&B’s “Inactive” are AGP. Finally, fully 50% of the Inactive admit to having fetishistic arousal, that is… that fully 50% essentially admit that they are in fact AGP! Note the number who admit to sexual history with women is nearly the same as those that admit to AGP arousal. In fact, the statistical correlation, the most powerful method of determining a relationship, is 0.999036, so close to a perfect 1.0 as to essentially be so, given measurement and rounding error!
Note that one of the Avoidant group admits that they don’t hate their penis… and that one admits that they have had AGP arousal. Perhaps that is the same person? We might even wonder about that person’s age… what if that was the oldest at transition? That would pull down the average age at transition to below 25 and the range wouldn’t go as high. Sadly, this paper doesn’t give us the details by which we could make such an adjustment. The same analysis is possible for the Pleasure group. This is strongly in agreement to our expectation that Blanchard showed that his “Homosexual Transsexual” group almost always transition before age 25.
Note the similarity in the numbers between admitted AGP arousal and having been married. Again, sadly we don’t have the data for whether those that had been previously married would be the same group, or highly overlapping group, as had admitted to being AGP. But, statistically, this could be a safe bet.
Again, looking at the Pleasure group, If only 33% of them are actually feminine androphilic type, the age at transition may or may not fall below age 25. We simply don’t have enough data from this paper to determine that. There appears *very* strong evidence that AGPs, and only AGPs, are comfortable with having sex with women. Finally, the similar results of the MMPI and DAP of the Pleasure and Inactive groups suggest that they are the same and radically different than the Avoidant group.
This data clearly shows that there are two groups, that one is clearly uninterested in having sex with women, actively interested in men, transitions younger, and exhibited more femininity as a child. The other is interested in women, is older at transition, and was not feminine as a child.