This is is bi odd because I can’t imagine you being unaware of articles you appear in unless the journalist quoted you from a website (this website?).

What news article was that?

The topic would more accurately be called “Can professors present half baked hypotheses seemingly shaped by their own salacious attitudes as scientific fact with impunity?”.

The answer is no. If Dr Bailey hurts vulnerable people by misleadingly presenting pseudo-science as science, why should he maintain a good scientific reputation and high status? Why should he not suffer sanctions and criticism? It’s nothing compared with having your civil rights damaged; lawmakers are now referring to Dr Bailey’s “work”. It’s so frustrating.

I found your blog through a news article where you were interviewed. You defended Dr Bailey AND championed the whole flawed homo-auto model (further sullying the reputation of transwomen in the process).

How can you now say that the accuracy or not of the material is not the “issue” for you? You might think about admitting you were wrong and apologising. I disagree with personal attacks on Dr Bailey but the harm done by them is minuscule compared with the hurt he has caused - by NOT speaking the truth.

Those who like Dr Bailey’s views have complained a lot about the lack of civility of those with contra views, yet when confronted with reasoned debate it seems they shy away. It doesn’t stop them spreading a hypothesis masquerading as a theory that undermines the lives of transwomen, though.

How can a person whose specialty is studying the human mind disregard the way we shape ourselves to suit our environment? Any classification system that ignores asseveration and denial in an area where they play such a crucial role due to the intensity of stigma is can only be wrong or, at best, incomplete.

Some people are more motivated than others to do alter themselves to fit the expected mold. If a budding T-woman has highly phobic parents as a child it can cut either way; sometimes we give up ever gaining their affection and camp it up to the max as a form of rebellion. If we feel parental approval is not a lost cause we might try to shape ourselves in a way that makes sure we win their approval. There is also a matter of pride, confidence and character/personality strength. Some of us think “I am who I am and I see no reason to change myself to suit anyone else” while others have more of a “Gee, I’d better be careful of I’ll lose their love” attitude.

The problem with Dr Bailey’s approach is that it doesn’t seem to be presented as “two underlying reasons” but just two types of T-woman. That’s the way it’s presented - is that if you are a transwoman you are either a girly gay guy who like straight men or you are a straight guy who likes wearing dresses or fantasises about having female equipment. No argument. If you say otherwise you are lying.

I have worked in HR for most of my working life. Women abound, gay men are common and potential partners are thin on the ground

Autog is highly damaging to a person’s relationships as is any sexual impulse that is not relationship-based and I talked about this quite a bit in my earlier post. People are supposed to form relationships, not to fantasise about weird self-oriented things. I can be turned on by a gorgeous man or one with whom I share a special connection, but my strongest sexual impulse is towards humiliation and hurt - to myself. How horrible is that??

I am bitter about what I lost through all this and it annoys me when psychologists or psychiatrists create a very rough taxonomy on us that only serves to further damage our standing in the community. It’s like kicking a kitten. As I mentioned in the previous post, the trauma/denial that creates autog can occur in both masculine and feminine kids - in the former due to slow growth, exaggerated cultural masculinity or misconceptions about self, and the latter due to denial of your pronounced feminine or androgynous features.

If you accept and embrace your feminine aspects in youth then you won’t be an autog, but more likely to suffer other neurotic reactions from the victimization you will inevitably suffer (that autogs change themselves to avoid). This can lead supposedly ‘homosexual’ transwomen to have an insatiable hunger for masculine love and acceptance to counter the lack they experienced when thy were young. Then they have to put up with being tagged “sex mad” or “boy crazy”. We can’t win.

In my opinion, TSism in its pure form is about diversity. Males vary from the hyper-masculine to the highly feminine, with most sitting somewhere in between. If you are at the feminine end of the scale then it can make for a more comfortable life to live female because you fulfill more societal/familial expectations naturally without acting or trying to muscle up or whatever. You can be yourself and actually win approval for it. I see it as a mix of the physical, mental and emotional and if you are androgynous is all areas then male life is an endless struggle.

By the way, I think Dr Bailey’s preferred classifications will break down even further due to the internet because more young autogs will change over since they will be more aware of their options and feel more accepted through cyber communities.

How were you “damaged” by autog? It’s unclear what you mean.

To say there are two types and then say they don’t correlate “perfectly” is not only an understatement but it leaves the majority of transsexuals who don’t fit neatly into those types in limbo. If many of us don’t fit the categories, then there are simply not enough categories. Or the wrong ones.

My own background is as confusing as Rachel’s:

I transitioned at age 36 (type 2). I have spent most of my working life in clerical, admin and assistant roles generally held by females (type 1). I refused to see myself as feminine as a child but due to family pressures I had started “shaping myself” male at a very early age, yet schoolmates saw though my act and I was bullied (for being gay and too girly) to the point where I had to leave without any qualifications (Type ?) I pass as a woman in all walks of life and straight men often flirt with me - and I with them (Type 1). I crossdressed when young (Type 2). I am fairly intellectual (Type 2). I date men exclusively and have zero sexual interest in women (Type 1). I married a female earlier on i life (Type 2). Like Rachel, I’m not obsessive about being ‘girly’ and wear jeans, shorts or slacks most of the time.

I agree with Rachel that Dr Bailey oversexualises us. Did he wonder for a moment what could make a male sexually aroused by feminisation? I would have thought that was crucial. It doesn’t take a genius to know that autog, being an unnatural impulse (ie. it is not partner-based), is caused by a form of childhood or teen trauma.

What causes that particular kind of trauma? A devastating sense of emasculation as a child. Does a male child have to be feminine in fact to feel emasculated? No, it’s all relative, and some may be androgynous when young but grow to be masculine, but they still retain the self-image. That’s why some with an autog background are feminine (which is plain old human diversity) and others are not (slow to mature).

This is hardly brain surgery, yet a supposedly serious researcher could not even come close, nor even try coming up with some hypotheses. He did, however, get to spend time in gay bars chatting with - was it 9? - transwomen. Is this the sort of research a “truth teller” does? That’s just one reason why his peers rejected his book.

So where does all that that leave me? I was a Type 1 who fought against my softness through family attitudes, and the resistance and subsequent insecurity and harassment gave me a Type 2 fetish (ie. damaged sexuality). If you accept it, then you’re no going to be as traumatised. My confusion and denial lead to me a misguided Type 2 marriage that I thought would fix me up (and caused unfair problems for an innocent woman). I know now that, as a male, I was always bi with a strong gay preference, yet I feel I was not a “proper” gay because I never felt happy with my “equipment” at the time and pretending to be masculine made me feel disturbed.

I have a fairly androgynous gay friend who knows my past and in talking we noticed how similar aspects of our youth were. One time we sat down and compared notes; we found only a few differences. I always looked more naturally feminine than he ever did. I never liked having a male organ (I used to try to wish cancer on it) and he always did. I never had that rampant male libido that he has. He has always enjoyed casual liaisons whereas they make me feel miserable and as though I’ve wasted my time. He knows more about tupperware, fabrics, homeware and furnishings than I do. He also knows a lot more about cars (which isn’t hard). He’s a bright boy.

Joking aside, when I had the surgery I told myself I was doing it for practical reasons like being able to have face-to-face intimacy, not feel paranoid in change rooms, wearing tight jeans, changing my birth certificate, not worry about going to hospital if in a car accident, etc. Yet I was really surprised to find the surgery had another effect - I started being happy and I became functional. Promotions at work soon followed - for the first time in my life - because I could finally concentrate. I now earn over double what I did 13 years ago in my male life.

I found that unexpected effect of the surgery weird because I never believed in the woman-in-a-male-body line; I always thought of TSism as just being a long way towards the end of the the feminine end of the male scale, to the point where living as a woman was more comfortable and allowed you to be more natural. The fact that I had that reaction suggests to me that there may well be something to the idea of gender identity, despite the naysaying of cynics. Perhaps it’s an interaction of body, mind and emotions?

I had to work hard to shake off the damage to my sexuality caused by autog and I will never be 100% fixed. It seems that, in fantasy, I can replace autog fantasies during those times when I can be bothered pleasuring myself with rape fantasies with good effect. I think that says a lot about the dynamics.

In terms of my REAL orientation, I am now left with a low-intensity heterosexual preference (as in a woman who falls in love with men). One problem in removing the cancer of autog from my sexuality is that my surgery was badly done and I often experience pain during sex, even a decade post-op and despite two follow-up surgeries to remove neuromas. So I can only be with men who are modestly endowed and even then it sometimes hurts.

Transwomen face a lot of problems and the last thing we need is a psychologist publishing his rough guesses and presenting them as The Truth. We have enough problems without that kind of “truth telling”.

A bit of real truth telling (without inverted commas) would be nice. Hopefully you will find this bit of REAL truth-telling of use in your practice.