Freud was bonkers, Blanchard is not

Blanchard’s transsexual typology is sometimes compared to Freud’s ideas. After all, both propose that sexuality is extremely important in the development of important parts of one’s psychology and identity. This comparison is unreasonable, because Blanchard’s proposals of sexual motivations are based on direct observations of these sexual interests, while Freud’s are, well… bonkers. Let’s take a look.

It’s hard to directly establish a causal proof of autogynephilia. However, there’s no doubt that most trans women have experienced AGP, with many initially thinking that their gender issues are a fetish. We can also see that autogynephilia is a strong predictor of gender issues in cis men (see also this study). Some say it goes away with transition, but I doubt that. Regardless, there’s clearly something going on here, rather than being some craziness pulled out of thin air, and the proposal that AGP may cause a desire to be female isn’t exactly illogical. How does Freud compare?

Let’s take a look at “penis envy”, because “penis envy” sounds kinda similar to autoandrophilia, the mirror image of autogynephilia. According to Freud, girls develop a sexual interest in their mothers, but then realize that because they don’t have a penis, they aren’t equipped to have a sexual relationship with them. This makes them want to obtain their father’s penis, which leads to a sexual interest in their fathers. Then they blame their mothers for their “castration”, and decide to eliminate the mothers by trying to learn to mimic them so they can steal the affection of their fathers. Due to fear of punishment for this, they then decide to focus their sexual attention on men in general, rather than just their fathers. Yes, really, that’s the theory.

I don’t know that this deserves an explanation of how it differs from Blanchard’s typology, but let’s try anyway. We directly observe the existence of autogynephilic attraction. For the “penis envy” to make sense, we’d have to directly observe girls first have an incestual attraction to their mothers, and then to their fathers. In addition, it doesn’t at all make sense that desire to have a penis should lead to sexual attraction to one’s father, while in Blanchard’s theory it makes perfect sense that sexual attraction to being female would lead to desire to be female. Freud’s theory also proposes an incredibly elaborate path of psychosexual development, which doesn’t really seem plausible or justifiable.

How about another theory, “the Oedipus complex”? According to this theory, boys develop a sexual interest in their mothers, but then realize that this is in competition with their father’s relationship with their mothers, and therefore decide that they should kill their fathers. The boys then realize that their fathers are stronger than them, develop a fear of their fathers castrating them, repress their sexual interest in their mothers, and try to instead mimic their fathers. The increased similarity between the boys and the fathers reduces their castration anxiety and leads to healthy psychosexual outcomes.

Again, this would look a lot more plausible if many men were sexually attracted to their mothers, or if men regularly killed their fathers so they could marry their mothers. Supposedly, Freud wrote that he had once experienced arousal when watching his mother dressing, so maybe he was engaging in typical mind fallacy. Regardless, this theory is obviously completely bonkers.

Now, seriously, compare this to AGP theory: For unknown reasons, some men find it arousing to picture themselves as women. This leads to a desire to be women, and in some rare cases this desire can evolve into an extreme degree of distress that eventually makes them seek sex change. The trans women who got off to crossdressing before transition were motivated (either directly, or more likely, indirectly through the development of dysphoria) by this sexual interest. Many trans women misreport their experiences to better fit a “classical trans narrative”, and you can detect these misreports by asking independent sources (such as parents), using Social Desirability Bias measures, or by looking at the evolution of their narratives over time.

Now there’s no doubt that this is controversial, and it should not be argued for without evidence. As I pointed out earlier, though, there’s plenty of evidence for many of the elements in this story. Since it’s possible that there’s some other set of dynamics that just happen to look a lot like AGP-causing-dysphoria, causality is hard to formally establish, but lots of the individual pieces are easily directly observable, which makes it entirely unlikely Freud.


Regarding Asexual AGPs

One of the controversial aspects of Blanchard’s typology is that it asserts that asexual trans women transition because of autogynephilia. Many people find it ridiculous to suggest that asexuals transition for reasons originating in sexuality, because, y’know, they’re asexual. How could Blanchard come up with such an idea?

Most obviously, because the asexual trans women themselves report having experienced autogynephilia. In this study, Blanchard asked trans women whether they had engaged in transvestic fetishism, and found that 75% of his asexual group answered yes. Similarly, Nuttbrock found that 67% of his asexual group had experienced transvestic arousal at some point in their lives.

Need more convincing? On page 83 of Jaimie Veale’s Master’s thesis, she has a table showing how well trans women feel that the concept of autogynephilia applies to their own experiences. Obviously since many trans women feel that AGP is invalidating, there’s going to be a degree of bias where no group feels it totally applies to them. But do the 31 asexual trans women feel that it makes less sense in their case than the other groups do? Nope; 45.2% of the asexuals feel that it applies at least a little bit to them, versus 40.8% of the other groups. The only group with a higher percentage is the gynephilic trans women, at 53%. (Sidenote: due to her way of recruiting participants, Veale did not have any non-autogynephiles in her sample.)

Thinking that asexual trans women are not explained by autogynephilia demonstrates a striking unfamiliarity with asexual trans women’s experiences. That’s understandable for those who are just asking questions. However, if someone explicitly states that the typology can’t explain asexual trans women, well… then they are probably not a very reliable source on the validity of Blanchard’s typology.

How might asexual trans women end up autogynephilic? Well, it’s hard to know, but a common speculation is that it’s due to the phenomenon known as “competition”: basically, autogynephilia is related to (allo)gynephilia in the sense that it is a self-directed variant of gynephilia. Most gynephiles are not autogynephilic, but many autogynephiles are allogynephilic. Autogynephilia and allogynephilia can coexist to various degrees, with some having a skew towards allogynephilia, some varing approximately equally much of both, and some having a skew towards autogynephilia. Asexual autogynephiles are then those who have a very strong skew towards the autogynephilic part of their sexuality, to the degree where they experience no or negligible allogynephilic attraction. In a sense, the autogynephilia and allogynephilia “competes”, so that autogynephilic interest overshadows allogynephilic interest.


The relation between exclusivity of AGP and possible identities. Note that this relation is very very far from deterministic, as there are many factors that may affect how one identifies.

Some early pieces of data indicated that this model was true because they suggested that the most-autogynephilic people were least attracted to other people. However, this finding doesn’t look very well-supported by newer data, so there might be some subtleties at play that are not yet fully understood. More research is needed.

Autogynephilia is Not Narcissism

The legend of Narcissus describes a beautiful man who fell in love with his own reflection and withered away as he stared at it. This myth is the origin of the term narcissism, a tendency to have inflated self-importance, need for admiration and lack of empathy, and is associated with an excessive focus on achieving power or improving one’s appearance.

Autogynephilia has been compared to narcissism, through the idea that autogynephiles are attracted to themselves, which is similar to Narcissus’s situation, and therefore very narcissistic. There are three major problems with this comparison:

1. Self-attraction is not narcissism. Narcissism as a personality construct is named after Narcissus, but this is a metaphor. Narcissists aren’t literally sexually attracted to themselves. They want to be admired by others, but this is very different from self-attraction.

2. Autogynephilia is not really self-attraction. Or at least, if it is, it is in a more-complicated way. Autogynephiles are attracted to being female, but often they don’t really have a “themselves as women” to be attracted to. There’s some lines of evidence that suggest that AGP should more be seen as “attraction to being people who are female”, which is a far more outwardly-directed form of autogynephilia. Perhaps interpersonal autogynephilia has some narcissistic elements, but it is only one of multiple forms of AGP.

3. Autogynephilia has not been strongly linked to narcissism. Obviously, trans people have somewhat elevated rates of many mental illnesses, and I wouldn’t be surprised if narcissistic personality disorder was one of them. However, there’s no proof that there’s a strong effect, where narcissism is universal among autogynephiles, and I’ve found essentially no effect in a survey on it. Most other paraphilias than autogynephilia were linked to narcissism, and if you think about it, that makes sense. It’s a lot closer to the real definition of narcissism to get off to exposing yourself to other people, or to degrading other people, than it is to get off to the thought of being female.

Realistically, autogynephilia and narcissism should be thought of as being two completely orthogonal constructs.

An Issue With ETLE?

What is autogynephilia? According to the Erotic Target Location Error model, it is in some sense the application of gynephilic attraction to yourself; that is, a sexual interest in being what you find attractive (erotic target identity inversion), plus an attraction to women (gynephilia). This hypothesis predicts that other sexual interests (e.g. attraction to amputees or children) have corresponding autophilias (e.g. apotemnophilia or autopedophilia), which might act analogously to autogynephilia (e.g. causing body integrity identity disorder or age dysphoria).

There’s some evidence of this; for example, apotemnophilia and autopedophilia exist and tend to cooccur with acrotomophilia and pedophilia. However, there’s a lack of research in the validity of the concept within the normal range of attraction. For example, do autogynephiles who like redheads also want to have red hair? Some time ago, I did a survey awkwardly named Survey on traits you’re attracted to or would like to have where I examined exactly that. I decided on a number of traits that one might find attractive and/or want, asked people about those traits plus a number of other things (e.g. AGP), and got these results:


The correlation coefficient between attractiveness of and desire to have various traits, split by various groups. The “(Average)” spot at the end shows the average correlation coefficient over all of the traits.

First of all, let’s think about what we would a priori expect. It’s perfectly possible that something other than ETLE might cause a correspondence, so we can’t assume that non-ETLEs would have zero correlation. However, surely ETLE should lead to a greater correspondence than there would otherwise be, perhaps in proportion to the intensity of the ETLE. So a pattern of [Non-AGP cis men < AGP cis men < Transfems] would be appropriate. It would also be great to have [Cis women < Transfems], since otherwise there would be a lot of worry about confounding, but it’s not as clear that we can assume this to hold.

Now, in practice I don’t really have a big enough sample to talk about the transfems, so it’s probably better to focus on the non-AGP and AGP men. As you can see, there was quite a big correspondence between what traits they found attractive and what traits they wanted to have, but this applied equally well to both AGP and non-AGP men. I don’t think this is conclusive evidence, as I can see a number of problems with the approach, but it’s certainly something that’s worth taking into account.

Let’s talk problems with my approach:

  • A lot of the traits I used are a bit weird. I had a hard time picking good traits, and I didn’t make it easier for myself by trying to pick traits that followed certain rules (not too sexually dimorphic, not too universally seen as good/bad, equally attractive in men and women, not signalling membership of specific subcultures). I didn’t even manage to follow the rules to a degree that I felt was satisfactory either. Perhaps a better selection of traits (and rules?) would improve things.
  • It’s not clear that the traits picked could truly be said to be part of the participant’s sexual orientation. It’s possible that the main thing both of the questions measured was how positive an emotional valence people had around the traits, with essentially no signal coming through in terms of sexual orientation. In that case, it’s not surprising that I found no effect.
  • It’s unclear whether the desire to have those traits would apply if having them didn’t come with being female. Even if we assume an AGP man who likes redheads would also desire to be a woman with red hair, it’s not clear that this would lead to especially much interest in being a man with red hair. On the other hand, many apotemnophiles are interested in losing limbs without changing sex, and many autopedophiles are interested in being children without changing sex, so it seems that maybe the same should apply to other traits.
  • It’s possible that the men I involved weren’t AGP enough. It would be relevant to repeat this test with some men who are extremely AGP.

AGP does not go away with transition

It is commonly anecdotally reported that AGP goes away with gender transition for trans women. For example, many in this survey about AGP on /r/AskTransgender reported having experienced it going away, studies like Doorn (1994) found similar changes, and even surveys by me show that pretransition trans women have more AGP than posttransition ones:


Comparison of AGP rates in trans women who are pre-HRT vs post-HRT from a survey on 4chan. (Yes, 4chan is unreliable, but not uniquely so in a way that I would expect to mess with these results – after all, it’s similar to what we see from the other sources I’ve mentioned.)

So, with all of this evidence, how could I possibly deny that AGP disappears with transition? Well, let’s state what we’ve found above more clearly: if you take trans women, who know they’re being examined specifically in the context of trans issues, and ask them specifically about autogynephilia in the sense of something experienced by trans women, and in particular in an environment that expects it to disappear with transition, you’ll find that it disappears with transition. Yup, I’m going to call social desirability bias.

Probably the simplest solution to this is just to ask more stealthily. Don’t specifically ask trans women, ask people in general and consider the subset that happens to be trans. Don’t ask whether it disappeared with transition, just check if it did. Don’t make the purpose anything trans, just test it independently. And probably use a measure that gives different instead of the same results for cis women and trans women, just to make it harder to question the results. Here’s the results:


From my first survey asking people to look at and rate the attractiveness of various sorts of pornography, titled “Can you look at some porn For Science?”. Trans women remain very AGP regardless of transition status.

Obviously, this isn’t perfect; I’m sure there’s a ton of rough edges that could be cleaned up. Bigger sample size, asking about more forms of transition, checking social desirability bias, tweaking the question used, examining the effect that HRT has on libido, etc.. However, I’ve found similar results in other surveys that varied things a bit, so I expect it to generalize well.

So, let’s break down what I did a bit. First, I assessed AGP in trans women as part of a number of other paraphilic interests, asking “How sexually arousing would you find the following?”. I picked the phrasing “Picturing an attractive woman and imagining being her” because an AGP trans man suggested (based on his pre-transition sexuality) that this might work for assessing AGP in cis women (which is important because of the point that it would be stupid to use a scale that gave the same results in cis women and trans women). I also had an item asking about “Picturing myself as the opposite sex, or with certain physical features of the opposite sex”, which is what I used to define Highly AGP Men (who had to answer “Very” on that question to be considered “highly AGP”).

Now as you can see, having transitioned did not prevent trans women from being AGP. I asked about hormonal and social transition separately. Then I defined people to be pretransition if they had not started either but intended to either almost immediately or in the longer term, hormonally-transitioning if they were currently using HRT (regardless of progress), socially transitioning if they had to some degree socially transitioned (defined by the participants). Post transition was defined by having both hormonally transitioned (to the point of not expecting more changes from HRT) and socially transitioned (to the point where they did not intend to socially transition “more”). Even those entirely post-transition were usually very AGP!

This doesn’t even account for the fact that some people probably still saw through it or were in denial, or that some people’s libido might’ve been tanked to the point where their AGP is unobservable. It doesn’t account for the fact that some of the participants might’ve been HSTS (and at least some of the responses are compatible with being HSTS, but who knows when it comes to reddit…).

So that is my take: AGP does not go away with transition, but if you ask it in a context where the trans women want to present it as going away, they probably will.

Some complexity in thinking about the rates of AAP

In an earlier post, I talked about the rates of AAP among transmascs. One troubling point here is that the AAP (and general paraphilia) rates in my surveys are usually far above the baseline, so there’s an argument to be made that the rates in FtMs should be smaller, to about 20% and 25% respectively, assuming we just drop the AAP rate 10x.

Formalizing the above a bit more: about 11% of the natal females in my surveys are trans, and about 50% of the natal females in my surveys are AAP. It is probably not the case that 40% of women are AAP; in reality it’s probably more like 5%. It’s also clearly not the case that 11% of natal females are trans. However, suppose we split the 11% up into 8% who are AAP, and 3% who are not AAP. We then see that about 8%/40% = 20% of AAP natal females are trans, and 3%/60%=5% of non-AAP natal females are trans. If we then readjust the AAP ratio to be 95% non-AAP, we should get 5%*20%=1% of natal females who are AAP and trans, and 95%*5%=4.75% of natal females who are non-AAP and trans. This yields an AAP rate among transmascs of 17%, which is close to the 20% I gave before.

Now, the reason I made the kinda-ridiculous calculation above explicit is because there’s clearly something very wrong with it. According to this, 5.75% of natal females would be trans, which is still clearly not true. So what’s going on here?

Probably a mix of things. Most likely, some of those who report not being AAP actually are AAP. This creates a flaw in adjusting for the high paraphilia rates, where the rate of false negative AAPs isn’t reduced. It’s not too unbelievable that 28% of AAP FtMs might fail to realize they’re AAP in my opinion (this is pretty close to the same rate for MtFs), but it might be a bit of a stretch. reddit is probably also unusually trans due to some as-of-yet unknown factor. I think the implication here is that the non-AAP trans rate should be reduced as well, which would probably yield a higher rate of AAP among transmascs.

Really, I should be declaring some degree of ignorance here, but I think we can continue considering this for a bit more. About 20% of AGP trans women misreport their experiences as including no AGP. If we assume the same holds for FtMs (dubious? they might not see as much stigma from it, and so feel less need to misreport…), this means that about 72%*1.2=86% of the transmascs in my surveys are AAP. We can then repeat the previous calculation with the new numbers:

9.5% of natal females in my surveys are then AAP trans, while 1.5% are non-AAP trans. This means that 9.5%/40%=24% of AAP AFABs are trans, while 1.5%/60%=2.5% of non-AAP AFABs are trans. With a modified AAP rate of 5%, this means that 1.2% of natal females in general are AAP trans, while 2.4% of natal females in general are non-AAP trans. This implies an AAP rate of 33%.

Now, there’s a lot of extra ways we can manipulate the parameters. For example, if we assume a general population AAP rate of 10% rather than 5%, we get a transmasc AAP rate of more than 50%. If we instead assume that the non-AAP group is also overrepresented, say 2x, we get a transmasc AAP rate of almost 50%. There’s endless variations that can be done, but that gives endless possibilities for manipulating the data in whichever way you want.

Can we do something empirically to determine the answer here? Well, really it would require asking a representative sample (e.g. a clinical one) to make progress, but there are some hints we can get. Smith (2005) found that among non-exclusively-gynephilic FtMs, 73% reported having never experienced arousal while crossdressing during adolescence, 14% did not answer the question, 9% did not consider the question applicable to themselves, and 5% had sometimes experienced such arousal. I think there is an argument to be made that the missing data is an attempt to avoid admitting arousal from crossdressing, which would imply that we can say that 18% had experienced transvestic arousal. If we instead exclude the missing data, we can instead find that 1/19 = 5% experienced transvestic arousal. The study did have a very limited sample size, though, so there’s a lot of uncertainty in this estimate. Regardless, how do these 5% to 18% numbers compare to what I see in my samples?


This suggests that transvestic fetishism will dramatically underestimate the rates of AAP. In fact, this result says that TV fetishism will only be present in 13% of AAP cases, which would imply that somewhere in the range of 40% and 100% of Smith’s sample is AAP. And of course there’s infinitely extra uncertainty that I’m not even taking into account here.

I don’t know that this is particularly useful. Maybe it is, since it does help justify the possibility that AAP might be genuinely common. Another point to be made is the fact that there’s a lot of case studies with clearly-AAP FtMs, but these might not generalize to modern times.

A study that is also worth looking into is Bockting (2009). They find:

Half of participants elaborated on a shift in the image of themselves in their sexual fantasies as they became more comfortable with their bodies as a result of going through reassignment. They explained that, in time, they relied less on sexual fantasies of themselves as male to affirm their gender identity and were more likely to fantasize about themselves as transgender.

This implies that at least half the participants imagined themselves as male before they changed genders, but there’s good reason to expect that a large fraction of the other half also pictured themselves as male. On the other hand, the study also states:

An alternative interpretation of the transgender sexuality found to be emerging among our participants is that this is a form of autoandrophilia (sexual arousal to the thought or image of oneself as a man), the female analogue of autogynephilia believed by some (e.g., Blanchard, 1989) to be a core component of nonhomosexual (defined as not being attracted to the same natal sex) gender dysphoria (Chivers & Bailey, 2000). An exploration of autoandrophilia was not the focus of our study. However, more than two-thirds of the female-tomale participants did not report any history of transvestic fetishism (almost always found among transsexuals with autogynephilia) or any evidence of an erotic target location error (in this case, the target of eroticism being the thought or image of oneself as a man rather than another human being). Rather, as in the Dutch study (Coleman et al., 1993), femaleto-male participants described genuine sexual attractions to, and intimate relationships with, other men that went beyond satisfying their curiosity about male sexuality (as suggested by Devor, 1993, 1997).

Now, we already know that transvestic fetishism doesn’t clearly co-occur with AAP, so this doesn’t matter much. It’s not clear what the authors meant when they said they found no evidence of an erotic target location error. Autoandrophilia was not part of their interview guide, and there’s no rule that you can’t both be AAP and alloandrophilic.

I want to say that so far, the evidence supports the position that most of the FtMs in question are autoandrophilic, but it doesn’t seem inconceivable that a study could come around and totally change the situation.

Some notes on desistance research

Epistemic status: To make sure I got this post right, I asked Michael Bailey for comments. I edited my initial draft based on his feedback, and he agrees completely with this version.

Also, I guess this post means that the followup that I promised for my last post will have to wait a bit.

“Desistance”, in the context of research by Zucker et al, refers to a very specific phenomenon. The topic is still an open research area, so it is difficult to say anything for sure. However, desistance research specifically applies to early-onset gender dysphoria, which is strongly associated with gender nonconformity. The association with gender-nonconformity makes it easy to assume that highly GNC kids will eventually turn out transgender, but in practice they are usually observed to outgrow this and end up happy with their sex. This specifically is the phenomenon that is covered in desistance research. Not much is known about why they are so strongly correlated, but some researchers believe that the gender-nonconformity can be a reflection of the dysphoria, and that encouraging it may cause the dysphoria to persist. This specific pattern of desistance is observed only for early-onset gender dysphoria, and it likely relies on specific characteristics of the dysphoria that are not seen in other forms. As a result, there is little a priori reason to expect it to generalize to other forms of gender dysphoria, unless these forms of gender dysphoria also have specific characteristics that would imply a high likelihood of desistance.

In particular, desistance research does not apply to autogynephilic gender dysphoria. Not much is known about the specifics that distinguishes dysphoric autogynephiles from non-dysphoric ones, but equivalent phenomena to desistance have not been consistently observed for them (and is unlikely to ever be observed, even if it does exist, as properly identifying and evaluating autogynephiles in the relevant period is very difficult). Autogynephilic gender dysphoria has, however, been observed to disappear in some cases, but this is not a consistent and reliable phenomenon in the same way that desistance from gender nonconformity seems to be.

The research also does not apply directly to “rapid-onset gender dysphoria”. There is currently no research on the desistance rates of ROGD. However, if the model that rapid-onset gender dysphoria is to a large degree caused by social contagion is true, then this creates a large possibility for desistance under the right circumstances, as the gender dysphoria is not purely due to permanent characteristics of the person in question, but instead also due to mutable social environment. If the social contagion model is incorrect, there is very little reason to expect desistance to happen. There is almost no research on the validity of the social contagion model for rapid-onset gender dysphoria, but there are many anecdotes that make it seem somewhat plausible.

The specific ways that desistance might work in early-onset gender dysphorics also means that if children who *could* desist instead go on to transition, they will likely not experience regret from transition, but will instead simply not desist. This has a number of implications. It means that the harm of transition will be limited to the problems associated with being a transgender person rather than a gay person, rather than implying regret and future detransition. However, it also means that if someone who could’ve desisted ends up transitioning, it becomes easy for people to mistakenly think that the transition was a huge success because the patient is very happy with the outcomes, when actually the patient could have been just as happy if they didn’t transition. And lastly, it also implies that interventions which do not permit unlearning gender-nonconformity and atypical gender identity – for example ones where gender-nonconformity is highly encouraged – might very well prevent desistance.

Rates of autoandrophilia among FtMs

Let’s talk about the rates of autoandrophilia I’ve observed among FtMs. I’ve had a few different approaches for assessing this, so it’s probably worth going through things in detail. Arguably, the most direct was asking about it directly:


Rates of transmasc autoandrophilia in the Transmasculine Sexuality Survey.

For counting this properly, I exclude the third question, since it could conceivably by interpreted as assessing gynephilia, rather than autoandrophilia. Doing this, the total autoandrophilia rate in the survey was 74% (n=31). However, one problem with this survey is that I shared it to a nonbinary subreddit, and so it is possible that some NBs responded too, which might make the data hard to interpret. If I exclude those who didn’t pick “male” as one of their gender responses (I allowed multiple, including “nonbinary”, “genderfluid” and “questioning”), I get a rate of 71% (n=14), essentially the same.

It may be informative to also consider the frequency of autoandrophilic fantasies from this group. I won’t include this when counting the rates, though.


Transmasc pre-identification AAP fantasy rates according to Transmasculine Sexuality Survey.

Another survey with a very straightforward methodology was in my Survey of Traits You Are Attracted to or Would Like to Have. Unlike the previous survey, this was targeted at reddit in general, not just transmascs, and so it may have a better accuracy distribution-wise. In this survey, I also asked rather directly whether they found being male hot:


Autoandrophilia in transmasc participants of Survey of Traits You’re Attracted to or Would Like to Have.

Again, the rate of affirmative answers was 74% (n=27). If we exclude the nonbinary participants, the rate increases to 89% (n=9). One nice thing about this survey is that I also asked about “sexual fantasies about being the opposite sex”, so this gives us a way of assessing whether these yield the same sorts of results. The problem is that some trans men will interpret “sexual fantasies about being the opposite sex” as referring to sexual fantasies about being female, so it’s important to figure out how big this problem is.

For the record, the equivalent MtF numbers are 95% (n=19) and 90% (n=10).

In this survey, arousal to fantasies about being the opposite sex wasn’t very strongly associated with autoandrophilia (r~0.28). In fact, it was more closely associated with the autogynephilia measure (r~0.39), despite the fact that the concept of autogynephilic transmascs is… weird. I found that 70% of the ones who got positive scores on the AAP scale also got positive scores on the scale assessing A*P by asking about “opposite sex”, but 43% of those who got zero scores on the AAP scale still got positive scores on the A*P scale. Not great.

Another survey with a slightly less direct approach was my Can you look at some porn For Science? survey, which was about exactly what it says in the title. Before presenting the erotic material, I asked a number of questions about paraphilias, including “Picturing myself as the opposite sex, or with certain physical features of the opposite sex” and “Picturing an attractive man and imagining *being* him”. The latter seemed to work for assessing autoandrophilia in women; assuming the former question assesses AAP perfectly (dubious), the latter had r~0.72 correlation with AAP, 15% false positive rate, and 21% false negative rate.


Amount of autoandrophilia in the transmascs in the porn survey.

68% of transmascs (n=22) and 75% of FtMs (n=8) reported AAP according to this measure. This survey also allows us to revisit the approach of asking about “opposite sex”. It had a correlation of r~0.5, and the rate of positive answers to this among those who had given positive answers to the other AAP question was 80%. Meanwhile, the rate of negative answers to this among those who had given negative answers to the other AAP question was 14%. This is a far higher validity than was observed in the other survey. On the other hand, the equivalent numbers when comparing with the AGP question are 0.37, 91% and 29%, which is still a pretty strong connection, so asking about “opposite sex” probably isn’t great.

The MtF rates of autogynephilia here were 76% (n=33) and 82% (n=23).

So far, this suggests an AAP rate of 68% to 74% (weighted average: 72%, n=80) for transmascs in general and 71% to 89% (weighted average: 77%, n=31) for FtMs. Of course, these numbers should be taken with a grain of salt; for example, there may be some misreporting, where some AAPs report not experiencing AAP. In addition, there is a troubling problem that needs to be taken into account, and which I will address in my next post.

Gender information collaboration project

Right now, a lot of politics about issues relating to transgender and gender nonconforming people are intense and not very forgiving. There’s very little trust, and understandably so, as a lot of people have been hurt in many ways by the current situation.

I don’t think there’s any chance of creating this trust on a big level any time soon. However, this leads to a problem that lots of highly important information will be inaccessible to all the parties who need it. This information might involve the different ways gender issues evolve and present, and how different people cope or treat them. It might involve all sorts of other things of relevance to people. The important problem right now is that this is dispersed across different groups who often don’t trust each other, and who are only interested in sharing it with people they feel are certain to take care of their concerns properly.

The goal here should be to create a win/win situation, where all parties feel that they are treated fairly and benefit from participating. Nothing else can work. For this reason, I propose creating a group of people with diverse, relevant perspectives, and allowing vetos from all the perspectives involved. The group would have to come to a consensus about what information to collect, and how to collect it, before it could even start asking questions. Before making any official opinions about how to interpret the collected information, the group would have to reach consensus on what the interpretation should be. This way, anything done by the group is guaranteed to be a win for all sides, as any problematic suggestions can be vetoed by people who’re concerned.

Example project

For all of this to make sense, it might be helpful to look at an example project that could be worked on. One that I am personally very interested in is documenting the experiences of detransitioners and how they compare to trans people.

If done right, this could help everybody. Detransitioners generally want their experiences to be heard. Trans people would want a fair comparison and contrast of their experiences and those of detransitioners, rather than FUD. If things work out perfectly (and they might not), studying this could also help questioning people decide whether transition is for them.

The problem here is that there are conflicts of interest in mistrust. Detransitioners don’t want their experiences misrepresented, and might reasonably fear that the only goal would be to dismiss their experiences as irrelevant (or worse). Many detransitioners may have strong reservations about transgender issues, and believe in political ideas that trans people find dangerous. This leads to issues about whether trans people feel misrepresented, or feel that the wrong things are getting examined.

All of these issues are solved by having people on each side collaborate. The varied perspectives will allow people who have concerns to make sure that these concerns are taken properly into account, and to ensure that things are only done if everyone benefits. This will allow us to reap the benefits of cooperation despite low amounts of trust.

This is not the only project that could be done. Other possibilities would be to better document what is happening around gender nonconforming people, to process the science and controversy of transness into more-digestible summaries with whatever consensus we can find, and likely a number of other things that I haven’t even thought of.

Proposed structure

Achieving total consensus about everything will only be practical if the groups are sufficiently small, which would lead to problems due to lack of perspectives. An alternate approach would be to create a number of subgroups, each of which is responsible for taking care of one set of concerns. For example, trans people may have one broad subgroup, whose responsibilities would be to ensure that the total group avoids hurting trans people. I expect that it will also be useful to work with radical feminists who have, ehm, strong concerns about trans issues, so they would also have a subgroup, whose job it would be to take care of their concerns. If other groups turn out to be relevant, these groups would also be able to get a subgroup of their own.

We could set up a number of structures, such as a blog, a chatroom or forum for discussion, and maybe also a wiki or something. Depends on what becomes relevant, but at the very least we need some summary of what the groups does, who the group is, and why the group should be trustworthy.

The group might gather and publish raw data. If we can achieve consensus, we might publish some articles on how to interpret our data, various scientific findings, or other things that may be of interest.

The goal would be to try to improve the group quality over time. Initially, it’s likely going to consist of random people on the internet who find the project appealing, but hopefully we can work to establish some respect for the group and start collaborating with people who are more trusted in various ways.


In reality, I’m doing this for rather selfish reasons. I want to examine various things, but I have views that make people not trust me very much. For example, my views on trans policy are aggressively pro-transition to the point where certain groups of detransitioners whose experiences are highly relevant knowledge do not feel comfortable with my beliefs, while my views on the causes of transness (something similar to Blanchard’s typology) lead to many trans people not trusting me. Of course, I would claim that my policies are based on what’s likely to give good results, and that my beliefs are based on the best evidence available, but I don’t think I can convince enough people who disagree.

So, rather than try to force the information out of people, why not collaborate? Hopefully this can be a more productive approach than what I’ve tried until now.

What’s Up With Bi Men?

For some time I’ve noticed that bisexual men in my surveys tend to score higher on measures of gender issues than other men. Initially, the explanation for this was easy: studies have had trouble finding truly bisexual men (see e.g. here or here), so there’s probably some third factor that makes them think they are bi without truly being bi. One possible factor is autogynephilia, and the bisexual men in my surveys are indeed often autogynephilic. Case closed?

… almost. I don’t have many bi men in my surveys, and most of them are autogynephilic, so it’s not clear whether the non-autogynephilic bi men also score higher. However, today I combined the data from a number of surveys (Broader Gender Survey, Thorough Genderbending Survey, Gender and Psychology Survey, Amazon Mechanical Turk Gender Survey, Sexuality and Attitudes to Gender Survey, Survey on Gender and Valued Experiences) to get a total of 40 non-AGP bi men, along with 469 non-AGP straight men, 761 AGP straight men, 157 AGP bi men, 71 AGP gay men and 64 non-AGP gay men. The different surveys used different ways of assessing gender issues, so I standardized them by dividing by the standard deviation and subtracting the average value from the non-AGP straight men. Here’s the results for the surveys separately:


Results from different surveys wrt. gender issues in different groups of men. The x-axis shows the difference in average gender issues between the group and straight non-AGP men. The y-axis shows the significance of the survey, roughly 1/√N, where N is the number of people in the group. Closer to zero in the y means more significant.

This is a bit messy, so I’ve also made a separate chart with the average gender issues across the surveys:


Weighted average of last diagram, with the weights equal to the number of men in the groups.

To me, those results suggest that bisexual men don’t simply score higher on gender issues due to AGP, but also due to some other factor. Unless… maybe some of these men are AGP, but don’t realize it? Though in that case, it’s hard to explain why AGP bi men score higher than other AGP men. This might be attributed to the fact that interpersonal autogynephilia is associated with gender dysphoria beyond the other forms of autogynephilia, but this should also imply that AGP gay men score higher.

I don’t know.