An older Kay Brown post this time.
only superficially resembled questions used in Blanchard’s original instrument that are only valid for gender dysphoric males
The idea that autogynephilia is only present in ‘males’ is completely unfalsifiable because it’s defined that way. Moser’s study showed similar phenomenons in cis women that have bearings on Blanchard’s theories, which we can summarize into the short epithet “cis women have autogynephilia too!”. If we operationalize autogynephilia in a different manner, perhaps as ‘arousal to the thought of one being a woman’ (which is often how Kay Brown defines, describes and uses the term), then it’s clear that Moser’s study shows autogynephilia in cis women.
For example, one question asked if one fantasized about having a “sexier” body? (One would hardly expect that women would fantasize about having an uglier one!)
When trans women fantasize about having a woman’s body, they are fantasizing about having a sexier body. It’s sexier to them, it’s what feels right to them, and it’s the body that they should have had.
Another question asked about becoming aroused while preparing for a sexual encounter with a lover. (Such arousal would arise due to anticipation, not the mere fact of getting dressed in womens’ clothing!)
The statement in parentheses has some truth to it (I’m sure that anticipation is a confounding factor), but there is little evidence to say that all of the results to the question can be explained by anticipation.
The validity of Blanchard’s survey instrument (or was it originally Freund’s?) was developed against a group of known autogynephilic males and a control group of men that was known not to be so. Thus, the validity has only been made for males, in a gender clinic setting.
Again, it’s an unfalsifiable claim to say that autogynephilia is only present in “males” if you define it that way. It’s tautological and ignores the pragmatics of showing similar or identical phenomenons in individuals of different genders.
Does anyone doubt that there is a difference between a man answering, in the affirmative, the question, “I have been aroused by wearing womens’ underwear?” A man who is likely to be thinking of the first time he snuck into his sister’s underwear drawer, slipped into his own bedroom, and posed with panties and bra, observing how he has made his body look more like the girls he daydreams about at school, and ends up masturbating… compared to a woman, likely to be thinking of how she grabbed the stuff to put on this morning, while thinking about how much she is looking forward to that night with her boyfriend?
Here’s Kay Brown’s problem. Now she isn’t comparing the correct items to each other. She is comparing the preparation for a sexual encounter question to the arousal question among cis women and trans women, and then acting like anyone is equating the two. It is not so.
Given that I’ve been seeing this so called study remaining to be popular among autogynephilic transwomen, I thought I should share some factoids about it. First, it was published in the Journal of Homosexuality a journal with such a low impact factor one would have trouble finding one lower. The impact factor is only 1.364. For comparison, the impact factor for Nature is 41.456 and for Science is 33.611. The impact factor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior, where most of the serious papers on transsexuality are published is 2.589, about twice that of the Journal of Homosexuality. Oh… and second, Dr. Charles Moser is on the journal’s editorial board. Now, do you think that might have an effect on whether a really weak paper that he himself wrote could get published there?
Comparing two of the top two journals in two of the largest fields to a smaller journal in a small field sounds very disingenuous.
Some of the journals Anne Lawrence publishes in don’t even show up on the impact factor lists that I’ve searched through (Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy)
Advances in Psychosomatic Medicine, which her “Autogynephilia: An Underappreciated Paraphilia” paper was published in, has an impact factor of 0.43.
Another one of the journals Anne Lawrence publishes in, Journal of Sex Research, has a similar impact factor today that the Journal of Homosexuality did then.
Third, where in the study is the validation data?
I’m not exactly sure what she’s refer to by “validation data”. I was thinking either data validation or replication? If she was expecting replication after less than a year after the paper was published in a relatively slow field, then it’s unrealistic.
What is the alpha value (test-retest correlation)?
I doubt he had the funds, time or want to retest. It’s not necessary for a pioneer study into the idea that cis women can have autogynephilia, which is why I’ve emphasized the need for further research on whether autogynephilia is present in cis women and to what extent.
Where is the control group?
There need not be a control group, and I’m not sure what the control group would even consist of. The point of the study (badly worded) is to show that autogynephilia is present in cis women to some extent. The fact that it may have a higher prevalence in some demographics than others is mostly irrelevant to the study at hand.
My study was a small, proof of concept study. It never purported to be definitive,
although it does cast doubt on Blanchard’s prediction about women
Where is the clinical observations of autogynephilic behavior in women that led to the trial construction of the instrument?
Also irrelevant. He adapted Blanchard’s scale (see Moser’s response to Lawrence) to show whether autogynephilia (as conceptualized by Blanchard) has a similar equivalent in cis women. If he had used a different instrument, then you would have pointed out that the instrument is very different from Blanchard’s and then does not represent “True Autogynephilia”. It’s a catch-22.
It’s also very very worth noting that Veale et. al found autogynephilia using very slightly modified versions of Blanchard’s scales (adding more attractive because cis women already have ‘female forms’), at the rate of *52%*;
It should also be noted that there is another article that has shown autogynephilia in natal women. Veale, Clarke, and Lomax (2008) studied a group of biological females who scored as autogynephilic on their variation of Blanchard’s autogynephilia scales. Lawrence and Bailey (2009) conveniently calculated mean scores for nonhomosexual (autogynephilic) MTFs from Blanchard’s (1989) data; they found the Core Autogynephilia Scale mean was 6.1 (range 0 to 9) and the Autogynephilia Interpersonal Fantasy scale was 2.7 (range 0 to 4); higher scores imply more autogynephilic arousal. On Veale et al.’s versions of these scales, 52% of the biological female subjects scored 6 or higher on the Core Autogynephilia Scale and 3 or higher on the Autogynephilia Interpersonal Fantasy Scale (J.F. Veale, personal communication, July 7, 2009). Lawrence and Bailey concluded that Veale et al.’s transsexual subjects who scored at these levels were autogynephilic. Therefore, they should conclude that Veale et al.’s biological female sample is also autogynephilic. This is another confirmation that autogynephilia is common in natal women