DiscussionBlaire White says in video supporting SuperStraights: "If you're a straight man who is into transwoman, you are probably a couple points from the side on the Kinsey scale"

submitted by reluctant_commenter from self.LGBDropTheT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I think this Blair video is better, it covers the same topic, in more detail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiFPIfN99N0

They talk about gyneandromorphophilia, which Blair and Joey agree is technically correct for him (as do I,) but they go with "straight" because it's "easier," without really explaining that. I don't get the sense that labeling things is that important to them. Two kinds of people in this world--those who obsess over taxonomies, and those that don't. Guess which one I am? =)

He's both GAMP because he's into Blair, and heterosexual as well, because he's dated women. Although sometimes het + GAMP turns into just only GAMP over time...

I don't think bisexual works, because if Joey, who's into women and trans women, is bi, then a guy who's into women and cis men presenting as men... well, they share a label but not a sexuality. This is a technical perspective. So, I mean, if this guy is bi, then we're looking at adding multiple, technical bi subtypes to cover those two cases. "Classic bi" and "paraphilic bi?"

"Not exclusively heterosexual" also works, if you want to frame it in the negative, since I think sexuality has to add up to 100%, not 120% or something like that. At least that's how I model it, but not being exclusively het does not necessarily put you into the bi category--assuming that means cis men, cis women.

You can't place furries, for example, on the Kinsey scale. Attraction to anthropomorphic animals, cartoon characters, does not fit in that model. Attempts to do so, assuming the Kinsey model is the only vaild one, is where you get weird answers about classification that nobody really agrees on. GAMP is close enough to typical sexuality that people try.

Society is really married to the Kinsey model, for lots of (IMHO, dumb and sometimes homophobic) reasons.

Adding in some societal thoughts... My opinion may have changed a little versus some prior comments I made about this topic.

Dude's not superstraight, and he's publicly on the record about that. Am I upset if he takes on a bisexual identity instead? Not really. He, and many others, are working under the false premise that the Kinsey model is the only way to look at the world. I think het and GAMP is correct for him, and he's out about that, so why not just go with it? In their own words, they're trying to solve for what's easy, and already understood by others, not what's technically correct. I personally value precision in language, and saying one thing when I really believe something else is just demoralizing--1984 style. At the same time, introducing new vocabulary, such as gyneandromorpophilia to such a fundamental question that we constantly have about other people--if they have a partner, who they are, if they could be a suitable partner for me--is just untenable to those sorts of discussions.

In some cases, I'm willing to take on paraphilic bi as bi, because from the outside looking it, it looks like plain old bi, so long as you're not privy to what's happening in the bedroom, which isn't anybody's business, anyways, nor do homophobes much care. This my societal, not technical perspective. I'd like the societal and technical perspective to be the same, but, alas.

I'm a little skeptical that I'll see people largely working under a broader model that captures more of the very real phenomena of human sexuality in my lifetime, so mislabeling is just kinda something I'm willing to live with.

GAMP is kinda just regarded as weird, freaky fetishism, thus "othered," but it appears Joey and Blaire are in a committed, monogamous, long-term sexual and romantic relationship. Good for them. It is however, homophobia, internalized or not, that in general Joey has to contend with.

All the other things that don't fit in Kinsey are fairly rare, and the practicality and utility of society using a different model, I'm not sure about that. Or even recognizing paraphilias as (sometimes) just another sexuality that's outside of a binary model. Let alone having the words for common paraphilias. (Reddit, their /r/all, I usually don't have to go very many pages deep before I see transwomen porn. "Women" with penises are really popular.)

Very few people are clambering for a new model, and I've seen some pretty sophisticated ones that'll probably never take hold. So we might just be stuck in this weird limbo.

Anyways, I covered a lot of ground and welcome discussion on these thoughts. I'm not married to them, but they're the best I've come up with so far. I think it's important to keep in mind when discussing this issue is that there are multiple things at play--what is this thing, technically, and how does it fit in society, rights movements, etc.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for the long, thoughtful comment (as always)!! That is all really fascinating. And thank you for sharing that video! I'm really surprised, I had absolutely no idea that Blaire knew what GAMP was and acknowledged that his fiance/boyfriend is GAMP. Really food for thought.

I don't have the energy right now to do justice to your comment, but I'm still thinking about it. :)

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Ok. I'd like to take a stab at this topic, even though this is probably the murkiest, most uncertain topic I've ever argued over on saidit.

  • Definitions

  • Comparison of phenomena

  • Responding to comments

Definitions

Paraphilic

Paper about the DSM and its history of defining the word "paraphilia": https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093330?casa_token=U7lu4du7P84AAAAA:QtYgYN4ooP-6hk4Il5B4PHFvBzgHER51NqfYfuPuWmvvKG9gWhBJcNMpnWj6S3TwqLJRJjhRKOZ2

The authors write:

Blanchard (chair of the Paraphilias Subworkgroup for the DSM-5 Work Group on Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders) suggested that the definition of the term paraphilia should be “Any powerful and persistent sexual interest other than sexual interest in copulatory or precopulatory behavior with phenotypically normal, consenting adult human partners” (Blanchard 2010a, p. 367). The final wording, however, that has been provided in DSM-5 is slightly wider in scope, in that a paraphilia is described as “an intense and persistent sexual interest other than sexual interest in genital stimulation or preparatory fondling with phenotypically normal, physically mature, consenting human partners” (Am. Psychiatr. Assoc. 2013, p. 685); it is clarified later in the text that paraphilic interests are sometimes better conceptualized as preferential rather than intense.

paraphilia - an intense and persistent sexual interest OTHER THAN genital stimulation or preparatory fondling with phenotypically normal, physically mature, consenting human partners

Note what is not mentioned in the definition of "paraphilia/paraphilic":

  • Ability to have monogamous relationships

  • Ability to have emotional connections with other people

  • Ability to be sexually aroused, in general

  • The sex of the participants involved (if any participants)

Etc.

Normophilic

"Normophilic" sexual arousal is only implicitly defined in the DSM-5-- as the opposite of "paraphilic". This seems to how it is also defined in other scientific literature that references the DSM-5, e.g.: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26797067/

These authors write:

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5), a sexual fantasy (SF) is paraphilic if it concerns activities outside the realm of "genital stimulation or preparatory fondling with phenotypically normal, physically mature, consenting human partners" (normophilic).

normophilic - an intense and persistent sexual interest IN genital stimulation or preparatory fondling with phenotypically normal, physically mature, consenting human partners

Comparison of phenomena

  • A. Being same-sex-attracted used to be considered paraphilic, back in the DSM II days, but is now considered normophilic.

  • B. Nowhere does it say, in either of these two definitions, "You can't be paraphilic if you're normophilic" or vice versa. It seems quite clear that it is possible for people to have some varying degrees of "paraphilia" and "normophilia", in any number of combinations.

Now, given (B), it seems entirely possible, in theory, that there exists (for example) a man who is accurately described by all of the following:

  1. Has normophilic arousal with regards to the female sex-- i.e. he has "an intense and persistent sexual interest IN genital stimulation or preparatory fondling with phenotypically normal, physically mature, consenting women" (woman = biologically female person, just so we're extra-clear...)

  2. Does NOT have normophilic arousal with regards to the male sex-- i.e. he does not have "an intense and persistent sexual interest IN genital stimulation or preparatory fondling with phenotypically normal, physically mature, consenting men" (man = biologically male person...)

  3. Has paraphilic arousal with regards to gynandromorph-ism-- i.e. he has "an intense and persistent sexual interest OTHER THAN genital stimulation or preparatory fondling with phenotypically normal, physically mature, consenting human partners"

You might wonder, and this is where the arguments usually begin: "How the fuck can #2 and #3 be simultaneously true of this a person?"

Well, let's look at the definitions: "phenotypically normal" is the part that jumps out in regards to GAMP and relevance to the Blaire and Joey comments. And I think it's where the heart of all this disagreement about what is "bisexual" and what is not, lies.

phenotype - "the observable characteristics or traits of an organism that are produced by the interaction of the genotype and the environment : the physical expression of one or more genes" (Merriam-Webster)

Google the phrase "phenotypically normal" and you'll get a bunch of papers referencing biological characteristics in humans.

Guess what they're not talking about...? They're not talking about clothes or makeup.

GAMP isn't just attraction to feminine men. It's attraction to SPECIFICALLY people who have a penis, and also female sex characteristics such as breasts.

These are two different phenomena:

  • A man is only attracted to very feminine women, and very feminine men. He has normophilic arousal regarding both sexes, and no paraphilic arousal. (Most people would call this "bisexual with a very specific type" or something.) He dates women who wear makeup. He dates men who wear makeup.

  • A man who is gynandromorphophilic (GAMP) is only attracted to men who have female sex characteristics. He also might be attracted to women.

This paper defines GAMP as:

Erotic interest in natal males who have female-typical physical characteristics (e.g. breasts) while retaining a penis

Responding to comments

Bisexuality is the presence of same-sex and opposite-sex attraction, no other conditions or stipulations or anything. A GAMP man is attracted to "shemales" as the paper puts it. I suppose this brings us back to the argument in this thread, which is that "GAMP men are just a specific type of bisexual men" and that sort of repeats the same point that you (GatitoMalo) made:

well, they share a label but not a sexuality. This is a technical perspective. So, I mean, if this guy is bi, then we're looking at adding multiple, technical bi subtypes to cover those two cases. "Classic bi" and "paraphilic bi?"

Now I have talked my way into the same issue you are stuck with, lol:

I'm a bit perturbed that no one has pointed out how there isn't a consensus, and how that could be a problem. Do you really want to take on some paraphilias under LGB? T, in the case of AGP is a paraphilia. In some sense, paraphiles have already snuck in the back door. Also under "asexuality" as well--some asexual-identified people are exclusive paraphiles (who correctly surmise that since they are not interested in the sine qua non act of sex that they are different that het/homo/bisexuals, subsequently the asexual identification.) Gyneandromorphophilia is technically a paraphilia. Lots of people here are saying that's bisexual. Some dissent, but nobody's talking about that.

I am sick of the word "valid" but I'll just say... GAMP men are as valid as bisexual men. But, regarding whether or not GAMP men actually are bisexual men, just because they are GAMP (and, for the purposes of this discussion I'm assuming also, attracted to women)...

I guess I have some questions remaining about GAMP men. Particularly:

  • Does GAMP attraction require that the stimulation/target be a natal male? The alternative being: A man who is attracted to "shemales" but anyone could dress up as a female and fulfill that paraphilic fantasy, e.g. a woman with a dildo and breasts.

Because if a GAMP guy is like, "Yes, only natal males will do, and ONLY natal males who have breasts and wear dresses." then, I have to say, that does sound like "paraphilic bisexual". By the most literal, basic sense of the term bisexual: same-sex attracted. If their partner's sex being male is a requirement, then... yeah, I guess I would say that's bisexual. (Option 1)

BUT... if a GAMP guy is like, "No, it's the idea of shemales, anyone who looks close enough will do, I don't care about their actual sex," then I have to say, that person does not sound bisexual. Because same-sex attraction is not a fundamental or mandatory part of their sexual orientation. (Option 2)

I was under the impression that Option 2 described GAMP, but... now I'm not so sure.

Returning to the video. Ultimately, we can argue about whether or not Joey, Blaire's partner/fiance, is an example of a man like that, but we don't know him so we can't say for sure what is actually the case with him.

However, if we take him and Blaire at their word that he actually does have GAMP, and is not just gay or bisexual and in denial... then it sounds like he is a good example of this.

Finally I'll add. Yes, if "Option 1" that I described above is the case-- then there are some interesting implications of what this means for the LGB movement. But let's not open that can of worms yet.

Does that help? Lol. Would love to hear your thoughts on this.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ok. ...take a stab at this topic,.. probably the murkiest, most uncertain topic...on saidit.

Don't let me drag you into it if you're unwilling... there is some futility in taking too much of a deep-dive on these things.

Now I have talked my way into the same issue you are stuck with, lol:

Yeah, welcome to my personal hell. =) I mean, in a different year, I probably wouldn't really care, it would just remain an intellectual curiosity, but the trans issue has just got me all worked up. I might need a break. I guess, what's the end goal here? 100% consensus among everybody? I won't be getting that. There's no authority we can go ask about this stuff. Experts, yes. Authorities, no. For me, it's sense-making, it's sometimes intellectual masturbation, and does have somewhat to do with the trans thing--which we all agree on why that's important. We all want harm reduction. I'm all over the place on this subsaidit, but I'm here for harm reduction and I reject trying to accomplish that with untruths. Just my moral principles.

The content between these two quotes above--you did a lot of work, it is consistent with my knowledge on the topic and I just wanted to take a moment to appreciate that. I'll circle back with some comments at the end.

"The most literal, basic sense of the term bisexual--same-sex attraction--as a fundamental or mandatory part of their sexual orientation."

Okay, let's have that be the litmus test. It's workable. It's as back-to-basics as we can get, and seems to be the way that lots of other people in this thread are treating it. A trans woman is fundamentally, inherently male, nobody is in disagreement on that. (So the outcome of that is that GAMP constitutes same-sex attraction and thus passes the exact same-sex attraction litmus test as any other LGB. We'll leave what that means aside for the moment, but the implications are very far from trivial. I would be quickly relying on reductio ad absurdum to treat that topic.) Framing it in the negative, that a person who is attracted to literal both sexes wouldn't have "same-sex attraction" is untenable.

So, now I can move on to consider your two frames.

Does GAMP attraction require that the stimulation/target be a natal male?

I think most gyneandromorphs are natal men, because there are a bunch of trans women. There's androgen insensitivity syndrome in XY. Extreme virulization ("It's a BOY!") in 46XX I believe happens, like severe cases of congenital adrenal hyperplasia, but IIRC, there are no male gonads. (Great. Another can of worms. Do intersex count for bisexuality?)

Short answer, no, I don't think GAMP requires a specific criteria, just a specific form.

I hate to do this to you, but if you meander over to Reddit and have a looksie at the ahem topically relevant material, you'll probably be able to get the best handle on it. Look for consistent thematic elements such as erect penis, or not erect penis, or type of sexual activity depicted, how much of a "surprise" the penis is, for instance. Things like that. Nobody there is asking how the GAM came to be. Comments are like "Please higher powers 🙏🙏 once, just once." Porn can be instructive. Also, take note of subscriber count and compare to other more "normal" porn subreddits. That'll make your eyebrows go right up.

So I guess that answers the issue of option 2? The real or perceived sex is irrelevant. It's people who look like women who have penises.

In some sense, GAMPs are clocking GAMs as women. They comments don't say "nice cock, man." They read: "such a beautiful woman." Of course, we have to factor in wokeness, but wokeness seems to be suspended on porn subreddits sometimes. The presence of the penis isn't informing their brain--no, that's a dude, you don't like dudes. And they don't like dudes. They're stuck in some weird halfway point with their lizard brain trying to figure out if that's a viable sexual partner, it short-circuits and they get an erection. But in another sense, they very well recognize that that is a penis, and women don't have those, but look, clearly this here, that's a woman, see? breasts, long hair, wide hips...

And now I feel even more confused. I started this. There may be some very fundamental flaw in my overall reasoning that's caused coming to concrete conclusions untenable... and this is how you get people thinking postmodernism is a good thing. Not giving up yet. I may need to sit down and do some heavy philosophizing about this, but if I come up with a solution, I'm fairly sure it'll be crazy and incommunicable.

...not mentioned in the definition of "paraphilia/paraphilic": Ability... The sex of the participants involved (if any participants)

Right. Collected an anecdote yesterday of somebody who's into doors with multiple, apocalypse-level locks. (https://old.reddit.com/r/BDSMcommunity/comments/m4amzv/my_fetish_doors_with_heavy_locks/) Yeah, if we stop focusing so much on sexuality for a minute, and look at the relationship aspect of things, that in some sense could constitute "bisexuality." This is how the American Psychological Association defines it, and they're doing it for reasons of trying to help people. "Enduring Sexual OR romantic OR emotional bonding."

Nowhere does it say, in either of these two definitions, "You can't be paraphilic if you're normophilic" or vice versa. It seems quite clear that it is possible for people to have some varying degrees of "paraphilia" and "normophilia", in any number of combinations.

Exactly. This isn't given enough treatment. I was over on Reddit looking at a "Trans/Sissy Hypno" porn "recovery" subreddit the other day. They're framing it as an addiction, and the "porn made them do it." That's a pretty good defense mechanism if you don't want to admit to yourself that you're paraphilic, in this case, AGP/GAMP cluster. (Let alone being aware of the concept of atypical sexuality.) Some posters were adamant that they were able to kick their "habit" and that anyone who tries hard enough should be able to as well. Well if that person was only 10% paraphilic, of course they're going to be able to have that sort of outcome. Then somebody who's got 90% of their sexuality wrapped up in a paraphilia is going to feel like complete shit that they can't kick their addiction that might be more intrinsic than they want to believe. Harmful! (The GC crowd tends hold the "porn made them do it" mentality.) I see this problem pop up in all sorts of paraphilic sexual subcultures is a variety of ways. They don't recognize that while they may have some sexual interest in common, they're not all the same.

Being same-sex-attracted used to be considered paraphilic, back in the DSM II days, but is now considered normophilic.

Yeah, but if you look at the vote, it wasn't a clean sweep in the APA. They kept ego-dystonic for a version or two to tide the "no" vote over. (You have a similar thing with the distinction in version 5 with paraphilia and paraphilic disorder.) They may have removed homosexuality in part because they realized they couldn't "treat" it, and that reflected poorly on their organization. They did recognize that stigmatization as a disorder was a source of harm, both for SSA people and people who wanted to point to the "good book" and point out it was a disorder.

"I would say if one could start from scratch, ignore all the history of removing homosexuality from the DSM, normal sexuality is whatever is related to reproduction. Now you have everything else. I would distinguish between behaviors which are anomalous and benign vs. those that are malignant. So homosexuality would be not normal but benign. Whereas something like serious dangerous sadism would be a malignant variation." - Blanchard https://www.vice.com/en/article/ypp93m/heres-how-the-guy-who-wrote-the-manual-on-sex-talks-about-sex

Other researchers share this opinion. Paraphrasing Cantor, he said that he would lump all non-procreative sexuality under the same umbrella, the exact same rights movement, including pedophilia. Just that some people get to practice their sexuality and others do not. Yeah, he really did say that. I should have bookmarked that, but I didn't dream it up. (I did mention absurdum earlier.) It is however, a solution, but one that'll never work in the real world. Maybe in the United Federation of Planets.

Normo vs para...

It's darn hard to come up with a taxonomy of what constitutes sex, and a logical argument as to why one type of sexual activity should be more important or "truer" than another, beyond procreation. It sounds easy right off the bat, but if you start out surveying people what acts constitute sex and which don't, you get wildly different answers. We can paint a general picture. Oral sex isn't procreative, but it is called oral sex.

Well, let's look at the definitions: "phenotypically normal" is the part that jumps out in regards to GAMP and relevance to the Blaire and Joey comments. And I think it's where the heart of all this disagreement about what is "bisexual" and what is not, lies.

Certainly. Also my comment about intersex, not that I'm trying to complicate things, which I do, just to perhaps re frame the issue to look at it another way.

RC, I'm glad you're here. I'm happy chatting with you about this stuff, but don't let me drive you crazy. Hang out with me and you'll learn about people getting off on door locking mechanisms. But this is like exactly my point. I don't know if other people here really truly understand how crazy human sexuality can be. It's nuts! If society understood how crazy sexuality can be, maybe they would twig that a man in a dress might just be getting off on that sort of thing, and not accept "woman trapped in a man's body."

Okay, now I KNOW I need to take a break. APPARENTLY there is a 10k character limit here. So I'm gonna go shave off some from quotes.