Men's IssuesVICE - "The Straight Men Who Have Sex with Trans Women" (i.e, gay men who lie to themselves)

submitted by BEB from vice.com

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]strictly 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (16 children)

With autogynephilia, for example, the man is attracted to an idea in his head

Calling it an idea in this context gives the impression the person is just attracted to the fantasy of it and not the real life manifestation. So with autogynephilia I think it’s more accurate to say they are attracted to being feminine or having female-like traits (as those of them who transition might be sexually into the effects they get from estrogen and like what they see in the mirror, not just the head fantasy of it). Pseudobisexuality is in my opinion a form of bisexuality as the definition of an orientation doesn’t care how an attraction to people of a sex came to be, it’s just stating the fact the attraction exists. It’s not useful in my opinion to classify a man who is attracted to other men because of autogynephilia as being straight if he is actively seeking out male sexual partners and is sexually enjoying it (some people who suspect the etiology of their attraction to males as being “pseudo” say their attraction to men still feel the same as their attraction to women and disagree with Blanchard’s hypothesis that those with a pseudo etiology would only fantasize about faceless men). I think the terminology for etiologies should be kept distinct from the terminology of orientations as they have different purposes, refer to a different things and might not have a one to one relationship to orientations.

However, with paraphilias, one can see cases where a person is capable of enjoying sex with someone they're not attracted to.

In my book enjoying sex with someone is being attracted to that someone so we refer to different phenomenas with the word “attraction” here if enjoying sex with someone doesn’t count as attraction to you.

Yes-- I am pretty sure that Joey is attracted to real life gynandromorphs, as well as being aroused by gynandromorphs in his head.

Yeah, and most of us are probably attracted to those we are attracted to in our heads as well as real life so I don’t see it as distinguishing trait of a paraphilia.

This doesn't necessarily follow.

People who don’t want to make their fantasies a reality can be normophilic or paraphilic so I don’t see it as paraphilic trait in itself.

some paraphiles' attraction is directed at ideas.

I think it’s confusing to label something as being an attraction directed at an idea if the manifestation of the attraction exists in real life. I also think it’s a bit of an arbitrary distinction because a person could the same way say the attractions of lesbians is directed at the idea of the female sex and that lesbians aren’t attracted to the people outside the context of this female sex idea. You might see that as an inaccurate representation of lesbians, but then some paraphilic people might say it’s an inaccurate representation of their paraphilic attractions too. I don’t think there has been a study proving that this is a true distinction between all paraphilic people and all normophilic people and I am skeptic about the construct validity of the concept itself as it seems very subjective what would count as an attraction directed at an idea.

u/GatitoMalo linked this tweet about GAMP that might clear up some confusion about how the word "idea" is being used in this context: https://twitter.com/BlanchardPhD/status/1373694372466810880

In that context I would be counted as having attractions directed at ideas too even though I’m not paraphilic. Because even if true sex change was invented I still wouldn’t be into artificial females with male pasts as I care about the origin too, not just the sex traits themselves.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Pseudobisexuality is in my opinion a form of bisexuality as the definition of an orientation doesn’t care how an attraction to people of a sex came to be, it’s just stating the fact the attraction exists.

I think you're in the same camp as /u/Vulvamort, and we've been having that topic out in another bit here.

definition of an orientation doesn’t care how an attraction to people of a sex came to be

Why? That's not a particularly nice open-ended question for me to ask, but... why? What's your definition of sexual orientation? We have examples, like het, homo, bi, but those are not definitions. They are examples; not accusing you of circularly using them as the definition, but you could see how that could happen, right?

[–]strictly 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Why?

Because that’s not the information we are after with sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is the answer to question ofwhich sexes the person is sexually attracted to, not the cause of these attractions. Attractions to people of a sex, includes all attraction to people of a sex, not just the normaphilic ones, if we only wonder about normophilic ones we would specify that. And if we wonder about the etiology we would ask about etiology as etiology and orientation are not the same thing.

I will put an example of what I mean with orientation and etiology not being the same thing. Let’s say I had a machine which immediately can determine the etiology of everyone’s sexuality, and let’s say for simplicity this machine discerns most lesbians were exposed to more prenatal androgens. Then there is one lesbian which the machine says had a male averse experience at the early age of three which she doesn't remember but which influenced her expected sexual trajectory to go from bisexual to lesbian. I would still see her as a lesbian if she exclusively attracted to female people even though her “natural” etiology here is “bisexual”. Let’s say there is also a bisexual women who really loves the male body and the machine says at the early age of three she was exposed to pornographic male images which influenced her early brain to form a male attraction which she otherwise wouldn’t have developed. I would still count her as bisexual as the etiology doesn't change the fact she is into males.

What's your definition of sexual orientation?

You quoted my definition, the existence of an attraction to people of a sex. So if you are attracted to people and some or all of them are male, that’s male attraction as you show the capacity to be attracted to people who are male. If you attracted to people and some or all of them are female, that’s female attraction as you show the capacity to be attracted to people who are female. A person with capacity of being attracted to both male and female people is bisexual in my book.

If you seek out sex with someone and get sexual enjoyment from having sex with that someone that fully meets my criteria of sexual attraction. The definition of attraction is “to pull to or draw toward oneself or itself” so sexual attraction would be a sexual pull, and if you seek someone out for sexual enjoyment they evidently some kind of sexual pull on you as otherwise you wouldn’t be seeking out sex with them. It’s fully possible it's not their sex traits which draws you in though, maybe it’s their personality or their “kinks”, but this person is still male or female so evidently you have the capacity of enjoying sex with someone of that sex.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

I would love to have your hypothetical machine, that would be a lot of fun to do science with. I'm going first, by the way. You also know something about aetiology. This makes me happy.

You're saying that the only thing that matters for labeling sexual orientation is the "who:" men, women, or both as erotic targets. This works wonders if everyone all shared the same, universal "how," I think we can agree on that. Of course, the overwhelming majority of people do have that same "how," it's sex, and this makes it a useful model, one that works a great deal of the time, where the only variability, the only details, needed to be understood is hetero, homo, or bisexual. When faced with atypical sexuality, however, I feel it falls down.

Yes, I am trying to incorporate the concept of "how" into sexual orientation. Aetiology is interesting, but I'm more concerned with the particular activities here. (Let me just break with the conversation for a minute and consider a hypothetical scenario between me and another agent.) A completely valid criticism of my doing so is along the lines of: "Stop trying to redefine the definition of sexual orientation to include weird, freaky fetishes." Paraphilias. With the unspoken consequence that a paraphilia belongs in LGBTQ+, and should be regarded, in all contexts, as being the same thing as LGB. I am not trying to make this implicit claim, and I don't want that outcome either. I do regard AGP, and depending on the individual, its consequent pseudobisexuality as being the same quality of thing as LGB sexual orientation, yet holistically much different than your run-of-the-mill LGB person. If, however, someone insists that autogynephilic pseudobisexuality is bisexuality, then they have backdoored paraphilias into LGB and have ended up done the very thing that I am accused of trying to do, because of the reductionist model they are using. "How" matters.

There are other paraphilias that do not revolve around sex, whatsoever. Pants-on sexual gratification, as it were. Sex can be incorporated in a paraphilic act, yes, and it often depends on the participants relative interests in sex, or the paraphilia. Sometimes the paraphilic interest is all they have and the maleness or femaleness of the person isn't often a criteria. Sex can sometimes be the vehicle for a paraphilia, but the interest in sex is not the thing-in-and-of-itself.

In some fashion, we can attempt to "other" paraphilias and consider them different than the normal sexual interests, putting them into distinct groups, but still regarding them of having the same quality. I think there is a reasonable way to go about doing this, but if we insist on just seeing the world in terms of the "who," giving the "who" all the gravitas, then you're going to inadvertently scoop paraphilias up largely into the bisexual and asexual categories, and give them a home in LGBTQ+.

The gay rights movement wasn't/isn't about tying people up and beating them for sexual gratification. I would endeavor to keep it that way, but overly simplistic categorization of sexuality could cause trouble in this regard. If paraphilic interests become more prevalent, then expect to be overrun. Right now, they're still a minority. However, the social landscape is ever-changing, and the people who are out there already may just come calling. Which isn't me trying to deprive them of a social movement, they just need to have their own.

I know this smacks of pinkhairsexual rhetoric, trying to change the definitions, invent new words, but sometimes you have to beat people at their own game.

I see your definition of orientation, but what's your rationale with regards to the outcome of regarding things as sexual orientations?

[–]strictly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

You're saying that the only thing that matters for labeling sexual orientation is the "who:" men, women, or both as erotic targets.

My position is that the sexual targets being male/female is the only thing that matters for labeling sexual orientation as it refers to the sex orientation. It’s the same way the color of a thing is the only thing that matters for labeling the color of it. This thing could have other properties that are far more important than the color but those properties are still not relevant for the color labeling. Therefor other properties of sexuality can indeed be very important but it’s not relevant for the sexual orientation classification. If we lack terminology for other important properties of sexuality then we can make new terms for those without redefining important terms for other things.

they have backdoored paraphilias into LGB

I personally don’t really care if paraphilic homosexuals/bisexuals are in the LGB per se as I don’t think LGB people are immune to having paraphilias or should be kicked out for having one. I am more concerned about the males and the male-attracted people who are backdoored into lesbian spaces. These people are often paraphilic but that’s not reason I am against their presence in lesbians spaces, it’s because they are not lesbians to begin with. Women who are exclusively attracted to females taking testosterone would be paraphilic women I don’t really mind in lesbian spaces as they are still lesbians (as not being attracted to males shows female sex specificity). I don’t think lesbian spaces should be about to lesbian paraphilias though or try to cater it.

yet holistically much different than your run-of-the-mill LGB person

You can specify what type of bisexual this person is or use other terms than sexual orientation to describe their sexuality.

There are other paraphilias that do not revolve around sex, whatsoever. Pants-on sexual gratification, as it were.

Pants-on sexual gratification with the use of another person is sex in my opinion. If the paraphilia doesn’t involve any males or females at all and the person doesn’t have any normophilic attractions to male/female people either then that person is asexual with a paraphilia.

Sometimes the paraphilic interest is all they have and the maleness or femaleness of the person isn't often a criteria.

Some bisexual people find both male and female bodies sexy, others say they don’t really care about the particularities of the bodies and find other criteria sexy so it’s not that unusual even for normophilic bisexual people to not have the maleness or femaleness of the person as a criteria either. For monosexuals though being of a particular sex is always a requirement, that's what makes them monosexual.

I can see your concern about LGB being made to be about parahilias though but I am personally not willing to sacrifice the definition of sexual orientation in order to prevent paraphilic groups wanting the LGB to be about their paraphilia. Because if we redefine homosexuality in such a way it allows the inclusion of opposite-sex attraction (paraphilic or not) then I consider “homosexual” groups useless either way as it no longer refer to homosexuals in the first place. So I would want a solution I can live with.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Because if we redefine homosexuality in such a way it allows the inclusion of opposite-sex attraction

Okay, we're having a major communication breakdown, because I never suggested this. I was trying to shore up homosexual such that it's only specifically the activity of sex with same sex people. I was trying to eliminate people from the definition of homosexual, but especially bisexual, that are engaging with their same sex because of a fetish. Not that they're homosexual and incidentally happen to have one, which I don't care about. Different directions.

If you want to think fetishes should count for LGB membership, well we've got the T, already, why just not keep that? Because the majority of trans women are motivated by autogynephilia, a paraphilia where a male is sexually and romantically interested in himself as a woman. It is in a sense, heterosexuality inverted onto the holder. It's an atypical sexuality. On the basis of this atypical sexuality, these men, and their supporters, consider them LGBT.

This isn't some hypothetical. This is real, today. We can piss and moan about how they're destroying women's everything. How nasty they are online. All true. But if you don't have the philosophical groundwork laid out for why we're kicking them out, not just because they're a right pain in the ass, then suffer the consequences of the next group.

[–]strictly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I was trying to shore up homosexual such that it's only specifically the activity of sex with same sex people.

Correct me if I’m wrong but you want to define homosexuality so that paraphililic attractions isn’t part of the equation, no? The consequence is that it allows allows opposite-sex attracted people to be classified as homosexuals. So paraphilic lesbians who are exclusively attracted to female people but in a paraphilic way would be excluded from the lesbian category, instead paraphilic bisexual women where the opposite-sex attraction is paraphilic are included as paraphilic opposite-sex attraction here wouldn’t exclude anyone from being categorized as homosexual. The homosexual category wouldn’t be saved from paraphilic inclusion either way then, the only difference is whether these paraphilic people would be lesbian or bisexual. Personally I see including non-lesbians as lesbians are a bigger problem than including paraphilic people per se. In my experience paraphilic lesbians seem more likely to understand that their paraphilia makes them different from other lesbians and are less likely to expect normophilic lesbians to be like them while lesbian-identifying bisexuals (who may or may not be paraphilic) often do expect lesbians to share their bisexuality, aka think lesbians who aren’t male-attracted like them must be bigots.

Because the majority of trans women are motivated by autogynephilia

And if they are male-attracted they would be bisexual or homosexual and if they are AGP and heterosexual then they aren’t LGB. I think male-attracted male AGPs can face same-sex discrimination due their same-sex attraction, someone who is against same-sex activities probably doesn’t care if the male-attracted males are AGP or not. But I understand you right you think it’s problematic to include male-attracted male AGPs in male bisexual groups, do you fear that they would make male bisexuality all about their AGP then?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Well yeah, AGP face discrimination. Really, they do deserve a great deal of scrutiny and social disapprobation they have been receiving, but they want to call this discrimination instead. AGP who are having sex with men face all sorts of issues. Their admirers face issues. No doubts about it. I've never suggested they should be chucked in the gulag or something, just for being AGP or GAMP. They have a right to self-determination so long as they're not stepping on any one else. But people, please, we're trying to have a society over here, and if you want to be a part of that, you have to tell us who you are.

I understand you right you think it’s problematic to include male-attracted male AGPs in male bisexual groups, do you fear that they would make male bisexuality all about their AGP then?

I think AGP have a propensity of making everything about themselves. Perhaps if they were (collectively) more humble, then I could see them getting along. They do have some overlap, at the end of the day, it is men having sex with men. What I would do for practicality is thematically group sexual minorities into their own rights movements, and nothing would prevent dual membership, necessarily, nor would these groups have to be at war with each other. I would say that plain LGB have a cohesive goal. That's one group. Identity-based paraphilias like AGP and autoanthromorphozoophilia, that's another group. The sadomasochists can go hang out over there, etc.

With regard to the rest of the topic, I'm afraid we're conceptualizing of motivations for paraphilia and normal sex so fundamentally differently that we can't resolve at this point.

[–]strictly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Well yeah, AGP face discrimination.

I referred to same-sex discrimination same-sex attracted AGPs might face for being same-sex attracted, not scrutiny for being AGP as that’s irrelevant to the LGB.

I think we should be able to recognize that paraphilic people can be homosexual/bisexual without centering these paraphilic people, the same way we can recognize murderers can be homosexual/bisexual without centering these murderers. The existence of homosexual/bisexual murders doesn’t mean LGB must put effort on ending the “discrimination” murderers face for being murderers though as that’s irrelevant to the LGB, so it’s same with paraphilic homosexuals/bisexuals, if the discrimination they face isn’t tied to their same-sex attraction then that discrimination isn’t a case for the LGB. We also shouldn't inaccurately put paraphilic people in categories they don’t belong to so a heterosexual AAP female who calls herself a "gay man" shouldn’t be put in the LGB at all, as she is not same-sex attracted in the first place.

I think AGP have a propensity of making everything about themselves

My guess is that the male-attracted AGPs who are the most likely to make a group all about themselves are those who want to be validated as "women" so if we allowed them to be part of a “men loving men” group they wouldn’t be very motivated to make this group all about themselves as they would see the membership itself as invalidating to them (speculating of course).

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Well yeah, AGP face discrimination.

I referred to same-sex discrimination same-sex attracted AGPs might face for being same-sex attracted, not scrutiny for being AGP as that’s irrelevant to the LGB.

This is the point I'm trying to make. A man who likes other men because he's a man and he finds men sexually appealing is different than a man who has autogynephilia and is instead trying to engage in woman-typical behavior to satisfy the sexually gratifying abstract idea that he's a woman, by having sex with men. I don't have a personal problem with this behavior, beyond the public health issue largely revolving around HIV.

Can you reduce it just down to men having sex with men? Sure, you can, but that kind of reductionalism has consequences, which I'm sure you agree with. The real issue that we're trying to debate is what the outcome of these semantics are. It has impacts as to which rights movement people belong to, and how they're going to get along with the rest of the people who were already there and have a legitimate heritage with it. What sort of deleterious consequences exist to threaten the legacy of that rights movement, and perhaps move everyone back a step, or worse.

A more plain example would be people who want to molest children, bolt themselves to LGBT, and subsequently destroy the whole enterprise. It is true that the majority of pedophilic men desire males, and if you reduce this down to same-sex attraction, and only treat that as the locus, you'll find yourself in a whole heap of trouble. Not that I want to lump AGP and child molestation into the same category, I think AGP can be ethically acted on, but you see the point.

That's an extreme example, but it is true of all sorts of paraphilias. If you want to reduce our entire rationales down to which sexes people are into with regards to their sex, and no other details, then you're potentially opening the floodgates. If that's what you want, then expect me to stand in your way.