Rare new Blanchard interview on Motherboard

May 5, 2013

Transgender political cartoon of Blanchard as enslaving superhuman overlord

Transgender political cartoon of Blanchard as enslaving superhuman overlord

Excerpt:

Motherboard: When does a paraphilia become a disorder?

Blanchard: There are two ways by which a paraphilia could be converted into a paraphilic disorder: the individual is distressed by their desires, or they are acting in a way that is noxious to people. So a pedophile could have a pedophilic disorder if the guy is tortured by the fact that he is a pedophile, or he is perfectly happy with the fact that he is attracted to children, and he is molesting a lot of them.

So if someone cross dresses and they are cool with it, then they don’t have a disorder, correct?

Yes, under my proposal you can now be a happy transvestite, or you can have a transvestic disorder.

You coined the term autogynephilia, which refers to a man who is aroused by the thought of himself as a woman. This term is kind of your baby. Is it going to make it into the DSM-5?

That comes under the heading of what I can’t tell you, because of the confidentiality agreement I signed with the APA.

Do you think autoandrophelia, where a woman is aroused by the thought of herself as a man, is a real paraphelia?

No, I proposed it simply in order not to be accused of sexism, because there are all these women who want to say, “women can rape too, women can be pedophiles too, women can be exhibitionists too.” It’s a perverse expression of feminism, and so, I thought, let me jump the gun on this. I don’t think the phenomenon even exists.

Some trans activists object to the inclusion of transvestic disorder in the DSM because they feel it pathologizes gender non-conformity. How do you respond to these criticisms?

To say that transvestic disorder pathologizes all trans people is rhetoric with no logic behind it whatsoever. If you actually open the DSM-4, it’s very explicit that it applies to people who get sexually excited by dressing in women’s clothes. They really object to the fact, (which is a fact established beyond any conceivable doubt), that in a lot of men there is some connection between cross dressing and sexual excitement.

Is the objection based on the idea that it fetishizes gender non-conformity?

Some activists are trying to sell the public on the idea, “We really are women where it matters–in our brains–and women don’t get sexually excited when they put on their bras and panties, so we don’t either.” And for a lot of them that’s just a lie.

So you don’t see a male-to-female transsexual as being female?

I think that a transsexual should be considered as whatever their biological sex is plus the fact that they are transsexuals. That’s how you would do research on them. There’s no other way to do it. If you’re interested in whether the brains of transsexuals are different in some way, you’re interested in seeing if they differ from other individuals with the same biological sex.

So in a way psychiatric research is inherently gender normative?

I would say medical research is inherently gender normative.

Some members of the trans community object to the stigma they feel accompany DSM diagnoses, but because of the impact of the DSM on insurance payments, it’s necessary they be labeled mentally ill. To what extent is a diagnosis from the DSM necessary to receive reimbursement for gender reassignment therapy?

In the US I would say most insurance companies probably require a DSM diagnosis. The point that sticks in the craw of a lot of activists is that in order to get sex reassignment surgery paid for by a third party, it has to be deemed a disorder. The transgender community has tried to get around this in a way that they seem to think is very creative.

Their argument is, “Well, public health insurance plans pay for the cost of child delivery in a hospital, and childbirth is not a disorder. Therefore transsexualism could be covered under public third party health insurance payers without it being a disorder.” That’s how they’ve tried to square the circle.

And have they been successful?

No. How many people do you know regard sex reassignment surgery as part of the life cycle like having a baby?

Do you think that classifying transgender people as having a disorder does contribute to stigma against the trans community?

No. I mean how many people who make a joke about trannies consult the DSM first?

Do you think that transgender identity might get to the point where homosexuality is now, where it is considered offensive and inaccurate to call it a disorder?

I think there are some glaring differences between acceptance of transsexualism and acceptance of homosexuality. Let’s say that a friend comes to you and says she’s a lesbian, you aren’t seeing your friend performing cunnilingus on her girlfriend. All this requires is acceptance of what you don’t have to see.

With transsexualism, if a friend comes to you and says I feel like I’m actually a woman, and starting tomorrow I’m going to be showing up wearing dresses, this is not happening offstage, you are now part of their movie.

Read more: http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/heres-how-the-guy-who-wrote-the-manual-on-sex-talks-about-sex#ixzz2SSORkDVM

Transactivist Voz on piggybacking medicalized gender onto reproductive care for women

Transactivist Voz on piggybacking medicalized gender onto reproductive care for women

[Images added to this post by me- GM]

17 Responses to “Rare new Blanchard interview on Motherboard”

  1. GallusMag Says:

    This should be an interesting conversation.

  2. Em Says:

    Poor old Blanchard. ” … his ideas about gender and sexuality are archaic, even by the standards of the peddlers of pathology at the APA.”

    What a dinosaur.

  3. Bev Jo Says:

    He looks like a common sense ally to women….

  4. anon male Says:

    I have no idea who this guy is beyond basic assumptions but I’m surprised he sounds so worldly and cogent; that’s not something you ever expect these days. And unafraid. Like, almost Roseanne levels of not giving a fuck.

    “That’s how you would do research on them. There’s no other way to do it. ”

    Otherwise, why couldn’t/shouldn’t I be able to identify as a ftm? Why shouldn’t all identities be equally up for grabs? They’ve been so pleased as punch about the average dudebro coming to terms with trans’ “understanding of nature” that they’ve not even anticipated what might happens if people outside their clique start taking up the banner.

    Dudebros on Calliope Wong:

    http://www.fark.com/comments/7733231/Transgender-student-denied-access-to-Smith-College-all-because-of-one-little-box?cpp=1

    I do appreciate the one perplexed gay guy who says “why do these people keep telling me to read more books about them!?!? Always more books!”

  5. KittyBarber Says:

    If the political pressure is great enough, the DSM will conform, eventually. The ‘LGBT community’ (although we all know there is no such thing as this ‘community’) would do itself a favor by not opening its big, ugly mouth about this one. If the ‘community’ actually consists of lobbyists for HRC and NGLTF, we are all in Shit City anyway. Because we know who they side with. Who lobbies the DSM committee on OUR behalf?
    As a used-to-be-supporter of all these organizations, who will listen to ME? I’m just a stupid old dyke, after all. What do I join, the SOD? Who will lobby on behalf of all the young girls who want a safe place to shower with their soccer team? How radical a feminist does one have to BE in order to see this for what it is? Thank the Goddess for guys like Blanchard.

  6. KittyBarber Says:

    And just to add…Dear Voz, The Feminists WILL NEVER SHUT UP!

  7. mel Says:

    Thumbs up for everything except when he says, “No, I proposed [autoandrophilia] simply in order not to be accused of sexism . . .” He just made up a syndrome so he wouldn’t be accused of sexism?!

    • GallusMag Says:

      Exactly! He invented a clinically non-existent female version of “autogynephilia” in order to ward off possible accusations that the truth (transvestic sexuality is a distinctly male syndrome) was “sexist” by “excluding” women.

      • Em Says:

        It’s not just Blanchard. Some trans and allies also claim that autoandrophilia is for real. They don’t want to admit that this type of fetish is the near-exclusive provenance of xy types.

        It’s not out of the question that some woman, somewhere eroticizes the idea of changing her gender, but I suspect such women are vanishingly rare. Unlike m2t, the vast majority of f2t are not fetish-driven.

    • Morgan Says:

      Equality everybody!

      • Abi Says:

        Equality for a pregnant female and an male with a sexual fetish?

        I don’t think the NHS could bear it.

  8. michelle Says:

    “So in a way psychiatric research is inherently gender normative?

    I would say medical research is inherently gender normative.”

    OMFG…bordering on common sense…biology fucking matters. What a concept.

  9. Mary Sunshine Says:

    For what it’s worth, for whatever hope it may give:

    http://mindhacks.com/2013/05/03/national-institute-of-mental-health-abandoning-the-dsm/

  10. Az Says:

    Hahaha look at the facebook comments over there. So many “female” faces…

  11. Ashland Avenue Says:

    Oh Voz, you old violent psychopath! Still kickin’ it, huh?

  12. hadenough Says:

    “Blanchard said: “I think that a transsexual should be considered as whatever their biological sex is plus the fact that they are transsexuals. That’s how you would do research on them. There’s no other way to do it. If you’re interested in whether the brains of transsexuals are different in some way, you’re interested in seeing if they differ from other individuals with the same biological sex.”

    This is welcome realism, on the biological sex thing (except that people really should stop spekaing of ‘biological’ sex as if there is any other kind of sex – speaking substantively as opposed to action-wise). Also glad that he uses the term ‘transsexual’, which is the original psychiatric term for the condition, as it conveys the magical thinking and fetish involved. ‘Transgender’ is far too polite and prissy a term.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: