As many of you may know, over the years I have written a lot about Ray Blanchard's theory of autogynephilia , which wrongly argues that trans women are sexually-motivated in our transitions - I debunked the theory in the article provided in the link, and further discuss how it sexualizes and invalidates trans women here





I am currently working on a piece that (in part) compiles instances where people outside of science/psychology cite "autogynephilia" in their efforts to sensationalize trans people or to promote anti-transgender agendas and policies.





Rolling Stone article about Lana Wachowski published before she came out as trans, and of course, last year's New Yorker article in which I have a few examples of this in hand - most notably, from Sheila Jeffreys's recent book, one from an anti-trans Catholic organization, that horriblearticle about Lana Wachowski published before she came out as trans, and of course, last year'sarticle in which Michelle Goldberg used the theory to slut-shame me





I have seen many more examples than this, but I have found them to be especially difficult to track down online, as the bajillion webpages and posts discussing and debating the theory itself overwhelm any and all search engine queries I have attempted.





So that's where you come in (hopefully!). Perhaps you know of articles, news items, or stories along this line? If so, please pass along a link, a description, or a few key words so that I can search for it myself. You can do so by:





1) leaving a comment below

2) Tweet it to me @juliaserano

3) email it to me - my address can be found here: http://www.juliaserano.com/contact.html





Thanks in advance! -julia





p.s., please no debating or ranting about "autogynephilia" in the comments section - this post is not intended to discuss the theory, but to compile instances of how the concept is misused/abused by lay people who wish to sensationalize/sexualize/smear/invalidate trans identities. Thanks in advance.

........................





POSTSCRIPT: thank you to everyone who has forwarded/emailed me examples, I really appreciate it!perhaps unsurprisingly, I received a number of angry/derogatory comments from people accusing me of being an "autogynephilia" denier and a repressed "autogynephilic" transsexual. My advice to such people is READ MY ACTUAL WRITINGS BEFORE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT MY SEXUALITY AND MOTIVES!!!This blog post begins with two links to serious well-thought-out articles/essays on the subject (I also write at great length about this subject in my book Whipping Girl ). If you actually read them, you will find that I believe that female/female embodiment fantasies exist (I have experienced them myself & contextualize those experiences in Whipping Girl), and that they are not at all unusual in cisgender women, trans female/feminine spectrum people, and in some people who (aside from the fantasies) are fully male-identified.While the fantasies/erotic thoughts are real, the notion that there are two discrete classes of people - "autogynephiles" and "non-autogynephiles" - has been scientifically and theoretically disproven (see here and here and here ). There is absolutely no need to refer to some people as "autogynephiles" any more than there is a need to call people who have fantasies about being raped (another common sexual fantasy) as being "autoraptophiles." (In fact, as I explain in my writings, such labeling can result in numerous negative consequences.)As a sex positive feminist, I will defend anyone's right to discuss their own experiences with female/feminine embodiment fantasies (or male/masculine embodiment fantasies, for that matter). I think that discussing such matters may help reduce the shame and stigma that many people who experience them face. But I *will* continue to challenge false claims based on Blanchard's now disproven autogynephilia theory. And I will especially do so in instances where people use the notion of "autogynephilia" to pathologize, sexualize, and invalidate other people.As I said in the beginning, this post is not intended to be a forum about "autogynephilia." I posted a few comments along those lines to clarify what I have written/argued. The only comments I will be posting from here on out are ones related to the crowdsourcing request I sent out..................POSTSCRIPT 2:I continue to get comments (seemingly from the same few people) berating me for being an "idiot" (and other such insults), and forwarding a bizarre narrative wherein "autogynephilia" is about cisgender men who have fantasies about emasculinization & humiliation, and that trans women like myself are now "appropriating" this language by describing it as trans female/feminine embodiment fantasies, or discussing it in terms of female sexuality more generally.I am not sure what subreddit you people came from, but this premise is ill-informed and entirely ahistorical.I am aware that emasculation fantasies are not at all uncommon in cisgender men. And they clearly draw from the same societal hierarchy (i.e., that maleness/masculinity is the superior status, and that other gender statuses are inferior) that inform many female submissive fantasies and some trans female/feminine fantasies. However, Blanchard defined "autogynephilia" as arousal related to the "thought or image of oneself as female" - so if you are some dude who is into emasculinization and humiliation fantasies but have no desire (in fantasy or real-life) to be female or feminine, then the term was never intended to apply to you. In other words, you're the ones appropriating the term, not us.Further, all of Blanchard's original research was conducted on people on the trans female/feminine spectrum (specifically, male crossdressers and MTF transsexuals), and almost all of the literature on the subject - whether serious articles or purposefully maligning ones (i.e., the type that I wrote this post intending to seek out) - generally target trans women and others on the trans female/feminine spectrum, not men with emasculinization fantasies.If you want to talk about your emasculinization/humiliation fantasies, that's great, all the more power to you. But I suggest you call them that (i.e., emasculinization/humiliation fantasies) rather than appropriate a term that was designed to primarily describe/pathologize/sexualize transgender-spectrum people.