Our Autogynephilia Problems
Not all gender critical concerns about AGP are baseless. However, they too often lack sufficient nuance.
Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber or making a one-time or recurring donation to show your support.
About the Author
Dr. Michael Bailey is an American psychologist, behavioral geneticist, and professor at Northwestern University best known for his work on the etiology of sexual orientation and paraphilia. As professor for 35 years, and a researcher for over 40, Bailey has published over 100 academic articles.
Bailey is a leading expert on the topic of autogynephilia, the phenomenon of males being aroused by the thought or image of themselves as female. In 2003, Bailey wrote The Man Who Would Be Queen, a book that examines gender identity, sexual orientation, and the role of autogynephilia in male-to-female transgender experiences.
No issue in the transgender wars ignites as much division as autogynephilia (AGP). Beginning with the 2003 campaign against me and my book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, transgender activists have tried to ruin the reputations and lives of those who openly endorse the relevance of AGP for explaining gender dysphoria among many natal males. The other—“gender critical”—side recognizes the most florid manifestations of AGP, blaming it for much of the excesses of transgender activism and the epidemic of youth transition.
But the controversies don’t stop at the divide between these two camps. AGP has also caused rifts within them. In November, Genspect’s conference drew fire when openly autogynephilic Phil Illy attended wearing a blue dress. Although this caused little if any consternation at the event, it triggered a post-conference backlash. This culminated in a tense exchange between Genspect’s Stella O’Malley, who defended Phil’s attendance, and Kellie-Jay Keen, who criticized it. Similarly, Debbie Hayton’s recent autobiography, in which she discusses her AGP and the fact that not recognizing it in time caused her to transition, perhaps regrettably, provoked outrage. The main criticism was Hayton’s treatment of her wife, who subsequently defended Hayton. If that defense changed anyone’s mind, I did not notice.
Not every gender critical person agreed with those attacking Phil Illy and Debbie Hayton. Obviously, Stella O’Malley identifies as gender critical, but largely defended Illy. The Heterodorx podcast devoted an episode to the Illy affair, implying that the gender critical movement had died due to “illiberalism, revulsion, femagoguery…and so much more.” Other critics of the gender criticals’ take on Illy and Hayton included Shannon Thrace. Thrace’s recent book on the end of her marriage to a man with AGP, has been celebrated as evidence of toxic autogynephilia. It is that, but it isn’t good evidence that the only good autogynephile is one who never existed. Additionally, I privately heard from several gender critical individuals who were frustrated with their allies’ treatment of Illy and Hayton and feared being ostracized if their views were publicized.
Because I often Tweet about AGP research, I am familiar with the prevailing beliefs and attitudes from both sides of the transgender wars. Like lawyers, transgender activists argue comprehensively if not consistently: that AGP doesn’t exist, that everyone has it anyway, and that when it exists, it is the consequence rather than the cause of gender dysphoria. Common gender critical assertions are that AGP is a “fetish” acquired by watching sissy porn and encouraged by older “groomers,” that AGPs are dangerous and violent sexual predators who want to invade women’s spaces, and that males with rapid-onset gender dysphoria are definitely not AGPs.
I am primarily recognized as an ally of the gender critical and an opponent of transgender activists. While I often find myself in agreement with the former rather than the latter, as a scientist, I reserve the right to disagree with anyone—including allies, friends, and family—if I believe their opinions are factually incorrect. And in this domain, there is harmful nonsense on both sides. To be sure, not all gender critical concerns about AGP are baseless. However, they too often lack sufficient nuance.
This essay is the first in a series intended to address what we know and do not know about AGP. I will pay special attention to issues that preoccupy the gender critical, who are especially likely to read this site.
Why You Should Care About Scientific Accuracy, Even About Autogynephilia
I suspect some on the gender critical side feel no obligation toward AGPs other than to keep them away from those they care about. However, it’s important that our beliefs about AGP are true, and we should resist embracing beliefs based on insufficient evidence. Otherwise, we look bad and risk doing harm. The recent release of the final report of the Cass Review was a victory for those of us who prioritize scientific evidence and careful reasoning in making significant decisions. The Cass Review concluded that the current evidence is insufficient to justify the medical gender transition of minors, contradicting a steady stream of assertions from organizations like WPATH that there is overwhelming evidence that youth benefit from such transitions. These groups undermine their credibility by consistently misrepresenting scientific data. Let’s avoid making the same mistake.
We must insist on a principled approach where we adhere to the best scientific evidence across all relevant domains. And AGP is a relevant domain. We must resist believing things about AGP merely because they’re repeated often and they affirm our prejudices. There is a large and growing body of empirical research on AGP. What does it say?
The gender critical side tends to embrace negative beliefs about AGPs in general, rather than targeting specific individuals or subsets with particular issues. Some of these beliefs range from uncharitable to plain wrong. I will address these in upcoming essays. Such incorrect and negative beliefs about AGP harm people like Phil Illy and Debbie Hayton, who do not deserve the attacks they have received.
These beliefs also damage our autogynephilic children. If you had a son struggling to understand his AGP and live his best life, you would want to understand his condition thoroughly and shield him from irrational prejudice. Though your son would face unusual challenges, there is no basis for assuming he would become a menace to society. If you don’t like my hypothetical, I’m sorry. However, the reality is that some of us have autogynephilic sons, whether we acknowledge it or not. We owe it to these sons to learn about AGP and help them lead the best lives they can, which means maximizing some combination of their life satisfaction and their goodness to others. Moreover, nothing we currently know about AGP suggests that their situation is hopeless—whether concerning the inevitability of gender transition or, most importantly, their capacity to lead good, decent, and happy lives.
Why You Should Listen to Me
Assuming you want to learn about AGP, why should you listen to me? I am a researcher of relevant science: sexual orientation, gender dysphoria, paraphilias, and AGP. I have 40 years of experience conducting and publishing empirical studies, and more than 25 years of familiarity with the concept and science of AGP. I know the scientific literature on autogynephilia well, and my collaborator Kevin Hsu and I are leading contributors to the scientific literature on this topic. I am a friend and intellectual colleague of Ray Blanchard, the originator of the AGP theory, and have thoroughly studied all his work on autogynephilia. I also know, admire, and have carefully read the work of Anne Lawrence, an autogynephilic transsexual who succeeded Blanchard as the leading AGP researcher until her retirement.
Additionally, I engage with many openly autogynephilic individuals on Twitter, often appreciating their insights, although occasionally disagreeing with them. These individuals often display a remarkable grasp of the scientific literature. Unlike me, they have personal experiences with AGP.
Lest you worry, I am not a pro-AGP activist (nor am I autogynephilic, although in general, one can’t always trust such denials). To be sure, I have sympathy for AGPs, because I think their lives can be difficult. I also sympathize with kind and decent AGPs like Phil Illy and Debbie Hayton, who have too often been objects of contempt from both sides of the transgender wars. However, my primary goal is the pursuit of scientific knowledge, not advancing any particular agenda. I have never hesitated to upset either transgender activists or the gender critical by writing about AGP in ways they dislike. What I fear most is saying something incorrect, especially in a domain where I am an alleged expert. Importantly, when confronted with compelling data that contradict my prior beliefs, I change them. You can trust that I will tell you the latest thinking about AGP, including the evidence for it and what we still don’t know. If you approach me with thoughtful arguments or questions, and as my schedule permits, I will engage with you respectfully.
Some Common Errors Among the Gender Critical
Again, I’m focusing on the gender critical, not because their thinking is inferior to that of the other side–in fact, the opposite is true–but because, right now, there is little hope of usefully engaging with the other side. And if you’re reading this Substack, you are likely aligned with, or at least sympathetic to, the gender critical view. Most of the errors I discuss below are common among humans; nevertheless, we should try to avoid them. I’ll point out how I think they’re leading people astray about AGP.
Myside bias involves accepting an argument or observation from an ally that one would reject if it came from an ideological opponent. This includes accepting an explanation of AGP by someone who hasn’t studied it thoroughly. For instance, scientifically impotent methods such as psychoanalysis or radical feminism have been used to support assertions about AGP, despite neither approach being capable of generating useful knowledge. (Those among you who proudly identify as TERFs owe nothing to radical feminism, which paradoxically also includes the most ardent supporters of transgender ideology. A visit to your local gender studies department might be enlightening!) It is good to periodically self-check with a question like: “If this type of argument or data were used to support early gender transitions, would I find it convincing?”
Selection bias in the present context arises from the fact that the autogynephiles we focus on may not be representative. The figure below depicts this with a series of circles, where each smaller circle a subset of the larger one. (This figure will reappear in future posts.) Starting with the smallest circle, autogynephilic transgender activists are almost certainly overrepresented among those who have threatened and attacked Kellie-Jay Keen. Indeed, I suspect that all the male transgender activists who attacked her are autogynephilic. However, this circle is not the same as the large green circle representing all autogynephiles. Far from it. Autogynephilic transgender activists (at least those identifiable as transgender activists) have transitioned. But this is a subset of all autogynephilic individuals with gender dysphoria–the reason for transition, which, in turn, is a subset of all autogynephiles.
The relative sizes of these circles remain unknown, although I will provide an estimate of the proportion of autogynephiles who transition in a future post. The main point here is that if Kellie-Jay Keen is directing her ire at all autogynephiles based on her awful experiences in New Zealand, she is overgeneralizing. Some—perhaps many, perhaps most, though we don’t know—autogynephiles don’t want to harm her. Certainly, neither Phil Illy nor Debbie Hayton wants to harm Kellie-Jay Keen.
A third mistake I often see is overweighting of data from therapists. While I likely agree with many readers of this Substack that some therapists are better than others—as well as who is better, and who is worse—it’s important to recognize that most therapists are neither well-trained nor well-positioned to provide high-quality scientific data or opinions. They see only a selected subset of patients (see “selection bias” mentioned above), and their training primarily focuses on providing therapy services, not on testing scientific hypotheses with causal and statistical reasoning. I don’t intend to flaunt my credentials here, but these skills are crucial.
Last one for now: People are too attracted to coherent narratives consistent with what they want to believe (see “myside bias above”) and too slow to acknowledge that, at this point, there is still much we do not know. To be sure, we know a lot, and I hope to impress you in subsequent posts about that knowledge. However, if I can’t answer a question after studying autogynephilia for 25 years and being a leading researcher in the field, neither can anyone else. It is important to admit what we don’t know.
I look forward to discussing autogynephilia for subscribers of Reality’s Last Stand. I hope—and expect—that it will be a productive and civil dialogue.
Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication. If you enjoyed this article and know someone else you think would enjoy it, please consider gifting a paid subscription or making a recurring or one-time donation below. Your support is greatly appreciated.
If you enjoyed this article, you may also like…
 | A guest post by
|
One of my issues with the term autogynephilia is that it translates to "love of oneself as a woman." However, many of these men clearly hate themselves and/or clearly hate women. There is a new cohort of "transmaxxers" who don't seem to care one way or the other about women, but see being a woman as advantageous in today's society. So they seek to take advantage of job offerings, scholarships, or other special privileges. They don't seem to fit the "classic definition" of autogynephilia so how does lumping them in with other AGPs help us to understand them or deal with them in society? And to ignore the impact of porn and online grooming is to basically say no one has every believed they truly needed something after seeing 100 commercials about that thing. If that were true advertising would not be the industry it is today. ALL of us are influenced by what we watch. ALL of us can be sold a lie. Ignoring that reality seems to me to be a big blindspot in the research. But maybe you will address porn and grooming in a future essay.
No one has the right to deceive the public about what sex they are in situations where it matters, such as, what bathroom or changing room you just entered, what sports you're allowed to play in, what awards you are entitled to, who shows up when a woman is requested to bathe someone's elderly mother or a woman is requested to chaperone little girls or a woman is requested on a dating app, etc. No man-in-a-dress has the right to use descriptors that are exclusive to females. I do not consent to men pretending to be women so that they may enter my female-only spaces. I do not consent to the demand that I acknowledge their kink or mental illness as something to be embraced, ignored or put up with. No means no. Work on your mental illness and keep your kink in your adults only clubs.