#blanchardianism

[hailmaryfullofgrace55675]

This is a tempting parallel to draw, but it doesn’t tell a whole or accurate story.

The idea of autogynephilia isn’t just the idea that lesbian trans women transition because they think lesbianism is sexy so they want to be lesbians for sex reasons.

Autogynephilia is part of a larger sexological theory, dreamed up by a specific individual named Ray Blanchard, that there are two types of trans woman: the “homosexual transsexual”, who is male-attracted, and the “non-homosexual transsexual”, who exhibits autogynephilia - a sexual fetish for being a woman that’s also a romantic orientation toward oneself-as-a-woman that’s also a type of fantasy about female embodiment or crossdressing or doing traditionally feminine activities like having sex with men.

The theory of autogynephilia comes loaded with a bunch of other particular and nonsensical ideas, including but not limited to the idea of the “erotic target location error” and “erotic target identity inversion”, the idea that all erotic crossdressing fantasies are fantasies of being the gender one dresses as, and the idea that bisexuality in trans women is attributable to “meta-attraction” in which the women are not actually attracted to men but only to the sense of femininity that sex with men can grant them.

Blanchard and his associates J. Michael Bailey and Anne Lawrence have been responsible for propagating this concept of autogynephilia across numerous academic journals articles and multiple books over the past 34 years, including Lambda Award nominee The Man Who Would Be Queen.

The idea of gay trans men transitioning because they like BL

mostly manifests as the idea that young people who were assigned female at birth are experiencing a form of social contagion or susceptibility to media influence rather than a deep-set paraphilia (the way autogynephilia has traditionally been theorized),

has mostly emerged in a vernacular way inside of trans communities and as an explanation for offspring’s transgenderism by transphobic parents, rather than as a formal sexological concept (Blanchard didn’t pick up the torch on “autohomoeroticism” until something like 2018, well after trans people had been commenting on the idea for years), and

has not had the reach or impact the theory of autogynephilia has had.

It’s not the worst comparison in the world, but assuming 1:1 mirroring between the situation with autogynephilia and the situation with gay-tboys-are-just-doing-it-because-they-read-too-much-yaoi would produce a lot of incorrect assumptions about whichever the thinker is less familiar with.

[thepoisonroom]

unfortunately queer dating will have you finding out about internet subcultures you never in your worst nightmares imagined

[gangrapesoda]

EPIC RAP BATTLES OF HISTORY

AGP

VERSUS

HSTS

BEGIN!

[trans-lunarinjection]

now im thinking about which other pmmm/magireco girls know what blanchardian categories are. mifuyu knows cuz agp is what her parents call her after a failed marriage meeting. homura probably knows and pretends not to believe it but deeply internalizes them. same with yachiyo. alina calls herself an agp.

[casketofstar]

the only way sayaka can be saved is in a world where she doesn't know what hsts and agp are and doesn't try to define herself on blanchardian categories

[cypionate60mg]

Hi! I love your work. It's really thrilling to find art at the intersection of philosophy, gender, and the erotic. You seem to be really thoughtful and intentional about your presentation of these pieces, so I'm curious about why you tag everything with "autoandrophilia" which IME is a pretty loaded word with a complex etymology. Would love to understand more!

Thanks, and good question. My answer is very long.

Before we go any futher, Blanchard's typology is transmisogynist bullshit. It's oversimplified, misinformed, and unimaginative. He actually abandoned the term 'autoandrophile' and has since switched to 'autohomoerotic'. More controversial online circles of trans people half-ironically identify with Blanchardian typology. For some, it's like MBTI, and for others, it's their self-diagnosis. Depends on the person.

When contemporary Western psychology began to take shape in the Wednesday Psychological Society's weekly meetings, one of the 'defects' they discussed was homosexuality. According to E. James Lieberman's biography of Otto Rank, he said in an informal setting that homosexuality is "love for one's self as seen in the persona of another like oneself whom one admires...strongly built up on narcissism. It is an ego symptom and not a sex symptom." Sound familiar? I don't think Blanchard's typology is all that different from that of early European psychoanalysis.

We see this same critique levied against trans people. That we're confusing attraction for identity, our self-love is fetishistic, and we're narcissistic neurotic perverts. But we can't just dismiss and ignore it, because we do indeed see trans people say things like "I can't tell if I want to be him or fuck him" or "become the person you'd want to date." 'Autoandrophile' starts to sound a lot like 'gender envy'. So what is actually happening here?

To even approach answering that, let's ask more questions. What does it mean to love people who look like you? If you are estranged from your own body, or if your body changes over time, is it morally objectionable to love a specific version of youself? Even a future one? It it also morally objectionable for that self-love to have a sexual dimension?

Trans people are expected to have the clarity of mind to separate who they are from who they're attracted to. (It's one of the demands society makes to ensure you are 'of sound mind' while still being suitably pathological to deserve hormonal/surgical treatment.) But if you don't necessarily identify with your body, then you already exist outside of that distinction. Like an open window, the barrier between inside (self) and outside (everything else) becomes troublesome.

Do you see now why I like the mirror metaphor so much? When you look in a reflection, that's not technically you. But it only exists because you are there to cast an image. The room's mirror image, too, is not necessarily real, but you gain insight into the room, maybe even see it in a new way, precisely because it's reflected back inaccurately. Your conception of yourself is filled out with detail when you cross-reference it with another version of yourself, one that doesn't exist in the same way you currently do.

It's some ontological quantum gender shit. And it's not unique to trans people. Cis people can experience it too, but they rely on the assumption that it's natural to have an oppositional 'counterpart', a 'complementary' partner. Somebody who completes them. Why, then, can't I complete myself?

We find ourselves back at your question. If Blanchard isn't going to use 'autoandrophile', then I will. One man's trash is another man's treasure. I'll use it to:

disrupt its definition.

challenge trans assimilationists.

discomfort cis men with my desire to be like them, or worse—to encourage them to define their masculinity.

provoke people into thoughtful discussions.

make people feel less alone.

But mostly, I use it so that when people look for the term, this blog will come up, and they'll see my porn. Or art. Or whatever they'll want to call it. And they'll start asking themselves the distinctions between any of these things.

There's so much more I could say about all this. Autoandrophilia's relationship to beauty standards, its usefulness (or lack thereof) as a coping mechanism for the limitation of transition, etcetera. But I'll stop here for now.

Much love, CYP60MG

[razistoricharka]

see that's the thing I can't fucking stand bisexual discourse aroace discourse terfshit whatever blanchardianism is NONE OF IT MATTERS YOU'RE NOT REAL YOU DONT HAVE REAL PROBLEMS

[thehoundera]

In the recently published Cass Review (2024), there is consistent mention of the prevalence of autism in the ‘trans and gender-diverse’ population, which is ‘three to six times higher’ than in the cis population ‘according to some studies’, such as Warrier et al., 2020 (Cass 5.41). The report cites concern in de Vries et al. (2011b) about whether autistic trans adolescents are experiencing “a general feeling of being just “different”” or a ““core” cross-gender identity”. A parent is quoted saying that their child, formerly bullied due to ‘ASD’, became a ‘celebrity’ and received ‘social kudos’ upon coming out (Cass p. 160); autistic children, including underdiagnosed “teenage girls”, are noted to have trouble “fitt[ing] in” (Cass 5.43) and “express[ing] how they are feeling about […] their gender identity” (Cass 5.44). There is also a note that a higher % of adolescents who discontinued puberty suppression were autistic (Cass 14.23). (I cannot examine the relevant commissioned study yet, but would note that the raw number here is likely to be very low.)

The obvious subtext here is that autistic trans children are less trustworthy about their articulation of transness than neurotypical trans children, and should therefore face more gatekeeping and vetting. In the report, it is noted that children, who know about this preconception, are routinely refusing to disclose neurodiversity to clinicians for fear of discreditation (Cass 11.11); the report’s response to this is to advocate for mandatory clinical screening for “neurodevelopmental conditions, including autism spectrum disorder” at point of entry for adolescent patients (Recommendation 2). I’m not going to get into the full scope of problems with this; there is no evidence that autistic people are impaired in identifying their own gender, or that the higher incidence of transness/gender diversity in the autistic population is symptomatic of misidentification. But I am going to talk about one study cited in Cass:

“In contrast [to the patients in the original Dutch study of puberty blockers], in a detailed study of young people with ASD and gender dysphoria (de Vries et al., 2010), it was noted that “‘while almost all adolescents with GID [gender identity dysphoria] are sexually attracted to individuals of their birth sex, the majority of the gender dysphoric adolescents with ASD were sexually attracted to partners of the other sex” (Cass 8.29). [highlights my own]

Anyone who is familiar with Blanchardian typology will recognise what is going on here: baseline expected attraction to individuals of one’s ‘birth sex’ (i.e. trans straight attraction) is contrasted with a suspect population who experience attraction to ‘other sex’ individuals (i.e. trans gay attraction). ‘Other sex’ attraction is used to devalue claims to transness in all trans populations, especially trans women, as it marks them both as desirably recuperable to cisheterosexuality and as unable to perform either legible homosexual gender variance or sufficiently authentic — i.e. straight — future transness, rendering them an ideal plausibly deniable target of gendered abuse. Transphobic fantasy fixates on the trans woman who pursues/‘predates on’ women, and trans men who pursue men are also a disproportionate target of anti-effeminate mockery. (This model also obviously erases bisexuality, which Cass itself notes is a high incidence sexuality among all trans groups (Cass 8.3), and uses bioessentialist sex terminology — it appears that if I exclusively dated a trans woman I would be classified here as ‘attracted to males’).

It shouldn’t matter regardless; autism and sexual orientation both shouldn’t impede someone’s right to medical autonomy. However, given this claim is clearly being used to delegitimise autistic trans people — including in the original study, where they claim that ‘adult transsexuals not sexually attracted to their natal sex show in some studies less satisfactory postoperative functioning compared with birth-sex attracted transsexuals’ — it is notable that the claim is false. It is obviously false the second you look at their data. They have a sample of nine adolescents (which would prove nothing even if the majority were ‘non-birth-sex attracted’) and the claim is still wrong about their own data.

De Vries et al (2010) is a nightmare of a study. It’s an analysis of 16 children with ASD who attended a Dutch gender clinic between 2004 and 2007 — specifically 7 children (ages 7–10) and 9 adolescents (ages 12–18). All the patients are misgendered throughout. There are also deeply disturbing comments about the sexual arousal and genital discomfort of children as young as 7, suggesting that the children seen at the clinic were asked deeply inappropriate and traumatising questions from admission. Various aspects of the under-11s’ profiles are immediately provoking, such as what the ‘behavioral program’ that reduced an 8-year-old’s ‘dressing up’ consisted of, or why certain children were referred to the clinic at all (some seem to have presented primarily with cross-gender behaviour rather than cross-gender identification). In any case, the sexual orientation of the under-11s clearly isn’t known, and the Cass Review’s claim is specific to adolescents anyway.

Of the adolescents, all of whom have a stated sexual orientation, we have:

AFAB 12-year-old, attracted to boys

AFAB 16-year-old, attracted to girls

AFAB 18-year-old, attracted to girls

AMAB 13-year-old, attracted to ‘neither boys nor girls’

AMAB 14-year-old, attracted to boys

AMAB 15-year-old, attracted to both girls and boys

AMAB 16-year-old, attracted to boys (specifically ‘homosexual’ boys)

AMAB 16-year-old, attracted to girls

AMAB 17-year-old, attracted to girls

By my count, to use their terminology that’s 3 adolescents with solely ‘other sex’ attraction (and I would note that one of those is 12 years old), 4 with ‘birth sex’, 1 bisexual and 1 with no stated attraction. THAT IS NOT A MAJORITY. EVEN IF YOU INCLUDE THE BISEXUAL IT’S NOT A MAJORITY.

There’s a more salient aspect of this whole thing, though: the outcomes of the adolescents. The only adolescents approved for ‘SR’ — sexual reassignment, i.e. surgery — at this gender clinic were the ones who are ‘birth sex attracted’. The AFAB kid attracted to boys was ‘not eligible for SR’ and ��happy being a ‘tomboy’ after counselling’; the bisexual AMAB kid was rendered ineligible and ‘referred for cognitive behavioral therapy around disturbing sexual arousal’; of the two AMAB kids attracted solely to girls, one was rendered ineligible but still had a ‘strong wish for SR’ at followup, while the other dropped out of the clinic, was ‘unwilling to assent to a treatment plan’, and got surgery abroad (good for her). ‘Non-birth-sex attracted’ trans adolescents here are obviously systematically gatekept from surgical interventions, and there are murky suggestions of conversion therapy, while most of the ‘birth-sex-attracted’ trans adolescents were awaiting surgery or hormones at followup.

But wait, there’s more. The study itself argues for lower ‘postoperative functioning’ of ‘non-birth-attracted transsexuals’, citing Smith et al. (2005) on ‘Transsexual subtypes: Clinical and theoretical significance’. (This study is straight up Blanchardian; it literally says that trans women attracted to men have a ‘more convincing cross-gender appearance.’) What does ‘postoperative functioning’ mean? It means that gay and bisexual trans people have ‘significantly more psychological problems’ than straight trans people — which would seem evidently explainable by a) less understood etiology of transness in non-homosexual-presenting trans youth, which means later treatment & more gatekept treatment, and b) worse cultural treatment of gay trans people.

So, the Cass Review took a study full of glaring markers of sexual misconduct & conversion therapy being enacted on trans children, quoted a statement about the data that is obviously incorrect if you look at the data for five seconds, used it to make a point intended to discredit autistic youth / paint them as delusional heterosexuals, and ignored blatant evidence of a long and documented history of gay and bi trans people being blocked from necessary healthcare interventions.

[catgirlredux]

the trans girl literally takes the Hormone That Makes Your Ass Fatter And Nipples More Sensitive but god forbid she ever makes more than a passing comment regarding that fact ere a swarm of Blanchardian cocksuckers descend upon her with a great cry of “AGP!”

[evildilf2]

is it weird to say that as a transmasc person i find forcefem content hot/actually sort of affirming because it assumes that being masculine is my default and i have to be Made feminine, whereas forcemasc does the opposite

I don’t think so, force fem as well as force detrans roleplay seem to be pretty popular sexual interests among trans men- which I find to be pretty compelling evidence against blanchardian transsexual typology but that’s a whole other conversation.

[andreablog2]

The resurrection/universification of blanchardian distinctions of transsexuality is honestly opening the flood gates for a lot worse kinds of gender discourse bc it’s mainly perpetuated by cis people and random trans lapdogs…I get the Blaire white thing and needing to be shallow and scream you’re not a dyke for the comfort of cis women but it’s ultimately a self deprecating discourse to uphold regardless of how nuanced or inclusive people think their position is. I’d even go as far to say that it’s honestly such a niche niche thing that nobody needs to develop a position on it. If your only real life interactions w trans people are at like bars in passing you shouldn’t even know the term “autogynephile”

[iamollie]

I see a lot of forcemasc posts revolving around an arousal coming from the process of being masculinized. They talk about how taking their T shots turns them on, or how they want to be trained to become a man.

While I have definitely felt like “boy/girl school” would be helpful for trans people trying to blend in, I’ve never seen any aspect of my actual transition as sexually arousing.

I know some people condemn autoandrophilia and autogynephilia, which I don’t think is ok. The Blanchardian way of looking at things is interesting, but pretty simplistic and focuses mainly on trans women.

i am not autoandrophilic at all, but I’d like to know more from other trans men who are.

[onecornerface]

Some of my views on trans topics

Some increased number of youth have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria due to the reduction of false negatives in recent years. This is good. (Cf. discourse on autism, as well as increase in recognition of left-handedness, and similar topics). Also some youth have come to identify as trans *without* gender dysphoria. I claim this is good OR neutral.

If gender dysphoria has increased, which has *maybe* happened (or maybe not), this would probably be *somewhat* bad (w/ caveats)-- insofar as dysphoria (i.e. a kind of feeling bad) is bad. (I think feeling bad is bad!!!) However, this has not been *shown* to have happened. Evidence for this claim is highly indirect at most.

Relatedly, all the (few) "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria" studies seem to be garbage or of highly suspect quality (e.g. Lisa Littman & a few follow-ups by her and others).

I cannot rule out the possibility that a very few people may have something like ROGD. Similarly for "autogynephilia" and "homosexual transsexuality" (Blanchard-Bailey-Lawrence). Also, I make no judgment against anyone who may have such conditions, if there are any. Which maybe there are. (But for some criticism, see Julia Serano's several essays and posts against Blanchardianism.) I think the whole AGP/HSTS theory is likely bunk-- but *if* some properly nuanced version of it is legit, I think that's basically okay.

For instance, I think Tailcalled (Survey-Anon) is a really decent and reasonable Blanchardian.

I know for a fact there are a lot of people who consider themselves AGP, and I suspect there are some people who consider themselves to be HSTS or ROGD (which I've heard secondhand, but not firsthand). However, unlike perhaps some people, I don't consider someone's (gender-related or otherwise) self-identification to be a sufficient reason that the rest of us ought to agree uncritically with their own theory (although I think a certain degree of respect is called for-- and this goes for trans [and cis] people whose self-conceptions I see no reason to disagree with, and for trans [and cis] people whose self-conceptions I see some reason to disagree with).

(Similarly, I think it's fine for pretty much anyone to disagree with some religious people's self-identification, and with some Dissociative Identify Disorder patients' or multiples' self-identification, among others. For that matter, I think it's okay to disagree with the self-identification of some people who consider themselves to be persons, if e.g. you have a Parfitian theory or error theory regarding personhood, or if you believe there is merely matter in motion, etc.)

One big reason to be open to disagreeing with some trans people's self-identification is that there are some trans women who say "I'm actually a man (or male)" or similar assertions. This is an interesting puzzle for some versions of self-ID theory. You can easily find these posts on gender-critical feminist blogs, who reblog these sorts of posts frequently (for obvious reasons). Also some trans people are traditionally religious (e.g. some of them think they have male or female or other gendered souls) or have weird gender theories (which are, in some sense or other, a commonplace in all philosophical literatures, gender-related and otherwise, including secular)-- and I think it's fine to believe they are mistaken. I think this is of some interest, despite the dubious place that many gender-critical feminists are coming from.

To be honest, I think the gender-critical feminist movement is broadly fascist or at least fascist-adjacent, even though some of them are reasonable and decent people on an individual level (much like anti-abortionists, some of whom are reasonable and decent individually, even though their movement is insane, misogynist, and often fascist). This does NOT mean every gender-critical feminist is fascist on a personal level. However, if you are trans or a trans-ally, I also think (on e.g. freedom-of-association grounds, despite my not being a capitalist libertarian) that you do not *have* to associate with people who very much do *not* validate the legitimacy of trans people's identities.

I honestly do not think I am very biased on this topic, contrary to common allegations that all skeptics are biased. (Zack Davis, among others, seems to make this assertion.) This is for many direct and indirect reasons. Unlike some people, I would not care much if ROGD or Blanchardianism (AGP/HSTS) were true, but I think there are many reasons to consider these views most likely untrue-- both in general, and for a sizeable majority of trans people.

It is hard to emphasize enough how unbiased I think I am on this topic, both for personal and intellectual reasons.

I understand there is a lot of actual and perceived bias on this topic, in regard to wokeness or political correctness or suchlike, so I don't know how to prove this. But IF I believed that (say) trans women were in fact men, then I believe I would say so openly. I'd make some serious effort toward saying this respectfully, but I *would* say it, and I'd say it directly. I do not say so, because I do not believe so.

I think a lot of people think there is widespread dishonesty on this topic. Quite possibly there is. Many people would be yelled at if they said openly that they believed trans women were men, so this is some reason to think many people wouldn't say so even if they believed so. But I swear I'm not being dishonest on this topic.

All that said, the ROGD studies appear to suck, so likely ROGD isn't common, and allegations otherwise are bunk and most likely very biased. (I also suspect AGP and HSTS are bunk, although I admit my allegation on this matter is more complex and less blatantly correct.)

I think gender dysphoria (in itself) is bad-- insofar as dysphoria (i.e. a type of feeling bad) is bad. I disagree with some number of trans advocates who think curing gender dysphoria (i.e. successful conversion therapy) would be bad in itself. Also it seems plausible to me that gender-critical feminists such as Holly Lawfort-Smith are correct in saying that the failure of trans-conversion therapy has been exaggerated. However, I also think wanting to transition is basically okay (at whatever age, including under 18 and under 13), and I disagree with the view that transition per se is bad (apart from the inconvenience and cost, which I grant is somewhat bad in itself).

Also, I reject transmedicalism and the notion that one needs to have gender dysphoria to be trans. I also (approximately) affirm self-ID as sufficient without dysphoria. So if & insofar as some increased number of young people have come to self-ID as trans (trans men, women, nonbinary), even if they don't have gender dysphoria, I think this is totally fine.

If some increased number of young people self-identify as trans due to a "trend" or "social contagion," or even a "paraphilia" (with various caveats), then I think that's cool, this is fine.

Cry about it.

[angelprickandholysemen]

theory of the young-girl might be even worse brainworms than blanchardian terminology

[transmutationisms]

hi! would you mind explaining a little bit more about sexual inverts? i have been reading maurice and thinking of clive along similar lines, but i think i'm missing some of the context in not understanding 19th to early 20th century's views around sex. i don't really know where to start digging around either ehehehe.

also, if you have time, would you say that while we now think of sexuality and gender as separate, there is still an underlying understanding of sexual desire as comprising the sexes, perhaps in a general context, especially as it relates to heteronormaitivity? thank you~

sorry this took a minute i have gallstones maybe. sexual inversion appeared in medical literature starting in about the 1870s and was popularised more during about the 1920s. the theory was that homosexual desire was the result of normal sexuality located within a person who was constitutionally abnormal, specifically in the manner of mentally having the 'opposite' of their anatomical/genital sex (bisexual desire was thus configured as a kind of intersex/bi-sex position). so, inversion as formulated in this period relied on a notion of a strict human sexual dimorphism, specifically with the two accepted sexes configured as opposite to one another; sexual desire and behaviour were simply part of this configuration of sex. one important thing to note here is that inversion was embraced by some practitioners and homosexuals in an effort to shift away from the idea of homosexuality as a criminal choice and toward homosexuality as an inborn trait (though i would argue that this was not a wholly new idea, as plenty of medical and political discourses viewed criminality itself as an inborn moral defect throughout the 19th century). so, in the invert framework, a gay man had the 'soul' (/mind/desires/&c) of a woman, and vice versa with lesbians being in some sense 'men' internally. homosexual desires were conflated with, and part of a larger narrative of, cross-sex identification and gender nonconformity. crucially, the fact of this desire in itself was already a transgression of assigned sex/gender; thus, in some sense the invert framework really doesn't ontologically allow for, eg, a masc gay man, as the fact of gayness is already and always considered to be a gender deviation.

it's been a really long time since i read 'maurice' and i don't remember thinking of either of them as inverted, but i certainly could have missed that. forster wrote homosexuality as basically inborn and unchosen (hence the failure of maurice's hypnotist, and the quiet tragedy of clive's ending) so there may be some overlap/similarity there.

in the 21st century, gender expression and identity certainly still have a relationship to sexuality and sexual desire; for example, it's fairly common to hear from gay and bi people that even if they do continue to consider themselves cis, they feel some disconnect from their assigned genders in relation to their sexual orientations. the legacy of the invert theory is also part of the puzzle in terms of why transitioning used to be wholly prohibited in the us for trans people who would not be transitioning 'to be heterosexual'. although this is no longer part of the medical guidelines as articulated by wpath &c, there are certainly still plenty of doctors who hold this belief implicitly or explicitly, particularly in their 'evaluations' of trans women (ray blanchard's theory is maybe the most infamous example of this, but is certainly not its only manifestation). i would argue that for the most part, our conception of sex has shifted so much that the invert framework no longer makes sense in most contexts; even strict blanchardians believe on some level that sexuality is something besides a component of sex, and you can tell from how shittily they (and others) actually treat trans lesbians that they in fact do not see them as being equivalent to straight men, but as another category, without access to any of the social benefits men receive (this is a critical aspect of how transmisogyny functions). although sexuality is still part of how people are expected to act out their sexes (bc ofc sex is as socially constructed as gender), you would be hard-pressed to find anyone these days who would defend the argument that the origin of homosexual desire is a constitutional perversion of sex in the way that the invert framework describes. on tumblr at least, there have been some circles of t/erfs and cryptos who tried to 'reclaim' the invert framework but, i would argue, have never really understood what they were actually reclaiming and how it functioned historically, so the appeal was simply to the word "invert" with a peculiarly 21st-century content ascribed to it.

i'll leave some reading recs under a cut; sorry they're almost all british context:

sexual inversion: a critical edition, by havelock ellis and john addington symonds, ed. ivan crozier

'scholars, scientists, and sexual inverts: authority and sexology in nineteenth-century britain' by heike bauer (ch. in: repositioning victorian sciences: shifting centres in nineteenth-century scientific thinking, ed. david clifford)

'historicizing inversion: or, how to make a homosexual', by matt t reed (history of the human sciences, 2001, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1–30)

'theorizing female inversion: sexology, discipline, and gender at the fin de siècle', by heike bauer (journal of the history of sexuality, 2009, vol. 18, pp. 84–102)

'the origin of italian sexological studies: female sexual inversion, ca. 1870–1900', by chiara beccalossi (journal of the history of sexuality, 2009, vol. 18, pp. 103–120)

'nineteenth-century british psychiatric writing about homosexuality before havelock ellis: the missing story', by ivan crozier (journal of the history of medicine and allied sciences, 2008, vol. 63, pp. 65–102)

[autogynocrat]

neurotic blanchardian transgenders will say things like "you cant play videogames thats male brained" girl shut up