Which Comes First: Sexuality or Identity?
the chicken-or-egg question at the heart of the autogynephilia controversy
This is Chapter 6.3 of Autoheterosexual: Attracted to Being the Other Sex, my science book about the most common kind of trans.
Many trans people acknowledge that prior to transitioning they experienced arousal in association with cross-gender embodiment. Often, this response happened while crossdressing or crossdreaming[i].
It is not really disputed that many trans people have experienced cross-gender arousal or cross-gender fantasy at some point in their lives. If anything, it’s the norm. The dispute is over what it means.
People who disagree with the two-type MTF typology generally make one of the following arguments:
Females can also experience arousal at the thought of being a woman[ii]
For would-be transsexuals, fantasies about being the other gender are a coping mechanism for dealing with the incongruence between their gender identity and their physical sex[iii]
The first argument is beside the point, and the second switches cause and effect.
Autogynephilia in Females (Female Autohomosexuality)
If females experience arousal at the thought of being a woman, it would represent autohomosexuality (attraction to being one’s sex), not autoheterosexuality.
Given that some autohomosexual males experience masculinity dysphoria[iv], female autohomosexuality could similarly lead to femininity dysphoria (distress over not being feminine enough).
But autogynephilia in females would not drive gender transition—if anything, it would reduce the urge to transition because it would elevate the worth of femininity. Thus, female autogynephilia is tangential to the question of why some males transition to live as women.
In line with the leading theory[v] of where autosexual orientations come from, we would also expect female autohomosexuality to be present in just a subset of same-sex attracted females. Thus, it wouldn’t be prevalent enough to be considered typical female sexuality.
Research has shown that some females answer affirmatively to questions intended to measure the presence of autogynephilia[vi]. However, most of these studies used measurement scales that differed from Blanchard’s, so it’s hard to know how to interpret them in relation to his research.
Fortunately, Michael Bailey and Kevin Hsu administered Blanchard’s Core Autogynephilia Scale to four groups of autogynephilic males, four groups of typical males, and two groups of females to explore if females were autogynephilic[vii]. They found that all groups of autogynephilic males scored far higher on the Core Autogynephilia Scale than any of the groups of females or typical males. In comparison, the groups of females and typical males all had far lower scores. It wasn’t even close.
At this point, it seems fairly settled that even if some females are autogynephilic, it’s nowhere near common enough to be considered typical female sexuality. And besides, whether or not some females are autogynephilic is irrelevant to gender transition: autohomosexuality doesn’t drive gender transition, autoheterosexuality does.
Autogynephilia as a Way of Coping with Gender Incongruence
If fantasies of being the other gender are just a way of coping with gender incongruence, why are these fantasies far less common among homosexual males who undergo gender transition?
If fantasies of being the other gender are just a way of coping with gender incongruence, what does this imply about the males who have fantasized about being female yet haven’t transitioned or stated a trans identity? Do these nontrans males actually have a cross-gender identity? Should they be thought of as would-be transsexuals?
Do males identify as heterosexual because they are attracted to females or because they identify as straight? Are males attracted to males because they identify as gay?
Which comes first: our sexual attractions or our sexual identities?
I think the answer is obvious: attractions come first. People notice who they are sexually drawn to and tend to adopt a corresponding sexual identity. Identities don’t cause the attractions. Rather, they’re a downstream effect of sexual attraction patterns.
If sexual identities caused our attraction patterns, we could simply change our sexual identity and our attractions would change accordingly. But conversion therapies intended to change sexual orientation don’t work[viii], so identities are clearly not where sexual attractions originate.
A similar line of thought applies to autoheterosexual attraction and cross-gender identity in trans people who experience both.
Which comes first: cross-gender identity or an enduring pattern of sexual attraction to being the other sex?
Doesn’t it make more sense that here, too, people experience attractions that shape their identities, rather than the other way around?
If someone experiences autoheterosexual attraction for years before transitioning to live as the other sex, should we retroactively interpret that cross-gender attraction as a sign of cross-gender identity and thus as a way of coping with gender incongruence? If so, does this reasoning also apply to autoheterosexuals who don’t transition to or identify as another gender?
Sexual orientations are enduring patterns of sexual attraction that exist regardless of how we feel about them, even if they offend our sense of self. Our sexual identities may change, but changes to sexual orientation are unlikely.
Most people are heterosexual, didn’t choose to be that way, and couldn’t become same-sex attracted even if they tried. Although they can change their sexual identity if they want to, their attraction patterns are unlikely to budge.
If someone experiences sexual attraction to being the other sex for years on end, isn’t that attraction likely driven by a sexual orientation? And even if their cross-gender identity becomes strong and continuous at some point in their lives, isn’t that identity most likely a downstream effect of the cross-gender attractions that preceded it?
These beliefs—that cross-gender attractions, fantasies, and arousal are merely ways of coping with gender incongruence, and that gender identity comes first—have obvious emotional appeal to autohets with cross-gender identities. But these beliefs don’t make sense chronologically, and there’s insufficient evidence for them.
Evidence Favors the “Autoheterosexuality First” Narrative
Core gender identity usually solidifies by three years of age, but many trans people only come to realize they are transgender after puberty, or even in their twenties or thirties—long after autoheterosexuality is already at work in those who have it.
A lot of trans people say they first wanted to be the other sex and felt gender dysphoria in childhood, long before puberty. Some regard this as evidence that their cross-gender desires weren’t sexual in origin.
But people commonly report special longings or attachments during childhood that were congruent with their later-revealed sexual orientations[ix]. These early attractions sometimes reach the point of eroticism, too, which also happens with autoheterosexuality.
Sartorial arousal has been documented in males under age three[x], and autogynephilic trans women have retrospectively reported that they had autogynephilic arousal as early as four to six years of age[xi].
In autoheterosexuals, their orientations are already present long before their cross-gender identities become their dominant gender identities. Autoheterosexuality comes first, and cross-gender identity is a later development in some autohets.
Orientation precedes identity.
In Sum
Arguments against the legitimacy of the concept of autogynephilia and its relevance to transgenderism generally focus on two lines of argument: 1) females experience autogynephilia and, therefore, autogynephilia is just typical female sexuality, and 2) fantasies about being another gender are manifestations of cross-gender identity in would-be transsexuals. The first argument is beside the point, and the second switches cause and effect.
Default gender identity usually forms by three years of age, but it’s particularly common for trans people to start having gender issues around the time of puberty. Many only come out as transgender in their twenties, thirties, or even later. Autoheterosexuality and its associated cross-gender development process best explain this pattern.
[i] Jack Molay, “Crossdreaming Described,” Crossdreamers (blog), August 3, 2014, https://www.crossdreamers.com/2014/08/crossdreaming-described.html.
[ii] Jaimie F. Veale, Dave E. Clarke, and Terri C. Lomax, “Sexuality of Male-to-Female Transsexuals,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 37, no. 4 (August 2008): 586–97, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-007-9306-9; Charles Moser, “Autogynephilia in Women,” Journal of Homosexuality 56, no. 5 (2009): 539–47, https://doi.org/10.1080/00918360903005212; Julia M. Serano, “The Case Against Autogynephilia,” International Journal of Transgenderism 12, no. 3 (2010): 184, https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2010.514223.
[iii] Serano, “The Case Against Autogynephilia,” 184.
[iv] Kevin J. Hsu and J. Michael Bailey, “Erotic Target Identity Inversions,” in Gender and Sexuality Development: Contemporary Theory and Research, ed. Doug P. VanderLaan and Wang Ivy Wong (Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2022), 589–612, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353559193_Erotic_Target_Identity_Inversions.
[v] Kurt Freund and Ray Blanchard, “Erotic Target Location Errors in Male Gender Dysphorics, Paedophiles, and Fetishists,” British Journal of Psychiatry 162, no. 4 (April 1993): 558–63, https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.162.4.558.
[vi] Veale, Clarke, and Lomax, “Sexuality of Male-to-Female Transsexuals”; Moser, “Autogynephilia in Women”; Scott Alexander, “Autogenderphilia is Common and Not Especially Related to Transgender,” Slate Star Codex (blog), February 10, 2020, https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/02/10/autogenderphilia-is-common-and-not-especially-related-to-transgender/.
[vii] J. Michael Bailey and Kevin J. Hsu, “How Autogynephilic are Natal Females?,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 51, no. 7 (October 2022): 3311–3318, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02359-8.
[viii] Judith M. Glassgold et al., Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, August 2009), 83, https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf.
[ix] Anne A. Lawrence, Men Trapped in Men’s Bodies: Narratives of Autogynephilic Transsexualism, Focus on Sexuality Research (New York: Springer, 2013), 169–71, https://www.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5182-2.
[x] Lawrence, 75.
[xi] Lawrence, 76–77.
Im biological female and bisexual. I think I've been both autohomosexual and autoheterosexual.
When i was younger and teenager i tought i was transman for a while. (But i never physically transitioned). Back then i was very sexually attracted of idea of having sex as man with a woman or with man. Back then i read alot of fanfics and yaoi. And i roleplayed with my other bisexual female friends and girlfriend that we were gay anime men. I also experienced alot of bodydysphoria back then of having female body. And i felt disgust of my boobs, thigs and butt.
But then i realised i wasnt trans and im just bisexual woman. And i realised body dysphoria i felt was actually sexual attraction towards my own body. And feeling what i tought was disgust towards my body was actually me being sexually aroused and being ashamed of myself. I guess it was because i hadnt fully accepted that i also like girls. I like if my partner is turned on my female body. And im myself turned on from my female body.
I think its great because this makes me love my body more. And im very grateful i never transitioned.
I reviewed this chapter as part of my review: https://surveyanon.wordpress.com/2023/06/12/book-review-autoheterosexuality/
I'll copy the review part in here for convenience.
---
Anyway, pseudo autogynephilia vs true autogynephilia is one thing, but perhaps more important is the direction of causality between autogynephilia and transness. This is a highly controversial question, because it determines whether autogynephilia can be seen as the cause of transness or just a byproduct of it.
I’m not really satisfied with Phil’s treatment of the question of causality. It seems to me that there are good arguments to be made, but instead he makes bad ones. Specifically, Phil has a chapter of the question, where he makes six arguments:
1. Some critics argue that autogynephilia cannot be causal for transness because cis women are autogynephilic too. But actually those people are wrong because cis women aren’t all that autogynephilic, and even if they were, that has nothing to do with what is going on in trans women.
2. Some critics argue that trans women might have autogynephilia-like sexuality because they want to be female and dislike being male. But if that is true, then how does one explain the following facts:
a: Autogynephilia-like sexuality is less common among trans women exclusively attracted to men,
b: There are men with autogynephilia-like sexuality who don’t transition,
c: Sexual orientation labels like “gay” are usually causally downstream from sexual attractions like getting boners when seeing hunks, so by analogy gender identity labels like “trans” should be causally downstream of sexual autogynephilic attraction.
3. Trans women often have experiences in their childhood where they wanted to be girls, before their autogynephilic sexual arousal in puberty. This is analogous to how people of other sexual orientations often have childhood crushes, so this supports autogynephilia being causal.
I’ll address these in reverse order; 3-2c-2b-2a. I’ll skip responding to 1 because the whole debate on it is a giant mess that would take a long and convoluted text to sort out while mainly concluding that I am too confused about the matter to know anything about it**.
3: I was really confused when reading argument 3. You might think I’ve made a mistake when explaining it – usually when you see a correlation between A and B, you’d think the one that comes first is the cause. But instead the author is arguing the opposite, that this shows autogynephilia to be the cause.
Phil’s argument seems to be in response to people arguing the opposite, obvious thing: that cross-gender ideation coming before autogynephilia means that autogynephilia is a side-effect and not a cause. I am sympathetic to Phil’s argument that childhood crushes that develop before one has unambiguous sexual arousal seem common, and that therefore the argument from timing isn’t as strong as one would think.
However, I think Phil goes too far when he concludes that the ordering is therefore evidence for autogynephilia being causal. This seems to be an error that I often see him making: he often jumps from the fact that one can shoehorn a phenomenon into his model, to the assumption that this phenomenon is therefore evidence for his model.
2c: I think the argument about the causality of labels misses the point. Yes, it is true that labels like “homosexual” are causally downstream of experiences of sexual attraction to men. But what people are suggesting is not that an arbitrary gender label causes trans women to have sexual fantasies involving themselves as women, but rather that trans women’s dysphoria about being male and desire to be female causes this sexuality.
In the section where he makes the argument, Phil is very focused on the idea that gender identity labels change but sexual orientations do not change. He argues that since the change in self-identity happens much later than the autogynephilic arousal, identity cannot be taken to cause autogynephilia.
But in my experience, even way prior to transition, if you go out and ask autogynephiles how they feel about being male, they will give very different answers from what you get if you ask ordinary men. For instance one study (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25277693/) found effect sizes of d=1.86 to d=2.85 (depending on how you count).
2b: It is true that there are autogynephiles who don’t transition. Some of them really want to transition and dislike being male; for instance I’ve seen one of them say the following:
"I have always felt deep down that I would prefer to be female. I prefer the way they dress and act and it always made me a bit jealous of girls. I feel I would be more comfortable in my own skin as a female. I have come to terms with the way that I feel and accept that I wouldn’t want to go through a transition. I am okay with the way that I feel now and have learned to accept those feelings.
I don’t feel that I am traditionally very manly and feel more comfortable around girls"
I think people who advocate the theory that gender dysphoria causes autogynephilia would be perfectly happy to bite the bullet that this guy’s gender feelings caused him to eroticize feminization, even though he doesn’t literally label himself as a woman.
On the other hand, there seems to be some autogynephiles who this doesn’t apply to; whose autogynephilia seems to exceed what could be explained by their desire to be a woman. But that just means that autogynephilia and gender identity are not deterministically correlated. As nondeterminism is a symmetric relationship, it doesn’t disprove that gender identity influences autogynephilia any more than it disproves that autogynephilia influences gender identity. It just means that there are other factors in play.
You can make up stories about what those factors are – ideology, sexual success, experience, etc. – but the opposing side can also make up stories about what the alternate factors that could cause autogynephilia are (e.g. I am pretty sure I’ve seen someone suggest that curiosity may play a role in causing autogynephilia without feminine gender identity).
2a: The argument goes that if autogynephilia was influenced by gender identity, then it should be as common among trans women who are attracted to women as it is among trans women who are attracted to men.
I don’t understand this argument. Elsewhere in the book, Phil says that attraction to women is a contributor to autogynephilia because this attraction gets “inverted” onto oneself in some sense. This seems intuitively sufficient to explain sexual orientation differences in autogynephilia among trans women by sexual orientation.
✱ If you want to see the most recent serious entry into the debate about autogynephilia in cis women, then it is the paper It Helps If You Stop Confusing Gender Dysphoria and Transvestism (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363429868_A_Response_to_Bailey_and_Hsu_2022_It_Helps_If_You_Stop_Confusing_Gender_Dysphoria_and_Transvestism). It is somewhat biased against autogynephilia theory, though. See also my post, Transvestism vs Gender Dysphoria vs … (https://surveyanon.wordpress.com/2023/05/27/transvestism-vs-gender-dysphoria-vs/) for more.