Ending The Cover-Up
helping autoheterosexuals interpret their experiences
Here, in chapter 8.2 of Autoheterosexual: Attracted to Being the Other Sex, I discuss how the continued suppression of knowledge of autoheterosexuality harms the ability of autoheterosexuals to understand themselves, properly interpret their experiences, and give informed consent for medical interventions. To battle this harm pertaining to knowledge, I recommend both individual actions (coming out) and an institutional end-goal (including autoheterosexuality in the sex ed curriculum).
The evidence for the existence of autoheterosexuality is overwhelming: it obviously exists.
If millions of people are autoheterosexual, is it even possible to continually suppress knowledge of it on a long-term basis? And if it is possible, is it ethical?
Autoheterosexuality is the most common driver of transgenderism. Given this fact, shouldn’t autoheterosexuals have access to knowledge about their orientations so they can properly interpret their experiences and make informed decisions regarding gender transition?
Ideally, yes. But that’s not what’s happening.
In the early 2000’s, a misguided group of transgender activists worked together to suppress awareness of autoandrophilia and autogynephilia[i]. This set in motion a suppression impulse that continues to the present day. Online, there is a strong social norm among trans people to downplay the relevance of these concepts or outright dismiss them as transphobic and pseudoscientific whenever they get brought up.
This socially-enforced ignorance among autohet trans people makes it harder for the broader autoheterosexual population to interpret their feelings and comprehend their situation.
This is an injustice pertaining to knowledge—a type of injustice known as epistemic injustice. It is an epistemic injustice when people are unable to adequately interpret their own experiences because the essential concept to grasp is hidden from them[ii].
As it stands now, some autohet trans people are prioritizing their desire to see themselves a particular way over the desire that other autoheterosexuals have to properly interpret their own experiences and feelings.
Many autohets don’t even know a name for the orientation that drives their gender feelings. And when they do finally learn a name for it, they often encounter misleading information that damages their ability to interpret their situation.
This epistemic injustice has harmed me and countless others. It is unfair and unnecessary, so it must end.
Activists have successfully suppressed knowledge of autoheterosexuality and its connection to transgenderism so far, but eventually the truth will get out.
When it does, gender-critical feminists (aka “trans-exclusionary radical feminists” or “TERFs”) and socially regressive political groups will disparage autoheterosexuality and push the narrative that suits their ideological goals. They already do.
However, if the trans people who are supposedly safeguarding trans rights are obviously wrong about autoheterosexuality, they won’t be taken seriously.
To end the epistemic injustice caused by the autohet cover-up, autoheterosexuals must understand their orientations so they can speak about them clearly.
It needs to be socially acceptable within the trans community to identify as autogynephilic, autoandrophilic, or an equivalent label. As it stands now, autoheterosexuals can lose friends and get excluded from LGBTQ groups for being honest, informed, and open about their sexual orientation.
This state of affairs is obviously insane: one of the central aims of LGBTQ organizations is to fight against stigmatization of uncommon gender-based sexual orientations and to advocate for the people who have them.
Why is there an exception for autogynephilia and autoandrophilia?
Why are so many new identities invariably deemed valid, yet identifying as autogynephilic or autoandrophilic brings hostility? Pretty suspicious, right? This hypocritical bias is just one more sign that these orientations exist and are the norm among trans people.
The current widespread dismissal of autoheterosexuality among autohet trans people leaves them unprepared to contest false claims about the orientation that birthed their gender identities. With their heads buried in the sand, their asses are ripe for a kicking.
When autoandrophilia and autogynephilia go mainstream, there will be some backlash against gender-variant people. The sooner trans people destigmatize these orientations among themselves, the better the odds of successfully combating political backlash.
Fortunately, it’s possible to destigmatize autoheterosexuality through honest and skillful communication. Describing autoandrophilic and autogynephilic orientations collectively as “autoheterosexual” allows us to speak about them as clearly as possible, in a way that sounds as normal as possible.
Many of the same strategies that proved effective in destigmatizing same-sex attractions can be repurposed to destigmatize attractions to being the other sex (e.g., coming out, “born this way”).
The place to start is within the LGBTQ community, by coming out to each other.
If autoheterosexuality exists and is the most common cause of transgenderism, don’t autoheterosexuals inevitably need to come out at some point? Why wait?
Most people will learn of autoandrophilia and autogynephilia before transgender people attain the legal protections they deserve. Waiting isn’t realistic.
These autohet orientations are outside of mainstream awareness for now, but that’s about to end. Although I intend to mainstream them, they’re already on their way there. Awareness is building. The tipping point is near.
When the broader public becomes aware of autoheterosexuality, how would you like it portrayed?
As an acceptable way to exist that isn’t intrinsically harmful and can be integrated into open society?
As “just a fetish”, a mental disorder, or a threat to others?
For the former to happen, autoheterosexuality needs to lose its stigma among sexual and gender minorities. If they can’t destigmatize it among themselves, what hope is there for the rest of society?
That’s why progress has to start at home, by coming out to each other.
Truly Informed Consent
To many trans people, the concepts of autogynephilia and autoandrophilia feel invalidating or bring up feelings they don’t want to address. It doesn’t help that in the ongoing culture war over transgenderism, these concepts have been frequently invoked in ways intended to hurt or belittle trans people.
Still, that doesn’t make it acceptable to misrepresent autoheterosexuality—especially to people who are trying to figure out their gender situation (i.e., “if they’re trans”).
Autoheterosexuality is too important to be lied about or consistently misrepresented. Gender transition is a fucking serious decision that ought to be informed to the greatest extent possible.
Covering up the central role that autoheterosexuality plays in most instances of transgenderism in Western countries does a disservice to trans people. It robs them of their ability to make truly informed, consensual decisions regarding gender transition.
If an autohet person wants to transition but doesn’t even know the name of the sexual orientation underlying their desire to be the other sex before they start taking hormones, how is that informed? How is that consensual?
Teach Autoheterosexuality in Sex Ed
Both autoheterosexuality and the two-type model of transgenderism belong in the sexual education curriculum.
Kids who are old enough to learn about homosexuality and bisexuality are also old enough to learn about autoheterosexuality (at an age-appropriate level of detail, of course).
It doesn’t have to be graphic or complicated. Explaining the gist can be quite simple:
Some girls and boys who like the other gender also enjoy being the other gender. Some of them even choose to live as that gender.
See? The basic idea isn’t that complicated.
The two transgender types represent fundamentally different situations. It’s important for people with these orientations to know specifically which one they have, so they can best interpret their situation and plan accordingly.
Kids can’t do the kind of mature, long-term thinking that ought to precede transsexualism, so it’s also important that adults disabuse them of the magical notion that sex change is literally possible. Gender transition allows males to live as women and females to live as men, but it’s not possible to truly change sex. Kids who want to live as the other gender ought to understand the limitations and trade-offs inherent to the cross-gender journey.
By receiving reliable knowledge about the causes of transgenderism, gender-variant kids can avoid endless agonizing over whether or not they’re “actually trans”. Instead, they can immediately recognize if they are autoheterosexual or homosexual and start thinking about how they want to handle their gender situation.
Many post-transition autoheterosexuals wish they had transitioned before they went through “the wrong puberty”. Teaching the causes of transgenderism in school is the best way for them to comprehend their gender situation as early as possible. It’s in their best interest.
Put autoheterosexuality and the two-type transgender model in sex ed. Leaving them out is lying by omission.
The evidence is in.
Teach it.
The Incompatibility between Activism and Truth-Seeking
Sometimes people are wrong about themselves. It’s rude to point out in social situations, but true nonetheless. No one has perfect knowledge of themselves.
Since people can be wrong about themselves, “lived experience” is not a reliable foundation for knowledge[iii]. We don’t create true knowledge by uncritically accepting people’s testimony of themselves.
Humans are innately fallible, which is why we have collectively benefited so much from scientific approaches to knowledge production. Autogynephilic writer Zack M. Davis explained:
If introspection were sufficient to reveal the true structure of human psychology, it’s not clear why we would even need to do science; we would just know. It’s precisely because careful observation and experiments can tell us things about ourselves that we didn’t already know, that science is useful.[iv] [emphasis in original]
This need to look beyond subjective experience is especially important in matters of sexuality.
If someone’s sexuality is displeasing to their idealized self-image, they may lie about it. They could also simply be unaware of it. Regardless, their self-reports wouldn’t reflect reality.
When this phenomenon occurs on a group level, it leads to a bunch of people lying to each other and telling each other what they want to hear. When researchers set out to help these identity groups and advocate for them by studying them, the resulting research is warped by the dictates of identity politics.
Ray Blanchard wrote about this dynamic:
People lie about their sexuality. They lie to themselves; they lie to others. They are also sometimes genuinely ignorant of their own predilection until a chance circumstance reveals it to them. It is not only bad people who do this; it is all kinds of people, including good, intelligent, and generally honest people. I realize that this notion will be anathema to those who think that a responsible clinician is one who believes everything that the patient has to say, or that a responsible researcher is one who produces only data that furthers the goals of identity politics.[v]
That last point about research and identity politics is crucial to understand.
In the science game, activism and truth-seeking are fundamentally at odds[vi].
The pursuit of truth requires not knowing the conclusion before data collection has even begun. It requires publishing findings even if they’re politically problematic.
Just as individuals can be wrong about themselves, groups of people can be collectively wrong about their group—especially if an inconvenient truth sullies their collective self-image. Researchers who strive to validate the preferred narratives of groups they study inevitably corrupt the truth-seeking mission with their desire to do right by that group.
This epistemic malpractice obscures the path to new knowledge and cripples the knowledge-production process. It also damages the ability of individuals in those groups to learn true, actionable knowledge about themselves.
Researchers can’t seek truth and do activism at the same time. They must pick one.
In Sum:
Autoheterosexuality is the most common cause of gender dysphoria, yet many autohet trans people continue to suppress knowledge about their sexual orientation. This cover-up damages autoheterosexuals’ ability to properly interpret their experiences and give truly informed consent to gender-affirming medical interventions.
In order to fix the epistemic injustice created by the cover-up of autoheterosexuality, autohets must become knowledgeable about their orientations, come out, and pass on their knowledge to others like them. If sexual minorities cannot destigmatize autoheterosexuality among themselves, there is little hope of destigmatizing it among the general public.
Transsexualism is increasingly available on an “informed consent” basis that leaves the patient to be their own gatekeeper. But if a would-be transsexual can’t even articulate which of the two known types of gender dysphoria they have, they are not informed and thus are not truly able to give informed consent.
Autoheterosexuality belongs in the sexual education curriculum alongside instruction on other gender-based sexual orientations. Lessons on transgenderism and gender identity should incorporate the two-type model of transgenderism. By learning about autoheterosexuality and the two-type model in sex ed, homosexual and autoheterosexual youth could comprehend their gender situation as early as possible and thus have more agency in shaping their gender destiny.
Humans are inherently prone to errors in understanding themselves and the world around them. To reduce the impact of human fallibility in the search for knowledge, our species developed the process of liberal science. For this process to function properly, truth-seeking must take priority over political concerns. Activism and truth-seeking are fundamentally at odds. Researchers cannot do both at the same time.
[i] Dreger, “The Controversy Surrounding The Man Who Would Be Queen.”
[ii] Fricker, Epistemic Injustice, 162.
[iii] Lindsay, “Lived Experience.”
[iv] Davis, “Psychology Is About Invalidating People’s Identities.”
[v] Blanchard, “Post to SEXNET.”
[vi] Bailey, “Questioning Sexual Identities.”
I think there are a number of assertions here that are much too strongly worded. That said, when you see a lecture hall of trans patients at the same time, you can’t escape feeling like there are at least two modes of distribution within both ftm and mtf populations.
The two discrete types model is not The Truth, though. Blanchard and later Lawrence even report patients describing sexual fantasies around being a woman even though the patient is attracted to men. Too strong claims based on too little data from studies that aren’t rigorous enough isn’t the way to go.
My feeling is that, online, only 4chan’s lgbt board has brutal honesty, enabled by the anonymity. And mtfs with AGP would get real empathy by their kind and the kind of frank support without gaslighting that people in that situation need and deserve.
On Reddit fora and discord servers, you see loads of users persuaded of their femininity get hugboxed, the positivity being enforced by strict moderation. Telling someone they would not be seen by the world as a woman as they then presented themselves is a bannable offence in many online trans spaces. This warps their expectations horribly.
That said, some ftms have a very attractive masculine energy in person and it’s easier to feel they are men than not. So passing is absolutely a thing.
The big ick I had was seeing mtfs exhibit ‘coomer mentality’, a very male way of seeing women. How could I see someone as a woman when they were talking about female body parts, my body parts, in a way that stank of coom? We hate being seen by men as a mobile platform for T & A.
It feels like a violation. I got similar vibes when reading about cultures where men don’t have to restrain their sexual impulses.
And that’s why AGP can’t be allowed to exist. It gives too many a disgust reaction. It shatters any illusion of femininity the person might have created. The unbridled male gaze is demeaning, it feels predatory, it devalues women, why can’t men just learn to see the whole person? And when it’s someone talking about breasts in the coomer manner dressing like the male idea of a sex worker, it’s just too much.
"If an autohet person wants to transition but doesn’t even know the name of the sexual orientation underlying their desire to be the other sex before they start taking hormones, how is that informed? How is that consensual?"
This is... not a very convincing argument as written. Knowing every bit of medical trivia there is to know about a condition or its causes isn't generally considered necessary for informed consent.
A patient with a bacterial infection can still give informed consent to antibiotics even if they don't know the name of the bacteria they're infected with.
A patient who's depressed can still give informed consent to antidepressants even if they don't understand the biological causes of their depression or the mechanism by which they work. (Last I checked, no one actually understands those!)
I'd say the core elements of informed consent are knowing what"s about to happen, knowing what the consequences might be, and choosing to go ahead with it. For HRT, that means knowing what hormones are, what effects to expect on what timeline, how permanent those effects are likely to be, and what the risks are. But I don't see why informed consent would require the patient to understand why they find those effects desirable.