Blogger Jack Molay has been putting forward a self-driven examination of Blanchard’s theory of autogynephilia, as someone who identifies as autogynephile.
I put this shout-out not as an endorsement, nor as a condemnation. Personally, I loathe AGP because of how it has been used and the assumptions at the core of its genesis, but that’s based on my experiences, and not Molay’s words. As I’ve said before, we have a responsibility to allow others to self-define, and I support that up to but not including where that self-definition seeks to define others. Blanchard’s “Autogynephilia” does seek to miscategorize people, specifically transsexuals… however, I do believe from reading this blog that this author does not share that aim.
I will offer a little advice, however: Autogynephilia is still being championed by its creator, who is in a position to entrench it in the DSM, which may occur in 2013. It is quite likely that if this occurs, like it or not, AGP will be defined on Blanchard’s terms (at least in clinical settings), not Molay’s, as the former is both originator and medical administrator. This means that your self-definition will be undermined by whatever paraphilial suppositions emerge. The AGP clinical model by its very nature as an intended paraphilic classification carries certain implications that I suspect will run counter and counterproductive to what Molay is hoping to achieve.
I won’t suggest making a new term, because FCS we’ve got so many already and every one of them has as many definitions as there are supporters and detractors of each. I bloody hate labels. Redefine AGP? You can try, but just be aware of what you’re up against, and that you will necessarily be painted by Blanchard’s brush to some degree by accepting the term — and it will affect how others respond to your efforts.