B.I.I.D and Xenomelia – an uncomfortable read for crossdreamers

by Felix Conrad - Clinical Philosopher on March 28, 2016

Share Button

TRIGGER ALERT: Don’t read this article if you hate the paraphilia discourse. The mission of this site is to explore all aspects of gender variance. But you don’t have to! You can pick and choose! So don’t read this if you suffer with the fetish argument. xx

source (1)

Fucking Youtube and its ‘suggested videos‘!

I opened my page and this suggested video was staring out at me. I suppose the suggestion was based on my research into ‘paraphilias.’

You will notice that there’s no mention of sexual gratification in this video. Nobody mentions the A word (Apotemnophilia). This puzzled me, so I entered BIID in Google and was sent to this research paper. I recommend you take 10 minutes to look through it.

Then I found myself on a page describing xenomelia…

Dibujo6

It seems there exists the same tension in the BIID community as there does in our community. There are a bunch of people who describe the behaviour as a paraphilia that’s sexual in origin, and other people who see it as a phenomena concerned with identity. To the latter, the A word (apotemnophilia) is as dirty as our own A word (Autogynephilia).

Unfortunately, I don’t have time to consider the relevance of apotemnophilia right now, but I will finish this rapid post by explaining the uncomfortable aspect of all this…

From the first moment I read it, I recognized this passage of Anne Lawrence’s work as a grave challenge to the ‘feminine essence’ argument (Page 24 Men Trapped In Mens’ Bodies)

Dibujoffff

 

As we see in the video and resulting literature, there are both amputee fetishists…and a sub-class of amputee fetishists who want the amputation themselves. They feel that having this amputation is a key part of their identity that goes way beyond sex…

Sound familiar?

As I said…it makes for uncomfortable reading!

tumblr_m2b8iuhUpq1r5ruse

Share Button

{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }

Joanna Santos March 28, 2018 at 10:31 am

what I have told myself Felix is that if this were to be true in the case of transsexuals but it solves a problem and they are happier living as women then the operation would have been worth it. However I do not agree that transsexualism is a paraphilia because female to males as well as androphilic transsexuals are not driven exclusively by sexual motives (although Blanchard postulated that androphilics were also in order to make AGP more consistent). It seems rather that gender dysphoria is a universal concept that bridges across sex and orientation and gynephilics just suffer the unfortunate confusion of cross wiring through the process of puberty in that their orientation also aligns with their target sex. Let me know if you agree or disagree…

Reply

Editorial Board March 30, 2018 at 3:54 pm

Hola Guapa,

I had previously mentioned this point about paraphilias where the goal mirrors crossdreaming in the sense that the person wants to ‘become’ the love object rather than mate with it. However, I conveniently managed to put it out of my mind until seeing this video.

The video has brought it all back again, however… and I really can’t see anyway past it.

While crossdreaming remains a unique sexological phenomona we can claim many things about its origins. However, if it turns out that exactly the same process happens in a whole list of paraphilias (people wanting to be plushtoys /amputees/little kids etc) and it all becomes a key part of their identity…then it seems highly probable that crossdreaming is of that family.

Yesterday I walked around the city looking for a counter argument but I just couldn’t find one.

The problem with your point is that it presumes that transgender crisis and dysphoria must all come from the same source. However, there is no reason why that should be so. Salmomella poisoning must come from the salmonella bacteria but we don’t have the foggiest idea on the literal mechanisms of gender dysphoria.

As I always say, ultimately we don’t know and probably never will. Everything is what’s probable. But…much as i hate it..this defintely adds a few points to the sexological origins. Please tell me the contrary… I’d love to change my mind! More later…

xx

Reply

Joanna Santos March 31, 2018 at 11:28 pm

true that dysphoria need not come from the same source and we know very little about it. But then are you now considering that the cross-gender identities are based on paraphilias and are therefore null and void as Blanchard proposed? I am still of the opinion that the cross gender feelings come first which then mess up the sexuality as a consequence. And here you had me thinking that you were convinced regarding your gender core concept 🙂

Reply

Editorial Board April 5, 2018 at 9:59 am

What you wrote, perfectly represents something I’ve been thinking about for a while. Therefore, I will be replying via a post soon. Un abrazo,.

Reply

Barbara Haskell March 29, 2018 at 3:33 pm

I do not understand, why should it be unconfortable reading? 🙂

From the paper it’s quite obvious that desire to amputate a limb is a quantum one — it can be sexualized, or it can be about being complete, and we can’t make a clear line between them.

The same quantum nature we can see (if we look good enough) everywhere, which suggests that it’s something fundamental about human nature that there are no clear boundaries.

Also, drawing direct analogies between desire to amputate a limb and desire to change gender can be dangerous, because we do not know, how far the similarity goes. The logic “if features 1, 2, 3 matches then feature 4 also would match” is wrong, speaking generally.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: