Androphilia and gynephilia

Androphilia and gynephilia are terms used in behavioral science to describe sexual orientation, as an alternative to a gender binary homosexual and heterosexual conceptualization. Androphilia describes sexual attraction to men or masculinity; gynephilia describes the sexual attraction to women or femininity.[1] Ambiphilia describes the combination of both androphilia and gynephilia in a given individual, or bisexuality.[2]

Sexual orientation
Sexual orientations
Related terms
Research
Non-human animals
Related topics
  • Category
Part of a series on
Transgender topics
     
Gender identities
History
Health care and medicine
Rights issues
Society and culture
Theory and concepts
By country
See also
 LGBT portal
 Transgender portal

The terms are objectively used for identifying a person's object of attraction without attributing a sex assignment or gender identity to the person. This can avoid bias inherent in normative conceptualizations of human sexuality, avoid confusion and offense when describing people in non-western cultures, as well as when describing intersex and transgender people, especially those who are nonbinary or otherwise falling outside the gender binary.

Historical use

Androphilia

Magnus Hirschfeld, an early-20th century German sexologist and physician, divided homosexual men into four groups: paedophiles, who are most attracted to prepubescent youth, ephebophiles, who are most attracted to youths from puberty up to the early twenties; androphiles, who are most attracted to persons between the early twenties and fifty; and gerontophiles, who are most attracted to older men, up to senile old age.[3][4] According to Karen Franklin, Hirschfeld considered ephebophilia "common and nonpathological, with ephebophiles and androphiles each making up about 45% of the homosexual population."[5]

In his book Androphilia, A Manifesto: Rejecting the Gay Identity, Reclaiming Masculinity, Jack Donovan uses the term to emphasize masculinity in both the object and the subject of male homosexual desire and to reject the sexual nonconformity that he sees in some segments of the homosexual identity.[6][7]

The term androsexuality is occasionally used as a synonym for androphilia.[8]

Alternate uses in biology and medicine

In biology, androphilic is sometimes used as a synonym for anthropophilic, describing parasites who have a host preference for humans versus non-human animals.[9] Androphilic is also sometimes used to describe certain proteins and androgen receptors.[10]

Gynephilia

A version of the term appeared in Ancient Greek. In Idyll 8, line 60, Theocritus uses gynaikophilias (γυναικοφίλιας) as a euphemistic adjective to describe Zeus's lust for women.[11][12][13]

Sigmund Freud used the term gynecophilic to describe his case study Dora.[14] He also used the term in correspondence.[15][16] The variant spelling gynophilia is also sometimes used.[17]

Rarely, the term gynesexuality has also been used as a synonym. Psychoanalyst Nancy Chodorow proposed that the preoedipal moment of psychological and libidinal focus on the mother, which both boys and girls experience, should be called gynesexuality or matrisexuality for its exclusive focus on the mother.[18]

Sexual interest in adults

Following Hirschfeld, androphilia and gynephilia are sometimes used in taxonomies which specify sexual interests based on age ranges, which John Money called chronophilia. In such schemes, sexual attraction to adults is called teleiophilia[19] or adultophilia.[20] In this context, androphilia and gynephilia are gendered variants meaning "attraction to adult males" and "attraction to adult females," respectively. Psychologist Dennis Howitt writes:

Definition is primarily an issue of theory, not merely classification, since classification implies a theory, no matter how rudimentary. Freund et al. (1984) used Latinesque words to classify sexual attraction along the dimensions of sex and age:

Gynephilia. Sexual interest in physically adult women

Androphilia. Sexual interest in physically adult males[21]

Androphilia and gynephilia scales

The 9-item Gynephilia Scale was created to measure erotic interest in physically mature females, and the 13-item Androphilia Scale was created to measure erotic interest in physically mature males. The scales were developed by Kurt Freund and Betty Steiner in 1982.[22] They were later modified by Ray Blanchard in 1985, as the Modified Androphilia–Gynephilia Index (MAGI).[23]

Gender identity and expression
Diagram showing relationships of sex (X axis) and sexuality (Y axis). The homosexual/heterosexual matrix lies within the androphilic/gynephilic matrix, because homosexual/heterosexual terminology describes sex and sexual orientation simultaneously. This chart also shows how one's sexual attraction objective can be affected not by gender, but by masculinity and femininity.
Venn diagram showing relationships of sex and sexuality. Descriptors within a homosexual/heterosexual matrix are in white, to show differences in androphilic/gynephilic matrix.

Magnus Hirschfeld distinguished between gynephilic, bisexual, androphilic, asexual, and narcissistic or automonosexual gender-variant persons.[24] Since then, some psychologists have proposed using homosexual transsexual and heterosexual transsexual or non-homosexual transsexual. Psychobiologist James D. Weinrich has described this split among psychologists: "The mf transsexuals who are attracted to men (whom some call 'homosexual' and others call 'androphilic') are in the lower left-hand corner of the XY table, in order to line them up with the ordinary homosexual (androphilic) men in the lower right. Finally, there are the mf transsexuals who are attracted to women (whom some call heterosexual and others call gynephilic or lesbian)."[25]

The use of homosexual transsexual and related terms have been applied to transgender people since the middle of the 20th century, though concerns about the terms have been voiced since then. Harry Benjamin said in 1966:

....it seems evident that the question "Is the transsexual homosexual?" must be answered "yes" and " no." "Yes," if his anatomy is considered; "no" if his psyche is given preference.

What would be the situation after corrective surgery has been performed and the sex anatomy now resembles that of a woman? Is the "new woman" still a homosexual man? "Yes," if pedantry and technicalities prevail. "No" if reason and common sense are applied and if the respective patient is treated as an individual and not as a rubber stamp.[26]

Many sources, including some supporters of the typology, criticize this choice of wording as confusing and degrading. Biologist Bruce Bagemihl writes "..the point of reference for "heterosexual" or "homosexual" orientation in this nomenclature is solely the individual's genetic sex prior to reassignment (see for example, Blanchard et al. 1987, Coleman and Bockting, 1988, Blanchard, 1989). These labels thereby ignore the individual's personal sense of gender identity taking precedence over biological sex, rather than the other way around."[27] Bagemihl goes on to take issue with the way this terminology makes it easy to claim transsexuals are really homosexual males seeking to escape from stigma.[27] Leavitt and Berger stated in 1990 that "The homosexual transsexual label is both confusing and controversial among males seeking sex reassignment.[28][29] Critics argue that the term "homosexual transsexual" is "heterosexist",[27] "archaic",[30] and demeaning because it labels people by sex assigned at birth instead of their gender identity.[31] Benjamin, Leavitt, and Berger have all used the term in their own work.[26][28] Sexologist John Bancroft also recently expressed regret for having used this terminology, which was standard when he used it, to refer to transsexual women.[32] He says that he now tries to choose his words more sensitively.[32] Sexologist Charles Allen Moser is likewise critical of the terminology.[33]

Use of androphilia and gynephilia was proposed and popularized by psychologist Ron Langevin in the 1980s.[34] Psychologist Stephen T. Wegener writes, "Langevin makes several concrete suggestions regarding the language used to describe sexual anomalies. For example, he proposes the terms gynephilic and androphilic to indicate the type of partner preferred regardless of an individual's gender identity or dress. Those who are writing and researching in this area would do well to adopt his clear and concise vocabulary."[35]

Psychiatrist Anil Aggrawal explains why the terms are useful in a glossary:

Androphilia – The romantic and/or sexual attraction to adult males. The term, along with gynephilia, is needed to overcome immense difficulties in characterizing the sexual orientation of transmen and transwomen. For instance, it is difficult to decide whether a transman erotically attracted to males is a heterosexual female or a homosexual male; or a transwoman erotically attracted to females is a heterosexual male or a lesbian female. Any attempt to classify them may not only cause confusion but arouse offense among the affected subjects. In such cases, while defining sexual attraction, it is best to focus on the object of their attraction rather than on the sex or gender of the subject.[36]

Sexologist Milton Diamond, who prefers the term gynecophilia, writes, "The terms heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual are better used as adjectives, not nouns, and are better applied to behaviors, not people." Diamond has encouraged using the terms androphilic, gynecophilic, and ambiphilic to describe the sexual-erotic partners one prefers (andro = male, gyneco = female, ambi = both, philic = to love). Such terms eliminate the need to specify the subject and focus instead on the desired partner. This usage is particularly advantageous when discussing the partners of transsexual or intersexed individuals. These newer terms also do not carry the social weight of the former ones."[37]

Psychologist Rachel Ann Heath writes, "The terms homosexual and heterosexual are awkward, especially when the former is used with, or instead of, gay and lesbian. Alternatively, I use gynephilic and androphilic to refer to sexual preference for women and men, respectively. Gynephilic and androphilic derive from the Greek meaning love of a woman and love of a man respectively. So a gynephilic man is a man who likes women, that is, a heterosexual man, whereas an androphilic man is a man who likes men, that is, a gay man. For completeness, a lesbian is a gynephilic woman, a woman who likes other women. Gynephilic transsexed woman refers to a woman of transsexual background whose sexual preference is for women. Unless homosexual and heterosexual are more readily understood terms in a given context, this more precise terminology will be used throughout the book. Since homosexual, gay, and lesbian are often associated with bigotry and exclusion in many societies, the emphasis on sexual affiliation is both appropriate and socially just."[38] Author Helen Boyd agrees, writing, "It would be much more accurate to define sexual orientation as either "androphilic" (loving men) and "gynephilic" (loving women) instead."[39] Sociomedical scientist Rebecca Jordan-Young challenges researchers like Simon LeVay, J. Michael Bailey, and Martin Lalumiere, who she says "have completely failed to appreciate the implications of alternative ways of framing sexual orientation."[40]

Gender in non-Western cultures

Some researchers advocate use of the terminology to avoid bias inherent in Western conceptualizations of human sexuality. Writing about the Samoan fa'afafine demographic, sociologist Johanna Schmidt writes:

Kris Poasa, Ray Blanchard and Kenneth Zucker (2004) also present an argument that suggests that fa'afafine fall under the rubric of 'transgenderal homosexuality', applying the same birth order equation to fa'afafine's families as have been used with 'homosexual transsexuals'. While no explicit causal relationship is offered, Poasa, Blanchard, and Zucker's use of the term 'homosexual transsexual' to refer to male-to-female transsexuals who are sexually oriented towards men draws an apparent link between sexual orientation and gender identity. This link is reinforced by mention of the fact that similar birth order equations have been found for 'homosexual men'. The possibility of sexual orientation towards (masculine) men emerging from (rather than causing) feminine gendered identities is not considered.[1]

Schmidt argues that in cultures where a third gender is recognized, a term like "homosexual transsexual" does not align with cultural categories.[41] She cites the work of Paul Vasey and Nancy Bartlett: "Vasey and Bartlett reveal the cultural specificity of concepts such as homosexuality, they continue to use the more 'scientific' (and thus presumably more 'objective') terminology of androphilia and gynephilia (sexual attraction to men or masculinity and women or femininity respectively) to understand the sexuality of fa'afafine and other Samoans."[1] Researcher Sam Winter has presented a similar argument:

Terms such as 'homosexual' and heterosexual (and 'gay,' 'lesbian,' 'bisexual,' etc.) are Western conceptions. Many Asians are unfamiliar with them, there being no easy translation into their native languages or sexological worldviews. However, I take the opportunity to put on record that I consider an androphilic transwoman (ie one sexually attracted to men) to be heterosexual because of her attraction to a member of another gender and a gynephilic transwoman (ie one attracted to women) as homosexual because she has a same-gender preference. My usage is contrary to much Western literature (particularly medical) which persists in referring to androphilic transwomen and gynephilic transman as homosexual (indeed as homosexual transsexual males and females, respectively).[42]

See also

References
  1. Schmidt J (2010). Migrating Genders: Westernisation, Migration, and Samoan Fa'afafine, p. 45 Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., ISBN 978-1-4094-0273-2
  2. Diamond M (2010). Sexual orientation and gender identity. In Weiner IB, Craighead EW eds. The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology, Volume 4. p. 1578. John Wiley and Sons, ISBN 978-0-470-17023-6
  3. Sexual anomalies: the origins, nature and treatment of sexual disorders : a summary of the works of Magnus Hirschfeld M. D. Emerson Books, ASIN: B0007ILEF0
  4. Wayne R. Dynes, Stephen Donaldson. Encyclopedia of homosexuality, Volume 1. Garland Pub., ISBN 978-0-8240-6544-7
  5. Franklin, K (2010). "Hebephilia: quintessence of diagnostic pretextuality". Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 28 (6): 751–768. doi:10.1002/bsl.934. PMID 21110392.
  6. Donovan J (2007). Androphilia, A Manifesto: Rejecting the Gay Identity, Reclaiming Masculinity Scapegoat Publishing, ISBN 0-9764035-8-7
  7. Dynes, Wayne R. (ed.) (1990) Androphilia. Encyclopedia of Homosexuality, p. 58. St. James Press, ISBN 978-1-55862-147-3
  8. Tucker, Naomi (1995). Bisexual politics: theories, queries, and visions. Psychology Press, ISBN 978-1-56024-950-4
  9. Covell G, Russell PF, Hendrik N (1953). Malaria terminology: Report of a drafting committee appointed by the World Health Organization. World Health Organization
  10. Calandra RS, Podestá EJ, Rivarola MA, Blaquier JA (1974). Tissue androgens and androphilic proteins in rat epididymis during sexual development Steroids, Volume 24, Issue 4, October 1974, Pages 507-518 doi:10.1016/0039-128X(74)90132-9
  11. Cholmeley RJ (1901). The idylls of Theocritus. G. Bell & Sons, p. 98
  12. Rummel, Erika (1996). Erasmus on Women, p. 82. University of Toronto Press, ISBN 978-0-8020-7808-7
  13. Brown, G. W. (1979(. "Depression: A sociologist's view". Trends in Neurosciences, Volume 2, pp. 253–256 doi:10.1016/0166-2236(79)90099-7
  14. Kahane C (2004). Freud and the passions of the voice. In O'Neill J (2004). Freud and the Passions. Penn State Press, ISBN 978-0-271-02564-3
  15. Sigmund Freud to Sándor Ferenczi, March 25, 1908: "I have often seen it so: a woman unsatisfied by a man naturally turns to a woman and tries to invest her long-suppressed gynecophilic component with libido."
  16. Sigmund Freud to Wilhelm Fliess, March 23, 1900: "A good-natured and fine person, at a deeper layer gynecophilic, attached to the mother."
  17. Money, John (1986). Venuses Penuses: Sexology, Sexosophy, and Exigency Theory. Prometheus Books, ISBN 978-0-87975-327-6
  18. Chodorow, Nancy (1999). The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender. University of California Press, ISBN 978-0-520-22155-0
  19. Blanchard, R.; Barbaree, H. E.; Bogaert, A. F.; Dickey, R.; Klassen, P.; Kuban, M. E.; Zucker, KJ (2000). "Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in paedophiles". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 29 (5): 463–478. doi:10.1023/A:1001943719964. PMID 10983250.
  20. Jay R. Feierman: „Reply to Dickemann: The ethology of variant sexology", Human Nature, Springer New York, vol. 3, No 3, September 1992, pp. 279–297
  21. Howitt D (1995). Introducing the paedophile. In Paedophiles and sexual offences against children. J. Wiley,
  22. Freund, K.; Steiner, B. W.; Chan, S. (1982). "Two types of cross-gender identity". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 11 (1): 49–63. doi:10.1007/bf01541365. PMID 7073469.
  23. Blanchard, R (1985). "Typology of male-to-female transsexualism". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 14 (3): 247–261. doi:10.1007/bf01542107. PMID 4004548.
  24. Veale JF, Clarke DE (2008). Sexuality of male-to-female transsexuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior (citing Hirschfeld, 1922, as cited in Freund, 1985)
  25. Weinrich JD (1987). Sexual landscapes: why we are what we are, why we love whom we love. Scribner's, ISBN 978-0-684-18705-1
  26. Benjamin H (1966). The Transsexual Phenomenon. The Julian Press ASIN: B0007HXA76 (via Internet Archive)
  27. Bagemihl B. Surrogate phonology and transsexual faggotry: A linguistic analogy for uncoupling sexual orientation from gender identity. In Queerly Phrased: Language, Gender, and Sexuality. Anna Livia, Kira Hall (eds.) pp. 380 ff. Oxford University Press ISBN 0-19-510471-4
  28. Leavitt F, Berger JC (1990). Clinical patterns among male transsexual candidates with erotic interest in males. Archives of Sexual Behavior, full text Volume 19, Number 5 / October, 1990
  29. Morgan AJ Jr (1978). Psychotherapy for transsexual candidates screened out of surgery. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 7: 273-282.|
  30. Wahng SJ (2004). Double Cross: Transamasculinity Asian American Gendering in Trappings of Transhood. in Aldama AJ (ed.) Violence and the Body: Race, Gender, and the State. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-253-34171-X
  31. Leiblum SR, Rosen RC (2000). Principles and Practice of Sex Therapy, Third Edition. ISBN 1-57230-574-6, Guilford Press of New York, c2000.
  32. Bancroft, John (2008). "Lust or Identity?". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 37 (3): 426–428. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9317-1. PMID 18431640.
  33. Moser, Charles (July 2010). "Blanchard's Autogynephilia Theory: A Critique". Journal of Homosexuality (6 ed.). 57 (6): 790–809. doi:10.1080/00918369.2010.486241. PMID 20582803.
  34. Langevin R (1982). Sexual Strands: Understanding and Treating Sexual Anomalies in Men. Routledge, ISBN 978-0-89859-205-4
  35. Wegener ST (1984). Male sexual anomalies: the data (review of Sexual Strands) APA Review of Books: Volume 29, Issues 7-12, p. 783. Edwin Garrigues Boring, American Psychological Association
  36. Aggrawal, Anil (2008). Forensic and medico-legal aspects of sexual crimes and unusual sexual practices. CRC Press, ISBN 978-1-4200-4308-2
  37. Diamond M (2010). Sexual orientation and gender identity. In Weiner IB, Craighead EW eds. The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology, Volume 4. p. 1578. John Wiley and Sons, ISBN 978-0-470-17023-6
  38. Heath RA (2006). The Praeger handbook of transsexuality: Changing gender to match mindset. Greenwood Publishing Group, ISBN 978-0-275-99176-0
  39. Boyd H (2007). She's not the man I married: My life with a transgender husband, p. 102. Seal Press, ISBN 978-1-58005-193-4
  40. Jordan-Young RM (2010). Brain storm: the flaws in the science of sex differences. Harvard University Press, ISBN 978-0-674-05730-2
  41. Schmidt J (2001). Redefining fa'afafine: Western discourses and the construction of transgenderism in Samoa. Intersections: Gender, history and culture in the Asian context
  42. Winter S (2010). Lost in Transition: Transpeople, Transprejudice and Pathology in Asia. In Chan PCW (ed.) The Protection of Sexual Minorities Since Stonewall: Progress and Stalemate in Developed and Developing Countries. Routledge ISBN 978-0-415-41850-8

Bibliography
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.