Complaint to David Holdsworth, CEO of the Charity Commission
Attached PDF contains full complaint
Full complaint PDF (235 pages):
Dear David Holdsworth, Chief Executive Officer of the Charity Commission,
I would like to make a complaint that the Charity Commission is not ensuring that the “education charities” are following charity law, that requires their information “is accurate, evidence based and balanced” regarding matters of cross-sex identification.
I would like to also make the complaint that the Charity Commission does not follow its Regulatory and Risk Framework when it comes to charities and matters of cross-sex identification.
The misleading information that charities are targeting at children is causing a social contagion, primarily amongst girls and young women, who are misdiagnosing themselves as having a “mismatched gender identity” — as being “transgender”:
The risks that I have tried to raise many times with the Charity Commission, and that have been ignored, are now turning into harms in great number:
“The mothers left distraught after the NHS removed their daughters’ healthy breasts because the girls said they were transgender” (Daily Mail, Sanchez Manning, 27th February 2025)
“Father’s letter begging top surgeon to cancel trans operation on ‘depressive’ 20-year-old: ‘Please don't remove my daughter's breasts ...in just one day you'll ruin her life for ever’” (Daily Mail, Sanchez Manning, 27th July 2024).
“I was desperate to be a boy and to have my breasts removed. Now I realise I was a girl all along — and this is why” (Daily Mail, Helen Carroll, 3rd April 2025).
“Revealed: More than 1,000 patients a year have trans chest surgery on the NHS” (Telegraph, Hayley Dixon, 10th February 2025).
“‘Doctors refused to let me admit my transition was a mistake. Now I want to reverse it’” (Telegraph, Sanchez Manning,13th August 2024).
“Mum’s fury after transgender suicide teen sold hormones from illegal online clinic [GenderGP]” (Cambridge News, Anna Savva and Nicola Small, 30th June 2019).
None of this is in the public benefit.
Systemic risk in the Charity Commission
I can place my complaint within the context of many charities making misleading medical health claims, which are not addressed by the Charity Commission:
“HealthSense maintains pressure on the Charity Commission regarding charities that mislead vulnerable people about health and disease… This is a small amount of progress from an effort that so far has taken over 10 years. For most of that time the Charity Commission has brushed aside complaints, claiming that they are not qualified to make judgments about evidence in health care... Several charities which had received “regulatory advice” from the Commission continued to make highly misleading claims at least a year later.”1
I myself came to write an article for the charity HealthSense (page 14) that notes that as the Charity Commission's refuses to investigate misleading medical health claims regarding cross-sex identification, this means that there is “no recourse to a public authority that is qualified to assess whether what charities are saying regarding matters of sex-related distress are true”. This has evidently been a systemic risk in the Charity Commission that has existed unaddressed for a long time.
Background to “gender dysphoria”
The latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th Edition (DSM-5) says that “gender dysphoria… refers to the distress that may accompany the incongruence between one's experienced or expressed gender and one’s assigned gender” (DSM-5 p. 451).
The DSM-5 uses the word “sex” to refer to the “to the biological indicators of male and female” and uses the word “gender” to “denote the public (and usually legally recognized) lived role as boy or girl, man or woman” (DSM-5 p. 451).
An illustration of this framework could be that if a male is “assigned” a “gender” of a “boy”, and then “man”, but instead identifies as a the “gender” of a “girl” and then “woman”, then this male experiences “gender dysphoria”.
The DSM-5 says that there are two “broad trajectories” of gender dysphoria, which it calls “early-onset” and “late-onset” (DSM-5 p. 455).
Early-onset gender dysphoria
In the case of “early-onset gender dysphoria”, this is characterised as when a particularly masculine girl or feminine boy may identify as the opposite sex, which in most cases will desist at the onset of puberty, when they will find that they homosexual (DSM-5 p. 455). The previous DSM-4 manual noted that “In child clinic samples, there are approximately five boys for each girl referred with this disorder” (DSM-4 p. 535).
Late-onset gender dysphoria
In the case of “late-onset gender dysphoria” (adolescence, adulthood), starting “around puberty or much later in life”, this is characterised in males by “frequently engag[ing] in transvestic behavior with sexual excitement”. These males are otherwise heterosexual: “a substantial percentage of adult males with late-onset gender dysphoria cohabit with or are married to natal females” (DSM-5 p. 456). After gender transition, many self-identify as lesbian” (DSM-5 p. 456).
The DSM-5 says that a phenomenon called “autogynephilia”, (the “Sexual arousal of a natal male associated with the idea or image of being a woman”, DSM-5 p. 818), “increases the likelihood of gender dysphoria in men with transvestic disorder” (DSM-5 p. 703).
I am aware of these diagnostic descriptions, as I have what the DSM-5 calls “late-onset gender dysphoria” with autogynephilia. I found that I experienced autogynephilia, when at the onset of puberty, aged around 13-14, I searched online and found a synopsis of Dr. Ray Blanchard’s clinical descriptions of autogynephilia. “Autogynephilia” is the word that Blanchard coined to describe what he observed.
Autogynephilia
Ray Blanchard is currently an adjunct professor at the University of Toronto, and served on the gender identity disorder subcommittee of the DSM-4.
The DSM-5’s two types of “gender dysphoria”, namely “early-onset” and “late-onset” can be seen as following Blanchard’s research, that posited that there were two types of “gender dysphoria” in males:
“All gender dysphoric males who are not sexually oriented toward men are instead sexually oriented toward the thought or image of themselves as women. … the writer would prefer to replace it with the term autogynephilia (“love of oneself as a woman”).”2
Blanchard, and his contemporary, Prof. J. Michael Bailey, have written an article regarding the different types of “gender dysphoria”, intended for a popular audience, which I think is essential to read regarding this topic: “Gender dysphoria is not one thing”.
Autogynephilia and (pseudo)bisexuality
One of the phenomena that Blanchard described, which made it clear to me that I had autogynephilia, was “pseudobisexuality”.3
This is not true bisexuality, as in being attracted to both men and women, but rather arousal by the thought of being a woman, with a man functioning as a “prop”, to further the conceit of being a woman. It is not possible to understand this phenomenon, if one does not have experience of autogynephilia. If one does have autogynephilia, however, the phenomenon is immediately recognisable.
I can observe descriptions of apparent pseudobisexuality and autogynephilic “late-onset gender dysphoria” in the media: e.g.
“That summer Alice came downstairs from her bedroom wearing a dress for the first time — a floral item that seemed to make her giddy with happiness… Alice began dressing as a girl routinely, spoke openly about her bisexuality, and included her parents in the decision-making process to change her name after 17 years of living with a boy’s name” (The Times, “I’m ashamed it took me so long to accept my transgender child”, Laura Pullman, 9th March 2025).
Autogynephilia and “stuff fetishism”
Autogynephilia clusters with specific other paraphilia, namely masochism and “stuff fetishism”, as Blanchard observed:
“Some paraphilias definitely cluster: autogynephilia and masochism, for example, and autogynephilia, masochism and what we might call “stuff fetishism”: fetishism for particular materials, like leather, silk, rubber… it’s not completely at random…”4
The clustering between “stuff fetishism” and autogynephilia can be observed in the Guardian article below: the fascination with the “silky nightgown” and “wear[ing] tights under her [sic] school trousers, enjoying how they felt against her skin”:
“Hannah crept into their bedroom and tentatively opened a drawer. She took out a silky nightgown and shrugged it on, feeling the instant, giddy rush of something she would later learn to call “gender euphoria”, though it was tempered by fear that someone would walk in. As if on cue, her mother returned from work unexpectedly and caught Hannah in the act… At secondary school, she would wear tights under her school trousers, enjoying how they felt against her skin.”
(‘In the game, I knew myself as Hannah’: the trans gamers finding freedom on Roblox’, Tom Faber The Guardian 24 April 2021).
Men with autogynephilia repeatedly report the same clustering of autogynephilia and “stuff fetishism”: “I had developed an intense fascination with like stockings and hosiery and partly it was due to the the texture…”, “Clothes were the issue for me throughout childhood… there was a village fete where my ladybird costume involved wearing a tight black jumper and black tights… Adrenaline overwhelmed me”.
The clustering between autogynephilia and “stuff fetishism” can again be observed below. In this case, Abigail Thorn’s apparent autogynephilia clusters with a preference for wearing rubber:
“Abigail Thorn: ‘I came out as trans and made headlines’”. (BBC, 3rd April 2021).
Abigail Thorn. “Transhumanism: ‘The World's Most Dangerous Idea’” Philosophy Tube (Youtube channel).
Autogynephilia and identity development
While Blanchard found that autogynephilic gender dysphoria was rooted in a paraphilia, Blanchard emphasised that autogynephilic gender dysphoria is not solely a sexual phenomenon:
“It should be noted that the concept of autogynephilia does not imply that autogynephilic males are always sexually aroused by the thought of themselves as women, or by dressing in women’s clothes, or by contemplating themselves cross-dressed in the mirror - any more than a man in love always obtains an erection at the sight of his sweetheart, or pair-bonded geese copulate continuously.”5
It is apparent that autogynephilia accounts for the majority of male cross-sex identification that can be seen in public life today, and evidently autogynephilia can have a great effect on personal identity development.
I am not the only individual with autogynephilia to raise concerns regarding the public understanding of cross-sex identification: e.g. the following individual submitted written evidence to parliament: “I am a gender non-conforming male, likely due to autogynephilia, who to that extent falls under (the admittedly rather broad) trans umbrella… ”. The Cass Review received many accounts of individuals talking about autogynephilia.
Many male detransitioners (people who desist identifying as “trans”) now report autogynephilia as being causal or relevant to their gender dysphoria: “The source of your dysphoria is almost certainly a paraphilia called autogynephilia. This is not a value judgement. It’s why I transitioned…”. “Once I finally did accept my sexuality, which didn’t occur until after transition in my mid thirties, I found even more turmoil with the notion that I wasn’t gay, but instead had an erotic target location error.” The term “erotic target location error” is used to describe the class of paraphilia where the self is the mistaken object of attraction.6
Gender dysphoria is a matter of atypical sexuality/sexual orientation.
The DSM-5 therefore shows that cross-sex identification, is a case of atypical sexuality/sexual orientation; being connected with either autogynephilia or homosexuality respectively.
This was something that even the charity Mermaids recognised in 2009:
“Gender Identity Disorders [DSM-4 terminology] in infancy, childhood and adolescence are complex and have varied causes: in the majority of cases the eventual outcome will be homosexuality or bisexuality, but often there will be a heterosexual outcome as some gender issues can be caused by a bereavement, a dysfunctional family life, or (rarely) by abuse. Only a small proportion of cases will result in a transsexual outcome.”
“Transsexual” here can be understood as someone who takes the decision to undergo supposed medical treatments to resemble the opposite sex.
“Mismatched gender identity” as a reworking of the “feminine essence narrative”
Today, however, multiple education charities portray cross-sex identification as a case of a “mismatched” “gender identity” and omit any detail of the diagnostic pathways and descriptions in the DSM-5 that I cover above.
The claim instead, made by multiple charities, is that there are a supposed class of “trans” people, even “trans” children, who have a “mismatched” “gender identity”.
This gives the impression there are “trans people” who are, in the case of “trans women”, are “in some literal sense and not just in a figurative sense, women inside men’s bodies”7 (male-to-female transsexuals having been historically the most common). This narrative is well known in research as the “feminine essence narrative”.8
The effect of this narrative can be seen with the response from the charity Young Minds, who believe that there are “innately trans young people” (page 227, paragraph 130), despite the DSM-5 saying that “gender dysphoria” is something that most children will grow out of if left alone.
One reason for the enduring appeal of the “feminine essence narrative”, this time reworked as a “mismatched gender identity”, is that the idea resonates with men who are suffering from an identity disorder caused by autogynephilia, who believe that they literally are women trapped in men’s bodies.
As the autogynephilic transsexual Anne Lawrence writes:
“We autogynephilic transsexuals want to be women; but the theory [of autogynephilia] tells us that we are not women and that we don’t even resemble women—not in the least. We would like to believe that our desire to be women springs from our need to express some internal feminine essence; but the theory tells us that we have no internal feminine essence and that our desire to be women actually springs from our paraphilic male sexuality”.9
The “feminine essence narrative”, reworked as a “mismatched” “gender identity”, is arguably also popular for a political reason: activists have concluded, perhaps correctly, that the conversation about “trans” being a connected to atypical sexuality is going to be much a more difficult one to have with the public.
As the bioethicist Alice Dreger writes:
“The shame and derision accorded trans women like Juanita and Cher [two male-to-female transsexuals] doesn’t disappear just because a few scientists may be personally fine with the idea that men might become women primarily because of reasons of sexuality, not “trapped” gender identity… They wanted the whole business of Blanchard’s taxonomic division shot down. Transsexuality should appear only as the public could stomach it, as one simple story of gender, a tale of “true” females tragically born into male bodies, rescued by medical and surgical reassignment. And there should be absolutely no mention of autogynephilia ...”10
Over the last decade, the truth regarding cross-sex identification has evidently been shut down, and the misleading “feminine essence narrative” has been put in its place, promoted under the guise of having a “mismatched” “gender identity”, and now increasingly under the guise of having an “incongruent gender”.
This can be seen as a lie of omission: the headline “mismatched” “gender identity”, or “incongruent gender” is repeated, but never with any discussion why this happens, namely because of homosexuality or autogynephilia.
The misleading “feminine essence narrative”, reworked as the “mismatched” “gender identity” and “incongruent” “gender” narrative has particularly been promoted in society by charities targeting this narrative at children and young people, who are usually not in a position to critically evaluate the concepts that they are being taught, and are not being given all the information regarding this matter.
Complaints regarding inaccurate, unbalanced, information, and risk
I made a complaint regarding the inaccurate information that multiple charities were targeting at children to the Charity Commission in 2022 (page 17), which omitted the DSM-5’s descriptions of “gender dysphoria”, and in many cases suggested that “gender dysphoria”, or “gender issues”, had nothing to do with atypical sexuality/sexual orientation, contrary to what is described in the DSM-5.
I raised the risk that replacing diagnostic description, with loose, vague references to “gender identity” that might “mismatch” was causing children, particularly adolescent girls, to misdiagnose themselves as having a “mismatched” “gender identity” — as being “transgender” (page 21, paragraph 26).
I raised the risk of teaching parents of children with “early-onset gender dysphoria” that their child supposedly has a “mismatched” “gender identity”, was leaving them at risk of being misled to apply narratives of “late-onset gender dysphoria” to their children, and give them the false impression that what their child is feeling is unlikely to resolve (page 20, paragraph 18 onwards).
The response of the Charity Commission was: “We note the evidence you have put forward from various professionals but it seems to the Commission that the issues raised are matters that are unsettled and are subject to debate, interpretation and disagreement” (page 43, paragraph 208).
The content that charities were (and are) targeting at children reflected none of this “debate” and “disagreement” that the Charity Commission said existed, so evidently was unbalanced and not following charity law, which requires the information that education charities produce be “accurate, evidence based and balanced”, however the Charity Commission took no action.
The Charity Commission followed: “We lack the expertise and knowledge of complicated psychological and medical issues connected to gender identities to form a definitive view on the issues you have raised” (page 48). This should have been another indication that the content multiple charities was targeting at children was inappropriate, as children are no more able to understand “complicated psychological and medical issues connected to gender identities” than claimed by the Charity Commission.
Later in 2022, I made the complaint that the charity Conversation UK was not following its charitable object to “...[promote] for the pubic benefit; the advancement of education”, regarding an inaccurate article it published regarding autogynephilia (page 53).
I supplied extensive evidence, and noted the likely conflict of interest that the author had in not wanting to represent the research around autogynephilia accurately, however the Charity Commission closed my complaint saying “I do not consider there is any evidence that the charity has either acted outside its educational purposes” (page 66).
I again raised the the risk of parents of children with “early-onset gender dysphoria” left not being able to differentiate what their child is experiencing from narratives of “late-onset gender dysphoria”, by the “mismatched” “gender identity” narrative, and being given the false impression that what their child is experiencing is unlikely to resolve (page 67, paragraph 12).
The Charity Commission dismissed this risk as being my “personal view” and “not a matter for the Charity Commission to act/comment upon” (page 69), despite the fact that I substantiated everything I said with research.
It is worth mentioning again, that professionals, including Ray Blanchard, caution against exactly the same risk as I do, and say that parents need to know that there are different types of “gender dysphoria”:
“It should be clear by now that “gender dysphoria” is not a precise enough term. Parents of gender dysphoric children should know which type of gender dysphoria their child has. To do so it is necessary to learn about all three of the most common types. That is, in order to understand why one’s child is Type X, it is necessary to know why s/he is not Type Y or Type Z. This is not simply academic. There are essential differences between the different types of gender dysphoria.”
In 2024, I asked the Charity Commission to review my complaint regarding multiple charities, as the Department of Education released guidance that “gender identity” was a “contested theory” so should not be taught in PHSE lessons (page 103), and as such offered a further indication that the information that charities was targeting at children was not “balanced”. The Charity Commission reviewed this and took no action.
I made a further complaint to the Charity Commission in 2025 (page 192) regarding an apparent conflict of interest with the GIRES trustee who summarily closed my complaint in 2022, that would result in him not wanting to cover this research accurately. The Charity Commission took no action.
I made further complaints noting the risk of targeting children with inaccurate, unbalanced information that is not based in evidence, i.e. the “feminine essence narrative” reworked as a “mismatched” “gender identity”, and how this was causing a social contagion, primarily amongst adolescent girls and young women, and that this issue is evidently a systemic problem across multiple charities (see table of contents, page 13). The Charity Commission took no action.
As the years progressed, I covered the risks as they turned into harms. In my complaint regarding Fumble, I included personal narrative of a young woman who had misdiagnosed herself with “gender dysphoria” (paragraph 18, page 179), in exactly the way I cautioned against. I, again, covered the nature of “gender dysphoria” (paragraph 27, page 235), and how it was not something that adolescent girls and young women had ever suffered from, suggesting a social contagion. The Charity Commission summarily closed my complaint after only one full working day, without proper consideration of all the points I had raised.
Inaccurate, unbalanced, information that is not based in evidence regarding puberty blockers
In April 2024, the Cass Review found “The rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear, with weak evidence regarding the impact on gender dysphoria”.
I subsequently made a complaint to the Charity Commission regarding GIRES, Gendered Intelligence and Stonewall, and their content that made inaccurate claims regarding puberty blockers that are not based in evidence (page 91).
In response, the Charity Commission said that it would write to these charities, and ask them to “have regard to the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Cass Review [...] ensuring that they have reviewed their charity’s literature, website and guidance in light of them” (page 93).
I later found out through a Freedom of Information request, that the Charity Commission had made no internal central report on how the Cass Review would affect charities. [A subsequent Freedom of Information request found that the Charity Commission holds no information regarding its understanding of the Cass Review]. So I do not understand how the Charity Commission would have known if charities would have had “regard to the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Cass Review” or otherwise.
In response, the Charity Commission also claimed: “It is not for the Commission to determine whether information issued and published by charities [regarding puberty blockers] is correct” (page 93). This is shown as misleading, given the Charity Commission did just that in its compliance case into Mermaids, which “examined… whether or not the charity was providing unbalanced or inaccurate information in relation to the risks associated with the use of puberty blockers”.
In January 2025, I made a further complaint (page 199), as Stonewall and GIRES had not removed or updated their content recommending puberty blockers to children, and indeed GIRES had made further inaccurate claims regarding puberty blockers, so these charities had evidently not followed the Charity Commission regulatory guidance to “have regard” to the Cass Review.
This time, the Charity Commission responded: “A charity can raise people’s awareness of an issue to build support for a campaign” and said they would take no action (page 201). I replied: “If Stonewall and GIRES want to campaign for a clinical trial regarding puberty blockers, then they are welcome to. However making false claims regarding medical treatments does not come under campaigning; that comes under making false claims regarding medical treatments” (page 203). The Charity Commission took no action.
In October 2024, the Charity Commission issued regulatory guidance to the charity Mermaids, that said “…where the charity provides information relating to medical interventions (including puberty blockers) they make clear whether this information is based on factual evidence or alternatively is the charity’s view/standpoint” and committed to monitoring this.
However from its response to my complaint, the Charity Commission evidently showed that it has no requirement for all charities to follow this requirement: both GIRES and Stonewall continue today to make claims regarding puberty blockers without evidence, without clarifying that it is their “view/standpoint”.
Furthermore, the Charity Commission’s guidance itself appears to need revising: it should say “where the charity provides information, it should always be based on factual evidence, to comply with charity law”.
Ignoring the risk of puberty blockers
In late 2024, I made a complaint regarding the charity Fumble, regarding its inaccurate content regarding “gender dysphoria”, and its signposting of its supposed beneficiaries to GenderGP, which allow children and/or parents to bypass the ban on puberty blockers (page 177).
In response, Fumble silently deleted their content, without posting any warning on their website that anybody who had previously followed their signpost to GenderGP, should stop using the service.
I asked that Fumble inform their supposed beneficiaries to stop using the service, rather than just silently deleting their signpost, as there is a demonstrable risk of children obtaining hormones from GenderGP: e.g. “Mum’s fury after transgender suicide teen sold hormones from illegal online clinic [Gender GP]”. Fumble ignored my message. I raised this risk with the Charity Commission, the Charity Commission took no action.
Child abuse
I find it extraordinary that GIRES and Gendered Intelligence remain charities. I can only see what they are doing is child abuse.
GIRES omit research regarding autogynephilia, that would suggest to children and parents that children do not really have a “mismatched” “gender identity” and mostly grow out of what they are feeling, and encouraged a tomboy along a puberty blocker pathway, who seems to have a magical view of the supposed treatment (page 192):
“At first when I was little, I thought I was just a tomboy, but then on YouTube there was videos — there was a video and it said transgender. I looked at it and I realised I’ve always really wanted to be a boy, but I just couldn’t really say it… I’m hoping for the blockers to make the whole package, make me happy, and that will be that, I’ll be perfect.” “Some people might look at Kai and go “Oh ‘he’s nine or ten’ and think ‘you know the tomboy phase’ … but it’s definitely not a phase”. (GIRES, NHS Training video. Co-produced by NHS Surrey and Borders Partnership. Funded by NHS Health Education Kent Surrey and Sussex).
Gendered Intelligence omit research regarding autogynephilia that would suggest to children that they are unlikely to be “trans” (“We are under no obligation to reference additional material”, page 30, paragraph 85) encouraged children to identify as “trans” (“please don't worry about not feeling ‘trans enough’”, page 21, paragraph 26) and then recommended that children take puberty blockers, an unproven medical treatment, “to allow time for exploration of gender identity” (page 146).
Failure of the Charity Commission
I have been misled throughout my correspondence with the Charity Commission, by its repeated claims that it is supposedly incapable of investigating unbalanced, inaccurate and actually dangerous medical health information.
The Charity Commission’s investigation into Mermaids showed that it is in fact capable of doing this. Yet even then, the Charity Commission still does not apply its regulatory guidance for Mermaids consistently to other charities.
I have supplied the Charity Commission many times with the research regarding this issue, and have done so again above by highlighting the relevant sections of the DSM-5, where “gender dysphoria” is defined in the first instance.
Please could I ask again that the Charity Commission therefore ensure that what charities are teaching regarding cross-sex identification, is accurate, evidence-based and balanced. The inaccurate information that is not based in evidence that charities are targeting at children is causing demonstrable harm.
However at this point it should have also become evident, that nothing about cross-sex identification and “gender dysphoria”, needs to be taught to children indiscriminately as a matter of course. There is no benefit from children learning about a condition that most will grow out of, or in others, is likely related to a male paraphilia, namely autogynephilia.
Yours,
Orlando Woolf.
You can complaint about the Charity Commission’s service here: https://forms.charitycommission.gov.uk/Complaints-to-the-Charity-Commission-for-England-and-Wales/
Les Rose, “Abusing the Public’s Trust in Charities” HealthSense newsletter 123. https://www.healthsense-uk.org/publications/newsletter/newsletter-123/362-123-rose.html
Blanchard, R. “The Classification and labelling of nonhomosexual gender dysphorias”. Archives of Sexual Behavior 18(4) 315-334 p. 323.
“In their fantasies of sexual interaction with men, bisexual gender dysphorics are primarily aroused by what is, for them, the symbolic meaning of such acts, namely, the thought that they themselves are women. This type of “bisexual” orientation need not reflect an equal erotic attraction to the male and female physiques and would perhaps better characterized as pseudobisexuality.” Blanchard, R., & Steiner, B. W. (Eds.). Clinical management of gender identity disorders in children and adults. (Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, 1990).
“Pioneer Series: Autogynephilia: Myth and Meaning with Ray Blanchard” Gender: A Wider Lens Podcast. O’Malley, S., Ayad, S. 4 February 2022.
Blanchard, R. “The Classification and labelling of nonhomosexual gender dysphorias”. Archives of Sexual Behavior 18(4) 315-334 p. 323.
“This term reflected their [Blanchard and Freund’s] theory that the mental dysfunction underlying these paraphilias involved an error in accurately locating the “target” of one’s erotic interest: specifically, erroneously locating that target in or on one’s own body, rather than in or on the body of another individual.” Men Trapped in Men’s Bodies: narratives of autoynephilic transsexualism Lawrence, A (Springer, 2013) p. 24.
Blanchard R. “Deconstructing the Feminine Essence Narrative”. Archives of Sexual Behavior 2008;37:434-438
Blanchard R. “Deconstructing the Feminine Essence Narrative”. Archives of Sexual Behavior 2008;37:434-438
Lawrence, A., Men Trapped in Men’s Bodies: Narratives of Autoynephilic Transsexualism (Springer, 2013) p. 203.
Dreger, A., Galileo’s Middle Finger (Penguin, 2015) pp. 65-66.