I think that this was part of the larger Jenner Shift, but only a small facet, not big enough to warrant credit in the name, because people do not actually observe the genitals of people they are not having sex with very often in day-to-day life. (In America at least, different countries have nudity taboos.) The Laverne Cox aspect of things might be as big a deal as the Caitlyn Jenner aspect of things in a world where public nu
On top of the practice of "tucking", which you can probably infer the gist of from the name if you're not familiar, I'm told that for some reason, most cis people wear underwear specifically so other people can't see that they have genitals, despite the fact that everybody knows which kind they have and the idea that they didn't would be seen as an insult. If you took some kind of alien or robot or something that was only capable of distinguishing male and female humans by the shape of their genitals, put it in any crowded public space in the US, and told it to identify whether all the people there were male or female, it probably couldn't even get 10% without just going up and groping anybody.
What people can observe, however, besides various non-genital physical traits which I think are in aggregate different between Blanchard's types, is personality and hobbies. As a trans woman, you are much easier to clock if you are, say, an avid Warhammer fan than if you have an intact penis, even though there are zero cis women with penises and more than zero cis women who play Warhammer, because people will generally have far more opportunity to observe that you play Warhammer than they will to observe that you have a penis.
Anyways, even if Cox was an equal contributor to Jenner, one person always gets picked to be the one who gets the thing named after them, because if you try to name it after two people, it's always super unwieldy and awkward, like how it's called Blanchardism and not Blanchardism-Baileyism, or the Bechdel Test and not the Bechdel-Wallace test.
Also, minor nitpick, but you can, in fact, masturbate with a neovagina.
Respectfully, I disagree. Of course you can't see people's genitals. But for reasons I tried to outline (perhaps I was not sufficiently clear), I would argue that the change in *assumption* about what genitals people had, and what the aim was (the transition from a teleological model to one in which bottom surgery was a matter of personal preference) made a huge, I would say transformative, difference. It's about how transition was conceptualized, and what assumptions that lead to, not what people specifically see and clock.
Similarly, I did not mean to imply that you can't masturbate with a neovagina; I simply meant that the *image* of a man masturbating seemed much more in-your-face if they still had their penis. Basically, the presence of the penis made the motive of male desire seem more central; once it was transformed, it seemed less so.
Basically, I think what changed with Cox's interventions were ideas not perceptions: whether people thought transition involved a medical act, whether therefore a doctor was required at all (leading to self-ID), whether a trans woman with a penis was a transitional state or an endgame, and ultimately what 'man' and 'woman' meant—as I said, the biological definition may be gametes but prior to the Jenner-Cox shift the commonplace distinguishing feature was the genitals; the Jenner-Cox shift changed that, with huge effects.
On a more minor point, I think it is simply incorrect that eponymous things are always named after one person; consider the Quine-Duhem thesis or the The Michelson–Morley experiment. So I would argue for the Jenner-Cox Shift.
I personally wouldn't even invoke Jenner. There were LOTS of famous people who transitioned before Jenner.... but the assumption was always that of going for full genital transformation. We had clear distinctions between "transvestites" and "transsexuals" (even if the public was not aware that those categories were porous in practice due to AGP. Oh... and 15 years ago, it wasn't Blanchardism... that came later, it was "BBL" to falsely demonize not only Blanchard, but Bailey and Anne Lawrence... and I would never have called the taxonomy, "Blanchardism" given that any number of people had pointed the types out long before Blanchard even went to graduate school: https://sillyolme.wordpress.com/2011/12/24/clowns-to-the-left-of-me/
Why do you think you have made the choice to not transition whereas RCE has decided to. Is it an age thing? Furthermore, have you been able to have satisfying sexual relationships with cis-women, and have these relationships involved gender reversals such as cross dressing or getting pegged?
It seems obvious in retrospect, but I never thought of it.
You are right... and for a few of us... we suspected the Cox was keeping hers... and for a very good reason: https://sillyolme.wordpress.com/2023/04/09/are-drag-queens-and-homosexual-transsexuals-in-same-spectrum/
I think that this was part of the larger Jenner Shift, but only a small facet, not big enough to warrant credit in the name, because people do not actually observe the genitals of people they are not having sex with very often in day-to-day life. (In America at least, different countries have nudity taboos.) The Laverne Cox aspect of things might be as big a deal as the Caitlyn Jenner aspect of things in a world where public nu
On top of the practice of "tucking", which you can probably infer the gist of from the name if you're not familiar, I'm told that for some reason, most cis people wear underwear specifically so other people can't see that they have genitals, despite the fact that everybody knows which kind they have and the idea that they didn't would be seen as an insult. If you took some kind of alien or robot or something that was only capable of distinguishing male and female humans by the shape of their genitals, put it in any crowded public space in the US, and told it to identify whether all the people there were male or female, it probably couldn't even get 10% without just going up and groping anybody.
What people can observe, however, besides various non-genital physical traits which I think are in aggregate different between Blanchard's types, is personality and hobbies. As a trans woman, you are much easier to clock if you are, say, an avid Warhammer fan than if you have an intact penis, even though there are zero cis women with penises and more than zero cis women who play Warhammer, because people will generally have far more opportunity to observe that you play Warhammer than they will to observe that you have a penis.
Anyways, even if Cox was an equal contributor to Jenner, one person always gets picked to be the one who gets the thing named after them, because if you try to name it after two people, it's always super unwieldy and awkward, like how it's called Blanchardism and not Blanchardism-Baileyism, or the Bechdel Test and not the Bechdel-Wallace test.
Also, minor nitpick, but you can, in fact, masturbate with a neovagina.
Respectfully, I disagree. Of course you can't see people's genitals. But for reasons I tried to outline (perhaps I was not sufficiently clear), I would argue that the change in *assumption* about what genitals people had, and what the aim was (the transition from a teleological model to one in which bottom surgery was a matter of personal preference) made a huge, I would say transformative, difference. It's about how transition was conceptualized, and what assumptions that lead to, not what people specifically see and clock.
Similarly, I did not mean to imply that you can't masturbate with a neovagina; I simply meant that the *image* of a man masturbating seemed much more in-your-face if they still had their penis. Basically, the presence of the penis made the motive of male desire seem more central; once it was transformed, it seemed less so.
Basically, I think what changed with Cox's interventions were ideas not perceptions: whether people thought transition involved a medical act, whether therefore a doctor was required at all (leading to self-ID), whether a trans woman with a penis was a transitional state or an endgame, and ultimately what 'man' and 'woman' meant—as I said, the biological definition may be gametes but prior to the Jenner-Cox shift the commonplace distinguishing feature was the genitals; the Jenner-Cox shift changed that, with huge effects.
On a more minor point, I think it is simply incorrect that eponymous things are always named after one person; consider the Quine-Duhem thesis or the The Michelson–Morley experiment. So I would argue for the Jenner-Cox Shift.
Thanks for reading and engaging.
I personally wouldn't even invoke Jenner. There were LOTS of famous people who transitioned before Jenner.... but the assumption was always that of going for full genital transformation. We had clear distinctions between "transvestites" and "transsexuals" (even if the public was not aware that those categories were porous in practice due to AGP. Oh... and 15 years ago, it wasn't Blanchardism... that came later, it was "BBL" to falsely demonize not only Blanchard, but Bailey and Anne Lawrence... and I would never have called the taxonomy, "Blanchardism" given that any number of people had pointed the types out long before Blanchard even went to graduate school: https://sillyolme.wordpress.com/2011/12/24/clowns-to-the-left-of-me/
Why do you think you have made the choice to not transition whereas RCE has decided to. Is it an age thing? Furthermore, have you been able to have satisfying sexual relationships with cis-women, and have these relationships involved gender reversals such as cross dressing or getting pegged?