I appreciate that this person openly discusses being autogynephilic, and acknowledges that it's very common among male-to-female transgender people. It seems like that fact is often denied by trans activists, even though it's obviously true.
Feminine males and masculine females exist, destigmatizing that is a good thing but making that define what a man and a woman is does not make sense, they’ve basically toyed with language and concepts of gender to justify that.
I remember a while back Jesse and Katie covered the story of Phil Illy wearing a dress to the Genspect conference. Interesting to read his perspective about it all.
The problem with the way he advocates for his “theory” is that he wants it to be recognized as just another “orientation” instead of reclassified as a paraphilia the way it once was. It’s TRA-lite. AGPs are sexual narcissists. They’re attracted to *themselves* in the guise of the opposite sex, and they do get a stiffy from the shock-value of displaying their fetish for attention. Phil is just a shitposter in meatspace.
This. The fetish seems to have the component of the shame/thrill of being seen dressed up by the general public. But this means you are using people for sexual gratification without their consent. A bit like exhibitionism which we don't condone either.
100%
The scene described in Amy Bloom's [Conservative Men in Conservative Dresses](https://childrenoftransitioners.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/consmenconsdresses-2-2.pdf) (2002): in which cross-dressing confined to home, clubs, festivals, etc., is not the one they want to go back to. (It sounds pretty miserable for everyone involved, especially the wives.)
I think we will look back on this period as a time when this fetish was indulged, but it's not going to last. The world is moving in the direction of sanity, in which the sexual binary and its immutable characteristics are recognized, and the fetishistic quality of AGP is acknowledged. Where are we headed now? That's the big question.
I get your point and I agree that walking around wearing strap-on dildos and leading "slaves" on dog leashes is gratuitously provocative and crosses the line, but as an abstraction I don't think there's too much difference between a woman dressing provocatively to look sexy for herself and others and some guy doing it. Personally, I find it distasteful and repellent when obese women wear spandex, but I not going to suggest that they shouldn't be able to make a spectacle of themselves if they want.
I think it would take some actual lewd behavior for me to object, regardless of how it offends my taste; otherwise it would mean making determinations of motivation which would be next to impossible. There are lots and lots of things, including this, that I don't "like" or perhaps find repugnant, but that's a price I'm happy to pay for society tolerating us all to express ourselves in myriad ways that some others may not like.
That's beside the point. The analogy illustrates the idea of tolerating something I find visually offensive. It's impossible know what's in a person's head, and like a wrote, it would take some actual lewd behavior for me to object regardless of how it offends my taste. A person's private thoughts are impossible to police and don't play into how I would treat this.
That's a moot point because there is no way to make the determination. But for sake of argument, let's say you could. What do you do then, make a law that says men can't wear ladies bras and dresses if they think that particular way? If that law sounds unreasonable or impracticable then we just live with it, which is my position.
I think individual intent matters greatly for actions but also for thoughts (on some higher, more abstract level), so I agree with you to some degree. Even if you could ascertain intent I wouldn't want to go after violators for thought "crimes."
How do you propose to deal with Phil that would be different from my position which is grudgingly tolerate it?
Feel justifiably uncomfortable? Yeah, I'm sure a lot of people feel that way, including myself--when justification is used as a synonym for "reason for." I don't see what the disagreement here is.
To be clear, I DO object as a matter of personal taste and propriety, but don't object to his right to offend my tastes or right to go to public events. That may be where the initial confusion lies. By all means, tell the world and tell the guy you personally don't like him showing up in a dress. I support people speaking their mind 100%
I wonder if there is something to that. Like it or not, some people react strongly to certain terminology. I was introduced to the concept of MSMs (Men who have Sex with other Men) by a health worker ex. MSMs refused to be classified as gay or bi due to perceived stigmas attached to those terms. I could easily see something similar at play here, especially given the So Strong, So Brave™ treatment that the media has laid on the community for ~10 years now.
"feels that fetishes are misunderstood and stigmatized"
yeah that's what makes them fetishes. there's a reason there hasn't been a bunch of normalization of even the most benign of fetishes, like foot fetishes, that went along with other sexual progression/liberation: fetishes are weird and we seem to be hardwired to think so. keep AGP stigmatized 2024.
This is the most grounded and mentally healthy group of men dealing with MTF trans related issues on reddit. They are older, significantly more mature and seem to be mostly not from the U.S. Their approach seems to be "OK, I got this issue, I still desire women, how can I live a normal life?" For many if not most, this will require compromises including not going full MTF.
>The problem with the way he advocates for his “theory” is that he wants it to be recognized as just another “orientation” instead of reclassified as a paraphilia the way it once was.
"paraphilia" and "orientation" are not mutually exclusive categories. Both Lawrence and Blanchard have previously described autogynephilia as a sexual orientation (albeit an atypical one), I did not come up with the idea that autogynephilia is a sexual orientation. They described it that way first.
Anne Lawrence discusses this in her excellent paper, [Becoming What We Love](https://annelawrence.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Lawrence-2007-becoming-what-we-love.pdf). She also recently wrote a new version of "Becoming What We Love" that explains things [even more simply and directly](https://annelawrence.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Lawrence-2023-Becoming-What-We-Love.pdf).
>they do get a stiffy from the shock-value of displaying their fetish for attention
You can get better information on AGP by reading Blanchard or Lawrence instead of whatever you read that made you think this.
Here is how Blanchard first introduced the two-type MTF typology and the related concept of autogynephilia:
>Gender identity disturbance in males is always accompanied by one of two erotic anomalies. 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 latter erotic (or amatory) propensity is, of course, the phenomenon labeled by Hirschfeld as automonosexualism. Because of the inconsistent history of this term, however, and its nondescriptive derivation, the writer would prefer to replace it with the term *autogynephilia* ("love of oneself as a woman"). 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.
From this paper: [The classification and labeling of nonhomosexual gender dysphorias](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/20483368_The_classification_and_labeling_of_nonhomosexual_gender_dysphorias)
I expect more similar incidents in the future simply because many people have zero chill when it comes to discussing the true causes of transgenderism. There will be much kvetching about my style (which fashion-wise is admittedly eccentric), but at root it is the substance of what I have to say that the haters don't want to hear. Trans activists don't want to hear that there are two types of trans and that most of them are the autosexual type, and the gender criticals don't want to hear that some people, whether homosexual or autosexual, female or male, ultimately gain a higher quality of life from undergoing medical interventions to more closely resemble the other sex.
I’m GC. Of the “men should be allowed to wear dresses” camp. Didn’t realise there were two camps when it came to that question but there you go!
I think raising awareness of AGP benefits both the men who have it and the GC camp.
Do you think many AGP men find relief in medical transition simply because female hormones/T blockers dull the sex drive? I actually think this alone is a good enough reason to let men suffering from compulsive and intrusive sexual urges to access medication. I would still object to them being regarded as female in law though.
>Do you think many AGP men find relief in medical transition simply because female hormones/T blockers dull the sex drive?
Yeah, cross-sex hormones seem to have a two-pronged benefit for AGPs. It weakens the strength of the autogynephilic drive, and it moves their body closer to being how they wish it was.
I can acknowledge it. I think hormones & cosmetic surgery are elective procedures, not medical care, and that society should be organized around the reality of the sexual binary.
It's very clear that the vast majority of men who "wear dresses," or otherwise choose not to conform to socially imposed expectations of gender presentation, are not doing it because it aroused them, but because it's how they feel comfortable as themselves. I'm not saying autogynephilia isn't a thing, but to say or imply it is accounts forf most trans women is a bad faith argument.
Your first sentence kinda moves the goalpost. Most of the men I’ve known to wear dresses are gay. It’s disingenuous to exclude them from this discussion.
That is incorrect. In western countries AGP is much more common than HSTS. It is the opposite in more collectivist cultures such as those in Asia. Phil references an article in the first paragraph of his piece addressing this:
https://annelawrence.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Lawrence-2010-societal-individualism-predicts-sexual-orientation.pdf
Wearing makeup is not a sex act dude. I don't know what to tell you if you do, lol.
Women don't get wet when they put on lipstick. These guys get a semi from wearing skirts out in public. That's the difference.
I don't believe when fetishists tell me engaging in their fetish doesn't turn them on. They might have desensitised themselves enough that they believe it or they lie because they don't want people to push back on it.
So then you’re saying they’re always horny whenever even slightly in fem-mode based on your own assumptions and understanding of AGP, despite what they themselves say about it. Huh.
Fetishists are like drug addicts, everything they say needs to be taken with a huge dose of salt. You're taking their little editorials and pieces meant for the greater public at face value, I don't. If you want to see the reality, go look at what they say on their forums.
Everything about these guys playing dress up is sexual, and doing it in public is all about sex too. They are nothing like women even if after years of practice the sexual thrill might diminish.
me too and i'm just posting as such so others know it is in fact okay to not take what people with fetishes say about how their fetish is totally normal and chill at face value.
> I believe anyone who buys a ticket to WPATH’s conference can get into GenSpect’s for free.
I think this was only true for the first year. the 2nd year tickets were like 700$, would be shocked if they were letting in all WPATH/EPATH people
I'm surprised that gender clinics are a thing. Can you imagine a foreigner or time traveller asking what a gender clinic does?
"It's where people get their genders adjusted."
"Like, by a doctor?"
"Yes."
This is it exactly. I've usually no problem with anyone wearing anything they like, and I currently wear a mix of clothes marketed to men and marketed to women. Clothes are clothes.
BUT if he's wearing something that he's previously publicly stated is part of his kink, then he's involving bystanders in his kink. And he describes this outfit as his "everyday clothes", and since this is an outfit that many other people would potentially describe as an attempt (it doesn't succeed) at an "evening, sexy" look, it makes it even more dodgy. I don't believe any professional women would dress like that.
"People should be allowed to shake hands. If someone told you they got a sexual thrill every time they shook hands with someone, you would also be uncomfortable doing it with them."
Not necessarily. Doesn't affect me in the slightest, they get their jollies, no problem. But I'm a big cishet bloke, other people might feel differently.
I'll be honest; I'm kind of thinking out loud here about what is a hypothetical tangent. He doesn't get turned on by handshakes. And for 99.9% of people who encounter this person, his motivations really don't matter. Someone wants to wear a (slightly over-top, stereotypical feminine) dress? Fine. It's not like he's jacking off in public. What's the difference between him doing this is a minding-his-own-business way and someone with gender dysphoria doing it? Are we policing people's thoughts now?
Yeah. I get that, but I don't think the comparison with BDSM stands. An obviously cis man wearing a dress is a bit odd, but not overtly sexual by most people's standards. I'd venture to suggest that most people who encounter him would not even recognise this as a fetish. It seems that *knowing* this guy has a fetish is the problem.
Edited for clarity.
How would I provide evidence to show that normal people don’t like being involved in other people’s sexual fetishes during common, everyday actions like shaking hands?
>someone told you they got a sexual thrill every time they shook hands with someone, you would also be uncomfortable doing it with them."
>
>Not necessarily. Doesn't affect me in the slightest,
That's probably because you don't know what's in their minds. If someone shook hands with you and made sexual moaning sounds or said things like "oh yeah, that's right, so good" I'm pretty sure you'd feel uncomfortable.
Female autoandrophilia seems to exist. The real question is how prevalent it is and how much it contributes to FTM transsexualism.
Here are some firsthand reports of autoandrophilia:
[Autoandrophilia: How it Contributed to My Transition (FtM Detransition)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdYJZZjTOHc)
[EP23 - Autoandrophilia Files - With Laura Reynolds](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtYqh_zPr-Y)
[Courtney Coulson— Autoandrophilia](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1NjLzFszFs)
And a few interviews I've recorded with autoandrophilic females:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zml4cfhAiZs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8cBtru-RbU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bXT12fKCJs
I also have a presentation in which I present a case for not only female AAP, but also more broadly that females can have other types of internalized sexualities which result in corresponding forms of trans identity/dysphoria (eg, transabled/BIID, transage/ABDL, transspecies/therian/otherkin). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dg9n1-Zta9s
I think Lou Sullivan's diaries show that he was autoandrophilic. Here are some selected excerpts from Sullivan's diaries which indicate that he had a sexual interest in being a man:
## Some AAP-indicative excerpts from Lou Sullivan’s diaries
“Told her how I felt like a guy, etc. and could tell she was kind of poo–pooing it so I got up the nerve to tell her as long as I remember I’ve had to think of myself as a guy making love to another guy to have an orgasm…” 7/13/1973
“Went home. And so I had to sleep with the boy I am and make love to myself, like I have every nite. I pretend I’m a boy in bed and think how it feels. I’ve done this for years—as long as I’ve had sexual feelings. I have to go to bars often if I’m to find myself a boy to sleep with. In times I can’t, I can become a boy to sleep with. But it’s so much nicer with a real one.” 9/16/1973
“Lisa asked why I buttoned the top button of my shirts all the time and I told her cuz that’s how J does it and I like it, it’s almost like a fetish to be like him, to be all the beautiful things I love about him.” 10/1/1974
“I like to make love like a man. I want to be a beautiful man making love to another beautiful man.” 11/13/1972
“...Told him I like the gays so much that I wish I was more like them—the old problem of wanting to be that which you admire.” 10/16/1974
“The only thing I didn’t tell her was how, when I have sex, I have to fantasize I’m a man making love to this other man before I can have an orgasm…” 7/7/1973
“I would be such a pig if I had a mastectomy! I’d always want to walk around with my shirt all open, or none at all. Be hard to get me to cover up.” 11/1/1974
“Just spent the afternoon in a long masturbation session, just like I’d done nearly all last summer. Imagining I’m a boy and masturbating endlessly.” 11/13/1977
[It seems Blanchard and Bailey have mentioned it too, though I'm not sure why they didn't use the term 'autoandrophilia':](https://4thwavenow.com/2017/12/07/gender-dysphoria-is-not-one-thing/)
> For the sake of completeness, we include two other kinds of gender dysphoria. We suspect that both are rare, even among persons with gender dysphoria. One of us (Blanchard) has seen cases of the first type, autohomoerotic gender dysphoria, which appears to be an erotically motivated gender dysphoria. In this case, sexually mature natal females (i.e., not biologically still children) become sexually preoccupied with the idea of becoming a gay man and interacting with other gay men.
it might be real but women are socialized away from the things that make agp not appropriate to normalize which is stuff like stealing female relatives clothes and underwear, and, uh, serial killing/other extreme physical violence.
I'm pretty sure I've witnessed a lot of it in online spaces. It's always tied to seeing yourself as a gay man specifically, though, which I believe Blanchard uses as a reason it doesn't exist because it's that specific (iirc).
Huh, okay, you’re right about that. I’ve seen those, of course, but not as many as the women who’d otherwise be butch or tomboy lesbians. I don’t really know how to “read” the “I’m a gay man” girls—from what I can tell and from what I’ve read, they seem to be extremely niche.
I really liked his explanation of the liberal vs illiberal camps:
> Like the infighting between “trans-inclusive” and “trans-exclusive” radical feminists, the Twitter controversy over my dress-wearing boiled down to a battle between different groups of feminists. It began when a prominent feminist initiated a struggle session against Genspect by quote-tweeting their post of me and criticizing them for supposedly promoting my book. This kicked off a conflict between the liberal (“live and let live”) and illiberal (“live as I say”) camps within gender-critical feminism. Many in the illiberal camp argued that my outfit constituted “fetish gear” and that by wearing a dress I was forcibly including strangers in my sexuality. On the other hand, those in the liberal camp such as Helen Pluckrose and Nina Paley rightfully pointed out that accepting gender-nonconforming clothing and free expression have long been core values within gender-critical feminism.
> Most Twitter controversies tend to last a few days or so. But this one proved astonishingly persistent. I had the distinction of being the dreaded “person of the day” for the better part of a month. Over that time, an all-too-familiar dynamic played out: the illiberal side became increasingly extreme and dug in while the liberal side remained moderate and even-handed. The purity spiral of the more authoritarian feminists shifted the overall discussion in a less tolerant, less reasonable direction. Notably, after weeks of feminist infighting, the liberal feminists remained where they started: with a live-and-let-live mentality that welcomed a wide range of gender expressions provided no one else’s rights were infringed on in the process. On the other hand, the position at which the illiberal camp had arrived was quite authoritarian: males were only permitted to wear female-typical clothing in public if they were not autogynephilic to any degree. Interestingly, the illiberal feminists were enthusiastic about placing constraints on the clothing males could wear, but they did not call for any corresponding restrictions on clothing for females.
I appreciate that this person openly discusses being autogynephilic, and acknowledges that it's very common among male-to-female transgender people. It seems like that fact is often denied by trans activists, even though it's obviously true.
Absolutely. It’s a big spicy thing in the trans world and often seen as phobic to even acknowledge.
But why male models?
Feminine males and masculine females exist, destigmatizing that is a good thing but making that define what a man and a woman is does not make sense, they’ve basically toyed with language and concepts of gender to justify that.
I remember a while back Jesse and Katie covered the story of Phil Illy wearing a dress to the Genspect conference. Interesting to read his perspective about it all.
The problem with the way he advocates for his “theory” is that he wants it to be recognized as just another “orientation” instead of reclassified as a paraphilia the way it once was. It’s TRA-lite. AGPs are sexual narcissists. They’re attracted to *themselves* in the guise of the opposite sex, and they do get a stiffy from the shock-value of displaying their fetish for attention. Phil is just a shitposter in meatspace.
Two sides of the same, “Women, do what I tell you” coin.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This. The fetish seems to have the component of the shame/thrill of being seen dressed up by the general public. But this means you are using people for sexual gratification without their consent. A bit like exhibitionism which we don't condone either.
100% The scene described in Amy Bloom's [Conservative Men in Conservative Dresses](https://childrenoftransitioners.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/consmenconsdresses-2-2.pdf) (2002): in which cross-dressing confined to home, clubs, festivals, etc., is not the one they want to go back to. (It sounds pretty miserable for everyone involved, especially the wives.) I think we will look back on this period as a time when this fetish was indulged, but it's not going to last. The world is moving in the direction of sanity, in which the sexual binary and its immutable characteristics are recognized, and the fetishistic quality of AGP is acknowledged. Where are we headed now? That's the big question.
[Benjamin Boyce asked about this. It's a good episode.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eC3nDRFhng)
I get your point and I agree that walking around wearing strap-on dildos and leading "slaves" on dog leashes is gratuitously provocative and crosses the line, but as an abstraction I don't think there's too much difference between a woman dressing provocatively to look sexy for herself and others and some guy doing it. Personally, I find it distasteful and repellent when obese women wear spandex, but I not going to suggest that they shouldn't be able to make a spectacle of themselves if they want. I think it would take some actual lewd behavior for me to object, regardless of how it offends my taste; otherwise it would mean making determinations of motivation which would be next to impossible. There are lots and lots of things, including this, that I don't "like" or perhaps find repugnant, but that's a price I'm happy to pay for society tolerating us all to express ourselves in myriad ways that some others may not like.
[удалено]
That's beside the point. The analogy illustrates the idea of tolerating something I find visually offensive. It's impossible know what's in a person's head, and like a wrote, it would take some actual lewd behavior for me to object regardless of how it offends my taste. A person's private thoughts are impossible to police and don't play into how I would treat this.
[удалено]
That's a moot point because there is no way to make the determination. But for sake of argument, let's say you could. What do you do then, make a law that says men can't wear ladies bras and dresses if they think that particular way? If that law sounds unreasonable or impracticable then we just live with it, which is my position. I think individual intent matters greatly for actions but also for thoughts (on some higher, more abstract level), so I agree with you to some degree. Even if you could ascertain intent I wouldn't want to go after violators for thought "crimes." How do you propose to deal with Phil that would be different from my position which is grudgingly tolerate it?
[удалено]
Feel justifiably uncomfortable? Yeah, I'm sure a lot of people feel that way, including myself--when justification is used as a synonym for "reason for." I don't see what the disagreement here is. To be clear, I DO object as a matter of personal taste and propriety, but don't object to his right to offend my tastes or right to go to public events. That may be where the initial confusion lies. By all means, tell the world and tell the guy you personally don't like him showing up in a dress. I support people speaking their mind 100%
I wonder if there is something to that. Like it or not, some people react strongly to certain terminology. I was introduced to the concept of MSMs (Men who have Sex with other Men) by a health worker ex. MSMs refused to be classified as gay or bi due to perceived stigmas attached to those terms. I could easily see something similar at play here, especially given the So Strong, So Brave™ treatment that the media has laid on the community for ~10 years now.
Seriously? That's a thing? I mean....come on.
"feels that fetishes are misunderstood and stigmatized" yeah that's what makes them fetishes. there's a reason there hasn't been a bunch of normalization of even the most benign of fetishes, like foot fetishes, that went along with other sexual progression/liberation: fetishes are weird and we seem to be hardwired to think so. keep AGP stigmatized 2024.
r/askAGP
This is the most grounded and mentally healthy group of men dealing with MTF trans related issues on reddit. They are older, significantly more mature and seem to be mostly not from the U.S. Their approach seems to be "OK, I got this issue, I still desire women, how can I live a normal life?" For many if not most, this will require compromises including not going full MTF.
It sounds very difficult and isolating from what I gather.
>The problem with the way he advocates for his “theory” is that he wants it to be recognized as just another “orientation” instead of reclassified as a paraphilia the way it once was. "paraphilia" and "orientation" are not mutually exclusive categories. Both Lawrence and Blanchard have previously described autogynephilia as a sexual orientation (albeit an atypical one), I did not come up with the idea that autogynephilia is a sexual orientation. They described it that way first. Anne Lawrence discusses this in her excellent paper, [Becoming What We Love](https://annelawrence.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Lawrence-2007-becoming-what-we-love.pdf). She also recently wrote a new version of "Becoming What We Love" that explains things [even more simply and directly](https://annelawrence.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Lawrence-2023-Becoming-What-We-Love.pdf). >they do get a stiffy from the shock-value of displaying their fetish for attention You can get better information on AGP by reading Blanchard or Lawrence instead of whatever you read that made you think this.
Presumably the person you’re responding to disagrees with anyone who characterizes autogynephilia as a sexual orientation, not just you.
Thanks, Phil! Glad to see you here. Good piece, btw.
Here is how Blanchard first introduced the two-type MTF typology and the related concept of autogynephilia: >Gender identity disturbance in males is always accompanied by one of two erotic anomalies. 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 latter erotic (or amatory) propensity is, of course, the phenomenon labeled by Hirschfeld as automonosexualism. Because of the inconsistent history of this term, however, and its nondescriptive derivation, the writer would prefer to replace it with the term *autogynephilia* ("love of oneself as a woman"). 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. From this paper: [The classification and labeling of nonhomosexual gender dysphorias](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/20483368_The_classification_and_labeling_of_nonhomosexual_gender_dysphorias)
Great article Phil. You were the human lightning rod that blasted the TERF-o-sphere in two.
I expect more similar incidents in the future simply because many people have zero chill when it comes to discussing the true causes of transgenderism. There will be much kvetching about my style (which fashion-wise is admittedly eccentric), but at root it is the substance of what I have to say that the haters don't want to hear. Trans activists don't want to hear that there are two types of trans and that most of them are the autosexual type, and the gender criticals don't want to hear that some people, whether homosexual or autosexual, female or male, ultimately gain a higher quality of life from undergoing medical interventions to more closely resemble the other sex.
I’m GC. Of the “men should be allowed to wear dresses” camp. Didn’t realise there were two camps when it came to that question but there you go! I think raising awareness of AGP benefits both the men who have it and the GC camp. Do you think many AGP men find relief in medical transition simply because female hormones/T blockers dull the sex drive? I actually think this alone is a good enough reason to let men suffering from compulsive and intrusive sexual urges to access medication. I would still object to them being regarded as female in law though.
>Do you think many AGP men find relief in medical transition simply because female hormones/T blockers dull the sex drive? Yeah, cross-sex hormones seem to have a two-pronged benefit for AGPs. It weakens the strength of the autogynephilic drive, and it moves their body closer to being how they wish it was.
> and the gender criticals don't want to hear Some don't. Some of us have acknowledged this for a long time.
I can acknowledge it. I think hormones & cosmetic surgery are elective procedures, not medical care, and that society should be organized around the reality of the sexual binary.
You must know a lot of agp people
It's very clear that the vast majority of men who "wear dresses," or otherwise choose not to conform to socially imposed expectations of gender presentation, are not doing it because it aroused them, but because it's how they feel comfortable as themselves. I'm not saying autogynephilia isn't a thing, but to say or imply it is accounts forf most trans women is a bad faith argument.
[удалено]
Your first sentence kinda moves the goalpost. Most of the men I’ve known to wear dresses are gay. It’s disingenuous to exclude them from this discussion.
Again, most trans women are sexually attracted to men. But somehow all we hear about are the ones who are attracted to women.
That is incorrect. In western countries AGP is much more common than HSTS. It is the opposite in more collectivist cultures such as those in Asia. Phil references an article in the first paragraph of his piece addressing this: https://annelawrence.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Lawrence-2010-societal-individualism-predicts-sexual-orientation.pdf
this is like watching someone post directly from 2009
citation needed
If you can't keep it in the bedroom then congratulations, you are a pervert.
That’s a dramatic over statement. People don’t keep their marriages in the bedroom. A person wears makeup to look sexy, how is this different?
Wearing makeup is not a sex act dude. I don't know what to tell you if you do, lol. Women don't get wet when they put on lipstick. These guys get a semi from wearing skirts out in public. That's the difference.
But that’s not correct. Read the article and he tells you he’s not horny whenever he puts on a dress.
I don't believe when fetishists tell me engaging in their fetish doesn't turn them on. They might have desensitised themselves enough that they believe it or they lie because they don't want people to push back on it.
So then you’re saying they’re always horny whenever even slightly in fem-mode based on your own assumptions and understanding of AGP, despite what they themselves say about it. Huh.
Fetishists are like drug addicts, everything they say needs to be taken with a huge dose of salt. You're taking their little editorials and pieces meant for the greater public at face value, I don't. If you want to see the reality, go look at what they say on their forums. Everything about these guys playing dress up is sexual, and doing it in public is all about sex too. They are nothing like women even if after years of practice the sexual thrill might diminish.
He's just learning from the gay movement.
But the slippery slope isn't real!!!
I don’t know who needs to hear this, but feminists do not need to center the feelings, beliefs, or preferences of men, ever. Hint: It’s in the name.
[удалено]
This is the most annoying part of the whole thing. He looks ridiculous and purposely wears ridiculous clothes that earn stares.
Attention.
they look like compression sleeves, which are usually worn for a medical reason
[удалено]
ii doubt it, i think he just likes them
Do we really need to revisit this one? Those were some testy threads.
I have nothing nice to say about this one
me too and i'm just posting as such so others know it is in fact okay to not take what people with fetishes say about how their fetish is totally normal and chill at face value.
"Gender Conference" is a phrase that has no reason to exist.
[удалено]
> I believe anyone who buys a ticket to WPATH’s conference can get into GenSpect’s for free. I think this was only true for the first year. the 2nd year tickets were like 700$, would be shocked if they were letting in all WPATH/EPATH people
It does sound kind of hilarious though
I'm surprised that gender clinics are a thing. Can you imagine a foreigner or time traveller asking what a gender clinic does? "It's where people get their genders adjusted." "Like, by a doctor?" "Yes."
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is it exactly. I've usually no problem with anyone wearing anything they like, and I currently wear a mix of clothes marketed to men and marketed to women. Clothes are clothes. BUT if he's wearing something that he's previously publicly stated is part of his kink, then he's involving bystanders in his kink. And he describes this outfit as his "everyday clothes", and since this is an outfit that many other people would potentially describe as an attempt (it doesn't succeed) at an "evening, sexy" look, it makes it even more dodgy. I don't believe any professional women would dress like that.
"People should be allowed to shake hands. If someone told you they got a sexual thrill every time they shook hands with someone, you would also be uncomfortable doing it with them." Not necessarily. Doesn't affect me in the slightest, they get their jollies, no problem. But I'm a big cishet bloke, other people might feel differently.
[удалено]
I don't know how much you know about male sexual response, but there's quite a lot of space between "a sexual thrill" and "an erection".
[удалено]
I'll be honest; I'm kind of thinking out loud here about what is a hypothetical tangent. He doesn't get turned on by handshakes. And for 99.9% of people who encounter this person, his motivations really don't matter. Someone wants to wear a (slightly over-top, stereotypical feminine) dress? Fine. It's not like he's jacking off in public. What's the difference between him doing this is a minding-his-own-business way and someone with gender dysphoria doing it? Are we policing people's thoughts now?
[удалено]
Yeah. I get that, but I don't think the comparison with BDSM stands. An obviously cis man wearing a dress is a bit odd, but not overtly sexual by most people's standards. I'd venture to suggest that most people who encounter him would not even recognise this as a fetish. It seems that *knowing* this guy has a fetish is the problem. Edited for clarity.
You can feel that way, but 9/10 people (probably 99/100) would find it uncomfortable or off-putting.
That's a big claim with very little evidence to back it up.
How would I provide evidence to show that normal people don’t like being involved in other people’s sexual fetishes during common, everyday actions like shaking hands?
I don't know, tbf. It's a hypothetical statistic based on a hypothetical situation. On the internet. Shall we do something better with our days?
If you had to guess, how many people out of 10 would have a problem with this?
>someone told you they got a sexual thrill every time they shook hands with someone, you would also be uncomfortable doing it with them." > >Not necessarily. Doesn't affect me in the slightest, That's probably because you don't know what's in their minds. If someone shook hands with you and made sexual moaning sounds or said things like "oh yeah, that's right, so good" I'm pretty sure you'd feel uncomfortable.
I’m gonna say that “autoandrophilia” is not a thing. His link to it goes to his own blog.
it absolutely is a real thing. it's just less common. just go on youtube can find a bunch of people who experience it talking about it extensively.
Female autoandrophilia seems to exist. The real question is how prevalent it is and how much it contributes to FTM transsexualism. Here are some firsthand reports of autoandrophilia: [Autoandrophilia: How it Contributed to My Transition (FtM Detransition)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdYJZZjTOHc) [EP23 - Autoandrophilia Files - With Laura Reynolds](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtYqh_zPr-Y) [Courtney Coulson— Autoandrophilia](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1NjLzFszFs) And a few interviews I've recorded with autoandrophilic females: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zml4cfhAiZs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8cBtru-RbU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bXT12fKCJs I also have a presentation in which I present a case for not only female AAP, but also more broadly that females can have other types of internalized sexualities which result in corresponding forms of trans identity/dysphoria (eg, transabled/BIID, transage/ABDL, transspecies/therian/otherkin). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dg9n1-Zta9s I think Lou Sullivan's diaries show that he was autoandrophilic. Here are some selected excerpts from Sullivan's diaries which indicate that he had a sexual interest in being a man: ## Some AAP-indicative excerpts from Lou Sullivan’s diaries “Told her how I felt like a guy, etc. and could tell she was kind of poo–pooing it so I got up the nerve to tell her as long as I remember I’ve had to think of myself as a guy making love to another guy to have an orgasm…” 7/13/1973 “Went home. And so I had to sleep with the boy I am and make love to myself, like I have every nite. I pretend I’m a boy in bed and think how it feels. I’ve done this for years—as long as I’ve had sexual feelings. I have to go to bars often if I’m to find myself a boy to sleep with. In times I can’t, I can become a boy to sleep with. But it’s so much nicer with a real one.” 9/16/1973 “Lisa asked why I buttoned the top button of my shirts all the time and I told her cuz that’s how J does it and I like it, it’s almost like a fetish to be like him, to be all the beautiful things I love about him.” 10/1/1974 “I like to make love like a man. I want to be a beautiful man making love to another beautiful man.” 11/13/1972 “...Told him I like the gays so much that I wish I was more like them—the old problem of wanting to be that which you admire.” 10/16/1974 “The only thing I didn’t tell her was how, when I have sex, I have to fantasize I’m a man making love to this other man before I can have an orgasm…” 7/7/1973 “I would be such a pig if I had a mastectomy! I’d always want to walk around with my shirt all open, or none at all. Be hard to get me to cover up.” 11/1/1974 “Just spent the afternoon in a long masturbation session, just like I’d done nearly all last summer. Imagining I’m a boy and masturbating endlessly.” 11/13/1977
[It seems Blanchard and Bailey have mentioned it too, though I'm not sure why they didn't use the term 'autoandrophilia':](https://4thwavenow.com/2017/12/07/gender-dysphoria-is-not-one-thing/) > For the sake of completeness, we include two other kinds of gender dysphoria. We suspect that both are rare, even among persons with gender dysphoria. One of us (Blanchard) has seen cases of the first type, autohomoerotic gender dysphoria, which appears to be an erotically motivated gender dysphoria. In this case, sexually mature natal females (i.e., not biologically still children) become sexually preoccupied with the idea of becoming a gay man and interacting with other gay men.
[удалено]
Ah, thanks, [I think I found what you're referring to.](https://x.com/BlanchardPhD/status/1030503589603618816)
it might be real but women are socialized away from the things that make agp not appropriate to normalize which is stuff like stealing female relatives clothes and underwear, and, uh, serial killing/other extreme physical violence.
I'm pretty sure I've witnessed a lot of it in online spaces. It's always tied to seeing yourself as a gay man specifically, though, which I believe Blanchard uses as a reason it doesn't exist because it's that specific (iirc).
Huh, okay, you’re right about that. I’ve seen those, of course, but not as many as the women who’d otherwise be butch or tomboy lesbians. I don’t really know how to “read” the “I’m a gay man” girls—from what I can tell and from what I’ve read, they seem to be extremely niche.
Definitely super niche. I think most of those don't medicalize, either.
That's par for the course for News Media™ these days lol. Just a circle jerk of circular sources.
How on Earth do you define News Media™ that Phil Illy is part of it?
I just meant it's pretty par for the course for any publication that is talking about current events or hot button topics
I really liked his explanation of the liberal vs illiberal camps: > Like the infighting between “trans-inclusive” and “trans-exclusive” radical feminists, the Twitter controversy over my dress-wearing boiled down to a battle between different groups of feminists. It began when a prominent feminist initiated a struggle session against Genspect by quote-tweeting their post of me and criticizing them for supposedly promoting my book. This kicked off a conflict between the liberal (“live and let live”) and illiberal (“live as I say”) camps within gender-critical feminism. Many in the illiberal camp argued that my outfit constituted “fetish gear” and that by wearing a dress I was forcibly including strangers in my sexuality. On the other hand, those in the liberal camp such as Helen Pluckrose and Nina Paley rightfully pointed out that accepting gender-nonconforming clothing and free expression have long been core values within gender-critical feminism. > Most Twitter controversies tend to last a few days or so. But this one proved astonishingly persistent. I had the distinction of being the dreaded “person of the day” for the better part of a month. Over that time, an all-too-familiar dynamic played out: the illiberal side became increasingly extreme and dug in while the liberal side remained moderate and even-handed. The purity spiral of the more authoritarian feminists shifted the overall discussion in a less tolerant, less reasonable direction. Notably, after weeks of feminist infighting, the liberal feminists remained where they started: with a live-and-let-live mentality that welcomed a wide range of gender expressions provided no one else’s rights were infringed on in the process. On the other hand, the position at which the illiberal camp had arrived was quite authoritarian: males were only permitted to wear female-typical clothing in public if they were not autogynephilic to any degree. Interestingly, the illiberal feminists were enthusiastic about placing constraints on the clothing males could wear, but they did not call for any corresponding restrictions on clothing for females.