All: Is autogynephilia normal in natal women?

submitted by CRTmonitor from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]SnowAssMan 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Whenever gender realists bring that up they are trying to undermine autogynaephila, or make it seem like it proves that they are women, since women supposedly feel the same way about themselves.

The problem with that is, it's the wrong comparison. These men are attracted to women, so why compare them to women who are attracted to men? Anyone making such a comparison demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding, as usual stemming from ignoring sexual orientation

If you're going to try to compare them to women, the women in question would have to be lesbians. Autogynaephiles tend to be hyper-feminine, while lesbian women tend to be anything but. Autogynaephiles get turned on doing "ladies'" things, like shaving their legs, while lesbians are the female demographic least likely to engage in stereotypically feminine practices, like shaving their legs.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (18 children)

But aren't you essentialising masculinity to attraction to women and femininity?

I do think there's a strong relationship but it's not one to one.

But gc would say that any relationship is a product of culture and the environment. Which I don't find convincing.

What are you saying is the cause of "lesbians are the female demographic least likely to engage in stereotypically feminine practices" ?

[–]SnowAssMan 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

But aren't you essentialising masculinity to attraction to women and femininity?

How so? I don't really understand your question? I'm simply saying compare like with like. Compare "transbians" with lesbians. Then you'll find the behaviour of these men is not consistent with the identity they are claiming.

What are you saying is the cause of "lesbians are the female demographic least likely to engage in stereotypically feminine practices" ?

Because the male gaze is going to be less of an influence on a lesbian's presentation than it is on a heterosexual woman's.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (16 children)

How so? I don't really understand your question? I'm simply saying compare like with like. Compare "transbians" with lesbians. Then you'll find the behaviour of these men is not consistent with the identity they are claiming.

I mean there are plenty of masculine lesbian transwomen.

How does that fit your model?

Because the male gaze is going to be less of an influence on a lesbian's presentation than it is on a heterosexual woman's.

You mean lesbians can't genuinely find femininity attractive?

You mean gender expression is entirely down to what straight people like?

Does that mean women define masculinity because that's what straight women want?

Where do feminine trans men fit into this model?

[–]SnowAssMan 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I mean there are plenty of masculine lesbian transwomen. How does that fit your model?

But what has any of that got to do with autogynaephilia, which isn't my model?

You mean lesbians can't genuinely find femininity attractive?

Lesbians & gay men aren't attracted to themselves as women & men, respectively. They might very well be attracted to femininity & masculinity, respectively, in others.

You mean gender expression is entirely down to what straight people like?

Not straight people, straight men. Femininity is designed for straight men. It's just objectification. The 5 objects for men that define femininity are as follows: a decorative male status symbol, a fetishised male masturbation aid, a de-clawed domesticated pet for men, an indentured servant for men, a vessel for men to perpetuate themselves – every aspect of femininity comes down to one of those 5 forms of male objectification.

Does that mean women define masculinity because that's what straight women want?

lol yes, because we live in a matriarchy. Your questions seem to come from an alternate reality in which inequality & it's subsequent cultural imperialism don't exist. I'm simply reminding OP of things everyone already knows, but may not have considered, because of the domination of the trans narrative trying to steer our thinking in a counter-intuitive direction.

There is an interview with Blanchard in which he is asked the same question that OP is asking (skip to the section headed: how do you respond to the claim that autogynaephilia is also found frequently in natal females):

https://quillette.com/2019/11/06/what-is-autogynephilia-an-interview-with-dr-ray-blanchard/

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (14 children)

But what has any of that got to do with autogynaephilia, which isn't my model?

You mean you don't believe in autogynaephilia?

I'm asking because I'm trying to understand the Blanchardian take on things.

I mean you accept the Blanchardian model as correct?

Lesbians & gay men aren't attracted to themselves as women & men, respectively. They might very well be attracted to femininity & masculinity, respectively, in others.

Right but is that natural?

Not straight people, straight men. Femininity is designed for straight men. It's just objectification.

So all of femininity is objectification?

That means when a lesbian enjoys the femininity of a woman they are expressing false consciousness?

They are perpetuating male objectification?

The 5 objects for men that define femininity are as follows: a decorative male status symbol, a fetishised male masturbation aid, a de-clawed domesticated pet for men, an indentured servant for men, a vessel for men to perpetuate themselves – every aspect of femininity comes down to one of those 5 forms of male objectification.

Does this mean you think in an ideal situation everyone would be masculine?

lol yes, because we live in a matriarchy.

You're joking because you think we live in a patriarchy?

Though I expect we live in different countries.

Your questions seem to come from an alternate reality in which inequality & it's subsequent cultural imperialism don't exist. I'm simply reminding OP of things everyone already knows, but may not have considered, because of the domination of the trans narrative trying to steer our thinking in a counter-intuitive direction.

I'm just confused by you accepting the Blanchard model AND social constructionism at the same time. Surely you can't have it both ways?

Blanchard isn't a social constructionist.

[–]SnowAssMan 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Of course Blanchard's typology is correct. It's been recorded before & since him.

Right but is that natural?

Is femininity natural?

That means when a lesbian enjoys the femininity of a woman they are expressing false consciousness?

Outrageous! Inconceivable!

Does this mean you think in an ideal situation everyone would be masculine?

What is "masculinity"? It's just the norm, within the norm vs. other dichotomy in our culture. It's everything our culture values/everything positive, everything that is neutral & everything that is the opposite of femininity. Men don't compromise their masculinity whether they are leaders or followers, analytical or creative, brainy or brawny. Rejecting femininity only has beneficial outcomes.

I'm just confused by you accepting the Blanchard model AND social constructionism at the same time.

I'm confused about what you're confused about.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (11 children)

Of course Blanchard's typology is correct. It's been recorded before & since him.

How can you believe in Blanchard's typology and be social constructionist?

That's the confusion.

They have conflicting ideas.

Outrageous! Inconceivable!

You think it is false consciousness?

What is "masculinity"? It's just the norm, within the norm vs. other dichotomy in our culture. It's everything our culture values/everything positive, everything that is neutral & everything that is the opposite of femininity. Men don't compromise their masculinity whether they are leaders or followers, analytical or creative, brainy or brawny. Rejecting femininity only has beneficial outcomes.

You seriously think everyone should be masculine?

You think masculine is the natural order of all people?

[–]SnowAssMan 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

How can you believe in Blanchard's typology and be social constructionist?

Where is the contradiction?

You think it is false consciousness?

Anyone who likes femininity was conditioned to like it. To believe otherwise would be to deny the existence of culture & the effects of socialisation.

You think masculine is the natural order of all people?

Wtf? Yes, cultural norms are exacted by Mother Nature.

You should probably start being a little more forthcoming in your replies.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (9 children)

Where is the contradiction?

The Blanchard model is essentialist and social constructionism isn't. It's that stark.

Anyone who likes femininity was conditioned to like it. To believe otherwise would be to deny the existence of culture & the effects of socialisation.

Do you also think anyone who likes masculinity was conditioned to like it?

Or is it immune for reasons?

Wtf? Yes, cultural norms are exacted by Mother Nature.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

You should probably start being a little more forthcoming in your replies.

Or this.

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Im just confused by you accepting the Blanchard model AND social constructionism at the same time. Surely you can't have it both ways?

Social constructionism can't admit biological empiricism -- by design. Biological empiricism can admit elements of social constructionism with ease. Neuroscience and cognitive sciences do this all the time.