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 →

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (21 children)

I don't know why men have more fetishes. If I were working that, I'd look at the biological-cognitive and socialization differences involved based on sex.

You don't think it's something natural?

Would you say women generally have a preference for masculinity as an erotic target?

[–][deleted] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

You don't think it's something natural?

What is "natural?" Neurons and endogenous hormones are "natural." (Not being an asshole here, just keeping it Socratic.)

Would you say women generally have a preference for masculinity as an erotic target?

Loaded question. First we'd have to define "masculinity." I think that's way outside the OP's theme here.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (19 children)

What is "natural?" Neurons and endogenous hormones are "natural." (Not being an asshole here, just keeping it Socratic.)

ha sure. It very much is the question.

Masculinity and femininity seem so pervasive, it looks natural. Attempts to deconstruct them and abolish them always seem to fail.

It's not that there are complete forms of masculinity and femininity inside people. But the desire to form them seems so strong. Linked into all kinds of behaviour.

People always seem to focus on them either towards one or the other. Not the extreme but a modal difference.

Loaded question. First we'd have to define "masculinity." I think that's way outside the OP's theme here.

But surely highly related to the topic?

[–][deleted] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

But surely highly related to the topic?

Tangentially.

I'm off to (another late) breakfast and the rest of our holiday weekend here.

A suggestion, if you're up for it: pull together a working thesis. Define your terms (feminine, masculine, fetishism, etc.) -- these can be conditional or working definitions, so long as they're noted as such. Invoke or challenge the evidence you do/do not think applies most closely to your central argument (Social Constructivism, Blanchard, etc.). Bring in personal anecdotes that you feel illustrate or support your central argument. Condense an element of that central argument into a debate question -- general or specific -- and post it to the sub.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Sounds good. I do have ideas. But it's more a matter of time use. I was lucky to get a break from reddit when the old sub was banned. But hey I love talking about gender.

[–]BiologyIsReal[M] 9 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 4 fun -  (16 children)

No, this is pretty off-topic and going off-topic to focus on masculinity, feminity and essentialism seems to be a habit of yours. So, I suggest you create your own thread to discuss these topics there or I'm going to start deleting your off-topics comments.

[–]worried19 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I'm down for discussing it, whether here or on another thread, but the debate sub has always had comment chains veer off in different directions.

I really don't want to see theory's comments get deleted.

[–]BiologyIsReal[M] 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I don't want to ban discussions or even users going off-topic. But he is quite monothematic and tries to insert the same topic in most conversations he participates in whether it's relevant or not. That is why I suggested he makes his own threads.

[–]worried19 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

That's fair. Theory can be a bit single minded. But I definitely like talking to him. Hell, if we didn't have theory and a few other intrepid people from the other side, we'd never have any debate.

[–]adungitit 5 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 6 fun -  (5 children)

a few other intrepid people from the other side

What "other side"? He's a typical male misogynist, except he isn't even QT or trans. What exactly does he contribute other than the most typical bioessentialist male wanking that he can't even debate because he has to derail at every opportunity?

we'd never have any debate.

Constantly trying to derail, asking to be handheld through the most basic feminist/GC concept which he then promptly ignores and gets amnesia only to repeat the same tactics again and never addressing anything that is said beyond wanking out useless non-replies isn't debate. He employs typical QT derailing tactics, except he's not even QT, so why exactly should this be tolerated? He can't tell you anything about QT or feminism or the trans worldview or gender because his entire worldview revolves around ladybrains making women attracted to alpha chads because men's dicks say so. We know men think this, which is why any feminist space that has any hopes of moving past baby's-first-women's-rights has to ban men and their endless gaslighting and derailing, otherwise you have everything halt and start revolving around trying to debate the man who's just rubbing his bros' dicks faster.

[–]worried19 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The non-GC, non-radical feminist side.

It's clear you don't like him at all, and that's fine. Just block him if he bothers you.

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (3 children)

You mean the side you can get literally from every single man on the street? Gee, how educational. Truly a much needed perspective in any feminist space. I guess the conservative women really like hearing the same old bs and acting like it's something innovative the millionth time a man copy+pastes it.

I'm tired of having to block male trolls in feminist spaces just because conservative women want to suck up to their backwards men. This is something that mods should be taking care of, instead of letting the usual MRAs derail any discussion to holding their hand and trying to explain why women aren't subhuman, while they keep wanking their dicks.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (6 children)

harsh. I don't think that would happen on the old sub.

I thought masculinity, femininity and essentialism were central topics to Blanchardian Autogynphilia.

[–]BiologyIsReal[M] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I don't know what Blanchard think of feminity and masculinity, but you don't seem to want to discuss wheter AGPs are feminine or masculine. You seem to want to discuss feminity and masculinity in general. And this is the third thread you've doing that in the past days. Other users think you're getting off-topic here, too.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (3 children)

OK then I'll leave it there.

[–]worried19 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If you want to create a new thread to discuss this stuff, I'll follow you there.

[–]adungitit 3 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 7 fun -  (1 child)

How many times has he been told to create his own threads? How many threads did he actually make? And if he's learned that making threads is what you should do if you want to debate, why is he still derailing everything to his bioessentialist wanking and getting amnesia afterwards?

[–]worried19 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I haven't seen him be told that before today.

Either way, I'm happy to converse with him on another thread if it's bothering people here.

[–]adungitit 3 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

And this is the third thread you've doing that in the past days.

More like the only thing he's ever written in years on this sub. This isn't some new commenting trend on his part, he's been trying to derail feminist debates to his fetish for "bioessentialism" for probably as long as he's had an account. There is nothing that a typical misogynistic bioessentialist man who isn't even trans/QT can contribute to a feminist space, which is why his entire modus operandi revolves around constant derailing, idiot-acts and useless "As a male, I think..." wanking.