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 -  (8 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?

[–]BiologyIsReal[M] 9 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 4 fun -  (7 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.

[–]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.