Men's IssuesVICE - "The Straight Men Who Have Sex with Trans Women" (i.e, gay men who lie to themselves)

submitted by BEB from vice.com

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]BEB[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (60 children)

I had no idea this had a name or even that it was a thing. So are these men considered heterosexual?

[–]reluctant_commenter 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

AGP is a paraphilia. GAMP is a paraphilia... most likely.... that is part of what GatitoMalo and I have been debating on and off about for a few months, for fun, lol.

BTW-- in case you want to actually hear a GAMP man's perspective, Joey, Blaire White's fiance, is GAMP (as described by Blaire)-- they talk about it in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiFPIfN99N0

So are these men considered heterosexual?

Disclaimer: This is my best understanding of the topic. But there's not tons of consensus and some people get pissed off about definitions, lol.

  • Researchers define normophilic sexual attraction as, generally, a pattern of sexual arousal that is related to interest in typical human sex characteristics. Examples: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual (and asexual = no normophilic sexual arousal)

  • Researchers define paraphilic sexual attraction as, generally, a pattern of sexual arousal that is NOT related to interest in typical human sex characteristics. Examples: being aroused at the idea of imagining oneself as a woman (autogynephilia, or AGP-- these are the so-called "transbians" on r/actuallesbians); humiliation kink; being a furry; and GAMP is, I think, generally considered a paraphilia.

  • Many researchers would say that a person can have a normophilic sexual orientation and paraphilias; or just one and the other; or neither (fully asexual, I guess you'd call it). Example: heterosexual and has a sadism paraphilia.

So to answer your question-- according to these researchers' model, some of these "chasers" (men with GAMP) are, actually heterosexual + have a paraphilia. So a man who is attracted to women like a normal straight guy, and also is a trans chaser, would be called "heterosexual and GAMP".

However, some people say: "if he keeps fucking men then he must be bisexual/gay, no other options." I've had a couple people get pissed off at me though and claim I'm pushing TRA talking points by saying that those men are not just bisexual. But the thing is... bisexuality/homosexuality involves same sex attraction. In reality, some "trans chasers" may just be bisexual men in the closet, or bisexual men who think trans surgeries are really hot-- but others seem to have a paraphilia, where they're aroused by an idea and are not actually attracted to men.

That help at all? It's pretty unusual stuff, haha.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

that is part of what GatitoMalo and I have been debating on and off about for a few months, for fun, lol.

Weird fun is still fun!

[–]reluctant_commenter 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Indeed :)

[–]strictly 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

But the thing is... bisexuality/homosexuality involves same sex attraction.

I both agree and disagree depending on what you refer to here. There are some bisexual people who say they are sexually attracted to people and don’t really care one way or the other about the specific sex characteristics. I don’t think a person necessarily has to be sexually attracted to the specific sex traits of the person they are sexually attracted to for it to count as same-sex/opposite-sex attraction. Same-sex/opposite-sex attraction just refers to the sexual capacity of being attracted to someone of the same sex/opposite sex. So a man who finds certain personalities sexy and thus happily has sex with both men and women with these personalities is bisexual in my book as he experience attraction to both male and female people, not asexual for being indifferent to the male/female specific traits.

others seem to have a paraphilia, where they're aroused by an idea and are not actually attracted to men

You make it sound like paraphilic people are just aroused by ideas and can’t experience real life attractions in accordance to their paraphilia. I am inclined to think that Joey is attracted to the real life Blaire White, not merely aroused by the abstract idea of Blaire White. Someone who is aroused by ideas and not real life entities wouldn’t want to make their fantasies a reality, and certainly not repeatedly. I think it’s relatively common for paraphilic people to want to live out their attractions irl just like the rest of us. There are of course people who are only attracted to the idea of a thing and not the reality of it, there are for example women who are attracted to the idea of being with another woman but aren’t into it in a real life scenario, but I don’t see it as characteristic of a paraphilia as it can happen with normophilic fantasies too.

[–]reluctant_commenter 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Same-sex/opposite-sex attraction just refers to the sexual capacity of being attracted to someone of the same sex/opposite sex.

I agree. However, with paraphilias, one can see cases where a person is capable of enjoying sex with someone they're not attracted to. With autogynephilia, for example, the man is attracted to an idea in his head, and in order to further reinforce the strength of that idea to himself, he might engage in sex with a man who he is not attracted to.

You make it sound like paraphilic people are just aroused by ideas

For some paraphilias, yes, this is the literal definition (and I wouldn't say they're "just" ideas). Such as autogynephilia. For other paraphilias, it might be a specific object or body part, or whatever. That doesn't make their arousal/attraction any less real, just because it's in response to an idea.

I am inclined to think that Joey is attracted to the real life Blaire White, not merely aroused by the abstract idea of Blaire White.

Yes-- I am pretty sure that Joey is attracted to real life gynandromorphs, as well as being aroused by gynandromorphs in his head.

Someone who is aroused by ideas and not real life entities wouldn’t want to make their fantasies a reality, and certainly not repeatedly.

This doesn't necessarily follow. Why would they not? Some might be happy to keep their fantasies in their head, certainly, and others might try to act them out in reality.

Someone who is aroused by ideas and not real life entities wouldn’t want to make their fantasies a reality, and certainly not repeatedly. I think it’s relatively common for paraphilic people to want to live out their attractions irl just like the rest of us.

Yes, paraphilic people often do want to live out their attractions just like the rest of us-- and unlike non-paraphiles, some paraphiles' attraction is directed at ideas. The arousal at an idea, and attraction to a person who manifests that idea IRL, isn't any less legitimate or real just because they're attracted to ideas. A person could have a genuine and fulfilling sex life with and emotional connection with a person who they are not attracted to outside the context of that idea (or object, if they're a boot fetishist, or whatever the case). It seems like you are using the word "idea" in a different way than I am.

I don't intend to have a prolonged debate, unless it seems likely that either of us have a substantial chance of changing our minds. However, it seems relevant to mention as well, u/GatitoMalo linked this tweet about GAMP that might clear up some confusion about how the word "idea" is being used in this context: https://twitter.com/BlanchardPhD/status/1373694372466810880

[–]strictly 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (16 children)

With autogynephilia, for example, the man is attracted to an idea in his head

Calling it an idea in this context gives the impression the person is just attracted to the fantasy of it and not the real life manifestation. So with autogynephilia I think it’s more accurate to say they are attracted to being feminine or having female-like traits (as those of them who transition might be sexually into the effects they get from estrogen and like what they see in the mirror, not just the head fantasy of it). Pseudobisexuality is in my opinion a form of bisexuality as the definition of an orientation doesn’t care how an attraction to people of a sex came to be, it’s just stating the fact the attraction exists. It’s not useful in my opinion to classify a man who is attracted to other men because of autogynephilia as being straight if he is actively seeking out male sexual partners and is sexually enjoying it (some people who suspect the etiology of their attraction to males as being “pseudo” say their attraction to men still feel the same as their attraction to women and disagree with Blanchard’s hypothesis that those with a pseudo etiology would only fantasize about faceless men). I think the terminology for etiologies should be kept distinct from the terminology of orientations as they have different purposes, refer to a different things and might not have a one to one relationship to orientations.

However, with paraphilias, one can see cases where a person is capable of enjoying sex with someone they're not attracted to.

In my book enjoying sex with someone is being attracted to that someone so we refer to different phenomenas with the word “attraction” here if enjoying sex with someone doesn’t count as attraction to you.

Yes-- I am pretty sure that Joey is attracted to real life gynandromorphs, as well as being aroused by gynandromorphs in his head.

Yeah, and most of us are probably attracted to those we are attracted to in our heads as well as real life so I don’t see it as distinguishing trait of a paraphilia.

This doesn't necessarily follow.

People who don’t want to make their fantasies a reality can be normophilic or paraphilic so I don’t see it as paraphilic trait in itself.

some paraphiles' attraction is directed at ideas.

I think it’s confusing to label something as being an attraction directed at an idea if the manifestation of the attraction exists in real life. I also think it’s a bit of an arbitrary distinction because a person could the same way say the attractions of lesbians is directed at the idea of the female sex and that lesbians aren’t attracted to the people outside the context of this female sex idea. You might see that as an inaccurate representation of lesbians, but then some paraphilic people might say it’s an inaccurate representation of their paraphilic attractions too. I don’t think there has been a study proving that this is a true distinction between all paraphilic people and all normophilic people and I am skeptic about the construct validity of the concept itself as it seems very subjective what would count as an attraction directed at an idea.

u/GatitoMalo linked this tweet about GAMP that might clear up some confusion about how the word "idea" is being used in this context: https://twitter.com/BlanchardPhD/status/1373694372466810880

In that context I would be counted as having attractions directed at ideas too even though I’m not paraphilic. Because even if true sex change was invented I still wouldn’t be into artificial females with male pasts as I care about the origin too, not just the sex traits themselves.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Pseudobisexuality is in my opinion a form of bisexuality as the definition of an orientation doesn’t care how an attraction to people of a sex came to be, it’s just stating the fact the attraction exists.

I think you're in the same camp as /u/Vulvamort, and we've been having that topic out in another bit here.

definition of an orientation doesn’t care how an attraction to people of a sex came to be

Why? That's not a particularly nice open-ended question for me to ask, but... why? What's your definition of sexual orientation? We have examples, like het, homo, bi, but those are not definitions. They are examples; not accusing you of circularly using them as the definition, but you could see how that could happen, right?

[–]strictly 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Why?

Because that’s not the information we are after with sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is the answer to question ofwhich sexes the person is sexually attracted to, not the cause of these attractions. Attractions to people of a sex, includes all attraction to people of a sex, not just the normaphilic ones, if we only wonder about normophilic ones we would specify that. And if we wonder about the etiology we would ask about etiology as etiology and orientation are not the same thing.

I will put an example of what I mean with orientation and etiology not being the same thing. Let’s say I had a machine which immediately can determine the etiology of everyone’s sexuality, and let’s say for simplicity this machine discerns most lesbians were exposed to more prenatal androgens. Then there is one lesbian which the machine says had a male averse experience at the early age of three which she doesn't remember but which influenced her expected sexual trajectory to go from bisexual to lesbian. I would still see her as a lesbian if she exclusively attracted to female people even though her “natural” etiology here is “bisexual”. Let’s say there is also a bisexual women who really loves the male body and the machine says at the early age of three she was exposed to pornographic male images which influenced her early brain to form a male attraction which she otherwise wouldn’t have developed. I would still count her as bisexual as the etiology doesn't change the fact she is into males.

What's your definition of sexual orientation?

You quoted my definition, the existence of an attraction to people of a sex. So if you are attracted to people and some or all of them are male, that’s male attraction as you show the capacity to be attracted to people who are male. If you attracted to people and some or all of them are female, that’s female attraction as you show the capacity to be attracted to people who are female. A person with capacity of being attracted to both male and female people is bisexual in my book.

If you seek out sex with someone and get sexual enjoyment from having sex with that someone that fully meets my criteria of sexual attraction. The definition of attraction is “to pull to or draw toward oneself or itself” so sexual attraction would be a sexual pull, and if you seek someone out for sexual enjoyment they evidently some kind of sexual pull on you as otherwise you wouldn’t be seeking out sex with them. It’s fully possible it's not their sex traits which draws you in though, maybe it’s their personality or their “kinks”, but this person is still male or female so evidently you have the capacity of enjoying sex with someone of that sex.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

I would love to have your hypothetical machine, that would be a lot of fun to do science with. I'm going first, by the way. You also know something about aetiology. This makes me happy.

You're saying that the only thing that matters for labeling sexual orientation is the "who:" men, women, or both as erotic targets. This works wonders if everyone all shared the same, universal "how," I think we can agree on that. Of course, the overwhelming majority of people do have that same "how," it's sex, and this makes it a useful model, one that works a great deal of the time, where the only variability, the only details, needed to be understood is hetero, homo, or bisexual. When faced with atypical sexuality, however, I feel it falls down.

Yes, I am trying to incorporate the concept of "how" into sexual orientation. Aetiology is interesting, but I'm more concerned with the particular activities here. (Let me just break with the conversation for a minute and consider a hypothetical scenario between me and another agent.) A completely valid criticism of my doing so is along the lines of: "Stop trying to redefine the definition of sexual orientation to include weird, freaky fetishes." Paraphilias. With the unspoken consequence that a paraphilia belongs in LGBTQ+, and should be regarded, in all contexts, as being the same thing as LGB. I am not trying to make this implicit claim, and I don't want that outcome either. I do regard AGP, and depending on the individual, its consequent pseudobisexuality as being the same quality of thing as LGB sexual orientation, yet holistically much different than your run-of-the-mill LGB person. If, however, someone insists that autogynephilic pseudobisexuality is bisexuality, then they have backdoored paraphilias into LGB and have ended up done the very thing that I am accused of trying to do, because of the reductionist model they are using. "How" matters.

There are other paraphilias that do not revolve around sex, whatsoever. Pants-on sexual gratification, as it were. Sex can be incorporated in a paraphilic act, yes, and it often depends on the participants relative interests in sex, or the paraphilia. Sometimes the paraphilic interest is all they have and the maleness or femaleness of the person isn't often a criteria. Sex can sometimes be the vehicle for a paraphilia, but the interest in sex is not the thing-in-and-of-itself.

In some fashion, we can attempt to "other" paraphilias and consider them different than the normal sexual interests, putting them into distinct groups, but still regarding them of having the same quality. I think there is a reasonable way to go about doing this, but if we insist on just seeing the world in terms of the "who," giving the "who" all the gravitas, then you're going to inadvertently scoop paraphilias up largely into the bisexual and asexual categories, and give them a home in LGBTQ+.

The gay rights movement wasn't/isn't about tying people up and beating them for sexual gratification. I would endeavor to keep it that way, but overly simplistic categorization of sexuality could cause trouble in this regard. If paraphilic interests become more prevalent, then expect to be overrun. Right now, they're still a minority. However, the social landscape is ever-changing, and the people who are out there already may just come calling. Which isn't me trying to deprive them of a social movement, they just need to have their own.

I know this smacks of pinkhairsexual rhetoric, trying to change the definitions, invent new words, but sometimes you have to beat people at their own game.

I see your definition of orientation, but what's your rationale with regards to the outcome of regarding things as sexual orientations?

[–]strictly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

You're saying that the only thing that matters for labeling sexual orientation is the "who:" men, women, or both as erotic targets.

My position is that the sexual targets being male/female is the only thing that matters for labeling sexual orientation as it refers to the sex orientation. It’s the same way the color of a thing is the only thing that matters for labeling the color of it. This thing could have other properties that are far more important than the color but those properties are still not relevant for the color labeling. Therefor other properties of sexuality can indeed be very important but it’s not relevant for the sexual orientation classification. If we lack terminology for other important properties of sexuality then we can make new terms for those without redefining important terms for other things.

they have backdoored paraphilias into LGB

I personally don’t really care if paraphilic homosexuals/bisexuals are in the LGB per se as I don’t think LGB people are immune to having paraphilias or should be kicked out for having one. I am more concerned about the males and the male-attracted people who are backdoored into lesbian spaces. These people are often paraphilic but that’s not reason I am against their presence in lesbians spaces, it’s because they are not lesbians to begin with. Women who are exclusively attracted to females taking testosterone would be paraphilic women I don’t really mind in lesbian spaces as they are still lesbians (as not being attracted to males shows female sex specificity). I don’t think lesbian spaces should be about to lesbian paraphilias though or try to cater it.

yet holistically much different than your run-of-the-mill LGB person

You can specify what type of bisexual this person is or use other terms than sexual orientation to describe their sexuality.

There are other paraphilias that do not revolve around sex, whatsoever. Pants-on sexual gratification, as it were.

Pants-on sexual gratification with the use of another person is sex in my opinion. If the paraphilia doesn’t involve any males or females at all and the person doesn’t have any normophilic attractions to male/female people either then that person is asexual with a paraphilia.

Sometimes the paraphilic interest is all they have and the maleness or femaleness of the person isn't often a criteria.

Some bisexual people find both male and female bodies sexy, others say they don’t really care about the particularities of the bodies and find other criteria sexy so it’s not that unusual even for normophilic bisexual people to not have the maleness or femaleness of the person as a criteria either. For monosexuals though being of a particular sex is always a requirement, that's what makes them monosexual.

I can see your concern about LGB being made to be about parahilias though but I am personally not willing to sacrifice the definition of sexual orientation in order to prevent paraphilic groups wanting the LGB to be about their paraphilia. Because if we redefine homosexuality in such a way it allows the inclusion of opposite-sex attraction (paraphilic or not) then I consider “homosexual” groups useless either way as it no longer refer to homosexuals in the first place. So I would want a solution I can live with.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Because if we redefine homosexuality in such a way it allows the inclusion of opposite-sex attraction

Okay, we're having a major communication breakdown, because I never suggested this. I was trying to shore up homosexual such that it's only specifically the activity of sex with same sex people. I was trying to eliminate people from the definition of homosexual, but especially bisexual, that are engaging with their same sex because of a fetish. Not that they're homosexual and incidentally happen to have one, which I don't care about. Different directions.

If you want to think fetishes should count for LGB membership, well we've got the T, already, why just not keep that? Because the majority of trans women are motivated by autogynephilia, a paraphilia where a male is sexually and romantically interested in himself as a woman. It is in a sense, heterosexuality inverted onto the holder. It's an atypical sexuality. On the basis of this atypical sexuality, these men, and their supporters, consider them LGBT.

This isn't some hypothetical. This is real, today. We can piss and moan about how they're destroying women's everything. How nasty they are online. All true. But if you don't have the philosophical groundwork laid out for why we're kicking them out, not just because they're a right pain in the ass, then suffer the consequences of the next group.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (32 children)

Personally I think calling it a separate sexuality is redundant and unnecessary. A 'chick with a dick' aka a transwoman is still male. And men attracted to these male individuals cannot be heterosexual by definition. I see people who hesitate to call these men gay or straight and I'm over here like. Hm. If only. There were a word for people who are neither gay, straight, nor ace. It's on the tip of my tongue. B-...bi cycle?

Sarcasm aside I think these men are bi with a particular kink for extremely feminized men (transwomen/futas/'traps'/whatever). It really shouldn't be this complicated.

[–]pacmanla 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (31 children)

As a heterosexual male, THANK YOU!!! These men are not heterosexual & need to stop it.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (30 children)

It just confuses me so much. I'm even seeing it in this thread, people still trying to classify these men as straight because they're 'mostly' attracted to women and they don't want to call them gay. Okay? And? If a man is seeking out male individuals to have sex with, regardless of how female they look, how can he be straight? Sure, he might not be gay, and I agree with not calling those men gay, but I thought we were trying to get away from the woke rhetoric that sexuality is based on gender presentation. I also saw the prison example brought up. And that men can somehow still be straight even if they have sex with men in prison out of desperation/horniness.

So, I have a peanut allergy. A life threatening one. If I'm starving and my only option for food is a bag of peanuts I'm not eating those. Because I can't. Because I'll die. I'll look for foods that won't kill me or wait for a more viable option. Now, if my only choice is like, I don't know, a sandwich with American cheese, I might eat that. Even though I fucking hate American cheese. A truly straight man is like me with peanuts. He's not fucking a dude in prison out of desperation or because a man's asshole is 'good enough' in the moment. A bisexual man however, might do that because he prefers not to have sex with men, but he will depending on the situation. Easy. Back on topic, a straight man is not about to willingly seek out feminized men to fuck. People act like they're allergic to the word 'bisexual' and it's starting to piss me off a little bit. A 'GAMP' man is not straight if he's attracted to other males.

[–]reluctant_commenter 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Okay? And? If a man is seeking out male individuals to have sex with, regardless of how female they look, how can he be straight?

To be honest, this is the part I am kind of hung up on right now. I have heard people define GAMP men in 2 ways:

  1. bisexual with a very specific type (assuming that they're also attracted to women)

  2. aroused by an idea, biological men are not a necessary or even fundamental part of that attraction; for example, a GAMP man would be perfectly happy dating a woman who they just pretended had transitioned MtF. They think the concept of transitioning is hot, not that men are hot. (For some, it's about some sort of humiliation element.)

If it's the second one... I mean, that's not about same-sex attraction. In that case, it has nothing to do with same-sex attraction. If it's the first-- then I mean yeah, that does seem like bisexual with a very specific type. Part of the problem may be that for some people, it's #1 and for others, it's #2.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Exactly. That's part of what irks me about how people define GAMP. Because if you expand GAMP you get gynandromorphilia. And if you unpack that, it just means an attraction to the combination of masculine and feminine, or an attraction to the blending of male and female secondary sex characteristics.

If that were true, then there would be straight GAMP men who have a thing for transmen on hormones. But almost every instance of someone discussing a GAMP man, it means a man who has a thing for transwomen. If it were really about these men having a kink for the idea/concept of transitioning people would be discussing GAMP men who like transmen more often. I'm sure those men exist, but when the topic of GAMP is brought up, just like it is in this thread, it is solely about men who are attracted to transitioned men. GAMP men who are chasers and look for 'traps' and transwomen are looking specifically for a male who looks female or somewhat feminine. THAT, is not hetero behavior. It can't be because it negates the definition of heterosexuality.

[–]reluctant_commenter 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

If that were true, then there would be straight GAMP men who have a thing for transmen on hormones. But almost every instance of someone discussing a GAMP man, it means a man who has a thing for transwomen. If it were really about these men having a kink for the idea/concept of transitioning people would be discussing GAMP men who like transmen more often.

I think you might be mixing up terms a little, but I get what you mean in regards to phenomena. "gynandromorphophile" means "someone attracted to gynandromorphs" and gynandromorphs are "shemales" or male people who have female sex characteristics (not just crossdressers-- male people with breasts, for example). So it's not just "a guy who likes really feminine men." And, I think you might mean, a "straight" women who's into transmen-- again, if it must be a female FtM, then I would also call her bisexual. But that phenomenon has a different name than GAMP, so of course people are not talking about that when they say "GAMP". For women it's called autoandrophilia (AAP) instead of AGP; and I haven't heard of a term for the female equivalent of GAMP.

But you see my point. If it is required that the target of attraction is male, then-- well, that's same-sex attraction, and thus I would call that bisexual. However, there is a subset of people who are like, "trans surgeries so hot!!!" and... again, I hesitate to call that same-sex attraction... that's the "kweer" crowd.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

No, I mean straight men who, theoretically, would be into transmen. When I look up a gynandromorph this is the first definition that pops up:

A gynandromorph is an organism that contains both male and female characteristics.

This doesn't specify that only 'shemales' count as gynandromorphs. By this definition transmen on hormones are also gynandromorphs (because they possess both male and female characteristics), and by extension, would also be erotic targets for GAMP straight men.

I'd agree with you entirely if GAMP men also exhibited attraction to transmen. Because then it would be about transition itself being hot, not the erotic target being specifically a male who has transitioned. I have yet to see a GAMP men who was fixated on transition in general being hot and is attracted to both MTFs and FTMs as a result, not fixated on transwomen with dicks. That is why I'm still not convinced that GAMP is a sexuality that somehow transcends same sex and opposite sex attraction. Almost all instances of GAMP men are men who seek sexual intimacy with transwomen who keep their dicks.

[–]reluctant_commenter 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Ah, I think in sex research specifically, when they say GAMP they are only referring to "shemales". But the term in biology may cover a much broader range.

I have yet to see a GAMP men who was fixated on transition in general being hot and is attracted to both MTFs and FTMs as a result, not fixated on transwomen with dicks.

Well, wait a sec, that's not a perfect analogy though. The analogue would be "GAMP" otherwise-straight women who find transmen hot. There actually is some anecdotal evidence for that, believe it or not... but no scientific evidence because no one gives a shit about doing research on women (female anatomy). I've seen a few newspaper articles that talk about it, but here's one in the NYT about transmen at Wellesley:

Another difficult conversation about trans students touches on the disproportionate attention they receive on campus. “The female-identified students somehow place more value on those students,” said Rose Layton, a lesbian who said she views trans students as competitors in the campus dating scene. “They flirt with them, hook up with them. And it’s not just the hetero women, but even people in the queer community. The trans men are always getting this extra bit of acknowledgment. Even though we’re in a women’s college, the fact is men and masculinity get more attention and more value in this social dynamic than women do.”

Jesse Austin noticed the paradox when he returned to campus with a man’s build and full swath of beard stubble after nearly two years on testosterone. “That was the first time in my life I was popular! People were clamoring to date me.” ....

Kaden Mohamed said he felt downright objectified when he returned from summer break last year, after five months of testosterone had lowered his voice, defined his arm muscles and reshaped his torso. It was attention that he had never experienced before he transitioned. But as his body changed, students he didn’t even know would run their hands over his biceps. Once at the school pub, an intoxicated Wellesley woman even grabbed his crotch and that of another trans man.

Would recommend the comments section as well, lol.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Then I guess I'm either stupid or that definition needs reworking. If the definitions of GAMP are solely 'straight' men into transwomen or 'straight' women into transmen then where does that leave room for the possibility of someone being into transition in general where the sex of the trans person is irrelevant?

As I said before, I'd agree with you regarding people who are aroused by the concept of transitioning not necessarily being same sex attracted. But if a straight man into transmen doesn't count as GAMP (despite the literal definition implying that it would count), and that only 'shemales' count as gynandromorphs in the context of sex research, from my understanding that means that the sex of the trans person matters, not just the fact that they transitioned. If it were only about the fact that they transitioned, and tying in to your other point about if GAMP men are turned on by the 'trans' part not the 'male/dick' part, then ftms would also be erotic targets. If I am to believe that where sex research is concerned, ftms don't count as gynandromorphs, and don't count as erotic targets for GAMP men (and by extension mtfs don't count in these areas for GAMP 'straight' women), then it follows that GAMP always involves same sex attraction.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Perhaps this will shed some light?

https://d-miller.github.io/assets/HsuEtAl2015.pdf

Hsu KJ, Rosenthal AM, Miller DI, Bailey JM. Who are gynandromorphophilic men? Characterizing men with sexual interest in transgender women. Psychol Med. 2016 Mar;46(4):819-27. doi: 10.1017/S0033291715002317. Epub 2015 Oct 26. PMID: 26498424.

[–]pacmanla 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

THANK YOU!!! This, 1000%. I'm a heterosexual male, & it infuriates me when you have people trying to justify men sleeping with other males (regardless of their "feminine" look) as being somewhat "straight" heterosexual. They're not & these justifications are the reason we have trans individuals demanding that sex be abolished for "gender" & this whole "as long as I properly present myself as a sex, I'm that sex" nonsense. No, Transwomen (males) are natal males, & men seeking them out for physical intimacy are not heterosexual men. They're just not.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No, thank YOU lol. I'm not a straight guy but I know quite a few of them and none of them are about to fuck a transwoman. They just aren't. The men who seek out transwomen are explicitly LOOKING for dick. They are DISAPPOINTED if a transwoman has had bottom surgery because they want to see boobs and a dick. If they wanted natal females there are plenty, yet they go after dick. And people still try to defend the idea that these men can be 'otherwise straight'. Boggles my mind.

[–]pacmanla 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, these men are not "straight" & need to stop the lies to others & themselves. Yes, the seeking out the presentation of a "woman" or "feminity", but with male genitalia attached, is not a heterosexual act at all. I just want a woman, not the "presentation" of one.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

It just confuses me so much.

I think the problem is that if you start to look at the diversity of human sexuality, and all you're armed with for classification is gay, straight, or bi, then nothing will end up making sense. The het-homo binary is overfit; when you bring in something else, you're doomed.

I also saw the prison example brought up.

Guilty party here. It's a non issue if you maintain a difference between orientation and behavior. Otherwise, you're going to have to accept sexual fluidity in these men: that they're only gay in prison.

You would also have to accept that a closeted, gay man married to a woman in the 1950's who's had a bunch of children with her is a heterosexual, and other scenarios.

people still trying to classify these men as straight

If you're at all referring to me, I think I said that they can be straight. Let me unpack that. If heterosexuality in men is desiring biological women for sex, then this is true of most trans-attracted men. If we consider trans-attracted men to also have a paraphilia, then it would be true to say that most trans-attracted men are heterosexual and gyneandromorphophilic. One does not negate the other, in the fashion that heterosexuality and homosexuality in one individual are contradictions. Labeling sexuality at some point cannot be one exclusive label, because all sorts of interests can be present in one individual.

Exclusive labels of het/homo, this or that, do work for the overwhelming majority of people out there, because they just want sex with phenotypically normal people. But there's more to the whole phenomena than that. That's why the definitions we are accustomed to using result in a mess of nobody agreeing, as was the case in the last thread on this topic of trans-attracted men.

If you don't enjoy these sorts of semantic deconstructions and reconstructions, I get it. It's not everyone's cup of tea. But I'm very reluctant to label trans-attracted men as bisexual. That's a large part of my exercise here. Because to me, bisexual should mean just one thing--and I think we do agree on keeping things precise, thus simple--a desire for normal women, and normal men. Not transsexuals. Superbi--see?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

The het-homo binary is overfit; when you bring in something else, you're doomed.

I agree. That's why bisexuality exists. We are armed with gay, straight, bi, and ace. Those are more than sufficient to describe the bare bones of human sexuality, given that there are only two sexes and you can be attracted to only one, both, or neither. We are not 'doomed' when something else is brought in. Because when describing the bare bones, without trying to include personal taste and kinks within those parameters (because that would be too much), there is nothing else.

you're going to have to accept sexual fluidity in these men: that they're only gay in prison.

I do accept sexual fluidity in these men. Sexuality is only fluid for bisexuals.

If heterosexuality in men is desiring biological women for sex, then this is true of most trans-attracted men. If we consider trans-attracted men to also have a paraphilia, then it would be true to say that most trans-attracted men are heterosexual and gyneandromorphophilic.

Heterosexuality in men, or anyone really, is exclusive attraction to the opposite sex. Trans attracted men can be heterosexual if they are attracted to transmen, because transmen are female. Men who are trans attracted and knowingly seek intercourse with transitioned men on the other hand are not heterosexual, because they are no longer exclusively attracted to females.

One does not negate the other

I'm of the opinion that it does. Because the only way it can't is if transwomen cease to be male. It would be like saying 'oh he's not a pedophile, he just has a paraphilia that makes him attracted to minors who wear blue hats.' That sounds ridiculous. Because it is ridiculous. A sexual paraphilia that involves minors is innately pedophilic. It doesn't matter that they aren't attracted to all children, or that they are only attracted to children in certain situations. Similarly, it doesn't matter if some transitioned men look female, or are very GNC. Men who are attracted to them cannot be straight. But your argument, and others who argue that GAMP men can still be straight, is that 'oh he's not bi, he just has a paraphilia that makes him attracted to extremely feminized men. He's still straight despite seeking sexual intercourse with people who have dicks'. That's absurd to me. A paraphilia that involves sexual intercourse with the same sex negates the definition of heterosexuality. I do not see the hetero in a man looking to fuck a 'woman' with a dick.

Labeling sexuality at some point cannot be one exclusive label, because all sorts of interests can be present in one individual.

Yes it can. And it should. Because those all of those 'sorts of interests' are not sexualities. They are preferences, fetishes, and paraphilias that occur on top of the basic definitions of sexual orientation. Trying to come up with an unnecessary label for every nuance of human sexuality and personal expression is how we got into this million sexualities, million genders bullshit in the first place. A woman who is attracted to 'normal' men and women who wear red shirts and sing the national anthem during sex is bi. Bi with a weird fetish and very specific conditions under which she will fuck another woman, but still bi. Same with GAMP men. It should be pretty cut and dry: Are you a male attracted to females? Then you're straight. What's that? You're attracted to certain males if they look female-ish and you want to interact with their penises sexually? Then you are not straight. Not gay either. Bisexual, with a very specific fetish, but still bi.

But I'm very reluctant to label trans-attracted men as bisexual. That's a large part of my exercise here. Because to me, bisexual should mean just one thing--and I think we do agree on keeping things precise, thus simple--a desire for normal women, and normal men. Not transsexuals. Superbi--see?

Well, to me, bisexuality means attraction to both males and females. We had to 'simplify' this already simple definition (and adopt superbi recently) because TRAs started calling us transphobic for not being attracted to trans people and couldn't accept that without inventing 100+ other 'sexualities'. But the core of bisexuality is still just attraction to both sexes. This definition is still sufficient even though wokies try to overcomplicate it by removing or including trans people and nonbinaries when it suits them. Anything else on top of that is preference and/or paraphilia. I've argued this before when bashing pansexuality. Pan is stupid in my opinion because it implies that trans people are neither male nor female. It also implies that extremely GNC women are not women (or 'lesser' women) and extremely GNC men are not men (or 'lesser' men). We all know that those two things aren't true. Trans people are still either male or female, nonbinaries are still either male or female, and GNC people are not the opposite sex or 'lesser' men and women, so someone being attracted to both women, and transwomen, is bisexual.

The existence of bisexuals like me who exclude trans people from our dating pool doesn't mean the bi's who are willing to date a trans person are a new sexuality. It means they aren't picky, or are chasers with a fetish. They are still bi. That is my point here. Trying to wrestle with the notion that men who fuck feminized men can still be straight is just as unnecessarily complicated and nonsensical as trying to say that men can be lesbians and women can be gay men. GAMP is not a sexuality the same way I don't view demisexual or pansexual as sexualities. That's a preference within the basic definitions of non-asexual sexualities.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Trying to come up with an unnecessary label for every nuance of human sexuality and personal expression is how we got into this million sexualities, million genders bullshit in the first place.

Agreed, however, there are distinct phenomena out there, and in some contexts, not all of them of course, it is useful to classify them. "Ant" is insufficient to the entomologist. If, however, my house was being overrun with a specific sort of ant that needed a specific approach to combat? I would then care about kinds of ants. We don't share the same objective, I don't think.

The existence of bisexuals like me who exclude trans people from our dating pool doesn't mean the bi's who are willing to date a trans person are a new sexuality.

It's not the case of willingness, or seeing the trans person for the gender identity they want to be, or seeing past that, or not caring. It's about being specifically sexually interested in a trans women because they're a trans woman, especially those that retain their penis. Specifically that category. This is not a thing that is true of all bisexual people, as you would label them. Some bisexuals are as care free as you can get: a person is a person is a person, regardless of trans or not. This is instead a highly focused desire towards trans woman, where the mixed sexual morphology of the person matters. The trans person stops being a person is a person is a person. They're a very particular kind of person, instead.

I understand you want to consider it a qualifier on bisexuality (is it one not worth mentioning?) I think it's categorically different. I never meant to imply that men into trans women are perfectly heterosexual. They are not, but I disagree that places them in the bisexual category. I understand you don't want more categories, more words, I understand the frustration with the proliferation, but my goal isn't one to give everything a label so that it can be considered uwu valid.

Those are more than sufficient to describe the bare bones of human sexuality, given that there are only two sexes and you can be attracted to only one, both, or neither.

Okay, so really bare bones. A straight man likes women and a lesbian likes women. The people who hold the same desire are not the same thing, obviously. This is the starting point of my reasoning I made elsewhere in this post.

You could reduce it that far though, even more bare bones than het/homo/bi, and it would all be perfectly precise: People who love vulvas, people who love penises, and people who love both. That, however is clearly insufficient in a general scheme, not just in some weird world I'm off living in.

I do accept sexual fluidity in these men.

I laid a brick once. Doesn't make me a mason. But if you drunkenly fool around with the same sex just once, you're bisexual for life? Or is your version of fluidity in this case that they are not bisexual, but instead are at some points heterosexual and at other points homosexual and thus considered bi/fluid?

Trans attracted men can be heterosexual if they are attracted to transmen, because transmen are female.

Transmen are female. Agreed, but I don't think it's the examination of gametes under a microscope that engenders sexual desire in people. It's the gestalt. You don't have to bite off anything about gender identity to agree that gamete examination isn't a thing.

without trying to include personal taste and kinks within those parameters

I am of the belief that these "preferences" are able to hold much more gravitas than you assume. When the "preference" becomes or is the full desire. Look at that Vice article. This person does not have a mild preference. They have a very deep-seated desire that they've gone very far out of their way to satisfy, when plenty of other, much easier avenues were available to them. That's not a qualifier. That is a thing.

On another topic, autogynephilia motivates people. We've all seen how far that has gotten along, what AGP has caused, to date, and what else it may do in the future. I'd hardly consider that a preference, a crutch, an accoutrement. It is a real thing, with a life all of its own.

Might not like it, but best treat it with the respect it deserves, and not relegate either to a mere "preference."

We are not 'doomed' when something else is brought in.

According to just het/homo/bi/ace,

Classify autogynephilics who have their entire sexuality wrapped up in that paraphilia and nothing is left for direction to others. Classify people only attracted to artistic depictions of anthopomorphic animals. (EDIT: Wouldn't it be nuts to say that a man, who's sole sexual interest in artistic depictions of male-genitalia-endowed anthropormorphic animals makes him a homosexual? Consequent to that, paraphilias must be considered to have the ability to be stand-alone, as well; not modifiers. The same way that homosexuality can stand on its own.) Etc. (EDIT #2, what about zoophilia? If you're only into horses, can you be straight if you only like opposite sex horses? And if you do have humans in your erotic targets, at what proportional trade-off between horses and humans do you make the distinction between heterosexual and zoophile? Or the much-awarded competitive archer, Erika Eiffel, who's got a thing going on for the Eiffel tower? Does the Eiffel tower even have a sex?)

Are those things weird, and out of the way? Of course they are. Are they relevant to the topic at hand? AGP is. The trans-species folks are waiting in the wings, you know. Joe Rogan's podcast had a guest on who detailed how a big tech employee wanted to crap in a litter box in the bathroom, and not use the toilet, because they're trans. Trans-species, that is. If you want to head that off, then we need a way to talk about these things. It does not have to be a perfect model. All models are wrong, and all that, it's just that some are useful.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

We'll agree to disagree then. You want to overcomplicate sexuality by refusing to classify men who are attracted to both women and transwomen as bisexual, and claiming we must now treat fetishes and paraphilias as sexualities on their own. I don't.

No, you are not a mason if you lay a brick once. No, you are not bisexual for life if you drunkenly fool around with the same sex once. But I didn't say that. I didn't even imply it. What I said was that men who KNOWINGLY seek sexual intercourse with both women and feminized men are bisexual.

I also did not say or imply that AGP was a preference. Throughout my comment I use both the words 'preference' and 'paraphilia' because I'm aware they are not the same. They are both qualifiers of sexuality though, not sexualities by themselves.

Your examples of people only being attracted to animals or objects or whatever don't really matter to me. Because those are paraphilias, not sexualities. It's the difference between being gay and having gender dysphoria. One is a sexuality, the other is a mental illness. Gay/straight/bi/ace are all sexualities. Wanting to fuck animals, buildings, children, the mental image of oneself as the opposite sex, etc are disorders, and they usually occur alongside the aforementioned sexualities.

For the record, I don't think wanting to fuck trans people is a paraphilia. I think that falls under personal preferences or kinks. GAMP is somewhere in the kink/paraphilia category because of the fixation aspect you bring up. But GAMP is not it's own sexuality to me. It's a very specific manifestation of bisexuality. Or homosexuality if the man in question is only into transwomen.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

We'll agree to disagree then.

That's fine. I do see the appeal in your model of keeping things simple. Yours serves a goal, mine does too. I'll very briefly touch on a few details that we've been discussing, then try and bring the conversation up out of the details into the rationale that we both have, and detail mine.

What I said was that men who KNOWINGLY seek sexual intercourse with both women and feminized men are bisexual.

We got off topic on the prison thing, we can drop it. But yeah, the persistent intent, not just a "surprise" that it's a highly feminized male, means something, agree on that.

I also did not say or imply that AGP was a preference... They are both qualifiers of sexuality though, not sexualities by themselves.

Agree to disagree. It's a conceptual shift I'm asking you to make, based on empirical observations that 10% of AGP do not desire other people, whatsoever, and are not a-sexual, because they do have a sexuality. I regard this as an ideal type. Back to binaries, het on the left end of the spectrum, AGP on the right, just like Kinsey.

Your examples of people only being attracted to animals or objects or whatever don't really matter to me. Because those are paraphilias, not sexualities.

Yeah, I'm not asking you to start thinking of them necessarily along the lines of that dratted phrase "sexual orientation." What I do want to suggest is that the people who hold them do regard them as such. Transgender activism, if you believe their thing about it being all "gender identity, not sexuality," well whatever... but it has the same attendant emotional aspect to it, to them, as sexual orientation probably does to you. It's part of their sexual identity, and that's one of the reason why they've tried to frame their "non-sexualities" as a civil rights issue ala homosexuality. To them, they're the same thing.

But GAMP is not it's own sexuality to me. It's a very specific manifestation of bisexuality. Or homosexuality if the man in question is only into transwomen.

I mean, what you say here is logically consistent. It, as a model, is not wrong, at all. That's a workable model, and I was working under such a system for a while. The problem is, I've had a lot of time on my hands recently to read all sorts of human sexuality topics, especially the atypical stuff, which I got into because of AGP. Eventually I got to a point where I had so many disparate phenomena in the bucket of "bisexuality," that the label became nonsensical. Het and homo were pretty straightforward, but when I looked into the bi bucket, it was teeming with many disparate things. It had become a catch-all category, in not a dissimilar way that asexuality has also become a catch-all category. (I also suggest you scrutinize the asexual category. This is where people who have no interest in the normal sex acts go, irrespective if they have sexual desires or not.) The same way as additional letters to LGB makes it nonsensical, or incoherent. Thus, a desire to rearrange things. Is there a right answer here? No. no there isn't. Whatever we want to call these phenomena, they're going to just keep going on, doing what they've always been doing without a care in the world to this discussion. If you've got an objective idea to judge one vs the other in terms of correctness, I'm all ears, but to me, the closer the model reflects reality, the better it is, IMHO. That can make things more complicated, yes. If simplicity is your goal, then it elides some nuances that I think are very important, and ones that are important to DropTheT. I mean, do you appreciate the irony in your model that men who partner with trans women are bisexual or gay, but that the trans women need kicked to the curb?

There's always an appeal to the experts: https://twitter.com/JamesCantorPhD/status/1327295836280197121 With regards to GAMP, I guessing he's probably referring to the occasional pornography consumption, and not the sort of thing transpiring in the vice article. However, him and I are more or less on the same page that there are things that look like bisexuality, but are not bisexuality. Breaking the "bisexual" category up, in my mind, is for the purposes of gatekeeping--DropTheT. I'm personally trying, through these sorts of conversations, to understand the sorts of refutations that people such as yourself make, to sharpen my knives, essentially. And provide the knowledge and tools required to gatekeep. Because there's other stuff out there that wants into the alphabet soup... If you wind the clock back 20, 30 years, had the general LGB community known about "T" what we know now, you think people would have just gone along with it? There are actors deliberately trying to obscure reality, hide the facts, elide the differences, and it is partly on this basis, that I've oppositionally arrived at the model I have.

Next time GAMP comes up, it does every few months, there's a good chance I won't participate in the thread. It's not due to a frustration with you. I'm guessing that how I've been working here won't be fruitful. There will be individual posters claiming the GAMP man is a closet case or is heterosexual--they stick their dicks in anything, or is gay, or is bi, or is gamp, all these claims are true of this particular instance. This strikes me as a problem, that we don't agree. Is it ignorance? Is it modeling things wrong? Is it something else?

[–]strictly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This strikes me as a problem, that we don't agree. Is it ignorance? Is it modeling things wrong? Is it something else?

The modeling and the politics are somewhat distinct. I think having a model is useful and should aim to reflect the research, but I don't consider the boundaries of sexual orientation as within the jurisdiction of research to define as the boundaries we have chosen are chosen as we find those boundaries useful. Anyway, you interested in AGP due to being AGP or just generally curious about how sexuality works like? How did you get introduced to the topic?

[–]strictly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

"Ant" is insufficient to the entomologist. If, however, my house was being overrun with a specific sort of ant that needed a specific approach to combat? I would then care about kinds of ants. We don't share the same objective, I don't think.

The need for specificity and non-specificity depends on the situation. Let's say I had a job where I had to handle aggressive dogs so I ask an expert for advice. This person thinks “dog” should only refer to the specific dog breed terriers so instead of giving me a general approach for how to calm dogs down he gives me a technique which is super effective on terriers but infuriates other dog breeds. In that case I might end up in dangerous situation as he made the overly specific assumption that dog only means terriers.

Anyway, it seems you think asexual, bisexual, heterosexual and homosexual should only refer to normaphilic attractions. In that case we would want an umbrella terms for each which includes the paraphilic attractions as the joint normophilic/paraphilic attractions to a sex is usually what we want to know with the terms as just counting the normophilic ones only gives half of the picture with other half missing (i.e man who only hooks up women with colored blue hair but does so every day would count as asexual which isn’t what most of us mean with asexual).

You don't have to bite off anything about gender identity to agree that gamete examination isn't a thing.

Gamete examination isn't necessary for the existence of monosexuality. I am not attracted to males (estrogenized or not) and I have never needed to examine how attractive their gametes look under the microscope to know I am not attracted to them.

If you're only into horses, can you be straight if you only like opposite sex horses?

One could make the specification that orientation only refer to attraction to male/female humans if one is squeamish about being classified as having the same orientation as a zoophile. But yes, I would personally classify exclusive zoophiles who are only attracted opposite sex horses as heterosexual in my head. It’s the same way I think a flower and a car differ a lot but still share a color and be blue. I see nothing impeding zoophiles and normopholic people sharing an attraction to targets of a certain sex even if the species of the targets differ.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The need for specificity and non-specificity depends on the situation.

I think for the goal of this subsaidit, more specificity is required than common, lay parlance. Certainly, I see some perfectly understandable ignorance (and I wasn't born knowing this stuff, either!) on common topics. Some of that could be shored up with better labeling. Some variety of specificity for phenomena is required to understanding them, label or not.

Anyway, it seems you think asexual, bisexual, heterosexual and homosexual should only refer to normaphilic attractions.

Yes, but I'm not yet quite asking for a label for everything. As quoted above, my current approach is an exclusionary one, in part because it prevents a proliferation of words. Het, homo, and bi have always had an implicit activity associated with them, and I want to keep that. I would like to make that explicit--it's sex. It's not grocery shopping, it's sex. Ace is not a lack of interest in sex, it's a lack of any motivation for sexuality; ace is the odd one out. I've kept het/homo/bi for my taxonomy because it's a very prevalent phenomena, and useful, established way to call things. However, in cases of atypicalities: If the normophilic attraction is present, then they can be het/homo/bi, in addition to any paraphilias. Empirically the two exist obviously exist in distinct individuals. However, any presense of a paraphilic interest, whether that's 10% or 70% of that person's overall sexuality detracts from sex. Such a person thus wouldn't be considered perfectly het, homo or bi, but some degree thereof. To provide clarity, in the case of only having a paraphilia, het/homo/bi (and ace) do not apply, because those words have an explicit activity tied to them--sex. That's my taxonomy in a nutshell. It's just a model. It does not change the way anybody is.

I think sex is a reasonable locus to hang this off of, it's an appeal to the way our species reproduces. Certainly, same-sex activity isn't procreative, but it's still copulation. I could also hang it off of procreative sex, perhaps more easily, assuming there are no value judgements about individuals on account of that, which I don't think there should be.

But yes, I would personally classify exclusive zoophiles who are only attracted opposite sex horses as heterosexual in my head.

I'm not claiming you're "wrong," I just find it fascinating how we see this topic so very differently. In some sense, you're looking at the sexes of the actors first, where I'm focused on the wrong species angle as being more important. Is that a fair characterization?

[–]strictly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Some variety of specificity for phenomena is required to understanding them, label or not.

Your desire for specificity here also has the consequence of making other terms less specific as your definition of homosexual/heterosexual would no longer specify monosexuality. In your definition of lesbian we would have no hint at regarding her attraction to men, possibly she not attracted to men, possibly she is attracted to men all the time in a paraphilic way, the word would give us no way of knowing. Women with paraphilic attractions to men are not more relatable to me than the women with normophilic attractions to men. The reason I like homosexual spaces is because it’s nice meeting other people who know what it’s like to be both monosexual and same-sex attracted. I consider the monosexual part of lesbian equally important as the same-sex attracted part. I understand when normophilic bisexual people say they want to be distinguished from paraphilic bisexual people so I’m not against more terminologies if bisexual people would find dividing bisexuality into subgroups useful to them. I don’t consider it my call though as I’m not bisexual. Personally I don’t feel a need to be distinguished from paraphilic lesbians though but I do want lesbians to be distinguished from male-attracted people as these are not lesbians.

ace is the odd one out

I consider ace as being attracted to neither male nor female people as that is what makes the most sense to me in the taxonomy.

In some sense, you're looking at the sexes of the actors first, where I'm focused on the wrong species angle as being more important. Is that a fair characterization?

Yes, I think sexual orientation is about the sexes of the actors but I don’t see the species angle as less important, it’s just not part of jurisdiction of sexual orientation. Had zoophilia been very common we would probably have invented a separate species orientation taxonomy to classify people so people would have both a species orientation and a sex orientation.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

They can be heterosexual, and so far as I've seen, they seem to always start out as such. In the case of the Vice article, I would not label the male protagonist heterosexual since he's certainly gone very far out of his way in his pursuits--where partnering with a normal women would have been much easier. His sexual, romantic interest in the transwoman is certainly much more compelling to him than his interest in women, if he has one.

Often they seem to like both women and transwomen, in different proportions in different individuals. Could be a 10% interest in transwomen, with women making up the last 90%, etc.

They don't like men.

I can provide you with off-site resources: blog articles, academic papers, etc, if you would like to know more.

A few other posters here, myself included, have been having a series of in-depth discussions on the topic. Trying to ascertain just what this phenomena is, do they belong somewhere in LGB, should they have their own rights movement, etc.

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Often they seem to like both women and transwomen, in different proportions in different individuals. Could be a 10% interest in transwomen, with women making up the last 90%, etc. They don't like men.

Do you think that this could be explained as "heterosexual men who confuse gender with sex"? At least in some cases? Because that's the sense I get here. To them, "woman" isn't a biological sex; it's an image. Primarily one created by the female gender-role: a matter of presentation (clothing, hairstyle, makeup, behavior). Artifice. So it's irrelevant whether the person displaying these things is male. Or, rather, they cannot BE male, if they have these trappings; those override their actual sex (including having a dick). In other words, "feminine = woman", and these guys react accordingly.

To be honest, I perceive a less extreme version of this in many straight men; they often treat women who aren't doing the artificial-femininity-thing as non-women (no matter what they look like)-- they almost seem to regard what she's wearing as secondary sex characteristics. And then, at an extreme even beyond the transwomen-attracted, you have the straight men with fetishes for high heels, lingerie, long hair, and other female-gender-role accoutrements, who may just dispense with a person to wear 'em altogether.

Essentially, it seems to me that it's common for straight men to fetishize women; AGP and GAMP are further along the continuum than the usual "if she has short hair, no makeup, and unisex clothes, she might as well be a dude"... but it's still the same continuum.

Does this ring true for anyone else?

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Do you think that this could be explained as "heterosexual men who confuse gender with sex"?

Well certainly if you put men, women, and trans women in a line-up, they would be able to tell the difference between them, yet that does not mean the conceptualization of confusion is necessarily wrong. It very well may be a conflict in their lizard brains that gives them this attraction; a like for women and a dislike for men, given an amalgamation of each sex in one person, it short-circuits and off they go. I think they very well can understand that their object choice is male, intellectually, at least. Nobody has an idea as to the aetiology, but I really don't think every heterosexual man out there is vulnerable to it. It's likely got a biological foundation, but I can't back that statement up with any data.

However, in this case, the amalgamation is required. The trans woman is not regarded as just "another one of the gals." The artificing plays a role, but a naked trans women with no adornments is still an appealing erotic target. The interest does not go away when the clothes come off, as is also true of heterosexual men's interest in women.

To them, "woman" isn't a biological sex; it's an image.

Giving this a heterocentric treatment:

Yes, it very much does seem to be a prevalent, culturally-influenced concept. It's not just a flesh-and-blood woman, it is an idea, an image. This is where Queer Theorist anchor Judith Butler got her fame from, but she decided, incorrectly, that the concept of woman is all socially constructed and divorced from material reality. Whoops. The truth of the matter is that it is both.

I might add that most of the artificing directly plays to and emphasizes the biological facts. I've never heard of someone having a fetish for earrings, for instance.

  • Long hair demonstrates health.

  • Makeup hides blemishes.

  • Heels accentuate gait.

  • Clothing, well, you get the idea.

Ultimately, I think it's concealed ovulation in our species that lays the framework for female-gender-role accoutrements, because humans do not have any overt signals of when "it's time." It is no longer a simple matter, as lesser mammals have it, of a stimulus and a response. It is also likely this that gives rise to our sexuality going off the rails from time to time, and by off-the-rails, I mean anything that's not sex with normal men or women, irrespective of the sexes of the participants.

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The artificing plays a role, but a naked trans women with no adornments is still an appealing erotic target.

But when naked, with no adornments, how can you even tell that this is a trans woman, and not simply... a non-trans man? Are we talking someone who's had "feminizing" medical procedures here? If so, which ones?

I might add that most of the artificing directly plays to and emphasizes the biological facts. I've never heard of someone having a fetish for earrings, for instance.

Neither have I (though let's not forget good ol' Rule 34!)... but what about high-heeled shoes? Common fetish for straight men, despite NOT emphasizing any biological aspect of femaleness. (Feet are unisex!)

  • Long hair demonstrates health.
  • Makeup hides blemishes.
  • Heels accentuate gait.

Sure, except... why only for women? Aren't health, being blemish-free, and gait important in MEN, too? Moreover, all three things (long hair, makeup, heels) have been standard MALE accoutrements during various historical periods.

Ultimately, I think it's concealed ovulation in our species that lays the framework for female-gender-role accoutrements, because humans do not have any overt signals of when "it's time."

Color me skeptical here. In my view, when it comes to behavior, comparisons between humans and all other animal species can only go so far. Not because I'm some science-denier who rejects the fact that we ARE animals, or the product of evolution, or that male and female are fundamentally reproductive categories; rather, it's that our conceptual intelligence makes us an anomaly. And, I stress, NOT necessarily in the sense of our being "better"; this intelligence means that we (unlike other animals) can have ideas... and the nature of ideas is that they are sometimes... bullshit. As in stupid and untrue. Like, yanno, transgenderism! Or gender roles as a whole.

So I think that the basis for these accoutrements is what the female gender-role boils down to: "inferior". Specifically, to males. Thus, whatever a culture associates with lesser/subordinate status (especially if it caters to male preferences) tends to be automatically coded "female". Such as being decorative, a sex object... trivial.

One of the reasons this seems more plausible to me than the hidden-ovulation theory is that, in numerous times and places, the female physical ideal often contradicts it. By this logic, men should be most attracted to women who "appear" fertile, right? Exhibit the visible signs of ovulation? Well, since female fertility is closely tied to having a significant amount of body fat, thinness in women tends to indicate the opposite-- that we are NOT ovulating; indeed, that we CANNOT (at least until we gain some weight). And yet, the most desirable female "type" is often THIN. How do you explain that? Not to mention the prevalence across history of pre-pubescent "child brides". So I think that something other than "ovulating = HAWT" must be going on here.

Coming back to the original question ("str8 ♂ + trans ♀ = WTF???"), I think perhaps this is at least part of the answer. If "woman = inferior", then... "inferior = woman". That is, having the traits associated with inferiority-- being seen as weak, degraded, vulnerable-- MAKE one a "woman"; they are "feminine". And (too) many straight men react accordingly. Hence their sexual response to "weaker" men in prison, children (including boys)... and "trans women". Even if they can plainly see that the latter is male, he's a DEGRADED male, simply by virtue of "identifying as a woman", and thus, for sexual purposes, he is a woman.

Or, as the repulsive "trans woman" Andrea Long Chu so memorably put it: what is a woman besides "dead eyes" and "an expectant asshole"?

So it seems that, for more straight men than I'd like to think... that's about all it takes. :(

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But when naked, with no adornments, how can you even tell that this is a trans woman, and not simply... a non-trans man? Are we talking someone who's had "feminizing" medical procedures here? If so, which ones?

This isn't without risk, but if you want to get a good handle on it, I suggest viewing the pornographic material. There's ample data available on Reddit to get a general understanding.

but what about high-heeled shoes?

You made my point. It's high-heeled shoes, yes. They change gait. Flats are not fetishized AFAIK.

Sure, except... why only for women? Aren't health, being blemish-free, and gait important in MEN, too?

Men are more concerned about looks in women, because of basic reproductive fitness. Women are more concerned about social status and wealth in men on the basis of long-term support of the offspring. It does not mean that women flat-out don't care about looks in men. Reproductive burden is very high in women.

And yet, the most desirable female "type" is often THIN. How do you explain that?

Simple, they're still ovulating, despite being thin.

So I think that the basis for these accoutrements is what the female gender-role boils down to: "inferior". Specifically, to males. Thus, whatever a culture associates with lesser/subordinate status (especially if it caters to male preferences) tends to be automatically coded "female". Such as being decorative, a sex object... trivial.

Class power hierarchies, or interpersonal power. Well, certainly there are sadomasochists out there that eroticize these concepts, but I wouldn't quite go so far to say that heterosexual men are inherently sadistic, in the paraphilic sense of the word--pain, power, humiliation. There's a pretty large gap between the paraphilic and the euphilic, I'd say it's qualitative, not quantitative, but I could be wrong.

In the case of Chu, "The truth is I have never been able to differentiate liking women from wanting to be like them," that's classic AGP. Some researchers have suggested that people with one paraphilia often have another, so you could very well find masochism in Chu.

AGP latches onto stereotypes. AGP does not enculture itself with feminisms before deciding what ought to be erotic, and it starts at an early age, long before a person has the life experience or faculty to have a nuanced view of men and women.

I think we're on the same page insofar as we can look at atypical sexuality as a useful tool to inform our understanding of the majority phenomena, but we do have to be careful to prove out the hypotheses.

Hence their sexual response to "weaker" men in prison

Which does not surprise me, but it's a constrained situation, because there are no women available. I'm assuming that they are employing fantasy to obtain arousal and gratification, and the closer a flesh and blood person is to the heterosexual ideal (in this case, a woman) then the easier it is. There's also the issue of sexual economics and coercive behavior.