DiscussionThe Truth about Autogynephilia. Women’s attire was not the true object of such a man’s affections, he concluded: rather, the clothes were the means whereby a man gave life to that object, namely himself in female form. “Autogynephilia” means love of oneself as a woman.

submitted by Chipit from quillette.com

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

they want full blown females, but with dicks.

That's gyneandromorphophilia, attraction to "chicks-with-dicks," generally speaking, not autogynephilia.

Interesting thing I saw on /r/MTF: Somebody, who wasn't yet versed in the things you cannot say gave a textbook anecdote of their own autogynephilia and of course were questioning their own "transness." Some people from elsewhere swooped in and informed the poster that it was AGP and also, "just a fetish."

Here's the kicker. The poster, for whom AGP is more complex than a peculiar way or aid to obtain sexual gratification (most people's framing of "just a fetish,") then paid no heed to the people telling him that it was just that: a mere fetish. That complexity is a sexual axis, a romantic axis, and a companionate one to boot.

In the linked article, Philip was six years old when he tossed a coin into a fountain, wishing to be a girl. That's well before puberty. (Interesting things can happen when a child is integrating and trying to solve deep-seated desires, and take those thought processes through to adulthood--oft unexamined--when they have more cognitive capacity.)

Also consequent to that: Assuming I'm wrong, if it's just a fetish, then I think it is safe to say that at six years old, Philip was a fetishist.

I really don't think there is a thing as "just a fetish." I think there are different degrees of paraphilia you might find in a person. To a lesser extent of paraphilia, people can successfully "other" that part of their sexuality and pack it away into some conceptualization of the popular formation of "fetish" and convince themselves they're "normal." I also see complex identity formation processes insofar as how people decide whether or not or even how to integrate atypical sexual interests into their sexual identity. (Or even what constitutes atypical sexual interests, homosexuality included in that division.)

This isn't to eliminate a meaningful distinction between typical and atypical, just to highlight that the underlying nature of the atypicality is the same underlying nature of the typicality. It's not of a different character of desire, just different locus. Women "out there" vs the woman "inside." Same desire.

Either way, AGP isn't going back in the box. But you can see how the approach detailed above isn't really helping.

[–]Neo_Shadow_LurkerPronouns: I/Don't/Care 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That's gyneandromorphophilia, attraction to "chicks-with-dicks," generally speaking, not autogynephilia.

Yup, I got confused with the terms there.

But then again, most GAMPs nowdays transition, so to associate the two is not as far-fetched as it once was.

Interesting thing I saw on /r/MTF: Somebody, who wasn't yet versed in the things you cannot say gave a textbook anecdote of their own autogynephilia and of course were questioning their own "transness." Some people from elsewhere swooped in and informed the poster that it was AGP and also, "just a fetish."

This literally happens everyday on r/traaaannsss

In the linked article, Philip was six years old when he tossed a coin into a fountain, wishing to be a girl. That's well before puberty. (Interesting things can happen when a child is integrating and trying to solve deep-seated desires, and take those thought processes through to adulthood--oft unexamined--when they have more cognitive capacity.)

Also consequent to that: Assuming I'm wrong, if it's just a fetish, then I think it is safe to say that at six years old, Philip was a fetishist.

A lot of kids express such desires only to grow out of it.

This could be just a coincidence or be rooted on other issues, like feeling out of place with their peers, for example.

Also, he's an unreliable narrator: this is not to say that he's completely lying, but that he could be embellishing some aspects of his infancy to sound more legit. Who knows?

I also see complex identity formation processes insofar as how people decide whether or not or even how to integrate atypical sexual interests into their sexual identity. (Or even what constitutes atypical sexual interests, homosexuality included in that division.)

The process of fetish acquisition is already well documented: the more a person engages with a certain fetish, the more likely they are of acquiring other fetishes in the process.

It's not uncommon for fetishists to try to paint their fetish in a romanticized way, which is nothing more than a way for them to gain sympathy from others.

Zoos and Pedos also love to do this shit: "You see, it's not about getting my rocks off, but love and passion". Aham...

If this was the case, then why is pedophilia linked with child abuse and zoophilia with zoosadism? How interesting...

Women "out there" vs the woman "inside." Same desire.

A "women' which is, for some reason, in some way or another, always linked with sex.

Again, how interesting...

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

Sorry, I have a raging headache, but also wanted to reply promptly, so I'll necessarily keep it terse.

I don't think classical or operant conditioning is a sufficient explanation to make somebody a transsexual: loose their job, family, undergo painful, expensive medical procedures; or even in extreme cases self-amputate their testicles, scrotum, and penis.

If conditioning explanations for paraphilia work, then we should be able to use conditioning for classical sexual orientation conversion therapy. People have tried it, often with sincere effort; does not work.