AGP are seeking sexual validation first, not necessarily social validation as we all assumed.

submitted by aHobbitsTale from self.LGB_Discussions

Thinking linguistically, I've come to a topic I'd like to discuss in a new fashion. A dangerous way to broach such a thing, and this will be an entirely linguistic argument, predicated on the nuanced meaning of words, and a bit of disputed history. Take heed.

The domain of the social and sexual are intertwined. It is the sexual phenomena of our species that drives the social ones, is that not a fair thing to say?

We've been discussing autogynephiles for much time now, and my general impression is that we've been concerning ourselves with their "social" acceptance, but, clearly it's a sexual phenomena that wants social credibility. Men who desire women as their erotic ideal, but for reasons unbeknownst to us, find that woman in themselves, in various degree. Sometimes exclusively.

Can these two thing be extricated from each other, or in our prudishness, we are lying to ourselves? Is this how the gay rights movement transpired? The sexual desire came first, and the acceptance came second? Certainly, we all very well know that men and women possessed of desire for their own sex transpired first, and the society recognized it second. Yet, we're faced here with a curious rearrangement of the sequence of events... it wants social acceptance first, and... sexual acceptance... when? That topic hiding in plain sight. Can they make it? Can they make sexual acceptance in their solipsism? They want to avoid that topic, in its entirety.

Is anyone else just now rearranging these predicates in their head? Did you see it the way I did? that we cannot have MTF trans as mainstream, socially, before we take them on, sexually? What if that's all backwards?

They're so horribly terrified that people will find them out for their true sexual desires, but history tells us, this is not the way. You have to come sexually first, before we can take you on socially. And in this, I do believe, we can have a good resolution.

all 2 comments
sorted by:
insightful (suggested)
topnewfun

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

I think every heterosexual transsexual knows that people generally understand when they see them, that they generally want to be treated "as a woman" (what they really mean is in a "feminine" manner, but their ideas of femininity are warped and they are really just experiencing a masculine form of masochism) sexually. I do object to the idea that all heterosexual transsexuals first begin by somehow developing that fetish, then the desire to transition follows. For some, it is this way, but for many, it is not.

I don't understand what you mean when you use the term "sexual acceptance."

There is a lot more to heterosexual transsexualism than fetishism. When we dismiss them all as "AGPs", that only hurts our cause and glosses over the deeper reasons heterosexuals transition, which are very different from the reasons homosexuals transition. AGP is a real phenomenon, but it's more of a way to describe a specific way in which the psychology and sexuality of biologically masculine people becomes warped during or before the transition process of heterosexual males. It isn't a stand-alone, weird, one-off fetish. I would say that all heterosexual transsexuals most likely have AGP, but a good portion of them likely acquire it after transition.

It is the sexual phenomena of our species that drives the social ones, is that not a fair thing to say?

That definitely is not a fair thing to say. We're human beings. We have the most highly developed frontal lobe out of any other animal. We have animal instincts that must be restrained. There's a reason children need to be taught to eat with a fork and knife and not off the floor with their hands.

Is this how the gay rights movement transpired? The sexual desire came first, and the acceptance came second? ... we've been concerning ourselves with their [AGPs] "social" acceptance, but, clearly it's a sexual phenomena that wants social credibility. ... we cannot have MTF trans as mainstream, socially, before we take them on, sexually ... You have to come sexually first, before we can take you on socially.

I strongly object to your comparison between a warp in natural sexuality to a natural variation in sexual orientations (AGP vs homosexuality). And that, is honestly nothing close to how gay rights came to exist. Gay people didn't say "accept us sexually!! I'm going to flaunt my sexuality!! Accept it and then you can accept us socially :)" No. You don't need to know someone's sexual habits to know they're a homosexual. Usually you can tell just by looking and hearing their voice. And that natural "gender" deviation (femininity in homosexual males and masculinity in homosexual females) in homosexuals is what gives heterosexuals the negative visceral reaction. Actual sexual habits are secondary. If you look back in history, you will see that there were many societies (let's look at Ancient Greece for a moment) where males engaged regularly in same-sex sexual acts. However, actual homosexual males were picked out by their femininity and places into the lowest class in society. The hate wasn't due to their enjoyment of homosexual acts, it was due to the actual, core difference between them and heterosexual or "bihet" males. It's a difference that is easy to spot. Gays aren't "found out" because they're caught having sex or talking openly about crushes. In general, everyone who sees a gay person and hears his voice can tell. Lesbians do a little better of an impression of straight women, but there are still noticeable differences.

Also, I'm wondering why you decided to categorize all MTF trans as "AGPs". You somehow forgot homosexual transsexuals, you know, the reason why transsexuality exists in the first place. As a conversion tactic.

Your tone is odd, as if you believe "the AGPs" are somehow conspiring against... I guess straight/bihet women?

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

I think every heterosexual transsexual knows that people generally understand when they see them, that they generally want to be treated "as a woman" (what they really mean is in a "feminine" manner, but their ideas of femininity are warped and they are really just experiencing a masculine form of masochism) sexually.

Right out of the gate, we diverge. I don't think most people understand what they're being faced with. I could be wrong on this topic... But I would be so horribly surprised if the mainstream could take one casual glance, today, at an autogynephilic transexual and say: "ah, they just want to be what they desire." Terribly shocked, really, if this is what is going on. Perhaps the intuitive sense is there and everyone is terrified to say it? Or lacks the framework to articulate it? I would argue the latter, if anything. But I presuppose immense ignorance. Why should they care? Average people are getting on very well just doing average stuff and remaining willfully and blissfully ignorant about a great many things.

their ideas of femininity are warped and they are really just experiencing a masculine form of masochism) sexually.

Thank you for stating this as such... new perspective... I take this to mean that some men are masochists, and are looking for, or are compelled to a theme that appeals to them. Certainly, there are many varieties of masochism. The overall idea remains intact--I'll define it as disparities in interpersonal power, not pain, power, and humilitation as von Krafft-Ebing put it--but the activities that achieve this are numerous and sundry. There are disparities of interpersonal power between men and women, in the West, irrespective of transexualism.

And I would be even more shocked if people understood the phenomena as one pertaining to what you're proposing. It's almost incomprehensible for the average person, no? So, you and I have some degree of camaraderie here, because we don't accept the base-case. Though we may be at odds on some things. That's fine. We're working through them. Actually working on things... what a concept.

I don't understand what you mean when you use the term "sexual acceptance."

All things being equal, in a different post. That was my point. Phenotypically normal, adult, and consenting. Everything else remains the same.

There is a lot more to heterosexual transsexualism than fetishism. When we dismiss them all as "AGPs", that only hurts our cause and glosses over the deeper reasons heterosexuals transition, which are very different from the reasons homosexuals transition. AGP is a real phenomenon, but it's more of a way to describe a specific way in which the psychology and sexuality of biologically masculine people becomes warped during or before the transition process of heterosexual males. It isn't a stand-alone, weird, one-off fetish. I would say that all heterosexual transsexuals most likely have AGP, but a good portion of them likely acquire it after transition.

I'm struggling with this one.

There is a lot more to heterosexual transsexualism than fetishism.

Fetishism as evidenced and defined by a desire for female-typical clothing? (It's a rather historical look at it. The fetish-object?) No, they want the whole package. They want to be female. Physiologically, socially, anatomically, etc, and to each has different degrees of respective desire that also competes with plain heterosexual desire.

I sense a wish that you want to be able to fix them. I have nothing to offer you or any one else there. "Become." "Before." "Transition process." "Acquire it." They're stuck with it, as best as I can tell. It does not appear to be, to be volitional, and even if it was, self-directed. Men's desire for women, as an erotic locus, is quite grounded. It's just the subjectivity gets screwed up from time to time. Them... vs? me?

You don't need to know someone's sexual habits to know they're a homosexual.

Rather, it was their social habits that made it evident. But it wasn't their social habits that made it objectionable. Having a nice dinner out with another man makes it quite obvious. Even if I don't dress flamboyantly or have "the voice." Supposing for a minute that homosexuality didn't exist, I could have wonderful, intimate outings with men without anyone having a care, given that we both went back to our respective women-folk at the end of the day. This is a horrible blow to men as a class; terrified they will be judged as homosexual.

Also, I'm wondering why you decided to categorize all MTF trans as "AGPs". You somehow forgot homosexual transsexuals, you know, the reason why transsexuality exists in the first place. As a conversion tactic.

A necessary generalization for the sake of argument and prose. You clearly understand; I should be able to throw an abstract, yet grounded, concept or two at you. It's an interesting question though, if you accept that autogynephilia is an a-social, physiological phenomena. Which came first? Homosexuality or AGP? Probably the former, given our evolutionary biology, but it depends where you place the starting point to make historical meaning of it.

Ancient Greece

I consider this one to be hotly contested, and I think the particulars are lost to time. I don't think we can derive modern conclusions from it. I would rather like to, say, investigate the sexual behavior of Afghanistan, for instance, with regards to older and younger men, permit the euphemism. It seems rather obvious to me about Greece, that the social hierarchy and the sexual hierarchy were relatively tied together. A male citizen, the top class, could loose said class by being a receptive anal partner. I would rather avoid ascribing facts of sexual desire. In modernity, the laws in Saudi Arabia pertaining to the death penalty with regards to homosexual behavior are defined insofar as who was the top, who was the bottom, and what religion they respectively profess, for instance. The death penalty there, is also metered out differently if the crime was against the state, or against god. Firing squad, and beheading, respectively. They have unique meaning-making.

actual homosexual males were picked out by their femininity

I don't think we can't discern "actual homosexuals" across such time and place. Gay men today come in such variety. Some are effeminate, some are not. Ætiological differences, I think.

femininity in homosexual males and masculinity in homosexual females

I think the aetiological causes in homosexual women are fewer than that of men. Or, in other words, masculine women are more likely to be homosexual, but masculine men are more likely to be straight.

There's a reason children need to be taught to eat with a fork and knife and not off the floor with their hands.

Some cultures eat with their hands.

Your tone is odd, as if you believe "the AGPs" are somehow conspiring against... I guess straight/bihet women?

Given my retort, I think I could skip this one, but for completeness... No I think we just see AGP fundamentally differently, though we have the same word for something we've recognized as a phenomena. We both see it, but we understand it differently. It's not a grand conspiracy. It's a gestalt of individual desire. It's quite solipsistic.