Fetishes and Autogynephilia

My main equivalence is in the fact of your not knowing, when you meet someone, a hidden piece of information about them. If they have not declared they are straight, or gay you have no right to assume one or the other. If they have not declared that they are Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, you have no right to assume they are. If they have not declared they are AGP, you have no right to assume they are.

But these things aren't equivalent. Someone's sexuality or religion is irrelevant most of the time.

If a man is trying to coerce me into participating in his fetish, I should have a right to know.

Suppose an unknown man stands in front of you wearing a dress, make up and fake breasts

Fake breasts on a man are not just clothes.

This turns him from a man wearing stereotypically female clothes into a man who is trying to impersonate a woman.

And when are we allowed to notice a difference?

There isn’t really any history in medical or psychological literature of an equivalent fetish for women - I suppose it would have to be autoandrophilia - I know a lot about the history of lesbian cross-dressing scenes and largely they did this to signal a sexual orientation in a way that made their lesbianism socially acceptable or playful; or to signal same-sex desire to other women. As you point out, and as we’ve discussed earlier upthread, that by definition is directed at others, not the self - and is part of sexual orientation/sexual expression, not a fetish. But these lines are blurred - sometimes deliberately so.

So - if the trans umbrella is made up of what used to be called cross dressers or AGP on one hand, but also those who transition because they feel a (non-sexual) deep identity as the other sex, then do some people under the trans umbrella see it as an identity; some as a sexuality; some as an orientation?

*terms not terns! 😂

Lots of terns getting confused here.

Sexual orientation (homo/hetero/bisexual) is not the same as sexuality (the general term for sexual expression and the quality of being sexual; sexual activity).

Sexuality is not the same either as a a fetish or “kink” (as we’ve been discussing on this thread), though individual persons’ understanding of their sexualities may encompass these things.

None of the above are necessarily “identities” per se, though some people want to present them as such. Others don’t, or don’t care.

Gender per se, is not the same as gender identity, is not the same as gender performance (though they get lumped together at times). None of these are sexual orientations or sexualities either.

Wanting to mix all these terms up and confuse/obfuscate them onto a spectrum is one of the stated aims of “queer” theory; but other parts of queer theory want to naturalise these all as “identities” (logically, you can’t really have both; but this glaring contradiction doesn’t seem to occur to many self-styled “queer” people. How many bi/pan fights on tumblr would be avoided otherwise 😂)

For many people sexuality does contain gender performance, so you can not make a sweeping first statement like that. If you are a straight woman think of a man you are attracted to wearing a variety of traditionally male or female attire. Does your sexual attraction to him vary depending on what he is wearing , trousers, a dress etc? - his gender performance? For some it won't, for many it will - his gender performance may matter to your sexual feelings for him. And for many their gender performance on a day by day basis is related to their own fluctuating sense of being a sexually attractive person to people they desire to attract.

My main equivalence is in the fact of your not knowing, when you meet someone, a hidden piece of information about them. If they have not declared they are straight, or gay you have no right to assume one or the other. If they have not declared that they are Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, you have no right to assume they are. If they have not declared they are AGP, you have no right to assume they are.

If you see illegal behaviour call the police, as I keep saying. Otherwise let people wear what they want.

I don't know that anyone has commented about lesbians and transmen that pack and get a thrill from doing this whilst out in public? Presumably this is exactly the same problem? Could it be more problematic as they usually have sexual orientations directed at other people, whereas with AGP, the 'auto' is clear that the sexuality is directed internally, at the self, and there is no sexual interest towards others present.

We’re discussing the difference between explicitly erotic cross-dressing/AGP, and wanting to be a woman. If the clothes don’t matter, then why dress up in them at all? It’s the purpose of the clothes and the specific type of eroticisation of women that feminists object to.

A woman who happens to be gay mentioning it in public isn’t overriding someone’s consent not to be drawn into other people’s sexual lives without agreement. Someone who practices erotic cross-dressing for a sexual thrill is. As I said, an analogue might be someone into BDSM or rubber going around openly wearing a collar or fetish gear or a gimp mask. That’s not acceptable either.

The man’s unwanted presence in a female space is what we would judge him on. Not any aspect of his clothing.

You seem to be suggesting that we should wait for this man to declare what his motivation is before deciding how to react to him.

Of course that's what I'm saying! Why would you judge someone on what they choose to wear?!!

What relevance do his clothes have to you in the conversations you are likely to have with him? None at all.

What this feminist argument seems to be now is "Women and men should not be bound by gender stereotypes and should have the freedom to wear whatever they like. Oh. Except for men. They should only wear stereotypically male clothes and they will be considered perverts if they diverge from this." Way to go feminism.

Because we can see that, say, older AGP men who crossdress for erotic reasons, or who socially transition but don’t medically or surgically transition, can at least reverse that if they want to - even at some psychological cost.

However a young trans man who has taken puberty blockers, testosterone and had top surgery can’t change their mind without having made irreparable changes to their bodies and possibly permanent medical damage. Are they equally well served by the “trans umbrella”?

Or is the problem in the noting of the fact that not everyone under the “trans umbrella” is equally well served by it?

And what is the problem with pointing out that different people under the trans umbrella call it an identity; some a sexuality (suggestionsplease says AGP is like a gay woman’s sexuality just above); some trans people include it as “kink”. This is not controversial: you can easily find trans activists and trans people saying all of those things all over the internet. Is the problem in the pointing out that all of these different positions on trans aren’t very commensurate with each other and are often contradictory?

My post above pointing out that the “trans umbrella” doesn’t serve everyone equally well has been deleted. Amazing. A whole thread on AGP and my post suggesting that some people under the umbrella are less well served than others - like your friend above, @LazyViper - gets deleted?!?!

Insane.

We talk about social contagion in teenage girls, but not about how men who cross-dress for erotic reasons might get encouraged into naturalising this as a trans identity, where twenty years ago they would not have.

I know one of these former recreational cross-dressers, who was persuaded that they are in fact trans and they are now transitioning. From our last conversation, it seems possible they’re already questioning things but are now way down the road and have come out to kids and family. It’s difficult to see how a person could backtrack even if they wanted to, especially if it meant admitting to a kink instead of a stunning brave new identity.

AGP don’t tend to actually pass, though, do they? But I guess what I’m saying is that we’re only being allowed to discuss AGP vs “truscum” (not my term, I think it’s awful!) if we don’t suggest there is a significant grey area or overlap between the two….

If it turns out that cross-dressing for erotic reasons leads to transition, then the opposite, the “born in the wrong body/it’s not sexual, it’s about identity/just want to pee in peace” narrative kind of falls apart too. Doesn’t it? But I am probably going to get deleted for even saying that.

suedonym.substack.com/p/the-elephant-in-the-room

For example:
I am really turned on by the idea of going into the women’s shower and being surrounded by femaleness and of just being able to legally belong in the women’s restroom. What I’m saying is that to truly fit in as another woman in these places means a great deal sexually to me.

This is about being treated as or recognised as a woman.

The thing we aren’t allowed to ask, though, is where these two things shade into one another. Years ago it used to be recognised as a standard thing that what were then called “transvestites” were not the same as what were called “transsexuals” - and that cross-dressing for erotic reasons did not mean someone wanted to be the other sex. Women with husbands who cross-dressed used to be counselled by therapists and agony aunts that they were not the same thing and that it didn’t mean their husband wanted to actually be a woman (remember that? A staple of women’s magazine articles all through the 80s and 90s).

Yet nowadays the idea of the “trans umbrella” has deliberately run those two things together. So how are we meant to untangle them, or are we meant to at all? We talk about social contagion in teenage girls, but not about how men who cross-dress for erotic reasons might get encouraged into naturalising this as a trans identity, where twenty years ago they would not have.

Someone with gender dysphoria who desires deeply to be the other sex may want to “validate” their identity as the other sex - but AGP is partly about the thrill of difference, performance and transgression and having that recognised - a very different thing.

Laughable to suggest that a woman announcing her sexuality is in any way equivalent to AGP validation.

It's hilarious when TRAs make this argument. It's just another gaslighting reversal.

Oh and yes, obviously I know NAMALT! That doesn't change the fact that all those who are like that are men. Regardless of their presentation.

The implicit bias reference made me smile.

Flash up some photos of random people, and the word rapist- I will associate them with the photos of the males, even the ones in dresses and wearing lipstick, and discount the photos of females. Implicit bias? Or accurate ability to sex strangers? There's no bias involved.

@irresistibleoverwhelm Spot on.

Laughable to suggest that a woman announcing her sexuality is in any way equivalent to AGP validation.

It would be a closer match to compare AGP with another kink, not homosexuality. For example, if an adult baby enthusiast had society’s approval to force his way into attending a nursery, where the staff had to change his nappy and burp him over their shoulders or else be shamed and possibly fired for being adultbabyphobics. That’s ludicrous, but a nearer estimation of the AGP social issue than a lesbian coming out.