Fetishes and Autogynephilia

AGP really is the elephant in the room when it comes to this issue. I really hope MNHQ leave this thread up. We need somewhere to discuss it. It affects us on the most fundamental level.

[quote Illaria]@TinselAngel why is it certain 'feminists' don't believe us? [/quote]
Because once you understand what autogynephilia is, the whole 'most vulnerable people in the world' house of cards comes tumbling down.

That doc blew my mind

Aparallaxia, I had the same reaction. To clarify, the commentary quoted was by Sunkisses who shared the documentary.

You may also be interested to know that Della Aleksander is credited as being a formative influence on teenage Stephen Whittle (Press For Change).

Wiki
"In 1966 his mother, Barbara Elizabeth Whittle (née Stead), being concerned at how different he was from his sisters, entered him in the examination for Withington Girls' School. Being one of the highest scorers in the city in the Eleven plus exam that year, he received a scholarship to attend. It was during his time at Withington Girls' School that he started reading medical books. He knew he was romantically attracted to other girls at school – he never told them, and so his love was not reciprocated – but he also knew that he was sexually attracted to men. On top of that was a strong desire to be a man, to grow a beard and to have a hairy chest. He had read articles about people like Della Aleksander and April Ashley who had had a sex change. In 1972, at the age of 16, whilst visiting his doctor about a sore throat he read about a trans man"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Whittle

Whittle went on to be influenced by one of the founders of The Beaumont Society, Alice Parnell. This organisation was formed for heterosexual cross-dressing men (TVs):

"The Beaumont Society was founded as a branch of FPE [Full Personality Expression]. It was a secret Society based in California. Its purpose was
1. To provide information and education to the general public, the medical and legal professions on transvestism and to encourage research aimed at fuller understanding.
2. To provide TV's with an opportunity for a social life together."

'Short early history of The Beaumont Society' describes how in 1976, Stephen Whittle had joined & was helping 'Alice100' with the artwork for BB (newsletter sent to members) & babysitting.
'Alice100' writes:
"That is how he met his wife Sarah as we had double booked them one night. The quality of the BB improved with time and experience, including some quite nice Art Deco covers from Steve"
www.beaumontsociety.org.uk/documents/Beaumont_History.pdf

threads:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3436955-Stephen-Whittle

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3397127-Stephen-Whittle-Press-for-Change-irresponsible-use-of-likely-suicides-follows-Helen-Belchers-Trans-Media-Watch

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3641922-Stephen-Whittle-accusing-GC-feminists-of-being-funded-by-the-evangelical-right-wing

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3595285-interesting-twitter-thread-if-you-ever-wondered-what-stephen-whittle-took-from-exchanges-here

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3398127-Stephen-Whittle-influential-TRA-asserts-We-know-we-have-Labour-behind-this-one-so-will-simply-do-our-best-to-get-them-elected-Corbyn-seems-to-confirm-this-at-Pink-News

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3249035-Stephen-Whittle-s-blog-on-Genderquake-with-a-detailed-briefing-for-panelists

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3375587-Press-for-Change

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007

why are they all not more concerning to feminists then this tiny minority of males that, by definition, are not really interested or aroused by other woman at all, just by the thought of themselves as one?

Because there is growing evidence that wives are coerced into participating.

When the average Jo notices an attractive woman, or indeed fantasises about her, she doesn't have to participate in any way. It's creepy, and we consider such a bloke a creep, but we aren't made complicit in the same way.

And the average bloke doesn't do it all the time, hence we find those that do creeps.

So is it the case, that a person dresses in women's clothes, calls themselves a female name, and they could either be doing that because they believe themselves to have been born the wrong sex, or because they get a sexual thrill out of doing it. But we women won't know that and can't ask?

I didn't realise it was 90%.

classification being disputed by many credible sources..

TRAs, you mean?

Amazed this thread is still here. The 3 or 4 times I've been deleted on MN have been for pointing out that middle aged men that talk about how they enjoy dressing on girl days are clearly exhibiting this fetish.

R0wantrees That doc blew my mind. Any number of things to comment on, but here are a few.

The producer, Della, talked like a man throughout. I don't mean the pitch of her voice, which was low but within normal female range—I mean her pragmatic behaviour. She directed the conversation to an excessive degree, and then, when the two men joined in, she talked over them, as only a man would do. In appearance, she also reminded me of John Cleese as Dinsdale Piranha's ladyfriend, but this may be in part an effect of the change in dress codes since then. They were all dressed and coiffed very conventionally, but this was 1973. And the "married" TW saying her husband was happiest when she was in the kitchen (as you pointed out) was very 1973.

Della was also, as you say, confused about the labels she threw around, then decided weren't important when corrected. And there was no real enlightenment as to why they thought they were women. One of the other three TW said she thought she had chosen to be female, only for Della, typically, to correct this, asserting that they just were women, it wasn't a matter of choice. Rachel said she regarded being a woman as a status symbol (as you say), but Jan seemed to admit she was biologically male (talking about how embarrassing it would be to be assigned to a male ward!). Clearly they were all worried about "performing" the female rôle in a convincing way, emphasising how they didn't want to be like drag queens—while never questioning what the female rôle was (is) or why it was (is) what it was (is). Doubtless the "married" TW thought women have the best deal because she was married to someone who supported her while she didn't have to work and obviously no kids to take care of.The discussion about legal standing at the time was the most informative part, in factual terms.

The spookiest bit was Della saying that we are all intersex, that transsexuals are 'the tip of the iceberg', and that in the act of love we try to consume and become the beloved. I was reminded that this is a view the Roman Epicurean poet Lucretius shows vividly is absurd and incoherent. I'm with him. Also, it's also plain weird. Why do you want to become them, rather than sharing pleasure and intimacy? What happens to the other person? Don't they get to play?

Suggestions - for me it was when males who might or might not be sexually aroused by the idea of themselves as a female were being proposed as the legal equivalent of a female, or as proof that male and female are categories that have more to do with how other people see you than with any kind of physical reality.

And re the 'presenting as you like' issue - there are quite a lot of posts discussing this and the issues for feminism earlier in the thread.

suggestionsplease

AGP does involve other people. Not only to affirm the AGP individual, but there is a kind of dual role involved, A bit like an exhibitionist is aroused by thinking of himself through the eyes of another person, but that third person may well be watching him have sex with a partner.

I mean, AGP people are cross-dressing because they find they need to conceptualize themselves as women to enjoy sex. But a man could also cross dress during sex because it has a transgressive element, or for role-playing that isn't fetishistic in the same way.

AGP is a very specific mental construct.

Leaving aside the obvious problems with the classification being disputed by many credible sources..

Autogynophilia refers to a a male's propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female - so instead of his sexuality and desires being directed at others, it is directed inwardly (it has also been described as an erotic target location error.)

So the majority of other men and plenty of women too of course, are aroused by women - any woman they meet out and about might be the object of their arousal, and as such more likely to be on the receiving end of inappropriate behaviour from them, - why are they all not more concerning to feminists then this tiny minority of males that, by definition, are not really interested or aroused by other woman at all, just by the thought of themselves as one?

If people should be free to present themselves in any way they like (a quite commonly stated goal of feminism) what is wrong with that?

And if there is speculation about improper behaviours, well we already have plenty of legislation in place to address that and we all know that heterosexual men with no paraphilias are perfectly capable of improper behaviours in public.

who just quietly and harmlessly enjoy aspects of this in private

No. I think they are generally coercing their wives into participating in it and so it is not harmless.

Sorry, obviously some cross dressing is done for performance sake, eg drag queens etc but even drag queens are considered "trans" therefore "trans women" therefore "women" BC TWAW including drag acts and cross dressers.

It really is a headfuck.

Cross dressers are "trans" according to Stonewall.

Hence problems.

I don't think all sexual cross-dressing is AGP, is it? That seems to be a very specific mental construct.

I've name changed for this...

I'm very happily married to someone who sometimes likes cross dressing as a fetish. I'm also passionately gender critical.

He doesn't believe it makes him a woman any more than a Spiderman costume makes him Spiderman. He wouldn't do it in public or get anyone else involved in any way. It's a private fetish. He thinks stonewalls inclusion list for trans is as ridiculous as I do, and he's not TWAW.

There are likely a large number of men (who fully agree that they are men) which are similar, and that don't bother anyone.

I think we should differentiate between those that like to take their fetish into life (not appropriate), and those that parade it round as part of their identity, and that who just quietly and harmlessly enjoy aspects of this in private. If someone wants to take their fetish and become more public with it, then frankly, that's what sex clubs are for, not marks and Spencer.

Obviously there are also that who use sexual cross dressing as a way in to identifying as trans, but that's by no means universal.

[quote Illaria]@TinselAngel why is it certain 'feminists' don't believe us? [/quote]
Because it's unsavoury and inconvenient.

@TinselAngel why is it certain 'feminists' don't believe us?

I said: "I'm not sure whether it matters whether it's labelled a psychiatric disorder, a paraphilia, a fetish or given any other label. Not being a psychiatric disorder doesn't mean it doesn't exist." All I was doing there was agreeing with your post immediately before mine.

My post was aimed at the poster who seemed to be saying that if AGP wasn't "recognised as a psychiatric disorder" that therefore it didn't exist (not sure if that's what they meant as their posts didn't make a lot of sense).

I was just saying that it doesn't matter what you call it, it's still real.
@OldCrone
My apologies for sausage finger behaviour

Anybody who thinks that AGP doesn't exist, I would invite to view the stories of the women who have been victims of it:

https://www.transwidowsvoices.org/our-voicess^

Absolutely this. It's a wake up call.

He also had a strong fetish for a specific item of clothing.

@Illaria you've tagged me but your reply seems to be aimed at someone else.

I said: "I'm not sure whether it matters whether it's labelled a psychiatric disorder, a paraphilia, a fetish or given any other label. Not being a psychiatric disorder doesn't mean it doesn't exist." All I was doing there was agreeing with your post immediately before mine.

My post was aimed at the poster who seemed to be saying that if AGP wasn't "recognised as a psychiatric disorder" that therefore it didn't exist (not sure if that's what they meant as their posts didn't make a lot of sense).

I was just saying that it doesn't matter what you call it, it's still real.

Anybody who thinks that AGP doesn't exist, I would invite to view the stories of the women who have been victims of it:

www.transwidowsvoices.org/our-voices