@Hibari
Again: Not trying to defend a position. Information was requested. Information was provided.
Literally: Studies I have come across that are relevant to this subject.
I'm really not interested in discussing the AGP theory here. It's been done to absolute death by people far more qualified than (I assume) any of us here are. I'm aware this is an appeal to authority but, honestly...it's rather dull.
If you actually desperate to see someone debunk it...IDK, go read Serano or Mosler's disseminations of the theory. I'm sure a bunch of youtubers have videos on it too but I honestly wouldn't know which to recommend.
I've just been reading Serano's article, and there are a few things that leap out at me about it.
Firstly, Serano doesn't say that autogynephilia doesn't exist, just that it is erroneous to place all male transgender people into one of Blanchard's two categories (homosexual trans and autogynephiles who are attracted to women). I agree with Serano on this. Two rigid categories is far too simplistic. It's a bit like saying there are two categories of people: trans people who 'identify as' or think they 'are' the opposite sex (or have no sex at all in the case of non-binaries), and everyone else is 'cis' and identifies wholeheartedly with the stereotypes society deems appropriate for their sex. Yes. Far too simplisitic and rigid.
So Serano doesn't say that transgender people who are wholly or partly driven by autogynephilia (or female embodiment fantasies (FEF) as Serano puts it) don't exist, just that not all non-homosexual transsexuals are autogynephiles. And for the ones that are, it may not be the only or main driving factor.
So Serano sets up a few straw men.
First, the theory is ludicrously rigid. Even if you know nothing about transgender people, think for a moment of some other minority group that you do know something about. Got it? Okay, now imagine some guy in a lab coat proclaiming that there are two (and only two!) subtypes of that group. And they are completely distinct from one another, no overlap whatsoever.
If this is what the theory says, I agree. It's far too rigid. But agreeing about the 'two types' theory being too rigid doesn't say anything about the existence or non-existence of AGP.
This brings us to a second important reason why many trans women object to the theory: Rather than thoughtfully listening to what we had to say, and reevaluating or rejecting the theory accordingly (as scientists are supposed to do when confronted with contradictory evidence), proponents of autogynephilia instead insisted that any trans woman who does not fit neatly into Blanchard’s model must be lying, misreporting, or in denial of their experiences.
Has anyone said that? I don't know. But again it's about the rigid 'two categories', not about the existence or otherwise of AGP.
If you would like to see a more recent example of this tactic, look no further than this interview with Bailey where he essentially diagnoses Caitlyn Jenner as an “autogynephile” from afar, despite having no idea whether she’s ever experienced FEFs
Jenner has talked about trying on Jenner's daughter's clothes.
www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/caitlyn-jenner-at-chicago-house-event/62376/
And one thing I find particularly irritating in Serano's writing is that every time Serano wants to talk about scientists it's 'some guy in a lab coat'. Not all scientists wear lab coats, and not all scientists are men.