Fetishes and Autogynephilia

[Alonelonelylonersbadidea]

I just thought it was worthwhile having a talk about this and we should try not to make 'sweeping negative generalisations', so in the spirit of positivity about fetishes generally, I don't actually have an issue with them if they don't impinge on anyone else. In fact I probably have fetishes of my own. Probably ones which don't fit with my feminist principles. Will maybe come back to that later.
What is the official feminist line on fetishes such as autogynephilia in terms of 'gender'? Is it possible to be 'each to their own' without being negative about cross dressers?

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.

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?

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.

classification being disputed by many credible sources..

TRAs, you mean?

@OurMamInHavianas

When we are asked or told to use female pronouns and female names for some male-born people and to allow them to use women’s sex-segregated facilities, we are being asked to participate unwillingly in someone’s kink.

As around 90 percent or more of TW have this kink, (and most TW also have no dysphoria and no bodily modifications) I have to say Nothankyou.

Are these stats correct? Where do they come from? Do stonewall and the transactivists accept this?

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%.

@suggestionsplease1

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.

The difference for me is that the AGP gets his frisson from all the people around him seeing him as a woman and treating him as a woman. We are cooped unwillingly to his fantasy.

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.

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.

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

[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.

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.

I'm glad we're now allowed to talk about AGP. The Times seems also to be allowing mention and discussion of it. It really is the missing piece I believe for people understanding what this movement is about.

AGP really is the elephant in the room when it comes to this issue.

'The Elephant In The Room' by Sue Donym:
grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-elephant-in-the-room

@TurquoiseBaubles

I never thought much about it until I saw that awful Guardian columnist (can't remember his name) who started out talking about dressing in women's underwear but is now, apparently transitioning.

He (I'm not "mis-gendering" as he was a he at the time, and still writes under his "male" name) wrote an entire article about buying lingerie, including a description about how much he enjoyed asking young shop assistants for help. So a non-consensual fetish, practiced in public, was feted by a mainstream newspaper.

No thank you.

Is that columnist called Jon Ronson? My apologies to him if I'm mistaken.

I find this anonymous letter in the Guardian which might be what TurquoiseBaubles was remembering.
www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/nov/03/my-life-in-sex

You don't mean David Thomas in the telegraph do you Turquoise? Some of that was utterly stomach turning.

[quote R0wantrees]AGP really is the elephant in the room when it comes to this issue.

'The Elephant In The Room' by Sue Donym:
grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-elephant-in-the-room[/quote]
Great article. Thanks for the link R0wantrees.

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.*

Why would you presume that? Is there any reliable data on the number of casual cross dressers who just do it in private, and what their partners think of it? Personally, I find it somewhat arousing myself, though that's partially because I'm quite attracted to a male androgynous look. I'll buy him items occasionally and occasionally request he wear them.

Obviously there are coerced wives, like with any other sexual niche/fetish, but I think a lot of people assume that there must be coercion because it doesn't appeal to them/they'd find it a turn off, rather than because of evidence.

Sexual fetishes don't belong out in public though - and cross dressing shouldn't be an exception to that. Those exposed to it should be freely consenting adults only, no exceptions.

Whilst I want to break down 'gender' as a concept, and people be able to wear anything they want, there's a world of difference with a guy wearing a skirt because he likes it, and just fancies wearing it, and one that is wearing it to involve bystanders in the fantasy of being a woman. The difference is usually material, tightness and several inches, but it's really obvious, even though on paper it doesn't seem to be 😂

@SmokedDuck

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.

What do you mean by affirming an AGP individual? Is that a statement where you say to them 'I recognise that you have a paraphilia where you are getting off on imagining yourself as a woman and I am ok with that'?

I can't imagine a situation where you would ever be legally obliged to utter such a statement. If someone asked you to say such a statement I would say you are certainly within your rights to refuse to say it.

What else might affirmation for an AGP individual be then?

Well for starters you have no reason to presuppose an individual's reasons for 'cross' dressing in the first place - you're not a mind reader. How can affirm, or not, something you don't know? That's simply illogical.

If there is inappropriate behaviour going on, as per exhibitionism, you do exactly the same as you would for any other individual displaying inappropriate behaviour - you call the police and give a full statement. But you can't criminalise someone before inappropriate behaviour has taken place.

What else might affirmation for an AGP individual be then?

Treating them as a woman, for example referring to them with the pronoun 'she' or a female name they have chosen.

Allowing them to use female-only spaces.

I'm sure you can think of loads more examples for yourself.

@picklemewalnuts

"The difference for me is that the AGP gets his frisson from all the people around him seeing him as a woman and treating him as a woman. We are cooped unwillingly to his fantasy."

What does 'treat him as a woman' even mean? I don't treat anyone / speak to anyone differently whether they're a man or a woman, it's irrelevant isn't it?

I wonder if posters are aware about 'packing'- where some lesbians & trans men choose to pack soft dildos with the intention of making a bulge obvious in public. Is this problematic in the same way?

People (any people) get frissons in all sorts of ways in public of course, not just by physical means of wearing clothes to make a certain impression but by verbal means, using language to present themselves in certain ways. I would think discourse is the main way we are capable of being co-opted into fantasies ...eg. that we are meeting the perfect partner, that the car we are test-driving will transform our lives, that the house we are being shown around is perfect for our families.

...And I would say that this process of being unduly convinced of these things and acting accordingly is usually more harmful to an individual than affirming some random person's gender identity.

This whole 'treat him as a woman' schtick is quite interesting as obviously it is the male gaze they are after, because as women we aren't particularly interesting in treating anyone really 'as a woman', it seems to be mainly men that are incapable of intersexual communication (or whatever it is). If I were treating a man in a dress and lippy as a woman, then I would just treat him like the dude I share my office with.

Interestingly I'm a member of a couple of make up groups on FB, purely to see this in action (as I'm not a massive make up fan). You'll get a photo of a woman with 30 likes and positive comments and then a photo below of a man in full pancake make up, blue eye shadow etc, almost comedic, and there will be 1000 likes and women lining up to support said man in their AGP.

It's rather disingenuous to say you don't treat men and women differently, and then get tied up over things like "living as a woman" or what pronouns we address people as.

If there was no such thing as treating people as women socially, there would be no call to recognize trans people as the gender they identify as.

If I were treating a man in a dress and lippy as a woman, then I would just treat him like the dude I share my office with.

In many ways you would, but you are now expected to refer to them differently when you talk to them (or about them when they can hear you).

So 'Fred' becomes 'Felicity'. You then introduce this person to some other people with 'This is Felicity. She works with me.' Not 'This is Fred. He works with me.' You have just treated that person 'as a woman'. This is exactly the sort of validation they are looking for. And obviously, treating them as a man is seen as transphobic.

Interestingly I'm a member of a couple of make up groups on FB, purely to see this in action (as I'm not a massive make up fan). You'll get a photo of a woman with 30 likes and positive comments and then a photo below of a man in full pancake make up, blue eye shadow etc, almost comedic, and there will be 1000 likes and women lining up to support said man in their AGP.

Yep exactly, no one is treating that man as a woman, they're treating that man as an extra fragile man.