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?

@SmokedDuck

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.

It's not disingenuous in the slightest; it simply doesn't matter to me.

I recognize gender identity matters to other people, and that's fine - that's the rich variety of life; things matter to others that we personally have no interest in whatsoever but it doesn't mean we have to stamp them out.

I'll quite happily indulge people in their interest in sharks, or double glazing or makeup - I couldn't really care less about any of these things but I recognise they are meaningful for other people. I don't have to be invested in them personally to respect others' choices.

And I don't compromise myself in the process - there is no harm to me to have a conversation on these topics. And actually with the trans people I know socially it's not a subject that has come up between us because it's just not relevant to anything we're doing. The only time I can think where it comes up is if a mutual friend were to say something like "What's doing today/?" and I would reply 'O she's / he's **...", That is literally the only time it is relevant - during a 3rd party conversation when I'm referring to them using their chosen name or pronoun. It's a complete non-issue otherwise.

If they were to come out with something like 'I feel like a woman / man because all women /men are like ' I would stop them and say something like 'Don't be stupid, no-one can say all women/ men are like this or that', but none of them would say something like that in the first place.

In real life, outside of social media, they're not going round justifying their existence, they're just getting on with living like everyone else. If some idiot challenged them about it I imagine they would have something to say, but luckily that seems to be rarer nowadays.

@OldCrone

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.

But if you believe there is nothing essential about gender, (which is what a lot of feminists on these boards seem to believe), then referring to the pronoun or name of choice is no cost to you - because you know it is just about a name or pronoun and is no more meaningful than that.

You're not conferring on them any status because you know, and truly believe that this is impossible anyway - given that any man or woman can be anything at all.

So all you are doing is showing a measure of respect for a chosen name and a set of pronouns.

[quote suggestionsplease1]@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.[/quote]
What a fatuous comparison. If I’m test-driving a car and imagining it’s going to transform my life, that’s only happening in my head. Even if I tell other people this and want them to play along, they aren’t obliged to, and nor will I get a free car if I tell the dealership that I’ll commit suicide if they don’t hand it over without me paying. And none of that infringes on other people’s sexual boundaries.

You’re missing out that being an unwilling accessory in “validating” someone’s sexual fetish is ultimately being made to have or provide a sexual role without one’s consent. And this is demanded not just of adults, but of children too - everyone who is forced to go along with it. If I go about imagining I’m James Bond or are living in that lovely big house around the corner, not only is it not sexual, but I’m not requiring everyone else around me to participate regardless of whether they are knowing, unknowing, old enough to consent to sexual activity, whatever.

So all you are doing is showing a measure of respect for a chosen name and a set of pronouns.

Except that the vast majority of people, including pretty much all the posters here, would have no problem with doing that. But then why are we being compelled not just to show respect but also to recite and believe the whole ideology under pain of public pile-ons, rush of losing one’s job etc.?

So many women now have said he equivalent to “I am of course respectful to trans people but I don’t really believe they are actual women”, and found themselves at the centre of a shrieking mob baying for them to be sacked etc. So it’s exceptionally disingenuous to frame this whole debate as “oh it’s all just about the respect and using the right pronouns”, because you must know damn well that it isn’t about that at all.

*risk of losing one’s job

But if you believe there is nothing essential about gender, (which is what a lot of feminists on these boards seem to believe), then referring to the pronoun or name of choice is no cost to you - because you know it is just about a name or pronoun and is no more meaningful than that.

Read this:
fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/

So all you are doing is showing a measure of respect for a chosen name and a set of pronouns.

Respect? Why should I show 'respect' to someone who is trying to coerce me into participating in his fetish (remember what the title of this thread is, we're not discussing people who are genuinely troubled by their sex).

Something on a castration fetish. It's pretty dark.

Helen Joyce has a great quote from Blanchard in her book, which I think sums up why the majority of the population have no idea what drives many men to transition. People are generally kind and are taking the identity argument on face value, not realising it is concealing many men's true motivation.

'If a guy decides he's coming to work as a woman from now on, it's one thing for him to say "I'm coming to terms with the fact I've always been a woman inside" and quite another to say: "I've moved on from just masturbating in women's clothes to wearing them all the time." '

That is a good quote.

What a fatuous comparison. If I’m test-driving a car and imagining it’s going to transform my life, that’s only happening in my head. Even if I tell other people this and want them to play along, they aren’t obliged to, and nor will I get a free car if I tell the dealership that I’ll commit suicide if they don’t hand it over without me paying. And none of that infringes on other people’s sexual boundaries.

You’re missing out that being an unwilling accessory in “validating” someone’s sexual fetish is ultimately being made to have or provide a sexual role without one’s consent. And this is demanded not just of adults, but of children too - everyone who is forced to go along with it. If I go about imagining I’m James Bond or are living in that lovely big house around the corner, not only is it not sexual, but I’m not requiring everyone else around me to participate regardless of whether they are knowing, unknowing, old enough to consent to sexual activity, whatever.

You're misinterpreting my comparison in the first paragraph. I am saying that, in all walks of live, in myriad possible ways, others try to convince us of things we could be dubious about, and we are often complicit in these fantasies.

Prospective partners could lovebomb us and manipulate us into unhealthy relationships, car / houses / shares sales people might try to persuade us for the sale that might be a bad personal financial decision, children could hide / lie to us about criminal activity they are involved in etc etc. There is no end to the potential for our complicity in distortions and fantasies.

What I'm saying is - I consider that these examples of people trying to manipulate situations are far more harmful than a random person hoping that you'll treat them as the gender they identify with.

And your second paragraph is just pure hyperbole. You're not validating anyone's sexual fetish by being in the same room with someone who is wearing atypical clothes for their sex. Good grief. If you stand next to anyone and encourage them as they masturbate publicly I suggest you don't do that but call the police instead, and then you can be happy that you have not affirmed or validated inappropriate behaviour.

I consider that these examples of people trying to manipulate situations are far more harmful than a random person hoping that you'll treat them as the gender they identify with.

Look at the thread title again. This is not a thread about people 'identifying as a gender', this is a thread about fetishistic crossdressing in males and how it can escalate. It's about how the current 'trans' movement encourages such people and how the general public become unwitting participants in their fetish by 'being kind'.

And your second paragraph is just pure hyperbole. You're not validating anyone's sexual fetish by being in the same room with someone who is wearing atypical clothes for their sex.

In the case of one of the males that this thread is discussing, you are validating them if you do any of the things I mentioned in an earlier post, such as using their chosen female name.

This is not about the unfortunate people who are distressed about the sex they are. This is about crossdressing fetishism in males.

Some examples:

www.womenarehuman.com/man-murdered-fiancee-who-was-unhappy-with-his-cross-dressing-impulses-police-say/

www.womenarehuman.com/prescription-delivery-driver-with-cross-dressing-fetish-attempts-to-rape-female-cancer-patient-dennis-reed/

Transwidows who typically have had husbands who began by crossdressing:

www.womenarehuman.com/crossdresser-with-baby-fetish-rapes-sexually-tortures-girl-david-challenor/

www.womenarehuman.com/dad-killed-child-13-who-found-photos-of-dad-in-womens-lingerie-eating-feces-from-diaper/
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9796711/Colorado-dad-guilty-killing-son-Dylan-Redwine-photos-eating-feces.html

www.womenarehuman.com/trans-comic-strip-creates-diaperfur-kink-based-on-real-babies-frames-backlash-as-transphobia/

TW and violent offenders in prison:
fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-prisoners/

Sorry that post went wrong.

The transwidows site is transwidows.org.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask Stonewall what their plan is in this brave new world for cross dressers where it is a fetish. Plenty of men are open about it being a turn on for them. My question would be, are women expected to be fine if the lady penis is erect? What if the penis owner touches the penis? Would Stonewall claim that no men are aroused by wearing female clothes? Surely this is an indefensible position.

I suspect their next move will be to normalise flashing. I've been flashed and actually didn't care. But I fully support my friends who were horrified by their experiences of seeing a penis they didn't ask to see. I strongly feel flashing must remain illegal. These behaviours are all a slippery slope to sexual assault imo. Am I allowed to say these things here?

[quote OldCrone]But if you believe there is nothing essential about gender, (which is what a lot of feminists on these boards seem to believe), then referring to the pronoun or name of choice is no cost to you - because you know it is just about a name or pronoun and is no more meaningful than that.

Read this:
fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/[/quote]
I have just read that. Well for starters it goes against a commonly expressed line from GC feminists - that there is nothing essential about gender, as it is very clear that criminal behaviour is related to the male sex and not the female sex. And that is a fundamental incoherence for this brand of feminism which says out of one corner of its mouth that men and women should not be sex-stereotyped and out of the other corner of its mouth says 'But of course men should always be viewed through a criminal lens'.

It appears to be arguing that it is right for pronoun use to jar with us when it follows atypical patterns, and that this should signal a danger, that male pronouns pair more naturally with criminality and we should trust our intuition so that we can be on high alert to protect ourselves from danger - it's an instinctive response which is there for a reason and it keeps us safe.

It very much reminded me of the Harvard Implicit Association Tests - which measure bias/ prejudice toward / against ethnic group (amongst other things). You do a speed reaction test that measures how quickly you associate positive or negative words with pictures of faces of different ethnicities. Guess what, Caucasian people pair positive words more quickly with white faces than they do with black faces, and pair negative words more quickly with black faces than they do with white faces. People implicitly link along the bias they have.

implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/user/agg/blindspot/indexrk.htm

Of course, in these tests, most researchers point out that this is a negative thing, and this bias is what is at work behind racism and other negative stereotyping processes of different groups. The author of the Fair Play for Women article instead feels that such an implicit association for criminality and men is a positive, protective thing. Hmmmmm....

And of course one of the upshots of this is that your expectations become a self-fulfilling prophecy - you expect people to be bad, you treat them like they will be bad - sure enough they will act badly. There's a huge amount of research in this area.

I think generally the fetish seems to include controlling and abuseive behaviour, which is what people object to rather than the fetish in itself? Also the coersive nature of needing others to partake in your sexual practive against their will?

@OldCrone

I consider that these examples of people trying to manipulate situations are far more harmful than a random person hoping that you'll treat them as the gender they identify with.

Look at the thread title again. This is not a thread about people 'identifying as a gender', this is a thread about fetishistic crossdressing in males and how it can escalate. It's about how the current 'trans' movement encourages such people and how the general public become unwitting participants in their fetish by 'being kind'.

And your second paragraph is just pure hyperbole. You're not validating anyone's sexual fetish by being in the same room with someone who is wearing atypical clothes for their sex.

In the case of one of the males that this thread is discussing, you are validating them if you do any of the things I mentioned in an earlier post, such as using their chosen female name.

This is not about the unfortunate people who are distressed about the sex they are. This is about crossdressing fetishism in males.

Ok well I thought I pointed out the logic gap earlier on, but let me try again.

When you see a person wearing clothes that are atypical for their gender you do not know the reason why, as you are not a mind reader, right?

Therefore, you are not in a position to say whether they are acting according to a fetish or not, are you?

Given that you can not discern this, how can you say you are affirming or validating something that you don't know? That is illogical, you can only affirm or validate something you know to be the case.

If, on the other hand, you are able to tell from behaviour that something illegal is happening then you should get the police involved.

As I said earlier, AGP, (if it exists) by its very definition - arousal at the thought of oneself as a woman - is probably one of the safest conditions out there for others! A person who has this isn't looking at anyone else as a sexual object because they are too busy looking at themselves! Think of all the men and women out there spared the unwanted advances or worse, because an individual experiencing this doesn't even have them on the radar. I'm surprised some brands of feminism aren't actively encouraging this to be honest.

Sorry, just noticed the post above mine. What an absolute load of confused nonesense.
We've got misrepresentations of feminism, outright lies about what feminism means, and a women are responsible for mens behaviour, thrown in for good measure.

Well for starters it goes against a commonly expressed line from GC feminists - that there is nothing essential about gender, as it is very clear that criminal behaviour is related to the male sex and not the female sex.

Well, since men commit something like 90% of violent crimes and 99% of sexual crimes in the UK, violent criminal behaviour is obviously linked more with people of the male sex. I don't think any feminists have been saying otherwise, in fact those statistics are often quoted on here. What do you mean by 'nothing essential about gender'?

And that is a fundamental incoherence for this brand of feminism which says out of one corner of its mouth that men and women should not be sex-stereotyped and out of the other corner of its mouth says 'But of course men should always be viewed through a criminal lens'.

There is nothing incoherent about quoting statistics about male violence but saying that sex stereotyping about how men and women should behave is wrong. I don't understand what you're trying to say with this comment. These are two completely different things.

Of course, in these tests, most researchers point out that this is a negative thing, and this bias is what is at work behind racism and other negative stereotyping processes of different groups. The author of the Fair Play for Women article instead feels that such an implicit association for criminality and men is a positive, protective thing.

The statistics tell us that men are much more likely to commit crime than women are. This is not 'bias', this is fact. Do you really think that more men are convicted of violent and sexual crimes than women are because of some sort of 'bias'? That women are committing just as many of these acts but they are not caught or are acquitted by the courts?

And of course one of the upshots of this is that your expectations become a self-fulfilling prophecy - you expect people to be bad, you treat them like they will be bad - sure enough they will act badly. There's a huge amount of research in this area.

This sounds very much like blaming women for the violent acts of men. That men only commit crimes because women were mean to them. As if men are just puppets with no self-determination or self control and all their actions are because of an uncontrollable reaction to the way women treat them. Is that really what you mean?

Of course, in these tests, most researchers point out that this is a negative thing, and this bias is what is at work behind racism and other negative stereotyping processes of different groups. The author of the Fair Play for Women article instead feels that such an implicit association for criminality and men is a positive, protective thing. Hmmmmm....

You need to read The Gift of Fear. Always trust your instincts, don't let your guard down because of social niceties. You seem very sheltered.

Well, since men commit something like 90% of violent crimes and 99% of sexual crimes in the UK, violent criminal behaviour is obviously linked more with people of the male sex. I don't think any feminists have been saying otherwise, in fact those statistics are often quoted on here. What do you mean by 'nothing essential about gender'?

Suggestionsplease, across several threads, has repeatedly conflated "gender" as a social construct based on sex stereotypes, with supposed gender identity. Thus the sleight of hand. It's been pointed out repeatedly that women on FWR accept the concept of gender. That is what we are "critical" of after all.

When you see a person wearing clothes that are atypical for their gender you do not know the reason why, as you are not a mind reader, right?

I don't care what clothes people wear.

Therefore, you are not in a position to say whether they are acting according to a fetish or not, are you?

No, which is why it is safest to keep all males out of female only spaces.

Given that you can not discern this, how can you say you are affirming or validating something that you don't know? That is illogical, you can only affirm or validate something you know to be the case.

No idea what you're getting at here. All I know is that some male person wants people to call him by a female name. If I do this and he is a fetishist he is being validated and I have been coerced into participating in his fetish. Why should I have to do this?

If, on the other hand, you are able to tell from behaviour that something illegal is happening then you should get the police involved.

Good luck with that.

As I said earlier, AGP, (if it exists) by its very definition - arousal at the thought of oneself as a woman - is probably one of the safest conditions out there for others! A person who has this isn't looking at anyone else as a sexual object because they are too busy looking at themselves!

Oh dear. How little you know. Most of these people are heterosexual and the ultimate validation for some of them is having sex with a lesbian. See also the experiences of transwidows.

Think of all the men and women out there spared the unwanted advances or worse, because an individual experiencing this doesn't even have them on the radar. I'm surprised some brands of feminism aren't actively encouraging this to be honest.

You really have no idea. Perhaps you should do some reading before engaging further.

00:12 OldCrone
I really admire your patience and clarity.

My thought of reply was "someone doesn't understand the difference between stereotypes and physical facts"....