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?

Imaginary "like" button being clicked away for OldCrones replies...

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.

On the contrary, using a pronoun that mis-sexes the person comes at a cost to me. It implies I buy into this ideology and respect the right of others to dictate how I use the most basic words in English.

I read this quote by Theodore Dalrymple recently, which I think applies to coerced pronouning:

“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of Communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of Communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”

In my experience of living in a communist country, this was true. I got into trouble as a teen because I didn't want to assent to what I had come to realise were obvious lies and I naively thought that truth was necessary for our country to be better.

(As a communist state, mind, I was a true believer. I just thought we'd do communism better without the lies and lip service. What can I say, I was a teenager and had no idea what was really going on in my country.)

And I have educated myself about queer theory, the doctrine of gender identity and and the lives of transgender people, their struggles, their needs and their beliefs about themselves.

I have concluded that implementing the doctrine of gender identity is not necessary to help transgender people live safe and happy lives. Because the doctrine of gender identity is evil in my view and implementing it will harm not just society and female people in particular, but also children and transgender people themselves.

I believe that demanding that I use preferred pronouns or state my own is asking me to co-operate with evil and for me to become, in a small way, evil myself by endorsing the ideology and contributing to the social pressure on non-believers to participate in the lie.

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'.

This has been very patiently explained to you before - you are conflating here two different issues

1. the feminist analysis of sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes as a tool for the oppression of females and therefore something we reject as not helpful, not useful and definitely not harmless. We don't accept that these stereotypes are innate and object to an ideology that posits they are.

However, we are all raised in a society that seeks to impose those stereotypes on us, with varying degrees of success. This is called male and female socialisation. So we reject gender as an innate quality of all humans, but we do not deny that stereotyping is happening.

2.) the structural analysis of male violence that feminists use to a) help survivors recover from the trauma of male violence and b) seek to change society to address , prevent and remedy male violence.

The latter is a class-based analysis that explicitly does not claim that all men are predators, it does not look at individuals, but instead it looks at the risk posed by men as a class and then pursues policies, laws and regulations that account for class-based risks rather than individual risks.

If the situation ever changes and male violence becomes a thing of the past, we can change the policies accordingly.

In the view of many feminists, point 2 is causally related to point 1, in that the stereotypes imposed on male people contribute to male violence.

Let's try a thought experiment here.

Suppose an unknown woman stands in front of you wearing ordinary clothes, say jeans and a t-shirt (but could as well be a dress as women have the luxury of having more expression than men generally)

You chat with her about the weather, about what she is doing that day etc etc.

Have you validated the fact that she is gay? Have you validated the fact that she is straight? You have done neither because you have no idea whether she is gay or straight.

Suppose then she happens to mention that she is gay, and you say (whilst thinking, 'this is a bit strange, strangers don't tend to announce their sexuality') 'O that's great, ah, um, really happy for you.'

Then you have validated her sexuality. But you have not done that before that point because it is information you did not have access to.

Same goes for AGP.

Sexuality is not remotely the same as gender performance. Plus the performance of gender is all about the performance! The woman’s sexuality does not depend on whether you acknowledge it. Whereas - and we are speaking about AGP here - the aim of it is not at all to “pass” (a dodgy term in itself), but to be noticed as transgressive.

These are very false equivalences you’re making. A lot of them friend in this very dubious, and very recent, idea of “validation”, which conflates representation, acceptance and recognition. When you acknowledge the woman’s sexuality, you don’t “validate” it - it isn’t like a rubber stamp to say “you’re ok!” Her sexuality exists whether or not you approve of it, know, care or are totally oblivious.

Whereas the AGP fetish is all about the thrill of transgression and being seen to be performing something which otherwise doesn’t exist (without wearing the clothes, there is no AGP). But - crucially - your “validation” isn’t required either. All that is required is for you to see and notice - and maybe be shocked or titillated - but it definitely does not depend on “validation”. Remember we’re not talking about people who truly desire to be the other sex here: we’re talking about AGP, or crossdressing - the elements of which include a exaggerated portrayal of women and women’s clothing (typically wigs, lipstick, silky lingerie, stockings, heels - you don’t tend to find an AGP wanting to wear a grey fleece from the women’s section at Trespass).

A final comment, too, on the ideas of “identity” and “validation”. You will find plenty of LGB people who do not believe in sexuality as an “identity” at all, but merely behaviour - this is, in fact, historically how sexuality was viewed from the Greeks all the way to the end of the nineteenth century: as something you do, not something you are. This view alternated with identity theories well into the early 2000s, and many LGB people still feel their sexuality does not define their self or “identity”, but is merely one part of it or not even part of it at all.

This is a perfectly valid idea that is currently suppressed by the rise of a very dominating and limited idea of “identity” that is currently fashionable. But it would be well to recognise that not everyone subscribes to or believes in this fashion for “identity” and “validation” of identities. One important reason is that “Identity” as it’s currently socially constructed - largely amongst younger people - is often more limiting than freeing, and leaves out important parts of how we are socially with other people, as well as how free we are within our social constructions.

I find it depressing and imprisoning, and I’m not alone. The idea that “identities” need “validating” goes against all the things we should be encouraging young people to be - free to find themselves without labels, approval or the policing of those labels from other people. To be humanists - in the traditional sense; open, tolerant, generous, enlightened and outward-looking, not constantly turned inwards, obsessing about which labels fit and who’s offended by what use of someone else’s language.

This generation is setting itself up for great unhappiness and dissatisfaction through life, very inward-looking and me-me-me. The absolute prioritisation of stuff like pronouns and labels, when the global world is in disarray, is genuinely bemusing to see. If that obsessive energy was turned outwards to community building, party politics, welfare, global inequality and climate change, it could do wonders. Instead it is focusing on “validation”, pronouns, kink-shaming and Twitter activism, merrily ignoring the world’s pressing issues as Trump, Brexit, global inequality and climate destruction just sail on by.

*complaining about kink-shaming, that should read!

Well said irresistibleoverwhelm, the self-absorption required for a lot of this identity stuff is pretty astounding.

@suggestionsplease1

Let's try a thought experiment here.

Suppose an unknown woman stands in front of you wearing ordinary clothes, say jeans and a t-shirt (but could as well be a dress as women have the luxury of having more expression than men generally)

You chat with her about the weather, about what she is doing that day etc etc.

Have you validated the fact that she is gay? Have you validated the fact that she is straight? You have done neither because you have no idea whether she is gay or straight.

Suppose then she happens to mention that she is gay, and you say (whilst thinking, 'this is a bit strange, strangers don't tend to announce their sexuality') 'O that's great, ah, um, really happy for you.'

Then you have validated her sexuality. But you have not done that before that point because it is information you did not have access to.

Same goes for AGP.

You say 'same goes for AGP'. Can you elaborate because I can't see the relevance of this to crossdressing males.

Suppose an unknown man stands in front of you wearing a dress, make up and fake breasts, like this man, for example.

How does your 'thought experiment' go from there?

You know he is a man dressed as a woman. What you don't know is why he is doing this. Because he believes he is a woman? For a bet or a stunt? Because he is doing it for sexual gratification?

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.

I've been thinking this since the early 2000s, when diversity training came in in all the UK financial services places I was working at the time. Suddenly any gay people were encouraged to come forward and present themselves to be paraded and feted as an example of how diverse they were, when most had been happily just getting on with their jobs. I remember thinking how weird it was that they were expected to prevent and talk about their sexuality and who they had relationships with outside of work, whereas, as a heterosexual woman, nobody asked of gave a fuck about mine. it always seemed dodgy to me, I mean, what did their sexuality have to do with how well they were doing their jobs or their professional life at all? I get with race and sex it's to prevent discrimination but, really, we should be arriving to make race, sex, sexuality completely irrelevant at your workplace (because they are), not selecting one of the above to be singles out and given great importance.

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.

@irresistibleoverwhelm Spot on.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@irresistibleoverwhelm

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.

This article about AGP says otherwise.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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”?