Hannah Berrelli had an interesting analysis of Stella’s opinion on AGP vs lesbian clothing choices:
https://x.com/HannahBerrelli/status/1756623318520619462?s=20
'In attempting to draw an equivalence between autogynephila and lesbians wearing clothes bought in the men's section, Stella has misunderstood the distinction between an autoerotic fetish and non-pathological human sexuality. I believe this error comes from her background in humanist psychology, where the therapist develops unconditional positive regard for the client as part of the therapeutic process. This may or may not be helpful within the context of psychotherapy, but it can lead to a distorted point of view outside of it. It should not be carried outside of sessions, or become the basis with which to make other judgements about people outside of that therapeutic relationship.
The difference between a GNC woman feeling confident and ‘sexy’ in men’s clothes is that she isn’t engaging in a fetish. How can we know this? Because a fetish necessarily takes something as an object (in place of a genital), the typical examples being feet, or leather, etc. There is a process of objectification going on. What’s the object for AGPs? Women. What’s the object for GNC women in men’s clothes? There isn’t one, they’re relating to themselves as a subject and expressing their subjectivity. If Stella O’Malley had said the equivalent to an AGP was a woman finding it sexually exciting to walk around brandishing a stonking fake penis for all to see (roughly the equivalent maybe for AGP’s objectification of breasts) and masturbating in their father’s sweaty shirts, then maybe she’d have a case, but she didn’t give that example, because it doesn’t exist. GNC women in men’s shoes are expressing their subjectivity, AGP’s in women’s dresses are expressing a relationship to an external object (women, their idea of a woman) and indulging a fetish. A fetish is necessarily an objectification, not even of oneself, but a body part, or external object.
When Stella O’Malley sets up that GNC women in men’s clothes are perhaps an equivalent to AGPs, she is also setting up the ground for all women, such as a feminine woman who feels confident and sexy in a dress, is an AGP equivalent. In doing so she is annulling the fetishistic aspect of it and all that comes with it (compulsion / obsessionality, its replacement of normal sexuality [interest in another’s subjectivity] as withdrawal into the object occurs, masturbation, necessary dehumanisation, etc.] GNC women do not relate to flannel shirts as fetish objects.
Expressing your subjectivity within the masculine / feminine dichotomy is a totally non-pathological, decidedly not autoerotic part of human subjectivity, that is arguably practiced much more by straight people than gay people. How many gay couples do you know where both partners are rigidly gendered (masc / fem), versus straight couples? Its far more prevalent in the straight world. It's just not considered pathological when straight people do it because there is no homosexuality to do the work of pathologization (which is why Stella went to GNC lesbians, rather than discussing straight men who wear men’s suits everyday for work and mechanics overalls at the weekend whilst working on their car collection).'