Malaga Airport at 35

[RoyalCorgi]

I wanted to give this thread the correct title, and then remembered it's a term we're not allowed to use on Mumsnet.

A trans woman academic called Anne Lawrence has written an article about a certain three-letter acronym.

https://annelawrence.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/autogynephilia-at-35.pdf

What's interesting about this article is that Lawrence freely admits that Malaga Airport exists and that is the underlying motivation for much male-to-female transition. Lawrence notes that many "trans positive" people furiously deny that the three-letter acronym exists.

Lawrence naturally also attacks feminists who disapprove of Malaga Airport.

I wonder if this open admission about the existence of the three-letter acronym might backfire. It certainly doesn't fit nicely with the heartrending "trapped in the wrong body" narrative used to win over the general public.

I am mildly amused by the fact that Lawrence's three references all refer to work by Lawrence. It seems appropriate under the circumstances.

He also argues that it is a sexuality which should be accepted in society as normal as homosexuality.

He thinks it should be taught in schools, and the condition should be justification for puberty blockers etc in adolescents.

And that those with the condition who “misbehave” in women’s spaces should be given therapy.

not sure how society in general can accommodate a sexuality that only exists in someone’s head.

off article to say the very least.

Poor Malaga Airport will be very confused when they get their Google alerts!

I won't write what I posted on Ovarit about this article as I probably can't say it on here.
But this bit "...essentially harmless sexual orientation..."
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They can't even see all the women and children who have been harmed, myself included.
These men are truly disgusting and to think of all the people and huge corporations supporting these men over and above women and children - it's shocking.

Bring it out into the open as a sexuality. Let people see what it really is about.

There's a strong element of "saying the quiet part out loud", isn't there? I wonder if all the people who are stalwart supporters of trans people on the basis that they are the most oppressed group ever would feel so comfortable if they knew that the motivation for many is being sexually aroused by the thought of themselves as a woman.

According to Blanchard this condition is the underlying source of gender dysphoria, within the heterosexual cohort.

He also seems to misunderstand ROGD, and who it applies to.

Yes, that was a strange part of the article. When we talk about ROGD we're talking almost exclusively about teenage girls who suddenly believe they're boys. I imagine that is a cohort that Lawrence isn't the slightest bit interested in.

This seems unlikely to be picked up and disseminated widely, which is a pity, because a lot of it is true.

People should be made aware of this common paraphilia, and women should be told that having a family with an erotic cross-dresser is a risky proposition (particularly now that it has been endorsed by the law).

For a few, the paraphilia is so overwhelming that only surgical transition can assuage it (as described by Debbie Hayton). Though I don't agree that this is a choice that a child can make.

And, obviously, erotic cross-dressers shouldn't be in women's spaces, because they're men.

I was disappointed that Hayton's book, which covers much of the same ground, didn't make more of an impression.

I saw a massive sufferer of Málaga Airport in Morrisons toiletries department. High heeled boots, massive wig. Talking to a young, small, female store assistant and hopefully not demanding her advice on period products. Now I know about Málaga Airport it made me feel very upset that she had to play along with this bloke's 'sexual orientation' as part of her job.

I hope that would be the case but I just don’t know; I think the ‘Be cool, don’t kink shame’ brigade did lots of prep work on society that the Malaga brigade are benefitting from.

Duncan Henry (a gay gender critical man) did an excellent thread regarding Lawrence’s new paper and in response to Michael Bailey’s tweet about the paper:

Bailey says:
https://x.com/profjmb/status/1845440250404827203
New essay on autogynephilia by Anne Lawrence. I agree that it is unfortunate that so many gender criticals demonize all AGPs rather than the subset causing problems. We need more understanding and compassion.

Duncan Henry responds:
https://x.com/DuncanHenry78/status/1845515518494507192

‘Why do we need more understanding? I understand it already. Men who get off sexually by imagining themselves as women isn’t actually hard to grasp. What is hard to grasp is the entitlement of telling ppl they “have” to indulge in their fetish 24/7 else they’ll be very sad.

So what? Honestly - I don’t care. I completely understand WHY these men feel like they will be unhappy if they can’t indulge their sexual fetish 24/7, but they are wrong, and fooling far too many people.

It’s not a special category of fetish. It’s not some kind of inner biological innate pseudo spiritual “sexuality”. It’s getting off on pretending to be a woman Women are going to be insulted by that, because it’s insulting You DO NOT need to indulge your sexual desire 24/7.

I am not “demonising” people like Anne Lawrence, I’m calling out their bs. You are not oppressed. You are not discriminated against when people say “please stop indulging your fetish in front of me”

A whole ESSAY on why men should be able to indulge their “kink” 24/7 otherwise they feel sad. Please don’t fall for this nonsense. It’s nonsense.

Dear god i am so sick of men with their “it gives me an erection so have some compassion” Go take a cold shower and do something useful for goodness sake

I can even empathise with men who are “AGP”. I “get it”. It’s not difficult to get. I even understand why they sometimes feel really low because they aren’t what they want to be. But the answer, brutally - if you actually want to help them and not enable their harm is “tough”

Tough. You can’t have that. Deal with it. You HAVE incorporated misogyny into your sexual drive. Admit that. Realise that. deal with that too. It’s not a massive existential threat to realise this. Abstain from indulging if you feel “shame”. The shame is good! You are appropriating “woman” for your own selfish sexual desires. Who said that was a right? A right to orgasm while fulfilling your misogynistic fantasy - isn’t a thing. And you can stop. You can get over it. You just don’t want to. It’s not a “sexual orientation” either. You’re a heterosexual bloke having w*nk fantasies you really shouldn’t have even started to indulge. So you know that now - so stop indulging it.

The most worrying aspect of this… “essay” is the attempt to make AGP an “inevitability”. It IS NOT. That also puts kids in danger.‘

I hope no-one minds me posting a later thread from Duncan on the topic, I thought it was rather insightful of him and thought others here would also enjoy reading it:

https://x.com/DuncanHenry78/status/1845876917930533145

'The “discourse” on paraphilias kinks and fetishes has at least shown me that I am now, at the age of 46, entirely comfortable with being gay. Not just “it’s not my fault”, not just “it’s accepted” but - it’s fine. It’s not morally wrong at all.

And I feel a lot of gay men are struggling to say “actually YOUR sexual desire - sir - is morally wrong. You should not desire that. Maybe you should get therapy” - because we are terrified someone is going to throw it back at us.

But as ever - that’s the argument we won. Not “born this way” - that’s irrelevant. But “my sexual desire for another man - is not morally wrong. It isn’t bad. It isn’t “lesser”” So - fellow gays, don’t be scared to point to morally repugnant sexual desires and say so.

Sure there’s a spectrum of what’s ok, what’s tolerable, what’s “a bit naughty” to indulge in with another consenting adult - to “this is a vile desire that you should feel so much shame for you’d never feel aroused” - but gay men - we can stand up for morality.

Because we weren’t “morally wrong” in the first place.

Oh P.S. “roleplay” may be ok but depending on the subject matter you might be playing with fire. Be an adult and know that.'

Deal with it. You HAVE incorporated misogyny into your sexual drive. Admit that

This.

and yes, stop expecting people, women and children particularly, to participate in your misogynistic fetish.

Put your cock away grow up.

I think it's ok to use the acronym about an article like this which is talking about it?

Anyway - this guy is not the first person who has talked about this openly, and isn't the most high profile either.

It might make a difference if it starts to get into mainstream news and such, but... will it? If you look at the conservative online sites, you will see plenty about it. Those people know about it and talk about it fairly openly if they follow the topic at all.

But progressive sources? They bury it.

I would also say that among certain types of political progressives this fits right into their wider thinking about sexuality, which isn't so much about some triad of straight, gay, bi, but about all kinds of preferences and attractions. My friend's dickhead husband a couple of years ago came home and told her he'd realized his sexuality is poly sexual, and he was happy to remain married but had to be true to his authentic self and have multiple partners.

I think this is an increasingly common formulation now, and not nearly as easy to argue against as some think if they accept a lot of common modern ideas about sexuality (although the bloke above, Duncan Henry seems to have cut through that better than most). So maybe no surprise people think AGP sounds plausible as a "sexuality."

'The “discourse” on paraphilias kinks and fetishes has at least shown me that I am now, at the age of 46, entirely comfortable with being gay. Not just “it’s not my fault”, not just “it’s accepted” but - it’s fine. It’s not morally wrong at all.

I agree - I think a large part of acceptance for trans and a lot of other stuff comes from homophobia. People are used to performatively being "accepting" of gay stuff, despite thinking of it as gross, and then having incorporated "accepting gross stuff" into their moral framework, they are determined to apply that rule everywhere. Missing that the rule wasn't supposed to be "accepting gross stuff"; it was supposed to be "not declaring harmless private behaviour immoral".

South Park nailed this dynamic back in 2002 in The Death Camp of Tolerance - do watch it if you haven't seen it.

Inappropriate behavior in women-only spaces is unacceptable regardless of the perpetrators' sexual orientation. But autogynephilia is a male paraphilia, so if these intruders are believed to be autogynephilic, this effectively undercuts the idea that they deserve to be regarded as women and are entitled to enter women-only spaces. Moreover the suggestion that these invaders are using women-only spaces as arenas for enacting their autogynephilic behavioral fantasies makes them seem depraved and disgusting, even when their overt behavior is unobjectionable.

This paragraph from the article the op linked is very succinct and powerful.

I think the acronym can be used in general but not in relation to an individual (I think.)

It can't be used over-generally either though!

I would also say that among certain types of political progressives this fits right into their wider thinking about sexuality, which isn't so much about some triad of straight, gay, bi, but about all kinds of preferences and attractions.

Maybe thats ok, but with the proviso that some bounds of 'morality' are still important, as Duncan describes. Roughly - is this something that is purely solo or between fully and freely consenting adults? No one being exploited for porn, no coerced partners, no minors, no using of unconsenting women, no appropriation of the other sex spaces for arousal.

No one has the right to impinge on other peoples rights in pursuit of sexual gratification.

People are used to performatively being "accepting" of gay stuff, despite thinking of it as gross, and then having incorporated "accepting gross stuff" into their moral framework, they are determined to apply that rule everywhere. Missing that the rule wasn't supposed to be "accepting gross stuff"; it was supposed to be "not declaring harmless private behaviour immoral".

Perfectly summarised, thanks. This is it in a nutshell.

Yes, great post @NecessaryScene

The problem is that a male with a Spanish tendency, doesn't have to 'misbehave' if he is using the female toilets for it to be an issue.

He's still getting off on the idea and using the women without their consent (the bit he gets off on) just from 'just having a pee'.

So he doesn't need to be whacking one of for this to be problematic. He's still getting off on the power dynamics of it. And the women have not consented. And there are implications to liking this.

The issue with getting off on the idea of women not consenting is why it presents an underlying problem we can't ignore as women. Especially knowing those offending rates.

What alarms me, is this is an attempt to normalise this and say that women have nothing to worry about and we should accept it.

I can't applaud Duncan Henry enough. Brilliant 👏👏👏👏👏

It's sexual harassment of women and girls.

When I read Duncan’s tweets early this morning I was concerned by Michael Bailey’s support of the article. Bailey was one of the authors of the retracted ROGD paper. And he doesn’t acknowledge that female people, women and girls, should not be subject to being exposed to male fetishes? And questions why feminists reject that they should be exposed to this fetish at all with out their consent ?

Seems to be an inconsistency, maybe it is a large dollop of misogyny or simply the inability to understand that now we have learned more about this fetish than we ever wanted to know, we as women and girls should be able to say ‘no thank you!’