Isn’t AGP also what every woman experiences when they get dressed up & feel good about themselves?

[Theboredpanda]

I have no agenda here. I’ve always just been interested in exploring other perspectives of debates…although I’m sure this particular thought will get flamed on here and end up very one-sided indeed 🤣
I don’t believe every trans woman has AGP, but I believe a significant proportion do. And I’ve always considered that proportion to be creepy, I feel anger at the fact these men get to walk around, at least in some circles, socially accepted as women, just so they can satisfy a sexual fetish. However, I was thinking about how I feel as a woman who’s comfortable and happy about being a woman when I get dressed up in my favourite sexy outfit and put on some makeup. It makes me feel sexy. Not sexually aroused but I do feel sexy. Is that vastly different to what a trans woman feels like when they get dressed up and look (at least in their eyes) like a woman? Could it be that it’s either not AGP and we all feel sexy when we know we look good as the gender we are or want to be…or everyone’s a bit AGP when they think they look sexy because they therefore feel sexy? Or is this a totally unoriginal thought that’s already been troped out by TRAs and actually there is a huge difference??

Forgive the whole quote, and apologies if this point has been made already, but it struck me last night when I was reading this that this definition of female allows for the occupation of same sex female space, indeed is baked in. The (female) self is sacrificed to make room for the needs of (a male) another. This is gendered hierarchies of power, but it can be interpreted in literal material terms.
but whereas second wave feminists talked about gendered hierarchies of power and the subjugation of women, they did so with an intent to lay bare that subjugation and challenge it, to undo the inequalities which harmed women whilst recognising the need to certain protections and supports (eg around reproduction, domestic abuse, equal pay). This iteration of the subjugated female internalises it in a way which obliterates female selfhood, female personhood and makes it there for occupation. Women - their bodily form and their spaces - can be literally occupied (obliterated) because we are said to self-negate.
It is also taking all the acts of service, of care which women do to keep the world going, often against their own interests, but because of love, and using it against them.
it is a deeply harmful view of the female self way beyond kink but one which many men benefit from outside of this particular issue as well. But instead of recognising the societal value of women’s unpaid labour and care, often done at the expense of themselves, their female selfhood, it is used as an argument for male occupation of bodily self, female space and identities.

(edited to add: and this view of the female self there for occupation and as self-negating is universal and essentialised, with no room for consideration of the way this is socially constructed historically and currently or for escape)

ugh another perve getting his kicks trying to trick women into talking sex stuff with him. so creepy. so gross. 🤮

I feel like I'm essentially agreeing with some posters on the sexism and reductivism inherent in these trends (submission, humiliation, dehumanisation, etc.), but from a slightly different angle, so they don't appear to see it.

Of course they see it. They’re at least as clever as you are.

But even so, elements that are associated with AGP =/= AGP.

I agree. Real, immediate physical attraction is so obvious once you recognise it, but I think it takes (for many people) a degree of maturity to see through the “noise” of appearance, presentation and social status.

I can’t for the life of me understand how someone can say they feel sexually attracted to a photograph of another person (though that image might conform to a preferred “type”). Up close and personal is the way to find out.

It was still just one pub, but due to lack of internet (and electricity) it had to physically be a building. But no matter which town you were in once you stepped from your own high street through the pub doors you walked into the same pub that Barbara from Birmingham and Claire from Carlisle was in.

Ours IS the only one.

ETA God knows why the wombats travelled to each town when they could have just rented a room long term!

Jame Gumb/Buffalo Bill was, as I'm sure many know, based on three real serial killers.

It is made clear in the film that he is not a homosexual transexual (which is why he is refused hormones/surgery). I agree that he is clearly AGP.

There was a comedian (male but identifies as trans) who had part of their act about Gumb and how unfairly he is treated in the story. They (trans activists) know the character is AGP.

You are entitled to think whatever you like. Do you have any proof that we are all too old and past it to be interested in sex and that young women feel the way you claim they do? If so, can you share it?

Thanks. I now understand how gerbils can get out of any cage or plastic thingy. They are not entirely of our dimension!

Guess what: women are, on average, rather different from men. Same reason the risk posed by trans identifying men is considerably different from that posed by trans identifying women.

The interesting question is why trans identifying men don’t just offend sexually at multiple times the rate women do - another bit of evidence that TWANW - but also at 5 or 6 times the rate men who don’t identify as trans do.

Paraphilias & fetish are WAY morecommon in males than in females.

That said, paraphilia in women is also less studied. Partly because pretty much anything in women tends to be under-studied, but also because there are far fewer public safety concerns.

There are certainly women who romanticise gay male relationships (viewed entirely unrealistically, by & large), as was first shown in Joanna Russ’ exploration of “slash” in 1986.

Should we be scoring threads like this? If so, then is it like ice skating where you get marks for technical merit and artistic interpretation? And is there an element of bingo where you get extra points for certain phrases?

All advice on compiling a scorecard would be very welcome, so thanks in advance.

I'm opening with 'anyone who calls themselves a CIS woman' probably isn't.' and 'anyone who wants a friendly debate probably doesn't.'

I think a 3x3 grid would be good, but am open to ideas.

To be fair this self objectification is a well understood aspect of one of the ways in which female sexuality can operate, certainly when it comes to heterosexual relationships; with women tending to position/imagine themselves as an object of desire. It is their own self objectification on which they are focused, and its reception and impact upon others.

Yep, I also note that Concern Troll Psychobabble is rearing its head on the thread :)

Yes, but in the imaginatioin and fantasy life most of us are aware of the power/attraction of a beautiful and sexually desirable woman. The female body as an object of desire is common in all cultures, regardless of the way they deal with its consequences

Are you referring to my post?

I rest my case 😅😂😆

Which is what?

Did it get in the way of your blanket dismissals? You know you don't have to agree that women experience AGP to recognise that women do often objectify themselves in their imagination as well as in reality.

Ewwwwww... go away and never try to smear your creepy words on me again, I don't engage with creeps or weirdos and this is absolutely the ONLY response you will ever get from me. On a repeating loop.

😅😂😅

Thank goodness for that! I'll continue to post if i choose, though.

Ewwwwww... go away and never try to smear your creepy words on me again, I don't engage with creeps or weirdos and this is absolutely the ONLY response you will ever get from me. On a repeating loop.
😅😂😅

Some people seem to have some very particular hang ups in relation to talking about sex and sexuality, and in being honest about it.And also about listening to others and sometimes learning from their observations and experiences.

On FWR we talk about all sorts of things in great depth and with great honesty. Perhaps some people have landed in the wrong place by accident.

I opened this thread thinking it was the wombat one, and I found the above - is this the definition of 'cognitive dissonance'?😏

Are you new to this sub forum? We are mostly women, and there tends, in general, to be a higher than average general standard of discussion, involving acual experience as well as professional expertise on many issues - certainly as they relate to the experience of being female - and to the rejection of trans ideology and its negative impact upon women and children.

You are making a fool of yourself with your mangled responses. Byeee!