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??

It very much makes a difference.

The Equality Act 2010 is wholly clear trans women are men. Hormones, surgery, a dress, wig & heels, even a GRC, still a man. Men cannot become women.

All trans women are banned from all women's spaces. The Equality Act tells them they can't go there, because they're all men. Not women.

So if a trans woman ignores the law and he still chooses to go in a woman-only space, he is a predator.

You've lost. Trans women ARE banned from women spaces. Not because they're trans, but because they're men. Trans women are men. Always, always men.

It's not.

What is our business is when what soneone thinks of themselves somehow turns into a redefinition of everyone else, or gets used to justify a person appropriating the rights, resources, language, history or narrative of a marginalised group that he did not, in fact, ever belong to; or to deny others the right to speak of our own understanding of ourselves and our needs and experiences.

I dont give a fuck how anyone dresses. Men stay out of women's spaces.

They actually aren't banned. Even the supreme court ruling distinguished that it's up to individual people if they want to let trans people into into a single sex space or not. Although, none of my comments had a single thing to do with trans women being men. It was about how people dress.

"So if a trans woman ignores the law and he still chooses to go in a woman-only space, he is a predator." Wrong again. Being a predator is what makes someone a predator. It requires intent and action. If a man goes into the women's toilets and doesn't do anything predatory, then he's not a predator. Reality prevails.

Appealing to the law also isn't very smart, it just shows your authoritarian inclinations. Women who get abortions in countries where it's illegal are technically seen as criminals too. I'm sure you question laws all the time and even see them as wrong. The same applies here. People who want to treat public toilets as important safety issues to the point of false accusations of being a predator, are very much in the wrong.

Bollocks. Men stay out of women's spaces.

No amount of wheedling or bullshitting is going to cut it. We've spent ten years doing all this. No more. Stay out.

Evidently a lot of people do care, to the contradiction of their own claims and concerns that feminine boys are being trans'd.

M-m-mal-functioning!

Not an argument. Ten years being wrong is a long time though.

The Borg have turned up

"appropriating the rights, resources, language, history or narrative of a marginalised group that he did not," This is all very vague and generalized and has nothing to do with what I was talking about anyway. Which was about the hypocrisy of people saying boys and men can wear dresses, to then wanting to make men wearing dresses a sign of being a predator.

Eh?

Having a problem with people being scantily clad in certain environments is very different from generalizing that men who wear dresses is a sign of likely being a predator. The latter of which has been claimed.

Hey ho. Transvestic fetishism is a diagnosis. If you dont like it, take it up with the men.

Just read Psychgirl on the necessary limits on what clothes can reasonably be worn in public places.

x.com/Psychgirl211/status/1949401505653567705

I mean if someone wants to discuss transvestic fetishism I do encourage a google. Plenty of literature on it. A warning that much of it is unpleasant.

But happy to raise awareness of how men's fetishes impact on.women and children.

Genderists often fall into this logical falacy.

I'll repeat and expand on my reply to another poster on a recent thread.

You are, either through ignorance or malice, combining two different things.

It is disingenuous to pretend the issue with trans people is how they dress. Where there is an issue about dress, the issue is the reason they dress this way and the access they claim because of that.

How someone chooses to dress is, as you say, no one else's business as long as it's not indecent for the context such as wearing extreme fetishwear in Tescos, or something offensive like a T shirt with a sexist or racist slogan.

Conversely, a person of one sex claiming to be the other sex, or the right to be treated as interchangeable with the opposite sex, because of how they think is unacceptable sexism regardless of how they dress.

So far, two different things, yes? People of either sex can wear whatever they want. People are not interchangeable with the opposite sex for any reason.

The place where "wear what you want" becomes more complicated is when the point of the clothes is not enjoyment of the look, feel or utility of the clothes themselves, but that they symbolise the opposite sex, either in fetishistic terms or in identity terms. It's not the clothes anymore but the cross dressing that is the attraction. Indeed, if the same clothes suddenly became entirely acceptable for ones own sex as well, the desire to wear them would go, replaced by some other symbol of the opposite sex.

It's the difference between a man buying a fabulous women's dress because there's nothing like that for men in the market today and having the dress altered to fit his male body, and a man buying a fabulous woman's dress because he thinks he is a fabulous woman, and altering or agumemting his male body to fit the dress.

So (and feel free to check my posting history) while as a Gender Critical Feminist I would welcome a future where clothes are not gendered at all, and not sex sepcific beyond what is needed to accomodate our physical differences, as a Gender Critical Feminist I also recognise that where we are today, in a culture where both genderist and sexist beliefs still exist and often overlap and reinforce each other, clothes do carry meaning beyond their look, feel and utility and it is not somehow "not GC" not to recognise this.

You asked "Is it okay for men and women to dress as femininely or masculinely as they want, or isn't it?". The simple answer is that to a GC Feminist, clothes should not be "feminine" or "masculine" in the first place.

Does that apply to men and women equally?
And this topic wasn't about inappropriate clothing. It was about men wearing dresses the fact that people who said they support it were then claiming it to be a sign of predation. They can be entirely covered up, and yet people still complained about it.

Men can wear what they like, they just need to use mens spaces whilst wearing it. Simple.

Coming to this late, but I just thought this post was such a good explanation that it was worth repeating!

Thank you Amaryllis xx

The post I replied to wasn't about that though, it was the old "it's none of your business how other people see themselves" canard. A facile soundbite that a few minutes thought about many times in human history one groups' self image has absolutely lead to them believing they have the right to do something to another group very quickly belies.

I address your question about gendered clothing in a reply to a post about that topic. It's a good one, I hope you enjoy it.

The topic is about Autogynephilia. A study posted upthread established there is no female equivalent of that.

So it's about men wearing clothes that they perceive as female coded. For sexual titillation.

Not skirts cut to be seemly and practical for male bodies. Not the kilts or habits or robes or sarongs that are worn by men in many cultures.

Sex toy clothes.

If you look at the stats, men who say they are women are in jail for sexual offences at a rate of 3 times the amount that men who don't say they are women. So 3 times more likely to be predatory. And that's just the ones caught, sentenced and jailed.

A man or boy wearing a skirt is just a man or boy wearing a skirt; but a man wearing a skirt and then going on to think that because he is wearing a skirt he can violate the boundaries indicated by the 'Female only' designation is indeed predatory behaviour.

"It's the difference between a man buying a fabulous women's dress because there's nothing like that for men in the market today and having the dress altered to fit his male body, and a man buying a fabulous woman's dress because he thinks he is a fabulous woman, and altering or agumemting his male body to fit the dress."

1. You don't know why a man wears a dress unless he tells you, which was my point about why it's wrong to assume paraphiliac intentions just because a man is in a dress.
2. How is it your business what someone thinks or does with their body? Anyone has bodily autonomy to change their body if they want.

"It is disingenuous to pretend the issue with trans people is how they dress." Something I never said, at any point. I didn't even specify trans identified people, I said men who wear dresses. Read better.

"It's not the clothes anymore but the cross dressing that is the attraction."

1. How would you know the reasons a man wears a dress just by looking at him?
2. How are people's fetishes your business? If they are kept in their head then it's irrelevant and you wouldn't even know about it. This is thought policing.

"The simple answer is that to a GC Feminist, clothes should not be "feminine" or "masculine" in the first place."

The words masculine or feminine aren't going anywhere, because it's a simple way to describe things. Many people actively like to embrace things because of their feminine or masculine qualities. And the last part isn't even true, if you think it's okay to assume malicious intentions when a man is wearing a dress.