Wxhluyp commented on my Autogynephilia page to say there is no such thing as autogynephilia. AGP is the theory that gynephile transwomen are aroused by the suggestion that we are female, and that creates dysphoria. I disagree, but Wyxlhup disagrees for a different reason. S/he says that the fantasy is not of becoming women, but of being emasculated. Being “feminized” is only the symbol of being emasculated.
Well. Whuxlyp has a wonderful-sounding phrase, “masochistic emasculation fetish”, but a quick Google shows that only Wuxlyph uses it.
Were it believed that this was a cause of transition, Trans-exclusionary feminists could argue that we should certainly not be admitted to women’s spaces, as we did not even really want to be women; and trans women, who judge ourselves harshly before transitioning, might worry that there was a possibility that this was their condition, and they should therefore resist transitioning.
Fortunately there is no research to back Wux- wxyu- wotsisname’s conjecture. All there is, is one person on a number of forums banging on about how any sort of pre-existing femininity or transgender psychology is etiologically adjunct to whatever he calls his fetish; and being told to shut up, and go away. No, that is not the primary fantasy of those of us who transition.
I am, actually, hard-wired to find ways in which I am bad. A friend said how talented I was, and I heard a judgment that I was not using my gifts well- then realised how silly that is. I am where I am.
Disclosure. I went to Wxhluyp’s site, and found an erotic picture by Prissy. I made a page, Prissie’s Sissies, (now deleted) not accessible from my home page but accessible from here, and from Tucking and Autogynephilia. I only included one involving penetration, but most had the cartoonist’s trademark erection inside panties.
I have never been tempted to “little girl” costumes like the ones in Prissy’s cartoons, but I was aroused, and that is the main motivation for collecting the pictures (through a Google image search). While searching, I found a picture of a transvestite I used to know, who is the only person who has admitted to me doing such role-play. Grayson Perry, who sometimes appears in “little-girl” dresses like no little girl ever wore is reducing shame- because of course I am tempted to the old line I may be a pervert but at least I am not as bad as him, which divides people and empowers kyriarchy.
I find the dominant women in the pictures arousing. There. I have submissive fantasies– though as a psychiatrist told me, in fantasy I am in complete control, manipulating the dominant as well as the submissive with whom I identify. Pictures are safe, too. I tend to feel that there are no rigid boundaries between Prissy’s fantasies and mine, but they shade into each other.
I am posting here because I am ashamed of it, and I am working my shame out. But- this is now one of my most popular posts, getting views most days since it was published. Tell me: what did you want from this post? Has it given you what you want? Please leave a comment. What do you think of the women with strap-ons pictures in the comments?
Strap-on Femdom pictures
There are femdom pictures in the comments, which I hope please you.
Clare Flourish 
You are ashamed of what, actually? Ashamed of your inner critic, of sex, of being submissive? Why, girl, that doesn’t change who you are, and you are beautiful.
I laugh at all these rather ridiculous theories. Who needs theories about other people? A complicated theory is rather suspect.
And you have a harsh inner critic. So do I, as it happens, but we just tell them to shush up by smiling at them, by laughing and talking rudely over the top of them, for once, Not by taking them seriously. There, you should be the dominatrix and tell her to shut up. She will appreciate being told what to do, I promise.
XX :-))
LikeLike
I put her in a pretty dress and tell her to sit on the naughty step until she can play nicely.
I think cognitive behavioural techniques are the thing. Well, I am not perfect, and make mistakes and I am still alive- the grey is quite light grey, after leaving the black and white thinking.
LikeLike
I share the harsh inner critic problem … but these outlandish theories are nonsensical and hurtful. In fact, I find myself often detesting would-be philosophers and theorists. You are, in fact, quite beautiful … and rather a role model for me. Like many, I considered whether my inner femininity was a call to trans or a reminder of a beautiful inner female presence. I chose the latter, but feel utterly at home in the trans community (especially in Paris). In any case, my advice (for what it’s worth) is to rejoice in your beauty, your intelligence, and your great good sense in choose trans life over the sad alternatives !
LikeLiked by 1 person
I try to avoid the hurt by not being too invested in a particular theory. It would be lovely if I could say I had a female brain in a male body, and I liberated my female soul. But then someone says, no, feeling emasculated I have eroticised that, and then got addicted to it as an erotic fantasy.
That has to be alright. Something dreadful has happened to me and within me, and made my life harder than if it hadn’t. Oh. OK. Bad things happen to good people.
There was another road you did not see.
Behind the door you did not open.
Whatever. Believe in this emasculation fantasy if you want. I am OK.
There is also a political aspect. Such theories allow people to despise and exclude me, in their own minds.
I am living in the past. I have done this. Fuck. What have I done? I remain glass bone dry-
Half full? I can’t see any water in that glass.
A layer of dust in the bottom
If you drank from it
the chips on the rim would cut your lips
and the dirt in the crack would poison you.
And- I recognise that it is essential to be glass half full, and am practising.
It is time to read Julia Serano. Can “feminine” mean anything other than “not masculine” or “inferior”? Have I any right to claim the word or the concept?
LikeLike
Feminine means, according to Virginia Woolf, embracing the world as another half of humanity … in her view, the more important half. Feminine is a way of thinking, feeling, articulating, loving, finding intimacy and friendship. It is definitely not inferior (in fact everyone from Woolf to Paglia would say it is superior) and it cannot be defined as “not masculine.” Masculine is the other half of humanity; the two are united and intermingled, separate but equal, if we might use the phrase in a positive sense. You are feminine; I have viewed your strength and felt your fire. Hang tough and believe in your instincts. They have never failed me.
Good luck, Clare … you’re a beautiful woman and a good friend. I like you. Mark
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello again Clare, there are a few misunderstandings and misrepresentations in this post.
[Edited on 24 January to remove links, and with my responses in italics]
The phenomenological interpretation on part of autogynephilia theory was sexual arousal by the image or idea of oneself as a woman, and then later there was four further categories of transvestic, behavioural, physiologic and anatomic. From this, you would gather that the uniting semiotic structure would be sexual arousal by one’s association to symbols of femininity?
[Semiotics concerns symbols and communication. I consider some of our physiological responses are physiological rather than cultural.]
I have not stated or implied that being feminized is the sole symbol of emasculation, but rather stated that feminine symbolism tends to be the most powerful. Homosexual symbolism to a lesser extent. All function in and cannot be understood apart from the context of the anxiety regarding one’s masculine social identity. For example, whilst a MEF will usually be sexually aroused by the idea itself of being attracted to men, they will also be aroused by the idea of not being attracted to women.
[Yes. I did have anxiety about being not masculine enough, though I never found the thought of being androphile attractive. But I hope that my femininity is an expression of myself, not just the negation of masculinity in me.]
Masochistic emasculation fetishism is a term I have coined.
In apparent dismissal through an appeal to research (implying autogynephilia has credibility?), you do not touch on what actually counts. That being whether the model represents the fantasies it sets out to do. And also importantly, whilst you approach this model with hostility, through the implications for a trans/dysphoric person, you do not touch on how the model relates to the majority of subjects. Those who have no such trans issues, those who are simply normal guys condemned to an embarrassing fetish.
[Yes. But I am writing about trans women, not the majority of fetishists and fantasists. I hope I do not have a lack of compassion or sympathy for any fetishist, because of his fantasy- but as trans women have an additional factor, the transition, the etiology may be different. And you may fantasise about emasculation from any cause, but that does not mean that everyone AMAB who fantasises about being female does so from Only the Same cause.]
You state that the more explicit masochistic fantasy themes are not primary for those that wish to transition, implying that they do feature for transitioners. It does seem to be the case that there is a distinct fetish, whilst it is inherently a complex and counterintuitive fetish, those which experience dysphoric feelings are more likely to interpret the masochistic fantasies in additional terms which the feel is more comforting and legitimating of their dysphoria/trans identity.”Crossdreamers” prefer to interpret the masochistic fantasies as a psychosexual manifestation of repressed transsexualism, or to conflate with the submissive fantasies of women. Of course, there is the aspect where one would be more likely to develop positive psychological affiliations based on less masochistic fantasies, where those with more masochistic fantasies niches will tend to experience the fetish as an isolated phenomenon, with little wider psychological affiliations.
[“Comforting and legitimating”. Possibly. And- why do you reduce the question? Why must we all be one phenomenon? Does that “comfort and legitimate” you? From a Revolt against Kyriarchy point of view, I say we are one in sympathy and interests: but given how different we are, why should we be entirely the same in cause?]
A reddit friend is representative of this.
You also dissmiss the statement “pre-existing femininity or transgender psychology is etiologically adjunct”. Do you agree being trans is an additional condition for a boy to feel emasculation anxiety?
[I dismissed the phrase because I found it obfuscatory verbiage, not because I disagreed. I am still unsure what you mean. I think you are saying that gynephile trans women are only motivated by a fear of emasculation which becomes eroticised- there is only one etiology. I would like you to clarify this.]
I think you have mistaken me for implying that this fetish inherently illegitimates the dysphoria and trans identification of people. Again, it isn’t that people have mistaken their fetishism for real dysphoric feelings (although many do), but rather that sexuality has the capacity to provide the conditions for legitimate dysphoric feelings, which may fully justify transition.
There is no intention to despise and exclude you. My perspective (as I have somewhat already presented in this message), is from both camps of autogynephilia and crossdreaming, before rejecting them both.
[Perhaps your dispute is with non-transitioning self-identified cross-dreamers and autogynephiliacs, rather than with trans women. Believe what you like about yourself. Why should you care what they believe about themselves? Why, just because you don’t think it true of you, could it not be true of them?
You say that in trans women the fantasising may cause the dysphoria. But heterosexual men would find the thought of becoming women revolting. There has to be something positively feminine in the trans woman before she starts fantasising about becoming female. The femininity (a positive thing, not mere lack of masculinity) causes the fantasy, not the other way around.]
LikeLike
Thank you for getting back on this, and thank you for following.
What is your interest? Have you transitioned, or reverted, or considered transition but not gone through with it? Or do you just go on these forums?
LikeLike
I am fascinated by my fetish, that which I share with seemingly a huge online community (however fragmented it seems to be under many terms and concepts). I have never developed a dysphoric psychology in addition to my fetishism. Likely because very very early in childhood, I always remembered that my embarrassing feminization fantasies were always accompanied by a strange, nice feeling. A feeling in the discovery of masturbation, I recognised as sexual arousal. Up until that point, I guess I may have been lucky as to not have internalized the images connected to the nice feelings up until that point. Into my teens, as the fantasies became more explicitly masochistic with the continuous experimentation in masturbation. The idea of transition has never enticed me, whether in fantasy themes or otherwise. The correlation between those who enjoy transition or anatomic fantasy themes and those that really wish to transition are well documented. My kind of fantasy themes (I enjoy making “captions”) evolve around more traditional transvestic themes of being caught crossdressing, not the kind of themes which would manifest wider psychological longings to fulfil in real life.
[I dislike this intensely, the idea that you avoided a dysphoric psychology because you recognised you were aroused. How do you think it arises in others? Someone just decides to become dysphoric?
And- being caught cross-dressing, being humiliated and perhaps then dominated and controlled like in the picture. Clearly emasculation. But- could you imagine that this was the corollary, the other side of the coin, of good qualities? When I say I am feminine, I might mean that I hate conflict and seek reconciliation, and I like someone else making the decisions: I prefer a supportive role, deciding how rather than what. These qualities are good in their place, in one member of a community where different people bring different gifts.
LikeLike
Thank you. That is helpful.
I can’t answer for any other forum, but this is my perspective. I am committed. I have transitioned, and I have no intention of reverting. I like to hope that this manifests a positive aspect of my psychology: I have moved towards something good rather than fled something I have found unbearable. I like to think I am expressing my own femininity, rather than rejecting masculinity.
You say you fantasise about being caught cross-dressed, but are not dysphoric. So- why do you care about us trans women? I went to a TV/TS club in Manchester, and the transvestites were often like blokes down the pub who happened to be dressed strangely. I don’t know why they do what they do. It could be a milder form of the condition I have. I haven’t read a lot about crossdreaming and I don’t know how many self-identified crossdreamers transition or dress up or merely fantasise. I do not criticise how they make their way in the world, or how they explain to themselves what they do.
I would not show disrespect to anyone because of their fantasies. Fantasise about what you want. I think you have a tin ear for language- nothing can “boil down” to something “much larger”. I don’t think your use of long words like etiology or semiotics adds anything. Rather than etiology I prefer the word “cause”. What you are saying is unclear to me. Do you think most gynephile trans women develop dysphoria then transition because of what you call MEF without actual femininity to attract them? That is what you appeared to me to be saying.
So, here am I, no infantile feeling of being in the wrong body, started cross-dressing aged 14, only thought I was TS aged about thirty. Autogynephilia says that I developed dysphoria because of my obsessive, addictive masturbatory fantasies. I say that the fantasies would not have been attractive without pre-existing femininity, but, whatever, I must face life as I am now so perhaps it does not matter.
LikeLike
By editing my comments, rather than replying in a new comment, I must reply through your previous comment, as I do not have the option of replying to my own comments. I will try and reply to your edit of my above comment if I have the time a little later. Also it is a little disappointing that you removed my links, because much of the links enabled me to communicate much necessary content without having to rewrite here, especially links elucidating my background and the background of my MEF model.
“I dislike this intensely, the idea that you avoided a dysphoric psychology because you recognised you were aroused. How do you think it arises in others? Someone just decides to become dysphoric?”
I didn’t intend to imply that it was a matter of conscious choice. Simply that the conditions were not there for a dysphoric psychology to arise. More so, it was the case that the conditions were actively there for me to think in terms of an isolated fetish. Conversely I can imagine the conditions which I could have developed a dysphoric psychology, even the conditions which sexual mediation could effectively provide the same psychological affiliations as the average girl who identifies as a girl.
I know of the account whereby the popular “forced feminization” fantasy theme can be interpreted as enjoying the stigmatized object by displacing responsibility to another, but this popular theme is still underpinned by sexual arousal by the anxiety of one’s association to symbols of emasculation. A serious desire to understand the fetish shouldn’t privilege the interpretation, thus compartmentalize it from other themes.
LikeLike
OK. Your masochistic emasculation fantasy did not lead to dysphoria. If it did not in you, why should it in anyone else?
And the main question: what do you think are the “conditions for a dysphoric psychology to arise”? Could femininity be the main one?
Actually, I am fed up with you. I liked the way Julia Serano dealt with you- refer you to where you can find out what is really going on, then ignore you.
I want to explain what I like about those Prissy pictures. The men are vulnerable, and aware of their vulnerability: happy that the women are in control. The men are fulfilled by their submission, and I could be fulfilled by submission too- though calling submission “feminine” is fraught with difficulty. In some of Prissy’s pictures, the women are cruel or dismissive, but in my favourites, the women are in relationship with the men, protecting and cherishing them. I could find such a relationship fulfilling. Occasionally, the picture is playful. It is not the ridiculous clothes the men wear, but the relationships, which attract me.
If this sounds ridiculous to you, it is. The dominance/ submission in the pictures is caricatured and exaggerated beyond all reason. It is something I have not practised. There are no role-models even though the dynamic is acknowledged in the dismissive phrase “the woman wears the trousers in that relationship”. The word “sissy” might apply to me, but if you google for sissy, you find forced feminisation porn. I have here an exaggerated symbol of something I desire, which fits some of my interactions: it is one way of approaching a truth which I cannot easily express. It is easily ridiculed, but the best I can do. It could be called a pathology, but I feel the kernel of it is something valuable, a human potential for good which is not exploited.
Because it is about how we relate with other people, of course it affects sexuality. I am amazed that anyone could think it could be otherwise. But the femininity comes first.
LikeLike
Regarding semiotics, I would say that our experience is comprised of semiotic construction and way in which biology has used constructs, whether it is the imprinting of constructs or otherwise.
I have had my doubts as to whether there is a feminization fetish per se beyond MEF. This is because of the extent that masochism seems to be present in individuals and in feminization fetish content. Also importantly, because of what I see as the dynamics for which masochism is present in MEF fantasies. Where something is sexually arousing intrinsically by virtue of it’s masochistic association, it does not require that property to be presented in a way you could recognise it as masochistic. For example, a MEF would be aroused by the idea of wearing an awesome dress, and would also be aroused by the idea of being laughed at because he is wearing a dress. The difference between the two fantasies is that the determinant anxiety is presented in recognizable terms (or thematized) in the “laughing” version.
[Oh! Brilliant! So if there is a tincture of masochism in a fantasy, then the masochism has to be the mainspring of it; and even if masochism is not visible in it, it is masochistic really. No femininity at all. Wonderful, Wuxlip, you would always win, if anyone believed this.]
Clare: [I dismissed the phrase because I found it obfuscatory verbiage, not because I disagreed. I am still unsure what you mean. I think you are saying that gynephile trans women are only motivated by a fear of emasculation which becomes eroticised- there is only one etiology. I would like you to clarify this.]”
To clarify (I seriously cannot believe “adjunct” equates to obfuscatory verbiage), where MEF would be the sexualization of emasculation anxiety, being trans may be a factor in why the boy has such anxieties, yet it will not be a factor in most cases. In other words, trans issues are an adjunct cause of emasculation anxiety.
[No, the whole was obfuscatory verbiage. When you insult such a large group of women, do so clearly. Now this is clearly an insult; thank you for that, at least. And- What do you mean by “trans”, if you have excluded most trans women?]
Clare:”I like to think I am expressing my own femininity, rather than rejecting masculinity.”
Theoretically,regardless of whether one had pre-existing feminine, or repressed femininity, arousal renders positive the object of anxiety (emasculation). But I would emphasize that especially in your case, the importance of the wider psychological state, over the fetishism, it doesn’t have to be something illegitimating or antagonistic.
[You don’t understand this positive/negative thing. “Positive” in that paragraph is attractive to the person, without being valuable for the person- he fantasises about emasculation rather than about sex with women, and eventually comes to pay for an orchiectomy. No. Negative- “he is fantasising about something abnormal, so it must be bad- leading to a sub-optimal outcome, and arising from fear” I replace with Positive: “she is feminine, and she fantasises about this, and it leads to transition, arising from Love”.]
Clare: “You say you fantasise about being caught cross-dressed, but are not dysphoric. So- why do you care about us trans women?”
I am interested by my fetish and I enjoy theorizing. It is disappointing that pure fetishists are seldom interested in theory & etiology beyond their initial discovery of autogynephilia, thus I often find myself in places of hostility. As theory is always going to be of interest to the dysphoric contingents.
[They disagree with you, and you believe that can only be because they are ignorant and hostile. That says far more about you than about them.]
I do think that many men have more general affiliations with wearing women’s clothes, but I do not think they have the imprinted fetish.
Clare: “Do you think most gynephile trans women develop dysphoria then transition because of what you call MEF without actual femininity to attract them?”
Yes, most seem to, especially in light of sexual arousal by the direct sexualization of
[See the video in this comment]
Clare: “Autogynephilia says that I developed dysphoria because of my obsessive, addictive masturbatory fantasies. I say that the fantasies would not have been attractive without pre-existing femininity, but, whatever, I must face life as I am now so perhaps it does not matter.”
Those that talk of obsessive masturbatory fantasies resulting in transition, are those that routinely fail to understand the huge psychological factor here. In that it is not that these people would simply be fulfilling an escalating sexual fantasy, but rather that the fantasies would routinely provide the psychological conditions for often totally legitimate desires for transition. I agree with transtwin (a post op MEF) on reddit, that many MEFs would be happier having gone through transition.
[Um. You need to explain this. What do you mean by “totally legitimate” and “legitimate”? What psychological conditions? I don’t want to discuss fetishists with you. Let them find pleasure in their own way. I want to extract from you what you mean by your insults of trans women. Do you think there are different etiologies for gynephile and androphile trans women?]
Clare: “Your masochistic emasculation fantasy did not lead to dysphoria. If it did not in you, why should it in anyone else?”
I imagine the images that accompanied that “nice feelings” could have become vehicles in themselves, especially for young boys with little concept of sexuality, which the nice feelings didn’t feel to be a relevant or even a distinguishable thing. In terms of the fantasies themselves, from very early ages many boys would surely come to think along the lines of “being girly makes me feel good”, “I like being a girl”.
[Wuxlip links to this site, which talks of fetishising balloons. Who knew? Humankind is so various! The site says that fascination with or terror of balloons can lead to masturbatory play with them, which reinforces the link until in some cases they become essential to arousal.]
Clare: “Actually, I am fed up with you. I liked the way Julia Serano dealt with you, too- refer you to where you can find out what is really going on, then ignore you.”
This is unfortunate. Are you interested in discussion? Do you want to hear what I really think as a simple fetishist, or do you want me to tell you what you want to hear? Julia Serano has a less developed theoretical position than Jack Molay (of crossdreamers). I am not sure whether she has compartmentalized the existence of the non-dysphoric MEFs.
LikeLike
Comment here all you like- I prefer to keep it in one place, so please comment on this post rather than Autogynephilia. I doubt anyone else will read the thread.
That clarifies, to an extent. I can now juxtapose our theories.
Me: in trans women, pre-existing femininity produces autogynephilic fantasies, and eventually produces transition.
You: fear of emasculation produces MEF fantasies, which “routinely provide the psychological conditions for often totally legitimate desires for transition”.
You still appear to say that “femininity” must include attraction to men. I find this insulting to femme lesbians, whose existence refutes it.
I have no wish to defend my theory to you, because I have in the past suffered repeated crises of confidence from imagining that my transition has arisen from autogynephilia. I can more or less say “I am where I am” but do not want reminded of those crises. It is not that I want you to tell me what I want to hear- I don’t want you to tell me anything, though feel free to tell me what you want.
Verbiage: The accusation that most gynephile M-Fs transition without being female is a serious one. It causes such crises of confidence, and may delay transition, and make life more painful for us. So I wanted it clear from you.
So why are we hostile to you? Because we are ashamed. We find a way of explaining ourselves we can bear, and challenges to it can feel like the bottom falling out of our world.
The more interesting question is, why do you feel the need to promote your theories on so many forums? It seems to me that you are looking for someone to agree with you- to legitimate you; or you like the hostility, perhaps because you are masochistic.
These are the questions I would like you to answer now.
How could a MEF transition? What are the “psychological factors/conditions”? How is it “legitimate”?
If you distinguish “trans” from a majority of trans women, what exactly do you mean by “trans”?
Do you believe in gender dysphoria? Do you believe in different etiologies for gynephile and androphile people who have transitioned to present female?
Ah, that’s interesting. I am finding this conversation useful, I hope you are too. “Gender dysphoria” is also negative- dissatisfaction with ones gender. Whereas, it is attraction to another gender. How to express that? “Different gender identification” perhaps: I am sure a more accurate as well as elegant phrase than “gender dysphoria” could be found.
LikeLike
“[Oh! Brilliant! So if there is a tincture of masochism in a fantasy, then the masochism has to be the mainspring of it; and even if masochism is not visible in it, it is masochistic really. No femininity at all. Wonderful, Wuxlip, you would always win, if anyone believed this.]”
The context is rather that the in case of a masochistic emasculation fetishist, fantasies which do not present the determinant anxiety in recognisable terms (e.g “humiliation”), will understandably give the impression of fantasies free of masochism. Where for a spanking fetishist the masochism is self evident, in MEF the masochism can only be shown in so far that a situation that can be recognised as be masochistic.
“[No, the whole was obfuscatory verbiage. When you insult such a large group of women, do so clearly. Now this is clearly an insult; thank you for that, at least. And- What do you mean by “trans”, if you have excluded most trans women?]”
No obfuscation intended at all, the fault would be with those who fail to understand and check a dictionary. Also there is no insult intended at all. In the context of trans issues being an additional cause of emasculation anxiety, it isn’t the meaning of “trans” that is important, but rather that all that is necessary for sexualization is the anxieties of masculine social identity earlier depicted in the video clip.
“[They disagree with you, and you believe that can only be because they are ignorant and hostile. That says far more about you than about them.]”
No, they simply want to exist in compartmentalization from pure fetishists, in accounting for their fetishism in adjunct terms that they feel is more acceptable in relation to their dysphoria. I am persistent and only have interest in what makes sense.
“What do you mean by “totally legitimate” and “legitimate”? What psychological conditions?”. “Do you believe in gender dysphoria?”
The conditions (psychological affiliations) where it can be justifiable to feel/identify as female and even to transition.
On identification as a gender (thus also dysphoria), There is no inherent way in which one can identify as a gender, because there is nothing that defines “masculinity” and “femininity” beyond the style they happen to be differed from each other.
Historically “femininity” and “masculinity” derive from the female-like and the male-like, and this itself derives from culture coming to distinguish generalised notions of two types of bodies, in “female” and “male”. In our culture, people come to identify as female or male based on their physiological sex, and come to identify as a “gender” based on historical cultural association related to either sex.
In other words, the “feeling” of being a gender is a vague aggregated generalization of one’s relationship to masculine and feminine associations. One will reflexively state something like they feel masculine because they like football, or conversely that they like football because they are masculine.
Physiologically, it is thought that the amount of testosterone in the womb produces a collection of differences of degree (not type). These will usually correlate with the individuals gender socialization, whilst there is no inherent way in which the dimensional differences figure in how one happens to think.
“I want to extract from you what you mean by your insults of trans women. Do you think there are different etiologies for gynephile and androphile trans women?]”
I haven’t intentionally insulted trans women. Usually it is the case that trans women are insulted by the very proposition that pure fetishists exist who are anything other than repressed trans people. I am not very interested in “autogynephilia’s” transsexual typology, but I do think that androphilia is more correlated with archetypal female psychologies.
“You still appear to say that “femininity” must include attraction to men. I find this insulting to femme lesbians, whose existence refutes it.”
No, in the case of MEF, androphilia is often a powerful symbol of emasculation anxiety.
“I have no wish to defend my theory to you, because I have in the past suffered repeated crises of confidence from imagining that my transition has arisen from autogynephilia”
Many many people who are subject to such fantasies and have transitioned, are much happier and that is the most important thing.
“The more interesting question is, why do you feel the need to promote your theories on so many forums? It seems to me that you are looking for someone to agree with you- to legitimate you; or you like the hostility, perhaps because you are masochistic”
There is the theoretical interest and I am always enjoy discussion. I feel that my model has subsumed existing models (AGP & crossdreaming).
LikeLike
Rarely have so many words expressed so few ideas.
I asked what psychological factors you think legitimate transition, and you referred me to a site with a picture of fellatio. So I replaced the link with the text of it, and read that you think the “feeling” of being a gender is a vague aggregated generalization of one’s relationship to masculine and feminine associations. One will reflexively state something like they feel masculine because they like football, or conversely that they like football because they are masculine.
So a MEF might Transition because he did not like football? Ridiculous. In any case, there are no MEFs except you. Google for it!
I asked what you meant by trans, if you excluded a lot of women who had transitioned from your definition, and you failed to answer. The closest you came was to claim that androphilia is more correlated with archetypal female psychologies. Insulting cis femme lesbians, again. Ridiculous.
You think the problem in our communication is my failure to use a dictionary- I do not need a dictionary to understand your words, I assure you, just the order you put them in. I am always enjoy discussion, you say. Why should anyone bother cutting through the thickets of your prose? Yours are weasel words: For example, you said A serious analysis of the fetish will appreciate the seemingly inherent masochism as disclosing a “masochistic emasculation fetish” How “seemingly”- is there no actual masochism, or no actually inherent masochism, or something else? But I attempted it, and have explained why your allegation that most trans women are not trans, but emasculation fetishists, is balderdash.
Your final megalomania: I feel that my model has subsumed existing models (AGP & crossdreaming). Carry on believing that, Wuxlip, if you really must.
LikeLike
CF”So a MEF might Transition because he did not like football? Ridiculous.” “I asked what you meant by trans”
You know that is not the point. You are being hysterical.
You are projecting.
Do you want a constructive discussion, or do you simply want to “stick it to me”?
A “productive discussion” will bring us closer to the truth, not to your position.
Identification as a “gender” (thus transgenderism) is comprised of one’s affiliations to historical masculine-feminine associations.
You are talking of an extremely basic part of identity. There are differences between men and women. I am closer to other women, though the bell curves are wide and overlapping.
In the case of a subject of existing feminization fantasies, sexual mediation will routinely construct the positive affiliations, that enable one to identify as feminine(female-like), where they wouldn’t otherwise. Sexual mediation as a force that creates positive psychological affiliations, is one that is universal.
I have observed in the past that some people don’t understand “positive”. The glass half-empty person can’t really get the glass half full perspective. Part of your problem is that you do not understand there is a problem.
In terms of the fetish in question, it isn’t solely a matter of gender identification, but positive psychological affiliations that could be created solely in regards to the idea of transition, amongst anything else imaginable. What could be the potential affiliations for a given individual? Look towards the fantasy theme niches within his fetishism.
“In any case, there are no MEFs except you. Google for it!”
MEF is a term I have coined recently. I think it represents the fetish that it sets out to do.
“The closest you came was to claim that androphilia is more correlated with archetypal female psychologies. Insulting cis femme lesbians, again. Ridiculous.”
The question of different trans etiologies for androphilic and gynephilic people. I do not think there is a female psychological archetype per se and also I do not think sexual attraction has anything inherently to do with it. Simply that “femininity” will be more correlated with “androphilia”.
“How “seemingly”- is there no actual masochism, or no actually inherent masochism, or something else”
As previously stated, the context is the dynamics for which “recognisable masochism” is presented within a masochistic fetish. Can you show that you have understood how an intrinsically masochistic fetish, can give the false impression of themes free of masochism?
I have no difficulty understanding your position, apart from the tortured prose you use to describe it. You cannot say anything directly unless repeatedly challenged. This is not worth my time. And- if you imagine that a fantasy can be masochistic but not appear so, then you can pontificate that any fantasy you like is in fact masochistic, even apparently ones of sex between equals.
“But I attempted it, and have explained why your allegation that most trans women are not trans, but emasculation fetishists, is balderdash.”
My terms include both the potential for pre-existing trans issues as an etiological condition of emasculation trauma, and for often legitimate
trans issues as a result of the psychological internalization of the fetishism. I have only addressed trans people in the context of those subject to such fantasies. I don’t see how my position is balderdash if it is misrepresented in such a crude way.
You keep making false accusations. There is no misrepresentation. I find no value in defending myself against your false accusations.
Again, regardless of what can be interpreted to be implied for trans people, what is fundamental is whether my model represents the fantasies that it sets out to do (sexual arousal by the anxiety of one’s association to symbols of emasculation) and what is disclosed (emasculation anxiety/trauma/PTSD, for which tras issues are a potential condition).
As far as I can see, your model represents nothing but yourself.
Dear Wuxlip,
I see no further point in debating with you. Unless you suddenly manage to write it courteously and clearly, your next comment will be deleted. I cannot be bothered addressing your misconceptions. Your desire to make everyone fit your “model” prevents you from understanding anyone but yourself. By all means, spend time on TS or sissy or transvestite forums, but you would be better to read what others have to say, and attempt to understand it, rather than banging on about your model.
LikeLike
“Dear Wuxlip, I see no further point in debating with you. Unless you suddenly manage to write it courteously and clearly,”
I write as clearly and as courteously as I am capable. I am writing in the face of hostility. I am sensitive to your position, yet I am interested in what makes sense.
“You are talking of an extremely basic part of identity. There are differences between men and women. I am closer to other women, though the bell curves are wide and overlapping.”
Identification as anything is the composite of symbolic affiliations, where the only constraint (in regards to “gender”) will be the potential influence of dimensional differences between the sexes. How can it be otherwise?
“if you imagine that a fantasy can be masochistic but not appear so, then you can pontificate that any fantasy you like is in fact masochistic, even apparently ones of sex between equals.”
As previously stated (again), the context is the dynamics for which “recognisable masochism” is presented within a masochistic fetish.
“You keep making false accusations. There is no misrepresentation. I find no value in defending myself against your false accusations.”
You stated,
“your allegation that most trans women are not trans, but emasculation fetishists”
I had already stated that the is a real potential of trans identity in relation to those subjected to the fetishism, whether it is a real etiological condition or otherwise.
“As far as I can see, your model represents nothing but yourself.”
So now you are stating there are no such fetishists, or that the presented content functions in a different way? Do you have some insights to revise the model?
“Your desire to make everyone fit your “model” prevents you from understanding anyone but yourself. By all means, spend time on TS or sissy or transvestite forums,”
In “sissy” spaces there is no problem with people identifying with the model. The problem is rather that there is a lack of interest in the subject.
“but you would be better to read what others have to say, and attempt to understand it, rather than banging on about your model.”
What other have to say has played an important part in how the model has come to be and how it may change.
Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be much people around who are analysing the fetishism, beyond the autogynephilia and crossdream discourses and their crude idioms. Again, if there is some insight you may have had, or something about my model which you think fails to represent the fetishism that it sets out to represent (which may justify me ceasing to “bang on”), then I am happy for the progress.
LikeLike
OK. Just on trans aspects of this: what do you think is the proportion of transitioners where the trans nature precedes the fetishism, and what the proportion where the fetishism gives rise to trans ideation?
LikeLike
“OK. Just on trans aspects of this: what do you think is the proportion of transitioners where the trans nature precedes the fetishism”
It is a question of what proportion of the boys antagonised by the culture addressed in the following clip, already exhibit the affiliations where identification with the female-like is possible.
“what the proportion where the fetishism gives rise to trans ideation?”
From my experience, there is an absolutely huge amount of MEFs (reflecting the culture addressed in the clip) and a small minority additionally develop dysphoric feelings. Apart from thinking that the female role in may crucial ways is less restrictive, I think the fetishism plays a key part in understanding why there are a considerable higher rate of M2F as opposed to F2M.
LikeLike
Despite your impenetrable prose, I think that means you have no idea; so what are you saying?
That clip says boys and men are presented with a difficult ideal of masculinity, based on “respect”/ threat of violence, and the inability ever to seek help. Well, yes; but are you saying they all start fantasising about having their balls chopped off?
LikeLike
I do not believe that you do not understand.
LikeLike
Wux, babes, I understand.
1. Some men feel inadequate.
2. Some AMAB people want to transition because we are feminine.
3. Some AMAB people want to have their balls cut off, you say, not because they are female but for some other reason.
The video illustrates (1). You continually fail to answer what proportion of gynephile trans women you imagine are unmasculine, rather than feminine. You hint it is most, but fail to state this straight out.
Apart from your failure to state your position on this, I understand all that you say, except when your command of English has completely deserted you.
LikeLike
“Wux, babes, I understand.”
The question you posed was regarding the “proportion of transitioners where the trans nature precedes the fetishism”.
[Clare: More tedious bullshit from Wuxlip. I deleted it. Wux. You dodge the question so often, I will give you some alternatives to stop the dodging.
What proportion of gynephile trans women do you imagine are gender dysphoric, where the gender dysphoria is not caused by either your MEF or Autogynephilia? Is it:
A: 99%
B: more than 80%
C: more than 50%
D: more than 20%
E: less than 20%
F: 1% or less
Of the trans women who transition because of MEF or AGP, what proportion do you imagine is MEF?
Compared to the number who transition, do you imagine there are MEF men who do not transition? If so, what is the proportion: give as accurate a figure as you can.
I think you mentioned something about “fun”. I have seen your idea of fun. No, thank you.
Wuxy, you are a sad obsessive who wants to transition, but does not have the guts. So you haunt trans sites, like a pauper child peering in a sweetshop window. But you have The Great Fetish Theory, which if true would mean you were totally justified in not transitioning and we were just a load of perverts. Sadly for you, it has no connection whatever to reality. So you post about it praeter nauseam. You post here, because other people are even more sick of you than I am.]
LikeLike
“More tedious bullshit from Wuxlip. I deleted it. Wux. You dodge the question so often, I will give you some alternatives to stop the dodging.”
What about it was tedious? Why delete it, rather than leave it for all to see, that wouldn’t be a problem if you were able to answer it right? Why don’t we continue our discussion on reddit where the terms can not be manipulated?
“What proportion of gynephile trans women do you imagine are gender dysphoric, where the gender dysphoria is not caused by either your MEF or Autogynephilia? Is it:”
I am not in a position to feel for an estimate. Perhaps if I was a therapist in this field. The most I have to go on is through the fetish/crossdream community, which is to say that my familiarity is with dysphoric fetishists. I am in a much better position to feel for the proportion of fetishists who develop dysphoric psychologies at around 5%. Jack Molay of “crossdreamers” likes to say that most M2Fs exhibit the fantasies, but then again his whole oeuvre is aimed at conflating the fetish to transsexualism.
“Of the trans women who transition because of MEF or AGP, what proportion do you imagine is MEF?”
I doubt there has ever been AGP beyond MEF.
“Compared to the number who transition, do you imagine there are MEF men who do not transition? If so, what is the proportion: give as accurate a figure as you can.”
I feel up to 10% of MEFs develop dysphoric psychologies, whist around 5% of MEFs attempt transition. A similar proportion of MEFs prefer the fantasy niches for which transition is relevant, yet this doesn’t say whether the individual comes to think in terms for which the dysphoric psychologies will emerge.
“I think you mentioned something about “fun”. I have seen your idea of fun. No, thank you.”
Would you recommend any of your favourite content then? I love captions and well written fiction.
“Wuxy, you are a sad obsessive who wants to transition,”
Transition isn’t my bag baby. It’s like the subniche of platform shoes in a shoe fetish.
“So you haunt trans sites”
Fetish boards and “crossdream” spaces?
“Sadly for you, it has no connection whatever to reality.”
For example?
“You post here, because other people are even more sick of you than I am.”
You already know that I am excited to discuss this phenomenon wherever I can.
LikeLike
I always learn something new through your posts Clare. Thank you for that. I have many gay friends but have never known a transgendered person and I find friendship and shared life to be the easiest way to understand another person’s reality. I’m only drawing the parellel as the transgendered community often is lumped in with the gay community. LGBT So “knowing” you online and pseudo sharing your trip is important. You’re bringing the transgender story to others who may not have much exposure.
I was just speaking of Laura Jane Grace with the BF last night. I’m an Against Me! fan. Her story is fascinating to me. I think it’s wonderful that she brought it out onto the stage. And BTW their new album is quite good. The entire song list is about her struggle. Punk rock, who’d have thunk it?!
LikeLike
I had not heard of Laura Jane Grace, so you are teaching me too.
LikeLike
What a great post. I wanted to research this WXLYUP character and here I have lots of materials. He claims his persistent four year long harassment of trans people is in the interest of truth, but I have my own theory. I think this boy is extremely mentally disturbed and gets off on making trans women feel invalid. Don’t worry… I shall deal with him soon! And if you read this WXLYUP… you may find Felix willing to humour you, but I am not… I know you for what you are and your lame profesion to accept trans identities is a masquerade.You are an aggressive, sick transphobe, and nothing more. Adieu…
LikeLike
Welcome, Electra. Thank you for commenting.
I understand Wux is talking about himself, but generalising to others. He is very happy to share his views, and undeterred by the constant refutation. More Wux here, here and especially here. Oh, and here.
LikeLike
“He claims his persistent four year long harassment of trans people is in the interest of truth”
Yes I am interested in what makes sense, to which I have found myself at odds with those who are only interested in an understanding of the fetishism, in so far that it affirms their transgenderism.
“I think this boy is extremely mentally disturbed and gets off on making trans women feel invalid.”
This has already been discussed, that the fetish doesn’t necessarily invalidate identity. Furthermore the very charge can be aimed at yourself, in getting off at reducing fetishists to being repressed transsexuals.
“And if you read this WXLYUP… you may find Felix willing to humour you, but I am not… I know you for what you are and your lame profesion to accept trans identities is a masquerade.You are an aggressive, sick transphobe, and nothing more. Adieu…”
It is true that I accept any way in which a person identifies. Your grievance is in nothing more than a fetishist presenting how his fetishism doesn’t necessitate repressed transsexualism.
“I understand Wux is talking about himself, but generalising to others.”
Hi Clare. Yes I theorise my fetishism, to which it extends to others only in so far they are subject to the same fetishism. This goes for any model regarding the fetish, such as the repressed transsexual narrative of “crossdreaming”.
“He is very happy to share his views, and undeterred by the constant refutation.”
Refutation? However doubtful , it would be interesting to see.
LikeLike
The offer is still open, Wux. 300 words to explain your batty little theory from start to finish, and what you imagine has gone on in your own head. I suppose nothing will convince you that it does not “extend” to others.
LikeLike
Is the content which I have linked, represented by sexual arousal by the masochistic association of oneself to symbols of emasculation?
LikeLike
No links, Wux. You know the rules.
LikeLike
“No links, Wux. You know the rules.”
No, you don’t appear to understand the rules. The necessity of presenting the very content which analysis is in regards to. And the question remains the same. Is the content, or is the content not, represented by the masochistic association of oneself to symbols of emasculation?
LikeLike
It’s porn, Wux. That video is disgusting. Women with obviously fake penises somehow fastened into their vaginas so that a rubber penis appears to grow from them, being anally penetrated. That spreads disease and causes anal fissures, and is exploitative. No porn has anything to do with lovemaking, not even with rutting. It certainly has nothing to do with trans women. If you want to wank to that, do not dignify it with the word “analysis”.
LikeLike
You haven’t addressed the question, being whether the content, or the content is not, represented by sexual arousal by the masochistic association of oneself to symbols of emasculation?
LikeLike
Wux, old fruit, is English your first language? You write it very very badly if so.
LikeLike
It that to imply that somehow you can’t understand the question?
LikeLike
“It”- could be bad typing
“Is that to imply”- No, you infer wrongly, and misuse imply
It was a straight question, because I wanted to know the answer. And also I was mocking you. Your written English is appalling, with misuse of common as well as academic-sounding words. But again you think the problem is me. Wux, your problem is that you do not understand that the problem is you: your understanding, your babbling away the same rubbish though constantly refuted. Why don’t you listen to anyone but yourself?
If anyone else is listening: what do you expect? I expect an outpouring of hurt self-justification. Or perhaps he will go away again.
LikeLike
I am indifferent to the standard of my English, and you are avoiding the question.
[Clare: Clearly.
And no, I am not going either to permit a link nor even glance at another video.]
Is the content, or is content not, constituted in sexual arousal by the masochistic association of oneself to symbols of emasculation?
LikeLike
I avoid your silly questions in order to avoid humiliating you. However, since you insist- it seems to be your thing-
The first video you linked to was for androphile trans women, who would get turned on by thoughts of being fucked by men. That is, after all, what androphilia means. Nothing to do with emasculation, as many gay men are cis.
LikeLike
“The first video you linked to was for androphile trans women, who would get turned on by thoughts of being fucked by men. That is, after all, what androphilia means. Nothing to do with emasculation, as many gay men are cis.”
A video which repeatedly states variations of “give in” “you are a sissy faggot”… What happened to your post which was comprised of the works of prissy’s sissies?
Since we last talked around a year ago, my tumblr blog has become relatively busy. Being someone that is also interested in theorising the masochistic emasculation fetish, some of it may interest you.
LikeLike
I hesitate to correct most of your grammatical errors, but you really should google “Unattached participle”. You claim that your tumblr is capable of interest and theorising. I very much doubt that. I doubt it contains any interest or theorising, either: only batty drivellings unconnected to reality outside your diseased brain.
As my Prissy page attracted little attention from my discerning readers, and bored me, I deleted it.
I hesitate to correct most of your conceptual errors, but sometimes your stupidity reaches amazing new heights. Do you imagine gay men who are Bottoms are all emasculated? You have a very broad definition. Lots of men are sexually submissive, either to other men or to women, and it does not stop them being men, or make them desire not to be men.
LikeLike
“You claim that your tumblr is capable of interest and theorising. I very much doubt that. I doubt it contains any interest or theorising, either: only batty drivellings unconnected to reality outside your diseased brain.”
Such as…..?
[Clare: All of it, wuxlip. Do keep up. Unless by accident you quote something worthwhile, not understanding that it refutes you.]
“I hesitate to correct most of your conceptual errors, but sometimes your stupidity reaches amazing new heights. Do you imagine gay men who are Bottoms are all emasculated? You have a very broad definition. Lots of men are sexually submissive, either to other men or to women, and it does not stop them being men, or make them desire not to be men.”
Yes the symbols of emasculation within the masochistic emasculation fetish is quite broad, from those that utilize symbols of womanhood, to the inferiority of one’s masculinity in term of one’s race, to the idea itself of not being sexually aroused by women….. all explicitly referring to to “sissies” & “faggots”
LikeLike
Wuxlip, you are too, too silly. Let me explain again.
Some AMAB people are women. We desire to express our femininity. This necessarily involves becoming less masculine in appearance, and even physical alteration: but the desire is to express ourselves as we are.
Some men are gay. “Get over it,” as they say. That means, they desire sex with men. They are usually cis.
You yourself may not be particularly feminine, yet you believe you are MEF. Does that mean you want your balls cut off? If so, go ahead- why ever not?
LikeLike
“Some AMAB people are women.”
There is no such thing as “being” a “man” or “woman”. One simply relates to affiliations of maleness & femaleness, to which nothing necessarily makes something “masculine” or “feminine”, beyond the style they have historically happened to differ.
“We desire to express our femininity.”
“There is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender; … identity is performatively constituted by the very “expressions” that are said to be its results.”
“Some men are gay. “Get over it,” as they say. That means, they desire sex with men. They are usually cis.”
Regarding the fetish in question, there isn’t sexual arousal by cues of maleness (androphilia), but rather sexual arousal by the masochistic association of oneself to being sexually aroused by men
“You yourself may not be particularly feminine, yet you believe you are MEF. Does that mean you want your balls cut off? If so, go ahead- why ever not?”
No not particularly feminine. MEF is masochistic emasculation fetishism, to which having one’s balls cut off is a potential theme of emasculation, but not one I am into, therefore it doesn’t fit the routine requirements for it to develop into an emotional attachment. Another important prerequisite in the emotional attachment in those that desire to transition, is belief, and a desire to believe in an inner female identity. That is one thing that over time, has become explicitly apparent when distinguishing the development of “crossdreamers” from fetishists, is the emotional attachment to and belief in an inner female identity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And so the wheel turns. Wuxlip, having shown he does not understand transsexuality or sexual orientation, proceeds to show he does not understand epistemology. Just like before.
But I have always assumed, Wux, that you were talking about yourself. You now stand revealed as admitting no-one is MEF, rather than claiming that one person, yourself, is MEF. So what is your interest in all this? Why do you keep polluting the internet with your batty theory?
LikeLike
“And so the wheel turns. Wuxlip, having shown he does not understand transsexuality or sexual orientation, proceeds to show he does not understand epistemology. Just like before.”
You appear to take issue with something I have said about transsexuality & sexual orientation. I take it that your are an essentialist & biological determinist.
“So what is your interest in all this?”
I am a guy who is fascinated by his fetish, in understanding it and discussing it. Which is why it can be problematic when it comes to the politics of self identified trans individuals, who are only interesting in understanding (and perpetuating understandings) only in so far as they affirm their transgenderism in the terms which are most comfortable to them.
“But I have always assumed, Wux, that you were talking about yourself. You now stand revealed as admitting no-one is MEF, rather than claiming that one person, yourself, is MEF.”
I take it that you haven’t been on my reddit & tumblr pages.
Here are some excerpts from fan mail.
[Clare: I deleted the comments you wrote on your own tumblr. They were clearly by you, no-one else would write such drivel as “Your work on this topic is brilliant”. On those sites not controlled by you, you are told what an idiot you are. It did not take me long, for example, to find a reply to you saying “you are not really making an argument, but just making statements as if they are undeniable facts.
“They are not.”
That kind of sums you up. And “like I said, I’ve thought and written about this subject a lot over the last 10 years. Feel free to read what I have written. Or if you disagree with or are disinterested in my perspective on this issue, so be it.” After that you commented again, and she did not bother replying to you. She is more sensible than me: nothing you say has any value.]
LikeLike
So, let me get this cishet-
You are a masochistic emasculation fetishist who does not want to be emasculated. OK. Therefore you have to imagine that something less than castration constitutes “emasculation”. I suppose that could be why you confuse “feminization” with emasculation. Aha! I have worked out why you are so insistent, and so wrong!
Your drivellings about my epistemological position have less value than your drivellings about trans women.
LikeLike
“On those sites not controlled by you, you are told what an idiot you are. It did not take me long, for example, to find a reply to you saying “you are not really making an argument, but just making statements as if they are undeniable facts.”
You mean places such as this, where as a fetishist presenting an understanding of a fetish, set against those who simply want to hear an understanding in so far that it affirms their transgenderism in the most comforting way.
A MEF is sexually aroused by the masochistic association of himself to symbols of emasculation. Such as having a smaller penis than that of a man of another race.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, I want to understand, not have some closed-minded idiot repeating rubbish which has nothing to do with trans women; your repetition without argument, mere assertion, has no value. And those considering transition need to understand, but as they are frightened of transition they are tempted by foolish and wrong hypotheses, such as autogynephilia, and even something not sufficiently worked out to be worthy of the name hypothesis, such as your ravings, to imagine they should not.
Oh, and- Electra commented on 12 October. She did not reply to you, but made a top level comment: yet you responded on the 15th. How often do you visit this post? Are you hanging around here most days, checking whether anything is added?
LikeLike
I am aware that you already understand from our encounter last year, and that you feel (hysterical, vitriolic) opposition to my understanding of the fetishism in it’s own terms, apart from your understandable desire for it to somehow necessitate some sort of underlying transgenderism/homosexuality in it’s etiology. In this sense, you are right, the fetish doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with trans women, as such gender issues are adjunctly related in the etiology, and are not a determined psychological product of the fetishism.
“And those considering transition need to understand, but as they are frightened of transition they are tempted by foolish and wrong hypotheses”
I have heard this argument on many occasions from “crossdreamers”. Being that any real understanding of the fetish in it’s own terms should be suppressed, in so far that everyone should only hear what would ultimately ensure that especially the younger gender-dysphoric individuals will pursue the steps to become women without any inhibition. Whilst it goes without saying that many are better off becoming women, the narrative which crossdreamers want to propagate, is not only intellectually dishonest, but instead of giving fetishists an understanding of the phenomenon, it imposes the trans narrative on them also.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I impose nothing. We impose nothing. Neither, actually, do you, despite your continuing attempts.
You demonstrate, once again, your complete lack of empathy and therefore your inability to understand anything, anything at all, about human beings.
I have written a post about why you are wrong, and the proper attitude to pitiable creatures such as yourself, but I have better things to blog about so have delayed it.
LikeLike
“You demonstrate, once again, your complete lack of empathy and therefore your inability to understand anything, anything at all, about human beings.”
As you know, I am simply a guy who is interested in [obsessed by] his fetish and is interested in genuinely understanding it [so closed minded that he cannot accept any evidence contradicting his ridiculous theories]. I find the situation with crossdreamers [Wux is a coward] akin to that of [people who deny reality, whereas they are ordinary people living their lives as best they can, genuinely trying to understand].
LikeLiked by 1 person
wxhluyp has consistently presented one of the more convincing and well thought-through explanations of autogynephilia (AGP). Blanchard did not seek to explore the provocation for AGP, but only to identify and describe it; it has been left to others to try to unpick the triggers.
There is absolutely no doubt that, in his principal premise, wxhluyp is right about the link between AGP and MEF.(He’s not the only one who uses the term, BTW.) This might well explain the uptick in AGP that appears to be occurring in the West at the moment — as contemporary feminism excoriates men for being men, so more men seek emasculation — or at least, are prepared to go public. This was not the intention of the feminists, but it does have a dryly appropriate air to it.
What is not so well explained, by MEF, is the narcissistic element in Autogynephilia, which is the cause of allmale non-homosexual gender dysphoria. It’s possible these factors might be operating in tandem, of course.
LikeLike
You’re not Wux, are you, at last using a pronounceable name?
Who else uses MEF, apart from people commenting on his Reddit? I could not find the term on Google scholar.
LikeLike
No, and I should have thought, since you have commented on my site in the past, that you would have known that. I am Rod Fleming.
The MEF theory is not widely accepted but it is clear that there are such components within autogynephilia, which is the cause of all non-homosexual male gender dysphoria. It remains unclear how the mechanism might work, however. A significant number of males suffer from castration ideation and this might well be implicated in non-homosexual transitioning. ‘Castration’ in this case, would include what we might call ‘social castration’ that is, ‘appearing to be a person normally lacking a penis’ ie a woman. That does seem to somewhat mesh with wxhluyp’s ideas and also, with what we know of autogynephilia. Again, though, we can’t really be sure if the castration ideation is a function of the autogynephilia, the opposite way round, or the two are actually identical. It is usually assumed to be the first, but there is no research basis for that assumption.
The fact that a hypothesis like MEF has been arrived at by a non-academic is hardly surprising, given the amount of hostility that any academic research that does not follow the transactivist party line is subject to. Wxhluyp’s ideas are not invalidated by his status. Especially in an era when academia has become so biased towards junk ideology, loosely, though inaccurately, called ‘Postmodernism’, in fact, independents now represent the only ongoing thinking on a range of subject areas that challenge that.
Where I disagree with wxhluyp is in his assertion that his MEF hypothesis somehow invalidates or supersedes autogynephilia. I can see no justification for that claim. Even if we could establish that some instances of autogynephilia might in fact be misdiagnosed MEF, which is possible, it would not easily account for the instances of pre-pubertal autogynephilic arousal that have been documented.
Google Scholar, like the rest of Google, is a Politically Correct propaganda engine that censors results, by the way; Refseek.com is far more reliable. (Which is not to say it will find results directly relevant to MEF either.)
LikeLike
Have I? You can’t be very memorable. I see it is deleted. It was Roda Fleming, and now you are Rod. Have you repented of cross-dressing?
“Social castration” you say, meaning cross-dressing, retaining the testicles. That is, not castration at all. “AGP causes all non-homosexual male gender dysphoria” you say, but then “it remains unclear how the mechanism might work” and “there is no research basis”. You are wittering. No more comments by you on “MEF” will be accepted. Comment on something else if you must, but your airy assertions about the cause of anything to do with trans are clearly worthless.
Postmodernism is all about apparently conflicting views and different perspectives being valuable. You don’t understand that, either.
LikeLike
Nice narcissistic rage response, pet. Typical of autogynephilia. The A in my email is for my middle name, but it’s OK, I understand your need for pettiness. And yes, I do understand Postmodernism and the destruction it is doing to out culture. That tide, it seems, is turning, thankfully.
I will turn my attention to you and this site full of presumptuous, autogynephilic lies, elsewhere, dear.
LikeLike
“Rage”. Have you read your earlier comments? The rage and contempt, and the internal contradiction, is visible to everyone but you.
What value do you think your attention has?
LikeLike
[Clare: I have let through another comment, because I wanted Rod to show his complete lack of self-knowledge, as well as his ignorance.]
There has been no ‘rage’ in my comments here;
[And there it is. There’s paranoia, too: Google Scholar censors results, indeed.]
I merely supported some of what wxhluyp said, because he makes a fair point. I am not he, sorry. Narcissistic rage is a feature of autogynephilia, which is a real and debilitating disorder, which, I am afraid, transition will not cure.
[Clare: so, he accuses me of “narcissistic rage” because I am TS, and in his poorly understood world all gynephile trans women have AGP, which, again as he understands it, must involve narcissistic rage. Poor fool.]
LikeLike