For one, the vast majority of women are androphiles and for agps that’s jot remotely true so that makes no sense
For 2, agp is a sexuality not just a fetish and therefore also has non sexual romantic aspects and idk maybe I’m crazy but I don’t think most cis women are attracted to themselves in an autoromantic sense
For 3, the moser study is nonsense
Women liking tall men and feeling feminine doesn’t make them autogynephiles 😭
Aas absolutely do tho + purely paraphilic patients drop treatment when their libido drops, you can go read case studies of thst happening
fair, but then, you dont really have the paraphilia, do you? your body makes you feel horrid, not turned on, no? and you arent stopping E because you miss your libido either, youre not stopping it at all
I mean no one here has it in a purely paraphilic sense
I did when I was 10-12, I guess I’ve just found the answer then. I am just faketrans, nobody wants to admit it to be nice or something
but you dint have it in any sense
I do in some ways, u still hate multiple masculine features and like having soft skin and stuff
thats negative androgyny though, its the attributes changed by puberty. you hate actually being seen as a woman or having qny positively feminine characteristics.
agp was devised as a paraphillia. then by this mechanism, it was proven no such paraphillia exists. then, reclassifying agp as something entirely new and unprecedented in theory or observation is scientific dishonesty meant only to keep alive an obviously false theory (for transphobic aims, need i need to tell you abt blanchler’s connections with anti-trans lobbyists and hate groups).
I mean do you want me to just come up for a new name for it then idk, idk how reclassifying something upon further observation is dishonesty
in science, we make hypotheses. we test these hypotheses experimentally or observationally, then discuss whether they support or do not support the hypotheses. if they do support the hypotheses, then we have more reason to believe said hypotheses. if they do not support the hypotheses, then we have more reason to not believe said hypotheses.
if, under scrutiny, a theory is not supported by science. you do not try and dodge your experimental or observational data by ad-hoc claiming that actually your theory was something different. if you do, then you must test that theory. if you do, you should make sure the foundation of your theory is grounded in previous research. “autoromantic gynephillic attraction motivating transition” is not grounded in previous research. it’s batshit insane and entirely unprecedented. and unless you can test definitively whether some transitions are motivated by “autoromantic gynephillic attraction” or garden-variety transsexuality, your theory is unfalsifiable. that’s the scientific term meaning ‘garbage.’
It’s basically impossible to judge the motivation for someone’s transition definitely other than anecdotal evidence, which literally does exist
Also tf is “garden variet transsexuality”
“It’s basically impossible to judge the motivation for someone’s transition definitely other than anecdotal evidence” thus, the theory is unfalsifiable. it is garbage
So is any theory about trans peoples motivation to transition just garbage and we can never know then lmao what
Retardation I fear
ok but none of us did that so its not agp?
Read my comment before this one? What