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 😭

  • boygirlfreakthing
    3·
    6 days ago

    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).

    • Loose_Sandwich9217OP
      1·
      6 days ago

      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

      • boygirlfreakthing
        2·
        6 days ago

        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.’

        • Loose_Sandwich9217OP
          1·
          6 days ago

          and unless you can test definitively whether some transitions are motivated by “autoromantic gynephillic attraction” or garden-variety transsexuality

          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”

          • boygirlfreakthing
            1·
            6 days ago

            “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

            • Loose_Sandwich9217OP
              1·
              6 days ago

              So is any theory about trans peoples motivation to transition just garbage and we can never know then lmao what

              Retardation I fear