>Be me, John 44.
>Transition anyway because you’re super rich from anesthesiologist work
>Abandon wife and kids like a boss.
>see Ray Blanchard’s work.
>Your new bible.JPEG
>Call trannies men in dresses who just have a fetish because you can’t imagine being trans without seeing it through sex.
>assert your theory as objective fact
>all evidence that contradicts is made up or a lie
>it’s so shit even TERFs don’t bother using it as ammo
>only believed by those with serious brainworms because it’s a meme scientifically.
>don’t apply it to yourself
>retire happy
Praise be, she is the queen even above Blanchard. If you like Blanchard more, you’re sexist.
That the concept is literally real?? Like you’re repeatedly saying jts not real ever outright when that literally cannot be true without me being a liar
you’re wrong, not a liar. if this concept is correct (which it isn’t) it either applies to all trans women everywhere and cannot be falsified or it’s wrong. the latter is far more plausible.
Utterly retarded logic why js thst true
Also how exactly am I wrong? Was I delusional when I experienced autosexual gynephilic attraction? Basically the same as calling me a liar
I think the solution here is that we are observing a phenomenon in you that autogynephilia as a concept describes but in reality it also interprets it and thereby the way we conceptualize your experience is not objective and your own perception of it is mediated through the framework that you’ve internalized seeing it through…
Pat is arguing that the interpretation of your experience is wrong because the concept is flawed, not that you experience doesn’t exist…
Just that it would be more favorable to interpet it through a different framework