>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.
I don’t think it’s clicking
so i am agp even though agp isnt real but i am agp but also im not agp, true!
not everything is about you, and your thoughts alone don’t mean that most trans women arent male perverts in dresses. I don’t care about your anecdote in terms of proving most trans women are men in dresses
but you said its never real in any case, not just that its not universal
IT HAS TO BE UNIVERSAL AS PER THE THEORY? you can’t have it both ways! either the concert is true as per Blanchard And Lawrence and most trans women are male fetishist in dresses made trans by external factors and sex shit, or trans women AREN’T sissies in dresses!
why? why couldnt they have just been wrong about the universal part? hell they didnt even think its universal its a typology
BECAUSE THATS THE AXIOM THE ENTIRE THEORY IS BUILT ON. EITHER TRANS WOMEN ARE AGP OR HSTS AND ALL THINGS BRANCH OUT FROM THAT. JESUS CHRIST.
you could literally just add another thing to the typology and it wouldnt fundamentally change that much, i do not see any reason why agp cant be real alongside other things thats stupid and dogmatic
ITS AN AXIOM YOU CANT ADD SHIT ONTO IT OR CHANGE IT THE WHOLE DAMN POINT OF AN AXIOM IS THAT IT IS DOGMATIC. OH MY GOD OH MY GOD