>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.

  • Loose_Sandwich9217
    1·
    18 days ago

    literal rhethoricslop you could add another type to the typology and it wouldnt make agp or hsts fake

      • Loose_Sandwich9217
        1·
        18 days ago

        explain why the existance of non agps makes agp not real at all ever, the 2 things are not related

        • pleasantaftertastesOP
          1·
          18 days ago

          BECAUSE THE BASE LINE OF THE THEORY IS THAT EVERY TRANS WOMEN IS EITHER A MAN IN A DRESS OR HSTS I am getting angry over nothing. this isn’t even a debate. you don’t know the most core ideas of Blanchard’s typology. surprise surprise, you found one of its biggest flaws. it asserts there are only two groups.

          • Loose_Sandwich9217
            1·
            18 days ago

            im not a strict blanchardist youre arguing with ghosts, I just think agp is obviously real in a lot of trans women + me

          • its_ogre
            1·
            18 days ago

            You both are talking completely past each other. Loose sandwich is trying to say that agp as a concept exists somewhere - i.e., at least one person has an autoerotic attraction to seeing themself as a woman - while you’re getting hung up on the GRAND UNIFIED AGP/HSTS BLANCHARDIAN THEORY™ which I feel like at this point almost nobody fully agrees with.

            Do you disagree that at least one person has experienced an autoerotic arousal dressing in feminine clothes or seeing themself as a woman?

            Surely you don’t because sissies exist

            • pleasantaftertastesOP
              1·
              18 days ago

              THE THEORY IS INHERENTLY ALL OR NOTHING. AM I THE ONLY PERSON HERE WHO HAS READ BLANCHARD?

              • pleasantaftertastesOP
                1·
                18 days ago

                YOU SERIOUSLY CANNOT TELL ME THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LESBIAN TRANS WOMEN AND SISSIES? AM I ON POL?

                • its_ogre
                  1·
                  18 days ago

                  huhhhh??? wtf are you talking about, I already said I don’t fully agree with blanchardism. I’m trying to say that I’VE experienced an autoerotic arousal dressing in women’s clothes when I was a kid. And I’m trying to reconcile this with me being trans (what im saying is that it makes me faketrans)

                  Just call me a faketrans sissy already ik you want to

                  • pleasantaftertastesOP
                    1·
                    18 days ago

                    I don’t care about you. why is everybody using their personal anecdote? it doesn’t matter! in the sense of Blanchard’s theory being true. Blanchard didn’t even identify arousal correctly when these concepts were made! arousal isn’t just purely sexual!