Your post is an excellent example of how the supposedly-reasonable middle ground tends to be so clueless as to be plausibly worse than the extremes.
Like, e.g. Blanchard doesn’t think trans men have AGP
You mean AAP here, right?
He accepts autohomoeroticism, which is close enough to AAP that the difference doesn’t matter. The real problem here is Michael Bailey who has a sort of dogmatic denial of AAP.
doesn’t think trans women who are attracted to men have AGP
That’s pretty common in people’s second-hand version; the real issue here is that this is sometimes wrong and some androphiles are AGP.
Oversimplification 2: Bisexuals exist. Many trans women report their sexual orientation changing when they start taking hormones. The correlation between having AGP and being attracted to women can’t be as 100% as Blanchard appears to believe it is.
Blanchard explicitly measured that some trans women identified as bisexual, and argued that they were autogynephilic and not truly bisexual. There’s some problems with that assertion, but uncovering those problems really ought to engage with more of the nuances than what you imply here.
Oversimplification 4: Do heterosexual cisgender women have AGP? (Cf. Comments by Aella, eigenrobot etc.) if straight cisgender women also like being attractive in the same way as (some) trans women do, it becomes somewhat doubtful that it’s a pathology.
According to qualitative studies I’ve done, around 15% of women are at least somewhat AGP (though I think it correlates with being bi/lesbian), but the assertion that this implies it’s not a pathology for males seems like magical thinking. E.g. ~100% of women have breasts, but this does not mean that developing breasts would not be considered a pathology for males.
Your post is an excellent example of how the supposedly-reasonable middle ground tends to be so clueless as to be plausibly worse than the extremes.
You mean AAP here, right?
He accepts autohomoeroticism, which is close enough to AAP that the difference doesn’t matter. The real problem here is Michael Bailey who has a sort of dogmatic denial of AAP.
That’s pretty common in people’s second-hand version; the real issue here is that this is sometimes wrong and some androphiles are AGP.
Blanchard explicitly measured that some trans women identified as bisexual, and argued that they were autogynephilic and not truly bisexual. There’s some problems with that assertion, but uncovering those problems really ought to engage with more of the nuances than what you imply here.
According to qualitative studies I’ve done, around 15% of women are at least somewhat AGP (though I think it correlates with being bi/lesbian), but the assertion that this implies it’s not a pathology for males seems like magical thinking. E.g. ~100% of women have breasts, but this does not mean that developing breasts would not be considered a pathology for males.
I will take “actually, it’s even more complicated” as a reasonable response. Yes, it probably is.
What I don’t get is, why do you have this impulse to sanewash the sides in this discussion?