In the paper, they claim to be responding to people such as Charles Moser and Scott Alexander, and as I said Charles Moser and Scott Alexander are talking about AGP in trans women.
From my understanding, they’re talking about AGP in natal males of any kind as compared to AGP in cis women. Scott and others found evidence of “yes, cis women have some AGP”, whereas they find that the degree to which cis women have AGP is much less than those for whom AGP is a major component of their sexual life. I don’t think it’s crazy to then go on to say “no, really, when we talk about AGP in natal males we’re talking about something distinct from the typical sexual experience of cis women”.
As I described in the post, I think it’s dishonest because of the greater context of the debate.
If you want to make this argument, you have to actually make this argument, which I did not see you do in the post. As I said in my initial criticism, “Are they using this specific claim elsewhere to do something that isn’t actually supported by this paper? That would be the problem, not what they’re up to [in this paper].”
From my understanding, they’re talking about AGP in natal males of any kind as compared to AGP in cis women. Scott and others found evidence of “yes, cis women have some AGP”, whereas they find that the degree to which cis women have AGP is much less than those for whom AGP is a major component of their sexual life.
Yes, that’s my point.
Charles Moser and Scott Alexander made a claim about autogynephilia in trans women and cis women, Michael Bailey decided that he could just ignore the “trans women” part and replace it with “highly active members of online erotic AGP communities”.
I don’t think it’s crazy to then go on to say “no, really, when we talk about AGP in natal males we’re talking about something distinct from the typical sexual experience of cis women”.
They found similar, arguably lower rates of AGP in ordinary male samples compared to ordinary female samples. It is when they filter for highly active members of online erotic AGP communities that they find the highest degrees of AGP.
If you want to make this argument, you have to actually make this argument, which I did not see you do in the post.
I did actually make the argument:
All the people Bailey is responding to were clearly talking about trans women in their texts!
From my understanding, they’re talking about AGP in natal males of any kind as compared to AGP in cis women. Scott and others found evidence of “yes, cis women have some AGP”, whereas they find that the degree to which cis women have AGP is much less than those for whom AGP is a major component of their sexual life. I don’t think it’s crazy to then go on to say “no, really, when we talk about AGP in natal males we’re talking about something distinct from the typical sexual experience of cis women”.
If you want to make this argument, you have to actually make this argument, which I did not see you do in the post. As I said in my initial criticism, “Are they using this specific claim elsewhere to do something that isn’t actually supported by this paper? That would be the problem, not what they’re up to [in this paper].”
Yes, that’s my point.
Charles Moser and Scott Alexander made a claim about autogynephilia in trans women and cis women, Michael Bailey decided that he could just ignore the “trans women” part and replace it with “highly active members of online erotic AGP communities”.
They found similar, arguably lower rates of AGP in ordinary male samples compared to ordinary female samples. It is when they filter for highly active members of online erotic AGP communities that they find the highest degrees of AGP.
I did actually make the argument: