About the absurd male transgenderite claim that “women have autogynephilia too” (LOL no)

trannyAgitated autogynephiliac “transwomen” desperately don’t want normal people to realize that all this talk about “gender identity” is just a sexualized fantasy persona developed after many years or decades of obsessive masturbatory transvestism. Notwithstanding their completely normal XY heterosexual male biological and social status, these men and their enablers in academia and the medical industry are gaslighting the whole world with the bizarre and rather stupid lie that they were born with “female brains” and have “always been women.” This is just nonsense, an alibi designed to divert attention from the embarrassing fetishistic reality.

It’s interesting to see how harshly the male transgenderites try to discredit autogynephilia, make it seem like a “bigoted” dirty joke. At the same time, you need only to read their own writings to see that autogynephilia is totally their driving force. Indeed, the vast majority of male transgenderites are hardcore autogynephiliacs. They cultivate their “female gender identity” and only develop it after endless sexualized cross-dressing. In other words, they are classic transvestite fetishists who in many cases have taken things too far.

A transgenderite sympathizer in San Francisco called Charles Moser decided to discredit autogynephilia by trying to show that real women have autogynephilia too. He also wanted to suggest that even if the cocks-in-frocks do have autogynephilia, it only means OMG they really are women!!1!!

Of course, women don’t have autogynephilia. This hasn’t stopped the male trans bros from squealing with delighted “feminine” giggles over Moser’s “findings” that “93% of women have autogynephilia.” They treat this study as though it were a proven scientific reality. However, it is about the weakest scientific evidence I’ve seen in a damn long time. It’s joke science, worthless!

Moser worked at a major hospital in San Francisco. He thought it would be a good idea to approach various women at the hospital to see what turned them on sexually.

“A convenience sample of female professional employees of an urban hospital was obtained. On two successive days in June, 2005, the questionnaire was distributed by the author, female staff members were approached in either the nurse’s station or staff lounge on several different floors during either day or evening shifts (weekdays).”

Convenience sampling” is a methodology considered to be at extremely high risk of bias, and it would be absurd to generalize the responses of 29 female hospital employees in San Francisco to the general population. Moser approached and creepily handed out 51 intrusive questionnaires to women passing by, and got 29 back. The high 43% non-response rate makes it unlikely the responses even reflected the hospital’s female population. (Moser also admits: “Many individuals entered and left during the discussion of the project, so the exact number of individuals who heard the announcement of the study cannot be determined.”)

A crap and meaningless study! In addition to the high sampling bias, Moser’s questionnaire was designed really poorly:

Anne Lawrence wrote a critique in response to Moser’s study. Lawrence’s key points were as follows:

“Moser claimed to have documented at least occasional autogynephilic sexual arousal in 27 (93%) of 29 female hospital employees he surveyed, and frequent autogynephilic arousal in 8 (28%). However, many of the items in Moser’s scale bear little resemblance to the items Blanchard used to assess autogynephilia, and even those items that do bear some resemblance to Blanchard’s do not adequately assess the essential element of autogynephilia—sexual arousal simply to the thought of being a female — because they do not emphasize that element. Consequently, although Moser may have found something superficially resembling autogynephilia in women, there is little reason to think that he documented genuine autogynephilic arousal in women.”

If you see Lawrence’s comparison of the two scales (article below), you can get a sense of how crooked and/or stupid Moser must be. The dress-up boys sure love him, though.


  1. Moser C. Autogynephilia in women. J Homosex. 2009;56(5):539-47.
  2. Lawrence AA. Something resembling autogynephilia in women: comment on Moser (2009). J Homosex. 2010;57(1):1-4.

7 thoughts on “About the absurd male transgenderite claim that “women have autogynephilia too” (LOL no)

  1. We are going to go around in circles on this one. I am familiar with Anne Lawrence. I have spoken to her twice. I have read her book ‘Men trapped in Men’s Bodies” twice over.
    I actually appreciate the dialog on this subject because I seek the truth. Anne Lawrence calls the female personality development an “epi-phenomenon” and not a true driver of the desire for change. It’s a term she coined.

    Honestly, You don’t know and I don’t know. None of this is an absolute KNOWN fact. It sounds like we have both experienced this condition from different sides of the coin. It affects the person who is experiencing it, and it affects the loved ones around them. I am doing my best to navigate my own personal journey and understand it. I don’t want to hurt anyone.

    I think more studies need to be done, but even if they are I doubt seriously it will quell the debate. It’s as contentious as some other social topics of our generation. People feel very strongly one way or the other and citing studies isn’t going to change anyone’s mind who is already convinced by their personal experiences that it is different from the way they perceive it.

    If I am upset about anything is being called a pervert, paraphiliac, or transvestic fetishist with the tone that I have a pathological disorder or disease when it is NOT a known fact. I don’t deny it’s a factor, but I don’t think it’s pathologic. Every person in the world has an active fantasy life. I wonder if you would expose your deepest desires freely on the internet laying yourself open for criticism. Personally, I think my desire for sex change is equally driven by my sex drive and my female personality. Or, one fed the other. I am exploring these concepts as we speak in therapy.

    It is very tough to be vulnerable and lay everything on the table. But it is in my interest and the interest of those who I love to keep searching for the answer that fits me and my family best.

    I wish you the best. I really do.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Kelli,

      Here you make three points that can be directly addressed:

      1) Autogynephilia should not be seen as a disorder (paraphilia)

      2) Autogynephilia is harmless

      3) Autogynephilia is not the driving force behind non-homosexual transsexuality, just a side-effect.

      First, If we use First & Wakefields definition of “disorder”, then it most definately is a “disorder”, as Lawrence pointed out. I covered this issue here:


      Second, This very blog makes the arguement that autogynephilia is harmful to the relationships that AGP individuals form with women. It can be argued that it is not in and of itself harmful, at least not on the same order as say, Courtship Disorders (voyeurism, toucherism, exposure/flasher, and paraphilic rape) or pedophilia. But that would only work if AGP individuals were universally honest with their female partners before entering a relationship… and honored that relationship once it was entered. This issue of harm has been discussed as a means of evaluating (morally) paraphilias, as I cover in the above link, and this one here:


      Third, no… you are totally wrong. Autogynephilia is most DEFINATELY the driving force for non-homosexual transsexuality, as is well documented at this blog and at my own. The science is not tentitive… it is very well ‘supported’ in the scientific sense, by repeated studies spanning five decades of research.

      Liked by 3 people

  2. I am again appalled by what I find on the web site of the UK organisation GIRES, Gender Identity Research and Education Society.

    Under the heading ”Autogynephilia” they devote less than 20 lines to the subject, starting with……”Autogynephilia, an erotic interest in the thought or image of oneself as a woman, has been described as a sexual interest of some male-to-female transsexuals (MTFs); the term has not been applied to natal women.”
    It then goes on to cite Moser’s study and give a link to his paper. That is the full extent of it’s mention of autogynephilia. http://www.gires.org.uk/autogynephilia.php

    This is hardly helpful to anyone; neither the trans person trying to understand his compulsions, nor to the policy makers who may need to make decisions on bathroom access in schools etc. This endless perpetuation of the image of the poor tranny trapped inside the wrong body as a benign and helpless victim come hero is the only image that is being permitted in official literature and, of course, in the media. Anything else is labelled transphobia.

    As the wife of one of these men I am fully aware that the only interest that these men have in being a woman is an erotic one focused on clothing, shoes, make up and all the other trappings of stereotypical female appearance. The ultimate thrill is to ”pass”.

    To Kelli, yes I would agree that most people have a fantasy life, but that’s exactly what it is. When a man puts his fantasies before his family and destroys the happiness of those who used to love him the most then that fantasy is a problem. If it’s not pathological then it must be free choice. Oh, and being a woman is none of those things that i listed above.

    Liked by 5 people

  3. I was terribly amused by Lawrence’s response, as it was done with such dry, drole humor. Moser’s paper is what would be known in the science community as “not even wrong”. It was DELIBERATELY designed to elicite the false positive answers to ambigous questions that only superficially resembled an instrument that is only valid for gender dysphoric males in a gender clinic setting. It was never intended to be scientific, but political.

    I find it interesting that Moser’s other work was in “researching” (actually attempting to “depathologize/deparaphilicize”) S&M/B&D/”kink” sex.


    Liked by 3 people

    1. Kay, I totally agree with your assessment of Moser’s paper. This is one of the reasons why I have so much trouble with the credibility of anything that comes out of the literature of GIRES. As stated in my earlier comment this UK national charity, which has the remit of
      producing information literature for distribution by the NHS and helping draw up policies on trans issues, is doing so on the basis of very misleading information. They carefully cherry-pick their research, much of it outdated, as far as I can see. There is a big political agenda going on here. I have lost a lot of faith in the medical profession in the last couple of years the further I read.

      I’m trying to make sense of this whole issue, not just for the sake of my own sanity, but also because I am genuinely appalled by the way the trans agenda has been carefully orchestrated and pushed up the political agenda to the stage where it is impossible to question anything without allegations of transphobia. My husband made a descision to ”transition”. For me that meant the end of our relationship no matter what the science. To find myself as the wrong-doer is unjustifiable.

      Your website is refreshingly informative and I shall be reading Charlotte Allen’s paper later this evening. Thank you.

      Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.