Is there such a thing as “autogynephilia”?

Yes, of course. The vast majority of men who claim to be “women” have a nasty case of it. And these men cooked up the phony alibi of “innate gender identity” to hide their embarrassment about living a lifestyle based on masturbation fantasies.

Transgender Reality

Is there such a thing as “autogynephilia”, that is, sexual arousal at the thought of being a woman? The transgender community online adamantly assures each other there is no such thing:

APG is a made up thing “a made-up thing from Ray Blanchard”

APG is bullshit “It is not APG, because APG does not exist”

Both screenshots above are from this thread, in which a poster wants to know why his therapist is asking questions about his desire to transition to a woman. Note how the second comment tells the original poster to ditch the therapist who is asking questions, and find someone who will go along with the desire to transition.

There is a great reluctance in the trans community towards the concept that some male people can feel arousal at the thought of themselves as being women. Considering that there are a plethora of different fetishes, people are aroused at pretty much anything from rubber boots to trees…

View original post 433 more words


6 thoughts on “Is there such a thing as “autogynephilia”?

    1. Looking forward to the defamation lawsuits. Jeffreys apparently has a legal team and wrote around potential lawsuit fodder, but not sure about this guy.


      1. Well, that was the claim of the anti-SSM side – that the lifestyle based on same-sex attraction has a harmful impact on children raised in such couples. The argument was rejected by the SCOTUS.

        Besides, apart from VERY DEBATABLY the “bathroom issue”, there is absolutely zero evidence that the transgender “lifestyle” has any negative impacts on other people and/or society. (Impacting someone’s class analysis does not count unless you want to go to North Korea where class ideology is official; impacting a spouse, which happens in some cases, does not count because any lifestyle change, even very legitimate in itself, can impact a spouse and that’s what divorce is for – BTW the “gay lifestyle” has similar impact on some spouses).

        In any event, whether or not the “lifestyle” has any sexual motive is in itself irrelevant to anything. Following Obergefell, when a “lifestyle” admittedly having a sexual motive was rolled up into the new definition of marriage (which is a very clear and coherent definition), this is a non-argument.

        (You still never described the alleged deep impact of “transgenderinm” beyond the “bathroom issue”).


Comments are closed.