Xiphias
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2019
- Highlight
- #1
I noticed pretty much every tranny thread on the site getting spammed with talk about how fetishes work and homo genocide instead of the cows themselves, so I figured I'd create a thread for it.
For those not in the know, troon Enemy No. 1 Dr. Ray Blanchard was the one who coined the term "autogynephilia" and the first to do serious studies on it. His theory was that there were two causes of gender dysphoria: homosexuality combined with personality and behaviour more typical of the opposite sex, and autogynephilia or "love of oneself as a woman". Not all homos and autogynephiles become dysphoric, but if they're dysphoric at 20 they'll be dysphoric forever.
He wasn't the first psychologist who noticed this. Others have noted two distinct clusters of MTF tranners. They tended to call them things like primary vs. secondary transsexuals, early-onset vs late onset, etc. The first cluster tends to be "straight", naturally feminine from a very young age, and of average intelligence. The second cluster tend to be "lesbian" or bisexual, typically masculine guys, have above average intelligence (or at least the ones that made it past the old gatekeeping system did), and are more likely to be autistic. They also have what other psychologists used to call "transvestic fetishism". One psychologist commented that:
Blanchard's theory does have its flaws. For example he completely dismissed the concept of autoandrophilia in FTM tranners. But I've seen homosexual transsexual (HSTS) FTMs act grossed out by mpreg enthusiasts and point out it would give them dysphoria, as well as "gay" trans men who love getting knocked up.
This theory would shed light on a lot of what we're seeing right now. Gay kids being convinced they're trans because one type of tranners really were like them as kids, and non-dysphoric autogynephiles flaunting their fetish like it's a normal part of being trans because there's plenty of dysphoric autogynephiles in the community for them to relate to.
I've noticed that radfems tend to focus on sensational bits and pieces to the detriment of the theory as a whole, so I'm hoping this thread will let people talk about other interesting aspects of the theory, rather when 1000 of the same "eww fetishes" take.
For those not in the know, troon Enemy No. 1 Dr. Ray Blanchard was the one who coined the term "autogynephilia" and the first to do serious studies on it. His theory was that there were two causes of gender dysphoria: homosexuality combined with personality and behaviour more typical of the opposite sex, and autogynephilia or "love of oneself as a woman". Not all homos and autogynephiles become dysphoric, but if they're dysphoric at 20 they'll be dysphoric forever.
He wasn't the first psychologist who noticed this. Others have noted two distinct clusters of MTF tranners. They tended to call them things like primary vs. secondary transsexuals, early-onset vs late onset, etc. The first cluster tends to be "straight", naturally feminine from a very young age, and of average intelligence. The second cluster tend to be "lesbian" or bisexual, typically masculine guys, have above average intelligence (or at least the ones that made it past the old gatekeeping system did), and are more likely to be autistic. They also have what other psychologists used to call "transvestic fetishism". One psychologist commented that:
Blanchard's theory does have its flaws. For example he completely dismissed the concept of autoandrophilia in FTM tranners. But I've seen homosexual transsexual (HSTS) FTMs act grossed out by mpreg enthusiasts and point out it would give them dysphoria, as well as "gay" trans men who love getting knocked up.
This theory would shed light on a lot of what we're seeing right now. Gay kids being convinced they're trans because one type of tranners really were like them as kids, and non-dysphoric autogynephiles flaunting their fetish like it's a normal part of being trans because there's plenty of dysphoric autogynephiles in the community for them to relate to.
I've noticed that radfems tend to focus on sensational bits and pieces to the detriment of the theory as a whole, so I'm hoping this thread will let people talk about other interesting aspects of the theory, rather when 1000 of the same "eww fetishes" take.
