Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Elaedith said:
I assume you mean Moser.
Click to expand...
Probably. I have another guy named Mosely on my mind from elsewhere and may have made a mistake. I'll take your word for it.
Elaedith said:
And you've presumably looked into all the peer-reviewed rebuttals of their criticisms as well, since you want to avoid confirmation bias. Let me guess.
Click to expand...
No, I read a bit on it earlier in the thread, enough to convince me that Blanchard's posit is not accepted for good reasons. Admittedly, I have not trawled the internet seeking anything to feed into a preconceived conclusion.

He seems to present something between little and nothing. Unless something more robust is offered, I see no reason to invest any more time with his posit. The burden is on him, and he ain't doing much.
 
Thermal said:
Probably. I have another guy named Mosely on my mind from elsewhere and may have made a mistake. I'll take your word for it.

No, I read a bit on it earlier in the thread, enough to convince me that Blanchard's posit is not accepted for good reasons. Admittedly, I have not trawled the internet seeking anything to feed into a preconceived conclusion.

He seems to present something between little and nothing. Unless something more robust is offered, I see no reason to invest any more time with his posit. The burden is on him, and he ain't doing much.
Click to expand...
Lol. Do you ever read and reflect on your own posts? You actually have no idea what the evidence is, uncritically accept criticisms of that evidence that support your preconceived opinion without fact-checking, and refuse to look at evidence that doesn't feed into your preferred conclusion. Then you still try to pretend that you can be swayed by evidence after admitting that you won't look at it.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
It's a specific expression of transvestic disorder, and transvestic disorder is a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ paraphilia in the DSM. It is absolutely a goddamned disorder!

Your argument here is like saying that osteosarcoma isn't a diagnosis because it's only mentioned under the heading of sarcoma, so it's not any kind of cancer, full stop. It's absurd and inane.
Click to expand...
It's a goddamned specifier, which said that the actual disorder followed a path that originated with a totally benign feeling, as opposed to fetishizing the clothes. It's more like saying the disorder in your wristwatch originated from sweat (which a watch should be able to handle) and going ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ deep sea scuba diving.

The harmless arousal is not the disorder. The disorder is when something goes from benign to problematic.
 
Thermal said:
Feel free to revisit the earlier discussions. While you guys seem to relish this Groundhog Day ◊◊◊◊, I've had my fill.

Short answer is no, a specifier is not a disorder. It points to another condition's path of development, to distinguish it from others.
Click to expand...
Your short answer is just plain wrong. A specifier is a modification of a disorder - it literally SPECIFIES how the disorder is expressed.

Are you seriously hung up on common sense shorthand here? Do you actually need me to type out the entirety of "transvestic disorder with autogynephilia"?
 
Thermal said:
Professor ◊◊◊◊ saw's personal beliefs are not tremendously interesting. The wider communites have soundly criticized Blanchard's methodology, and his insistence on including AGP as a disorder in the DSM was flatly denied because the professional communities do not accept the posit.
Click to expand...
Give that it still ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ exists in the DSM right ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ now, I'm going to say that your claim is shown to be wrong. The "wider community" of actual practicing psychiatrists who oversee the DSM clearly did NOT deny it being a disorder.
 
Okay, so it's pretty clear that the Psychiatric consensus is that transvestic disorder can manifest as or with autogynaephilia.

So my question is, does that mean all autogynaephilia is a manifestation of transvestic disorder? Is it possible for a man have an erotic fantasy in which he identifies in whole or in part with a female participant, without also suffering from transvestic disorder?
 
Emily's Cat said:
Give that it still ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ exists in the DSM right ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ now, I'm going to say that your claim is shown to be wrong. The "wider community" of actual practicing psychiatrists who oversee the DSM clearly did NOT deny it being a disorder.
Click to expand...
Yes, Ms Groundhog Day, we did that already. AGP is mentioned in two pages, needing to be defined in-text both times. It was defined as arousal from the thought of one's self as a female. That is literally nothing.

It is not a disorder, and is not 'listed' as such in the DSM. We have done this, with page numbers and text provided. You can't just keep insisting black is white when you ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ posted that it is black yourself.
 
theprestige said:
Okay, so it's pretty clear that the Psychiatric consensus is that transvestic disorder can manifest as or with autogynaephilia.
Click to expand...
Or without. And autogynephilia exists exclusively as a benign arousal at thinking of one's self as a woman.
theprestige said:
So my question is, does that mean all autogynaephilia is a manifestation of transvestic disorder?
Click to expand...
No, definitionally.
theprestige said:
Is it possible for a man have an erotic fantasy in which he identifies in whole or in part with a female participant, without also suffering from transvestic disorder?
Click to expand...
Yes, definitionally.
 
Elaedith said:
Lol. Do you ever read and reflect on your own posts? You actually have no idea what the evidence is, uncritically accept criticisms of that evidence that support your preconceived opinion without fact-checking, and refuse to look at evidence that doesn't feed into your preferred conclusion. Then you still try to pretend that you can be swayed by evidence after admitting that you won't look at it.
Click to expand...
Right. A lone crackpot posit with no support within the relevant communities do not warrant hours into progressively more obscure research, which is also of low regard.

Show something new and robust and we'll have something to consider and discuss. Continuing to crow "but I really want this to be true" got dull months ago.
 
theprestige said:
So my question is, does that mean all autogynaephilia is a manifestation of transvestic disorder? Is it possible for a man have an erotic fantasy in which he identifies in whole or in part with a female participant, without also suffering from transvestic disorder?
Click to expand...
Does it even matter? Whether or not there are people with autogynaephilia without transvestic disorder, there are people with a transvestic disorder who have autogynaephilia. They pose a concern for women when they enter women's intimate spaces.
 
Thermal said:
Or without. And autogynephilia exists exclusively as a benign arousal at thinking of one's self as a woman.
Click to expand...
It can't exist exclusively as a benign arousal. In the DSM, it exists exclusively as a manifestation of a disorder, which by definition is not benign.

It may exist as a benign arousal outside the context of the DSM, but since it exists in the DSM as a malignant condition, it cannot exist exclusively as NOT a benign condition.

Thermal said:
No, definitionally.
Click to expand...
By what definition? In the DSM, it's defined exclusively as a manifestation of transvestic disorder. Are you using some other definition? Are you using your own bespoke definition, which may or may not be consistent with common or technical usage?

Thermal said:
Yes, definitionally.
Click to expand...
By what definition? I'd say it's possible anecdotally, but that might be TMI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom