Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

theprestige said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yes, it's certainly possible to have a sexual fetish or unusual arousal pattern without it being a disorder. That's true for nearly all behavioral disorders. A person can have narcissistic characteristics, or antisocial, or bipolar, without rising to the level of a clinical disorder. While the specifics vary and I'm no expert, to be diagnosed with a clinical disorder, the behaviors have to cause distress to the individual, or they have to present a risk or a material imposition on other people, or cause other people distress. That last bit is important for things like psychopathic behaviors, because psychopaths are almost never distressed by their own behaviors, but they cause all sorts of problems and risks for everyone around them.

One of the problems with paraphilias specifically is that they function very much like addictions. They tend to get stronger when they're indulged.
 
Thermal said:
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.
Click to expand...
You were wrong then, and you're still wrong.

You are quite clearly arguing that osteosarcoma is no kind of cancer at all, because it's a modifier to the diagnosis of sarcoma.
 
Thermal said:
And you seem not to understand how irrational 'here' is.
Click to expand...
You're blaming everyone else because you think you are being misinterpreted, rather than accepting responsibility for the impression that you create.
 
Thermal said:
It does not. It is a specifier, that indicates the pathway the disorder originated from.
Click to expand...
Read the DSM, it absolutely does NOT do this. It says nothing at all about how the disorder originated. The modifier describes how the disorder is expressed.

www.merckmanuals.com

Transvestic Disorder - Psychiatric Disorders - Merck Manual Professional Edition

Transvestic Disorder - Etiology, pathophysiology, symptoms, signs, diagnosis & prognosis from the Merck Manuals - Medical Professional Version.
www.merckmanuals.com www.merckmanuals.com

When making the diagnosis, the clinician must specify whether
  • Fetishism (sexual arousal by fabrics, materials, or garments) or autogynephilia (arousal by thoughts or images of self as a woman) are present.
Click to expand...

Autogynephilia is part of the diagnosis itself when it's present. That's part of the requirement for the diagnosis of transvestic disorder - whether it's associated with fetishization of the objects of the opposite sex, or whether it's arousal associated with thinking of or presenting as the opposite sex.

There is literally no part of DSM-V that says "Oh hey, if someone shows up with transvestic disorder, but it's only because they get off on thinking of themselves as female, then it's totally not a disorder at all!"
 
Ziggurat said:
Nobody here thinks you're on the gender critical side. Everyone here thinks you're on the TRA side. If I don't comprehend your true position, that might be my fault. If everyone doesn't comprehend your true position, that's probably yours.

But I believe you when you say you have no idea how to change that. You're probably being honest about that.
Click to expand...
My view is that Thermal intellectually agrees that males should not be allowed into female-specific spaces or services (except bathrooms, apparently where they're "on the fence still").

But emotionally, Thermal thinks that females who object to males in our spaces, or who call out and identify the ways in which self-id allow predatory and paraphilic males to transgress female boundaries are blowing it out of proportion, making too big a deal of it, are hysterical, and need to watch our tone because we come across as bigots.

Emotionally, Thermal doesn't seem to have any complaints to address toward transgender people who violate female boundaries. Even cases like Merager and Black don't get any censure from Thermal, and Thermal seems quite offended on their behalf if females call them names.
 
Thermal said:
Some women want that. Some women value inclusivity enough to not object. Some may enjoy it. Many are indifferent. Some want to exclude lesbians. Some want to exclude other cis women.
Click to expand...
Evidence please.

Current best summary is from the Darlington Nurses Employment Tribunal.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
It's not.
Click to expand...
Perversion is bad either by definition or because it tends to lead to undesirable consequences. I accept the first one as a linguistic convention but on the second point I must remain skeptical.
Ziggurat said:
...it's a warning sign of potential danger.
Click to expand...
Okay, this is the part that I'm having trouble accepting.

Suppose you see a bunch of furries at a woke-leaning skeptic conference and overhear them planning for an orgy later that evening in one of the hotel suites. This is perverted, to be sure (no one should need that level of role-play to get off) but what is the danger? People have all sorts of paraphilias and for the most part it's just fine for us not to give a ◊◊◊◊ so long as the perverts in question aren't tryna force their way into other people's spaces.
 
Emily's Cat said:
So the more a pedophile spends time around kids, the stronger their pedophilia becomes.
Click to expand...
In my experience, heterosexual men become hornier when deprived of female companionship.

Are pedophiles exactly the opposite of normies in terms of the effects of privation?

I imagine this is difficult research to come by, on account of scientific ethics, but it sounded as if you were making an empirical claim.

Emily's Cat said:
A person who openly engages in cross-dressing . . . in public is indicative of a higher risk of sexual predation to those around them.
Click to expand...
Now that is definitely an empirical claim, which means I'll have to go look at the scholarship on point if I'm curious to know whether it checks out.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
In my experience, heterosexual men become hornier when deprived of female companionship.
Click to expand...
Heterosexual males have hands of their own, females don't exist for the purpose of satisfying male sexual desire.
d4m10n said:
Are pedophiles exactly the opposite of normies in terms of the effects of privation?
Click to expand...
Only if you think that "normies" develop a stronger and stronger need for booze the longer they go without getting drunk. Addicts fare better with privation than with indulgence of their addictions.

Also... you know you're like right at the very edge of sounding like you're advocating that pedophiles ought to be given access to diddle kids, right? I mean, you're pretty much saying that if pedos don't get to abuse kids, they're going to get worse...
d4m10n said:
I imagine this is difficult research to come by, on account of scientific ethics, but it sounded as if you were making an empirical claim.
Click to expand...
The addictive nature of paraphilias isn't some new idea. It's fairly well known, and functions like gambling addictions and similar, where there's an emotional dependence but not a physical one.
 
d4m10n said:
Suppose you see a bunch of furries at a woke-leaning skeptic conference and overhear them planning for an orgy later that evening in one of the hotel suites. This is perverted, to be sure (no one should need that level of role-play to get off) but what is the danger?
Click to expand...
This is not an equivalent situation. People who can't keep their perversions to themselves (such as the man who walks around in public dressed as a small girl) are not the same as people who have a kink that they only share with other willing participants.
d4m10n said:
People have all sorts of paraphilias and for the most part it's just fine for us not to give a ◊◊◊◊ so long as the perverts in question aren't tryna force their way into other people's spaces.
Click to expand...
Those men prancing around in public dressed as little girls are successfully forcing their perversions into other people's spaces. They are dangerous.
 
Ziggurat said:
This is not an equivalent situation. People who can't keep their perversions to themselves (such as the man who walks around in public dressed as a small girl) are not the same as people who have a kink that they only share with other willing participants.

Those men prancing around in public dressed as little girls are successfully forcing their perversions into other people's spaces. They are dangerous.
Click to expand...
THIS!
 
Thermal said:
You.might ask yourself the same question.
Click to expand...
You snipped the part where I showed you were lying about what Blanchard and Bailey claimed. Do you now admit that you were lying?
Thermal said:
Actually, serious question: You don't seem involved much in this discussion at all unless Blanchard and Bailey come up, then you get really fired up. Do you have some kind of academic skin in their claims? Not meant to set up some kind of 'gotcha', but you seem really intensely invested in what they have to say.
Click to expand...
More nonsense. I have been posting in this thread for years, and hardly any of my posts are about Blanchard and Bailey.
 
Last edited:
Why I Don't Post In This Thread: An Analogy

All persons appearing in this analogy are fictional. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

The other day I was out with some friends, and I happened to mention that I thought Nazism was bad. A guy came up to us and said "Oh, you think Nazism is bad?"

"Yes," I replied, "I do." And I turned back to my friends, intending to continue having a good evening.

"I'm proud to be a Nazi. I bet you don't even understand what Nazism is all about," he said, puffing out his chest.

"I think I have a good enough idea," I replied.

"Oh?" He leaped on it like a kitten on a toy mouse. "Then tell me the Three Core Tenets of Nazism."

"I'm not sure I care to get into details with you."

"You don't even know, do you?" he asked with a smug self-satisfied smile. "How can you say Nazism is bad when you don't know the Three Core Tenets?"

"I'm not even sure I care what the Three Core Tenets are." I replied. "Nazism is bad. You know, there was that whole Holocaust thing?"

"The Holocaust was totally misunderstood!" he said with a dismissive wave of his hand. "Come into my Nazi Bar and we can discuss like civilised people why Nazism is not as bad as you think."

"I don't think I will," I said.

"Why, are you scared that you'll be proved wrong?"

"Uh... not really..."

"Then come on into the Nazi Bar and we can talk about it, politely and with an avalanche of references to Nazi literature to prove that what we are saying is true."

"No."

"If you won't debate the fundamentals of Nazism with me in my Nazi Bar," he said with just a touch of condescension, "then you're an intellectual coward."

"Discuss the fundamentals of Nazism with you, a professed proud Nazi in the safe and supporting environment of your Nazi Bar, with all your Nazi friends watching and listening, or have Nazis call me an intellectual coward? You know what? You can call me what you like. I'm not going to your Nazi Bar. This conversation is over."

And I turned my back on him. Because that's what you do with Nazis.
 
If all you're going to do is post a completely irrelevant "analogy" I agree there's no point in you visiting this thread.

The only way it could be even remotely relevant is if Nazi is being used as an analogy for trans rights activist.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom