Then allow me to direct your recollection to 5:08 on the clock in the interview where he says exactly that.
AGP is a thing, but not as you use the term. The psychological and medical circles that Blanchard et al submitted the idea to define it as merely a sexual arousal at the thought of one's self as a woman. That's it. And as I pointed out to you earlier, cis men and women also report arousal at those same thoughts, as Blanchard worded them in his questionnaire ("picture yourself as a nude woman", etc).
No, he didn't. He said he found out, "that homosexual transition was environmentally caused in almost every single case by childhood sexual assault or by internalized homophobia, [or?] failed-boy syndrome. 92.5% of trans identified males are straight and bisexual, and the only explanation for straight or bisexual men to transition is autogynaephilia."
I've seen several men report that it is a thing, and they know because they've got it. (I doubt it's the only reason straight/bisexual men transition, but I hear AGP is quite common among that cohort.)
You're right! Had to listen again to catch that difference
Actually it was because "homosexual transition" is not a thing to the medical community. It's a Bailey and Blanchard buzzers that the community doesn't use or acknowledge, so my ears autocorrected the nonsense phrase to one that was goofy yet made sense.
Most people "have it", if they respond to the exact questions Blanchard composed. Dr. Chaz Moser noted that something like 93% of cis women he posed the same question to self reported sexual arousal. This was one of the many many many criticisms lobbed against the whole posit, which he evidently abandoned further research on, except to talk about how no one was researching it.
Oh, are we watching different videos? I was talking about this:
It's a good job someone keeps getting you to listen again, isn't it?
<<Edited to remove the diamonds: BULL!>> It's because you set out to discount everything this transphobic bigot was spouting, so your "ears autocorrected the nonsense phrase" to one you could rant incorrectly about.
More trans propaganda. See, for example, https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-00746-001
Or reading comprehension.
Absolutely, and I mean that sincerely. We all get things wrong once in a while and can stand the rightful correction.
Great example! You are painfully wrong in your attempt at mind reading here, so allow me to correct you:
Lawrence, dude? Really? She's the third of the Three Musketeers, after Blanchard and Professor ◊◊◊◊ Saw. Coming in late to the discussion has you Rinse and Repeating stuff we've long covered as if it was new (not a criticism, just an observation).
Correct.
I'm touched.
Never better. Not knowing the current day, date, month, or year, however, is a lifestyle byproduct that is somewhat embarrassing but I got over it a long time ago.
Or reading comprehension.
You going anywhere nice? Or have you been and come back already? Or was it heat you were packing?
All hail Tyler Durden...
That has to be the funniest analogy for a serious issue that I have seen in long time!!
You have been quite insistent in the past that this is NOT correct. For example, when I point out that under self ID, nobody can lie about being trans because saying you are trans makes you trans, you claimed that this was wrong, that a person could lie about that, because it was their internal sense of self that made them trans, not what they said.
I suspect he's trying to square the circle of trans being an internal sense of self, and that sense of self being identifiable via self-declaration that cannot be tested and can be a lie.
Alright. So you totally admit that a boatload of males with transgender identities are predators and perverts... but somehow not a single one of the many cases you've been shown fits that description, and we're all just lying meanies who make things up because we're evil bigots. Makes total sense.
Alright. So you personally think that males shouldn't be given legal right to use female intimate spaces just because they declare themselves to have a womanly gendery soul... BUT... if it's legal for them to do so, then females should just opt out of ever using those spaces, or females should be happy and accepting of males in their spaces.
Are you of the opinion that females not wanting males to have the legal right to override our consent when it comes to exposure and voyeurism is "misandry"?
The old status quo is dead. The TRAs killed it, and there's no going back. At this point, sex segregation requires laws to, at minimum, enable it.
Others have already touched on the idea of transferred consent. But there's another aspect of what you said here that I want to touch on. Namely, if you're in a bar, there's a reasonable expectation that everyone is an adult. So if you're in a bathroom in a bar, you can also expect that everyone in there is an adult. If someone of the wrong sex is in that bathroom, you can expect that they will only encounter other adults, not children. That is not the case in general. Which is another reason what might be tolerable at a bar should not be considered tolerable in general.
Time and time again, we have pointed out all the problems that this data doesn't even touch upon.
Why would you think that? That's silly. We should only expect a subset of pervs are going to do that.
You don't need to impose legal penalties for merely being in the wrong restroom. It suffices enough to let authorities just trespass people, rather than punishing the people who complain (which we've seen plenty of).
I prefer to rely on the simple fact that the rest of the world has no reason to care about your internal sense of self. So we need not even decide what it is, what it means, or how we find out about it.
It doesn't do this for me. It will show up in the notification list (the bell in the upper right), but I don't pay much attention to that. I try to clear it out about once a day because having red-backed numbers makes my brain itch. But it certainly doesn't put any alert in any obvious and visible location for me.
This is a circumstantial ad hominemWP at best, not a substantive critique.
I don't think so.
As we've said many times... there's no reasonable way to go back to this prior standard. Our trust has been completely betrayed, and there's no plausible way to enforce it. Failure to impose sex-based separation based on law results in a gigantic loophole visible from space, which any male can exploit simply by saying magic words when confronted.
I seriously don't understand why you feel like you're backed into battling these position. You take this on yourself, and you do it repeatedly.
Unless that female is Tish Hyman, in which case you decide that Tish engineered a confrontation just for public notice, then opine that females who don't want to be confronted with males in the female shower should just completely stop using public spaces.
I use them because when someone gets to the post it makes it easy to see that you're actually addressing them directly, rather than making a comment about them. But @Thermal, it's on the assumption that you can't time travel, so you haven't yet gone past the post that I just now hit reply on.
Oh that, yes. I thought the convo was referring to Thermal (because so much of it had been), and when I saw 'Myriad' I didn't realise they'd contributed earlier. I remembered Myriad from years ago and wondered if they'd had a rename, that's all. I realised soon after but it didn't seem important enough to explain.
In the U.S. it was the political party favored by females which actually made most of the policy changes in question, so it's a bit of a cop out to say females are off the hook here.
The TRAs started this.
I suspect you're talking to a narrow range of females, and you're giving significantly greater weight to opinions you agree with than those you don't. ISF doesn't have a large number of female posters to begin with... but a significant majority of females here do NOT want males in female spaces including restrooms. I don't know if you are just unable to process our statements, seeing as you've decided we're all evil bigots who only want to keep males out of female spaces for "bad reasons", or if you've somehow decided we're not females at all. Either way... You just keep ignoring the growing data that demonstrates that views have shifted over the last decade, and that a majority of females now oppose letting males use female spaces. I know it's been shared with you repeatedly - one survey from the UK, one from the US.
The females he's talking to may also have an idealized version of what the question even means.
There was no action to take recognition away.
Do you use the same metric when considering male violence against females? Do you insist that because you don't personally know any males who have ever sexually assaulted a female, it must mean that females are just cherry picking a few bad apples out of all the great and fantastic males out there?
I'm not so sure this has been a recurring theme in this discussion. Or at least, you seem to have either completely missed or completely dismissed it. Because pretty much every poster in this thread doesn't care about social interactions. We don't care how people dress, or whether they wear make up or not, we don't care how long or short their hair is, or whether they paint their nails. We don't care if they have effeminate mannerisms or they're very macho in their behaviors. We don't care. More power to them.
Pronoun usage falls under social interactions. But that's about the only thing we've objected to on that front, and even there, as you said, it's the compulsion that's really at issue. I don't think any of us objects to completely voluntary, uncoerced use of preferred pronouns, except perhaps when used to describe sexual predators to hide their actual sex.
I don't think that is a valid argument. People support political parties for all sorts of reasons.
I would agree. Liberal women voters largely went along for the ride, he's not wrong about that, but men were driving the car.
How many females being intimidated by males while in female spaces do you think is the acceptable amount? What X do you think females should just be obligated to deal with?
How about you take that little extra step, and ask "Will removing existing convention and barriers increase the behavior that we don't want?" Or perhaps "Will making the behavior no longer technically illegal increase the likelihood of the behavior happening?"
It turns out that the small subset of males who demand access to women's spaces whether women like it or not are exactly the small subset of males that is more likely to pose a threat if their demands are met.
Just because you've taken the novel approach of deciding that a specific form of a DSM-V paraphilic disorder isn't a disorder doesn't mean that you're correct. Because obviously basal cell ganglioma isn't cancer, given that it's a specifier under the heading of cancer. Duh!
