Gender Identity in Modern Ireland (Mod warnings and Threadbanned Users in OP)

jaxxx

statesaver wrote: »

Transgender Clinic Whistleblower Speaks Out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ_bD6N1zNw

Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust.
Triggernometry Podcast

A worthwhile watch, something the world needs to listen to and fast.


Let kids be kids. F*ck sake most adults don't know what they want, let alone kids! There's this f*cking stupid sex-based stereotype that a guy has to be almost entirely masculine and a girl has to be almost entirely feminine! Bullsh*t! A masculine girl is no less of a girl! And the same for feminine fellas! Jesus christ has the world truly lost the f*cking plot altogether?? And I think that's where all this sh*t of getting kids to transition comes from. LET THEM BE KIDS! Ffs. How that's allowed is beyond me, it's morally reprehensible to interfere with a child's natural growth!

Mike Murdock

statesaver wrote: »

Transgender Clinic Whistleblower Speaks Out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ_bD6N1zNw

Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust.
Triggernometry Podcast

Tavistock needs to be investigated and shut down if necessary.

Or, at the very least, have clinicians struck off.

Gruffalux

There's been a gang of women trying to bring these issues to public attention for a long time and many of them getting dogs abuse. Like Dr Kathleen Stock, Prof of Philosophy at Uni of Sussex who got awarded an OBE recently and had 600 fellow academics sign a letter objecting to it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9123083/amp/Academics-slam-government-awarding-OBE-anti-trans-professor.html

There is a letter circulating somewhere collecting lots of names backing her up.

jaxxx

Gruffalux wrote: »

There's been a gang of women trying to bring these issues to public attention for a long time and many of them getting dogs abuse. Like Dr Kathleen Stock, Prof of Philosophy at Uni of Sussex who got awarded an OBE recently and had 600 fellow academics sign a letter objecting to it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9123083/amp/Academics-slam-government-awarding-OBE-anti-trans-professor.html

There is a letter circulating somewhere collecting lots of names backing her up.

'Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but if you don't agree with us then you must be silenced!' - modern fascism in a nutshell. It is absolutely disgusting, and the fact that so few speak up on this is deeply troubling.

Akesh

The problem with the debate on gender identity is that the push for legislation is based on pseudoscientific research and not facts. If you think gender is a social construct then so is transgenderism. It really is that simple.

Social studies have a lot to answer for, particularly college professors and third level institutes that are overseeing the death of credible social studies. Just look at UCD, who have allowed a certain Ebun Joseph lecturing to students. Ireland needs to wake up before the lunatics fully escape from the asylum.

GreeBo

LLMMLL wrote: »

As opposed to all the fake transvestites?

Or executive transvestites?

Dante7

Gruffalux wrote: »

There's been a gang of women trying to bring these issues to public attention for a long time and many of them getting dogs abuse. Like Dr Kathleen Stock, Prof of Philosophy at Uni of Sussex who got awarded an OBE recently and had 600 fellow academics sign a letter objecting to it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9123083/amp/Academics-slam-government-awarding-OBE-anti-trans-professor.html

There is a letter circulating somewhere collecting lots of names backing her up.

After the letter against Kathleen was published, it was pointed out to the authors that it was full of errors and completely misrepresented her views on the GRA, amongst other things.

"1. The letter states, falsely, that Professor Stock is "best-known" for her “opposition to the UK Gender Recognition Act and the importance of self-identification to establish gender identity.” In fact, Professor Stock supports the UK's Gender Recognition Act (GRA), and it is the letter's signatories who oppose it in its current form. "

Do you think that they withdrew it, apologised or issued an amendment? Did they f*ck. That tells you all you need to know about that side of the debate. An intellectually dishonest bunch of charlatans, hellbent on shutting down debate at any and all costs.

https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2021/01/the-anti-kathleen-stock-open-letter-is-full-of-mistakes.html

suicide_circus

Akesh wrote: »

If you think gender is a social construct then so is transgenderism.

Surprisingly simple but pertinent point.

Quantum Erasure

Gatling wrote: »

I'd imagine any real transvestites are Keeping there heads down and avoiding this ideological nonsense

I saw Grayson Perry recently on Have I Got News For You, wasn't sure what to make of him...

jaxxx

The World Health Organisation no longer recognises gender identity as a mental health issue, which to me exposes the fact that even the WHO is run by people with agendas. Despite what the so-called trans allies claim, refusing to accept gender identity, refusing to accept that gender is a social construct is not bigoted. By definition, it's actually impossible because sound science and logic are not opinions, they are facts. Maybe there are worlds out there with life where more than 2 sexes exist, but that's not how animalian life works on this planet for the most part. Let's just focus on our own Phylum, specifically the usual creatures we perceive as animals (i.e. mammals, fish, birds, amphibians, lizards). For hundreds of millions of years, the biological standard for all of us has been that there are male and female members of a species. Now some animals can in fact change sex given certain environmental conditions: mostly common among amphibians, fish and lizards; though there are some birds that have been documented as well. There are no known cases of mammalian species that possess this ability - and guess which group we're in.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that should be without critique in the world. Nothing. There are no laws in biology as there are in chemistry, physics and other branches of science. Because there are always exceptions in biology. Always. What biology has instead is a set of standards, biological standards hard coded into a species' DNA. But like all standards, deviations will occur. Nothing in life is purely black and white, there are various shades of grey in between. But black and white still exist on opposite ends of the same spectrum.

A biologically standard human has 2 eyes, 2 ears, 2 arms, 2 legs, etc. You all know what the biological standard of a human is, because it's essentially the same thing as with most mammals. Minus the presence of a tail of course. There are people born without limbs, born without certain standard biological functions, the list is huge. I was watching a video recently enough on Youtube about this body builder in the USA, I think it was Philadelphia. The point is, he was born with nothing from the waist down. Essentially he's only ever had half a body! That is completely irrelevant, because he's still human, and furthermore he's still a man.

Sex and gender IS the same thing, contrary to what any of you SJWs believe. We cannot control what gender we're born as. Everything about us, our bodies, is a result of consequence. Millions upon millions of individual sperm fighting to be the one to break through the egg and fertilise it, that's what makes you what you are, that's what defines your physicality; not feelings, regardless of whether you were conceived by natural means or through IVF. How many billions, probably even trillions of individual sperm cells are wasted by the average man in their lifetime? If you have a **** now, that's 200 million sperm cells gone. All the times your father and mother had sex with a condom, that's billions more gone. Your phenotype (height, eye colour, voice, etc) is all as a result of the 1 sperm cell out of all these billions that results in you. And it's the same with sex/gender.

Now with biological standards in mind, even sex isn't black and white. I think it's 1 in 1000 births that someone is born as intersex. Well that's the grey area where sex is concerned. Male and female are the black and white, and then the various forms of intersex are all the different shades of grey - tut this whole idea of gender identity is not.

And now I finally get back to my actual point: mental health. I'm no stranger to mental health issues, far from it. But one thing I've learned from having said issues for well over a decade is the brain's capability to manipulate us. I have a pretty severe form of OCD. Whenever I leave the house for example, I have to check on average about 10 times that the door is locked. Now you're reading this, and it probably sounds like a non-issue or very minor. But try and visualise yourself in a scenario where you KNOW that the door is locked. But there's something niggling inside your brain that forces you to believe that it's not. You can see that the door is locked. You can feel the door is locked. And yet you check it, again, again, again, again, several more times until you're finally happy that the door is in fact locked. Now that's a fairly mild example, though you really can't begin to understand how soul-destroying it can be. Calling yourself stupid, putting yourself down, thinking you're a weirdo, etc etc etc.

When it comes to gender identity, I've narrowed it down to 2 types. There are those with genuine mental issues, i.e. gender dysphoria, and they need all the care and support as is required. Then there are those whom, in my opinion, are nothing more than entitled. You want to tell me that there are 50+ genders in the world? I have sympathy for those with gender dysphoria, and I can empathise with them to the extent that I know more than most how easily your own brain can work against you. But these non-binary plus crowd can all take a long jump off of a short pier as far as I'm concerned. And anyone who uses the term 'cisgender' can join them.

I don't identify as a man, I am a man. The same way as I don't identify as a human being, it is what I am and there's nothing I can ever do to change that. I was born as a biological male human being. There's this tremendous arrogance and to be frank, god complex among so much of society. We're not gods. We do not get to change the rules on how life works (in scientific terms, rules are different than laws - so you could call biological standard a rule really - rules are always broken after all, and there are always deviations in standards). There's no such thing as "feeling" like a man or a woman - you can be a feminine man or a masculine woman; but you're still a man/woman!

On the topic of masculinity and femininity, we're not living in the f*cking dark ages anymore - though much of the world still is unfortunately. Just because a man is more feminine or a woman is more masculine doesn't make them any less of a man/woman respectively!

I'm not going to go much into this because quite frankly I'll end up throwing my fist through my screen cos it is so morally reprehensible - forcing kids to undergo transition and blocking their natural growth with hormone blockers and so on. I said it in a recent previous post, kids don't know what they want, hell most people don't even know what they want! Let kids be kids! Just cos your boy has feminine traits or your girl has masculine traits doesn't mean they have gender dysphoria! LET KIDS BE KIDS JESUS CHRIST.

You want the TL;DR of this whole thing, then this is it. We don't get a choice in how we're born into the world, or what we're born into. But we can choose what we do with the life we're given.

If more people realised this, the world would be in a much better place than the sorry state it is now. It's not our place to change the rules, we have no claim to change the rules. Stop focusing on what you don't have, and focus on what you do have and what you can do with it. Life is a game. It works out well for some, not so well for others. Life is about survival; it's not about what we want, it's about what we can do.

And biological men do not belong in woman's sports!! Cut that sh*t out right now. Because they do have an advantage, anyone with the tiniest bit of intelligence should know that. You wanna transition to a transman/woman? Fine, be my guest. I have no problem with that. But an actual man/woman you will never be. Sorry to be blunt, but facts are facts. And vice versa of course, but how come it's so rare to see a biological woman is men's sports... Hmm.

The fact is you can't change what you are. Man is male, woman is female. They are not interchangeable. That's not bigotry, that's not transphobic, that is life. Is it completely black and white? No, nothing is. And that's where intersex comes in. But if you are born a biologically standard male/female, then that is what you are. People are so obsessed with the 'what', with labels; they never realise that the 'what' really isn't that important - it's the who that's important. And that is something you have full control over.

AllForIt

Akesh wrote: »

The problem with the debate on gender identity is that the push for legislation is based on pseudoscientific research and not facts. If you think gender is a social construct then so is transgenderism. It really is that simple.

.

I don't get this social construct thing. Social constructs are trivial things so why are the transgender movement using it as an argument. Surely it's an anti-argument. Like many aspects of this debate everything seems to be the wrong way around. Or am I missing something here.

So I'm saying social constructs are trivial things. So the outward appearance of a female via fashion (a social construct) is utterly trivial. A man can dress up as a women and outwardly they might look like a woman from afar, but that's utterly superficial.

But surely being transgender is not superficial, it's not about outward male or female appearance, it's more fundamental than that?

So say everyone was blind, what would being male or female or transgender mean? Outside of biological sexual intercourse and the reason for that is obviously procreation.

What is gender in isolation. What is it for? What is it's purpose. Why do we have a gender if it has noting to do with biological sex. What purpose does it serve. Why did nature create it if it has no purpose. Everything in nature has a purpose. Every part of you body has a purpose. But what's gender for?

Just some questions I ask myself in this confusing subject area.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

I didn’t take much notice of Eddie Izzard’s recent declaration that she/her pronouns are preferred. Izzard has been gender-bending for decades.

However in this interview, Izzard admits to doing acting roles in “boy mode”. (around 04:20 in the video). That really does just strike me as cynical and piss-taking, like ‘woman’ is just a costume. I thought this was a deeply emotional issue. Oh and Lorraine misgenders Izzard within ten seconds of starting to speak. So even somebody fully on board with chosen pronouns and who presumably has a teleprompter struggled with it. I thought that was interesting. She also comes across really uncomfortable to me here, a rictus grin in place. Maybe she’s always like that though, I don’t know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9YVi_qca7c

Gatling

It's all a game to these so called celebrities ,gone when coming out was a big thing now every few years it's oh I'm gay ,ok well done your gay ,stay in spot light and when they begin to fade ,they announce they are Bi , followed on to oh hi everyone I'm trans ,then it's wannabes celedating shows announcing they are pan ,
It's all about names in the spotlight and whatever is the latest fad people are going to jump on it , singers , actors , comedians or wannabes versions of either

Invidious

AllForIt wrote: »

So I'm saying social constructs are trivial things. So the outward appearance of a female via fashion (a social construct) is utterly trivial. A man can dress up as a women and outwardly they might look like a woman from afar, but that's utterly superficial.

Ironically women since the '60s have vigorously challenged the idea that being female should entail wearing dresses, stockings, high heels and make-up. They have shown that a woman can quite literally wear the trousers, while still being a woman.

It seems curious that many transgender people regard wearing dresses, bras, heels, make-up, etc., as so integral to their sense of identity, while actual women are moving away from the full-on Barbie look.

It suggests that some transgender people are more deeply invested in the aesthetic or appearance of femininity than are many actual women.

Why? Is it insecurity? If you're appearing to be something you fear you're not, then surely impostor syndrome comes into play? But it's also an admission that this deep-seated belief in one's "true" gender identity might not be so deep-seated after all.

Girly Gal

Invidious wrote: »

Ironically women since the '60s have vigorously challenged the idea that being female should entail wearing dresses, stockings, high heels and make-up. They have shown that a woman can quite literally wear the trousers, while still being a woman.

It seems curious that many transgender people regard wearing dresses, bras, heels, make-up, etc., as so integral to their sense of identity, while actual women are moving away from the full-on Barbie look.

It suggests that some transgender people are more deeply invested in the aesthetic or appearance of femininity than are many actual women.

Why? Is it insecurity? If you're appearing to be something you fear you're not, then surely impostor syndrome comes into play? But it's also an admission that this deep-seated belief in one's "true" gender identity might not be so deep-seated after all.

I think you're being a little harsh on transwomen there. It's just like an over correction a lot but not all transwomen make, they probably feel that by being hyper feminine, they pass better and no one will suspect that they are actually trans. It's also probably them embracing the fact that for the first time in their lives they can wear what they like, so go for something more feminine as they couldn't wear it before, trying to find their style or what works for them

Gruffalux

Girly Gal wrote: »

I think you're being a little harsh on transwomen there. It's just like an over correction a lot but not all transwomen make, they probably feel that by being hyper feminine, they pass better and no one will suspect that they are actually trans. It's also probably them embracing the fact that for the first time in their lives they can wear what they like, so go for something more feminine as they couldn't wear it before, trying to find their style or what works for them

That may be so for many, I agree.
But there is an element of autogynophelia what is not publicly acknowledged much - it is the erotic attraction in a male to oneself in the body of a female.
It is not a made up thing. People like Kenneth Zucker and Ray Blanchard who have decades of working closely with transgender people have proposed it. More modern sexologists like James Cantor (who I am not a fan of for other reasons) also support the classification.
They divide transgender women into the homosexual and the autogynopheliac. Blanchard and Zucker both agree with full sex reassignment transition in adulthood where it will assuage severe gender dysphoria - they both were part of the medical community who campaigned for it essentially, or maintained it was best practice for some from quite early on.
The hyper-feminisation is a very strong aspect for some trans women and it is to do with the erotic or sexual element. There are other elements to autogynophelia like menstruation fantasy or pregnancy fantasy that can sometimes manifest in trans women. If you come across certain segments of the trans community it is very much based around paraphilias - highly sexualised portrayals of their feeling of themselves as women.
People do not talk about it or openly reject it as it undermines the desire to remove sex-based rights and protections when the conflicting rights may be based upon paraphiliac desires.


In other news I imagine the affirmative model for gender dysphoric children will come very much to the fore now and be financially and politically supported in the US with the appointment by Biden of Dr Rachel Levine as Assistant Health Secretary. Ditto competition in sports as per gender identity. Ditto prison incarceration as per gender identity. Etc

Dante7

One of the amazing things about the trans debate is how TRAs try and argue that AGP is not a thing. They try to argue that it is a made up condition used by gender critical opponents. They will admit that there are men who dress up as babies and furry animals for sexual kinks, but vehemently deny that there are any men who get off on dressing up as women. The truth is of course, that it is the oldest and most common paraphilia. It is why the vast majority of men who wish to id as women have no intention of ever getting their cocks lopped off. They are not gender dysphoric. They love their girl dicks, and the thoughts of forcing women to accept them in their spaces is an even bigger thrill for some of the nastier AGPs.

Girly Gal

Gruffalux wrote: »

That may be so for many, I agree.
But there is an element of autogynophelia what is not publicly acknowledged much - it is the erotic attraction in a male to oneself in the body of a female.
It is not a made up thing. People like Kenneth Zucker and Ray Blanchard who have decades of working closely with transgender people have proposed it. More modern sexologists like James Cantor (who I am not a fan of for other reasons) also support the classification.
They divide transgender women into the homosexual and the autogynopheliac. Blanchard and Zucker both agree with full sex reassignment transition in adulthood where it will assuage severe gender dysphoria - they both were part of the medical community who campaigned for it essentially, or maintained it was best practice for some from quite early on.
The hyper-feminisation is a very strong aspect for some trans women and it is to do with the erotic or sexual element. There are other elements to autogynophelia like menstruation fantasy or pregnancy fantasy that can sometimes manifest in trans women. If you come across certain segments of the trans community it is very much based around paraphilias - highly sexualised portrayals of their feeling of themselves as women.
People do not talk about it or openly reject it as it undermines the desire to remove sex-based rights and protections when the conflicting rights may be based upon paraphiliac desires.


In other news I imagine the affirmative model for gender dysphoric children will come very much to the fore now and be financially and politically supported in the US with the appointment by Biden of Dr Rachel Levine as Assistant Health Secretary. Ditto competition in sports as per gender identity. Ditto prison incarceration as per gender identity. Etc

I agree that autogynophelia does play a part for some transwomen, however, I don't think it's the driving force alone, the fact is once they transition they end up living their lives as women, they can't just take off the makeup and clothes and go back to being a man without going through another transition. I don't think having autogynophelia invalidates transwomen, the transition process is too difficult for anyone to do it solely for an erotic fantasy, that would be an awful sacrifice just to live out a fantasy.

The gender identity debate really has gone out of control in recent years, not sure how it started or where it's going or whose really benefitting from it.

Dante7

Girly Gal wrote: »

I agree that autogynophelia does play a part for some transwomen, however, I don't think it's the driving force alone, the fact is once they transition they end up living their lives as women, they can't just take off the makeup and clothes and go back to being a man without going through another transition. I don't think having autogynophelia invalidates transwomen, the transition process is too difficult for anyone to do it solely for an erotic fantasy, that would be an awful sacrifice just to live out a fantasy.

The gender identity debate really has gone out of control in recent years, not sure how it started or where it's going or whose really benefitting from it.

The point is that they don't transition. The vast majority of those who id as transwomen today remain intact. These males are not gender dysphoric, they are fetishists, and they undermine the real plight that genuine transsexuals face.

Girly Gal

Dante7 wrote: »

The point is that they don't transition. The vast majority of those who id as transwomen today remain intact. These males are not gender dysphoric, they are fetishists, and they undermine the real plight that genuine transsexuals face.

I don't consider those that don't make any effort to transition to be transwomen, I know some transwomen decide not to have gender reassignment surgery as it's a grueling surgery and recovery process or simply can't afford it, but, they do have other surgeries (breast augmentation, feminine facial surgery, testicle removal) along with hormone treatment so they do make a genuine effort to transition.

Someone like Eddie Izzard for example who as far as I know only wears makeup and female clothes isn't really trans in my view no matter how the media want to make us accept him as a woman as he hasn't really made any effort to permanently transition. There are others who don't even do anything, but, still insist that they are trans. It's examples like that, that really are doing more harm than good to the trans community.

Necro

Dante7 wrote: »

One of the amazing things about the trans debate is how TRAs try and argue that AGP is not a thing. They try to argue that it is a made up condition used by gender critical opponents. They will admit that there are men who dress up as babies and furry animals for sexual kinks, but vehemently deny that there are any men who get off on dressing up as women. The truth is of course, that it is the oldest and most common paraphilia. It is why the vast majority of men who wish to id as women have no intention of ever getting their cocks lopped off. They are not gender dysphoric. They love their girl dicks, and the thoughts of forcing women to accept them in their spaces is an even bigger thrill for some of the nastier AGPs.

Mod:

Threadbanned

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Girly Gal wrote: »

I think you're being a little harsh on transwomen there. It's just like an over correction a lot but not all transwomen make, they probably feel that by being hyper feminine, they pass better and no one will suspect that they are actually trans. It's also probably them embracing the fact that for the first time in their lives they can wear what they like, so go for something more feminine as they couldn't wear it before, trying to find their style or what works for them

Yes, I think there’s some truth to this. Kinda like when teenage girls discover make up and clothes and it’s all very exciting. For transgender women, they might be older generally but it would still be fascinating and exciting to try all this new clothes and make up now available to them. Society slowly but surely embraced women wearing men’s clothes but the opposite has been a far more difficult nut to crack. Unless one comes out as transgender, it’s not really accepted.

LLMMLL

What a nasty new direction this thread has gone in. Trans women are either gay or have a kink. Exact kind of rhetoric used against gay people previously.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

What a nasty new direction this thread has gone in. Trans women are either gay or have a kink.

Can you prove otherwise ?

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

Can you prove otherwise ?

I suppose you think gay men have distant fathers and overbearing mothers too.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

What a nasty new direction this thread has gone in. Trans women are either gay or have a kink. Exact kind of rhetoric used against gay people previously.

It is not new. I have mentioned it many times before.
It is not nasty. It is what quite a number of sexologists working with transgender people for decades have proposed as a classification after research. Including Anne Lawrence who promoted Blanchard's work and is a trans woman.
And by the way, what is nasty about kink? The presentation of the information is not a value judgement. As Debbie Hayton, trans woman, says ''We need to destigmatise autogynophelia.''

https://twitter.com/DebbieHayton/status/1224126509553790976?s=20

Autogynephilia drove my own transsexualism. And I can attest that there is huge mental dissonance built up in the brain of a male who somehow is heterosexually attracted to their own body. This paradox can have a devastating effect on one’s mental health. I also can attest that the process of gender reassignment can help alleviate that dissonance. My critique of gender ideology should in no way be interpreted as an argument to deny such therapies to males such as myself.

Rather than protect the emotional fragility of people who don’t want to investigate the nature of their autogynephilia, a better strategy would be to simply demystify and destigmatize autogynephilia itself (much as we have demystified and destigmatized any number of victimless paraphilias), while also ensuring that therapies are available for trans adults who understand the attendant medical ramifications. We should not need to pretend that we are women (to ourselves or anyone else) in order to find relief from gender dysphoria.

https://quillette.com/2020/02/02/i-may-have-gender-dysphoria-but-i-still-prefer-to-base-my-life-on-biology-not-fantasy/

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

I suppose you think gay men have distant fathers and overbearing mothers too.

No .

I take it you cannot reply ?

suicide_circus

Is it permissable to dismiss transgenderism as a social construct in the same way as gender can be? If so, perhaps the nomenclature will revert to "transsexual". Interesting.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

It is not new. I have mentioned it many times before.
It is not nasty. It is what quite a number of sexologists working with transgender people for decades have proposed as a classification after research. Including Anne Lawrence who promoted Blanchard's work and is a trans woman.
And by the way, what is nasty about kink? The presentation of the information is not a value judgement. As Debbie Hayton, trans woman, says ''We need to destigmatise autogynophelia.''

https://twitter.com/DebbieHayton/status/1224126509553790976?s=20




https://quillette.com/2020/02/02/i-may-have-gender-dysphoria-but-i-still-prefer-to-base-my-life-on-biology-not-fantasy/

Would you care to post their research which I assume shows that a majority of trans women are driven by autogynephilia?

Or would you prefer to post some individual anecdotes as evidence?

I think I know which....

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

No .

I take it you cannot reply ?

Of course I can't prove that. Nobody can prove that any outdated nasty psychological theory is false. It's impossible.

Can you prove its true?