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

Girly Gal

LLMMLL wrote: »

It is definitely stigmatising and nasty. It's an attempt to dehumanise trans people and reduce their identity to a fetish.

Although the more I read of the theory it clearly applies to both cis and trans people. Lots of cis women are turned on by their own bodies and the idea of their body in lingerie etc. Same with cis men and their bodies. I thinj the focus on trans people who experience this is just dodgy 1980s research and it's modern evangelizers probably don't even believe it. But they'll use anything to portray trans people as fetish chasers.

And you are 100% right. I do not care what that gay man claims to be experiencing. As a gay man active in the gay community I know that the only place he's been told he's tranaphobic or a penis fetishist is because he went looking for it on Twitter. There is no way he has encountered this as part of the Irish gay dating scene. Purest nonsense.

It's true that lots of people are turned on by their own bodies, the difference with people who have autogynophelia is that they get turned on by the thought of themselves being the opposite sex and being desired by others as the opposite sex. So the comparison between people with autogynophelia and people who don't have is not really a true comparison.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

It is definitely stigmatising and nasty. It's an attempt to dehumanise trans people and reduce their identity to a fetish.

No it isn't. You've already been caught out lying, why do you insist on continuing to do so.

LLMMLL wrote: »

And you are 100% right. I do not care what that gay man claims to be experiencing. As a gay man active in the gay community I know that the only place he's been told he's tranaphobic or a penis fetishist is because he went looking for it on Twitter. There is no way he has encountered this as part of the Irish gay dating scene. Purest nonsense.

So you deny his experience? That's homophobic.

LLMMLL

Girly Gal wrote: »

It's true that lots of people are turned on by their own bodies, the difference with people who have autogynophelia is that they get turned on by the thought of themselves being the opposite sex and being desired by others as the opposite sex. So the comparison between people with autogynophelia and people who don't have is not really a true comparison.

I don't think it's that simple. Many people are turned on by the idea of having a body they don't actually have. I honestly doubt you know enough about autogynephilia to state that there is a difference between a cis woman enjoying her body and a trans woman enjoying the idea of having that body herself.

Girly Gal

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don't think it's that simple. Many people are turned on by the idea of having a body they don't actually have. I honestly doubt you know enough about autogynephilia to state that there is a difference between a cis woman enjoying her body and a trans woman enjoying the idea of having that body herself.

Of course there is a difference, the woman is enjoying her own body, a person with autogynophelia is enjoying the idea of having a female body, also not all people who experience autogynophelia are necessarily transwomen or transition.

nolivesmatter

Gruffalux wrote: »

You are the one who is stigmatising it. Right from the off.
People get turned on by all sorts of things. Of course natal women get turned on by themselves in their lingerie, and by their own bodies and the feeling of inhabiting their bodies...I would have thought that was a given.
What the research finds is that a certain significant percentage of transgender male to females also get turned on by imagining themselves as women. There is nothing wrong with that.
Here is a link to a video of a lovely young chap talking about how he gets turned on by viewing himself as a woman. I don't quite know why you are having an obvious ewww reaction to the idea.

https://twitter.com/JamesCantorPhD/status/1258767573237354504?s=20

Uh oh now I'm getting turned on.

LLMMLL

Girly Gal wrote: »

Of course there is a difference, the woman is enjoying her own body, a person with autogynophelia is enjoying the idea of having a female body, also not all people who experience autogynophelia are necessarily transwomen or transition.

How do you know the difference you are stating is the salient difference? If a transwoman physically transitions and enjoys her new body, is she no longer autogynephilic in the same way. Is she now the same (in terms of her sexual tastes) as the cis woman. Both would now be enjoying their own bodies. So has the psychology of the trans woman changed?

newmember2

LLMMLL wrote: »

How do you know the difference you are stating is the salient difference? If a transwoman physically transitions and enjoys her new body, is she no longer autogynephilic in the same way. Is she now the same (in terms of her sexual tastes) as the cis woman. Both would now be enjoying their own bodies. So has the psychology of the trans woman changed?

You'd probably need to ask her - does she feel like a male or a female.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalux wrote: »

It is not stigmatising, dehumanising or nasty. You can throw as many insults at the theory and the expression of it as you wish, but it is none of those things.
It also has nothing to do with homosexuality in that it is a typology of transsexualism.

I cannot understand how, if you’re familiar with the theory, you can suggest it has nothing to do with homosexuality, when the very basis of the theory is that it is intended to imply that males who identify as transgender are actually homosexual males who fantasise about being female, and those men who identify as transgender who don’t fit the theory, are liars (which offers a rather convenient “proof” of the theory).

The theory itself was predicated upon the idea that transgenderism is a mental illness in the first place, and only applies to males. Blanchard himself rubbished the notion that it could be applied to women, a belief itself predicated upon the idea that female sexuality just doesn’t exist (a belief which in itself is complete nonsense).

The theory has as much scientific merit or validity as the Wakefield ‘study’, or ‘studies’ which suggest that men are intellectually superior to women, or the whole gamut of ‘studies’ which are nothing more than pseudoscientific nonsense which gain popularity by validating people’s beliefs which they hold already - in this case, the idea that males who identify as transgender are actually homosexual males who fantasise about being women. It’s insulting on a number of fronts - to both men and to women, but mostly it is an affront to science.

It’s been debunked numerous times, and this is just one of the latest examples where the theory has been debunked, yet again, in 2020 -

Sexual Behavior, Desire, and Psychosexual Experience in Gynephilic and Androphilic Trans Women: A Cross-Sectional Multicenter Study

CONCLUSION

Overall, the results of this study could provide no evidence for the hypothesis that sexual behavior, desire, and psychosexual experience differ substantially in gynephilic and androphilic trans women. Although there were differences among the groups (especially between exclusively gynephilic and androphilic trans women), of which some could be interpreted to be in line with Blanchard's theory of autogynephilia, the overall impression gained from the data of this study is that sexuality among the collective was very diverse.

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I cannot understand how, if you’re familiar with the theory, you can suggest it has nothing to do with homosexuality, when the very basis of the theory is that it is intended to imply that males who identify as transgender are actually homosexual males who fantasise about being female, and those men who identify as transgender who don’t fit the theory, are liars (which offers a rather convenient “proof” of the theory).

The theory itself was predicated upon the idea that transgenderism is a mental illness in the first place, and only applies to males. Blanchard himself rubbished the notion that it could be applied to women, a belief itself predicated upon the idea that female sexuality just doesn’t exist (a belief which in itself is complete nonsense).

The theory has as much scientific merit or validity as the Wakefield ‘study’, or ‘studies’ which suggest that men are intellectually superior to women, or the whole gamut of ‘studies’ which are nothing more than pseudoscientific nonsense which gain popularity by validating people’s beliefs which they hold already - in this case, the idea that males who identify as transgender are actually homosexual males who fantasise about being women. It’s insulting on a number of fronts - to both men and to women, but mostly it is an affront to science.

It’s been debunked numerous times, and this is just one of the latest examples where the theory has been debunked, yet again, in 2020 -

Sexual Behavior, Desire, and Psychosexual Experience in Gynephilic and Androphilic Trans Women: A Cross-Sectional Multicenter Study

CONCLUSION

Overall, the results of this study could provide no evidence for the hypothesis that sexual behavior, desire, and psychosexual experience differ substantially in gynephilic and androphilic trans women. Although there were differences among the groups (especially between exclusively gynephilic and androphilic trans women), of which some could be interpreted to be in line with Blanchard's theory of autogynephilia, the overall impression gained from the data of this study is that sexuality among the collective was very diverse.

Nothing to do with homosexuality in that it was never a typology of homosexual men but of transsexual women.
The study quoted does not dispute the gynephilic desire at all. Merely says androphilic and gynephilic desire divides among trans women. Which is what Blanchards typology says. The theory is not debunked. Stupid word anyway. The research is far from settled. Many trans women admit to autogynephelia. The theories will be refined and changed going forward. Given the trans umbrella includes cross dressers and transvestism by its own open declaration and insistence it is obvious from that fact alone that the sexual desire (paraphilia) of a male to view, envision, project, experience one's body as a woman is part of transgenderism.

Anyway I am far too knackered to back and forth with you today so just take future non responding on my part to you on this matter as general disagreement from me with your arguments

One eyed Jack

Gruffalux wrote: »

Nothing to do with homosexuality in that it was never a typology of homosexual men but of transsexual women.
The study quoted does not dispute the gynephilic desire at all. Merely says androphilic and gynephilic desire divides among trans women. Which is what Blanchards typology says. The theory is not debunked. Stupid word anyway. The research is far from settled. Many trans women admit to autogynephelia. The theories will be refined and changed going forward. Given the trans umbrella includes cross dressers and transvestism by its own open declaration and insistence it is obvious from that fact alone that the sexual desire (paraphilia) of a male to view, envision, project, experience one's body as a woman is part of transgenderism.

Anyway I am far too knackered to back and forth with you today so just take future non responding on my part to you on this matter as general disagreement from me with your arguments

The typology is based upon suggesting that transgenderism in males is explained by the idea that they are in reality homosexual males who fantasise about being women as a consequence of being autogynephilic. The study was never intended to dispute gynephilia, androgynephilia or autogynephilia, they are terms used in science anyway. It was intended to investigate whether Blanchard’s hypothesis has any merit, and from the evidence they examined, they came to the conclusion that there isn’t sufficient evidence to support Blanchards hypothesis.

Even if I were to agree with the idea of transgenderism being an umbrella term for ideas commonly associated with transgenderism (which I don’t), the theory is still based upon stereotypes of expected behaviours and attitudes in the self-selected study participants (one way to support a hypothesis is to select candidates for study who will validate the hypothesis), and still has very limited application in that it only applies to adult males who identify themselves as transgender, with the hypothesis suggesting that the reason they identify as transgender is due to autogynephilia. The study I linked to is an examination of Blanchard’s hypothesis, and comes to the conclusion that the evidence of any causal link he is attempting to make between autogynephilia and transgenderism does not have sufficient evidence to support his hypothesis.

Of course research into the hypothesis is still ongoing, in much the same way as Lisa Littmann continues to research her poorly formulated hypothesis about “rapid onset gender dysphoria” in teenage girls, and Blanchard while he dismisses transgenderism as a consequence of autogynephilia in females, he refers to the phenomenon in women who experience gender dysphoria as ‘autohomoeritics’, but suggests that it’s not the same thing (based solely upon sex stereotypes of expected behaviours and attitudes again, and feckall to do with biology).

He’s basically a modern-day Freud, but I would never suggest you just take my word for it, I know you place more value in opinion pieces from Quillette than properly conducted scientific research -

What Is Autogynephilia? An Interview with Dr Ray Blanchard

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The typology is based upon suggesting that transgenderism in males is explained by the idea that they are in reality homosexual males who fantasise about being women as a consequence of being autogynephilic.

I would never suggest you just take my word for it, I know you place more value in opinion pieces from Quillette than properly conducted scientific research

The first sentence I quote is completely incorrect.

The second sentence I quote is low brow personalised snark.

Whatever.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

The first sentence I quote is completely incorrect.

The second sentence I quote is low brow personalised snark.

Whatever.

Care to explain how it is incorrect?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LLMMLL wrote: »

And you are 100% right. I do not care what that gay man claims to be experiencing. As a gay man active in the gay community I know that the only place he's been told he's tranaphobic or a penis fetishist is because he went looking for it on Twitter. There is no way he has encountered this as part of the Irish gay dating scene. Purest nonsense.

The only way you could say that is if you’ve been in a bedroom setting with every single self-professed gay man in Ireland.

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The only way you could say that is if you’ve been in a bedroom setting with every single self-professed gay man in Ireland.

This is one of those cases where we all know he did not encounter this as part of the gay dating scene, and that he waded into a Twitter debate and is now offended at what he heard.

If some people feel the need to pretend otherwise as part of an internet debate, fine. But everyone is aware that it's a pretense.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LLMMLL wrote: »

This is one of those cases where we all know he did not encounter this as part of the gay dating scene, and that he waded into a Twitter debate and is now offended at what he heard.

If some people feel the need to pretend otherwise as part of an internet debate, fine. But everyone is aware that it's a pretense.

We do? How do “we all know” that?

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

We do? How do “we all know” that?

Basic common sense and experience? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LLMMLL wrote: »

Basic common sense and experience? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I have no experience of being a gay man. So when gay men are telling me things about their experience, I’m not going to arbitrarily discount them.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Basic common sense and experience? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

haha you appealing to common sense:pac:

Quantum Erasure

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I have no experience of being a gay man. So when gay men are telling me things about their experience, I’m not going to arbitrarily discount them.

"and while I have personally felt it (and then gone into full attack mode on twitter, which isn’t healthy)"

Reads to me like he came upon it on twitter, not in real life

Gruffalux

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

"and while I have personally felt it (and then gone into full attack mode on twitter, which isn’t healthy)"

Reads to me like he came upon it on twitter, not in real life

Are you asking for the receipts, Quantum? Panti has lots of them.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

"and while I have personally felt it (and then gone into full attack mode on twitter, which isn’t healthy)"

Reads to me like he came upon it on twitter, not in real life

I’m not saying I 100% believe him at all. But I would have no authority to call BS on it either, ensconced in my heterosexual world. (Though I can relate to the part about him saying that when it’s all stripped back, you’re attracted to a particular sex and that’s it - or both, if you’re bisexual)

Gruffalux

The idea that Twitter is not real life lacks nuance. It certainly brings out weirdiness but online interaction is to a certain extent now part of real life. Otherwise how would there be so many dating apps, skills advertisement websites, etc. Otherwise why would there be acknowledged issues re bullying. Remember teen suicides from those apps that were used to bully. The ones where the message or image lasts only a short time - sorry I dont know their names.

Twitter is part of the modern public square where ideas are exchanged. It is where influence is sought to be brought to bear and it DOES influence many. Refer to Angela Merkel saying banning from the platform is not good. Etc.

The link to the article that chap wrote contains a link within the article using the words The Boxer Ceiling. I deleted my hotlink to it from here as it contains sexualised and abusive material. What is extraordinary - to me, anyway - are the volume of screenshots at the link, the incredible number of people willing to post abuse. Just as a taster "cis gay man" is posted again and again as a derogatory slur. You would not imagine that is a thing but apparently so. That is the posters make it clear the description cis gay is meant to be a slur. Due to genital preference. And same sex attraction.

Elsewhere one can see similar screenshot galleries re Cotton Ceiling. This was actually the first time I had seen gay men so sharply in the crosshairs of the idealogues. I was surprised.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

The idea that Twitter is not real life lacks nuance. It certainly brings out weirdiness but online interaction is to a certain extent now part of real life. Otherwise how would there be so many dating apps, skills advertisement websites, etc. Otherwise why would there be acknowledged issues re bullying. Remember teen suicides from those apps that were used to bully. The ones where the message or image lasts only a short time - sorry I dont know their names.

Twitter is part of the modern public square where ideas are exchanged. It is where influence is sought to be brought to bear and it DOES influence many. Refer to Angela Merkel saying banning from the platform is not good. Etc.

The link to the article that chap wrote contains a link within the article using the words The Boxer Ceiling. I deleted my hotlink to it from here as it contains sexualised and abusive material. What is extraordinary - to me, anyway - are the volume of screenshots at the link, the incredible number of people willing to post abuse. Just as a taster "cis gay man" is posted again and again as a derogatory slur. You would not imagine that is a thing but apparently so. That is the posters make it clear the description cis gay is meant to be a slur. Due to genital preference. And same sex attraction.

Elsewhere one can see similar screenshot galleries re Cotton Ceiling. This was actually the first time I had seen gay men so sharply in the crosshairs of the idealogues. I was surprised.

It's kind of pointless though because you can literally find anything to be offended about if you go on nasty Twitter comments. You implied I had no concern for gay men based on an example of a gay man reading some things he doesn't like on Twitter.

It's a dodgy argument. I could find abusive material against white men in Twitter. I could find abusive material against gay men on Twitter. I'm sure you could find plenty of abusive material against women, or older women on Twitter that would offended you.

It's not that Twitter isn't "real". It's that the crazy stuff you can find on it if you choose to go looking cannot be used to draw general conclusions about anything.

So I have no concern for this gay man's experience. He (pretty obviously) waded into a toxic online debate and felt burned.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

It's kind of pointless though because you can literally find anything to be offended about if you go on nasty Twitter comments. You implied I had no concern for gay men based on an example of a gay man reading some things he doesn't like on Twitter.

It's a dodgy argument. I could find abusive material against white men in Twitter. I could find abusive material against gay men on Twitter. I'm sure you could find plenty of abusive material against women, or older women on Twitter that would offended you.

It's not that Twitter isn't "real". It's that the crazy stuff you can find on it if you choose to go looking cannot be used to draw general conclusions about anything.

So I have no concern for this gay man's experience. He (pretty obviously) waded into a toxic online debate and felt burned.

You are being disingenuous. If any public figure expresses a sentiment, to support sex-based rights and protections, in the public market square - be it in a newspaper or a research journal or on a social media platform - they are absolutely assailed by threats, abuse, and potentially doxxing. Loads of filthy abuse. Gee, even the CEO of Amnesty Ireland thought regular people ''supporting biological reality'' should have media and political representation removed from them. No one has to go looking for anything - it comes right to one's door if one expresses an unacceptable opinion.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

You are being disingenuous. If any public figure expresses a sentiment, to support sex-based rights and protections, in the public market square - be it in a newspaper or a research journal or on a social media platform - they are absolutely assailed by threats, abuse, and potentially doxxing. Loads of filthy abuse. Gee, even the CEO of Amnesty Ireland thought regular people ''supporting biological reality'' should have media and political representation removed from them. No one has to go looking for anything - it comes right to one's door if one expresses an unacceptable opinion.

I think it's you who is being disingenuous. The vast majority of people on Twitter are not public figures whose posts attract attention. Is this gay man a public figure? Can you link his profile? I'd like to check it out.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

I think it's you who is being disingenuous. The vast majority of people on Twitter are not public figures whose posts attract attention. Is this gay man a public figure? Can you link his profile? I'd like to check it out.

I'm not your PA. Look it up yourself.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

I'm not your PA. Look it up yourself.

Well there doesn't appear to be any info on who this person is. But from reading the blog post it's clear he's not a celebrity and fully enjoys wading into arguments. He references many internet arguments he has had in the post. This did not arrive at his doorstep. He went looking for it. The talk of public figures is extremely disingenuous.

Gatling

Another case in the UK recently ,
Headline was apparently transwoman raped another woman
The scumbags pronoun's had to be respected for fear of legal action

https://metro.co.uk/2021/01/18/trans-woman-jailed-for-15-years-for-raping-another-woman-13921362/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/513083-transwoman-rape-female-prison/

The majority of the vocal posters on here and in real life who purport to be an advocate for self determination and freedom of choice for self identification are going to be eating each other alive in their attempts to be more tolerant.

It's starting to eat itself already. Time to sit back and enjoy.

suicide_circus

Gatling wrote: »

https://metro.co.uk/2021/01/18/trans-woman-jailed-for-15-years-for-raping-another-woman-13921362/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Would it not be in the interest of genuinely gender dysphoric people to call out situations like this?