Autogynephilia: The Elephant in the Transgender Bathroom

a reply to: Boadicea

It use to be so simple.

originally posted by: redhorse

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: redhorse

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: redhorse

Lawrence's work is about the adoption of a political gender identity. There's a difference.

Beyond that ... you're offering a few study titles as your proof? Goodness.

There are many others, there are more than just "...a few titles" I mentioned that.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: redhorse
CIte your studies that indicate that being transgender directly relates to harm and violence.

I never said that.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: redhorse
Cite your studies that indicate that having autogynephilia directly relates to harm and violence.

Once again. I never said that. Had to put words in my mouth twice then? Goodness...

originally posted by: Gryphon66CIte your studies that indicate that Blanchard's taxonomy is valid and the research that has been done to support that.


(Going to be kind of difficult, as Blanchard HIMSELF has rephrased his earlier work and has stated that far more research is needed than the surveys he took 20 years ago ... but I look forward to your presentation.)

I already did cite one, and I don't think that there is any number that I could cite that could convince you. Your mind is made up. Recent studies support his work and you are misinterpreting the extent of his ah... rephrasing in order to support your own agenda. Of course more research is needed, that is the nature of research, particularly regarding behavior which is... nebulous to define at best.

Your articles are all on wiki scholar. None are conclusive most are theoretical working. Do you have others? What you provided is a far cry from making definitive judgments or training for psychologists. These are studies to be aware of. Thats about it.

And that's fair. I'm glad that you could find some of them. I am only saying that autogynephilia and Blanchard's claims are not as half-cocked as many here are trying to portray. That was my only point. It's not cut and dried. The psychological community has not dismissed it out of hand, and there is some evidence that there is some truth to it. That was it, and people went bonkers and assumed all sorts of things that I was not trying to say. Attacked me, albeit in sneaky passive aggressive ways (including you) and were ridiculously defensive. If that doesn't say world's about how entrenched people are in their positions regarding this "debate" I don't know what does.

I apologise. I am a classical liberal and this topic is a topic of freedom and personal liberty. It seemed as though you were defending the op which has blatenly used the parts of Blanchard's work that have been discredited. Which is regarding the agresive tranny syndrom to be passive aggressive.

If you read my posts you will see I say it's a thing. I even point this out to a poster that said it wasn't a thing at all. So I assumed you were defending the op. I think the general consensus currently is its a fetish to use casual terms. I also just read a study on how many of the AGS folks don't transition or want to become women. Part of the excitement being they are men dressing as woman.

To be honest I am just a normal strait dude and doing all this defending and sourcing is now making my ads be all about gay cruises.


I am not even a PC liberal. I am more a libertarian. I also teach wrestling, judo, and self defence. I would say at least half the kids I do antibullying work with are LGBT. So the stories are always fresh in my mind why this is even an issue. It's because these kids are getting beat up, killed, abused and are committing suicide at alarming rates.

To the OP credit she does point out there should be unisex bathrooms, I assume that means single occupancy. Thats better than a lot of stuff I see on this site.

If I am being completely honest I don't understand transgenderism at all on a personal level. It makes me slightly uncomfortable as well. However, once I just talk to the human being inside the body I am less uncomfortable.

Nicely done. I wonder why we don't ask the women (normal heterosexual) how they feel about sharing their space. As far as women coming into mens rooms, men can take of themselves, I'm not thrilled by it, but we are safe. Now the women coming into the men bathrooms....I could see that going bad. Then guess what happens next? Video cameras in the bathrooms to "protect" everyone. Wouldn't that be a NSA wet f'n dream? For the small percentage of just "women trapped in men's bodies", there is going to be a lot of trash. Hell, I wouldn't want that fugtard Bruce Jenner pissing next to my wife.
There is a reality here and measurable stance, what hangs between your legs is what you are. Change it, get some sort of "updated gender document" and we can talk. There are millions of perverse people out there, people with fetishes that are rubbing one out to this idea right now. There is far more to this than someone who is truly "trapped in the wrong body".

a reply to: Hr2burn

It hasn't gone wrong in the decade or so it's been going on in different states, schools, and cooperation.

a reply to: Realtruth

It was even more simple in the 50's - when blacks knew their place (or got lynched when they got too uppity), women had to depend on the men to take care of them (because they weren't allowed to take care of themselves), and the LGBT community stayed in the closet (or faced getting arrested). Ahh yes, good times. /sarc

The only point of this discussion was to create confusion that "some" Trans* folks (the ones that OP mislabels as autogynephiliacs) are dangerous and therefore, we cannot as a society allow ANY trans* folks to use the facilities appropriate to their gender as they have FOR YEARS with no negative incidents.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Realtruth

It was even more simple in the 50's - when blacks knew their place (or got lynched when they got too uppity), women had to depend on the men to take care of them (because they weren't allowed to take care of themselves), and the LGBT community stayed in the closet (or faced getting arrested). Ahh yes, good times. /sarc

I would never want to live in the 50s again.

It was so phony.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Gryphon66

Here is the entire piece by Ginsburg for anyone interested in the full context:

Link

Did you find other relevant quotes from the article to this discussion? My eyes aren't pulling much out of that newspaper scan.

The claim was made that Ginsburg's comments "proved" (well, even though it was an attorney's opinion at the time) that the privacy of women in a gender specific facility is a Constitutionally protected right implying that she was referring only to sex/gender.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Realtruth

It was even more simple in the 50's - when blacks knew their place (or got lynched when they got too uppity), women had to depend on the men to take care of them (because they weren't allowed to take care of themselves), and the LGBT community stayed in the closet (or faced getting arrested). Ahh yes, good times. /sarc

And if we go back 100 years people just crapped in a single stall outhouse.

And if we go back further people just crapped in the woods.

Ahh yes, good times /sarc

originally posted by: Annee

I would never want to live in the 50s again.

It was so phony.

And today is more real?

or surreal?

a reply to: Realtruth

Which is why "simpler" isn't always better, right?

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: Annee

I would never want to live in the 50s again.

It was so phony.

And today is more real?

or surreal?

Yes, today is more real.

The 50s was role playing. People just went through the motions.

Women did the women stuff. Men did the men stuff. Couples often lived completely different lives.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Someone alert the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Public Health Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
not to mention hundreds of biologists, neurologists, etc. and their associated research over the last 50 or so years ...

Boadicea has discovered the kink of cross-dressing.

Are you kidding me? Transvestism is the "big reveal"?

Dressed up in the fancy Latin terminology for it to make this tripe sound more "scientific"?

AnteDiluvian, Freija and others may have the patience to unravel this garbage point by point for you folks, and good on them ... all I will say is:

Enjoy more backup for your bigotry folks.

You are full of bigotry yourself, and I should add this, NOONE in the scientific or any other community fully knows why all of this is going on, or they aren't ALLOWED TOO.

What we do know, is that we are being asked to accept anyone at face value as to how they feel, and respond to that WITHOUT ACTUALLY KNOWING a dam thing about it.

Sounds like the usual science garbage.

How about someone actually attempt to understand how ALL things work, instead of this useless venture that is not helping ANYONE, just as every other stupid attempts have.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Gryphon66

Here is the entire piece by Ginsburg for anyone interested in the full context:

Link

Did you find other relevant quotes from the article to this discussion? My eyes aren't pulling much out of that newspaper scan.

The claim was made that Ginsburg's comments "proved" (well, even though it was an attorney's opinion at the time) that the privacy of women in a gender specific facility is a Constitutionally protected right implying that she was referring only to sex/gender.

I haven't read it. I really, really wanted to, but the newspaper scan was so ugly, I opted for hoping someone else would read it and post some insight into the context.

originally posted by: ParasuvOWhat we do know, is that we are being asked to accept anyone at face value as to how they feel, and respond to that WITHOUT ACTUALLY KNOWING a dam thing about it.

Isn't that what we do anyway, all the time?

Unless you live in a small town where everyone knows your name.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Gryphon66

Here is the entire piece by Ginsburg for anyone interested in the full context:

Link

Did you find other relevant quotes from the article to this discussion? My eyes aren't pulling much out of that newspaper scan.

The claim was made that Ginsburg's comments "proved" (well, even though it was an attorney's opinion at the time) that the privacy of women in a gender specific facility is a Constitutionally protected right implying that she was referring only to sex/gender.

I haven't read it. I really, really wanted to, but the newspaper scan was so ugly, I opted for hoping someone else would read it and post some insight into the context.

LOL ... you and me both. I'll see if I can find us a transcript.

Found this, but it seems to be a scholarly article from 1979: Sexual Equality Under the Fourtheeth Amendment and Equal Rights Amendment

a reply to: ParasuvO

Who am I bigoted against? Don't make an empty accusation and not follow up on it.

No one in any community "fully knows" why anything is going on at all. That's just an utterly empty observation.

WHO (or WHAT) isn't "allowing" the scientists/other community members to know? Or is that something you don't know either?

Or something you can't tell us, conveniently?

No, what you are being asked to accept is the medical consensus that Trans* folks are not mentally ill, have a variety of reasons for having a different gender identity than their biological sex, and deserve the right to be who they are and be treated at least before the law as who they believe themselves to be.

The idea that we (as a society) don't "actually know a dam thing" about gender identities is patently absurd.

Understand how all things work? You mean would should derive the Theory of Everything before we continue to try to do anything?

Sounds non-productive to me.

a reply to: Boadicea

Excellent information! Quite detailed, and more than enough to show a dark side to these current debates, that some would prefer to pretend did not exist. Information is power, and you have offered a lot of information! Now to go through the rest of the thread.

S&F.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Boadicea

Excellent information! Quite detailed, and more than enough to show a dark side to these current debates, that some would prefer to pretend did not exist. Information is power, and you have offered a lot of information! Now to go through the rest of the thread.

S&F.

It's good to see that you picked up on the message, that OP has since for some odd reason tried to avoid or diminish or deny:

Some small fraction of Trans* Americans are "dangerous" for some reason related to possible paraphilias, therefore, it's fine to categorically deny ALL of these citizens their Constitutional right to privacy due to a non-existent "danger" which is really no more than a "remote possibility."

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: PeterH

I don't think so.

Maybe you should read Plato's the Cave.

I think your still chained to the wall.

Christianity can be beautiful with the right teacher. I had to study theology to get a philosophy degree.

Number one Tennant of Christianity. The one you and so many abuse. It's not your place to judge. It's Gods.

Maybe refer to the wheat and weeds parable

One who reads a lot of books and actually imagines that they are anywhere near the truth should perhaps unprogram themselves and take a larger birds eye view.

Freud is most certainly wrong and boring on almost every topic, theology and philosophy are the same thing, and God does not care about any of it.

Deprogramming is the first step......not MORE programming.