>"Once I finally did accept my sexuality, which didn’t occur until after transition in my mid thirties, I found even more turmoil with the notion that I wasn't gay, but instead had an erotic target location error and my attraction to men wasn’t real. I cannot understate just how disjointing this revelation was, as well as disturbing. Imagine, spending years struggling to accept yourself, only to have to start all over again."
The reaction you had here—of realizing that your attraction to men originates in meta-attraction rather than conventional attraction, and having your identity destabilized once again by this revelation—is a recurring pattern I've seen. You're definitely not the only one. However, thinking of it as "my attraction to men isn't real" is often not a helpful way of framing it for the people who experience same-sex attraction due to meta-attraction. It can create a lot of inner emotional turmoil in someone over whether they genuinely love their romantic partner and whether it's morally acceptable for them to have same-sex relationships.
My take: if you are same-sex attracted, it matters less whether this attraction is conventional or meta in nature, and moreso whether you treat your same-sex partner with love and respect. Do you treat him well, and does he want to be in a relationship with you? This matters more than the theoretical explanation for where your same-sex attraction comes from.
I guess I am one of the few to accept that my trans inclination is autogynphelia. I thought accepting it as a sexual motivation would be a bad thing but I found, ironically the opposite to be true because in conclusion I was a man with a fetish rather than a woman trapped in a man's body. A man with a fetish is not unusual. Being ruled by the fetish would be a problem, certainly. But like anything else, know the time, the place, and don't mistake a sexual fantasy with reality.
I think I'm probably the minority in this view point though.
Your experience, intelligence, wit, curation of facts, connections within trans and detrans communities, and willingness to treat others with respect has made your voice stand out. You have presented me with more food for thought today and sparked some agreement and disagreement. I will have to think and come back to read again as I digest this. It’s also enlightening reading the comments.
Too many folks are pushing for a simple identification of a root cause to be addressed. People are not systems that can be duplicated even in the same household with the same parents. If only we could all be debugged. Our code and dependencies are just too complex.
This was really interesting and I find myself mostly agreeing with you as I usually do— I agree that sexist male sexologists who like to apply rigid, scientific-sounding labels to categorize people (as if the act of giving a made-up label to something is itself actually helpful or truthful) causes people more problems than it solves. But I also find myself strongly disagreeing with some things you said— like your assertion that “male sexuality” is “nothing like” “female sexuality.” To me, that makes about as much logical sense as saying “the male personality” is “nothing like” the “female personality.” There no such thing as a “male” sexuality or a “female sexuality.” Men and women’s experiences of their sexualities often differ in some key ways that are informed by their major biological sexual differences. But to say they are more different than they are similar, let alone that they have NOTHING in common…makes no sense to me. For one thing, many men are driven to transition bc of complex psycho-social and emotional reasons, and many women are driven by a strong sexual motivation— and for most transitioners, it seems to be a combination of both— bc people are individuals. I also have experienced severe untreated OCD, so I always keep a sharp eye out for “all or nothing” cognitive distortions and this comment about male and female sexuality struck me as one :)
The truth is that I actually agree very, very slightly with one argument by Thomas (alias “Julia”) Serano, which is that the Blanchardians are too male stereotype-y about sexuality in general. It’s true- for these men, everything must be labeled as a “legit,” “scientific” phenomenon in some simplistic, linear way- either it’s the norm, or some biological aberration of the norm that must receive a label. The truth is that sexuality is nuanced, fluid for some people, and often a delicate, responsive thing— especially for women, but also for “neurodivergent” people, of both genders, who exist on the edges of normal like people with OCD, ADHD or autism diagnoses. Like this concept of “meta attraction.” Like, no, I’m sorry. That’s not a real thing. At least- it’s not any more “real” than “demisexual” is a thing. If you’re a man, and you’re having sex with a man, and you like having sex with men bc men are sexy to you…you’re homosexual or bisexual. What is with this weird idea I see floating around gender critical spaces that it’s actually possible to be “fake gay” bc you’re actually turned on by imagining yourself as the opposite sex?? Sure, there are men like William (alias “Lia”) Thomas who will date men so they can pretend to be lesbians together, bc they’re autistic men with a fetish for lesbians. But why would two men dating each other AS MEN be anything other than normal gay? Even if one of the men likes to imagine himself as a pretty lady sometimes during sex…why wouldn’t that just be bc he likes men and comes from a traditional background where if you like sex with men, you’re perceived as a girl or at least, girl-y? If he’s into men, it quite literally can’t be an autogynephilic fetish- bc he’s not into women. It’s the reverse of agp— where the turn on is imagining oneself as a lesbian. Instead, he imagines himself as a woman so he can access the sexual role with a man that he desires, *bc he’s gay.*
Why go to such a convoluted and improbable explanation and collapse or expand all the definitions of words (ie homosexuality becomes “pseudo homosexual meta attraction”) just to make some fetishists feel better about their inappropriate behavior? (Bc it seems like “meta attraction” comes from male fetishists). It’s no different than taking the reality of a cross sex delusional disorder/coping mechanism and calling it “being transgender” in order to validate people’s destructive behaviors, or a disordered behavior like fetishistic crossdressing and calling it “being an agp” or “being an autoheterosexual,” etc. None of these terms are real things you ARE they’re just disordered behaviors that you DO, and can at any point stop if they’re not serving you or others.
Btw, it behooves men who are into sex offending (performing their fetishes in public) to encourage people to label themselves in these pseudo-scientific ways, bc it absolves them from personal responsibility for their choices— and that is another thing that male sexologists get wrong, and another example of something quite different AND similar between men and women. Because women are overall way less slutty and physically aggressive than guys (bc less T), it’s easier for us to *recognize* that our sexual behaviors are choices. But that doesn’t mean one’s sexual behavior ISNT always choice— it is— for men as well as for women.
I may be way off base with this but it feels like the concept of AGP and the language around it has been changed, broadened, and expanded so much that it's approaching the wide-net definition of "gender dysphoria" that can mean almost whatever you want it to mean. I would not be surprised to see many of the same factors of social contagion and over diagnosis affect the concept of AGP because of these ever changing and vaguer but more encompassing definitions. Yes, social contagion usually affects teen girls and young women, but it also can affect men (for example, Havana Syndrome and WWI shell shock) and ALL people are vulnerable to latching onto explanations that don't really fit to explain their distress.
I think that’s exactly what’s happening. I commented something similar under one of the recent Gender Wider Lens videos featuring a woman who convinced her wife she was trans, then had to walk it back once she peaked. At the end of the video she was diagnosing her lesbian wife as an “autosexual” bc her wife told her she always imagined herself as the opposite sex during sex (something I imagine would be very common for gay people). I mean, who is really “imaging” one’sself during sex in any clear way anyways, and so how can they report whether they “view themselves” in a “normal” or “abnormal” way? Do we have to imagine ourselves at all during sex? Do we have to visualize exactly what we look like, with every roll of fat or spot of acne or can we imagine what feels more comfortable? Why wouldn’t a masculine lesbian woman dating a feminine bisexual woman feel a bit like “the guy” during sex? If she’s always “the guy” in bed, why wouldn’t she kind of grow up viewing herself that way? Why would that mean she’s some sort of disordered fetishist? We’re conflating guyish lesbians and girly gay men with sex offenders like public fetishistic crossdressers now? Oy vey. This is what happens when people have black and white thinking and can’t hold onto the grey, nuanced truths and many subtle distinctions that build up into totally different realities.
Social contagion is just learning- in this case learning an unhealthy or disruptive coping mechanism. Men and women tend to differ in some ways socially— but social contagions can affect anyone who can learn! And all transitioners and detransitioners, regardless of gender, have proven they’re extremely suggestible and prone to social contagion once, or twice before. No offense to Ritchie in any way— I think he’s brilliant— but I do think people with OCD, or autism, etc should be very careful about slipping and sliding into old patterns, and wary of manipulative, perverted men who seek to twist them to their interests.
I find it disconcerting how many similarities there are between the way AGP/auto/meta sexuality is being ever-expanded and pushed using many of the same tactics used by activists for gender dysphoria/affirmation/transition: the ever expanding and changing definitions and inclusion criteria (such as Ray Alex Williams proposing on Twitter that men who are particular and meticulous fall under under the "AGP phenotype"), the denial of ROGD (some going so far as to say much or even most ROGD in teen girls is really autosexuality), the conflation with autism, telling people they must accept they're actually AGP (it feels like "egg cracking"), the bold proclamations with no real data or quality research behind them. I'm not denying some form of AGP exists. And I'm not in any place to say who does or does not have it. But I'm bothered by just how similar these tactics and ideas are and how many people on the gender-skeptical side are so quick to embrace this without noticing the similarities and asking more questions. I may be wrong but I can't help but get a very uneasy feeling we're repeating the same mistakes that got us into this mess to start with.
So well said! I completely agree- can’t say it better myself. The pattern is obvious, once you notice it. I don’t know who this newest predatory agp influencer is bc I deleted my Twitter, but he sounds just like all the other transfluencers. I think you have to be a bit of a detective with these things: it’s all about motive. And the motive in most crimes/bad behavior is: money, power/thrill, sex, vengeance. So besides noticing the dysfunctional or manipulative patterns, you also have to notice who is saying whatever is being said, and if it’s the same old suspects— antisocial men with weird sex behaviors— you should ask yourself, “is this men using Machiavellian tactics on vulnerable people so as to facilitate their weird sexual behaviors— just like last time”?
It’s like the cohort of people who transition is like an inverted iceberg— with the vast majority being roughly normal, average people with some serious vulnerabilities and issues, but the further down you go into the depths, you do get this tiny minority of genuinely predatory narcissists— usually men— who seem to need to drag everyone down into the seedy depths with them. So-called “based AGPs” or “gender critical AGPs” are imo usually predators who prey on vulnerable detransitioners or “transsexuals” or ROGD people in order to blur the lines that allow them to get or not get away with offending in public. Obviously, if we act like men who are fetishists are “born that way” and “just trying to be honest with themselves” that is what predatory men want!
It’s very simple: what is the behavior, and personality of the person at hand? A heterosexual teenage girl who is transitioning bc she’s terrified to be a girl after being exposed to such misogyny on the internet and who, in the course of her transition, is trying to become the kind of guy she would typically find attractive (bc who doesn’t want to feel confident and sexy, what does she know of men other than her fantasies is them, and transition itself is weird and meta so it will inevitably get 50 shades of weird) is, imo, not in any way comparable to a middle aged, abusive, narcissistic man like James, alias “Jan,” Morris emotionally abusing his female family members, deciding to live full-time as his misogynistic sex fantasies, while sidling up to women in the women’s bathroom to talk about his “panties” (which really happened). And why are the two groups different? Bc one’s a teenage girl (so, not a potential threat) who’s more a menace to herself than to anyone else and at nearly zero risk of sex offending, and one’s an abusive man (a potential threat) with clearly established sex offending behaviors.
Anyways— you already said it best: it’s disheartening to see these dysfunctional and neurotic patterns play out over and over again in these trans and trans-adjacent spaces.
Interesting post, partly because I've often wondered if I was always gay. They say male sexuality never changes, but with this idea of a meta attraction, it makes me think maybe I tricked myself into being this way as a child. I can't deny that I've only ever experienced sexual arousal for men and only date men though. Still, it creates just enough uncertainty to worry me.
I find the older gay people saying they would have transitioned if they grew up today a bit strange, because I feel like if I had grown up today, I would have come out as gay instead of transitioning. Being gay wasn't acceptable when I grew up, but it is now.
I've considered writing about this, because there aren't enough people discussing it. I'm transsexual by virtue of having transitioned, but neither category of transsexual suits me. Maybe I was never trans and that's why I detransitioned, but I find that hard to believe too considering how many times I was diagnosed and how far I went into a transition. Certain elements of AGP and HSTS apply to me, but neither fits perfectly. Maybe Blanchard's conclusions were wrong.
I do believe that all transition is sexually motivated though. I just don't think it's always sexual in the way women think it is. I think it's more about escape. Escaping homosexuality. Escaping oppressor status. Escaping objectification. Escaping a requirement to be dominant or submissive. Escaping gender roles. Escaping the act of sex itself. If it was merely gender nonconformity, I don't think anybody would go to these extremes.
Me too. I found the typologies confusing at first, and i dont think we should live and die by them. There are gay people who transition, and there are very soft men like us who do so too. Part of the issue is our desire to categorise and put complex feelings into neat boxes. It works sometimes, but its not always useful.
It strikes me that one might undergo psychological episodes of auto gynephilia without having to BE autogynephilic; in the same way that you can undergo a transition without BEING trans. This whole need for one to identify with their pathology I find to be very disconcerting.
In fact it might be the very fixation upon a transitory status which is not essential to being; which turns a passing fancy into a pathology.
In the same way which you disambiguated the difference between someone who has had a drink, and someone who is a drunk; someone who has watched porn, and someone who is addicted to porn.
I must say I do admire Ritchie's moral fortitude in identifying a significant episode of his same-sex attraction as "an erotic target location error". This confession aligns with the basic definition of sin as "missing the mark".
We should be helped to note that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". God is love. God is light, and IN HIM is no part darkness. A God of truth, and without iniquity - Just and right is He.
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
-
So then how do we square away the Holiness of the Triune God with the characteristic desire of the Lover to be united with the Beloved?
1 Corinthians 13:4-13
Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;
does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;
does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth;
bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away.
For we know in part and we prophesy in part.
But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.
And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
-
Let us say that True Love cannot deny itself.
if we identify love with our definition of God which was previously written - (being light with no part darkness, being true and without iniquity)
there is a dilemma for the Love of the Holy One - in not being able to deny itself, because He alone is all light, having no part darkness, he alone is true, and without iniquity;
in order to love someone else; someone who has sinned, someone has loved their own darkness; someone who has added iniquity unto their sin;
Yet still the desire of love is from the heart and the decision of the Lover springs from his own fountain of virtue, and thus cannot be contingent upon the nature of the beloved -
but then here is another dilemma, if there is no respect for the nature of the beloved; everything which he loves would be conformed to the same object of affection; because the beloved would have to represent the same values of the lover in order to be conformable to the principles of love which are essential to the very being of the One who loves; or else the one who loves would have to deny the very essence of the principles which reflect the character of his own love in order to love someone else; which would give rise to a controversy.
this controversy might be resolved by humility on behalf of the beloved.
True love seeks the highest good; but would give all the virtue which belongs to itself in order to uphold the faithfulness of the promise of a love which was to come.
this is key to the Holiness of God, according to his covenant name which was revealed to Moses: YHWH - signifying - "the one who IS, and WAS and IS to come"
Therefore; through whatever modulation or circumstance of expression; the essential character of God being love must remain the same. And since God is also a god of truth, and without iniquity; Just and Right is He; the immutability of his love must not violate the purity of his truth;
the love which is identified with Christ must never accept or uphold the work of iniquity;
His love must be with justice, and reign with righteousness.
Therefore there is a way in which love is always identified with the character of God, and anything called love which is contrary to this Holy Character of God, must be false; or a perverted perception, or sinfallen expression, of love - a half truth, a love in part, a love for a time; a love for a place' which is proven to not be love when put through the same standard of the love by which God fashioned all things wholesome that they might have their being.
For example let us take a love of knowledge separate from God's wisdom. It might seem to be a pure pursuit of science; but one will find that they pursue vanity and futility when they compare the outcome of God's wisdom, which is a tree with a fruit bearing seed; which brings forth a tree with fruit after the same kind;
Can you compare the Tree of Life with a knowledge of man which accrues with iniquity because a man might mistake a fixation with a subject or an obsession with facts and logic, an "interest" or a "passion" instead of love. And passion can even be taken for "love" in a human relationship; but we will see with time; that true love is not a fire which needs a fuel, which would die if apart from a substance of circumstance, necessity or choice. What is the substance of choice?
True love is not dependent upon the ebb and flow of the tides - if one were to judge love by the station of the season, in the winter they would feel as "unloved" and in the summer "consumed by the heat of love" and in the spring "full of love" ' whereas the truth of love is the same throughout all those seasons - if one did not know love in the winter; neither would the heat of the summer suffice as a harbinger of true love; because it was only for a lack of true love that the sensation of heat were substituted for the feeling of love.
this is how all have inherited a sinful nature in the flesh, the flesh is that faulty instrument, the body of sins and death which gropes blindly and having waxed gross with insensitivity towards the life of God who is perceived only by Spirit and known only in truth - there is a wholesomeness in creation which proclaims the attributes of God, for instance the expansive blueness of the sky speaks of the purity and surpassing freedom of God; but then people whose minds are clouded under a veil of darkness; and whose emotions are weighed down under a yoke of wickedness and gall of bitterness must perceive joy by the chemical release in their brain which is prompted by a pill - whereas true joy is not a temporary sensation of highs and lows or a feeling of satiation by the restoration of a chemical equilibrium, but rather the composition of a vast swath of experiences which amount to a flying towards God.
>"Once I finally did accept my sexuality, which didn’t occur until after transition in my mid thirties, I found even more turmoil with the notion that I wasn't gay, but instead had an erotic target location error and my attraction to men wasn’t real. I cannot understate just how disjointing this revelation was, as well as disturbing. Imagine, spending years struggling to accept yourself, only to have to start all over again."
The reaction you had here—of realizing that your attraction to men originates in meta-attraction rather than conventional attraction, and having your identity destabilized once again by this revelation—is a recurring pattern I've seen. You're definitely not the only one. However, thinking of it as "my attraction to men isn't real" is often not a helpful way of framing it for the people who experience same-sex attraction due to meta-attraction. It can create a lot of inner emotional turmoil in someone over whether they genuinely love their romantic partner and whether it's morally acceptable for them to have same-sex relationships.
My take: if you are same-sex attracted, it matters less whether this attraction is conventional or meta in nature, and moreso whether you treat your same-sex partner with love and respect. Do you treat him well, and does he want to be in a relationship with you? This matters more than the theoretical explanation for where your same-sex attraction comes from.
I guess I am one of the few to accept that my trans inclination is autogynphelia. I thought accepting it as a sexual motivation would be a bad thing but I found, ironically the opposite to be true because in conclusion I was a man with a fetish rather than a woman trapped in a man's body. A man with a fetish is not unusual. Being ruled by the fetish would be a problem, certainly. But like anything else, know the time, the place, and don't mistake a sexual fantasy with reality.
I think I'm probably the minority in this view point though.
After the chats I've had, I don't think you are. Thanks for sharing :)
Kol hakavod. I know this isn't easy to talk about. This was really excellent and I can't wait to read the rest of the series.
Thank you <3
Your experience, intelligence, wit, curation of facts, connections within trans and detrans communities, and willingness to treat others with respect has made your voice stand out. You have presented me with more food for thought today and sparked some agreement and disagreement. I will have to think and come back to read again as I digest this. It’s also enlightening reading the comments.
Too many folks are pushing for a simple identification of a root cause to be addressed. People are not systems that can be duplicated even in the same household with the same parents. If only we could all be debugged. Our code and dependencies are just too complex.
Exactly!
Thank you!!
This was really interesting and I find myself mostly agreeing with you as I usually do— I agree that sexist male sexologists who like to apply rigid, scientific-sounding labels to categorize people (as if the act of giving a made-up label to something is itself actually helpful or truthful) causes people more problems than it solves. But I also find myself strongly disagreeing with some things you said— like your assertion that “male sexuality” is “nothing like” “female sexuality.” To me, that makes about as much logical sense as saying “the male personality” is “nothing like” the “female personality.” There no such thing as a “male” sexuality or a “female sexuality.” Men and women’s experiences of their sexualities often differ in some key ways that are informed by their major biological sexual differences. But to say they are more different than they are similar, let alone that they have NOTHING in common…makes no sense to me. For one thing, many men are driven to transition bc of complex psycho-social and emotional reasons, and many women are driven by a strong sexual motivation— and for most transitioners, it seems to be a combination of both— bc people are individuals. I also have experienced severe untreated OCD, so I always keep a sharp eye out for “all or nothing” cognitive distortions and this comment about male and female sexuality struck me as one :)
The truth is that I actually agree very, very slightly with one argument by Thomas (alias “Julia”) Serano, which is that the Blanchardians are too male stereotype-y about sexuality in general. It’s true- for these men, everything must be labeled as a “legit,” “scientific” phenomenon in some simplistic, linear way- either it’s the norm, or some biological aberration of the norm that must receive a label. The truth is that sexuality is nuanced, fluid for some people, and often a delicate, responsive thing— especially for women, but also for “neurodivergent” people, of both genders, who exist on the edges of normal like people with OCD, ADHD or autism diagnoses. Like this concept of “meta attraction.” Like, no, I’m sorry. That’s not a real thing. At least- it’s not any more “real” than “demisexual” is a thing. If you’re a man, and you’re having sex with a man, and you like having sex with men bc men are sexy to you…you’re homosexual or bisexual. What is with this weird idea I see floating around gender critical spaces that it’s actually possible to be “fake gay” bc you’re actually turned on by imagining yourself as the opposite sex?? Sure, there are men like William (alias “Lia”) Thomas who will date men so they can pretend to be lesbians together, bc they’re autistic men with a fetish for lesbians. But why would two men dating each other AS MEN be anything other than normal gay? Even if one of the men likes to imagine himself as a pretty lady sometimes during sex…why wouldn’t that just be bc he likes men and comes from a traditional background where if you like sex with men, you’re perceived as a girl or at least, girl-y? If he’s into men, it quite literally can’t be an autogynephilic fetish- bc he’s not into women. It’s the reverse of agp— where the turn on is imagining oneself as a lesbian. Instead, he imagines himself as a woman so he can access the sexual role with a man that he desires, *bc he’s gay.*
Why go to such a convoluted and improbable explanation and collapse or expand all the definitions of words (ie homosexuality becomes “pseudo homosexual meta attraction”) just to make some fetishists feel better about their inappropriate behavior? (Bc it seems like “meta attraction” comes from male fetishists). It’s no different than taking the reality of a cross sex delusional disorder/coping mechanism and calling it “being transgender” in order to validate people’s destructive behaviors, or a disordered behavior like fetishistic crossdressing and calling it “being an agp” or “being an autoheterosexual,” etc. None of these terms are real things you ARE they’re just disordered behaviors that you DO, and can at any point stop if they’re not serving you or others.
Btw, it behooves men who are into sex offending (performing their fetishes in public) to encourage people to label themselves in these pseudo-scientific ways, bc it absolves them from personal responsibility for their choices— and that is another thing that male sexologists get wrong, and another example of something quite different AND similar between men and women. Because women are overall way less slutty and physically aggressive than guys (bc less T), it’s easier for us to *recognize* that our sexual behaviors are choices. But that doesn’t mean one’s sexual behavior ISNT always choice— it is— for men as well as for women.
I may be way off base with this but it feels like the concept of AGP and the language around it has been changed, broadened, and expanded so much that it's approaching the wide-net definition of "gender dysphoria" that can mean almost whatever you want it to mean. I would not be surprised to see many of the same factors of social contagion and over diagnosis affect the concept of AGP because of these ever changing and vaguer but more encompassing definitions. Yes, social contagion usually affects teen girls and young women, but it also can affect men (for example, Havana Syndrome and WWI shell shock) and ALL people are vulnerable to latching onto explanations that don't really fit to explain their distress.
I think that’s exactly what’s happening. I commented something similar under one of the recent Gender Wider Lens videos featuring a woman who convinced her wife she was trans, then had to walk it back once she peaked. At the end of the video she was diagnosing her lesbian wife as an “autosexual” bc her wife told her she always imagined herself as the opposite sex during sex (something I imagine would be very common for gay people). I mean, who is really “imaging” one’sself during sex in any clear way anyways, and so how can they report whether they “view themselves” in a “normal” or “abnormal” way? Do we have to imagine ourselves at all during sex? Do we have to visualize exactly what we look like, with every roll of fat or spot of acne or can we imagine what feels more comfortable? Why wouldn’t a masculine lesbian woman dating a feminine bisexual woman feel a bit like “the guy” during sex? If she’s always “the guy” in bed, why wouldn’t she kind of grow up viewing herself that way? Why would that mean she’s some sort of disordered fetishist? We’re conflating guyish lesbians and girly gay men with sex offenders like public fetishistic crossdressers now? Oy vey. This is what happens when people have black and white thinking and can’t hold onto the grey, nuanced truths and many subtle distinctions that build up into totally different realities.
Social contagion is just learning- in this case learning an unhealthy or disruptive coping mechanism. Men and women tend to differ in some ways socially— but social contagions can affect anyone who can learn! And all transitioners and detransitioners, regardless of gender, have proven they’re extremely suggestible and prone to social contagion once, or twice before. No offense to Ritchie in any way— I think he’s brilliant— but I do think people with OCD, or autism, etc should be very careful about slipping and sliding into old patterns, and wary of manipulative, perverted men who seek to twist them to their interests.
I find it disconcerting how many similarities there are between the way AGP/auto/meta sexuality is being ever-expanded and pushed using many of the same tactics used by activists for gender dysphoria/affirmation/transition: the ever expanding and changing definitions and inclusion criteria (such as Ray Alex Williams proposing on Twitter that men who are particular and meticulous fall under under the "AGP phenotype"), the denial of ROGD (some going so far as to say much or even most ROGD in teen girls is really autosexuality), the conflation with autism, telling people they must accept they're actually AGP (it feels like "egg cracking"), the bold proclamations with no real data or quality research behind them. I'm not denying some form of AGP exists. And I'm not in any place to say who does or does not have it. But I'm bothered by just how similar these tactics and ideas are and how many people on the gender-skeptical side are so quick to embrace this without noticing the similarities and asking more questions. I may be wrong but I can't help but get a very uneasy feeling we're repeating the same mistakes that got us into this mess to start with.
So well said! I completely agree- can’t say it better myself. The pattern is obvious, once you notice it. I don’t know who this newest predatory agp influencer is bc I deleted my Twitter, but he sounds just like all the other transfluencers. I think you have to be a bit of a detective with these things: it’s all about motive. And the motive in most crimes/bad behavior is: money, power/thrill, sex, vengeance. So besides noticing the dysfunctional or manipulative patterns, you also have to notice who is saying whatever is being said, and if it’s the same old suspects— antisocial men with weird sex behaviors— you should ask yourself, “is this men using Machiavellian tactics on vulnerable people so as to facilitate their weird sexual behaviors— just like last time”?
It’s like the cohort of people who transition is like an inverted iceberg— with the vast majority being roughly normal, average people with some serious vulnerabilities and issues, but the further down you go into the depths, you do get this tiny minority of genuinely predatory narcissists— usually men— who seem to need to drag everyone down into the seedy depths with them. So-called “based AGPs” or “gender critical AGPs” are imo usually predators who prey on vulnerable detransitioners or “transsexuals” or ROGD people in order to blur the lines that allow them to get or not get away with offending in public. Obviously, if we act like men who are fetishists are “born that way” and “just trying to be honest with themselves” that is what predatory men want!
It’s very simple: what is the behavior, and personality of the person at hand? A heterosexual teenage girl who is transitioning bc she’s terrified to be a girl after being exposed to such misogyny on the internet and who, in the course of her transition, is trying to become the kind of guy she would typically find attractive (bc who doesn’t want to feel confident and sexy, what does she know of men other than her fantasies is them, and transition itself is weird and meta so it will inevitably get 50 shades of weird) is, imo, not in any way comparable to a middle aged, abusive, narcissistic man like James, alias “Jan,” Morris emotionally abusing his female family members, deciding to live full-time as his misogynistic sex fantasies, while sidling up to women in the women’s bathroom to talk about his “panties” (which really happened). And why are the two groups different? Bc one’s a teenage girl (so, not a potential threat) who’s more a menace to herself than to anyone else and at nearly zero risk of sex offending, and one’s an abusive man (a potential threat) with clearly established sex offending behaviors.
Anyways— you already said it best: it’s disheartening to see these dysfunctional and neurotic patterns play out over and over again in these trans and trans-adjacent spaces.
Thank you for doing this. I will be following this.
Brilliant, Ritchie!! Keep doing you. Sending Love from Southwestern, US <3
Interesting post, partly because I've often wondered if I was always gay. They say male sexuality never changes, but with this idea of a meta attraction, it makes me think maybe I tricked myself into being this way as a child. I can't deny that I've only ever experienced sexual arousal for men and only date men though. Still, it creates just enough uncertainty to worry me.
I find the older gay people saying they would have transitioned if they grew up today a bit strange, because I feel like if I had grown up today, I would have come out as gay instead of transitioning. Being gay wasn't acceptable when I grew up, but it is now.
I've considered writing about this, because there aren't enough people discussing it. I'm transsexual by virtue of having transitioned, but neither category of transsexual suits me. Maybe I was never trans and that's why I detransitioned, but I find that hard to believe too considering how many times I was diagnosed and how far I went into a transition. Certain elements of AGP and HSTS apply to me, but neither fits perfectly. Maybe Blanchard's conclusions were wrong.
I do believe that all transition is sexually motivated though. I just don't think it's always sexual in the way women think it is. I think it's more about escape. Escaping homosexuality. Escaping oppressor status. Escaping objectification. Escaping a requirement to be dominant or submissive. Escaping gender roles. Escaping the act of sex itself. If it was merely gender nonconformity, I don't think anybody would go to these extremes.
Me too. I found the typologies confusing at first, and i dont think we should live and die by them. There are gay people who transition, and there are very soft men like us who do so too. Part of the issue is our desire to categorise and put complex feelings into neat boxes. It works sometimes, but its not always useful.
Excellent post.
It strikes me that one might undergo psychological episodes of auto gynephilia without having to BE autogynephilic; in the same way that you can undergo a transition without BEING trans. This whole need for one to identify with their pathology I find to be very disconcerting.
In fact it might be the very fixation upon a transitory status which is not essential to being; which turns a passing fancy into a pathology.
In the same way which you disambiguated the difference between someone who has had a drink, and someone who is a drunk; someone who has watched porn, and someone who is addicted to porn.
I must say I do admire Ritchie's moral fortitude in identifying a significant episode of his same-sex attraction as "an erotic target location error". This confession aligns with the basic definition of sin as "missing the mark".
We should be helped to note that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". God is love. God is light, and IN HIM is no part darkness. A God of truth, and without iniquity - Just and right is He.
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
-
So then how do we square away the Holiness of the Triune God with the characteristic desire of the Lover to be united with the Beloved?
1 Corinthians 13:4-13
Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;
does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;
does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth;
bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away.
For we know in part and we prophesy in part.
But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.
And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
-
Let us say that True Love cannot deny itself.
if we identify love with our definition of God which was previously written - (being light with no part darkness, being true and without iniquity)
there is a dilemma for the Love of the Holy One - in not being able to deny itself, because He alone is all light, having no part darkness, he alone is true, and without iniquity;
in order to love someone else; someone who has sinned, someone has loved their own darkness; someone who has added iniquity unto their sin;
Yet still the desire of love is from the heart and the decision of the Lover springs from his own fountain of virtue, and thus cannot be contingent upon the nature of the beloved -
but then here is another dilemma, if there is no respect for the nature of the beloved; everything which he loves would be conformed to the same object of affection; because the beloved would have to represent the same values of the lover in order to be conformable to the principles of love which are essential to the very being of the One who loves; or else the one who loves would have to deny the very essence of the principles which reflect the character of his own love in order to love someone else; which would give rise to a controversy.
this controversy might be resolved by humility on behalf of the beloved.
True love seeks the highest good; but would give all the virtue which belongs to itself in order to uphold the faithfulness of the promise of a love which was to come.
this is key to the Holiness of God, according to his covenant name which was revealed to Moses: YHWH - signifying - "the one who IS, and WAS and IS to come"
Therefore; through whatever modulation or circumstance of expression; the essential character of God being love must remain the same. And since God is also a god of truth, and without iniquity; Just and Right is He; the immutability of his love must not violate the purity of his truth;
the love which is identified with Christ must never accept or uphold the work of iniquity;
His love must be with justice, and reign with righteousness.
Therefore there is a way in which love is always identified with the character of God, and anything called love which is contrary to this Holy Character of God, must be false; or a perverted perception, or sinfallen expression, of love - a half truth, a love in part, a love for a time; a love for a place' which is proven to not be love when put through the same standard of the love by which God fashioned all things wholesome that they might have their being.
For example let us take a love of knowledge separate from God's wisdom. It might seem to be a pure pursuit of science; but one will find that they pursue vanity and futility when they compare the outcome of God's wisdom, which is a tree with a fruit bearing seed; which brings forth a tree with fruit after the same kind;
Can you compare the Tree of Life with a knowledge of man which accrues with iniquity because a man might mistake a fixation with a subject or an obsession with facts and logic, an "interest" or a "passion" instead of love. And passion can even be taken for "love" in a human relationship; but we will see with time; that true love is not a fire which needs a fuel, which would die if apart from a substance of circumstance, necessity or choice. What is the substance of choice?
True love is not dependent upon the ebb and flow of the tides - if one were to judge love by the station of the season, in the winter they would feel as "unloved" and in the summer "consumed by the heat of love" and in the spring "full of love" ' whereas the truth of love is the same throughout all those seasons - if one did not know love in the winter; neither would the heat of the summer suffice as a harbinger of true love; because it was only for a lack of true love that the sensation of heat were substituted for the feeling of love.
this is how all have inherited a sinful nature in the flesh, the flesh is that faulty instrument, the body of sins and death which gropes blindly and having waxed gross with insensitivity towards the life of God who is perceived only by Spirit and known only in truth - there is a wholesomeness in creation which proclaims the attributes of God, for instance the expansive blueness of the sky speaks of the purity and surpassing freedom of God; but then people whose minds are clouded under a veil of darkness; and whose emotions are weighed down under a yoke of wickedness and gall of bitterness must perceive joy by the chemical release in their brain which is prompted by a pill - whereas true joy is not a temporary sensation of highs and lows or a feeling of satiation by the restoration of a chemical equilibrium, but rather the composition of a vast swath of experiences which amount to a flying towards God.