We have to sort something out. Whether you are a firm believer of blanchardism or just some random silly tranny who uses terms like AGP for whatever reason, I want to invite you to the discussion.

Citing from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanchard%27s_transsexualism_typology#Autogynephilia: The concept of autogynephilia has been criticized for implicitly assuming that cisgender women do not experience sexual desire mediated by their own gender identity.[2] Research on autogynephilia in cisgender women shows that cisgender women commonly[clarification needed] endorse items on adapted versions of Blanchard's autogynephilia scales.[46][47]
If you think that quoting wikipedia is lazy, you might be right, but if you need some "actual" sources, they are linked there.

This is the most common criticism of Blanchard's theory, ie. the fact that most probably, by his definition, most cis women could be diagnosed as AGP. Women like to "feel like a woman" while having sex, just like men like to "feel like a man". One of my cisf friends told me once that she needs a man taller than her bc only then she can feel like a woman. Is that AGP?

Now, what do you think? How is cis AGP different thatn trans AGP? Is it really much different? Also, by trans AGP i mean AGP in actual trans people who pursue transitioning, not male transvestic fetishism. One could also ask another question: how does trans AGP compare to transvestic fetishism?

Feel free to share any of your thoughts regarding the definition of AGP and presence of it in cis women (or lack thereof).

>>40175780 (OP)
there is no such thing as cis agp, some cis women maybe like looking attractive or they sexualize being feminine to some degree but its not the same thing as male heterosexuality (agp). i guess you could say they look similar sometimes but they come from completely different places

>>40175900
they come from the same place an internal gender identity of woman

>>40175780 (OP)
i have a lot of the stereotypical agp traits but am completely androphilic

>>40175780 (OP)
ive met too many cis women with autoerotic fetishes for cis agp to not be real

>>40175780 (OP)
i use agp as a slur but i odnt actually believe in it

>>40175780 (OP)

It's really simple:

Being a tranny is bad, sucks and is For,

Any sexual thoughts connected to it are shameful and people want to repress it.

This is similar to female sexuality but with women, all of society peer pressures and grooms them into accepting their submissive, feminine heterosexuality. They are bombarded with sexualized examples and told that it's okay to do *some* AGP things but not too much. There's basically a different standard.

Cis women = required and expected to do some AGP but shamed for doing too much (at least historically, not so much anymore)

AGP male = shamed for doing anything AGP, anything queer/femme at all. Expected to perform heteromasculinity and restrain their sexuality as much as possible.

>>40175900
i mean obviously they are gonna be different. "sexualizing being feminine", as you call it, is present in bothcis and trans woman, but among trans woman you also have this aspect of desperately chasing something you can never truly have and such things fuel human desires so much. maybe thats why it may seem that transf and cisf sexuality come from completely different places but honestly, i dont think so, i mean maybe in some cases. maybe thats the difference between hsts and agp idk. but then what really is agp, who are agp trannies, compared to hsts trannies and transvestic males?

also what i find especially weird in blanchardism is connecting agp/hsts to sexual orientation and if it doesnt fit, just calling it "meta-attraction". you mention male heterosexuality but it doesnt have any inherent aspects that make you like yourself as woman in sexual contexts, maybe it could be that some males for some reason project their attraction onto their reflection in the mirror and pursue making this reflection as attractive to them as possible, but that seems to me like transvesticism, not being (agp) trans.

>>40175900

Why do you guys always react like communist enforcers against the idea of cis women being AGP? it's like you're defending a plantation of shackled tranny slaves from people trying to tell them that the emancipation proclamation just got issued.

>>40175780 (OP)
"AGP" is perfectly real, it's just not exclusively tied to being homosexual or heterosexual (or being) and it's not the motivation for trans people to transition, both things that blanchard assumed and worked backwards from to justify (in other words, he's a fraud)

>>40175966
bc "stereotypical agp traits" are also normal in cissies

>>40175985
me too its just how humans work

>>40175999
yeh its just pseudoscience

>>40176019
also true, the concept of agp comes from transphobia and trying to put trannies into the pervert box

>>40176044
ok but do you think its tied to being trans?

>>40176074
oops I accidentally a word there, my bad
>it's just not exclusively tied to being homosexual or heterosexual (or being trans)
is what I meant to say

>>40176090
whats funny is that you accidently a word yet again in your reply

>>40176108
yes, that was the joke
it's an old meme...

Autogynephilia is Blanchard's word so you might as well either use it the way he defines it or make up your own word for whatever alternative idea you want to communicate.
Autogynephilia as Blanchard defined it is not a paraphilia real women have.
Examples of AGP Blanchard has noted include stuff like guys he's talked to who've sat in on knitting classes and get erections because knitting is a woman's hobby, or getting erections because they're helping their cleaning ladies clean the house thereby behaving like a lowly woman.
Actual women tend not to get sexually excited by the idea they're in a knitting class or that they're doing women's chores. That sort of excitement is predicated upon seeing the female sex as alien and exotic, something actual women can't do since being female is something they've experienced for their entire lives and is as familiar and mundane to them as is possible.
Here's Blanchard himself explaining this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLN38t_eOjk&t=1400s

>>40176127
finally the kind of demoralizing blanchardfag i was looking for

>>40176169
Even if you or someone else thinks Blanchard is wrong it still wouldn't make sense to say women have autogynephilia.
You could say he's wrong and autogynephilia is bullshit and that we need new words for some other concept you think makes more sense, but using his word to mean something other than what it actually means per the guy who coined and defined it is just a mistake, not a valid opinion.

Blanch is irrelevant. The phenomenon would exist without his having noticed it. The divide between hussies and jeeps is self-evident. It’s not controversial or a discussion. It just is.

>>40176127
>use it the way he defines it
does anyone do this on this board, honestly?

>Autogynephilia as Blanchard defined it is not a paraphilia real women have.
"uhh i made up this paraphilia but only males can have it, if a female seems to have it then we wont give a fuck" blanchardism really seems as if it was made up by someone under the influence of cannabinoids

> guys he's talked to who've sat in on knitting classes and get erections because knitting is a woman's hobby
1. getting an erection is not always from sexual arousal, it actually might be from excitement. is it only me who got erections as a prepubescent child from being excited for things that are not romantic or sexual even remotely? when i was 13, my female freinds have done my makeup "as a joke" and i had an erection while they were doing it at some point. back then i interpreted it as being aroused bc girls were touching my face. Now as I understand my sexuality more, I know for sure i was super excited for "unlocking" a new girly activity.
2. are these people actually trans? or would they self-id that they are girls at heart? blanchard says such people should transition, do you also think like that?

>Actual women tend not to get sexually excited by the idea they're in a knitting class or that they're doing women's chores.
duh obviously. maybe its just me having a false picture of what agp is by some posts on this board, you /tttt/ranners can really describe any even remotely sexual situation and find agp in it. maslows hammer.

> That sort of excitement is predicated upon seeing the female sex as alien and exotic, something actual women can't do since being female is something they've experienced for their entire lives and is as familiar and mundane to them as is possible.
so is it just trannies develop agp bc living femininity is so remote to them that even the dumbest things are like silver lining to them and maybe they wouldnt be like that if feminine life became their new normal?

>>40176306
Sicko.

>>40175780 (OP)
HAHAHA
dick in butt

>>40176209
chill out I agree with you

>>40176238
> The divide between hussies and jeeps is self-evident
in what ways?

>>40176238
>believe my unfalsifiable claim because I say so
are you also by chance a christcuck and/or a rightoid?

>>40176127
continuation of >>40176306

mind you, paraphilias dont go away when you fulfil them. its actually otherwise. that would mean that developing agp from being "starved" from femininity isnt a paraphilia. It probably won't come as a suprise that currently doing makeup doesnt arouse me or awaken any sexual feelings in me at all, I'm not even sure if the excitement i experienced back then was any sexual in any way, prbably not.

>>40176320
thank you i love you too

damn blanchardism used to be an interesting topic but this thread shriveled up like my gock after two months on female cross-sex hormones

>>40176127
also im listening to this podcast and i have so so many thoughts on this like it would take 10 replies to contain all my thoughts on this and im not even done watching. for now all im gonna say is that /tttt/ really seems to misrepresent daddy blanchard in some ways. I don't mean by that is not that i "understand" blanchard now or feel enlightened. My thoughts are mostly critical but also full of amazement of how /tttt/ redefined his theory

>>40176712
>My thoughts are mostly critical but also full of amazement of how /tttt/ redefined his theory
that's because channers are retarded and reduce things involving complexity and nuance down to one dimension

>>40175900
Making blanket statements based on your opinion is not an argument

>>40175780 (OP)
The strongest evidence that women experience AGP I can find, and what is most commonly cited is this:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19591032/

The strongest evidence I can find that shows the opposite is this:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-022-02359-8

Note the enormous difference in sample sizes. I don't think women experience AGP.

>>40176712
That's correct. Most people here take Blanchard's term autogynephilia and use it ways that have nothing to do with how he defined it.
Like I see threads on this board that show some regular non-tranny woman acting slutty for attention where the OP frames it as proof women have AGP. Like the OP has no idea in those cases that the whole point of AGP is arousal at the idea of being female, not showing off girly clothes or being a narcissist.