Don't you find it odd that the second brother also transitioned?

uhm, yeah, extremely

>>8035350
Environmental influences during their shared childhood.

>>8035373
More like Desire For Attention In The Film Community

Just more evidence of what we already know, that being trans is biologically based.

>>8035350
Similar environments in the womb, no doubt. Makes me wonder if Jonas Maines is also trans.

>>8035399
Late onset dysphoria and early onset dysphoria function very differently, so don't assume what is true for one will still be true for the other.

File: 1489556174732.jpg (50KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 640x640px

>>8035373
>>8035387
>>8035399
>>8035397

Hatred of their own father explains everything

>>8035387
They transitioned in secret long before coming out publicly. In fact I think they only did because they couldn't keep it secret or were threatened by journalists with being outed.

>>8035414
Is that their dad?

>>8035417
That was only Larry/Lana. There were rumors since 2000. But the older brother just transitioned out of nowhere. It seems like he became jealous of all the attention his Lana was getting and wanted in on the action

>>8035350
I know four sets of siblings who've transition, one at the same time (one were fraternal)

>>8035461
It might have seemed out of nowhere it would have been weighing on her just like her sister, even if she gave in to it later.

>>8035467
All mtf? The other three sets not being twins?

So Stephanie from LazyTown has always been transgender?

>>8035350
Not if they came from the same womb.

File: 2b62ea7cbbecd493093c1f3c47865b71.jpg (32KB, 647x547px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 647x547px

damn...realy fires up the neurons...

what are the odds that there are two people in a family who both end up being part of 0.6% of the population...impossible, i dare say...

>>8035350
>>8039075
They're twins, I think the chances were more like 60% according to transgender twin studies.

>>8039081
They're siblings not twins.

HSTS is not hereditary but AGP is

>>8035461
wrong way round
Lana transitioned slowly in secret and came out pretty much of her own accord gradually
Lilly (the other one) was forced to come out early because she was being blackmailed by tabloid journalists

idg the hate, both of them pass pretty well for how late they transitioned aside from just looking big next to cis women, they look kinda autistic but not like hons at all

File: GettyImages-518798932_640x345_acf_cropped-1.jpg (268KB, 640x345px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 640x345px

>>8039150
lana looks pretty good, but lilly is a hon

>>8035504
Mtfs in two, mtf-ftm fraternal twins, one set ftms.

Mind you I live in a social world of trannies from West and East Coast so I feel I contacted like half of the Trans siblings in the country.

But like I'm trans, my father has a mtf cousin and my grandfather has an mtf cousin. Strangely now that i think about it enough we are all around the youngest in our respective generations and came out early.

>>8039193
>Mtfs in two, mtf-ftm fraternal twins, one set ftms.
What orientation are the six non-twins and each of the twins?

How early did they all transition?

>But like I'm trans, my father has a mtf cousin and my grandfather has an mtf cousin.
You being mtf as well? What orientations are the three of you?

What exactly did the media discover about Lily that forced her to come out? Did they see her going into a clinic or something? Or perhaps someone she told in confidence (who they'd presumably have to be pretty close to) told them? It's not like they can see her medical records or anything so I'm struggling to see how it could happen.

>>8039404
just paps seeing the changes over time whenever she went out in public anonymously, I imagine, like the early pics of Caitlyn

>>8039404
If your paparazzi are anywhere as slimy as ours I wouldn't put anything past them. Ours bribe celebreties' doctors to get info, break into post boxes to read email and go through trash to find some juicy stuff on them.

>>8035350
No not really considering me and my sibling are both trans.

>>8039607
Both ftm/mtf or mixed? What orientations are you each and what ages did you each come out and start transition?

>>8035412

Yet evidence suggests a guy with a gay brother is more likely to be gay. There is no difference between early and late onset.

>>8039609
Both mtf I came out in my mid teens and started transitioning at 17 I'm now 23 my younger sibling came out at age 21 (she is 2 years younger than me) and we both like men.

File: Edvard_Munch_-_Vampire_in_the_Forest_(1916-18).jpg (410KB, 1024x1117px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 1024x1117px

Good god why did they wait so long..

Also I wonder what this says about the nature of agp, surely it can't be a coincidence that both of them ended up transitioning?

>>8039615
>Yet evidence suggests a guy with a gay brother is more likely to be gay.
Why would being trans work the same way as being gay?

>There is no difference between early and late onset.
How do you know? Why do some people think there is?

>>8039629
>Good god why did they wait so long.
Probably fear of harsh public judgment and an upbringing in a society that either trashes people like them just for existing, or (nowadays) commoditizes and sensationalizes them for a profit.

They've always been private people as well, so I imagine it took a long time to plan a way to transition without turning it into the trashy hollywood fiasco that is Caitlyn Jenner.

Say what you will about how they look, or what you assume their sexual proclivities to be, they handled this with a lot of class given their fame.

>>8039645
>or what you assume their sexual proclivities to be

I'm not assuming anything, I literally spent 5 seconds looking on wikipedia and found they were both married to women before transitioning, say what you will about blanchard's typology but that's a classic agp trait.

And yeah you are right I'm sure fame / desire for privacy / generational differences all played a factor in repressing for so long but still I'm still kind of surprised they waited for so long.

>>8039630

>Why would being trans work the same way as being gay?

It's in the name, HSTS. The cause is hypothesized to be the same, under-exposure of the brain to masculinizing hormones.

>How do you know? Why do some people think there is?

What I meant was there's no such thing as early or late onset. AGPs frequently report wanting to be female during childhood. Though there have been anons on the board who say they hadn't felt anything like dysphoria until they were past something like 15, which I find incredible (in a bad way) to be honest. So maybe it would simply be more accurate to say that not all HSTS have the desire to become women in childhood and neither are all AGPs free of the desire to live as women before puberty.

>>8039645

>private people
>dyes hair pink despite being far past the age you would see a cis woman do it

What did Lana mean by this?

>>8039075
They aren't independent events

>>8039668
Lana Wachowski has been bisexual since the 90s

>>8039668
>I'm not assuming anything
>I literally spent 5 seconds looking on wikipedia
>say what you will about blanchard's typology but that's a classic agp trait
Ok. I guess if you subscribe to that sort of hokey bullshit and feel compelled to analyze random celebs according to it based on five minutes of wikipedia research this seems like a reasonable statement.

>>8039733
they both believe in new-agey stuff and transhumanism

she's basically that autistic aunt who gets uncomfortably drunk when the family get together on boxing day, it's not really out of character

>>8039733
You can be private with your personal affairs and still have unique fashion choices anon. Also, she probably did it because she never felt comfortable enough to do it before.

File: 2766.jpg (516KB, 697x800px)

516KB, 697x800px

>>8039763
Quit trying to twist my words, what I meant is it doesn't take much effort to ascertain that they both were married to women for long periods of time / also seemed fairly gc pre transition / also waited well into their adult life to transition, all of which are major signs of agp.

>I guess if you subscribe to that sort of hokey bullshit and feel compelled to analyze random celebs

Why are you getting so butt blasted? Aren't you essentially doing the same thing, the only difference being you seem to view agp as being = to "muh evil typology that misappropriates transgender peoples experiences?" (which I agree with to an extent)

Whether or not you actually believe in blanchard's typology which is an entirely different debate, it would be silly to try to classify them as hsts, that's all I was saying..

>>8039759
I didn't know that, I'm bi and still would be classified as agp though. Personally I think blanchard was too rigid in classifying some bisexual transwomen as agp but others might disagree. In the case of the the Wachowski sisters though I would be extremely surprised if they didnt fit best into the A*P group.

>>8039728
This Blanchard shit sounds more and more like a religious cult by the day. The arbitrary lines in the sand the man drew almost 40 years ago in an unfalsifiable and non-replicated study to denote specific "typologies" and "truths" about trans women continue to be smeared and glossed over as the messiness of real life interferes with his neat political narrative.

Why people continue to adhere to it is honestly a mystery to me at this point. It's like a racial minority who supports phrenology, or a holistic anti-vaxxer who reblogs that one doctor who agrees with her. It's just weird, cringeworthy, and anachronistic shit that should not be happening with the amount of falsifiable information that's available on the internet.

>>8039819
>Quit trying to twist my words
I just repeated what you said. Seems to me you twisted yourself up there.

>Why are you getting so butt blasted?
Why do you think I'm angry? I'm just repeating what you said you did.

>Aren't you essentially doing the same thing
I'm not the one casually psychoanalyzing celebrities based on five minutes of wiki research. If you meant saying that Blanchard is hokey with regards to his analysis of trans people... he is. I'm not mad about it because no one of import in the medical field takes him seriously on the topic. He's a walking a tabloid fluff piece whose most recent interview was about curing male homosexuality.

I just think it's silly to classify yourself and others using dead psych language, terms, and concepts in a serious way. It's like checking your humors or diagnosing yourself with hysteria.

>>8039728
>What I meant was there's no such thing as early or late onset.
I was just using early/late terminology because the board gets triggered by the abbreviations, like the other reply to you.

>AGPs frequently report wanting to be female during childhood.
It could still be argued it's not dysphoric at the time. AGP does seem to increase in dysphoria sometimes.

>Though there have been anons on the board who say they hadn't felt anything like dysphoria until they were past something like 15, which I find incredible (in a bad way) to be honest.
Why do you find that incredible? What bad way?

File: Georgia_O'Keeffe_Red_Canna_1915_Yale_University_Art_Gallery.tif.png (177KB, 368x546px)

177KB, 368x546px

>>8039846
>I just repeated what you said. Seems to me you twisted yourself up there.

Okay fair enough I just woke up and I'll admit I wrote that poorly.

>Why do you think I'm angry?

Okay whatever, sorry for assuming you are angry.

>I just think it's silly to classify yourself and others using dead psych language, terms, and concepts in a serious way.

Why is it silly to use blanchard's typology when there are people that have / still do find insight into their experience as transmen / women through it? Just because something isn't perfect / heavily politicized doesn't mean it can't be of use / correct.

>>8039882
>Why is it silly to use blanchard's typology when there are people that have / still do find insight into their experience as transmen / women through it? Just because something isn't perfect / heavily politicized doesn't mean it can't be of use / correct.
It's not so much that it's not perfect, which it obviously isn't, it's simply bad science. It's not falsifiable, it's never been replicated, and no current studies support it.

I mean if you want to label yourself according to that rubric and treat it the same way as your Zodiac sign, or your blood type personality, or your spirit animal, sure. Go ahead. No one will stop you.

But as an actual serious face medical standard it simply doesn't hold up, which is why it has long since been abandoned well before trans people hit the media and political spotlight in the 2010s. The only people who still think it has relevance are those whose only exposure to trans people is 4chan, hardline conservative family values think tanks, and "gender critical" radical feminists who have had a vested political interest in that rhetoric for decades regardless of actual scientific research on the subject. I fail to see any real substance there.

Also, I forgive you.

File: unter_dem_kastanienbaum_I.jpg (80KB, 450x441px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 450x441px

>>8039916
>The only people who still think it has relevance are those whose only exposure to trans people is 4chan, hardline conservative family values think tanks, and "gender critical" radical feminists who have had a vested political interest in that rhetoric for decades regardless of actual scientific research on the subject. I fail to see any real substance there.

Yes I am fully aware that his typology has been twisted by groups / people that do not have transgender persons best interests in mind, but again I would say thats a pretty unfair / biased way of looking at it.

>it's simply bad science.

Yeah I will not argue that some of the studies blanchard used to reinforce his typology are flawed at best.

> it's never been replicated

Not true.

>and no current studies support it.

What studies are you referring to?

> It's not falsifiable

One of my biggest issues with the typology as well is how blanchard / his supporters seemed to rely heavily on the assumption that agp women consciously / unconsciously distorted their childhood experiences to better fit the "classic transgender model" (which I assume is what you are primarily referring to.) It's something that I am still trying to work through myself.

>>8039916
>But as an actual serious face medical standard it simply doesn't hold up
blanchard anon here
having discussed the typology with people who have been doing research into transsexualism since before it even existed, the 'view from within' is much closer to it than it is to the gender identity narrative

>>8039976
>people who have been doing research into transsexualism since before it even existed
Who?

>>8039819
fair
well Lana's legit trans whatever the typology, she tried to drown herself over dysphoria while swimming on holiday after the first Matrix upon realising she was still unhappy despite the money and adulation, she talked about it more openly during the Cloud Atlas press junket

>>8039976

>the 'view from within'

Literally what?

File: Pelvis with the Distance Georgia O'Keeffe.jpg (66KB, 400x333px)

66KB, 400x333px

>>8039991
Just for the record let me state that assuming his typology is correct I do not think the "a*p" group is any less legitimate than "hsts one". Both groups should be allowed to transition if they experience legitimate gender dysphoria / feel it would be better for their psychological wellbeing.

>>8040015
*than the "hsts" one*

>>8039963
>Yes I am fully aware that his typology has been twisted by groups / people that do not have transgender persons best interests in mind, but again I would say thats a pretty unfair / biased way of looking at it.
It didn't take much to use his typology to reinforce anti-trans political and religious narratives, considering his testing standards were based on negative LGBT stereotypes to begin with and his conclusion was purely his personal opinion. He's currently trying to cure male homosexuality. But no you're right, his results were "twisted" and he's totally apolitical.

>Yeah I will not argue that some of the studies blanchard used to reinforce his typology are flawed at best.
Blanchard uses one study to justify his views, and that study is his own that has never been actually proven through the scientific method.

>Not true.
Never replicated, non-falsifiable, unproven.

>What studies are you referring to?
How about we make it easier for both of us and you show me what actual scientific study in an actual medical journal unequivocally supports it. Not just philosophical musings from Blanchard's colleagues which cite the same non-falsifiable study he did all those years ago. The only thing I've seen in recent years that mentions the typology favorably was a letter to a medical journal from one of Blanchard's colleagues that incorrectly cites a single neuro study and identifies parts of the brain affected by hormones in pre-HRT trans women as "male" and therefore somehow incontrovertible proof that Blanchard is a secret genius after all this time.

>One of my biggest issues with the typology as well is how blanchard / his supporters seemed to rely heavily on the assumption that agp women consciously / unconsciously distorted their childhood experiences to better fit the "classic transgender model" (which I assume is what you are primarily referring to.) It's something that I am still trying to work through myself.
Ok, and I'm a Virgo.

Agents of the demiurge sent hypnotist dominatrixes to mindfuck them for redpilling people. Yeah, let that be a lesson to you. Don't go poking and prodding at the veil in broad daylight.

>>8040194
>>>and no current studies support it.
>>What studies are you referring to?
>How about we make it easier for both of us and you show me what actual scientific study in an actual medical journal unequivocally supports it.
So that "and no current studies support it" was a lie you just made up then?

How about no you don't make it easier for you to get away with lying about research to win debates online.

>>8040460
>So that "and no current studies support it" was a lie you just made up then?
No, I just didn't want to pore through pages upon pages of research to try to find something that you have the burden to prove is there in the first place. I told you about the the sole time I've seen it mentioned in relation to a modern neuro study, and that was a letter from James Cantor, a sexologist/psychologist colleague of Blanchard's, whose opinions were systematically debunked by another letter from someone else.

>How about no you don't make it easier for you to get away with lying about research to win debates online.
You mean the way you're demanding that someone prove a negative assertion to substantiate an unfalsifiable, but memeworthy tidbit of pseudoscience?

Do you understand the nature of debate at all?

If you say
>thing = real and valid
For instance
>Blanchard typology = real and valid
You need to prove that with facts. If you can't, you can't just make shit up and tell people to prove its non-existence or else you're right.

That's like saying there are unicorns on the moon because you can't disprove that invisible space-faring unicorns that don't need to breathe live on the moon. Blanchard isn't relevant just because modern scientists ignore his unfalsifiable research and antiquated personal guesses based on the shitty 70s-era LGBT camp stereotypes he used... stereotypes he perpetuates and now uses to justify his current research into the "cure" for male homosexuality.

I'm all for accepting different views, and I'm all for self-labeling as whatever. Like I said, I'm a Virgo, my blood type is O+, and my aura is blue... but you don't see me trying to say I can prove this shit with actual science.

>>8040196
Does this mean I can ask the lady I pay to findom me and call me a loser online what the demiurge is like?

>>8040616
All women are findoms. That doesn't necessarily mean she's an agent, but if she were you'd have to take compartmentalization into consideration--need to know. Everyone has a price, and it's not always money. "No questions asked" usually entails a little more of that chose importante. Is your lady uncharacteristically smitten? You have eyes, anon, but you have to know what to look for.

>>8040604
*Blanchard isn't irrelevant just because modern scientists ignore his unfalsifiable research and antiquated personal guesses

He's irrelevant because he never should have been relevant in the first place. He got away with his shit because the public wanted to believe it in spite of a lack of quantifiable and falsifiable evidence in his favor. This sentiment was reinforced when his views were placed on a pedestal by political pundits on both the far left and the far right who wanted to decry the new and evil trans menace, even though trans people had been getting surgery since the 30s. His entire existence in the "trans debate" now is as conspiracy bait for people who want to find reasons to mistrust trans people and don't care about pesky things like facts and proof.

File: egon-schiele-autoportrait-1915.jpg (29KB, 549x405px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 549x405px

>>8040194
>Ok, and I'm a Virgo.

that feel when you are trying to have a legitimate discussion with someone but they keep being condescending

>But no you're right, his results were "twisted" and he's totally apolitical.

You aren't hearing my point though, the truth of the matter is that there is an entire thread on this board dedicated to the concept of AGP / blogs written by self identified agp trans women / again many trans women that have found clarity through his typology / identify as agp. Why do you feel that it's so necessary to erase the experiences of many trans women just because you disagree with parts or all of a typology used to classify them?


>Never replicated, non-falsifiable, unproven.

Here are some studies that have replicated blanchards findings using different scales of rating autogynephilic attraction. Do these two suffice? If not please explain why I am legitimately curious about your reasoning / don't necessarily agree with all of the typology myself, in other words I'm totally open to being wrong.
( I can't directly link them because of the spam filter but I was refering to Larry Nuttbrock 2010 / Richard F. Docter James S. Fleming 2001)

>What studies are you referring to?

Again I am legitimately curious what studies you know of that contradict his findings, contrary to what you might think / might assume i'm not a dogmatic blanchardian, I'm just interested in / want to better understand my own reasons for why I'm transgender.

>Blanchard uses one study to justify his views, and that study is his own that has never been actually proven through the scientific method.

1/2

File: René_Magritte_The_Human_Condition.jpg (32KB, 378x481px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 378x481px

>>8040604
2/2
I have to be at work soon so I can't continue to discuss this for now, I also accidentally deleted the second part of my message so don't expect a response to your last point until later. I am open to continuing to discuss this later when I get off though so please don't assume I'm only interested in being right / am running away from the discussion.

>>8040662
It gets me off for her to take my money, call me a broke faggot, and then tell me my boyfriend is cheating on me. I don't even like women and I'm not submissive outside of this specific relationship, but definitely there are times where there's an addictive quality to doing something I know is terrible. It's been about four months since we've done anything though, since now I am actually just barely scraping by, but it would be cool to know someone who is an agent of the demiurge. I'd sort of like to know which secret society is getting my orgasm money since I've already long since dedicated my soul to hedonism.

>>8040787
How much do you pay her and how much time does she spend on video/voice doming you?

How did you meet her and start the relationship if you're gay?

>>8040827
Over the past couple years I've given her probably a few thousand dollars for what I'd estimate is probably in the ballpark of two solid days of teasing. I love dirty talking more than I love sex. It is my sexual bread and butter, but my boyfriend is driven more by physical kinks and rarely has the time or energy to sit there and tease me verbally for hours, so at one point I decided, I have money, why not see someone whose job it is to tease? It grew from there until I had to move and no longer had the income I did so now it's basically not a thing any more. It was rare even when it was happening a lot but boy did I have some unutterably good orgasms.

>>8040952
Good wages for her. How did you meet and start that relationship? Do you chat to her as a friend outside of the findom stuff?

>>8040970
Nah, it started as kink and it ended as kink but we've always been on good terms except for those times I disappeared because I couldn't afford her for a while, then she was pissed, but she was happy enough to keep taking my money, so I got what I wanted.

>>8040982
>except for those times I disappeared because I couldn't afford her for a while, then she was pissed,
That's a bit presumptuous of her imo!

>>8038532
Underrated

>>8040999
To be fair she was and is clearly poor as shit and her husband has or at least had cancer (I haven't heard news of that in a while) so I could understand why what was a source of considerable income for her disappeared. It's not like I wasn't disappointed too, those orgasms were fucking incredible. I still miss them. Still, no way could I afford it without steady work.

>>8035350
>Don't you find it odd that the second brother also transitioned?
No, it confirms my hypothesis that men become trans because of hormonal/diet/stress/physiological/drug issues with the mother fucking the baby up in the womb.

>>8040692
>that feel when you are trying to have a legitimate discussion with someone but they keep being condescending
I told you that's how I see it. You need to convince me that your self-identity is based on more significant grounds than my sign.

>You aren't hearing my point though, the truth of the matter is that there is an entire thread on this board dedicated to the concept of AGP / blogs written by self identified agp trans women / again many trans women that have found clarity through his typology / identify as agp.
The same can be said for Zodiac signs. Do you have any idea how many essays, blog posts, and testimonies I've read by people who go on and on about how "Leo" or "Gemini" they are?

>Why do you feel that it's so necessary to erase the experiences of many trans women just because you disagree with parts or all of a typology used to classify them?
I think the typology is bullshit because it's based on outdated stereotypes and results that have yet to be replicated. There is no need to be so dramatic about it.

>Here are some studies that have replicated blanchards findings using different scales of rating autogynephilic attraction.
The studies did not replicate his findings, just his methods and terminology to see if the results that formed the basis of his typology could be replicated. They weren't. The first study you cited by Nuttbrock measured transvestic fetishism among MtFs in NYC with an ethnically and age-diverse sample of 500+, unlike Blanchard who tested a very small, narrow, older (50+ on average), and presumably white sample group (no racial indicators on the original research) of MtFs in 1980s Toronto who directly depended on him to personally approve their hormones and surgery. The Nuttbrock study found that a typology of MtF trans people based on sexual orientation is inaccurate at best, and that "transvestic fetishism" in MtFs is, at most, a rapidly fading cultural/generational phenomenon in a minority of older white MtFs.

>>8040604
>to try to find something that you have the burden to prove is there in the first place.
I'm not the other anon but you claimed "no current studies support it" and as soon as you were asked for source started making excuses and trying to shift burden of proof.

So still calling liar.

File: 1470774666007.jpg (29KB, 640x721px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 640x721px

>>8041288
The second study:
>We conclude that transgender cognition and behavior should be conceptualized as complex and multidimensional
>We did not find a single overarching variable to help account for transgender behavior.
>Transgenderism is most accurately conceptualized as the product of many determinants, and very likely, to be independent of sexual partner preference.

Also there was a follow-up study to expand on Nuttbrock 2010 after Anne Lawrence rapidly and predictably nitpicked it for the narrow scope of transvestic fetishism research as opposed to the whole hog of autogynephilia.

>Veale et al., 2016
>These findings replicate most of those in Nuttbrock et al.'s (2010) study and improve-upon them by using a measure of autogynephilia rather than transvestic fetishism. The fact that two out of two replication studies have failed to reproduce Blanchard's findings of a curvilinear relationship between gynephilia and autogynephilia casts doubt upon Blanchard's theory and findings. The finding that ethnicity was related to autogynephilia independently of sexual orientation suggests that it is influenced by cultural differences, and this supports Nuttbrock et al.'s and others' suggestions that rather than autogynephilia being something that causes transgender identities, it develops as a result of shame, secrecy, and eroticization of the female role amongst transfeminine and trans female spectrum people.

And, of course, the Moser study in which cis women tested very high for autogynephilia. This makes it either one of the most common sexual pathologies in the world in both cis and trans women, or (more likely) a pile of hot garbage theory perpetuated by an arrogant doctor, a few of his understudies, and society's near-limitless mistrust of trans women.

Now I'm going to play video games. Do with this info what you will, call yourself whatever acronym you want, I don't give a shit. But remember, Venus will be in retrograde this month! Plan accordingly.

>>8041473
>This makes it either one of the most common sexual pathologies in the world in both cis and trans women, or (more likely) a pile of hot garbage theory perpetuated by an arrogant doctor, a few of his understudies, and society's near-limitless mistrust of trans women.

Don't tell the truth on this board, Trent will hear you.

>>8041467
>I'm not the other anon but you claimed "no current studies support it" and as soon as you were asked for source started making excuses and trying to shift burden of proof.
No, the burden of proof was always on them after they implied that both Wachowskis were agp with a "really makes ya think" type of statement here:
>>8039629
I said this
>>8039645
They said:
>say what you will about blanchard's typology but that's a classic agp trait

So not only did anon claim (or at least imply) that the typology is legit, but that the Wachowskis fit into it. Both postulations require actual proof, not just conspiracy "they don't want you to know" bullshit. I said that no actual studies support the original results or his research methods, which they don't. The researchers that tried to replicate Blanchard's results also critiqued his original methods as inaccurate, narrow, subjective, and innately limited by both the sample size he used and the more conservative culture of the era. This is a nicer way for the researchers to say it's unfalsifiable bullshit that they're only humoring because conspiracy theorists and anti-trans activists still haven't dropped the subject after almost 40 years. Not to mention the fact that Blanchard was also treating the women he studied. They had to fit his typology or they were SOL when it came to hormones, surgery, and name/gender marker change letters. Not AGP or HSTS? Looks like you're not trans! Goodbye and enjoy Toronto!

For the record, I'd also like to point out that the anon demanded that I find all of the studies that don't mention or support the typology instead of citing something that actually does in order to debate me. The weak attempt to hot potato the burden of proof onto me was fucking dumb.

I told the truth and refuted their stance with quotes from the very research they cited. I'm not a liar just because the other anon either doesn't know how to, or can't, defend their position.

Now for the video games, finally.

>>8041473
>>8041525

>tfw it's never felt so good being proven wrong.

Thanks for taking the time to reply anon, for the record I actually hate the typology and it causes me a lot of internal stress / harm but I wanted to keep learning about it to hopefully get a better understanding to either reject it or find a way it can be of value to myself. Anyways thanks for giving me a different perspective anon.

>>8041720
>They had to fit his typology or they were SOL when it came to hormones, surgery, and name/gender marker change letters. Not AGP or HSTS? Looks like you're not trans! Goodbye and enjoy Toronto!
So the same attitude as this board! Hard to believe it really happened though.

>>8041473
>>8041895
Not any anon you're responding to, but I can feel you.

The whole autogynephilia theory did hurt me a lot in my past and it still does sometimes, so we're in the same boat in that regard, I guess.

The reason was that I got a boner the first time I tried female clothes and my penis sometimes reacted "happily" when I thought of myself as a woman. That was before I started transition or anything. These things eventually faded away after I started transition.

I really wonder, why mtfs are supposed to be completely asexual during their lifetime as a boy. Serious gender dysphoria seems not to be enough, they have to be total neutrals in some way. Of course, that is impossible. I need antiandrogens for my dick to "shut up".

I believe that one of the problems are "transitioners", who are not really trans and transition out of a fetish. These people really exist. But it's quite easy to spot them since they really, really enjoy their penis and still want to get erections (even after regular name change etc.). One example would be Alicia King (a german semi-celebrity). Also there are some "transsexuals", who report that their main motivation is agp, as you know already The sad thing is that these people want to force their own motivations on all others.

There is a huge difference between experiencing some kind of feelings that can be described as autogynephilia and actually being motivated by it to change your whole life completely.

The most laughable thing about all this is that mtfs, who really transition (using potent AAs and surpressing erections effectively), kill their "male" libido and are totally happy with it. So some "male pleasure" (agp in men) cannot be their motivation since it would destroy all its means.

Sorry for my english btw.

>>8042125
>The sad thing is that these people want to force their own motivations on all others.
Whereas you only want to deny the transsexuality of all others who don't share your motivations.

>>8042149
First and foremost "transsexuality" is just a name or a label.

My point is that this label should not be given to two completely different groups of people, i.e. a) mtf transitioners with real gender dysphoria, who at least realize that they want to get rid of their erections at some point in their life and
b) "transitioners", who want to "live as a woman" but still want to fuck with their 100% functional penis.

We could make a convention to call group b) transsexuals - I do not care! - as long as we find a different name for group a).

>>8042197
Why the scarequotes around "transitioners"?

You are assuming there is some definitive distinction between the two, not just a matter of degree.

Your definitions are blurry. What is "real gender dysphoria" when both groups are evidently unhappy living as men? In what way are wanting to get rid of erections at some point and wanting to fuck with your penis mutually exclusive?

You've listed several different traits with no evidence they are split between two groups.

Your definitions of these two groups are also entirely different from your last post where you made a distinction of being motivated to transition by agp.

Your phrasing, "transition out of a fetish" and "real gender dysphoria", sound deliberately negative and positive.

>>8042253
>Why the scarequotes around "transitioners"?
You know why. It's because these people do not really transition and do not really want to be women.

>You are assuming there is some definitive distinction between the two, not just a matter of degree.
Wanting to get rid of erections and not wanting to get rid of erections is a definite distinction and not only some matter of degree. It's a typical 0 or 1 case.

>Your definitions are blurry. What is "real gender dysphoria" when both groups are evidently unhappy living as men?
Where did you get from that both groups are unhappy with living as men?
If the second group is unhappy with living as men, why do they still want to get erections and fuck like a man? Women do not want that.

The second group I talked about are just male fetishists, who want to live in their female persona. These people exist, though they are rare. I'm not talking about late transitioners, non-passers or freakish trannies.

>You've listed several different traits with no evidence they are split between two groups.
Groups are in our head. We make them. And I already told you one definite distinction between them.

>Your definitions of these two groups are also entirely different from your last post where you made a distinction of being motivated to transition by agp.
I just didn't mention any motivation for transition in my second post, but that does not mean that my definitions are any different.

>Your phrasing, "transition out of a fetish" and "real gender dysphoria", sound deliberately negative and positive.
Yes.

>>8042149
>Whereas you only want to deny the transsexuality of all others who don't share your motivations.
Someone doesn't know how to read.

>>8035350
hideous as men
hideous as women

it's only transitioning if it's successful
and these lunatics were most certainly not successful.

>>8042308
>Women do not want that.
lol have you ever been in bed with a woman wearing a strap-on? You would be surprised. Also, you seem sheltered as fuck.

>>8042308
Why post anything objectively scientific when people like this can just waltz in, ignore everything, and hijack the thread with their feels?

>>8042308
>You know why. It's because these people do not really transition and do not really want to be women.
Unless you're talking about SRS, they do transition just like any other mtfs.

>Where did you get from that both groups are unhappy with living as men?
>If the second group is unhappy with living as men, why do they still want to get erections and fuck like a man? Women do not want that.
If they weren't unhappy living as men, why would they be transitioning, or "transitioning"?

The way you have sex is not the difference between men and women. Plenty of women have fantasies about having penises and some gay bottoms never want to fuck with their penises. According to you, those women are ftms and those gays are mtfs. But any "mtf" who has sex with her girlfriend in the most natural way for both their bodies isn't an mtf?

>Groups are in our head. We make them. And I already told you one definite distinction between them.
You've given several definitions and they all contradict. The two in your last post, the "not talking about freakish trannies" and the motivated to transition by agp also all contradict each other.

You are saying these traits all match up but they don't. There are loads of combinations of them, not the two cohesive groups you want.

>Yes.
Why?

>>8042364
Okay, let's talk this shit through.

I'm talking about real fetishists, who are using the trans-healthcare-system to enable themselves being full time women. Think of it! These fetishists do really exists, it's likely that a few of them use the medical system to get their way, especially the rich ones.
And it is a trait of these people to want to keep their penis, want to use their penis and are bascially still men.

I don't know if you even wanna know, but I'm a transbian and hate my erections. Having sex is problematic for me since I don't like anal stimulation either.
Your point is - as far as I can see - that not every mtf, who wants to keep her penis intact, is a fetishist-"transitioner". I'm still saying that the above mentioned fetishists exist, but I grant that maybe wanting to keep their dick intact does not automatically make anybody a fetishist-transitioner.
I'll admit that I've never heared of such a person and it is somewhat hard for me to imagine the situation. Do these mtfs experience gender dysphoria in other ways, but not in relation to their genitals? If you like, give me some input.

>>8042454
Why were you using deliberately negative and positive phrasing for your two groups?

>>8035350
If the theories about transgenderism being caused by a dose of opposite sex hormones at the wrong time in the womb are true, then it would make sense for a twins to commonly share gender identity, given they developed in the same womb.

>>8039259
Most seem fluid but I'd say bi leaning towards het.

That second question is funny, I talked to my cousins about transbians and the gasped lol they are het, the idea of trans women dating women they weren't married to before transition is repugnant.

I've opened up over the years but primarily interested in cis men but now Trans men as well as the occasional strong and tall woman with a very handsome face.

i get agp but wtf is aap

>>8043517
Autoandrophilia.

>>8039183
holy shit
lilly also makes everything worse by dressing like that
that doesn't give her anything
lanas dress at least gives her body a feminine appearance

>>8041016

Would you ever accept financial domination of the same sort from a guy?

>>8042323

I think Pinky is kinda cute. Prettier than the average lady her age, in fact. Not that that's hard to achieve given that the average lady is quite fat.