Unwilling Participants

If I don't want to participate in something, I don't

Image generated by Bing Copilot AI

“Autogynephiles draw unwilling participants into their fetish.”

It is the semantic construction of this phrase—which I’m seeing more and more on X and other platforms—that intrigues me. Like “identify as,” it’s using language in a novel way. What does it mean to be an “unwilling participant”? Historically, to “participate” meant to take willing action, not to be forced against one’s will—rendering this phrase a contradiction in terms. And what about being “drawn into” something you don’t fancy? The word “drawn” has always implied the choice to be lured, a surrender to something seductive. I can be “drawn into” a beautiful music performance, for example, only because I’m intrigued and pleased by it.

Though my series of yes-or-no questions about this phrase was framed as nefarious, it was a sincere attempt to parse what’s being claimed. I have no conception of “unwilling participation,” at least in the absence of handcuffs. If I don’t want to participate in something, I don’t. Are others feeling unable, thanks to social pressure, to make a similar decision? Or do they feel “drawn in” regardless of how explicitly they set their boundaries?

That’s the crux of my inquiry, though there’s more. Where did this phrase, absent from the discourse only a year or two ago, come from? A friend says it arose in the context of men in women’s changing rooms and restrooms, without the word “draw.” This makes more sense, as acts of voyeurism and exhibitionism do directly impact others, though I’d call those others “victims” rather than “participants.” When the phrase was ported to a man in a dress crossing the street, was it ported anywhere else? Do other types of men “draw unwilling participants” into their fantasies, normal or abnormal, expressed or hidden, in public or at home? I’m no more clear on these points after posting my thread than before. Those few who answered my questionnaire explicitly, rather than scoffing at its imagined implications, disagreed widely on these points.

And therein lies my concern. Language matters, as so many in this fight are fond of saying. At best, this phrase muddles the message. At worst, it’s obfuscating, in-group jargon meant not to change minds, but to foster bonding at the peril of the cause. The fight against the medicalization of gender nonconforming and gay kids is too important—those who care about children can’t afford the indulgence of preaching to the choir.

If we can’t articulate the mysteries of Schrödinger's participation amongst ourselves, imagine how it’s landing with the normie politicians and judges who vote on bills and make laws. Potential allies to our cause think of cross-dressers as a benign faction of the LGBTQ, and will find claims of their tractor beam-powered fantasy lives inscrutable, if not batshit.

The Socratic method, which "is characterized by 'productive discomfort,'" is a classical learning technique which asks questions intended to draw out underlying beliefs and assumptions. It’s meant to help people hone their thoughts and clarify their arguments, to make them better debaters and more politically effective. That’s what I want for those of us working toward common goals.

To be fair, I’m concerned about more than the semantics, or even the optics, of this claim. I’m also concerned about what it implies about the speaker, who is usually a woman.

To count yourself an “unwilling participant” whenever a weirdo enters a public space is to cede too much power to him. Let’s not give up our agency so willingly. The reality is, most men, and a fair number of women, engage in fantasies that would curl your hair. As mind-reading is not yet a thing, they do so in public as often as in private. We cannot detect or eliminate this facet of life, with or without sartorial clues. Nor should we make it our problem. The development of an internal locus of control is essential to good mental health. The woman whose well-being depends upon managing the sexual thoughts of others will find herself as frustrated as the transgender activist who wants to ban “misgendering.” Both are asking the world to change for them.

Yes, I’m calling for us to resist the draw, as it were, of self-important language play that gets us head pats from cronies but alienates those who can actually make a difference in policy. In order to be strategic, we need to be clear. Eyes on the prize.