"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!!
Thank you for articulating this so well. When I've heard women make that argument about being forced to participate in a fetish it always struck me as emotionally immature and self-involved, but I wasn't sure how to counter it.
I, for one, am glad you said this. I've heard comments like this more and more frequently as well, and have felt the same way about it: that it is completely ridiculous to speculate that a particular individual is dressed a certain way for sexual reasons, and then to complain that simply by being in the same air as that person everyone else is forced to participate. I, too, have thought many times "so is every guy who thinks a random passerby is hot also forcing them to participate in his fetish?" Actually, I find it pretty frustrating that the people who accept the latter as normal-boys will be boys, after all-can work themselves into a righteous lather over the former. And I would agree that one cannot and should not begin to "identify" as being sexually harassed or even abused only because there is someone else in their presence who may (or may not) be thinking sexual thoughts in the moment.
So, I will offer a voice to tell you thank you for saying this.
As the inimitable JKR has said, “Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who'll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?"The only action that JK objects to in her famous tweet is the bullying behaviour alluded to in her last question.
Men in dresses do not cause harm to anyone unless they, for instance, lie to children e.g.about the “gender bread person” or invade women’s spaces.
As you remind us, sex realists cannot afford to become distracted by cross-dressing men. They must save their energy and their focus for the real harms caused by Genderism. These are a) the indoctrination and mutilation of children and young people and b) the attempt to deny the sex binary, with devastating practical and political consequence, especially for women and girls.
I’m not making a circular argument, and I don’t know what all these preconceptions are. If we use female address and pronouns for an AGP, are we participating in his fetish? Does that matter? Why are these questions irrelevant to a post that is a reaction to its opening line “Autogynophiles…” ?
That first word was in the statement that I referenced, so yes, I noticed the word. I’m understanding your point to be that we shouldn’t care about ignorantly participating in someone’s fetish, but some what you said seemed to imply that we don’t know if that man in a dress is AGP or not, so our nonparticipation is due to that ignorance. But the statement is concerned only with AGPs, so our ignorance is not relevant. The fact remains: if the man in a dress is AGP, and we address him as a woman, then we are participating in his fetish. I take it that you believe that doesn’t matter.
I’m trying to understand your post, and respond to it. I think you believe that we shouldn’t care if we, without knowing, participate in someone’s fetish. I take it that either that’s not true, or it’s so obviously true that it’s aggravating that I want to verify it. Such is life.
The statement is about AGPs, not men in dresses in general.
An AGP who demands to be addressed as a woman, or use of a female locker room, or to be mentioned using feminine pronouns, is demanding participation in his fetish.
A non-AGP man who demands those things is not demanding participation in his fetish, it’s something else.
I read the article several times trying to see the focus, maybe it’s early in the morning, but I’m not quite getting it.
Of course a transvestite in public is drawing others into their sex game, that why they expose themselves to being looked at by others. Don’t take my word, the topic has been written about by TV’s themselves in pornography for a very long time.
It’s not accidental, it’s intentional.
It’s also unexceptional.
It’s a problem when it is intrusive, or inappropriate.
Using women’s facilities to display TV is intrusive, I can’t imagine a woman finds it benign to find a “cock in a frock” in a locker room, spa, dressing room or bathroom. That using TV as a key to grant a man access to female-designated venue, so designated for safety.
The fishnet stockings, minettes, grotesque falsies, hot pants and other parts of hookerwear are inappropriate for settings where a jacket and slacks are expected attire. Whether it’s a man in them or a woman, neither would make the target audiences comfortable at the Opera, in a business meeting, at the PTA.
Is the issue that women object to a man ever wearing TV garb in public, they are “drawn in” against their will? Sure they are. Just as much as if a woman wore hookerwear.
IMO, the wording is accurate. having any fetish, including agp fetish may not be a choice, but acting it out in public is a choice. presenting as a woman is as much a choice and hobby as enjoying a baseball game while wearing baseball team logo clothing. but when a person wears a baseball team jersey, any surrounding person isnt affected. this isnt the case with public agp presentation. There are several ways which public agp presentation actually force others to participate.
- firstly, as with any sexual fetish, agp thoughts and presentation yield a sexual thrill. this thrill manifests itself in the form of various hormones which are not only the hormones generated during sex, but also endorphins that also are produced by drugs such as heroin, or even activities like jogging. these hormones produce a high. this high can form into an addiction and also cause participants to chase ever greater highs via added activities. the reason for this is that after engaging in the activity initially, added measures are subsequently required to achieve the same "high". this process is very familiar to drug users and addiction specialists.
so, what starts as a private endeavor becomes a public endeavor as a means to achieve greater fetishistic highs. added highs are also achieved via related fetishes such as exhibitionism and even thrills derived from the power of causing others to unintentionally and unwillingly witness their fetish. of course,
making women and girls share restrooms, sports competitions and school placement and scholorships with men againsy their will also forces their fetish onto unwilling participants, all of which adds to the agp enjoyments of some agp males.
I'm genuinely unsure what "choice" has to do with anything.
This is a reiteration of some people's concerns about AGP, which I'm well familiar with, but it isn't a response to the language. I've already said that being the victim of someone's voyeurism is very different from being in the same room with them.
And the idea that a guy is doing something by doing something else that might lead to that something? No. He hasn't done it until he's done it.
- when some is involuntarily involved in someones else sexuality, thats a form a rape. you can say it doesnt bother some. but it does bother others. and thats what performing agp sexual fetishes in womens restrooms is. every women in the restroom with a man in drag is part of his sexual fantasy.
is it very significant that acting out sexual fetishes in public are a choice, just as using drugs or alcohol are a choice. gender activists claim acting out fetishes in public isnt a choice. thats false. they claim acting out fetishes in public reduces gender dysphoria. another lie. they claim dudes in drag are safer in the womens room. another lie. police records show the only time there are any related incidents are in the womens room, none in the mens. dudes in drag are safer in mens restrooms. thats where theyre respected . thats where they are safe. their suggestion that the entire planet participate in their optional hobby is crazy.
You seem to have me mixed up with someone else. I've already denounced voyeurism, exhibitionism, women's restroom access. I've said none of the other five claims you're railing against.
you want your cake but also to eat it. u admit unwilling participants of voyeurism, exhibitionism and those whose safety is robbed via the loss of single sex restrooms are disadvantage. . you pretend not to know men are doing this as a hobby and they are only doing it becuase some have bought in their bogus claims. yet your main message is that complainers should just shut up and pretend its not happening. weve heard all of this b4, but usually from the patriarchy.
"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!!
Thank you for articulating this so well. When I've heard women make that argument about being forced to participate in a fetish it always struck me as emotionally immature and self-involved, but I wasn't sure how to counter it.
I, for one, am glad you said this. I've heard comments like this more and more frequently as well, and have felt the same way about it: that it is completely ridiculous to speculate that a particular individual is dressed a certain way for sexual reasons, and then to complain that simply by being in the same air as that person everyone else is forced to participate. I, too, have thought many times "so is every guy who thinks a random passerby is hot also forcing them to participate in his fetish?" Actually, I find it pretty frustrating that the people who accept the latter as normal-boys will be boys, after all-can work themselves into a righteous lather over the former. And I would agree that one cannot and should not begin to "identify" as being sexually harassed or even abused only because there is someone else in their presence who may (or may not) be thinking sexual thoughts in the moment.
So, I will offer a voice to tell you thank you for saying this.
As the inimitable JKR has said, “Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who'll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?"The only action that JK objects to in her famous tweet is the bullying behaviour alluded to in her last question.
Men in dresses do not cause harm to anyone unless they, for instance, lie to children e.g.about the “gender bread person” or invade women’s spaces.
As you remind us, sex realists cannot afford to become distracted by cross-dressing men. They must save their energy and their focus for the real harms caused by Genderism. These are a) the indoctrination and mutilation of children and young people and b) the attempt to deny the sex binary, with devastating practical and political consequence, especially for women and girls.
Do fuzzy handcuffs imply consent? No, fuzzy handcuffs are handcuffs.
I’m not making a circular argument, and I don’t know what all these preconceptions are. If we use female address and pronouns for an AGP, are we participating in his fetish? Does that matter? Why are these questions irrelevant to a post that is a reaction to its opening line “Autogynophiles…” ?
That first word was in the statement that I referenced, so yes, I noticed the word. I’m understanding your point to be that we shouldn’t care about ignorantly participating in someone’s fetish, but some what you said seemed to imply that we don’t know if that man in a dress is AGP or not, so our nonparticipation is due to that ignorance. But the statement is concerned only with AGPs, so our ignorance is not relevant. The fact remains: if the man in a dress is AGP, and we address him as a woman, then we are participating in his fetish. I take it that you believe that doesn’t matter.
This is an article about language and self ownership. What you have "taken" seems to be what you've brought in.
I’m trying to understand your post, and respond to it. I think you believe that we shouldn’t care if we, without knowing, participate in someone’s fetish. I take it that either that’s not true, or it’s so obviously true that it’s aggravating that I want to verify it. Such is life.
1, That isn't what the article is about.
2, See: Begging the question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question. Or, "do you still beat your wife?" https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Do+you+still+beat+your+wife
You're bringing too many preconceptions to the table for any kind of sufficient response.
The statement is about AGPs, not men in dresses in general.
An AGP who demands to be addressed as a woman, or use of a female locker room, or to be mentioned using feminine pronouns, is demanding participation in his fetish.
A non-AGP man who demands those things is not demanding participation in his fetish, it’s something else.
That's literally the first word in my article, thanks.
I read the article several times trying to see the focus, maybe it’s early in the morning, but I’m not quite getting it.
Of course a transvestite in public is drawing others into their sex game, that why they expose themselves to being looked at by others. Don’t take my word, the topic has been written about by TV’s themselves in pornography for a very long time.
It’s not accidental, it’s intentional.
It’s also unexceptional.
It’s a problem when it is intrusive, or inappropriate.
Using women’s facilities to display TV is intrusive, I can’t imagine a woman finds it benign to find a “cock in a frock” in a locker room, spa, dressing room or bathroom. That using TV as a key to grant a man access to female-designated venue, so designated for safety.
The fishnet stockings, minettes, grotesque falsies, hot pants and other parts of hookerwear are inappropriate for settings where a jacket and slacks are expected attire. Whether it’s a man in them or a woman, neither would make the target audiences comfortable at the Opera, in a business meeting, at the PTA.
Is the issue that women object to a man ever wearing TV garb in public, they are “drawn in” against their will? Sure they are. Just as much as if a woman wore hookerwear.
As I have said many times, I dont support men in women's "locker room, spa, dressing room or bathroom."
IMO, the wording is accurate. having any fetish, including agp fetish may not be a choice, but acting it out in public is a choice. presenting as a woman is as much a choice and hobby as enjoying a baseball game while wearing baseball team logo clothing. but when a person wears a baseball team jersey, any surrounding person isnt affected. this isnt the case with public agp presentation. There are several ways which public agp presentation actually force others to participate.
- firstly, as with any sexual fetish, agp thoughts and presentation yield a sexual thrill. this thrill manifests itself in the form of various hormones which are not only the hormones generated during sex, but also endorphins that also are produced by drugs such as heroin, or even activities like jogging. these hormones produce a high. this high can form into an addiction and also cause participants to chase ever greater highs via added activities. the reason for this is that after engaging in the activity initially, added measures are subsequently required to achieve the same "high". this process is very familiar to drug users and addiction specialists.
so, what starts as a private endeavor becomes a public endeavor as a means to achieve greater fetishistic highs. added highs are also achieved via related fetishes such as exhibitionism and even thrills derived from the power of causing others to unintentionally and unwillingly witness their fetish. of course,
making women and girls share restrooms, sports competitions and school placement and scholorships with men againsy their will also forces their fetish onto unwilling participants, all of which adds to the agp enjoyments of some agp males.
I'm genuinely unsure what "choice" has to do with anything.
This is a reiteration of some people's concerns about AGP, which I'm well familiar with, but it isn't a response to the language. I've already said that being the victim of someone's voyeurism is very different from being in the same room with them.
And the idea that a guy is doing something by doing something else that might lead to that something? No. He hasn't done it until he's done it.
- when some is involuntarily involved in someones else sexuality, thats a form a rape. you can say it doesnt bother some. but it does bother others. and thats what performing agp sexual fetishes in womens restrooms is. every women in the restroom with a man in drag is part of his sexual fantasy.
is it very significant that acting out sexual fetishes in public are a choice, just as using drugs or alcohol are a choice. gender activists claim acting out fetishes in public isnt a choice. thats false. they claim acting out fetishes in public reduces gender dysphoria. another lie. they claim dudes in drag are safer in the womens room. another lie. police records show the only time there are any related incidents are in the womens room, none in the mens. dudes in drag are safer in mens restrooms. thats where theyre respected . thats where they are safe. their suggestion that the entire planet participate in their optional hobby is crazy.
You seem to have me mixed up with someone else. I've already denounced voyeurism, exhibitionism, women's restroom access. I've said none of the other five claims you're railing against.
you want your cake but also to eat it. u admit unwilling participants of voyeurism, exhibitionism and those whose safety is robbed via the loss of single sex restrooms are disadvantage. . you pretend not to know men are doing this as a hobby and they are only doing it becuase some have bought in their bogus claims. yet your main message is that complainers should just shut up and pretend its not happening. weve heard all of this b4, but usually from the patriarchy.
No, I don't pretend any of that, and I don't ask anyone to shut up.