Hearing the theory of autogynpheilia was very useful to me. Instead of wondering "Am I a woman inside?" It became "I'm just a man with a particular fetish -- no more than that."
It sounds horrible to someone whose goal is to change their sex.
But its liberating for someone who wants to stabilize his life.
There's an AGP guy named Phil Illy who wrote a book about not just AGP, but "reflexive" paraphilias in general--people who are attracted to the idea of themselves *as* something else, rather than meaningfully attracted *to* someone else. It's called "Autoheterosexual," and it's one of the most unique books on the topic that's out there--but it's also at least as "scandalous" as the Bailey book, from a gender ideology standpoint.
I bring all of this up because this book, unlike Bailey's, has received almost no attention--positive OR negative--and I think it's because its *author* is AGP, and he actually *says* he is. So the book is TRA kryptonite: it's about something that's not supposed to exist, and by somebody who is not supposed to exist. It's also the kind of book that I'd imagine most folks on the gender critical side would be a bit put off by, since its explicit aim is to normalize the acceptance of AGP as an orientation, rather than a kink. (Although the author is, in many ways, gender critical himself.)
Anyway, I am a little inspired by the fact that nobody is trying to cancel this book--but that may not mean as much as I think it does. Sure, it could be the conversation is shifting, but it could also mean this is a book about something few people want to read about--and written for even fewer of the people who normally read about it.
Nov 4, 2023·edited Nov 4, 2023Liked by Jenny Poyer Ackerman
I posted that comment full well aware it might get back to him--but not *this* way, LOL!
I do think it's a frustrating issue. I personally think his voice is very important--in part (only in part) because it's disruptive to nearly every narrative.
I hope his book takes off at some point. It's a view of the issue (well, ONE of them!) from the inside, from somebody uniquely able to articulate his perspective, and it's incredibly compassionate.
Some rather serious pathologies there among the transactivists, particularly the "bad autogynephilic persons" Bailey talked about -- not to say, "crazier than shithouse rats" (excuse my French). You no doubt have seen the "Terf Is A Slur" website which gives chapter and verse on that score:
But nice to see you quoting "gender affirming care", although you might also consider doing so for "sex reassignment" since no one changes sex. And likewise with "sex change" in another post of yours:
Those euphemisms kind of chaps my hide, particularly since what they really refer to is the butchering of dysphoric & autistic children, and to turning them into sexless eunuchs.
ICYMI, Christopher Rufo, for all his more or less credible efforts to turn the transgender tide, is another user of the term "sex change" apparently because he thinks it is "immediately understandable to the public and much more accurate regarding its intention":
All it does is give credence to the argument that sex changes are actually possible -- only if one subscribes to the Kindergarten Cop definitions for the sexes: "boys have penises and girls have vaginas". ["Change your genitalia, change your sex! Act now! Offer ends soon!"]
Those are fair points, Steersman. I appreciate consistency in others’ editing and can definitely improve my own. Bailey goes so far as to write, sans quotation marks, these men are becoming women, and that chaps me big time, but I didn’t have the heart to come down on him now that it’s 20 years later.
Thanks Jenny. But a big part of the problem is basically that there are multiple definitions for many of the words and concepts in play in the transgender issue, "woman" in particular. ICYMI, see Merriam-Webster's "Usage Note" on sex & gender:
MW: "Among those who study gender and sexuality, a clear delineation between sex and gender is typically prescribed, with sex as the preferred term for biological forms, and gender limited to its meanings involving behavioral, cultural, and psychological traits. In this dichotomy, the terms male and female relate only to biological forms (sex), while the terms masculine/masculinity, feminine/femininity, woman/girl, and man/boy relate only to psychological and sociocultural traits (gender)."
Some merit in that terminological dichotomy, but it tends to promote equivocation, inadvertent at best, although it is often driven by various charlatans, grifters, and political opportunists of all stripes:
Why I often argue that every use of the words "male", "female", "man" and "woman" should be qualified with "sex" or "gender". For example, "woman (gender)" -- i.e., anyone who has even the slightest resemblance to any "adult human female (sex)" -- and "woman (sex)" -- i.e., "adult human female (sex)".
Apropos of which, you might have some interest in my post on that "age-old question" 🙂:
But since I see -- from that "Speaking Out" post of yours -- that you too are directly affected by transgender dogma, you might have some interest in several conversations I've been having with Hippiesq, the mother of a teenage dysphoric daughter. Particularly as we both see some merit in the concepts of "gender" and "gender identity" -- even if they've been "transmogrified" (so to speak) into something approaching a Frankensteinian monster:
Hearing the theory of autogynpheilia was very useful to me. Instead of wondering "Am I a woman inside?" It became "I'm just a man with a particular fetish -- no more than that."
It sounds horrible to someone whose goal is to change their sex.
But its liberating for someone who wants to stabilize his life.
There's an AGP guy named Phil Illy who wrote a book about not just AGP, but "reflexive" paraphilias in general--people who are attracted to the idea of themselves *as* something else, rather than meaningfully attracted *to* someone else. It's called "Autoheterosexual," and it's one of the most unique books on the topic that's out there--but it's also at least as "scandalous" as the Bailey book, from a gender ideology standpoint.
I bring all of this up because this book, unlike Bailey's, has received almost no attention--positive OR negative--and I think it's because its *author* is AGP, and he actually *says* he is. So the book is TRA kryptonite: it's about something that's not supposed to exist, and by somebody who is not supposed to exist. It's also the kind of book that I'd imagine most folks on the gender critical side would be a bit put off by, since its explicit aim is to normalize the acceptance of AGP as an orientation, rather than a kink. (Although the author is, in many ways, gender critical himself.)
Anyway, I am a little inspired by the fact that nobody is trying to cancel this book--but that may not mean as much as I think it does. Sure, it could be the conversation is shifting, but it could also mean this is a book about something few people want to read about--and written for even fewer of the people who normally read about it.
I met Phil last night and shared your comment with him.
I posted that comment full well aware it might get back to him--but not *this* way, LOL!
I do think it's a frustrating issue. I personally think his voice is very important--in part (only in part) because it's disruptive to nearly every narrative.
I hope his book takes off at some point. It's a view of the issue (well, ONE of them!) from the inside, from somebody uniquely able to articulate his perspective, and it's incredibly compassionate.
I wish him well too.
Thanks for this article Jenny. A lot to unpack. I've got some reading to do!
See you at Genspect!
Please look for me since I don’t know your name!
I’ll be there, too.
Some rather serious pathologies there among the transactivists, particularly the "bad autogynephilic persons" Bailey talked about -- not to say, "crazier than shithouse rats" (excuse my French). You no doubt have seen the "Terf Is A Slur" website which gives chapter and verse on that score:
https://terfisaslur.com/
But nice to see you quoting "gender affirming care", although you might also consider doing so for "sex reassignment" since no one changes sex. And likewise with "sex change" in another post of yours:
https://jennypoyerackerman.substack.com/p/some-thoughts-on-speaking-out-part
Those euphemisms kind of chaps my hide, particularly since what they really refer to is the butchering of dysphoric & autistic children, and to turning them into sexless eunuchs.
ICYMI, Christopher Rufo, for all his more or less credible efforts to turn the transgender tide, is another user of the term "sex change" apparently because he thinks it is "immediately understandable to the public and much more accurate regarding its intention":
https://substack.com/profile/21792752-steersman/note/c-16193243
All it does is give credence to the argument that sex changes are actually possible -- only if one subscribes to the Kindergarten Cop definitions for the sexes: "boys have penises and girls have vaginas". ["Change your genitalia, change your sex! Act now! Offer ends soon!"]
Those are fair points, Steersman. I appreciate consistency in others’ editing and can definitely improve my own. Bailey goes so far as to write, sans quotation marks, these men are becoming women, and that chaps me big time, but I didn’t have the heart to come down on him now that it’s 20 years later.
Thanks Jenny. But a big part of the problem is basically that there are multiple definitions for many of the words and concepts in play in the transgender issue, "woman" in particular. ICYMI, see Merriam-Webster's "Usage Note" on sex & gender:
MW: "Among those who study gender and sexuality, a clear delineation between sex and gender is typically prescribed, with sex as the preferred term for biological forms, and gender limited to its meanings involving behavioral, cultural, and psychological traits. In this dichotomy, the terms male and female relate only to biological forms (sex), while the terms masculine/masculinity, feminine/femininity, woman/girl, and man/boy relate only to psychological and sociocultural traits (gender)."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender#usage-1
Some merit in that terminological dichotomy, but it tends to promote equivocation, inadvertent at best, although it is often driven by various charlatans, grifters, and political opportunists of all stripes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
Why I often argue that every use of the words "male", "female", "man" and "woman" should be qualified with "sex" or "gender". For example, "woman (gender)" -- i.e., anyone who has even the slightest resemblance to any "adult human female (sex)" -- and "woman (sex)" -- i.e., "adult human female (sex)".
Apropos of which, you might have some interest in my post on that "age-old question" 🙂:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/what-is-a-woman
But since I see -- from that "Speaking Out" post of yours -- that you too are directly affected by transgender dogma, you might have some interest in several conversations I've been having with Hippiesq, the mother of a teenage dysphoric daughter. Particularly as we both see some merit in the concepts of "gender" and "gender identity" -- even if they've been "transmogrified" (so to speak) into something approaching a Frankensteinian monster:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/accidental-and-essential-properties
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/scientific-americans-lysenkoism
Thanks for this piece! I’m in the middle of reading this book along with Alice Dregers. Just wanted to say Bailey had made his book available to download for anyone who wants to read it https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281747420_The_Man_Who_Would_Be_Queen
I went to the site and a pop-up asked me: "Interested in research on Man?" I thought for a moment that this was an MRA site, LOL.
Thank you for this link!