Julia Serano posted a new essay where she tries to diminish the role of autogynephilia in the development of gender identity, instead favoring of her Feminine Embodiment Fantasies "model". Usually scientific models make testable predictions—her's doesn't.

http://www.juliaserano.com/av/Serano-AutogynephiliaEmbodiment.pdf

Why did sex researchers in the 1950's-70's see homosexual transitioners as a separate group from heterosexual transvestites?

Maybe because they *are* different groups when you're talking about sexuality. Additionally, sexual orientation in males is a bimodal distribution.

Yes, it's true that researchers used to think only "early onset" same-sex attracted transsexuals were legitimate candidates for medical treatment.

This "transsexual/transvestite" dichotomy DID hurt the comparatively larger group of trans women I and others classify as AGP.

However, with time the medical establishment began to center gender dysphoria as the important consideration instead of sexual orientation. This reasoning is consistent with medicine more broadly, because medical interventions are often given to people to reduce suffering.

@BlanchardPhD acknowledged in his papers that studies showed positive outcomes for trans women of both 'homosexual' and 'transvestic' subgroups.

Many of his studies endorsed the use of hormones and surgeries to help transsexuals regardless of etiology.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01542107

So if Blanchard's papers advocated for medical interventions for properly screened trans individuals regardless of etiology, why is so much ire directed at him if he advocated for loosened restrictions on medicalization?

It's because many AGPs hate the concept of AGP itself

Autogynephilic people—me included—tend feel positive feelings in response to stimuli which reinforces our sense of femininity. These feelings are powerful, meaningful, and comforting.

These feelings are important to me and many others like me. I'm not willing to give them up.

Why is it that autogynephilic people often loathe the concept that describes us?

We strongly desire to be WOMEN! So when the concept which describes us so well frames us as MEN with a paraphilic sexual orientation, is it any surprise that we collectively hate the concept?

There's such overwhelming evidence that autogynephilia exists. There's plenty of erotic material online for this group of people, such as (but not only!) TG gender swap, forced feminization, and sissy hypno.

You can look it up yourself, there's a fuckton of it out there.

Why is it seen as morally acceptable when AGP trans women systematically cover up and deny the existence of this sexual orientation?

Imagine if "early onset" androphilic trans women denied the existence of homosexuality.

Wouldn't we all laugh at the absurdity?

This cover-up of the concept of autogynephilia serves to keep millions of people in the dark about why they feel the way they do and why they have the sexual proclivities that they do.

Why is it okay to keep us ignorant about this?

Autogynephilia is roughly as common in males as homosexuality, so why haven't we all heard about AGP?

Wouldn't it be better to have it be mentioned within sexual education so that adolescent males with these feelings can understand themselves better?

Trans activists sometimes talk about the importance of childhood transition because younger transition tends to lead to stronger cross-sex resemblance. Younger transitioners pass better.

If, on average, AGPs pass less often than other types of trans people, wouldn't it make a huge difference for many of us to know, in our teens, that if we respond to certain types of erotic stimuli, that we have an increased likelihood of developing into a transgender person?

I started this thread to critique Julia Serano's recent essay, point by point, where she ONCE AGAIN tries to diminish the importance and relevance of the most essential element of late-onset MTF transsexualism: autogynephilia.

I got off-track and didn't do that. Oh well.

It gets me really mad when AGP individuals lie to each other and deny the reality of AGP.

Many of them know that AGP is real, deep down. That's why they get so mad.

They've experienced erections in response to cross-gender behaviors and ideation.

So why is this sex-negative approach to talking about autogynephilia encouraged by well-meaning progressives and autogynephiles who would otherwise consider themselves sex positive?

Isn't it okay from a sex-positive POV to embody a sexual orientation that doesn't hurt others?

It pains me to see people experiencing shame about their harmless orientation—Especially when it's those with the orientation who are lying about it to each other.

This is 2020, it's okay to be into non-vanilla sex stuff and to acknowledge that sexuality shapes our identities.

Serano's recent essay once again claims to put forward a model, but it's not an actual model. Models make falsifiable predictions, but Serano's 'model' obfuscates and makes no testable predictions.

Same goes for her 2010 essay, "The Case Against Autogynephilia".

That's BS too.