Quote from: Annah on January 10, 2012, 09:08:10 AM
No.....people don't have varying degrees of ->-bleeped-<-. Wrong.
Saying you have various elements of a emotional spikes and mental depression in the medival period could have pegged you as a witch. Today, we see that as a type of mental illness and not demon possession. The symptoms have not change, the understanding of how we see things has changed.
->-bleeped-<- is an archaic term to explain certain aspects of ->-bleeped-<-....also, would you tell a gg she has ->-bleeped-<- because she wants to dress sexy for her date? Well im female and if i dress sexy for my bf its not ->-bleeped-<-.
->-bleeped-<- is like calling someone with bipolar a witch or retarded. If you want to label yourself as ->-bleeped-<- be my guest but stop assuming everone has ->-bleeped-<- because i do not associate myself with a label made up by Richard Blanchard
I am sorry, but that is wrong yet again, as you can indeed have varying degrees of various "leanings", such as various degress of depression, various degress of Bisexuality, various degress of Transsexualism, to only mention a few examples.
There are, for instance and according to Clanchard, also Partial ->-bleeped-<-, where the person only wants to feminize certain parts of the body for sexual/fetishistic reasons.
As for the eternal discussion of the ->-bleeped-<--theory and the retorts from the opponents that every Cis-female that enjoys dressing up, then must have it aswell, it, by that logic, rather discounts Transvestism than the ->-bleeped-<--theory, as ->-bleeped-<- is not about the clothes(Although clothing
may be a part of it) but about sexual arousement from the thought of having
a body of the opposite sex, for which reason I must counter with how Wonderdyke put it in the earlier ->-bleeped-<--thread;
QuoteIf jdinatale identifies as autogynephilic, that is, that they (I'm using they for lack of a marker for identified sex, but please tell me if you'd prefer another pronoun) feel sexually aroused by the thought of themselves as a woman (as categorically separate from "envisioning sex as a woman," you folks who resolutely claim that "everyone is ->-bleeped-<-, even cis women". Cis women don't pop ladyboners at the thought of putting on a hoodie and jeans to go buy milk at the local 7-Eleven, and that's what the perceived separation between ->-bleeped-<- and normal sexual arousal from sexual thoughts which are, sex-positivity mode go!, perfectly normal and nothing to be afraid of!), then so it is. Jdinatale, if you identify as autogynephilic, god bless you.
In other words, I highly doubt that all cis-females are constantly turned on by constantly imagening themselves as having male bodies, which would be the equivalent of ->-bleeped-<- in bio-females(but then called Auto-Androphilia).
Sure, I am absolutely certain as I know for a fact that there are
some cis-females that get turned on by constantly imagening themselves as having male bodies, but alow me to doubt that every cis-female does so on a daily basis, as the Autogynephile does, according to the theory.
Stretching the rules for the theory only because someone do not agree with it, is cheeting. Naughty naughty.

However whether a person with ->-bleeped-<- gets happy with a sex change, is, as said, very individual. Some have been, and thrives on being "trapped" in a female body, while others, ofcourse, bitterly regrets having transitioned because of a fetish.
As said, Jdinataile simply has to do and learn from his own mistakes, as he do not want to listen to others advices.