homeovestism - is it a thing? Preferred nomenclature? Respectfully correct?
-
wrote last edited by [email protected]
I just watched the respected author/historian, Mark Felton's recent YT upload titled "Was Hermann Göring Gay?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7SDnOvL-jgMark concludes that Göring exhibits homeovestism as something of an open question. It is the first time I have encountered the idea and terminology. I have no skin in the game, and am only genuinely curious how this lenses in the community.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/homeovestism -
I just watched the respected author/historian, Mark Felton's recent YT upload titled "Was Hermann Göring Gay?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7SDnOvL-jgMark concludes that Göring exhibits homeovestism as something of an open question. It is the first time I have encountered the idea and terminology. I have no skin in the game, and am only genuinely curious how this lenses in the community.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/homeovestismThat sounds like someone took the transphobic AGP theory and made up a cisgender equivalent.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology
-
I just watched the respected author/historian, Mark Felton's recent YT upload titled "Was Hermann Göring Gay?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7SDnOvL-jgMark concludes that Göring exhibits homeovestism as something of an open question. It is the first time I have encountered the idea and terminology. I have no skin in the game, and am only genuinely curious how this lenses in the community.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/homeovestismNever heard the term before. Based just on the wikitionary definition, seems like a weird way to say "people like feeling hot and desirable" but while seeming like they are trying to pathologize it. Also, the one quote they give of the word being used doesn't really seem to fit the definition given?
Perhaps its they're just trying to make a neutral word to refer to something they observe. Like "heterosexual" wasn't invented to pathologize heterosexuality.
-
That sounds like someone took the transphobic AGP theory and made up a cisgender equivalent.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology
Why is AGP transphobic? Seems like at best it's still unsettled science. From the link:
The concept that androphilia in trans women is related to homosexuality in cisgender men has been tested by MRI studies. Cantor interprets these studies as supporting Blanchard's transsexualism typology.
-
Why is AGP transphobic? Seems like at best it's still unsettled science. From the link:
The concept that androphilia in trans women is related to homosexuality in cisgender men has been tested by MRI studies. Cantor interprets these studies as supporting Blanchard's transsexualism typology.
"Unsettled science" is putting it far to charitably. From the second paragraph of that wikipedia article:
Scientific criticisms commonly made against Blanchard's research include that the typology is unfalsifiable because Blanchard and other supporters regularly dismiss or ignore data that challenges the theory
You could keep reading that Wikipedia article down to its sections on "Transfeminist critique", "Transgender men", and "Societal impact." I also recommend reading what Julia Serano wrote on the topic. (Which I find it to be a strong case that AGP is just bad science.) https://juliaserano.medium.com/making-sense-of-autogynephilia-debates-73d9051e88d3
Or, to be brief: AGP is transphobic because it reduces transgenderism to a sexual fetish. There are non-transgender cross-dressers and transgender men and women who are asexual or demisexual, not to mention thousands of definitely-transgender children who haven't had a sexual thought in their lives.
-
"Unsettled science" is putting it far to charitably. From the second paragraph of that wikipedia article:
Scientific criticisms commonly made against Blanchard's research include that the typology is unfalsifiable because Blanchard and other supporters regularly dismiss or ignore data that challenges the theory
You could keep reading that Wikipedia article down to its sections on "Transfeminist critique", "Transgender men", and "Societal impact." I also recommend reading what Julia Serano wrote on the topic. (Which I find it to be a strong case that AGP is just bad science.) https://juliaserano.medium.com/making-sense-of-autogynephilia-debates-73d9051e88d3
Or, to be brief: AGP is transphobic because it reduces transgenderism to a sexual fetish. There are non-transgender cross-dressers and transgender men and women who are asexual or demisexual, not to mention thousands of definitely-transgender children who haven't had a sexual thought in their lives.
Follow up thought after dinner: AGP is also auto-misandry and a strong example of toxic masculinity.
For those not familiar with the term, it's the idea that all trans men are only trans men because they think themselves sexually appealing as women. Which is fairly strongly disproven by "cis women feel that way, too", but also exposes a wretched opinion about cis men.
We're SUPPOSED to think that we're sexually attractive. If we want to get laid that means we need to find someone who finds us attractive, and that's damn hard when we can't even think of ourselves as sexy.
