Most, if not all sexologists on X, assert that pedophilia (defined as attraction to pre-pubescent children) is immutable and can be viewed as a sexual orientation. However, the evidence for this belief is weak. /1
A fundamental uncertainty exists between pure metasexuality and pure orientation. I believe this applies to metasexuality in AGPs appearing as “organic” homosexuality. Phallometric tests cannot definitively rule this out in any particular case since the meta-sexually attracted AGP can self-insert into the sexual scene portrayed. This is not to say that organic homosexuality doesn’t exist.
There’s a famous line of psychology research (Nisbett and Wilson) showing people confidently explain why they made a choice, and those explanations are often demonstrably wrong. They are invented after the fact. So humans don’t just lack memory of where our knowledge came from; we actively make up plausible-sounding origins.
@gynemimesis@4th_WaveNow@profjmb@elegationvain@RayAlexWilliams@GAMPbian Once one introduces meta attraction then no attraction in males who “love themselves as a woman” can be ruled out. Also, as your graph indicates, all attractions for trans women can be due to AGP, which is what you’ve been saying for a long time.
It only makes sense to say that two entities are similar to each other when their similarities vastly outweigh their differences. As far as I can read, no one has conclusively shown this to be true for AGP versus male heterosexuality. According to my understanding, that’s why Blanchard has never said in peer reviewed publications that AGP was similar to male heterosexuality. /6
I know that Bailey has made remarks like that, but I believe Blanchard himself went no further than “analogous” and has “similarities” to in his comparison between AGP and normative male heterosexuality. I don’t believe Bailey is correct on this on other issues as well. If you find a peer reviewed publication by Blanchard that went further than his 2005 review summary let me know.