marjaerwin

The Bailey-Blanchard-Lawrence theory is nonsense, and they crafted their definition of autogynephilia to fit the nonsense and to be untestable.

So you can't compare autogynephilic traits among trans womyn, and among cis womyn, without redefining autogynephilia into something that makes sense. And Bailey-Blanchard-Lawrence object to that. As it turns out, autogynephilic traits are fairly common among cis womyn, which invalidates all their special theories about trans womyn; there may be some cross-correlation between autogynephilic traits, sexual orientation, and age among trans womyn, but that can be an issue of barriers to transition, and it isn't a neat two-type division.

A recurring complaint in feminism is that we [womyn] have learned to look at ourselves through men's eyes instead of our own eyes, and to define relationships, sexuality, etc. through men's experiences instead of our own experiences. There's something twisted here. Being happy in our own bodies isn't problematic. Being happy only if we see our own bodies from another's point of view would be problematic. Autogynephilia is only problematic if it's the latter, but it's used to condemn people who assert the former and defy the latter.