📚 Megathread Tranny Sideshows on Social Media - Any small-time spectacle on Reddit, Tumblr, Twitter, Dating Sites, and other social media.

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Ethical Nightmare said:
Oh AGP has been around for centuries. It's been noted throughout history, mostly the elite, have derived sexual pleasure from wearing what's deemed female clothing, and forcing others to indulge in their fantasy to pretending they are a woman. And those around them obviously realized this, but tolerated it due to their position in power, but even they had a breaking point and none seriously considered those men to be actually women, and realized it was definitely deviant and not natural at all.
Click to expand...

Silence of the Lambs was on FTA the other night and I realized how accurate Buffalo Bill was at depicting the average MTF. Back in the 90s everyone knew these people were unhealthy and to be avoided

66andtwothirds said:
To understand how trans/antifa think, you don't read Marx. you watch Netflix.
View attachment 1917557
View attachment 1917558
View attachment 1917563
Click to expand...

The funny thing about using Nazis as a metaphor for cis straight males is there are so many photos of Nazi soldiers dressing up as women that they made a book about it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Surfin Terf said:
TiMs who just genuinely (and innocently) enjoy feminine stuff would probably just be HSTS.
Click to expand...
Why are people here taking that blanchardian pseudoscience seriously? how stupid are you?


💗Bitchstopher Columbitch💗 said:
This guy who had a disastrous experience with SRS talks about being pressured to get the chop from his doctors, therapists, his ex wife and even other transpeople:
Click to expand...
This just further illustrate how blindly trusting doctors/therapists is a bad idea, this is nothing new.

LurkNoMore said:
View attachment 1918683
View attachment 1918688
Click to expand...

I think the second part of my first comment was first written by someone else that ended up deleting their comment.

I don't understand how men are second class citizens. What and who is stopping them from wearing woman's clothing? Or is it that nobody takes an ogre in a tutu and heels seriously?

And that bit about panties. No shit, even your own conscience knows your an engaging in a fetish.
Click to expand...
Its a normal aspect of female sexuality

1613298695932.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
💗Bitchstopher Columbitch💗 said:
This guy who had a disastrous experience with SRS talks about being pressured to get the chop from his doctors, therapists, his ex wife and even other transpeople:
Click to expand...
How any "therapist" could feel confident enough to pressure someone into SRS is beyond me. The people in medicine enabling the tranny cult should themselves be the subject of psychiatric inquiry, imo.

vintologi3 said:
Why are people here taking that blanchardian pseudoscience seriously? how stupid are you?
Click to expand...
Opinions on Blanchard are mixed here, it's better reasoning than the average "lived experience" of a tranny at least. You can edit your posts btw, there is 0 reason to triple-post.
 
Lapis.Fennecat said:
Haven't trannys already raided 4chan? Good luck with that I suppose. :\
Click to expand...
Well... They fetishize "traps" but most of them really don't seem to accept them as human beings. "You will never be a real woman"-copypastas are flooding b and pol.
Kujo Jotaro said:
What's up with retards and posting shitty image comps in this thread as of late?
Click to expand...
What's wrong with Image Comps? Every single of their messages is insane so why shouldn't they be included?
 
Large said:
>189 participants
>self-report
This is useless.
Click to expand...
And it only compares trannies who like women with those who like men or those who like both men and women. Nothing about that comparison says anything about whether the trannies get off on viewing themselves as women. Just because they pick male partners doesn't mean they don't cum in their spinny skirts when they're playing dress-up at home. There's also no comparison to people who aren't trans.

There's nothing here that disproves Blanchard because their hypotheses and study population are insufficient to begin with.

Also I'm annoyed that I wasted time reading that crap.
 
vintologi3 said:
Why are people here taking that blanchardian pseudoscience seriously? how stupid are you?

Click to expand...
The issues remains (also Blanchard weakest point in defense of his hypothesis): it is all based on self-report, even the inclusion; subjects may not be entirely truthful.
If Dreger`s report on Bailey's aggressive hounding by several prominent academic Late Onset Transitioners (Lynn Conway, Andrea James, and Deirdre McCloskey) is anything to go by, these potential (auto)gynephilic individuals have a vested interest in doing so.
They included individuals based on their declaration of sexual attraction, in males you can check this by measuring their arousal when viewing explicit sexual imagery: trust is nice, double-check is better. Paper is also unclear about approach during recruitment, how much information were they given in what the study aimed to achieve, given that selection bias is a serious issue of contention in the population in question .

Again the arousal could have been measured and the arousal is not only limited to crossdressing, but also activities considered feminine (knitting). Also crossdressing in what form? Blanchard et al are quite clear that even women's knickers are sufficient as long as it is considered feminine. Also as @CrystalChevvy points out nothing about the autoerotic arousal.

I certainly do not expect neat categories, overlap is to be expected, but this entire study hinges on a lot of good faith assumptions with a group that is very likely aware of the ongoing discussion and therefore potentially an axe to grind.

I find nothing wrong with individuals with these paraphilia (at least initially without having met them) and it takes courage to acknowledge it. I think the T-lobby does them a disservice as an unclear etiology denies these individuals proper care, like this lad:

 
Marvin said:
If you've got an hour to piss away, there's a very interesting talk a researcher did about male vs female sexuality on the subject.

Basically his research concluded that women consume much more written erotica compared to men consuming more visual, explicit pornography. (Straight) women's tastes focus on confident and strong but sensitive/caring men. So two strong alpha males (like the classic KirkxSpock) breaking down and indulging in their tender hidden feelings is like doubly hot to a significant subset of women. I guess in grocery store romance novels the woman is mostly useless and only exists for the readers to paint themselves into the scene, so some enterprising middle aged erotica writers thought of just replacing her with another attractive man and the idea took off.

Also his research came to some other interesting conclusions, like how it's likely that feet are a sexual interest among a significant subset of men in basically every human culture. (So explaining shit like chinese foot binding and high heels)

It's an interesting talk, I recommend it.
Click to expand...
The point about feet reminds me of this:
1613313903152.png

From V.S. Ramachandran's Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind

Dancing Axolotl said:
View attachment 1917394
https://twitter.com/doomercatboy/status/1360387550901338115

This kinda shit is just depressing to look at.
Click to expand...
Eh. She's left the door open to get out of it. No surgery and no hormones, so she's not irreparably fucked; could still leave him (or be left, but odds are he'd be retarded to do that) and find someone who isn't a degenerate.

On Blanchard & "Autogynephilia" in women:

I think Blanchard is wrong in a technical sense, as in his papers and description of the etiological path for both HSTS-types and AGP-types is wrong. That is his model of the causal association is wrong and he over-fixates on the sexual element in both cases. So, what he wrote in his 1989 papers is largely wrong, and quite clearly wrong in my view.

But, as a rough idea autogynephilia is correct; transvestic fetishism is substantially involved in most troon outs and that the direction of causality runs from the fetishism to trooning out. To argue otherwise is to posit that there is some prior force or factor present within the individual which invariably means arguing for some sort of innately channeled 'gender identity.' However, even the most coherent versions of such an idea are:
  1. Poorly motivated: there is no need to invoke such an idea, there is no set of facts that are unexplained that such a theory would explain nor do they have any other advantages like parsimony or scientific fruitfulness.
  2. Lacking in evidence: They don't effectively explain existing evidence, and there is no positive evidence that they are true. Nothing from brain scans, nothing from developmental psychology and nothing from cognitive science more broadly provides positive that such an idea would true.
  3. Probably implausible: Only at a stretch can comparable innate faculties or instincts be identified and there are serious problems from an evolutionary standpoint. Any innate instinct/faculty has to have been selected for or else emerge as a byproduct of some other selection. It is very hard to understand how it would be plausible for directly identity-linked gender instincts or faculties could have evolved.
Also, on the subject of the string of papers on the AGP in women, those all basically mean nothing and are of no real relevance. That you can create survey instruments that AGPs and women answer in somewhat similar ways is not really interesting. Especially when the results don't really show the broader structure of sexual interests and arousal patterns in the respective groups.

I suspect (and I doubt anyone would really disagree) that if you more carefully examined sexual interests, fantasies and arousal patterns then you would find significant differences. The assertion that AGP fantasies are "just female sexuality" is both obviously false and a deeply unserious contention that isn't really intended to be defended; it's a rhetorical ploy.
 
Last edited:
Lelly Kenza said:
i think this is the same guy?

has a black fetish as well,looks eerily similar.
View attachment 1919493
View attachment 1919496
View attachment 1919499
Click to expand...
joe ebony cocoon trans.jpeg
Funnily enough, I don't think that's the same guy. The one on the bottom doesn't look 6'8" tall, not does he look remotely fit, nor like the type to be fit. He looks like a slob, actually. The black fetish could just be a coincidence, as black men have a reputation for screwing anything. So they, like ugly obese white women, might only be able to nab black man.
 
vintologi3 said:
That's enough to be statistically significant.

Here is a study using fMRI:

Click to expand...
Reminder that fmri is voodoo: see the famous dead salmon study.

It has no explanatory power.

If they haven't adjusted for multiple comparisons then the statistical significance is also meaningless on top of the measurement being meaningless


Oh and statistical significance requires a representative random sample so self report automatically fails that
 
Last edited:
Ignoring the fMRI studies tend not to replicate issue, the next most plausible explanation is basically just that the troons weren't actually aroused by the porn. Hence, no activation in relevant brain regions. In fact, that's basically what the subject themselves say:
1613322987162.png

Why were they not aroused? 2/12 of the troons were gay men, 10/12 were straight. However, I'd be willing to bet that of those 10, few if any masturbate to heterosexual pornography. Now, that could be argued to be due to some effectively in-born difference in sexual arousal patterns and at some level that would be correct! It just wouldn't mean what you want it to mean. The authors are aware of this:
1613323053503.png

Though IMO, I think this is to some extent the troons just lying to the experimenters. Are they going to sit down and say that "Yeh, look my principal erotic interest is sissification." Though to be fair, they did say that none of the troons were "autogynephilic," but it's not clear how they assessed that, for all we know they might have just asked them "Are you an AGP?" which would be pretty pointless. Probably worth noting that finding non-autogynephilic (in the broader sense) heterosexual troons would be difficult. To make matters worse, such individuals would be significantly more aberrant in terms of psychology (with underlying associated neurological aberrations) compared with troons with histories of transvestic paraphilism. Ironically, you could end up filtering up out all the cross-dressers to replace them with turbo-spergs who want to fuck anthropomorphized trains in the firebox.
 
Surfin Terf said:
Personally I think that skirts are a totally reasonable fashion accessory for anyone and if I could throw one on without looking like a lumbering troon I could see myself using one as my pants alternative for when I just need to go out for a few minutes. I honestly don't care about people questioning my manhood, but I really, really don't want people associating me with troonism; it's kind of silly but that is absolutely mortifying to me.
Click to expand...
An extremely straight male buddy of mine has taken to wearing a kilt and leggings around purely because they are comfortable and nobody bats an eye because despite being the same functional form as a "skirt", kilts get a pass for dudes for more or less arbitrary cultural reasons.

What im sayin is, just claim youre Scottish and you do you fam.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom