\n\n\nSo if I have a sexual fantasy, and there\u2019s a female character in it, and she turns me on, but she\u2019s entirely being constructed and performed within my head, does that count as autogynephilia?
\u201cI refute him thus!\u201d said Dr. Samuel Johnson, noted straight person.
\n
> @cyprinodont That\u2019s jusy gynophilia
> @cyprinodont Youve ignored the “auto” part in that blanchard thought lesbian trans womens sexual desire for women was *actually* a desire for themselves. Your thoughts and thought forms are not your *self*
I dunno I get what you\u2019re saying like if I would be just as turned on by the girl if piloted by another will then \u201cauto\u201d isn\u2019t really part of it.
And I mean \u201chaving a crush on a girl but really on the idealized version in your head\u201d or \u201cdoing foreplay on a real live girl based on your mental model of her pleasure\u201d certainly don\u2019t feel like they should count.
But \u201cyour thoughts and thought forms are not your *self*\u201d is a philosophical claim. And having gone through college when they still taught Derrida and Foucault and Butler as the key to everything, \u201cyou have a true and real self as distinct from the identity you\u2019re currently performing\u201d is NOT obvious, especially as the queer party line.
And in the end, like, I AM creating and inhabiting a female persona for the purpose of sexual fulfillment, not by modeling the development-from-scratch of a human *seen* as female, but by implementing an idealized female self-for-appreciation-by-straight-men as seen by someone who developed from scratch as a straight man.
And that\u2019s really kissing cousins to \u201cautogynephilia\u201d as used by radfems as a dismissal of esp. late-transitioning trans women, the key distinction there isn\u2019t the weight put on self-identity but the fact that I merely script and table-read the character rather than perform it live.
"}