I’ve been doing a bunch of surveys on this sort of thing, and as far as I can tell, autogynephilia in cis women and autoandrophilia in cis men does sometimes exist.
I don’t think this makes any major differences for the big picture debate—it doesn’t really interfere with any of the causal stories for autogynephilia (at least, not beyond what the existence of autogynephilia among some gay men does), and it’s not like this is magically going to make trans women much more feminine than they would otherwise be.
It does make a difference for some of the stronger claims Zack makes, e.g. it disproves “The AGP fantasy about “being a woman” wouldn’t—couldn’t be fulfilled by magically being transformed to match the female distribution. At a minimum, because women aren’t autogynephilic!”. But this is a pure thought experiment that doesn’t change anything in reality, because magic isn’t real.
What policy positions does saying “trans rights” imply?
I don’t think people have rights to do what the fuck they want to do. For instance they don’t have a right to murder people, even if they want to do that. Taking the literal meaning it seems like a right that would be implied by your comment, and while it is clear that you didn’t intend this literal meaning, it is unclear precisely what you intended instead.
I can’t see the original comment, but this response seems really disconnected from what most people mean by “trans rights”. In my experience, “trans rights” typically refers to a constellation of rights like:
the right to self-determination of your gender
the right to express and be recognized as your choice of gender
the right to public accommodation in accordance with your gender
the right to be free from discrimination based on your gender (including discrimination based on being transgender)
It does not imply the right to murder other people, as doing so violates their rights to life and bodily autonomy. The harm principle limits how people can exercise their rights.
I can’t see the original comment, but this response seems really disconnected from what most people mean by “trans rights”.
The original comment emphasized the need to say “trans rights” to show that people should have “rights to do what the fuck they want to do”. This is why I picked murder as an example.
In my experience, “trans rights” typically refers to a constellation of rights like:
the right to self-determination of your gender
the right to express and be recognized as your choice of gender
the right to public accommodation in accordance with your gender
the right to be free from discrimination based on your gender (including discrimination based on being transgender)
I’ve been doing a bunch of surveys on this sort of thing, and as far as I can tell, autogynephilia in cis women and autoandrophilia in cis men does sometimes exist.
I don’t think this makes any major differences for the big picture debate—it doesn’t really interfere with any of the causal stories for autogynephilia (at least, not beyond what the existence of autogynephilia among some gay men does), and it’s not like this is magically going to make trans women much more feminine than they would otherwise be.
It does make a difference for some of the stronger claims Zack makes, e.g. it disproves “The AGP fantasy about “being a woman” wouldn’t—couldn’t be fulfilled by magically being transformed to match the female distribution. At a minimum, because women aren’t autogynephilic!”. But this is a pure thought experiment that doesn’t change anything in reality, because magic isn’t real.
What policy positions does saying “trans rights” imply?
I don’t think people have rights to do what the fuck they want to do. For instance they don’t have a right to murder people, even if they want to do that. Taking the literal meaning it seems like a right that would be implied by your comment, and while it is clear that you didn’t intend this literal meaning, it is unclear precisely what you intended instead.
I can’t see the original comment, but this response seems really disconnected from what most people mean by “trans rights”. In my experience, “trans rights” typically refers to a constellation of rights like:
the right to self-determination of your gender
the right to express and be recognized as your choice of gender
the right to public accommodation in accordance with your gender
the right to be free from discrimination based on your gender (including discrimination based on being transgender)
It does not imply the right to murder other people, as doing so violates their rights to life and bodily autonomy. The harm principle limits how people can exercise their rights.
The original comment emphasized the need to say “trans rights” to show that people should have “rights to do what the fuck they want to do”. This is why I picked murder as an example.
These are pretty vague, especially the first ones. Consider e.g. Zack’s Reply to Ozymandias on Fully Consensual Gender.