Alt Text

Show parent replies
It’s reasonable to have concerns about what they’re called, but I actually think gynephilia and androphilia as concepts are very helpful because they dissociate the user’s gender identity from who they’re sexually attracted to

Then again this is very analytical philosophy way of approaching one’s sexuality and I’m certain for some it would be appalling to disaggregate - part of their attraction is always already about their identity and the relation with the identity of the desired
And personally, meh idrc, I think the whole idea of formalizing and legibilizing things is a mistake from the get-go, but it might be a helpful stepping stone concept for someone, or might be another metaphor in their repertoire. Mostly it’s just interesting they’re neglected so much despite
the intense focus on categorizing all aspects of identity. It’s just kinda odd that sexuality seems like something tacked on to one’s gender identity, when I know a lot of people can feel fairly confident in their sexuality due to the more observable facts, but gender identity is more elusive.
Ppl will reclaim any slur but cede to Blanchard any term that minimally resembles his work
I also think more widespread use of GP would take a lot of the wind out of AGP’s sails. Once you understand the concepts it’s pretty apparent how thin and pathetic the theory is, and it’s either dead wrong or trivial and nbd, depending on what specific descriptive/causal claims
the expounder is making. Also think the concepts of AGP or AAP could be useful self-reflective grounds, especially for cis people. This is probably an extremely idealistic reading and predictively naive, but I still think it would be good to not throw the concepts out completely.
What makes for bad marketing material is not necessarily useless for existential orientation or imaginative exploration, or even just conceptual tidiness