>>836855i skimmed through and then read close to a hundred pages, the similarities to blanchardism are noteworthy, but then disappointing because he is never mentioned, and even haunts the work like a specter. i can say i think i believe his talk on these degenerate fetishes, and fetishes as a whole, but there are some areas definitely lacking. he agrees with this in regards to lacking a queer and female perspective just at the end.
p.s. (post scrotum)
he is also terfy, not even with the usage of transvestite but more so the appeal to nature with id say cheap or copout usage of biological. i feel this work could have been much improved with a defining of 'man' but maybe this is where the copout serves its purpose. i say maybe because i lost interest, but it began quite strong.
>>836778this is fine and all, but says nothing to address things like aap or agp with regards to say butch women or femboys. are you saying these are separate fetishes that when present in trans individuals (whom are so by birth, and i believe this to be fair to the image, ive seen this research before) result in transness, but otherwise result in sexual nonconformity? is this why you do not equate them post scriptum? (post scrotum)