- 1. Perhaps three relevant thresholds to keep in mind would be the prevalence of AGP among gay men, straight men and trans women. Some argue that AGP in cis women is rarer than AGP in gay men, but this is unfounded both theoretically and empirically (esp. since they often argue that it doesn't exist in cis women at all, which can easily be observed to be wrong), so they're probably dumb and rationalizing. I think Blanchard and Bailey are probably in that category? Unclear. Anyway, others argue that AGP in cis women is comparably common and intense to AGP in trans women, which also appears unfounded and in contradiction with evidence. So it's somewhere between these two extremes. I suspect a bit more common than in straight men, but it's really hard to say without more representative samples.
- 2. Trans people arguing for AGP in cis women are super biased. People arguing against it are super biased too.
- 3. It probably doesn't matter that much? Like people struggle to even prove female heterosexuality, so from a theoretical standpoint, what exactly would go wrong if it was common? Most women appear to in some sense be into the female form, so why exactly wouldn't they be able to end up AGP?
- 4. I think a lot of the time women pretend to be AGP to downplay their attraction to men. Like you see this in the studies of sexual specificity, women have a bisexual physiological arousal pattern but claim to have an AGP meta-attracted one subjectively. Or you can literally just listen to them talk about it, e.g. Alice Dreger says "And the feminist in me suspects that the assumption that we are thinking about our partners when we are getting aroused may be a projected male fantasy about us.".
- and I guess 5. There's some definitional problems that makes it very hard to decide sometimes.
RAW Paste Data