Obsessing over your identity in any form is a special kind of narcissism MOST of us don’t have the luxury of indulging in. Honestly, I’m starting to think these are just “privileged” people problems. If you were trying to build a shelter to live in, find food to eat and trying not to die from the elements this garbage would be the least of your priorities.
Embracing identity can actually have an effect on the ability to eat, be housed effectively, etc. I am currently studying the Mexican Revolution, and identity played a huge role. People couldn’t eat, didn’t have decent shelter, and identity was a giant factor in all of that because the whyte colonialists from Europe did swoop in, take all of the resources, didn’t share, told the indigenous and mestizo people that they didn’t deserve food and shelter because they didn’t “look right” and god didn’t choose them, and because of starvation the people had no choice but to rise up and revolt. Along with that revolution came a new embracing of indigenous Mexican identity, and that’s the world Frida Kahlo, for instance, emerged into as an artist and as the living embodiment and celebrant of traditional Mexican identity. So the argument that identity isn’t something people who are starving care about is just incorrect. Sorry.
People of one or another ethnic-religious background can definitely be ethnocentric and identity-obsessed as well - this can seem like a crutch, when they don't have anything more interesting going on.
This is exactly why I want insanely creepy men like Phil, to get as much spotlight as possible. It baffles me that so much of the "gender critical" scene want to HELP trans-activists, in sweeping AGPs under the rug, because they're gross and icky (which they undoubtedly ARE, of course). The few AGPs like Phil, who are willing to ADMIT their AGP-ism, should be given all the attention they want- They're extremely valuable, because (even tho they try to down-play it) they'll admit to the dirty little secret that mainstream trans activists will NEVER speak aloud... ...That mtf's are motivated by sexual gratification. Guys like Phil are valuable because (1) if any non-AGP says "these guys are motivated by sexual gratification", the trans-sympathetic public (ie the MOST important demographic to reach) will just dismiss that as "hateful transphobia"... but having an AGP say it about HIMSELF, can't just be dismissed like that. And (2) the other reason why self-admitted AGPs are so valuable, and should be given as much spotlight as possible, is BECAUSE they're incredibly creepy, and unlikable, and come across as completely self-obsessed narcissists, universally fixated on their fetish, and immersed in an all-consuming entitlement, that they MUST be allowed to indulge their fetish, 24/7, WHATEVER the societal cost. All the reasons why BOTH trans activists, AND much of the "gender critical" scene DON'T want guys like Phil given attention, are exactly why I want him, and others like him, given as much attention as possible... You don't persuade the public to take action against a disease, by HIDING the uglyest aspects of that disease from them...
You can see how AGPs are part of the dangerous slippery slope to justifying pedophilia as a “sexuality”. And that is completely happening, the modern TRA movement is absolutely being used to shoehorn sex & sexuality upon children and to look at them as sexual.
I think it's frightening for parents to imagine this about their kids. I don't think as many of them are AGP as some might think, I don't think AGP is that common. I do think the internet is going to change that though. And for the rest too, the other 'philias.
Perhaps the language change from transexual to transgender was to take the emphasis away from sex? It also opened up the possibility of the "transgender child".
An important takeaway from this conversation is that AGPs know perfectly well that they are not women, and know they are interlopers into women's spaces. The idea that AGPs are in any way vulnerable or marginalised is a massive lie.
@tablescissors67 Yes! But don't get me started! The appropriation of gay identity and history under the label "queer" is so deeply offensive to me as a gay person, but I am expected to accept this as "progress". Every time I hear the phrase "LGBTQ community" I want to hit something with a stick. What links these people with homosexuals other than the vague sense that they are sexually abnormal? Straight people calling themselves "queer" because they are flamboyant attention seekers is equivalent to white people calling themselves "n****r" because they like rap music and watermelon.
But Phil does not enter women's spaces and doesn't claim to be a woman. The autogynephiles who do enter women's spaces do not know they are not women or at the very least claim not to know.
If a gay man removes all of his clothing, he is still attracted to men. If an autogynephile removes all his clothing and adornments, is he still attracted to himself? If his attraction *requires* those things, to me, this doesn't sound like an orientation.
The autogynephile would still be attracted to himself in his fantasy. And if he had had "sex changing" operations he would also still be attracted to himself if he was naked.
@unhurte8779 The question posed by the video is whether it is an orientation, and that's what I'm responding to. I didn't tell anyone what they can or can't do.
AGPs see a woman who’s a 10 in the mirror. They never see the man 3, even if he can see his own dick. His brain transforms it into a clit. Clothing just means he can do it in public to get maximum arousal from boundary violations.
Just don't say the wives "have to at least try out" sex role play. It is presented to us as as our obligation. We get hurt physically & psychologically. I have data from 54 trans widows. Our stories are not told in any kind of representative way, in which the collateral damage is recognized. This damages women, who are mothers.
The whole time I was watching, I was wishing you were in this conversation to correct all the bullshit comparisons they were making. The misogyny was insane, so basically women just need to get over it and be kind! I agree with what you said the other day, we need to bring shame back and stop telling girls/women to just be kind when they feel uncomfortable or unsafe.
I would like to make it clear no one has told this man hes not allowed to wear dresses, he is allowed to wear dresses. Im allowed to say its gross when a man wears dresses while promoting his book about how that turns him on. He wants to be a creep and not have any criticism for it.
No one would be stupid enough to let someone who's admitted to being a pedophile hang around little kids, even if said pedo isn't rock hard at that exact moment. Even if said pedophile genuinely just loves to innocently play with the kids 99% of the time. That 1% is still too much. Phil is trying to act like him not being turned on 24/7 by his sexual fixation suddenly makes it ok for him to openly display it, when it's not. I don't want the "non-offending" AGP to be normalized the same as I don't want "non-offending" pedos to be normalized. Phil admitted to being more turned on by the clothes in the beginning, then he got desensitized to it to where it feels more mundane to him. That follows the evergrowing nature of fetish and paraphilia where the person constantly have to push further and further to get their hit. Seems a bit like when a porn addicted person mindlessly watches "vanilla" porn while feeling nothing anymore. Still doesn't make it ok for the person to openly watch porn among other people, despite the fact that he's not even turned on by it anymore. Phil says he would feel uncomfortable in men's clothes, so he chooses to instead to push the uncomfort onto all the women around him by wearing women's clothes and being open about it being sexual for him. He still (at least in this video) seems to have no interest at all in finding the cause of his own discomfort to fix it, he's happy to just push it onto others instead. He's already picking his own comfort over the comfort of the vast majority of women, so why should women trust him to be a safe person? Rudy was right when he said Phil seems unable to even imagine a man could wear anything feminine and not be an AGP, becuase he's so hyperfocused on his own sexual fixation. Or perhaps he is only pretending to think that to further his own case, who knows. I partly think buying into "gender" does that to you - suddenly you have to accept that every little action a person does is to express a feminine or masculine role/gender, when in reality most people aren't hyperfocused on the stereotypes of the sexes and they just exist in a neutral state. I think Benjamin has bought into gender too from what I've heard him say before, hence why he seems like he's mostly on Phil's side this episode.
Not a fashion conversation, it is an appropriate attire conversation. Also, bringing it to peoples attention that, oh yeah, this is also sexually arousing for me , is problematic.
Rudy saying Phil's look is giving Buffalo Bill vibes is dead-on. I feel like Phil has been emboldened in how he presents himself now more and more since he was given a platform. I have listened to him quite a bit and now I am creeped out by him
@@LusciousTwinkle Comments on a video made by the account that posted said video have the account name highlighted. If you see a similar-looking account without highlighting, it's trying to bait people into clicking the account to direct them to a scam and you should report for "Unwanted commercial content or spam".
Same. Him comparing his paraphilia and age/species paraphilias to sexual orientations like homosexuality set all of my alarm bells off. Giving serious MAP or MAP apologist vibes.
Quite comical really, three men trying to have a serious debate on how women feel around blokes with sexual perversions, fetishes & general sexual deviance. Rudy had a good go at it whilst that Phil appears to have tin ear. Just because women opt for self preservation rather than speaking their mind to his face doesn't actually mean acceptance.
Rudy is so right that women would not approach Phil if they feel uncomfortable. I think what i don't like is that it is not about the clothing itself , it is the fact that it is specifically for women that makes me uncomfortable. Men wearing kaftans that can look exactly like dresses , and men wearing unisex clothing however brightly coloured or 'feminine ' do not bother me , but it feels different when the clothing is specifically made for women, because it is not then about the clothing it is about the fact that it is a fetishization of women.
Being attracted to oneself pretending to be a woman is not an orientation- it's a paraphilia, or a kink. Turning up publicly in your fetish gear and subjecting everybody to it, is gross and highly disrespectful to other people.
@@tonyhoffman3309 ..well i guess you could also ask homosexuals not to be openly obvious about it in public ...they could keep it under the radar like everything else.
"I think you are speaking too much truth here Rudy so Im going to tell you that you are basically confused...to try to manipulate you into letting me have my way..." ANY survivor of narc abuse can spot this IMMEDIATELY....
For me it's the bit around 50min where he starts to explain to Rudy what Ben means. There's something intensely patronising and schoolteachery about it, something that says 'we're trying to help you understand this, because you're not quite up to the level we've reached, but it's ok, we'll keep on doing it until you acquiesce'... Feels like that point belongs under your comment.
As the cameras start one can see phil draws back, puts on sunglasses and closes off emotionally. He is pulling in his power, biding time as he chooses how to manipulate the situation. Ive listened to phil and know he has valid points. He also displays traits of a manipulator/narcissist.
@@hestercorner-smith7499 All I can see is a guy who has been the target of first a cancel campaign trying to explain that you can't universalise anything rudy is saying. Rudy is using all emotive language. Rudy;s sole argument is that if you have a kink it should limit what you can do. Wear a dress as long as there is no sexuality to it... we are humans our personallity is a driving factor for everything. A shoe fetishist doesn't have to go bear foot without consent.
My question for Phil would be how would he fulfill his sexual orientation if he was on an island with men and women with no material things around?Having sex with a woman while thinking of himself as one? Or just masturbating to the fantasy of himself being a woman? Does he enjoy the idea of other people seeing him as female? Or simply imagining himself as one? It gets into fetish territory if he requires a third party to validate him, IMO. This is what most trans-woman/AGPs seem to be like and what is inherently wrong to force other people into. I don’t think he’s being harmful by wearing a dress, I think people need to judge him by his actions. I appreciate that he doesn’t ask other people to think of him as a female. There’s no way to regulate what gender clothes people wear. But I do think he’s wrong that it is just like a regular orientation. Orientation is inherently about what sexual traits you are attracted to in other real life people, not figments of your imagination.
I was with him at first. Turns out hes just as inappropriate, sexualizing of women and wanting attention and validation as much as any other of the nutrans lot.
I was in a relationship with an agp trans woman for close to 2 years and yes , they get off on parading themselves as women and being affirmed and called “woman “ gets their dicks hard !
What if AGP is just an incel cope? They realize they’ll never have a girlfriend unless they become one for themselves? Are they a threat to anyone besides themselves?
This discussion considers how female strangers will feel about an AGP, but I would have liked to see some consideration of the impact on people close to the AGP. Is Phil's mother also supposed to "deal with her emotions"?
Exactly. Phil and most AGPs ignore the often devastating impact their behavior and "orientation" has on their immediate family and especially their wives or kids if they come out late in life. The complete self focus and self infatuation does have the potential to be very harmful to others. It's disingenuous to say otherwise.
My husband is AGP and it disgusts me... It keeps ramping up and is becoming competitive on his part... Always wanting to push to the "next level"... IM OUT...!!💯 10 years wasted...🙄
When a guy writes an “edgy” book and then acts out publicly to create a controversy around the subject matter of said book I’d say it’s more of a GRIFT than an orientation !
Whatever happened to the concept of the "dirty old man" a phrase we all used to use and was widely understood to be a creepy bloke acting sexually inappropriately in public. Thats all Phil is trying to wrap it up in academic jargon. He cant stop people recognising what hes about and telling him we dont want to be involved- like women did when they spotted him at Genspect. Young people get warned about sleezy men like this when theyre growing up and then go on to warn next generation.
Phil is not claiming to be a woman, not demanding pronouns of women, and not goingget not women's private spaces or sports. Yet plenty of other trans identified people were there who ARE doing all those things. They very well all may have the same condition Phil is describing (agp) yet they were not critical of them.
@@tonyhoffman3309Well if they had been in the photo they probably would have been. Anyone arguing for sexually inappropriately men to be around women, children and vulnerable young people really has to wonder what they are doing with their lives
@@ayeright320 It was a gender seminar... full of trans, detrans and etc. where are these droves of vulnerable women and children? Do they take primary schools to listen to gender seminars? There are plenty of photo's from this seminar. Did you jump on a hate train for everyone else too? He lives in Portland. have you been to portland?
Exactly and what makes it a paraphilia is that it is generally maladaptive. Being attracted to being something you can never be is never healthy. There are simply degrees to how unhealthy it is.
Thanks for expounding on why indulging it is harmful to the person who has this unfortunate condition. Labeling it a sexual orientation results in not treating the underlying conditions which cause it, and instead feeding the beast that is, as we can see, insatiable and devours the host.
@@tonyhoffman3309 excellent point!! Indulging in people’s sexual fetish and labeling it as a sexual preference is exactly the gateway to this mess we’re in.
Creep being creepy doesn’t want you to bring up your morals & ethics in a conversation about why others are upset about their creepy behavior. Imagine that.
Is/ought - the fundamental understanding of everything requires knowing the difference. Best would be if moustache man got the IS out of the way so could focus on the more important OUGHT, but he couldn't which made him look nothing but judgemental.
Describing "what is" is a much different, dispassionate/boring conversation. No one is arguing that y'all don't exist. We can debate terminology, but I'm personally against the continuous expansion and normalization of perversions. The interesting argument is what is the line of acceptable public behavior related to a creepy fetish? What historically has been out of bounds and why? Why is this OK now? Why does Phil get a pass over his more aggressive, less respectful AGP peers?
@@OrwellsHousecat We are all judging Phil - pretty much everyone on this thread finds him super creepy and we're not really interested in him trying to wrap his creep behavior up in some academic nonsense. It's like men going on and on and on about how they can be a woman and yet - they're a bloke and always will be
@@ayeright320 lots of people can come across as creepy (eg autistics who aren't using same social cues as you eg socially anxious people eg unusual people) so that alone is not a suitable foundation for ostracisation/demonisation - there may be better arguments but using 'ewww creepy' just comes off as mean girls and undermines any reasonable concerns you might have. He's playing the victim card, just like feminists did, so unless you adopt an alternative paradigm, you undermine all of the dominant paradigms (liberalism; feminism; minority-ism; victimism).
Wow it's almost like that didn't work before, won't work now and never will work because these people can't contain themselves and degeneracy breeds degeneracy. Remember when gays just wanted to be married? Now they just want to mess with your kids genitals. The answer is to shame and humiliate these people
Transvesticism isn't an orientation; it's a "philia". I have no problem with Phil's dress or where he wears it. I do have an issue with his push to have AGP or any philia labeled as a sexual orientation because that gains protected status in almost every jurisdiction in the US. We open the door for other philias to be considered orientations thus protected. Should pedophilia also gain protection as a sexual orientation? I think this dangerous.
I don’t think Phil “infringed” on females rights or consent or whatever, that’s a stretch. It’s more about why did a conference about safeguarding of gender confused children and detransitioners, promote the book of an agp about living within the fetish instead of overcoming it. Would you buy a book on how to get sober by someone who still drinks?
They didn't 'promote' it, though? He attended the event (was not jnvited). He was pictured holding his book and someone said, 'check this out' on Twitter. Not great. Also not promo. Just like me saying this does not mean I support Phil's overall 'AGP as a sexual orientation' contention (I don't). Basically, AGPs wearing 'women's' outfits publically is the same as rubber or latex fetishists wearing rubber or latex 24/7. They can say its a 'normal, comfortable' outfit for them as much as they like, but we know, and they know, it's about how it arouses them.
I love what Jonathon Pageau said about "fringe". He points out there's been a certain amount of tolerance society has for it. In some cases in it's right time and place when we even celebrate it. Once a year we have Halloween and express ourselves in ways that are fun or scary. In the Jewish religion there's a holiday called Purim where people let loose and have absurd plays and even get the green light to over drink. Cathedrals have gargoyles up on the steeple that have the purpose of scaring bad spirits away. However, we do not invite those gargoyles into the sanctuary! We can allow for a certain amount of fringe when we have strong boundaries and standards. In this day and age... we find the fringe demanding to be within those societal boundaries and it's not easy to know where the hard line must be drawn. The "inner self" with its wants and desires has become very powerful in today's world.
@@K10House In the old days the way Phil is dressed right now, would be considered comedy. Anyone who was an actual cross dresser turned on by it or not, would do it behind closed doors.
I’m sorry but it is true that women in general will immediately read someone dressed like Phil as a pervert. maybe it’s because you’re all men, but to pretend that’s not the case is just…wrong.
Thing is Rudy's pre-concieved ideas about Phil completely undermined his attack on Phil because in Phil's case, the cap doesn't (appear to) fit in terms of what the outrage mob would say about him and "his fetish". I feel like this conversation was very much about trying to shame Phil for things he hadn't done by people he hadn't done anything to. See my above post for why this subject engenders such strong views from some.
Rudy's only argument is that people don't like the outfit, and that by declaring a paraphillia you have removed certian behaviours. If Phil had been quite about paraphilia would the same mob be here? I am going to say yes. Rudy doesn't seem to know the difference between my emotions got hurt and a moral stance. There are 100's of paraphilia's and most of them no one cares about. So the argument is I don't like you in a dress. To say Prince wasn't using his clothes ina sexual kink way... ok. Sure Prince didn't sell kink as a brand....
@@Mayadanava32 positions in a one night stand... Just one thought, Prince was a fairly messed up individual, as, in my opinion, the large majority of celebrities are. He was certainly highly sex focused, and while many may be fine with that, I find it unnerving, and somewhat of a red flag.
Benjamin, your introduction of this debate was biased towards Phil, and trivializing of the actual issue. It’s not about “performing femininity”, and it’s not just women who are grossed out by Genspect. It’s this man acting out his fetish in public- and if you doubt that dressing up is a fetish, never fear- he wrote an entire book (or AI wrote it, as it seems to be the case) CONFIRMING that the clothes are integral to his fetish.
I think AGPs need to realize that most people have no issue with sexualized cross dressing. Doing it in PUBLIC or crossing boundaries into women’s spaces to feel aroused is predatory. It’s not cool. It’s harming the perception of actual trans people and it’s wrong.
There’s no such thing as “actual trans people”. Only men who hate women and girls who think being raped by their uncle in every orifice makes them a man.
@@wormwoodcocktail "girls who think being raped by their uncle in every orifice" So much class. Trans people hate and disrespect women but YOU allow yourself to write such graphic description of some women's traumatic experience. Quite exemplary hypocritical POS, aren't you? Thank you, you couldn't have shown your true colours in a better way.
Portland does have worse problems, true, but that allows people like this to go deeper into their creepiness in public. We need to bring common decency and higher standards of public behavior.
Christian victorian morals! I am all for it. I really do like ruffles and bodices. Corsets! 3 piece suits! And manners I want all the manners. I was born in India with Naga Baba's and agori's and Hidras. I think we need the decency police!
It reminds me of the military general who led a double life. He broke into females homes, put on women’s clothing, waited on them to get home and then killed them.
@@scherryvalentine9673 Col. Russell Williams? He’s far from the only one. A long time Boyce interviewed Jamie Shupe, the first non binary American, and an ex-military guy. He described wandering around his property in women’s clothing and cheating on his wife. Karen Davis made a bunch of videos re-iterating the abuse Shupe admitted to… and Boyce took down the video, everyone called Karen mean, and Shupe’s handmaid made a video saying she totally loves her husband and she’s not mad about the infidelity. All these men are the same and this isn’t the first time Boyce ran interference.
I’m disappointed in Boyce. He was so measured a few years ago. He had a lot of courage at the time, when he started his show off of that coo that went down at the college in Olympia.
That General's behavior progressed into that because addiction demands more and bigger thrills as long as it is practiced. Abuse accelerates, and there is a lot of abuse and control of others going on with these sexual kink addictions. We are doing no one a favor to pretend they are on a healthy path when they become addicted to these aberrant behaviors.
Feminists wanted to wear jeans because men do. And Feminists are upset they were not born a man. So they act manly and wear manly clothing. Because deep down they want to be men. Feminism is based on resentment after all. As to Sports Jerseys that's more of a community binding element and sign of who's team you are on. A Friend Enemy Distinction. Just more playful. As to sweats I think it's just comfort.
Ooh how could I miss then? I wear men‘s clothes almost constantly ( i e not feminine clothes, rather unisex or designed for males), just bc they are comfy and I DON‘T show any curves off, not female ones, not imagined male ones , in them, so it‘s quite the opposite I‘d say;)
Sure they do. However are we to believe that this is a "sexual orientation" the majority of women and girls have, and that wearing these clothes is because it makes women feel confident and strong like a man, while wearing dresses makes women feel submissive and demure?
It’s just like furries. If you’re turned on by the idea of you being in a fur suite, you should not have that on in public. It’s not the item, it’s the intention plus the knowledge provided. We wouldn’t know that this was a form of sexual gratification for you if you did not express that to everyone. That is why it is unacceptable in public. You’re including everyone in on your kink vs. it just being fashion. Ben, arguing you getting turned on by a woman in public with yoga pants on that just happens to pass by is a false equivalence. A more accurate comparison would be you knowing that yoga pants on women is a turn on for you, so you sign up for yoga classes with the INTENTION of seeing women in yoga pants, as it is sexually gratifying to you. It’s not a simple life pleasure; it’s a sexual pleasure. It’s a societal violation.
Separation anxiety leads to fetishization of the mother. Some fetishize breasts, some legs (in nylon stockings), some skirts, some feet..... When the fear of separation is intensified, there is a narcissistic reflection of this fetishization on oneself. In puberty, the sexualization of shame occurs, and in order to cope, men create this pseudo-personality, which has a dual role of reducing anxiety (which is essentially separation) and feeding the brain with dopamine through autosexuality. The problem is that it's a rabbit hole, and that's why people have the need to turn this wrong perception into a sexual orientation or even a religion such as a trans cult. In a simple sense, this term could be interpreted as an Oedipus complex without castration fear. Thus, narcissistic men have the problem of viewing women both as a mother and as an "object" of sexual desire, and then, due to an increased fear of separation, they cannot bear this duality of the female figure, which in the case of an "ordinary" heterosexual does not go beyond the fact that he is attracted to breasts, buttocks, feet or what not. And the biggest problem is that Western culture is so materialistic that it glorifies sexuality so much that it is difficult for a person with agp maladaptiveness to even understand the mother-sexual object paradox, because the mother part does not have a deeper spiritual-psychological context. Agp as a sexual orientation is ontologically wrong. I overcame my agp, honestly and without hesitation to admit that I had this problem, but in order for someone to be treated for it, which is not easy, he must first admit that he is sick. Or he doesn't have to, so he tries to make quasi-theories so that other people can confirm him. The same thing is with the tran cult, because the root of the problem is the same.
This may be the root for some for sure. It seems to have a lot of other comorbid mental health, or trauma based issues, as well as seems very common in some with developmental differences like autisim
Phil's entire 'understanding' of his perversion is simply a set of logical arguments he has come up with to excuse his behaviour. So of course he doesn't care what other people think, or what societal norms are and the social contract of boundaries. Rudy you were brilliant, Benjamin you need to have a think!
I think women, in general, & by majority, shy away from public sexual displays from men. Rudy accurately describes Phil's dress as a public display of his sexuality. So, our immediate response to Phil's dress would be discomfort & it would take getting to know him a bit to understand his reasoning for the dress & not feel threat. Most of us aren't going to go to those lengths unless we need to for some reason. Reasonable women will be polite, but we'll likely instinctually avoid him. The reaction he is getting online is women verbalizing the discomfort they feel, and no, Phil doesn't have to change because of those feelings but he'd probably sell more books if he took it into consideration.
He has, including the detransitioned woman and many other women at the Genspect meet that "feminists" seem to wanna treat like little children with no ability to think.
Phil and Ben are engaging in sophistry here b/c if Phil is only aroused by the X-dressing part of his paraphilia some of the time do women only get to withdraw consent after the erection becomes too obvious to ignore? We all know what this is about and we see how Ben and Phil are conflating issues here. AGP is not a sexual orientation it is about heterosexual men w/ a paraphilia, an erotic fixation, who instead of keeping it private choose to display it in public and force women and everyone else to consent to it. Heterosexuals and homosexuals are oriented to another human w/ whom they are in a mutually consensual relationship. AGP males are narcissistically oriented toward themselves as what they desire to be and are aroused by that in the company of others who did not consent to be part of their publicly staged paraphilia play. And the ridiculous notion that women have to be dressed like beekeepers in public as they are in some Islamic countries b/c men can't control themselves is outrageous, that's men's problem. And to suggest women get turned on by how they dress be that as more so-called feminine or masculine is to have no understanding of women.
I tried to just listen and did for awhile. Just creepy vibes from the guy in the dress. I’ve got sons his age and it just made me feel pity for him. It doesn’t change the fact that I would stop in my tracks if he or anyone like him was in a public women’s space when I was. My understanding is that mental health has pulled back on really treating this disorder and a few others the past few years. No one wants accused of and charged with conversion therapy. Lots of factors here but I do think porn is a huge culprit.
Porn is a HUGE factor amongst the vast majority of current manifestations of both agp and hsts type trans. So is sexual trauma, child sexual abuse, mental illness, personality and developmental disorders, which continue to go unacknowledged and untreated or badly "treated" with pharmasurgical drag, and social engineering.
You can perhaps understand then, why many in the gay community (not “queer”) are concerned that “trans” is a type of MEDICAL conversion therapy that is making a lot of people money (including the government) in a giant social experiment that’s going to leave a lot of people very damaged. As we have seen with detransitioners, particularly on this channel.
As a gay man, I'm so disappointed with Rudy. We gays know exactly what it means to have attractions that the majority of people don't feel. He doesn't get that effeminate gay men lived for ages the same kind of stigma that he is now targeting to AGPs.
why does benjamin not get this isn't like him being attracted to females and around females... this is at minimum like wearing a bdsm collar or fetish gear or vibrator in public. it doesn't matter that he thinks it's oriented "towards himself" he's oriented towards an object (clothes/gender stereotype items) and thinks because he is self obsessed and thinks of the objects on himself that makes it special. it's like if someone who is into masochism thought they could be masochistic in public as long as its enacted towards themselves. whats worse is at least the masochist doesn't necessarily have a layer of their fetish that includes getting off on the reactions of others (gender euphoria), phils does. to bring it back around to benjamins misunderstanding this would be like if a dominatrix wore her gear and torturing tools in public and specifically around men so she could see their disgust and anxiety about her (obviously ball crushing) tools and then pretended like it wasn't voyeuristic and was just an "orientation" and needed to be accomodated as an "identity" that revolved around her own perception/euphoria of herself as a dominatrix.
Seems to me the crux of the discussion was: a)when can and can’t someone wear something that they feel sexy/sexual in or when others feel they are feeling that way. b) at what point is it acceptable or not acceptable if someone is sexually aroused to some degree in public and other people are unwilling participants in that. Not sure any of it got ironed out. I think people just hear the term AGP and it’s too emotive to allow a reasoned debate. To be honest on screen the two guys debating looked as it they were wearing similar outfits, v neck tops one with sleeves the other without, one more pastel than the other, equally camp.
@@wormwoodcocktail I dont think thats it. Phil has a weird way of making you feel like you are wrong for not supporting him. Hes very manipulative and I think Ben has become a victim of that and not realised it. He will get it soon I assure you. Hes not stupid.
@@LusciousTwinkle Hopefully. But like, every man I know IRL *hates* AGPs. Whenever I see men defend them / trans rights I just assume their closeted. It’s pessimistic. Here’s to hoping you’re right and I’m wrong.
Dress however you want, love whoever will have you etc has met a wall here in the fact that seeing a man in a frock clearly causes some raised eyebrows. I have watched this unfold on X and can see why people are pissed off. We have eyes and yes, we can see who is sexually motivated by what they wear It’s like the ‘how do you know the good transwoman from the bad man scenario How do you know who is the pantomime dame and who is mentally getting off Something is off here and regardless of the mental gymnastics from Phil and Benjamin, I think most people know it
Exactly. The trans movement’s objectives are (partially) to shame women and children from detecting predators. That’s what feminists mean when they say “pronouns are rohypnol”. Even for straight men, there is an obvious agenda of undermining consent. The desire to do away with “gay panic laws” means the right to sexually assault straight men with impunity, and to criminalize self-defence. People can just tell when things are weird and sexual. Trans ideology has told us those feelings are bigoted.
My thing is, if AGP really is a sexual orientation, just one where the person is sexually satisfied by something turned inward instead of outward, why does he need to do it outside his home? I mean, the vast majority of us aren't wearing sexy clothes when we get dressed for the day if we don't leave the house and no one else is there, because there's no one to see it and be attracted by it. We want to attract others, whether same sex or opposite sex or both and they are outside our home, so we find situations where we can get dressed up and go out to meet people. But an AGP can just do that at home. They don't need to involved the rest of us if it's an orientation, because they've already found their 'spouse,' themselves. But if it is a fetish, one that involves being SEEN by others as sexual in certain presentations, then it makes sense they have to go out looking like a stripper even though they aren't even going to an event where a woman actually seeking a male partner would dress like that.
Thank you for this conversation, these ideas are stretching and challenging. I would like to be able to say 'dress how you please' but I realise that i am uncomfortable with that . I don't want to see men in fetish gear, and it is difficult for liberals to admit to not being as liberal as they would like to be. I also dislike seeing young teenage girls in skimpy clothes - usually because I think they look cold, and because I know that the focus from men towards them is on what they look like not who they are - that saddens me. I think Rudy makes some very good points about it not being just about being a danger to women, it is also about making women feel uncomfortable. I do not like to see men in corsets and mini skirts , and definitely the Lolita vibe Rudy describes is disturbing. Phil makes me uncomfortable because he understands the reaction that his clothing will provoke - that it will make women uncomfortable , but he still does it anyway. At times i would say ok, that is fair enough, he has a right not to accept the conventional dress codes, but there are contexts where it is inappropriate Even the most liberal of people have limits of what is comfortable , but we don't usually know what they are until we are directly faced with them. For example the teacher in Canada with the massive fake tits was thought to be unacceptable by most people, because it was so obviously sexual and insulting - but what size of fake breast is ok for men to wear? because the same people who would think it is ok for a man to wear an average size of fake tits would object to the massive fake tits .
Regarding the skimpy clothes that girls wear and the often matronly clothes that women wear, is based a lot on what is available and affordable in department stores for working class ppl. Young girls clothing sections full of half t-shirts with shorty top pants. Padded bras for 7yr olds. Etc. Many girls and parents shop in the boys wear dept for their daughters. (And for themselves)
That Rudy fella is not the sharpest tool in the shed. I don't know what the deal is with this other Phil guy, but he made more sense. Congrats Ben for another intriguing discussion!
As an grandmother it appears to me that Phil is receiving loads of gratification, sexual or otherwise, for his attention grabbing fashion choices. There is a huge amount of payoff for him. I do suggest he stay in Oregon. The big world would not be kind to him.
Rudy feeling the need to apologise at the end was deeply saddening. Boyce and Phil's enforcement of word soup and #bekind was complete in making a man feel shit about defending his sexual orientation and women from a paraphilic, sociopathic buffalo bill. A horrible watch.
I think Benjamin’s point is that unless a man explains why he’s crossdressing in public no one would know. Phil should not be singled out as getting off on other people’s experience of his crossdressing because he’s terminally online as an AGP.
Live and let live. It is always actions not intentions which matter. How is Phil hurting anyone? What does it matter what he wears? It is what is in a person's heart that matters. I appreciate the tone of the discussion. It was interesting and informative.
Apparently, this man Phil, can completely change the definitions of what orientations, fetishes, and paraphilias are because he has the qualification of having a paraphilia??? Is that all it takes? I guess smoking no longer causes cancer because i smoke! I'm the expert! 🙄
Phil: "and then you want to embody it, it doesn't mean you hate the category of thing that your embodying " Women are the "thing" he is referencing. This attempt to legitimize a porn induced fetish as a legitimate sexual orientation, and the idea that it is unreasonable for people to be expected to keep their fetish out of public life is a position I wouldn't have expected here.
This needs to be talked about because it affects boys and men's lives more than it can ever effect any number of women . I don't like it but i know this exists AND there actually is research in the area . Go and try to shame the 10,000 women that suck very young boys into their spider web for money You know that is happening or you put your head in the sand over because it girls,women doing it using their OVERT sexuality.
This is so true, I am finding myself involved with these fetishes unwanted, but my romantic and sexual feelings about others are very much so separate from this. This is largely porn induced. If I hadn't been exposed to that shit I would have sexual fantasies aligned with that of the romantic/sexual fantasies I organically have about others. I knew I was bisexual before I had any sexual fantasies, and my legitimate interests are in some very healthy things (dependable women, strong fun exciting men, masculinity in both men and women) these are orientation, then there is fetish (furry, feminization, BDSM, etc) those things are both directly disconnected from my legitimate orientation, how I live my life (a happily masculine, openly bisexual, well regarded within my community man). These things can go one of two ways, obsession (Phil) and avoidance/ending/loss of the fetish. Being self aware enough to know that this is occuring within yourself allows you to be in control.
@@non_ideological_transexual7414 Adult man who pretends to be a woman blames women for men choosing to spend money on e-thots and prostitutes. Claims to be non-ideological. Can you please just dilate with a cactus already
There is a reason why bedrooms have a door, keep it shut. Society is shouting that acting out on sexual fetishes in public is not tolerated. Phil is a classic narcissist, this is all about power and control. He's his own god, just look at the difference in camera angles between the three of them. Benjamin was on board with an AGP's comfort level and that that's more important regardless if the vast majority of women have an instinctual fear for their safety and the safety of their children around those who are acting out sexual fetishes in public. I've felt this fear many times. This was a two against one 'conversation'. Benjamin, the moment that you agreed with Phil and said AGP is an orientation, I unsubscribed, you are an imminent danger to all women. Thank you Rudy!
Strangely I think I have noticed a pattern regarding the sides of trans debate. Broadly speaking. (Mother's+lesbians+gay men) VS ( AGPs, straight men, young leftist women) I think on some level you are absolutely right but unfortunately society has lost any desire to protect women. So invoking protect "women" is unlikely to lead to a response. saying women need "protection" maybe an insult to women. And if we can teach AGPs about their sexual condition they will be unlikely to inadvertently harm women. In our quest for equality and morally neutral society we may just have to accept Phil wearing clothes we may not agree with, or find flattering. And that is that! Else we can go back to imposing our version of morality on individuals thereby limiting personal freedom... Which could come back to haunt us because there are people who consider homosexuality morally wrong and mentally ill perverts, and who think morally women ought to cover up and stay home.
@@carlo.m5233 1) The LGB sub-population with the highest rate of support for transsexuals is lesbian women. Additionally, straight men are the *least* likely to support transsexuals. 2) I think the balance that should be reached is acknowledging differences between men & women while stressing the need for individual freedom of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 3) I agree too that teaching AGPs about their sexuality will make them more aware of their actions. However, it doesn't cure gender dysphoria but only contextualizes it in a useful, evidence-based manner. 4) 100% agreed. I have to live in a society with misandrist radfems, and misandrist radfems have to live in a society with autogynephilic transvestites and transsexuals. Heterogeneity is what makes our civilization thrive. Sometimes people with irreconcilable differences have to learn to tolerate each other. I am on-board with your negative freedom view of this issue. The people who jump straight to social conservatism as a solution to them feeling uncomfortable make me very afraid for the future.
@@jovazquez6102Gay people do “keep it in the bedroom.” If they were like Phil- then they would be having sex with members of the same sex in public. BEING gay in public isn’t a problem. Performing what are sex acts to you, in public, is.
It's funny how men who dress in women's clothing always choose the most stereotypical women's clothing. It's funny how Phil chooses dresses in his wardrobe rotation and then claims they don't have anything to do with his AGP. Edited to add: Phil's wardrobe here looks like a costume.
They choose the most exaggerated cartoonish version of whatever female stereotype they're into most. I don't think it's an accident that they always seem to choose degrading/ridiculous outfits when "dressing like women"--mocking us seems to be part of the sexual gratification.
As Benjamin says, 'how can we tell the difference between a fashion choice ( man in dress) and a guy who is getting off in front of us without our consent and often is predatory in intent. We can't. So keep out of women only spaces primarily for our safety, but also for our privacy and dignity. Aside of that, I love to explore the human experience and so interested in the conversation with hopefully as open mind as possible
@@nietkees6906Within the conversation is the question of acceptance of AGPs. The question of consent is being discussed. Nearly all women I discuss with are not comfortable with men in dresses who are AGP in their private spaces. Phil is not interested in those spaces but other AGPs most definitely are.They enjoy making women uncomfortable. Most AGP's do appropriate womanhood.
@sarahbartlett4945 both agp and hsts appropriate, womenhood. Some women are more accepting of hsts in women's spaces, because they don't see them as a threat, and some men are ok with it because they are attracted to transvestite males (GAMPS) as hsts make it possible for them to deny their own homosexuality, and attraction to feminized men. The majority don't seem to see the homophobia and sexism (both misogyny and misandry) which manifests in cross sex ideation and expression.
Boyce is giving GAMP, the way he is so unwilling to hear Rudy, and how blindly he seems to defend Philly. Also, next time turn off your mic, Boyce, so we aren’t hearing your sighs.
@@ASlightlyTwistedFemale , Benjamin has forgotten that the AGPs, for years invaded women`s spaces like prisons, shelter, locker rooms. spas and sports, are the ones who are at fault that the distrust in any man who might dress more feminime is on the rise in the first place. They are the ones who started the avalanche and innocent non-comforming men have to pay the price.
@@littlebird2573 Rudy didn't respond to any promts, he insulted and made moral claims and then claimed gass lighting and that he can speak for all women. He didn't engage in any meaning conversation he repeated the same talking point for 90 minutes. He had no good faith. He was a rude, emotional and on the attack. He is a bigot and tedious. And yet this whole comment section is glorifying rudy for being angry on the internet. I dont like the look of a man in a dress and I justify it with emotion rants. It is not a good argument.
Most of what Phil says regarding his respect for sex segregated spaces, and not denying his sex, and gnc attire for both sexes is reasonable. Where there is disagreement is his assertion that any man or woman who expresses themselves in a culturally gnc manner, has some degree of agp/aap, and not just people who recognize their sex encompases aspects of the other and so express that. It's also the denial of it as a paraphillia, which is symptomatically related to other underlying mental health issues, means there is no consideration given to how feeding into this sexuality may not lead to the best outcomes for ppl that have this type of sexuality, as it does not address the often serious mental illnesses, trauma, personality and developmental disorders which underpin it, so they continue to go untreated and unhealed.
I can respect an honest autogynophile; if that's what you're into, if you just want to wear women's clothes and mind your own business, whatever man. It seems like the problems are caused by the ones for whom being seen as and treated by others, and are the ones pushing policies like men in women's prisons and sports etc. You can tell a gay guy: "You're a homosexual, a person who enjoys intercourse with others of the same sex," and he'll be like, "hell yeah, dude. I'm all about that." If you tell an autogynophile, or at least some of them, "You're a man who is sexually aroused by the idea of yourself as a woman", some of them respond with rage because that ruins the illusion. I'm totally against all these trans-activitst pushed policies, and all the gender ideology BS. We're a sexually dimorphic species; get over it. But from what I've heard here, it sounds like Phil understands and accepts reality, and is making more sense. The word "fetish" really is kinda useless...it kinda just means anything that's uncommon and stigmatized. As one of those guys who's turned on by women's feet... It is kind of like an orientation in that it's not something I chose; I was like that since my earliest sexual thoughts. It always seemed weird for me to call it a fetish... That makes me think of latex and people who get off on popping balloons. It's a part of a woman's body, and it's just like boobs basically. Some guys are into boobs, some are into butts, and a smaller but still sizeable percentage are into legs and/or feet. How is that in the same category as being turned on by objects? You could say why feet, well why boobs? Why butts? There are evolutionary reasons presumably, but no one ever justifies it in those terms. Yet I've never heard of a boob fetish or a butt fetish. Even though some guys are really obsessed sometimes to a creepy degree. And by the definition I heard here, "attraction to a non-genital body-part or object" they would be. It's kind of rich for a gay guy to be ranting about perversions. It was regarded as a perversion almost throughout all of history until a few decades ago. Like Phil says, the perception was changed through activist pressure, not any kind of discovery. It surely is a "defect" if anything is, from an evolutionary point of view; how and why it even exists is still an unresolved question, AFAIK. Now, naturalistic fallacy etc, evolution has produced some truly horrific behaviors, so doing what "nature" "indends" isn't necessarily good, but... Rudy's arguments mostly just come down to what is normative and socially acceptable, which, like I said, is a bit ironic coming from a gay dude.
AGP and sado masochism are interlinked. AGPs have females as the subordinate gender category, hence sissy porn. When he turns up to a potentially hostile audience of GC women and men, it’s because he is getting off on the power play, the S and M experience. The women and men at the conference weren’t there to give him a thrill. You need to get Genevieve Gluck on to explain what he is getting out of this.
That's exactly right. That's why they often tend to explain their fetish by explaining how their sexuality is typically female, and the proof is that they want to be submissive and be looked at and used as an object. An entirely culturally seeded understanding of female sexuality. Just pure unadulterated misogyny.
Integration of one's cross sex ideation into healthy acceptance of the reality of one's sex, and gender non conformity, is very different than what Phil is doing. By not recognizing the difference between paraphillia and sexual orientation, he is denying that paraphillia are aquired, not inborn. This also ignores any acknowledgement of the underlying causes, and much better treatment options than indulging the paraphillia which takes over ones life and nearly always destroys the person effected.
How are paraphilias acquired? Are there any elements of individuals who have them that mean they're predisposed to them? This is a genuine, non goady question, I think it's really important to know how we know this...
@tonyhoffman3309 The etiology of homosexuality is not clear. The "born this way" argument is based on the immutability of orientation that homosexuals experience. Not on any true scientific studies on the etiology of homosexuality. From the literature that I've read, and from the anecdotal experiences I've had in gay dating, I think etiology is multifactorial. Both nature and nurture.
Is attention-seeking a sexual orientation? This is obviously the reason why he dresses like a woman in public. Why he does it in private is not the issue...
Not to mention, it’s only a CERTAIN type of women’s clothing…he wears clothes that expose his body in a sexual way. He’s not wearing a pantsuit or just a simple baggy sweater and jeans.
The same can be said of how individual women dress though - some dress modestly, and some hyper sexualized. When men dress as women, they most often dress the latter.@@tablescissors
I like Rudy but I'm not sure he was maybe the best person to have this discussion. Heather Heying would have been a far better bet and also maybe we'd hear more about Phil's interesting ideas than just about his mode of dress. Can't help wondering about Benjamin's process choosing Phil's 'opponent'!! :P
HSTS,AGP,and GAMPS, all have a strong element of homosexual denial, sexist limiting and rigid views of both men and women, and autistic or misogynistic concept of sexuality. The term auto heterosexual is inaccurate as is autogynaphilia as the "female" is not based on love or attraction to actual women but to their male conception of femininty placed over a male body.
@@red-ringedoctopus6336 thank you for getting this. AGP being characterized as in anyway "heterosexual" is the problem because it is based on attraction not towards actual women, but on their conception of what a women is.
Ruby was very rude through the whole debate. Then he got insulted by the word "queer" which Phil only mentioned as a field of study not an adjective or pejorative. And Phil apologized even thought there was no need. While Rudy kept using the word "perversion" throughout. :/ Also.... The comment section is just.... I don't even know...
I honestly don't care about the dress. Going from other interviews, Phil doesn't believe it makes him a woman or use womens spaces, so whatever. Theres no way to police what peoples intentions are with the way they dress. As long as its "normal" clothing, I dont think there's anything anyone can do. And its not like he's being inappropriate. We only know Phil is AGP because he's been straight up about it, hes trying to make it so young men can admit what motivates them, and not go on about them being an actual woman, which is helpful to the movement. I dont get why a mountain has been made out of the dress.
Can anybody explain to me what issue did that man have with AGP men and consent? How exactly are they behaving in non-consensual way? Is that any different than heterosexual man having sexual thoughts about random women they see on the street? Because as a woman, I don't think I ever gave a consent to such thoughts either. Am I supposed to be offended that he wears clothes designed for women? Because I am not. Sorry but I find it especially distasteful when a member of a sexual minority tries to feel morally superior to a member of a different sexual minority, when it comes to a fetish that doesn't break anyone's consent. He acted as if having a paraphilia automatically meant behaving in a non-consensual way which is an abysmally ignorant opinion. Did he just compare transvestism to bestiality? That's outrageous. And no, paraphilia is not sexual orientation and I wouldn't necessarily see AGP as a malignant fetish either. All depends on how honest are the ones who have it with their potential partners.
Phil here is adhering to the DSM-5 definitions of sexual orientation, meaning that whatever arouses you makes it a sexual orientation. Example from DSM-5 is the dreadful "pedophilic sexual orientation" and "pedophilic disorder" - the first one refers to the supposed sexual attraction to children without acting on it because of moral reasons, and the other one is a disorder because it makes the individual suffer because of those feelings. Like Phil, DSM-5 doesn't think those feelings and thoughts alone are the problem, but they are. That's why this or attraction to animals etc. cannot be comparable to the three sexual orientations. Because beside consent, hetero and gay couples can form not only consensual relationships but build mutual love and respect. It's one of the types of relationships that teaches us about us in relation to other people and makes us develop skills to deal with other people, in a similar fashion that friendships do. There is nothing to be learned, developed and enjoyed when you have an autosexual relationship with yourself. It's like hitting a brick wall. There is not another person there who will help you grow into a better human being and vice versa, which constitutes a quality sexual/romantic relationship. This is why it's paraphilic. With necrophilia, zoophilia and pedophilia, there is either no other person there, or the other person is dead or severely underdeveloped and therefore mutual nourishing relationship cannot be achieved by design. Failed or bad hetero or homo relationships are not failed or bad by design. Secondly, AGP is a paraphilia that cannot possibly be categorized as another form of heterosexuality, as Phil says, by nature of him being male. The imagining of himself as a female doesn't create that female in the flesh, unlike heterosexuality. Every sexual orientation involves people, one way or another, that exist. Sure, straight men can fantasize about women that don't exist, but they also fantasize about women who do exist and feel attracted to real live women, which makes them heterosexual. The same with homosexual males and females, but when your supposed orientation begins and ends only with yourself and yourself is a male, how can that be another form of heterosexuality?
I like Rudy, but his consent arguement is dogshite. Sexual orientation doesn't require consent from others to exist - it just does. He's referring to the engagement of fetishism. That's just sloppy communication.
Hes saying practicing your fetish or sexual orientation requires the consent of others. I am a medical professional, I am bisexual, does that mean I can practice being bisexual in the company of my patients? Absolutely not! That is a violation of their privacy, consent, respect, and my responsibility. That applies in every situation!
@@kennysboat4432 I believe you've misunderstood what I meant. Sexual orientation is a constant aspect of whom you are, such as your eye and hair colour. That requires no consent from anyone, it simply is. What does is whether you chose to engage in sexual acts around others. Engaging with sex is seperate to having a sexual orientation.
Was there anything resolved? Probably not. Was this a necessary conversation? For sure! Thank you to Benjamin and his guests for taking the time to discuss, debate, and keep it as civil as possible regardless of their personal stance.
With things like this, I like to strip away 'modernity,' then play it out in my mind how this might manifest without modern day luxuries. I don't think this exists outside the world of affluence. I can't place my finger on it but, there's something so "sociologically artificial" about this behavior. And I don't even really know what that means. Sex roles are nearly a human universal. Human beings really prefer what is familiar to them. If you are going to step outside that box, you really ought to have something worthwhile to bring to the world. And I think you bare the responsibility to ensure the meek are not unduly influenced by your sub-optimal behavior. We all oppress ourselves in one fashion or another to fit in. It's what keeps the peace. 🐿
Great point! This guy is narcissistic and manipulative. Before this was a thing, he probably would have been a plain old sexual exhibitionist/voyeur. He’s just a sex offender, but he’s manipulative about it. Not even particularly clever about it, just lucky to get backed up by misogynistic men and their slavish handmaidens.
39:06 Ben confronts Rudy’s BS “consent” rhetoric. Rudy seems rather thick, and I am loosing interest because he just doesn’t get it. Ben needs to improve his moderation skills. Ben’s comments about yoga pants and Burkas was on point, but it seemed to elude Rudy…
Since its been established that this is a paraphilia, at what point is it unhealthy? How should we address this within psychology and society? When should we intervene? How should it be treated? If one is unhappy with it, or is hurting others/self how should we help those people? How should it be prevented?
Thank you for this conversation. Just jumping in the comments to say great seeing you wearing that ring. Stellar couple. Humanity needs more people like you building a quality life together. Cheers!
These men aren't well-matched for a debate. Rudy is unfamiliar with social science and humanities approaches, methods and terms (can't for example differentiate descriptive and prescriptive) whereas Phil is. They can only talk past each other.
I don't see AGP as being a distinct separate orientation in the same way as homosexual is different from heterosexual.. However AGP may very well be a distinct varriation of heterosexuality. That being said, all fashion is an outward expression of who we are and what makes us comfortable. I have zero issues with Phil wearing a dress whenever or wherever he wants. Some gay men are turned on by (and fetishize) Levi's 501s or leather jackets. If a gay man chooses to wear something he also finds attractive on other men (or himself) it doesn't mean he's subjecting everyone else to his fetish just by his choice of clothing
Jeans are not an entire social construct or gender identity. Even Phil admits that he considers certain clothes to be “male” and doesn’t want to wear them. He prefers to wear clothes designed for young women to expose themselves in a sexual manner. Not housecoats. You really should listen to this entire show, they covered the points in your comment repeatedly. Your argument could be made to those who have recently attempted to be in public dressed as dogs*, in example. *which includes ppl in government, at this point.
Rudy was right on at 1:02, the point being that women have always had to be on the lookout to identify a predator and while Phil might never want or attempt to harm anyone, other people, women, don't know that. Phil is pretending. He is not respecting others... he is not a woman so perhaps he just can not see the perspective of women. I'm sure there are places where he is fine but other places not. I am a senior woman and never in my wildest dreams could I ever have imagined so many men wanting to wear dresses. These people are pushing the boundaries and mostly women will suffer. Autogynophiles have already hurt girls and women in female spaces. Again maybe Phil would never do this but he is propping up others who would.
I found Rudy's points to be convincing and quite powerfully conveyed. As for Phil, well, he never really conveyed his points clearly. He was just defensive and combative the entire debate as if his kink was reasonable because it was his kink. And why did he feel the need to show up in women's clothing to discuss issues with two men. Does he think that he must always feel sexual gratification no matter who he is interfacing with. Sorry, that might work in Portland, but I, for one, am not in Portland and I just couldn't get past that.
I suspect Phil is conflating instict with moral judgement. As a woman I would instinctually shy away from a man in a dress. Phil even says that having/being AGP has a high correlation of additional compounding mental illness. It's obvious, it is _instinctual_ to a woman-an immediate signifier of instability and danger and thus to be avoided. Now maybe meeting Phil and conversing you could suss out that he's 'safe', but as a general instinctive preservational device, shying away from a man in a dress is not a moral judgment.
Agreed. However, a good deal of GCs don't seem to heed that advice. Rather, they act as if their instinct is the infallible word of god, and they get offended for somebody else, who was clearly fine hanging out with him. It's instinctual to fear what you don't understand, and that gut reaction is 100% valid. The difference between bigots and curious people is what they choose to do about it.
If an adult male has a 'baby' fetish wearing baby clothing eg diaper..would that be appropriate to wear in public? Where is the acceptable standard in public? That would be creepy assss.
Is it just me, or was this just a whole bunch of mansplaining, from BOTH sides?? 🤔 I NEVER thought I'd have been even a bit offended by Rudy's (anybody's!) dismissiveness of, and hypocrisy of AGPs rights to just be.... but I was. I don't like hearing ANY man, say how most of us actual women feel about being a woman and how we feel, and whether my consent was given, or not..in everyday public spaces. I NEVER thought I'd start feeling bad about any AGP's right to wear what they want, when they want, but I was!! I take ppl on an individual level, and don't see the big deal in Phil wearing what he wants, when he's not hurting anyone, or even trying to access women's spaces. There's PLENTY of homosexual behaviours I have to witness, usually on the daily, that can be far more offensive and done in public....without my 'consent' even being considered, let alone _given!!_ I'm no homophobe, I'm just saying. I absolutely understand and agree on what Rudy was saying, but he just came off as being very intolerant and judgemental, and he clearly seems to be forgetting that homosexuals were once considered a massive perversion! The only problem I saw with Phil, (at this point) is his hideously AWFUL choice of _'feminine'_ clothing, but not the fact it was 'feminine' clothing in itself!! 😅
Phil has the better of the argument. He is pointing out things which are the logical conclusion of the gay rights movement, however inconvenient they may be for Rudy. And I am not supportive of transgenderism.
while i don't think agp is a valid orientation, the hysteria in the comments is wild... tbf i don't really know the context of phil wearing the dress. so it could be justified? but rudy said phil should only wear feminine clothing inside his room lmao?? no. you can turn off the sexual side of your brain when needed. like.. people can be near others that they're sx attracted to (girlfriend, boyfriend, crushes) without "actively getting off", when you're focused on something else you just.. don't always think of it. or if you do, you can distract yourself from those thoughts. so.. i think it's silly. even when it's a fetish. i would guess that most people with a piss kink can use public bathrooms without losing their minds. you don't know if someone in the stall next to you has a scat fetish or not. someone with a hand fetish sees hands like 24/7. idk.
![[Panel Discussion] Secondary Sanctions and the international legal order](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SLDd0MBTlPE/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Panel Discussion] Secondary Sanctions and the international legal order](/img/tr.png)
![fellow fellow - พรุ่งนี้ไม่มีใครรู้ feat. INK WARUNTORN [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QP6JyjYx_W0/mqdefault.jpg)
Obsessing over your identity in any form is a special kind of narcissism MOST of us don’t have the luxury of indulging in. Honestly, I’m starting to think these are just “privileged” people problems. If you were trying to build a shelter to live in, find food to eat and trying not to die from the elements this garbage would be the least of your priorities.
Embracing identity can actually have an effect on the ability to eat, be housed effectively, etc. I am currently studying the Mexican Revolution, and identity played a huge role. People couldn’t eat, didn’t have decent shelter, and identity was a giant factor in all of that because the whyte colonialists from Europe did swoop in, take all of the resources, didn’t share, told the indigenous and mestizo people that they didn’t deserve food and shelter because they didn’t “look right” and god didn’t choose them, and because of starvation the people had no choice but to rise up and revolt. Along with that revolution came a new embracing of indigenous Mexican identity, and that’s the world Frida Kahlo, for instance, emerged into as an artist and as the living embodiment and celebrant of traditional Mexican identity. So the argument that identity isn’t something people who are starving care about is just incorrect. Sorry.
People of one or another ethnic-religious background can definitely be ethnocentric and identity-obsessed as well - this can seem like a crutch, when they don't have anything more interesting going on.
We all thought covid would straighten them all out, or at least quiet the conversation. But, that didn't happen.
💯
problems in first world
I think the alarm against agp by trans is because so many of them are agp and DO NOT want it known.
This is exactly why I want insanely creepy men like Phil, to get as much spotlight as possible. It baffles me that so much of the "gender critical" scene want to HELP trans-activists, in sweeping AGPs under the rug, because they're gross and icky (which they undoubtedly ARE, of course).
The few AGPs like Phil, who are willing to ADMIT their AGP-ism, should be given all the attention they want- They're extremely valuable, because (even tho they try to down-play it) they'll admit to the dirty little secret that mainstream trans activists will NEVER speak aloud...
...That mtf's are motivated by sexual gratification.
Guys like Phil are valuable because (1) if any non-AGP says "these guys are motivated by sexual gratification", the trans-sympathetic public (ie the MOST important demographic to reach) will just dismiss that as "hateful transphobia"... but having an AGP say it about HIMSELF, can't just be dismissed like that.
And (2) the other reason why self-admitted AGPs are so valuable, and should be given as much spotlight as possible, is BECAUSE they're incredibly creepy, and unlikable, and come across as completely self-obsessed narcissists, universally fixated on their fetish, and immersed in an all-consuming entitlement, that they MUST be allowed to indulge their fetish, 24/7, WHATEVER the societal cost.
All the reasons why BOTH trans activists, AND much of the "gender critical" scene DON'T want guys like Phil given attention, are exactly why I want him, and others like him, given as much attention as possible...
You don't persuade the public to take action against a disease, by HIDING the uglyest aspects of that disease from them...
And one wonders why....
You can see how AGPs are part of the dangerous slippery slope to justifying pedophilia as a “sexuality”. And that is completely happening, the modern TRA movement is absolutely being used to shoehorn sex & sexuality upon children and to look at them as sexual.
I think it's frightening for parents to imagine this about their kids. I don't think as many of them are AGP as some might think, I don't think AGP is that common. I do think the internet is going to change that though. And for the rest too, the other 'philias.
Perhaps the language change from transexual to transgender was to take the emphasis away from sex? It also opened up the possibility of the "transgender child".
An important takeaway from this conversation is that AGPs know perfectly well that they are not women, and know they are interlopers into women's spaces. The idea that AGPs are in any way vulnerable or marginalised is a massive lie.
It’s a clear signifier of entitlement and perversion.
@tablescissors67 Yes! But don't get me started! The appropriation of gay identity and history under the label "queer" is so deeply offensive to me as a gay person, but I am expected to accept this as "progress". Every time I hear the phrase "LGBTQ community" I want to hit something with a stick. What links these people with homosexuals other than the vague sense that they are sexually abnormal?
Straight people calling themselves "queer" because they are flamboyant attention seekers is equivalent to white people calling themselves "n****r" because they like rap music and watermelon.
Phil claims to possess femininity.
But Phil does not enter women's spaces and doesn't claim to be a woman. The autogynephiles who do enter women's spaces do not know they are not women or at the very least claim not to know.
@@dambar7486you’d have to be incredibly naive to truly believe there’s a single AGP alive that doesn’t know they aren’t a woman.
If a gay man removes all of his clothing, he is still attracted to men. If an autogynephile removes all his clothing and adornments, is he still attracted to himself? If his attraction *requires* those things, to me, this doesn't sound like an orientation.
The autogynephile would still be attracted to himself in his fantasy. And if he had had "sex changing" operations he would also still be attracted to himself if he was naked.
@@nietkees6906 Being attracted to a fantasy or your permanently altered body doesn't sound like an orientation, either, though.
@unhurte8779 The question posed by the video is whether it is an orientation, and that's what I'm responding to. I didn't tell anyone what they can or can't do.
AGPs see a woman who’s a 10 in the mirror. They never see the man 3, even if he can see his own dick. His brain transforms it into a clit. Clothing just means he can do it in public to get maximum arousal from boundary violations.
as a trans woman, yes, i'm autogynephilic even when i take my clothes off.
Just don't say the wives "have to at least try out" sex role play. It is presented to us as as our obligation. We get hurt physically & psychologically. I have data from
54 trans widows. Our stories are not told in any kind of representative way, in which the collateral damage is recognized. This damages women, who are mothers.
Men are selfish ute. You know.
@Ute Benjamin should listen to your experience and compendium of Trans Widow’s testimony, if he really cares about understanding this phenomenon.
@@The-Finisher agreed and I’m sure many want and need to hear this.
Children of parents or siblings of ppl with agp or hsts transvestites would also be great to hear from.
It's Grooming Benjamin Grooming
I thought it was a debate? Why is it 2 vs. 1? Next time I’d be happy to team up with Rudy, if you want a fair 2 v 2
Would looove to hear you and Rudy have a discussion or debate someone!
The whole time I was watching, I was wishing you were in this conversation to correct all the bullshit comparisons they were making. The misogyny was insane, so basically women just need to get over it and be kind! I agree with what you said the other day, we need to bring shame back and stop telling girls/women to just be kind when they feel uncomfortable or unsafe.
Same here, I would love to come on and side with Rudy if hes being teamed on.
I would like to make it clear no one has told this man hes not allowed to wear dresses, he is allowed to wear dresses. Im allowed to say its gross when a man wears dresses while promoting his book about how that turns him on. He wants to be a creep and not have any criticism for it.
Would you feel the same about an hsts like blaire white?
His willingness to engage with criticism negates your claim that he doesn’t want to be criticized
@@BenjaminABoyceHe’s not engaging with criticism if he’s only talking to men.
@@wormwoodcocktail- That's utter nonsense. He's being criticized throughout this entire debate.
@@RachelRichards Has he talked to any women, though? Who actually push back on his behaviour? Or just centrists who coddle him?
No one would be stupid enough to let someone who's admitted to being a pedophile hang around little kids, even if said pedo isn't rock hard at that exact moment. Even if said pedophile genuinely just loves to innocently play with the kids 99% of the time. That 1% is still too much. Phil is trying to act like him not being turned on 24/7 by his sexual fixation suddenly makes it ok for him to openly display it, when it's not. I don't want the "non-offending" AGP to be normalized the same as I don't want "non-offending" pedos to be normalized.
Phil admitted to being more turned on by the clothes in the beginning, then he got desensitized to it to where it feels more mundane to him. That follows the evergrowing nature of fetish and paraphilia where the person constantly have to push further and further to get their hit. Seems a bit like when a porn addicted person mindlessly watches "vanilla" porn while feeling nothing anymore. Still doesn't make it ok for the person to openly watch porn among other people, despite the fact that he's not even turned on by it anymore.
Phil says he would feel uncomfortable in men's clothes, so he chooses to instead to push the uncomfort onto all the women around him by wearing women's clothes and being open about it being sexual for him. He still (at least in this video) seems to have no interest at all in finding the cause of his own discomfort to fix it, he's happy to just push it onto others instead. He's already picking his own comfort over the comfort of the vast majority of women, so why should women trust him to be a safe person?
Rudy was right when he said Phil seems unable to even imagine a man could wear anything feminine and not be an AGP, becuase he's so hyperfocused on his own sexual fixation. Or perhaps he is only pretending to think that to further his own case, who knows. I partly think buying into "gender" does that to you - suddenly you have to accept that every little action a person does is to express a feminine or masculine role/gender, when in reality most people aren't hyperfocused on the stereotypes of the sexes and they just exist in a neutral state. I think Benjamin has bought into gender too from what I've heard him say before, hence why he seems like he's mostly on Phil's side this episode.
Well put
10/10.
This really should be the top comment.
Not a fashion conversation, it is an appropriate attire conversation. Also, bringing it to peoples attention that, oh yeah, this is also sexually arousing for me , is problematic.
Rudy saying Phil's look is giving Buffalo Bill vibes is dead-on. I feel like Phil has been emboldened in how he presents himself now more and more since he was given a platform. I have listened to him quite a bit and now I am creeped out by him
GOODBYE TERFSES
I’M COOMING OVER YOU
@-BenjaminABoyce Is this actually you Benjamin? Or a fake account?
@@LusciousTwinkle Comments on a video made by the account that posted said video have the account name highlighted. If you see a similar-looking account without highlighting, it's trying to bait people into clicking the account to direct them to a scam and you should report for "Unwanted commercial content or spam".
Same
Same. Him comparing his paraphilia and age/species paraphilias to sexual orientations like homosexuality set all of my alarm bells off. Giving serious MAP or MAP apologist vibes.
Quite comical really, three men trying to have a serious debate on how women feel around blokes with sexual perversions, fetishes & general sexual deviance. Rudy had a good go at it whilst that Phil appears to have tin ear. Just because women opt for self preservation rather than speaking their mind to his face doesn't actually mean acceptance.
The point is that as long as a man is wearing pants (or a skirt) no one knows what’s going on behind it.
Rudy is so right that women would not approach Phil if they feel uncomfortable. I think what i don't like is that it is not about the clothing itself , it is the fact that it is specifically for women that makes me uncomfortable. Men wearing kaftans that can look exactly like dresses , and men wearing unisex clothing however brightly coloured or 'feminine ' do not bother me , but it feels different when the clothing is specifically made for women, because it is not then about the clothing it is about the fact that it is a fetishization of women.
Competition
A lot of clothes (eg dungarees eg suits) where typically male but wmn started wearing them, sometimes to make a statement
They always choose to wear what men consider’sexy’
@@OrwellsHousecat😂😂😂 as if
@@OrwellsHousecat r u deaf, still not for perversion or arousal
Being attracted to oneself pretending to be a woman is not an orientation- it's a paraphilia, or a kink. Turning up publicly in your fetish gear and subjecting everybody to it, is gross and highly disrespectful to other people.
it is what its is .. its not a decision to be this way ...at some point you just need to say fkc it this is who i am.
Is it tho? Is it not a choice to either refrain from or indulge in things we feel compelied to do?
Well said.
@@tonyhoffman3309 ..well i guess you could also ask homosexuals not to be openly obvious about it in public ...they could keep it under the radar like everything else.
@@bepitanOh. Say that to pedophiles.
"I think you are speaking too much truth here Rudy so Im going to tell you that you are basically confused...to try to manipulate you into letting me have my way..." ANY survivor of narc abuse can spot this IMMEDIATELY....
For me it's the bit around 50min where he starts to explain to Rudy what Ben means. There's something intensely patronising and schoolteachery about it, something that says 'we're trying to help you understand this, because you're not quite up to the level we've reached, but it's ok, we'll keep on doing it until you acquiesce'... Feels like that point belongs under your comment.
As the cameras start one can see phil draws back, puts on sunglasses and closes off emotionally. He is pulling in his power, biding time as he chooses how to manipulate the situation. Ive listened to phil and know he has valid points. He also displays traits of a manipulator/narcissist.
@@hestercorner-smith7499 All I can see is a guy who has been the target of first a cancel campaign trying to explain that you can't universalise anything rudy is saying. Rudy is using all emotive language.
Rudy;s sole argument is that if you have a kink it should limit what you can do. Wear a dress as long as there is no sexuality to it... we are humans our personallity is a driving factor for everything.
A shoe fetishist doesn't have to go bear foot without consent.
My question for Phil would be how would he fulfill his sexual orientation if he was on an island with men and women with no material things around?Having sex with a woman while thinking of himself as one? Or just masturbating to the fantasy of himself being a woman?
Does he enjoy the idea of other people seeing him as female? Or simply imagining himself as one? It gets into fetish territory if he requires a third party to validate him, IMO. This is what most trans-woman/AGPs seem to be like and what is inherently wrong to force other people into.
I don’t think he’s being harmful by wearing a dress, I think people need to judge him by his actions. I appreciate that he doesn’t ask other people to think of him as a female. There’s no way to regulate what gender clothes people wear. But I do think he’s wrong that it is just like a regular orientation. Orientation is inherently about what sexual traits you are attracted to in other real life people, not figments of your imagination.
I was with him at first. Turns out hes just as inappropriate, sexualizing of women and wanting attention and validation as much as any other of the nutrans lot.
I was in a relationship with an agp trans woman for close to 2 years and yes , they get off on parading themselves as women and being affirmed and called “woman “ gets their dicks hard !
In other interviews it seems that Phil thinks he has a female “soul” - discovered while taking a psychedelic.
@@tarolantern9729😂
What if AGP is just an incel cope? They realize they’ll never have a girlfriend unless they become one for themselves? Are they a threat to anyone besides themselves?
“I don’t like to put a lot of thought into what I wear.” Are. You. Serious.😂😂😂
This discussion considers how female strangers will feel about an AGP, but I would have liked to see some consideration of the impact on people close to the AGP. Is Phil's mother also supposed to "deal with her emotions"?
Exactly. Phil and most AGPs ignore the often devastating impact their behavior and "orientation" has on their immediate family and especially their wives or kids if they come out late in life. The complete self focus and self infatuation does have the potential to be very harmful to others. It's disingenuous to say otherwise.
My husband is AGP and it disgusts me... It keeps ramping up and is becoming competitive on his part... Always wanting to push to the "next level"... IM OUT...!!💯 10 years wasted...🙄
When a guy writes an “edgy” book and then acts out publicly to create a controversy around the subject matter of said book I’d say it’s more of a GRIFT than an orientation !
This guy gets it. No, Phil, we’re not buying your book where you defend medicalizing kids, you creep.
There is nothing 'edgy' about this man's book.
@@toni6053maybe “over the edge” is better? I don’t intend to waste any time reading it.
Whatever happened to the concept of the "dirty old man" a phrase we all used to use and was widely understood to be a creepy bloke acting sexually inappropriately in public. Thats all Phil is trying to wrap it up in academic jargon. He cant stop people recognising what hes about and telling him we dont want to be involved- like women did when they spotted him at Genspect. Young people get warned about sleezy men like this when theyre growing up and then go on to warn next generation.
Phil is not claiming to be a woman, not demanding pronouns of women, and not goingget not women's private spaces or sports. Yet plenty of other trans identified people were there who ARE doing all those things. They very well all may have the same condition Phil is describing (agp) yet they were not critical of them.
@@tonyhoffman3309Well if they had been in the photo they probably would have been. Anyone arguing for sexually inappropriately men to be around women, children and vulnerable young people really has to wonder what they are doing with their lives
The term "dirty old man" became politically incorrect when one was elected as our current President.
@@ayeright320 It was a gender seminar... full of trans, detrans and etc. where are these droves of vulnerable women and children? Do they take primary schools to listen to gender seminars? There are plenty of photo's from this seminar. Did you jump on a hate train for everyone else too?
He lives in Portland. have you been to portland?
@@MayadanavaGod no its an absolute sh%thole - why would anyone go there? There were women attacked there this week but these gender fascists.
AGP is not a sexual orientation.
Exactly!!
Exactly and what makes it a paraphilia is that it is generally maladaptive. Being attracted to being something you can never be is never healthy. There are simply degrees to how unhealthy it is.
@@paulondawula1011 Homosexuality and AGP are both Maladaptive as it neither leads to procreation.
Thanks for expounding on why indulging it is harmful to the person who has this unfortunate condition. Labeling it a sexual orientation results in not treating the underlying conditions which cause it, and instead feeding the beast that is, as we can see, insatiable and devours the host.
@@tonyhoffman3309 excellent point!! Indulging in people’s sexual fetish and labeling it as a sexual preference is exactly the gateway to this mess we’re in.
Creep being creepy doesn’t want you to bring up your morals & ethics in a conversation about why others are upset about their creepy behavior. Imagine that.
I hate that guy's appearance so much I can't even listen to him speak. It makes me viscerally disgusted.
Is/ought - the fundamental understanding of everything requires knowing the difference.
Best would be if moustache man got the IS out of the way so could focus on the more important OUGHT, but he couldn't which made him look nothing but judgemental.
Describing "what is" is a much different, dispassionate/boring conversation. No one is arguing that y'all don't exist. We can debate terminology, but I'm personally against the continuous expansion and normalization of perversions. The interesting argument is what is the line of acceptable public behavior related to a creepy fetish? What historically has been out of bounds and why? Why is this OK now? Why does Phil get a pass over his more aggressive, less respectful AGP peers?
@@OrwellsHousecat We are all judging Phil - pretty much everyone on this thread finds him super creepy and we're not really interested in him trying to wrap his creep behavior up in some academic nonsense. It's like men going on and on and on about how they can be a woman and yet - they're a bloke and always will be
@@ayeright320 lots of people can come across as creepy (eg autistics who aren't using same social cues as you eg socially anxious people eg unusual people) so that alone is not a suitable foundation for ostracisation/demonisation - there may be better arguments but using 'ewww creepy' just comes off as mean girls and undermines any reasonable concerns you might have. He's playing the victim card, just like feminists did, so unless you adopt an alternative paradigm, you undermine all of the dominant paradigms (liberalism; feminism; minority-ism; victimism).
The only possible reason for practicing your paraphillia in public is attention. Keep it in your own home.
Wow it's almost like that didn't work before, won't work now and never will work because these people can't contain themselves and degeneracy breeds degeneracy. Remember when gays just wanted to be married? Now they just want to mess with your kids genitals.
The answer is to shame and humiliate these people
That and the sexual gratification that comes with pushing boundaries of being caught/seen.
This ^
What happens in private always goes public. Unless you use a culture that makes them stay inside and is actively hostile.
The whole point of certain paraphilias is being seen.
women don't confront because of the danger these men pose
I'm glad men don't kneel before women. They make their own destiny and you are not a part of it. :)
Transvesticism isn't an orientation; it's a "philia". I have no problem with Phil's dress or where he wears it. I do have an issue with his push to have AGP or any philia labeled as a sexual orientation because that gains protected status in almost every jurisdiction in the US. We open the door for other philias to be considered orientations thus protected. Should pedophilia also gain protection as a sexual orientation? I think this dangerous.
I don’t think Phil “infringed” on females rights or consent or whatever, that’s a stretch. It’s more about why did a conference about safeguarding of gender confused children and detransitioners, promote the book of an agp about living within the fetish instead of overcoming it. Would you buy a book on how to get sober by someone who still drinks?
This was what GC and most others were critical of.
They didn't 'promote' it, though? He attended the event (was not jnvited). He was pictured holding his book and someone said, 'check this out' on Twitter. Not great. Also not promo. Just like me saying this does not mean I support Phil's overall 'AGP as a sexual orientation' contention (I don't).
Basically, AGPs wearing 'women's' outfits publically is the same as rubber or latex fetishists wearing rubber or latex 24/7. They can say its a 'normal, comfortable' outfit for them as much as they like, but we know, and they know, it's about how it arouses them.
You are so wrong. Coming from another women.
I love what Jonathon Pageau said about "fringe". He points out there's been a certain amount of tolerance society has for it. In some cases in it's right time and place when we even celebrate it. Once a year we have Halloween and express ourselves in ways that are fun or scary. In the Jewish religion there's a holiday called Purim where people let loose and have absurd plays and even get the green light to over drink. Cathedrals have gargoyles up on the steeple that have the purpose of scaring bad spirits away. However, we do not invite those gargoyles into the sanctuary! We can allow for a certain amount of fringe when we have strong boundaries and standards. In this day and age... we find the fringe demanding to be within those societal boundaries and it's not easy to know where the hard line must be drawn. The "inner self" with its wants and desires has become very powerful in today's world.
And apparently, privacy isn't a thing any more.
@@K10House In the old days the way Phil is dressed right now, would be considered comedy. Anyone who was an actual cross dresser turned on by it or not, would do it behind closed doors.
This is ridiculous, he's a pervert/ mentally ill, or has totally lost the run of himself and he's being platformed??? Go Rudy!
no. it is very easy to know where to draw that line - predators just feel they are entitled to cross that line whenever they want
This is all about queer theory being mainstreamed. Queer theory is all about dismantling boundaries and categories.
I’m sorry but it is true that women in general will immediately read someone dressed like Phil as a pervert. maybe it’s because you’re all men, but to pretend that’s not the case is just…wrong.
I'm glad that men don't give a damn about women's feefees about what men want to do in their own lives. :)
Loved Rudy's facial expressions 😊 teamRudy all the way in this!
Rudy is low-iQ arrogant and annoying.
Bless him for doing this!
Thing is Rudy's pre-concieved ideas about Phil completely undermined his attack on Phil because in Phil's case, the cap doesn't (appear to) fit in terms of what the outrage mob would say about him and "his fetish". I feel like this conversation was very much about trying to shame Phil for things he hadn't done by people he hadn't done anything to. See my above post for why this subject engenders such strong views from some.
Rudy's only argument is that people don't like the outfit, and that by declaring a paraphillia you have removed certian behaviours. If Phil had been quite about paraphilia would the same mob be here?
I am going to say yes. Rudy doesn't seem to know the difference between my emotions got hurt and a moral stance. There are 100's of paraphilia's and most of them no one cares about. So the argument is I don't like you in a dress.
To say Prince wasn't using his clothes ina sexual kink way... ok. Sure Prince didn't sell kink as a brand....
@@Mayadanava32 positions in a one night stand...
Just one thought, Prince was a fairly messed up individual, as, in my opinion, the large majority of celebrities are. He was certainly highly sex focused, and while many may be fine with that, I find it unnerving, and somewhat of a red flag.
Benjamin, your introduction of this debate was biased towards Phil, and trivializing of the actual issue. It’s not about “performing femininity”, and it’s not just women who are grossed out by Genspect. It’s this man acting out his fetish in public- and if you doubt that dressing up is a fetish, never fear- he wrote an entire book (or AI wrote it, as it seems to be the case) CONFIRMING that the clothes are integral to his fetish.
I think AGPs need to realize that most people have no issue with sexualized cross dressing. Doing it in PUBLIC or crossing boundaries into women’s spaces to feel aroused is predatory. It’s not cool. It’s harming the perception of actual trans people and it’s wrong.
There’s no such thing as “actual trans people”. Only men who hate women and girls who think being raped by their uncle in every orifice makes them a man.
That's why I feel like throughout the whole discussion, the problematic paraphilia wasn't AGP itself but exhibitionism.
@@wormwoodcocktail "girls who think being raped by their uncle in every orifice" So much class. Trans people hate and disrespect women but YOU allow yourself to write such graphic description of some women's traumatic experience. Quite exemplary hypocritical POS, aren't you? Thank you, you couldn't have shown your true colours in a better way.
RUDY! Good on you for doing this.
Portland does have worse problems, true, but that allows people like this to go deeper into their creepiness in public. We need to bring common decency and higher standards of public behavior.
Christian victorian morals! I am all for it. I really do like ruffles and bodices. Corsets! 3 piece suits! And manners I want all the manners.
I was born in India with Naga Baba's and agori's and Hidras. I think we need the decency police!
3 MEN talking about something that only effects women.
Bingo.
And Boyce shilling for Phill in the comments. Gross.
I feel uncomfortable with men in dresses. It's instinctual. Feels weird and I'd avoid.
Remember when Eddie Izard was just “a bloke in a dress”?
“It’s giving very much Buffalo Bill”. I’m dead ☠️
He’s right. Phil looks like Cameron Frye and Buffalo Bill got stuck in the Cronenberg telepods and stole Sloan’s prom dress
It reminds me of the military general who led a double life. He broke into females homes, put on women’s clothing, waited on them to get home and then killed them.
@@scherryvalentine9673 Col. Russell Williams? He’s far from the only one. A long time Boyce interviewed Jamie Shupe, the first non binary American, and an ex-military guy. He described wandering around his property in women’s clothing and cheating on his wife. Karen Davis made a bunch of videos re-iterating the abuse Shupe admitted to… and Boyce took down the video, everyone called Karen mean, and Shupe’s handmaid made a video saying she totally loves her husband and she’s not mad about the infidelity.
All these men are the same and this isn’t the first time Boyce ran interference.
I’m disappointed in Boyce. He was so measured a few years ago. He had a lot of courage at the time, when he started his show off of that coo that went down at the college in Olympia.
That General's behavior progressed into that because addiction demands more and bigger thrills as long as it is practiced. Abuse accelerates, and there is a lot of abuse and control of others going on with these sexual kink addictions. We are doing no one a favor to pretend they are on a healthy path when they become addicted to these aberrant behaviors.
I wonder where Autogynephilia fits on the Narcissist spectrum.
Near the top.
@@cultof1jewls813 HA!
somewhere below Rudy's
@MaterialSquid how so? Please explain?
Most trans “women” have NPD and are autoghynephilic so ..
Ben this was by far your most unbalanced conversation.
I was disgusted by how much cheerleading he was doing for Phil. Not unbalanced at all!
I was trying to help Rudy understand Phil’s position.
By Phil's logic every woman who dresses in dungarees, sweats, and sports jerseys is actually just an AAP and does not realize it.
Feminists wanted to wear jeans because men do. And Feminists are upset they were not born a man. So they act manly and wear manly clothing. Because deep down they want to be men. Feminism is based on resentment after all.
As to Sports Jerseys that's more of a community binding element and sign of who's team you are on. A Friend Enemy Distinction. Just more playful.
As to sweats I think it's just comfort.
His logic represents the IQ of a mosquito.
Ooh how could I miss then? I wear men‘s clothes almost constantly ( i e not feminine clothes, rather unisex or designed for males), just bc they are comfy and I DON‘T show any curves off, not female ones, not imagined male ones , in them, so it‘s quite the opposite I‘d say;)
But AAPs exist, that‘s not my point.
Sure they do. However are we to believe that this is a "sexual orientation" the majority of women and girls have, and that wearing these clothes is because it makes women feel confident and strong like a man, while wearing dresses makes women feel submissive and demure?
It’s just like furries. If you’re turned on by the idea of you being in a fur suite, you should not have that on in public. It’s not the item, it’s the intention plus the knowledge provided. We wouldn’t know that this was a form of sexual gratification for you if you did not express that to everyone. That is why it is unacceptable in public. You’re including everyone in on your kink vs. it just being fashion.
Ben, arguing you getting turned on by a woman in public with yoga pants on that just happens to pass by is a false equivalence. A more accurate comparison would be you knowing that yoga pants on women is a turn on for you, so you sign up for yoga classes with the INTENTION of seeing women in yoga pants, as it is sexually gratifying to you.
It’s not a simple life pleasure; it’s a sexual pleasure. It’s a societal violation.
Separation anxiety leads to fetishization of the mother. Some fetishize breasts, some legs (in nylon stockings), some skirts, some feet..... When the fear of separation is intensified, there is a narcissistic reflection of this fetishization on oneself. In puberty, the sexualization of shame occurs, and in order to cope, men create this pseudo-personality, which has a dual role of reducing anxiety (which is essentially separation) and feeding the brain with dopamine through autosexuality. The problem is that it's a rabbit hole, and that's why people have the need to turn this wrong perception into a sexual orientation or even a religion such as a trans cult. In a simple sense, this term could be interpreted as an Oedipus complex without castration fear. Thus, narcissistic men have the problem of viewing women both as a mother and as an "object" of sexual desire, and then, due to an increased fear of separation, they cannot bear this duality of the female figure, which in the case of an "ordinary" heterosexual does not go beyond the fact that he is attracted to breasts, buttocks, feet or what not. And the biggest problem is that Western culture is so materialistic that it glorifies sexuality so much that it is difficult for a person with agp maladaptiveness to even understand the mother-sexual object paradox, because the mother part does not have a deeper spiritual-psychological context. Agp as a sexual orientation is ontologically wrong. I overcame my agp, honestly and without hesitation to admit that I had this problem, but in order for someone to be treated for it, which is not easy, he must first admit that he is sick. Or he doesn't have to, so he tries to make quasi-theories so that other people can confirm him. The same thing is with the tran cult, because the root of the problem is the same.
This makes so much sense..
This may be the root for some for sure. It seems to have a lot of other comorbid mental health, or trauma based issues, as well as seems very common in some with developmental differences like autisim
@@tonyhoffman3309
hyper sensitivity and the spectrum of autism is certainly more susceptible, but I explain the mechanism.
Thanks for explaining. I've been wondering about this fascination of men dressing like women and it becoming their god. My ex is one of them.
That was fascinating and seems very accurate: I had not read that specific theory before. Thank you for sharing it.
Phil's entire 'understanding' of his perversion is simply a set of logical arguments he has come up with to excuse his behaviour. So of course he doesn't care what other people think, or what societal norms are and the social contract of boundaries. Rudy you were brilliant, Benjamin you need to have a think!
Exactly.
I think women, in general, & by majority, shy away from public sexual displays from men. Rudy accurately describes Phil's dress as a public display of his sexuality. So, our immediate response to Phil's dress would be discomfort & it would take getting to know him a bit to understand his reasoning for the dress & not feel threat. Most of us aren't going to go to those lengths unless we need to for some reason. Reasonable women will be polite, but we'll likely instinctually avoid him. The reaction he is getting online is women verbalizing the discomfort they feel, and no, Phil doesn't have to change because of those feelings but he'd probably sell more books if he took it into consideration.
Its not just that its a display.IT TURNS HIM ON. THATS what we shy away from.
I'd love to see Phil discuss this with a woman!
I’d vote for Brittany Roux, A Slightly Twisted Female. That would be an interesting conversation!
@@HellCatt0770yes I love her, I think she’d be great to discuss/debate this with him!
He did, with multiple women (including his SO), previous to this episode.
He has, including the detransitioned woman and many other women at the Genspect meet that "feminists" seem to wanna treat like little children with no ability to think.
@@tablescissorshmm I’ll have to check those out
I'm a woman and I wouldn't be seen dead in any of the shite Phil wears! 😂
I'm an autogynephilic transsexual. Neither would I.
I would at Carnaval.
Right? Those arms length blue gloves are clownish.
Wow, really? People have different clothing preferences? Or are you saying women are a monolith. Typical conservative clown.
The idea of being attracted to yourself as the opposite sex will narcissistic and creepy.
But I'm with Rudy, this guy is bathing himself in self-stimulation, and the rest of us are supposed to just carry on like it's perfectly normal
Phil and Ben are engaging in sophistry here b/c if Phil is only aroused by the X-dressing part of his paraphilia some of the time do women only get to withdraw consent after the erection becomes too obvious to ignore? We all know what this is about and we see how Ben and Phil are conflating issues here. AGP is not a sexual orientation it is about heterosexual men w/ a paraphilia, an erotic fixation, who instead of keeping it private choose to display it in public and force women and everyone else to consent to it.
Heterosexuals and homosexuals are oriented to another human w/ whom they are in a mutually consensual relationship. AGP males are narcissistically oriented toward themselves as what they desire to be and are aroused by that in the company of others who did not consent to be part of their publicly staged paraphilia play.
And the ridiculous notion that women have to be dressed like beekeepers in public as they are in some Islamic countries b/c men can't control themselves is outrageous, that's men's problem. And to suggest women get turned on by how they dress be that as more so-called feminine or masculine is to have no understanding of women.
I loved the 'It's giving... Buffalo Bill' comment! Yes. We're all supposed to pretend otherwise, and that's part of the power play fetish.
Really? Are you really listening to Phil?
@@wildwings08 yes. And I don't believe the words, I believe his actions
Ikr, even when we DON'T consent to being NPCs in an AGP's cosplay. 😑🙅🏾♀️
I tried to just listen and did for awhile. Just creepy vibes from the guy in the dress. I’ve got sons his age and it just made me feel pity for him. It doesn’t change the fact that I would stop in my tracks if he or anyone like him was in a public women’s space when I was. My understanding is that mental health has pulled back on really treating this disorder and a few others the past few years. No one wants accused of and charged with conversion therapy. Lots of factors here but I do think porn is a huge culprit.
Porn is a HUGE factor amongst the vast majority of current manifestations of both agp and hsts type trans. So is sexual trauma, child sexual abuse, mental illness, personality and developmental disorders, which continue to go unacknowledged and untreated or badly "treated" with pharmasurgical drag, and social engineering.
You'll get used to it. Just think about all the past 50years of change
You can perhaps understand then, why many in the gay community (not “queer”) are concerned that “trans” is a type of MEDICAL conversion therapy that is making a lot of people money (including the government) in a giant social experiment that’s going to leave a lot of people very damaged. As we have seen with detransitioners, particularly on this channel.
You mean the great regression?
AMEN. I am getting out now. This is like listening to the lunatics in the insane asylum....which I think it is.
As a gay man, I'm so disappointed with Rudy. We gays know exactly what it means to have attractions that the majority of people don't feel. He doesn't get that effeminate gay men lived for ages the same kind of stigma that he is now targeting to AGPs.
why does benjamin not get this isn't like him being attracted to females and around females... this is at minimum like wearing a bdsm collar or fetish gear or vibrator in public. it doesn't matter that he thinks it's oriented "towards himself" he's oriented towards an object (clothes/gender stereotype items) and thinks because he is self obsessed and thinks of the objects on himself that makes it special. it's like if someone who is into masochism thought they could be masochistic in public as long as its enacted towards themselves. whats worse is at least the masochist doesn't necessarily have a layer of their fetish that includes getting off on the reactions of others (gender euphoria), phils does. to bring it back around to benjamins misunderstanding this would be like if a dominatrix wore her gear and torturing tools in public and specifically around men so she could see their disgust and anxiety about her (obviously ball crushing) tools and then pretended like it wasn't voyeuristic and was just an "orientation" and needed to be accomodated as an "identity" that revolved around her own perception/euphoria of herself as a dominatrix.
Well said.
Honestly starting to think Boyce is AGP considering how hard he shills for them.
Seems to me the crux of the discussion was:
a)when can and can’t someone wear something that they feel sexy/sexual in or when others feel they are feeling that way.
b) at what point is it acceptable or not acceptable if someone is sexually aroused to some degree in public and other people are unwilling participants in that.
Not sure any of it got ironed out. I think people just hear the term AGP and it’s too emotive to allow a reasoned debate.
To be honest on screen the two guys debating looked as it they were wearing similar outfits, v neck tops one with sleeves the other without, one more pastel than the other, equally camp.
@@wormwoodcocktail I dont think thats it. Phil has a weird way of making you feel like you are wrong for not supporting him. Hes very manipulative and I think Ben has become a victim of that and not realised it. He will get it soon I assure you. Hes not stupid.
@@LusciousTwinkle Hopefully. But like, every man I know IRL *hates* AGPs. Whenever I see men defend them / trans rights I just assume their closeted. It’s pessimistic. Here’s to hoping you’re right and I’m wrong.
Dress however you want, love whoever will have you etc has met a wall here in the fact that seeing a man in a frock clearly causes some raised eyebrows.
I have watched this unfold on X and can see why people are pissed off.
We have eyes and yes, we can see who is sexually motivated by what they wear
It’s like the ‘how do you know the good transwoman from the bad man scenario
How do you know who is the pantomime dame and who is mentally getting off
Something is off here and regardless of the mental gymnastics from Phil and Benjamin, I think most people know it
Exactly. The trans movement’s objectives are (partially) to shame women and children from detecting predators. That’s what feminists mean when they say “pronouns are rohypnol”. Even for straight men, there is an obvious agenda of undermining consent. The desire to do away with “gay panic laws” means the right to sexually assault straight men with impunity, and to criminalize self-defence. People can just tell when things are weird and sexual. Trans ideology has told us those feelings are bigoted.
My thing is, if AGP really is a sexual orientation, just one where the person is sexually satisfied by something turned inward instead of outward, why does he need to do it outside his home? I mean, the vast majority of us aren't wearing sexy clothes when we get dressed for the day if we don't leave the house and no one else is there, because there's no one to see it and be attracted by it. We want to attract others, whether same sex or opposite sex or both and they are outside our home, so we find situations where we can get dressed up and go out to meet people. But an AGP can just do that at home. They don't need to involved the rest of us if it's an orientation, because they've already found their 'spouse,' themselves.
But if it is a fetish, one that involves being SEEN by others as sexual in certain presentations, then it makes sense they have to go out looking like a stripper even though they aren't even going to an event where a woman actually seeking a male partner would dress like that.
Thank you for this conversation, these ideas are stretching and challenging. I would like to be able to say 'dress how you please' but I realise that i am uncomfortable with that . I don't want to see men in fetish gear, and it is difficult for liberals to admit to not being as liberal as they would like to be. I also dislike seeing young teenage girls in skimpy clothes - usually because I think they look cold, and because I know that the focus from men towards them is on what they look like not who they are - that saddens me.
I think Rudy makes some very good points about it not being just about being a danger to women, it is also about making women feel uncomfortable. I do not like to see men in corsets and mini skirts , and definitely the Lolita vibe Rudy describes is disturbing.
Phil makes me uncomfortable because he understands the reaction that his clothing will provoke - that it will make women uncomfortable , but he still does it anyway. At times i would say ok, that is fair enough, he has a right not to accept the conventional dress codes, but there are contexts where it is inappropriate Even the most liberal of people have limits of what is comfortable , but we don't usually know what they are until we are directly faced with them.
For example the teacher in Canada with the massive fake tits was thought to be unacceptable by most people, because it was so obviously sexual and insulting - but what size of fake breast is ok for men to wear? because the same people who would think it is ok for a man to wear an average size of fake tits would object to the massive fake tits .
Regarding the skimpy clothes that girls wear and the often matronly clothes that women wear, is based a lot on what is available and affordable in department stores for working class ppl.
Young girls clothing sections full of half t-shirts with shorty top pants. Padded bras for 7yr olds. Etc. Many girls and parents shop in the boys wear dept for their daughters. (And for themselves)
what a entitled attention seeker ugh
mega ⚠️
And maybe it’s just a gimmick to sell his book?
That Rudy fella is not the sharpest tool in the shed. I don't know what the deal is with this other Phil guy, but he made more sense. Congrats Ben for another intriguing discussion!
As an grandmother it appears to me that Phil is receiving loads of gratification, sexual or otherwise, for his attention grabbing fashion choices. There is a huge amount of payoff for him. I do suggest he stay in Oregon. The big world would not be kind to him.
It bothers me that I live within 20 miles of that man.
Rudy feeling the need to apologise at the end was deeply saddening. Boyce and Phil's enforcement of word soup and #bekind was complete in making a man feel shit about defending his sexual orientation and women from a paraphilic, sociopathic buffalo bill. A horrible watch.
Agreed
I think Benjamin’s point is that unless a man explains why he’s crossdressing in public no one would know. Phil should not be singled out as getting off on other people’s experience of his crossdressing because he’s terminally online as an AGP.
“In sexology” 🥴 these fake, self
Important fields kill me
Live and let live. It is always actions not intentions which matter. How is Phil hurting anyone? What does it matter what he wears? It is what is in a person's heart that matters. I appreciate the tone of the discussion. It was interesting and informative.
Apparently, this man Phil, can completely change the definitions of what orientations, fetishes, and paraphilias are because he has the qualification of having a paraphilia??? Is that all it takes? I guess smoking no longer causes cancer because i smoke! I'm the expert! 🙄
Phil: "and then you want to embody it, it doesn't mean you hate the category of thing that your embodying "
Women are the "thing" he is referencing. This attempt to legitimize a porn induced fetish as a legitimate sexual orientation, and the idea that it is unreasonable for people to be expected to keep their fetish out of public life is a position I wouldn't have expected here.
This needs to be talked about because it affects boys and men's lives more than it can ever effect any number of women . I don't like it but i know this exists AND there actually is research in the area . Go and try to shame the 10,000 women that suck very young boys into their spider web for money You know that is happening or you put your head in the sand over because it girls,women doing it using their OVERT sexuality.
This is so true, I am finding myself involved with these fetishes unwanted, but my romantic and sexual feelings about others are very much so separate from this. This is largely porn induced. If I hadn't been exposed to that shit I would have sexual fantasies aligned with that of the romantic/sexual fantasies I organically have about others. I knew I was bisexual before I had any sexual fantasies, and my legitimate interests are in some very healthy things (dependable women, strong fun exciting men, masculinity in both men and women) these are orientation, then there is fetish (furry, feminization, BDSM, etc) those things are both directly disconnected from my legitimate orientation, how I live my life (a happily masculine, openly bisexual, well regarded within my community man). These things can go one of two ways, obsession (Phil) and avoidance/ending/loss of the fetish. Being self aware enough to know that this is occuring within yourself allows you to be in control.
@@non_ideological_transexual7414
Adult man who pretends to be a woman blames women for men choosing to spend money on e-thots and prostitutes. Claims to be non-ideological.
Can you please just dilate with a cactus already
@@kennysboat4432Smart, self-reflective post
Yeah the “it” and “thing” he’s speaking of is…a woman. I expect nothing less than that kind of misogyny from Benjamin Boyce.
There is a reason why bedrooms have a door, keep it shut. Society is shouting that acting out on sexual fetishes in public is not tolerated. Phil is a classic narcissist, this is all about power and control. He's his own god, just look at the difference in camera angles between the three of them. Benjamin was on board with an AGP's comfort level and that that's more important regardless if the vast majority of women have an instinctual fear for their safety and the safety of their children around those who are acting out sexual fetishes in public. I've felt this fear many times. This was a two against one 'conversation'. Benjamin, the moment that you agreed with Phil and said AGP is an orientation, I unsubscribed, you are an imminent danger to all women. Thank you Rudy!
Strangely I think I have noticed a pattern regarding the sides of trans debate.
Broadly speaking.
(Mother's+lesbians+gay men) VS ( AGPs, straight men, young leftist women)
I think on some level you are absolutely right but unfortunately society has lost any desire to protect women. So invoking protect "women" is unlikely to lead to a response.
saying women need "protection" maybe an insult to women. And if we can teach AGPs about their sexual condition they will be unlikely to inadvertently harm women.
In our quest for equality and morally neutral society we may just have to accept Phil wearing clothes we may not agree with, or find flattering. And that is that!
Else we can go back to imposing our version of morality on individuals thereby limiting personal freedom...
Which could come back to haunt us because there are people who consider homosexuality morally wrong and mentally ill perverts, and who think morally women ought to cover up and stay home.
Sounds exactly like "I don't mind gays as long as they keep it in the bedroom." Same shit different year!
@@carlo.m5233
1) The LGB sub-population with the highest rate of support for transsexuals is lesbian women. Additionally, straight men are the *least* likely to support transsexuals.
2) I think the balance that should be reached is acknowledging differences between men & women while stressing the need for individual freedom of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
3) I agree too that teaching AGPs about their sexuality will make them more aware of their actions. However, it doesn't cure gender dysphoria but only contextualizes it in a useful, evidence-based manner.
4) 100% agreed. I have to live in a society with misandrist radfems, and misandrist radfems have to live in a society with autogynephilic transvestites and transsexuals. Heterogeneity is what makes our civilization thrive. Sometimes people with irreconcilable differences have to learn to tolerate each other.
I am on-board with your negative freedom view of this issue. The people who jump straight to social conservatism as a solution to them feeling uncomfortable make me very afraid for the future.
What if AGP is just an incel cope? They realize they’ll never have a girlfriend unless they become one for themselves?
@@jovazquez6102Gay people do “keep it in the bedroom.” If they were like Phil- then they would be having sex with members of the same sex in public. BEING gay in public isn’t a problem. Performing what are sex acts to you, in public, is.
Love Rudy standing up to the sexual deviant.
He's got the patience of a saint 🥴
And even Boyce eith the yoga pants statement 🤩
I honestly wasn’t sure which one of was the autogynophile based purely on appearance. Just saying
What are the requirements to being labeled a sexual deviant? I think both could fit into that category.
Such pick me behavior xD
It's funny how men who dress in women's clothing always choose the most stereotypical women's clothing. It's funny how Phil chooses dresses in his wardrobe rotation and then claims they don't have anything to do with his AGP. Edited to add: Phil's wardrobe here looks like a costume.
They choose the most exaggerated cartoonish version of whatever female stereotype they're into most. I don't think it's an accident that they always seem to choose degrading/ridiculous outfits when "dressing like women"--mocking us seems to be part of the sexual gratification.
As Benjamin says, 'how can we tell the difference between a fashion choice ( man in dress) and a guy who is getting off in front of us without our consent and often is predatory in intent. We can't. So keep out of women only spaces primarily for our safety, but also for our privacy and dignity. Aside of that, I love to explore the human experience and so interested in the conversation with hopefully as open mind as possible
But the discussion was not about entering women's spaces. Both agree that AGPs should not enther those.
@@nietkees6906Within the conversation is the question of acceptance of AGPs. The question of consent is being discussed. Nearly all women I discuss with are not comfortable with men in dresses who are AGP in their private spaces. Phil is not interested in those spaces but other AGPs most definitely are.They enjoy making women uncomfortable. Most AGP's do appropriate womanhood.
@sarahbartlett4945 both agp and hsts appropriate, womenhood. Some women are more accepting of hsts in women's spaces, because they don't see them as a threat, and some men are ok with it because they are attracted to transvestite males (GAMPS) as hsts make it possible for them to deny their own homosexuality, and attraction to feminized men. The majority don't seem to see the homophobia and sexism (both misogyny and misandry) which manifests in cross sex ideation and expression.
@@tonyhoffman3309 thanks for this clear explaination. It touches on the origins as well
@@sarahbartlett4945 read tonys comment above
Boyce is giving GAMP, the way he is so unwilling to hear Rudy, and how blindly he seems to defend Philly. Also, next time turn off your mic, Boyce, so we aren’t hearing your sighs.
@Reachout-BenjaminABoyce omg a Boyce Bot?? 😂 damn, that’s how you know you made it
he simped so hard for Phil. it’s so weird
@@ASlightlyTwistedFemale , Benjamin has forgotten that the AGPs, for years invaded women`s spaces like prisons, shelter, locker rooms. spas and sports, are the ones who are at fault that the distrust in any man who might dress more feminime is on the rise in the first place. They are the ones who started the avalanche and innocent non-comforming men have to pay the price.
@@littlebird2573 Rudy didn't respond to any promts, he insulted and made moral claims and then claimed gass lighting and that he can speak for all women. He didn't engage in any meaning conversation he repeated the same talking point for 90 minutes. He had no good faith. He was a rude, emotional and on the attack.
He is a bigot and tedious.
And yet this whole comment section is glorifying rudy for being angry on the internet.
I dont like the look of a man in a dress and I justify it with emotion rants. It is not a good argument.
So my question is why is a gay man speaking for women?
Because Phil won’t talk to any woman who isn’t a therapist, and thus guranteed to go easy on him.
A peacock’s plumage isn’t a gender expression. Cutting it off doesn’t make him a peahen and gluing it onto a peahen doesn’t make her a peacock.
He’s borrowing “Debbie” Hayton’s language re. peafowl
Most of what Phil says regarding his respect for sex segregated spaces, and not denying his sex, and gnc attire for both sexes is reasonable. Where there is disagreement is his assertion that any man or woman who expresses themselves in a culturally gnc manner, has some degree of agp/aap, and not just people who recognize their sex encompases aspects of the other and so express that. It's also the denial of it as a paraphillia, which is symptomatically related to other underlying mental health issues, means there is no consideration given to how feeding into this sexuality may not lead to the best outcomes for ppl that have this type of sexuality, as it does not address the often serious mental illnesses, trauma, personality and developmental disorders which underpin it, so they continue to go untreated and unhealed.
'To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail'
Oh, but I’m a “two spirit” says the White people.
BS.
I can respect an honest autogynophile; if that's what you're into, if you just want to wear women's clothes and mind your own business, whatever man. It seems like the problems are caused by the ones for whom being seen as and treated by others, and are the ones pushing policies like men in women's prisons and sports etc. You can tell a gay guy: "You're a homosexual, a person who enjoys intercourse with others of the same sex," and he'll be like, "hell yeah, dude. I'm all about that." If you tell an autogynophile, or at least some of them, "You're a man who is sexually aroused by the idea of yourself as a woman", some of them respond with rage because that ruins the illusion.
I'm totally against all these trans-activitst pushed policies, and all the gender ideology BS. We're a sexually dimorphic species; get over it. But from what I've heard here, it sounds like Phil understands and accepts reality, and is making more sense.
The word "fetish" really is kinda useless...it kinda just means anything that's uncommon and stigmatized. As one of those guys who's turned on by women's feet... It is kind of like an orientation in that it's not something I chose; I was like that since my earliest sexual thoughts. It always seemed weird for me to call it a fetish... That makes me think of latex and people who get off on popping balloons. It's a part of a woman's body, and it's just like boobs basically. Some guys are into boobs, some are into butts, and a smaller but still sizeable percentage are into legs and/or feet. How is that in the same category as being turned on by objects? You could say why feet, well why boobs? Why butts? There are evolutionary reasons presumably, but no one ever justifies it in those terms. Yet I've never heard of a boob fetish or a butt fetish. Even though some guys are really obsessed sometimes to a creepy degree. And by the definition I heard here, "attraction to a non-genital body-part or object" they would be.
It's kind of rich for a gay guy to be ranting about perversions. It was regarded as a perversion almost throughout all of history until a few decades ago. Like Phil says, the perception was changed through activist pressure, not any kind of discovery. It surely is a "defect" if anything is, from an evolutionary point of view; how and why it even exists is still an unresolved question, AFAIK. Now, naturalistic fallacy etc, evolution has produced some truly horrific behaviors, so doing what "nature" "indends" isn't necessarily good, but... Rudy's arguments mostly just come down to what is normative and socially acceptable, which, like I said, is a bit ironic coming from a gay dude.
AGP and sado masochism are interlinked. AGPs have females as the subordinate gender category, hence sissy porn. When he turns up to a potentially hostile audience of GC women and men, it’s because he is getting off on the power play, the S and M experience. The women and men at the conference weren’t there to give him a thrill. You need to get Genevieve Gluck on to explain what he is getting out of this.
That's exactly right. That's why they often tend to explain their fetish by explaining how their sexuality is typically female, and the proof is that they want to be submissive and be looked at and used as an object. An entirely culturally seeded understanding of female sexuality. Just pure unadulterated misogyny.
Integration of one's cross sex ideation into healthy acceptance of the reality of one's sex, and gender non conformity, is very different than what Phil is doing. By not recognizing the difference between paraphillia and sexual orientation, he is denying that paraphillia are aquired, not inborn. This also ignores any acknowledgement of the underlying causes, and much better treatment options than indulging the paraphillia which takes over ones life and nearly always destroys the person effected.
How do you think the line is blurred? Sexual orientation is inborn, paraphilias are aquired.
How are paraphilias acquired? Are there any elements of individuals who have them that mean they're predisposed to them? This is a genuine, non goady question, I think it's really important to know how we know this...
@@meretriciousinsolent I would guess the most likely explanation for the current explosion of this paraphilia is porn.
@@nannyssillysoapco I'd like to know a lot more about Phil's childhood.
@tonyhoffman3309 The etiology of homosexuality is not clear. The "born this way" argument is based on the immutability of orientation that homosexuals experience. Not on any true scientific studies on the etiology of homosexuality. From the literature that I've read, and from the anecdotal experiences I've had in gay dating, I think etiology is multifactorial. Both nature and nurture.
Is attention-seeking a sexual orientation? This is obviously the reason why he dresses like a woman in public. Why he does it in private is not the issue...
Alot of wmn.....
Not to mention, it’s only a CERTAIN type of women’s clothing…he wears clothes that expose his body in a sexual way. He’s not wearing a pantsuit or just a simple baggy sweater and jeans.
Maybe he just dresses like a woman to sell more books?
The same can be said of how individual women dress though - some dress modestly, and some hyper sexualized. When men dress as women, they most often dress the latter.@@tablescissors
I like Rudy but I'm not sure he was maybe the best person to have this discussion. Heather Heying would have been a far better bet and also maybe we'd hear more about Phil's interesting ideas than just about his mode of dress. Can't help wondering about Benjamin's process choosing Phil's 'opponent'!! :P
Heather Heying wouldve been so interesting!!
"Heterosexuality directed at yourself"? How is sexual attraction to yourself not a fetish? How is not just self-absorbed male creepiness?
He is a man, ffs. Sexual attraction to himself, a man, is not, cannot be a variant of heterosexuality. So yep, Rudy, he's gaslighting you.
It is.
HSTS,AGP,and GAMPS, all have a strong element of homosexual denial, sexist limiting and rigid views of both men and women, and autistic or misogynistic concept of sexuality.
The term auto heterosexual is inaccurate as is autogynaphilia as the "female" is not based on love or attraction to actual women but to their male conception of femininty placed over a male body.
@@red-ringedoctopus6336 thank you for getting this. AGP being characterized as in anyway "heterosexual" is the problem because it is based on attraction not towards actual women, but on their conception of what a women is.
Ruby was very rude through the whole debate.
Then he got insulted by the word "queer" which Phil only mentioned as a field of study not an adjective or pejorative.
And Phil apologized even thought there was no need.
While Rudy kept using the word "perversion" throughout.
:/
Also.... The comment section is just.... I don't even know...
On another note, Ben you are an incredible interviewer. So good at remaining unbiased while playing devils advocate in any direction required.
I wouldn't want him around my daughter
I honestly don't care about the dress.
Going from other interviews, Phil doesn't believe it makes him a woman or use womens spaces, so whatever.
Theres no way to police what peoples intentions are with the way they dress.
As long as its "normal" clothing, I dont think there's anything anyone can do.
And its not like he's being inappropriate.
We only know Phil is AGP because he's been straight up about it, hes trying to make it so young men can admit what motivates them, and not go on about them being an actual woman, which is helpful to the movement.
I dont get why a mountain has been made out of the dress.
First there was Buffalo Bill. Now we see Buffalo Phil.
Can anybody explain to me what issue did that man have with AGP men and consent? How exactly are they behaving in non-consensual way? Is that any different than heterosexual man having sexual thoughts about random women they see on the street? Because as a woman, I don't think I ever gave a consent to such thoughts either. Am I supposed to be offended that he wears clothes designed for women? Because I am not.
Sorry but I find it especially distasteful when a member of a sexual minority tries to feel morally superior to a member of a different sexual minority, when it comes to a fetish that doesn't break anyone's consent. He acted as if having a paraphilia automatically meant behaving in a non-consensual way which is an abysmally ignorant opinion. Did he just compare transvestism to bestiality? That's outrageous.
And no, paraphilia is not sexual orientation and I wouldn't necessarily see AGP as a malignant fetish either. All depends on how honest are the ones who have it with their potential partners.
I definitely agree with you
Phil here is adhering to the DSM-5 definitions of sexual orientation, meaning that whatever arouses you makes it a sexual orientation. Example from DSM-5 is the dreadful "pedophilic sexual orientation" and "pedophilic disorder" - the first one refers to the supposed sexual attraction to children without acting on it because of moral reasons, and the other one is a disorder because it makes the individual suffer because of those feelings. Like Phil, DSM-5 doesn't think those feelings and thoughts alone are the problem, but they are. That's why this or attraction to animals etc. cannot be comparable to the three sexual orientations. Because beside consent, hetero and gay couples can form not only consensual relationships but build mutual love and respect. It's one of the types of relationships that teaches us about us in relation to other people and makes us develop skills to deal with other people, in a similar fashion that friendships do. There is nothing to be learned, developed and enjoyed when you have an autosexual relationship with yourself. It's like hitting a brick wall. There is not another person there who will help you grow into a better human being and vice versa, which constitutes a quality sexual/romantic relationship. This is why it's paraphilic. With necrophilia, zoophilia and pedophilia, there is either no other person there, or the other person is dead or severely underdeveloped and therefore mutual nourishing relationship cannot be achieved by design. Failed or bad hetero or homo relationships are not failed or bad by design. Secondly, AGP is a paraphilia that cannot possibly be categorized as another form of heterosexuality, as Phil says, by nature of him being male. The imagining of himself as a female doesn't create that female in the flesh, unlike heterosexuality. Every sexual orientation involves people, one way or another, that exist. Sure, straight men can fantasize about women that don't exist, but they also fantasize about women who do exist and feel attracted to real live women, which makes them heterosexual. The same with homosexual males and females, but when your supposed orientation begins and ends only with yourself and yourself is a male, how can that be another form of heterosexuality?
I like Rudy, but his consent arguement is dogshite. Sexual orientation doesn't require consent from others to exist - it just does. He's referring to the engagement of fetishism. That's just sloppy communication.
Hes saying practicing your fetish or sexual orientation requires the consent of others. I am a medical professional, I am bisexual, does that mean I can practice being bisexual in the company of my patients? Absolutely not! That is a violation of their privacy, consent, respect, and my responsibility. That applies in every situation!
@@kennysboat4432 I believe you've misunderstood what I meant. Sexual orientation is a constant aspect of whom you are, such as your eye and hair colour. That requires no consent from anyone, it simply is. What does is whether you chose to engage in sexual acts around others. Engaging with sex is seperate to having a sexual orientation.
Was there anything resolved? Probably not.
Was this a necessary conversation?
For sure!
Thank you to Benjamin and his guests for taking the time to discuss, debate, and keep it as civil as possible regardless of their personal stance.
With things like this, I like to strip away 'modernity,' then play it out in my mind how this might manifest without modern day luxuries. I don't think this exists outside the world of affluence.
I can't place my finger on it but, there's something so "sociologically artificial" about this behavior. And I don't even really know what that means. Sex roles are nearly a human universal.
Human beings really prefer what is familiar to them. If you are going to step outside that box, you really ought to have something worthwhile to bring to the world. And I think you bare the responsibility to ensure the meek are not unduly influenced by your sub-optimal behavior. We all oppress ourselves in one fashion or another to fit in. It's what keeps the peace. 🐿
Great point! This guy is narcissistic and manipulative. Before this was a thing, he probably would have been a plain old sexual exhibitionist/voyeur. He’s just a sex offender, but he’s manipulative about it. Not even particularly clever about it, just lucky to get backed up by misogynistic men and their slavish handmaidens.
39:06 Ben confronts Rudy’s BS “consent” rhetoric. Rudy seems rather thick, and I am loosing interest because he just doesn’t get it. Ben needs to improve his moderation skills.
Ben’s comments about yoga pants and Burkas was on point, but it seemed to elude Rudy…
Since its been established that this is a paraphilia, at what point is it unhealthy? How should we address this within psychology and society? When should we intervene? How should it be treated? If one is unhappy with it, or is hurting others/self how should we help those people? How should it be prevented?
I’m so sad this guy is getting a platform. Benjamin definitely took a side here & that makes me question his motives.
Oh look another woman that believes in censorship, how odd. " Let women speak" hypocritical sexist women 🤡
@@non_ideological_transexual7414
Sir, you seem a little angry. A little macho.
@@wormwoodcocktail Thanks for the laugh 🤡. I just don't like hypocrites
@@non_ideological_transexual7414
Oh? You mean like calling yourself non-ideological while running interference for your fetish?
Thank you for this conversation.
Just jumping in the comments to say great seeing you wearing that ring. Stellar couple. Humanity needs more people like you building a quality life together. Cheers!
These men aren't well-matched for a debate. Rudy is unfamiliar with social science and humanities approaches, methods and terms (can't for example differentiate descriptive and prescriptive) whereas Phil is. They can only talk past each other.
Would have been better to debate Heather Heying
Rudy didn't want to. He was invited to but just wanted to be judgemental and aggressive.
I don't see AGP as being a distinct separate orientation in the same way as homosexual is different from heterosexual.. However AGP may very well be a distinct varriation of heterosexuality.
That being said, all fashion is an outward expression of who we are and what makes us comfortable. I have zero issues with Phil wearing a dress whenever or wherever he wants.
Some gay men are turned on by (and fetishize) Levi's 501s or leather jackets. If a gay man chooses to wear something he also finds attractive on other men (or himself) it doesn't mean he's subjecting everyone else to his fetish just by his choice of clothing
Jeans are not an entire social construct or gender identity.
Even Phil admits that he considers certain clothes to be “male” and doesn’t want to wear them.
He prefers to wear clothes designed for young women to expose themselves in a sexual manner. Not housecoats.
You really should listen to this entire show, they covered the points in your comment repeatedly.
Your argument could be made to those who have recently attempted to be in public dressed as dogs*, in example.
*which includes ppl in government, at this point.
Well said.
Rudy was right on at 1:02, the point being that women have always had to be on the lookout to identify a predator and while Phil might never want or attempt to harm anyone, other people, women, don't know that. Phil is pretending. He is not respecting others... he is not a woman so perhaps he just can not see the perspective of women. I'm sure there are places where he is fine but other places not.
I am a senior woman and never in my wildest dreams could I ever have imagined so many men wanting to wear dresses. These people are pushing the boundaries and mostly women will suffer. Autogynophiles have already hurt girls and women in female spaces. Again maybe Phil would never do this but he is propping up others who would.
Rudy is an ignoramus. He just has something against agp, and his argument are almost all as hominem.
I found Rudy's points to be convincing and quite powerfully conveyed. As for Phil, well, he never really conveyed his points clearly. He was just defensive and combative the entire debate as if his kink was reasonable because it was his kink. And why did he feel the need to show up in women's clothing to discuss issues with two men. Does he think that he must always feel sexual gratification no matter who he is interfacing with. Sorry, that might work in Portland, but I, for one, am not in Portland and I just couldn't get past that.
I suspect Phil is conflating instict with moral judgement. As a woman I would instinctually shy away from a man in a dress. Phil even says that having/being AGP has a high correlation of additional compounding mental illness. It's obvious, it is _instinctual_ to a woman-an immediate signifier of instability and danger and thus to be avoided. Now maybe meeting Phil and conversing you could suss out that he's 'safe', but as a general instinctive preservational device, shying away from a man in a dress is not a moral judgment.
Agreed. However, a good deal of GCs don't seem to heed that advice. Rather, they act as if their instinct is the infallible word of god, and they get offended for somebody else, who was clearly fine hanging out with him.
It's instinctual to fear what you don't understand, and that gut reaction is 100% valid. The difference between bigots and curious people is what they choose to do about it.
Are we supposed to congratulate a man for "knowing he's a man?" The bar is on the ground.
If an adult male has a 'baby' fetish wearing baby clothing eg diaper..would that be appropriate to wear in public? Where is the acceptable standard in public?
That would be creepy assss.
According to Phil’s logic, why not?
Is it just me, or was this just a whole bunch of mansplaining, from BOTH sides?? 🤔
I NEVER thought I'd have been even a bit offended by Rudy's (anybody's!) dismissiveness of, and hypocrisy of AGPs rights to just be.... but I was.
I don't like hearing ANY man, say how most of us actual women feel about being a woman and how we feel, and whether my consent was given, or not..in everyday public spaces. I NEVER thought I'd start feeling bad about any AGP's right to wear what they want, when they want, but I was!!
I take ppl on an individual level, and don't see the big deal in Phil wearing what he wants, when he's not hurting anyone, or even trying to access women's spaces.
There's PLENTY of homosexual behaviours I have to witness, usually on the daily, that can be far more offensive and done in public....without my 'consent' even being considered, let alone _given!!_
I'm no homophobe, I'm just saying.
I absolutely understand and agree on what Rudy was saying, but he just came off as being very intolerant and judgemental, and he clearly seems to be forgetting that homosexuals were once considered a massive perversion!
The only problem I saw with Phil, (at this point) is his hideously AWFUL choice of _'feminine'_ clothing, but not the fact it was 'feminine' clothing in itself!! 😅
Phil has the better of the argument. He is pointing out things which are the logical conclusion of the gay rights movement, however inconvenient they may be for Rudy. And I am not supportive of transgenderism.
Nothing to do with LGB people being with their partners. All to do with their movement having been hijacked by pervs
It's not about what makes them "hard" it's about what makes them, them.
Boyce's pandering to Phil and his paraphilia is truly painful to watch.
It’s gonna bite him in the ass when Phil tries getting all gender euphoric with a girl scout.
while i don't think agp is a valid orientation, the hysteria in the comments is wild... tbf i don't really know the context of phil wearing the dress. so it could be justified? but rudy said phil should only wear feminine clothing inside his room lmao?? no.
you can turn off the sexual side of your brain when needed. like.. people can be near others that they're sx attracted to (girlfriend, boyfriend, crushes) without "actively getting off", when you're focused on something else you just.. don't always think of it. or if you do, you can distract yourself from those thoughts.
so.. i think it's silly. even when it's a fetish. i would guess that most people with a piss kink can use public bathrooms without losing their minds. you don't know if someone in the stall next to you has a scat fetish or not. someone with a hand fetish sees hands like 24/7. idk.