Skip to main content

ActivityPub - Link to source

NEW ESSAY! about last week's White Lotus episode & misconceptions about "autogynephilia," but mostly about GC/TERF rhetoric & their "grand unified theory" of transness! on Substack (no paywall): juliaserano.substack.com/p/the-white-...or Medium (friend link): juliaserano.medium.com/the-white-lo...

The White Lotus, TERFs, and “A...


The White Lotus, TERFs, and “Autogynephilia” as a Floating Signifier

plus their “grand unified theory” of transness
Julia Serano (Switch Hitter)
in reply to Julia Serano

Julia Serano
ActivityPub - Link to source
Julia Serano
• •

...pls share widely, "like", etc. THREAD forthcoming! FYI: most media outlets wouldn't have allowed me publish this piece as is. so if you appreciate that I make essays like this freely available online, please consider supporting me on Patreon for as little as $1/month!www.patreon.com/juliaserano

Get more from Julia Serano on ...

!www.patreon.com/juliaserano
in reply to Julia Serano

Julia Serano
ActivityPub - Link to source
Julia Serano
• •
🧵 so the jumping off point for my essay was last week's White Lotus episode that GC/TERFs celebrated as though it were some kind of “exposé of AGP,” when it was simply a fictitious scene. the essay begins with me clearing up common misconceptions about "AGP"...juliaserano.medium.com/the-white-lo...
screenshot from linked to essay that reads: To be clear, Frank (the White Lotus character in question) never describes himself as trans. If he were a real person (rather than a fictitious character), he’d likely be one of the 33-ish percent of cisgender men who experience female/feminine embodiment fantasies (FEFs). And while it’s true that some trans women report having FEFs (just as many cisgender women do), I have never once in my entire life heard of a trans woman who fantasized about having sex with someone who resembled her “male self.” Nor have I ever met a trans woman who strived to become another race or ethnicity — we transition to be ourselves, not to become someone else. It is ludicrous that I even need to say this, but The White Lotus isn’t a reality show or documentary. It’s a satire that is routinely described as “scandalous.” I highly doubt the show writers were trying to do an “exposé of AGP,” as many GC/TERFs seem to believe. It’s far more likely that the writers were simply concocting an intentionally over-the-top storyline (sex tourism! sex addiction! embodiment fantasies! oh my!) to make the scene as salacious as possible.
in reply to Julia Serano

Julia Serano
ActivityPub - Link to source
Julia Serano
• •
...this provided an opportunity to talk about something that's been on my mind: how many of GC/TERFs' go-to terms (including "autogynephilia/AGP") function as "floating signifiers" – they have no fixed meanings, but rather shift around like moving targets...juliaserano.medium.com/the-white-lo...
screenshot from linked to essay that reads: Lots of TV shows have gender-bendy storylines written by cisgender writers that have little to nothing to do with actual trans people. I usually don’t bother writing a response to every single one of these shows — if I did, we’d be here all day. But this particular incident highlighted something that’s been on my mind lately regarding GC/TERF rhetoric more generally (e.g., in their go-to phrases like “erasing women,” “biological sex,” “gender ideology”), and is especially true with regards to “AGP/autogynephilia.” Whenever they invoke the latter term, we tend to get bogged down in questions of what exactly “autogynephilia” is or who supposedly experiences it, when what we really need to discuss how the word functions, because that’s the real story here. Frankly (no pun intended), “autogynephilia” does not function like most other words. Here’s what I mean: When I say or write the word “tree,” you are likely to conjure up an image of a tree in your mind. Sure, I might be thinking of an oak tree and you a pine tree — which is why language is sometimes messy — but at least we both have a general sense of what we’re talking about. In the parlance of linguists, the combination of letters that spell “T-R-E-E” is called the signifier and the object itself (whether oak, pine, or other) is called the referent. “Autogynephilia” primarily functions as a floating signifier...
in reply to Julia Serano

Julia Serano
ActivityPub - Link to source
Julia Serano
• •

...I try to explain how floating signifiers work in this short THREAD about the phrase "erasing women", which can mean at least 4 completely different things. so if you critique one (eg, trans-inclusive language doesn't "erase women") then they will shift to another usage...bsky.app/profile/juli...

RE: bsky.app/profile/did:plc:jegl5…

Julia Serano

2025-03-25 16:20:47

ActivityPub - Link to source

🧵 I'm currently writing about how many GC/TERF go-to terms (“biological sex,” “gender ideology,” “AGP”) primarily function as floating signifiers, where the referent is a moving target. a perfect example of this is the phrase “erasing women”...juliaserano.substack.com/p/a-gender-c...
screenshot from the linked-to essay that reads: Gender-critical activists also routinely claim that trans people are “erasing” or “silencing” women, neither of which is true. The claim that trans people—who comprise less than 1 percent of the population—are somehow capable of “erasing women” is farcical, unless of course you buy into Janice Raymond’s conspiracy theory that “biological woman is in the process of being made obsolete by bio-medicine” (Raymond, 1979, p. xxiii). For this reason, GC/TERFs typically deploy “erasing” in a vague and flimsy fashion.

A “Gender Critical” and “TERF” Primer

for readers trying to make sense of “feminists versus transgender activists” debates
Julia Serano (Switch Hitter)
in reply to Julia Serano

Julia Serano
ActivityPub - Link to source
Julia Serano
• •
...scientific discourses on “autogynephilia” have long been plagued by the term having many (at least 6) meanings built into it. so if you say the theory is disproved, Blanchard et al will shift meanings – it's like playing the game Whac-A-Mole...juliaserano.medium.com/the-white-lo...
screenshot from linked to essay that reads: So by my count, that’s at least six distinct meanings (FEFs, trans-specific, a paraphilia/fetish, two fundamentally different types of trans women, the cause of gender dysphoria and desire to transition in non-heterosexual trans women, and a sexual orientation unto itself) all packed into the term “autogynephilia.” And over the years, once other researchers began publishing their own studies and critical reviews of Blanchard’s theory — demonstrating that there aren’t two types of trans women, nor are FEFs trans-specific, nor do FEFs cause gender dysphoria/desire to transition, etc. — proponents of the theory resorted to vacillating between “autogynephilia’s” various referents. So nowadays, when people (such as me) argue that Blanchard’s theory has been disproven (because it has been, see previous links), they accuse us of “denying” the existence of “autogynephilia” (by which they mean FEFs, even though nobody is denying that such fantasies exist). But then, if we point out that significant numbers of cisgender women and men also experience FEFs, they will argue that those don’t “count” as “autogynephilia” because . . . [checks notes] well, those people are not trans, so they cannot possibly “have it.” In other words, they have shifted back to “autogynephilia” signifying an imagined “cause” of transgender identities or “subtype” of trans women, which definitionally cannot be applied to cisgender people. Endlessly frustrating. Like I said, it’s like playing Whac-A-Mole.
in reply to Julia Serano

Julia Serano
ActivityPub - Link to source
Julia Serano
• •
...GC/TERFs have even further expanded upon AGP’s floating signifier repertoire, such that anything they find on the internet or TV that strikes them as "fetish-y" in any way automatically = "trans" = "sexual predator". it's a bizarre word association game...juliaserano.medium.com/the-white-lo...
screenshot from linked to essay that reads: GC/TERFs have further expanded autogynephilia’s floating signifier repertoire. For starters, they simply call all trans women “AGPs” nowadays regardless of sexual orientation — that is, they couldn’t care less about Blanchard’s “two subtypes of trans women” even though this was originally a central aspect of his theory. They also tend to stretch Blanchard’s claim that FEFs constitute a “paraphilia” — which btw is a confused concept of its own, as I detail in Chapter 10 of my book Sexed Up — to insinuate that all trans women are “fetishists,” and that all “fetishists” are trans women. This is why they are so confident that fictional Frank from White Lotus is “trans,” even though he never describes himself that way. Because in GC/TERFs’ minds: “AGP” = “trans” = “fetish” = “sex addiction” = “sexual predation.” It’s the perfect floating signifier.
in reply to Julia Serano

Julia Serano
ActivityPub - Link to source
Julia Serano
• •
...even though this is so far removed from Blanchard's conceptualization of "autogynephilia" (which was about self-fantasies, not "predation" – the word even has the prefix "auto" in it FFS!)...juliaserano.medium.com/the-white-lo...
screenshot from linked to essay that reads: But the truth is that GC/TERFs couldn’t care less about Blanchard’s theory. Rather, what they really really want to do is to equate trans women with “sexual predators” — despite all the evidence to the contrary, plus the blatant way this trope has been deployed to demonize other marginalized groups in the past (all of which is detailed in my Transgender People, Bathrooms, and Sexual Predators: What the Data Say essay, now in video) — because this makes it easier for them to push their preferred policies (which generally involve eliminating trans people from the public sphere). And because “AGP/autogynephilia” primarily functions as a floating signifier, it can readily accommodate this additional (false) meaning.
in reply to Julia Serano

Julia Serano
ActivityPub - Link to source
Julia Serano
• •
...which brings us to (what I call) GC/TERFs’ Grand Unified Theory of transness, made possible by the term "AGP" meaning virtually anything. I share an early instance where Kathleen Stock argued that "AGP men" were orchestrating the existence of trans kids...juliaserano.medium.com/the-white-lo...
screenshot from linked to essay that reads: Essentially, Stock is claiming that the existence of trans children is being orchestrated by trans adults with “autogynephilia.” I cannot adequately express how inane this claim is. For one thing, trans kids have always existed — we inexplicably spring up in families and communities regardless of how accepting, disaffirming, or derisive they are toward us. Not to mention the fact that most of the trans women who GC/TERFs disparage as “AGPs” were once trans kids ourselves. Furthermore, gender-affirming care for trans youth was neither pioneered nor pushed by trans adults. Rather, these kids were coming out on their own as trans, their parents sought to support (rather than disaffirm) them, and trans health practitioners worked with said parents and children to provide them with the best possible options. If you don’t believe me, this history is chronicled in sociologist Tey Meadow’s 2018 book Trans Kids, which at one point states: “Older transgender adults initially resisted the efforts of the parent activists and advocates who first began agitating for support from schools and doctors in the late 1990s and early 2000s, fearing political repercussions from the public endorsement of social transition for young children” (p.140). So much for Stock’s “tail wagging the dog” quip.
in reply to Julia Serano

Julia Serano
ActivityPub - Link to source
Julia Serano
• •
...we don't talk enough about how unhinged Helen Joyce is. here she is going even further than Stock by attributing yet another meaning to "AGP": it's now supposedly a sexual kink that trans adults have for convincing "vulnerable teenage girls" to transition...juliaserano.medium.com/the-white-lo...
screenshot from linked to essay. it begins with the following Helen Joyce quote: "I think one of the reasons that this movement has had so many successes is that it’s got many motive forces. We have to look at these autogynophilic men and see them as, I think, the single biggest reason that this movement has succeeded to such an extent. There just are these very powerful men whose entire aim in life is to transgress women’s boundaries and to force everyone else to pretend that they’re women because they get an erotic thrill out of it. And those men think about nothing else, like men and their boners, excuse me, that is the greatest force in human history, as far as I can see. There’s nothing else that comes close to it. And then there’s the capture of institutions. There’s the vulnerability of teenage girls. There’s these weird predatory guys convincing kids that they should transition because that’s what they get a kick out of." then I go onto say: This is honestly one of the most batshit passages I have ever read. Describing trans women as “very powerful men” and “the greatest force in human history” is unhinged. While most trans women hormonally and/or surgically transition (which significantly reduces libido btw), we remain proverbial and perpetual “men with boners” in Joyce’s transphobia-addled mind. And looky here, Joyce has given “autogynephilia” yet another referent — suddenly it’s a sexual kink for convincing children to transition now.
in reply to Julia Serano

Julia Serano
ActivityPub - Link to source
Julia Serano
• •
...essentially GC/TERFs’ Grand Unified Theory of transness connects "AGP" to "ROGD": adult trans women (depicted as "men") are driving "social contagion" in order to "erase women" & "seduce young girls". this is the premise of Abigail Shrier’s book too...juliaserano.medium.com/the-white-lo...
screenshot from linked to essay that reads: Notice how both Stock and Joyce depict trans kids as “mostly female,” even though the evidence to support this is weak. Their purpose in doing so is to connect “autogynephilia” to their other pet pseudoscientific theory (which GC/TERFs literally invented): “transgender social contagion” (also called “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria” or “ROGD”). As with “autogynephilia,” numerous research studies have been published that are inconsistent with or outright contradict “social contagion/ROGD” (detailed here). But this doesn’t faze them, as these concepts aren’t intended to be scientific — they are merely floating signifiers that (like the red string on a conspiracy theorist’s evidence board) seemingly connect everything they are concerned about with one another. Perhaps the quintessential example of GC/TERFs’ Grand Unified Theory of transness can be found in Abigail Shrier’s 2020 book, Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters. Here’s how I described the book in the new Afterword I wrote (about the current anti-trans backlash) for the third edition of Whipping Girl.
in reply to Julia Serano

Julia Serano
ActivityPub - Link to source
Julia Serano
• •
...when GC/TERFs say "AGP" these days, they mean “the shadowy cabal orchestrating Big Trans.” the term has "graduated to full-blown conspiracy theory. It's outlived its usefulness as a scientific label or neutral descriptor for a certain type of sexual fantasy"juliaserano.medium.com/the-white-lo...
screenshot from linked to essay that reads: There once was a time when relatively few people used the word “autogynephilia,” and when they did, it was to specifically refer to Blanchard’s proposed taxonomy and etiology. By the 2000s, a number of scientists and trans people began applying the term to describe FEFs more generally, independent of Blanchard’s theory — that was confusing enough. But today in 2025, the overwhelming number of people who invoke “autogynephilia” are committed GC/TERFs, and they wield the word in a ridiculously broad way to imply that “AGP” = “trans” = “fetish” = “porn” = “sex addict” = “sexual predator” = “child molester” = “a kink for ‘transing’ children” = “the shadowy cabal orchestrating Big Trans.” “Autogynephilia” has long been a floating signifier. But it has since graduated to full-blown conspiracy theory. It has outlived its usefulness as a scientific label or neutral descriptor for a certain type of sexual fantasy. We should move on from the word, as I’ve argued previously. At a bare minimum, those who continue to use the term should at least address and grapple with the way it has been taken up by anti-trans conspiracy theorists, lest they be perceived as harboring similar sentiments themselves.
⇧