Hm, thanks for this perspective on the psychology of trans-identified men. I would like to think they are attempting to understand us, but that doesn't check for me. Every time I glance down a Reddit thread or youtube, what strikes me in the gut is the way they are turned on by the perceived humiliation of womanhood - "I'm so forgetful since I started tittie skittles!" "My typing has improved!" "The definition of woman is a f*ckable hole!" "Little girls are dirty and kinky!" and the rest of that nonsense. They wear us as self-hatred.
Super interesting interview on a number of topics. Great to hear Fleischman talk about one of the books I have yet to open that’s sitting on my desk: Good Reasons for Bad Feelings, by Randolph M. Nesse. Inspired to now move it to the top of my list.
I was a bit disappointed that Stella and Mia didn’t push back more. The interviewee doesn’t seem very like a very good scientist. We aren’t just animals we all grow up in a society with ideas about manners, law and morals.
The idea that anyone can invite a specific set of people to produce photos of themselves and present this as proof of a c hypothesis is profoundly sloppy.
Her use of the word ‘eugenics’ to describe official advice not to have children with your cousin is irritating. She cites the count of birth defects but it causes more problems than just birth defects. I just think she’s using these words to attract outrage and clicks.
The interviewee extrapolates evolutionary psychology to comment on cultural issues in a very naive and simplistic way. Her research area is by definition very limited.
She was very sloppy in the language she uses and makes wild generalisations. For example saying that women with facial hair is non gender conforming and ‘disgusting’. Most women have facial hair naturally. She suggests it is disgusting. But that’s just her opinion, based on her own cultural mores.
I think many people confuse disgust with an uncanny affect. It can be an uncanny experience if you encounter a person who presents as the opposite sex of their actual sex, but only as long as you are unaware of their true sex.
I think the reason many women find AGP disgusting is because of those mixed signals over whether or not someone is a potential mating partner. I was a fan of anime in college and, unfortunately, learned about the existence of something known as a "dick-girl", a character who appears to be female but has a penis and a male sex drive and is rather pervy. I noticed that men tended to like dick-girls a lot more than women did, who found the concept disgusting. Even my sister who later married a man who thinks he's a woman (so by her metric married a dick-girl) talked about finding dick-girls in anime disgusting. For men supposedly the attraction of dick-girls is getting to watch women interacting sexually without having to watch a naked man.
I do find the concept of dick-girls gross, and when I learned about AGP I was rather disgusted, and I think it is the genital incongruence with the rest of the body that is gross for me. A man having a vagina or being turned on by the thought of it is gross because, subconsciously, it wouldn't be possible to successfully mate with him.
I will say this for the insanity in the gender world, it did force me to think deeply about why I found the idea of being with a woman who takes testosterone and successfully passes as a man disgusting, and the reason is because as a heterosexual woman I am attracted to people I can successfully make a baby with should I chose to have one, and I wouldn't be able to do that with a trans identified woman regardless of how well she passes or a man with AGP who is transitioning to appear to be a woman.
I enjoyed this interview with Fleischman even though there were things I disagree on. I did find her idea that AGPs are better trying to understand women fascinating, and I want to posit that just because AGPs tend to fail at understanding women does not necessarily mean that they aren't trying in maladaptive ways. Given the comorbidity with autism and the difficulties some people with autism have with empathy and walking in someone else's shoes (this isn't every autistic individual, my autistic son is very empathetic and I hate this idea that all autistic people struggle with empathy) it may lead them to trying to role play as women in an attempt to understand them that fails basically. Hence why this is not a large part of the population.
"She wonders if gender dysphoria itself is culturally created - would boys who wear dresses simply grow up to be gay men if the trans option didn't exist?"
This is hardly a revolutionary insight. This is 2025. The idea that gender nonconforming boys will likely grow up to be gay men if they can dodge the trans trap has been conventional wisdom for years. It has been my reality for decades, though I had the great good luck to go through my sissy-pansy phase before gender identity ideology escaped into the world from the philosophers' Pandora's Box.
It was interesting to hear Fleischman's comments about polyamory near the end of her interview. This reminded me of the book by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá, *Sex at Dawn*, positing their theory that men and women are naturally promiscuous (at least dating back to hunter gatherer society), quite contrary to the conventional wisdom that we naturally pair-bond (like e.g. ducks). I notice sometimes that conservative critics will lump polyamory in with "wokeness" and gender ideology. Though a feeling of disgust about polyamory might be the cause of this, I don't think it's entirely fair. The Ryan/Jethá book makes an interesting case, drawing from anthropological evidence, biology/physiology, and contemporary cultural observations. I suppose it's rather far off the gender track, but might be an interesting subject (interview of authors?) for a future *beyond gender* podcast. I'd like to hear Fleischman's take on that book also.
Stella: your audio still sounds muffled/muddy compared to the more crisp version I'm used to from GWL. You deserve better!
Hm, thanks for this perspective on the psychology of trans-identified men. I would like to think they are attempting to understand us, but that doesn't check for me. Every time I glance down a Reddit thread or youtube, what strikes me in the gut is the way they are turned on by the perceived humiliation of womanhood - "I'm so forgetful since I started tittie skittles!" "My typing has improved!" "The definition of woman is a f*ckable hole!" "Little girls are dirty and kinky!" and the rest of that nonsense. They wear us as self-hatred.
Super interesting interview on a number of topics. Great to hear Fleischman talk about one of the books I have yet to open that’s sitting on my desk: Good Reasons for Bad Feelings, by Randolph M. Nesse. Inspired to now move it to the top of my list.
I was a bit disappointed that Stella and Mia didn’t push back more. The interviewee doesn’t seem very like a very good scientist. We aren’t just animals we all grow up in a society with ideas about manners, law and morals.
The idea that anyone can invite a specific set of people to produce photos of themselves and present this as proof of a c hypothesis is profoundly sloppy.
Her use of the word ‘eugenics’ to describe official advice not to have children with your cousin is irritating. She cites the count of birth defects but it causes more problems than just birth defects. I just think she’s using these words to attract outrage and clicks.
The interviewee extrapolates evolutionary psychology to comment on cultural issues in a very naive and simplistic way. Her research area is by definition very limited.
She was very sloppy in the language she uses and makes wild generalisations. For example saying that women with facial hair is non gender conforming and ‘disgusting’. Most women have facial hair naturally. She suggests it is disgusting. But that’s just her opinion, based on her own cultural mores.
I think many people confuse disgust with an uncanny affect. It can be an uncanny experience if you encounter a person who presents as the opposite sex of their actual sex, but only as long as you are unaware of their true sex.
I think the reason many women find AGP disgusting is because of those mixed signals over whether or not someone is a potential mating partner. I was a fan of anime in college and, unfortunately, learned about the existence of something known as a "dick-girl", a character who appears to be female but has a penis and a male sex drive and is rather pervy. I noticed that men tended to like dick-girls a lot more than women did, who found the concept disgusting. Even my sister who later married a man who thinks he's a woman (so by her metric married a dick-girl) talked about finding dick-girls in anime disgusting. For men supposedly the attraction of dick-girls is getting to watch women interacting sexually without having to watch a naked man.
I do find the concept of dick-girls gross, and when I learned about AGP I was rather disgusted, and I think it is the genital incongruence with the rest of the body that is gross for me. A man having a vagina or being turned on by the thought of it is gross because, subconsciously, it wouldn't be possible to successfully mate with him.
I will say this for the insanity in the gender world, it did force me to think deeply about why I found the idea of being with a woman who takes testosterone and successfully passes as a man disgusting, and the reason is because as a heterosexual woman I am attracted to people I can successfully make a baby with should I chose to have one, and I wouldn't be able to do that with a trans identified woman regardless of how well she passes or a man with AGP who is transitioning to appear to be a woman.
I enjoyed this interview with Fleischman even though there were things I disagree on. I did find her idea that AGPs are better trying to understand women fascinating, and I want to posit that just because AGPs tend to fail at understanding women does not necessarily mean that they aren't trying in maladaptive ways. Given the comorbidity with autism and the difficulties some people with autism have with empathy and walking in someone else's shoes (this isn't every autistic individual, my autistic son is very empathetic and I hate this idea that all autistic people struggle with empathy) it may lead them to trying to role play as women in an attempt to understand them that fails basically. Hence why this is not a large part of the population.
"She wonders if gender dysphoria itself is culturally created - would boys who wear dresses simply grow up to be gay men if the trans option didn't exist?"
This is hardly a revolutionary insight. This is 2025. The idea that gender nonconforming boys will likely grow up to be gay men if they can dodge the trans trap has been conventional wisdom for years. It has been my reality for decades, though I had the great good luck to go through my sissy-pansy phase before gender identity ideology escaped into the world from the philosophers' Pandora's Box.
It was interesting to hear Fleischman's comments about polyamory near the end of her interview. This reminded me of the book by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá, *Sex at Dawn*, positing their theory that men and women are naturally promiscuous (at least dating back to hunter gatherer society), quite contrary to the conventional wisdom that we naturally pair-bond (like e.g. ducks). I notice sometimes that conservative critics will lump polyamory in with "wokeness" and gender ideology. Though a feeling of disgust about polyamory might be the cause of this, I don't think it's entirely fair. The Ryan/Jethá book makes an interesting case, drawing from anthropological evidence, biology/physiology, and contemporary cultural observations. I suppose it's rather far off the gender track, but might be an interesting subject (interview of authors?) for a future *beyond gender* podcast. I'd like to hear Fleischman's take on that book also.
Stella: your audio still sounds muffled/muddy compared to the more crisp version I'm used to from GWL. You deserve better!