Autogynephilia in cis women does exist. Denying the facts is just harmful to the cis women in question. It’s science-denying and it prevents them from fully expressing their sexuality.
Now that was mostly satire, but what I said about the existence of autogynephilia in cis women is true.
First, there is the wonderfully creative, if fallacious, redefinition of autogynephilia, the softening of the language, more than simple euphemism, of calling it “female embodiment fantasies”. How delightfully it allows one to then state that, of course, women naturally see themselves as female embodied as they have sexual fantasies. See, women are autogynephilic too. Or, as some twist it around, “Blanchard is defining normal female sexuality as a paraphilia!”
Autogynephilia is stigmatizing. It’s pathologizing. Reconceptualizing it (despite whether cis women have autogynephilia or not) as female embodiment fantasies allows trans women with supposed autogynephilia to feel more comfortable about labeling themselves.
Women are not sexually aroused by, nor become romantically enamored with, their femaleness
Here’s where Kay Brown is wrong. I don’t like the blog or the person here, but they did have a survey that found significant levels of attraction to femaleness among cis women that’s about the same/slightly higher than in trans women. Furthermore, Veale et. al 2008 used Blanchard’s scale and found that cis women do qualify as autogynephilic.
But that is what autogynephilia is… sexual arousal and/or romantic attachment to the contemplation of becoming or being female in and of itself.
So, definitionally cis women have autogynephilia
If autogynephilia were an effect of gender dysphoria and a female gender identity, we would predict several consequences from that effect to show up in the data. We would expect that those who were the most gender dysphoric from an early age, those who are the most naturally feminine from an early age, those who transition the soonest, to report the most autogynephilia.
This ignores at least one of the Blanchardianist skeptics argument about the origin of autogynephilia: that autogynephilia is a result of being closeted and internalizing gender dysphoria for long periods of time. If an individual is open about their gender dysphoria (see: ‘early transitioners’), then they would not have the decades of denial and internalization that the closeted individuals do (see: ‘late transitioners’). Having the highest level of gender dysphoria does not necessitate that autogynephilia is developed, but rather that the internalization of gender dysphoria does. She homogenizes anti-Blanchardianist arguments into one neat and nice strawman that she tears down.
In Nuttbrock (2009), those who had begun Hormone Replacement Therapy as teenagers only 14% reported having any autogynephilic arousal to cross-dressing compared to 82% of the gynephilic subjects (of whom only one had started HRT as a teen).
This could alternatively lead to the conclusion that transition reduces and/or prevents autogynephilia from developing. This conclusion is further supported by evidence of reduction of FEFs/AGP after transition in adults.
Further, if it is an effect of gender dysphoria and of a female gender identity, we would expect that only those who experience gender dysphoria and claim a female gender identity, to experience autogynephilia
The contention that autogynephilia is a result of both gender dysphoria and a female gender identity is a vicious strawman for a few reasons. The idea that autogynephilia is a result of gender dysphoria and a female gender identity is only posited as a single etiology, which does not preclude the possibility of other etiologies of autogynephilia in individuals of different gender identities.