I am not going to put a whole bunch of citations on a 4chan post but I think that there is enough of a sampling of the data to paint the rough gist. I think that "AGP" trannies are not meaningfully described by autogynephilia. Autosexuality is probably a feature of the highly correlated autism in conjunction with the attraction to feminine bodies. However I think all of us know that it is possible to be attracted to male bodies, even primarily, and still "be" "agp" in the sense of being in the high IQ, technically inclined brain phenotype. It is a practical experiential fact as a trans woman to come to know and distinguish between these two subgroups. The most meaningful difference is the very large IQ difference.

I think it is very possible that transgenderism is just a logical choice for a neurology that is inclined toward abstraction, detachment from concrete experience, highly cognitively flexible, and so on. Essentially the correlates of an abstraction prone high IQ brain phenotype. I think the (independently occurring) autistic overlap creates the high degree of autosexuality which makes transbianism in particular so common. For an autistic or atypical brain, theory of mind impairments are not only natural but inevitable. You are in some ways factually substantially different from others, which can make simulation of mental states and affects less reliable.

I think the best prescription in the face of those facts is acceptance of high IQ transexuals as a useful and neurologically distinct subgroup which have subtle immutable differences from the whole population, in ways that cannot be understood solely in terms of e.g. autistic v allistic, or male v female alone. Essentially it takes a new category. I think some degree of understanding or acceptance of the eccentricities or oddities of the class should be tempered by an appreciation for their potential positive contributions e.g. technical/intellectual work. Just make them like mentats : )

retard

You point to "autosexuality" as uniquely emergent in gynephilic (for lack of a better term) trannies yet completely forgot the foundation of your framework rests on the idea that androphilic trannies are homosexuals and would therefore be autosexual as well.

It is interesting that transbiens seem to have irregular brains from both cis men and cis women whereas hettrans are closer to cis women brains but you're not going to have meaningful conclusions when you choose to ignore the 60% of the data set who are bisexual.

Furthermore you do not seem to consider the possibility that cisbians have irregular brain structure which is honestly necessary to explore given:
1) the high rate of autism among lesbians
2) the high rate of physical masculinization among lesbians
3) the frequency with which lesbians wind up in male professions
I could go on.

In general I get the impression that you're proposing a new framework with higher complication and more unfalsifiable parameters to explain something in marginal terms that already has explanations within more mainstream research. While this research can certainly be criticized on several grounds, these aren't issues that are absent from the marginal framework(s) and are in fact more pronounced, e.g., it is well understood that intelligence in AGPs is an artifact of small samples nearly exclusively collected on university campuses and larger, more diverse samples regress to a more normal distribution.

Dumbasses have low self awareness and are less likely to realize they are trans, and less likely to ignore their social programming and troon out.

>t. 160+iq