Rae Alex Williams

As some have predicted, trying to repress my AGP has not worked, even with the Catholicism. It has been a constant struggle. I'm tired of battling my own desires. I want to go back to integration and crossdressing. I don't know how to square this with my faith. But I don't care anymore. Repression doesn't work. It just led to endless binge/purge cycles. I gave repression my absolute best shot. But I cannot do it anymore. AGP is a core part of me. There's obviously the sexual kinky side, which I enjoy, but there's also the side of me that just genuinely enjoys more "feminine" interests like women's fashion, makeup, beauty, skincare, etc., and wants to openly incorporate these interests into my life and how I present myself, whereas as a "conservative Catholic detrans man" those forms of expression were not available to me. I have no interest in re-transitioning via a gender identity or adopting new pronouns again or anything like that. I am firm in my knowledge of being a man. Been there done that. Neverthless, I see a future where I am free to crossdress to my heart's content and embrace my sexuality. I simply love women's clothing and fashion too much. My whole life I've loved women's clothes. I don't know why. Can't explain it. But a future deprived of that seems bleak to me. I know some of my more GC oriented followers are going to bristle at the thought of me once again bringing my fetish "out of the bedroom." But I don't really care what GCs think anymore. My once hardline GC position has somewhat softened, especially insofar as it concerns AGPs expressing themselves publicly. I don't really care if it's considered "shameful" or "perverted" by some. Moreover, I still believe in common sense. Haven't changed my mind on sports, child transition, basic reality, etc. But I feel like I am reverting back to a more "liberal" position of letting people express themselves so long as other people's rights are being protected, even if there is a degree of "ick" from male sexuality. And I've come to realize 99% of the philosophical debate around "are trans women women" is verbal dispute, like almost all philosophical debate over the meaning of words. It obviously has real-world implications that are important, but the philosophical debate itself doesn't interest me anymore. Nor do I feel myself aligned with GCs against trans as this all-encompassing civilization-ending boogeyman that sucks up all my time and energy. I've grown tired of the whole GC debate. Some will say this is now just obviously self-serving. But, again, I have stopped caring about what GCs think. Last, I want to address the accusation that I am a flip-flopping, flighty, unstable zealot who goes from one extreme thing to the next looking for an emotional crutch. Yeah, pretty much, lol. I got called out accurately. Everyone who predicted Catholicism was a temporary crutch to cope with my gender feelings can now feel vindicated. However, I do want to say that my faith beliefs were genuine. It was all genuine. It really was a struggle. It really was a beautiful journey. And I still consider myself Catholic. I still believe in God. Obviously, I don't know how to square my newfound liberal convictions with conservative Catholicism. But I will square that circle later (somehow, maybe).

@RayAlexWilliams Ok but bro there’s no need to be keeping your moobs warm with your skirt. Surely you have a waist somewhere?

People always try to insult me by saying I’m just a man in a frock. Jokes on them, I actually love being a man in a frock. It rules.

I don’t see a lot of people talking about how Spotify’s AI DJ is actually pretty good

@K8T1144 lol clearly you’ve never heard about the rule of thirds or how to hide a rectangular body shape

@TomasBogardus @d237345p @runthinkwrite I’d love to chat with you on my YouTube channel sometime, especially since I’ve found myself less confident in many of the gender critical philosophical positions I’ve held for past few years. I’ll DM you.

@RayAlexWilliams @d237345p @runthinkwrite Please call me "Tomas." This seems like a topic that's too heavy for X dot com. Would you like to connect via video on YouTube sometime?

This line of argument, such as it is, has been comprehensively refuted (and I mean refuted) by @TomasBogardus in The Nature of the Sexes. (Routledge 2025) I suggest @RayAlexWilliams you read it.

@Cassperture I’m not talking about looksmaxxer edits. I’m talking about the actual techniques and protocols used in looksmaxxing communities and mewing and hyoid exercises are the number one thing recommended and it makes sense for both men and women

@RayAlexWilliams Mewing wasn't mentioned remotely here this is someone with a recessed chin. Look at the looksmaxxer edits and their ideal is super strong jawed women, usually models.

I find the whole looksmaxxing trend quite silly because they consider strong jawed women as desirable which as a strong jawed woman with extensive knowledge of FFS I can tell you is absolutely not my experience in real life or online, and is not what cosmetic surgeons agree with.

It’s funny. Rising gender critical superstar @hothingsgirlsay said I “can’t debate her” because she’d “crush me” but when I actually offered to debate her live she declined and when she realized she doesn’t actually understand my argument she suddenly got awfully quiet

Mr. Bogardus, could you summarize why I am wrong to argue that even if many scientists say the best definition of the term “sex” is the gametic definition this does not itself make the DEFINITION itself “objectively true” in the same way the bare biological facts themselves are objectively mind-independent but only “pragmatically true” relative to the particular scientific interests of the scientists, and that it’s theoretically possible for there to be some non-scientific contexts in which it’d be pragmatically useful to adopt a different definition of “sex” other than the gametic definition (perhaps in some clinical contexts.)

@d237345p @runthinkwrite @RayAlexWilliams Paperback is more reasonable:

@runthinkwrite @helenstaniland lol “do the work.” In the time you’ve spent condescendingly lecturing me you could have summarized the argument twice over.

@RayAlexWilliams @helenstaniland But, as we've established, you haven't read the book. I'm not going to summarize a short book: you need to do the work. And, I used to do what you're doing: using impressive polysyllabic words to obscure half-digested ideas. You will grow out of it, I hope.

Top tip for doing philosophy here: avoid claiming that people who disagree with you are 'morons' with a 'low IQ'. (even if you think they are, and especially if there's a fair chance that you're completely wrong. Yes, you can say that someone is 'completely wrong.')

@hothingsgirlsay @babybeginner You’re too dumb to understand that I actually agree with you that the best and most pragmatic definition of “female” is someone who went down the large gamete developmental pathway. But that wasn’t what the point I was making. Try again.

@RayAlexWilliams @babybeginner What is a woman? Someone you will never be. You don’t need a live debate. You need to answer one question: What is a female?

Gender Criticals claim that it’s “objectively true” that “trans women are biologically male.” This is philosophically naive. What’s “objectively true” is trans women went down small gametic pathway. But whether we as society define *that* as being what the English term “male” means is not itself a “objective fact” but a contingent fact of whatever language game we happen to be playing in different contexts. For example, are we playing the evo-bio language game or are we playing the clinical medicine game or the casual conversation among friends game or the corporate HR policy game or the airport bathroom policy game? To say the evo-bio definition of “male” which anchors on gametes is “objectively true” is simply false and misunderstands the role contingency and pragmatism plays in how concepts get defined. What’s the alternative to the gametic definition? The “layer cake model” which defines sex in layers: gametic sex, chromosomal sex, morphological sex, endocrine sex, psychological sex, etc, etc, some of which can be changed by modern technology and some of which cannot. Thus the claim that sex “cannot be changed” is itself a philosophical question concerning the philosophy of language and not a purely empirical “fact.” It depends on how we decide to define “sex” and there’s no Platonic rule book in the sky which says sex MUST be defined in strictly gametic terms vs the layer cake model.

@PrishaMosley Maybe for adolescent females who transitioned with ROGD etiology but that statement is not true necessarily true for gender dysphoric males because there’s more to life than just living long: happiness is fundamental

@RayAlexWilliams Detransition is objectively healthier and prolongs living.

Life is better after detransition. Healing just takes time.

GAMPs are truly the greatest trans allies 🥹

@runthinkwrite @helenstaniland Also, this is twitter. “Read this whole ass book to understand why you’re wrong” doesn’t work. Explain to me why I’m wrong. Simply. If you can. You can’t summarize his argument concisely if it’s so clearly correct?

@RayAlexWilliams @helenstaniland You haven't read the book. Please do so.

@hothingsgirlsay @babybeginner I’ll debate you live on the topic “What is a woman?” on any platform you choose.

@babybeginner @RayAlexWilliams He can’t debate me. I would crush him. This is why he has me blocked. I already commented on several of his posts over this past week.

GCs are hilariously easy to bait 😂

Ok, I admit, the “does my Wittgensteinian pragmatism intimidate you” bit was definitely a bit cringe lol. Point still stands tho. Wittgensteinian pragmatism remains undefeated and absolutely mogs gender critical realism.

Bogardus was dealing with the question “What is a woman?” That’s not the question I was tackling. The question I was tackling was “is a transsexual woman on hormones partially female or not and who gets to decide what the term ‘female’ means.” I’ve also read Alex Byrne and Stock as well

@RayAlexWilliams That you are not a professional philosopher is clear, but, either way, shouldn't just come on here to insult people. Please read Bogardus, carefully to understand why you are wrong. And stop the insults. You will become a better philosopher.