Reply to an autogynephiliac

I can't remember how I came across Phil Illy's opinion piece on the 'Queer Majority' site. It's basically a response to what a load of Joe Averages posted on Twitter, and, while I couldn't give a flying toss who posts whatever insipid 160-character opinions there, the autogynephilia thing, and Illy's claims about the majority of transgender women really should be addressed.

I do apologise in advance, if my choice of words, in places, rubs a few people up the wrong way.

As Illy described it, 'autogynephilia' is a condition of being 'sexually and romantically attracted to being a woman'.
It's understandable why the transgender movement, such that it exists on Twitter, would react negatively when Illy makes assertions like the following:

'It turns out that autogynephilia is the most common cause of gender dysphoria in males, and it made me mad to learn that the transgender movement’s efforts to erase my sexual orientation have kept others like me in the dark about such an important part of who we are'.

By all means, dress however you want, find ways of integrating your sexual orientation, find healthy ways to indulge whatever fetishes, openly describe yourself as a 'man in a dress' and represent yourself at Pride events, if that's what needs to be done. We all have the God-given right to express ourselves, and I certainly wouldn't think any differently of a man who opened up about having a fetish for lingerie and womens' clothing. I'm far more tolerant and accepting than the kind of people TERFs align themselves with.
Just don't assume that has anything to do with the experiences of transgender people, or has anything to do with what the transgender flag represents.

To be charitable to Illy, there is an hypothesis that appears valid, yet heavily disputed, that two categories of gender dysphoria exist: early-onset and late-onset. The latter might be attributable to autogynephilia, and it might be the case that Illy found that descriptive of his experiences. What leads me to doubt the hypothesis, however, is it clearly describes two different phenomena under the gender dysphoria label. Transgender men and women deal with the seemingly metaphysical and archetypal thing called 'gender', that appears tangentially related to some physical aspects of biology in ways that are currently beyond our understanding. What Illy experiences, instead, is either a fetish or a sexual orientation.

In taking the autogynephilia hypothesis uncritically as Gospel, we'd risk promoting the same misconception that caused problems in the past. There was a time when being transgender and being a transvestite were perceived as the same thing, because information about gender dysphoria wasn't accessible the way it is now, and we couldn't have known better. As a teenager, I knew there was something fundamentally different between myself and men who engaged in crossdressing for sexual gratification, but most people couldn't have known. How many people suffered as a result of our ignorance?

The current problem is the 'gender-critical' movement still promotes the idea that transgender women are potential predators, who engage in crossdressing for sexual motives, and that's being used as the basis for a moral panic, and a pretext to undermine the existing rights of transgender men and women.

Now, I entirely agree with Genspect's (dishonestly) stated aims: That everyone has a right to make educated and informed decisions about their gender-affirming healthcare needs. That decision should be made between a patients and doctors, without interference from political interest groups on either side.
The thing is Genspect has a history of lobbying against that very right for adults, and its anti-transgender activism goes much further than that.
Now we can see the problem with Illy rocking up to Genspect's conference and going out of his way to affirm the sort of claims they make about transgender women. Why on Earth would he do that, if he's not pandering to 'gender-critical' groups?