All Gender Non-Conforming (GNC) children, if they persist, will become adult homosexual transsexuals (HSTS), that is, exclusively attracted to their own sex while appearing to be a member of the opposite one. This has been established beyond doubt and one would have thought that, in our enlightened era, we would be happy to go along with this. But a movement has coalesced that aims to challenge this: the ‘no-trans’ or ‘gender critical’ movement.
If you examine the obvious clustering of physical and behavioural characteristics around the childhood GNC type, certainly for Male to Feminine (MtF), where there is more data, then it is quite clear that these individuals are naturally shifted towards opposite-sex norms.
We do not know the mechanism by which MtF HSTS become feminised (or Female to Masculine (FtM) masculinised) but statistical and observational data, again and again, confirms that they exhibit this consistent set of feminised characteristics. In other words, people who are HSTS are naturally so, and to condition them to accept life in a sex-conforming gender is to attempt to persuade them to deny their own natures. This is grossly abusive, yet it is clearly what the ‘no-trans’ movement exists to do.
For HSTS individuals to live a sex-conforming role is torture. They are NEVER ‘happy gay or lesbian’ people and we need to torpedo that myth. What they will be is ‘miserable, failed transsexuals’. This is because if an MtF HSTS has not transitioned by the age of around 23, the masculinisation process will have advanced to the point where it becomes impossible for her to pass successfully as a woman. So delaying her transition as long as possible is a tool in the anti-trans armoury; a way to deny her that which she really desires until it is too late. And until recently, this was very successful in the West. As soon as progress began to be made, the no-trans movement began to push back.
I consider Dr Ken Zucker to be a well-meaning, sympathetic man whose opinions I respect, and I am very uncomfortable with the manner of his defenestration; but the fact is that examining his language in many interviews suggests he supports conversion therapy. What else does ‘get rid of the barbies’ mean? This has made him an unlikely darling of the no-trans movement.
Similarly Dr JM Bailey, another for whom I have great respect and time, advises that GNC children should be ‘gently but firmly’ persuaded to accept the gender normally conforming to their sex. This opens the door, again, to extreme forms of psychological conditioning, even though Bailey, I am certain, would disapprove of that. Of those in the no-trans movement who have used his words, however, I am less sure.
Bailey claims to agree with Zucker in that ‘it is a better outcome to be “gay” or lesbian’ than to be transsexual, when there is no evidence to support this claim. The usual argument is that it would ‘avoid a lifetime of surgery and hormones.’ But this is at best illusory.
GNC children who persist will be HSTS. This means that, for the majority, they will never use their genitalia in the way that the rest of us do. HSTS very rarely seek to penetrate and only to be penetrated; and since they have to use the anus to achieve this, there are problems. Some experience severe discomfort, up to intolerable pain, while others balk at the hygiene issues. (Others love it.)
For an MtF who will never use her penis to penetrate and who desires to be penetrated, Gender Reconstruction Surgery (GRS) is positive; it provides her with an orifice in the right place, properly adapted for penetration and, at the same time, it removes the external genitalia that ‘just get in the way’. Modern surgical techniques fully preserve orgasmic functionality and, while the neo-vagina needs regular maintenance, it is paradoxical to suggest that someone committed enough to have such surgery is not also capable of carrying this out. There have been many thousands of GRS operations successfully carried out across the world today and, while the surgery itself is major, few patients require continuing care from the surgeon. So ‘a lifetime of surgery’ actually means ‘one major operation and then a life like any other woman’ (for MtF.) But the no-trans voices ignore this in favour of their purple hyperbole.
The other argument concerns hormones, but we all face a lifetime on hormones, otherwise we’d be dead. Feminising hormones, or masculinising for FtM, aim to produce in the body the same hormone levels as would be found in a natal member of the target sex. Once stabilised, disease risk levels approximate those for the target sex — eg, MtF carry increased risk from oestrogen cancers and FtM from heart disease etc. (One support for GRS in males is the removal of the testes, which permits lower hormone doses to be prescribed; this is not effective in adult females.)
Once these two issues are considered, it should be clear that the ‘better outcome’ argument is a red herring. The real better outcome would be to help the people involved to live their lives as they desire to. But this is not the aim of the no-trans movement. Instead they seek to determine how others — often their children — should be allowed to live.
As well as this, and while I don’t believe for one minute that professionals like Dr Bailey, a decent man and a father, support extreme methods, the fact is that in the West there are still organisations, eg NARTH, that do encourage and fund reparative therapies and the quacks who use them, to condition homosexual people into being heterosexual. These people will inevitably focus their attack on homosexual transsexuals and they are going to employ the rhetoric of Bailey, Zucker, McHugh and others to support this abuse. And they will be supported by the no-trans movement, and sites that promote it.
But what about the LGB?
New Gay Man culture developed in the 1960s in the USA and is now the most prevalent expression of conventional male homosexuality. Every GNC male child who persists and becomes HSTS deprives it of a new member.
The central planks of this culture are the suppression of femininity amongst homosexual males and the ‘egalitarian’ sharing of sexual roles. Prior to 1960 or thereabouts, only the receptive partner in a sexual relationship between two males was considered homosexual. Reading the highly entertaining work of Quentin Crisp makes it clear that his experience — and that of his friends — was of playing the female role in sex, with straight men. Not once, in any of his writings, does Crisp discuss having sex with other feminine homosexuals, because it never happened. Why? Because he and others like him would have considered such a relationship to be lesbian in nature.
The New Gay Man changed all that. Now, all relationships between males were ‘gay’ no matter the role played. But this immediately shut the door to large numbers of straight potential partners, especially when activists like Peter Tatchell began ‘outing’ them for their dalliances with cute homosexual boys. This meant that New Gay Man culture became a closed shop in which one was expected to play both sexual roles. In the club scene of the 1980s, for example, the specific role being played by a homosexual man might be displayed by signs like which sleeve of his t-shirt his cigarette packet was rolled into or which pocket of his jeans had a handkerchief showing. The idea is to ‘hide in plain sight’, to appear to be no different from heterosexual males, but to be able to enjoy the desired form of sex.
Playing out this act is a Purgatory for feminine homosexual males, but for over five decades they had to bite their tongues. In New Gay Man culture they had to suppress their femininity and share sexual roles.
Within this community, feminine males are routinely bullied and reviled for being ‘too feminine’ — something they can’t help at all. You cannot successfully condition such a person to be ‘happy in their own skin’, if by that you mean, to be happy in a gender-conforming role. All you make are bitter, resentful and deeply sad adults who feel betrayed by everyone. My mailbox has many messages from people to whom this has happened and their stories are heartbreaking. It is this that the blanket ‘no trans’ political mantra facilitates: miserable, sad people, betrayed by their parents and the society around them.
On the other hand, if HSTS are true to themselves and transition, they are reviled as traitors to the New Gay Man’s political cause, since, by becoming convincing women, they remove themselves from the supply of young meat that New Gay Man culture requires to survive. No HSTS will date a gay man and no gay man will date a transsexual; but, in addition, New Gay Man culture is defined by reciprocity: in a closed community defined by sexual attraction and by how sex is performed, he who is penetrated tonight must return the favour tomorrow. That is just never going to fly with HSTS.
HSTS are interested in having sex with straight men, not gay men. They want to be sexually taken, as women. That is why they pursue the ideal of feminine beauty in the way that they do. The objective for an HSTS is not to ‘pass’ as a woman — she can do that without effort — but to be more beautiful than the competition. The female competition, that is. She’s doing exactly what most of the other young women her age are doing — enhancing their sexual attractiveness to men.
Over those five decades from 1960 some HSTS MtF, the most passable, the most determined, those with the most supportive parents, escaped the meat-grinder of New Gay Man culture and instantly vanished, with few exceptions. They moved to new towns, changed their names, broke off all contact with former friends and family; this is called ‘woodworking’. No-one in their new circle knows the truth and they spend their lives making sure nobody ever finds out. The chance observation of someone from their former lives will send them into a tailspin: ‘What if he clocked me?’ And the HSTS will redouble her efforts to remain hidden. This is actually a major impetus towards GRS for such individuals, for they fear what might happen if they needed emergency treatment and their sexual status were to be involuntarily disclosed.
That is how it was, for all those years. HSTS either had to suppress their own natures or accept that they had to lose everything — parents, home, and live in the constant terror that if they were ever recognised, their new life could be destroyed and they might lose that too. They could never, ever turn to the New Gay Man culture for support, since to that culture they were traitors, betraying everything that gays had built up since the 1960s. That is why Jim Fouratt, the New-York based gay activist, made his famous outburst that ‘crazy queens will destroy the way we live our lives!’ He was right; by refusing the egalitarian, ‘you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours’ ideology of the New Gay Man culture, and by seeking straight men and refusing gay partners, transsexuals drove a coach and horses through the house of cards of ‘Queer Theory’.
Here is a truism: the more GNC boys see other boys, just like them but a little older, successfully transitioning, the more will follow. This is the reason we see gay activists in the no-trans movement. But despite them, the suppression of HSTS, which has long been brutally pursued in the West by Church, State, professional therapists, LGB political activists and parents, is finally being broken. We are going to see a re-alignment, bringing the West into step with other parts of the world, like Southeast Asia or South America, where trans is so commonplace that nobody bats an eyelid. Where transwomen are proud to be transwomen and are not afraid of what others might think, and where they do not accept that they are in some way inferior to gender-conforming gays; after all, what is a gender conforming gay, other than a transsexual who failed to make the cut?
This is happening in the West right now and it will mean a reduction in gender-conforming ‘gay’ expressions, because, as far as we know, there is a finite number of male homosexuals in any population and one can’t be both. Why would that bother anyone? Well, it clearly bothers the New Gay Man, who has entrenched himself in the corridors of power and seeks ever to further his cause. But when he achieved ‘gay marriage’ he achieved ‘peak gay’ and it’s all downhill from there. He’s being muscled out of the way.
Is it the HSTS who are doing the muscling? No. In one of the most bizarre paradoxes imaginable, the other type of male transitioner, autogynephiles like Julia Serano, Bruce ‘Caitlyn’ Jenner, Justin ‘Riley’ Dennis and others, have rallied to support HSTS, a group they formerly, if they considered them at all, were hostile towards.
The key to this group’s sudden and unexpected defence of HSTS is this: one important feature of autogynephilia is validation. AGPs constantly invent new childhoods for themselves, in which they were ‘girly’. Invariably, this is not the case and their peers will confirm: they were normal boys, perhaps a little withdrawn. But the pseudo-feminine character that they invent and then inhabit has to have a supportive history. GNC children are always, if they persist, HSTS rather than autogynephilic, but AGPs do not recognise this dichotomy. So they see, in GNC children, validation for their own fabricated claims of the same feelings and expressions. This is just as much an erasure of HSTS reality as any other but here it works to the advantage of HSTS, because AGPs in the West are organised, often highly intelligent, men who are used to getting their own way. They have been able to garner political influence in a way that no collection of 20-year old HSTS ever could.
This has led to a severe conflict between those who are fundamentally anti-trans — and this includes Church, State, professionals, parents and the LGB movement — and those who defend HSTS. While the AGPs making so much of the running here are not in any way related to HSTS behaviourally or in terms of their orientation or identity, they have proven to be allies. This has not made their behaviour any more pleasant but, to a certain extent, their sheer aggression has gained many advantages for HSTS that they could not have gained themselves, largely because of the opposition of the New Gay Man and his lesbian equivalent, who are firmly entrenched in the Western Establishment.
Smartphones and Social Media
When you gave your kids smartphones and social media, you gave them the tools to develop networks that closely parallel the real-life support networks found elsewhere in the world. The beki culture of the Philippines, the kathoey culture of Thailand and the travesti culture of South America are examples of these, vibrant, alive and most of all, supportive. They serve as forums for the exchange of knowledge and ideas, techniques, ways to make money and more; in Brazil, they are even the bank. They nurture the GNC child through to adulthood and salve the injuries she will surely suffer; they give her hope and goals, targets to achieve, introductions, favour and everything else she needs. They are the broader communities within which GNC individuals find their real families.
This is going to happen, whether we like it or not, in the West. The only way to stop it now would be massively restrictive controls like strict age-barring on social media and smartphone use. Good luck getting that idea past Zuckerberg and his ilk. They want our kids hooked as young as possible, knowing they’ll be profitable revenue generators for the future. Make peace with your kids and find out what THEY actually want, not what you or others think they SHOULD want.
My advice to professionals in this field is this: the days when you were gate-keepers are gone. There is a huge black market in cross-sex drugs and the air fare to Thailand is inexpensive. The free market has changed the clinician/client relationship. You can no longer decide for people what is the ‘better outcome’. They will decide that for themselves and your role now is to assist them in making that decision. If you want to remain relevant, you need to understand this.
I condemn outright the ‘transing’ of pre-pubescent children and advise extreme caution and a ‘wait and see’ approach. But this should NOT mean ‘give us a few years for the quacks to condition the kids out of this nonsense’. It means genuine neutrality and respect, and an understanding that being HSTS IS NOT a failure. It is a genuine acceptance of who and what that person really is, and should be celebrated.
The ‘no-trans’ approach
The blanket ‘no trans’ approach, which is gaining traction today through sites like ‘4th Wave Now’, has many negative consequences. It impacts on research that might be able to establish a predictive set of diagnostic measures (we know that persistence is related to the intensity and type of childhood GNC but we do not understand the mechanisms) and it condemns many genuine HSTS to a life of misery (few HSTS in the West will transition after the age of 23; a great deal of effort is made to condition them such that they are locked into an LG life-path long before this. To suggest that effort is always ‘in the child’s interest’ is at best disingenuous.)These are just the most obvious effects of the ‘no trans’ policy.
It is an oft-made observation that ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’ and politics makes strange bedfellows. I have to defer to the AGP activists despite my suspicion of their motives, because, in the end, their involvement has made the situation for HSTS far more public and so, better.
The no-trans LG movement is digging its heels in, determined to resist change. Yet they should remember that they once, themselves, were revolutionary, and that’s the thing about revolutions: they come right back around and hit you in the face. What was relevant in 1960 is not, today, and they are coming up against resistance from people they cannot claim to be ‘oppressors’ but whom, in fact, they have been oppressing, blatantly, for decades. We are heading towards an older model in which girly boys become women, at least superficially, to attract straight men. The whole New Gay Man/LGB chapter might simply be an aberration whose time came and went; I doubt if it will be missed.
Meantime, HSTS are unquestionably one of the most severely marginalised groups in Western society, today as always. It’s about time people started speaking up for them, rather than trying to maintain a social status quo which is, in any case, utterly doomed.