Hunter Avallone: Just a publicity whore.

A deliberately provocative video by a YouTube publicity whore calling himself ‘Hunter Avallone’ has a new storm in the latte cup of ‘transgender’ raging. While it can hardly be called ‘viral’, it certainly has stirred up the shit. It’s always sad to see the anti-science views of Catholic fundamentalists like Paul McHugh, formed in the 1960s when homosexuality was still considered a ‘disorder’, trotted out as if they were somehow still relevant, despite having been conclusively refuted by over fifty years of actual science; but that is the standard of this video. (The video above is of Bianca Friere, who is transsexual, not transgender. If you want Hunter’s tripe you’ll have to search.)

‘Transgenders’, in a Western context, are a small group of fetishistic, cross-dressing men whose ‘Gender Identity’ is fuelled by their addiction to masturbation while dressed in women’s clothing. These are our old friends, the autogynephiles, whose profile was conclusively determined by Dr Ray Blanchard. His work, despite the shrill protest of autogynephiles, remains the accepted, and increasingly confirmed, science.

However, in world terms, most people born male who become women are quite different from these men. They are socially, sexually, behaviourally and psychologically women. As women, they blend effortlessly into society. Blanchard called them ‘homosexual transsexuals’ or HSTS; I call them male to female (mtf) transsexuals.

However, they have a major problem: autogynephiles pretend to be the same, except they ‘came out’ later. This is a lie and the science — which has never been challenged — demonstrates that.

This artificial conflation is the root of many misconceptions that appear in ‘Avallone’s’ video. Instead of recognising that there are two distinct typologies and that this has been backed up by actual science — yes, the real stuff, published in proper journals — the author, doubtless in pursuit of attention by provoking a row, behaves as if mtf transsexualism and autogynephilic transgenderism were the same thing.

They absolutely are not, but the mistake made here is understandable: autogynephiles have made so much noise that the media is behaving as if they really were representative. You can’t blame a schoolboy with a nasty attitude and a severe lack of analytical ability for falling into the same trap as many senior journalists have.

Let us be clear: mtf transsexuals are uniquely attracted to men, realise they are different at a very early age and develop not into boys but girls. The primary source of their gender is their sexuality. It is really simple: they are attracted to straight men. How does a person such as they succeed in satisfying this? Become a woman.

Janet Mock is transsexual, not transgender. Read her book, Redefining Realness; her development is clearly, and openly detailed. including the period in her life when she thought she might be a gay man.

The relationship between feminine gay men and transsexuals is so close that there is interchange in the middle of the range, as can clearly be observed in Asia. Social pressure, therefore, contributes greatly to whether a person like this becomes mtf transsexual or a gay man; almost all transsexuals will have lived as gay boys or men for some of their lives.

Autogynephilic transgenders are socially, sexually, behaviourally and in all other respects men, except they wear women’s clothing, because this gives them a sexual thrill. Once again, Blanchard defined this. Autogynephilia, he said, is a ‘man’s propensity to be attracted to himself in the form of a woman.’

Many children do indeed explore alternative expressions of gender; one of mine did. Most realise that their natural sexual attraction is to the opposite sex and as they grow, develop their gender in accordance with this. They grow out of it. However, in the case of transsexuals their identification as girls persists after puberty and the key, as ever, is sexuality: if they are attracted to men, they will become transsexual.

Depending on the level of social oppression, they may transition fully and live as women. In the West they usually vanish, living in deep stealth as women; in Asia they are far more open, because the cultures are more socially accepting. Where misogyny and transphobia is high, more will live as gay men and suppress their transsexualism. That this is so is supported by the number of quacks providing reparative therapy to turn young post-pubertal mtf transsexuals into gay men. This is a result which the proponents regard as ‘the best outcome’ but which is responsible for the bitterness and self-loathing that many such gay men exhibit.

All competent authorities, for example the British Institute of Psychology, now regard homosexuality and transsexualism as residing on a natural scale of sexual variation. All living things exhibit variation in all parameters, this is just one. (Actually, there are probably several such scales in operation here, but that is for another day.) So transsexualism, along with homosexuality, is a perfectly natural phenomenon. We know that they are because they appear at roughly the same rate in all human populations everywhere, and have done so since history began. The Hindu Vedas, generally agreed to be at least 3,500 years old and probably 5000, mention several different categories of transsexualism, which are still found in India today. The Sumerian ‘Hymns to Inanna’ also mention them. This is a natural part of the human condition: some boys like boys and some like girls, and of those who like boys, some are more successful as girls. If you doubt this, take a walk round downtown Bangkok or Malate in Manila any night of the week.

Autogynephilia, however, has no such pedigree. There are no references to it at all prior to the 19th century, or anywhere outside Northern Europe and North America. It does not appear to exist in Asia or South America, where transsexualism, by contrast, is obvious. This leads me to conclude that it is not a part of natural human variation at all, but instead a form of psychosis resulting from social pressures dysfunctional societies like that of the USA. Blanchard, while never suggesting an underlying cause, classified autogynephilia as a paraphilia or sexual fetish, alongside sado-masochism, necrophilia, bestiality, paedophilia and others. These also appear to have social rather than biological causes and, as has often been noted, tend to cluster. So autogynephilic transgenderists are often also sado-masochists, for example.

The video does make one important point: there are indeed, only two genders. However, what it misses is that these are not related to birth sex, which is fixed. Instead, they are linked to sexuality, which is variable. People who desire to be penetrated are women and people who desire to penetrate are men. Since gender is entirely constructed and not genetic in any way, in a culture where there was no pressure to conform to predetermined gender stereotypes, we would expect to see gender corresponding directly to sexual desire: those who seek to attract male sexual partners would appear in their culture’s expression of ‘woman’ and vice versa. And this is exactly what we do see, in such cultures.

A good example, one of a great many, would be the Bugis people of Indonesia, who have five genders: males who are men, males who are women, females who are women and females who are men, along with a fifth gender that is ‘all at once’. These last are shamans or priests. Yet underlying these five are only two: man and woman; the fifth is just ‘both at once’. One’s sexual attraction determines which one is. If you are attracted to men, you become a woman, irrespective of your birth sex. If you desire women, you become a man. There is no stigma in this, and as a result, not only is transsexualism so commonplace as to be completely unremarked, but the ridiculous proliferation of ‘gender identities’ so beloved of bunk ‘queer theory’ in the West, is totally absent. There are, in practical terms, only men and women, with two developmental pathways into each.

There is no ‘normal’. There are just scales of variation. ‘Normal’, when used in the context it is in the video, just means ‘not like me’. This is a result of the conformism that infects the society of the United States. It has nothing to do with nature and much to do with a history of slavery, genocide, fratricide and violence. It certainly has nothing to do with transsexuals.

That there are these two types — which AGPs habitually deny — was finally, conclusively confirmed in 2011. Blanchard had stated 20 years before that he believed that when the methods to carry out such testing were developed, transsexuals (his HSTS) would be found to have brains more like women and AGPs not. Two teams, one led by Rametti in Italy and the other by Savic and Arver in Sweden, carried out exactly such testing. These were well-constructed studies that used all proper safeguards, were carried out prior to hormone therapy beginning and with proper controls. Rametti screened out autogynephiles and only tested transsexuals, and Savic and Arver did the opposite.

Their conclusions were clear: transsexuals have brains similar to women’s in every tested area and AGPs brains are indistinguishable from men’s. Blanchard was vindicated and his typology confirmed: there is no correlation or underlying similarity between mtf transsexualism and autogynephilic transgenderism. They are totally different phenomena.

Unfortunately, the conflation of the two types is one reason for the underlying problems that transsexuals face, and this video is just one. Far more serious is the toll of killings and violence. At least 20 transwomen were murdered in the USA alone last year, and not one was autogynephilic. They were all transsexuals.

Transsexual women like Janet Mock, Paris Lees and Laverne Cox, who have the benefit of media attention today, must distance themselves from autogynephilic men like Bruce ‘Caitlyn’ Jenner. There is no hope for better treatment of mtf transsexuals or a reduction of violence against them, as long as they are conflated with masturbating men in dresses.

‘Hunter Avallone’s’ video, while self-serving, and the worst form of manipulation of evidence to suit a predetermined conclusion, is, a the same time, symptomatic of a broader problem: transsexuals are being erased by cross-dressing men in frocks. While it raises some good points, it is superficial and reflects the author’s lack of knowledge of the subject area. It is always a good idea to establish a proper understanding of the science before opening one’s mouth; perhaps in ten years or so, ‘Avallone’ will have gained sufficient maturity to appreciate this.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 Rod Fleming's World

One thought on “Hunter Avallone: Just a publicity whore.”

  1. The thing is freedom of speech is an amazing thing in a democracy but Avallone is going out of his way to deliberately offend peoples freedom of life choices. YouTube like the internet itself is open to any immature bigot to spout off rubbish and its borderline bullying.
    I’ve seen his videos and I was taken aback. My theory is that he’s either a paid troll or he’s just deluded. He comes across to me as a spoiled kid who needs to grow up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *