It is important to understand that Transsexualism, Gender Identity Disorder (GID) and Gender Dysphoria (GD) are in fact the same thing; I will use GID and GD as interchangeable in this article. In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of Mental Disorders, prepared by the American Psychiatric Association, the terms GID and GD apply to the same condition, depending on which edition of the DSM you look in.
Up to the fourth edition, DSM4, the term appears as Gender Identity Disorder and in DSM5 it appears as Gender Dysphoria . There is a note in DSM5, which confirms that the name was changed to Gender Dysphoria because the word “Disorder” was seen as having negative connotations and was stigmatising to people suffering from the condition. It was not changed because it was no longer considered a mental disorder — as most trans-activists will tell you. GD still appears in the DSM5 which is the DSM of “Mental Disorders”. I make no comment here about the act of or reasons for distorting or hiding the truth with wordplay to protect people’s feelings!
It’s clear that there is a deal of brouhaha about the extent to which transsexualism is impacting on the lesbian and gay, and to a lesser extent bisexual, lifestyle and political hegemony in the West. This is contributing to an increasingly bitter spat about young transitioners — people transitioning gender before they reach their majority.
There is no doubt that political activists are operating on this body of young people, some with laudable motives, others not so; but why is the lesbian and gay community so exercised?
For many years now, the New Gay Man, speaking through activists from Jim Fouratt to Peter Tatchell have claimed that HomoSexual TransSexuals (HSTS) are a form of ‘failed gay man’. But is this true or even a reasonable position to take?
In a recent Twitter conversation a correspondent proposed an alteration to the conventional understanding that placed homosexual men as a subset of HSTS. In other words, she suggested that, far from transitioned HSTS being ‘failures’, all homosexuals are in fact also transsexual but for various reasons some repress or deny this.
It might seem surprising, but I had never considered this inversion, or the implications of it, but the more I thought about it, the more sense it made.
Many people don’t quite understand my position on transsexualism, which is fair enough because I have never stated what that position might be. I have been asked why I talk so much about transsexualism here, in general writing and on my YouTube Channel. So here we go.
My background is in photography and journalism. I had a scientific education but was always propelled towards practicality, so I studied things that could make money, like photography and journalism (duuh.) I did consider reading English but then discovered that this was a pathway into academic insanity and it is not a reliable route into journalism (if you want to be a journalist, study a subject of public interest, like politics, economics, law, medicine…not English. They all assume literacy and if you can’t write to the style of the New York Times, with a reading age of 13, you are too challenged to be a journo.)
I have always been interested in human sexuality, since the time I was at Art School. This was because there, I was exposed to a myriad of different ones. People today forget how open the culture, at least in Scotland, was in the 1980s. New Romance was the big thing, everybody wore mascara and it was rightly called the ‘gayest era ever.’
In 2009 Dr Charles Moser entered the discussion about Blanchard’s Typology of transsexualism. It is worth revisiting Moser because his mischievous intervention not only hindered the progress of the science of transsexualism, but damaged some people, while favouring others.
As you may know, Blanchard separates male-to-feminine (MtF) transsexuals into those attracted to their own sex from their earliest arousal, and those who are either not attracted to their own birth sex or who develop such an attraction, usually partially, in later life. These are called, using Blanchard’s terminology, ‘HomoSexual Transsexuals’ or HSTS and ‘Autogynephilic Transsexuals’ or AGPs. (We will later quote studies that call the latter ‘non-homosexual’.)
Blanchard’s underlying thesis is that both these forms of transsexualism are stimulated by male sex drive. MtF HSTS are, essentially, seen as extremely feminine homosexual males. This is relatively easy to understand and this type was formerly known as the ‘Primary’ or ‘True’ type. The other type is much more complex and shares an aetiology with fetishistic cross-dressing men. These individuals are romantically or sexually attracted to themselves, but as women.
Autogynephilia is ‘a man’s propensity to be sexually aroused at the thought or image of himself as a woman’. For many practical purposes we might restate that as ‘a man’s overwhelming desire to be a woman’, to ‘become that which he loves’ and so on. It is a man’s deeply-felt identification with the object of his desire. So what might social autogynephilia be?
Although this is often deliberately obscured, there is actually a significant amount of scientific literature on the subject of transsexualism or transgender, particularly Male-to-Feminine (Male sex, Feminine gender.) I have linked to the most important papers below and have commented on some.
Essentially, the so-called ‘Feminine Essence’ hypothesis, which is often touted by propagandists for one type of MtF, for example Julia Serano, who is actually autogynephilic, has absolutely no basis in science at all. It is an artefact of Postmodernism and Serano, in espousing the hypothesis and deliberately ignoring the actual science, betrays an underlying hostility to science that is typical of Postmodernists.
We know what causes transsexualism. Both types are firmly rooted in sex drive and sexuality.
There was a time when I, as so many now seem to profess to do, accepted that sexuality and sex were distinct from each other. Time and examination have since led me to a different understanding.
In general terms, when we are dealing with a natal sex binary (male/female) and without the influence of transsexualism, that premise is true. The fact that one is male or female is no determinant of a person’s sexuality. There are no shortages of homosexual and bisexual males and females and there seems to be no physical determining factor in either biological sex as to what makes someone gay or bi.
The introduction of transsexualism, though, brings a new dynamic into play when considering the sexuality of both of the transsexual themselves and their partner in relation to their natal sexes.
Social division into ‘men’ and ‘not men’ groups, together with a domestic matriarchy, explains why transsexual expressions in SE Asia differ from the West.
Male to Female transsexuals are normally scientifically categorised as homosexual or nonhomosexual with regard to their birth sex. I use the term HSTS for the former. Blanchard explained the latter in terms of autogynephilia, love of oneself as a woman. These we term autogynephiles or AGPs. There is a discrepancy, between the West and Asia, however. Whereas in the West, most AGPs are older and about 60% seek relationships with women, most AGPs in Asia transition much younger and are almost exclusively attracted to men. Why is this happening?