Homosexual Gender Dysphoria is a function of the relationship of sexuality to gender. Here, presenting socially, sexually and romantically as a man, when you have female sexuality, is the root of the discomfort. These individuals may strongly reject using their penises to penetrate and even refuse any sexual contact with them. They wish to appear to be feminine and to have masculine male partners, and to play the receptive sexual role; anything that conflicts with these will cause dysphoria. (The inverse applies in females.)
These indicators may become visible as early as thirty months, though more commonly around forty, and in genuinely pre-transsexual children, or transkids, will likely be ‘insistent, consistent and persistent’ by age four to five.
Autogynephilia (AGP) is ‘a man’s propensity to be aroused at the thought or image of himself as a woman’ (Blanchard) and it is the cause of all non-homosexual gender dysphoria in males. But what actually causes it? The key to this lies in first understanding that there is nothing at all unusual about a male with AGP, other than the AGP itself.
AGP has five recognised forms, transvestic, anatomical, physiological, behavioural and interpersonal, and these may occur in combination. Men with it have three sexual orientations: they may be gynephilic (heterosexual, attracted to women), analloerotic (having no sexual relations at all with others or pseudo-bisexual, (pursuing sex with men but only when in role as a woman). In the last case, where the individual lives full-time as a woman, he may only have relations with men, but these are still pseudo-bisexual. In Blanchard’s testing, the proportions were about 60:20:20, but this may have changed and also appears to be culturally dependent. All forms, however, are principally gynephilic. As Blanchard said, ‘You have to be gynephilic to be Autogynephilic.’
Attraction to transwomen is called gynandromorphophilia. But there are at least two forms, in males: autogynephilic and non-autogynephilic. To simplify, I call gynandromorphophiles ‘GAMPs’. Autogynephilic ones I call ‘AGP GAMPs’ and the others ‘non-AGP GAMPS’.
I used to think that non-AGP GAMPs were actually bisexual, but they do not always conform to the standard understanding of bisexualism. In the first place, using the Western definitions, non-AGP GAMPs are never attracted to masculinity and will avoid partners who display it. The southeast Asian definition depends on the act played in sex, and bisexuals in this case are happy both to penetrate and to be penetrated. But those GAMP men who do desire to be penetrated seem to be predominantly AGP.
As far as I know, no work has been done that might clarify this, so, until it is, I will use the definitions as above. The AGP-GAMP profile is quite clear and well understood, but there may be unanswered questions regarding the non-AGP profile. It might split into two types, although most non-AGP GAMPs appear not to desire to be penetrated.
In the West, since the 1960s, homosexuality has been defined by attraction. Gay men are attracted to masculine sexual features—muscular taught bodies, facial hair, prominent jaws, assertive attitude and so on. If we define homosexuality in this way, then it should be clear that being attracted to soft bouncy hair, full breasts, red lips, big eyes and so on simply cannot be seen as a homosexual attraction, for a man.
If it were as simple as that, then that would be it. But it’s not. There are some other issues to deal with, especially where the woman retains a penis. I’ve made a YouTube video discussing this, here.
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.
As a fully transitioned transsexual I have often heard the phrase “Gender Identity”, in fact it is contained within the name of the disorder with which I was diagnosed, but never have I ever stopped to consider the validity or accuracy of this term until recently. In a recent comments thread on a Youtube video where a somewhat vocal and clearly autogynephilic trans activist was constantly making the argument for her validity as a “real woman” based upon the existence of her self-declared “female identity”. The question “Do you have a gender identity?” was posited to me by another HSTS woman on the thread.
My initial response was to say “No or if I do I am unaware of it”. However, on reflection it seemed to me that question required a deeper examination rather than just a cursory dismissal. Also it raised the question for me that, if I do have a gender identity, what if any part did it play in my decision to transition?
Why is it that matriarchy, which is so successful at the micro-social scale, as we see in traditional communities across the world, is not de facto the governing system at a global level? If the reason were simply that ‘men use violence to impose control’ as feminists would have it, then matriarchy simply would not work on the micro scale, any more than it does on the global one. So what is happening? How is it that gynocracy, which is the matriarchy scaled up to national or global level, is not ruling us now?
When I wrote ‘Why Men Made God’ I investigated thoroughly the way that Western culture had evolved. It was clear to me then and now that the impetus first towards sedentary living, then to settlement and ultimately to civilisation (city-based culture) came from women. Women need to protect and provide for their children and this becomes progressively easier as populations become more settled. That this is a highly successful strategy is clear from the population figures: 10,000 years ago, the point at which it is generally taken that widespread settlement began to occur in human populations, there were between 1 and 10 million humans. (A) Today there are over seven billion of us.
Humans are a peculiar species, because it takes so long for our children to reach sexual maturity. This is because of the size of our brains. The overall development of human children is slowed in order for our brains, which are not only big but highly sophisticated, to grow and for us to learn enough to survive. And why do we need to learn? Because human society is massively complex and navigating it takes great skill and knowledge.
Even animals with similar omnivorous diets to ours like chimps, our near relatives, mature much more quickly. And the issue is not one of body mass; a bovine will grow to adulthood, five times the mass of a human, in 30 months. We are special in this regard.
The long time that human children are dependent produces a conundrum for males. On the one hand, the replication of our genes is well served by impregnating as many fertile females as we can. This is in line with behaviours readily observed in other species. On the other hand,