Readers may have noticed that I am not updating either this site or my YT channel as regularly as I used to. I think I have covered most of the areas that I needed to, over the last ten years and I need to move on. However I have a number of articles either finished or nearly so, which I will put up here as time permits. Many of them will be included in a series of books.
Truth and Fallacy in Trans.
It has long been known that males with one form of transition desire are prone to a cavalier attitude towards the truth and to attacking those who insist on it in the most appalling manner. These are known as Autogynephiles and we shall be referencing them here. I suggest that those interested also peruse the Site Category Autogynephilia. This article is intended to address some of the manifest untruths promoted by the transcult and its activists, who are nearly all Autogynephilic.
Before proceeding, let me reiterate: It is impossible for anyone to ‘change sex.’ Bear that in mind.
Blanchard’s Typology.
Professor Ray Blanchard’s Typology and his Theory of Autogynephilia are not separate and together do explain most Male-to-Feminine Transition Desire. In fact, sex researchers since the time of Ulrichs and Hirschfeld had proposed a model of highly feminine homosexual males and masculine lesbian females, both wishing to appear to be of the opposite sex. This understanding led Hirschfeld to assist in the very first transition programmes involving cosmetic Genital Reconstruction Surgery.
Dr Henry Havelock Ellis, a prominent sex researcher in the early twentieth century, whose massive work Studies in the Psychology of Sex is foundational, called these types congenital Sexual Inverts. This later became an unpopular term, partly thanks to the efforts of the nascent New Gay Man cult in the 1960s. However the concept behind it has never been scientifically challenged.
This posits an innate cause for feminine male Homosexuality and dovetails nicely with the ‘born this way’ narrative. After all, if Homosexuals are ‘born this way’ there must be an observable cause other than socialisation. Sexual Inversion perfectly describes that. It does now appear conclusive that this type of homosexuality is indeed a response to prenatal conditions, most probably to do with hormone delivery in utero. Blanchard, Zucker and many others have more recently supported this, though, again, it was already current in the 1960s.
We use the terms ‘homosexual’ and ‘non-homosexual’ exclusively with regard to birth sex. That is because this is standard taxonomy, which is universally understood. It is as fundamental as Linnaeus. Note that there is no such thing as a transbian or a trans lesbian. These are just delusional men. Similarly, in females, gay trans man is a canard. It’s a woman with a delusion.
Blanchard re-iterated and confirmed numerous earlier studies showing that the Sexual Invert type was represented amongst individuals with Transition Desire, but that these were markedly different from other types. Just as with feminine Homosexuals, they tend to be lightly built, neotenous and naturally feminised on a range of parameters. This type has been known, over many centuries, indeed millennia, by names such as catamite, but in 1869 Karl Maria Kertbeny coined the word Homosexual to describe it. The natural conclusion, iterated by Blanchard himself and by others, was that Transsexualism in males was just an extreme or complete form of Homosexuality. This is why we call this group Transsexual Homosexuals. Note that in this model, an individual must be Homosexual in order to be Transsexual. This is not about cosmetic surgery but transcending the normal male sexuality and adopting a quasi-female one.
The difficulty lay in explaining why non-homosexual males, who were often extremely masculine, would want to appear to be women. Blanchard took the entirely reasonable approach that, since the transitioning group of Homosexuals were related to non-transitioning Homosexuals, there might be a similar correlation between the non-homosexual group of transitioners and some other phenomenon within the male population. He found this in fetishistic transvestism.
This led Blanchard to a breakthrough. Non-homosexual or fetishistic transvestism was a well-known phenomenon that had been described for many years but until Blanchard had never been properly explained; non-homosexual transition desire, which became known as Gender Dysphoria, was an extreme form of it, just as Transsexual Homosexuals (HSTS) exhibited an extreme or complete form of Sexual Inversion.
In other words, non-homosexual males who desire to appear to be women are experiencing a disturbance of identity that has confused their own selves with their Erotic Targets. This is called an Erotic Target Location Error (ETLE) and is provoked by Autogynephilia, ‘A man’s propensity to be aroused by the thought tor image of himself as a woman.’ (Blanchard.)
This leads to many complications, the most important of which is that the crossgender identity (as a woman) is unstable. This is unlike what obtains in Homosexuals, who tend to stabilise around puberty and if so, will persist; while the individual might be persuaded, in a hostile society, not to appear as a girl, her underlying sexuality will not be changed. She’ll still want big strong men and to play the girl in bed with them, which suggests that attempts at dissuasion are futile, unless you think it better to appear to be a man rather than a woman, which frankly sounds misogynistic.
Autogynephilic males exhibit weak and variable self-ideation. If they ‘transition,’ they are prone to narcissistic rage attacks, if their assumed identity as a woman is challenged in any way at all. With few exceptions, they cannot stand any light being cast into the darkness of their condition and will do everything they can to douse it. Because these males are often active on social media, this has led to the development of a culture that will not tolerate any criticism of, commentary on, or even explanation of the science behind their pathology. Since, lamentably, social media are where many people get their ‘information’ today, this in turn has led to significant public confusion — which has been encouraged by Autogynephilic males themselves.
Autogynephilia does show indications of pre-pubertal development in some cases, which is in line with other sexual expressions. However, Autogynephilic males are prone to misinterpreting this. What may be happening is that they experience early Autogynephilic fantasies, just as pre-pubescent heterosexual boys have ‘crushes’ on girls and Homosexuals on men. These phenomena are well documented. In the case under discussion, the crushes might be on the self as a girl; however this phenomenon, of genuine Autogynephilic experience prior to puberty, is so rare and so hard to study that no firm position can be taken. We are, essentially, reliant on witness accounts by the males involved, many years after the fact. This is further complicated because, as adults, these males may invent childhood memories consistent with the adult expression of their condition. In other words, they make them up. As well as these however, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fifth edition, states that Autogynephilia can set on as early as nine years old. While some Autogynephilic males will produce photographs of themselves as children, cross-dressed, these were rarely taken before that age. (I have never seen any; they may be out there, but I have not seen them.)
Even if it were possible to verify cross-dressing episodes prior to puberty on their part, these may be ephemeral role-play. This is common amongst boys who do not grow up to be Autogynephilic. A useful comparison is with many cultures wherein adolescent boys engage in sex-play and even penetration but become heterosexual, normal adults. Again, this is well documented. Sexuality is more fluid in these years than many adults like to think. However, an unsupported correlation has been made between such play episodes and the later development of sexuality, including paraphilias. These claims should be treated with caution, especially since an Autogynephilic male’s grasp of reality is clearly weak; after all, this is a heterosexual man, often married with a family, who one day decides he is actually a woman. Naturally he will construct a personal history that supports this.
Autogynephilia is a narcissistic self-love in which the subject, a non-homosexual male, becomes infatuated with himself as a woman. This is the Erotic Target Location Error or ETLE, which is the basis of his condition. His erotic desire has been focussed on himself rather than on another person. But since he is not homosexual, he is naturally repulsed by masculinity, so a man cannot be his erotic target. Therefore he will create a second, pseudo-feminine character within his mind, to become the feminised object of his sexual and romantic desire. For most, this mental artefact will have to be supported in other ways, for example, by cross-dressing, in manners and behaviours, including experiencing sexual penetration; this ‘validates’ the woman he sees himself as.
Many will already be familiar with these expressions of Autogynephilia, since it has become so common in the West today.
Here are some fallacies that Autogynephilic apologists delight in, to mask the truth about their condition:
The Woo Theory; sometimes called the ‘feminine or female essence’ explanation.
-Gender Dysphoria is caused by an ‘inner sense of self’ or ‘gender identity’ which is in conflict with my external reality. It cannot be measured or quantified and only I can feel it.
Firstly, the existence of a ‘gender identity’ is highly questionable. We all have a personal identity, but that is rather more broad; extrapolating a gender identity is moot. Which part of one’s personal identity would it be that informed us whether to wear lingerie or boxer shorts? For a Transsexual Homosexual this is easy because of her desire for men. She wants to be beautiful because she knows men find it attractive and she experiences reward when they do, just like normal women, so her performed gender is actually a manifestation of her sexuality. There is no disconnect between the two. This cannot be said of Autogynephiles, who are not naturally attracted to men or seek to attract them; so why would they want to appear to be women?
Gender Dysphoria is Transition Desire at a clinical level. It has become a disorder, because it is preventing the individual from functioning in the life he would normally lead, as a heterosexual man. It can be measured in a number of ways, on different parameters. The ‘explanation’ offered by the Woo Theory cannot be; it is unquantifiable and unfalsifiable. Anyone can say they feel like anyone or anything they want. It’s completely meaningless as a diagnostic. I feel like a Prosthetic Vogon today; does that mean I am actually in command of an intergalactic fleet constructing a space super-highway?
The sex-denial fallacy; we really are delivered by storks.
-Sexual orientation cannot be used as a fundamental typology.
Gender Dysphoria can be either Homosexual or Non-Homosexual. In males, the former is caused by Sexual Inversion and the latter by Autogynephilia. This taxonomy is justified by the consistency of the observable differences between the groups. It is obvious to anyone who is familiar with large numbers of trans individuals, provided both types are present. It is so patent that an accurate assessment can usually be made just through observation.
The denial of the bleeding obvious fallacy.
-Sexuality and Gender are not related.
This is borrowed from Constructionist thinking and is of course, ridiculous. In order for humanity to persist, females must mate with males so that their ova may be fertilised. We don’t have sophisticated senses of smell so we can’t tell when a female is in oestrus and since we stood up, we have had no visual indication either. So we evolved sets of physical characteristics and behavioural traits to indicate sexual intent and availability. Together, these are Gender. In other words, Gender is the outward advertisement of our sexuality; it is promissory.
In practice, those who wish to penetrate perform masculine gender and those who wish to be penetrated, feminine. These traits are innate and cultural equivalents are found in all human societies, even though the specific representations may vary. For example, amongst the First People of America, in many tribes, long hair was a sign of masculinity; in the Torah, the seat of Samson’s strength is in his long hair and after Delilah betrays him and it is cut off, he becomes weak and loses his masculinity. In other cultures, say in Southeast Asia today, long hair is a badge of femininity. However, allowing for local variations like these, it generally follows that Sexuality and Gender are inextricably linked, though they might be at odds with Sex.
It is possible for Sex and Sexuality not to conform, because of Sexual Inversion. In these cases, Gender should follow Sexuality. Non-homosexual males should therefore exhibit masculine Gender, but some do not, as we’ve seen. Why? Because the Dysphoria they may feel as a result of presenting in masculine Gender is felt by the Autogynephilic mental artefact – the ‘woman inside’ – and not by the host. In all cases involving a powerful ETLE, once the artefact is in the driving seat, it will suppress the host and his feelings. Thus, a non-homosexual man can indeed wish to appear to be a woman, because his emotions, indeed his entire persona, are being controlled by an imaginary ‘woman inside.’
The appeal to authority or ‘confuse them with numbers’ fallacy
– Statistics and damn statistics.
Blanchard was at pains to fully explain and make public the results of his research and his method, as a good academic should, for which we commend him. He himself commented on the outliers. Many have tried to challenge his statistical method, including Wyndzen, Serano, Veale, Moser and many others; all signally failed. Further, Nuttbrock (2010), while disagreeing with Blanchard on some measures, acknowledged that these were probably a result of different population samples and broadly supported him.
The false equivalent or ‘if what turns women on turns me on, I must be a woman’ fallacy.
– Putative Autogynephilic fantasies in females.
Again, here we have two, clearly different cohorts. Homosexuals are just as turned on by men’s bodies as women are; but they know they’re not women. We hit a brick wall when we remember that Autogynephilic males are primarily attracted not to masculinity but to femininity. But are women sexually aroused at the sight of, say, a pair of frilly lace panties? Would slipping a pair on mean they had to lie down and masturbate before finishing dressing?
It is worth noting Moser’s intervention on this, which has been debunked by Lawrence and others. Further to that, however, evidence of Autogynephilic arousal in women would not in any way prove that non-homosexual male transitioners were not motivated by Autogynephilia, nor would it prove that they are ‘real women,’ even if some women exhibited similar behaviours. It’s a straw man.
That is because it is prerequisite for a diagnosis of Autogynephilia that an Erotic Target Location Error (ETLE) be present. There is no such error in heterosexual women, because they actually are female, not males with a sexually-fuelled delusion. Possibly, some women may exhibit true Autogynephilia (rather than just a few similar behaviours,) but they are invariably lesbians and rare; I know of only one possible case. Similarly, there is no ETLE in a Transsexual Homosexual’s mind; her targets are located outside herself. (One may disapprove of the way she likes to have sex, using her anus, but that is a Christian prejudice; it has no real value.) However, to emphasise, you have to be female to be a lesbian; a male who pursues women, even if he’s wearing a dress or for that matter, a constructed pseudo-vagina, is not a lesbian or even a ‘transbian,’ he’s a randy bloke in a dress.
The correlation-causation fallacy
– Diminution of Autogynephilic eroticism on ‘transition’.
This is simply explained once one recognises that Autogynephilia is a function of male sex drive and therefore is affected by the level of testosterone in the blood. In subjects where the testes have been removed, we should expect to see a decrease and we should also see one with age, both of which are consistent with observation. (Note, however, that removal of testes in Autogynephilic men can increase suicidality; it is not clear, because of the low numbers, whether this is also the case in Transsexual Homosexuals.)
The ‘stronger female identity’ (actually pseudo-feminine) is because in transitioning, the pseudo-feminine character has been empowered and is now dominant over the male host, which it will try to completely destroy. Subjects may continue to exhibit weak self-ideation but will attempt to bolster that, typically towards the artefact, through a range of measures. For example, they may demand that they must not be ‘misgendered,’ free access to women’s spaces, to be able to change legal gender without support from professionals and indulge in unfounded, ad hominem attacks on those who openly discuss Autogynephilia theory positively, eg Blanchard himself, Bailey, Lawrence (and even little me,) and so on.
About 20% of non-homosexual subjects, in Blanchard, were ‘analloerotic’ or, in other words, not sexually active with other people. This might be a function of masculinity-revulsion in that they may desire affirmative sex with men but are unable to submit to men (because they are heterosexual men themselves,) so deny sex altogether.
The conflation fallacy: it doesn’t explain everything
-Not a universal theory of transgenderism, which should also explain Female to Masculine, ‘non-binary’ and all the rest of the alphabet soup labelled ‘trans’ today.
Autogynephilia theory only sets out to explain non-homosexual male Transition Desire (and Gender Dysphoria) and it does this nicely. It was never intended to address the questions of male homosexual desire or any female forms. In fact there is no one universal explanation for Transgenderism, because there is no one single cause. We have identified several. Therefore this argument is another straw man.
While Blanchard’s research was on males, he has long acknowledged a female form of HSTS. In fact this form was described in detail by Hirschfeld. Until very recently, no non-homosexual form of female FtM transition had been described, outside a tiny sample of cases. That has now changed and we see many thousands — and they all either conform to a model in which the subject becomes obsessed with being in relationships with male Homosexuals, which has been named Autohomoeroticism or AHE (Blanchard), or to a dissociative rejection of their female sex, which has been exacerbated by social media.
This is sometimes known as (Female) Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria or ROGD and it has become a significant problem. However, the chances are that it is ephemeral, similar to other disorders of female adolescents like self-harming and bulimia. This indicates that no irreversible therapies or surgery should be permitted in these cases until at least the age of twenty-five, no matter how much the subject protests.
It is interesting that both AGP and AHE can show remarkably rapid onsets, especially in adolescence, but only one paper, Littman 2018, has explored this.
An example comes from an acquaintance of mine, Chikay, a Filipina bakla (ladyboy.) I asked her how she had become so. She said that at the age of thirteen she had come home from school and found her sister’s panties on the bed; she was powerfully stimulated, put them on and immediately had to masturbate to climax. It was the first time she’d done so. Her transformation was immediate, she insisted and she became a bakla in that instant. She said ‘I became a girl when that happened. I have not changed.'(Now twenty-six, she is beautiful.) This was not the only time I’d heard that. There is a clear cultural influence on cases like this but it is little researched. One thing that interested me was that although Chikay was not allowed to dress as a girl at school, she immediately changed her out of school gender to match this new feminine identity and began pursuing boys and men for sex.
The same cure = same disease fallacy
– A single cause of transition desire is demonstrated because the same therapies are effective in all cases.
There are differences between the stimuli for transition desire between males who are Sexually Inverted (HSTS) and those with Autogynephilia. Transsexual Homosexuals complete because it allows them to function effectively in society as girls. Just as importantly, their Erotic Targets are masculine, heterosexual men (never ‘gay men,’) who are attracted to femininity. (Note that these are correctly located, that is, outside the self; they are External Erotic Targets.) So they make themselves as feminine as they can as a mating strategy — just as women do. It is straightforward. HSTS are markedly homogeneous in this and other characteristics.
On the other hand, non-homosexual transitioners are extremely disparate. There are five different forms of Autogynephilia and these can be mixed in any manner of ways; it also comes in three sexual variants, heterosexual, pseudo-bisexual and analloerotic. One might reasonably expect some diversity in such a population. In fact, it is a diagnostic parameter.
The five forms are Transvestic, Anatomical, Physiological, Behavioural, and Interpersonal; the sexual variants are heterosexual (attracted to women;) pseudo-bisexual (attracted to men and to playing female roles in sex and society but only when in role as a woman;) and annalloerotic, where the subject does not engage in sex with another person at all.
The snowflake fallacy
– Terminology and respect: ‘If you hurt my little feelings you must be wrong.’
We use the standard biological taxonomy because it is clear and precise. When one begins to use terminology that does not reference original birth sex, confusion results. After all, the ‘trans’ in ‘transwoman’ is there for a reason: they were not conceived XX.
I hope the above will be of some use. It is increasingly, now glaringly, obvious that any form of hormonal or surgical therapy, especially for females with ROGD, must stop. For those Homosexual males who present in childhood or adolescence, social and hormonal transition may be helpful but Genital Reconstruction Surgery is never appropriate in any such cases. (Desire for GRS on the part of a male is a strong indicator of Anatomical Autogynephilia. Unfortunately in the West many Transsexuals, for whom it is completely unnecessary, are hectored into it.)
As Blanchard said, the result is to create a male without a penis. More importantly, Transsexual Homosexuals are more than happy to be penetrated anally, in fact they regard the anus and not the penis, as their primary sex organ. If they have Genital Reconstruction Surgery it is merely to satisfy the preconceptions of others, particularly that ‘You can’t be a real girl if you still have a penis.’ That is an appalling position to take which leads many to irreversible, ineffective and painful surgery; which, in any case, still cannot make a male into a female.
No male can be a ‘real girl,’ but one can be a beautiful Transsexual Homosexual. A little understanding on the part of society and gentle support for the individuals would render surgery redundant. For the Autogynephiles, also known as ‘jeeps’ it is hard to have any sympathy.