“Gender identity” is just an ALIBI to hide men’s embarrassment about their autogynephilia!

transwomanThe overwhelming majority of male-to-fake-“female” transgenderists, probably around 90%, are “late-transitioning” men who are sexually attracted to women. Most of the time, these men report a history of secret cross-dressing since childhood. They usually lead stereotypically “normal” male lives, having “masculine” interests, having wives & girlfriends, fathering children, and seeming like regular heterosexual guys. You would never imagine that they got erotic thrills from dressing up in women’s clothes or fantasizing that they had breasts and vaginas or fantasizing that they were going on a date “en femme” with a handsome (male) stranger. Meanwhile, that’s exactly what’s happening: they’re dressing up in women’s clothes and then masturbating about various “feminine” fantasies.

Men like this used to be called “transvestites.” However, ever since “sex change operations” came along in the mid-20th century, researchers have noticed that a large proportion of men requesting estrogenic hormones and genital mutilation surgery have been these seemingly-normal straight dudes. This tendency has become even more pronounced since the internet appeared around 20 years ago.

These men have autogynephilia. This term was coined by Toronto clinician Ray Blanchard after many years’ experience working with male transgenderite patients. A man with autogynephilia becomes sexually aroused and totally obsessed by the thought of himself “being a woman.” It is an obsessive sexual kink called erotic target identity inversion,” in which men desire to impersonate or turn their bodies into facsimiles of the persons or things to which they are sexually attracted.

The “theory” of autogynephilia is a “theory” in the sense that “gravity” is a theory. It’s not some wild idea cooked up by one guy; it’s a phenomenon that’s been documented extensively by many clinicians, in the stories of men who have come for help about their “gender” confusion.

Although autogynephiles report longtime cross-dressing, nearly all of them will DENY, totally and forever, until the cows come home, that sexual kinks & thrills have ANYTHING to do with their “transition” to their “true feminine selves.”

NO WAY MAN! It’s all about “gender identity”! A woman trapped in a man’s body! You must disregard my apparently happy and successful male life, forget about all those kids I fathered and the women I got pregnant, forget about my male childhood and many decades of male socialization, forget about my normal male reproductive system and other normal male secondary sex characteristics, forget about my XY chromosomes, forget about my utter disregard throughout life for women’s rights or health or safety or well-being (and of course forget my physical, sexual, emotional, economic and other violence toward women!); forget about all of that stuff! No!!1!!1!! In reality I have always actually been a woman! I like the color pink!  I have always enjoyed shopping! Imagine how I have suffered since I was “assigned male at birth” by evil doctors. And don’t you DARE suggest there is anything abnormal or kinky or erotic about me being a woman! I will DESTROY you if you even suggest such a thing! I’m a completely normal woman, and quite a good-looking one at that! You had better not “mis-gender” me either, or I’ll kick your ass and then sue you!

22743951406_6bf5114f4d_oThat about summarizes what most male transgenderites will say if you have the temerity to suggest they have autogynephilia. They also deny that the autogynephilia even exists, or if it does exist, it’s only in a few fetishists — not “women” like themselves. They dismissively say that the notion of autogynephilia was “disproven long ago,” or that it’s just some crackpot idea that “harms transwomen.” They are like cult members. They RAAGGGEEE and make death threats. And they do in fact try to destroy the lives and careers of anyone who dares to say the obvious, that dressing up as fake “ladies” turns these guys on sexually.

“Gender identity” is just an ALIBI these men use to hide an embarrassing sexual obsession! Science shows that a “female gender identity” only develops in these men after many years or decades of sexualized cross-dressing! Indeed, this “gender identity” is really just a type of self-hypnosis: Auto-erotic auto-suggestion.

But: Let’s see what these men actually say about their own experience and behavior. In public, male trangender activists will deny that this is autogynephilia or that it has anything to do with their mimicry of “feminine” stereotypes, drastic genital mutilations and dangerous hormone intoxication.

From Anne Lawrence’s book, reporting narratives of anonymous transgenderite men who admit they get turned on by imaging themselves “as women”  — these are just a few of the several hundred men interviewed:

  1. I am 58 years old and a preoperative MtF transsexual. I began crossdressing when I was about age 7. I was especially sexually aroused wearing girdles and nylon stockings. By my mid-20s, I had very strong desires to dress as a female on a full-time basis and to attract attention as a sexy, feminine woman. I have worn sexy feminine fashions, especially bras, lingerie, pantyhose, short dresses, lace fashions, mini-skirts, high heels, etc., at home since my mid-20s. Wearing sexy lingerie, a bra, a girdle with nylon stockings or sensuous sheer pantyhose, and high heels, imagining myself as a female, still often sexually arouses me, leading to an erection, masturbation, and orgasm.
  2. I am a transgender woman currently undergoing estrogen treatment. The fact that my body is feminizing is both a source of arousal and joy. My earlier “closet” phase involved the ritual of dressing as a normal woman: lingerie, nylons, dresses, shoes, etc., and applying full makeup and perfume and becoming so turned-on by my femme image in the mirror that the ritual often terminated in masturbation.
  3. I began cross-dressing shortly after puberty in my older sister’s clothes. Later, I would occasionally borrow one of my wife’s dresses when she was out of town. I would always fantasize about women and assuming the role myself when dressed. And it was always an erotic experience. I have come to realize that for me, being a cross-dresser has not merely been the activity of a transvestite, but of a transsexual. The clothes themselves are but an adornment that allow me to take on the intended role. Just as “clothes make the man,” I feel they make the woman as well. A skirt or dress, because of its very construction, makes a woman vulnerable, which is a female attribute.
  4. Wearing women’s clothing and feminizing my body has always been sexually exciting for me. Also, it was and still is sexually exciting for me to have female body functions. Before my sex reassignment surgery, I would pretend to menstruate by urinating in sanitary pads. I particularly enjoyed wearing the old-fashioned belted pads with long tabs.

Sound like someone you’ve heard about? Remember the part when Bruce describes being “caught” in his daughter’s bedroom? Disgusting, isn’t it.

These kinds of experiences are COMMON to all heterosexual men who claim to have “gender dysphoria” or to “identify as a woman” (sic). Yes, Bruce Jenner and all the rest. If you have a strong stomach, check out some of this disturbing autogynephilic insanity!

There are thousands of videos like these on the internet.

There is an epidemic of autogynephilia going on. It is completely real and nearly all male transgenderites have it, no matter how angrily they deny it, no matter how many internet posts they make saying “it was de-bunked long ago” (sic). A huge amount of evidence shows that most male transgenderists get a sexual thrill out of dressing up, out of being “perceived as a woman,” out of using women’s toilet facilities, out of replicating every kind of “feminine” stereotype and then insisting that everyone else play along. But they are deadly embarrassed to admit it!

Only in RARE cases will they ever admit it. An example of one honest autogynephile who admits it: Dr. Anne Lawrence is a male transgenderist autogynephile who lives “as a woman.” Dr. Lawrence has done much to keep autogynephilia in the public eye and in scientific discourse. This is really great and is a real service to people who are interested in reality. However, he is also part of the transgenderism/medical industry and believes wholeheartedly in the medicalized (surgically and hormonally mutilated) transgenderist lifestyle. I am glad for his work, but I hope he snaps out of it and sees the complete insanity of the autogynephile-driven research agenda, autogynephile-driven health policy-setting efforts and autogynephile-driven clinical practice.

Autogynephilic transgenderism is an example of men thinking that by obtaining “female body parts” and by replicating patriarchal stereotypes of “feminine” appearance and mannerisms, they can actually become women. The obsessive sexual thrill they get makes them believe the fantasy is real. It’s just men violating women’s bodies and boundaries as usual, same shit, different day. It has nothing to do with “gender identity.” That’s just the alibi.

Advertisements

109 thoughts on ““Gender identity” is just an ALIBI to hide men’s embarrassment about their autogynephilia!

  1. Reblogged this on FeistyAmazon and commented:
    Finally…calling it what it is. The more obsession they have with femininity the more disgusted I get. I had femininity forced on my entire childhood and teenage years which I resisted to my parents’ and grandparents great disappointment. Finally it all made sense when I came out as a Butch Dyke and found other Females like myself. Many many Females resist or don’t conform to feminine stereotypes…others feel pressured to do so to get a good paying job or a man. That’s what femininity is all about: a stereotype…a role. It DOES NOT MEAN YOU’RE FEMALE!!!

    Liked by 8 people

  2. I have no doubt that the phenomenon of getting sexual gratification by the thought of or image of oneself as a woman occurs in late transitioning male to female transsexuals. I concur by my own experience this is true.

    I am still in process of digesting what this means to my transition. Blanchard and Lawrence draw a conclusion that this is a sexual orientation. On the surface it seems reasonable. I even started to accept that this was accurate and described what I am.

    However, I am weighing all the evidence from both sides of this issue and trying to decide for myself which makes the most sense.

    There are two problems with the theory.

    #1 it makes a conclusion that sexual gratification from imagining oneself as a woman is a pathology. that makes it an illness. A second class type of transsexual that is diseased.
    It assumes that NO woman has ever had these feelings yet at least one study has disproved that.
    Charles Moser’s study found that “By the common definition of ever having erotic arousal to the thought or image of oneself as a woman, 93% of the respondents would be classified as autogynephilic. Using a more rigorous definition of “frequent” arousal to multiple items, 28% would be classified as autogynephilic.
    #2 does being sexually gratified by imagining oneself as a woman really represent a sexual orientation? I am attracted to women. That is my orientation. I know men who can only get aroused by women with painted toenails. Is that a sexual orientation too? I don’t think so.

    I am avoiding the term autogynephilia from now on. Because the word represents two things:
    1) an observed phenomenon that is true
    2) a conclusion that is dubious and labels transsexuals as diseased and makes the word politically charged

    If it described only part 1) the phenomenon of getting aroused I would continue to use it. There should be a different word altogether

    I have also developed a female personality over the decades. This female self was constructed just as my male personality was constructed….Socially.

    I did not play with dolls as a child and participated mainly in male forms of socialized sports. I was an average male child. So what if my feminine traits and personality developed later in life? It doesn’t invalidate my experience. Just because someone has XX doesn’t give them an inherent feeling of what it is to be female from birth. What DOES it feel like to be XX? Can you describe it? MOST of it is learned social behavior. It’s FEMININE behavior, not female behavior. Females can behave any damn way they want to though. Feminine behavior is just a construct of society imposed on FEMALE XX as a way they are expected to behave. It’s a stereotype. Today I am a blend of what I WANT to be. Some of that appropriates what is stereotypically feminine. I like my nails done. I like to wear dresses. So what? I like it. It’s not a bad thing. I also like to watch football. My wife and I will scream from the stands and say “make that tackle!” It’s funny, but also sexy to see women embrace EVERY facet of human expression whether it is Male stereotypical or Female stereotypical.

    This is my opinion.

    You will NOT hear me say “NO WAY MAN, it’s all about my “feminine aura” “essense” “lady brain”, etc. etc. I KNOW there was a sexual component to it. I also know that I developed socially as a woman alongside with that. What % contributes to my ultimate desire to actually become a woman in my opinion is highly variable. For me, personally at this point in my journey I would say it’s 50/50. I do get aroused by the thoughts. However, the time I am out in public working out, walking , shopping, driving, just doing normal things most PEOPLE do…man or woman and being myself. I don’t really think about it sexually at all. I do enjoy being a woman, but I am not walking around with a boner.

    Think about something that excites you sexually. Why would it define you 100% of the time as an orientation or philia? You enjoy it in your free time, maybe in the confines of your bedroom. Perhaps you enjoy touching your private parts to climax? Do you talk about it all day long? NOOOO.

    Like

    1. Regarding your last paragraph — Blanchard himself pointed out that autogynephilic arousal does not happen 100% of the time. The point, he said, was that the potential exists. The fact that a man does not have erotic fantasies about himself being a woman all the time does not contradict autogynephilia; it’s enough that he has them sometimes.

      Liked by 4 people

  3. sarah….the harm these people do is massive. for every middle aged transitioner, there are innocent victims. you must appreciate the extremely abusive nature of an intimate long term relationship conducted to one partners secret sexual agenda and the level of betrayal, treachery and erasure involved in the gaslighting techniques a partner uses to cover their tracks. middle aged transitioners are overwhelmingly MtT who appropriate the trans activist narrative and cliched, ill-informed rhetoric in order to gain support. the phenomenon is plain to see online if you care enough to look. interestingly, while there are innumerable forums, public support and a whole medical industry validating the feelings of men who want to become women, if you are a wife or daughter who has been violated betrayed and preyed upon? nada. nothing. zilch. zero. because you mustnt hurt the feelings of a MtT, womens feelings are never valid. they are blamed for the distressing situation they have been put into, called named and slurs like ‘transphobic’ TERF and CIS by people they dont even know .. people care because they have been dragged into this somehow by someone elses secret sexual agenda. women who believed they were in happy marriages, children who dont understand why their funny, seemingly happy dad is suddenly claiming to have led a life of misery because he’s been forced to keep his fetish secret? my personal experience is catastrophic, lifelong damage to loved ones and i dont suppose its a coincidence that so many autogynephiles are triggered into ‘transition’ by the approaching puberty and adolescence of female family members.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. I’m sorry for your experience but it doesn’t describe all MtF transitions. It is one of many different outcomes.

      It depends on your relationship before the transition, trust level, and also whether you are open or not to the social implications and physical intimacy of being married to a female. Many are not. That’s ok.

      There is a sexual drive component to this but I don’t think it’s a pathology. I don’t think it is totally “I have always felt female” either. I think it’s a progression from experimenting with cross dressing, experiencing sexual gratification from that, and over the years developing a very real female personality.

      The secretive nature and shame associated with it make it difficult to navigate but not impossible.

      There should be more resources for spouses of transgender. The two transgender support groups I know of online have forums for spouses and family members.

      Like

      1. as an ex spouse of of someone exactly like you, i can tell you now, those are not forums that support spouses, they are forums that coerce spouses into supporting the New Trans Order. they are NOT safe places for women to speak and be heard.

        Liked by 8 people

      2. No. There are two routes to transgender. One is the classic. early onset, Blanchard HSTS or transkid. Essentially these individuals are sexually attracted to men and specifically, to being penetrated by men. They establish a feminine personality as a consequence of their sexual desires. They have been recorded for thousands of years. They would never be in a position of ‘having a spouse’ (at least a wife) because they have zero sexual interest in women.

        These are a world majority of trans women by an overwhelming amount. The AGPs are a minority even in the West but they manipulate the figures to make it appear as if they are a majority so that they can claim to speak for all transsexuals. Actually they are just loud-mouthed, white, middle class, privileged, misogynistic jerks. In Asia, for example, AGPs are less than 0.3% of transsexual MtF. Yet they are using their white, male, middle class privilege to shit on HSTS as much as they shit on women. Right now there is an epidemic of trans women being murdered. Know what? Every single one of them is HSTS. Not one is AGP, because those are well-off, middle class white men.

        When you say ‘more resources for spouses of transgender’ you actually mean ‘help for the poor women whose husbands are mentally ill’. My advice to any woman who finds her male partner cross-dressing? Get the hell out fast and take the savings account. And the kids.

        Liked by 6 people

  4. isnt it funny how people who dont even know are so happy to casually pass judgement on the quality of your relationship? i have trans friends who know the truth and i dont care for your assumptions about the nature of my experiences. i am also close to another family who has gone through exactly the same thing, exactly the same pattern of abusive behavior toward a family who have given a lifetime of love, support, honour, loyalty and trust they believed was mutual, having no inkling or even the tiniest suspicion that he was anything other than who he said he was.. again, a middle aged MtT with a pubescent daughter…. there is absolutely no excuse to enter any intimate relationship under false pretences, lie and betray throughout, demand to change the fundamental nature of a relationship and then blame your victims for not supporting their own erasure and the erasure of the man they love. the act of demanding trans rights in middle age, shows a lifetimes total disregard for the lives, sexuality, sex and orientation of the betrayed partner while demanding validation for their fantasy. like it or not, without a mental illness diagnosis, the only grounds for invasive reassignment treatments is cosmetic. as far as i can tell, the only surgery in the whole of medicine that actively seeks to destroy healthy functional organs at risk of serious complications, for a questionable cosmetic non functional outcome with no proven evidence that srs improves male violent and sex offending rates, suicide rates or continuing comorbidities. sadly, processing the information that this person is NOT and NEVER WAS the person you thought you knew, but a cheat who’s been perving on you all this time and who’s attitude to women couldnt possibly be more stereotypically male, claims he has always been woman yet demonstrates his misogyny in his assumptions about what femininty is… all this processing can take even more distressing years out of a partners life – initial feelings of support and all the efforts you make to help – until the pennies drop and you see what he’s really been up to online and realise you are being shat on from a great height.
    http://narcissisticbehavior.net/the-effects-of-gaslighting-in-narcissistic-victim-syndrome/

    Liked by 7 people

  5. Kelli:
    How can anybody know how someone else feels? We can sympathize with others and also empathize, but truly know how they feel? Everybody is different.

    For what concerns being male/female: how can a man know how a woman feels and vice versa? To me many MTF’s, especially the Bruce Jenner type, simply try to mimic how they think women feel/think and/or how they think women *should* feel/think.

    Plus, many MTF’s say they want to be women so that they can be friends with other women, but many women will tell you out right that they would rather have male friends than female friends, a, and b many women have very deep relationships with gay men. So if you are trying to become a woman in order to be friends with women, you are actually wasting your time.

    Also, has anybody else notice that MTF’s tend to want to be friends with women they are attracted to, i.e. young, pleasant looking women? Why is it that MTF’s seem to never “want to be friends” with normal, possibly overweight, women in their 50’s and 60’s or 70’s? Has anybody also ever noticed that the vast majority of women don’t dress up to the nines in tight dresses and stilettos in order to go grocery shopping, stop by the post office, etc.??

    Most importantly though, what needs to happen is that *NOBODY* with a penis is allowed in women’s only spaces like locker rooms and such: you want to use the lady’s restroom? Well, you’d better have a vagina and *NO PENIS*!!! MTF’s have to understand that for most women to have to share facilities with people who have (functioning) penises is scary to say the least.

    Liked by 8 people

    1. Hi Andi,

      I think you are right about knowing how anyone else feels or appropriating the feelings of another gender. I don’t know what it feels like to be a woman. I will never give birth nor have many of the physical pains that come with being female. So many physical aspects I can never know. I also don’t know what it feels like to be raised female. Could I relate to some of the trials and tribulations after transition, possibly. But I will never share the perspective of a lifetime of being treated that way. Good and Bad experiences that shape a persons personality.

      What does it mean to me to be female gendered? I can’t give a good response to that because I am not really trying to be anyone other than me. I don’t really change my personality to become the way I think a female should feel. I just am. What I have found is that my personality style resonates with many females and fits for me. I am not becoming female to gain more female friends. I already have a lot of female friends. I don’t discriminate on looks either. I have friends that are pretty, not so good looking, old, young. All types.

      You gave examples of women having deep relationships with gay males? Why? because they are not threatening? Because they have no interest in a sexual relationship with you? Because they share the same interests? (maybe shopping, talking, fashion, relationships…etc).

      My personality has been described to me as a Jon Cryer type of person. Maybe you know him from “two and a half men”. He appears very gay but is not. Is attracted to women and is married in real life. The characters he plays on TV and movies are relatable to women but in a non-threatening way.

      I don’t try to be anybody else but me. I find that I have more in common with women than men. I have always had more women friends than men friends but I have both. I have to tell you that this experience I am sharing is mainly as presenting as male, but when I am dressed and appearing female, I really don’t act much different personality wise. I just look different. For me, the match of appearance and personality fits. It is a primary reason for me to want to transition.

      I don’t dress to the nines to go to the post office:

      This is usually what I look like most days. I enjoy fashion so I have varied interests and my closet does have a lot of sexy stuff. I wear that where appropriate at the appropriate time, not to go to Walmart.

      I do use the ladies restroom or locker room where appropriate and I am very concerned about being modest. In my city, it is totally appropriate and legal to use the restroom of the gender you are presenting as if you are transgender. I DO NOT want anyone noticing I may have a penis. I would not make a show of it by standing and peeing because that would draw attention to something odd going on in the stall next to someone. I do not want to make people feel uncomfortable. As a side note: I wonder if you could stand and pee, would you? LOL, the seats are disgusting sometimes. I do have a sense of humor too, so please forgive me for inserting that little funny. I keep to myself, do my business and get out. If someone did suspect I may not have been born a female I get very self conscious. I am not confrontational. I would probably leave feeling humiliated. I have never been outed in a public place nor accused of being in the wrong restroom. I know many transgender people have been yelled at in the women’s room, or beat up in the men’s room. Take your pick. It’s not a fun life to be stuck in the middle. I suspect many of those transgender people do not pass well or have mannerisms that are decidedly male. If I had to think about how I think a woman should act all day long it would be exhausting. At the end of the day I am just trying to be me. It must say something that i have never been confronted as being male. Why? I am not trying to act like a woman. I just fit in with woman without trying. Why is that?

      Like

      1. Women are being ‘nice’ to you because you are a confused man. The fact that you have a stripper wig, the shape of your head, and the width of your shoulders would give you away to most women. What you would not see is the women that would not enter a restroom, or back right out- if you are in there -or the ones that would avoid you ‘just in case’ it wasn’t safe or they ran a chance of being trapped alone with you. That is a natural fear women have from sexual assault.

        The fact that you have an attitude of telling males what women think, and posting photos of your self on an autogyno information blog/ site in hopes of denying autogyno-narcissism exists in you, really speaks volumes.

        Liked by 8 people

    2. i dont actually think they want to be friends with women… they get a sexual kick out of imagining they are ‘one of the girls’ … go on any forum and you will see they have very ambiguous feelings about women, many of them nasty and vicious. they dont actually like women, but they demand to BE them. no matter how demure or feminine they try to act , women instinctively know when they are being wanked on.

      Liked by 7 people

      1. Kaypasser:
        “imagining they are ‘one of the girls’”: very true!! One can often read comments along the lines of: “And then the women at wok let me in their all girl talk! 🙂 🙂 :-)”

        What is sad about all this is that these MTF’s are managing to turn back the clock: women won’t feel safe anywhere anymore, when alone, not eve in the ladies’ room. In a not too distant future we will need our husbands, boyfriends, etc. to accompany us to the restroom in order to protect us from one of them 6’3″, shoe size 14, “women” lurking in the next stall… 😦

        Liked by 7 people

  6. WOW!

    This from a no name anonymous person. I am not getting a thrill out of posting on here. The volumes it speaks to me is that I am being vulnerable with my visage, my feelings, and opening myself up to criticism.

    I felt I needed to speak up and give my perspective because I think it’s disparaging to many transsexuals the way many rad-fems speak to us. You have continued this and thank you for making sure I know my place

    Like

    1. this is a post about autogynephilia – it does not apply to the entire transgender community. autogynephilia is real. my daughters have suffered and continue to suffer, my friend and her daughters, nieces and granddaughters likewise. my friend, our families and i are victims and we have a right to exist and be heard too.

      Liked by 7 people

      1. I don’t get the impression that the comments on this blog apply only to a select few that are autogynephiliacs. If you read back, most people here thin 90% of MTF transsexuals are paraphilic sickos. So excuse me if I get a little offended. not all transsexuals are sick or perverts. Just because some exhibit a phenomenon of getting excited by the thought of becoming a woman doesn’t make you sick. It becomes a sickness when it hurts yourself or others. I don’t deny your experience and it sounds like autogyneogilis as a sickness could be a diagnosis for your situation. I would say if you had an asshole for a spouse as a man, you probably will have an asshole of a spouse after transition. Becoming a woman doesn’t won’t change that.

        Like

      2. The problem is the term itself is misleading. I have said over and over that there is an observed phenomenon that is absolutely true: Late transitioning MtF transsexuals report that dressing as a woman or the thought of becoming a woman is sexually exciting. What I debate about is the second part: It is an absolute sickness that is a paraphilia.

        I am not saying some people don’t have a sickness with the observed phenomenon. I am saying that some people may and some people may not.
        But on this blog it is universally defined and accepted as fact that ALL late transitioning MtF transsexuals ARE sick. The sickness, if there is one, is the actions one takes with these thoughts.

        Do you like men’s abs? does it turn you on? what is wrong with that? Nothing.

        What if you liked men’s abs so much that you obsessed on it. You had stacks of pictures of men’s abs. you masturbated 10 times a day to the pictures of men’s abs. You gazed at men in the gym and stared a creepy stare at their abs. You ignored your husband to organize your stack of men’s abs pictures. You have an obsessive sexual compulsion. That would be a disorder. The sexual desire is normal, it’s expression is abnormal.

        So, if MtF transsexuals are doing the above kind of stuff, YES, they have a problem!
        But many, like myself, just go about doing their normal day stuff and keep our desires in the bedroom where most other people do as well. I am not getting off in public.

        If you have an obsessive compulsive asshole of a husband before transition, you will get an obsessive compulsive asshole of a woman after transition.

        Like

  7. Hi Kelli,

    “I think you are right about knowing how anyone else feels or appropriating the feelings of another gender. I don’t know what it feels like to be a woman. I will never give birth nor have many of the physical pains […] Good and Bad experiences that shape a persons personality.”

    Very well put and hard to disagree with but I feel it is still missing the point: being female is about *being* female, independently of all other considerations, including the ones you mention. See what I mean?

    “What does it mean to me to be female gendered? I can’t give a good response to that because I am not really trying to be anyone other than me. […] I don’t discriminate on looks either. I have friends that are pretty, not so good looking, old, young. All types.”

    Could you perhaps be a man who enjoys the company of, and shares common interests with, women? If a woman does not like stereotypically “feminine” activities, like shopping, going out for coffee with a bunch of girlfriends and chatting the morning away, etc. but she would rather go to a sports bar and watch the game with a bunch of guys while drinking a beer, not a lemon drop, is she a guy? Should she transition?

    About gay men? All the things that you mentioned plus knowing for sure who we are dealing with, which is not what we get when having close encounters with most MTF’s, including yourself, I am sorry to add: you pretty much say that you are attracted to women, fine, of course, but that coupled with the fact that you are a man, sounds very male to any woman, and a very real potential threat in a locker room or any other women’s only space. Then you say you are “becoming a woman”, then you talk about the “main reason to want to transition”, i.e. you give clues to the fact that you have not transitioned, yet, but then you say you use women’s restrooms and such!!!! Then you also clarify, if there was any need for it, that you have a *PENIS*!!!! Do you see how both threatening and confusing this is to *ANY* woman???

    Even more confusing, you talk about presenting a male and presenting as female… How do you do that? Depending on what mood strikes you? Once again, one thing is *presenting* as female and another is *being* female!! What if you “feel” female, then you go into a women’s locker room, and, once there, you switch to male mode??

    Do you see our concerns?

    Liked by 8 people

    1. Yes, I see your concerns.

      ” Once again, one thing is *presenting* as female and another is *being* female!! What if you “feel” female, then you go into a women’s locker room, and, once there, you switch to male mode??”

      It’s a valid question. I don’t go into male mode when I am out. In fact, I would rather be female 100% of the time, I feel like my male presentation is hard to do. That is the gender dysphoria for me. I don’t like being in the middle. I have my nails done and earrings and my legs are shaved. I have small breasts and long hair. It’s not as long as my wig.
      So if I am out like this as “male” I actually get more shit from people than if I went out and did my best to look “female” I can’t tell you how many times people have said “Dude what’s with the nails?” I am invisible as a female if I dress and style myself as most females do. Being half and half just gives me negative attention I am not looking for. I feel much more uncomfortable in the men’s locker room when I have had to use it. I have shaved legs, two small feminine tattoos on my belly, my breasts are size B and i have tan lines that accentuate that I have been out in the sun with a female top on. plus the nails and the earrings and the hair. I have much more fear of being beat up in the men’s room. The looks I get are un nerving. I am a female in a men’s locker room for all intents and purposes. So even as “butched” up as i can be I still look like a very feminine man at the least.

      I have not transitioned completely yet. I do have a penis. I have never allowed it to be seen in any restroom or public place. Never will. I don’t get excited out in public, I don’t gaze at people with lust. Maybe some perverts do. But they are perverts. Simple and plain. There are male heterosexual perverts. Does that mean all men are perverts? NO. If some transexual is a pervert does that mean ALL transexuals are perverts? Do you see my logic? If they have a fantasy of becoming a woman and they are getting excited about it out in public, YES, thats a pervert.

      I do see the problem with figuring out who is a pervert and who is not. I find it interesting that females are not worried about lesbians gazing at them or their daughters in the locker room. They have expressed that they are attracted to women, right? And yet no one seem to be uncomfortable with that. It’s probably because they aren’t perverts! So what you really need to watch out for is perverts in the bathroom, not transexuals or lesbians (which already get a pass for not being perverts). And there are laws for lewd behavior already which protect women. Personally it comes down to your behavior. Is a person sitting in the dressing room touching themselves? Are they staring at you uncomfortably? That’s lewd. Male or Female….or transexual. I think a TS that sits in a female dressing room with his junk hanging out isn’t really a TS at all but a pervert. Penis should not be seen in a ladies room. Would that exclude me? Well, I have everything tucked away and I don’t take showers naked. So, I think I am OK. But if women really protested that, I think it could be a compromise that you would have to have bottom surgery to enter a ladies room. I can tell you in my city it is legal to use the restroom of the gender you are presenting as if you are truly gender dysphoric. How you determine that could be worked on policy wise and I am for that because these perverts make it harder for me to just go to the bathroom. One of the reasons they didn’t require bottom surgery for this current policy is because our council felt it was not their place to prescribe surgery for anyone in order to qualify for a gender designation. Some can’t afford it, some are not going to get it, and some are like me…in the middle of transition. Gender Dysphoria exists regardless.

      I don’t expect you to understand but it is an awkward no man’s land I am in right now. I am married. I have a 10 year old daughter. Both know about my transgender dysphoria. I have read the horror stories of wives of narcissistic husbands who go full bore toward gender confirming surgeries and hormone therapy. They seemingly have no regard for the wake of destruction they leave. I understand that there are real devastating consequences for families. I am determined to allow my wife and daughter to feel comfortable with the pace I am on and have any questions answered as well as try to keep my marriage intact. I am in therapy right now and doing my best to determine if this is the right path for me and my family. Reading blogs like this gives me great pause as it should. I want to consider all viewpoints and understand all the problems and risks. I know I will face great discrimination as well and possibly lose all I have. I am facing the devils advocate right now by reading these blogs. Not dismissing out of hand anyone’s experience. Trying to understand how and why it hurts some people.

      I have not had any surgery. I am not on hormones. My breasts are a size B from taking herbals like fenugreek and peuria I have only had 50 hours of electrolysis on my face. It may be another 100 hours to be completely clear.

      For those reasons, it takes effort to present as a woman 24/7. Many therapists require a real life test for 1 year BEFORE hormones. It just makes it easier to fit in without freaking people out to have gender confirming surgeries and hormones if you are going to do that. Right now, I am not 100% confident that I pass as a woman all the time so I choose not to go out and make people uncomfortable. I have already had some right here that say I do not and have been kind of cruel. I live in Texas. Not a real progressive state. That’s enough to keep me where I am at for the moment.

      You said “Could you perhaps be a man who enjoys the company of, and shares common interests with, women? If a woman does not like stereotypically “feminine” activities, like shopping, going out for coffee with a bunch of girlfriends and chatting the morning away, etc. but she would rather go to a sports bar and watch the game with a bunch of guys while drinking a beer, not a lemon drop, is she a guy? Should she transition?”

      You make a good point. I think enjoying the company of and sharing common interests with women makes it easier to transition but is not in and of itself a validation or confirmation of a reason to change. I think it is just an indicator that you may have an easier time of it fitting in socially than someone with no common interests IF you have gender dysphoria. Fitting in socially is a big factor in whether the transition is considered a success or not, so that’s why it’s important. Finding your place as a woman and your role.

      I am sorry for rambling on like this. I am trying to be honest as I can. it’s been cathartic and helpful for me actually to write this down and expose my weaknesses and holes in thoughts. I appreciate thoughtful dialog.

      Liked by 3 people

  8. “I am not saying this to you in order to hurt your feelings, or to be mean”

    Kind of are…plus accusing me of lying, labeling me just a cross-dresser when I identify as trans. And then issuing me a defacto threat. Hmmm…and I wonder why I am not more open with my thoughts and feelings on the internet.

    I don’t think I feel comfortable giving you my given name as I have shared and been vulnerable enough and have not been treated very kindly. It’d be kind of stupid of me. Now I know why Gay people stay in the closet so long and why it takes so long to address these issues.

    I’ve been compared to a crack whore, called a tranny, he/she, told to F off, told I am in an alternate reality, threatened with physical violence, insinuations that I am a child abuser, narcissistic…what else? how much more crap should I endure before I succumb to your version of reality?

    “I wish there was a way for you to see how removed from reality you are: you are not on HRT, you do not have a letter from a doctor, nobody gets B-cup size breasts from herbal crap, you are lying to us and to yourself, you are not even a trans person, you are a cross-dresser with a perfectly male body and a very functioning penis, which is not a sin, per se, but you need to stay away from women’s only spaces.”

    BTW pueria is a very strong Phytoestrogen and I use a Noogleberry. The combination of those two has been quite effective. They use noogleberrys for women getting breast implants as a tissue expander.

    Like

    1. Hi Kelli.

      Thanks for taking the time to patiently type responses to these people. I think that takes a lot of grace to open up and educa’re these people, who are either simple bigots, or feel hurt when someone close to them transitioned. In the latter case, they never bothered to educate themselves on what it means to be transgender and put themselves in their partners shoes. Ironically the stigma they (and this site) perpetuate is the very reason their partner couldn’t transition sooner.

      In any case, they have nothing backing up their arguments except butt-hurt. They can’t make amy distinction between gender identity and sexual orientation. I’m already fed up with these idiots. So I must salute you Kellie, for your work here, being patient with these wastes on earth. Thank you.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. It doesn’t matter what you ‘identify as’. That is just more regressive-liberal politically correct piffle. What matters is what you actually are. And what you are is an autogynephilic crossdressing man. You can never be a woman. It is not possible. You suffer from a very unfortunate condition, but it is all your own doing. You knew, the first time you filched your sister’s or your girlfriend’s or your mother’s or your wife’s underwear and put it on, that what you were doing was wrong. But it thrilled you, didn’t it? And that thrill was a sexual thrill. You didn’t have to masturbate; many autogynephilic cross-dressers don’t. Just dressing gave you the release. Or maybe you ejaculated spontaneously; another commonly-reported symptom. What you are doing is called ‘behavioural autogynephilia’ and you are a classic example.

      By repeating this behaviour, you allowed a second, ‘feminine’ (or what you think might be feminine) personality to form inside your head. This is the true target of your erotic desire. Of course, this is just a part of you, a man. It is not really feminine at all. That is why you yourself are not at all feminine. You don’t act feminine, you don’t sound feminine. You were a typical boyish boy and nobody ever thought you were ‘sissy’. (Although being called that now turns you on, doesn’t it?) Like Bruce ‘Caitlyn’ Jenner, you are a typical, masculine man. The difference between you and other men is that you get your sexual release from pretending to be a ‘woman’.

      As the years passed, this second personality grew stronger, while the need for sexual release from allowing it to dominate you grew more intense; in the end, if you don’t stop it, it will overwhelm you. But you still won’t be a woman; you’ll just be a man with a serious identity issue; a man trapped in a man’s body, as Dr Anne Lawrence put it — who would know, being autogynephile herself..

      Along the way — and it sounds like you have already crossed this Rubicon — you will lose all your respect for honesty and truth. In living a lie of being a ‘woman’ everything else about your life will be corrupted. Lies and untruth will wash over you, erasing all your true past, just as this succubus that you have invented will erase your true self.

      But you won’t be able to stop. Your sex drive is too strong and its satisfaction, through ‘being’ a woman; dressing as a ‘woman’; invading women’s (real women’s) spaces for the sexual gratification it gives you, is too powerful a compulsion. Now I don’t like the word ‘pervert’ but I have to ask you, when you look at yourself in the mirror, what do you see? Maybe you’re not a pervert. But you are utterly selfish; you care nothing for others or their needs; you have no sense of responsibility whatsoever — even your own daughter you will betray and think nothing of it. Maybe you will ask her to call you ‘Mummy’…but of course, you’re not a pervert. While her heart, too young to comprehend, has to deal with the death of the father she needs, you are prancing around women’s toilets. And your daughter can’t even get closure. She can’t go to the cemetery on a Sunday and tell you her secrets: instead there is a monster who has inhabited her father’s body and who won’t even let it die, who is there looking at her through her father’s eyes, lying to her.

      In the end, as an autogynephile, if you follow this to its logical conclusion, every single thing abut your life will be a lie. But of course you’re not a pervert.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. Just try and substantiate some of your statements. And I’m not even talking about the endless rubbish personal insults you throw at a random trans woman (“selfish” etc). These ones are very obvious “trolling”, an attempt to elicit an emotional response, and deconstructing those would be feeding a troll. I’m talking about the “factual” claims you make here.

        “You knew, the first time you filched your sister’s or your girlfriend’s or your mother’s or your wife’s underwear and put it on, that what you were doing was wrong. ” – Are you actually saying that a man wearing a woman’s clothing is “wrong”? And what is your source? The Old Testament? Do you not wear mixed-cloth garments?

        “While her heart, too young to comprehend, has to deal with the death of the father she needs, you are prancing around women’s toilets.”

        And where did you get this idea that a child would consider her father “dead” just because her father wears different clothes and and uses different pronouns? These are little more than externalities. That’s sorta like saying that a farmer’s daughter would consider her father dead if he sold the farm and went on to work in a bank.

        You, sir, might well be still reeling from the Big Loss of same-sex marriage being recognized, and looking for some way to get an old stable world back. Well, there might be ways, but trolling random trans women with insults based on some random theory on a conspiracy site is not one.

        Like

      2. Gosh, what a silly man. First of all, I’m an atheist. Second of all, I suggest you actually take the trouble to read some of the actual science. Ray Blanchard’s work is the necessary start point, followed by Anne Lawrence’s for case studies.

        There’s nothing wrong with a man dressing as a woman per se; actors do it all the time and I commend you the work of the inimitable Alistair Sim. But putting on women’s clothing because doing so gives you an erection and then hanging around women’s toilets till you cream your pants is, I maintain, and especially given the context of a full-blown case of autogynephilia that developed, clearly the wrong thing to do. Wear what you like, I don’t care; but if you do it cause it gets your dick hard, you have a problem. And I do consider pretending to be a woman so you can get your sexual cojones off, by being in the same space they use to take a piss in private, to be morally wrong, yes.

        Any father who would behave as this one has — and countless other autogynephilic cross-dressing men do — is in abdication of his moral and parental responsibilities to his children. It does not get much more wrong than that. Were you hoping yours would forgive you for ‘coming out’ as a pseudo-woman? This behaviour is beyond morally reprehensible.

        The male personality does indeed ‘die’. That is how autogynephilia proceeds and, once again, since you clearly have not done so, I refer you to the relevant literature. There is a page on my site at http://rodfleming.com/links/ with plenty for you to be getting along with.

        Just to wind up with a complete and total trashing of your ridiculous and ignorant ad-hominem attack, I was and remain strongly in favour of marriage equality, and furthermore, my girlfriend is trans. She just isn’t the fetishistic cross-dresser in a wig type. And lest you doubt me, it’s all on my site. So anyone who accuses me of being transphobic is making a complete idiot of themselves; as you so capably demonstrated. The fact is, as was pointed out in the original post, autogynephilic men are neither transgender nor transsexual, with or without a cosmetic vagina. They’re transvestites: men in women’s clothes.

        And in any case, why does it bother you? Oh I see, you’re another fetishistic cross-dresser in a nylon wig and a bra stuffed full of socks too. Here’s a tip son: your credibility just left the building.

        Got that clear now, bud? Take your pissing competition somewhere else, you’ll just get whipped again here.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Rod Fleming Spot on… Succubus… a word that often used to pop into my head but was never sure it was quite correct… whatever Autogynephilia is, i know first hand it does indeed exist and that it can be strongly associated with pathological narcissism and other very disturbing sociopathic behaviours. its a very distressing thing to watch Agp consume a person you loved in good faith as the man he presented (when he was still perving secretly)…. and the most psychologically destructive thing i and my daughters have ever had to endure. much more difficult to emotionally and psychologically negotiate than bereavement… so true.. and yes, i can compare. I urgently advise all wives and intimate female partners of Agp’s to get the hell out ASAP before its too late… boundaries will not be respected after his Big Reveal, just as they were never respected in the first place…. they were always disregarded along with your trust, informed consent, sexuality, dignity, self- respect, orientation and any sense of your own identity except as some bewildered, unwitting handmaiden for a deranged, deluded, treacherous male who keeps you on your toes because you know deep down inside, that he wouldnt piss on you if you were on fire.. that if at any point you dared to say “please, no more”, he wouldnt hesitate to call you a transphobic terf and flounce off with your pension fund to his ‘real friends’ who understand why he needs to masturbate in womens panties and take endless photos of how coy and demure he really is in his lovely silky pantyhose and are oh so willing to indulge it and will listen endlessly to his tales of how his abusive, lesbophobic terf wife has deprived him of his children and forced them to hate him… .. jeez. talk about gaslighting…as painful as it has been, they truly are welcome to him.

        Liked by 4 people

      4. Of course I responded with ad hominems to your ad hominems, with your pseudo progressive attempt at “moral majority” reasoning still looking as incoherent as it did before. You now just blindly state that:

        – Certain actions, which you believe to be OK in themselves, are somehow “bad” if someone somehow gets sexual pleasure from them.

        – Some “male personality” “dies” (far be it from a respected sexologist and strong proponent of conventional hormone.surgical treatment, Dr. Blanchard, to make such a statement worthy of some crappy “parapsychologist”)

        – Adoption of certain pronouns and behaviors is an abdication of parental responsibilities. This one is why I called you “moral majority” – as you have just claimed that adherence to gender norms is somehow key in parenting.

        As for me, I support individual freedom, and I am a man, and that is all you need to know. I do not need any “credibility” from someone who never had any.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. @’ramendik’ Well, at least you confirmed that you have not read the literature. It’s up to you whether you think you have credibility or not; it is satisfyingly clear, however, that in fact you do not.

        Liked by 2 people

      6. @ ‘ramnerdik’ Where exactly did I say that ‘adherence to gender norms is somehow key in parenting’? Perhaps you would be so good as to point out where, either here or elsewhere, I have said that; until you do I’ll thank you to keep your ignorant and ill-tutored traductions to yourself.

        See? I warned you: whipped again, Keep coming back for more, bud, you’re easy meat.

        Liked by 2 people

      7. You claimed: “Any father who would behave as this one has — and countless other autogynephilic cross-dressing men do — is in abdication of his moral and parental responsibilities to his children. It does not get much more wrong than that. ”

        The only special behaviour here is lack of adherence to gender roles. Because, yes, using male pronouns and “presenting as male” is ALSO a part of gender roles.

        I am not commenting on the views of wives, because, you know, that’s what divorce is for. People’s lives sometimes diverge. One can look for a country life or city life, change favourite music style, change gender, change religion – there are a lot of cases when a significant change makes a person no longer desirable for their spouse. In this case, people divorce. That’s better than trying to hold on to some past pattern that no longer works. And some divorces are, unfortunately, hard-going. So lots of crap gets dealt from both sides. It’s better to part amicably but who am I to judge? Some people will, unfortunately, see themselves as betrayed as part of a divorce. Some of these people will be trans and some will be spouses of trans people. That’s life.

        However, a claim that a change of gender is somehow an abdication of parental responsibility is outright bollox, and has ZERO ground except if one views gender compliance as essential in parenting.

        Like

      8. Thank you, first, for once again demonstrating the weakness of your intellectual abilities. Your argument is a straw man. I have no issue with a lesbian couple raising children, nor with a gay couple doing so. So your assertion that somehow I insist on gender normative parental roles is bogus, like everything else you have said.

        Being a parent is a contract of responsibility that endures, at least, until the last of your children becomes an adult. This means that one is obliged to provide a secure, safe, and emotionally stable platform for their development. What autogynephiles (who are by the way, a minority of transgender women and essentially do not exist outside the West; it is a cultural phenomenon that is likely the product of a broken society) do is to completely abdicate that responsibility in order to satisfy their own sexual fetish. And that is not just an abdication of the parental contract, it is sick.

        Now I understand that, as an autogynephile yourself (I notice you do not deny it) your understanding of truth, morality and responsibility is fatally compromised, but I would like to take the opportunity you give me to do a little intellectual exercise.

        Andrew Faas, in his new book ‘The Bully’s Trap’ documents 9 characteristics of the psychopathic personality.:they have sadistic motives and intents; they’re glib and superficially charming; they have an elevated opinion of themselves and blame others for everything that goes wrong; they are pathological liars; they live a parasitic lifestyle; they are cunning and manipulative; they had early behavioural problems; they show no remorse or guilt; their long-term goals are not realistic.

        Not all psychopaths, according to Faas, display all of these, but all will exhibit some or most.

        Autogynephiles, as anyone who has ever had to deal with them will attest, typically display all of the above characteristics. I am quite sure that the abused partners of autogynephiles posting here will recognise them. I contend that autogynephilia is, by this measure at least, a form of psychopathy.

        Thank you for affording me the opportunity to make this point, after trashing your piffle; believe me, I have plenty more evidence about the true nature of autogynephilia to draw on should you wish to continue.

        Liked by 1 person

      9. You’re quite despicable really, trying to claim some sort of progressive thinking while relying on saddest “moral” tropes. You repeatedly try to pry into your opponent’s private life (I did tell you I am a man, which is the only relevant public characteristic). Then, taking an allegation about said private life, you make a connection to some sort of moral debasement (“your understanding of truth, morality and responsibility is fatally compromised”). And finally, you jump to a quote about psychopathy, even though a “paraphilia” is not claimed to be a form of psychopathy.

        And all of that is just an attempt to deflect from the obvious trap you fell into. I stated: “you have just claimed that adherence to gender norms is somehow key in parenting”. This statement is very obvious because you are making a claim that by picking a different gender presentation, different pronoun, and different name, a father somehow abdicates responsibility towards their child. You coat it in long sweet wording now: “Being a parent is a contract of responsibility that endures, at least, until the last of your children becomes an adult. This means that one is obliged to provide a secure, safe, and emotionally stable platform for their development.” So in your world, adherence to a stable set of gender roles is a necessary part of a secure, safe, and emotionally stable platform.

        This is a vile statement that was, and in many places still is, used to deny transitioning or otherwise gender non-conforming parents access to their children. But there is absolutely zero evidence behind this claim. Except conservative statements, of course. This does include some virulently conservative medical professionals like McHugh or Zucker (but not Blanchard).

        Like

      10. I really get to you, don’t I? Do I challenge you autogynephilia? Do I make you ask yourself hard (oops, sorry, got to be careful with the language we use with people like you, don’t want it all getting messy now do we? You might have to wash your sister’s undies out before you put them back in the drawer.) Do the observations I make shake the foundations of the second personality you are trying so hard to protect? Be a man about it and own up to liking to put on pretty frocks to paint the ceiling white.

        Because that is all an autogynephile is: a man in a frock. That was proven by Savic and Arver in 2011, who carried out a large NRI study of autogynephiles; the more common HSTS type was carefully screened out in a properly designed, through study of the type that Savic is known for. And what did they find? Do you know that they found? Well, I will tell you: autogynephiles have brains that are ‘indistinguishable from men’s’. Contrast this with Rametti et al’s similar study which examined only HSTS, this time screening out AGPs, and found that HSTS have ‘brains shifted on every tested parameter towards the female.’ We need no further proof that there are indeed two totally separate types of MtF transgender, that Blanchard was right all along, and that autogynephiles are men. (From your writing, it is possible that you may be an undergraduate psychology student, so I assume you have heard of these researchers.)

        Now as regards substance of your slander, (you don’t have much but we’ll deal with the little you do) perhaps you could direct me to the quotes of mine, either here or elsewhere, where I have supported Zucker?

        As I said before, you’re easy meat, son. Or would you prefer ‘petal’.

        Liked by 2 people

      11. I have never claimed anything at all about brain structures. And you are continuing trying ad hominem to deflect from losing out on the main point. I will not bite, except that I will deny your attempt to infer I would use somebody else’s clothing without permission.

        You see, that is the only part of your long-running baseless claims that actually describes something *wrong* from any objective standpoint not involving religious texts. So I’ll tell you I never did it. The rest of your claims are a continued attempt to describe normal private things as wrong and connect them, falsely, to some form of immorality. You never quote any source for your claims, you simply try to present yourself as the voice of Morality. This must be resisted at every turn and I will not condescend to discussing anything personal in this context. (For example, second/third personalities are a stock tool of writers and performers throughout the world – some of them cross-gender, some not).

        And with all these angry claims you are just trying to hide the one moment you got caught. Your vile claim that consistent gender role compliance is essential for the responsibilities of a parent. This claim has broken thousands of lives in the real world. I will not let you ff with it.

        Like

      12. You don’t have any choice, bud. (or would you prefer ma’am?) Autogynephiles are sick men who destroy other people’s lives with no thought but for themselves and their own masturbatory fetishes, and as long as you want me to keep reiterating this truth, I am happy so to do.

        I’m actually now working on a series of blog posts to tell everyone what autogynephiles actually are and why we should not pander to their sexually-driven delusions; thank you for the encouragement.

        Liked by 2 people

      13. Surely everyone has a right to do baseless moral outrage in their blog. Go right ahead. I’m pretty sure you will have no factual references except to the echo chamber of those present here and their kind.

        Like

      14. Hey, I nearly forgot ANOTHER conservative trope you used. “essentially do not exist outside the West; it is a cultural phenomenon that is likely the product of a broken society”. So the West is a broken society and you prefer the oriental societies with their entrenched morality, where men and women know their places.

        Like

      15. I see, you’re not only intellectually deficient, you’re a cultural imperialist who thinks that the Western model is superior to all others, and also makes assumptions, based on no information whatsoever about other cultures, which you have most assuredly never visited or studied in depth. I doubt if these revelations about your nasty, colonialist attitudes are doing your credibility much good. Oh wait, you don’t have any. Silly me.

        So did you enjoy celebrating the genocide of the Native American people that affords you the luxury of looking down on everyone else?

        Liked by 2 people

      16. Ah, the usual assumptions. What made you think I have ever set foot in America?

        Besides, your reference was very obviously not to past Native American societies, as you were talking about a modern thing.

        Like

  9. Thanks, Transwidow, I appreciate your kind words of support, and I am so very sorry that you had to go through the same grotesque ordeal. My boys are still little, grade school, and they are very confused, I cannot even imagine what your teenage boys must be going through. Have you gotten psychological counseling? I have for mine.

    I am not sure I will ever be able to move on, given that no matter how strong I try to be, each time the 6’3″ “other mother” of my children shows up at the meeting point to pick up my kids it will hit all over again stabbing me in the heart each single time. No matter how much I asked, I begged that he does not show up with make-up on and/or with any other piece of his fetish showing, he has done it many times. The level of embarrassment and shame is too much for me to bear. additionally, 20 plus years of marriage do not disappear from a woman’s heart and soul just like that.

    I know my words to “Kelli” were strong and I am sorry I was so direct, but talking to an autogynaphilic man seems to always turn out to be a waste of time, their self absorption and narcissism are so strong that you talk reality and they answer you by telling you how much success they have been having using a noogleberry… They say they want to become “women” to have “deeper relationships with women” but they totally ignore the relationships to the most important women in their lives…

    From what you wrote somewhere else, I gather you are from the UK, although I may be wrong in my assumption, and I have to tell you that in the US the Tranny Epidemic is completely out of control: there is no real life test, there is no pre-determined length of therapy, any of these men can find a trans friendly therapist, tell them their rehearsed litany and the “therapist” will sign a letter stating that he is indeed a “woman trapped in a man’s body”: after barely a week on hormones my 6’3″ ex husband, who is built like a line baker, had free access to women’s only spaces and had the opportunity to change sex markers on driver’s license, etc… Yes, I was technically a “lesbian”, for a while…

    Liked by 7 people

    1. Andi, I honestly don’t think it’s worth engaging with these men; a) they enjoy it and b) it’s a waste of time. In the end , with my ex, I took the advice from the books I’d read on dealing with narcissists and refused to rise to the bait. The less you have to do with them the better. Their thinking is flawed, it’s all about ME, ME, ME.

      As for therapy for my kids this has been another of our battle grounds. First of all he wanted an ”expert”, ie someone trained in gender issues in children. WTF that had to do with my kid’s experience? He also sees the therapists role as one of ”persuading” them that no matter how they feel then it’s perfectly OK for their father to transition. By not going along with that he has me labelled as a ”hostile parent” and accuses me of not doing anything to help them! Boy are these men difficult when they don’t get their own way!

      Liked by 6 people

      1. You hit the nail on the head. The reason autogynephiles come to boards like this is it gives them a sexual thrill, because they are interacting with women. It’s all — every part of everything they do — about sex. And they are totally narcissistic, in the worst possible way.

        And yes, they are men, and particularly aggressive ones at that.

        Liked by 5 people

    2. I need to back up. I am sorry Andi and Trans-widow. This is a place for the feelings and experiences of spouses who have experienced hurt through transitions of their husbands. I don’t agree with how many categorize this condition, but you certainly have the right to express it in the way you have seen it and felt it.

      I totally understand why you are angry and I suppose I am one person you can lash out at because I fit the definition of your husband from your perspective. If it helps you to heal, let me say that I agree that your husband as you described was narcissistic. There are real hurts here and I am sorry. I did not intend to diminish your experience.

      I’m gonna stop posting here. It’s not my place. I’m sorry for intruding.

      Like

      1. Hi Kelli, you have chosen the take the high road, which indeed shows a noble heart. I think this subject is way too complicated with way too many facets for people to understand, especially when one is in a sea of hurt like I am at the moment.

        Your insight is of course appreciated but reactions to your posts can be virulent given how much hurt some members of the trans community have knowingly or unknowingly inflicted on others.

        Also, good luck with the choices you are facing. I can only tell you one thing, which most adult women will agree on: little girls need a lot of daddy love.

        Liked by 1 person

    3. Thank you so much for speaking. Your voice is a lifeline to so many women finding themselves in relationships and marriages with men like this..The AGP contingent and their specific agenda needs urgent clarification for the sake of the whole community and for the sake of the women they predate. i feel lucky that my children come from a previous relationship and i could walk away from the hot mess he made of us and cut all ties….that was hard enough.. to be permanently connected by your offspring… i cant begin to imagine the pain and discomfort you and your children are forced to continue enduring.

      Liked by 2 people

  10. Well, this has been an interesting read. The only thing that comes to mind is that ‘transgendering’ is a condition that I think is probably only found in developed countries. I doubt very much that any ‘Bushman’ ever had the desire to transition. What about blind people, do they have the desire to become a woman?? Probably quite rare, if at all I would think. It’s all about appearances. The reflection of one’s self in a mirror. Completely superficial. All they talk about is makeup, nails, dresses, skirts, shopping, girl talks, etc. as if that is all there is to being a woman. I am a woman (straight with a boyfriend) and I always feel like a woman whether I am wearing jeans with a loose tshirt, no makeup and a pair of sneakers or high heels, tight dress, red lipsticks and red nails. And that is because it is in my genetic. Period. No matter what I wear (men’s clothes or women’s clothes) I ALWAYS feel like a woman. Oh and by the way, I’m a contractor. I build houses.

    Liked by 6 people

  11. i dont think AGP is offensive per se – but honesty and integrity, which are crucial to agency and consent, dont seem to feature much among this group. AGP’s seem to be mostly characterised by jealousy and resentment of women, and motivated by narcissistic rage… as long as they dont piss other peoples lives up the wall while theyre about it i couldnt care less what kind of exhibition they want to make of themselves. thats is entirely their business.. it becomes offensive when people are unwittingly co opted into the fantasy without their knowledge and consent. it becomes offensive when the cultural appropriation of female roles amounts to nothing more than a visual approximation of a mans sexualised idea of what a woman is. it becomes abusive when the AGP identity is founded on the denial of reality and the gaslighting, erasure and oppression of others…. a huge fuss is made about the cotton ceiling, but it’s straight women and the children these men have fathered, fearful of being demonised, vilified, silenced, insulted and erased that typically have to deal with the devastating fallout of what amounts to a very peculiar bereavement for them.. the permanent loss of someone they loved, the realisation they have been duped and that they have been erased in order to accommodate a person they dont even recognise and never knew existed .. a person who has secretly been controlling the relationship since the start, sharing it all on online for the sexual satisfaction of strange men in panties… wrong footing their intimate partner every step of the way to the finale where they come out as ‘women’ and blame straight partners who have entered the relationship in love and good faith for not being cool about having their orientation, sexuality and consent disregarded entirely in favour of trans rights: the right to lie, cheat, betray, gaslight, vilify, use people as narcissistic supply… etc… those women have to come to terms with an egregious betrayal of trust.. almost no studies have been done on the loved ones and close family members of AGP individuals, though we know that many of them suffer years of gaslighting and psychological abuse before having their worlds turned upside down. what a surprise … no ones interested in the effect this has on women…

    Liked by 4 people

  12. seriously? theres a guy here trying to grow breasts with noogleberries? wtf? .. mind you, when i was first gaslighted by my ex and felt i had no choice but to support him, i spent hours picking red clover ‘titty flowers’ for him… i was desperate to stop him resorting to hormones and surgery…..

    Liked by 1 person

  13. “feeling female is part physical, personally subjective, and societal. Its a combination of all 3. That’s my opinion.”
    ‘kelli’ – you missed out the main one: BEING female. (as in XY if i have to make it any clearer.) its not all about tits and fannies.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Well, this has been a very interesting and informative discussion ! Thank you all for the time, effort and passion expressed.

    It’s evident from the development of the blog, that eventually the writer’s background quickly becomes central to understanding both the point of view held, and the vehemence with which it is expressed. So at the risk of being narcissistic , I better say first-up that I am 65 year-old autogynophiliac, and fit the stereotypes described herein, well, like a glove. In my case there’s no physical or chemical changes, it’s all just all old-fashioned closet transvestism.

    And I wanted to join this particular dialogue, firstly because of course jaw-jaw is better than war-war. And because whichever side of the argument ones takes (and I think there at least three) this is a hot topic, what with the adoration of Jenner, the cautious re-emergence of the James Bond girl Tula, and not least, Jazz Jennings. And to enhance understanding into this curious predilection; which like those fore-mentioned, has preoccupied my entire life. And yes, I shall rationalise my own behaviour, as we all seek to do, or else we go mad.

    In drilling down, from the universe, the world, and everything, we can surely agree this phenomenon is about sex. Putting it simply, sex is part of DNA’s program, evolved in order to mix the gene-pool. And a binary system is not only a mathematically elegant way of achieving this, but it’s also become so ingrained in life on this planet, and in subsequently evolved human society, that it’s hard to see beyond it. Getting two organisms of differing sexes together is also a challenge for the DNA, solved in a myriad of startling ways. In bower birds this involves elaborate decoration, in flowers a third party – the bee. By comparison with the ‘wham-bam-thank you’ ways in the wild, the courtship and sex in modern human society requires a staggering number of rituals and ceremonies. What evolutionist could have predicted that wearing soot and glue (aka mascara), would be a pre-sexual activity for some of us, and support a multi-million dollar industry?

    There are some that would argue that life is not all about sex. Seen from above however, from Adam & Eve (or whatever) to 7.5billion looks like pretty convincing. With that in mind all other trappings of civilization are just foreplay.

    Thus in an extreme example, one of our binaries, a woman say, will wash dishes at a restaurant, in order to buy cosmetics, so she can attract a mate, and subsequently bear children. The other binary will slaughter pigs, so he can afford a truck, to drive his potential mate to an undisturbed corner, striving to fulfil his ordained role in creating children. And everyone lives happily ever after.

    Whilst mascara is the most insignificant and possibly most arbitrary part of our many and varied precursors to sex, it is easy to identify many thousands of others. I won’t do so now, since I want to return to the actual sexual act. This is only achieved at a very high cost to the individuals concerned. Flowers divert energy into making nectar to attract the bee, peacocks drag around cumbersome feathers, male spiders are beheaded and eaten by their partners. In our species, we know (boy do we know!) that the extended cost of courtship, and its various many inconveniences for us, are necessarily compensated by a rush of pleasurable dopamine at every stage. Because otherwise we just wouldn’t bother. And thus our rituals leading to the eventual outcome of offspring now can – and do – take years. And many of us like to linger or even stop along the way. It takes less effort, and can provide almost the same high.

    What has this to do with autogynophilia? Well, it involves much of highly publicised and marketed acceptable rituals and preliminaries – bright clothing, mascara, red heels etc. Which, in today’s societal norms, are arbitrarily reserved for just half the population. Because they are intended to signal – in theory if not in practise – sexual availability of the female binary. And most men, deliberately aroused and fetishized by these objects, are, on a percentage basis, extremely unlikely to be invited to the party. On the basis of 2.4 kids per couple, it might be mathematically argued that he’s needed – by the DNA at least – just three times. Conceivably (sorry!) that’s just one ejaculate every five years. And yet his body is geared to about 1000 times that level – he sees the signal and is ready to roll, but denied the ultimate dopamine rush 99.9% of the time. So he makes do with the lesser rush of the preliminary fetish object. And masturbates. Hence cross-dressing. It works just fine, as I said, 99.9% of the time. And so is self-reinforcing. If you think about it, it’s illogical that men persist with sexual intercourse at all. (Oops – is that a no-no? Anyway, just sayin’ .) And for the mature male whose job as a sperm-provider and home-provider role is long done, he’s still designed for and still craves the high, but can co-op the only willing person – himself – in both the foreplay ritual, and the regular organic release demanded by his body. Man thinks, and is told daily even – why not, I’m worth it? Hence, casual sex, masturbation, cross-dressing, homosexuality and all the other pleasurable alternatives to child-bearing. It’s just one more throw-away consequence of Nature’s design. Flawed it may be, but on the whole the natures gene-pooling mechanism for the human race process is 7.5billion times effective, and rising. So never mind the waste.

    While these complexities and fetishes are part and parcel with nature’s purpose (as it were), when they observed in others, they either excite or horrify. At the reptilian brain’s visceral level DNA condones only binary sex leading to babies, and has designed the human body accordingly. There’s nothing physically stopping the body masturbating, but there’s a man-made societal belief system has been created on top, to avoid waste and unnatural practices (casting one’s seed on the ground), and thus was cardinal sin invented. Any deviation from this cultural norm is then to be stamped on with a set of punishments ranging from scorn (in the western world) through to mutilation and death elsewhere. To keep these persuasions effective, and front of mind, camp fire-side stories are needed, predicting dire consequences (eg blindness, or rampant molesters in the wrong toilets).

    I could (and may at some future date) go on. But meantime, while sincerely regretting the very real individual one-to-one collateral damage, that this, or any other human activity causes, has caused, and will cause, would argue thus:

    a) all mankind’s sexual peccadillos are naturally occurring, having been designed into or are resulting from the evolution of our species and of our society. The consequences of such small aberations are generally benign at worse, and occasionally fabulous (eg Tchaikovsky was gay).

    b) On the broad scale of things, there’s 7.5 billion reasonably peaceful and contented human beings and counting. We can afford poets, dreamers, experimenters – and wankers.

    c) We’ve always known that cross-dressing is just sex. And so society does not need cross-dressers to explain themselves. To do so risks – as we can now see, driving them and their families into extreme self-justification, and the contortions of transgender outcomes. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and so we must learn to accommodate those who prefer setting up permanent camp just outside the norms.

    d) Let’s continue to have these discussions, in such a blog as this, but without rancour, blame or arrogance. One of the welcome outcomes of our more advanced civilization is that we are increasingly tolerant, and daily learning to live and to let live. And – thanks to the internet – we are able to really listen to and learn from one another. (I’ve learned a lot here – thank you all again!)

    And while my loyal and loving wife doubtless would like me to stop the damn frocking, I would prefer she didn’t wink at the pool-man.

    Like

  15. I believe that fetishes (which I believe this to be) can be changed as the brain is plastic.
    One thing I find in common with most fetishes is that they often start early within their childhood or early teens/adulthood.

    They’ve shown in several studies that you can condition animals to be aroused by cadavarine (which is the smell of rotting flesh) and by this essentially changing their sexual tastes to not that of a female but to something that smells like rotting flesh.
    The reason this happens is because they artificially spiked the dopamine of those animals during the cue of that very smell.
    So in theory , these “orientations” or “fetishes” are simply an expressed drug abuse of spiking their dopamine , giving the impression that doing particular things (like the smell of rotting flesh) is rewarding.

    So lets pretend that “timmy” gets sexually abused by an uncle/relative.
    Timmy doesn’t want to be sexually abused but he has no choice in the matter.. as his uncle can overpower him easily.
    The act itself is horrifying , but at the same time results in “Timmy” having a climax, because his uncle (a man) gave him that.

    Now his reward circuitry is more likely to condition itself to that experience be it that it’s his first experience and also the first time his dopamine spiked like that.
    The brain not knowing the difference between natural sex and imitation will condition Timmy to search out an experience similar to what he had.. because the mind has discovered a “reward”
    Now Timmy at this point will likely be repeatedly offended by his uncle and in return has effectively been driven to search out a “gay lifestyle” because his mind has associated procreation with “other men”

    Now the reason I illustrate this point is that studies show that over 40% of gay men can remember being molested as youth, and another 20% being introduced to gay porn after their dopamine became resistant to “vanilla porn”.

    So to those men/women (yes there are women who get turned on by imagining themselves as the opposite gender) who get turned on by this “fetish” because to call this an orientation is to suggest that they are BORN attracted to their imaginary selves.. is stupid and politically dumb … are actually this way due to essentially an every growing addiction.
    As once the dopamine becomes resistant to the thoughts.. then one moves on to crossdressing, and then further into the rabbit hole.

    To correct this FETISH.. one has to give up their addiction and get rid of all things sexual for a few months (maybe even a year) so that he/she can rewire their brains to their natural state.

    Like

  16. I believe that fetishes (which I believe this to be) can be changed as the brain is plastic.
    One thing I find in common with most fetishes is that they often start early within their childhood or early teens/adulthood.

    They’ve shown in several studies that you can condition animals to be aroused by cadavarine (which is the smell of rotting flesh) and by this essentially changing their sexual tastes to not that of a female but to something that smells like rotting flesh.
    The reason this happens is because they artificially spiked the dopamine of those animals during the cue of that very smell.
    So in theory , these “orientations” or “fetishes” are simply an expressed drug abuse of spiking their dopamine , giving the impression that doing particular things (like the smell of rotting flesh) is rewarding.

    So lets pretend that “timmy” gets sexually abused by an uncle/relative.
    Timmy doesn’t want to be sexually abused but he has no choice in the matter.. as his uncle can overpower him easily.
    The act itself is horrifying , but at the same time results in “Timmy” having a climax, because his uncle (a man) gave him that.

    Now his reward circuitry is more likely to condition itself to that experience be it that it’s his first experience and also the first time his dopamine spiked like that.
    The brain not knowing the difference between natural sex and imitation will condition Timmy to search out an experience similar to what he had.. because the mind has discovered a “reward”
    Now Timmy at this point will likely be repeatedly offended by his uncle and in return has effectively been driven to search out a “gay lifestyle” because his mind has associated procreation with “other men”

    Now the reason I illustrate this point is that studies show that over 40% of gay men can remember being molested as youth, and another 20% being introduced to gay porn after their dopamine became resistant to “vanilla porn”.

    So to those men/women (yes there are women who get turned on by imagining themselves as the opposite gender) who get turned on by this “fetish” because to call this an orientation is to suggest that they are BORN attracted to their imaginary selves.. is stupid and politically dumb … are actually this way due to essentially an ever growing addiction.
    As once the dopamine becomes resistant to the thoughts.. then one moves on to crossdressing, and then further into the rabbit hole.

    To correct this FETISH.. one has to give up their addiction and get rid of all things sexual for a few months (maybe even a year) so that he/she can rewire their brains to their natural state.

    EDITED***

    Liked by 1 person

  17. noodles – paraphilias cannot be cured. we know this. they can be treated – sometimes, but they cannot be cured. Paedophiles have a lifelong incurable disorder – and so do Agp’s. They both need to stay the hell away from women and children.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. The reason paedophiles have a disorder and need to stay away from children is because children can not consent to sex and therefore, sex with them is a crime.

      There is *no* crime in identifying as a woman, *no* crime in dressing as a woman, and *no* crime in any crossdressing activity, including consensual sexual activity among adults. Therefore the analogy is false.

      Yes, I know some women dislike their husbands having such interests and engaging in such activities. This is no different from women disliking their husbands’ interest in science fiction, going to conventions dressed as Darth Vader, and calling them Uhura in bed (or something). Some couples can break up over either. Neither is a “disorder”.

      Like

      1. @ramendik: The problem is not men dressing up in secret to crack one off, nor is it them swanning about in girl’s clothing pretending to be women. The problem is their total disregard for the rights of women (real women, that is) and their attempt to erase the majority group of people born male who become women, transsexuals or, if preferred, HSTS. Autogynephiles ARE NOT WOMEN, they are men in dresses, and they ARE NOT TRANSSEXUAl. They are fetishistic crossdressing men whose actions do inflict real harm on others, not least the wives they bully into going along with their ludicrous fantasy, the families they wreck, and the enormous psychological damage they do to their children, without ever a thought: because an autogyneohile only ever thnks of himself, literally. So much it makes him ejaculate.

        You are right that the paraphilia ‘autogynephilia’ causes little or no harm to the person indulging in it, but it causes enormous harm to others. So it is just like paedophilia. If one wants a paraphilia that genuinely does not do any harm why not take up necrophilia? At least the victims wouldn’t know anything about it.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. There is actually no evidence of objective harm. Yes, family disagreements happen with some people. But they can happen over pretty much anything. Yes, some families fall apart. But divorces can also happen over many things. As or children, in modern Western societies they need to understand that gender is not as simple as a mere binary, whoever their own parents happen to be, otherwise they will be “damaged” by witnessing the next Pride.

        In fact, a big cause of such family disagreements and divorces is moral stigma over crossdressing and related activities, created by conservatives and buoyed up by some feminists. Because of this, people are pushed to keep it hidden, resulting in marriages where this interest is not discussed beforehand. (The same actually applies to FtMs – yes, Blanchard was outright wrong on that one, there are FtMs attracted to men and I know some; the reason for Blanchard’s mistake is that they often don’t seek clinical help).

        In the States, there is now a legal formula that is the basis for resolving these things. “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity”. Marriage itself, an institution only ever seen as reproductive for centuries, is now subordinate to these rights. Compared to that massive change, the matters of dress, pronouns, and the like are outright superficial.

        Like

      3. The delusional nature of autgynephilia is so well illustrated here that it’s hard not to laugh. But since those less familiar with the condition may be persuaded by your glib plausibility (a trait you share with psychopaths) let us go through your most recent collection of lies, half-truths, traductions and blatant misdirection.

        ‘No evidence of harm’? Every time a divorce happens, that is a harm. But of course, to an autogynephiile, it’s not REAL harm, because the autogynephile doesn’t care about anyone but himself. (Another trait you share with psychopaths.)

        Every time a woman is forced to deny her own sexuality, when a man in a dress whom she thought loved her, insists that she can no longer be heterosexual and must be a lesbian, that is a harm, a denial of her right to her identity. But ‘identity rights’, as far as autogynphiles are concerned, are for their own benefit, not others’.

        If we were to force gay men to be straight, everyone would be up in arms, but oh, no, it’s all right for a man in a frock with a bra full of socks to coerce a woman into being a lesbian. Ever heard of misogyny? Autogynephilic men define it. How would it be if the boot were on the other foot and heterosexual men were being forced to be gay? You think that would be acceptable? I put it to you that it would never be tolerated. But hey, women are just women, and to an autogynephile, to be a REAL woman, you have to have been born with a dick anyway. So you don’t give two hoots about women’s rights to their sexuality or reproduction, because to you they are just sex objects — indeed, worse, props in your delusional sexual fantasy.

        While there is stigma — and it is true, there is — it is hardly surprising. Autogynephilia is an unpleasant sexual perversion at the best of times, in which the sufferer is so utterly self-obsessed he neither sees how ridiculous he is nor the harm he does to others. I have no objection to you flouncing around in an outsize skirt and size 14 shoes; but don’t imagine you’re fooling anyone. (Once again, I should point out that there is no correlation whatsoever between autogynephilia and true mtf transsexualism or HSTS; but autogynephiles, ever happy to erase everyone else’s ‘identity’ but their own, pretend that there is.)

        Then you move to a little misdirection, another standard ploy of the delusional autogynephile. What Blanchard said was ‘I don’t believe that the female equivalent of autogynephilia exists’ and as far as the evidence shows, he’s absolutely right. Since you pretend not to understand what autogynephilia actually is, let me re-iterate. it is ‘a man’s propensity to be aroused by the thought of himself as a woman’. For the female equivalent to exist, women would have to be aroused at the thought of themselves as men. There is no evidence whatsoever that it happens, and whether or not ftm transsexuals are attracted to men is irrelevant, as we are about to show.

        This misrepresentation of one of the most respected psychologists in the US may seem of limited importance, but it is a typical autogynephile trick. It purports to suggest that autogynephiles are ‘mtf transsexuals who are attracted to women’ by conflating them with ftm transsexuals who are attracted to men. So why is this wrong? Because autogynephiles are attracted to themselves as women, not to other people, and this is specifically the point Blanchard was making. Autogynephiiles may use women, or for that matter men, as props in their sexual fantasy, but the root of their paraphilia is the sexual gratification that playing a role as ‘woman’ gives them.

        Nothing like this appears to happen in the very small numbers of ftm transsexuals who are attracted to men — they are attracted to others. Thus they do not suffer the core dysfunction of autogynephilia, which is Erotic Target Location Error or ETLE. Nobody has ever shown evidence of this in women, and so Blanchard was, guess what, right. In other words, the reason there is no female equivalent to autogynephilia is that, as Blanchard showed, autoynephilia is rooted in male sexuality. Women do not have male sexuality. QED.

        Now that we have again established that you have not read the papers and instead are relying on the soundbites and quote-mining of autogynephilic propaganda sites, let’s look at the deeper implication of the above misdirection. Its end is to suggest that autogynephiles are actually lesbians. Well, they’re not. They’re men. In order to be a lesbian, you have to be a woman. Autogynephiles are not women. QED again.

        Then you move to a straightforward red herring. Marriage equality and changes in the way laws are interpreted regarding same-sex couples have no effect on autogynephiles, since if they are married, it is to women. So their marriages are between a man and a woman, as marriage always has been for the thousands of years (not centuries, dear; have you actually ever read a book, or is Wikipedia your source for everything?) of its existence. The reason you bring it up here is another blatant attempt to establish veracity in a lie: that an autogynephilic man and a woman form a same-sex couple. They don’t, although they might be considered to be a same-gender couple. However, marriage law has always been quite specifically about sex, not gender.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. I’ll start at the end: I referred, not to same-sex marriage itself, but to the SCOTUS rationale for it, establishing a rather wide right to personal identity – which also explicitly includes “intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs”. This decision effectively gets around the entire “born this way” debate by proclaiming a right to a choice, whether or not it is inborn. And the reason I used “centuries” instead of “millennia” was specifically to avoid a clash with SSM supporters who hold to a doctrine that marriage is constantly evolving and its meaning has severely changed repeatedly through history.

        And whether a transitioner and their spouse form a same-sex couple is obviously immaterial when sex is legally proclaimed to be irrelevant to marriage. This can be discussed in jurisdictions where sex is still relevant to marriage, but most of these are rather hostile to transition in general. Russia, in fact, has recently passed a law disallowing marriage of people *born* the same sex even if one has officially transitioned, surgery and all. (I have just checked and the non-Western country most famous for its trans people, Brazil, does have same-sex marriage since 2013, making the issue moot there).

        On the FtM point, I wanted to avoid stating things so bluntly, but I do know FtMs who are aroused by the thoughts of themselves as men in a gay relationship (and by “relationship” I mean something pretty explicit). They are actually easy to find, many are known as slash/yaoi fans (to clarify, not all such fans are thusly aroused but many are, and let’s just say I have friends; I’m not publishing nams for pretty obvious reasons). Many, probably most, of them tend to go with part-time transition (what males would call cross-dressing, but for them it’s more about roles, as male dress itself is just normal on a woman these days) and no physical alteration apart from binding, so they would not fall into Blanchard’s clinical area.

        As for divorce, it can be caused by any number of disagreements. If a woman divorces a man because he likes watching soccer too much for her liking, is soccer now the cause of the divorce? If a man divorces a woman because of extraordinary (for him) demands regarding cleanliness, is cleanliness the cause of damage?

        Moreover, one could equally state that some women’s intolerance is the “cause of the damage”. I prefer, however, to see spouses as equal people, and if a terminal disagreement arises and a compromise can not be reached, divorce is the lesser evil compared to coercion in either direction.

        And if anyone is actually coercing anyone, whether to “be a lesbian” or to “man up”, it is ultimately – unless resolved first, whether by compromise or divorce – a police matter. Coercion has no place among adults. That’s what we have divorce for, to avoid coercion. The only societies that worked without divorce were strict ones where everyone was forced into a rigid role based on their birth (sex, clan, caste…). And that is damaging to far more people in far more circumstances than divorce is – and within THAT degree of damage, all sorts of transitioners, who are of course also harmed, are but a small part, and most harm is probably dealt to women.

        Modern Western society gives people a wide choice of roles and identities. Sometimes, in fact rather often, spouses tend to make incompatible choices – with transition or cross-gender behaviour, on *either* side, being a couple of potentially incompatible choices. Taking away the choices, whether legally or with moral browbeating, is not the way to sort this out, not in this place and age. In fact, women have generally benefitted from the increase of choice, and I think these benefits outweigh the need to either tolerate or divorce an intentionally weird husband, whatever kind of weirdness is involved.

        Like

      5. Thank you for another catalogue of lies, obfuscation and misdirection, which we shall now dismantle, with the end of showing to those not fully familiar with the nature of autogynephiles what you are really like.

        I also thank you for confirming my point (although you, somewhat bizarrely, seem to think you refute it) regarding FtMs. These have never been shown to have a ‘female equivalent’ of autogynephilia. This is because, and I know I said this before, but either you didn’t read it or you’re hoping everyone else missed it, autogynephilia is predicated upon an underlying sexual dysfunction, Erotic Target Location Error. This leads autogynephilic men to develop a ‘female’ personality within themselves that they become romantically and sexually attached to. While most autogynephiles remain secret transvestites all their years, sneaking their unsuspecting wives’ underwear to help them spray the ceiling, some, through sexual gratification and repeated reinforcement, allow the second personality to take over.

        When an autogynephile has a real sexual partner, this partner is merely a prop in their sexual fantasy; their principal sexual attraction is ALWAYS to themselves. Autogynephiles may be accurately summed up as ‘self-obsessed male wankers’. But I think you know that.

        Now while FtM transsexuals, insofar as they exist, may fantasise about being the male partner in a gay relationship, this is not a ‘female’ version of autogynephilia, because their sexual attraction is not to themselves but to their partners, real or imagined. This is perfectly normal sexual behaviour which most people indulge in: for example, ‘straight’ men watching porn typically fantasise about engaging in sex with the models. Unlike autogynephiles, they are not attracted TO themselves, but to the idea of having sex with someone else, in a particular sexual role. This is exactly what you claim your FtMs are doing and so your argument is debunked by your own words.

        Regarding ‘same-sex’ marriage, once again your argument is a straw man. In Brazil, where autogynephilia is extremely rare or possibly non-existent, the laws you refer to are designed to accommodate true transsexuals — that is to say, people born male who are attracted to men and present as women. In exactly the same way, the Russian law permits a person born male to undergo surgery and marry a man. We might also mention Iran, where the partners in homosexual male relationships are given a choice — to be hanged or for one of them to undergo Genital Reconstruction Surgery to be a woman. In all of these cases, the law is designed to allow true MtF transsexuals — those who are attracted to men — to marry them.

        What they are not doing is protecting men pretending to be women in order to predate upon them by pretending to be ‘lesbians’. As I pointed out before, to be a lesbian, you have to be a woman, and autogynephiles are men. ‘Same Sex’ Marriage is redundant as regards autogynephiles since THEY ARE MEN. A man who wishes to marry a woman — which is what autogynephiles do — is not involving himself in a ‘same-sex’ marriage’.

        What matters is what science says, and the science is very clear: autogynephiles are cross-dressing male sexual fetishists. Clearly they do deserve, as citizens, the same rights as anyone else, and this is what the SCOTUS decisions address; what they must not receive, but which they desire, is preferential treatment that lets them harm others, principally women but also true or HSTS transsexuals. The smokescreen of ‘Identity Politics’ has no basis in science and while it may have to be addressed in a legal sense, this does not validate it in any other way.

        If you decide to dress up as Big Bird in order to crack one off, that’s your right. If you then decide that walking around in a Big Bird suit makes you feel comfortable, that’s your right too; we may laugh, but hey. What you may not do is coerce your (normal) wife to leave her house and live up a tree in a nest of twigs because that is intrinsic to your Big Birdyness, or force her to wear a Big Bird suit while you have sex (even though that might actually be a laugh.)

        You may not, either, abuse your children or damage their psychological development through your delusion. Nor may you harm other groups in society by erasing or attempting to invalidate ‘identities’ that they may hold under exactly the same structure of ‘rights’ that allow you yours.

        Your right to call yourself whatever you will and make yourself look as much of an idiot as you can is entirely your own, as SCOTUS points out: but those rights end the instant you try to force them on someone else. And that is exactly what autogynephiles do, whether it be through attempting to shame women into having sex with them (see ‘Cotton Ceiling’), invading women’s safe spaces, storming the stage at women-only events or going home and telling their wives that they can’t be straight women any more. But of course, autogynephiles are men, so the reek of entitlement that such behaviour emits they ignore. After all, they’re men and this is the patriarchy, where a man can do or be anything he wants.

        Coercion is exactly what a man does when he tells his wife that she must from now on be a lesbian or her will leave her. It’s a police matter? Oh really? ‘Officer, he threatened to leave me if I didn’t pretend he was a woman?’ or ‘Officer, he hasn’t spoken to me for three weeks because I won’t give him a blowjob while he wears a Big Bird suit’? It is coercion and abuse and no woman should tolerate it. She should empty the bank account, take the kids and apply for a court order to prevent the man in a dress she married from approaching her or her children ever again.

        ‘Women have generally benefited from an increase in choice?’ Really? And you, a fake woman with a bra full of socks, would be in a position to judge that? How gracious of you. No; only women can decide whether expanding choice for men (which is what you really mean) benefits them. Personally, I don’t think too many would regard allowing men to pretend to be women in order to abuse women as too much of a benefit; but as a man, I am not qualified to say — unlike you, I do not make that presumption.

        Autogynephiles are profoundly misogynistic and routinely attempt to speak for women, however, so we know what you are doing: exercising your white male privilege to silence dissent. And of course, the treatment you mete out to real transsexuals is even worse; they are not like you and believe me, you are nothing like them.

        Interestingly, paraphilias occur in clusters, and autogynephilic men are also frequently subject to others, notably sado-masochism. You clearly like being humiliated in public and I shall be glad to oblige again in the future, if it helps just one innocent woman avoid falling prey to this most vicious expression of misogyny.

        Liked by 1 person

      6. You’ve written a long wall of total baloney. I’ll just point out your main completely incorrect premises:

        – While Blanchard did correctly describe that some biological males (with various identities) are aroused by the image of themselves as women within a sexual context, he does not actually state the arousal exists to the exclusion of being aroused by a partner.

        – Your adoption of this “exclusion of others” theory makes your position unfalsifiable. You state that “autogynephilia” does not exist in non-Western countries and was not recorded in the past. If one were to argue against this by finding non-Western or pre-19th century records of MtFs who are/were attracted to women, you will just retort that these people are/were not “attracted to themselves”. And this is unverifiable. So we have a classic case of a non-scientific position (because a scientific position must be falsifiable).

        – In fact, Blanchard did also state that some (of course not all) “autogynephiles” are in fact transsexual in the medical sense of the word; moreover he supports public medicine and medical insurance aiding their transition.

        – Some males do behave with partners as if they were props but this is true equally for any sexual preference, and is, in fact, a very common thing for males whose sexual preference is traditionally “normal”.

        – The “cotton ceiling” was one minor meeting attended by seven people. Since then, it exists solely in anti-trans propaganda.

        – The “choice” I am defending is the choice in modern liberal society in general, the fact that people are free to pick their roles and identities in a far greater range than before. This choice does necessitate availability of divorce, because people can sometimes make incompatible choices.

        – Threatening to leave is not in itself coercion. People can leave marriages for various reasons, and this is just one of a long list.

        – Non-binary gender presentation around children is NOT a source of harm. Otherwise you’re up there with the Russian lawmakers who prohibit “propaganda to minors”.

        – You also misread my description of Russian law, which in fact explicitly prohibits a person born male and surgically transitioned from marrying a man.

        – Lastly, while I refuse to be drawn into discussion of any of my personal life, I have not called myself a woman.

        Like

      7. Thank you once again for confirming what I previously wrote. I think you need to work on your reading and comprehension skills, however.There is a difference between ‘principally’ and ‘exclusively’. I sugggest you look this up.

        So, once again, autogynephilic men are principally attracted to themselves, as women. Most do have other partners, but such relationships are essentially an extension of masturbatory fetishistic crossdressing.The other party is analogous to the frilly underwear or stockings that the autogynephilic man uses when masturbating alone or with other sufferers. (See Blanchard, Bailey and Lawrence. There is a resource page on my site at http://rodfleming.com/links which has valuable resources to help understand autogynephilic men and why they are obsessed with appearing to be women.)

        Your ‘FtMs’ however, are not like that. Their principal attraction is to other people. This is because they do not suffer the root dysfunction of autogynephilia, which is Erotic Target Location Error. Therefore they do not suffer from a ‘female version’ of autogynephilia. Instead they have a normative sexual response to others. No ‘female version’ of autogynephilia has ever been shown to exist. This is probably because autogynephilia is rooted in male sexuality, which, although it may come as a surpsrise to you, women do not have.

        I further thank you for agreeing that you can call yourself any of a myriad of more or less ridiculous ‘identities’ that you like, and as long as you do not damage others, you are free to do so. The point, which I have made repeatedly, is that autogynephiles do damage others. They damage women, their children and true or HSTS transsexuals, who suffer greatly from being conflated with fetishistic crossdressing freaks.

        However, your right to call yourself anything you like does not oblige the rest of us to take you seriously, and you should refer back to my Big Bird analogy for a reason why. Furthermore, concepts like these have no value in science. Even race is not recognised by science.

        Science does, however, completely explain autogynephilia, thanks to the work principally of Blanchard but also the others mentioned above. There is no debate about this in science (there might be in the touchy-feely world of ‘Identity Politics’, but we may safely disregard that): although some use, unnecessarily, slightly different terminology from Blanchard, all serious researchers accept his essential typology. Autogynephiles are men with a delusion. That simple.

        Far from being an isolated event, the ‘cotton ceiling’ has spawned a vast amount of the most vile and offensive misogynistic shaming of women. This is intended to coerce lesbian women into having sex with men who are pretending to be women. A google search on the term yields over 20 million results. I realise you do your best to avoid information you do not wish to see; but even for a delusionist, ignoring a cesspit of misogynistic hatred like that is a bit of a leap.

        And finally, thank you for agreeing that whatever you might be, you are not a woman. I completely concur. And that applies to all autogynephiic men.

        I look forward to drubbing you again.

        Liked by 2 people

      8. its not consensual if you are not party to the information you need in order to consent. it is not consensual if you are coerced . it is not consensual if you are tricked into a marriage you would never have considered otherwise – its a fait accompli achieved through deception.

        Liked by 4 people

  18. Having read a lot of the comments I may be able to clear some misperceptions. First off I am sure to get laughed at for saying blanchards autogynophillia study has one really big major flaw yet it seems that most here seem to be taking it as a law. Much like any scientific theory is just that until repetitively proven to be true, Now the flaw with the research that Blanchard did to substantiate his theory came from studying MTF transsexuals asking for gender reassignment. Once word got out that the MTF had meet certain very strict criteria and with MTF being in groups they had then started to make up stories to fit the criteria in desperation. So in essence the study was based on unknown amount of lies to begin with.

    Whilst there is some truth to it there is usually some truth to any lie. Before you pass judgement you need to get facts that keep a consistency that is not tainted by false stories. If you didn’t know couple other flaws you miss as well. As with blanchards study he for some odd reason figures FTM doesn’t even exist explain that one and yes they do exist. As for a MTF on hormones going to a womens bathroom dressed as a woman they would not have a hard on being its not possible due to the hormones nor would they have a tendency to be violent due to hormones. Of course there are ignorant, perverted, idiotic, etc people in any group that is life. Common thing is you hear about what the bad do but never what the good do.

    Really the truth on this is not so clear as it would seem and if you think it is so clear then you truly are a fool not to look at all the information about said topic. Yes both sides and weigh out which seem to be correct. FYI I have and have not drawn much of a conclusion other then blanchanrds theory has some truth to it but it also has some serious flaws. Which in a scientific thinking if the concept in question is that flawed then it becomes a false theory and time to try again in a different way perhaps. To continue to use flawed data will only yield a false outcome.

    I will not use a real name for the fact I am sure those who figure they know it all and fail to see more then they wish will brand me as they think I am but have no real idea what I am.

    Wisdom comes from questioning what seems right or wrong even if you don’t agree with you think the truth is.

    Like

    1. .. if by any chance you are talking to women like myself who have intimate, long term, personal experience of autogynephilic male behavior, you are wasting your breath.
      i dont need Lawrence and Blanchard to confirm my material reality, i already know what autogynephilia is thank you. Blanchards typology helps me to understand how this concealed paraphilia framed my intimate relationship and certain traumatic experiences in my past, how it is part of a much broader psychopathology in people like my ex and why it becomes so toxic to those who spend time around him. particularly for females who become the objects of his narcissistic supply. there is a strong corelation betwen autogynephilia, transexualism and pathological narcissism.
      http://www.annelawrence.com/becoming_what_we_love.pdf

      Liked by 1 person

      1. It is perfectly understandable that a partner can become unsuitable through a major aspect of their personality. It is not so understandable, however, when you declare the ex-partner toxic to all “females” just because the person was unsuitable for you.Being adults, people can make their own choices regarding spending time with that person.

        Like

    2. @JohnDoe: well, here we have the usual cloud of verbiage and obfuscation. The facts are that Blanchard has been thoroughly and repeatedly tested, by researchers keen to disprove it (as is proper in scientific method) and it has ended up being confirmed. In other words, Blanchard’s results are repeatable. This is a key test for any science.

      The two most devastating studies, for critics of Blanchard, are Nuttbrock 2009, Rametti 2011 and Savic and Arver 2011. The first confirmed all of Blanchard’s core findings and was able only to comment on his statistical method; however this did not affect the material of the case. The second, Rametti, took a group of Blanchard HSTS (screening out all autogynephiles) and performed MRI tests on them. These were done before hormone treatment and with adequate controls. Rametti found that HSTS did indeed have brains that resembled women’s (they also resemble gay men’s, although Rametti was not looking at this.) Savic and Arver performed the complementary study, testing only autogynephiles and screening out HSTS. They found that autogynephiles have brains indistinguishable from men’s.

      These studies strongly support Blanchard’s typology, and it remains the de facto science; in fact it is the only science. The bogus ‘brain sex’ theory, at least as far as autogynephiiles are concerned, has been debunked. If any transsexuals do have brains like women, they are HSTS and the testing even here does not prove any innate characteristics. The brain is the most adaptive organ in the body and it is very likely that the commonalities in the brains of women and HSTS is because of gender, which is a LEARNED BEHAVIOUR. The fact that autogynephiles are about as feminine as my foot explains why they have ‘male brains’.

      If Blanchard erred, it was out of a sense of fairness and, to an extent a determination to use correct scientific taxonomy. He called all the people he studied ‘transsexual’ because they desired to change their physical sex organs. That simple. He called HSTS Homosexual because they are attracted to the same birth sex. That simple too. Unfortunately, using the term ‘autogynephile transsexual’ has been used by the ‘autogynephile community’ as some sort of support for the case that hey are transsexual in the same way as HSTS are. Nothing could be further from the truth: HSTS are genuinely heteronormative women in their comportment, desires and sexuality, whereas autogynephiles are just men in dresses.

      I therefore, to avoid the hurt that might be caused to HSTS by the association with gay men (which in any case, HSTS never object to, it’s only autogynephiles who bitch) use the term ‘true transsexual’ to describe them. They are not women but they are transsexual. The autogynephile term is already gentle enough, since the alternative would be ‘fetishistic transvestite’, which is what they, and I am quite sure ‘John Doe’ actually are.

      I know you’re ashamed of your history of putting on girly clothes to masturbate. Tough. Science is science and facts are facts.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. While I do agree that from what I can gather about kaypasser you have been victim to someone who indeed has a paraphilia. Now bear with me here I will give a couple of things to make you think on and respond to. Which in response to the shame part honestly its more about confusion in self then shame but hey society judges things sometimes wrong too but whatever.

        Since you seem to know a lot about blanchards theory explain how these parameters fit into his theory or perhaps do not. Born male, drawn to femininity not just cloths but also on the spiritual/intellectual side, interested in males sexually but does not seem right, fought and repressed this for a very long time and last one not vane in thinking self a woman or in love with self as female but wish others to see self as such.

        Another concept that might broaden what I feel is a bit to general is that one must fit into as you say HSTS are transsexual but perhaps some fight to repress this due to yes shame and or lack of knowledge. My example is Christianity. Not so much about the religious aspects but In regard to the fact how many type of Christians are there really. For the most part yes there are protestants and catholics but there are also off shoots of those like Mormon, Lutheran, etc. I do realize gender and religion are not the same thing but the catagorization of what they are well hmm maybe its not so binary.

        Honestly I do agree whole heartedly that yes some but not all autogynophiliacs are truly males with a fetish that can be very abusive. The big part is some but not all which leads to my main point of your judgement may work to some degree but not all the time.

        As to the fact of blanchards work in my research I have NOT seen any other study that compares the same thing. In other words his study has not been repeated but been re-examined from the very same information. Which may be flawed and yes I would love to find another study that actually proves this as a fact. By the way in science nothing is fact until its is proven undoubtedly so In this case it is not fact as yet. Yes I admit I am saying it does have merit but I am also saying it may not be the fact either. Even scientific laws which are proven theories can in fact be proven wrong. Such as the old scientific fact that we had a fact that the sun rotated around the earth. Of course we know this is not true today but it was considered a fact and has not been proven otherwise.

        My point is saying one thing is FACT is problematic in the sense it must be repeated more then once consistently to be proven FACT and to which his theory has not be hence why it is called a theory. Which brings me to a fact that you yourself have overlooked mentioning fetishistic transvestite and autogynophillia as the same thing. fetishistic transvestite is in love with cross gender clothing or outward expression if you will yet an autogynophillic is in love with them self as cross gender. Those are 2 different things. Some proof that they are indeed totally different is well look up greek translation for one and the other is HSTS as you admit are transsexual. Yet if I get this right but both could be considered by appearance as transvestites and perhaps the fetish part too.

        Another conflating concept is that of course as you FTM do not do this well of course. Lets look the hetronormative public shall we. Of course and this is known facts yes indeed fact or common knowledge at very least. Men objectify women in general and women objectify themselves to lure. That is perhaps a bit simplistic but in truth men seek women and women lure men by improving looks. So lets say is it not then possible that someone who is indeed transsexual not just sexual aspect that they indeed see them selves as cross gender. Which also means most likely that mtf would identify this way. yet ftm being the seekers do not.

        Lastly Mr. Fleming with respect your judgement from what I had written implies that you can somehow magically read my mind. In no way did I infer that I was as you say wearing girly things to get off. You know it could be possible I have researched this as you have and come to a different conclusion without being who you thought I was. It seems that maybe you draw Fact from thin air to meet your own conclusion when perhaps you don’t actually have all the facts to make a proper conclusion. I apologize if this seems abrasive it is not intended to be so but rather to point out that in science one result does not make fact but rather many results yield proof then therefor fact.

        Sorry for the large wall of text seems have to write a months worth and this is not exactly a simple issue as it seems. Lastly please truly please prove me wrong with fact or a proven theory aka a law as it is called in science. That indeed is part of the problem at this time since it is all theory and yes facts can be manipulated too to not reveal the whole truth.

        Like

      2. You know it would just be so lovely if, for once, autogynephiles would stop lying, misrepresenting the evidence, quote-minig, traducing and generally living in full denial of reality — and expecting to hector everyone else into swallowing their BS.

        You ‘researched’? You researched and you couldn’t find studies that support Blanchard? You’re not much of a ‘researcher’, are you? What about Nuttbrock et alia, 2009, a large-scale study designed specifically to disprove Blanchard (it’s how science works; I know you don’t understand that) and came out supporting his core conclusions on EVERY SINGLE POINT. What about Madeline Wyndzen, an autogynephile, who reprocessed Blanchard’s data, and, doubtless in horror, got the same results as he did? What about Dr Anne Lawrence, whose collected narratives of autogynephiles back Blanchard to the hilt and last but not least the Asian studies by Winter and others, which, again, support no other conclusion than that Blanchard was correct? (This last, BTW, is wholly supported by my own research in Asia over the last 4 years.) MMM? ‘No studies support Blanchard?’ My arse.

        Then we can look at the MRI studies carried out by Rametti et al, and by Savic and Arver, both 2011 which convincingly demonstrated not only that there are two (and only two) types of MTF transsexualism, but that Blanchard HSTS have brains ‘shifted towards the typical female brain’ whereas autogynephiles have brains ‘indistinguishable from men’s.’

        There can only be one conclusion: Blanchard was right. MTF transsexualism (and almost certainly FTM too, though there are fewer studies) is rooted in sexuality. In MTF this is MALE SEXUALITY. (Couldn’t be anything else: all MTF transsexuals are biologically male, or they ain’t transsexual.) Further to this, all of the evidence concurs with Blanchard: there are ONLY TWO TYPES of MTF transsexualism. All mtf transsexuals who are not attracted to men, before transition, are autogynephilic. That’s it.There is no debate about this, outside the airheaded fuckwittery of autogynephilic knitting bees. (Knitting is a form of sex for autogynephiles.)

        HSTS are extremely feminine boys who grow up into girls; they do this because thy are attracted to men. (Powerfully.) AGPs are masculine boys who grow up to be men and then, sometime later, decide to be women. Frankly if you think Braitlyn Jenner is ‘feminine’ you need new specs, and as has been noted, of you have to tell people how feminine you are — which AGPs NEVER STOP DOING — then you probably aren’t very. (Being ‘feminine is a stereotype, but the fact is that a lot of women and all transwomen aspire to it; the problem for AGPs is that they almost invariably fail.)

        Now I want to be clear: you can walk down the street in a BigBird suit saying you’re a male to avian transspecial for all I care. You’re an individual, a person, and you have rights. Rights to respect and to be able to live your life in peace and in whatever dignity you can maintain from inside a big yellow BigBird suit. You DO NOT have rights to bully other people into calling you a ‘real’ bird. You DO NOT have rights to invade the spaces set aside for the protection of actual birds that hatched out of actual eggs.

        And just like BigBirdophiles, autogynephiles DO NOT have the right to colonise the identities of women born with vaginas. They DO NOT have the right to demand to be called ‘real women’ — because THEY ARE NOT. Being a woman is about much more than wearing frock and going to deportment classes. Braitlyn Jenner IS NOT A WOMAN. Furthermore, I personally am sick to the back teeth of AGPs bullying, making assumptions about, colonising the identity of and speaking FOR, HSTS transsexuals — who, by the way, before Blanchard, were known as ‘true transsexuals’ while you, petal, would have been known as a ‘pseudo transsexual’. We we can argue the latter; one thing is sure, you’re a pseudo woman.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. One more thing: educate yourself on the definition of a scientific Theory before you embarrass yourself in public again. It is not the same as the vernacular use, where it is in fact a hypothesis.

        ‘A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.’

        Note: ‘well-substantiated’; ‘repeatedly tested and confirmed’. That’s Blanchard.

        Science does not recognise ‘proofs’ and ‘facts’ only exist as observable data. I realise that your education is limited, but really; bring yourself up to speed a little.

        Kindly don’t make yourself sound like a fundie Christian retard — unless of course you are one. In which case we would know how seriously to take you.

        Liked by 1 person

  19. Please remove these four copyrighted photos from your article. I am the photographer for these images and hold the copyright to them. You do not have permission to use these images.
    Sincerely,
    Elizabeth Taylor

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Forgive my research as what I have seen is not been totally substantiated as far as been repeated with any large amount of new data. As for Anne Lawrence that one I know for a fact her theories are from the exact same data which if that data is flawed then is it then not really building on a possible falsehood.

    As far as scientific theory goes you are right in a sense that scientific theory is in fact tested many times to which one day it become scientific law. It is of course most likely that if repeated attempts at any theory prove to me correct then indeed the theory does then become law. Is this not a fair judgement on said scientific theory versus law.

    While I do admit honestly I do agree with a lot of what Blanchard does put forward. However given what he presumes in some cases could fall into both catagories as I listed in my example. Does that mean something perhaps well maybe it does. One thing that Blanchard does mention that only homosexual trans are true trans but bisexual couldn’t be nor asexual. That is one part that might be a grey area that is not covered in Blanchard theory in such a way as what that yes it is possible. If you still feel that Blanchard is absolutely 100% correct with no error then in that case HSTS are then also false in that there can only be two things aka binary type thought. What I mean if there is only binary that would mean there is only male and female therefor HSTS would be false. Which I do not belive is flase either. Why I say that is perhaps it is not always that binary.

    As far as the demanding being called a woman as a transsexual or transgender I have to agree. Perhaps a natal born woman is 90% woman, HSTS is 80%, Hermaphrodite is 50% and a transwoman is 40%. Of course I did make those numbers up but the reality is a natal born woman is not 100% woman if classified by hormones alone nor DNA which seems to have many anomalies to it. All be it the anomalies are more on the uncommon side they still exist. My point is how can any of us draw a line that is at the moment 100% accurate. The reality at this time is so far yes it is a very good guess but like anything there are always anomalies.

    As far as Jenner is concerned from what I have seen yes I would have to agree seems to be very male. Of course I cant judge totally since I don’t know Jenner personally nor can i read Jenners mind.

    Really when It comes down to it what I am asking is this. Is it not possible for someone how is very much like HSTS to struggle and hide that aspect of themselves only later to find out they can not do that any longer? While I also agree there should be a line as to someone who is demanding and aggressive. That line should be really you the demanding/aggressive and as you say bitchy should perhaps not deserve respect. As well as those for purely sexual reasons.

    As far as the Christian thing I mentioned you did not read that to well I said it was not about the religion itself. Meaning how from two main groups there are also many varations. Sorry I guess it was to complicated way of saying such.

    I will give an example that is indeed fact and relates to how some things mostly fit into a binary but not always. For the most part all trees fall into coniferous and deciduous this is well know fact. However the larch and tamarack are both coniferous and deciduous at the same time. The both are needle bearing trees yet they lose their needles like deciduous. My point is for the most part yes the fact is most trees fall into two types but in is not fact that all of them do.

    As for the attention seeking/ demanding/ overly selfish type of trans yes I admit those seem suspect.

    Yet my mind is open to look and see that yes there maybe some that are not as such yet don’t fall neatly into a binary type classification. Hence why I see Blanchards theory as yes mostly correct but not fully therefor not total fact. That is the problem with assuming something is pure fact when it may be mostly true but not wholly true. Back to science and yes I am not dumb the fact here is science is based on well facts or at the very least simple data. The problem with this issue is the data is not so simple as did a person do this and this therefor is this. It is a lot more complex and a lot more subjective which means even with blanchards well thought out theory could have data that is not as accurate as he had thought. It would be like asking you what is your favorite color simple right. Know I will ask another question what is your favorite turkey dinner. Well that is more complicated obviously we don’t sit down and just have turkey but vegetables, dressing and potatoes or the like.

    Do you see what I am trying to say is that while I agree for most part I do not agree wholly. Is that dumb to question a theory I think not that is called thought and intelligence. Do I wish to come off as a rant no I just simply want to imply that not every single person fits into exactly the same group. Humans are very variable not just in gender either so why is it so hard to say that it is possible that some but admit very few fit on the fringe of even blanchards binary type theory.

    To top this all off no matter what I am or am not or you assume i am I will say that to not question a theory and assume it is fact leads to one thing. No progress in thought nor in learning. It is the very foundation of learning that one should question is it not?

    If my questioning of said theory is too much for you to conceptualize from a person that is intelligent enough to wonder is this really the whole truth or is it not then I apologise.

    Like

    1. Did you finish elementary school? What semi-literate drivel. Nobody is questioning your right to challenge Blanchard. What we are saying is that in order to do so, you need evidence. You don’t have any. You don’t really get science, do you?

      Blanchard might well have made minor errors; some possible ones were mentioned both by Nuttbrock and Wyndzen — both of whom nevertheless supported his core typology. In fact this is absolutely firm and is supported by study after study; it is the basis for every serious understanding of MTF transsexualism that exists today.

      The rest of your sorry, misinformed. hapless, grammatically incorrect and incoherent rant I shall let stand for itself, so that others may judge.

      However, do not comment about true or HSTS transsexuals since you clearly know nothing about them. It is obvious from your meandering incoherency that you are a fetishistic autogynephilic man. I am very sorry for you.

      Like

    2. I won’t comment further on your idiotic, ill-informed and incoherent comments about Blanchard since you have obviously never read his papers, but are doubtless parroting some ghastly AGP propaganda site.

      However, for the benefit of others, let me clear up the ‘binary’ issue.

      Sex is innate and physical; it’s what you were born as — either male, female or (in rare cases) inter. It can never be changed, no matter how many surgeries you have.

      Gender is a psycho-sociological construct comprising of behaviours, appearance and expectations. It is not innate in any way and entirely constructed. Once again, there are only two genders — masculine and feminine. There are some people who are one part of the time and the other part of the time. They are bisexual.

      Since gender is not innate but learned, it follows that some people of one sex may learn the gender normative for the other. In other words, a boy can learn to be so feminine that that person grows up to be a very convincing apparent woman. This is exactly what HSTS or ‘true’ transsexuals do. The stimuli for this are always related to sex drive. No exceptions.

      All mtf transsexuals have male sex drive, whether their orientation (to whom they are attracted) is heterosexual or homosexual with regard to birth sex.

      A man is a person born male with masculine gender. A woman is a person born female with feminine gender. A transman is a person born female with a masculine gender and a transwoman is a person born male with feminine gender. There is no such thing as ‘cis’.

      This is entirely true for all HSTS transsexuals and also all transmen. However, Autogynephiles are not transwomen. They are men in dresses. Apart from their frilly underwear there is nothing whatsoever feminine about them at all. Trust me, I know a lot of TS women and the two types are so obviously and completely different that one could only confuse them if one were completely ignorant of the subject.

      Strictly, autoynephiles are extreme fetishistic transvestites whose condition is so severe that it has taken over. They are destructive, combative, rude, offensive and always, always resort to bullying, lying and the other tactics that you are employing — and which reveal you to be what you are, a man, whether or not you are wearing size 13 heels..

      Autogynephiles are men in frocks, no more no less.

      Like

      1. Can you name a single published peer-reviewed source for these statements? Blanchard does not state the position you described, on the contrary, he supports public funding for transition of certain transsexuals he describes as AGP. Bailey’s scandalous book is not peer-reviewed, nor are Paul McHug’s media statements.

        Like

      2. All of Blanchard’s findings are peer-reviewed, idiot. You will find links to many of his papers and many others on my site at http://rodfelming.com/links/

        Who mentioned Bailey or McHugh? Not me. Oh yes, you did. That is a logical fallacy known as a ‘red herring’. However, and for what it’s worth, I support Bailey. He has been consistently traduced and misrepresented by tiffs in skirts like you.

        His book, ‘The Man Who Would Be Queen’ is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the phenomenon of transsexualism. It is not a book off science but of popular explanation, and while I would not agree with everything he says, it is generally very sound and accurate.

        Thank you for giving me a reason to mention it.

        Like

      3. Your position about there being two genders and about AGP not being transwomen is not Blanchard’s position. Blanchard’s position is that some, but not all, AGP males are transsexuals who, following proper diagnosis, should transition to living as women, including surgery.

        Like

      4. When exactly did I say it was Blanchard’s position? Reading and comprehension skills a little diminished there, are they?

        Blanchard does, however say that preforming GRS on an autogynephilic male is ‘creating a man without a penis,’ and adds that it’s a terrible thing to do. I’ll agree with that.

        Like

  21. AwesomeCat: would you mind reviewing and unscreening my response to Rod if possible? I sourced it with a few links and it got held but it would be meaningless if I just cut the links out.

    Like

  22. I will make one last comment and sure you wont respond any way but here it goes.

    Insulting my level of intelligence is a nice idea but still begs to the question a few things I might ask of you and your knowledge.

    You firstly speak of the science of Blanchards work and stating it as FACT. Sorry to burst your bubble but pure science psychology it is not. The reason why as I have mentioned before is science about what is and what is not or a more black and white approach. While psychology is a lot of grey and categorization into mostly defined groups. Why I have not cited any study is well I revert to blanchards study and if you look at the graph it shows exactly what I am saying. That in fact some do fit in the middle of his topology but are then considered errors and that is not science that is dismissing statistics that may in fact lead to the whole truth not just part of it.

    The only reason I brought up HSTS is for the fact that yes they do exist and in your last post in a way you just said they do not. And you call me unintelligent.
    Where do you say that you state from the paragraph starting with gender is a psycho-social construct to the paragraph ending with there is no such thing as CIS.

    In that section you basically state that born male means solely male sex drive (which btw originates in the brain) and can therefor be only ever have a male sex drive. You then state that gender is not innate in any way. There are only 2 genders and some are a mix which are then bisexual, Then as I see a very accurate description of HSTS. Then describe in essence man, woman, transwoman and transman with the ending that cis does not exist.

    I thought it would be best to restate what you said in a summarized form so that I can point out a few possible errors or misstated information.

    As has been proven that some MTF do indeed have a more female orientated brain. Then again some were 50/50. This is related to the studies speaking to grey versus white matter and neuron differences. While I do admit those studies I would consider like blanchards theory that they are just that as not fully proven yet. I will say yes Blanchard has been accepted more so at this time as what does seem to be right. Wait gender is not innate yet the physical make up of those brains are in fact innate. What is the truth really like I said at this time it is not proven conclusively anywhere. Hence why there is no such diagnostic to pinpoint exactly what makes some one transgender or transsexual other then intersex conditions.

    Your nice cough intelligent error that I did see was saying there are only 2 genders yet some could be bisexual. Just a bit of a hint bisexual has to do with sexuality only not gender. I agree sex is innate and gender is at least for most part psycho-social construct as you indeed state. So in one way your are saying gender is not innate, sex is then proceed to say that a mix of genders equates to a mix of sexuality. Its conflating 2 parts that are related but not the same thing.

    All cis means is that they are in fact a category of being man or woman that do not change their gender in anyway be that physical change or even how they express themselves. If that meaning is correct then that is exactly what you stated about man, woman, transman and transwoman. with an ending of no they don’t exist. So if what you say is true then either man and woman is the only 2 genders then there can be no such thing as transman or transwoman or transsexual for that matter. I will state transsexual refers to someone who changes their body to match their gender not referring to sexuality but rather sex as far as parts. To my knowledge transgender refers to changing presentation and or those that can not afford or physically handle the transition for whatever other reasons. A little more info to clarify is that AGP does not mean transvestite they are different meanings. Transvestite is about clothing hence the vestite translated from greek. And in reference to trans meaning to go to like the word transport or transcript.

    For those I will point to a reference its called a dictionary or hell goggle it to find the meaning. Yes I do speak in general terms because at this time nothing is fully proven not even Blanchards theory. I do agree it does indeed fit some but I feel not all. That is the reason for mentioning HSTS is that they can also be AGP yet also fit into the as Blanchard states hetrosexual in relation to natal birth. Why can I say this well they see themselves as a woman so well of course they fit the criteria for AGP so can a natal woman. As for why I say a natal woman can fit well I don’t have to cite this because I am sure you are old enough to know there are such things as strippers. You don’t think some of those like the fact they are women and are in fact in love with themselves as women.

    Do I ever say that I know the whole truth no I am saying that there maybe more to this then what Blanchard states. What you are saying is that what is saying is totally 100% truth. I agree its is mostly true yet I do question and see that in fact there is more to the picture.

    The nice counter of all I can say is drivel is more like an mature way of saying nah nah I am right you are wrong. Well that comes out as not very mature nor intelligent from your point. Your words not mine that state as such.

    If you cant see more then you wish then you are blind to what might be true. That is a fact.
    If after all I have typed you can not see then you will never therefor you are blind to what you want not what is.

    Like

    1. You are a blatant, barefaced liar. I have never once referred to Blanchard’s work as ‘FACT’. You either need to learn to read or stop lying — oh, sorry, you lads who like swiping the wife’s drawer to wank in just can’t help but lie, can you? Your whole life is a lie, you idiot. You’re not a woman and you never will be. Get over it.

      As forthe rest of your utter pish, learn to write coherent sentences and then I might read them.

      Numbskull.

      Like

  23. Ok this really is that last post and yes I spelled google wrong. Here is something for you to read if you wish to broaden your mind or if not remain blind the choice is yours. My apologies for no link.

    Google Evidence against the typology: A taxometric analysis of the sexuality of male to female transsexuals. By Jaime F. Veale.

    There is also the point graph in there I mentioned and yes based on blanchards own data. It is heavy reading but not to much all depends on your understanding. That is not a slight to your or anyones intelligence either.

    Like

    1. Jamie Veale? Are you kidding me? Utter, self-serving, partisan tosh that has been debunked from pillar to post. Who cares what he thinks? He’s just another shameless, lying autogynephile like you.

      (And yes, I have read the odious little shit’s work, and you will find a link to it on my site.)

      Like

  24. Since you have retorted to thinking I speak lies and that I must be ignorant idiot you think I am might I make a quote you posted earlier.

    You said in paragraph 1 on the posted dated April 27, 2016 at 1:45 this:

    The facts are that Blanchard has been thoroughly” and continues to stat that for a scientific fact that Blanchard is in fact right. Which you are correct in that is how pure science does work.

    Since obviously you can not consider just maybe that not every single AGP is the same as not every single human nor every single male or female for that matter fits exactly into a nice category.

    You assume I am AGP fetishist or something like that I assume is what you mean. In complete honesty I my self cannot say what I am nor can you. For all I know I am intersex: most likely not but I do not know. If I don’t know how can you assume to even know?

    O wait sorry nah nah I am right you are wrong little XXX. How intelligent that is. Really I am trying to learn and when someone says they are absolutely right and know everything they in reality know nothing. The reason if they think they know everything they will never learn something new. What I get from that is that you like this side of the argument for every single person in a category is as such.

    In short you believe every man is a aggressive, willing to fly into a fit of rage and commit heinous acts. Sorry I don’t believe every single individual is exactly the same. A generalization sure but not the same that is what individual means.

    One final note as my complete posh or whatever you call it is just that. Well I am sorry you cant read something a bit more detailed makes me wonder did you read the research and understand it or just pick what you wanted out?

    This is truly my last post as I am sure you are thankful so that you can continue to live in ignorance of all of the facts rather then what you want to see. Sorry you do not wish to see. I also feel sorry for anyone that you happen to meet that is not a total genetic man or woman for you must not see their individuality.

    Like

    1. Gosh the stupid just flows from your pores, doesn’t it? Are you so thick that you don’t see what you did?’ (That was rhetorical; we know you are.)

      Well, let me explain it, petal. You accused me of presenting Blanchard as ‘FACT’ (your caps).

      I said I did nothing of the kind.

      You now say I said that ‘The facts are that Blanchard has been thoroughly’ (supported). SO you completely demolish your own argument. Indeed I did not present Blanchard as fact — no-one with an understanding of science (which you do not) would do that. The facts in question are not his theory but the extant support for it. And these are FACTS, you mutt, because they exist as real, observable phenomena that anyone with half a brain can read, in the form of the studies and peer-reviewed papers I have already mentioned.

      I accept that that excludes you. Tough.

      Get back to tossing in your mummy’s frilly knickers, we’re done here.

      Like

Comments are closed.