Some readers may have seen a 2015 post on this site called “This is how autogynephiles kill women.” In that post, we find the story of “Devin Payne,” a man from Kansas with the intensely narcissistic fantasy that he is really a “woman.” This guy dragged his wife and four children out to southern California so that he could flounce around “en femme” as a “transgender woman.” Soon after this move, Devin’s wife “dies of alcoholism” and Devin seeks fame as a transgender activist. Various fauning articles about Devin never once mention the deceased wife’s name.
New information came today. I received three comments (from one person) on that 2015 post. Some of the information can be verified. Some information can’t be verified at all and may be totally false.
“Devin Payne” (real name Derek Brandon Wimmer; alias “Devin Elizabeth” Wimmer) was apparently charged in the past couple of years with a violation of the California Penal Code 288(c)(1), LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH A CHILD 14 OR 15 YEARS OF AGE AND OFFENDER 10 OR MORE YEARS OLDER THAN VICTIM. Unclear at the moment whether he was convicted. MUCH more about this below, including information about a conviction in Missouri for child molestation.
SPECULATIVE: I present these unverified claims merely as the theory of an anonymous person who posted them here as a comment. This person’s IP address was based in the UK. It would not legally be wise for me to post the actual comment, so I will paraphrase it broadly. I should mention first that according to the anonymous commenter, the “nameless” wife’s name was Patricia.
According to this commenter: Patricia was vehemently opposed to Derek’s “transition.” Derek and a friend (who had a stereotypic female name and also a stereotypic female alias name) intentionally gave Patricia lots and lots of booze, which precipitated her liver failure. The commenter says that Derek’s son, who was “forced to be a caregiver to the dying mother,” has stated this. The commenter says that Derek “silenced” the son by getting him a prescription for Seroquel, a terrible drug used for serious mental illness. The commenter says that Derek and his friend “planned” Patricia’s death so they could be together. The commenter provides a street name in Tucson, Arizona where the two are said now to live (and where other sources suggest that Derek lives on, or did live on, a street with that name).
The above paraphrase is just the unsolicited theory of a random anonymous person from somewhere (possibly the UK) on the internet. It may have truth in it or it may be utterly fictional and false. I make no assertion whatever for its veracity.
A final cryptic remark from this commenter: “I would have never written this if i had been treated FAIRLY!”
As I mention above, the commenter also provides us with evidence of Derek’s California criminal record, under an alias. It comes in the form of a page on “mugshots.com.” While the picture is clearly of the same “Devin Payne,” we learn his real name of Derek Brandon Wimmer and his alias of “Devin Elizabeth” Wimmer. We do not learn whether Derek was actually convicted of child molestation in California; there are no dates listed or sentence reported. He is apparently not listed under his real name or known aliases in sex offender registries, although the mugshots.com page says that data came from such a registry. Superior Court records for Riverside County (where Palm Springs is located) show nothing of interest. It’s pretty mysterious. I don’t know exactly how the law works in this regard. I don’t understand why Derek would have this “mugshots.com” page if he wasn’t convicted. [edit: I see now that that they post mugshots whether people are convicted or not.]
So I did some additional research. It seems that Derek was convicted of second degree child molestation in Missouri. He lived in Liberty, Missouri, a suburb of Kansas City; less than an hour’s drive from where he grew up in Olathe, Kansas. Derek was charged with that crime (a violation of Missouri criminal code 566.068) on June 1, 2012. While violation of that code is currently a felony in Missouri, Derek was charged under the 2000 version of the law, in which it was a misdemeanor. This might mean that he committed the offense before the current law came into effect; but after 2000. Derek plead guilty to that crime on August 6, 2014. It looks as though he was sentenced to “one year,” but given what we have seen of his subsequent glamorous activities that was likely one year probation. The picture below spells out the former and current versions of the code.
I could not find Derek in the sex offender registries of California, Arizona or Missouri. Are men convicted of misdemeanor child molestation exempt from registration? What about this new California case? Why does Riverside County have no information about it? Can offenders with “nonviolent” (sic) offenses have them removed from the registry? Even the “background check” report (left) says they got their data from a sex offender registry. What happened?
I don’t know much about criminal law but Derek likely needed to register in Palm Springs as a sex offender; maybe in order to do that the California authorities had to “charge” him with a crime that was sort of parallel or analogous to the Missouri crime. He was convicted in Missouri under the old misdemeanor version, but California has no misdemeanor version. So perhaps Derek was “charged” in California but not prosecuted. This actually seems rather far-fetched. Perhaps someone with better access to legal databases can find out the story.
It seems that Derek’s move with his family to California came very shortly after his arrest in Missouri for child molestation. He apparently thought he could just disappear and leave his troubles behind. Who was the child?
RIP Patricia… Hope the kids are well and somewhere safe.
It looks as though Derek was initially charged with first degree felony child molestation (Missouri Statute Section 566.067.1) on July 1, 2011. Disposition of that case is described as “Not disposed,” which may mean that charges were dropped. Possibly, it would have been difficult to prove that case for some reason. Anyway, Derek was charged less than a year later with second degree molestation.
This 2009 analysis of “gender identity” by psychiatrist Dr. Colin Ross argues that it is unethical for doctors to go along with the demands of delusional or dissociated patients who say they are the opposite sex. The author correctly points out that there is good money to be made in the “gender identity” business and this is why mainstream psychiatry is so keen to protect its “gender” racket. Other elite shrinks were starting to conjure up the DSM-5 at the time he wrote this.
Bizarrely, by 2016 most medical and psychological aspects of transgenderism, as well as “social services” aspects, are now covered by Obamacare and national health insurance in many other countries. The “transgender child” industry is particularly big business. The mainstreaming of transgenderism has also been a gold mine for all kinds of pseudo-scientific academic researchers who push this agenda.
The medical profession in general, and psychiatry in particular, take the position that gender identity disorder is a genuine medical condition. The primary purpose of this stance, it appears, is to justify treatment being paid for by insurance companies.
Why then, do we not have a DSM-IV disorder called psychogenic micromastia? Breast augmentation in biologically normal women could then be justified as a treatment for the mental disorder of psychogenic micromastia. Breast augmentation for biologically normal women is currently classified as a cosmetic procedure in order that insurance companies can justify not paying for it. What we have is a financial tug-of-war between doctor and third-party payers over whether the procedure is cosmetic or medical—in order for it to be considered medical it must be treatment for a medical disorder. When there is no identifiable biological abnormality, the backup position is to define the condition as a mental disorder, and place it in the DSM system.
This brings us to the core problem with the DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of gender identity disorder: it is the only diagnosis in the system in which treatment is designed to reinforce and agree with the so-called disturbance that is the basis of the disorder.
WHY IS GENDER IDENTITY DISORDER A MENTAL DISORDER?
Setting politics, money, and power aside for a moment, it is illogical and self-contradictory to classify gender identity disorder as a mental disorder, and then proceed with gender reassignment. Consider the following range of other DSM-IV-TR disorders.
I once interviewed a normal-looking woman who told me that she was so grossly ugly and deformed that people crossed the street rather than having to pass by her on the same sidewalk. After excluding other diagnoses like schizophrenia, I made a diagnosis of dysmorphophobia, which was included under atypical somatoform disorder in DSM-III . In DSM-IV this condition is categorized as 297.1 delusional disorder, somatic type.
The treatment for this woman was antipsychotic medication. I did not advise her to get plastic surgery. A similar case involved a woman who believed she smelled so badly that coworkers stayed home rather than being exposed to her horrible body odor. She smelled the odor in my office but it was entirely delusional. I did not recommend skin disinfectants or caustic solutions to her.
Another woman I assessed washed her hands over 100 times per day to get rid of germs and contaminants. Here I diagnosed obsessive compulsive disorder. I did not instruct her on how to wash her hands more effectively.
In another case, an adult woman advised me that she was a 10-year-old girl with a different name. She described herself as having different hair color, height, and eye color from her friend who shared her apartment, who was actually the adult host personality. I made a diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder. I did not call child protective services to tell them that a 10-year-old girl was living with an unrelated adult friend rather than with her parents, where she belonged.
On another occasion, a woman told me that she had been blind for the last three days. After a thorough workup, I made a diagnosis of conversion disorder. I did not refer her to the National Institute for the Blind.
A general problem with the DSM system is the fact that all these false beliefs about body and identity are scattered around in a variety of different diagnostic sections in an arbitrary fashion. If a person washes her hands 100 times a day she has an anxiety disorder (obsessive compulsive disorder), but if she plucks her hair out 100 times a day she has an impulse control disorder (trichotillomania). If she can’t move her hand at all, she has a somatoform disorder (conversion disorder). If she thinks her hand is grossly fat and starves herself to lose weight, she has an eating disorder (anorexia nervosa). If she was a child and used her hand to make rude hand gestures at her parents, teacher, and psychiatrist, she would have oppositional defiant disorder. However, if she used her hand to masturbate excessively, she would have a psychosexual disorder.
In all these cases, the abnormal behavior or belief is defined as a symptom of a mental disorder. Whether the abnormal belief, behavior, or identity is classified as a delusion, body image distortion, compulsion, conversion, dissociation, or impulse dyscontrol is immaterial: in all cases, the goal of treatment is to remove the symptom. The body is not fat, ugly, dirty, 10 years old, or under the control of a demon or ancestor spirit (trance possession disorder). The psychiatrist does not suggest to the possessed woman that she actually is a demon, or tell her that she has ego-dystonic identity disorder due to social demonophobia.
The psychiatrist does not send the possessed woman to a program that will help her come out of the closet as a demon to her friends, family, and employer. Only one delusion elicits that response from the psychiatrist: the belief that one is a man trapped in a woman’s body.
The psychiatrist tells the woman with gender identity disorder that she is biologically female. The woman agrees, which confirms that she is not delusional concerning her biological gender. She is only delusional about her psychological gender. However, the psychiatrist doesn’t then offer antipsychotic medication or behavioral therapy to rid the woman of her delusion. Instead, he refers her to a gender reassignment clinic.
In gender identity disorder, and in that diagnostic category alone, the psychiatrist agrees with the patient’s delusion. He tells her that she is correct, that she really is a man trapped in a woman’s body. He refers her to a clinic that will fix her mistaken body so that it agrees with her correct psychological gender identity.
The problem is not with the gender reassignment surgery: it is with the logic of the diagnosis.
If gender identity disorder is a mental disorder, then its core symptom is a symptom of mental disorder : the claim to be a man must be disordered, incorrect, mistaken, delusional, disturbed, or false. The psychiatrist cannot use the term delusional because that term will block the gender reassignment procedure. DSM-IV-TR gets around this problem by saying that, “Insistence by a person with a Gender Identity Disorder that he or she is of the other sex is not considered a delusion, because what is invariably meant is that the person feels like a member of the other sex rather than truly believes that he or she is a member of the other sex” (AMA, p. 581).
However, DSM-IV-TR contradicts itself five lines later on the same page in the diagnostic criteria by stating that “the disturbance is manifested by four (or more) of the following: (1) repeatedly stated desire to be, or insistence that he or she is, the other sex.”
If a woman told a psychiatrist that she was a gorilla, this would be classified as a “bizarre delusion” according to the text for schizophrenia. If she said she was the last Neanderthal left on earth, this also would be a bizarre delusion. But if she tells him she is a man trapped in a female body, the psychiatrist agrees to have her body fixed. DSM has to exclude the term delusion from the description of gender identity disorder in order to prevent its being reclassified as a psychosis, which would in turn block gender reassignment. That is fine, but the problem remains: the gender belief is still the basis for diagnosis of a mental disorder .
In order to proceed with gender reassignment, however, the psychiatrist must agree with the person’s mind. If the mind is correct and the body mistakenly doesn’t match the psychological gender, then it is the right of the person to request the appropriate plastic surgery. Gender reassignment is then no different, conceptually, from cosmetic breast augmentation surgery.
If this is true, however, then there is no mental disorder. Gender identity disorder should be removed from DSM-V just like homosexuality was removed from DSM-II. The only reason to retain gender identity disorder as a diagnosis is to maintain the control, power, and income derived from participation in gender reassignment by psychiatrists. Alternatively, if gender identity disorder is dropped from DSM-V (or shifted to egodystonic gender identity disorder in DSM-V, and then psychosexual disorder not otherwise specified in DSM-VI), and if psychiatrists are retained on the gender reassignment team, then they should also be added to the breast augmentation and liposuction teams.
Their role there would be to rule out other conditions such as delusional disorders and eating disorders.
All of these arrangements either happen or do not happen solely for political, power, and financial reasons. They have nothing to do with the rational classification of mental disorders. Treatment outcome data are irrelevant to the scientific validity of gender identity disorder as a DSM diagnosis: even though the overall treatment outcome for so-called surgical correction of psychogenic micromastia is excellent, that does not prove the surgery is medical rather than cosmetic.
Biologically normal women pay cash for cosmetic breast augmentation because they have high odds of good outcomes and of being satisfied with the procedure. Yet there is no lobby group arguing that such women suffer from a mental disorder. It would make no sense to tell biologically normal women seeking breast augmentation that they are mentally ill and suffer from psychogenic micromastia, and then go ahead and perform the procedure. This is exactly what happens when the diagnosis is gender identity disorder, however.
GENDER IDENTITY DISORDER AND DISSOCIATIVE IDENTITY DISORDER
Two DSM-IV-TR diagnoses have three words in their name, with only one out of the three words being different: gender identity disorder (GID) and dissociative identity disorder (DID). However, there is no discussion of DID anywhere in the text or diagnostic criteria for GID. This makes no sense. In DID, by definition, there are different identities, who often have different genders. The outcomes of successful treatment, for a woman with DID, can include heterosexual or homosexual orientation, and, in principle, male or female gender identity. In practice, however, I have never heard of a person with DID treated to integration who did not have a psychological gender congruent with his or her biological gender. The opposite outcome is not impossible in principle, but it is exceedingly rare if it ever occurs. A homosexual orientation postintegration is quite common, however.
Why is thinking you are a male trapped in a female body a dissociative symptom treated with psychotherapy if there is a group of identities, but a gender identity disorder treated with surgical reassignment if there is only one identity? This is inconsistent. It is also a problem with great practical implications.
I have interviewed a small series of biological men with undiagnosed DID who have undergone surgical reassignment for GID. I have spoken directly with male alter personalities who are very upset about their genitals being removed and breasts being grown with hormones. In these cases, female alter personalities temporarily gained control of the internal system, presented to gender reassignment clinics, and won the internal war for control and gender identity. The male identities were further suppressed once hormone therapy was started, and disappeared altogether for years postsurgery, until some life stress destabilized the system, overt switching began again, and the diagnosis of DID was made.
The DSM text for gender identity disorder does not discuss dissociation for several reasons. If it did, the core dissociation between biological and psychological gender might be called a dissociative symptom. If this happened, the disorder could be reclassified as a dissociative disorder. This would threaten the turf control of specialists in gender identity disorder. It would necessitate careful evaluation of all GID cases for DID, and it would expose gender reassignment clinics to considerable legal liability for undiagnosed DID cases that have already been reassigned.
To protect the GID turf, then, DID must be discredited, not mentioned, or said to be extremely rare. This is what happens in gender reassignment clinics. However, 11 studies in seven countries show that previously undiagnosed DID affects, on average, 3.7% of general adult psychiatric inpatients (Ross, Duffy, & Ellason, 2002). There is abundant evidence that DID versus GID is a real differential diagnostic problem. It certainly has real consequences when there is a false positive diagnosis of GID and a false negative diagnosis of DID.
This is fundamentally an ethical problem. Either the diagnosis of gender identity disorder should be removed from DSM-V, or gender reassignment should be stopped. Having it both ways protects the financial interests of specialists in GID, but not society or the individuals who request gender reassignment. This violates the fundamental principle of “first do no harm.” Maintaining a logically self-contradictory diagnostic category in the DSM system in order to force third-party payers to pay for a cosmetic procedure is unethical. If gender reassignment is a reasonable and ethical procedure, then believing you are of the opposite gender from your biological gender cannot be a mental disorder. It is unethical to have it both ways at once.
Excerpt from: Ross CA. Ethics of Gender Identity Disorder. Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry 2009 11:3 (165-170)
Contrary to what transgenderite cult members and their crooked enablers say, there is a ton of science to show that “innate gender identity” is fake and that autogynephilia is real. I have previously posted most of these articles and books on various pages of this site but to make them more accessible, I’m going to post them all here on one page. You can download the PDFs from the links.
This is far from “all” the research — there’s plenty more. If there are other articles you’d like to see, I can probably get hold of them and could post them here.
Walter was furious with Rita because she wouldn’t write a letter saying that he was an appropriate candidate for the “sex change” surgery that he so desperately craved, a complex series of butcheries to make his male genitals resemble an imitation “vagina.” Rita refused to write the letter because it was obvious that Walter was just a tranny autogynephiliac, a transvestite masturbator whose life was obsessively fixated on “transitioning” to being a fake “woman.” Rita had too much integrity to yield to his bullying and badgering about “the letter.” (By now, of course, it’s much, much easier for transgenderists in the USA to receive the horrific surgeries they desire. The government may even cover much of the expense.)
Walter came into Rita’s office with a pistol blazing. He killed Rita with extreme “over-kill” violence, 17 bullets from a big 9 mm gun. Then Walter killed himself.
It only took a week until other male trannies like Richard “Riki” Wilchins and “Nancy” Nangeroni rushed to blame Rita for provoking Walter to kill her. How dare anyone prevent a crazed male fetishist from going under the knife! The nerve of that bitch! Outrageous that there are rules, checks & balances, that sort of thing. Give the male trannies what they want, now! Or face the consequences!1!!
Murder-Suicide Raises Questions About Therapist’s Role in Sex Change Surgery June 19, 1998 By Marian Jones
NEW YORK Last Wednesday, Rita Powers’ patient showed up for a therapy session with a 9 mm handgun.
In a burst of gunfire, the patient fatally shot Powers, a San Diego therapist, then turned the gun around and committed suicide. The motive? Powers had apparently refused to grant her client who dressed as a woman and preferred to be called “Julia” written approval for sex change surgery.
The incident highlights the unique and powerful role the mental health establishment plays in deciding who can get a sex change operation a role that is increasingly being called into question.
International guidelines followed by the medical community require two written letters of approval from licensed therapists specializing in this area, one with a doctorate-level degree, before medical professionals will perform the surgery.
The therapists must find that the patient meets the criteria for Gender Identity Disorder. This is defined in the DSM-IV, the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic manual, as a persistent discomfort with one’s assigned sex and a feeling that this sex is inappropriate. This must be coupled with a preoccupation for at least two years with changing one’s primary and secondary sex characteristics to that of the other sex.
Those diagnosed with the disorder, according to the guidelines, must also have dressed and lived as the preferred sex for at least one year, and must complete a minimum of six months of psychological counseling before being certified for sex reassignment.
The difficulty in obtaining approval under these guidelines can lead a person to become desperate, say advocates for transsexuals.
“When you deprive a person of medical services they feel they need, this can take the form of extreme actions toward themselves and even others,” commented Riki Wilchins, executive director of GenderPAC, a national advocacy group for gender-related issues.
Violence such as the San Diego murder-suicide is almost unheard of, Wilchins added, noting that self-destructive behavior such as substance abuse are more common.
Wilchins, who had sex reassignment surgery in 1980, does not believe that approval from a therapist should be required at all.
“When I went to get a nose job, they didn’t say, ‘You have rhino identity disorder.’ When I went to get my breasts done, they didn’t say, ‘You are a large-breasted woman trapped in a small-breasted woman’s body.’ Yet when I had the genital surgery, there was this arcane structure that says you must spend thousands of dollars getting psychiatrists and psychologists to say this is okay,” Wilchins said.
Sheila Dicks-on, Ph.D., a Phoenix psychologist specializing in gender identity, partly agrees. “For many, many people, this psychological certification is not a necessity.” But such an approval process is necessary in many cases, Dickson says, to ensure that the patient understands the implications of the procedure.
The guidelines safeguard against disastrous outcomes, according to Robert Segraves, M.D., a psychiatry professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. “People have enough trouble moving from one part of the country to another, in becoming parents, or in getting married. When you talk about changing gender, this is a huge adjustment.”
The psychiatric approval process also weeds out people who are mentally unstable, added Paul Tobias, Ph.D., a Los Angeles psychologist who has been working with transsexuals for 25 years. “There have always been a certain number of people with severe psychological problems who believe that if they change their body, they can resolve their emotional difficulties.”
“We want to make sure that a person is not suffering from multiple personality disorder,” added Mildred Brown, Ph.D., a Santa Clara, Calif., sexologist and author of a book on transsexualism. “If we did the surgery and then another personality of a different gender came out and found that body parts were missing or added, there would be a severe problem.”
A person seeking this surgery can also be “a homosexual in denial, who thinks that if they have the body of the opposite sex, they can relate (sexually) to the people they want to relate to, and society won’t stigmatize them for being gay,” Brown explained.
But Wilchins dismisses these concerns as overblown, noting that a very small percentage of people who have the surgery actually believe they made a mistake in doing so.
Wilchins and other transsexual advocates also take issue with the diagnostic category of Gender Identity Disorder.
There is no question that a transsexual who would murder a therapist and commit suicide is emotionally disturbed, and that many transsexuals could benefit from some therapy given that their situation can often lead to emotional disorders such as anxiety and depression, asserted Nancy Nangeroni, a male-to-female transsexual and the executive director of the Boston-based International Foundation for Gender Education.
“But the [general category of] Gender Identity Disorder stigmatizes gender diversity by making it a disorder of the individual rather than a product of a culture that has a narrow concept of gender,” Nangeroni said.
Wilchins’ group has organized demonstrations challenging this diagnostic category, the latest of which took place outside the American Psychiatric Association’s headquarters. She compares these efforts to the successful campaign that gays and lesbians mounted to get homosexuality declassified as a mental disorder 26 years ago.
“We would like to see this as a non-stigmatizing physical condition regarded as similar to pregnancy. [!!!] The only disorder here is a disorder in the minds of people who are uncomfortable with certain types of gender behavior,” Wilchins said.
Dickson, however, noted that while gender identity disorder can be unfairly stigmatizing, it is a necessary prerequisite for insurance coverage, which can be obtained for the expensive procedure if it is deemed medically essential.
The killer’s male tranny clique continued to blame Rita for her own murder. A couple of months later, the Fall 1998 edition of the transgenderist magazine “Transgender Tapestry” ran an article by “Gwendolyn Ann” Smith making excuses for Walter Miller and calling him by his “female” alias.
Soon, the January 1999 issue of the feminist magazine “Off Our Backs” provided excellent analysis of the male tranny write-up:
Transgender Magazine Blames Woman for Her Own Murder
The front cover of Transgender Tapestry claims the magazine is dedicated to “Celebrating the Diversity of Gender Expression” – but the Fall 1998 issue of the magazine was nothing to celebrate. Inside, a full-page article explained that a female therapist named Rita Powers was murdered because she balked at issuing a letter recommending sex-reassignment surgery for her murderer, Walter Miller. The article consistently referred to Miller with female pronouns despite the fact that he held a job as a man.
“She was receiving some negativity from her therapist”, the article explained, “suicide being the only other course of action that she saw, she–violently took the life of the one person that was standing in the way”.
Nowhere in the article was there any sense of outrage at the crime or expression of sympathy for the victim of this indefensible act of male violence. Instead there was the attitude typically expressed by rapist and their defenders that the woman somehow brought it on herself because of her own actions. Not content with portraying the murderer as a victim, however, the author of the article attempted to further mitigate the severity of the crime by blaming society as a whole because of the discrimination perpetrated against transgenders in general.
The absurdity of this exculpation for murder is evident based upon facts contained in the article itself — for example, the fact that the murderer still lived and worked as a man and the fact that his legal name was still Walter Miller. Nevertheless, in homage to the “social construct” of gender embraced by Transgender Tapestry and its writers, the magazine consistently employed female pronouns and repeatedly referred to Miller with his alias of Julia Morgan.
The same magazine contained another column — entitled “Ethics and Transgender Care” — which exploited the murder of Rita Powers to open a critique of therapists and therapy in general.
Neither column bothered to provide any information about Powers. Did she have a family – a lesbian partner, a husband, a child or a pet? Is she mourned by loved-ones or did she lead a lonely existence? Readers won’t find the answers to those sorts of questions in the pages of Tapestry because the magazine is too busy celebrating “the diversity of gender expression” – and lamenting the subsequent suicide of Walter Miller – to waste any space on Miller’s victim.
Raging tranny narcissist Walter Miller didn’t just kill Rita Powers on an impulse or by accident. He murdered her with extreme, vicious, pre-meditated psychotic violence. He shot her 17 times “all over her body” with a high-powered semi-automatic handgun. Miller’s goal with those 17 bullets was to shred and mutilate the body of a 41-year old single mother, simply because she refused to participate in his deviant sexual fantasy.
2. The media report these crimes as having been committed by a “man dressed as a woman,” a “cross-dresser” etc. In the current atmosphere of political correctness and language policing, the impression conveyed is that “these are not transgender people,” of course not, they are just the usual sickos and fetishists who, as one would expect, are out committing crimes. The reality is that we are talking about the same people. It’s actually FACTUAL and correct to describe these criminals as men in dresses — but if the story is “negative,” the media goes out of its way to pretend that this criminality has nothing to do with “authentic” female impersonation.
It is dangerous for women and girls if female impersonators are allowed into women’s restrooms, changing rooms or any other kind of space designed for women’s exclusive use. Nearly all men pretending to be “women” are walking around continuously all jacked up in high sexual arousal or at the very least, in the “thrill” of forbidden boundary-crossing. Despite the angry denials by male trannies and their enablers in the transgenderism industry, there is actually a huge amount of evidence that these transvestite masturbators are as much a danger to women as normal men.
Sure, some individual man might be a “really nice guy” and “wouldn’t hurt anyone” but that’s not the point. If nice male trannies are allowed in women’s spaces, all the dangerous cocks-in-frocks are also allowed in there.
Question: How can women tell the difference between the “nice” female impersonators and the psychopaths?
Answer: They can’t.
Also, when you get down to it there really is no difference! Both are psychotically acting out an obsessive sexual fantasy in which real women are erased (because “woman” is just a sexy feeling in a man’s head) and the men “become women.” Both launch into actual rage when they are “misgendered” or if their “womanhood” is brought into question. They are deeply disturbed, very confused and very male.
And what is a woman to these men, whether nice man or no? Just a collection of the “right body parts” and the mimicry of “feminine” stereotypes. Like strange sexual parasites, male trannies obsessively crave to “own” and occupy a woman’s body. Men in dresses are not actually women, not even when they’re all hopped up on estrogen and don’t have very much testosterone. Not even when they’ve had “facial feminization surgery” or are talking in fake voices! They are still men! Same guy, different outfit! Nearly all of these men claim to be “lesbians,” whether or not they’ve had their penises inverted to form fantasy fake “vaginas” — many now insist that their “penises are female.” And guess what, real women: they (still) expect you to desire sex with them. Real women and girls have every reason to believe, just as with any strange man seen in the ladies’ room, that these male trannies are dangerous.
Regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime.
In other words, male trannies were nearly 7 times more likely than real women to have been convicted of a crime. They were just as likely as any normal man to have been convicted of a crime.
The article doesn’t spell out violent crime comparisons in the main text, only saying “the same was true regarding violent crime,” but they provide some tables with additional data. It turns out that male trannies were over 18times more likely than real women to have been convicted of a violent crime (aHR 18.1, 95% CI 5.4 to 61.2). They were just as likely as normal men to be convicted of violent crime.
How about some examples of male tranny violence? It’s a myth, right? Doesn’t happen? Actually, it happens a LOT. Here’s just a few examples:
It’s not even really about “using the restroom.” Part of the male tranny sexual fantasy is to violate women’s space, to be “accepted as a woman” in places reserved for women. When a woman sees a male transgenderite in the rest-room, she may not say anything, she may even smile, and then she just tries to leave as quickly as possible. Why? Because she knows he is a man, and men are dangerous to women. For his part, the male tranny takes her silence and smile as an indication that he is “passing as a woman,” or that at least he is “fully accepted in women’s spaces.” This “validation” (as he sees it) gives him a huge rush of sexual excitement. This is how they operate.
There is a lot of disinformation being put out by transgenderists that these femininity-fetishizers are gentle sweet souls who are completely safe and trustworthy in women’s restrooms and other places where men shouldn’t go. It’s not true. Male transgenderites are not women. They commit crime (including violent crime) at the same rate as other men. They commit more than 18 times the violent crime of real women. It doesn’t mean that every female impersonator is a rapist, but it definitely does mean that women cannot afford to believe they’re safe to be alone with these men. Don’t believe the media bullshit about how harmless the male trannies are; all they want to do is “be themselves,” etc. “Gender identity” is a scam developed to conceal an embarrassing truth.
These days we often see news stories or blogs about “transgender children.” Isn’t this proof that “gender identity” is real, and biological in nature?
Nope. There is no such thing as a “transgender child.” “Gender identity” is a completely fake and bogus idea, invented by male sexual fetishists who have thrown normal life away, and often destroyed their families, in order to pursue their strange addiction. Parents who pimp out their children as “transgender” may have serious personality disorders or they may just be really stupid. Because the male trannies are so passionately delusional as well as well-connected in media, government and academia, they have successfully promoted “gender identity” as if it existed.
There is nothing going on in the brain or anywhere else that would make a male child want to replicate stereotypes of “femininity” (e.g. liking the color pink, wishing to wear dresses, wanting to play with dolls, etc.), or a girl replicate stereotyped “masculinity.” Children sometimes don’t conform to sex role stereotypes. Little girls may want to have short hair, build tree-forts, play football and hang out with the boys. It doesn’t mean these girls are actually boys. Little boys may want to have long hair, try on sister’s clothes, play with dolls, hang out with the girls. It doesn’t mean these boys are actually girls. Children have their own individual personalities.
These children who don’t comply with sex role stereotypes and are being pushed into medicalized transgenderism by their parents and crooked doctors are really being sacrificed on an altar of male tranny sexual perversion.
Before “gender identity,” nearly all children who didn’t comply with sex role stereotypes simply grew out of desiring to be or insisting they were the opposite sex. Nowadays, almost none of them do — they are fast-tracked for medical transsexualism.
The reality is that the vast majority of cocks in frocks (including Bruce Jenner and around 90% of other men in dresses) are what we used to call transvestites — they get sexually turned on from the fantasy of “being a woman.” They dress-up and pretend to be women (or daydream about doing so), or watch pornography about transgenderism, and then they masturbate. It is a sexual fetish that takes over their lives. It becomes a narcissistic addiction, after years of ritualistic and highly-charged sexualized cross-dressing. Even if estrogen has reduced their sex drive somewhat, which is very debatable, their keen narcissistic desire for “validation” (e.g. through being “accepted” in women’s restrooms) keeps them very hopped up and excited. If normal people do not comply with their insistence on “the right pronouns,” or with being fully “accepted” in women’s private spaces, they are likely to fly into a towering tizzy of transgender narcissistic rage.
For this reason, the male trannies have invented the notion of an innate “gender identity.” They retroactively invent or exaggerate incidents from their own childhoods that would suggest a “female gender identity.” It is extremely important to organized transgenderism for the masses of people to believe that “gender identity” is something that children are born with.
(Women who take medical measures to become fake “men” and who insist they are men have a completely different situation from the men who pretend to be “women.” In our culture, females are taught almost from infancy that their bodies are highly problematic. Women who try to be men are dealing with internalized misogyny and often internalized homophobia. GenderTrender has some excellent articles concerning these “FTM” women. The mens’ “gender identity” lie has hooked some women into it, particularly young women.)
A female impersonator called “Autumn” Sandeen has admitted that if children can be seen to have opposite sex “gender identity,” it “takes the sex out of the equation” in regard to the male trannies. If the world believes in “gender identity,” these men reckon, they won’t ever have to admit the embarrassing truth about why they chose to become trannies.
The idea that one’s sex is a “feeling,” not a fact, has permeated our culture and is leaving casualties in its wake. “Gender dysphoria” should be treated with psychotherapy, not surgery. This is a new article by Dr. Paul McHugh, re-blogged from the Witherspoon Institute’s “Public Discourse.”
For forty years as the University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School—twenty-six of which were also spent as Psychiatrist in Chief of Johns Hopkins Hospital—I’ve been studying people who claim to be transgender. Over that time, I’ve watched the phenomenon change and expand in remarkable ways.
A rare issue of a few men—both homosexual and heterosexual men, including some who sought sex-change surgery because they were erotically aroused by the thought or image of themselves as women—has spread to include women as well as men. Even young boys and girls have begun to present themselves as of the opposite sex. Over the last ten or fifteen years, this phenomenon has increased in prevalence, seemingly exponentially. Now, almost everyone has heard of or met such a person.
Publicity, especially from early examples such as “Christine” Jorgenson, “Jan” Morris, and “Renee” Richards, has promoted the idea that one’s biological sex is a choice, leading to widespread cultural acceptance of the concept. And, that idea, quickly accepted in the 1980s, has since run through the American public like a revelation or “meme” affecting much of our thought about sex.
The champions of this meme, encouraged by their alliance with the broader LGBT movement, claim that whether you are a man or a woman, a boy or a girl, is more of a disposition or feeling about yourself than a fact of nature. And, much like any other feeling, it can change at any time, and for all sorts of reasons. Therefore, no one could predict who would swap this fact of their makeup, nor could one justifiably criticize such a decision.
At Johns Hopkins, after pioneering sex-change surgery, we demonstrated that the practice brought no important benefits. As a result, we stopped offering that form of treatment in the 1970s. Our efforts, though, had little influence on the emergence of this new idea about sex, or upon the expansion of the number of “transgendered” among young and old.
Olympic Athlete Turned “Pin-Up” Girl
This history may clarify some aspects of the latest high-profile transgender claimant. Bruce Jenner, the 1976 Olympic decathlon champion, is turning away from his titular identity as one of the “world’s greatest male athletes.” Jenner announced recently that he “identifies as a woman” and, with medical and surgical help, is busy reconstructing his physique.
I have not met or examined Jenner, but his behavior resembles that of some of the transgender males we have studied over the years. These men wanted to display themselves in sexy ways, wearing provocative female garb. More often than not, while claiming to be a woman in a man’s body, they declared themselves to be “lesbians” (attracted to other women). The photograph of the posed, corseted, breast-boosted Bruce Jenner (a man in his mid-sixties, but flaunting himself as if a “pin-up” girl in her twenties or thirties) on the cover of Vanity Fair suggests that he may fit the behavioral mold that Ray Blanchard has dubbed an expression of “autogynephilia”—from gynephilia (attracted to women) and auto (in the form of oneself).
The Emperor’s New Clothes
But the meme—that your sex is a feeling, not a biological fact, and can change at any time—marches on through our society. In a way, it’s reminiscent of the Hans Christian Andersen tale, The Emperor’s New Clothes. In that tale, the Emperor, believing that he wore an outfit of special beauty imperceptible to the rude or uncultured, paraded naked through his town to the huzzahs of courtiers and citizens anxious about their reputations. Many onlookers to the contemporary transgender parade, knowing that a disfavored opinion is worse than bad taste today, similarly fear to identify it as a misapprehension.
I am ever trying to be the boy among the bystanders who points to what’s real. I do so not only because truth matters, but also because overlooked amid the hoopla—enhanced now by Bruce Jenner’s celebrity and Annie Leibovitz’s photography—stand many victims. Think, for example, of the parents whom no one—not doctors, schools, nor even churches—will help to rescue their children from these strange notions of being transgendered and the problematic lives these notions herald. These youngsters now far outnumber the Bruce Jenner type of transgender. Although they may be encouraged by his public reception, these children generally come to their ideas about their sex not through erotic interests but through a variety of youthful psychosocial conflicts and concerns.
First, though, let us address the basic assumption of the contemporary parade: the idea that exchange of one’s sex is possible. It, like the storied Emperor, is starkly, nakedly false. Transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men. All (including Bruce Jenner) become feminized men or masculinized women, counterfeits or impersonators of the sex with which they “identify.” In that lies their problematic future.
When “the tumult and shouting dies,” it proves not easy nor wise to live in a counterfeit sexual garb. The most thorough follow-up of sex-reassigned people—extending over thirty years and conducted in Sweden, where the culture is strongly supportive of the transgendered—documents their lifelong mental unrest. Ten to fifteen years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to twenty times that of comparable peers.
How to Treat Gender Dysphoria
So how should we make sense of this matter today? As with any mental phenomenon, what’s crucial is noting its fundamental characteristic and then identifying the many ways in which that characteristic can manifest itself.
The central issue with all transgender subjects is one of assumption—the assumption that one’s sexual nature is misaligned with one’s biological sex. This problematic assumption comes about in several different ways, and these distinctions in its generation determine how to manage and treat it.
Based on the photographic evidence one might guess Bruce Jenner falls into the group of men who come to their disordered assumption through being sexually aroused by the image of themselves as women. He could have been treated for this misaligned arousal with psychotherapy and medication. Instead, he found his way to surgeons who worked him over as he wished. Others have already commented on his stereotypic caricature of women as decorative “babes” (“I look forward to wearing nail polish until it chips off,” he said to Diane Sawyer)—a view that understandably infuriates feminists—and his odd sense that only feelings, not facts, matter here.
For his sake, however, I do hope that he receives regular, attentive follow-up care, as his psychological serenity in the future is doubtful. Future men with similar feelings and intentions should be treated for those feelings rather than being encouraged to undergo bodily changes. Group therapies are now available for them.
Most young boys and girls who come seeking sex-reassignment are utterly different from Jenner. They have no erotic interest driving their quest. Rather, they come with psychosocial issues—conflicts over the prospects, expectations, and roles that they sense are attached to their given sex—and presume that sex-reassignment will ease or resolve them.
The grim fact is that most of these youngsters do not find therapists willing to assess and guide them in ways that permit them to work out their conflicts and correct their assumptions. Rather, they and their families find only “gender counselors” who encourage them in their sexual misassumptions.
Those with Gender Dysphoria Need Evidence-Based Care
There are several reasons for this absence of coherence in our mental health system. Important among them is the fact that both the state and federal governments are actively seeking to block any treatments that can be construed as challenging the assumptions and choices of transgendered youngsters. “As part of our dedication to protecting America’s youth, this administration supports efforts to ban the use of conversion therapy for minors,” said Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor to President Obama.
In two states, a doctor who would look into the psychological history of a transgendered boy or girl in search of a resolvable conflict could lose his or her license to practice medicine. By contrast, such a physician would not be penalized if he or she started such a patient on hormones that would block puberty and might stunt growth.
What is needed now is public clamor for coherent science—biological and therapeutic science—examining the real effects of these efforts to “support” transgendering. Although much is made of a rare “intersex” individual, no evidence supports the claim that people such as Bruce Jenner have a biological source for their transgender assumptions. Plenty of evidence demonstrates that with him and most others, transgendering is a psychological rather than a biological matter.
In fact, gender dysphoria—the official psychiatric term for feeling oneself to be of the opposite sex—belongs in the family of similarly disordered assumptions about the body, such as anorexia nervosa and body dysmorphic disorder. Its treatment should not be directed at the body as with surgery and hormones any more than one treats obesity-fearing anorexic patients with liposuction. The treatment should strive to correct the false, problematic nature of the assumption and to resolve the psychosocial conflicts provoking it. With youngsters, this is best done in family therapy.
The larger issue is the meme itself. The idea that one’s sex is fluid and a matter open to choice runs unquestioned through our culture and is reflected everywhere in the media, the theater, the classroom, and in many medical clinics. It has taken on cult-like features: its own special lingo, internet chat rooms providing slick answers to new recruits, and clubs for easy access to dresses and styles supporting the sex change. It is doing much damage to families, adolescents, and children and should be confronted as an opinion without biological foundation wherever it emerges.
But gird your loins if you would confront this matter. Hell hath no fury like a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle.
Here are answers to some frequently asked questions about Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner and his desire to become a fake “woman.”
Q: Is Bruce Jenner a woman now? Can a man become a woman?
A: No. Bruce Jenner is and always will be a man. A man cannot become a woman. It doesn’t matter if he takes synthetic “female” hormones or has “facial feminization surgery” or has surgery to make his genitals resemble “female” genitals. It doesn’t matter if he has large breasts. None of that matters at all. “Woman” is more than a grab-bag of “body parts” that a man can buy from surgeons and other doctors. Bruce Jenner is male. As everyone knows, competing against a bunch of other males 40 years ago he beat them all with his athleticism. He’s also the father of six children. Additional proof of Jenner’s 100% maleness, and the maleness of all other men who want to be “women,” includes the following:
Q: Bruce Jenner says that he has a “female brain” and “knew he was a woman since age five.” Is there some kind of innate “gender identity”? Do male transgenderites really have a “female brain” that gives them some claim to being “women”?
A: No. Around 90% of female impersonators, including Bruce Jenner, have a condition called autogynephilia. It is a sexual paraphilia, an intense and narcissistic sexual desire to “become a woman” and also to insist that the rest of society play along with their fantasy and interact with them as though they actually were “women.” It is a condition found only in men. These men are sexually attracted to women and for the most part seem to live normal, “masculine” lives until adulthood. Often husbands and fathers, they eventually feel ready to “throw it all away” and begin clowning themselves to the world as fake “ladies.”
In male transgenderites with autogynephilia, a “female gender identity” only comes along after many years or decades of sexualized cross-dressing. In other words, Bruce Jenner knows he’s a man, has always enjoyed being a man and has a complete identity as a man. However, he also knows that he has daydreamed and had sexual fantasies about “being a woman” for most of his life. Until recently, those fantasies stayed in fantasy-world and if he secretly played dress-up sometimes, it was nobody’s business. He was still just Bruce, a manly man who enjoyed his life. In recent years, however, the temptation to push past the fantasy’s old limits became too strong. Society now encourages that sexy pleasure, so why not get lost in it — soak up the stereotypes of “femininity” — feel that formerly-forbidden “high.” And this is what Jenner has done in cultivating his “female gender identity.”
Q: What about “transgender children”? Isn’t that proof that “gender identity” is real, and biological in nature?
These children who don’t comply with sex role stereotypes and are being transsexualized by their parents and crooked doctors are really being sacrificed on the altar of Bruce Jenner’s (and other male transgenderists’) sexual perversion.
Autogynephilia is a man’s paraphilic tendency to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman (Blanchard, 1989a). Autogynephilia can be conceptualized as an erotic target location error, which involves mislocating a preferred erotic target within one’s own body or internalizing an external erotic target (Blanchard, 1991; Freund & Blanchard, 1993; Lawrence, 2009). In the case of autogynephilia, a man who is otherwise sexually attracted to women mislocates them within himself and is thus sexually attracted to the act or the fantasy of resembling or impersonating women (e.g., by cross-dressing). In other words, autogynephilia can be understood as a kind of erotic target location error that occurs in men who are sexually attracted to women or whose preferred erotic targets are women.
Consistent with the idea that autogynephilia is a misdirected type of heterosexual attraction, Blanchard (1992) demonstrated that autogynephilia tends to compete with typical sexual interest in women. In addition to cross-dressing, which is the most familiar way in which autogynephilia manifests, there are other behaviors and fantasies related to the idea of being a woman that autogynephilic men find sexually arousing. Blanchard (1991) described four aspects of being a woman that manifest in the sexual behaviors and fantasies of autogynephilic men: exhibiting female physiologic functions, engaging in stereotypically feminine behavior, possessing female anatomic structures, and dressing in women’s clothing. He labeled these different ways in which autogynephilia manifests as types of autogynephilia and called them physiologic autogynephilia, behavioral autogynephilia, anatomic autogynephilia, and transvestic autogynephilia, respectively.
Examples of physiologic autogynephilia include sexual fantasies of lactating, breastfeeding, and menstruating (Blanchard, 1991). Some autogynephilic men also find the idea of being pregnant to be sexually arousing. Behavioral autogynephilia involves behaving in a stereotypically feminine way or performing activities that symbolize femininity. For instance, some autogynephilic men report sexual arousal at the idea of speaking and walking in a feminine manner or of being with other women in a locker room or in a hair salon (Blanchard, 1991;Lawrence, 2013). Others report sexual excitement from seemingly trivial or mundane feminine activities, such as knitting in a circle with other women, owning a girl’s bike, or taking birth control pills. Men who experience the anatomic type of autogynephilia may be sexually aroused by the mere idea of having a woman’s body or they may focus on specific female anatomic features, such as the breasts or the vulva. Sexual arousal at the thought or image of having a woman’s hairless legs, buttocks, or face also constitutes anatomic autogynephilia. Blanchard (1993a,b) found that the anatomic type of autogynephilia was closely associated with gender dysphoria,or feelings of discontent with one’s biological sex, among autogynephilic men. Specifically, Blanchard showed that autogynephilic men who reported the most arousal at the thought or image of themselves as nude rather than partially or fully clothed women were more gender dysphoric (Blanchard, 1993b) and that those specifically aroused by the idea of having a vulva were also more gender dysphoric (Blanchard, 1993a). Transvestic autogynephilia is generally considered synonymous with erotic cross-dressing, or transvestic fetishism, and it is one very unambiguous and behavioral way in which an autogynephilic man can make himself more like a woman. It is also considered the most frequent manifestation of autogynephilia (Lawrence, 2013).
A fifth putative type of autogynephilia that has important theoretical and clinical relevance is interpersonal autogynephilia, or sexual interest in interacting with or being admired by other people as a woman (also called autogynephilic interpersonal fantasy) (Blanchard, 1989b). Most commonly, such behaviors and fantasies involve sexual intercourse or activity with other people (either real or imagined) while cross-dressed or thinking of oneself as a woman (Blanchard, 1991). Blanchard subsumed the autogynephilic behaviors and fantasies of this variety under behavioral autogynephilia, but he noted their particular significance relative to other behaviors and fantasies of the behavioral type. For example, Blanchard found that self-reported autogynephilic interpersonal fantasy was more highly endorsed among autogynephilic men identifying as bisexual compared with those identifying as heterosexual (Blanchard, 1989b). Blanchard speculated that bisexual behavior and identity among autogynephilic men reflects interpersonal autogynephilia—specifically, their sexual interest in the idea of having sex with men as a woman—rather than genuine attraction to male bodies in addition to female bodies. Thus, a distinction between interpersonal autogynephilia and the more broadly defined behavioral autogynephilia seems conceptually useful.
Although there is value in categorizing the various ways in which autogynephilia manifests, it is not clear how the different types of autogynephilia are organized. For example, it is conceivable that autogynephilic men focus on one type or a few types of autogynephilia at the expense of others. Alternatively, there might be only one general dimension of autogynephilia, with the most autogynephilic men especially likely to exhibit multiple types of autogynephilia. From numerous case reports (Blanchard, 1991; Lawrence, 2013), it seems common for different types of autogynephilia to co-occur within an individual. In addition, a particular autogynephilic behavior or fantasy may include elements from more than one type. For example, simulating a pregnant woman may involve cross-dressing in maternity clothes and could be considered both physiologic and transvestic autogynephilia. Wearing a female cheerleader’s outfit may be a form of transvestic autogynephilia, behavioral autogynephilia, or both, depending on the meaning that an autogynephilic man ascribes to the act. If he is aroused by wearing feminine clothing, then he is manifesting transvestic autogynephilia, but if he is aroused by enacting the female-typical role of a cheerleader, then he is manifesting behavioral autogynephilia. It is often the case, however, that an autogynephilic man is aroused by the variety of ways in which a behavior or fantasy is feminine. Because types usually refer to discrete categories, referring to the different manifestations of autogynephilia as types might be less than ideal, as they appear dimensional (i.e., they overlap and can be expressed to different degrees).
The present study attempted to clarify the structure of autogynephilia psychometrically. Specifically, we focused on the extent to which the different types of autogynephilia manifest in autogynephilic men, their relations among each other, and their relations to a more broadly construed construct of autogynephilia. Although previous researchers (e.g., Blanchard, 1991; Lawrence, 2013) have speculated about the differential prevalences of the various types of autogynephilia, there is no strong or empirically supported evidence to suggest what these might be. We assembled 22 items to assess five types of autogynephilia in a sample of autogynephilic men and subjected the items to exploratory factor analysis, which attempted to explain the variability and correlations among the items by reducing them to reflect latent factors. We then examined the evidence for five group factors and a general factor of autogynephilia that underlies them. In order to test construct validity, we compared the autogynephilic sample with heterosexual men from a control sample who were unlikely to be autogynephilic. Finally, we created factor derived scales and subscales from the 22 items and tested their psychometric properties and concurrent validity with variables related to autogynephilia (e.g., gender dysphoria).
[BOTTOM LINE OF THEIR FINDINGS: THE NEW SCALE WORKED PRETTY WELL. DOWNLOAD THE ARTICLE IF YOU’D LIKE TO KNOW MORE DETAILS.]
All of these children and young people are being sacrificed on an obscene altar of male sexual desire.
The reality of men’s insane craving to “become women” is much simpler than the official story about some hypothesized brain glitch or genetic difference. Around 90% of male transgenderists have autogynephilia, a sexual perversion in which men experience intense sexual arousal at the idea of themselves “being women” and being treated in society “as women.” There is no such thing as an innate “gender identity.” A “female gender identity” emerges in male transgenderists only after years or decades of sexualized cross-dressing. They are often quite “normal” heterosexual men, having “masculine” interests, having wives & girlfriends, fathering children, and seeming like regular straight guys. Men like this used to be called “transvestites,” but since the internet came along the majority of transvestites are progressing to full-blown transsexualism. Because sexual perversions like autogynephilia are embarrassing and tend to invalidate any rationale for destroying their families, men have cooked up the notion of an innate “gender identity.”
Courtesy of GenderTrender, here is the list of drug companies contributing to the “World Professional Association for Transgender Health” (WPATH) for 2003 — i.e. 12 years ago! Do you think they’re supporting organized tranny-ism any less these days? Nope. Much more, I’m sure. They contribute to WPATH because the more confused people take the leap into modifying their bodies with hormones, the more loot they will rake in.
The “Transgender Chicken Circuit”, for the uninformed, is a patchwork of media appearances, news and feature articles, talk shows, documentaries, convention and seminar appearances that savvy parents can weave together into a modest cottage industry of transgender child celebrity. Think of it as a Munchausen-marinated transgender version of “Toddlers and Tiaras” whose fans are aging cross-dressing male autogynephiles in possession of both a wistful longing for an unexperienced girlhood, and a generous disposable income. These men are the funders of the agencies and lobbying groups promoting the medicalization of childhood gender nonconformity. The best known example is billionaire financeer and lifelong closeted crossdresser (and father of three) James “Jennifer Natalya” Pritzker whose Tawani Foundation single-handedly funds the experimental pediatric transgender drug clinic at Children’s Hospital of Chicago.
AUTOGYNEPHILIA IS REAL. “GENDER IDENTITY” IS FAKE. RESIST the “GENDER IDENTITY” DISCOURSE. BE INFORMED. INFORM OTHERS. THE MAINSTREAMING OF “GENDER IDENTITY” IS JUST AN EXCUSE AND A LIE TO JUSTIFY THE FANTASY SEXUAL OBSESSION OF SOME MALES, WHO CULTIVATE THIS “IDENTITY” AND ARE DEADLY AFRAID FOR THE MASTURBATORY TRUTH TO EMERGE. IT IS NOT “HARMLESS” TO FORCIBLY TRANSSEXUALIZE CHILDREN OR TO LET ADULTS “TRANSITION” TO A FAKE SIMULACRUM OF THE OPPOSITE SEX. IT IS HARMFUL TO INDIVIDUALS, TO FAMILIES AND TO SOCIETY. WE WOULDN’T EVEN BE DISCUSSING “GENDER IDENTITY” IF IT WEREN’T FOR THE INSANE SEXUAL CRAVINGS OF A SMALL BUT GROWING NUMBER OF MALE TRANNY AUTOGYNEPHILIACS.
I want to show you a case study of how a man’s autogynephilic narcissism helped to kill off his wife so that he could be the “mom,” and then boosted him into the lying crime-light of male transgenderite activism. It is quite a disturbing story. For the benefit of those just learning about autogynephilia, a few words first to introduce the topic.
Around 90% of male transgenderists have autogynephilia. Growing up, they seem like ordinary heterosexual boys and men, just regular guys, but they hide an embarrassing secret — these men have an obsessive sexual fantasy image of themselves “as women,” wearing women’s clothes, having breasts and other “female body parts,” and mimicking “feminine” stereotypes of behavior & appearance. Crucially, these men crave “validation as women” through their unchallenged “trans-aggressive” violations of women’s space (rest-rooms, dressing rooms, locker rooms etc.) and through having normal people mirror back to them such “feminine” social expectations as being called “ma’am” or “miss,” having a real woman compliment their outfit, having a man hold the door open etc. Most autogynephilic men “transition” (to become fake “women”) after many years or decades of cultivating their fantasy to the point of neurotic dissociation, when a new “female gender identity” takes over. Unfortunately, this often happens when the man is married to a woman, and usually with young children in the home. The consequences of this break from reality are devastating, mostly to the man’s family, as the husband and father they once loved and respected, and who once seemingly cared for them more than anything, begins to obsess about his “transition,” first just “exploring the idea” with “support groups” and “shopping en femme” but very soon going whole-hog for massive hormone manipulations and drastic surgeries. It is a toxic nightmare for the women married to these men and a traumatic disappointment for their children.
“Devin” (probably Kevin) Payne (AKA “Pain”) is a man from Kansas, USA. He was married to a woman, and together they had four children.
Growing up in Kansas, Payne remembers trying on her mother’s clothes and dressing as a girl every year for Halloween. She dreamt of having another life after this one, as a girl. But Payne said she mostly suppressed her feelings and tried to live up to the expectations for a male.
“I put it out of my head,” she said.
She married a woman she met at work and they had four children, now ages 7 to 22. But she never felt comfortable in the traditional role of father and provider.
So far, 100% classic autogynephilia,. Bonus points for making up a retroactive justification for his transgenderism — “dressing as a girl every year for Halloween.” That sounds like a lie — he may have done it once. Also bonus points for blaming his un-named wife and his children for “dysphoria” in what should be the most important role and responsibility of a heterosexual male’s life: being a solid, reliable and loving husband and father.
“I was just horrible at it because it wasn’t who I was,” she said. So Payne became the primary caretaker, playing the “mommy role” as she worked from home doing software development for pharmaceutical companies.
She felt increasingly anxious, and in late 2012, a therapist helped her to realize that she was meant to live as a woman. Payne said her entire outlook on life changed when she started taking female hormones.
“It wasn’t who I was” — despite having made his wife pregnant at least four times, he wasn’t keen to take responsibility. Then come even more lies — he became “mommy,” already stealing his nameless wife’s identity, as she apparently had to go out and get a job to support the family. But he was actually raking in a lot of money as he worked from home: “doing software development for pharmaceutical companies” tends to pay much better than most work-from-home gigs. In fact, it pays extremely well. Why did nameless wife have to work? Could Kevin have been concealing a big chunk of his income from her? His “outlook on life changed” when he began taking estrogen — because when males take estrogen, it fulfills autogynephilic fantasy and provides a mild general euphoria.
But then we learn:
Devin Payne had gone years without health insurance – having little need and not much money to pay for it.
“Little need” — again, with a wife and four children. “Not much money.” Remember this for a few moments.
Payne told her wife, who was upset. She told Payne: I married a man, not a woman—but she also admitted that she wasn’t entirely surprised. With mixed feelings, Payne’s wife stayed in the marriage, and the family moved from Kansas to California, in part so Payne could be more comfortable living as a transgender woman. They rented a small house in a middle-class neighborhood on the outskirts of Palm Springs and sent their children to the public school.
Late last year, Payne’s wife, who had battled alcoholism for years, died of liver disease.
Emphases added. These two paragraphs tell the story of how this man’s sexual fantasies helped to kill off a good woman, a mother of four, and then spit on her grave. His wife was “upset” (i.e. “unwilling to accept his bullshit”) but then “admitted” (i.e. as though she had been unreasonable but was now conceding) that she wasn’t surprised (i.e. “that somehow she always knew that Kevin was actually a laydee”). “With mixed feelings” (i.e. “it really wasn’t so difficult, she actually kind of loved the idea”) she “stayed in the marriage” (i.e. “she didn’t recklessly bail out on the marriage” — as Kevin was actually doing). Then, “in part” (yeah right) so Kevin/Devin could feel more comfy flaunting his autogynephilic fantasy-self, she moved 2,000 miles away from her family and friends to a small rented house in the shitty suburban desert of Riverside County, California.
We’re talking about the mother of four children. Much more likely, she wanted to stay in Kansas with the kids and try to rebuild their lives, close to loved ones — but no longer had the strength to fight against Kevin’s incessant demand.
Within a year or two, as Kevin glammed it up downtown, uptown and all around town, the
woman without a name suddenly died. Presumably, dying of liver disease for some little while, probably a few years, she’d had had poor health, with nausea, vomiting, esophageal bleeding and other symptoms. However, the family had “little need” for health insurance — did she receive any medical care before she died? Could she have received care sooner than she did? As you’ll see later in this post, she did not have health insurance before she died.
It’s not that often you hear about a young-ish woman, probably in her early 40s, mother of four, dying from the effects of too much booze. I am skeptical that she “battled alcoholism for years” — that’s just another stigmatizing disparagement. (Even if she did drink a lot, this asshole’s antics and her lonely & isolated new life in the suburban California desert may have pushed her to it.) But think about the liver’s role in the human body: It processes toxins. If indeed this woman died of “liver disease,” it was because of Kevin/Devin’s malignant narcissism and the toxic environment he created. I don’t mean that he was spraying insecticide everywhere — I mean the gaslighting, toxic stress and emotional blackmail that he perpetrated against his family for several years, until the woman died. She may have had a pre-existing health condition, and with some conditions chronic stress can lead to liver failure. Undoubtedly she was in sorrow and distress, yet took care of the house and kids in a strange new city while Kevin painted the town red and obsessed over his bra size. In any case, it’s clear that she was in poor health, it’s clear that Kevin didn’t bother getting health insurance for his family; and it’s clear that the woman probably shouldn’t be dead.
While the nameless wife was dying:
In her early 40s, she [Kevin] changed her name, began wearing long skirts and grew out her sandy blond hair. And she started taking female hormones, which caused her breasts to develop and the muscle mass on her 6-foot one-inch frame to shrink.
The next step was gender reassignment surgery. For that, Payne, who is now 44,said she needed health coverage. “It is not a simple, easy, magical surgery,” said Payne, a photographer who lives in Palm Springs. “Trying to do this without insurance is a big risk. Things can go wrong … not having the money to pay for it would be awful.”
Payne learned in the fall that she might qualify for subsidies through the state’s new insurance marketplace, Covered California, because her income fell under the limit of $46,000 a year. She eagerly signed up in March for a Blue Shield plan for about $230 a month, and began making preparations for the surgery that would change her life.
Mind you, the article I’m quoting is from August 2014. Kevin’s wife died in “late 2013.” Now that she’s out of the way, hey, how about getting some health insurance to pay for that fake “vagina”, with no proper function except to put a penis inside! Great idea — these insane surgeries are now covered by “Obamacare.” (You can’t get eyeglasses, birth control, and a bunch of other useful stuff, but you can get one of these things carved out.) So tra-la-la, with wife dead and the children traumatized & motherless the new “mommy,” now a glamorous “photographer,” minces his way immediately to the surgeons. In late May, he went under the knife.
But did he really need this health insurance bonanza? In the following disgusting video, Payne makes this statement about funding “the operation”:
I had enough money to pay cash, out of pocket for it.
By the scheduled date, Blue Shield had authorized the operation but hadn’t determined exactly how much it would pay for an out-of-network provider. Payne got a cashier’s check for nearly all her savings, $27,000, to pay the doctor, hoping her insurance plan would reimburse most of it.
But Payne decides to let American taxpayers and the insurance company pay for it. So he has $27,000 cash laying around — and probably more. He likely concealed these funds from his wife while she lived; secret savings from his lucrative software development years. Whatever happened to “little need and not much money” for health insurance? He never felt a “need” for health insurance until he learned that using it he could save a ton of money on that long-fantasized fake “vagina.” The $230/month policy is just for himself. With tens of thousands of dollars under his mattress, nameless wife died needlessly, likely with insufficient medical care or even without care. Payne says in the video that his children are now on Medi-Cal, the extreme low-budget, bare-bones health care option made available to welfare recipients. He probably gets food stamps for them too. Payne sends the bereft children back to their grandparents. They’re probably still with their grandparents — though on the other hand, being a “single mom” is tremendously validating for some of these men (they are among the most vicious when it comes to child custody court fights in divorce cases), and he may have them in his clutches again. (Oh, I see that he puts pictures of the kids in his blog — the 2,831 pedos of Riverside County will be pleased.)
And then: let’s get the party started.
On a boiling afternoon in early July, about six weeks after the operation, Payne and her friends sat outside on the patio next to a pool. Misters sprayed above them, and Payne’s cat and two dogs wandered beneath their feet.
Yeah I’ll bet that some “Misters” are spraying above.
But he’s mad because the government & health insurance company don’t want to pay for the whole thing. They might have paid, but the insurance company was still sorting out their paperwork & costing. However, Kevin couldn’t wait another minute!!! So he just went ahead with an “out-of-network” surgeon.
Payne said she believes the lab work, pathology, anesthesiology services and follow-up doctor’s visits were all covered. But recently she got a statement saying she was on the hook for $17,000 of the total cost of the surgery.
Payne believes that the government and insurance companies should help cover such operations. The population of transgender patients who want surgery is small, and she said they are less likely to suffer mental health problems once they have it.
Um, actually, how about just dealing with these men’s mental health problems in the first place! Nowadays (and by the tone of this article) we are supposed to think this guy is a normal, healthy, not insane “woman.” He’s a fucking psychotic poster-boy for out of control paraphilic sexual fantasies.
That’s the story of how a typical autogynephile’s selfishness, depravity and irresponsibility played a role in a woman’s death. But there’s more.
Anyway, this is more than enough information about this clown. Autogynephilia destroys families and harms all women, especially those who are close to the autogynephiles. It harms children by gaslighting them at a time when they’re just trying to make sense of the world. And these men are not “safe,” just because they pretend to be women. I guess that’s a topic for another day.
For many years, they have been sexually aroused by the thought of “being women” and impersonating women. Intermittently or occasionally, from a very young age, most of them have secretly put on various articles of women’s clothing, became sexually aroused and then masturbated in response to this dressing-up. Many men collect several pieces of women’s clothing, a “complete outfit” perhaps. Most eventually begin secretly to venture out “en femme,” perhaps to a neighboring town for shopping or a “make-over” at the department store’s cosmetics counter. These expeditions also lead to heavy masturbation, and if any store clerk happens to say “ma’am,” or if no-one throws them out of the women’s restroom, it really puts the icing on the cake. Many of these men enjoy pornography and pornographic writing centered around “forced feminization” fantasies, in which a dominant woman forces a manly man to become a submissive sissy, sometimes even a simpering fellatio expert. The men feel deeply conflicted and guilty about all these antics, and periodically will “purge” all artifacts of transvestism, and vow never to do such things again.
Based on his research with non-homosexual MtF transsexuals and other non-homosexual cross-dressing men, many of whom also develop cross-gender identities of some strength (Docter & Prince, 1997), Docter observed that:
Among our subjects, 79% did not appear in public cross dressed prior to age 20; at that time, most of the subjects had already had several years of experience with cross dressing. The average number of years of practice with cross dressing prior to owning a full feminine outfit was 15. The average number of years of practice with cross dressing prior to adoption of a feminine name was 21. Again, we have factual evidence indicative of the considerable time required for the development of the cross-gender identity.
In short, autogynephilic eroticism, as evidenced by erotic cross-dressing, precedes cross-gender identity by years or decades in non-homosexual MtF transsexuals. These transsexuals do not have female core gender identities nor do they have well developed cross-gender identities that precede and act as the driving force behind their desires to turn their bodies into facsimiles of women’s bodies. Rather, non-homosexual MtF transsexuals gradually develop cross-gender identities after years or decades of erotic cross-dressing, accompanied by the autogynephilic wish to turn their bodies into facsimiles of women’s bodies.
In the past few years, “transgenderism” has become very popular. It is widely celebrated. With all the “support” they find on the web from other hardcore autogynephiles and other transgenderism activists, not to mention the mass media, secretive male transvestites are “coming out” in droves and being put on the fast-track to synthetic “estrogen” prescriptions and possibly gender mutliation surgery. Every aspect of this “transition” is also exciting, and not just sexually — every “ma’am” and every reciprocation of “feminine” gestures by others feels tremendously “validating.” They also DEMAND such validation from everyone else — ESPECIALLY from women.
Question: But how do autogynephiles reconcile this reality: they have enjoyed their lives as men and despite a troubling concern for “femininity” have generally had a coherent and often strong “male” identity. Yet in order to proceed with transsexualization, they are required to claim a lifelong “female gender identity.”
Answer: they brood about it endlessly, and cherry-pick various aspects of their lives as clear evidence of actually being “women.” Their period of “questioning” — “should I really transition?” — has much more to do with rationalizing “why they should transition” than why they should not. Their life-narratives inflate the importance of all potential lady-brain indicators — “I had several female friends in childhood! Cooking is fun! A girl 30 years ago told me I was like a ‘lesbian’ trapped in a man’s body! I once had a pink polo shirt! I enjoy silky fabrics! I love shopping!”
After a while, with the encouragement of online transgender “friends,” psychological therapists and others with a vested interest in promoting the “gender identity” lie, they begin to exaggerate the depth and intensity of the emotional pain that they have felt through life at “being the wrong gender” — but that’s not really what the pain was about. Everyone has problems, and everyone feels a little or a lot depressed at some points in life. In this process of cultivating their “female gender identities,” the autogynephiles retroactively attribute all painful emotions and hard times they’ve ever experienced to the cruel joke of having been “assigned male at birth.”
My quandry comes from the fact that unlike a subset of the TG population, I did not know from birth that I felt female—at least not consciously. I always envied girls in dresses and skirts. In high school, I secretly slept in my mom’s old slips and altered an old wedding dress by hand to fit me for a Halloween costume. I sympathized with women and their unique issues. Most of my friends were girls. It was a natural fit. One high school friend once called me a lesbian trapped in a man’s body. At the time, I thought nothing of it. Now, it rings in my head. What did she see that I didn’t?
Over the years, I feel I have suppressed my femininity. I identified as male, but I secretly felt jealous of women. I am envious of the ability to have multiple orgasms in a single session. I want to carry and bear a child despite the 10 months of discomfort and excruciating labor pains at the end. I love the feel of silk and lace against my skin. I want to wear dresses and skirts.
Lawrence AA. Transgenderism in non-homosexual males as a paraphilic phenomenon: Implications for case conceptualization and treatment. Sexual and Relationship Therapy 2009: 24 (2), pp. 188-206.
The concept of autogynephilia provides a theory of motivation for MTF sex reassignment, in that it proposes that nonhomosexual MTF transsexuals seek sex reassignment primarily because they are sexually aroused by (and love) the idea of having women’s bodies and living as women. They want to actualize their autogynephilic fantasies by acquiring women’s bodies (or, more accurately, facsimiles of women’s bodies) through hormone therapy and genital surgery (Blanchard, 1993a, 1993b, 1993c) and by living as women. This theory can be seen as the logical extension of the widely accepted idea that transvestic fetishists cross-dress primarily because they are sexually aroused by (and love) the idea of wearing women’s clothing and impersonating women and want to actualize their transvestic fantasies through crossdressing. The concept of autogynephilia thus provides an answer to the question posed earlier: if the gender dysphoria that nonhomosexual MTF transsexuals experience cannot be attributed to the presence of female- typical behaviors, attitudes or interests, what can it be attributed to? The answer is: the desire of these transsexuals to actualize their autogynephilic feelings and ‘‘become what they love’’ and lust for.
Men with the obsessive & masturbatory paraphilic fantasy to “become women” have autogynephilia. These female impersonators, mostly white guys, come from all walks of life and apart from their sexual fetish and extreme narcissism may not seem to have much in common. However, it has been shown that men with one paraphilia tend also to have other paraphilias — in other words, autogynephiliacs often have other strange sexual kinks. They are usually men who are sexually interested in women, often are married and have young kids, and from a superficial external view seemed mostly like “normal” heterosexual men. Then one day they announce their bizarre obsession to the world, and it’s all downhill from there. Here are some faces of everyday autogynephiles.
Then there’s these guys, who think their fantasy of “facial feminization surgery” will really “confirm” their status as “women.” They are so narcissistic that they even agree to be pictured on the web sites of the millionaire surgeons who have attempted to apply stereotypic “feminine” bone-breaking and other rearrangements to the lantern jaws and Neanderthal brows of these bruisers. Another reason sex predators shouldn’t be able to change their names — some of these fellows look a bit different. I would suggest that the predators be banned from these surgical procedures too.
Just some everyday autogynephiles!
But wait, there’s one more! Devoted Wikipedia editor “Sceptre,” also known as William “Sarah” Noble, whose goal it is to erase all traces of “autogynephilia” from Wikipedia! Because obviously it’s too embarrassing for him it doesn’t exist, right? William goes by “@sarahlicity” on Twitter.
Dr. J. Michael Bailey has very kindly offered to us, free of charge, the full text of his book, The Man Who Would be Queen. You may already be aware of the tremendous towering tizzy of transgender narcissistic rage that ensued upon the book’s publication in 2003. An army of anxious angry autogynephiles set out to UTTERLY DESTROY Dr. Bailey, not only in his professional life as chair of the psychology department at Northwestern University but even harassing his children and family with sexually-violent imagery and words. This book conveyed the notion of autogynephilia to the mainstream mass consciousness for the first time. Needless to say, an obsessed goon-squad of well-to-do middle-aged males (i.e. the cultish clique of paraphilic femininity fantasists) could not tolerate this book’s existence, and tried to kill it with fire.
It’s interesting to see how harshly the male transgenderites try to discredit autogynephilia, make it seem like a “bigoted” dirty joke. At the same time, you need only to read their own writings to see that autogynephilia is totally their driving force. Indeed, the vast majority of male transgenderites are hardcore autogynephiliacs. They cultivate their “female gender identity” and only develop it after endless sexualized cross-dressing. In other words, they are classic transvestite fetishists who in many cases have taken things too far.
A transgenderite sympathizer in San Francisco called Charles Moser decided to discredit autogynephilia by trying to show that real women have autogynephilia too. He also wanted to suggest that even if the cocks-in-frocks do have autogynephilia, it only means OMG they really are women!!1!!
Of course, women don’t have autogynephilia. This hasn’t stopped the male trans bros from squealing with delighted “feminine” giggles over Moser’s “findings” that “93% of women have autogynephilia.” They treat this study as though it were a proven scientific reality. However, it is about the weakest scientific evidence I’ve seen in a damn long time. It’s joke science, worthless!
Moser worked at a major hospital in San Francisco. He thought it would be a good idea to approach various women at the hospital to see what turned them on sexually.
“A convenience sample of female professional employees of an urban hospital was obtained. On two successive days in June, 2005, the questionnaire was distributed by the author, female staff members were approached in either the nurse’s station or staff lounge on several different floors during either day or evening shifts (weekdays).”
“Convenience sampling” is a methodology considered to be at extremely high risk of bias, and it would be absurd to generalize the responses of 29 female hospital employees in San Francisco to the general population. Moser approached and creepily handed out 51 intrusive questionnaires to women passing by, and got 29 back. The high 43% non-response rate makes it unlikely the responses even reflected the hospital’s female population. (Moser also admits: “Many individuals entered and left during the discussion of the project, so the exact number of individuals who heard the announcement of the study cannot be determined.”)
A crap and meaningless study! In addition to the high sampling bias, Moser’s questionnaire was designed really poorly:
Anne Lawrence wrote a critique in response to Moser’s study. Lawrence’s key points were as follows:
“Moser claimed to have documented at least occasional autogynephilic sexual arousal in 27 (93%) of 29 female hospital employees he surveyed, and frequent autogynephilic arousal in 8 (28%). However, many of the items in Moser’s scale bear little resemblance to the items Blanchard used to assess autogynephilia, and even those items that do bear some resemblance to Blanchard’s do not adequately assess the essential element of autogynephilia—sexual arousal simply to the thought of being a female — because they do not emphasize that element. Consequently, although Moser may have found something superficially resembling autogynephilia in women, there is little reason to think that he documented genuine autogynephilic arousal in women.”
If you see Lawrence’s comparison of the two scales (article below), you can get a sense of how crooked and/or stupid Moser must be. The dress-up boys sure love him, though.
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 “erotictarget 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.
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!
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Excerpt from the book, “The Man Who Would be Queen” (2003) by Dr. J. Michael Bailey (Professor of Psychology, Northwestern University, Chicago).
“Most gender patients lie,” says Maxine Petersen, the ace gender clinician at the Clarke Psychiatric Institute. . . .
The most common way that autogynephiles mislead others is by denying the erotic component of their gender bending. For example, when “Stephanie” Braverman lectures to my human sexuality class, she does not even mention her history of masturbating while cross-dressed. When I spoke at a meeting of Chicago cross-dressers, the men became clearly uncomfortable when I brought up the erotic component of their activity, preferring instead to attribute it to their inner femininity. When I pointed this out, one cross-dresser said “I wear feminine clothing because I feel feminine, and I can’t help getting aroused because the clothes are sexy. Any man would.”
I don’t think so. But you can judge. Here is one of the passages that aroused the cross-dressers in Blanchard’s study. See if you think it is sexy.
“You have plenty of time to dress this evening. You slip your panties over your ankles and pull them up too your waist. Sitting on the edge of your bed, you put on a pair of sheer nylon stockings. You fasten the stockings with the snaps of your lacy garter belt. You slip your arms through the straps of your brassiere and reach behind you to fasten it. You put on your eye shadow, mascara, and lipstick. Lying on your bed, you look up at your reflection in the large mirror on the ceiling.”
Why do some autogynephiles deny the sexual component of their condition? One reason, again, is the real or imagined treatment implications. Some psychiatrists refuse to recommend for sex reassignment any man who has had even one incident of erotic cross-dressing. But this fear surely cannot explain the resistance of “Stephanie” Braverman and the cross-dressers at the meeting-they are not trying to become women.
Perhaps the major reason is shame and assumed social reaction. The physician Harry Benjamin, who popularized the word “transsexual,” noticed early on that cross-dressers, and especially cross-dressers in organizations trying to influence the public, tend to de-emphasize the erotic element. He suggested that they do this in order to be more accepted by others. Today, public statements by those who call themselves “transgendered” (who are almost all autogynephiles rather than homosexual transsexuals) rarely acknowledge any erotic component of “transgenderism.”
There is also a more personal motivation to deny the erotic component of autogynephilia. Anne Lawrence put it this way:
I imagine most men would be humiliated to admit that dressing in women’s clothing is a sexual kick, and even more humiliated to admit that doing so, or fantasizing doing so, is obligatory for climax some or all of the time. Just dressing in women’s clothing is shameful enough; but having one’s sexual potency contingent upon such an unmanly, “ridiculous” crutch would be almost impossible to admit. Moreover, for anyone who thinks about it, the whole experience of reliance on paraphilic behavior or fantasy for arousal is rather tragic and lonely: it cuts one off from intimate contact during partnered sex, because one is (at least mentally) often making love to oneself rather than to one’s partner. Better not to admit this to anyone–especially to one’s wife. I think that if the wives of heterosexual cross-dressers knew what their husbands were really thinking about at the moment of climax, they would be appalled. (Of course, this might apply to the wives of other straight men as well; but it’s one thing to learn he’s fantasizing about making love to Claudia Schiffer, and another to learn he’s fantasizing about being forced to wear a French maid’s outfit.) On the other hand, to attribute one’s cross-dressing to a desire to express one’s “feminine side” is much more acceptable. Though the behavior may still appear ridiculous, the putative rationale allows the cross-dresser to portray himself as multi-faceted, courageous, and even empathic with his spouse. That’s a far easier script for most men to follow.
In my experience, most lay people are happy to accept the “I’m a woman in a man’s body” narrative, and don’t really want to know about autogynephilia-even though the preferred narrative is misleading and it is impossible to understand nonhomosexual transsexualism without autogynephilia. When I have tried to educate journalists who have called me as an expert on transsexualism, they have reacted uncomfortably. One said: “We just can’t put that into a family newspaper.” Perhaps not, but then, they can’t print the truth.
There is one more reason why many autogynephiles provide misleading information about themselves that is different than outright lying. It has to do with obsession. Something about autogynephilia creates a need not only to enact a feminine self, but also to actually believe in her. It seems important to them to emphasize the permanence of the feminine self as well as her primacy: “I was always feminine, I just managed to hide it. I became a Green Beret as a defensive response to my femininity.” In such accounts, the feminine self is the real self; the masculine self is the creation. (I have been arguing that the opposite is closer to the truth.) Intersexuality refers to congenital conditions in which biological sex is ambiguous, usually due to hormonal or genetic problems. Cheryl Chase, the intersex activist, told me that transsexuals frequently join intersex groups because they are convinced that they are also intersexual. In most cases, they are not. I assume that these are autogynephilic transsexuals who want to believe that there is a real biological woman inside them as well as a real psychological woman.
The self-presentational deceptiveness of some autogynephiles is a main reason why autogynephilia was not understood until recently. Many clinicians-even some who write books-have taken the information that transsexuals tell them at face value. I recently attended a talk by a well-known psychologist at an academic sex conference in which she presented a case that was clearly autogynephilic (he’d been married and was in his late 40s, among other signs). However, she spoke not one word about her patient’s sexual fantasies, dwelling instead on the usual “woman trapped in man’s body” story. Blanchard’s ideas have not yet received the widespread attention they deserve, in large part because sex researchers are not as scholarly as they should be and so don’t know how to read the current scientific journals.
Excerpt from: Lawrence AA. Autogynephilia: A Paraphilic Model of Gender Identity Disorder. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy 10/2008; 8(1).
Blanchard’s theory of autogynephilia helps to explain several otherwise puzzling observations about MtF transsexualism.
First, it convincingly explains why some men who are attracted to women, who have been fairly successful as men, and who appear unremarkably masculine would wish to undergo sex reassignment. Why would men who have been successful fighter pilots, construction workers, or captains of industry—men who seem not the least bit feminine, and who appear entirely comfortable being men—want to undergo sex reassignment? Attributing this solely to some long-hidden inner femininity might seem implausible. But if these individuals found the idea of being a woman sexually appealing, then their motivation would be easier to understand. The phenomenon of a middle-aged man risking his career, his reputation, and his marriage for the sake of a sexual obsession is well known. By proposing that certain types of MtF transsexualism can have sexual motivations, rather than (or in addition to) gender motivations, Blanchard’s autogynephilia theory helps to explain this phenomenon.
Second, Blanchard’s theory helps to explain the relationship between transsexualism and transvestism. Transvestism is considered to be a paraphilia, or unusual pattern of sexual arousal, in the DSM-IV-TR (APA, 2000) and has always been classified as such in the DSM. However, clinicians have long recognized that some men who previously considered themselves transvestites eventually decide to seek sex re-assignment surgery (SRS) and live full-time as women. If transvestism is purely an erotic phenomenon and transsexualism is purely a gender identity phenomenon, then there is no obvious explanation for this progression. But if both transvestism and some forms of MtF transsexualism are manifestations of autogynephilia—an erotic condition that also influences gender identity—then this progression is explained convincingly.
Third, Blanchard’s autogynephilia theory helps explain why transvestism and transsexualism are often associated with other unusual erotic interests. Sexual scientists have observed for decades that unusual sexual interests— sadomasochism, bondage, autoerotic asphyxia, interest in leather and rubber, exhibitionism, voyeurism, infantilism, pedophilia—frequently do not occur in isolation, but instead tend to co-occur. Males who have one unusual sexual interest are far more likely to have one or more other unusual sexual interests than would be expected simply by chance (Abel & Osborn, 1992; Wilson & Gosselin, 1980). And other unusual erotic interests are very common among transvestites and some MtF transsexuals. Wilson and Gosselin (1980) found that 63% of their sample of transvestites and transsexuals also described fetishistic or sadomasochistic interests. Blanchard and Hucker (1991) reported that transvestism accompanied many cases of autoerotic asphyxia. Abel and Osborn (1992) documented the co-occurrence of transvestism and transsexualism with other paraphilias. If transsexualism and transvestism are purely gender-identity-based phenomena, then these associations makes no sense. But if transsexualism and transvestism sometimes represent unusual sexual interests—as Blanchard’s autogynephilia theory proposes—then their association with other uncommon sexual interests does make sense.
Finally, the concept of autogynephilia helps to explain the unusual sexual fantasies that some transvestites and MtF transsexuals have concerning men, and the late development of sexual interest in male partners by some MtF transsexuals. Many heterosexual transvestites and formerly heterosexual MtF transsexuals have sexual fantasies about men, but usually these are not quite like the fantasies of genuine androphiles (Blanchard, 1989b). In the transsexual and transvestite fantasies, there is little emphasis on the specific characteristics of the imagined male partner. Often the imagined partner is faceless or quite abstract, and seems to be present primarily to validate the femininity of the person having the fantasy, rather than as a desirable partner in his own right (Blanchard, 1991). It is also fairly common for heterosexual transvestites to engage in sex with men when cross-dressed. Why don’t they do this at other times? Apparently, because the attraction is not to the male partner per se, but to the way in which acting like a woman in relationship to a man is sexually gratifying. Autogynephilia also explains why some transsexuals who were never interested in having sex with men before transition develop this interest after undergoing SRS. It is not because they have miraculously changed their underlying sexual orientation and now find men’s bodies arousing. Rather, it is because they can finally actualize their autogynephilic fantasy of having sex with a male.
It describes neural desensitization to dopamine, or in other words the way that in addiction, the brain develops a tolerance for things that used to make it feel good — thus requiring ever-higher levels of stimulation
It describes the impact of the ever-more-extreme porn web sites on the brains of porn addicts.
Instead of (or in addition to) the porn references, think about this passage in the context of autogynephilic cross-dressing:
Until recently, scientists believed our brains were fixed, their circuits formed and finalised in childhood, or “hardwired”. Now we know the brain is “neuroplastic”, and not only can it change, but that it works by changing its structure in response to repeated mental experience.
One key driver of plastic change is the reward centre, which normally fires as we accomplish a goal. A brain chemical, dopamine, is released, giving us the thrill that goes with accomplishment. It also consolidates the connections between neurons in the brain that helped us accomplish that goal. As well, dopamine is secreted at moments of sexual excitement and novelty. Porn scenes, filled with novel sexual “partners”, fire the reward centre. The images get reinforced, altering the user’s sexual tastes.
Many abused substances directly trigger dopamine secretion – without us having to work to accomplish a goal. This can damage the dopamine reward system. In porn, we get “sex” without the work of courtship. Now, scans show that porn can alter the reward centre too.
Once the reward centre is altered, a person will compulsively seek out the activity or place that triggered the dopamine discharge. (Like addicts who get excited passing the alley where they first tried cocaine, the patients got excited thinking about their computers.) They crave despite negative consequences. (This is why those patients could crave porn without liking it.) Worse, over time, a damaged dopamine system makes one more “tolerant” to the activity and needing more stimulation, to get the rush and quiet the craving. “Tolerance” drives a search for ramped-up stimulation, and this can drive the change in sexual tastes towards the extreme.
I reckon that autogynephilic cross-dressing, and the “transitioning” that seems increasingly to be the norm with male transgenderists over the past 20 years, is a reflection of both dopamine desensitization, and the thousands of web sites promoting transsexualism. There seems to be a synergy between the two. Society’s manufactured “acceptance” and the media’s promotion of the “gender identity” agenda have made this latest brand of misogyny even more widespread.
Autogynephilia has an obsessive component to it. It is an addiction. The “natural history” (if I may call it that) of autogynephilia’s course bears strong similarities to that of drug addiction, from “just once” to the eventual ravaged body. At first, it is relaxing and feels good. Soon, simply cross-dressing + masturbation secretly at home is no longer enough, he must now go shopping while cross-dressed. He must now try to get his wife or girlfriend involved with his fantasies. He must leave his family behind to follow his transgender destiny. He must keep experimenting and pushing limits and finally decide he is a transsexual and needs unnecessary and dangerous major surgery, and absolutely must mustmust have his balls chopped off, maybe even obtain a fake vagina and fake breasts and perhaps even “facial feminization surgery” through massive medical manipulations. He must now viciously and violently attack any woman who suggests that he is not actually a woman, in addition to any other vicious and violent attacks he may be making on women. Over time, the simple pleasures no longer suffice. Everything must be taken past limits that previously seemed extreme.
Until we had the internet, I think most autogynephiles never got very far in that progression. The fact is that nowadays, most male transvestites will eventually “transition” to a fully Frankensteinian man-made fake female, pumped up with estrogen like a Thanksgiving turkey and going through horrifically intense surgical procedures despite starting out with a healthy body.
Cross-dressing and “sex-change operations” were around, of course, long before the world wide web became popular in the mid-1990s. However, with the rise of the web, and as autogynephiles began making numerous web sites about their faux-female follies, the incidence of men making the leap to actually “transitioning” and taking hormones and having various surgeries (or just announcing they are now “women” without these) has increased dramatically. Transgenderism has ejaculated itself full-force into mainstream misogyny, and it is probably difficult anymore to find a supposedly-normal-heterosexual male who doesn’t at least have a little stash of lingerie and some red high-heels.
In the late ’90s, when the Web was somewhat new:
There were tons of “personal experience” web sites on Geocities, Tripod and other free web site services, each packed with pink fairy sparkles, seizure-inducing flashing hearts, daisies, roses, unicorns, cotton candy and other demonstrable proofs of being a woman trapped in a man’s body. These feature exceptionally narcissistic transgender ruminations, and grotesquely embarrassing photography.
All these years later, there are vastly more transgender web sites, message boards of every kind. Transgenderism is actually being promoted from the White House down to kindergarten. Men who in the old days might never have gone beyond wearing women’s panties under their jeans while chain-sawing an ancient redwood tree or shooting a beautiful elk in the mountains are now glued to their screens choosing surgeons for “the operation.” The whole mass media has become an inescapable, hyper-dimensional tranny-porn & self-hatred movie designed to entice everyone into transsexualism, men, women, children, anyone.
Dopamine desensitization in autogynephilia and the proliferation of tranny-oriented web sites in the past 20 years has led to a dramatic increase in the incidence of men “transitioning” into fake women.
This increase has led to the manufactured societal “acceptance” of “gender identity” and other novel forms of misogyny.
The number of gender reassignment surgeries carried yearly on the NHS[the UK’s National Health Service] has tripled since 2000, figures show. In 2000, 54 surgeries were carried out, compared with 143 in 2009, the Daily Telegraph reports. Since 2000, a total of 853 trans women and 12 trans men had state-funded surgery to change sex. However, the true number of transgender people is estimated to be far higher, as many do not wish to undergo painful or complex surgery, or are unable to access it. The average age for trans women to undergo surgery is 42 and only one NHS operation has been carried out on a person under 21 in the last nine years.
SECOND UPDATE, SEPTEMBER 2015: I don’t even want to think about how many surgeries they’re doing nowadays, including on teenagers. Massively more, I am sure.
Why is that so many men with the obsessive, autogynephiliac fantasy that they are “women trapped in men’s bodies” decide to bail out on their marriages, especially when they have young children at home? Why do they think that their kinky fetishizing is more important than their families’ well-being?
They are EXTREME NARCISSISTS. Their “gender identity” is based on erotic fantasies of themselves “as women” and masturbation! Nice “identity”!
This happens plenty often when there aren’t any children in the family. It also happens when the children are grown up. Very often, though, it seems that there are kids still living at home.
Sometimes these men leave their families completely; other times they put their families through the torture of “trying to make it work,” which seldom turns out well because the real woman in the marriage doesn’t want to fulfill the man’s fantasy of becoming a “lesbian,” help him go shopping, etc. and it’s usually not too long anyway before the dude is out looking for a boyfriend who will sweep him off his high-heeled size 13 feet in a whirlwind romantic adventure of epic sex role stereotyping. Until that happens, though, he usually claims that everything is really great and the family has adjusted well.
It’s a horrible experience for his wife, whether or not there are children. The young children of the tranny-man must also really be traumatized by his insane actions and behavior. Here are a few examples of these disgraceful fathers.
My need for transition
Why do I enjoy shopping in the women’s department? Why do I love dresses so much? Why am I so very feminine in my perceptions of myself? Why do I still love to look at myself in the mirror with a dress on and why do I have this overwhelming need to wear dresses and women’s clothing? Why did I suppress it so much and deny this part of myself? Why after all these years am I still dealing with this a seemingly innocent act of trying on one item of my sister’s clothing that has become a main focus in my life. Why do I feel I am a woman? I wish I had the answers. All I know is that I have feelings that are more common to girls. I feel I am a teenage girl looking forward to blossoming and enjoying becoming a young woman. These are strange words to hear from a middle aged male who is a husband and a father and has a life with responsibility and great pressure. I am not looking to escape. In fact I want to keep my family intact and still maintain my responsibility and still provide the love I have in my heart for both my wife and son. I have such tremendous feelings of guilt and I just don’t know what to do but I know if I don’t consider addressing these feelings and staying true to the course of transitioning I most certainly will die. I can not keep denying myself this wonderful gift of femininity. I need help and support and encouragement. I went for way too long hiding this and denying it and now I feel the floodgates have opened and it is my time. It is what I have always wanted in my life. The opportunity to express the true me. If I can’t do this then I will most certainly give up my hope of ever finding happiness and understanding who I am.
My husband’s sex change
He didn’t seem the same. He didn’t act the same. His values seemed to change along with his personality.
“What if you knew that doing this would destroy one or all of the children?” I asked him. Ice cold, the man I had once thought a wonderful father replied, “I would do it anyway.”
Of birthdays and presents
Sunday marked my first Second Birthday. It was the anniversary of my first time out in public as my true self. I celebrated by wearing my one and only pair of Victoria’s Secret panties, jeans and a plain T shirt. Then I got a large piece of my birthday cake from my other birthday. I sat down and watched the documentary ‘American Transgender” which I had recorded. The Itty Bitty Titty fairy also brought me a gift, sore and itchy boobs.
Later in the day we took the dog and the kids to the church carnival.
It’s called Fiesta with Friends. But this year it wasn’t much of a fiesta. We couldn’t pinpoint why but none of us felt any energy and excitement. Our boys had even gotten free tickets for the rides that they didn’t feel like using. Even the weather wouldn’t cooperate. It was overcast and grey. The only bright spot was our Corgi. It seemed like everyone had to come over and pet him.
I decided later that this carnival signified the end of part of all our lives. My daughter graduates high school and my older son moves on to a high school but one closer to our new home. We are pulling our youngest son out of the school because of the bullying and our increasing dissatisfaction with how the school has been run the last few years.
Don’t fight your true will
And, slowly, something strange happened. —I’m back home again, my real home where I belong—with my wife and children. My wife and I are more in love than we’ve ever been I believe. I’m home again and my wife and children accept me just as I am: as a woman. I’d not have believed that possible when I first returned to town.
I’ve been full-time about three months. I’ve been on hormones 9 weeks. The morning I voted in the presidential election, two days ago now, I overheard a hushed conversation: “That person’s name is ?!” Like they could not believe I was born in a male body.
But I had just showered and cleaned up—and I looked good.
In short, autogynephilic eroticism, as evidenced by erotic cross-dressing, precedes cross-gender identity by years or decades in nonhomosexual MtF transsexuals. These transsexuals do not have female core gender identities nor do they have well developed cross-gender identities that precede and act as the driving force behind their desires to turn their bodies into facsimiles of women’s bodies. Rather, nonhomosexual MtF transsexuals gradually develop cross-gender identities after years or decades of erotic cross-dressing, accompanied by the autogynephilic wish to turn their bodies into facsimiles of women’s bodies. In this sense, cross-gender identity in nonhomosexual MtF transsexuals is a secondary phenomenon or epiphenomenon.
One of the most important contributions made by Dreger’s article is her description of the extraordinary lengths to which some of Bailey’s male-to-female (MtF) transsexual opponents went in their attempts to discredit him, his book, and his ideas. By Dreger’s account, their campaign against Bailey continued for at least two years after the publication of The Man Who Would Be Queen (TMWWBQ; Bailey, 2003). Examination of the Internet sites maintained by some of Bailey’s principal transsexual opponents suggests that the campaign against him remains ongoing. The attacks, as described by Dreger, went far beyond writing scathing reviews of TMWWBQ. They included orchestration of charges of professional misconduct against Bailey, filed with Northwestern University and the Illinois Department of Professional Regulation; attempts to turn Bailey’s colleagues against him; attacks directed against Bailey’s children; and efforts to discredit or silence nearly anyone who openly supported him. Dreger’s article suggests that many of Bailey’s opponents intended not only to discredit Bailey’s book, but also to destroy its author. The duration, intensity, and sheer savagery of the campaign waged by many of Bailey’s MtF transsexual opponents is astonishing, especially given that Bailey’s book sold only about 4200 copies and probably would have received little attention, in either its print or Internet versions, were it not for the publicity that his opponents themselves created. One could imagine that Kohut (1972) was describing the campaign conducted by some of Bailey’s MtF transsexual opponents when he wrote the following:
[There is a] need for revenge, for righting a wrong, for undoing a hurt by whatever means, and a deeply anchored, unrelenting compulsion in pursuit of all these aims…. There is utter disregard for reasonable limitations and a boundless wish to redress an injury and to obtain revenge…. The fanaticism of the need for revenge and the unending compulsion of having to square the account after an offense are…not the attributes of an aggressivity which is integrated with the mature purposes of the ego…. Aggressions employed in the pursuit of maturely experienced causes are not limitless…. The narcissistically injured [person], on the other hand, cannot rest until he has blotted out [the]…offender who dared to oppose him, [or] to disagree with him. (pp. 380, 382, 385) These excerpts are taken from Kohut’s description of narcissistic rage, a concept that I believe is central to understanding many of the attacks against Bailey and their implications.
Autogynephilia is defined as a male’s propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female. It is the paraphilia that is theorized to underlie transvestism and some forms of male-to-female (MtF) transsexualism. Autogynephilia encompasses sexual arousal with cross-dressing and cross-gender expression that does not involve women’s clothing per se. The concept of autogynephilia defines a typology of MtF transsexualism and offers a theory of motivation for one type of MtF transsexualism. Autogynephilia resembles a sexual orientation in that it involves elements of idealization and attachment as well as erotic desire. Nearly 3% of men in Western countries may experience autogynephilia; its most severe manifestation, MtF transsexualism, is rare but increasing in prevalence. Some theorists and clinicians reject the transsexual typology and theory of motivation derived from autogynephilia; their objections suggest a need for additional research. The concept of autogynephilia can assist clinicians in understanding some otherwise puzzling manifestations of nonhomosexual MtF transsexualism. Autogynephilia exemplifies an unusual paraphilic category called ‘erotic target identity inversions’, in which men desire to impersonate or turn their bodies into facsimiles of the persons or things to which they are sexually attracted.
Finally, and I think most important, there are more male-to-constructed-female transsexuals because men are socialized to fetishize and objectify. The same socialization that enables men to objectify women in rape, pornography, and “drag” enables them to objectify their own bodies. In the case of the male transsexual, the penis is seen as a “thing” to be gotten rid of. Female body parts, specifically the female genitalia, are “things” to be acquired. Men have always fetishized women’s genitals. Breasts, legs, buttocks are all parts of a cultural fixation that reduces women not even to a whole objectified nude body but rather to fetishized parts of the female torso. The Venus de Milo symbolizes this as well as the fact that it has never been restored to its original integrity. “Cunt, ” “ass, ” “getting one’s rocks off, ” “balling, ” are all sexist slogans of this fetishized worldview where even “chicks” and “broads” are reduced to the barest essentials. Male-to-constructed-female transsexualism is only one more relatively recent variation on this theme where the female genitalia are completely separated from the biological woman and, through surgery, come to be dominated by incorporation into the biological man. Transsexualism is thus the ultimate, and we might even say the logical, conclusion of male possession of women in a patriarchal society. Literally, men here possess women.
Definitions of fetishism are revealing in this context. Webster’s Dictionary defines fetish in several ways: First, as an object believed among a primitive people to have magical power to protect or aid its owner; broadly: a material object regarded with superstitious or extravagant trust or reverence; an object of irrational reverence or obsessive devotion; an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression. Second, as a rite or cult of fetish worshipers. Third, fetish is simply defined as fixation. From these definitions, it is clear that the process of fetishization has two sides: objectification, and what might be referred to as worship in the widest sense. Objectification is largely accomplished by a process of fragmentation. The fetish is the fragmented part taken away from the whole, or better, the fetish is seen to contain the whole. It represents an attempt to grasp the whole. For example, breasts and legs in our society are fetish objects containing the essence of femaleness. Thus the fetish contains and by containing controls.
However, the other side of fetishization is worship or reverence for the fetish object. In primitive religions, fetish objects were worshiped because people were afraid of the power they were seen to contain. Therefore primitive peoples sought to control the power of the fetish by worshiping it and in so doing they confined it to its “rightful place. ” There was a recognition of a power that people felt they lacked and a constant quest in ceremonies and cults to invest themselves with the power of the fetish object. Thus to worship was also to control. In this way, objectification and worship are two sides of the same coin. In this sense transsexualism is fetishization par excellence— a twisted recognition on the part of some men of the creative capacities of the female spirit as symbolized and incarnated in the usurped female biology. This usurpation of female biology, of course, is limited to the artifacts of female biology (silicone breast implants, exogenous estrogen therapy, artificial vaginas, etc. ) that modem medicine has surgically and hormonally created. Thus transsexual fetishization is further limited not even to the real parts of the real whole, but to the artifactual parts of the artifactual whole.
There is no such thing as a “woman trapped in a man’s body.” This is a fantasy that men use to excuse their behavior because they don’t want to admit they’re sexually aroused by the thought of themselves dressed and behaving stereotypically “as women.” Heterosexual males who claim to be “transgender” or “transsexual” are really in the throes of passionate autogynephilia, “a male’s propensity to be attracted to the thought or image of himself as a woman.” This is most commonly expressed in the form of fetishistic cross-dressing, though there are variations and degrees. Men who decide to “transition” (i.e. transsexuals) are those who have been caught up in all the sexy excitement. The fantasy becomes sort of a fixed idea that takes over everyday life. With the encouragement of their doctors and shrinks (which is always part of the fantasy), these men take the fantasy too far.
No matter how badly their wives and children may be hurt by it (and it’s amazing how often there are young children in these families), these guys are unstoppable and will renounce their families and traumatize their young kids, just for the chance to mutilate their bodies and imitate cartoonish images of women and pierce the veil of (i.e. rape) real women’s space and hang out with other dudes with similar sexy interests and wear wigs on top of their damn bald heads every day and constantly have to shave their faces, arms, chests, backs etc in a usually-futile effort to “pass” as a woman. They insist that they really are women, just because they say so and have taken estrogen and/or had various unnecessary surgeries, or even just because they say so. These men are so obsessed that they rant with extreme shrillness and violent posturing about “zomg haet crimez11!1!!” if anyone calmly tells them what’s really going on in their confused autogynephiliac minds. It is profoundly embarrassing for these fellows to really look within and own the fact that they get a boner (or used to get a boner) when they imagined themselves prancing around in prom gowns or being “forcibly feminized” or using the women’s toilet in a shopping mall while dressed “en femme” (tee-hee!) or taking a walk around the suburban neighborhood at 3 am wearing red high-heels.
A COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF male-to-female transsexualism is that all MtF transsexuals are, essentially, women trapped in men’s bodies. The standard narrative of men who become women goes something like this: “I have always felt that I was born in the wrong body. I have always been feminine in my interests and feelings. My desire to change sex is about my gender identity and not my sexuality.” This narrative, which Dreger (2007) has termed “the feminine essence narrative,” represents both what most laypeople believe to be true as well as what transsexuals are likely to say publicly. The narrative has been extended to an etiological theory, which Lawrence (2007b) has called “the brainsex theory of transsexualism. ” The transsexual advocacy website, transsexual.org, puts this theory succinctly: “A transsexual is a person in which the sex-related structures of the brain that define gender identity are exactly opposite the physical sex organs of the body. ”
The standard, feminine essence narrative, and the associated brain-sex theory, are incorrect, in the sense that they do not represent reality, even if they do correspond with many transsexual individuals’ beliefs and identities. The best scientific evidence (discussed below) indicates that there are two distinct subtypes of MtF transsexuals, and that the feminine essence narrative at best approximates the life history of only one subtype. Paradoxically, this explanation of MtF transsexualism persists because it is the explanation preferred by the other subtype, to which it does not apply at all. The popularity of the feminine essence narrative reflects factors other than the strength of scientific support. Its persistence has likely had negative consequences for both science and transsexuals themselves. .
Two Kinds of Male-to-Female Transsexuals
The classification system of MtF transsexuals that we believe to be correct was developed by the psychologist Ray Blanchard in a series of studies conducted at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto and published between 1985 and 1995. (Blanchard’s relevant oeuvre includes more than 20 articles; we provide only a summary of his conclusions.) Blanchard’s studies reported data on hundreds of transsexual males (that is, males who hoped to become or had become women), as well as other individuals who were male with respect to birth sex and did not desire sex reassignment surgery, but who sometimes presented themselves, or thought of themselves, as female. Participants in these studies were representative of gender patients in Canada, and were probably also quite similar to patients seen in the United States and Western Europe. Blanchard’s goal was to make sense out of the diversity of patients that gender clinics saw.
With respect to sexual orientation, Blanchard studied four groups of seemingly diverse male participants: homosexual (entirely attracted to other males), bisexual, heterosexual, and asexual. In three key studies, Blanchard (1985, 1988, 1989a) showed that homosexual transsexuals were different in a number of respects from members of the three other groups, and that members of the latter groups did not differ much among themselves. These differences included age of presentation at the gender clinic, history of childhood femininity, and most importantly, history of erotic arousal in association with cross-dressing and crossgender fantasy. These findings supported the division of MtF transsexualism into two types: homosexual and non-homosexual. Blanchard’s work provided a parsimonious and compelling taxonomy for the apparent sexual diversity among MtF transsexuals, reducing the four types of MtF transsexuals to two fundamentally distinct subtypes.
Autogynephilic Male-to-Female Transsexualism. Arguably, Blanchard’s most important contribution was recognizing and elaborating the phenomenon that united the three non-homosexual transsexual subtypes: autogynephilia. Autogynephilia is “a male’s propensity to be attracted to the thought or image of himself as a woman” (Blanchard 2005). One common manifestation of autogynephilia is fetishistic cross-dressing, which is an extremely common antecedent to seeking sex reassignment among non-homosexual (but not homosexual) transsexuals (Blanchard, Clemmensen, and Steiner 1987). Some autogynephilic individuals, however, do not cross-dress fetishistically. Indeed, a seminal case in Blanchard’s conceptualization was “Philip,” who did not cross-dress but fantasized sexually about being a nude woman by focusing on desired anatomical features (Blanchard 1991). Autogynephilia may be conceived as inner-directed heterosexuality. That is, autogynephilic males are like heterosexual men, except that their primary sexual attraction is to the image or idea of themselves as women.
Blanchard hypothesized that non-homosexual transsexuals are motivated by autogynephilia. That is, non-homosexual transsexuals experience erotic arousal at the idea of becoming a woman, and this arousal motivates them to become women. (We agree with Lawrence’s recent theoretical modification [2007a] hypothesizing that romantic attachment can play an important role in some cases. It is probable, however, that such attachment is usually preceded by substantial erotic arousal to the idea of being a woman. )
Not all autogynephilic males become transsexuals. Autogynephilic interests run a gamut from cross-dressing to engaging in stereotypic female activities (e. g. , knitting alongside other women) to possessing female breasts and genitalia. It is the latter interest that is most strongly associated with autogynephilic transsexualism (Blanchard 1993b). Other than the precise nature of their autogynephilic fantasy, there is no obvious difference between non-homosexual crossdressers who will become transsexuals and those who will not. They are all autogynephiles. Blanchard’s work also clarified the diversity of self-reported sexual orientations among non-homosexual transsexuals (Blanchard 1989a). Autogynephilia (inner-directed heterosexuality) appears to compete with outward-directed heterosexuality. Many autogynephilic transsexuals experience enough outward directed heterosexuality to label themselves as heterosexual pre- transition. Those whose autogynephilia is strong enough that they experience no other-directed sexual feelings identify as asexual. Finally, a common aspect of autogynephilia is the erotic fantasy of being admired, in the female persona, by another person.
Autogynephiles for whom this fantasy is sufficiently strong tend to identify as bisexual. However, this bisexuality is not characterized by equal or even similar kinds of attraction to male and female bodies. Blanchard (1989b) thus suggests that it be characterized as “pseudobisexuality. ” Autogynephilia appears to be a paraphilia. Paraphilias are unusual, intense, and persistent erotic interests. The concept of paraphilia is a controversial one, with some arguing that it is merely a word used to stigmatize sexual behavior that most people find undesirable (Moser 2001). Some paraphilias (e. g. , pedophilia and sadism) are harmful to other people, while others (e. g. , autogynephilia and fetishism) are not. Two non-obvious facts about paraphilias suggest that the label paraphilia may represent more than a mere value judgment. First, paraphilias are found nearly exclusively in males (APA 2000, p. 568). Second, at least some paraphilias tend to occur together. Autogynephilia, for example, appears to be correlated with other paraphilias, especially masochism (Lawrence 2006). Advertisements of dominatrixes frequently offer services to cross-dressers, and autogynephilic males are more likely than other males to become sexually aroused to stimuli depicting masochistic themes (Chivers and Blanchard 1996; Wilson and Gosselin 1980). Of men who die practicing the dangerous masochistic activity of autoerotic asphyxia, approximately 25% are cross-dressed, a much higher percentage than one would expect based on the number of non-homosexual crossdressers in the general population (Blanchard and Hucker 1991).
Homosexual Male-to-Female Transsexualism. Homosexual MtF transsexuals are much easier than autogynephilic transsexuals for most people to comprehend. Homosexual transsexuals are best understood as a subset of homosexual males who were very feminine from early childhood. In some ways, then, they do appear to fit the feminine essence narrative: they had male bodies as children, but behaviorally and psychologically they were different, in some respects, from typical boys and more similar to typical girls. Most males who begin life as extremely feminine boys, even those whose femininity includes the wish to become girls, do not become transsexual. In the contemporary United States, most become homosexual men (Bailey and Zucker 1995; Green 1987; Zuger 1984). Homosexual MtF transsexuals, in contrast, persist in their wish to become female (Bailey 2003; Blanchard 1990). The reasons for this atypical persistence are unclear. However, these individuals often have a difficult time socially, romantically, and sexually, and their transition appears to be largely motivated by a desire to improve their lives in these domains.
As their label implies, homosexual MtF transsexuals are homosexual with respect to their birth sex. That is, they are attracted exclusively to men. Although some writers have objected to the use of the word homosexual to refer to individuals who have sex with men as women (e. g. , Gooren 2006),we retain the terminology because it emphasizes the fact that homosexual MtFs are a subset of, and developmentally related to, other homosexual males. Furthermore, it emphasizes the most efficient and practical way of distinguishing homosexual and autogynephilic transsexuals. Homosexual transsexuals are unambiguously, exclusively and intensely attracted to attractive men; autogynephilic transsexuals have some other pattern of sexual attraction. That is, an MtF transsexual who reports attraction to both men and women, or a history of sexual attraction to women, or considerable sexual experience with women, or attraction to neither men nor women—any clearly non-homosexual pattern—is almost certainly autogynephilic (Blanchard 1989a; Blanchard, Clemmensen, and Steiner 1987).
Evidence for the Feminine Essence Narrative and Brain-Sex Theory
The main theory competing with Blanchard’s theory of MtF classification is the theory that all MtF transsexuals have a (probably innate) female gender identity. By this theory, homosexual and non-homosexual transsexuals have different sexual orientations because sexual orientation and gender identity are distinct, perhaps even uncorrelated, phenomena. Both homosexual and non-homosexual transsexuals share the same psychological condition, female gender identity, which they experience in similar ways. Furthermore, both kinds of transsexuals, as well as natal women, have in common neural circuitry that differs from that of nontranssexual men, and that causes female gender identity.
Transsexual Narratives. The claim that MtF transsexuals are “women trapped in men’s bodies” is commonly made both by and about transsexuals. The evidentiary value of such claims depends on their plausibility and the lack of alternative, more plausible explanations. Non-homosexual MtF transsexuals are not especially feminine in their interests and behaviors compared with most women (Herman-Jeglínska, Grabowska, and Dulko 2002; Lippa 2001) or with homosexual MtF transsexuals (Bailey 2003; Blanchard 1988). Furthermore, they often acknowledge autogynephilia (Lawrence 2005), such as fetishistic cross-dressing (in contrast to most women and homosexual MtF transsexuals [APA 2000; Blanchard, Clemensen, and Steiner 1987]). Thus, the contention that women and all MtF transsexuals have feminine minds that motivate their feminine identification strikes us as implausible.
The Transsexual Brain Studies. In 1995, Zhou et al. described a sex difference in the size of a brain region, the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc), a collection of cells in the hypothalamus. This article included data from the brains of six MtF transsexuals, whose BSTc volumes were female-typical. A follow-up paper by Kruijver et al. (2000) added another MtF transsexual’s brain and confirmed the earlier finding using different measurement techniques.
These studies have been widely touted by transsexual activists as supporting the brain-sex theory of MtF transsexualism. Furthermore, a remarkable statement by the British group, the Gender Identity Research and Education Society (GIRES 2006), appeared to base its support of transsexual treatment and rights largely on the studies and their alleged implication that “transsexualism is a neuro-developmental condition of the brain. ” Several of the signatories of this statement are distinguished researchers. The transsexual brain studies have also received considerable scientific attention. As of February 1, 2007, the study by Zhou et al. (1995) has been cited by 117 scholarly articles, and that of Kruijver et al. (2000) has been cited by 43 scholarly articles. In contrast, Blanchard’s three most highly cited autogynephilia-related studies (Blanchard 1985, 1989b; Blanchard, Clemmensen, and Steiner 1987) have each earned 38 such citations.
In our view, the influence of the transsexual brain studies is disproportionate compared with their scientific value to understanding the etiology of MtF transsexualism. Their relevance as support for the feminine essence narrative, as opposed to Blanchard’s theory, is extremely weak—indeed, it is arguably absent. There are several important limitations that prevent the brain studies from being relevant in this regard (Lawrence 2007b). The most critical problem is that neither study includes the necessary hormonal controls to exclude the possibility that the feminization of the BSTc in MtFs was due to hormone treatment, especially estrogen therapy, received for transsexualism. Recent research shows that the volume of the hypothalamus is highly dependent on such hormonal treatment, with smaller volumes associated with estrogenic treatment (Hulshoff Pol et al. 2006). We concur with Lawrence (2007b) that this is the most likely explanation of the Zhou et al. (1995) and Kruijver et al. (2000) findings. Certainly those findings should be regarded cautiously until a study has ruled out the concern regarding hormonal treatment.
Evidence from Sex-Reassigned Children. In principle, the feminine essence narrative and brain sex theory could be instantiated by selecting a normal girl, medically masculinizing her body, and rearing her as a boy from an early age. If anyone could be a female trapped in a male body, or have a female brain in a male body, it would be a female such as this. What we know about such cases suggests that they are similar to homosexual, and different from non-homosexual, MtF transsexuals. There have been a few rare cases of females born with virilized genitalia due to prenatal maternal use of a progestin, in which the attempt was made to rear them as boys. The second author of this article is one such case, and she has known two others personally. All three cases were quite similar in presentation to homosexual MtF transsexuals: noticeably feminine presentation and interests, early expression of dissatisfaction with the male role, and sexual interest in males. None of these cases had signs of autogynephilia, such as fetishistic cross-dressing. Finally, their decisions to transition were made on the basis of optimizing sexual and social functioning, rather than because of a deep conviction that they were women trapped in men’s bodies.
Blanchard’s Theory Versus the Feminine Essence Narrative
We believe that Blanchard’s theory of MtF transsexualism is far better supported, and far more likely to be true, than the feminine essence narrative and the associated brain-sex theory. It is based on far more data, with respect to the number of both studies and subjects; no published scientific data in the peer-reviewed literature contradict it; and other investigators in other countries have obtained similar findings (Smith et al. 2005). It also provides a plausible explanation for phenomena that are problematic for the feminine essence narrative (e. g. , fetishistic cross-dressing and lack of early femininity among non-homosexual transsexuals). Why, then, has Blanchard’s theory remained underappreciated, compared with the standard, feminine essence narrative? In the remainder of this section, we try to explain this. First, however, we wish to emphasize some important respects in which the two approaches to MtF transsexualism do not differ. Perhaps most importantly, both proponents of the feminine essence narrative and of Blanchard’s theory support the treatment of transsexuals by sex reassignment surgery. Indeed, Blanchard (2000) has been a consistent advocate of such treatment for both homosexual and autogynephilic transsexuals, as has one of the authors of this article (Bailey 2003).
In addition, proponents of both theories see the histories people tell of their lives as an important source of understanding. In a recent paper on autogynephilia, Blanchard (2005) quotes extensively from self-reports of people with autogynephilia, primarily from collections compiled by Lawrence (Lawrence 1999a, 1999b). We ourselves have learned much about diversity among MtF transsexuals from our own interactions with members of each type. We believe, however, that in this domain, as in others, people’s own narratives do not always correspond to the true reasons for their choices and behaviors. Finally, proponents of both theories recognize that MtF transsexuals are a diverse population who differ among themselves in many ways due to life circumstances and personal characteristics. Nonetheless,we maintain that those who promote the feminine essence narrative fail to acknowledge one important source of that diversity, the distinction between homosexual and autogynephilic MtF transsexuals.
Denial of Autogynephilia. Few non-homosexual transsexuals publicly identify as autogynephilic, and most neither admit a history of sexual arousal to the idea of being a woman, nor accept that such arousal was a motivating factor for their transsexualism. Indeed, although most public transsexual activists appear by their histories and presentations to be non-homosexual MtF transsexuals, they have generally been hostile toward the idea that non-homosexual transsexualism is associated with, and motivated by, autogynephilia. Prominent MtF transsexuals and transgenders who have expressed outrage at the theory include Becky Allison (1998), Christine Burns (2004), Lynn Conway (2006), Andrea James (2006), Deirdre McCloskey (2003), Nancy Nangeroni (Grubb 2004), and Joan Roughgarden (2003). The most visible exception has been Anne Lawrence, a physician, researcher, and psychotherapist, who both identifies as autogynephilic and has done most of the recently published research on autogynephilia. Willow Arune (2004) is another exception.
There are a number of reasons why autogynephilic individuals may prefer the feminine essence narrative as an account of their condition, even if autogynephilia is in fact the driving force. These include the concern (pre-transition) that clinicians will deem them unacceptable for sex reassignment if their transsexualism is erotically motivated, or that people will consider them sexually deviant (Bailey 2003; Lawrence 2004). Because autogynephilia produces a strong desire to imagine oneself as a woman, the feminine essence narrative is intrinsically appealing to autogynephilic individuals, even if it is implausible. In contrast, an explanation based on autogynephilia may be experienced as a narcissistic injury.
Transsexuals who have successfully accomplished the MtF transition sometimes see themselves as mentors to younger people attempting or considering this path. They may feel that public acceptance of the feminine essence narrative will facilitate the transition for these younger individuals. For example, parents may be more accepting of a child whom they think of as a female unfortunately born with a male’s body than of one whom they think of as a male erotically aroused by the idea of being female. Finally, as Lawrence (2007a) notes, postoperative transsexuals whose desire and attachment to being women persists as their sex drive diminishes with age may come to doubt that this desire has anything to do with eroticism. She also explains how this pattern is explicable via autogynephilia.
Attempts to Intimidate Proponents of Blanchard’s Theory. Beyond denying the role of autogynephilia in MtF transsexualism, some transsexual activists have mounted attacks on those who publicly disagree with them. In 2003, the first author published a book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, about male femininity, including MtF transsexualism. The section on transsexualism included summaries of Blanchard’s theory illustrated by transsexual women of both types whom he had met, and who agreed to let their stories be included. Upon publication, there was a firestorm of controversy among some MtF transsexuals.
Most notably, the transsexual activists Lynn Conway (2006) and Andrea James (2006) led an internet “investigation” into the publication of the book. Conway (2004) likened the book to “Nazi propaganda” and said that it was “transsexual women’s worst nightmare. ” As a result of Conway’s and James’s efforts, a number of very public academic, personal, and professional accusations were made against the first author. None of these accusations was true (Bailey 2005). (For an historical investigation into the controversy surrounding The Man Who Would Be Queen, including a description of the substance and the merits of the accusations, see Dreger 2007. ) The attacks on The Man Who Would Be Queen were precisely an attempt to punish the author for writing approvingly about Blanchard’s ideas, and to intimidate others from doing so.
The second author was also attacked by some of the same transsexuals after she helped create the Website transkids. us. This website was created by a group of homosexual transsexuals, or “transkids,” their nonclinical name for themselves, to educate the clinical and research communities in the wake of the controversy regarding The Man Who Would Be Queen. The writings on the site both endorsed Blanchard’s distinction between homosexual and autogynephilic MtF transsexuals and criticized the standard feminine essence narrative as being both false and harmful to homosexual MtF transsexuals. Subsequently, Andrea James (2007) conducted highly personal attacks on individual transkids (including the second author), urging that these transkids be exposed and asserting that they were “fakes” because they would not reveal their identities publicly.
How Denial of Autogynephilia Can Be Harmful
We believe that advocacy for the standard feminine essence narrative, and against Blanchard’s theory, is primarily conducted by, or at least on behalf of, non-homosexual transsexuals who incorrectly deny their autogynephilia. We have outlined why some autogynephilic transsexuals might want to deny that they are autogynephilic, and why they might strongly prefer the standard (but false) feminine essence narrative. Those who advocate on behalf of autogynephilic transsexuals in denial include many gender clinicians; their motives may include their unwillingness to disbelieve or displease their patients and their greater comfort with the idea of facilitating sex reassignment for reasons related to gender than to eroticism (Lawrence 1998). Some clinicians may also think that belief in the feminine essence narrative may be beneficial for their patients’ psychological health and social interactions, even if it does not correspond to the true etiology of their desire for sex reassignment. Nevertheless, there are both scientific and human costs to colluding with autogynephilies in denial by propping up the feminine essence narrative as an explanation for all MtF transsexualism.
Impeding Scientific Progress. Obviously, the extreme, highly personal attacks on those who agree with Blanchard’s theory of transsexualism are likely to deter people from researching, agreeing with, or publicizing the theory. That is, indeed, the intended function of the attacks. Most theories can benefit by scientific criticism, but the attacks on The Man Who Would Be Queen and its author by transgender activists were not scientific criticism. We have argued that Blanchard’s “two types” theory has greater explanatory value than the feminine essence narrative and the associated brain-sex theory. Whether or not we are right, deciding between the two views via political pressure cannot be the right way to advance science. The scientific costs of this pressure include embracing a less plausible theory and failure to advance the better theory. For example, it is possible that some transsexuals’ resistance to the current theory is due to its incompleteness, which prevents it from explaining their inner experiences to their satisfaction (Lawrence 2007a). Progress toward a more complete theory is impeded by the kinds of pressure we have described, but it would be facilitated by thoughtful criticism.
Harm to Homosexual Transsexuals. Clinicians who work with transgender patients and who believe in the feminine essence narrative of MtF transsexualism sometimes take a similar approach to both homosexual and non-homosexual MtF transsexuals. For example, the second author knows transkids whose therapists have offered them, and their families, readings by and about non-homosexual transsexuals (e. g. , She’s Not There, by Jennifer Boylan  and Conundrum by Jan Morris ). The narratives in these readings did not even approximate the transkids’ lives, and the therapists’ assumptions that they did had a highly negative effect on the transkids’ attitudes toward therapy. Inevitably, they dropped out early.
Homosexual and non-homosexual MtF transsexuals have different life issues and goals, and the persistence of the belief that they are similar prevents development of clinical interventions likely to benefit the homosexual subtype. Velasquez (2004) has argued that there is a lack of meaningful therapy for young homosexual transsexuals like herself, and that this is because transkids are not recognized as a subtype distinct from non-homosexual transsexuals. The denial of autogynephilia helps make this possible.
Harm to Autogynephilic Male-to-Female Transsexuals. There are also substantial human costs to autogynephilic transsexuals due to insistence on the false, feminine essence narrative. We consider two groups whom we believe are harmed by embracing the false narrative at the expense of Blanchard’s categorical theory: autogynephiles not in denial, and autogynephiles in denial.
Although few non-homosexual MtF transsexuals publicly identify as autogynephilic, many more do so privately. Of the e-mail correspondence the first author received regarding The Man Who Would Be Queen, about a third was from individuals who understood themselves to be autogynephilic. Some of these individuals said that reading about Blanchard’s theory in the book had been revelatory and that they understood themselves for the first time, and all of them were happy that autogynephilia was being discussed openly. Even before the controversy concerning the book, transsexuals sympathetic to Blanchard’s ideas have found themselves unwelcome in transsexual forums (e. g. , online forums discussing transgender issues). Typically, any endorsement of Blanchard’s theory, or admission of significant autogynephilic motivation, is met with hostility. This hostility appears to emanate primarily from individuals who fit the profile of autogynephiles in denial. The extreme stigmatization of the (true) idea of autogynephilia harms autogynephiles not in denial in obvious ways. It makes it much less likely that they can find resources that help them understand themselves, forces them into the closet, invalidates their self-concepts, and heightens feelings of shame.
Although autogynephiles in denial prefer the standard feminine essence narrative, this does not necessarily mean that wide acceptance of that narrative is in their best interests. In general, it seems likely that the best clinical and personal decisions are made on the basis of accurate conceptualizations. For example, we have noticed that some transsexuals we would classify as autogynephilic have chosen to pursue sex reassignment surgery after being diagnosed as “transsexual” rather than “transvestite,” a diagnostic moment they often recount with a sense of relief. Currently, in the psychiatric nomenclature, the official name for transsexualism is gender identity disorder, highlighting the centrality of gender identity, consistent with the feminine essence narrative (American Psychiatric Association 2000). However, the differential diagnosis between transsexualism (gender identity disorder) and transvestism (“transvestic fetishism” in the DSM) is not clearly meaningful. Both non-homosexual transsexuals and transvestites are motivated by autogynephilia; many (perhaps most) non-homosexual transsexuals were transvestites prior to transitioning; and most importantly, the main difference between the two conditions is that transsexuals, but not transvestites, decide to take steps to achieve women’s bodies. As we have noted, the precise nature of one’s autogynephilic fantasies is a key factor in this decision. It seems detrimental to us that what should be an explicit cost-benefit decision, with important consequences to the lives of autogynephilic patients and their families, might be unduly influenced by a differential diagnosis of questionable validity.
It is unfortunate that the public face of MtF transsexualism is so different from reality. The controversy concerning The Man Who Would Be Queen has raised awareness of Blanchard’s ideas within the transgender community, but it has not yet encouraged open-mindedness to those ideas. Those who value scientific truth and the well-being of transsexuals are advised to do better.
Bailey, J. M., and K. J. Zucker. 1995. Childhoood sex-typed behavior and sexual orientation: A conceptual analysis and quantitative review. Dev Psychol 31:43–55.
Blanchard, R. 1985. Typology of male-to-female transsexualism. Arch Sex Behav 14(3): 247–61.
Blanchard, R. 1988. Nonhomosexual gender dysphoria. J Sex Res 24(2):188–93.
Blanchard, R. 1989a. The concept of autogynephilia and the typology of male gender dysphoria. J Nerv Ment Dis 177(10):616–23.
Blanchard, R. 1989b. The classification and labeling of nonhomosexual gender dysphorias. Arch Sex Behav 18(4):315–34.
Blanchard, R. 1990. Gender identity disorders in adult men. In Clinical management of gender identity disorders in children and adults, ed. R. Blanchard and B. W. Steiner, 47–76. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Blanchard, R., L. H. Clemmensen, and B. W. Steiner. 1987. Heterosexual and homosexual gender dysphoria. Arch Sex Behav 16(2):139–52.
Blanchard, R., and S. J. Hucker. 1991. Age, transvestism, bondage and concurrent paraphilias in 117 fatal cases of autoerotic asphyxia. Br J Psychiatry 159:371–77.
Blanchard, R., I. G., Racansky, and B. W. Steiner. 1986. Phallometric detection of fetishistic arousal in heterosexual male cross-dressers. J Sex Res 22(4):452–62.
Boylan, J. F. 2003. She’s not there: A life in two genders. New York: Broadway Books.
Bradley, S. J., Oliver, G. D., Chernick, A. B., and Zucker, K. J. 1998. Experiment of nurture: Ablatio penis at 2 months, sex reassignment at 7 months, and a psychosexual follow-up in young adulthood. Pediatr 102(1): E9.