Many of you may already know that I am immersed in developing a new resource, called ‘All About HSTS’. I have been researching and writing articles for this, which will be based on a website and will have a discussion forum. We experienced a slight hiatus, as the host I was using managed to basically trash all the sites I had on it. We have now migrated elsewhere, but much repair is still to be done.
One of the most important articles on the subject of HSTS was written by Dr J Michael Bailey and the late Kiira Triea. This has been published widely on the internet and in the blogosphere, but I take the liberty of republishing it here, to widen the spread of its influence.
It’s a long article, but deeply researched and packs a huge amount of information. It was written before papers on the seminal MRI brain scans by Rametti et al and Savic and Arver were published in 2011 or, clearly, Guillamon’s 2016 review of these. It mentions the neurology that was current at the time of writing, which was largely based on post-mortem examinations of the brains of six dead transsexuals or transvestites, by Zhou et al. This research, while remaining beloved of autogynephilic transvestite activists (TRAs), was completely superseded by the later work and was, in any case, too small in scale to be generalised from.
There are many myths about relationships with trans women but they are, for a man, little different from those with cis women. Obviously, in the case of an intact trans woman there is her penis to deal with, but this amounts to something around 1% of her; the other 99% is more important.
There are subtle nuances of difference but no more than one might encounter if in a relationship with someone from a different cultural background.
I think the most damaging of the myths, regarding transwomen who retain their genitalia, is that they will want to use it in the way that a man would. Outside of sex work, this is rare; most just won’t. (I do know some who do, for pleasure and in private but they are unusual, likely well under 10%.)
Although this is often deliberately obscured, there is actually a significant amount of scientific literature on the subject of transsexualism or transgender, particularly Male-to-Feminine (Male sex, Feminine gender.) I have linked to the most important papers below and have commented on some.
Essentially, the so-called ‘Feminine Essence’ hypothesis, which is often touted by propagandists for one type of MtF, for example Julia Serano, who is actually autogynephilic, has absolutely no basis in science at all. It is an artefact of Postmodernism and Serano, in espousing the hypothesis and deliberately ignoring the actual science, betrays an underlying hostility to science that is typical of Postmodernists.
We know what causes transsexualism. Both types are firmly rooted in sex drive and sexuality.
Social division into ‘men’ and ‘not men’ groups, together with a domestic matriarchy, explains why transsexual expressions in SE Asia differ from the West.
Male to Female transsexuals are normally scientifically categorised as homosexual or nonhomosexual with regard to their birth sex. I use the term HSTS for the former. Blanchard explained the latter in terms of autogynephilia, love of oneself as a woman. These we term autogynephiles or AGPs. There is a discrepancy, between the West and Asia, however. Whereas in the West, most AGPs are older and about 60% seek relationships with women, most AGPs in Asia transition much younger and are almost exclusively attracted to men. Why is this happening?
Much has made about the differences between autogynephilic transvestites (AGP) and homosexual transsexuals (HSTS). However, most of this work remains largely clinical and as such, it fails to connect to the sympathies of the public. An exception to this of course being J. Michael Bailey’s The Man who would be Queen, an almost pop-science interpretation of the data on transsexualism. Even this, despite being a nice read, is written from the perspective of a researcher. What I am getting at, if not already obvious, is that not much is written from the perspective of HSTS women.
I am an HSTS woman, and was invited by Rod to write a piece or two based on my experiences. I don’t usually get to share these with other people, and I thought this a good opportunity. I won’t get into much about my childhood — after you’ve heard a couple of HSTS’ childhood remembrances, you’ve pretty much heard them all — but I will give some basics.
All male-to-feminine (MtF) trans are EITHER homosexual (exclusively attracted to men from childhood) or non-homosexual (not exclusively attracted to men from childhood.) The latter are commonly known as autogynephilic. This distinction is obvious and has been observed since the 19th century. It is recognised as fundamental by all serious scientists working in the field.
Homosexual Transsexuals (HSTS) exhibit a cluster of trait characteristics in addition to their sexual desire for men. They tend to be small, delicately built, light for their height, naturally feminine and neotenous. They have intense difficulty learning to be masculine, if they ever do. Non-homosexual trans exhibit no such clustering; in fact they conform to the averages for men of their ethnicity and are attracted to women.
The explanation for HSTS is easy and has never been disputed: they desire men and are feminine, so to attract men, whom they know to be attracted to femininity, they make themselves more feminine. Again none of this is true of non-homosexuals; so why on earth might it be that a man, who is not attracted to or seeking to attract men, would want to appear to be feminine?
Transsexuals are people born male who are attracted from childhood to men, who then change their physical appearance to more closely resemble women. (This phenomenon occurs in females, in reverse, but that is not the subject here.) Transsexuals are naturally extremely feminine in appearance, comportment and other factors, as I have discussed elsewhere and for them, being masculine is difficult. They find life easier as women and the deciding factor in whether or not to transition is often ‘Will I pass convincingly as a woman’. People like this know that straight men are attracted to women, not to other men, and their desire is always to be the submissive sexual partner of such a man. Depending on the level of social intolerance they have to face, if they think they can be more successful as women than as men, they will follow that path.
Guest Author Amanda Grimes discusses trans activism and the risks it may present for young people.
This article is a collection of my own thoughts and opinions, formed from my experience as a transsexual woman who transitioned over 30 years ago. In that time I have experienced life, as a woman, with few, if any, knowing about my past. I am married to a man and have had a long and very successful professional career. I transitioned at a time when the world was not quite the fluffy accepting place it appears to be today and in reality while laws have changed, society, especially the behaviours of the genders within it is not really that different now than it was then.
There currently is what seems to be an inexorable move towards the acceptance of “Transgender” people within Western societies. So much so that there is almost an air of hysteria around the condition, which seems almost cult like in some quarters, and has led to the blind acceptance of anyone who presents the slightest non-conformity with their traditional gender role as being transgender. Continue reading “Trans activism can be harmful”
In the West, both ‘gay’ and ‘transgender’ activists have spent 50 years trying to persuade us all that sexual orientation and so-called ‘gender identity’ are two totally separate things, but this is a lie. The truth is that boys become girly to attract men and girls become manly to attract women. That’s all there is to it.
Ah, you say, what about those ‘transgender’ women who are attracted to women? What about that then?
Cognitive Dissonance is the feeling of discomfort we get when what we perceive clashes with our expectations. We all walk around in a mental model of the world. That should be obvious. But this is an immensely sophisticated system. When you enter a space for the first time your eyes target the most important elements and your mind blocks in the rest. As the moments pass, in response to sensory stimuli, the less critical areas are built up in your mental model in much the same way a as a computer works ‘in the background’
This process relies on assumptions that are made at a cognitive level. The sky is blue. I can measure that by using a type of light meter called a colour temperature meter. So while I cannot know how you perceive blue, I do know that whatever blue looks like in your head, the sky is that colour and we can agree on it.
What if you walked outside and the sky was yellow? I’m not talking about some beautiful sunset, just the regular sky. Ten minutes ago it was blue, now it’s yellow. What do you think of that?