Autogynephilia (AGP) is ‘a man’s propensity to be aroused at the thought or image of himself as a woman’ (Blanchard) and it is the cause of all non-homosexual gender dysphoria in males. But what actually causes it? The key to this lies in first understanding that there is nothing at all unusual about a male with AGP, other than the AGP itself.
AGP has five recognised forms, transvestic, anatomical, physiological, behavioural and interpersonal, and these may occur in combination. Men with it have three sexual orientations: they may be gynephilic (heterosexual, attracted to women), analloerotic (having no sexual relations at all with others or pseudo-bisexual, (pursuing sex with men but only when in role as a woman). In the last case, where the individual lives full-time as a woman, he may only have relations with men, but these are still pseudo-bisexual. In Blanchard’s testing, the proportions were about 60:20:20, but this may have changed and also appears to be culturally dependent. All forms, however, are principally gynephilic. As Blanchard said, ‘You have to be gynephilic to be Autogynephilic.’
They’re the elephant in the room, where relations between transwomen and men are concerned.
Elephant, you say? Well, almost without exception, the assertion is made that the men who like transwomen are straight. Yet when you talk to transwomen in private, a very different picture appears. Half at least of men who seek out transwomen far from being straight or anything close, are closet autogynephiliacs (AGP) (and homophobic to boot). They’re not homosexual, but they are gay.
We would not expect honesty from these men about this; after all, look at the lengths they go just to deny their own sexuality and maintain a false façade of hetero-normativity. The elephant must be hidden. Their words may be taken with a moderately-sized bucket of salt. But what about the girls? Why do transwomen ever lend credibility to this falsehood? Why don’t they just call out these guys as closet queens from the get-go?
Nearly all Sex Non-Conforming (SNC) boys, if they persist, will become adult homosexual transsexuals (HSTS) or pseudo-masculine homosexuals. These are exclusively attracted to masculine men. This has been established beyond doubt and one would have thought that, in our enlightened era, we would be happy to go along with this. But a movement has coalesced that aims to challenge this: the ‘gender critical’ movement.
Characteristics of Sex Non-Conforming boys
The obvious clustering of physical and behavioural characteristics around childhood Sex Non-Conforming boys, makes it clear that these individuals are naturally shifted towards opposite-sex norms. In other words, people who are Sex Non-Conforming in childhood are naturally so.
Which type they will develop into, the True Transsexual or HSTS, or the pseudo-masculine gay, cannot be predicted in childhood. To attempt to condition them towards one or the other — almost exclusively, in the West, towards the pseudo-masculine form, is grossly abusive, yet it is clearly what the gender-crit movement exists to do.
Humans are a peculiar species, because it takes so long for our children to reach sexual maturity. This is because of the size of our brains. The overall development of human children is slowed in order for our brains, which are not only big but highly sophisticated, to grow and for us to learn enough to survive. And why do we need to learn? Because human society is complex and navigating it takes great skill and knowledge.
Even animals with similar omnivorous diets to ours like chimps, our near relatives, mature much more quickly. And the issue is not one of body mass; a bovine will grow to adulthood, five times the mass of a human, in 30 months. We are special in this regard.
As a fully transitioned transsexual I have often heard the phrase “Gender Identity”, in fact it is contained within the name of the disorder with which I was diagnosed, but never have I ever stopped to consider the validity or accuracy of this term until recently. In a recent comments thread on a Youtube video where a somewhat vocal and clearly autogynephilic trans activist was constantly making the argument for her validity as a “real woman” based upon the existence of her self-declared “female identity”. The question “Do you have a gender identity?” was posited to me by another HSTS woman on the thread.
My initial response was to say “No or if I do I am unaware of it”. However, on reflection it seemed to me that question required a deeper examination rather than just a cursory dismissal. Also it raised the question for me that, if I do have a gender identity, what if any part did it play in my decision to transition?
Why is it that matriarchy, which is so successful at the micro-social scale, as we see in traditional communities across the world, is not de facto the governing system at a global level? If the reason were simply that ‘men use violence to impose control’ as feminists would have it, then matriarchy simply would not work on the micro scale, any more than it does on the global one. So what is happening? How is it that gynocracy, which is the matriarchy scaled up to national or global level, is not ruling us now?
When I wrote ‘Why Men Made God’ I investigated thoroughly the way that Western culture had evolved. It was clear to me then and now that the impetus first towards sedentary living, then to settlement and ultimately to civilisation (city-based culture) came from women. Women need to protect and provide for their children and this becomes progressively easier as populations become more settled. That this is a highly successful strategy is clear from the population figures: 10,000 years ago, the point at which it is generally taken that widespread settlement began to occur in human populations, there were between 1 and 10 million humans. (A) Today there are over seven billion of us.
Pornography has always exercised the Puritanical, anti-freedom elements of society. Porn and prostitution are of course, intimately related to each other; pornography is defined as ‘images depicting the activities of prostitutes’, after all. so we should not be surprised to see that, as the current attempts to restrict porn gain ground, this is happening alongside an attempt to ban all forms of sex work.
Abortion has become a central pillar of the Feminist assertion of women’s power over society.
Let us be quite clear before we begin: a human foetus is a human: it is an unborn baby. At what point does it become socially unacceptable to kill a human and how far does an individual woman’s right to self-determination go, in allowing her to kill another human?
One of the world’s most valuable companies, Google, has found itself splattered all over the internet this week because of a leaked internal memo.
The ‘Google Diversity Document’
The document, written by a senior engineer, addresses cultural issues within Google in terms of staffing and proposes that the innate differences which we know to exist between males and females should be taken into account and used in a positive manner to assist the company and benefit everyone.
My rant on the subject.
You’d have thought the Ku Klux Klan had taken over the boardroom. The hysterical, loony SJW Left, alongside more ‘respectable’ feminists and their poodles have soaked everyone in sight with festoons of vituperative drivel. How dare anyone suggest there are innate differences between men and women? Don’t you realise it’s not Politically Correct to say such things?
Gender fluidity has come much under the spotlight in recent years. It has been suggested that there are ‘thousands of genders’, that ‘gender is a spectrum of gradations’ and even that it doesn’t exist. Yet if you walk down the street in any part of the world, you will see two genders. So how can this be?
This baffling conundrum is what you get when people don’t do enough research. In fact, BOTH the binary model and the gender-spectrum model are valid; but their relationship is being wilfully misunderstood.
In large parts of the world, but best documented in South America and Asia, the principal gender division is not between men and women but between men and ‘not-men’. I have referred to this before and it was well described by Prof Don Kulick in his 1998 book ‘Travesti’.
You must be logged in to post a comment.