Challenging Autogynephilia

Bruce Jenner as a yoiung man. Was ‘Caitlyn’ already being created in his masturbation fantasies?

Autogynephilia was defined by Dr Ray Blanchard during research that led to our scientific understanding of transexxualism from the 1980s onwards. His studies focussed only on patients born male who desired Genital Reconstruction Surgery (GRS) to change their male genitalia into cosmetic facsimiles of female ones. Blanchard’s work is the definitive basis of the science on the subject of male-to-female transsexualism. It has never been scientifically challenged and indeed, more recent studies have strongly supported it. Blanchard’s work should be called the Theory of Transsexualism, in the scientific sense.

(Please note: Blanchard did not concern himself with any of the myriad, ephemeral ‘identities’ which some individuals claim to adhere to and which the ridiculous ‘Identity Politics’ {IP} pretends to support. Blanchard is a scientist and he deals in observable facts, so he studied people born male who desired GRS, since this was quantifiable.)

Dr Ray Blanchard, who scientifically explained transsexualism

He defined, in the first place, a group he referred to as ‘Homosexual Transsexual’ (HSTS) which he showed shared a common development pathway with homosexual men. I refer to those in this group as ‘transsexual’; it was what they were first known as and avoids the risk of conflation or offence. This group has been shown, by observation and many studies, to exist all over the planet, in all human populations, at about the same rate of prevalence: around 1:200 of male-born individuals. We have archaeological records that indicate they were present at least 35,000 years ago and mythological, literary and historical evidence that they have been a part of human culture since before writing began. Perhaps the most important factor that links the individuals in this group together (there are many, which we shall discuss elsewhere) is that they are uniquely sexually attracted to men, in exactly the same way as women are.

Perhaps more importantly, however, Blanchard identified another group that was presenting in significant numbers. This group he found puzzling. They were older; they were not in any way feminine or effeminate; they had extreme difficulty ‘passing’ as women; they were overwhelmingly white, with middle-class, professional backgrounds who had been successful in their careers; they were nearly always married and usually had children. Frequently these last were at the point of becoming independent. Most importantly, however, these individuals were never attracted to men, at least prior to transition. Blanchard called these ‘autogynephiles’ or AGP, a term I also use.

Two AGP men getting their dicks hard pretending to be women

This dichotomy had been observed before, since the time of Magnus Hirschfeldt, but nobody had been able to explain what was going on. Transsexuals (Blanchard HSTS) were easy to understand: they are socially, sexually, romantically and behaviourally women. It really is that simple. They may not be women in a biological sense (which they universally accept, in my experience, unlike AGPs) but in every other way, that is what they are.

AGPs were not like that and the profile was much more difficult to describe. Blanchard rightly argued that, since these individuals were sexually, socially, romantically and behaviourally men as well as being biological males, the root cause of their condition must reside in their male sexuality, since they clearly could not have a female one.

This observation, backed up by statistical surveys and questionnaires, allowed Blanchard to show that, just as the most important common factor in the transsexuals’ profile was their feminine desire for men, the most important such factor in this second group was their attraction to themselves, as women. This allowed him to formulate a testable hypothesis:

‘Autogynephilia is a man’s propensity to be attracted to himself, as a woman.’

This remains unchallenged science. AGPs, the men who suffer from this condition, are, he was able to show, in every way men, except for the locus of their sexual desire. For most people, including transsexuals, this is outside the self: we are sexually attracted to other people. AGPs are wrongly wired here: their objects of sexual attraction are themselves, but as women. Blanchard called this misdirection of sexual attraction an ‘Erotic Target Location Error’.

These men’s sexual targets must be women, because they have no attraction to other men; they are uniquely attracted to women. So in order for the AGP to be attractive to himself, he must become a woman. And this is the underlying truth of autogynephilia: it is a condition that causes men to become ‘women’ in order to enjoy sex with themselves, mainly through masturbation.

Most men with this condition remain secret fetishistic cross dressers all their lives, and a trawl of internet sites devoted to their interests will show that they are numerous in Western culture. Their visibility is directly related to social factors: the less acceptable it is for a man to wear women’s clothing, the more likely it is that they will keep their fetish a secret. So a great many go to their graves without their wives or children ever knowing the truth.

However, where it becomes acceptable for them to appear in public, the more courageous will do so, and, unsurprisingly, those who will do so first are the most aggressive and masculine. This is confirmed by observation of the ‘transgender’ autogynephilic ‘activists’: male bullies in frocks. They will then seek to ‘transition’ full time into ‘women’. They will claim to be ‘real women’ to the point of preventing actual, biological women from calling themselves so. Because they are men who lay claim to ‘women’s identity’ the first principle AGPs presume is that, in order to be a ‘real’ woman, one must have been born male. (This is a claim that no transsexual would ever make.)

Psychologically, the development of the condition follows a defined path. Either at or some time after puberty, the subject becomes sexually aroused by the thought of himself in women’s clothing or, more rarely, just by conceiving of himself, in sexual fantasy, as a woman. Typically his understanding of sex is that it is demeaning and violent towards the woman he imagines himself to be and this is why these individuals are also often sado-masochists.

Because sexual reward, here normally but not always delivered by masturbation to orgasm, usually in front of a mirror while wearing women’s clothing and make-up, is so powerful a confirming agent for behaviour, this practise leads to an intensification of the condition. Sexual reward, after all, is the basis of human bonding, but the bond being formed here is not between two separate individuals, but within the mind of a single, male individual.

This means that a second personality must be created by the subject, for him to fall in love with. Typically this appears soon after the onset of the condition, and will be given a name: frequently this is outlandish and often a misspelled, foreign name.

This second personality grows like a succubus within the mind of the subject. It will invent for itself a plausible history, in which it first appeared long before puberty. It does this because the subject is aware that transsexuals usually become aware of their difference from other boys at this age, and the AGP is seeking to colonise that identity; at the same time, it is trying to invent a plausible childhood history for itself. This is never true; autogynephilia never appears before puberty. It is a product of post-pubescent masturbatory fantasy.

We can reality-check this by examining the testimony of those around the individuals when they were pre-pubescent children. Here, the family and friends of transsexuals will have remarked the extreme femininity of the child and will have discussed it. Frequently, action will have been taken to ‘cure’ the child — usually with at best harmful results, and often disastrous ones. Suicide is not uncommon amongst this group. At school they will probably have been bullied as ‘sissies’ in an attempt to get them to conform to sexual stereotypes proposed for them by the patriarchy. Most importantly, from the first point in their lives that they began to have crushes on others, these will have been men. Their childhood family and friends will have been aware of this too.

Transsexual model Geena Rocero. This is what an mtf transsexual looks like. A woman.

AGPs show none of these. The decision of such a person to become a ‘woman’ is always a surprise to those closest to them, even their wives, who may be deeply traumatised. However, since the AGP does not really love his wife and instead loves himself, this will be of no consequence. The woman who thought he loved her will be given an ultimatum: ‘become a lesbian’ or be accused of being a ‘transphobic bigot’. Such is the profound misogyny of the AGP, that sees women only as sexual objects — like the one he has created in his own mind and is obsessed by.

The AGP’s ‘female’ personality, which was created as an object of masturbatory lust and has been reinforced by sexual gratification, often for decades, has become so powerful that it has literally overwhelmed the male personality that invented it. The poor wife of such an individual, the mother of his children, is not being forced to ‘become a lesbian’ by the man she married, but by a succubus that he invented and nourished and has now consumed him. The man she married is effectively dead, his place taken by an ersatz, false ‘woman’ who has no idea what it is to actually be a woman, or how to look or behave like one.

Autogynephilia, therefore, is a corrosive and destructive condition that ruins lives and ends marriages; it causes enormous suffering and soul-searching amongst the women married to the sufferers, who are offered no explanation other than that their (actually now dead) husband ‘was always a woman’. And this is true: the succubus now animating him was indeed a woman from the point he created it. That its entire history is imaginary is a consequence of it being an artefact of his fetishistic obsession with himself.
The classic AGP remains a man in every sense except that of appearance, even after GRS, if he elects to undergo this, which not all do. His attraction to women remains exactly the same as a hetero-normative male’s. If he remains possessed of a penis, this individual may become a serious sexual threat to women, who, as a man, he will predate upon. He will also, frequently, predate on transsexuals, whom he will relentlessly abuse.

This ‘classic’ profile accounts for some 60% or more of AGPs. However, Blanchard identified two others.

The first he termed ‘analloerotic’. Sometimes these men are misrepresented as ‘asexual;’ but this is very far from the truth. While they may not masturbate to orgasm, or indeed be able to take pleasure in their genitalia at all, their sexualised fantasy of themselves as women is their reward. The researcher Dr Charles Moser has proposed that one factor or perhaps even cause of autogynephilia is an underlying androphobia, a hatred of men and all that is masculine. This — which is again confirmed by observation and personal accounts — suggests that a possible cause of the condition is extreme repression of normal male sexuality and masturbatory practice in boyhood. After all, autogynephilia is most reported in the United States of America where, to this day, boy children’s genitalia are routinely mutilated to prevent masturbation, and the ‘dangers’ of self-pleasuring are constantly being promulgated by delusional ‘pastors’ from pulpits all over the land. Analloerotics, unable to derive sexual pleasure form their genitalia, get it from such things as using women’s toilets while dressed as women, from ‘dressing parties’, which are frequently advertised in the media targeting AGPs; knitting and other stereotypically ‘women’s’ roles and from appearing in public ‘en femme’ and not being discovered and so on. Individuals in this group are motivated to GRS because of their loathing of their own genitalia, rather than a desire to use their neo-vagina for sex.

The other group of AGPs identified by Blanchard he called ‘bisexual’ and, paradoxically, this may be the only group of true bisexual men in the West. Like the others, prior to transition, these men have no sexual interest in other men; indeed they may be strongly homophobic, as evidenced by Bruce ‘Caitlyn’ Jenner. However, once they begin hormone therapy and begin to feminise, these men desire to explore how successful they can be at being accepted as women. For them, going out in public dressed in women’s clothes is not enough. They need to actually be sexually desired by men. This, therefore is an extension of their masturbatory fantasy, in which the ‘woman’ they have created is sexually taken as a woman. Blanchard called this phenomenon ‘pseudo-homosexuality’. The individuals in this group often elect to have GRS, but not always: there are a significant number of male sex workers in the West who conform to this type and who provide sexual services to other AGPs and closeted homosexual men.

Even if they do have GRS, these men remain AGPs and their desire is quite different from that of transsexuals. Transsexuals were never sexually interested in women and their response to a man’s body is exactly the same as a woman’s. Like other women, they may see sexual and romantic success in finding partners as an affirmation of their attractiveness, but they know they are not men. The pseudo-homosexual, ‘bisexual’ AGP is simply using his male partners’ bodies in furtherance of his own sexual fantasy.

Another autogynephilic man. Are we still in any confusion here?

All of this is important because we know that AGPs are a small minority, even in the West, which is the only culture they appear in. Transsexuals are a much larger one, but AGPs predate on them and harm them. They are suppressed, their identities colonised and erased by autogynephilic men, because these men cannot stand any questioning of their claims. Just by existing, male-to-female transsexuals prove the lie of autogynephilia, so they must be silenced.

Bianca Freire, a Brazilian transsexual model. Still confused? Bianca is not autogynephilic.

Transsexuals are being killed, across the planet, at horrific rates. In Brazil, over a hundred every year are slain. In the USA, at least 18 last year alone. And every single one of them was transsexual, and most emphatically not autogynephilic. AGPs are white, middle-class men who never get into situations where they might be killed. They may be mocked and shunned but they are not at risk. Gwen Araujo, Jennifer Laude, Keisha Jenkins, thousands of others, were not AGPs. If we want to protect these women, then we have to recognise the truth: AGPs are their enemies.

So to all transsexuals I say, stop supporting men like Bruce ‘Caitlyn’ Jenner. Just stop. He is a man in a dress and not a transsexual at all. He will not shed a tear if you are killed. And to men who are attracted to, or are in relationships with transsexuals, I say this: get out of the damn closet and accept your responsibilities. Challenge the AGP orthodoxy, the lies that would erase the women we love. Let these horrific succubae, these travesties of womanhood, the AGPs, know that while we accept their right to exist, we do not accept that they may claim to be, or speak for, transsexuals, nor may they silence us with their standard ruse of ‘transphobia’. How can a man who sleeps with, who wakes with, who loves, supports, shares life with and accepts a transsexual as a woman, be transphobic? The sheer offensiveness of autogynephilics’ lies is like a stench.

It’s time for us to tell the AGPs, and all the other male bullies like them, that if you fuck with our partners, you fuck with us.

.

Rod Fleming on Google+

The post Challenging Autogynephilia appeared first on Rod Fleming's World.

Related posts:

1. An exploration of transgender lives
2. Jenner: not the face of trans women
3. Perspectives

Sink the lifeboats.

Stephen Hawking suggests we should build ‘space lifeboats’ to preserve human culture. Here’s why we should not

In recent months there has been an increasing clamour, from well-meaning individuals all over the globe, to build ourselves some lifeboats. By this I mean, build space-ships that could transport human culture away from the Earth. This would be so that our culture might survive the planetary catastrophe that Stephen Hawking, amongst many others, is certain will happen within the next 1000 years.

The most immediate threats we face, however, are not natural but a direct result of human activity itself: global thermonuclear war and climate change. This has come about, in turn, because of the patriarchal culture that has come to dominate the Earth and humanity. And it is only that, patriarchal culture, the agent of our destruction, that would be preserved by the ‘space lifeboat’ scheme. Only the richest and most powerful would find places and the rest of us would be left to die. The patriarchy would escape.

We do not know when the patriarchy first appeared. Possibly as little as 5000 years ago, possibly 10,000, as the remains at Jericho seem to suggest. Maybe it has always been with us. What we can be absolutely sure of is that it was not alone. Matriarchal culture and Goddess-worship, which posited the spirit of the Earth as the primary deity and women as the centre of culture, was dominant throughout much of the world until around 4,500 years ago. We go into detail about this in ‘Why Men Made God’. There can be no question about the pre-eminence of the matriarchy in ancient cultures. It is obvious from the artefacts and mythology that persists from those eras. While patriarchal academics struggle to deny it, the proof is everywhere: before the patriarchy, people lived in peaceable societies with women and children at their centres.

Since the patriarchy appeared as a rival to, and eventual destroyer of, the matriarchy, humanity has lived in a perpetual state of war. At the same time it has poisoned its home with no thought for the future. The first examples of genocidal war that we know of appeared in Sumer in the 3rd millennium BCE, when successive patriarchal kings reigns havoc and destruction all around them. Under 150 years ago the United States of America was perpetrating genocide on those whose land it coveted. Today, USican imperialists arm fanatical patriarchal killers to kill, rape and enslave, and then fight to ‘liberate’ those who suffer from this — all for profit. Nothing has changed. The patriarchy cannot change. It is evil.

Faced with the prospect of destruction or adopting the patriarchal model, most societies changes and the status of women plummeted. There were a few exceptions, for example Sparta, which remained a matriarchy to the end, in Phrygia and in the Celtic world. But the burgeoning power of the patriarchy, which has never hesitated to enslave, kill, and rob from anyone in its path, has meant that today, matriarchies are restricted to tribal peoples. There are many of these but they are not representative of human culture; they give us a tantalising glimpse of what might have been. Again, ‘Why Men Made God’ documents some of these peoples and discussed their lifestyles.

If our space lifeboats are, indeed, ever constructed, they will not save many. A few thousand at most might survive a planetary disaster, on their way to another habitable planet, or wandering forever in space. The vast billions of Earth’s children will die.

So we should consider exactly what would be exported by such space lifeboats. It would be the culture that made them: the patriarchy. So the very same culture that has been killing, enslaving and plundering for thousands of years, would be spread, like a toxic miasma, elsewhere.

The Earth will not die because we do: the Earth will be perfectly fine. It is likely that humans, albeit in small numbers, will also survive. So let us consider what that means a moment.

The chances are that our space lifeboats will be lost forever, but if they are not, they risk doing two things. The first is that they might arrive at another habitable planet. Knowing what we do now, we may be pretty sure that such a planet would already have life. Perhaps it would already have intelligent life forms that live in cultures like ours. If it lies with a hundred light-years of Earth, we know they don’t have radio, or we would have heard them. So the chances are that if cultures on such planets do exist, they are living in hunter-gatherer groups, just as we did for roughly 150,000 years.

Now look at humanity’s record. Look at the Americas. Look at Asia and Africa. Our history tells us that we will seize any such planet as our own and kill or enslave the present occupants. It’s what we always do and no reassurance from Stephen Hawking will make that any less likely, because it will not be decent, sincere scientists who fund and control any such mission, but the same men of violence as have carried out genocide so often. They must not be allowed to do this.

Or, let’s imagine that the space life-boats fly off and then, after whatever catastrophe kills off human culture on Earth occurs, they come back.

Humans had a choice at least once before and we made the wrong one. We allowed the patriarchy to exist. We did not snuff it out completely as we should have. A post-cataclysmic human society on Earth would likely be comprised of hunter gatherer groups centred on women and children. They might, with a little luck, recreate the matriarchy as our distant ancestors knew it. They might live in peace, revering the Earth. If we’re lucky.

Are we then to countenance the return of the very patriarchal culture that had, once already, caused so much death and destruction? The one that made the nuclear bombs that killed us? The one that armed rival groups of men all over the Earth so that they could better kill, rape and plunder? The one that deliberately ignored the warnings of climate change and, even worse, spent vast sums doing everything it could first to deny them and then to impede progress to an alternative, so that today, disaster from climate change as an absolute certainty? This culture knows only greed, death, killing and war — why should it be permitted to survive the catastrophe of its own making? Perhaps our descendants will make the same mistake again, but they should be free to make it without the imposition of the patriarchy by men — and it will be men — with modern weapons and firepower and the willingness to use them as they always have. Men who return from space in the lifeboats we allowed them to build, to visit their nightmare on the innocent.

No. A thousand times no. The patriarchy has had its chance. It must not be allowed to escape the consequences of its own greed, cruelty and genocidal nature. It must face them and die.

So, no lifeboats. If they are built, they must be sabotaged. The patriarchy has destroyed the Earth and it cannot be allowed to get away unpunished, to infect another, innocent planet, or to re-infect this one.

Indeed, much that is beautiful will be lost. Our science and our art, our knowledge — these must all perish. The glories of the Renaissance, the Enlightenment…all must pass. This is sad. But far worse would be to allow the leering, green-eyed monster of the patriarchy to survive. It must be stamped out and if it does so itself, then fine, we must accept that, and our fate as its victims. We would die anyway; why allow our killer, the patriarchy, to live on? If there is an imperative left for a doomed culture it is this: we must deny the patriarchy the chance to survive the catastrophe it created itself. It must die with all that is fine and worthwhile in human culture.

No lifeboats. Ever.

Rod Fleming on Google+

The post Sink the lifeboats. appeared first on Rod Fleming's World.

Related posts:

1. A watershed month
2. 45% of Americans are Retards.
3. Toilets aren’t just a storm in a urinal

Identity Politics = Totalitarianism

A white woman who ‘identifies’ as black and a man who ‘identifies’ as a woman. Will the fuckwittery never end?

‘Identity politics’ claims, on the face of it, that everyone has the right to identify as anything they want, and we all have to accept that. Sounds great, doesn’t it? Brilliant. So egalitarian. And yes, if I decide that I ‘identify’ as a Prosthetic Vogon leading a constructor fleet across the galaxy which intends to obliterate the Earth to make way for an interstellar superhighway, or that I am Superman, Napoleon or for that matter Jesus Christ, then it matters little; I’m just barking mad and decent people will humour me until I become so delusional that I need to be locked up for my own safety. I would be, in common-sense terms, a harmless lunatic.

Suppose, however, I decide to ‘identify’ as something else, something that will impact on others. Say I, as a man, decide that I ‘identify’ as a woman. Well, ‘identity politics’ demands that I must be respected in this and treated, in all ways, as a woman, even though I am a man, with a penis and a beard. Lest you imagine that this is an unlikely scenario, I direct you to the rantings of a YouTube user who calls himself ‘varmit coyote’ who is in fact a man with a beard and, we presume at least, a penis, who thinks that because he occasionally likes to wear a pink flower in his hair he is a woman, and demands to be treated as such. (I am still not sure whether this is an enormous piss-take or not; but we’ll take the example at face value because it is clear that many do.)

So now, all over the United States of eternal fuckwittery and wherever else its braindead ‘thinkers’ are actually being listened to, women’s safe spaces — intended to protect them from potential rapists, in other words men — are being opened up to ‘anyone who identifies as a woman’ even if that person is, by any observable measure, a man and therefore a potential rapist who has no business being in spaces designed to make women feel safe from the threat of rape in the first place. If this is not insanity it is hard to imagine what might be. Women’s rights to be protected as what they can scientifically, biologically be shown to be, are to be trumped by men’s ‘rights’ to call themselves anything they want.

‘Identity politics’ is a political philosophy spawned in the US that has no scientific support. It is the product of ‘thinkers’ who have so far been unable to deal coherently with the facts that their nation is based on the theft of land and genocide on a massive scale; that its economy was founded on slavery; that racism and discrimination remain the cancer at its heart; that it has never reconciled the schism within it that led to the Civil War 150 years ago and the cathartic, fratricidal horror that resulted; that it has exported genocide and war to the Philippines, Vietnam, the Middle East, Latin America and elsewhere, with a toll of deaths into the tens of millions if not more; in short, that the United States is a diseased and dysfunctional culture based on discrimination, killing and theft that remains determined to dominate the Earth, despite comprising less than 3% of global population.

You’d think its academic ‘thinkers’ might want to address these issues before talking about how the rest of the world should ‘identify’, but their true role is to provide a plausible doctrine that might justify the US’ ongoing attempt to rule the planet by force. We can hope for little better from them.

We are not ‘what we self-identify as’. We are what we can be identified as. A man with a beard and a penis is a man. Calling a man in a dress a man is not ‘misgendering’, it is using common sense. It is using the same skills we use to identify everything in our lives from dogs to dishes. We look, we listen, we compare to a stored collection of models that we have in our brains, and we identify. The dog does not ‘identify’ itself to us; we identify the dog. The dog might well think it’s Albert Einstein, but we disregard that because, guess what, we can see it’s a dog. If we’re in any doubt, we might pat its head and note its reaction, or bark at it and see if it barks back; although in my experience, such confirmations are rarely required. If — incredibly — we were still unsure, we might take a sample of its saliva and analyse the DNA and yup, you got it, still a dog. Whatever it might ‘self-identify’ as, we disregard, because it is self-evidently a fucking dog. This is called common sense and it is the foundation of science, and science is the only credible, defensible means by which we can identify anything.

Ah, but what about ‘transgenders,’ you ask? Well, this term has been hijacked by a small group of fetishistic cross-dressing men who have long since been scientifically identified as ‘autogynephilic’.

An autogynephilic ‘transgender’ man dressed up for a masturbation session

These people retain their male hetero-normative attraction to women; in other words, women are sexual targets for them. Sexually, socially and romantically, they are exactly like other men; their brains are ‘indistinguishable from men’s’ (Savic & Arver 2011) and it is obvious after 30 seconds’ exposure, should you ever be unfortunate enough, that psychologically they are men. Let us be clear: these individuals are men. ‘Self-identifying’ as a woman and wearing a dress, or for that matter a fake vagina, just makes you a cross-dressing man with a voluntarily mutilated body. Bruce ‘Caitlyn’ Jenner is as much a man now as when he won Olympic gold, or in the 1980s when he was sneaking into his daughter’s room to borrow her underwear to have a good wank in; it’s just that now, his delusion has taken over the plot.

Essential eqiupment for the autogynephilic crossdresser — a fake vagina with internal penis vibrator.

Malt-to-female transsexuals are not ‘transgender’. They are transsexual. They are socially, sexually and romantically women. They desire men in exactly the same way as a woman does. Since sex and sexual relationships are defined entirely socially, sexually and romantically, a transsexual is, in these terms, a woman. Her desire makes her a woman. Transsexuals do not predate on women. They do not desire to use women’s safe spaces because it gives them a sexual thrill to do so, but because if they tried to use a men’s toilet, especially in a diseased society like the United States, they would risk being bludgeoned to death. They have no sexual interest in women at all and to make matters even more condemning, they too are predated on by gynephilic ‘transgenders’, in other words, fetishistic cross-dressing men who ‘self-identify’ as women.

This is a transsexual, the delightful Kevin Balot. Despite retaining her boy name, she exposes the lies of autogynephilic transgenderists.

Ponder this for a moment: autogynephilic ‘transgender’ men change their outward appearance but remain men on the inside, in every way, in order to predate more efficiently on women, and accuse anyone who points out the absurdity of this of bigotry, while women are to be prevented from calling themselves women, and must call themselves ‘cis-women’ instead. Why? So that delusional men in dresses can claim to be ‘real women’. Well, my arse. A woman is a woman and an autogynephile is a man in a dress with a delusion and, until he has it excised, a permanent erection at the thought of being a woman.

This is a brazen attempt to suggest that over half the planet’s population, who actually are women, are not, and that to be a ‘real woman’ you have to have been born with a penis. The misogyny is reeking.

Meanwhile, transsexuals’ true identity, which has been described by science and shown to have no similarity to the autogynephilic cross-dresser’s, has to be erased altogether. Why? Because, dear reader, if you ever get to meet an autogynephilic transgenderist and a male to female transsexual in the same room, you will see immediately that the first is a bloke and whatever the second is, she sure ain’t one of those. So transsexuals are erased and suppressed by transgenderists so that nobody will ever make that comparison, and realise the truth.

This erasure includes the deliberate misrepresentation of male-to-female transsexuals as ‘transgender’. They’re not, but autogynephilic men think that if they can persuade us that they are, then we will ignore what autogynephilic men actually are — delusional men with a masturbatory fetish whose erotic stimulus is themselves dressed up in women’s clothing. And because it is definitely not in the interests of transsexuals, especially in the West, to draw attention to themselves, the male cross-dressers have a clear field to disseminate their blatant lies. Enough.

This is a dog that doesn’t just think it’s Einstein, it thinks it’s God al-fucking-mighty. The word ‘delusional’ doesn’t come close to describing the sheer insanity of such claims. And to make matters worse, this dog actually has real people jumping through hoops and believing its drivel.

I don’t know any transsexual who claims to be a ‘real woman’. Perhaps they exist, but I doubt it. Transsexuals are, by and large, far too realistic and have too much respect for women to make that claim. Yet it is made by autogynephilic transgenderists every day; and it is one that shows what they really think of women. Yes, they are the same misogynistic, women-abusing, hateful men they always were, who see women as sexual targets and trophies.

Transsexual model Geena Rocero. Despite her beauty and femininity, Geena is not delusional.

About the last thing a transsexual thinks of women is that they are targets or trophies. Transsexuals may compete with women in terms of beauty and femininity, but they are in no doubt of their relationship to them. They are not delusional about what they are: they know they’re transsexual. They know they’re not women in biological terms. They are, however, women in social, sexual and romantic terms, and this has been described in peer-reviewed paper after paper, notably by Ray Blanchard, whose work remains the accepted science. A male-to-female transsexual has no sexual desire whatsoever for women, instead she has a woman’s sexual desire for men. They may envy women’s bodies but they are not excited by them; they are excited by men’s bodies, very much.

So in some senses a transsexual does have a right to be accepted into women’s spaces, and she certainly presents no sexual threat to women. We would hope that women might accept this; but in the end, to do so or not is women’s’ choice — a choice that ‘identity politics’ deliberately tries to remove from them. But a transsexual’s womanhood, insofar as it exists, is not because of what she ‘self-identifies’ as, but because of what science can actually identify her as. We know what the differences are between autogynephilic transgenderists and transsexuals, because we have the science that documents them; of course, transgenderists, being loud-mouthed male bullies, have made a great deal of noise to try to discredit this science but the simple fact is they have failed. There is no accepted, peer reviewed science that contradicts Blanchard, and indeed, the ongoing body of science — as opposed to political philosophy and related nonsense — confirms his typology.

This is why the absurdity of ‘identity politics’ has become so central to the transgenderists’ proposed, delusional, world view. Lacking any scientific backing for their platform, they rely, instead, on a smokescreen of philosophy. Yet we must recognise this for what it is: a blatant attempt to deny science because some people find it uncomfortable. There is no difference between the transgenderists’ claims and the religious arguments that the Earth is under 10,000 years old and humans walked with dinosaurs. We give no credence whatsoever to such obvious tripe, because it is not based in science; and we should similarly reject the unscientific, quasi-religious claims of the transgenderist lobby. ‘Identity politics’, is no more than a vehicle for the dissemination of blatant lies. Even worse, it is a form of science denialism; how appropriate, then, that it has its origins in a culture where over half the population do not accept the science of evolution.

The thing about science is that it’s true whether you like it or not, whether it suits you or not, or whether you are embarrassed by it or not: it just works, bitches. If you don’t like it, you have to prove it wrong using better science; you don’t get to use philosophical mumbo-jumbo instead. Yet that is what the autogynephilic transgenderists seek to do, to obscure and befuddle using the smoke and mirrors of rhetoric and philosophical device.

As a political philosophy, ‘identity politics’ is not about the individual at all, but about the group and enforcing conformity to the group’s rules and identities. It is rigidly anti-individualistic, and in this once again reflects the cultism at the rotten core of US culture. From Mormons to Scientologists to Southern Baptists to the proponents of ‘identity politics’, such cults have but one aim: to force the individual to submit to their totalitarian rule.

While ‘identity politics’ pretends that anyone can identify as anything they like, in fact, under it, one is only allowed to ‘self-identify’ under umbrella groups pre-defined by ‘identity politics’ promoters themselves. ‘Identity politics’ will accept transsexuals as women, but only if they conform to a broader ‘queer’ identity; that this is an oxymoron is, we suspect, somewhat beyond the reasoning powers of a person who actually believes that anyone is just what they say they are, despite common sense and science saying they’re not. The individual must conform to the group’s rules or be attacked: ‘identity politics’ is revealed as a totalitarian doctrine of oppression and social control, designed to further the political ends of certain groups at the expense of others, in the denial of science. It is a pack mentality and worse, another creation of the patriarchy, which desires conformity above all else.

Underneath all its high-falutin philosophical mumbo-jumbo, its lies and untruths, its straw men and red herrings, the absurd farce of ‘identity politics’ largely exists to prop up one deeply unscientific untruth: that sexual orientation and gender are separate. This mythology, codified as SOGIE (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression) claims, with no observable evidence, that a person’s understanding of their own gender, their expression of that gender and their desired sexual partners are completely separate and have no relationship to one another. It does this because it seeks to convince us of that which observation disproves: that autogynephilic transgenderists are actually women and that ‘gay men’ are men at all.

The millions of transsexual sisters across the world expose the lies of ‘identity politics’ and SOGIE. They are transsexual because they are socially, romantically and sexually women, but they were born male. A transsexual shows that to desire men, to love and be loved by men, to want to be penetrated by a man makes one a woman.

To the autogynephile transgenderist they say ‘This is what a transsexual is really like. We are not women but we are like them in every way but the genitalia we were born with; you are ersatz, a falsehood, a man in a dress pretending to be something you can never be, a woman. If I, so vastly more feminine than you, can recognise that I am not actually a woman, then where does that leave you?’ To the Western New Gay Man, that absurd travesty of masculinity, they say ‘We are what you would like to be, but you lack the courage to be so. You pretend to be a man but we both know that your desires make you a woman, just as mine do. You would do better to put on a wig and make-up and at least recover some honesty and self-respect.’

‘Identity politics’ and SOGIE are deliberate attempts to deny science and replace it with unscientific, unsupported philosophical gobbledygook: there is no underlying science to support either. They are, simply, glib doctrines that further their inventors’ interests, to the detriment and harm of everyone else. They are at the absolutist, conformist core of the totalitarian, regressive ‘Left’. They are the Communist Manifesto rewritten in sexual terms, and just as completely intolerant of any challenge.

Rod Fleming on Google+

The post Identity Politics = Totalitarianism appeared first on Rod Fleming's World.

Related posts:

1. Jenner: not the face of trans women
2. People don’t ‘become’ transgender. They just are.
3. Pansexual: the human norm

Balls.

The stupid regards the stupider. Pic: Rod Fleming

Balls: why ‘Gay Marriage’ is as dumb as it gets.

I have had the dubious privilege of being exposed to some really stupid ideas in my near six decades on this dear planet. Some of these came when I was engaged as a Media Consultant to a quango that helped new entrepreneurs, which, to avoid embarrassment, shall remain nameless.

Consider, a propos of this, the Glow in the Dark Golf Ball. This thoroughly spiffing notion was — yes, a golf ball that was luminous and so emitted a faint, ghoulish green glow in darkness. Don’t believe me? Here’s a picture of a well-known Scottish idiot. ‘Lord’ Peter Fraser with one of these balls at the launch ‘Media Event’. (And people wonder why journalists are prone to drink.)

No matter that to have any purpose, this technological miracle had to be used in complete darkness, meaning that players could not see the pin, the green, the bunkers, the trees in the way, the fairway or the fucking golf course, because — it was totally dark. I never followed up on the sales of this piece of unadulterated brilliance.

Then, thanks to the same organisation, a belter that had me so choking with suppressed laughter that I had to invent a prior engagement and leave. What was it this time? A top secret, eyes-only, breakthrough development that could help address water shortages the world over. Or so I was told. You know what it was? It was a little white plastic wall about 20cm or so tall that had suckers fitted all round. The idea was — wait for it — that you stuck this in your bathtub and then you could have a bath using only half the water.

Have you any idea how hard it is not to collapse on the floor laughing when confronted with noodle-headedness like this? And, you know, I am not known for suffering fools gladly.

2015 had its crop of the blindingly stupid, but few matched the moment when millions all over the world cheered the US Supreme Court’s decision that same sex marriages were indeed constitutional. Now I have no argument with the decision, which was a weighty one pondered over by the best legal minds in that most litigious of nations; I am confident that the judges’ decision was a reasonable and realistic interpretation of the letter of the US Constitution. Well done them.

What was just agonisingly stupid was the reaction. And I admit, I got carried along, for a while, till I actually thought it through and realised how boneheadedly dumb all this is. Not, I hasten to add, because I have an intrinsic objection to two individuals with willies — or for that matter fannies — setting up home together and desiring the same privileges (they’re not rights) as a couple possessed of a willy and a fanny might enjoy.

No, what was so utterly, exasperatingly stupid about all this is that marriage is a contract of property ownership which places a woman’s fertility under the control of a man. It is the very keystone of the patriarchy, the leaden weight that suppresses us all. We should be doing everything we possibly can to utterly eradicate the patriarchy, to crush and destroy it, to tear up its ridiculous rules and conventions and to throw it into the dustbin of history where it belongs.

And you’d think that LGBT (if the term has any meaning today) people would be the very first in line to smash the patriarchy, their mattocks and pickaxes at the ready. But no, there they all are, straining at the leash to jump on the patriarchal bandwagon, to access the privilege that they know the patriarchy will give them for being its poodles. Talk about turkeys voting for Christmas? This is worse. Let’s be quite clear: the patriarchy cares not a fig for the concerns of gays or lesbians. If it can shut them up and turn them into fully mind-controlled drones, it’s happy. That’s all the patriarchy ever wants — your soul, your mind and your body. Just be its obedient poodle and accept the place it gives you, work out your life and die. It’s happy. You fed it. You succoured it. You nourished it. And what did it give you in return?

A little bit of ephemeral status. It’s not even yours, it’s just on loan, like a worn and tattered library book. Yet you suck it up, denying yourself, lying to the world, lying to your friends, your lovers and yourself. All so the patriarchy will stop hating you. But it never will. The patriarchy is hate. It’s nothing more. It can’t give any more because that is all it is: hatred. Hatred, destruction and enslavement; and you, my LGBT friends are now enslaved to it, by the simple process of taking its shilling, of accepting the horrible contract of slavery that it offers, of surrendering yourself to it for an illusion.

You should have seen by now that the patriarchy has not changed its attitude towards you. It still hates you. It might have given you this fig but it is a poisoned chalice and you are its victim, not the victor.

You died years ago, of course; your death went unremarked. You stopped being important, you stopped being cutting edge. You gave all that up for a suburban house and a bad suit, a middle-management job that will wear you out, watching the partner you once found so beautiful age, hair and teeth fall out, as you are both worked to your graves. Well done. Your achievement is incredible. You have become the tool of the patriarchy, its latest set of fangs with which to rend those who oppose it. I applaud you.

But now, with your soul ripped out and sold to the patriarchy for an illusion of acceptance — because do you really think it accepts how you have sex? Really? If you do, you are either delusional or you don’t understand the patriarchy. So its acceptance of you, two balding men in bad suits taking turns to bugger each other, is entirely bogus. It just lets you think you’re accepted so it can exploit you more. That’s all.

And you, the proud lesbian ‘married’ couple — do you really imagine that you are accepted? The only condition that the patriarchy accepts for a woman is her enslavement to a man. You know that; you always knew that. This honeymoon of dreams is just that — a dream. The patriarchy has sold you the mother of all stitch-ups — look like a couple of nice schoolteachers and don’t say too much about that cunnilingus thing — and as long as you throw the butch lesbians, transmen, actual transsexuals (as opposed to those autogynephilic cross-dressing men, who, because they are men, retain all their male privilege; that’s how they get away with regularly browbeating and bullying women — or had you not noticed?) and feminine gays to the wolves, nay, assist the patriarchy in their defenestrations — literal or metaphorical — go to work every day and be a good girl, no rocking the boat now, it will shut up and accept the terms of your bondage to it. As if it would ever do anything else.

I’m not against love and I don’t care a monkey’s who expresses it to whom and how. I have been in love many times and there is not one of those that I would erase, not one that I would deny. Love comes in all forms from the powerful sexual love we feel with a lover to the slowburn of the love for a child that, perhaps is really the only love that lasts; from the bittersweet love for a parent to the undemanding love of a true friend, one that will never deny you; even to the love for those we tame, our animals and the places we grew up in and put our evanescent marks upon, I have known and know now all of them. Every one and I would not deny a single one.

But why should we accept love on the patriarchy’s terms? Why should we buy into its ersatz fakery, a mockery indeed of love, in the ridiculous farce of a ceremony that has served, these last 6000 years or so, to enslave one partner to the other, to make a man possessor of a woman. Does it make this offence against human dignity any less galling that both parties happen to have the same sort of genitalia? How does that work? How do we end up slavering in ecstasy over a condition of enslavement to new groups of people?

If we want to be free, we begin by destroying the patriarchy, extirpating it root and branch, together with all its horrible social codes and contracts of servitude. We begin by getting rid of formal marriage and understanding that people are free to make whatever interpersonal arrangements they desire, when they desire. That is the definition of a free society, or a major part of it at least.

‘Gay marriage’, ‘marriage equality’, call it what you will, is the nastiest and most successful con-trick the patriarchy has turned in decades. It’s about time we got our heads out of the trough of swill it feeds us and recognise that we have been duped.

Rod Fleming on Google+

The post Balls. appeared first on Rod Fleming's World.

Related posts:

1. Why would a man not want to date a trans woman?
2. People don’t ‘become’ transgender. They just are.
3. Keisha Jenkins: Say Her Name