Just to go over some ground regarding the thorny subject of non-trans autogynephilia again, (AGP) I thought I’d illustrate it with this charming chappy. Let me introduce Dave Muscato. As you can see, Dave is a man, and a dapper one at that. But Dave wants us all to believe he is a woman and … Continue reading Dave Muscato: a non-trans autogynephile
The post Dave Muscato: a non-trans autogynephile appeared first on Rod Fleming's World.
Autogynephilia is the primary stimulus for all non-homosexual male-to-female transsexualism. The original Blanchard definition was ‘a man’s propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman.’ Others have defined it as, ‘love of oneself as a woman’. But not all men with autogynephilia present as women. They exhibit non-trans … Continue reading Non-trans autogynephilia- a vital clue.
The post Non-trans autogynephilia- a vital clue. appeared first on Rod Fleming's World.
Few clinical definitions, established by obscure researchers in obscure institutions, referring to an obscure subject, can have caused more brouhaha than Ray Blanchard’s definition of autogynephilia as ‘a man’s paraphilic propensity to be sexually aroused at the thought or image of himself as a woman.’ But what does it actually mean? ‘Paraphilia is any intense … Continue reading The thought or image of oneself
The post The thought or image of oneself appeared first on Rod Fleming's World.
Social division into ‘men’ and ‘not men’ groups, together with a domestic matriarchy, explain why transsexual expressions in Asia differ from the West. Male to Female transsexuals are normally 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 … Continue reading Not Men: bekis in the Philippines
The post Not Men: bekis in the Philippines appeared first on Rod Fleming's World.
Autogynephilia is a self-reinforcing, narcissistic sexualised self-reward system. It is stimulated by a man’s desire to be, or appear to be, a woman. It is satisfied by achieving this. Although there are other rewards, the main one is by having sex as a woman. Because it is self-reinforcing, the more often the satisfaction is achieved, … Continue reading Autogynephilia: Sex as a woman
The post Autogynephilia: Sex as a woman appeared first on Rod Fleming's World.
Male to Female transsexualism was classified by Ray Blanchard into 2 different types: HomoSexual Transsexual and Autogynephilic.* In the West generally, these two types have presented with different characteristics, most notable being their primary sexual orientation: HSTS are uniquely attracted to men, whereas AGPs have a complex array of sexualities. These are all based on … Continue reading Which type of transsexual?
The post Which type of transsexual? appeared first on Rod Fleming's World.
Brain Sex? What is that? Some sort of cyber-intercourse? No. ‘Brain sex’ is how many transsexual activists explain how their condition came about. They specifically say that, ‘Transsexualism occurs when an individual of one sex has certain sex-related structures in the brain that are typical of the opposite sex.’ In other words, according to this … Continue reading Brain Sex?
The post Brain Sex? appeared first on Rod Fleming's World.
Sexual transformation from boy to girl has always been hot. Enter the girly-boy: the transsexual or TS. The oldest records we have prove the early existence of TS individuals, often priestesses or shamans. Their direct descendants are in the hijra of India, the kathoey of Thailand, the bakla of the Philippines, the travestis of the … Continue reading Girly-boy beauty
The post Girly-boy beauty appeared first on Rod Fleming's World.
Transsexualism is high profile these days. But what actually causes it? Who are transsexuals? Since there is clearly a deal of ignorance over this, I’m going to go over the explanations again, in a short series of articles. Women trapped in men’s bodies? Many people are familiar with the idea that male -to-female (MtF) transsexuals, … Continue reading Explaining transsexualism
The post Explaining transsexualism appeared first on Rod Fleming's World.
My partner, a TS woman
I am in a relationship with a transsexual (TS) woman. This places me in a position of responsibility, because my girlfriend, like all her sisters, is in danger. TS women are abused, insulted, and disrespected; but worse, they are beaten, falsely arrested, harassed by authorities that should protect them and frequently murdered.
This means that men like me must stand up and be counted.
Although on the surface, things are getting better, the improvements are largely cosmetic and there are misconceptions still. Many of these confuse the public understanding of what TS women are, for they are all too often conflated with fetishistic transvestites like Bruce ‘Caitlyn’ Jenner, who claim to be ‘transgender’, or, on the other hand, with ‘gay men’. The former — a tiny minority — have so dominated the media that it has become commonplace to think of a TS as being a middle-aged man in a dress with a wife and children. Nothing could be further from the truth: true transsexuals (Blanchard HSTS) are never attracted to women, because their feminine sexuality is what makes them TS; and they are clearly not men.
Most of the trans-attracted men I know are not gay. Essentialist issues like the nature of genitalia do have validity; for example in the lesbian rejection of fetishistic transgenderists, neatly symbolised by the ‘Cotton Ceiling’ fiasco. But trans-attracted men are less concerned about this essentialism than about gender. This probably has to do with differences in male and female sexuality. Whatever, men like me do not see the presence of a penis on our lover as making her any less of a woman. Gender, not genitalia, makes the girl.
‘Gay’ may be acceptable as a term of inclusion, but not when social conservatives use it as a term of abuse or the regressive Left to enforce conformity to their notions, and both of these are commonplace.
LGB people cannot simply ‘claim’ trans-attracted men as part of LGB. We’re not. We do not accept a role or position within that umbrella because we are not part of it.
Trans-attracted men, whether it is liked or not by either right-wing social conservatives or ‘left-wing’ homonormative orientation police masquerading as ‘Queer Theorists’, are straight. That’s it, and we will not be lectured to by academic refugees from reality who tout their philosophising as if it were fact from the ivory towers of tenure that they occupy.
I don’t give two hoots what religionard or other ignorant conservatives think of me or call me; but the attempts from within the LGB community to call me something I am not are alienating, and while this does not damage me, it damages my partner, and others like her, by also alienating potentially supportive men and by driving love between men and women into the shadows.
Jelly’s first boat ride
Furthermore, we see through it; this claim is asserting that TS women are a category of gay man. That is pure essentialism. What we find attractive are gender markers, not sex ones. We find pretty faces, sexy smiles and nice legs hot and they turn us on. Lesbian feminists may bitch that TS women, in their pursuit of conventional feminine beauty and complete adoption of feminine gender, betray feminists who would like to see gender removed altogether; but since most ordinary women pursue exactly the same gendered path as TS women, it is unfair — and probably pointless — to single the latter out.
The essentialist claim that trans attracted men are not ‘straight’ is a deliberate attempt to bring such individuals under the control of gender-conforming mainstream gay culture and ultimately to erase their distinct identity altogether, in order that they may be put in their places amongst the rank and file of cloned homonormativity. Most such men would laugh this off, the notions of the LGB ‘community’ not being of any importance to us, but denying the legitimacy of their partners is a direct attack on the very existence of TS women. We, the straight partners and lovers of TS women, do not accept this attack, nor will we have any part of it.
This attempt to erase a group of individuals because they do not conform to essentialist notions neatly illustrates the iron-fisted totalitarianism of ‘identity politics’ which says that one may adopt any identity one likes, as long as the authority group approves of it; and, of course, the most despised ‘identity’ of all is that of straight white man.
It is not to be wondered at that this diseased mindset comes from the United States of America, the most rigidly conformist culture in the developed world. It demonstrates that ‘identity politics’ is nothing more than group coercion and the suppression of the individual. The relentless attempt to shoehorn people into ‘identities’ that someone else thinks they fit — regardless of their own desires — tells us all we need to know about ‘social liberty’ in that benighted place.
For far too long we have heard how TS women must change to accommodate society’s prejudices. Reparative therapies have been inflicted on them with the support of religiously-motivated quacks like Paul McHugh, and Ken Zucker tried to condition TS teenagers into gay boys, to set them up for a lifetime of miserable self-denial. Meanwhile the mainstream gay culture looked the other way or even abandoned TS women.
They are routinely beaten, harassed and killed, and, when heteronormative religion and culture is taking a break from abuse, they are erased and their lived experience colonised by fetishistic transvestites, those ghastly simulacra of women. And when Jim Fourrat denounced TS women as ‘crazy queens who would destroy the way gays lived their lives’, he articulated the underlying truth about ‘gay men’: that they are no more than women in denial, desperate to hang on to their tattered comfort-blanket of pretence.
As one true TS going under the name of ‘Androphile’ put it, ‘If gender transition was easier, we would see way less gay men and more androphilic {true} transsexuals. The frustrated desire of a gay man permeates his life. All gay men are effeminate but ALL gay men despise femininity. Now, you will turn around and say that you know effeminate gay men in relationships. Those are not relationships. Those are compromises to be less lonely. There is a difference between what people want and what people get. Effeminate gays (ALL GAYS are effeminate) would love to have a straight, alpha male penetrate them, but, because they can’t get him, they fool themselves into thinking that they’ll be content with another effeminate butch queen.’
The truth of this is born out in any visit to south-east Asia, where huge numbers of TS women are highly visible. Where transition is easy and TS women have a social space they can colonise, they are obvious.
The confection of lies and fantasy that is Western ‘gay culture’ is exactly what Fourrat was trying to protect, and he was right: the very existence of true TS women and straight men who love them undermines the whole concept of the ‘gay’ movement, which is, as another TS put it, all about ‘women pretending to be men in order to have sex with other women pretending to be men’. Why would someone do such a thing except for relentless social pressure to conform? And how bitter must it make a ‘gay man’, as he watches his married partner grow bald and fat and his ill-fitting suits wear out just as his own do, to see a beautiful TS woman living exactly as he would have wished to, if only, if only…?
At the same time as the ‘gay’ male movement was throwing TS women to any wolves it could find, the Western face of ‘transgender’ has been hijacked by fetishistic cross-dressing men like Bruce Jenner. These are not true transsexuals, but because they are loudmouthed male bullies who know how to manipulate the media, they have all but erased those who are, at least in the broader public consciousness. This has only served to drive true transsexuals in the West further underground and, consequentially, thousands of men who are attracted to them to seek their partners outside the West, where the vile duopoly of ‘gay men’ and fetishistic transvestites has not succeeded in erasing true transsexuals.
Within the rigidly homonormative Western ‘LGB’ culture of today, feminine men and masculine women are ostracised in favour of a bizarre narcissism where everyone loves a clone of themselves. Because this culture sees TS women and their lovers as something they are not, it expects them to sign up and be erased. At the same time, male autogynephilic transvestites, who remain heteronormative, heterosexual men under their dresses, deliberately shame trans attracted men for their desires, as if these horrors were attractive to us in any way at all.
We don’t want to be a part of that and we shall not; we will not be subsumed into the clone mentality of mainstream homonormative LGB culture, nor will we be shamed for loving the women we do by a group of 100kg linebackers in frocks swinging Vuitton handbags and sporting size 15 heels.
People will just have to accept true TS women and those of us who are attracted to them, as we are. That means it is up to us, the men who love and support them, to fight alongside our partners for recognition and fairness.
Transsexual women have a long history, going back to before the invention of writing, and persist in all cultures, everywhere. They are not going anywhere, nor are their lovers. Learn to live with us and stop trying to fit us into boxes of your invention, and we’ll get along just fine.
The post Stand up and be counted appeared first on Rod Fleming's World.
The whole of south-east Asia is remarkable for its highly visible populations of transsexual women. These are not at all the same as what you may have been used to thinking of, if you are a Westerner. They’re not like Bruce ‘Caitlyn’ Jenner. In fact, most of the publicly visible ‘transgenders’ in the West are not transsexual at all, except in a very limited sense. Scientifically they are ‘autogynephiles’ or to put that in lay terms, fetishistic transvestite men. Other than wearing women’s clothes and make-up, and maybe having cosmetic surgery, they remain what they always were — heterosexual men. Not too many straight men would find them attractive, although, to be fair, that is not their aim. (See my discussions on Ray Blanchard for more details.)
Ladyboys in Thailand and across Asia are not like that at all. They belong to a group known scientifically as ‘Blanchard HomoSexual TransSexual (HSTS)’or ‘Early Onset Androphilic Transsexual (EOT) but which I refer to as ‘true transsexual’ for simplicity — and accuracy. They are strongly attracted to men and always have been. Usually, they began having crushes on men when they were around 5-7 years old. They almost certainly were gay boys at some point in the past.
They are beautiful and very sexy. They are extremely feminine in appearance and manners. From their early teens they use female hormones, often birth control pills which are freely available without prescription, to turn themselves into staggeringly beautiful women, with the specific aim of attracting heterosexual male lovers. And the fact is that many men are powerfully attracted to them.
However, many of those men are coy about meeting transsexual women. In the West they may be put off firstly by peer pressure and the fear that they may be called ‘gay’, but also by hostility from Western transvestites. These absolutely do not want sexual interest from men, because they are heterosexual men themselves, even if they happen to be dressed up as women. So they routinely ‘shame’ men who are interested in them, which may confuse those who do not understand that there are two different types, which bear no relationship to each other at all. At the same time, true transsexuals are hard to meet in the West, since they usually find things easier if they live in ‘deep stealth’ so that nobody knows their true gender status. One way to get round this is to go abroad.
I was recently asked how things were in Pattaya, so if you’re thinking of going there to meet some TS women, the following may be useful — or at least more useful than most of the garbage you’ll find on transphobic ‘backpacker’, ‘ex-pat’, or autogynephile sites. We’re definitely trans friendly here, as long as you are the right type. I’ll do something on the other major hotspots some other time, but the general rules apply there too.
While there are huge numbers of transsexuals throughout Latin America, where they are usually called ‘travestis’, this is not an easy destination for Western men. Brazil in particular has a very violent culture and communication is hard unless you speak Portuguese. Colombia is notoriously dangerous and while Argentina is arguably less so and is certainly ‘gay-friendly’ it is a very expensive destination for Europeans, and without decent Spanish, life will be tough. As well as this, the areas where you might meet the girls you’re looking for are often downright dangerous. Outside of a few well-known holiday spots (where the police deliberately exclude transsexuals anyway,) these are destinations for the experienced traveller, rather than tourist, only. Nothing will be laid on and everything will be difficult and frustrating. Trust me.
As a result, and increasingly, the destination of choice for men, who desire to investigate further their attraction to transwomen, has become Thailand, and particularly Pattaya, along with Phuket and Bangkok, the capital. Thailand has a very well developed tourism sector, with many hotels and short-term apartments at very reasonable prices. It is easily and cheaply accessible from the West by air and does not require prior visa approval for most Westerners — you get a month automatically on entry. As well as this it is relatively inexpensive, fairly relaxed, warm, sunny, many people can speak English and there is excellent infrastructure and communications. Together, these make it popular with all types of tourists as well as more hard-core travellers.
Thailand is therefore an ideal destination for the ladyboy-attracted man who wants to find out more. ‘What happens in Thailand stays in Thailand,’ is the saying and as long as you don’t make the actual news, nobody will ever know what you get up to — although they may presume you are seeking out sex.
Action in Pattaya is constant all year round, although in the low season, Western summer, things can be a little quiet and it will be rather hotter and wetter than from November to March. Only around 10% or so of the sex workers in Pattaya are ladyboys, as transsexuals there are usually known (they all call themselves that) but they are obvious. Ordinary Thai girls, even sex workers, are nowhere near that forward, or, frankly, that gorgeous. Pattaya attracts a lot of Russian family tourists — I can only imagine what might be going on inside their heads — but they don’t get in the way.
(By the way, don’t call ladyboys ‘kathoey’. Depending on pronunciation and context, this may be offensive.)
You will see ladyboys serving in restaurants, in shops, working in hairdressing salons — I think every salon in Asia is majority LB — as well as in banks, travel agencies and such-like. Besides this, there are well-known, glamorous ladyboy cabarets. 
However, for the intending trans-attracted Lothario, that leaves plenty of choice. There are estimated, at the last figures I saw, to be as many as 1000 transsexual sex workers in Pattaya, of a total of 10,000 or so including natural girls and gay boys. These girls either work in bars or freelance on the street, while some do ‘escort services’ through websites.
Generally, contracting with bar girls is safest because they work under a person called a mamasan. This is usually an older woman or ladyboy whose job it is to manage the younger girls. The mamasan will make sure the girls behave when they are with clients (you have to behave too). So if there’s an issue, you can go see mamasan and get her to sort it.
However, you will have to pay a ‘bar fine’ to take a girl out of the bar. The logic behind this is convoluted and it’s really just the bar’s cut from her sex work. How much depends on the bar. 300 — 500 short time is reasonable, but I have heard reports that this is going up. If so, that will just put business in the hands of freelancers.
The girl will ask for 1000 — 1500 short time, although, if you appear green, she might chance for more. Don’t pay it; it’s a buyer’s market.
You will find yourself targeted by girls (of both types) so be polite but firm. In some bars, ladyboys will be extremely direct and may shock you. Expect to have your genitals in someone’s hands early on, and someone’s genitals in yours. However, don’t be rushed and if you don’t fancy a particular girl, just say so. Protocol, with bar girls, is to buy a ‘lady drink’ while discussing your plans for the evening. These are more expensive than regular drinks and she gets the excess as a tip. If you are interested in having sex with her, tell her so and move to the conclusion, otherwise she’ll think you’re not serious and may just disappear. (You have no idea how quickly a six-foot LB can either vanish or suddenly materialise right beside you until you have seen it done.)
Also, try to define what will be on the menu before you make the deal. I won’t get into too many details but, for example, if you want a post-op, ask. Same if you are only interested in a pre-op. (Most are pre-op.) The usual sign is to make a snipping gesture with index and middle fingers. There are other gestures for specific sorts of entertainment. You’ll figure it out.
Many bars have rooms, usually around 300 — 500 baht, where the fun happens, otherwise your girl will know a place where the price will be similar. It’s not really usual to go to your hotel for short-time unless it’s very close by — cuts into the sex — but it is for long-time. Short-time, by the way, should be a leisurely hour, more if she’s having fun. And these girls are not miserable sex slaves. Most of them really enjoy what they do and if a girl likes you, she’ll let you know. You will enjoy what she does too.
If you’re thinking of taking a girl back, check your hotel is girl friendly beforehand. Most are, but better to be sure. Many girls are reluctant to do long-time in the early evening (they can make more money with quickies) but at the end of the night might be quite up for it — nice hotel bed, proper shower and breakfast on you. (Well, lunch; good luck getting one of them up before 2 pm.) Expect to pay 2000 — 2500 baht depending on the time and how much of a slob you are.
Your girl might be quite pissed by the end of her working night, since part of a bar girl’s job is to get as many lady drinks purchased as possible and she has to drink them. The later you wait, partly because of this, the more likely it is that you’ll get a rate — but also the more likely that another cruiser will snaffle her. Other men will just cut in and if you haven’t made a deal, that might be it, she’s gone and all the money you spent on lady drinks goes out the window. Just make sure she’s not a total zombie when you finally get her out; but if you can contain yourself, great morning sex will be on the agenda. Remember that while these look, feel and act like beautiful women, they are motivated by a male sex drive that is just as powerful as yours is.
(Once again, do not believe the horse-manure you’ll find on autogynephilic websites. Those writers are NOT transsexual, they are transvestite men. Most have zero interest in other men. Their delusion — that they are actually women — leads them to play down their sexuality. Trust me, a true transsexual is a highly sexually motivated person; and furthermore, she has no delusions about what she actually is.)
She’ll be asked to leave her ID card at the concierge desk, most probably, and this is definitely in your interest. A good hotel will require that you accompany her to retrieve it, so she can’t make off with your new Nikon while you’re asleep. Always use the room safe for your valuables, however.
If you take a bar girl home for long time remember the bar fine meter is running till you take her back. Get confirmation on how much from mamasan BEFORE you take the girl out. Do I need to mention, you must use a condom? Well you must. This applies even if you (think you are) in a long-term relationship with a bar girl. You don’t know who else is in there. Be sensible and be safe. (Now if you have a real relationship with a girl, which you are not going to establish in a 2-week trip anyway, it’s different. But by then you’ll have more experience.)
Finally, you can meet girls online. The principal site is www.ThaiFriendly.com, which has literally thousands of girls subscribed. (Facebook is also popular but the profiles are mostly in Thai, so you may have difficulty.) Not all the girls are seeking casual paid sex, most are in fact looking for longer relationships. But there are plenty who would still be interested and it will say so on their profiles.
Do be aware though, that you are effectively asking someone you have never even seen in real life to come and stay in your hotel room for however long. Take sensible precautions and it might be smart to meet at a short-time hotel; she may also feel more comfortable with that. (Note also that the same concern applies to the girls; if she’s dating rather than just coming for paid sex, expect to be asked to meet somewhere public and don’t be surprised if she arrives with ‘a friend’ who may be a large gay man. She’s just being sensible too.)
My advice to a first-timer would be to stick to bar girls until you find your feet. But having said that, nearly all the freelancers are fine; one thing that you will find, if you do this, is that Asian TS, call them what you will, are amongst the nicest and most fun people you will ever meet. The crack is DO NOT GET DRUNK and treat them with great respect. It’s Thailand, respect is a big deal. It will also be paid back.
Then there is the question of love. It is easy to get sex in Asia without paying for it. In fact, I used to wonder why anyone would, till I discovered the old adage ‘You don’t pay the girl for sex, you pay her to leave afterwards.’ Now I will be honest, being genuinely in love with an Asian TS who really loves you too is the most wonderful, rewarding experience. There is nothing she will not do for you. The sex will be mind-bendingly good. Most ladyboys have a great sense of humour and are strong characters — they have to be. She can probably cook like an ace, and will delight in looking after you. But the payback is commitment. You have to be ready to give that.
Asia is full of stories of Westerners who have had all their savings taken by a gold-digger who is actually running a string of men. So be careful. These are lovely women but they have real needs, supporting the rest of an enormous (by Western standards) family being one of them. They see milking Western men as a legitimate career; they don’t see it as fraudulent, as any cursory check of the relevant sites will prove.
Now it’s up to you. You can just buy sex in the marketplace; or you can have casual fun, and it will cost dinner and beachwear and salon visits and so on, and maybe the buffalo got a bit sick this week. There’s probably not that much in it. Or you can get serious. But serious is really serious, and these girls will give you their hearts on a plate. If that’s not what you want, you have to tell them. You need to know what you want up front and not let passion — or for that matter alcohol — cloud your judgement. I can highly commend the experience of being in a committed relationship with an Asian TS, but it’s not for everyone. Try to be cool and if you’re only going to test the waters and find out about yourself, follow the old adage — ‘no getting lubbed up’.
Back in Pattaya, watch it on Beach Road after 1 am. Just be careful and if you feel you’re a bit tipsy, get a tuktuk or a taxi home. Don’t walk alone there if you can avoid it.
Also, you’re meant to carry your passport at all times in Thailand but this is risky; better make a colour photocopy and carry that along with your hotel reservation receipt, so if you are asked (very rare) you can politely explain it’s at the hotel. (This is one area where the Philippines is better; here, if you extend your visa, you’ll get an Alien Registration card and that is all you need to carry, leaving your passport in the room safe at all times.)
Be aware that there is a difference between Thai Royal Police and the Tourist Police. If you have trouble go to the Tourist Police FIRST. They have a cabin in Walking Street. They are generally more sympathetic and speak good English — indeed, most are ex-pats themselves. If you go to the Thai Royal Police and they reject your claims, that’s it and the Tourist Police can do nothing to help you, even if you have a legitimate grievance. It’s a ‘face’ issue.
Also, anything you agree to will be held to be a binding contract in any dispute. So mind what you say. If you are in a dispute with someone and you believe you are right, keep schtum and insist on calling the Tourist Police. (The old ‘jet-ski’ scam is still ongoing, for example. Here, an innocent is hired out a jet-ski with significant damage which may have been covered up to make it look less obvious. He takes it back and bingo, $500 USD bill for repairs, while the owner is brandishing a gun. Keep calm and get the Tourist Police. The scammers are all known to them. But if you agree to pay the damage in the heat of the moment or because you are intimidated, you’ll be held to it. Stay polite, say nothing and get the cops.)
Be very careful never to get into a violent exchange with any Thai. This applies just as much everywhere in Asia. ‘Face’ is hugely important across the region. I don’t care if you’re a 120kg 6’4″ Yankee Doodle or whatever. Apart from the fact that they might well be armed, all those little Thai guys do Muay Thai or I dunno what. Even if you do manage to get the better of one, you know something? He’s going to come back with 20 of his chums and hospitalise you if not worse. The best thing you can do, if you fuck up like this, is to get on the next plane out. They might not come today, or tomorrow, but they will come, and you will be consuming sustenance through an intravenous drip for the rest of your trip — or maybe your life. And don’t imagine that just because they look cute, ladyboys can’t defend themselves. They’re as strong as men (unsurprisingly) and will whip off a stiletto-heeled shoe and beat you round the face with it if they have to. Play bonny and play safe.
Finally, if you want all this in safety and to meet a nice group of girls in a relaxed, no-pressure environment, try Sensations Bar in Soi 21. Also, if you don’t mind staying a little out of town I can recommend Gino House. It’s quiet, clean and discreet.
Oh, and, I should warn you: once you have discovered ladyboy love you will never go back.
The post Ladyboys in Pattaya appeared first on Rod Fleming's World.
Does this man have the right to use a women-only space just because he claims he ‘identifies as a woman’?
Restroom rights again
The issue of ‘transgender’ access to female-specific spaces continues to boil up. So let’s look again at what is being said and why it is a problem.
While women-only toilets and other similar spaces may have originally been invented out of misogyny and male entitlement (more intended to keep women out of male spaces as men out of women’s), the fact is that they have come to be seen as a place of refuge, safe havens for women who spend all their lives enduring the proprietorial gazes and more, of the men around them.
The United Sates of America, as we have noted here before, has an appalling track record of misogynistic as well as transphobic and homophobic violence. A woman’s rape, according to recent data, is reported once every six minutes there and the level of under-reporting may be as high as 80% or more. Women in patriarchal cultures are under constant threat of rape, and that is why the safe spaces issue has become important.
The regressive left, with typical stupidity, has seized on this as an issue of ‘transgender rights’ and nothing else. This is a lie. There are two issues here. One is whether women have a right to safe spaces where they can perform private functions without interacting with men, and the other is whether a person born male who ‘self-identifies’ as a woman, can simply overthrow any such right. In other words, does just saying he is a woman allow a person who is externally identifiable as a man to enter a space reserved for women who were born female?
The matter is whether men’s ‘right’, to call themselves anything they like and demand to be treated as such, over-rides women’s right to feel safe. In other words, it is a simple matter of power and hierarchy. Giving people born male who simply ‘self-identify’ as women permission to enter women-only spaces, just says that men’s rights matter and women’s don’t. That simple.
Part of the problem is the idiocy of ‘identity politics’ which contends that we are whatever we say we are and there is an end to it. That’s absurd. If identity counts, it is what we can be identified as by others, not by ourselves. Science progresses on the accurate observation, identification and classification of phenomena from an independent observer’s point of view. Unfortunately, philosophy and politics conspire to muddy issues which are scientifically clear.
Sex and gender are not the same thing. Sex is predetermined and innate, for almost all of us, excepting those few with specific intersex conditions. But we are not talking about them here. The rest of us are either born male or female.
Similarly, there are only two genders, feminine and masculine. One is either a woman or a man, or in some cases, sometimes a woman and sometimes a man. Gender, unlike sex, is not innate. It is a set of learned behaviours. It follows therefore that it is entirely possible for a person born male to learn to be a woman, and for a person born female to learn to be a man. These individuals are transsexual.
Most of the research that exists — and I am talking about proper research, not academic philosophical twaddle — has been done on male to female transsexualism rather than female to male. The principal researcher whose work informs the current scientific consensus on this is Dr Ray Blanchard, an unsung hero of sexology.
Blanchard was responsible for determining whether patients arriving at his clinic, the Clarke Institute in Toronto, were eligible for surgery to change their physical sex organs from male to female. He called these people ‘transsexual’, which remains the correct scientific term, because they wanted to transform their physical sex.
Blanchard therefore used the term ‘transsexual’ to mean ‘a person who desires to change their physical sex’. The term ‘transgender’ is meaningless in this context; Blanchard was looking at physical reality, not metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. He is a scientist and was applying proper scientific taxonomy and rigour. (It is telling that resistance to his findings, invariably on spurious grounds, comes from a deeply anti-scientific culture, the United States.)
This group was the only one Blanchard studied, and his results have to be taken in that context.
From long before Blanchard, however, researchers had been aware that not all people, who were born male but presented as women, desired Genital Reconstruction Surgery. Dr Harry Benjamin, in the 1960’s, posited a 7-point scale (these are frequently used by biologists) in which only the two most extreme required GRS. Since these scales are typically weighted towards the centre, this means that many individuals had to some degree a gender that differed from their birth sex, but who did not desire or require GRS. In other words, many transwomen have penises.
Benjamin did not look deeply into the causes of this dichotomy between gender and birth sex. He was a medical doctor and his aim was to relieve the suffering of his patients.
Blanchard, however, was interested in the causes and very quickly confirmed that, as previous researchers like Freund had noted, there were two distinct profiles of persons presenting, seeking to have their physical sex changed. He was able, over years of methodical research, to categorise these into ‘homosexual’ and ‘non-homosexual’ transsexuals. The first, which he termed ‘HSTS’ were uniquely attracted to men from an early age, typically long before puberty. They may have thought themselves to be gay boys at some stage, but this was an unsatisfactory and uncomfortable role to play and they would transition into women, often in their teens and nearly always before the age of 30. They were so naturally feminine in their looks and comportment that they would routinely be taken for women. It was easy for Blanchard to identify and plot the correlation between these individuals’ sex drive and their gender identity. In other words, HSTS transsexualism is based in male sexuality. However, because HSTS are uniquely attracted to men, they pose no sexual threat to women at all.
This is an HSTS or True transsexual, the delightful Kevin Balot. Nobody would be surprised to see her using a women-only space, because that is what she obviously is.
Blanchard then asked if male sex drive might be the stimulus behind the other, non-homosexual group. These had no sexual or romantic interest in men prior to transition, were typically much older, often married, and were not feminine in any way. They usually had great difficulty ‘passing’ as women, if they could at all.
Blanchard was able to show that this second group were otherwise normative heterosexual men who had a condition called an Erotic Target Location Error. Most of us are attracted to other people, no matter what our specific preferences are. These individuals, on the other hand, were attracted to themselves, but in the form of women. They typically had a history of dressing up as women to masturbate, and thus had been sexually confirming their condition by sexual reward, often for two or three or more decades of their lives. Although they often claimed to have wanted to ‘dress up’ as girls before puberty, this was never out of desire for male partners, but out of desire for themselves, as girls. Thus autogynephilia is also a product of male sex drive.
To recap: all male to female expressions of transsexualism are rooted in male sex drive, but there are two completely distinct forms, HSTS and AGP. The former have no sexual interest in woman while the latter do, though their primary erotic or romantic desire is for themselves, in the form of women.
This taxonomy remains the scientific consensus, although nomenclature differs a little. Numerous attempts have been made to scientifically disprove Blanchard’s core conclusions, and all have simply confirmed them.
Unfortunately, autogynephiles often resent the scientific description. To try to get round it, they have developed thing called the ‘brain sex’ theory. This is complete bunk and has no scientific basis, but it has become popular because many autogynephiles are good at manipulating a largely ignorant media.
To understand the resentment it is necessary to understand the development of autogynephilia. The subject has to invent a female character within himself to become attracted to. Through the years of sexual reward, this character becomes stronger and stronger until, one day, it takes over. Now as far as this pseudo-feminine personality is concerned, it always was a woman — and so it was, since the male brain it exists within created it as such. This is the real reason why autogynephiles, who are frequently not in the slightest bit feminine but indeed ultra masculine, claim they were ‘always women inside’.
The most extreme forms of autogynephilia can be treated with GRS. As is said, one gives the subject the body he wants so that it cosmetically conforms to the mental image that the pseudo-feminine constructed personality within the subject expects. The feelings of anxiety dissipate, and the subject can lead a more comfortable, if hardly normal, life. Blanchard’s great contribution to the lives of autogynephiles was in giving a supported scientific justification for performing GRS on them. Little enough gratitude did he get.
Clearly, an autogynephile who has had GRS is not a rape threat to women, because his penis has been removed. It would seem churlish and unkind to make a person who had gone to these lengths use a man’s facility.
However, as Benjamin noted, there is a developmental scale. Not all autogynephiles want GRS, and even if they do, they must pass years living in the appearance of women, before they can. At the same time, these individuals are gynephilic (clue: the hint is in the name). In other words, while they are attracted to themselves as women, they are also attracted to other women. Proof of this is in how many get and remain married. So a pre-operative autogynephile, that is to say, one who retains his penis, remains a potential rape threat.
Now, this was not really too much of an issue. Most autogynephiles are far more excited by their erotic fantasy of being women than by the idea of forcing themselves on other women. Indeed, many have great difficulty in having sex at all, at least with others. So once again, there is little danger to women incumbent on allowing them to use women’s facilities.
The problem has come about because autogynephile activists resent the actual science that describes them in favour of the completely bogus and unsupported ‘brain sex’ theory, that posits, against all the evidence, that gender exists in the brain and is innate. Because of this they have promoted the notion of ‘self-identification’. They basically say ‘only I know whether I am a woman or not, so only I am qualified to say.’
And that is all fine and dandy except that the ridiculous ‘Identity Politics’ fly-by-nighters have transformed this into ‘a man is a woman if he says he is’. It doesn’t matter how he lives or how he presents, as long as he says he’s a woman, we have to go along with that. And thus a woman’s right to a safe private space is trumped by a man’s ‘right’ to say he is a woman. That is simple misogyny, but this is the cornerstone of the restroom/toilet/bathroom debate: is a man a woman just because he says so?
It’s a ridiculous assertion.
The post Restroom rights again appeared first on Rod Fleming's World.
A deliberately provocative video by a YouTube publicity whore calling himself ‘Hunter Avallone’ has a new storm in the latte cup of ‘transgender’ raging. While it can hardly be called ‘viral’, it certainly has stirred up the shit. It’s always sad to see the anti-science views of Catholic fundamentalists like Paul McHugh, formed in the 1960s when homosexuality was still considered a ‘disorder’, trotted out as if they were somehow still relevant, despite having been conclusively refuted by over fifty years of actual science; but that is the standard of this video. (The video above is of Bianca Friere, who is transsexual, not transgender. If you want Hunter’s tripe you’ll have to search.)
‘Transgenders’, in a Western context, are a small group of fetishistic, cross-dressing men whose ‘Gender Identity’ is fuelled by their addiction to masturbation while dressed in women’s clothing. These are our old friends, the autogynephiles, whose profile was conclusively determined by Dr Ray Blanchard. His work, despite the shrill protest of autogynephiles, remains the accepted, and increasingly confirmed, science.
However, in world terms, most people born male who become women are quite different from these men. They are socially, sexually, behaviourally and psychologically women. As women, they blend effortlessly into society. Blanchard called them ‘homosexual transsexuals’ or HSTS; I call them male to female (mtf) transsexuals.
However, they have a major problem: autogynephiles pretend to be the same, except they ‘came out’ later. This is a lie and the science — which has never been challenged — demonstrates that.
This artificial conflation is the root of many misconceptions that appear in ‘Avallone’s’ video. Instead of recognising that there are two distinct typologies and that this has been backed up by actual science — yes, the real stuff, published in proper journals — the author, doubtless in pursuit of attention by provoking a row, behaves as if mtf transsexualism and autogynephilic transgenderism were the same thing.
They absolutely are not, but the mistake made here is understandable: autogynephiles have made so much noise that the media is behaving as if they really were representative. You can’t blame a schoolboy with a nasty attitude and a severe lack of analytical ability for falling into the same trap as many senior journalists have.
Let us be clear: mtf transsexuals are uniquely attracted to men, realise they are different at a very early age and develop not into boys but girls. The primary source of their gender is their sexuality. It is really simple: they are attracted to straight men. How does a person such as they succeed in satisfying this? Become a woman.
Janet Mock is transsexual, not transgender. Read her book, Redefining Realness; her development is clearly, and openly detailed. including the period in her life when she thought she might be a gay man.
The relationship between feminine gay men and transsexuals is so close that there is interchange in the middle of the range, as can clearly be observed in Asia. Social pressure, therefore, contributes greatly to whether a person like this becomes mtf transgender or a gay man and almost all transsexuals will have lived as gay boys or men for some of their lives.
Autogynephilic transgenders are socially, sexually, behaviourally and in all other respects men, except they wear women’s clothing, because this gives them a sexual thrill. Once again, Blanchard defined this. Autogynephilia, he said, is a ‘man’s propensity to be attracted to himself in the form of a woman.’
Many children do indeed explore alternative expressions of gender; one of mine did. Most realise that their natural sexual attraction is to the opposite sex and as they grow, develop their gender in accordance with this. They grow out of it. However, in the case of transsexuals their identification as girls persists after puberty and the key, as ever, is sexuality: if they are attracted to men, they will become transsexual.
Depending on the level of social oppression, they may transition fully and live as women. In the West they usually vanish, living in deep stealth as women; in Asia they are far more open, because the cultures are more socially accepting. Where misogyny and transphobia is high, more will live as gay men and suppress their transsexualism. That this is so is supported by the number of quacks providing reparative therapy to turn young post-pubertal mtf transsexuals into gay men. This is a result which the proponents regard as ‘the best outcome’ but which is responsible for the bitterness and self-loathing that many such gay men exhibit.
All competent authorities, for example the British Institute of Psychology, now regard homosexuality and transsexualism as residing on a natural scale of sexual variation. All living things exhibit variation in all parameters, this is just one. (Actually, there are probably several such scales in operation here, but that is for another day.) So transsexualism, along with homosexuality, is a perfectly natural phenomenon. We know that they are because they appear at roughly the same rate in all human populations everywhere, and have done so since history began. The Hindu Vedas, generally agreed to be at least 3,500 years old and probably 5000, mention several different categories of transsexualism, which are still found in India today. The Sumerian ‘Hymns to Inanna’ also mention them. This is a natural part of the human condition: some boys like boys and some like girls, and of those who like boys, some are more successful as girls. If you doubt this, take a walk round downtown Bangkok or Malate in Manila any night of the week.
Autogynephilia, however, has no such pedigree. There are no references to it at all prior to the 19th century, or anywhere outside Northern Europe and North America. It does not appear to exist in Asia or South America, where transsexualism, by contrast, is obvious. This leads me to conclude that it is not a part of natural human variation at all, but instead a form of psychosis resulting from social pressures dysfunctional societies like that of the USA. Blanchard, while never suggesting an underlying cause, classified autogynephilia as a paraphilia or sexual fetish, alongside sado-masochism, necrophilia, bestiality, paedophilia and others. These also appear to have social rather than biological causes and, as has often been noted, tend to cluster. So autogynephilic transgenderists are often also sado-masochists, for example.
The video does make one important point: there are indeed, only two genders. However, what it misses is that these are not related to birth sex, which is fixed. Instead, they are linked to sexuality, which is variable. People who desire to be penetrated are women and people who desire to penetrate are men. Since gender is entirely constructed and not genetic in any way, in a culture where there was no pressure to conform to predetermined gender stereotypes, we would expect to see gender corresponding directly to sexual desire: those who seek to attract male sexual partners would appear in their culture’s expression of ‘woman’ and vice versa. And this is exactly what we do see, in such cultures.
A good example, one of a great many, would be the Bugis people of Indonesia, who have five genders: males who are men, males who are women, females who are women and females who are men, along with a fifth gender that is ‘all at once’. These last are shamans or priests. Yet underlying these five are only two: man and woman; the fifth is just ‘both at once’. One’s sexual attraction determines which one is. If you are attracted to men, you become a woman, irrespective of your birth sex. If you desire women, you become a man. There is no stigma in this, and as a result, not only is transsexualism so commonplace as to be completely unremarked, but the ridiculous proliferation of ‘gender identities’ so beloved of bunk ‘queer theory’ in the West, is totally absent. There are, in practical terms, only men and women, with two developmental pathways into each.
There is no ‘normal’. There are just scales of variation. ‘Normal’, when used in the context it is in the video, just means ‘not like me’. This is a result of the conformism that infects the society of the United States. It has nothing to do with nature and much to do with a history of slavery, genocide, fratricide and violence. It certainly has nothing to do with transsexuals.
That there are these two types — which AGPs habitually deny — was finally, conclusively confirmed in 2011. Blanchard had stated 20 years before that he believed that when the methods to carry out such testing were developed, transsexuals (his HSTS) would be found to have brains more like women and AGPs not. Two teams, one led by Rametti in Italy and the other by Savic and Arver in Sweden, carried out exactly such testing. These were well-constructed studies that used all proper safeguards, were carried out prior to hormone therapy beginning and with proper controls. Rametti screened out autogynephiles and only tested transsexuals, and Savic and Arver did the opposite.
Their conclusions were clear: transsexuals have brains similar to women’s in every tested area and AGPs brains are indistinguishable from men’s. Blanchard was vindicated and his typology confirmed: there is no correlation or underlying similarity between mtf transsexualism and autogynephilic transgenderism. They are totally different phenomena.
Unfortunately, the conflation of the two types is one reason for the underlying problems that transsexuals face, and this video is just one. Far more serious is the toll of killings and violence. At least 20 transwomen were murdered in the USA alone last year, and not one was autogynephilic. They were all transsexuals.
Transsexual women like Janet Mock, Paris Lees and Laverne Cox, who have the benefit of media attention today, must distance themselves from autogynephilic men like Bruce ‘Caitlyn’ Jenner. There is no hope for better treatment of mtf transsexuals or a reduction of violence against them, as long as they are conflated with masturbating men in dresses.
‘Hunter Avallone’s’ video, while self-serving, and the worst form of manipulation of evidence to suit a predetermined conclusion, is, a the same time, symptomatic of a broader problem: transsexuals are being erased by cross-dressing men in frocks. While it raises some good points, it is superficial and reflects the author’s lack of knowledge of the subject area. It is always a good idea to establish a proper understanding of the science before opening one’s mouth; perhaps in ten years or so, ‘Avallone’ will have gained sufficient maturity to appreciate this.
The post Hunter Avallone: Just another publicity whore. appeared first on Rod Fleming's World.
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.
.
The post Challenging Autogynephilia appeared first on Rod Fleming's World.
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.
The post Identity Politics = Totalitarianism appeared first on Rod Fleming's World.
Rod Fleming on Google+