Why Islam Cannot Change

Islam cannot change because of an internal quirk that prevents it.

Why does Islam resist change and always revert to its barbaric, bloody, violent nature? The answer is because it has no choice.

Jews do not read the Bible as if it were literally true and in any case, the Bible is only one part of the foundation of their faith. The Torah, the body of literature at its centre, contains many other documents and traditions that inform Judaism. It is quite possible to be a Jew and at the same time an atheist, and as a matter of fact, many great Jewish thinkers and scientists, notably Albert Einstein, have been exactly that.

Practising Jews are expected to read the Bible but to make their own peace with God; and furthermore there is no promise of extra-terrestrial reward or punishment in Judaism. The reward for a life lived well is the return of the Promised Land — Israel.

This, together with their historically tiny numbers and the historic and ongoing persecution they have suffered, has tended to make them very tolerant, except in matters of the land of Israel itself. For example, while lapidation remains a punishment specified in the Jewish Bible, the Christian Old Testament, it has not been carried out for over 2000 years, as far as we know.

Israel, nominally a Jewish theocracy, is actually a democratic secular state famously friendly towards its gay and transgender populations, despite the scriptural injunctions placed against them. Women — though still reviled by Orthodox Jews — are respected by mainstream Judaism and are regarded as fully equal to men within the State of Israel; as evinced by the numbers of women in its armed forces who have died defending it.

One of the reasons why Judaism is so reasonable is that there are contradictions in Scripture. It is impossible to equally believe everything this says when it directly contradicts itself, as well as observable reality. How could Jahweh possibly have created the sun three days after the Earth? Surely a day is a measure of solar movement? Oy vey, it makes no sense.

The result of this is that most mainstream Jews see Scripture as a guide rather than as a rigid rule-book. This has tended to soften their attitudes. Although there are extremist fundamentalists who do not take this view, they are a minority and have no real power. Mainstream Judaism is inclusive, tolerant and receptive to new ideas.

Let’s look at Christianity now before considering Islam

The Catholic Church Fathers recognised the internal conflicts in Christian texts right from the beginning. During the hundreds of years that it took to define the official ‘canon’ of the New Testament — that is, which of the over 100 then extant books would be included — several compromises were attempted to minimise these.

In the end, the Catholic Church took the view that the Bible was ‘revelatory’ and  had to be interpreted by the priesthood. This followed the time-honoured tradition of priestly interpretation of divine revelation, which everyone in the Roman Empire was familiar with. For hundreds of years, lay people were discouraged from reading the Bible themselves. Authority, in Catholicism, comes not directly from the words of the Bible, but from the priestly interpretation of them — this is called ‘dogma’. And dogma can be changed.

Catholics no longer burn people at the stake for witchcraft, insist that the Earth is flat or that the sun rotates around it. While it might take the Church centuries to make these changes, they do happen. The Catholic Church even accepts Evolution and Big Bang Theory — carefully rewriting them as ‘acts of God’. Not only is the Church aware of the problem of internal contradiction, it is aware of the contradiction between the Bible and what can be observed; it is no accident at all that a significant number of scientists have been Catholics, including Gregor Mendel, the ‘father of modern genetics’, who was a friar.

Protestantism, whether of the Lutheran or Calvinist type, specified that each man — and they did mean men — should read the Bible and find his own truth in it. While Protestant church leaders have never been shy to shout their own interpretations from the pulpit, the essence of Protestantism is that followers must reconcile the contradictions between life and scripture, and the internal contradictions within the texts, for themselves. This has led to a thoroughly disparate set of religious practices and the truth is that Protestants cherry-pick the Bible just as much as Jews and Catholics do. I see no queues to lapidate people for eating shrimps.

This means that, once again, most Protestants adapt to social change, to scientific knowledge and to technical developments. There are a few who deny their children medical help because of their religion, but even in religious states today, they are prosecuted.

Awareness of contradictions in the texts, and between the texts and life, then, are essential tools by which the ferocity of religions may be tamed. It allows them to be modernised in the light of new discoveries. There are always extremist fundamentalists, be they Hasidic Jews or the odious offspring of the even more repugnant Billy Graham, but they are not mainstream. They are fringe and they will stay that way.

 

Why is Islam different?

Islam, unfortunately, cannot do this, and that is why it is the most barbaric and most dangerous major creed today. Yet the Quran is even more riven with internal contradictions than the other Abrahamic texts. So how has Islam managed to remain so firmly rooted in its most barbarous and cruel form? How is it possible for Islamic clerics to claim, as they do, that the Earth does not rotate on its axis?

In the first place, Muslims believe that the words of the Quran are, literally, the words of Allah, the infallible creator of everything. These words are neither revelatory nor metaphoric: they are the literal truth. Secondly, Muslims believe that the prophet Mohammed was to be the last who would ever receive such heavenly wisdom. In other words, the Quran is the last, direct word of Allah, transmitted through the Angel Gabriel to Mohammed, and it will never, ever be changed.

So what about the internal conflicts? Unlike the Jewish texts or the Christian ones, the Quran is ostensibly the work of one man, who faithfully remembered every word told to him by Gabriel, the infallible agent of Allah, who is of course, himself infallible. Contradictions should be impossible.

Except Allah was, apparently, not infallible; indeed he made mistakes and this gave rise to a solution that has forever crippled Islam’s ability to evolve.

This is called the ‘doctrine of abrogation’. When Mohammed was — allegedly — receiving the good news from Allah via the Angel Gabriel, his followers noticed that, over the years, inconsistencies appeared. Mohammed — again allegedly — asked about this and Gabriel transmitted his question to Allah.

Allah’s response was to say that when he gave a verse that contradicted an earlier one, he took back or ‘abrogated’ the older one. In other words it ceased to be the current infallible word of Allah. Only the later one was. Since Allah is infallible, however, the verses remained in the Quran, since at the earlier time, they were the product of his infallible consciousness and so were current then.

So, Allah is infallible but changes his mind; but because the Quran is the last iteration of the word of Allah that will ever be given, according to Islam, then the last versions, whatever they are, are immutable for all time. They can never be changed.

Religiously sophisticated Muslims are generally very careful not to discuss the ‘doctrine of abrogation’ with non-Muslims; and the matter is made worse because the vast majority of the world’s Muslims have never read the Quran, since it is in Arabic and only that version is deemed appropriate for Muslims to study. (There are translations into vernacular tongues but Muslim scholars scoff at these.) The consequence is that many Muslims do not even know about abrogation. But it is core theology.

The ‘doctrine of abrogation’ means that there are no contradictions in the Quran, even though there are verses, or Suras, that contradict each other, because only the last one is valid. But how do we know which that is? The Quran is not ordered chronologically, but by the length of the texts. There is no way at all to know which came first, from the Quran itself. The only way you can find this out is by reading the Hadith, or the commentaries on the life of the Prophet, which explain when each Sura was ‘received’.

Authority in Islam is not from the Quran alone; it comes from the Quran and the Hadith together. The above shows how important it is to realise this. Furthermore, the doctrine of ‘Taqqiya’ instructs Muslims to conceal, lie and dissemble when dealing with non-Muslims, in the furtherance of the faith.

When discussing their religion with non-Muslims, clerics always talk about the Quran. They will quote verses from it left, right and centre. They never talk about the Hadith, for it is here that the true nature of Islam is revealed. The Quran is hopelessly self-contradictory and confusing, with no narrative structure at all. It is only by studying the Hadith that it becomes possible to contextualise and, therefore, understand the Quran and indeed, Islam itself.

Muslim clerics and scholars are perfectly well aware of this and would prefer that non-Muslims did not read and understand the Hadith; this is because doing so will reveal, amongst other things deeply harmful to the PR image of Islam, that the harshest, most cruel and most violent Suras are invariably the later ones: those that still have force and are ‘unabrogated’.

To understand why later Suras are violent and intolerant while early ones tend to be peaceful and accommodating, one must first comprehend that in the early part of his life, when he was seeking followers and was under scrutiny by the authorities at Mecca, where he lived, Mohammed was very conciliatory. This was because it was politically expedient to be. He had not enough followers to challenge the government and he feared that he might be punished if he were too aggressive. Mohammed had no interest in being executed as a troublemaker, and he lived in harsh times. So the Suras from this period tend to be ‘soft’.

After Mohammed and his followers, sure enough, had annoyed the people of Mecca such that they were expelled, they fled to Medina. Here, he and his merry band discovered banditry as a lifestyle and soon were getting rich by plundering camel caravans carrying trade goods. They then began taking whole towns and villages by force. Be under no illusions: these were not heroes taking from the rich to give to the poor. These were criminals robbing, raping, enslaving and killing to make themselves wealthy and more powerful. The Hadith explain all of this in only-too-gory detail.

The later Suras are much more violent and warlike in reflection of this confidence and faith in violence. By this time, Mohammed was a successful brigand, plundering and killing any he challenged. Conciliation was yesterday but today was fire and sword. The Hadith identify which Suras these are.

When pressed, Muslim apologists will always quote the early Suras, even though they know perfectly well that these have been ‘abrogated’. They are recognised as the words of Allah, but they have been cancelled out. So the fact that these may contradict later, violent Suras is irrelevant, since they are no longer the official word of Allah with effect today.

Despite their protestation that these early, abrogated Suras show the gentle side of Islam, to the Westerner unfamiliar with the cult, the same apologists will exhort Muslims to follow the later, ‘hard’ Suras precisely because these have not been abrogated and are thus the effective word of Allah.

There is absolutely no internal contradiction within the Quran, because in all cases of conflict, only the latest Sura is given any value; the others have been abrogated, or, as we have seen, been ‘taken back’ by Allah and replaced. Only the last remains valid. One simply has to identify which is the later Sura on any given disagreement and then the point is settled.

What this means is that Islam has as its underlying principles violence and warfare, to the ends of increasing the individual wealth of Muslims and expanding the territory under the control of this benighted cult and, worse, that these are permanently locked in forever. This is because the last Suras were ‘received’ by Mohammed when he was a successful warlord and leader of a band of armed killers. To call it a ‘religion of peace’ reveals the speaker as either a blatant liar or as ignorant of Islam. Unfortunately there are many of both.

Most of the world’s Muslims do not speak or read Arabic, although they may be able to recite large parts of the Quran. They do so without understanding a word of it, but this is no matter since it is the sound of Arabic being chanted that pleases Allah. And even if they can read Arabic, the Quran is nonsensical without study of the Hadith.

Islam recognises that this is a problem, so it trains Arabic-speaking clerics, well versed in the Hadith, to preach to the masses.

Islam in retreat – Stealth Jihad

Now you need to understand another issue that Muslims do not like to talk about. In 1683 the bloody tide of Islamic conquest in Europe was turned back by the defeat of the Ottoman hordes at the Siege of Vienna. The liberating forces were led by the Polish King Jan Sobieski, who not only led the biggest cavalry charge in history, but without whom the whole of Europe would have been plunged into darkness and you would not be reading this. (The Poles have never received adequate thanks for literally saving our bacon.) The Enlightenment, perhaps the most vaunted product of post-Renaissance Western culture, would have been snuffed out.

Thanks to the courage of the Poles, in defeating an enemy many times their numbers, over the next century the Muslim world was fractured and the faith itself was menaced by new empires — nearly all Christian.

Jihad is a powerful word in Islam. Up until the defeat at Vienna, it had unquestionably referred to the armed struggle to conquer more territory. While Islam was at its lowest ebb after the triumph of Europe, it was altered to emphasise a ‘spiritual struggle’. But this was pure convenience. The mullahs and clerics looked to the Hadith and saw that when Mohammed was under threat in Mecca, he preached peace and tolerance. So after the fall of their own empires, this is exactly what the clerics did themselves.

Muslims are permitted, when they are so outnumbered that armed rebellion would wipe them out, to live in peace with their neighbours. This has been called ‘Stealth Jihad’. This phase of jihad is indeed a spiritual rather than an armed struggle. It reflects Mohammed’s early years in Mecca, when he and his followers were powerless and at the mercy of the other people in the city. In cases like this Muslims, following the example of Mohammed, should pray and live devout lives, lying low and preparing themselves for the time when their numbers are such that they can resume the armed struggle.

Stealth jihad is what the Muslim world reverted to after the defeat of its armies, but it must be realised that this can only ever be a temporary situation. The resumption of armed struggle is inevitable, a prerequisite of faith. Islam exists to conquer the world and make it Arabic; this can never be changed. When Islam is being complaisant, it is only because it is gathering strength.

It should be clear now that Stealth Jihad is not a softening of Islam at all, but simply a defensive measure. But remember, most Muslims do not speak Arabic and few are really familiar with the Quran, let alone the Hadith. The responsibility of deciding which message Muslims should follow, or even hear, falls on the clerics. For over 200 years they focussed on the moderate, non-violent — but at the same time abrogated — Suras.

A return to violence

Today, empowered by the wealth born of the developed world’s thirst for oil, encouraged by the appalling obsequiousness of Western governments and positively bolstered by the sheer stupidity and ignorance of the ‘regressive left’, the clerical class that once preached the early Suras and encouraged the population to be calm, to submit to the power of others and to cause no trouble, are again preaching the Medina Suras — the ones that exhort violence and armed jihad.

It is vital to realise, right now, that so-called Islamist extremists are not: they are simply preaching the words and will of Allah now in force, which are contained ONLY in the later, unabrogated Suras. They are preaching the ‘true’ version of Islam, the later version, which is, throughout, bloody and violent and exhorts Muslims to kill, enslave and extort non-believers. The cult these men (always men) preach is not extremist within the context of Islam. In fact it is the only true form; and it is to this that all Muslims must revert when they are strong enough to do so without risking extermination. Armed jihad and global conquest are not fringe extremism in Islam: they are its core values.

With absolutely no contradictions in the Quran, which the simple yet diabolical mechanism of ‘abrogation’ ensures, there can be no debate and so, no modernisation. When Muslim scholars argue, they are not doing so over the issue of which Suras are more valid. They only have to look in the Hadith to establish this. They are instead nit-picking over the nuances of meanings of words, or obscure calligraphs in texts. They know what Islam is about; there is no argument there. It is established, permanently, with no opportunity for alteration. And its end is world conquest.

The ‘gentle face’ of Islam is a sham, a ruse designed to persuade an unwary enemy, ignorant of the truth, that Islam will not spread war and violence; that it is peaceful and may be trusted.

This is an illusion. While individual Muslims may indeed be peaceful and trustworthy, they are the fringe. I celebrate those like Maajid Nawaz, who risks his life every day to try to soften Islam; but in a way, men such as he are the extremists, in an Islamic context, for they are furthest from the established doctrinal basis of the cult. That is why they are so viscerally hated by other Muslims. While we must — rightly — be thankful for good men such as he, it is not possible to be optimistic about the chances they have of successfully taming this monster.

In the next in this series I will look in detail at the different forms of jihad and what they mean.

 

See also: http://ift.tt/1TZUo4e

Rod Fleming on Google+

The post Why Islam Cannot Change appeared first on Rod Fleming's World.

Related posts:

1. Muslims we Must Support: Maajid Nawaz
2. A watershed month
3. Southern Baptism

The Man Who Would Be Queen

This book caused its author to be accused of child abuse and to receive death threats. Why?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Man Who Would Be Queen

Revisiting the untouchable; J Michael Bailey’s seminal book after 13 years.

The Man Who Would Be Queen (TMWWBQ) sparked huge controversy when it was published. The furore it caused, while small in focus, was spectacular in its incandescent rage at the author. This was categorically different from the conservative reaction to works of other controversial authors like D H Lawrence, or even Vladimir Nabokov’s deeply unsettling study of male attraction to pubescent girls, where the hostility was principally against the work; not so here. It was J Michael Bailey in person who was vilified.

And to cap that, TMWWBQ is not a work of fiction, but of popular science. It is well written, in non-scientific language, is easy to read and deeply sympathetic to its subject. So what on Earth happened, to provoke a furious backlash which included entirely spurious attempts to end Bailey’s career, personal slurs and threats of violence against him? His attackers accused him of sexually molesting his children; not even Salman Rushdie had to put up with that over The Satanic Verses.

The campaign against Bailey, coordinated by a small group of internet bullies, amounted to nothing more or less than a blatant attempt at censorship associated with a virulent personal attack on the author. It’s time, now, to revisit this book and see why it caused such a storm in a latte cup.

The book begins with a general overview of the scientific understanding of male homosexuality, firstly by describing the life of a young, highly feminine cross-dressing boy called ‘Danny’ (not his real name.) Danny began to show feminine behaviour and to cross-dress when he was three years old; his mother came to Bailey for help.

In Part Two it progresses to describe femininity in adult male homosexuals and contrasts this with masculinity in the same group. At the end of this section, Bailey briefly discusses the known history of male homosexuality. He introduces the ideas of ‘transgender homosexuality’ on one hand, in which although both partners are born male, one plays a woman in all manners including appearance, comportment and in sexual intercourse — that is to say, she is penetrated; and on the other hand ‘egalitarian’ homosexuality, where both parties are masculine in appearance and comportment.

The former is the norm across the world and was the only model until the 20th century, while the latter appeared in Western culture, specifically the USA, in the 1960s and has been spread by contact since. Bailey makes the important point that in the former, only one partner is actually homosexual, since she is born male but desires masculine men, while her partner desires women and plays a masculine sexual role, whereas in the latter, both are homosexual because both desire men and appear to be men.

He makes the accurate assessment that transgender homosexuals, since they are attracted to straight men, who are therefore attracted to femininity, are naturally driven to appear to be as feminine as possible. On the other hand, egalitarian homosexuals, themselves attracted masculinity, appear to be very masculine themselves. This is sometimes called ‘clone’ homosexuality. The author then poses questions about how Danny’s adult life might proceed in view of all of this.

In Part Three, the book discusses persons born male who desire to become women, in the light of the preceding parts. Bailey calls these individuals ‘transsexuals’ and makes it clear that this is a broad church that is not limited merely to those persons who wish to undergo or have undergone Genital Reconstruction Surgery to reconfigure their male genitalia into facsimiles of female ones.

He discusses the popular ‘brain sex’ idea, which posits that male-to-female (mtf) transsexuals are ‘women trapped in men’s bodies’ and notes that there is no evidence to support this; and in any case, he asks, how does anyone know what it feels like to be someone else?

Bailey explains that there are actually two different types of male-to-female (mtf) transsexual. This had been noted almost a hundred years earlier by the German psychologist Magnus Hirschfeld and repeatedly confirmed by later scientists. None, however, had been able to explain this difference.

He then describes the research carried out by Dr Ray Blanchard, which explains these differences by showing that there are two distinct profiles of people born male who wish to become women. These profiles have nothing in common save that the subjects are born male and become women; the differences between them are enormous, and Blanchard’s research, for the first time, explained these differences in proper scientific studies. This is the foundation of the modern science of transsexualism.

This section is illustrated by descriptions, again sensitively handled, of the lives of several transsexuals of both types. It is quite clear from the writing that these examples are meant to serve only as examples.

The two types, Bailey explains, are ‘homosexual transsexual’ or HSTS, and ‘autogynephilic transsexual’ or AGP. Bailey explains that HSTS are uniquely attracted to masculine men, whereas AGPs, at least before transitioning, are heterosexual. (Some appear to be ‘asexual’ but this is resolved in Blanchard’s work.)

The core motivation for HSTS is a powerful desire for straight, masculine lovers; HSTS may have numerous gay friends but they are not attracted to them. This, Bailey explains, is a relatively easy orientation to understand. HSTS transsexuals are naturally feminine boys who desire men. If they think they can be successful as women, they are likely to at least try to follow this path. Everything they do from the point they decide to transition is in order to make themselves more attractive. This, after all, whether feminists approve or not, is what most young women do.

(HSTS do not take hormones and have surgeries in order to become more ‘like women’ but to become more beautiful women.)

On the other hand, the core motivation for autogynephilic transsexualism is ‘a man’s propensity to be attracted to the idea of himself as a woman’. While it is a very complex sexuality and concomitantly rare, autogynephilia, like HSTS, is rooted in male sexuality; it could hardly be rooted in any other type.

Blanchard identified three distinct sexualities of autogynephilic men. These were heterosexual, the majority, who retained their normative male attraction to women and never or rarely had sex with men; bisexual, who began experimenting with sex with men after transition or while ‘dressed’; and ‘analloerotic’, those for who no other person was needed for romantic or sexual satisfaction. (These last are sometimes called ‘asexual’ but this is erroneous; just ‘being women’ is a sexual release for these men.)

To complicate matters even more, autogynephilia may manifest in four different manners: transvestic, in which the subject is stimulated by cross-dressing; behavioural, where the stimulus comes from doing ‘womanly’ things such as knitting; physiological, where the attraction is to female bodily functions like menstruation (AGP men may wear sanitary pads and urinate in them, for example); and anatomic, where the subject is aroused by the thought of having a woman’s body parts such as a vagina.

When it is realised that these four manners may occur individually or in conjunction with each other and that they affect the three types of autogynephile, the complexity of this condition, and the incisiveness that Blanchard showed in identifying the cause of them all, autogynephilia, are obvious.

So what causes autogynephilia? Put simply, this is an ‘Erotic Target Location Error’. Instead of the subject being romantically attached to a person outside of themselves, they are attracted to a pseudo-personality created within their own minds who is a facsimile of a woman. (She has to be since they are gynephilic, or attracted to women.) As the condition advances, this pseudo-personality is strengthened through sexual reward until it overwhelms the male host. At this point the subject experiences feelings of great psychological unease as the created pseudo-woman now in control rejects her male body.

(This is so different from the ‘gender dysphoria’ that HSTS experience that some HSTS reject the term.)

HSTS typically present while still young, often in their teens and rarely over the age of thirty, while AGPs, on average, present much later, with a median age of 43. This has allowed some AGPs to claim that the only difference is one of age at presentation; but Blanchard debunks this.

At the same time, thanks to the internet and social media, there is significantly more overlap in age now than when Blanchard was researching, so it is possible to compare the types side by side; they are completely different. HSTS are extremely feminine and have no difficulty ‘passing’ as women; indeed they often, themselves, claim they are ‘useless at being men’. AGPs, even when younger, find it difficult to be feminine at all, and those who transition later in life may really struggle.

Bailey observes, ‘There is the rare exception, but for the most part, autogynephilic transsexuals aspire (with some success) to be presentable, while homosexual transsexuals aspire (with equivalent success) to be objects of desire.’ (Note, however, that HSTS are interested in attracting straight male lovers and are in direct competition with natal women for them; AGPs, in the main, are not.)

Bailey, as a clinician, is equally sympathetic to both types and makes it clear that both should be treated fairly. Having made the case that male homosexuality is almost certainly genetic (a research area he continues to work in,) Bailey then makes the case that autogynephilia, while distinct from homosexual transsexualism, may also be genetic in origin and run in families. If true it would therefore be a discrete, genetically-dependent orientation in itself.

‘Gender dysphoria’ is a deeply-felt discomfort with their male physical attributes, associated with both types of mtf transsexual. Indeed it is the clinical diagnosis upon which a referral for surgery must be based, and this has caused some considerable confusion.

In talking to many HSTS transwomen, as I have, both online and in person, it is quite clear that they do not suffer gender dysphoria in the way that AGPs do. For the latter, this is a deep and unsupportable loathing of their male organs, triggered by the collapse of their male persona under onslaught from their pseudo-feminine one.

Most HSTS have no such issue with their organs, they have an issue with being beautiful, so that they may compete with natal women and be accepted as sexual partners by straight men — who are the only men they are interested in. If winning such a man means losing the penis, so be it.

(Bailey is pessimistic about the extent to which GRS improves a transwoman’s chances of winning and keeping a straight male partner, a pessimism which I share.)

Throughout, Bailey avoids inflammatory language and, while this is not a science textbook, writes in a very neutral manner, presenting the observed facts and explaining the scientific theories, but leaving the reader to draw conclusions.

The book is not perfect and this in part is because it was published over a decade ago. Where it falls down most is where there was least scientific research. In addition, the author tends to extrapolate from the US experience to the global one, which is unsupported. He somewhat assumes that the US milieu can be regarded as a ‘standard of normativity’ when in fact, many observers would regard it as a very peculiar one indeed, informed by some deeply unpleasant Anglo-Saxon prejudices.

For example, the author clearly regards the idea that ‘Danny’ should grow up to be a gay man, rather than a transsexual woman, as a good outcome. He acknowledges that this must mean Danny suppressing his femininity, and does remark that if he grew up in a milieu less prejudiced than the US, he would probably be transsexual. But he makes no attempt to argue that US culture should be changed, meaning that boys like ‘Danny’ must continue to suppress their true natures, however hard that might be. (Today, social change means that there would be a much greater chance that ‘Danny’ would indeed grow up to be transsexual, even in the USA.)

Notwithstanding these points, which Bailey might well view differently today anyway, The Man Who Would Be Queen is, overall, an excellent book. It lays out the science of transsexualism in a clear and easily understood manner and thus provides what Ray Blanchard, who finally nailed it, never did: an accurate and factually correct lay person’s guide. As someone reasonably familiar with a significant number of gays and transsexuals, I would say this book is a very useful primer and explains a great deal that would otherwise be mysterious.

All in all, it is well written, contains much insight, treats its subjects with great respect and manages to preserve their dignity, even when describing practices that most people would be surprised by. It is not at all prurient or lascivious and maintains a consistent good humour throughout: so why on Earth did it cause so much trouble?

While The Man Who Would Be Queen discussed several different types of sexuality and the individuals who have them, only one of these groups showed any negative reaction to the book at all. Gay men and HSTS transwomen were largely silent. (I have explained Blanchard to many HSTS transwomen; all were suspicious at first but very quickly recognised themselves in his description.) The only group that objected to the book at all was a small number of AGP activists, most of whom were themselves academics.

This is surprising because academics, while frequently scathing about each other’s conclusions, are usually very careful to avoid any kind of ad hominem attack; but the very opposite happened here.

While some AGP activists did try to debunk Blanchard, whose research informed much of the book, they were unsuccessful. Perhaps the most convincing was by Dr Madeline Wyndzen, who argued a reasonable case based on the statistical methodology used but was, in the end, unable to refute the core findings.

In any case, Blanchard did not write this book and it was the book that caused the anger; J. Michael Bailey wrote it. Because of all of this, he, rather than Blanchard was the target of what Dr Alice Dreger called a ‘narcissistic rage attack’. A classic case of ‘shoot the messenger’.

The attack on Bailey was shocking for its intensity and its personal nature. Although an investigation by Northwestern University, where Bailey is a professor, fully vindicated him and an excellent rebuttal of the attacks was written by Dreger, there is no doubt that a small group of people in positions of responsibility, including senior academics, colluded to attempt to ruin Bailey’s career and destroy his private life. Thankfully they failed but this reflects no credit on the perpetrators whatsoever.

The attempt to discredit both Ray Blanchard and Michael Bailey was not on scientific grounds, but on personal ones. Yet, and despite there being no credible evidence to refute Blanchard, to this day, many autogynephile activists and even a few HSTS ones (who should know better) claim that his typology is ‘out of date’ or ‘debunked’.

Nothing could be further from the truth. While some of the terminology has been (unnecessarily) modified in certain publications, the core ideas, that there are two distinct types of male-to-female transsexualism, that both are rooted in male sexuality, and that individuals in one group are strongly attracted to men, while the others are attracted to the idea of themselves as women, have become the de facto scientific consensus. Despite constant misinformation from AGP activists, Blanchard’s typology remains the basis of the APA’s understanding of transsexualism, along with that of the WHO and other psychological and psychiatric bodies across the globe.

Nuttbrock et al, in 2009, attempted to debunk Blanchard in a large scale study in New York and ended up confirming it. MRI tests on separate and controlled groups of HSTS by Rametti et al. on one hand and on AGPs by Savic and Arver on the other, in 2011, clearly demonstrate major differences between HSTS and AGP brains, directly confirming the prediction Blanchard made in 1995. An attempt, by Dr Charles Moser, to suggest that autogynephilia exists in natal women was thoroughly rebutted by Dr Anne Lawrence, but did have the effect of provoking an update of the diagnostic tool in use.

Today, the principal researcher into autogynephilia is Lawrence, herself AGP, who has amassed many narratives from other autogynephiles that fully support Blanchard, which she also does. This, of course, has also made her a target for attack, despite the thorough and painstaking nature of her research and the fact that she is herself autogynephilic.

The attacks on Bailey were both academically disgraceful, the more so because senior academics prosecuted them, and fundamentally anti-science. They attempted to force the acceptance of an unsubstantiated explanation that lacked any independent support, while properly designed, supported, peer-reviewed scientific research, as Blanchard’s was, had to be rejected; just because they said so.

Worse, when it became impossible to break the science, they used the tactics of politicians, rather than scientists. They attempted to shout down a perfectly well developed and executed piece of research and to destroy the lives of those who proposed it. When all else failed they resorted to simple defamation, character assassination, accusations of child abuse, personal insult and innuendo and even death threats. Nobody could be in any doubt that this was an atrocious way to behave. Why did they do it? Because they had no evidence to refute Blanchard.

This is no different from the anti-science mindset of climate change denialism. It is no different from the anti-science preaching of extremist religious fundamentalists who deny the science of evolution or how the universe came to be; the wilfully ignorant point of view that because one believes something, it must be so, irrespective of whether it is true or not.

Well, the Earth is not 6,000 years old and Darwin was right. Science is the only credible means we have to explain natural phenomena, and to deny it because it might harm the interests, or hurt the feelings, of some people, is unacceptable. That such a position is held by some claiming to be scientists themselves is egregiously so. For those people to then collude in a pack attack on others with whose ideas they disagreed is beyond the pale.

In the thirteen years since this celebrated storm in the latte cup, further research has vindicated Blanchard. No serious scientist now subscribes to the ‘brain sex’ notion and the consensus is firmly that there are two distinct conditions that lead to male-to-female transsexualism, both rooted in male sexuality. The politically-correct myth that transsexuals are ‘women born in men’s bodies’ has been debunked, not once, but time and again.

This has not prevented autogynephile activists from continuing to promote it, to the detriment of HSTS transsexuals and of course, women; so persuasive have they been that many lay persons apparently believe that the only way to be a ‘real’ woman is to have been born with a penis. To this end they continue to use the same tactics as they used against Bailey: misrepresentation, traduction, quote-mining, bullying, character assassination, threats of violence, defamation and flat lying.

Blanchard himself no longer researches in the area of transsexualism, but was on the editorial board for the most recent revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. J Michael Bailey has returned to an earlier fascination and recently collaborated in research which re-examined, using pairs of identical twins, the idea that homosexuality might be genetic and innate, and showed the affirmative. His contribution to studies in the field of human sexuality remains important. Anne Lawrence continues to publish and contribute to the actual science of transsexualism — rather than the socio-political nonsense that is all too prevalent.

The Man Who Would Be Queen, in summation, then, is a well-written and enjoyable book that explains the science of transsexualism in everyday language, citing real examples of real people. It is a must-read for anyone interested in this subject. The book makes it possible to understand the phenomena of people like Bruce ‘Caitlyn’ Jenner (AGP) and Janet Mock (HSTS), and why they are so obviously so different.

While not itself a scientific textbook it is an accurate and readable primer that points the reader in the direction of the peer-reviewed research, on which it is based, with an excellent bibliography. While I disagree with the author that growing up as a feminine gay man is a better outcome for a gender non-conforming boy than becoming a transwoman, the book would still be helpful for parents of such children.

However, it would be of especial interest and help to those who have, in their families, autogynephilic transsexuals, particularly women whose husbands have announced that they intend to transition, as well as the sons and daughters of such men.

Rod Fleming on Google+

The post The Man Who Would Be Queen appeared first on Rod Fleming's World.

No related posts.

The Genie of Aspiration

The thing about aspiration is that it’s a tough genie to get back into its bottle.

This must be the conclusion of any mythical, dispassionate, possibly extra-terrestrial viewer when examining the current state of political affairs in the disUnited Kingdom. Less than two years ago a referendum was held which was explicitly intended to slay the nationalist monster for once and for all — sentiments reflecting those of the spectacularly unforesightful George Robertson when this whole journey began and his party found itself obliged to offer Scots a parliament of their own. Yet the genie is far from banished and if anything is more bumptious than ever.

The ‘wee pretendy parliament’ just growed and growed and now its roars — if still distant and ill-understood — have begun to frighten the gentle people of the far south, the colonial overlords of the disUnited Kingdom. Yes, frighten: for the first time since Churchill sent tanks and troops to quell the people of Glasgow, the English establishment has been rattled by events in Scotland.

For them the Scots’ discontentment is a profound mystery, one which they will probably never grasp. For the southern English, the Union is indeed a great thing. It achieved most that it was intended to. It established a militarily secure platform upon which the British Project — to make the world England — could be built and for centuries that project was a success; the Anglo-Saxon patriarchy was spread across the globe by it, taking, somewhat unfortunately, all the prejudice and insecurity of the English middle class with it.

Then again, for the southern English — and not a few Scots who have joined them — London and the south-east of England is the finest place in the world to live. It is a land of fabulous opportunity where all one has to do is work hard and one’s personal streets will be paved with gold. And they are not mean with their largesse: why anyone, from whatever uncultivated backwater of the disUnited Kingdom, may move to London and there spend their days serving the Great British Project, to the betterment — so their apologists attest — of all. Why, look at the money these people can send back to their poor relatives still living in frightful places like Inverurie or Campbeltown.

And this arrangement ideally suits the southern English who are approaching the end of their working days. London’s economic primacy over the disUnited Kingdom means that they can sell their ridiculously overpriced two-bedroom maisonettes and with the money thus liberated, buy a manor in Dunkeld or Aberfeldy. After all, the poor indigenes of these places have not the resources to compete. And if they should complain, then they must come to London, where they may, after a lifetime of slavery to the British Project,  earn enough to buy homes for themselves in the places they were born and raised. That is the free market. Yes, the system is equitable and works for the benefit of all.

Look you, the English even build roads and railways so that the impoverished Scots can travel south to where they should be, and there serve the British Project. How could anyone complain or deny this generosity?

Scotland is useful though; it gives the southern English a place to put their nuclear weapons. In truth these will never be used and represent an extravagance of obscene proportions, as well as being illegal. But they are the Imperial sabre that allows the English to pretend that ‘Britain’ is still a world player and that Vladimir Putin really gives a monkey’s what the Great British Prime Minister thinks. Once it was Nelson’s navy, now it is a fleet of submarines equipped with the most horrific killing systems the patriarchy has ever invented. Plus ca change…And in return, taxpayers (who are, of course, all English, since the Scots are all feckless spongers) even give poor Scottish peasant farmers actual real money to work on these obscenities. The fact that if anything ever goes wrong, those peasants will become irradiated flying mince, along with most of the rest of the Scots, is neither here nor there; it is not as if it were London, after all.

Meanwhile, the British Home Office decides who may enter the disUnited Kingdom, in order to protect the interests of everyone in it…or at least, the interests of the south-east of England. But then, the Scots clearly have not the competence to make such decisions: they weren’t born in England, poor things. And since the whole point of the British Project is to make everywhere England, then this too is reasonable and logical.

This is what our space-alien visitors might think, reading the crop of English and Unionist media in the run-up to the Scottish election next month. The Scots are a miserable, ungrateful shower who should be glad of the crumbs of English largesse that drop into the squalid, sordid swamp they live in. England’s generosity and magnanimity towards this backward, miserable wasteland to the north is unsurpassed and ongoing. How dare the Scots protest it?

But then our aliens, being scientists, as they must be to have got this far, would have to take another sample. They would come to Scotland and there they would hear a very different story.

The Scots do not, in the main, want an opportunity to compete for stratospheric wealth. They just want a comfortable life, thank you. The Scots do not hanker for the fair vistas of Tottenham or Islington; they prefer their own cities. The South Downs pale when compared to the Lairig Ghru and beaches? Who would choose Brighton over the magnificent strands of Scotland?

Scots do not appreciate that their children are priced out of living where they grew up and they certainly do not accept that it should be necessary for a person, well qualified and prepared to work hard, to have to go to another country in order to find a decent job.

The Scots, in the main, do not seek to pretend that they can dominate world affairs; by and large they would be happy to play a constructive role in Europe –although their ability to do so must, of course, be decided by the English. They do not respond warmly to the rattle of imperial sabres, partly because those sabres have been used, all too often, on the Scots themselves; but also because they do not covet militaristic glory.

Scots abhor injustice, discrimination and the kind of divide between rich and poor that apparently delights the hearts of their southern neighbours (and, at least till now, masters.) They are intrinsically an egalitarian lot, contemptuous of airs and graces and mocking of hereditary – or otherwise – titles. One of the greatest compliments a Scot can pay is that a person is ‘unassuming’. Their reaction to inequality is to try to make the system more fair and distribute wealth more equitably, rather than blame those trapped in poverty by it.

For a marriage to work, both partners must share a great deal in common. That which divides them – and there is always something – must be far less than that which draws them together. In many marriages, what binds the couple is their children, usually conceived in the early days. Frequently the desire to have children is the motivation for marriage. Then they have to be brought up and this implies a commitment to do so. It is no surprise that so many marriages come to an end – often amicably – when that responsibility is discharged. There is not enough in common left to make up for the differences and people do change over the years.

For the disUnited Kingdom, what bound the unlikely and disparate partners together was not children, but the British Project – making the world England, by force. For centuries this was a success and on it was built the empire upon which, famously, ‘the sun never set’.

Well that sun did, in the end, set. There is no British Empire now. It is defunct and while the world still suffers the consequences of its imposition, the disUnited Kingdom has little power to influence the global future. The British Project has run its course. It is the subject of academics and historians. Britain remains economically important but militarily it is spent. Even the operation that wrested the Falklands back from an invader, only thirty years ago, could not now be carried out by the British armed forces. The child of the disUnion, the British Project, is not only grown but has lived and died while those that begat it still sup at the same table, one of them increasingly aware of how little now brings them together and how much divides them, while the other blithely hums ‘Rule Britannia’ and fills in The Times’ crossword. ‘Eight letters, a cold place of discontent and strife…oh yes, Scotland.’

The disUnion is dead. It is defunct. It has hopped the twig, kicked the bucket, passed away, gone tits-up. It is like those marriages lived in cold sufferance of each other, where the parties stay together because it is familiar and they fear change. Our aliens, if they did not know the history behind it, would be asking themselves why on Earth two partners so completely different in so many ways would ever have come together in a union of any kind.

That is why, in the Scottish case, the aspirational nationalist genie cannot be put back into the bottle. It is an idea whose time has come. It will not go away and in the end, Scotland will be independent, one way or another. It is really up to the English, now and alongside their Unionist stooges in Scotland, to decide how much ill-feeling they wish to leave behind once the inevitable parting of the ways arrives.

 

Rod Fleming on Google+

The post The Genie of Aspiration appeared first on Rod Fleming's World.

Related posts:

1. The Roads to Referendum: 1
2. The Empty Palace: Roads to Referendum 2
3. The Vampire Rises : Roads to Referendum 3

Stand up and be counted

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.

Rod Fleming on Google+

The post Stand up and be counted appeared first on Rod Fleming's World.

Related posts:

1. An exploration of transgender lives
2. Ladyboys in Pattaya
3. Challenging Autogynephilia

Ladyboys in Pattaya

So you’re planning to meet some ladyboys in Pattaya? Read this.

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.

The phenomenon of highly feminine, sexually attractive transsexual women has become increasingly well known over the last two decades, mainly through the internet. Transsexual porn, for example, is extremely popular, but only amongst men who identify as ‘straight’. Unfortunately a great deal of the information available is either badly researched or flat wrong, or, worse, comes from sites maintained by autogynephile activists, who have no knowledge whatsoever about the lives of true transsexuals, although they pretend to.

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. Tiffany and Alcazar are the two biggest, both with large theatres, but there are many other, smaller and more intimate venues. They’re not everyone’s cup of tea, but I recommend visiting at least once. (Please note: the girls who work in these, certainly the more upmarket ones, are usually NOT available for paid sex, or at least, not on the premises. Don’t cause embarrassment.)

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.)

After 10 pm or so (LBs are just unusually gorgeous vampires) there will be loads of ladyboys on the street, not just in the bars. Their prices are similar to bar girls but no bar fine — and no mamasan to run to if there’s a problem. You will certainly, at least in Walking Street, see many well-known faces, as the producers of porn seek their models here. However, you might pay much more for the services of a girl who is no hotter or more talented than any other, but just has done a lot of porn. Your choice.

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.

Rod Fleming on Google+

The post Ladyboys in Pattaya appeared first on Rod Fleming's World.

Related posts:

1. Travels With a Ladyboy: 1. NAIA
2. An exploration of transgender lives
3. Do Transattracted Men Cross-dress?

Restroom rights again

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.

Rod Fleming on Google+

The post Restroom rights again appeared first on Rod Fleming's World.

Related posts:

1. Jenner: not the face of trans women
2. Why are transgenders so evident in Asia?
3. Challenging Autogynephilia