Autogynephilia & Narcissistic Rage

Paper by Dr Ann Lawrence


This is the second in my series looking at the work of Dr Ann Lawrence; a self-described autognephile and ”transsexual”. In this paper Lawrence explains the origins of the narcissistic rage which is a feature of TRA (Trans Rights Activists) on twitter and in real life.

Narcissistic Rage and Shame

The paper covers the work of Alice Dreger who documented the TRA attacks on Michael Bailey, author of the Man Who Would Be Queen. I did a series on MWWBQ a while ago. You can read that series here which covers this abuse and Dreger’s work. 👇

Man who would be Queen

In this piece I want to deal with Lawrence’s explanation for Narcissistic rage and how it is rooted in shame. The backlash to Bailey’s book was far more virulent than a few critical book reviews, it was a savaging of the author and even targeted his children. Lawrence’s paper provides an explanation (not quite a justification, but definitely in the realm of mitigation) for the level of vitriol directed at Bailey.

Lawrence points out that the main opponents of Bailey’s book were heterosexual “trans” identified males. For Lawrence this is not merely coincidental but is rooted in the paraphilia known as autogynephilia.

To bolster his claim Lawrence quotes the author of a book about Narcissistic Rage (Kohut 1972). The aggrieved (narcissistically injured) will have an unending compulsion to extract revenge.

Exhibit A, in the U.K, would be Graham Linehan. JK Rowling would be a close second.

Lawrence goes on to explain why he feels AGP males are particularly vulnerable to exhibitions of Narcissistic rage. Remember Lawrence is speaking from an insiders perspective so he uses the framing of “vulnerable” to exhibitions of narcissistic rage. Women have a different vantage point so I would modify this to inclined to narcississtic rage; just to emphasise the kind of males who are being granted access to our intimate spaces.

Retconned narratives & Erotic Cross-dressing

Lawrence proceeds to relate accounts from ”transsexuals” who claim they identified with, even Idealised, female figures as a child but were also disciplined for displaying any interests labelled feminine. It is important to note that we cannot verify these claims. It is plausible that some of this, maybe all, is what is known as a retconned narrative; the product of an adult, autogynephilic male to explain/justify his sexual, compulsion. Lawrence seems to take these reports on trust and argues that the consequence was a disordered sense of self. Personally I don’t feel particularly ”idealised” by men who masturbate while wearing female clothing.

Mirroring is describes “as being witnessed empathetically or approvingly”. I don’t think any mother is going to approve of her son masturbating into her underwear, or her daughter’s. It is perfectly acceptable response to disapprove whilst also necessary to get him therapy before the behaviour escalates.

Living as a woman

Lawrence does not explain what ”living as a woman” means. Radical Feminist thought has long arued there is no ”right” way to be a woman. To allow men to claim they are ”living as a woman” is antithetical to female liberation. It can only be a man’s idea of what a woman is and this will, pretty much inevitably, be derived from sexist stereotypes.

Lawrence argues that the situation may even get worse after ”transition”. The framing here is interesting. The fervent desire is to be treated as a woman. That is an odd desire since female typical experience is to be talked over, patronised, sexually objectified, under-represented in the political class and 2 of us a week are killed by men. At least Lawrence recognises that the Lady Penis class are often behaviourally very male.

Heaven forfend that women accurately sex these men. Were the black community asked to affirm Rachael Dolezal? Nobody deserves to be denied their civil rights or to be subject to violence. However, if your civil rights claim is to be allowed to colonise the female sex class the answer is a simple, NO!

Once again Lawrence claims these negative emotions are not ameliorated after ”transition” and may even be exacerbated as the autogynephile observes their own masculine traits.

Fantasy versus Reality

The author quotes some research which looked at a sample of ”transsexuals” and found higher levels of narcissistic personality disorders, marked by a sense of grandiosity and unrealistic expectations. The consequences are a significant gap between the fantasy and reality. We see the results of this disordered thinking with monotonous regularity, on social media.

Lawrence theorises that Bailey’s crime was to write about autogynephilia for a general audience. Previously it had been restricted to academic journals and was not a widely understood phenomenon. To this day our political class has to deny the roots of transsexualism to be able to justify the imposition of these, disordered males, on women. Bailey did not, Lawrence, highlighted, affirm the men’s claims to be a new sort of woman. He also did not hold back when revealing details of how the “transsexuals” he made made a living.

For the author it is therefore unsurprising that ”transsexuals” experienced this book as a narcissistic injury. There are, we are told, two possible responses to this injury, internalise it as shame or externalise it as anger. Lawrence implies that the latter is more psychologically healthy.

Then comes the emotional blackmail. Once again women should not be expected to host these damaged men whether or not we incline more to sympathy than hostility.


To be fair it is difficult to assess what Lawrence’s demands are, in concrete terms, of the female sex class. We simply don’t appear to have been considered except as a mirror required to reflect back a man’s belief about himself. Clearly Lawrence wishes there to be more research in this area and, at present, believes the language, used in this area, needs to be sensitive and empathetic; toward the man with autogynephilia. This may very well be appropriate in a clinical setting but it may also serve to concretise an identity which may not be in the subjects long term interests.

One thing is very clear, our politicians need to learn about this paraphilia, and fast.

If you can afford to support my writing , you can do so here. All donations gratefully received. My next piece will cover Dr Lawrence’s interviews with AGP males.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and it’s impact on women’s, sex based rights, gay rights, especially our gay youth and the war on reality required to prop up this “movement”.


3 thoughts on “Autogynephilia & Narcissistic Rage

  1. Such a disturbing yet intriguing piece. Themes of inversions seem to dominate: Mirroring of a woman by a man, shaming of the man while cherishing his strengths, raging on the thing idolized (women) yet despised. There must be loads of material for Jungian analysis. Plenty of reason not to be trustful of men in women’s single-sex spaces, regardless of the pushback, and to further safeguard children from exposure to transgender ideology. It’s not to trifle with.

  2. (1) Dr “Ann” Lawrence lazily didn’t pursue another solution to his discomfort, one that did not involve blasting his rage at women. In contrast detransitioner Walt Heyer discovered an emotional path back to sanity, true calm, empathy with everyone, an ability to talk in a normal coherent conversation.
    (2) My now dead Trans ex-H was extremely secretive and, I now know, consumed with shame. He was a consumate actor. Since he believed he was “really a woman” he merely “acted as a man” and constrained his rage under the skin of male identity. Being a man was only “skin-deep”. He continued acting being a man until he knew that he could extort enough from me in divorce proceedings. And then he let the rage come out. I had never been exposed to such capricious, taunting behaviour, like an enraged adolescent 24/7 for about 6 years – he was in no hurry to leave unfortunately. It was the worst behaviour I have ever, ever seen in anyone and I felt that I was treading on eggshells every moment that he was with us. Now 16 years have elapsed, I have read widely to come to the conclusion that he was weak in the head (quite illogical) and lazy and selfish to the point of psychopathy. I have regained composure, and I understand much more about the disaster that has befallen me.

Leave a Reply