Part 3: The Man Who Would Be Queen: Autogynephiles.
Having seen many references to this book I have finally got around to tackling it. The full text is available free here: The Man Who Would Be Queen
Bailey is clearly fascinated with the topic of transsexualism and immerses himself in their subculture to recruit “subjects” for his research. He is not, at least in this book, concerned with the legislative framework to protect transsexuals. He also doesn’t examine how any such laws interact with those enacted to protect the female sex. His exposition of the underlying, erotic, motivations for transition does, however, reinforce the need for women’s, sex based, rights.
Bailey, uses prominent researcher Ray Blanchard’s typology of transsexuals which differentiate between HSTS (homosexual transsexuals) and AGP transsexuals. The wider public, and many commentators, are either ignorant about this typology or reject it. Bailey believes transsexualism could illuminate some fundamental facts about human nature, if, and only if, the topic was treated honestly. It is not treated honestly. The strenuous efforts to shut down debate are, in my view, indicative of how damaging this knowledge is to the demands of transactivists. People don’t know Blanchard’s typology because of, quite simply, deliberate concealment. It is impossible to get someone to admit to something they are unable to admit to themselves.
Maxine Peterson, a gender clinician, is also quoted and points out that “Most gender patients lie”. The tendency to skirt around the equivalent of identity up-skirting has been noted by an early researcher in this field, Harry Benjamin. For transactivists extra effort will be taken to shroud the AGP motivation in secrecy, especially, when trying to get changes to legislation or public policy. 👇
Leading activists have been invited into the heart of government to speak on trans rights. This has exposed the sinister motivations of *some* who campaign for an end to sex segregated spaces. Take the cases of Jess Bradley. Here is a source from within the trans-community. Naturally it makes liberal uses of the misogynist slur “terf” but covers the issue fairly comprehensively. Jess Bradley. For the purposes of women’s rights we need only note that Jess Bradley is publicly thanked, by Baroness Barker, for helpful input to the Gender Identity Forum.
Here is another activist invited to the House of Lords. Sex Offender invited to the House of Lords .
Karen/Mark Jones was invited to discuss how Transgender Prisoners could be better served within the criminal justice system, by Lord Patel. Reading the offences committed by this Transexual it would appear to be the prisoner in the court case I covered in an earlier blog. Transgender prisoner moved to female estate
Note the way the attempted rape is dismissed. Also, if this is the same person in penis news they now appear to identify as a butch lesbian.
Trans offenders at the House of Lords
Any focus on the erotic motivation for transition would set off alarm bells at the demand women grant access to our, single sex, spaces. The very condition of AGP makes the sufferers demand access. They simply cannot accept any demarcation between their, self-created, female persona and biological women. It is for this reason that I think the clash between the demands of Trans Rights Activists anwomen’s rights was inevitable.
The author is sympathetic to gay and trans rights, but dismisses the idea of “Born in the Wrong Body”. The most he will concede is, for some men, they would “like to be in a female body”. {The book doesn’t cover females who transition or theories of the origins of Lesbianism. He does, briefly, touch on Androphilia (Women who identify as gay men) in the interview which I included in part one}.
To understand the vitriolic attacks on the author , as detailed in part one, it is necessary to talk about the dark secret at the heart of Trans ideology. Bailey exposes the erotic motivations for transition, via the taboo subject of Autogynephilia. AGP is a male paraphilia which is sexual attraction, to oneself, as a woman. Bailey argues that any consideration of transexuals which ignores the erotic motivation is incomplete and dishonest. Transsexuality simply cannot be seperated from sexuality. For Homosexual transsexuals see Part Two
Men who become the women they love are Autogynophiles (AGP). It is difficult to gauge the level of AGP within the trans-community but a brief look at #GirlsLikeUs and #SheMale (content warning. Lots of “Lady Penis”, even on twitter) exposes its prevalence. Reddit threads show males, addicted to #SheMale porn and confessing to masturbating, into, or whilst wearing, female apparel. This is often followed up with the plaintive cry of “Am I just Trans?” Most of the replies immediately affirm the trans-identity and rarely does anyone raise the issue of AGP. The attempt to cleanse a fetish activity with the idea that you are actually a woman has taken root in this community. It has also been supported by all our (UK) mainstream political parties. What this actually means for women’s sex based rights has been totally overlooked, in a quest to appear “Woke” to sections of the electorate. When a private fetish is given primacy, over sex based rights, and allowed to dicktate (sic) access to women’s rights, and single sex spaces, women have a right to know the truth.
Bailey illustrates his point embodied in two transsexuals of two different types, one homosexual and one autogynephile. The HSTS transsexual Terese is attracted to males and, more specifically, to straight males, who they can only attract as a “woman”. Post sexual re-assignment surgery, Bailey notes, as an aside, Terese’s mother, is pleased to have a feminine daughter rather than a feminine son. There is a streak of homophobia running through this movement which is ignored by, so called, LGBT organisations. More on HSTS transsexuals is in part two.
“Terese” has sexual relationships with straight males to whom their transsexual status was not disclosed. (Note: Sex by deception is a criminal offence in the UK and Stonewall is campaigning to have this removed by the statute books. This is a discussion on the topic, although it does not reference the pressure on lesbians to engage in sexual relationship with the opposite sex, known as the #CottonCeiling.Disclosure}
“Cher” is an autogynophilic transsexual who was born “Chuck”. He did not exhibit “feminine” tendencies as a boy. What he did do was dress in his mother’s lingerie and masturbate to climax. His secret life, as a cross-dresser, persisted, though he was riddled with shame and frequently “purged” female apparel to try to rid himself of the habit. Eventually, reconciling to his “secret life” Chuck became Cher and devoted himself to his fetish. He collected pornography, featuring women, but his fantasy was that he was the women who was vaginally penetrated, by a man. He constructed elaborate fantasies and began to wear prosthetics and make his own pornography. Eventually “Cher” was referred to a gender clinic and diagnosed as transsexual.
Chuck is not a woman. He is a male, with a very male paraphilia, (paraphilia’s are not a feature of female sexuality) which covers him in shame. Being diagnosed as transsexual drapes his fetish in a cloak of respectability. With new legislation this locates “Cher” as a legal woman and, as in the UK, any crimes committed or sentence to be served would be, legally, as a woman.
Next we meet a Heterosexual Transvestite. His name is Don but he dresses up, part-time, as Stephanie. His cross-dressing has an erotic component (masturbating whilst dressed in female apparel or into female apparel). He has a successful career, as a man, and is married. Like the transsexual we met earlier, Don has periods of shame and purges his female outfits. Each time he “regresses”. A feature of the interaction with Don is that the shame about his compulsion also leads to denial about the sexual motivation. He claims it is not sexual anymore and Bailey does not believe him. Nor do I.
Under Leeds City Council’s policy Don would be allowed to register a female name and “female gender” even as a part-time cross dresser. This is their criteria:
Let that sink in. Masculine, males with a paraphilia, which fetishizes being a woman, are now legally allowed to be recognised as “women” . Furthermore women are being compelled to accept them in our most intimate spaces. What autogynophiles have in common is a desire to be seen as “women” and , for them, the ultimate expression of being a woman is being penetrated by a man. This enactment of what it means to be a woman is deeply offensive to women. This is a man-made fantasy projected onto women.
The fantasy is not restricted to our, perceived, place in sexual intimacy but also fetishizes more everyday activities which , in the autogynophile’s world are “womens” past-times.
This places the women, who are kindly including the harmless transsexual, in the position of props in a male fantasy. AGP transsexuals will go to great lengths to conceal their interests from the women who include them. However it is nearly impossible for the conversation not to enter territory that betrays their misunderstanding of women’s boundaries and expose their fetishizing of the women in the group. There are many ways to breach women’s boundaries and this is one of the most subtle, and insidiously offensive, ways.
Autogynophiles typically come from hyper-masculine occupations. There are, as many have noted, a lot of ex-military “late transitioners”. There is also an over-representation from those in information technology as many have noted:
Many explain their “hyper-masculine” past as evidence they were in flight from their femininity. This is doubtful. As Bailey argues it speaks to the fact that AGP males are not stereotypically feminine but study and work hard to fulfil a very male fantasy of what a woman is. Dr Ann Lawrence’s description, as an AGP transsexual, rings true:
Bailey goes on to discuss nature/nuture and its role in AGP. There is clearly a discussion to be had on this issue but it is not, in my view, relevant for women working to protect same sex spaces. More pertinent is his statement of the co-existence of other paraphilias , in particular sexual sadism, with cross-dressing of all types.
For those lobbying to change laws to accommodate their paraphilia they must, at all costs, disguise the true nature of their condition. 👇 Below is a quote from a prominent figure in this field.
Modern day Trans Activists, especially, it seems, the most prominent ones strive to make sure our politicians avert their gaze to the sexual motivations which underly transition. Yes, there will be shame, some will find it humiliating to admit to the dressing in women’s clothing as a sexual activity. However the most dangerous aspect is the demonstrable fact that this is not a private fetish. It requires female participation to validate the identity; whether we know we are an extra in a Trans Drama or not. This is no longer a private activity but encroaching on women’s boundaries. Here an autogynephile explains: 👇
This is why they cannot bear women to have same sex spaces. Women are erecting a barrier between themselves and “the woman he loves”. This is the reason why removal of the, already scandalously cavalier, safeguarding of women and girls cannot be allowed to succeed. Nor should the provision of Gender Recognition certificates be widened in favour of a self-declaration. This is reckless endangerment of women. As we have seen a male, imprisoned for attempted rape, managed to get a GRC whilst serving a sentence for that crime! This was in 2006, only two years after the passage of the Gender Recognition Act.
There is no such thing as a man trapped in a woman’s body. Hence why I reject the notion that transsexuals become “women” or that they belong in single sex spaces. Women are not an idea in a mans head, we are not fodder for a male fetish, and we have good reason to exclude males from sex specific spaces.