autogynophilia

The progressive model of transexuality is that a man is really a woman inside.

For the most part, this is not true. Transexuals are, for the most part, men who have no interest in knitting, dolls, or housework. They are men who have a sexual fetish for being treated as women. They get a kick out of it. Wearing women’s clothing is analogous to flashing girls – it is making other people reluctant props for one’s own sexual arousal. Most transsexuals are males who are sexually aroused by themselves as women – autogynophiles, they want to have sex with themselves as women. They don’t want to have sex with men, even less than they want to do knitting. They want to be treated as a woman by men and woman, because they get off on it.

The progressive movement has, once again, made itself the stage for disturbingly weird and unpleasant public sexual activity. But then, they must be used to that by now.

Some male to female transexuals make OK girls, but the usual outcome is something horribly weird, in uncanny valley between male and female. And that is the way they like it.

It is extremely common for women to be sexually aroused by the thought of themselves as women, but that is not so weird and disturbing, because they actually are women, and because female sexuality is less threatening and aggressive than male sexuality. If an actual woman makes us props celebrating the fact that she is a woman, few are inclined to complain, even if the woman is obviously getting off on it as she so often obviously is. (We complain when older women do this, but they can usually be shamed into toning it down.) Transexuality tends to be more aggressive and hostile, more like flashing. The uglier they are, the more they like your reaction.

While autogynophilia seems to be disturbingly common in males and nigh universal in women (indeed pretty much every sexual deviation seems to be nigh universal in women), autoandrophilia seems to be extremely rare, probably nonexistent.

Other types of transexuals are femme gays and butch lesbos, but these are less apt to harass us normals than autogynophiles are.

81 Responses to “autogynophilia”

  1. nargom says:

    autogyephilia (misspelled but do I care,no?) -is a public perversion that assaults and abuses society-children See this shit, it’s actually: PEDOautogyephilia its CHILD abuse, CHILD molestation, how is this even legal?
    I don’t consent to being used as a sexual prop in your sick circus, parade your ugly male ass around my kids and I will have you arrested for indecent exposure, if I see you in a womans restroom you will be arrested with felony attempted rape, we aren’t going to give in to this bullshit

    • jim says:

      Nah, the autogynophiles are not pedophiles. They offend adult males by making them props in their autosexuality.

      The drag queens are gay pedophiles. They want to have sex with little boys, the autogynophiles want to have sex with themselves as women.

  2. Anon says:

    >While autogynophilia seems to be […] nigh universal in women

    Women are sexually aroused by being perceived as women? Or what do you mean?

  3. […] Jim’s thoughts on transsexuals. […]

  4. […] has a good post on Trannies, and how fucked up in the head they’re are. What’s worse is a LW minion coming in the […]

  5. […] makes humourously short shrift of […]

  6. peppermint says:

    hey Jim, this is off topic, but do you know when political correctness first affected academic freedom? Like, the first time someone like an educator or someone writing news articles became subject to a letter-writing campaign or something on behalf of a designated victim group.

    The International Jew claims that such a thing happened in 1920 (in the article starting on page 591/645 of https://archive.org/details/TheInternationalJew_655 ), but this was obviously not the first time.

    People have of course been executed for heresy and rebelliousness in the past; and I hear that in the past in Haiti Whites would have to pay a fine if they were found guilty of insulting Blacks.

    But, political correctness on behalf of designated victim groups affecting academic freedom in White countries. Does it start as soon as the Cathedral begins to form?

    • jim says:

      hey Jim, this is off topic, but do you know when political correctness first affected academic freedom? Like, the first time someone like an educator or someone writing news articles became subject to a letter-writing campaign or something on behalf of a designated victim group.

      In 1906, Academics wrote about the Great Zimbabwe as if the faintest suggestion that black people were not responsible for these ruins, thus indirectly implying that black people could not do such a thing, would get them publicly burned at the stake. The writers were writing as if walking on eggshells with shaking hands, walking in long circles around their data to avoid any hint of a hint of a hint of anything potentially dangerous.

      I don’t know of any letter writing campaign or such, and don’t think there was one, but they acted terrified. Looks to me that those who had power were applying it directly, commissar fashion, without bothering to wrap their repression in astroturf.

      In the 1830s, 1850s, history of colonialism got rewritten to be the history of imperialism – imperialism then being a left wing, anti colonialist, program, so that not only were we all leftists in the 1830s, we always had been.

      I would say that academic freedom started when, under Charles the Second, the invisible college became the Royal society, and vanished in the mid nineteenth century when imperialism became PC.

      Pretty sure you cannot blame the Jews for nineteenth century and early twentieth century repression, though you can blame the Jews for the Civil Rights movement and affirmative action.

      • Konkvistador says:

        I think you are right on the account of political correctness playing this role on the question, but I’m wondering: Who did build Great Zimbabwe?

        • jim says:

          The people who claimed to have built the place had, when whites arrived, by far the highest metal working and stone working technology in the area, rendering their claim obviously true. They also claimed to be Hebrews who migrated to this land to mine gold, though they look as black as anyone else. Recent gene testing showed them to be Hebrews in the male line, negroes in the female line, and showed their hereditary priestly caste to have the Cohen Y chromosome, presumably the Y chromosome of Aaron, indicating their priests descend from Aaron in the male line. Though they claim to be Hebrews, they had lost the art of writing, and therefore lost their holy books. Their religion is as close to pre rabbinical Judaism, priestly Judaism, as one might expect of a primitive Jewish society that has been illiterate for a while.

          It is pretty obvious that the oldest ruins show the highest workmanship and technology. We have, however, supposed proof that the ruins are all recent, therefore no decline over time. It is hard to square this with people who obviously originate from ancient Hebrews or ancient Jews. Did they instantly lose their technological edge, and only recently regain it?

          Israel declines to recognize them as Jews, on the basis that they are not in the female line, and their faith deviates considerably from today’s Judaism. (Though I am inclined to believe it is today’s Jews that are the heretics)

          Since they are priestly Jews, rather than rabbinical Jews, they had to have settled Zimbabwe at least sixteen hundred years ago, and probably twenty four hundred years ago, perhaps as early as the time of King Solomon, but the ruins are supposedly only a few hundred years old. If some ruins were much older than that, that would indicate social decay caused by race mixing, hence dangerous to say that some ruins are substantially older than others. Also, if all ruins recent, one can say that those who built them were pretty much black, and the fact that they happen to be genetically Hebrew in the male line is sheer coincidence, a complete irrelevance that it is quite impolite to mention. Why would anyone think it mattered that the builders were Hebrews by religion and by male descent unless he was a raaaciiiisssst?

          • Jefferson says:

            Fascinating stuff. Can you point me in the direction of the y-chromosome research there? As a sort-of-tangent to this tangent, an old discussion here between you and a commenter (I think he posted as “B” or something similar) completely changed the way I saw Judaism, Israel, the US, and Jews’ role here in the US. It’s had a trickle-down affect on how I view Dark Enlightenment ideas, too.

            On the topic of male-to-female transgendered, I tend more towards Steve Sailer’s explanation that they are often gay men who are particularly feminine and therefore unlikely to be able to get masculine men (since gay men are attracted to masculinity), so they adapt by making themselves more feminine and going after straight men.

            • jim says:

              femme gay trannies seem to me to be a small minority of trannies, but perhaps the autogynophiles are merely more visible because more obnoxious.

          • B says:

            I strenuously object to being invoked in this thread of all threads. The tranny with the Roman pseudonym was enough, you can leave the Lemba and me out of it.

            But since I’ve been summoned-what changed your perspective about that discussion, and why?

          • B says:

            was talking to Jefferson

        • Erik says:

          Can confirm it was jew hybrids, read about this in relation to studying some south africa material a while ago.

          • Jefferson says:

            B, I wish I could find/remember the original post, because I’ve wanted to show the comments to members of my family. I believe the post was related to the biweekly rehashing of the “Cathedral is Puritan vs. Cathedral is Jewish” debate that seems to crop up somewhere in the reactosphere. You’d referenced a nationalist party in Israel, and you and Jim (and maybe a few others) discussed the Talmud vs. Torah, amongst other things. What really rocked me was that I’d reached 30 years with relatively good schooling, a reasonable amount of natural curiosity, countless hours spent perusing wikipedia during shift work in the US military, and still had never even come across the ideas that you guys were debating. I’ve always known that, although I’m considerably more knowledgeable than the dramatic majority of my cohort, there are more things that I don’t know than things that I do, but it was jarring to realize how little I was taught about my people before the 20th century.

            • jim says:

              You may be thinking of this comment, where I attack the Talmud

              Talmudic Judaism is fine with the bad things Jews have to do to survive as a people in exile, but unwilling to do the bad things necessary to survive as people with their own homeland. The Jews you cite are not counter examples to that claim. It was secular Jews that founded modern Israel, and secular Jews that continue to make sure it is defended.

              Torah Judaism preached and practiced the opposite extreme, being commanded to enforce religious uniformity and exclusivity by the most dreadful means, and doing so. Torah Judaism was reactionary, alarmingly so, Talmudic Judaism is subversive, not only subversive of the various host societies in which Jews have lived in exile, but subversive of Israel, subverting not only white Christians, but Israelis and themselves, a religion of exile inappropriate to a people with a homeland.

              The main attack on Israel has always been to persuade Israeli Jews to roll over and die of guilt, and it is religious Jews that have been most vulnerable to this attack.

              And B. defends the Talmud.

          • Jefferson says:

            That’s the one, Jim, thanks!

  7. spandrell says:

    Seeing a guy names Crassus defend transexual freaks gives me the same feeling of displaced incongruity as transexual freaks themselves.

    Why don’t you call yourself MLK or Trotsky or whatever.

  8. Dr. Faust says:

    I miss the good ole days when we just called these people freaks and didn’t need to subdivide.

  9. Van Phauc says:

    Transsexualism seems relatively harmless at first, until you become aware that it’s not primarily about catering to a small group of sad freaks; they’re going to try and push this shit on your son… in school…from a very young age.

    What are the effects of teaching small children about masturbation, the anus as a sex organ and the right to choose one’s own sex? Nobody knows yet, but we’re all going to find out!

  10. Crassus’ point that autogynephilia theory isn’t falsifiable is valid, and further even if it were an explanation for some cases it wouldn’t necessarily be the explanation for all cases. It is surprisingly difficult to argue that, unlike many other instances of body modification, the modification of sexual organs must necessarily be the result of mental illness, and one will undoubtedly have to get their hands dirty with gender theory and the like to make the case that it ought to be treated as such. (Mind, I do agree transexuality is the result of some kind of incongruence of mind with body, but I’m skeptical of claims as to precisely what kind of incongruence it constitutes.)

    Positively speaking, it appears far more useful to argue that there are better, less harmful means of giving a purpose to individuals who feel the overwhelming desire to change their sex. Merely pointing out morality isn’t sufficient for developing a healthy adaptation to this psychological incongruence.

    • jim says:

      When one encounters a transexual, it is immediately obvious that autogynephilia theory is true. It is as obvious as it is obvious that a flasher gets off on shocking women.

      Autogynephilia theory would be falsified if transexuals commonly liked female activities, such as knitting, dolls, housework, and having sex with men. They don’t.

    • Marcus Licinius Crassus says:

      It’s not the job of society to help individuals find purpose in their existence. Society has no morality. It doesn’t care about whether or not individuals accept their bodies or modify them. Society has no ideals about bodily sanctity and immutability. The only preference society has, is in fostering harmonious relationships between groups and individuals.

      But there’s a problem with trans women. We’ve traditionally had a strong gender binary to which individuals are expected to conform. But trans women aren’t able to conform. They’re born with male bodies, but something about their brain or biology compels them to want to live and express themselves as female. So what do you do if you’re one such person? Most will suppress your true nature to conform to social norms at the expense of their own happiness. Others will not care about social norms and simply express themselves as female while still being biologically male, and as a result will elicit reactions of fear and disgust from others in society, thereby creating disharmony.

      Traditional societies have always had different methodologies for improving this situation. For example in India, such persons would undergo “nirwaan” around the age of puberty (having penis/testicles removed) which would prevent most masculinization of their bodies. Then they would live the rest of their lives as women, albeit second-class women. Preventing further masculinization is the key thing here, because it improves their chance of living normative lifestyles by reducing the likelihood that others in their social environments will feel disgust; thus improving harmony in social relationships.

      In the western world, advances in medical technology, such as hormone replacement therapy and sexual reassignment surgery, have provided an even better alternative to trans women. These people are now able to live *entirely* normative lifestyles, with the only exception being that they lack the ability to reproduce.

      So transgenderism is actually a pro-social policy that improves life for the individual and society as a whole. It’s good for civilization, regardless of whatever misguided ideals or notions of bodily purity some individuals might have.

      • The process of HRT imposes a change on the structure of the brain which is undoubtedly imperfect in forming and strengthening neural pathways, tending to produce or exacerbate instances of mental incongruity. It would be interesting to see studies documenting expressed depression, bipolar, psychosis, and so on in the psychological profiles of trans before and after their procedures. We have a tendency to blame the positive correlations between non-heteronormative sexual behavior and expressed mental illness (e.g. suicide, self-harm, anti-social behavior) on the persecution suffered, which may have something to do it, but undoubtedly that positive correlation reveals a tendency towards mental disorder; as entropy correlates to entropy, we would say this is evidence of its being a kind of mental disorder.

        Furthermore, as the end of HRT destroys the ability to procreate, it must be viewed as at odds with the end of being a living, rational being, and from that perspective those which are not psychologically aligned towards the evolutionary imperative/moral and spiritual perfection must be found defective in that sense. We recognize suicide as gravely disordered on that account, and this process yields an equally genetic consequence.

        • Marcus Licinius Crassus says:

          Your critique of HRT could just as easily be applied to antidepressants and street drugs. The whole point of psychotropic drugs is that they change the brain. When the correct drug is administered, this will repair mental incongruity. When the wrong drug is applied, it’ll exacerbate incongruity.

          For trans women, HRT repairs things. This is well documented by doctors and scientists over the past hundred years. They’ve done a lot of research and found that it’s the most effective course of treatment. It may not be perfect. There are many other social forces at work that prevent a significant percent of trans women from ever fully adapting to their new gender role. But it’s the best treatment available at this point in time.

          There is also a wealth of medical evidence indicating that hormone replacement has disastrous results for individuals who are not transgender. For example, Alan Turing (the father of computer science) was forced by the government to take estrogen when he was outed as gay. He ended up killing himself, partially because he didn’t want his body to be feminized. He was a man.

          Also could you imagine the disastrous consequences of testosterone being administered to a cisgender woman? Can you imagine how horrified she would be if her voice deepened, started growing a beard, losing hair, etc.? This actually happens naturally to women who suffer from a condition known as PCOS. It’s absolutely devastating to the lives of these poor women. Many of them actually end up with no choice but having to present to the world as male, because society will no longer accept them as the women they are.

          • The question is about whether HRT produces mental congruity, or whether it might only mask the symptoms of mental incongruity. What precisely constitutes improvement? In what way does it resemble a recovery from a condition of illness? If it doesn’t decrease the incidence of mental disorder, then transgenderism couldn’t be said to be treated by HRT; a cure must be by another means.

          • jim says:

            For trans women, HRT repairs things. This is well documented by doctors and scientists over the past hundred years. They’ve done a lot of research and found that it’s the most effective course of treatment. It may not be perfect.

            What they have found is not that it is the most effective treatment, but that anyone who says otherwise will be destroyed.

            The very high suicide and “natural” death rate among trannies would suggest that it is an absolutely terrible treatment.

          • B says:

            >Your critique of HRT could just as easily be applied to antidepressants and street drugs.

            Uh, yeah. And lobotomies. And mass birth control. And free/mandatory “education.”

            >This is well documented by doctors and scientists over the past hundred years.

            “But the government scientist Doctor Yarmalka prove it is size of squirrel!”

            Bottom line-if a dude, to get his jollies, has his dick turned inside out and his vocal cords shaved, and takes a bunch of estrogen and puts on a dress, that doesn’t make him a woman. That makes him a mutilated freak in a dress. To demand our approval and acquiescence is abusive. And none of this stuff is new-the pervs of the Roman Empire played these games all the way through to the bitter end. How do you think they did when the barbarians showed up to put an end to the mess?

      • jim says:

        We’ve traditionally had a strong gender binary to which individuals are expected to conform. But trans women aren’t able to conform. They’re born with male bodies, but something about their brain or biology compels them to want to live and express themselves as female.

        People with CAIS are genuinely intermediate cases, and it is reasonable to use drugs, surgery, and counseling to assign them to whichever sex they are closest to. But this is a very rare condition, and most people with AIS are quite obviously close to one sex or the other sex, and should be helped to adapt physically and mentally to that sex that they are closest to. Genuinely intermediate examples of AIS are a very rare condition of a very rare condition. And among people who are suffering from this rare condition of a rare condition, the outcome of treatment tends to be weird and scary. Treatment is not very effective. Before treatment, intermediate, after treatment, still somewhat intermediate.

        Trannies are not intermediate cases. They are males (in a few cases females) suffering from sexual perversion and delusion. Collaborating in their perversion and delusion does not in fact make them better. It makes them sicker. Hence the remarkably high suicide rate.

      • Konkvistador says:

        “Society has no morality. ”

        Liberalism lol.

      • jim says:

        In the western world, advances in medical technology, such as hormone replacement therapy and sexual reassignment surgery, have provided an even better alternative to trans women. These people are now able to live *entirely* normative lifestyles

        A normative lifestyle would be reasonably monogamous sexual relationship with a male. Those few trannies that are keen on sex with males, are so keen on sex with males that they have sex with a thousand males.

      • scientism says:

        “It’s not the job of society to help individuals find purpose in their existence. Society has no morality. It doesn’t care about whether or not individuals accept their bodies or modify them. Society has no ideals about bodily sanctity and immutability. The only preference society has, is in fostering harmonious relationships between groups and individuals.”

        I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more succinct statement of the extremist nihilism that underlies progressivism. Here we have a program for reducing humanity to the status of domesticated animals. Pure evil.

    • scientism says:

      I think it’s safe to rule out the notion of a “woman trapped in a man’s body” as nonsense. Gender concepts cannot be undermined by any supposed contrary evidence, since our gender concepts do not constitute a hypothesis or theory; they’re more basic than that. It’s also clear that the key determinant in attributing gender concepts is reproductive role: men are potential fathers, women are potential mothers, everything else follows. Contrary to a common motif in progressive argument, exceptional cases (i.e., that some women are barren, some men impotent) cannot undermine concepts either. Nor, for that matter, do border cases, such as hermaphrodites who can fulfil neither reproductive role.

      Concepts like exhibitionist, pervert, etc, are a clear (conceptual) fit for men who dress like women. Perhaps calling it a theory is going too far; it’s really just what you’re left with if you don’t buy into the politically-motivated pseudoscience of gender theory. It is also, as Jim says, obvious when you see it. (There’s a common denial of reality among progressives when it comes to transsexualism and homosexuality, where they claim “normalcy” but quite clearly extend the bounds of what they consider acceptable behaviour to accommodate it. Case in point: The common phenomena of young women who find the debauched antics of gay men endless fascinating. They’ll sit listening to tales of anonymous sex, drug abuse and croprophagia with the rapt attention of somebody who has a personal audience with the Dalai Lama.)

      • Murray says:

        “Gender concepts cannot be undermined by any supposed contrary evidence…”

        Precisely. Take the logic of gender theory to its conclusion:

        I am a woman.

        Now, to every single outward appearance, I am indistinguishable from a rather masculine man. I have male sex organs, dress and behave as a cisgendered male, work in a male-dominated profession, and tend towards masculine dominance in everyday interactions. I am married to a person born with female sex organs who behaves in a correspondingly cisgendered feminine way, and we have children.

        In other words, my particular expression of womanhood is to present to the world as a married cisgendered male. I have no intention whatsoever of changing my appearance or adopting a more cisfeminine affect, let alone of going on HRT or undergoing surgical alteration, since these methods are obviously inconsistent with my cismasculine self-identification.

        By the logic of gender theory, you are obliged to acquiesce to my self-identification, and should be compelled to allow me to access to all opportunities and privileges provided to women in our society–including (but not limited to) preferential hiring, subsidies and tax breaks for women entering business, educational scholarships, women’s bathrooms and change rooms, lower physical qualification standards for (e.g.) military or firefighting professions, and so on.

        No doubt this strikes some people as ridiculous, but why? I AM A WOMAN, and demand to be treated as such. If you adhere to gender theory, on what possible grounds could you gainsay me?

        • scientism says:

          Yes, this is a good reductio of the idea of someone having a transgendered mind, which comes down to their own avowal. We’re far too accepting of these types of claims. After all, what could it even mean for a man to “feel” like he’s a woman? A desire to dress up like a woman is never going to amount to any claim to womanhood. To be a woman is to have a woman’s roles and duties and be subject to feminine virtues and vices, which is all derivative of a woman’s reproductive role. None of these factors are subjective and there’s simply no such thing as “gender dimorphism” in the sense of a possible conflict between who you are and how society views you. This is typical of progressive philosophy: culture is misconceived as a constraint and identity is misconceived as self-creation.

          • jim says:

            Yes, this is a good reductio of the idea of someone having a transgendered mind, which comes down to their own avowal. We’re far too accepting of these types of claims

            If they actually had a female mind, would wind up having sex with a small number of men, ideally one. The usual outcome, however, is that they don’t have sex in with other people at all in the sense that sex is ordinarily understood, and if they do have sex with men, have sex with a thousand men, which looks a lot more like the perverted male mind than the female mind or the perverted female mind.

        • Alex says:

          By the logic of gender theory, you are obliged to acquiesce to my self-identification, and should be compelled to allow me to access to all opportunities and privileges provided to women in our society–including (but not limited to) preferential hiring, subsidies and tax breaks for women entering business, educational scholarships, women’s bathrooms and change rooms, lower physical qualification standards for (e.g.) military or firefighting professions, and so on.

          No doubt this strikes some people as ridiculous, but why? I AM A WOMAN, and demand to be treated as such. If you adhere to gender theory, on what possible grounds could you gainsay me?

          Things are progressing so fast it’s hard to keep up.

        • Baduin says:

          You should at least wear a dress and perhaps take a few young women as lovers. Castration is absolutely not required. That should be enough to make you a woman – although I would advise againist wearing a beard – it would be in poor taste.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Grodzka

      • nydwracu says:

        I think it’s safe to rule out the notion of a “woman trapped in a man’s body” as nonsense.

        Do you think there are no differences between male and female brains, or?

        If that difference exists, and if its formation begins and sets in the womb or at some early stage of development, it would be possible for a mismatch to form — for the brain to develop as the opposite sex as the body.

        This is a currently-existing theory, the dominant one in the field as far as I can tell (which isn’t far), but it’s walled off within academia — academic freedom exists to a somewhat larger extent than is commonly assumed around here (I’ve seen some academic papers making the monarchy-leads-to-greater-stability argument so openly that it’s put in the title), but the thing is, thoughtcrime just doesn’t percolate out of academia because 1) closed access and 2) very, very few people outside the field pay attention. (This is a good thing. When a topic of inquiry that threatens the orthodoxy attracts enough attention outside academia that academia notices, academic freedom ends.)

  11. Marcus Licinius Crassus says:

    Autogynephilia theory isn’t falsifiable and and a study in 2009 found that “93% of the [cisgendered women] would be classified as autogynephilic.”[1] This stuff is well-known pseudoscience and you should feel bad for using it as a citation. See RationalWiki for more information: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Autogynephilia

    I think you should reconsider your stance on trans women. Trans women tend to be attracted to men and support the gender binary. They just want to live their lives as normal women.

    There’s also a huge bias with how people perceive trans women. Most trans women you meet, you won’t actually know they’re trans. The only ones you actually notice are the ones in the early phases of transition. In the beginning, they tend to be incredibly awkward, ugly, and act very phony. But after 1-3 years of hormone replacement therapy (which causes significant biological changes in the body and mind) in addition to re-socialization in their new role—they usually end up just being completely normal women. There’s also a lot of trans women who start late in life (after age 25) that never become well-adjusted.

    Trans women also divide and conquer the feminist community. Radical feminists absolutely hate trans women, because their existence invalidates all their theories. So the enemy of your enemy is your friend 🙂

    [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19591032

    • Glenfilthie says:

      Gah. I suppose that will do for stupid people that think ‘gender studies’ is a real thing.

      As for me, I was born in better times and raised by far better people. I have no time for the bitchy trannies, feminists and other idiots that bring sexual misery on themselves. They deserve it and are entitled to it. In better times such people had access to psychological help.

      But you just go on ahead and enable those mental illnesses, chickie. When those people melt down and hurt themselves or somebody else it will be on your head and you progtards will damned well own it.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      “See RationalWiki for more information…”

      That never stops being funny.

    • jim says:

      Trans women tend to be attracted to men.

      Bullshit. Trannies, for the most part, are not gay. I conjecture that tranny prostitutes are mostly or entirely gay, but the regular non prostitute tranny usually gets his jollies in a different way, as is disturbing evident.

      • Marcus Licinius Crassus says:

        Your seem to be motivated by hate rather than reason. Why do you want to get digs on trannies? Is it worth undermining your credibility as a blogger? Surely there are better uses of your time.

        • jim says:

          You are writing as if our technology could turn men into normal women, who look like normal woman, and behave like normal women. It is disturbingly obvious that we do not have such technology, and that people who want to live out fantasies that we do have such technology want to force all of us to pretend that the fantasy is reality.

        • Xenonon says:

          @Marcus Licinius Crassus

          Please take your concern trolling elsewhere.

        • Glenfilthie says:

          Question, Marcus? What’s the next step in redefining human sexuality for you?

          Pedophilia?

          • Contaminated NEET says:

            Of course not! That’s ridiculous! Slippery slope is a fallacy – that means it’s wrong always.

      • Marcus Licinius Crassus says:

        What exactly do you want to see happen? What is your end game? It seems to me, you just want to sow the seeds of disharmony and be a troublemaker. This post makes you no different from radical activists who whine and complain about stuff for no reason.

        • jim says:

          Let us suppose that, as logically follows from the progressive belief system, that flashers do no harm to small girls. And suppose flashers became recognized as an oppressed minority, so that exposure to flashers became a required part of all small children’s education, and home schoolers who denied their children this cultural enrichment were apt to find child protective services taking their children away.

          You will probably realize that there is something horribly wrong in this scenario – until, of course, this scenario becomes reality, whereupon you will no longer realize that there is something horribly wrong in this scenario, and no longer recollect that you ever thought that there was something horribly wrong in this scenario.

          • Marcus Licinius Crassus says:

            Being a flasher is a compulsive antisocial behavior done by people seeking thrills. Being a man or woman is a fundamental characteristic of our being. It governs our identity, how we express ourselves, and how we socialize. Why would you compare gender to such deviant behaviors?

            • jim says:

              Being a flasher is a compulsive antisocial behavior done by people seeking thrills.

              Now it is, but if you are genuinely utilitarian, it cannot be causing harm, nor intended to cause harm, so the next logical step after forced feminization of schoolboys is mandatory exposure to flashing, and no one will remember that they used to think it was compulsive anti social behavior.

              And, for the great majority of trannies, it is obvious that transvestism is compulsive antisocial behavior done by people seeking sexual thrills at other people’s expense. Like flashing, it is a form of auto eroticism that ropes other people in to be props. By and large most trannies don’t want to have sex with men, and many of them don’t want to have sex with women either.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            “Why would you compare gender to such deviant behaviors?”

            Because (as is obvious to everyone who isn’t as “rational” as you) a man pretending to be a woman is disgusting deviant behavior and of course the behavior of these deviant men shows this. They seek to use women’s and girl’s bathrooms and women’s and girl’s locker rooms. To men these people are just disgusting deviants. To women they are threatening.

          • peppermint says:

            OKAY, I’ll try to rephrase Crassus’s comment in a way that makes sense.

            Being a flasher is a low-status behavior done by low-status men seeking thrills and maybe looking to score. Blah blah blah. Women who act like men are cute and men who castrate themselves are thus removed from the sexual marketplace. Why would you compare that to behavior I’m concerned about but can’t stoop to engage in?

            Well, Crassus, human sexual behavior is pretty complex, isn’t it. Biologists are discovering new things all the time. There were one sodomites, corrupted by their perverted appetites. Then there were homosexuals, who were mentally ill and deserving of pity. Then there were queers and gays and crossdressers, who just wanted to be humored and left alone. Now it turns out that sometimes a female brain develops in a male body; previously scientists believed that there were no major differences between female brains and male brains. Progress progresses.

            40 years ago flashing was much more acceptable than demands to use the other sex’s facilities or for unisex bathrooms (this was a joke 30 years ago; now being installed at Dartmouth) or sexual self-mutilation. Here’s proud serial rapist African-American Eldridge de Paris, modeling a new line of pants at the center of globa fashion: http://imgur.com/W546DYm.jpg

            (he said about his rape career that he wasn’t just doing it for the sex, but he saw it as “a revolutionary act”. “Brilliant and revealing” — New York Times Review of Books. If only someone had taught him not to rape! It’s unfortunate that it took so long for the science of feminism to progress to the stage where public service announcements that rape is wrong have come under consideration. Maybe if feminists didn’t have to fight for their basic human rights every day, they would be able to progress more quickly.)

          • Andre says:

            While I understand the basic idea, let me say something in defense of “flashers”.

            How natural is it for children to grow up with minimal visual exposure to genital organs and sexual behavior? I would guess not at all. How healthy is it? I don’t think a whole lot.

    • jim says:

      The only ones you actually notice are the ones in the early phases of transition. In the beginning, they tend to be incredibly awkward, ugly, and act very phony. But after 1-3 years of hormone replacement therapy (which causes significant biological changes in the body and mind) in addition to re-socialization in their new role—they usually end up just being completely normal women

      The trannies that are cleaning up in the olympics look and act disturbingly male.

    • peppermint says:

      …if only

      Is it possible?

      Here’s something. I know many men who knit and cook. I know many transwomen. These sets do not intersect. In fact, the transwomen I know are universally not as you describe. The plural of anecdote is not data, however, I don’t trust statistics from lying faggots. So I don’t really know what to think.

      Anyway, all transwomen act phony. To be truly feminine is to accept your station in life. The whole force the issue and ram the it down people’s throats idea that transwomen have is masculine.

      • jim says:

        It always takes me a few seconds to figure out whether a transwoman is woman who takes hormones to look and feel male, or a man who takes hormones to look and feel female

        Whereas when someone says “tranny” I know they are referring to a man who effeminately adorns himself with some female displays, from padded bra and suspenders to full on castration and hormone replacement. (And are not referring to a lesbian who takes, or naturally has, enough testosterone to grow a beard.)

        • dre says:

          I am a trans woman and hate to be out and seen by people. I have very little interest in being with either men and women. I don’t flash people, I avoid being around people who would be uncomfortable around me (avoid being around traditional family types and children, to avoid any issues). I don’t want to be this but there is a biological incongruence that doesn’t allow me to live in peace with my biological sex. I will not deny that some of us are deviants or possibly ill, but that doesn’t warrant that we are all perverts and toxic to society. You would be surprised how divided LGBT people, many are anti-Cathedral, anti-equality, anti-mainstream politics. Though most of us have caught the social justice/minoritarian politics bug,

          • jim says:

            OK, not all trannies are like that.

            But because most trannies are, as you say, incongruent, I will continue calling you trannies, because the incongruity in appearance and behavior makes me uncomfortable. Very likely that is not your fault. If you had elephantiasis, I would also be uncomfortable even though it would be entirely not your fault and you would be doing your best to be cured. But in the case of a lot of trannies, it is, to some substantial degree, their fault. Should try harder to not make people uncomfortable. See the smirk

            That smirking one, and indeed just about all the ones that people notice, love shoving their incongruity in people’s faces. Maybe there are a lot of harmless trans people who don’t get in people’s faces, and don’t try to pass except they do a good job of passing, or are entertaining people who like the incongruity, but, obviously those are not the ones who do get in people’s faces.

          • dre says:

            I agree, her smirk is creepy. I know many trans women in the community who are total creeps, and understand where you are coming from. I’ve been intermittently frequenting NRx/Dark Enlightenment blogs for a few months now, and keep coming back to them in spite of my position as trans. Honestly my big hang up is that hateful speech that pretty much says “they shouldn’t exist and lets kill them all”. Sure the HRC, GLAAD, most of trans politics and Cathedral media glorification of these are a pain in the ass, but if we truly move into a neocameralist future, I’d like to at least survive the transition. We will continue to exist nevertheless, and dismissing all of us because of the misbehaved few is largely unproductive. As Marcus brought to light, most only notice the early transitioners (where I’m at) and outliers, particularly when they end up on the news.

            • jim says:

              Honestly my big hang up is that hateful speech that pretty much says “they shouldn’t exist and lets kill them all”

              “They should not exist” is not equivalent to “Lets kill them all”. There is an assumption that sexual deviation is completely curable if sufficient inducement is applied.

              It is obvious to me that any woman can be trained into, or out of, any of the usual sexual deviations of women. Their sexual nature is elastic and perverse. I suppose the same is likely to be at least somewhat true of males, as for example prison and Afghanistan.

              Suppose, however, that men, or some men, are less capable of change, that we are stuck with homosexuals and effeminate males. Then, assuming that these problems are fixed and innate, rather than chosen identities, how should society deal with these people?

              Note that in eighteenth century, there were no homosexuals or effeminates. Deviancy was something one did, not something one was. Assumed 100% curable, and likely to be cured by touch of the lash.

              Gays spread disease, and cause other problems, hence exclusion, isolation and rejection are appropriate.

              If indeed transitioners can pass in appearance and behavior, then, if they pass, not causing problems. If so, fine.

              I believe they rather seldom can pass. Consider the thia ladyboys. They are racially well suited for this, they have full hormones and surgery, their dicks are turned inside out, and they still give most normal men the creeps.

              Effeminate men do not fit in with manly men, and even less do they fit in with women. So, if freedom of association permitted, exclusion ensues that is likely to feel punitive.

          • dre says:

            Subjection to violent discipline does not work, and if anything causes further psychic incongruity due to trauma. I find that the more previously repressed/traumatized queer people are the ones more likely to develop extraneous deviant desires. Passing is not a possibility for everyone and shouldn’t be the benchmark for what is acceptable or what is not. After one can be passable and a pervert, and non-passable while morally sound. Quite frankly, I don’t see the real issue in allowing us to exist. In the eighteenth century it might have been suppressed from the public but that did not mean there was a real cure. Observe that many traditional societies had a place for us (which were minimally punitive), regardless of our ability to pass, be cured, or not.

            • jim says:

              Subjection to violent discipline does not work, and if anything causes further psychic incongruity due to trauma

              Maybe, and yet for a thousand years, people believed it did work. Everyone took for granted that it worked, and as far as anyone could tell, it did work. No one was homosexual by identity, no one was effeminate by identity – or at least everyone pretended that it worked. Everyone pretended that no one was effeminate by identity.

              As for passing, no one does it better than thai ladyboys, and they, by and large, do not pass. People who have sex with postop ladyboys know they are having sex with ladyboys, and know their sexual preference is unusual, though probably more common than full homosexuality.

              Observe that many traditional societies had a place for us (which were minimally punitive), regardless of our ability to pass, be cured, or not.

              Indeed they did, and do, (for example thai ladyboys) and that is a good solution, and one that I personally favor. It is a lot less stressful than the eighteenth century solution (hanging and the lash). But that place was outside the mainstream, low status, and socially excluded from the mainstream – a place that would be entirely unacceptable to today’s progressivism, for that place was the very opposite of integration. Progressives would reject that solution just as much, perhaps more, than hanging and the lash, for hanging and the lash is part of a program that attempts to fit everyone into the mainstream.

              The one solution is as reactionary as the other. Either way, normal people are safe from having to encounter deviants if they don’t want to. Indeed, under the solution that has a place for such people, perhaps more safe, for that place is off the beaten path. Note Chaucer’s depiction of the effeminate pedophile pardoner, which implies that the medieval system did not in fact work as well as it was pretended to.

        • dre says:

          Agreed that the solutions would both be rejected, but there is no reason why queerness necessarily be synonymous with Progressivism. Indeed some of my gay/trans friends prefer a place outside the mainstream (as do I). Both solutions are equally as reactionary, but when it comes to implementing these solutions, it does come down to choosing between them, preferably the least costly and violent solution.

          • jim says:

            I prefer the stuff them someplace out of the mainstream solution to the hanging and lash solution, but I find the progressive solution – everyone their own identity, yet all identities are in the mainstream (except rednecks etc) the worst of all the solutions, because the progressive solution leads to the smirking man in the ladies rest room.

          • dre says:

            Right, identity politics never made much sense to me anyways. I forced myself into that sort of belief early on in coming to terms with myself, but introspection led me to believe otherwise. Indeed, the times I have aligned myself with mainstream trans-identity politics I suffered from heavy cognitive dissonance, hence I am here seeking for ways Out that do not involve denying myself a decent existence. Thanks for your patience, bro.

    • Konkvistador says:

      As a rationalist I find rational wiki a pretty terrible source on anything politicized, which at this point is pretty much everything.
      http://lesswrong.com/lw/f5b/the_problem_with_rational_wiki/

  12. Randy M says:

    “Some male to female transexuals make OK girls”
    For generous definitions of OK, perhaps.

    • Matthew says:

      “OK” is already generous. Who wants to hear his bride-to-be described by his father, on his wedding day, as being “OK”.

    • Andre says:

      A lot of females don’t make OK girls, so I think it’s fair to be generous here.

Leave a Reply for jim