On the 28th of June, 2019, The Daily Mail reveals that new research into the genetics of sexuality prove conclusively that the transgender condition in older transsexuals is linked to their sexuality. Here is an extract from the article.
Researchers discover transgender women have fetish!
Since discovering the genes responsible for human sexuality, the research group at Melbourne University who made the discovery continue to explore its ramifications. One of the most startling is that so called ‘transgender women’ can no longer claim they are trapped in the wrong body. Turns out they are simply men who have a fetish!
While this shocking revelation may seem to contradict current psychiatric thinking, Daily Mail reporters have discovered that respected sexologists such as Doctor Ray Blanchard of the Toronto Institute posited such a fetish as far back as 1983. Prime Minister, Nigel Farage, said that this was just another example of the cosmopolitan elites not listening to ordinary, hard working people and ‘ramming their politically correct agenda down everyone’s throats.’
Mister Farage, who was inspecting troops on the Belgian front, said that once the war against the EU was won, he would ask parliament to repeal all the Blair governments legislation giving transgender people the right to…
Deep into the thought experiment.
Today, I would like to engage in a thought experiment called The Dawkins Paradox.
This is not an abstract way to pass ten minutes, but – given the emergence of the far right across the globe – a useful exercise in self defense where we imagine a future in which the sexual origins of transgender identity are either proven (or fabricated) by scientists.
Either way, let’s imagine the idea gains universal acceptance and leads to a backlash against transgender people. We need to push back, but we can’t dispute the scientific evidence. We have to fight from the corner that indeed…the desire to transition is linked to sexuality.
What would we say?
Max Moriss’s fascinating essay on autogynephilia.
That’s the context by which I introduce you to the most fascinating essay I have ever read on autogynephilia – “Why Blanchard Didn’t Go Far Enough!” by Max Morris – whom I have been corresponding with over the past few months.
My friends will recognize immediately why I’m interested in this essay, because it is based entirely on Darwinism. However, unlike my work – which always rests on female essence and transgender theory – Max Morris believes that Blanchard and Lawrence have constructed a far more plausible narrative of late onset transsexualism. In fact, he thinks the main problem with their work is… that they didn’t go far enough!
Morris argues that Blanchard and Lawrence were lazy. They had an agenda – to prove that transsexualism was an outgrowth of autogynephilia – and as soon as they established a link between the two, their work was done. Even though Lawrence went on to argue for an emotional motive for transition (‘pairbonding’ and self directed love,) she insisted that everything emanated from the sexual urge to be a woman.
This is wrong scientifically and linguistically…you just need to look at sexuality in terms of biology.
Blanchard’s sexology posits sex as a prime cause for deeper life goals such as pair bonding (romantic love). Therefore, if you have a sexual orientation to X, and you do X…your motive is sexual (or is an outgrowth of sexuality). But this is like saying a woman gets married to a man for sexual reasons (which is patently absurd.) Morris reminds us that human sexuality is not an end in itself…human sexuality and all forms of mating exist to pass on DNA.
A true causal description of transition goes like this.
Humans, like all animals, are programmed to reproduce.
To achieve this, nature has programmed us with several drives.
1. To be conscious about our appearance so as to attract a mate.
2. To find a mate and to have sex.
3. To then pair bond in order to raise young together.
4. To set up a home for the young to live in.
5. The desire to nuture, protect and care for the resulting young.
All of these drives are hardwired into the human brain and our behavioural programming. As we all know, we can trick that programming and invent the pill and not have kids etc. but we still have the drive for sex, pair-bonding (i.e. love) and setting up home.
What Blanchard and Lawrence do in their later work is to admit the desire to transition is not a result of number 2 (to find a mate and have sex) – but the result of 3 and 4 (pair-bonding and nest-building with the woman they want to become). However, in order to hold onto autogynephilia, they claim that pair-bonding and nestbuilding occur in transgender woman as a result of sexuality.
It does not. This is causally incorrect. None of the drives 1 to 5 stem from each other but all result from the prime drive of living organisms: to reproduce.
If you disagree that this is the programming priority for the human brain and all living things, I urge you to read (or reread – now that you’re older,) The Selfish Gene. The absolute genius of this book is not Darwinism but its ramifications for psychology. It demonstrates with incontrovertible evidence that living organisms behave the way they do in order to facilitate reproduction. Please please read it! (there’s a great audio version on pirate bay if you’re hard up!)
The real strength of Max’s work.
The brilliant part of this essay is still to come, however. Having demonstrated (far more convincingly than my blog post) that the desire to transition is reproductive, Morris then deconstructs reproductive programming to show how the desire for love (pair-bonding) and a home (nest-building) and other consequences of reproductive programming are such profound psychological needs that we can not consider them reproductive prerogatives but ontological ones. In other words, they are deeply connected with our life goals, our happiness and sense of purpose.
Therefore, the correct way to think about the need for transition is not sexual or reproductive – but psychological.
This has many consequences for how we think about transgender people. It shows how stopping transgender women from transitioning is a violation of their civil right to happiness. If they are programmed to pair-bond in transition – and you don’t let them – it’s like denying a woman the right to live with a man. She will inevitably become depressed.
All I can say is read the essay. Even if you disagree with it, it’s worth the read simply for the pronouncement that crossdreamers have…
…a metamorphic orientation. Heterosexuals want to acquire someone…we want to become someone.
He also makes some interesting speculations as to why nature may have intended to create transgender people. In other words…we’re not an accident or error!
The conclusion of the thought experiment.
The great thing about this essay is that it anticipates a future where autogynephilia is seemingly proven right. I say ‘seemingly’ because what Max shows is that it ends up proving the opposite of what the transphobe intended. This is what I call ‘The Dawkins Paradox’.
…Proving a link with sexuality in the desire to transition means that, paradoxically, you not only prove that the transgender condition is not sexual but that it is a contravention of human rights to stop someone transitioning. The transphobe shoots himself in the foot.
Happy Christmas, my beautiful friends. I hope that in 2017 you either become the person you want to be…
…or the person you knew you always were.