A conspiracy of certain gay men against women

One of the recurring themes confronting women of transsexual history has been the attempts of gay men to own us.  Politically-minded gay men want to use our tenative legal status in marriage for their own purposes, forcing us into the GLBT against our will.  TG activists have done their best to sell us into GLBT bondage as well, and have gone on to do such things as using our our status in the pre-op stage to force their way into women’s bathrooms.  And in the psychiatric trade, gay men want to erase our existence and replace us with their preferred groups of homosexual and transvestite men.

One of the most egregious examples of this comes from psychiatrist “Alice Novic”, the gay crossdresser of Alice in Genderland fame who thinks he has it all figured out.  He speaks for us without a second thought, imperiously declaring that all “MtF” people are the same, and completely ruling out the possibility that actual transsexual people are born that way.  “Alice” has a page of seven “myths” about his MtF group that he gleefully attempts to destroy on his website, Alice in Genderland.  Let’s look at a few.

Myth #2: Crossdressers and transsexuals are two whole different types of people

This notion is extremely prevalent, as is reflected by the very fact that we use the words crossdresser and transsexual, as opposed to part-time MTFs and full-time MTFs—or something like that. This myth seems to be supported by the fact that some transsexuals, especially very effeminate, early-transitioning ones appear cut from a completely different cloth than crossdressers—and indeed they are (see my article on the two types of trans women). On top of that, drawing a hard line between CD and TS can be extremely useful for CDs who strive to stay accepted as men and TSs fighting for acceptance as women.


Myth #3: Transsexuals are simply women born into the wrong body

Though it’s important for transsexuals to be treated as women. This born-into-the-wrong-body notion does not ring true in my experience as psychiatrist or trans person. Just the kind of conversation a person makes is often enough to distinguish a trans woman from genetic woman—especially for started-out-straight trans women.


Myth #7: After surgery I can get involved with regular straight men

Certainly if you pass, then after genital surgery you may be free to date mainstream straight men and even have sex without any differences detected. But, alas, as many friends have reported, once you tell them you’ve had a sex change, it’s like telling them you still have a penis. They can’t say goodbye quick enough.


Once again, we have a male crossdresser who takes his own experiments with “gender” and broadly applies it to all people he sees fit for inclusion in his fantasy.  The fact that his construct is entirely derogatory to women like me is not important; what is important is for the crossdresser to maintain the fantasy.  I believe that the insulting, dismissive nature is intentional.

First, it’s highly unlikely that this psychiatrist has ever even met a “transsexual” in his practice.  Most “transsexuals” are well aware of crossdressers and their issues and steer as far clear of them as possible.  In fact, most women in general find transvestites rather creepy, but this isn’t something you’ll learn as a crossdresser is it?  When Alice refers to “MtF’s”, he is likely talking about “transgender” types who merely think they are transsexual, and find a willing accomplice in this misguided therapist.  Secondly is his out and out denial that we are women.  This is typical among the rather abusive crowd you will encounter at gender groups.  They tell us they can feel us out with some kind of tinkered gaydar in an attempt to establish control over us.  And, as always, this is followed directly by the ever-present mantra that we can never escape their grasp.  They own us now and forever.

This is bad enough, though rather typical of the crossdresser mindset, but reading further I found some very interesting things.  In the not-to-distant past I warned people away from “Jack Molay” and his blog.  I felt it was another transparent attempt to establish the “two type” theory of Blanchard’s transsexual tripe.  It is a collection of just-so accounts and carefully regurgitated theory from a supposed layperson who just happens to be totally into the “scientist” Blanchard. (Isn’t it funny how that whole crowd gives themselves away by that “scientist” business?  If you ever see repeated references to Blanchard as a “serious scientist” you know it’s that bunch of goobers)  Well lo and behold, “Molay” and “Alice” have got together for an interview.  Just like that, out of the blue, what a lucky coincidence!  Here’s the interesting part.

Jack: You write and talk about the two types of transwomen: “love to be femmes”, who include crossdressers and late transitioners, and “act femmes”, who include early transitioners and drag queens. I can hear more than an echo of Ray Blanchard’s “autogynephiliacs” vs. “homosexual transsexuals” here, so this is a controversial point of view. Could you say a little about how you ended up with this model, and to what extent it differs from the one of Blanchard’s?

Alice: Sure. Quite simply I read Blanchard—and Bailey, especially his Man Who Would Be Queen. I was blown away by what they had learned about MTF transpeople; it totally explained all the disparate things I had seen and heard over the years. Our landscape is not divided north-south between crossdressers and transsexuals; it’s split east-west between those who start out straight and those who start out gay. What a brilliant idea! I was kicking myself for not having seen it myself, but as a transperson I was still too attached to our own propaganda to realize anything that ran counter to it.

The rest of the “interview” (aka propaganda) can be read at the link just above.  It reads as a carefully constructed narrative about how Alice, as a fully fledged transperson who can speak on behalf of transsexuals, accepts that all the things “we tell ourselves” are simply lies, and that the truth is found in Blanchard’s estimation of transsexual women as deluded men.  This is a common pattern for the Blanchardians; find a representative among the population you want to label and control, have them speak on behalf of that population.  Then close the deal and declare ownership.  They did it with Anne Lawrence, finding an “autogynephilic transsexual” to speak for us.  They conducted an internet campaign to discourage real transsexuals from getting together and speaking using a group of fakes known as “Transkids“, who went around proselytizing and shouting down opposition wherever they could.  They even seem to deploy thugs when necessary.

More recently they enticed Cloudy/Kaye Brown into the fold to preach the word, along with starting a blog by an alleged “autogynephilic”, Jack Molay,and another by the wife of an “autogynephilic” to play counterpoint.  And if you dig a little, I’m sure you’ll find Willow Arune, Bailey’s and Dreger’s old buddy Kiira Treia (also see here), Lissane Anderson and all the other usual suspects. (Andrea James has a detailed account of the shenanigans this crew has been up to, which you can read here)  I believe even James Cantor makes a cameo, being a bit player who supposedly greases the wheels.  “Alice” says this :

After reading my August interview with Jack Molay, a kind Canadian psychologist offered to put me in touch with Ray Blanchard.

Now who could that be?  Why if it isn’t our old friend James, I’ll eat a bug.

This whole thing just reeks of collusion and machination.  This has been an ongoing project of these people for years.  Why do they do it?  I think that there is a little niche market for these psychs to exploit, and they don’t want to lose that opportunity.  The attempts over the years to sow discord and shoo transsexual women from the internet scene were done with careful consideration. Silencing dissent among those you wish to control is the first step.  Replacing their voices with your own carefully chosen schills is the next.  Then the all-to-convenient blogs showing up is an attempt to plant a seed in the declining TG discourse, one that will offer false hope to those who have been led astray by gender theory.  What do you suppose is next?

When you establish an official sort of replacement narrative for the standard transsexual or transgender one that has been in existence, those words play out in the back of people’s minds.  It’s an attempt to spread a new standard story to entrap a captive audience.  The existence of transsexual women is an impediment to their goal of owning “gender confused” people.  The biology behind our condition is explained away as a source of paraphilia, or worse.  In a strange twist of fate, transsexual women are all that stand between the trans* crowd and permanent assignation as sick perverts.

Maybe they should have been a little nicer to us.

One of the most insidious attempts to silence and erase us has been the effort by the “BBL” crowd to sweep away the biological evidence that stands in our favor.  The consistent effort has been to characterize our neurological variance from men as a pathology.

Anne Lawrence tries to say we are just amputation fetishists, and along with Bailey further argues:

The female-typical BSTc volume and neuron number observed in the MtF transsexuals are markers for nonhomosexual or autogynephilic MtF transsexualism, not for MtF transsexualism generally.

(Note to gay men, Anne is trying to size you up for inclusion in their little scheme, because they need a way to pathologize their “HSTS” category properly)

Cantor, who studies pedophilia, has the view that:

Another problem with the BNSTc finding is that the BNSTc is also smaller in pedophiles. So the BNSTc could be related to atypical sexuality generally rather than to gender identity specifically.

(We know he is talking about a different area of the brain than the famous Zhou study examines.  I doubt James is so dull he would make that kind of mistake)

Blanchard is the source for all these thoughts including as the supposed link to BIID (which has been since taken up by Lawrence) and the rest, but recently has tried to assign the ongoing concern this cottage industry represents to his deputies like Cantor and Lawrence who carry on the campaign.  Blanchard is a “serious scientist” you know and cannot be seen as having a hand in something so tawdry as gender bending.

Cantor, “Alice”,  Lawrence, and the rest (especially Blanchard, who won’t discuss is sexuality), are all “self-identified” males who are sexually oriented towards men.  They represent a conspiracy of gay men to stigmatize and abuse women; transsexual woman, specifically.  This is not acceptable for a profession that claims to be about helping people.

Which brings us to the heart of the problem transsexual men and women have with the transgender.  The forced association cooperates with this nefarious agenda and opens a clear line of attack to both transsexuals and those who seek to live in a different gender role than the one they were assigned.  Our association is toxic, not just for us but for them.  On their way to getting to us, the BBL clique must necessarily destroy the TG and label them all horrible perverts.  That’s why I have been so critical of the TG construct.  It weakens both of our defenses against this concerted attack.  The TG defense against the BBL crowd, using freedom of choice and social theory, has been especially awful in repelling this assault.  I would go so far as to say that it has benefited our enemy.  And make no mistake, those who set out to do this to all of us are a clear and present enemy.

If you want to follow the transsexual path, that is what you do.  Don’t make appeals to social theory to explain yourself.  Keep your mouth shut, don’t “come out” like you were gay.  Get your business done and move on.  That’s the way to succeed if you want to transition.  Then when you are solid in your life and settled, you can decide if you want to come out to every stranger you meet.

Better yet, decide if you want to be part of the fight to banish these would-be masters to the career oblivion that they so richly deserve.


17 Responses to A conspiracy of certain gay men against women

  1. Ariel says:

    Thank you for exposing this swill and showing it for what it is. As for “why,” I don’t really know, but the “what” is quite bad enough, whatever the reason.

  2. leighspov says:

    I had the discomfort of meeting with Anne Lawrence once. A friend of mine was looking for someone to write her letters and she had contacted lawrence and set up an appointment. It was a creepy experience and I took an instant dislike to her. She tried to steer my friend into having an orchi. Needless to say she never went back to them and is now 6 years post op, one of the last patients of schrang before he retired

  3. I hate when people throw “Myth 3” around. Just because it wasn’t true for someone else doesn’t make it not true for me. I was very much trapped with the wrong body.

    Urgh. This is all pretty irritating.

    • lisalee18wheeler says:

      It’s reprehensible that people with absolutely no comprehension or connection deem it appropriate to speak for me and my sisters. Fuck them!

  4. jackmolay says:

    I am sorry, it seems my comment was posted before I had a chance to finalize it. My bad!

    My final point is that you are harming your own cause by presenting this wide TG conspiracy consisting of people as diverse as Anne Lawrence and me.

    I do not share the views of Anne Lawrence. And neither she nor me support the idea that various transgender conditions are social constructs, an idea which you seem to think is an essential part of the LGTB “gay agenda”.

    As for our sexual orientation it varies too. Cloudy is clearly an androphilic woman. If I had been a gay man, that would probably have made it easier for me to live a fulfilling sexual life. I have a lot of gay male friends, so it would not have been much of a problem to find partners. But the fact is that I — as well as most of my crossdreamer friends — love women. Buy arguing that we are all closeted gay men, you are declaring to the world that you have absolutely no idea of what crossdressing and crossdreaming is about.

    As for me and the others being “a conspiracy of gay men to stigmatize and abuse women”. For a woman easily offended by others, you seem to have absolutely no qualms about offending people you do not even know.


  5. jackmolay says:

    Hm, I am really out of luck with this WordPress comment system. Now my second comment has been posted while my first has been lost in cyberspace.

    All right, let me see if I can reconstruct my argument.

    You seem to believe there is a grand conspiracy of TG activists consisting of a wide variety of people, including people as diverse as Lawerence, Alice, Blanchard, Cloudy, Susanne of “My husband is an autogynephiliac” and me.

    You also seem to believe that my blog, Crossdreamers.com, is a mouthpiece for this conspiracy.

    First: The fact that people communicate, or are friends even, do not mean that they are part of a common conspiracy.

    For instance: I enjoy discussing gender issues with Cloudy, as she is an intelligent woman with a admirable ability to argue constructively for what she believes in. She is a friend. But that does not mean that I agree with everything she says. In fact, she and I disagree on many of the fundamentals.

    This applies to Alice as well. I have learned a lot from her and her observations, and she has been of great help to crossdreamers, but I do not share her (admittedly reluctant) embrace of Blanchard’s theory.

    Susanne of “My Husband is an Autogynephiliac” is exactly who she claims to be: a woman married to a crossdresser. She contacted me after having read my blog. She knew close to nothing about transgender issues before she discovered that her husband was a crossdreamer (my term for a male bodied persons who get aroused by feminization fantasies). She is certainly not a repressed gay man!

    This year have seen the birth of a large number of crossdreamer blogs. If you have read them, you would have seen that there is a lot of disagreement about what crossdreaming is and how people should handle it. We still manage to learn from each other. We still remain friends.

    I have presented Blanchard’s theories in detail over at my blog. The reason for this is that he is one of the very few researchers who have looked at feminization fantasies. This means that anyone who wants to discuss this issue has to look into what he has to say. That does not mean that I support Blanchard or that I am a “Blanchardist”.

    The fact that I recognize that “autogynephiliacs” exist, does not mean that I accept Blanchard’s explanation for what causes “autogynephilia”.

    If you had read the comments to the Alice/Blanchard interview, you would have seen that I actually get a lot of flack for criticizing Blanchard.

    I have written a large number of post arguing why Blanchard is wrong about his “target location error” hypothesis. I have made use of research made by others (like Roughgarden) to explain why this is so, and I have referred extensively to researchers and others criticizing Blanchard (like Moser). I would not have done that if I were a Blanchard supporter.

    Using your kind of logic I could have argued that you are a Blanchardist. You are supporting Blanchard’s attempts at getting crossdreaming included as a paraphilia in the DSM. You even support his argument that many transwomen are feminine gay men. I do not.

    For the record: I believe you when you and your sisters say that you are women. You are 100 percent women, no buts involved. I also believe you when you say that your gender identity is grounded in biology. I may criticize the research that is used to underpin this argument (it is too weak), but like you I am convinced that transsexualism has a biological basis.

    No one would go through the hell you have been through just for the fun of it. It is extremely unlikely that your upbringing made you what you are.

    But this applies to crossdressers and crossdreamers as well. No one embraces the stigma of being CD/XD because it is such a turn on. There are so many other ways of being sexual that are accepted by society. You do not risk your job, your friends and your family because it is fun to dress up as a woman. This urge has a much deeper basis and encompasses much more than sexual desire.

    Does this mean that M2F crossdressers and transwomen are the same? Of course not! A transwoman is a woman, and most crossdressers and crossdreamers decide to live as men. If they do they are men in my book, even if they have a strong inner woman.

    But some of them come the realization that they are women, after having struggled for years with the conditioning of their surrounding culture and their upbringing. They deserve respect for daring to become what they are, and should not be reduced to fetishists or gay men.

    I have learned a lot from many of your observations, but by turning this debate into an apocalyptic war between the forces of good (“Classic Transsexuals”) and the Dark Side of Blanchard (which seems to include everyone else taking part in the debate, and they are all gay, fetishistic, autogynephilic, social constructivistic, and misogynist LGTB men) you are losing all credibility.

    That is a shame, because I am convinced transwomen need people who can study and argue for the biological origins of transsexualism.

    • deena17 says:

      Jack until I saw your posts here I had no idea you existed. I went to crossdreamers.com and read for a few minutes. That was enough. Let me say very clearly that I wish you no harm.

      I also have zero interest in figuring out why a man would want to wear panties or why that would sexually excite a man. Furthermore I doubt men will ever be able to understand women even though they seem compelled to try. Seems like a fools game to me.

      And though it may seem strange to you I could care less whether or not humanity finds some biological basis for incongruities. Actually it seems rather axiomatic since biology is a natural science concerned with the study of life and living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, distribution, and taxonomy.

      Perhaps the best thing for me to do is simply wish you a wonderful life. I have one.

  6. Aria Blue says:

    Quite simply Jack, I think you are full of shit. I’m not really concerned about the feelings of people like you who are doing nothing but damage to our status. You certainly aren’t concerned about mine, are you?

  7. annierose55 says:

    Hi Aria.

    At the extreme risk of being demonized for disagreeing with you, I would like to suggest that your attitude towards Mr. Molay is less than helpful to your stated cause.

    I too have read some of Molay’s writings and IMO, he seems to have a fairly accurate grasp of what it means to be a cross dresser or autogynophile. He also seems to be aware of how his condition is quite different and distinct from ours. To wit…”Does this mean that M2F crossdressers and transwomen are the same? Of course not! A transwoman is a woman, and most crossdressers and crossdreamers decide to live as men. If they do they are men in my book, even if they have a strong inner woman.”

    I can see where you might take exception to his use of the term ‘transwoman’, which is a valid ‘gripe’, but I do not see that it warrants a total dismissal and/or disparagement of his POV.

    Further, I see Blanchard’s theorem as a fairly accurate discription of the male cross dresser, both homo and hetero, sexual.

    I fully agree with you that there are plenty of “social constructivistic, and misogynist LGTB men”, as well as more than enough men that are “gay, fetishistic,,(and) autogynephilic”, who are grasping at who we are as women. However, I am not sure that Molay is one of them.

    Molay is a self-professed, heterosexual crossdresser, unless I am misreading what he writes. I do not see him claiming to be a woman or a “transsexual”. Please correct me if I am wrong.


  8. Aria Blue says:

    As I said, I believe Molay’s purpose is underhanded and therefore trying to include him in anything is just opening the door to problems.

    There is nothing to negotiate. There is nothing to discuss. They can either respect the boundaries and keep their pontificating limited to crossdressers, or they can continue the problems. It’s up to them.

  9. saphirenz says:

    Perhaps this is one I should stay away from but Annierose and Aria I admire you both and respect your opinions. I often find myself well into the nineties percent agreement with Aria. One hundred percent would, perhaps, be unrealistic…(smile)

    I have tried the less than confrontational approach and have even tried to do things “their way”. Unfortunately though their “magnanimity” soon evaporates and the TG agenda emerges.

    Remember the old adage, “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts”…Such is the stuff which has suborned many a CT heart

    • Aria Blue says:

      You know, if you had a blog you could write a bit about that 10% or so where we don’t agree, and maybe I and others could benefit from another point of view. 🙂 The more the merrier!

      There are only a few things written in stone. I’ve outlined some of the areas where I won’t budge an inch, but I think those areas are pretty much things that just about every “transsexual” man and woman would agree on. Some people take issue with how abrasive I am towards the TG contingent, but so what. Other people don’t have to take that path, but I think at least some of us do. They just don’t listen to reason.

      There is plenty of room for people to take different approaches to handling this problem. Everyone is free to do as they please, there is no secret organization or divine order at work. The only time I gainsay others is when I think we are being sold out by a schill who soft peddles the BBL or TG line.

      For calling that out, I get accused of all sorts of things… but that is to be expected when people’s hidden agendas are exposed. Notice I am one of the only people out here, along with perhaps SA ET at Enough Nonsense and Catkisser, who are out and open with our agenda. Why do you suppose that is?

      All these detractors of nebulous origin and dubious motives have one purpose; to keep transsexual men and women from speaking up on their own behalf. I have nothing to say to these interlopers except shove off and find a new victim. If someone takes issue with that, they are in the wrong.

  10. Aria Blue says:

    And the other question is… what do we need from crossdressers? Nothing save their non-interference. How can you compromise on something like that?

  11. annierose55 says:

    Well, Kiddies, you had all better go grab a chair and sit down before you all FALL down. Aria and I, the infamous, much maligned, and serious super whiner, Annierose have actually found 100% agreement.

    I really do think we should memorialize today somehow. In any case, all kidding aside, Aria, Thank You for asking and COME ON DOWN!

    This is my blog address…http://anna-es-asi.blogspot.com/

    I will welcome your input and correction of any of my inaccuracies.

    Let see where this goes.


  12. saphirenz says:

    Aria sais :-

    You know, if you had a blog you could write a bit about that 10% or so where we don’t agree, and maybe I and others could benefit from another point of view. The more the merrier!

    I am assuming that was meant for me ….Don’t think I haven’t thought about it …Blogging that is but I probably woulodn’t be very good at it or even able to devote the necessary time . Anyway there are some excellent bloggers out there each with their own inimmitable style. Having said that I would like to think I can make a difference, so ….who knows? Maybe I will start something.

    My internet inbox gets smaller and smaller as I become more persona non grata amongst the corespondents to the Health and Human rights processes here, the “activists”. I worry that they may get their way and what would happen then , with an eventual backlash really frightens me .

    I hope to learn more from you in order to reinforce my struggle . I am wondering if there is something in the history of ENDA which could be used to influence authorities here.

    Your other question, ? Of course we want little from the CD and AG other than non interference and above all , I think , an end to their misappropriation and compromisation of the core transsexual condition

    • Aria Blue says:

      The thing about blogs is you can just post when you feel like it, you don’t have to do it daily. Once you do start though, you often find that the subject matter suggests itself quite a bit and its easier than you might think. Even once a month is good enough when you are building an association of blogs too. If you decide to start one, please let me know so I can link you.

      As to the rest, I know our governments are rather different so I’m not sure that the ENDA story would help. Basically it has to do with the way our politicians pander to various groups that they want to keep down on the farm so to speak, but they really don’t care if they pass one way or another as long as they can keep appearances up. Catkisser would be the one to ask about that, she has direct experience in this area.

      Maybe your first blog post could be to outline what’s going on. I really have no idea, but it sounds like there is a group of trannys that are trying to create a third sex status down there or something?

  13. […] A swindling of sure happy group opposite women « Aria Blue […]

%d bloggers like this: