The HSTS myth

I’ve written before about AGP, how I agree with others that its simply a way to mischaracterize the sexuality of some women of history, and I further posited that it was an attempt to blend transvestic fetishism with some of the “symptoms” that transsexual women may have experienced before transition.  Now it’s time to deal with the other weapon the sexologists use against us; the blending of youthful “effeminate” behavior with the TS narrative in order to erase the actual TS condition from the books and finish replacing us with gay and transvestite men.

The standard TS narrative is a mantra that goes something like this:  I was a feminine child who played only with girls’ toys.  I wore my mother’s clothes when I could, until my parents came down on me and forced me to stop.  I thought I was a girl until other people told me I wasn’t.  I was often bullied for being gay as a child because I was so feminine I couldn’t control my behavior.

This is what TS clients learned to tell their doctors and psychs, because that is what they wanted to hear.  Back when this story was passed from one “TS” to another in the early days, it was recited as a litany so that a person could get treatment.  So the common feeling among psychs at the time reflected this, and clients parroted back what the psychs wanted to hear.  This led to the condition later becoming conflated with being gay.  This is the problem as it stands.  The psychs (sexologists really)  currently involved with the TS area want to mislabel us as gay or transvestite, and nobody outside that little clique in the APA seems interested in putting a stop to their shenanigans.

The problem for the HSTS pushers is that the standard narrative isn’t true.  Unlike AGP, where they have managed to swirl actual “symptoms” with transvestic fetishism, the sexologists have little actual data about the early years of TS children.  The evidence that does exist  is scattershot, showing that examining the behavior of children at play is really not very diagnostic of transsexualism.  Transsexuals are only minimally represented in the literature of the time, or any time really, as being “feminine” in childhood.  Such childhood behavior is more closely associated with later homosexual orientation after sexuality emerges in puberty.  You can read a very good analysis of why “feminine behavior” is not a diagnostic of TS in childhood here.  It’s written by Curtis Hinkle, another person who is fighting against being forcibly “disordered” by the sexologists.

In many ways, the current situation grows out of the feelings of people like Richard Green who think that transsexualism is a form of being gay.  Zucker’s “work” with children who exhibit the wrong sort of behavior for their sex is a direct descendant of the sexist and hamfisted thought process of people like Green and his “sissy boy syndrome”.  To this day, we have people like Zucker and others trying to “cure” this unapproved behavior, resulting in various kinds of nonsense studies.

Yet from the very pen of the rather unsympathic Collette Chiland comes the damning analysis:

“The disorders that may lead to transsexualism in adults may thus be perfectly silent in childhood as far as an observer, parents, or teachers are concerned … the child has no clear idea why he feels bad, and will only give his trouble a name on reaching puberty.”

“An outside observer may notice that something is wrong with the child, but they cannot imagine, any more than the subject himself, that the child is suffering from a disorder of gender identity.”

“we see an isolated boy who is ill at ease, does not make friends, and does quite badly at school. But the child has no clear idea why he feels bad, and will only give his trouble a name on reaching puberty.”

And from Person and Ovesey:

“In our series of ten primary transsexuals, nine showed no evidence of effeminacy in childhood … As far as we can make out, they did not engage in girl’s activities or play with girls any more than did normal boys … All ten of our primary transsexuals were socially withdrawn and spent most of their time after school by themselves at home … In effect, they were childhood loners … ”

“to summarise, then, in childhood, the primary transsexual is not effeminate, but he feels either abhorrence or discomfort in boyish activities.”

They are describing actual transsexual children here.  This is the common experience that all transsexual children share.  It is not about being feminine and girly, or tomboyish in the case of TS men.  It is a terrible condition that instills such horror in children that they withdraw from life.

Among transsexual women there has been a sort of phenomenon discussed where older memories seem to change to match our current lives.  Others who have not experienced this think it sounds crazy, but I think it’s simply time and the brain colluding to make things fit together.  There are such disparate experiences that they can’t coexist in the mind, so one must be made to fit the other.  This results in a sort of unintentional revisionism, which may account for some of these “memories”.

Of course another aspect of this childhood memory business is the competition that exists between trans*people who buy into the standard narrative and use it in their attempts to one-up each other.  This is terrible, as it just encourages the sexologists to continue on their dark path, and discourages real TS people from getting the help they need.  One thing we see coming out of the revelation that not all TS women are “feminine” as children has been its exploitation by the non-transsexual “gender crowd” who, having lived full rich lives as fathers and husbands, think this gives them carte blanc to excuse their behavior prior to their pursuit of full time “cross gendered living”.

Exploration of these issues should never be construed as granting license to the full-time crossdressers to misappropriate transsexual narratives or treatment.

And the last place you see these narratives which I will discuss is among the online personalities that attempt to get into transsexual groups and mine them for information that can be used against them.  This is chiefly the activity of sexologist “operatives” who currently have no research subjects due to the objectionable nature of the direction they’ve taken that field.

Sexology is currently in ruins.  It has been brought into disrepute by people like Blanchard and Lawrence, and no self-respecting “sexual minority” would grace these sorts of people with their presence.  How do you study people when people are staying away in droves?  The only way to do this is by having or creating a captive audience.  This is why people like Blanchard and Zucker moved to Canada and planted themselves at the head of a deviance division in the Canadian health care system.  They want unlimited access and control over people whom they regard as nothing more than fodder for their own careers.  These are your “serious scientists” here.

But there is an opportunity for expansion.  As the DSM V is written, therein lies the ability to “pathologize” many groups, who can then be exploited by avaricious psych types who have more ambition than scruples.  In order for that to happen, these targeted groups must not resist.  Hence, the Wikipedia campaign and Internet blitzkrieg against groups such as transsexual men and women.

Slimy little worms crawl about looking for openings.  Shady characters of no background spring up suddenly, offering the hand of friendship to people who often have no friends.  A sympathetic ear listens to you pour your heart out, taking notes and building an information base on a subject that has so little substance in the literature.  And all the while, thinking of ways to use it against you.

This is the backdrop for anyone looking for help online.  Don’t trust anyone; you have it within you to do everything you need to do in order to fix your problems.  It’s already there.  While its tempting to reach out to others, in all likelihood you are going to be speaking to “transgender” people or fakes.  There are very, very few transsexual people in the world; it’s a rare birth condition.

HSTS is not another name for “primary transsexualism”, or transsexualism at all.  It is an attempt to erase actual transsexuals and replace them.

There are not two types of transsexualism, there is only one.  Different life experiences give outsiders the impression that we are different groups, but we aren’t.  Transsexualism is a monolithic phenomenon.

While it is somewhat playing into the hands of those who want to dissect us to keep apart from one another, it is probably necessary at this early point.  These people want to get the real TS childhood narrative from us, so they can blend it with “HSTS” the way they have blended other symptoms with “AGP”.  We can’t let that happen.

Every time we assemble these people infiltrate and take notes.  Don’t let them.  Trust only those you meet, or those that you know through someone you have met.

Don’t tell your childhood experiences to these people.  Don’t speak to them of anything.  Deprive them of their research subjects.  We must maintain this information blackout until this group is gone from the scene and are replaced by people who don’t want us destroyed.  And make no mistake, if these people get their way they will do their best to wipe us from the face of the earth.

Resist.

Advertisements

7 Responses to The HSTS myth

  1. lisalee18wheeler says:

    Amen.

  2. Kathryn says:

    Well said Aria….. I am familiar with Curtis… He has his head screwed on right on this issue.
    My own attempts to set up TS-only groups have universally been met with screams of “elitism” from the TG’s who rush to be a member at the first hint of such a group forming.
    As you say, we are very rare birds…. In my own country with a population of only 4.2 million, there are not more than 150 of us at any one time. Some will be very old, some very young (and probably undiagnosed), so the “active” number isprobably around 40 or so tops. Many of those are not interested in putting their heads above the parapet, so we are lucky to find a dozen. That doesn’t cut a lot of ice against the many hundreds of LBGT’s who have hijacked our human rights movement and who insist that their cross dressing element are a variety of TS.
    Let’s hope your prediction of self-destruction of the TG paradigm comes to pass.
    We keep plugging away at the halls of power, but that “voice in the wilderness” feeling is always there…….

  3. jennisuzan says:

    I observed back when Bailey’s book came out that this is all just an attempt to discredit transsexualism. Ironically, Dreger confirmed this in her diatribe against those who objected to Bailey’s silliness. By creating the twin myths of autogynephilia and HSTS, Blanchard, and later Bailey, basically attacked the idea that we have any credible claim to actual womanhood. In their system we are either gay men, or straight men with a bizarre fetish. Autogynephilia taken to its illogical extreme would seem to argue that lesbians are somehow really men.

    I agree, there is only one form of transsexualism. There are, granted, those who are, in effect, pseudotranssexuals. They may actually have surgery, but their motives and behavior are not consistent with true or classic transsexualism. They may even, in some cases, exhibit behavior that seems to fit Blanchard’s definition of autogynephilia, if only because they are trying to fit into his definition of such. But they are not remotely transsexual unless you accept the old truism that “if you are not a transsexual before surgery, you will be afterwards,” In another words, if you were not truly a woman before surgery, you will, for all practical purposes, be an FTM afterwards.

  4. frith2 says:

    These theorists start their analysis with a false premise – the Adam and Eve biological binary.

    They are incapable of dealing with human life without first assimilating into that model.

    Small wonder then, that they reconstruct both C/T and Intersex experiences by refashioning both their bodies and lived experiences the way they do.

    What scares me is they show no comprehension whatsoever of the cultural fundamentalism that structures their own theories.

    They need to become experts on themselves before anointing themselves into a false position as pseudo experts on others.

  5. saphirenz says:

    I suppose the psychs. and sexologists can be a double edged sword, which significant edge depending upon their particular philosophy or outlook on the transsexual condition. Those who follow the BBL clan like sheep we can do without.

    Now at the risk of being unpopular , I believe that the transsexual condition has a pathology whether we like it or not . Pathologies have diagnoses, treatments and hopefully cures. I am a success story in that I am cured. Bearing in mind the UK gender Recognition Act and now the Equality Act , one can not help but think that ‘gatekeepers ‘ are essential to limit the damage created by self diagnosed “non op. “Transsexuals” claiming and obtaining revised sex identity documents and even birth certificates. The thought of where this could lead really frightens me, especially since I am aware of moves under way here to introduce similar legislation. This is being led by those who call themselves Gender Queer.

    Generally speaking though I am in accord with you and with Kathryn… we need more Diamonds in the Psych profession.

    PS Blogging draws nearer

  6. Aria Blue says:

    Oh I agree completely that this ts thing is a birth defect. While all humans have variations in their development, when something causes a big enough problem that doctors need to be involved to solve it you have crossed from variation into medical problem. There is no way something that requires surgery and medication is simply an “expression of individuality” the way the GLB-Tg claims.

    That’s the ridiculous part- as long as they attach themselves to TS, they will be easy nutjob targets for the BBL crowd. They won’t be able to escape medicalization because they ride on our medical coattails. Which makes their efforts to characterize the surgery as a choice all the more perplexing.

  7. saphirenz says:

    Quite so …we are again in accord….(smile)