> Many were homosexual because the lesbian community embraced and accommodated their expression of masculinity. And, perhaps more importantly, those relationships with feminine women enhanced that masculinity.

I see where you're getting but I'd correct this as "many identified as homosexual" or "many passed as homosexual" given the kind of analysis you're trying to present. It's a small but important distinction.

> Since the 80s and 90s, when butch lesbians first started becoming “trans men”, a strange phenomenon presented itself. Many of those former butches stopped being lesbians. They didn’t become ‘straight men’ though, as the clinicians thought they would. A significant number of them became gay or bisexual [transmen]. They started sleeping with and dating men.

Because they didnt "stop" being lesbians, they werent lesbians in the first place but innacurately identified and passed as such, and then reidentified later as something else. If one can misidentify as a lesbian in general, then its not surprising some might misidentify as a more specific sublabel such as Butch. Bisexual people misidentifying as hetero or LG, and het people misidentifying as LGB is a tale not as old as time but still quite old. Feminist 'political lesbians' being a notorious example. It continues nowadays with the invention of 200 new genders and sexuality labels under the pretense of deeper complexity and diversity.

You need to observe as well the subgroup that is homosexual but ends up identifying as bi or gay ftm, because they are aroused and partner with "cis women and trans men" or "only other transmen and achillean transmascs" respectively. They are not reflected in old research and if transition and gender identity ideology wasn't a thing its likely a lot of these would be IDing as butchxbutch lesbians.

I find your analysis to be interesting and accessible but still a WIP and missing some chunks of the puzzle. Also i think it'd have more weight for the general public if you sourced the research you're referencing or criticizing in statements such as "Female sexuality is not target driven. It is relationally driven" and "the evidence begs to differ" and "The early clinicians were actually observing the same phenomenon" otherwise it just gives the impression its being pulled from your navel even if its not your intention.

Expand full comment
Apr 16·edited Apr 16

Interesting, I appreciate your thoughts. I'm not a scholar, nor do I have friends who are trans but I've dug into some of the earlier theories of gender non-conforming and am familiar with Blanchard's typology.

I recognise their could well be what I might call proto-states, or an underlying ateiology that gives rise to variants like you describe but I'm curious about the degree these states, personas are culture bound, as you allude to in your shifts over time.

I'm wary of typologies because I think they have tended to neglect this aspect, that the thoughts, narratives and personas that people adopt are taken from those already available in the culture. The sexologist who co-formulates these ideas then can contribute to their distinctive perpetuation. A simpler formulation perhaps is that people have underlying states which are somewhat amorphous - these are then reified through cultural reification (interpellation).

This I think should give some humility to the exercise but again not to discount that there might be a 'there' there...

I half wonder some people may suffer a broader difficulty with identity and then gender becomes the content. Something like borderline or the abandoned dissociative identity disorder then might be closer to the underlying condition.

Expand full comment

There is no such thing as "gender dysphoria."

The word "gender" means nothing for humans.

If someone "feels like" the opposite sex, that is a symptom of a deeper mental illness that needs treatment. It's not a real condition in anyone, including you.

This whole thing is a fraud, and using the words as though they're legitimate is a big part of the problem.

Expand full comment