Rolfe's distinction between autogynephiliacs and transsexuals comes to mind.
That's a distinction related to the driving impetus for gender dysphoria, not necessarily different degrees of transition (if any). I would suggest that the varying degrees of
desired (as opposed to attainable) transition are mostly found among AGP males.
That said, I think the HSTS/AGP male and the HSTS female categorization has a hole in it. It think it holds for "classical" gender dysphoria, but I also think that a very large number of people identifying as transgender currently don't have "classical" dysphoria. That is, they have no particular disconnect with their bodies that cause stress and anxiety about their bodies.
A very large number of the increases in transgender identified people over the last decade seem to be more about "social dysphoria". They do not like how other people perceive them, and they do not like the assumptions about behavior and roles that are made based on that perception. For all intents and purposes, they reject social constructs of gender by permanently altering themselves to conform to the opposing construct. I simply don't think that's effective.
So now we have three essential categories of transgender people:
- Those driven by a sincere disconnect with their sexed-body, and who very deeply desire to be attractive to their own sex as the opposite sex - Homosexual Transsexuals, or HSTS.
- Those who have an erotic target location error focused on themselves but who are otherwise heterosexual - this would be Autogynephilia in males, but I don't know the term in females, but both would be a paraphilia. That doesn't make them untrue or invalid, but it does present a complicating factor when it comes to conflicts between identity and sex with respect to rights, safety, and dignity.
- Those who are rejecting social stereotypes of their own sex.
Blair White and Buck Angel both fall into the category of being HSTS. Both, additionally, reject the mantra of Transwomen are Women and Transmen are Men. Both accept their biological sex, but live as = and make solid attempts to pass as - the opposite sex.
Debbie Hayton falls into the category of AGP. They also reject the TWAW/TMAM dogma. Hayton accepts their biological sex, and also accepts that their underlying cause of dysphoria is a paraphilia. They also oppose self-declaration as the litmus test, and further recognize that the desires of AGP males can in many cases conflict directly with the rights and safety of females.
Both of my sibling's children fall into the third category. My siblings oldest male child showed no signs of dysphoria when they were younger, no significant elements of gender nonconformity, but did have some elements of autism spectrum disorder, and had a very slow development toward cognitive sexual maturity (despite normal progression of physical maturity). At age 20, they were mugged and beaten up on their walk home after work. That event left them feeling frightened and vulnerable. And somewhere along the way, that vulnerability and victimization caused them to feel that they must be a 'woman' because 'women' are vulnerable.
My sibling's youngest female child showed no signs of dysphoria as a youth, no particular nonconformity. They were athletic, engaging, friendly, and independent. They physically developed at a fairly young age, about 12, and still had no feelings of dysphoria. At 14, their parents' marriage disintegrated and things got bad, and they developed a considerable anxiety disorder. At 16 they were sexually assaulted by a person they had considered a close friend. Now, at 17, they want regularly wear a breast binder and want to start testosterone. In their own words, they have no problems with their body, are quite comfortable with it as a sexed body... but they don't like the attention that gets paid to it, especially their breasts. They don't want to be looked at, ogled, and treated like a female. They want to get
treated like a male.
Those variances, and the different behavioral patterns that go with them, are what give me pause.
The problem is not the existence of transgender people. The problem isn't that transgender people might access female-only spaces.
The problem is almost entirely self-declaration.
It isn't the existence of transgender people that has caused concern. Transgender people
who were clinically diagnosed, treated, and went through the process of changing their legal status alongside counseling have existed for a long time. And while they did sometimes face discrimination from some people, they've actually been fairly well accepted by the opposite sex. They've used our bathrooms and our changing rooms; they've been accepted into our rape and domestic violence shelters; they've been placed in our prisons. They've lived alongside us with largely no incident.
That gatekeeping served to ensure that the patient was not making a decision they would regret, was not harming themselves physically or mentally, and that they didn't present a risk to other people. That gatekeeping made sure that underlying factors - like stress, anxiety, and trauma experienced by my sibling's children - were treated first, to make sure the desire to transition wasn't a misdirection.
Without gatekeeping, with self-declaration as the sole arbiter, we have seen problems arise that were almost unheard of previously. It's self-declaration that allowed Yaniv to harass female waxing providers, behave inappropriately toward children, and to engage in misbehavior. It's self-declaration that allowed Karen White to be placed in a female estate and rape females imprisoned there.
The problem isn't transgender people, and it really never has been - not through all six installments of this discussion.
The problem is self-declaration, and the ideological narrative leveraged to push that policy.
