SnowAssMan

The word 'transgender' could go back to meaning what it used to mean: fem gay guy, or butch lesbian. Or it could become the preferred term for transsexuals (specifically HSTS: homosexual transsexuals, like yourself).

At the moment the word transgender (as well as 'gender', 'gender identity' & 'cisgender') just means: self-ID. At least in discourse with self-ID lobbyists. Among the general public, gender just refers to one of the male & female sexes.

The tide is turning on self-ID, whether it's determined by self-declaration, or a diagnosis of gender identity disorder. Both these fronts are under attack. A welcome sight for GC feminists, as self-ID has been the crux of the disagreement between GC feminists & self-ID "leftists".

Does self-ID actually benefit anyone? It helped separate cross-gender conformity from its homosexual root cause, thereby making it possible for straight, white men & straight, white girls to identify as gay via self-ID (but using the label "trans"). Straight, white people have also been identifying as queer & bi. At the turn of the century, what LGBTQ people had in common was same-sex attraction, which means: someone who can fall in love with a person of the same sex. So apart from straight white people who want to identify as oppressed, who does self-ID actually benefit? Do these benefits outweigh the drawbacks to women & gay people & now a growing number of detrans people?

Most questions can't be properly answered without looking at the big picture. The big picture includes the whole planet & it's history. As we are all aware, there have been plenty of cultures in the past that we might describe as "trans-inclusive". In previous posts of mine I have covered two details about these cultures which are consistently contradictory of the self-ID cult's claims: 1. these "trans" populations are always exclusively same sex attracted i.e. gay & 2. they are never called "women", nor even a word related to the word 'woman', however, often they are called a word related to their word for 'gay'.

I put "trans" in quotes bc according to our culture trans = self-ID as the opposite sex, meaning that a trans male is a type of woman, while these populations are a type of gay male. These two types of identities have been conflated, so that the very recent idea of self-ID can claim to have been around for centuries. When even in our culture, transsexuals were always considered a type of homosexual: see Chandler's dad from Friends. He was both a gay man & a male transsexual & did not identify as a woman, while being portrayed by a woman. Friends ended in 2004. That's how recent self-ID's capture of the T in LGBTQ is.

Even in our own, Western culture, a transsexual was the original homosexual. Back when homosexuals (or inverts) were first defined, the only exclusively same-sex attracted persons this definition applied to were the ones who dressed, behaved & "lived as" the opposite sex. Ironically, this same population would be described as straight trans people by the topsy-turvy self-ID cult today.

To sum up the question posed in the heading: it's important for HSTS & LGBTQ people in general to cut their losses. Make sure to separate "trans" from "self-ID" & expunge the straight, white people from the LGBTQ community/movement. Problem is, straight white people outnumber gay people in the movement & run it now.

Quick word on spaces: bathrooms are talked about most, I guess bc unisex toilets already exist, so it's the easiest argument for the self-ID cult to win. The real issue comes with sports, prisons & shelters. Those should remain single-sex, without exception. The LGBTQ movement has set up its own shelters.

Now, looking only at HSTS exclusively:

Desistance: every study on desistance shows that the majority of boys between 12 & 20 diagnosed with gender identity disorder are gay & desist. Here is one such study form 2021: A Follow-Up Study of Boys With Gender Identity Disorder Puberty, realising that they are gay etc. helps them grow out of it. There is a remainder however who fail to grow out of their GID. Surely we should be trying to discover the reason why some gay men don't grow out of their GID & help them to desist – such a suggestion has been mislabelled as "conversion therapy" by the self-ID cult, despite it being literally the opposite (just like the "misgendering" accusation).

Medical Transition: is it necessary, beneficial in some cases? Firstly, it's not actually possible to change sex, only somewhat feminise a male body. The fact that this isn't made very clear is part of the problem. Secondly, as BiR pointed out, it never used to exist, plus, studies have found that the GNC gay populations outside the West (referenced earlier) do not experience "gender dysphoria", so the condition is certainly not inborn. But our culture no longer seems to tolerate pederasty. So what should happen to feminine gay men, whose puberty's androgenisation failed to deliver them a masculine body/face? Going that extra bit more feminine will probably always seem more true to themselves than trying to masculinise themselves in order to try to attract the average gay man. For this reason I can see why people like Blake White undergo feminising cosmetic procedures & how it was possibly for the better. But then I remember that Matthew Waterhouse (a neotenous, for lack of a better word, gay guy who never "transitioned") also exists.

For any HSTS who wants to be a woman, "socially": If you pass, you won't need preferred pronouns, they will come out naturally. Most ways in which people treat men & women differently are subconscious. Men who don't pass will, at best, only ever be treated like men who want to be treated like women, therefore they will still "socially" be male. By "socially", I mean when talking to strangers, since according to social determinism, the male gender identity is as irreversible as being biologically male (bc you can't undo/redo primary socialisation). Free will will always be trumped by nature/nurture.