Category Archives: Science

Sexual terminology: what you should know.

Sexual terminology: what you should know. 0003-20170312_malolos-mr-lady_0119-300x170
A bevy of ladyboy beauties competing in Malolos, Philippines. Not one of these is bucking the gender binary. They just want to be girls and have fun. And how they do brighten the place up. Pic: Rod Fleming

Sexual terminology has become a major issue, or well, at least one that should raise a laugh.

So let’s clear it up, shall we?

Physical Sex:

Either male or female, defined at conception. This is immutable and cannot be changed.

Male: an individual specimen with XY chromosomes. Will normally have a penis and testicles.

Female: as above, but with XX chromosomes. Will normally have a vagina, clitoris, ovaries and breasts (in adulthood.) Continue reading Sexual terminology: what you should know.

Brain Sex?

Brain Sex? brain-sex-skull-300x211
Pic: Rod Fleming

Brain Sex? What is that? Some sort of cyber-intercourse?

No. ‘Brain sex’ is how many transsexual activists explain how their condition came about. They specifically say that, ‘Transsexualism occurs when an individual of one sex has certain sex-related structures in the brain that are typical of the opposite sex.’

In other words, according to this notion, ‘brain sex’ is a physical condition and not a psychological one. Putting that more technically, what is being claimed is that transsexualism is caused by a form of intersexuality that is localised in the brain. This is ‘brain sex’. However, physical heteromorphism of this type should be observable. So is it? Continue reading Brain Sex?

Explaining transsexualism

Explaining transsexualism geena-rocero-300x205Transsexualism is high profile these days. But what actually causes it? Who are transsexuals? Since there is clearly a deal of ignorance over this, I’m going to go  over the explanations again, in a short series of articles.

Women trapped in men’s bodies?

Many people are familiar with the idea that male -to-female (MtF) transsexuals, or transwomen, are ‘women trapped in men’s’ bodies. At the same time, they probably have heard the inverse about Female to Male (FtM) transsexuals or transmen. That is to say, they are ‘men trapped in women’s’ bodies.

A moment’s reflection should make anyone with a brain ask a pertinent question: how can they possibly  know that? Continue reading Explaining transsexualism

Moser’s mischievous intervention.

Moser's mischievous intervention. mischief-1-300x253In 2009 Dr Charles Moser entered the discussion about Blanchard’s Typology of transsexualism. It is worth revisiting Moser because his mischievous intervention not only hindered the progress of the science of transsexualism, but damaged some people, while favouring others.

As you may know, Blanchard separates male-to-female (MtF) transsexuals into those attracted to their own sex from their earliest arousal, and those who are either not attracted to their own birth sex or who develop such an attraction, usually partially, in later life. These are called, using Blanchard’s terminology, ‘HomoSexual Transsexuals’ or HSTS and ‘Autogynephilic Transsexuals’ or AGPs. (We will later quote studies that call the latter ‘non-homosexual’.)

Blanchard’s underlying thesis is that both these forms of transsexualism are stimulated by male sex drive. MtF HSTS are, essentially, seen as extremely feminine homosexual males. This is relatively easy to understand and this type was formerly known as the ‘Primary’ or ‘True’ type. The other type is much more complex and shares an aetiology with fetishistic cross-dressing men. These individuals are romantically or sexually attracted to themselves, but as women. Continue reading Moser’s mischievous intervention.

Bonobos: our pansexual cousins

Bonobos: our pansexual cousins bonobo3
Bonobos chilling to the beat — as well as being pansexual and gender-fluid, bonobos like music. How cool is that?

When we did the research for Why Men Made God we spent a lot of time looking at how societies might have been structure before the development of agriculture.  Clearly, we can’t directly study the human groups that existed outside Africa between 50,000 and 5,000 years ago, because they no longer exist. So  also looked at relatives of humans, particularly our closest, bonobos, Pan paniscus.

Our ancestors left very little evidence. Although they did use stone and bone, a great deal of their artefacts were made of wood or leather and were perishable. The few that we do have are somewhat mysterious.

To try to shed light on this, we reviewed a wide range of anthropological literature. We especially concentrated on extant traditional societies, of which there are a surprising number, despite the attempts by the patriarchy, especially the Christian and Muslim ones, to eradicate them. (As a matter of fact, Islam has been less damaging to many traditional societies than Christianity, as we see from the number of traditional groups still living, and respected, in Indonesia.)

We reviewed the mythology that was recorded soon after the invention of writing, in Sumer in the 5th Millennium BCE. We then compared this to modern mythologies which form part of traditional cultures. We also looked at similar species, and that’s where bonobos came in.

Continue reading Bonobos: our pansexual cousins