Homosexual, Bisexual and ‘Not-Man’ are confusing concepts because they originate in different cultures. The modern Western concept of ‘homosexual,’ or as they prefer ‘gay,’ does not fit well with the older ones, which are still dominant in most of the world. Since (in males) true bisexuals are both rare and actually a form of Homosexual, these too cause confusion. ‘Not-Men’ is an older concept.
Because this all begins with the the concept of Homosexual, we need to define what that is. The term was coined by Karl-Maria Bengkert, alias Kertbeny in 1869. It refers to a form of Sexual Inversion, which can be Innate (congenital,) or Acquired.
That little one in the blue dress though…wonder what she’d be like out of it?
We’ve spent a lot of time on this blog discussing male transsexuals and transvestites. But as yet, I’ve said very little about females. Essentially, just as in male transgenderism, there are two forms. One is a transsexual form; they are in fact lesbians with a social desire to appear as men. This is consistent with their sexuality: to attract female partners, they wish to appear to be men. However, there are other stimuli for this behaviour.
Female transsexuals are the equivalent amongst females to the male transsexual who is, let us state again, a (male) Homosexual who has completely feminised her social appearance, to align it with her sexuality. Female transsexuals are the exact opposite. Let me reiterate that: in order to be a transsexual, if one is male, one must be a Homosexual. Non-homosexual transvestites, often referred to here as Autogynephiles, are not, ever, transsexuals. Similarly, all female transsexuals are Lesbians; they have maximised their masculinity.
Gender is innate and evolved; it is not the result of ‘socialisation’, as the blank slate ideology contests. No serious scientist believes the blank slate hypothesis now, other than a few contrarians who allow their political beliefs to overshadow their rigour. The notion that gender — along with a raft of human behaviours — is ‘socialised’ has been completely, comprehensively and utterly debunked, for over 60 years.
Anyone who has experience of dealing with animals knows that male and female animals are very different, not just in the way that they look, but the way that they behave. In other words, they display innate gendered behavioural traits. Males tend to be more aggressive, females more nurturing.
There are many myths about relationships with ladyboys but they are, for a man, little different from those with women. Obviously, in the case of an intact transsexual or transvestite, there is her penis to deal with, but this amounts to something around 1% of her; the other 99% is more important.
There are subtle nuances of difference but no more than one might encounter in a relationship with someone from a different cultural background.
I think the most damaging of the myths, regarding ladyboys who retain their genitalia, is that they will want to use it in the way that a man would. Outside of sex work, this is rare; most just won’t. (I do know some who do, for pleasure and in private but they are unusual, likely well under 10%.)
Why is the Roman sex model so important, even today? And I don’t mean a knee-trembler up a dark alley in Milan with a hot tranny. I mean the model of sex and sexual behaviour which was central to Roman life. Why is it still important?
Completely gratuitous pictures of a hot tranny you might actually meet in Rome. https://www.ts-dating.com/model/chixdelighTS
Western societies are based on a Graeco-Roman model, with some aspects leaning more towards the Greek and some the Roman. Sex, despite centuries of Christianity, remains broadly Roman.
We’ve talked a lot about homosexuality here, and explained how it is a specific personality type. We’ve also discussed the ‘gay’ lifestyle and explained that this, like ‘trans’ is an umbrella description covering several different personality types, only one of which is actually Homosexual. Within the gay lifestyle there are two principal types, pederasts and homosexuals. A third group is made up of non-transitioning autogynephiles and there are several more, but pederasts and homosexuals form a natural opposition.
I want to address an important question: there is much evidence that Homosexuality, as a physical and personality type, is innate and caused by hormone delivery anomalies in utero; these lead to a condition commonly known as Sexual Inversion. However, that does not mean that all same-sex intimacy is Homosexual in that sense. So is pederasty innate and if so, by what mechanism might it be enacted? If pederasty is not innate, on the other hand, how does it come about? That would make it a learned behaviour. So are there any signs that pederasty does have a potentially innate basis, at least for some men?
Autogynephilia is the most common cause of male-to-feminine transition in the West. Dr Ray Blanchard, who first proposed the theory of Autogynephilia, estimates that in the USA, it accounts for about 70% of such transitions, although this is a difficult call to make.
This means that it’s important to realise that Autogynephilia is a real thing and that it affects many men. In some cases it can be so debilitating as to be life-threatening and certainly is the cause of many ruined marriages. It is caused by an error in Erotic Target location.
[kofi]
Unfortunately, there is a group of activists, some Autogynephilic themselves, others their supporters, who refuse to accept the reality of their condition. These range from serious researchers, through quacks, to poorly educated internet pundits such as a person hiding behind the fake name ‘tailcalled’.
We have , over the last decade, seen a new form of mental disorder afflict our young people. This is called ‘transgenderism’ and it has established almost a stranglehold on Western culture. Yet almost no ‘transgenders’ are actually transsexual and this bizarre situation is getting worse every year. So how has this come about?
This article is about socially-induced Autogynephilia, so what is that? Surely it is a function of sexuality? Well it is, but it can be socially-induced too, given the right climate. Let me explain.
[kofi]
In males there are two traditionally recognised pathways to transition. One is innate Homosexuality, also known as congenital Sexual Inversion. Individuals in this group will be remarked while still very young, usually pre-school. Not all will transition, it depends on the level of social intolerance, but if they persist through puberty, then the overwhelming majority will either be feminine Homosexuals or Transsexuals; the rest will be miserable. I am not going to comment further on that here, but I have written numerous articles about this.
Although this is often deliberately obscured, there is actually a significant amount of scientific literature on the subject of transsexualism or transgender, particularly Male-to-Feminine (Male sex, Feminine gender.) I have linked to the most important papers below and have commented on some.
Essentially, the so-called ‘Feminine Essence’ hypothesis, which is often touted by propagandists for one type of MtF, for example Julia Serano, who is actually autogynephilic, has absolutely no basis in science at all. It is an artefact of Postmodernism and Serano, in espousing the hypothesis and deliberately ignoring the actual science, betrays an underlying hostility to science that is typical of Postmodernists.
We know what causes transsexualism. Both types are firmly rooted in sex drive and sexuality.
