Homosexual transsexuals exactly fit the profile of ‘sexual inversion’ as defined over a hundred years ago by Karl Heinrich Ulrichs (1825-1895)
‘The truth of the invert was inside rather than on the surface; thus a male invert was “really” a woman, and should be allowed to express a female gender, and a female invert was “really” a man, and should be allowed to dress and live as one. Inversion also referred to the ways in which such bodies inverted the laws of nature, which supposedly decreed that male bodies should desire female sexual partners instead of male ones, and vice versa. The theory of sexual inversion maintained conventional categories of sexuality and gender and did not allow one to be divided from the other. Inversion meant that a man’s homosexual desires, effeminacy, or both did not challenge masculine gender or heterosexual sexual norms; rather, a perfectly normal heterosexual woman with a feminine gender was trapped inside him, yearning to come out.’ (Encyclopedia.com)
Later, the English sexology pioneer H Havelock Ellis wrote:
‘(Congenital sexual inversion) is sexual instinct turned by inborn constitutional abnormality towards persons of the same sex.'(My emphasis).
(Ellis uses the term ‘congenital’ which remains unproven. It is clear that what he is talking about is innate and must result from biological factors occurring either in the womb or shortly after birth; but we do not know whether the trigger for whatever these might be is congenital, that is, a result of a specific gene mutation. However, the condition is innate and not acquired. I prefer to use the term ‘innate’.)
Ellis’ massive study of human sexuality, Studies in the Psychology of Sex, which is downloadable via this page HERE, contains a whole volume on sexual inversion, and he defines this as above on the first page. Note that both Ulrichs and Ellis agreed that this sexual inversion was innate. It was inborn and not a matter of choice.
Yet today, the idea of sexual inversion is repudiated by ‘queer theorists’.. How did this come about? How is it that a perfectly reasonable explanation for innate homosexuality — Ellis in particular was at pains to point out that this was not the only form of homosexuality, that acquired forms also existed — could be so rejected, by the very people it so accurately describes?
It’s because the Theory of Sexual Inversion proves an innate link between sexual orientation and gender. This is a link that regular readers will know I consider to be unchallengeable — yet one which is anathema to New Gay Man activists and others, including feminists, who have been claiming for decades — without a scrap of evidence — that ‘sexuality and gender are not related’. It’s time we realised that these objections amount to a shibboleth; they are purely political in nature and have no basis whatsoever in science.
Innate homosexuality is sexual inversion; and this is the strongest indicator of transsexualism
Homosexuality — which in this case is strictly interpreted as ‘attracted exclusively to same sex from childhood’ is one of the diagnostics of homosexual transsexualism. There are others — most importantly, intense cross-sex identification, also from childhood. These two phenomena may be observed from the 2-4 age range, according to the DSM and are clearly so in the 5-11 range.
Alongside these two parameters, we typically see others: in males, tendency to slightness, lightness for height, slenderness and fine bones (Blanchard 1991 but many others have observed this too); neoteny, that is the preservation of youthful features into adulthood, and since youthful features are so strongly implicated in female attractiveness (to men) this makes HSTS very conventionally attractive as women; digit ratios, elbow flexure, voice and many others all cluster on one type and that type is Homosexual. (That is, an individual with sexual inversion). In females, the inverse of these tends to be true.
This type is precisely what Ulrichs and Havelock Ellis identified as ‘congenital sexual inversion’ to differentiate it from ‘acquired sexual inversion’ — over a hundred years ago. Their rationale has NEVER been scientifically refuted.
Freud: wrong again
Unfortunately, Sigmund Freud did not share this view, which is directly supportable by observation, preferring his ‘sex drive’ model. He expounded this in his 1905 ‘Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality’ in which he claimed that all humans were innately bisexual, and that their adult orientation was formed entirely by environment — their childhood experiences, in other words.
Freud has the unique distinction of having been wrong about pretty much everything and this is no exception. Nevertheless he came to dominate psychiatric thinking, especially in the USA, although psychology was less affected.
Freud stated, in support of his argument, that ‘I have never carried through any psychoanalysis of a man or a woman without discovering a very significant homosexual tendency.’
Confirmation bias is a risk that modern researchers are at pains to avoid; Freud was not. This would be bad — indeed it was fatal to his reputation in the later 20th century — but, alone, would not have proven his theory of universal bisexualism false. Essentially, Freud was a ‘Blank-Slate’ follower who believed that the human psyche was formed entirely by environmental factors. This belief, however, was a plausible conjecture rather than a hypothesis supported by behavioural studies.
Today, hundreds of studies, of a wide range of phenomena have overturned the Blank-Slate Theory and have shown that we are instead very much, although not entirely, the products of our genes. That this is the case is resisted by those who cling to Blank Slate ideology and to Freud’s explanation of human behaviour, especially sexuality; but without any evidence, their claim is spurious.
We now know that childhood ‘crushes’, or proto-romantic attachments, are strong indicators of adult sexuality. These occur well before puberty, at which point sexuality is regarded as being ‘not fully formed’. That might well be true, but the evidence is that it has already begun to crystallise. Since these crushes occur years before puberty and the events surrounding it that Freud considered to be crucial in determining adult sexual orientation, this suggests that part of human sexuality at least is innate. This is supported by studies that show morphological characteristics that tend to differentiate homosexuals from the broader population; it is not reasonable to suggest that these, which are marked, can be the result of childhood environment. (Blanchard 1991)
Specifically, same-sex crushes reliably predict adult homosexuality. The evidence for opposite-sex crushes is less well understood, in particular why it is that some people who have opposite-sex crushes do become homosexual.
The correlation between same-sex crushes and adult homosexuality was the subject of a huge study by Beard et al, published in 2015, which, again, demonstrated the link, with the authors saying: ‘Early same-sex crushes were the most powerful predictor of adult homosexual orientations’.
While we can reasonably propose that Freud, today, is less than entirely reliable, that does not, or at least should not, diminish his importance as a pioneer of the understanding of the mind.
In the USA, Freud became immensely fashionable and his view was widely adopted, especially by the psychiatric community — despite the fact that it was not supported by evidence. This divide actually led the psychological (as opposed to psychiatric) community to focus on behaviourism, which is still the case — and the root of the frequent attacks on behaviourist thinking, is those people who still, either consciously or unconsciously, side with the Blank Slate ideology, along with Freud and his speculations.
Freud, of course, was not alone in his Blank Slate posture; the great anthropologists of the early 20th century, many of whom were, like Freud, influenced by German thinking, such as Franz Boas and Margaret Meade, were similarly intellectually oriented — and have been similarly debunked by modern science, with its basis in empiricism and Evolutionary Theory.
Different forms of homosexuality
Ellis, following Ulrichs, had already identified the physical characteristics that differentiated homosexual males from others. These individuals, using Ellis’ term ‘congenital sexual inversion’ (it’s certainly innate, congenital remains moot) can be of two types: transsexual, in which case they will have the intense cross-sex identification and so powerful gender dysphoria, and non-transsexual, the typical feminine homosexual male or masculine female.
Nobody ever, and certainly not Ellis, suggested that all homosexuals (in his usage) exhibited this sexual inversion; indeed he’s at pains to make it clear that they do not. (Today we might say ‘homosexuals are a subset of ‘gays”).
Differences in sexual inversion
The differences between these two expressions of sexual inversion are simply the intensity of Gender Dysphoria, that is the discomfort at appearing in a gender that does not match one’s sexuality, and the individual’s ability to tolerate that discomfort. They are both fully homosexual; and the appearance of childhood same-sex crushes and marked cross-sex identification is further evidence that this homosexual type is innate and not acquired. In other words, it is not formed by childhood experience; Freud was wrong.
However, all of this is made even more complicated because the amount to which an individual of this type publicly displays homosexual orientation or cross-sex identification, or both, varies wildly from culture to culture, such that in some, almost all transition and live in the opposite gender and in others, almost none do. The unfortunate consequence of this is that it has allowed some people to insist, wrongly, that there is no link between sexual orientation and gender. This claim is specious, not least because it fails to control for the social environment. If being recognised as a homosexual would get you ‘thrown off the highest building in the city’ it should come as no surprise that many, in such circumstances, do everything they can to hide their sexual inversion.
In the Philippines, for example, far more people with sexual inversion transition, because that is accepted by the culture; indeed, we might argue that it is, to an extent expected. In the West, being a ‘gay man’ is more acceptable and, until recently, most HSTS had to live covertly, with nobody knowing their background, because of their fear of reaction.
The axiom of sexual inversion and transition
Hence it is axiomatic that ‘an HSTS will transition when he or she feels that his or her cross-sex identification and the discomfort of the concomitant Gender Dysphoria, outweighs his or her fear of the consequences of transition’.
Individuals in this group are never bisexual and their sexual inversion is innate, not acquired. They are always fully homosexual. Males have female sexuality and females have male sexuality; that is to say, males seek to be penetrated and play the submissive role in sex, and females seek to penetrated and play the dominant role. Under ideal circumstances, they will all transition and live in the gender their inverted sexuality requires; in less than ideal circumstances, fewer will.
Sexual inversion and bisexualism
Women do appear to have a tendency towards bisexualism. We can posit good evolutionary reasons for that, such as shared child-rearing roles and mutual protection amongst women whose male partners have been killed or otherwise lost. In pooling the resources of the couple, this model is practical and pragmatic. But they seem to be more akin to a deep friendship than a passionately sexual love. One woman described the sex she had with her partner, in such a relationship, as being largely shared masturbation, which she called ‘matey’.
However, it does not follow that we can make the claim that MtF transsexuals would behave in anything like the same manner. They are not women, even if they do have female sexuality (if male). They are much more like women than men but they are not the same.
Mutual benefit lesbianism versus sexual inversion in females
The ‘mutual benefit’ type of female homosexual activity, described above, is clearly very different from the transgender type, in which one person plays the male role and the other the female. In the Philippines, both are observable. Often, two women whose husbands are lost, either through ill-fortune or their own fecklessness, will come together to establish a family unit for mutual support of themselves and their dependent children.
It’s striking that, where such ‘mutual benefit’ lesbian relationships become established, one partner will tend to become more ‘butch’ in appearance and dress while the other remains ‘fem’. This is mirrored in the cases where two ‘bisexuals’, that is, in the local usage, masculine-appearing homosexual males, establish a settled relationship. Here, one partner will almost always feminise himself and effectively transition, while the other becomes more masculine; they both abandon their somewhat ambivalent presentations, but in the opposite directions.
This happens because Western ‘egalitarian’ homosexuality — for example, between two hairy masculine men or ‘lipstick lesbians’ — lies outside the accepted cultural norms in the Philippines. Two masculine men walking through a mall holding hands would definitely get stared at. Two girly-girls would probably be all right — girls here touch each other all the time — but if they were, say, to kiss in public, then that would not be so readily glossed over.
It’s all right to be gay or lesbian, in other words, as long as you keep to the rules — which specify that girls go with boys, or at least, that the appearance of this is maintained in the partners’ genders. Needless to say, this gets right up the noses of the few Western-style New Gay Men around, but they are not much listened to. Their carping does get some attention from the gay media, but those Westerners who live here are usually amazed by how tolerant of gay and lesbian individuals Filipino culture actually is; the fact that it rejects the norms of collapsing societies like the US is no bad thing, either.
Male-to-feminine transsexuals: classic sexual inversion
MtF transsexuals seem to be universally hostile to the idea of sex with women or with other transsexuals. In fact, they are famous for dumping boyfriends who exhibit any ‘gay tendencies’. Don Kulick and others have observed that, amongst Brazilian travestis (the local name for pre-operative transsexuals), a girl may pester her boyfriend insistently to let her penetrate him and then, if he does, immediately dump him, having proven him to be a ‘maricona’ after all. Since a maricona (faggot) is a woman exactly as the TS is, that is, having been born male, with a sexual inversion, a continued relationship with him would be regarded by the girl as lesbian – something she would not be prepared to countenance.
Kulick, in his book, Travesti, even mentions one case where the girl liked the man, so, after ‘outing’ him in this way and then he begging to stay with her…she put him in a frock and sent him out to work the streets, reasoning that it was unfair for her ass to pay for both of them, since he obviously liked dick in his, too!
Something similar occurs in the Philippines. ‘I’m not going to eat my own ass’ is the expression used.
It is very hard indeed to imagine any of these transwomen as being ‘bisexual’; the fact is, any transwoman who appears to be bisexual is AGP, with pseudo-bisexualism, which is quite different. It’s just that they tend to look better in Asia than in the Anglo-Saxon West.
Unfortunately, again, these distinctions, which are really important, are abandoned or even suppressed by ‘queer theorists’.