‘Transgender’ is a catch-all term that is used, today, to include all forms of ‘Gender Non-Conformity’ or (better) ‘Sex Non-Conformity’. These are expressions in which individuals, for a variety of reasons, reject the social norms of dress and behaviour. Most ‘transgenders’ in the West today are in fact expressing fashionable youthful rebellion, just as hippies, punks, New Romantics and Emos did, in their turn.
However, there are some for whom this is a much deeper issue. Individuals of one sex who wish to appear to be and even live as a member of the opposite sex, do exist, although the numbers are hard to pin down.
To understand this, we need to quickly recap on sex, sexuality and gender.
Women have control over access to sex. At the same time, men invest heavily in the upbringing of their children, something unique amongst the Great Apes and rare in mammals, with only 5% of species exhibiting it. These are the basis of the social contract that has made humans so successful. Life has only one purpose: to ensure its own continuance.
Understanding how this works and the reasons why women control access to sex is relatively simple. Women need to ensure that the maximum number of their children survive to adulthood. This is not the same as the maximum number they could possibly have. A woman, beginning at the menarch, say age 14 and ending at the menopause, say age 45, could potentially have over 30 babies. But this is vanishingly rare, because in such a large family, many would die. Each child who dies is a huge loss to the woman but also to the community around her. Each represents a huge investment in time and resources that cannot easily be replaced. Simple human cultures cannot survive if they do not attend to this. Yet women are permanently receptive and fertile, whenever they are not pregnant. This means they can always get pregnant, if they do not control men’s access to sex. That control is essential to human species survival and we have developed numerous methods to permit it.
‘LGB’ culture in the West, from its beginning in the 1950s, was strongly transgressive, after the ideals of men like Harry Hay, one of the founders. He was a card-carrying Communist Party member who finally realised that Communists hated homosexuals even more than mainstream society did; so his solution to destroying the culture he lived in was to use homosexuality as a battering-ram.
Peter Tatchell, a ‘gay rights’ activist, first noted for the deliberate exposure of other people’s private lives said, in a 1996 polemic:
‘Those who advocate gay rights alone, without any deeper commitment to the transformation of sexua1ity, are concerned only with removing homophobic discrimination. They want to reform society, not fundamentally change it. Their insistence on nothing more than equal rights for queers, and their typical view of lesbians and gay men as a distinct class of people who are destined to remain forever a sexual minority separate from the straight majority, have the effect of reinforcing the divisions between hetero and homo. It encourages the false essentialist idea that gay and straight are two preordained, irreconcilable sexual orientations characteristic of two totally different types of people. Such attitudes preserve society as it is’
The underlying intention of Western LGB could not be more clearly stated. Those struggling for ‘gay rights alone’ are to be condemned because they only ‘want to reform society, not fundamentally change it.’ To ‘preserve society as it is’ becomes an epithet. But from whence does the idea that ‘fundamental change’ is either a desirable or an achievable thing come, or that society should not be preserved as it is? How do we improve, fundamentally, a free, democratic society in which the rights of the individual are respected? Certes, modification and improvement may be desirable, but ‘fundamental change?’ How so and in what direction? What is the nature of Tatchell’s ‘fundamental change’?
Are Narcissistic Homosexuality in males and Autogynephilia linked? I argue that they are.
Many have tried to negate the relationship between gender-dysphoric transition desire, and homosexuality. In one category, of course, this is futile. Homosexual Transsexuals (or true Transsexuals) are born with an innate condition called Sexual Inversion, which is the result of hormone-delivery anomalies in utero. This, being a biological effect, displays variation in intensity. So an aetiology is formed, with Transgender Homosexuals (feminine male and masculine female) at one end, and full Transsexuals (MtF and FtM) at the other. The precise point at which an individual sits depends on many factors; but they are on a relational scale of expressions of the same underlying phenomenon: innate Sexual Inversion. These individuals have normal levels of narcissism, in line with natal men and women.
Narcissism per se is not a disorder, rather a normal and useful trait; but in excess it causes Narcissistic Personality Disorders or NPDs. NPDs may be innate.
Nobody argues that Sexual Inversion is the cause of all homosexuality or transition desire; same-sex attraction and cross-sex identification can be symptoms of several underlying phenomena and it is not always easy to tease one from the other. But the Sexual Inversion phenomenon and the Transgender Homosexuality/Homosexual Transsexualism aetiology are easy to establish and identify. What about the other forms, though?
First, an excerpt from Travels with a Ladyboy, for your entertainment. We’ll get to the hairy down the page.
It’s Christmas Eve and we have come to a friend’s party in Ipil-Ipil. Much against my desire and better judgement I have funded the videoke machine, which lurks in the corner like a castrated Dalek — and is the more malevolent for its fate. This is blasting out at deafening volume, which is, I suppose, justified. It has to be that loud to drown out the neighbours on either side, whose own machines are threatening to trigger tsunamis.
There are eight adults in the company and I reflect that we make an interesting cross-section. Renz and Joanna are our hosts. He is a tricycle pilot and she is a housewife, but, technically, she’s actually his mistress, although they live as a couple. He already has a wife and three children that he supports. Occasionally Joanna works in a bar for extra money, but she has just had a baby — her first with Renz — and is fully occupied as a mother. Joanna is genuinely beautiful and is doing a remarkably sexy Filipina-Earth-Mother thing, her body still a little plump and luxurious from carrying her child.
Anti-clockwise next, me and Sam. I’m a natal man, heterosexual; Sam is a transwoman, though she calls herself a ladyboy. I get a bit annoyed at uppity Western mouthpiece SJWs saying ladyboys can’t call themselves that, by the way. Funny that it always seems to be the USican SJW types who engage in this particular cultural imperialism. They’ll be bombing us for it next; which would be funny were it not the standard USican response to any disagreement with their edicts, never mind the sheer irony.
Desistance is the buzz word these days. Everybody’s doing it. They think they’re trans, they get the surgeries and then a few years later, woops we made a foopie. And then they have to get it all put back. One recent YouTube video was from a transman — thirteen different surgeries, no end of complications and some remedies that would make your eyes water –and then, 12 years later, desistance time. So, transsexual surgery, aka Genital Reconstruction Surgery or GRS, must be a waste of time, no? I mean if desistance is what happens?
But this is a falsehood. I explain in depth in the video, but the fact is that the overwhelming demand for desistance comes from non-homosexual transitioners, that is, autogynephilic males and autoandrophilic females.
The demand for desistance is NOT coming from genuine transsexuals, otherwise known as HSTS. These are sexual inverts for whom full transition is the logical and proper conclusion. It is fully indicated for them, since Sexual Inversion, as far as we know, is effectively a form of intersex resulting from improper testosterone delivery in the womb. Give a boy too little and he’ll be feminised, give a girl too much and she’ll be masculinised. In the more severely affected cases, full transition is indicated and desistance is simply not a problem.
Once again, though, transactivists harm true transsexuals (HSTS) by insisting that they are fundamentally the same as AGP/AAP non-homosexual types, which they are not. This is making professionals less keen to perform necessary surgeries in case there is a later desistance issue. They fear being sued for improper surgeries and lack of due care. But if they were to understand that homosexual transsexuals and non-homosexual transitioners were completely different phenomena, therapy decisions would be much easier, with far less risk of desistance.
HSTS are disproportionally harmed because of this since, especially for males, they need to transition young, before adult testosterone ruins their chances of passing as women.
It is rarely, if ever, advisable for non-homosexual transitioners to be approved for GRS. The risk of desistance is too high. For true transsexuals, HSTS, however, GRS can literally be a life-saver that may allow them to lead completely normal lives in the gender that their inverted sexuality demands.
Non-homosexual transitioners suffer from a narcissistic mental condition that leads them to become attached to the idea of themselves as members of the opposite sex. In males this is called autogynephilia and in females autoandrophilia. These are highly complicated and multi-faceted conditions; we know a great deal about the former and almost none about the latter, because it was not recognised in the literature until recently.
There are three types of gay men that can be identified relatively easily. There may be some overlap or admixture of types in specific individuals, but I believe that we can better understand male homosexuality through this Typology. These, together, constitute the New Gay Man, the modern homosexual male collective in the Anglo-Saxon West.
Transgender Homosexuality (Sexual Inversion)
Until very recently at least, this was the best-known form. It was what most people thought of when they thought ‘homosexual’ or ‘gay’.
In this Type, males are feminised and females are masculinised across a range of parameters. For example, males tend to be slighter, smaller, more neotenous and masculinise more slowly than their peers, if they ever do. Broadly opposite effects appear in females.
This Type was the first to be identified and it was originally called ‘Sexual Inversion’. This is an appropriate term as it encapsulates the most significant feature of the Type: they have the sexuality commonly associated with the opposite sex. So males are attracted to masculinity and females to femininity. But this is full sexual inversion, so they also want to play the role of the opposite sex in coitus.
I propose that we see Sexual Inversion as the cause of Transgender Homosexuality.
Sexual inverts, or, in males, ‘feminine homosexuals’ — along with a range of much less polite vernacular terms — make up a class of homosexuals which have been identified, for over 100 years, as having characteristics of the opposite sex. I’ve just been reading over a group of papers on this, with one typical being Zucker 1993 ‘Physical Attractiveness of Boys with Gender Identity Disorder’. That is by no means the most recent, with numerous studies by a swathe of researchers making the same findings, along with 2D:4D finger length ratios and other measurable parameters. The observed facts are that male sexual inverts are naturally feminine (and female ones are masculine.) This was first noted, in the modern era, by Karl Ulrichs, was written about in depth by Havelock Ellis and has NEVER been refuted. It remains the scientific consensus.
Bisexualism has a chequered history. Beloved by its proponents, it lacks convincing support, at least in the West, where it is taken to mean, more or less, ‘equal attraction to both masculinity and femininity’. Actual studies are conflicting and the consensus must be that more depends on the way the question is put than reality. Look at the following pictures. Can it really be possible to be sexually attracted as much to the one as the other?
I don’t think so. Yet there is one form of bisexualism in males that is well-supported and documented. It is a function of Autogynephilia. a very common fetish of straight men.
‘Sexual Inverts’ are either male with female sexuality or female with male sexuality. In other words, their sexuality is the inverse of what might be expected for their sex. They were described by Karl Ulrichs and Havelock Ellis amongst others. Since gender is the means by which we communicate our sexuality to others, male inverts desire to be feminine and females, masculine. The specific expression ranges from, in males, mildly camp to full social, hormonal and surgical transition, to True or homosexual transsexualism, HSTS. (It is a scale of variation.) All male sexual inverts are naturally more or less feminised and all female sexual inverts are naturally the opposite. They often have real difficulty living in the gender their sex would suggest.
Theirs is not, however, the only form that male homosexuality can take.