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.
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.
Many of you may already know that I am immersed in developing a new resource, called ‘All About HSTS’. I have been researching and writing articles for this, which will be based on a website and will have a discussion forum. We experienced a slight hiatus, as the host I was using managed to basically trash all the sites I had on it. We have now migrated elsewhere, but much repair is still to be done.
One of the most important articles on the subject of HSTS was written by Dr J Michael Bailey and the late Kiira Triea. This has been published widely on the internet and in the blogosphere, but I take the liberty of republishing it here, to widen the spread of its influence.
It’s a long article, but deeply researched and packs a huge amount of information. It was written before papers on the seminal MRI brain scans by Rametti et al and Savic and Arver were published in 2011 or, clearly, Guillamon’s 2016 review of these. It mentions the neurology that was current at the time of writing, which was largely based on post-mortem examinations of the brains of six dead transsexuals or transvestites, by Zhou et al. This research, while remaining beloved of autogynephilic transvestite activists (TRAs), was completely superseded by the later work and was, in any case, too small in scale to be generalised from.
Much has made about the differences between autogynephilic transvestites (AGP) and homosexual transsexuals (HSTS). However, most of this work remains largely clinical and as such, it fails to connect to the sympathies of the public. An exception to this of course being J. Michael Bailey’s The Man who would be Queen, an almost pop-science interpretation of the data on transsexualism. Even this, despite being a nice read, is written from the perspective of a researcher. What I am getting at, if not already obvious, is that not much is written from the perspective of HSTS women.
I am an HSTS woman, and was invited by Rod to write a piece or two based on my experiences. I don’t usually get to share these with other people, and I thought this a good opportunity. I won’t get into much about my childhood — after you’ve heard a couple of HSTS’ childhood remembrances, you’ve pretty much heard them all — but I will give some basics.
Guest Author Amanda Grimes discusses trans activism and the risks it may present for young people.
This article is a collection of my own thoughts and opinions, formed from my experience as a transsexual woman who transitioned over 30 years ago. In that time I have experienced life, as a woman, with few, if any, knowing about my past. I am married to a man and have had a long and very successful professional career. I transitioned at a time when the world was not quite the fluffy accepting place it appears to be today and in reality while laws have changed, society, especially the behaviours of the genders within it is not really that different now than it was then.
There currently is what seems to be an inexorable move towards the acceptance of “Transgender” people within Western societies. So much so that there is almost an air of hysteria around the condition, which seems almost cult like in some quarters, and has led to the blind acceptance of anyone who presents the slightest non-conformity with their traditional gender role as being transgender. Continue reading “Trans activism can be harmful”
It is important to understand that Transsexualism, Gender Identity Disorder (GID) and Gender Dysphoria (GD) are in fact the same thing; I will use GID and GD as interchangeable in this article. In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of Mental Disorders, prepared by the American Psychiatric Association, the terms GID and GD apply to the same condition, depending on which edition of the DSM you look in.
Up to the fourth edition, DSM4, the term appears as Gender Identity Disorder and in DSM5 it appears as Gender Dysphoria . There is a note in DSM5, which confirms that the name was changed to Gender Dysphoria because the word “Disorder” was seen as having negative connotations and was stigmatising to people suffering from the condition. It was not changed because it was no longer considered a mental disorder — as most trans-activists will tell you. GD still appears in the DSM5 which is the DSM of “Mental Disorders”. I make no comment here about the act of or reasons for distorting or hiding the truth with wordplay to protect people’s feelings!
I am an MtF Homosexual Transsexual (HSTS), who, having socially transitioned just after my 23rd birthday, some 30 years ago, underwent Sex Reassignment Surgery at age 25; this is how I see the issue. I will attempt to be as candid as possible about what is honestly a deeply personal and private part of my life.
I am doing so because there are a great deal of myths and misunderstandings surrounding the topic of sex with transsexuals and what they do or do not enjoy and or what they do or will not do during sex and about the men who have sex with them. This article is written from my own perspective based upon my own experiences and in addition recounting what I have been told by other HSTS whom I have known personally.
Gender Non-Conforming (GNC) children, young people who have not yet reached puberty but who persistently show cross-sex behaviours, are, today, a hot-button issue. I strongly advocate a neutral ‘wait and see’ approach, in line with Dr Blanchard and WPATH.
Parents should realise that it is quite normal for children to indulge in cross-sex role-play; it’s one way that they find out who they really are. Nearly all will move on to another form of play very quickly. Boys liking pink are not trans, nor are girls liking blue. Not all men are masculine and many women are not very feminine. This does not make them trans. Loads of boy children like playing with dolls and plenty of girls like cars and motorcycles; yes there are distinguishable, statistical trait characteristic differences that allow us to be quite sure that the bases of gender are indeed innate, but these are not absolutes at all and there is huge individual variation.
All Gender Non-Conforming (GNC) children, if they persist, will become adult homosexual transsexuals (HSTS), that is, exclusively attracted to their own sex while appearing to be a member of the opposite one. This has been established beyond doubt and one would have thought that, in our enlightened era, we would be happy to go along with this. But a movement has coalesced that aims to challenge this: the ‘no-trans’ or ‘gender critical’ movement.
If you examine the obvious clustering of physical and behavioural characteristics around the childhood GNC type, certainly for Male to Feminine (MtF), where there is more data, then it is quite clear that these individuals are naturally shifted towards opposite-sex norms.
We do not know the mechanism by which MtF HSTS become feminised (or Female to Masculine (FtM) masculinised) but statistical and observational data, again and again, confirms that they exhibit this consistent set of feminised characteristics. In other words, people who are HSTS are naturally so, and to condition them to accept life in a sex-conforming gender is to attempt to persuade them to deny their own natures. This is grossly abusive, yet it is clearly what the ‘no-trans’ movement exists to do.