‘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.
As so many of you must know by now, for the past year I have been romantically attached to Sam Villasencio, also known as Samantha Nicole Mendez. It’s not always been the easiest of relationships but we found, through our adversities, the real strength of our love. I know that proposing was the right thing to do but I put it off for a few months even after my mind was made up. There were many reasons for this, not all good, but not all bad either. But in the end I realised that it was something I wanted to do and that my motives were sound.
Although I am not really superstitious I wanted the most propitious circumstances. After all, this is Asia and Sam is Two-Spirited, with much power in the unseen world. So I wanted to give her a ring and do it properly.
So on St Valentines’s Day, we had a party for some friends and then I got on my knees and asked her. She said ‘yes’. Fortunately.
We don’t know quite when or how the actual marriage ceremony will take place. Sam’s a Catholic, I’m Church of Scotland — and perhaps more to the point, she’s a transwoman. I will keep you all posted but meantime keep an eye on my YouTube Channel
‘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’?
Sexual Inversion is implicated in True or HomoSexual Transsexualism (HSTS) and Transgender Homosexuality, that is, feminine male homosexuality and masculine female. It is innate, has distinctive features and should be considered a form of Intersex.
Affected individuals may develop either into Transgender Homosexuals (feminine male/masculine female) or they may transition into HSTS. In males this phenomenon is usually associated with a range of physical effects including, but not limited to: lightness of build; tendency to be smaller than related males; fineness of bony structures; anomalies in digit ratios such that they tend to resemble the female typical, marked neoteny (baby face) and usually, delayed masculinisation even after puberty. As children they show marked preference for girl-typical toys and games and reject and avoid rough-and-tumble boyish ones. They may enjoy sewing or other delicate hobbies and they are likely to be talented.
They may be exceptional dancers and love performing; in cultures where Sexual Inversion is tolerated amongst children, it is not at all unusual to come across informal ‘beauty pageants’ set up in the street or the village square, where all the contestants are pre-pubescent boys dressed as girls. Their mothers and sisters form the crowd, shouting encouragement as their sons — or perhaps their daughters — extravagantly strut their stuff, elbows on hips, eyes flashing exaggerated ‘come on’ looks at the boys.
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.
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.
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.
The New Gay Man lifestyle is not the sweet, gentle thing you have been told it is. Instead it is based on organised, clandestine pederasty and the ruthless exploitation of boys. Within it, young boys, the modern erominos, are seduced by older pederasts. When they become older themselves, and so unattractive, they become the erastes to a new generation of erominos in turn. In contrast to the Greek system, however, these individuals are not training boys to be men, but only to be pederasts like themselves.
Young feminine homosexual boys want real heterosexual men, but there is ZERO chance of them getting one, as ‘gay boys’. Absolutely none. So they are thrown to the pederasts of the New Gay Man lifestyle, which has managed to persuade legislators of its innocence. There is an escape route, though.