Originally posted 2023-03-15 18:36:15.
A scale of Sexual Inversion has been hinted at in several online conversations of late. So what would a scale of sexual inversion look like?
First, as a negative comparison, let’s look at Kinsey. He, an etymologist and a taxonomist, proposed a ‘scale of human sexuality’ from 0 (Fully Heterosexual) to 6 (Fully homosexual.) The wonder is that this was accepted anywhere, since it flew in the face of pretty much all previous understanding. Nobody proposed that male sexuality was a scale of variation, till Kinsey; they all suggested that homosexuality was an anomaly, most likely caused by factors in utero not then understood — which in fact it was, and remains: Sexual Inversion.
Anomalies and archetypes
This is important: we do not generally take into account known anomalies when we are trying to define an archetypal behaviour. In other words, if homosexuality were indeed the result of hormonal anomalies, then it should have been excluded from any scale of sexuality! This would scarcely have suited our man Kinsey who, with all the subtlety of a bull in a china shop, declared ‘To hell with all that! I am right!’
Kinsey was unquestionably an unsuitable character to research human sexuality, having no psychological training, no ethnographic training and no medical training. He was an etymologist and never happier than when classifying insects. In fact his reputation was built on having collected and categorised 6000 morphs of North American fruit fly. (Drosophila melanogaste.)
His labrador-esque enthusiasm for his new project, the taxonomy of human sexuality, appears to have led him to ignore all previous work in favour of proving his own highly questionable speculation: that male sexuality was on one scale, his scale, and that alone. This was wrong.
Examples
A look at results of surveys in both UK and the USA, plotted against Kinsey, immediately shows the flaw. When we look at a natural scale of variation, we should expect to see a Standard Distribution, better known as a Bell Curve. This should be familiar from school. In this the bulk of the examples should be in the centre of the range, tailing off progressively towards the extremes.
But the real responses look nothing like that.
Instead they show a huge peak around 0, falling off to almost nothing, and then a much smaller peak at 6.
To a competent scientist, results like this should have rung alarm bells. Empirical data never matches theoretical models exactly, it is true. To be so far out, however, should have suggested either that there was a problem with the way the scale was applied, or with the methodology in gathering the data.
In my view, both were at fault but rather than re-examine the data, Kinsey ploughed ahead. His false conclusions set the whole field of Sexology back by decades.
What happened?
Scales of variation are an essential part of understanding biology. They exist everywhere, from the leaves on oak trees to the scales on a fish. We make taxonomies of these all the time. What we do not do is try to fit, say, the leaves on an oak tree onto the same scale as the scales on a perch. Why would we not do that?
Because clearly, these are two different kinds. One kind is appropriate to fish and the other to trees. Only a fool would conflate them.
Similarly, consider a process that makes, say, bolts. Ten percent of the bolts have to be rejected because they have flaws, caused in the manufacturing process, that are too serious for them to be included in production batches. So they are scrapped. Do we include them in studies of variation within the examples that do pass or not? No, it would be pointless.
Two different phenomena
Kinsey’s error was in not identifying that Men and Homosexuals were two different phenomena. Homosexuals were not a variant of Men, but something else altogether. And that they were had already been established by many, including Henry Havelock Ellis, Sigmund Freud and others.
What these previous researchers had established was that Homosexuals were male, but that they had been affected by outside factors such that they were shifted towards the female. They were like the rejected bolts, too different from the main sample to be included. They were small, neotenous, tended to be gentle and artistic, were stylish, hated contact sports and usually, had been observed in infancy to be ‘different’. The theory of Sexual Inversion absolutely fitted this and as the latter half of the 20th century progressed, study after study confirmed: anomalies in testosterone delivery to the foetus cause changes in sexuality and morphology in the adult. These are males, but not Men.
Once we have that understood, then it should be clear that there is a scale potentially implied, but this is a scale of the severity of the Sexual Inversion and not of male sexuality as a whole.
We can apply this to certain known human phenomena
Bisexuals
The first, in order of severity, is true Bisexualism. In this, the level of Sexual Inversion, that is the effect of hormone anomalies, appears less severe. This leads to males who are ‘switchers’, that is to say they both penetrate like men and are penetrated like women. Here in southeast Asia that would immediately be applied to a social identity and a personality type. These are somewhat feminised males, often attractive in a boyish way.
They may, if they can, partner Men, but may will also partner Women. With the former they are passive and with the latter usually active, indicating they do not have the extreme revulsion towards vaginas seen in the more affected forms. However they will happily allow themselves to be ‘pegged’ if their partner so desires. in most cases however, they will partner each other, playing the male (inserter) and female (insertee) role in turn.
In the West, where these distinctions of personality type have been lost for political reasons, these individuals would just be seen as ‘gay’. They probably account for some of the examples of ‘gay men’ who are actually married to women.
Homosexuals
The second is true Homosexuality. These individuals appear to be more affected by hormone anomalies and the resulting Sexual Inversion. They usually are strongly averse to sexual contact with women and have a serious distaste for vaginas. In morphology they tend to be petite, fine-boned, facially neotenous and so on. They may have digit ratios more approximate to the female norm. They may be artistic and stylish, good dancers and so on. Usually, these individuals will have been spotted as ‘different’ early in childhood and they will somewhat identify as being ‘girls’. These are passive in sex but may be amenable to their penises being caressed. They seek masculine Men and will not penetrate them.
Transsexuals
The third is the true Transsexual, otherwise known as the Homosexual Transsexual or HSTS. This is the most complete form of Sexual Inversion that exists. All the qualities of the Homosexual are found in this Type, but vastly more emphasised. Their identification as girls will be complete and if denied, they may suffer severe gender dysphoria, They are literally man-crazy; they adore Men, especially big hulking ones. They may have close female friends but will be averse to any sexual contact, especially with the female’s vagina. They are always Avoidant as regards their penis, meaning they are uncomfortable with it being touched by a lover. They absolutely refuse to penetrate.
Intermediates
We now have three categories but I would introduce two more, which appear intermediate. One I would place between Bisexuals and Homosexuals and the other between Homosexuals and Transsexuals. Depending on social conditions these might present either one higher or one lower class.
This gives us five and I would add a null, Zero or 0, to describe those who never had any Sexual Inversion, no anomalies in hormone delivery at all, so, as far as this is concerned, Men (since we are discussing males.) That gives us 6.
So that allows us a scale
,
0 = Men
1 = Bisexuals
2 = Intermediate
3 = Homosexuals
4 = Intermediate; incomplete transsexuals
5 = Transsexuals
Note that this does not address Autogynephiles of any kind. That condition has nothing to do with Sexual Inversion, Homosexuality or Transsexualism.
Fleming’s Axiom
Now on top of the above Scale, acting upon it, is the social climate the individual is living in. Where this is transphobic, as in West, transsexuals are discouraged from revealing their status, so may appear to be one or even two grades less intensely affected than they are. This comes at the price, however, of elevated Gender Dysphoria. Transsexuals might appear to be Homosexuals, in this case, although in fact their Inversion is more severe.
This gives us the axiom ‘A person with Sexual Inversion will transition if he or she believes that the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs.’
In practice, this means that a natural Transsexual living in Thailand, for example, would probably complete as a woman, while one living in the USA might well conceal herself as a conforming Homosexual. Similarly, using Thailand again, a person happy to be openly Homosexual there might perform as a Bisexual in a hostile environment, perhaps marrying and even having children.