Identifying a genuinely pre-transsexual HSTS is relatively straightforward. But before we get to the symptoms, let’s look at the cause of it. It’s called Congenital Sexual Inversion.
This idea was established over a century ago. It describes a person who has the opposite Sexuality from the norm for his or her Sex. So, Inverted males have female Sexuality and females have male. This is important because the performed elements of Gender are directly related to Sexuality. Those with female sexuality will naturally have feminine Gender and vice versa. This is irrespective of their birth Sex, since Sexual Inversion means that Sex and Sexuality don’t always match.
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.
Males with Sexual Inversion may develop either into Transgender Homosexuals (feminine male/masculine female) or they may develop fully into women. 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.
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.
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.
It’s easy to see why men are attracted to transsexual women — they’re gorgeous — but how do they cope with the presence of a penis, if she has one?
This is a transsexual woman.
What is a transsexual woman?
First of all, when I use the term ‘transsexual woman’ I’m referring to a HomoSexual Transsexual, HSTS, otherwise known as a True Transsexual. This person will have had Childhood/Early Onset or Homosexual Gender Dysphoria. I am not referring to non-homosexual transitioners, who are ordinary men with an obsessive-compulsive delusion called Autogynephilia or AGP which they have let get out of hand. These individuals are Pseudo-Transsexual. They feel a different form of Dysphoria and are essentially high-performing (or not) transvestites.
Girls have dicks too
So how does it work? All boys, when they are little, believe that girls have a penis just like they do, although they may either forget this or lie about it in later life. This was first described by Sigmund Freud and led him to his theory of Castration Anxiety. Freud was not the only one to notice this and it has been well documented. Boys, if they see a naked girl, will assume she is hiding her penis; that she has ‘tucked it in’.
The ‘nature or nurture’ debate has been central to the discussion of sexuality for over two hundred years. In brief, the nature school believes that human behaviour is largely inherited, while nurturists believe it is the result of experiences in childhood, particularly in our interactions with our parents and siblings.
The nature or nurture argument over sexuality spreads out into other areas of thought. So let’s examine it.
What does ‘nature or nurture’ mean?
The nature school is sometimes called ‘Essentialism’. It is fundamental to the Christian concept of Original Sin, which insists that we are not sinners by choice or because of our background, but because we are human. Our nature is that of sinner and Christ came to absolve us of this. That is how is possible for a newborn infant to be a sinner, in the eyes of Christians, even if she has done nothing other than suck her mother’s tit; sin is innate to being human. However, human nature, so hated by the Constructionists, is not seen as a flaw by the nature school but rather the source of our strength. It is what binds us together and makes us human, for better or worse.
Nature or nurture. How likely is it that this girl is as she is because of her childhood environment?
Nurturism is sometimes called the ‘blank slate’ or tabula rasa. It was present in the thinking of men like Rousseau, an eighteenth-century philosopher whose thinking gave rise to many of the social movements we know today. It is also central to Marxist dogma, for example. In many ways it is a development of the idea of individual autonomy, which informed the cultural revolution of the era and gave us the Enlightenment. Nothing is written and we are all able to shape every detail of our lives independently of the past. Today it is commonly known as ‘Constructionism’.
One of the most important articles on the subject of homosexual transsexuals 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.
Homosexual transsexuals are often hard to spot, since they are so feminine. It’s not usually a question of establishing whether they are transsexuals or transvestites, but whether they are transsexuals or girls. Outside an environment that gives context, it’s almost impossible to tell, especially where the girl was lucky enough to begin hormones early. Encountering one in a mall, like this, nobody would have a clue. Ain’t she a poppet?
I classify similarly but use an older terminology (which Ray dislikes.) Homosexual transsexuals I call True transsexuals or just transsexuals, while non-homosexuals I call transvestic autogynephiles or just transvestites, even if they do not cross-dress for sexual pleasure or at least, do not admit to it. So in my newer writing they are either transsexual or transvestite, although in older work this might not always be so. We live and learn.
She’s transsexual. Her name is Nikki. She’s intact, as you can tell from her bump, but were that not visible, she would not only be a passable but also a beautiful girl.
Transsexual and transvestites have different characteristics, most notable being their primary sexual orientation: transsexuals are uniquely attracted to men; they are natively homosexual from early childhood, often showing cross-gender behaviours and desires as young as age three.
Transvestites display a complex array of arousal models but are always heterosexual. In fact they could be called ‘hyper-heterosexual’, so strong is their desire for femininity. The detail variations are all based on the ‘flavour’ of their autogynephilia, which Blanchard defined as ‘a man’s propensity to be aroused at the thought of himself as a woman’.
We should be aware that ‘arousal’ doesn’t just mean in the sense of becoming sexually excited, though that is a prominent characteristic of transvestites in the West. In fact there appear to be romantic and existential components to autogynephilia, which is a subtle and complex mental condition. This has led some writers, for example Dr Alice Dreger, to suggest a definition of ‘amour de soi en femme’ — being in love with oneself as a woman. I would put that slightly differently: being in love with the idea of oneself as a woman.
This is obviously a transvestite.
Transvestites always remain transvestites even if they do not physically dress in women’s clothes. In fact, the ‘dressing’ in many cases is entirely mental, it all happens in the sexual fantasy world that transvestites live in. This fantasy, in extreme cases, can lead to a complete detachment from reality.
When I was at Art School in Edinburgh in the early 1980s, there was only one place to be: the Hoochie-Koochie Club. Why? Because it was the only gay nightclub. Women liked it because there was an unspoken rule: straights were welcome, but no hitting on the women. Men liked it because we were much less likely to get battered in the face there than in any of the regular meat-markets in the city. There was no pressure; you could just chill, dance, have a drink. And although the hetero was low-key, one could still get lucky. But most of all, back then, gay was hip; now, gay is square.
They were culturally cool. The gays always had the best music. They were the best-dressed cats in town and if somebody said ‘you’re looking a bit gay today’ you knew you had your fashion statement bang on. It was the era of the New Romantics and everybody was wearing eye-liner and bleaching their hair. Gender signals were profoundly mixed. Women wore sports jackets and top hats over jeans and men wore earrings and chiffon. The gay zeitgeist was as hip as it could be.
All male-to-feminine (MtF) trans are EITHER homosexual (exclusively attracted to men from childhood) or non-homosexual (not exclusively attracted to men from childhood.) The latter are commonly known as autogynephilic. This distinction is obvious and has been observed since the 19th century. It is recognised as fundamental by all serious scientists working in the field.
Homosexual Transsexuals (HSTS) exhibit a cluster of trait characteristics in addition to their sexual desire for men. They tend to be small, delicately built, light for their height, naturally feminine and neotenous. They have intense difficulty learning to be masculine, if they ever do. Non-homosexual trans exhibit no such clustering; in fact they conform to the averages for men of their ethnicity and are attracted to women.
The explanation for HSTS is easy and has never been disputed: they desire men and are feminine, so to attract men, whom they know to be attracted to femininity, they make themselves more feminine. Again none of this is true of non-homosexuals; so why on earth might it be that a man, who is not attracted to or seeking to attract men, would want to appear to be feminine?
![<div class="ko-fi-button" data-text="Buy me a coffee!" data-color="#FF5F5F" data-code="" id="kofiShortcode376Html" style="width: 100%; text-align: center;"></div>](https://www.rodfleming.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/support-me-on-<div class="ko-fi-button" data-text="Buy me a coffee!" data-color="#FF5F5F" data-code="" id="kofiShortcode565Html" style="width: 100%; text-align: center;"></div>-300x81.png)
You must be logged in to post a comment.