The acceptance of Homosexuals in the Philippines is a subject over which there remains significant disagreement. Partly this is to do with a truly exasperating refusal, on the part of Academics, to adopt common terminologies and taxonomies, a fault which is certainly political in origin. We argue that there is no room for politics in science. Adding to this is the confusion introduced by such things as ‘Queer Theory,’ Philosophical Postmodernism and Identity Politics. These make it hard to dig down and find accuracy in the published literature; indeed, one often suspects that the authors working in this field are guilty of deliberate obfuscation.
All the girls featured in this post are males. Yet you, if you are a man being honest, find them attractive. That is because attraction is to gender, not sex.
‘Gently but firmly’ is the manner in which parents of children manifesting sex non-conforming behaviour are adjured to make those children desist.
Professors J Michael Bailey and Ray Blanchard penned an open letter to the Fourth Wave Now website in 2017. It is as relevant today as it was then. In it they made many valuable points. The article is long but the most concerning part is here:
If you want your childhood-onset gender dysphoric child to desist, and if your child is still well below the age of puberty (which varies, but let’s say, younger than 11 years), you should firmly (but kindly and patiently) insist that your child is a member of his/her birth sex…You should not allow your child to engage in behaviors such as cross dressing and fantasy play as the other sex. Above all else, you should not let your child socially transition to the other sex.
At the same time, you should recognize that despite your best efforts, your child may ultimately need to transition to be happy. If your child’s gender dysphoria persists well into adolescence (again, the ages vary by child, but let’s say age 14 or so), s/he is much more likely to transition. At that point, in our opinion, parents should consider supporting transition.
(my italics)
Bailey and Blanchard are both highly respected and here they are simply restating what we might call the ‘establishment position’. However, there are significant problems with the above statement and I will deal with these. I am aware that they do not use the phrase ‘gently but firmly’ here, but that is a reasonable rendering of the phrase they do use.
Over the last five years I have read deeply into the historical and modern context of the word ‘homosexual’ and how its usage evolved, from it being coined in the nineteenth century.
The word ‘homosexual’ as it is now understood in the West, was not so understood, anywhere, until the 20th century. It did not become general even there until after Kinsey published in the early 1950s, and was not dominant till much later. Whether you consider that sex between two males must be ‘homosexual’ or not, and I do not, that does not mean that either or both parties are themselves ‘homosexual’. One is an activity, the other is a personality type, formerly known as a ‘catamite’. Conflating these has been most unhelpful.
‘Gay’ is not an orientation or a preference, it is a lifestyle. In fact it is two lifestyles, transgressive and conservative. In the West, from its beginning in the 1950s, it has become strongly transgressive, after the ideals of homosexuals like Harry Hay, one of the founders.
Hay 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 organise and use homosexuality as a battering-ram. Naturally, he had learned how to do this from his Communist Party mentors. So right from its inception, the Western transgressive form was completely rooted in Communism and a desire to overthrow the status quo.
This is completely different from the situation outside the West, where gay lifestyles are usually conservative both socially and politically.
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.
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 Homosexual Transsexual women.
I am a Homosexual Transsexual 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 Homosexual Transsexual’s childhood remembrances, you’ve pretty much heard them all — but I will give some basics.
It is often not realised that the male homosexual culture of the West is not homogeneous but instead a conglomeration of several personality types. One of these is the Sexual Invert, which we have discussed at length. Another, just as important but much less well-understood, is the Narcissistic Homosexual.
‘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.
Wolf pack social hierarchies give a useful insight into homosexual male society in the West, the New Gay Man culture.
The great myth of ‘gay sex’ is that it occurs between two big alpha males. In reality, usually what happens is that weaker, submissive males offer themselves for, or are simply coerced into, sex with an alpha male, to use the wolf-pack analogy.
Wolf packs contain both patriarchal and matriarchal hierarchies, which makes them even more interesting, but for now we’ll concentrate on the male, patriarchal side.
There is a phenomenon called ‘situational homosexuality’. In this, weaker males may sexually pair with stronger ones, if women are not present or available. One example of this is ‘prison sex’ which occurs in all-male prisons (we’re only discussing male homosexuality here. )
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’.
Okay, so the Four Horsemen of the Gaypocalypse is tongue-in-cheek. But for too long we have been fed real whoppers by the New Gay Man apologists and activists. The first of these is that ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ mean the same thing. They don’t at all, and this curious conflation — of four horsemen into one — has been extremely useful for those New Gay Man and ‘Queer’ activists, and thoroughly bad news for the actual Homosexuals. It is in fact almost impossible to understand alternative male sexuality while believing that the four horsemen are one.
So who are these Four Horsemen of the Gaypocalypse and what is their purpose?
![<div class="ko-fi-button" data-text="Buy me a coffee!" data-color="#FF5F5F" data-code="" id="kofiShortcode746Html" 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="kofiShortcode19Html" style="width: 100%; text-align: center;"></div>-300x81.png)
