‘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.
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 use homosexuality as a battering-ram.
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.
‘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 it why 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.
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?
Any man who willingly has sex with a woman is NOT homosexual. Period. That is because ‘homosexual’ means ‘someone exclusively attracted to same sex from childhood’. A man who willingly has sex with both men and women is bisexual, irrespective of how he describes himself. That applies also to those men who ‘discover’ they are ‘gay’ in later life, after years of marriage. They’re bisexual, not homosexual.
Homosexual male does not equal ‘gay’
Homosexual males are attracted to masculinity, because they have an inversion of sexuality. However, ‘gay’ is actually a lifestyle which comprises homosexual men but also bisexuals, ephebephiles and hebophiles (attracted to teenage boys, basically) non-trans autogynephiles whose fetish for ‘being a woman’ is being penetrated, super-masculine narcissistic homosexuals and even others. And these are all real things, not airhead genders. There is no one ‘homosexual’ lifestyle, despite the ongoing efforts of the New Gay Man thought police to ensure everyone (actually, everyone at all) is properly ensconced under their appropriate label in the LBTQalphabet permitted lifestyle and orientation set.
We’ve talked a lot about homosexuality here, and explained how it is a specific personality type. We’ve also discussed the ‘gay’ lifestyle and explained that this, like ‘trans’ is an umbrella description covering several different personality types, only one of which is actually homosexual. Within the gay lifestyle there are two principal types, pederasts and homosexuals. A third group is made up of non-transitioning autogynephiles and there are several more, but pederasts and homosexuals form a natural opposition.
I want to address an important question: we know that homosexuality is innate and caused by hormone delivery anomalies in utero; but is pederasty innate and if so, by what mechanism might it be enacted? If pederasty is not innate, on the other hand, how does it come about? That would make it a learned behaviour. So are there any signs that pederasty does have a potentially innate basis, at least for some men?
(A brief History of Homo, Part 2) In hypermasculine ‘egalitarian’ homosexuality, the basis of the New Gay Man cult, the individual’s Erotic Target, is himself, in the form of a masculine man. This results from the peculiar social conditions he operates in.
The New Gay Man is an individual with Sexual Inversion, that is to say, he is male, but has female or passive sexuality.
(In sexuality) activity is put into operation by the instinct for mastery through the agency of the somatic musculature (the body); the organ which, more than any other, represents the passive sexual aim is the erotogenic mucous membrane of the anus.
Feature pic: apparently Sir Ian thinks ‘gay men’ are more masculine than straight men. Well, women are better judges of this than men…but really I think it’s because we don’t have to try as hard as gays.
You must be logged in to post a comment.