Homosexual, Bisexual and ‘Not-Man’ are confusing concepts because they originate in different cultures. The modern Western concept of ‘homosexual,’ or as they prefer ‘gay,’ does not fit well with the older ones, which are still dominant in most of the world. Since (in males) true bisexuals are both rare and actually a form of Homosexual, these too cause confusion. ‘Not-Men’ is an older concept.
Because this all begins with the the concept of Homosexual, we need to define what that is. The term was coined by Karl-Maria Bengkert, alias Kertbeny in 1869. It refers to a form of Sexual Inversion, which can be Innate (congenital,) or Acquired.
That little one in the blue dress though…wonder what she’d be like out of it?
‘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.
[kofi]
‘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.
[kofi]
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.
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?
In the recent past I have been asked about my definition of homosexuality. This appears to be mainly from people who erroneously use the term ‘gay’ to mean ‘homosexual.’ As I have already stated in articles, ‘gay’ is a lifestyle that encompasses many who are not homosexuals. Homosexuals may be a subset of ‘gays’, but they are not the same.
Yuki, who is male, is a gay or a homosexual in Asian terms. She’s gorgeous, obviously. Pic courtesy of Cine de Rose Ladyboys.
Until the intervention of Alfred Kinsey in 1946, the definition of homosexuality — Karl Maria Kertbeny (1824-1882) coined the term “homosexuality” in 1869 — was understood to apply to an effeminate male, often stylish and artistic, who desired to be the receptive partner in sex with conventionally masculine males: men. ‘Homosexual’ was intended to replace terms like ‘sodomite’, ‘catamite’ and so on.
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: there is much evidence that Homosexuality, as a physical and personality type, is innate and caused by hormone delivery anomalies in utero; these lead to a condition commonly known as Sexual Inversion. However, that does not mean that all same-sex intimacy is Homosexual in that sense. So 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?
