In Sexual Inversion, the expected norms are shifted innately towards those found in the opposite sex. This affects body morphology, neurology and most importantly, sexuality. This produces major changes in gender.
Gender is a complicated set of appearances and behaviours which depend on many things. Mainly, however, gender is dependent on sexuality, since its primary function is to attract mates. It conditions how we feel about ourselves, the way we like to dress, the way we present to others, the social roles that we play, the responsibilities we feel we have to family, friends and society and so on.
Most importantly, gender is not sex, and this conflation, often wilful, should be debunked.
Gender is largely performed. It does have innate physical characteristics, sometimes called ‘secondary sex characteristics’ but essentially, we perform gender on top of these.
At its most blunt, since gender is a mating strategy which is designed to attract desired erotic targets, an individual who wants a man will perform feminine sexuality, and one who wants a woman, masculine. This applies irrespective of the actual sex of the individual. Initial attraction is to gender.
On the other hand, gender serves as a promise, to our desired targets. Feminine gender promises female sex and vice versa. There are cases, however, where this promise cannot be fulfilled.
Sex is simple
Sex, on the other hand, is much simpler. While it certainly has an input into gender, it is not definitive of it in the way that our more socially apparent, role based expressions of gender are, in large part because sex is a private experience for most people. It is only very rarely, in most cultures, a public experience.
What this tells us first and foremost is that our sense of gender is a part of how we relate to society at large, while our sexuality is about how we relate to individuals within that, usually people whom we know. In other words, our sexual experiences happen in a context where our gender is already understood.
Although it is by no means the only function of our gender, the major one that it serves is to contextualise and enable our sexual encounters. While many, who seek to separate gender and sexual roles, may disagree with this, its fundamental truth cannot be denied. We are attracted by gender-specific factors, not by sex-specific ones, at least in modern societies.
People do not go around with their genitalia exposed, so our sex, as defined by the nature of our primary sexual organs, is assessed by other things, which are not specifically sex but gender-based. For example, a man might be attracted to long hair, soft eyes, full lips and breasts, rounded buttocks and so on. Similarly a woman might be attracted to cropped hair, angular features, beards and so on. These act as a promise, of the nature of our underlying sex.
For most of us, sex therefore appears to be a pretty simple, double-throw switch. An individual has either male or female sex and following on from that is gender: male sex=masculine gender, and female sex=feminine gender. Or at least, this is the usual assumption.
Some individuals who have an XY chromosome set are immune to the masculinising effects of testosterone. This insensitivity may be either complete or partial and is known as either Complete or Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, CAIS or PAIS for short.
CAIS women are not usually diagnosed until they seek assistance in having children, which is impossible for them as they are actually male. These individuals are described as ‘intersex’ or as having a Disorder of Sexual Development.
However, there are others. We now know that anomalies in hormone delivery in utero can influence, even invert, both sexuality and gender. This was first suggested in the 19th century but is now supported by a large body of experimental results. The effects of these anomalies may include changes in neurological development as well as the physical.
These changes are well documented and have been so for many years.
Characteristics of Sexual Inversion
the majority of Inverts display evidences of physical as well as psychic traces of effeminacy — an effeminate manner, appearance, temperament and interests. Delicacy of speech and movement, high-pitched voices, aesthetic interests, feminine body configuration and ‘white-collar’ occupations were particularly noticeable. (Greenspan and Campbell)
an inclination towards the feminine in all possible spheres; in work, decoration (preference for feminine attire), in taste, in thinking in mimicry, and in gait…it is common to see a slight indication of the feminine up to a complete imitation of the woman. (Bleuler)
The homosexual male is characterized by a feminine carrying angle of the arm, long legs, narrow hips, large muscles, deficient hair on the face, chest and back, feminine distribution of pubic hair, a high-pitched voice, small penis and testicles and the presence of the scrotal fold. (Henry and Galbraith)
On the physical side, it has been shown that (Sexual Inverts) tend to show, in a higher percentage than heterosexual controls, physical characteristics belonging to the opposite sex. (Henderson and Gillespie)
Neustadt and Myerson obtained disproportionate androgen-estrogen levels in 25 of 29 overt homosexuals and concluded that these findings were characteristic.
the abnormal androgen-oestrogen ration is to be considered as a sign of homosexuality. (Green and Johnson )
These findings are still being confirmed in studies today, some of which have used Magnetic Resonance Imaging to non-invasively study the brains of subjects. These absolutely support the conclusion that Sexual Inversion produces changes in body morphology, in brain morphology and in social behaviour. In other words, Sexual Inversion can influence gender: in males it can cause marked feminisation and in females the opposite.
Essentially, some people have a standard set of sex chromosomes, and are born with primary sexual characteristics conforming to those, but, due to innate Sexual Inversion (sometimes called Congenital Sexual Inversion) are simply unable to function properly in the gender roles which their sex would lead us to assume were appropriate. These individuals, today, range from ‘feminine homosexuals’ to ‘transsexuals.’ However, these are all expressions of Sexual Inversion.
Transsexuals, then, after Dr James Cantor, can accurately be assessed as fully completed homosexuals while non-transsexual homosexuals are ‘not fully formed’ or incomplete, consistent with Bleuler above. This almost certainly is related to the extent to which they were affected by those anomalies in hormone delivery, leading to Sexual Inversion; but it also has to do with the culture they grow up in. In more tolerant cultures, males are more likely to complete, at least socially, as women and in authoritarian ones, less so. The opposite holds true for females.
This gives us Fleming’s Axiom: ‘A person with Sexual Inversion will complete either as a transman or a transwoman if he or she thinks the benefits of doing so will outweigh the disadvantages.’
While the reported numbers of intersex people remain relatively constant, the numbers who self-identify as transgender have risen sharply in recent decades. This increase might be described as ‘exponential’. However, the effect is not consistent across the sexes. There has been a far greater increase in the female forms than the male.
Amongst Sexual Inverts, he reasons for this include the relaxation of religiously-based suppression and an increasing awareness of the nature of transsexualism, which has in turn led to a number of people who may previously have self-identified as ‘gay’ realising that in fact they are transsexual. Non-homosexual (ie, without Sexual Inversion) transvestites who might previously have ‘dressed’ only in private may be encouraged to be more public.
At the same time the internet has opened up the whole subject and exposed parts of the world where trans appears rare, to the situation in parts of the world where it is much more obvious.
In areas where there is no overt repression of them, the numbers of trans people may be as high as one percent of male population or more. The most famous example is Thailand, where, in 2015 an estimated 300,000 people were in some way transgender, or 1% of male population. However, this does not distinguish between those with Sexual Inversion and non-homosexual transvestites or Autogynephiles.
There is no fundamental difference between a homosexual and a transsexual, other than the way they present. They are both manifesting Sexual Inversion. Within Thai culture, for example, these two are grouped together, but this is not the case in the Anglo-West. This causes a lot of confusion, as people try to find differences between the two groups which don’t exist.
The Thai example shows is that when socially-normative pressures are relaxed, many more people present as trans. Indeed, commentators in Thailand often report that not only are there many transpeople already, but their numbers are growing rapidly and they are presenting at a much younger age. This has become so acute that many school areas in Thailand have had to provide extra toilet facilities for the growing number of ‘third sex’ students. At the same time, many of these transwomen begin to take female hormones in their early teens or before. As a result they never go through puberty as boys at all, meaning that they can avoid masculinisation of body, face or voice.
(It also, because they are generally still required to wear boy school uniforms, leads to the fascinating phenomenon of ‘schoolboys with boobs’,)
Thailand is a Buddhist country and being trans is not suppressed by this faith, which believes that being ‘third gender’ is something that we all will be, or have been, during the course of our reincarnations. Many believe it to be a punishment to those who were unfaithful in a previous life. However it is not regarded as a sin, or as deviant or fetishistic, just as a natural condition of human life.
Over the last fifteen years or so that I have observed this, a number of things have become clear. The first is that transsexuals are a lot more open than they used to be. Also, even though in Britain and Europe their numbers do not appear to be as high as in parts of Asia, they are getting more noticeable.
It is in many ways easier for a transwoman in Asia if but you happen to be 5’10 or so, it’s not easy to blend, since most women are less than 5’2. In Europe, a tall beautiful woman will be seen as a tall beautiful woman. No-one will question her gender for that reason alone, especially if she is well-dressed and pays attention to her appearance.
However, while physical beauty may aid some transwomen enormously, it does nothing to help those who find it more difficult to ‘pass’ as women. In this, transwomen have to be accepted for their humanity and not for their beauty. Love me for my brains, not my boobs, for who I am, not what I am. Yet for transwomen the situation is even more poignant because their adherence to conventional ideas of beauty is an essential part of their own validation both as women and as human beings.
It is shocking to see how often transphobia, the irrational fear of male femininity appears. People who would never in their lives make a racist or homophobic comment think absolutely nothing of making a ‘cock-in-frock’ joke. How often do we hear ‘I didn’t know he swung that way’ about a man who has had an encounter with a transwoman— ignoring the fact that she is more beautiful than any of the women those self-same men have ever slept with? Is it just jealousy that provokes them, or something nastier?
How many cartoons showing a voluptuous woman with a sign in the background saying ‘Bangkok’ and a warning pinned to her dress– ‘May contain nuts’ are there? Are these funny or just cheap?
What if there were a transsexual sitting in the company and a joke like that were made? Is that all right? Transsexuals are not obvious and may be quietly passing, unnoticed, and deeply hurt by such comments.
The situation in the West has been worsened by the activities of so-called ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminists’ and their allies, such as the ‘gender criticals’ and our old friends, The New Gay Men. It is sometimes hard to bear in mind, given the clamour these groups raise against them, that we are talking about a very small number of people, usually estimated to be 0.2 to 0.3 per cent. Even if we take into account so-called ‘non-binaries’ in the West, the figure is still tiny, 1.0 per cent. So why the fuss?
There have clearly been mistakes in the management of Childhood and Adolescent Gender Dysphoria, especially in females. Surgeries have proceeded without proper assessment and at far too young an age, and Testosterone has been delivered with hardly a thought to the consequences. But that does not appear to explain the virulent hatred which TERFs and their allies harbour for transwomen, especially when we take into account the tiny numbers.
The fact is that Sexually Inverted transwomen pose absolutely no threat whatsoever to women or children, are frequently invisible and indeed beautiful. What exactly is the beef?