Gender fluidity has come much under the spotlight in recent years. It has been suggested that there are ‘thousands of genders’, that ‘gender is a spectrum of gradations’ and even that it doesn’t exist. Yet if you walk down the street in any part of the world, you will see two genders. So how can this be?
This baffling conundrum is what you get when people don’t do enough research. In fact, BOTH the binary model and the gender-spectrum model are valid; but their relationship is being wilfully misunderstood.
In large parts of the world, but best documented in South America and Asia, the principal gender division is not between men and women but between men and ‘not-men’. I have referred to this before and it was well described by Prof Don Kulick in his 1998 book ‘Travesti’.
Some years ago I watched as a mouthy but entertaining young journalist called Milo Yiannopoulos was defenestrated, his career shattered. I was minded to write something about it now because of a statement Victor Davis Hanson recently made about how Wokeness has become the New Terror.
Milo Yiannopoulos was not destroyed because he is a conservative, despite the rabid political climate of the West today. His adversaries were stymied there, because Milo Yiannopoulos has gay privilege. He is in a protected identity class. So how did they do it?
To understand the development of trans culture in the West, you need to understand the development of the contemporary Western face of male sexual intimacy, The New Gay Man. He’s not as old as you think and is restricted in his range to North America and Northern Europe. Everywhere else, an older model, which I call the Roman, is dominant.
We have become used, in the West, to a particular type of Homosexuals: outwardly somewhat masculine, good-looking, well-dressed, often cultured. It has become such a commonplace that today it would be easy to think that this representation of Homosexuality, the New Gay Man, has always existed and is, indeed, the only such presentation. In fact, the aim of many gay activists is to persuade the public that the New Gay Man is all Homosexuals have ever been. But this is nonsense.
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. ‘Not-Men’ is an older concept.
The term homosexual was coined by Karl-Maria Bengkert, alias Kertbeny in 1869. It refers to sexual contact either between two males or two females. Kertbeny also invented the term heterosexual. However, these definitions were completely new and bore little relation to terms and understandings that had persisted for literally millennia.
The since they reduced such form of Sexual Inversion, which can be Innate (congenital,) or Acquired. However, there is evidence that the Acquired form is actually a latent or otherwise suppressed form of the Innate. This may account for the variation in apparent nature and prevalence of this form. Kertbeny’s approach was not universally adopted. In England, the term sexual inversion was popularised by British physician and sexologist Henry Havelock Ellis. He co-authored the groundbreaking book Sexual Inversion (1897) with English historian and activist John Addington Symonds, which was the first objective medical textbook on homosexuality in the English language.
These two perspectives were opposed to each other, since Ellis in particular saw homosexuality as a personality type, marked by characteristic sexual inversion, by which he meant the adoption of feminised behaviours on the part of males and masculinised ones on the part of females. This was a holistic view which asserted that inverted sexual and social behaviours were the natural result of particular personality types.
Kertbeny’s descriptions did not discuss personality types at all, but they eventually became the basis of Western thinking, largely because of the work of Alfred Kinsey, an entomologist.
For most of the early twentieth century, the Sexual Inversion camp held sway and for good reason; for literally thousands of years, some males had been identified as being unmasculine and some females masculine. The unmasculine males tended to be sexually submissive, were attracted to extremely masculine, often violent men and affected feminised dress and comportment; they also tended to be slight and physically weak, while the female form tended to be attracted to very feminine, younger girls of whom they tended to be protective and somewhat controlling. These females were often ‘butch’. This view was perhaps best described in Greenspan and Campbell’s The Homosexual as a Personality Type.1
This view was consistent with the previous understanding, which I call the Roman and it was widely accepted everywhere. A particular feature of the Personality-Type description is that in it and in the cultures which supported it, only the submissive partner (in males) is considered to be anything other than an ordinary man, while several different titles, for example catamite, were attached to the submissive party. In females, only the masculinised party was considered to be lesbian.
That little one in the blue dress though…wonder what she’d be like out of it?
On Sunday March 12th we went to watch the ‘Mr Lady’ beauty pageant at Robinson’s Place, Malalos, here in the Philippines. These pageants are a regular and important feature of life here.
During the event, an award was presented for Most Supportive Boyfriend. The winner took both his beloved and the crowd by surprise when he proposed to her on bended knee. The crowd went absolutely wild!
These events are very much family affairs and each of the contestants was supported by a strong turnout of highly partisan cousins, siblings and parents. It’s just good fun and everybody has a great time.
An essential part of the closed sex market is that women must be the only permissible sexual providers. But the fact is that men are not so fussy. In the dark, well, then — one cul is much like another, n’est-ce pas?
This is one of the most interesting questions. Most males, as teenagers, would have no issues with having sexual experiences with another boy; indeed, across the planet, such behaviours are normal. As Dr JM Bailey said, it seems that men are conditioned later to reject them. That doesn’t mean that they would prefer it, but simply that, left to themselves, they would not be shamed by their teenage jerking sessions with other boys.
Researching the history of transsex is not at all easy. In the first place, the activities of feminised males are rarely considered appropriate material for men of letters to discuss. Even where such histories were written, cultural revisionists have done everything they could to erase them, with much original material being deliberately destroyed.
It horrifies me that in 2022 I still have to say this: There is no such thing as a ‘gay child’.
Even what is meant by ‘child’ as been deliberately obscured. As a result we have to specify what one is, since some USicans apparently think it’s anyone under the age of thirty. Well, the USA is the motherlode of bad ideas, after all. But we can’t really discuss the concept of a ‘gay child’ without knowing what a child is. Seems fairly basic.
A child is, specifically, a young person who has not yet reached puberty. Age of puberty varies, but it is usually in the eleven to thirteen age range in males, with a few outliers. So we are talking about individuals — in this case, male ones — under the age of twelve or so. And note, only those. Adolescents are not children.
Transsexualism is high profile these days. But what actually causes it? Who are transsexuals? Since there is clearly a deal of ignorance over this, I’m going to go over the explanations again, in a short series of articles.
Women trapped in men’s bodies?
Many people are familiar with the idea that male -to-female (MtF) transsexuals, or transwomen, are ‘women trapped in men’s’ bodies. At the same time, they probably have heard the inverse about Female to Male (FtM) transsexuals or transmen. That is to say, they are ‘men trapped in women’s’ bodies.
A moment’s reflection should make anyone with a brain ask a pertinent question: how can they possibly know that?
Islam is locked in a war with secular democracy and moderate Muslims themselves.
In one week in, June 2016, a Canadian, Robert Hall, had his head hacked from his body in a brutal public murder. Two days later, over 100 people were gunned down in a nightclub in Orlando, Florida; forty-nine died. Two days after that a married couple, both police officers, were stabbed to death in their home outside Paris and their infant child held hostage until the killer was shot by police. All in one week.
The carnage has not slackened. In the five years since this was first written, the slaughter has continued, most recently in the murder of Sir David Amess, a British Parliamentarian, who was stabbed to death by, yes you guessed it, a fanatical Muslim.
There was nothing whatsoever to connect these victims, on the face of it. Nothing. A middle-aged professional, young people in a nightclub, serving police officers, politicians. They died in equally unrelated locations — the Philippines, the USA, France, Britain.
But they are connected all the same: they were all murdered in the name of Islam, the ‘religion of peace’.
Transsexualism is high profile these days. But what actually causes it? Who are transsexuals? Since there is clearly a deal of ignorance over this, I’m going to go over the explanations again, in a short series of articles.
You must be logged in to post a comment.