‘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.
Observation in the Philippines casts light on an interesting group of Autogynephiles in the West. One of these, who is public, is called Candice ‘Kay Brown’ Elliott.
Kay Brown maintains a website discussing the scientific consensus about trans and has even written a book about it. She has been claiming for decades that she is HSTS and loses no opportunity, in her writing, to support this claim. However even cursory examination of her body morphology and career indicates that this diagnosis would be unlikely.
A more plausible explanation would be that Kay Brown is Autogynephilic, but that within her family, middle-class and liberal, her feminisation was accepted because she explained it as a consequence of homosexuality. Ever since then, Brown has maintained this facade, marrying a man and becoming ‘mother’ to his children. In other words, while their motivations are definitely different, it is not always easy to tell between HSTS and AGP.
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’.
Let us be clear: there are only two genders. And no, I don’t mean sexes, although there are only two genders because there are only two sexes. All the rest are fake genders.
Let me explain. Sex is a reproductive system with two morphs, one we call female and the other male. The former produces large, immotile gametes called ova which — and this is important — the female retains inside her body, in mammals.
The latter, the male, produces small, highly motile gametes called spermatozoa or sperm, which are able to swim.
For reproduction to occur, the male must get his sperm into contact with the ovum, which is deep inside the female’s body. In order to enable this, males have an organ called a penis, which is generally long and thin, which can deposit sperm, contained in a fluid called semen, near to the ovum.
I have met significantly more than a few Asian autogynephilic transvestites and the majority profile is quite clear.
They tend to have their first ‘feelings’ at around the age of 15-16 and begin HRT, usually in the form of contraceptive pills, very soon after that. While late-transitioning autogynephilic transvestites do exist, they are rarely public. A good recent example would be Ian King, a racing driver and son of a wealthy ‘Fil-Am’ family. Social class and gender are strongly linked, as we shall see.
This individual fits the Western profile of the autogynephilic transvestite exactly, but that appears to be related to his social class. This is interesting, because a similar social divide is found between masculine presenting homosexual males, macho gays locally or the New Gay Man, and the traditional highly feminised type. Here again, the former tends to be rare and found only in higher social strata, while the latter is both much more common and more associated with lower social class.
Ladyboys are like hobbits; they have big feet. Although, and fortunately, not usually hairy.
My dearest and truest friend, my distant confidante and beloved adopted sister, Andie, is sitting on the brown vinyl sofa in my rented condo in Pasig. She has delicately hoisted the hem of her long floral skirt with one hand and with the other she is holding one of her slippers — flipflops in Filipino — against her leg.
‘Ugh,’ she says. ‘You see? My feet are longer than half the length of my shin.’
She drops the slipper and the hem and takes to regarding her feet with evident distaste, elbow on knee, chin cupped in her hand. She wiggles her toes.
‘I could possibly cut them off,’ she muses. ‘I should cut them off.’
One of the most important articles on the subject of homosexual transsexuals was written by Dr J Michael Bailey and the late Kiira Triea. This has been published widely on the internet and in the blogosphere, but I take the liberty of republishing it here, to widen the spread of its influence.
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?
You must be logged in to post a comment.