Identifying – or self-identifying – a genuinely pre-transsexual HSTS is relatively straightforward. But before we get to the symptoms, let’s look at the cause of all this. It is called Sexual Inversion. There are four basic parameters to consider in diagnosing this: Sex, Sexuality, Gender and Gender Dysphoria.
Sex, of course, is the product of our chromosomes; everyone is either male (XY) or female (XX), apart from a small number who have chromosomal variations, who are usually called ‘intersex’ – but here too, their condition is defined by their chromosomes. Sex can never be changed.
Sexuality describes our basic sexual impulse. We either have male sexuality or female sexuality. Male is sometimes called Active and is the desire to penetrate and female is Passive or the desire to be penetrated. In most people these are aligned but in a small percentage of individuals this is not so. This results in males with female sexuality and females with male sexuality. This is Congenital Sexual Inversion. This is a physiological condition and so forms an aetiology or scale of variation.
Sexual Inversion is implicated in True or HomoSexual Transsexualism (HSTS) and Transgender Homosexuality, that is, feminine male homosexuality and masculine female. It is innate, has distinctive features and should be considered a form of Intersex.
Males with Sexual Inversion may develop either into Transgender Homosexuals (feminine male/masculine female) or they may develop fully into women. In males this phenomenon is usually associated with a range of physical effects including, but not limited to: lightness of build; tendency to be smaller than related males; fineness of bony structures; anomalies in digit ratios such that they tend to resemble the female typical, marked neoteny (baby face) and usually, delayed masculinisation even after puberty.
0 Exclusively heterosexual with no homosexual experience
1 Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2 Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3 Equally heterosexual and homosexual
4 Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5 Predominantly homosexual, but incidentally heterosexual
6 Exclusively homosexual, with no heterosexual experience
A scale of Sexual Inversion has been hinted at in several online conversations of late. So what would a scale of sexual inversion look like?
First, as a negative comparison, let’s look at Kinsey. He, an etymologist and a taxonomist, proposed a ‘scale of human sexuality’ from 0 (Fully Heterosexual) to 6 (Fully homosexual.) The wonder is that this was accepted anywhere, since it flew in the face of pretty much all previous understanding. Nobody proposed that male sexuality was a scale of variation, till Kinsey; they all suggested that homosexuality was an anomaly, most likely caused by factors in utero not then understood — which in fact it was, and remains: Sexual Inversion.
Homosexual transsexuals exactly fit the profile of ‘sexual inversion’ as defined over a hundred years ago by Karl Heinrich Ulrichs (1825-1895)
‘The truth of the invert was inside rather than on the surface; thus a male invert was “really” a woman, and should be allowed to express a female gender, and a female invert was “really” a man, and should be allowed to dress and live as one. Inversion also referred to the ways in which such bodies inverted the laws of nature, which supposedly decreed that male bodies should desire female sexual partners instead of male ones, and vice versa. The theory of sexual inversion maintained conventional categories of sexuality and gender and did not allow one to be divided from the other. Inversion meant that a man’s homosexual desires, effeminacy, or both did not challenge masculine gender or heterosexual sexual norms; rather, a perfectly normal heterosexual woman with a feminine gender was trapped inside him, yearning to come out.’ (Encyclopedia.com)
Later, the English sexology pioneer H Havelock Ellis wrote:
‘(Congenital sexual inversion) is sexual instinct turned by inborn constitutional abnormality towards persons of the same sex.'(My emphasis).
(Ellis uses the term ‘congenital’ which remains unproven. It is clear that what he is talking about is innate and must result from biological factors occurring either in the womb or shortly after birth; but we do not know whether the trigger for whatever these might be is congenital, that is, a result of a specific gene mutation. However, the condition is innate and not acquired. I prefer to use the term ‘innate’.)
Ellis’ massive study of human sexuality, Studies in the Psychology of Sex, which is downloadable via this page HERE, contains a whole volume on sexual inversion, and he defines this as above on the first page. Note that both Ulrichs and Ellis agreed that this sexual inversion was innate. It was inborn and not a matter of choice.
You must be logged in to post a comment.