Many people have asked for more details about the background to HSTS, homosexual transition desire and the cause of these phenomena. These are legitimate questions. The answer, with a massive amount of supporting evidence and research, appears to be a phenomenon that was discovered over a hundred years ago, called ‘Sexual Inversion’.
Sexual Inversion is the theory that anomalies in sexuality and gender are the result of biological rather than psychological factors. It is well established. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that it is what causes Transgender Homosexuality, which can be either feminine-male or masculine female. This means that it is also the underlying cause of homosexual transition desire, which becomes homosexual Gender Dysphoria in severe cases, and, ultimately, True or Homosexual Transsexualism (HSTS). The striking clustering of physical attributes and behavioural conditions typical of HSTS have always suggested an innate, biological cause and Sexual Inversion is the obvious one. It was identified over a hundred years ago by Karl Ulrichs and expanded on by Havelock Ellis.
Numerous papers have supported this idea and, most recently, Professor Simon Baron-Cohen has extensively studied the phenomenon of hormone delivery issues in utero. While Baron-Cohen’s interest is in other effects of this phenomenon, much of his work, again, supports the Sexual Inversion Theory.
Sexual Inversion is most likely a result of anomalies in testosterone delivery in the womb. This can have numerous effects. The Theory posits that one, where less than optimal amounts is delivered to boy foetuses, results in feminisation across a range of parameters including sexuality, ie boys are same-sex attracted and so cross-gender identified, from childhood and girls the opposite. Sexual Inversion therefore should properly be thought of as an ‘intersex’ condition rather than a ‘trans’ one. It is biological rather than psychological.
Transgender Homosexuals and Sexual Inversion
Transgender Homosexuals are those individuals sufficiently affected by Sexual Inversion for it to have affected their sexuality in obvious ways. This is not always the case; in mild forms, sexuality may not be affected enough to be obvious or even visible.
Some are really on the cusp; they inhabit a somewhat indeterminate gender zone, which in the West is often misidentified as ‘non-binary’. It’s not, it’s just a point on the aetiology between fully feminine and somewhat masculine gender presentation, resulting from incomplete Sexual Inversion and social intolerance of transition. It’s quite common to meet such individuals sometimes as girls and sometimes as boys; one gets used to it and the surprise is often that they can do it so well. But for some, the effect is so strong that they have real difficulty living in the gender normally correspondent to their sex. These are the HSTS, the True transsexuals.
To dig deeper, we need to understand the two basic types of transitioner as defined by Dr Ray Blanchard: Homosexual and Nonhomosexual. Although Blanchard has, to my knowledge, never stated this, it seems clear that his Homosexual category is identical to previous descriptions of those with Sexual Inversion: they are transgender homosexuals. It is, at least, impossible to draw a distinction between the two descriptions. Blanchard also commented on the striking homogeneity of what he called ‘feminine homosexual males’, which again, corresponds exactly to the Sexual Inversion theory.
Blanchard seems to have de facto accepted the logic of Sexual Inversion as the explanation for HSTS, without ever explicitly saying so, certainly in his papers, although perhaps he alluded to it more in lectures. His investigation into nonhomosexual types therefore became something like ‘It’s easy to explain the homosexual type, since they obviously have Sexual Inversion; but how can we explain non-homosexual transition desire, since they clearly do not?’
In Blanchard, ‘homosexuals’ are ‘exclusively attracted to same-sex from childhood’. Nonhomosexual is everyone else. There is no ‘bisexual’ classification. All transitioners — indeed, all of us — are either homosexual or nonhomosexual by this measure. It is an on-off switch. However, this conflicts with what we know of Sexual Inversion.
Bisexuals and Freud
The Western sense of the word ‘bisexual’ was popularised by Freud, who was a convinced nurturist. He remains influential in the US, where he was most popular and where, possibly as a result of the US’ history, the idea of genetic predetermination is regarded with hostility. He believed that everyone was bisexual at birth and it was only conditioning that caused them to be either heterosexual or homosexual. Further, he believed that exclusive homosexualism was caused by childhood traumatisation, possibly sexual in nature. Exclusive heterosexuality, on the other hand, was formed by a normalising process of socialisation. He had no explanation for the clustering of physical characteristics and behavioural traits found in transgender homosexuals at all; that alone should be enough to torpedo him.
Freud was partially correct, nonetheless; there is definitely evidence that traumatic experiences can affect sexuality. A clear example would be Pederastic homosexuality, in which boys subject to this often themselves become pederasts. However, Sexual Inversion is an innate form of homosexuality that was identified before Freud came to prominence. That he did not take it more seriously tells us much about Freud’s approach to science: it was useful only when it agreed with his theories.
Freud’s position was important, not least because it was so influential on subsequent thinking. It fitted with the ‘blank slate’ ideology that had been popularised by Franz Boas and later, Margaret Meade. Their ideas can be seen as the foundation of US academic thinking, at least until the late 1960s and the appearance of the Neo-Marxist cultural movement popularly called ‘Postmodernism’ and championed, in this field, by Michel Foucault.
In Blanchard, HSTS are never bisexual; one is either homosexual or nonhomosexual. But this presents us with a conundrum, if the root cause is Sexual Inversion. This, being a biological phenomenon, must exhibit variation. The effect of variation would mean that it is stronger in some cases than in others. That might mean that, at the least affected end of the aetiology, some people are somewhat ambivalent in their sexuality and appearance: bisexual. This sounds as if it should provoke bisexualism, which somewhat contrasts with the Blanchard position. We need to explain this.
For Freud, all people were born bisexual and environment decided sexuality; in the Sexual Inversion model, most people have normative sexuality, while a subset have an innate inversion of sexuality (and therefore gender) that can be full or partial. These are fundamentally different. An environmental factor, social intolerance, does have a role here, in causing the least affected to remain covert about any non-conforming feelings they might have; but again, this is quite different from suggesting that sexuality itself is formed by environment. Sexual Inversion Theory proves that in fact, sexuality and gender are innate and hard-wired together.
Note that we are here taking ‘male inverted sexuality’ to mean ‘female sexuality’ which is to be penetrated and requires feminine gender, to advertise this to the world. (We are not talking about acquired sexualities like Pederastic homosexuality here.)This likely accounts for the well known failure, in the infamous Money/Reimer case, to condition a natal male, whose penis had been burned off during a ‘routine’ circumcision as a baby, into ‘becoming’ a girl. Absent at least some degree of innate Sexual Inversion, it could not possibly have worked. Once again, the link between sexuality and gender is supported by the evidence.
Feminisation and female sexuality
Across the board, all male Transgender Homosexuals, that is, feminine males, those who have been affected by innate Sexual Inversion, are feminised. They are not the only kind of male homosexual, as I’ve pointed out; there are acquired forms too. However, they are all feminised to some degree, notably in sexuality (ie they want to be penetrated and seek men to do it). But we also know that bisexualism (Western sense) is a common part of female sexuality. Together, these would theoretically open the door to the idea that some MtF HSTS might also exhibit it, since they have inverted, ie female, sexuality.
This would not conflict with Blanchard on Autogynephilia, since his Typology states that ‘all nonhomosexual male gender dysphoria (ie, transition desire) is caused by Autogynephilia’. He places no such definitions on Homosexuals, because their homosexuality and thereby their Sexual Inversion, itself is definitive. However, the on/off nature of his triage can be misleading here and I think we are justified in asserting that apparently bisexual attractions and feelings, in young people with Sexual Inversion, should not be regarded as meaning the individual is not HSTS.
However, note: the above means that a Male-to-Feminine (MtF) HSTS, that is, a fully Sexually Inverted male who had transitioned, who did exhibit this attraction to women would be showing, at least partially, lesbian attraction as a part of her female sexuality. I have encountered cases like this, amongst transsexual sex workers who share apartment, bed and life as partners. But this might be more of a lifestyle accommodation than a real desire. Many poorer people from southeast Asia habitually sleep in common beds and it would be easy to misread this. (Again, it is next to impossible to be sure of the truth of what one is being told about a person’s sexuality, when that person is trying to sell some sex, especially when there is a language barrier.) However, it would contrast with what we see in AGP, where pseudo-bisexualism provokes the desire for sex with men.
If this is so, however, then we can explain HSTS, full homosexuality, partial feminisation (effeminacy) and bisexualism all in terms of Sexual Inversion, for both sexes. Given that we have studies that show that anomalies in testosterone delivery do indeed occur, and the length of time the ideas behind it have been expressed, it is baffling that Sexual Inversion is not fully accepted.
Sexual Inversion and Young People
From the point of view of a person who thinks he or she might be HSTS, understanding the nature of Sexual Inversion, that it is innate and cannot be reversed and that the simplest and kindest solution is to follow it to its natural conclusion, transition, is the lesson to take from this. While many such individuals will be comfortable with hormonal and social transition, for some, full surgical transition is necessary.
Happily, sexuality crystallises with age and by roughly one to two years after puberty, it will be clear whether the characteristics of Sexual Inversion are present in sufficient strength to warrant transition. In most cases, everyone will have been aware what was going on for years, anyway. If the diagnosis is affirmative, therapies preparatory to transition should be implemented, including ‘puberty blockers’ and lifestyle options. These will put the brakes on masculinisation (if male) and help the individual to get used to living fully in the target gender. Full endocrine therapy for MtF can be started around sixteen, although the more drastic and long-lasting effects of testosterone in FtM suggest that this should not begin until legal majority.
Sexually inverted young people and those who care for them, today are bombarded by conflicting advice. An unholy alliance of religious conservatives, feminists and conforming ‘gays’ has come together in the ‘Gender Critical Movement’ which is determined to shut down all transition. This is clearly abusive and is happening for obviously political reasons, with no thought for the individuals concerned. On the other hand, enthusiasts are guilty of encouraging transition at far too early an age and without anything like sufficient rigour. The individual and his or her family and professional helpers must find a way through this minefield.