Biological sex is real; to say otherwise is a lie

eproductive-system-lateralThe nonsense that biological sex has no basis in reality and that a person can be changed from male to female  is just that, nonsense.

With the exception maleof a very small number of individuals, in which cases we can always identify a specific genetic irregularity, all humans are either male or female. So there are TWO SEXES. We are not tilapia, frogs or molluscs, and these sexes are fixed FOR LIFE. This is what we observed when we did basic biology in school.

Gender is what society is based on

Humans have by far the most intricate and developed social systems of any species on the planet and, as a part of this, we have developed gender.

We still do not know to what extent gender is innate. What we can say is that it is certain that it does have an innate foundation.

There are so many proofs now, that the old-fashioned orthodoxy that humans are blank sheets of paper written on by upbringing is wrong, that it is amazing it still gets credence. But, of course, it suits special-interest groups, feminists and others to pretend that it is true, because it allows them to scapegoat others.

We know that there are distinct trait differences between men and women. We know that their brains are different. It is true that they are more alike than different, but they are still different.

Consider the morphology of the human. On average, adult males and females are markedly different. Men are bigger, stronger, have a different muscle type, carry less fat and are more aggressive; women are smaller, lighter, not as good at running and more agreeable. These are not small differences. Would it be at all reasonable to suppose that brains would have no differences? No.

David Reimer

Fortunately, we don’t have to take women’s word for it. We have the brain scans and other neurological evidence, and we have the Money/Reimer case.

John Money was the United States’ leading researcher into sex and gender. David Reimer was a baby, one of twins, whose penis was burned off in a ‘routine’ circumcision.

Money believed in ‘nurture’ over nature. He believed we are all blank sheets of paper, made into what we are by conditioning. So he said that Reimer should be raised as a girl and given surgery, hormones and therapy to reinforce this. If Money and the nurturists, and that includes feminists, were right, then everything should have been fine. But it was not. In his early teens Reimer began having strong cross-gender feelings — as the boy he actually was. He found out what had happened and promptly transitioned.

Tragically, although he married and tried to have a normal life, he ultimately killed himself. His twin brother, who had been used by Money in therapy, did the same, soon after. Money was found to have falsified his case notes and was disgraced. He too died.

Nurture, in other words, is not everything. Case closed.


Along with our two sexes, we have two sets of behaviours which, usually, are associated with them. The sexes are male and female and the genders a masculine and feminine. These consist of a complex set of social behaviours, signals and interactions, the essential purposes of which are to allow us to select mates and to pair bond, so that children can be raised in safety.

Human children must be cared for until around the age of 12. This requires huge resource expenditure and, particularly were there are several children, a bonded pair is more successful than a lone mother. This leads to the nuclear family, and around it the extended clan. This is a phenomenally successful social model and it is the main reason humans have become so dominant.

So there are TWO genders — not 40. However, the gender binary does not map congruently onto the sex binary. This means that it is not always the case that a person born male, for example, will grow up to develop masculine gender. So that person might grow up to be feminine. This is neither abnormal nor even rare; it’s just a natural part of biological variation.


Sexuality — whom we desire as sexual partners — is believed by many researchers to be innate, and it seems most likely that at least in some cases this is true. Since sexuality is a fundamental urge, it seems reasonable that this would be harder to change than, say, the length one wears one’s hair.

Sexuality works like this: amongst born males, feminine sexuality — the desire for dominant males —  tends to lead to a feminine gender. Expressions of male homosexuality are in fact a sexual variation in which a male-born person desires to have men as dominant sexual partners, and a result of this is a tendency to exhibit feminised behaviour. The inverse is true in women. How this is expressed varies according to social pressure.

So we have: a man is a person born male with masculine sexuality and gender; a woman is a person born female with feminine sexuality and gender; a transman is a person born female with masculine sexuality and gender and a transwoman is a person born male with feminine sexuality and gender.

In males, a secondary form of transgender exists, in which the man is attracted to the image of himself as a woman. This is called autogynephilia, and regular readers will know I have written a lot about it. It is outwith the scope of this discussion, since the men who have it retain a heteronormative male desire for women, albeit misdirected onto themselves.

Even in the case of AGPs, however, gendered behaviours that define one as masculine or feminine have a  genetic stimulus arising from sexual desire. If we take the  preceding paragraphs together, it follows that feminine homosexual men are a form of transwoman — something readily confirmed by observation.

The New Gay Man

So how do we explain the ‘New Gay Man’ — the apparently masculine male who desires male lovers and to play the feminine role in sex?

This is where socialisation comes in. In the West, gender non-conformism suffers tremendous social intolerance. Many feminine gay men describe being beaten for ‘being girly’. This causes them to hide in plain site — to affect gender normativity while clandestinely pursuing a gender non-conforming sex life. This device is the basis of reams of bunk produced by ‘queer theory’ airheads. The alternative, often followed by transwomen who discover their natures in childhood, is to transition, move town and vanish; to invent a new life as a woman.

To see how strange this is, you have to go to a place where social intolerance of gender non-conformity is reduced and look at what happens there. That is exactly what I do, in my travels in southeast Asia (and, yes, full disclosure, I date transwomen. But I also have many  gay, TS, gender non-conforming friends and contacts who are not lovers.)

Going abroad

In these places, e.g. the Philippines, we can see what happens when social intolerance, stigmatisation and violence is reduced. Here, boys who desire men or who ‘feel girly’ become ‘bekis’. They are supported in this by a complex social network that I call ‘beki culture’. (Beki is the polite Phils term for a GNC boy.) These cultures are divided into ‘men’ and ‘not men’ groups, rather than ‘men’ and ‘women’. This is a subtle but important difference.

Bekis NEVER socialise as men, because they can’t; they are just too ‘girly’ to be accepted. But they do join the ‘not-men’ group, where other bekis and girls will reinforce their socialisation and development into ‘not-men’. Neither bekis nor women are daft enough to suggest that bekis are ‘real women’. The only bekis I’ve ever heard iterating such a position were actually brought up in or spent long times in the West. However, everyone respects that bekis are part of the social group that includes women, and are protected in it, although bekis have lower status than women.

Through socialisation in the ‘not-men’ group, bekis learn a set of aspirations, life-goals and behaviours. These are, more or less, the same as those that girls learn, though there are some differences.

So, while a beki desiring a good job might be told by her boss she has to cut her hair and stop wearing make-up, this doesn’t change her sense of self, her ‘gender identity’. She’s a girl and always will be, because of her sexuality and socialisation as a ‘not-man’. (Essentially, when presenting as a man, she’s cross-dressing!) Gays in these cultures recognise that they are ‘not-men’.

Bruce Jenner

Compare this to the nonsense of a man like Bruce Jenner who, at the age of 65, having socialised not just as a man but, successfully, as a highly competitive, aggressive alpha male, suddenly decided that he is ‘a woman’. It defies rationality and should be called out. Jenner and others like him have a right to live in peace with human dignity, but they are not ‘real women’. If a beki who has socialised as a girl since the age of 5, lived all her life as a girl and is as feminine as one, is still not a ‘real woman’ — and she would be the first to accept that — then Jenner et alii can go fly a kite.

Most bekis are extremely well-adjusted, rational, sane people with no illusions about themselves. They’re not pretending to be ‘real girls’, they’re attempting — and often succeeding — to be more beautiful, glamorous and sexually attractive THAN ‘real girls’. (This latter can cause jealousy and hostility, though not usually.) Their desire — it appears to be universal — is to find a nice straight man and settle down with him for life, to play the role of wife, homemaker and mother. Cats, dogs, rabbits and dolls are usually the children, though I know bekis who have adopted orphans and have thrown themselves into the role of working single mums. Their children are lucky.

Western GNC and sex

In the 15 years that I have been studying this, the visibility of Western GNC has gone through the roof. But still, the West is saddled with the kinds of attitudes that were formed in a culture of severe homophobia and social intolerance. Thus, GNC males may claim to be ‘real women’ — sometimes without even attempting to appear to be so. Screeds of absolute nonsense is littered around the internet supporting this — entirely Western and principally Anglo-Saxon — delusion, and it’s all bunk. It exists because of a desire to hide the underlying truth: sex is fixed and gender is an innate function of sexuality.

Sex comes in two morphs: male and female. There are two genders: masculine and feminine. Driving these are two sexualities. But these do not map onto each other in a precise way.


Biological sex is real; to say otherwise is a lie was originally published on Rod Fleming’s World


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s