A homophobic tennis player

Apparently there’s a kerfuffle happening in Australia over some comments by former tennis star Margaret Court.

From the Guardian:

“The former tennis champion Margaret Court has claimed “tennis is full of lesbians” following a row over remarks she made previously about gay marriage. She added that transgender children were the work of “the devil”.

Court’s earlier comments opposing same-sex marriage sparked furious debate about whether the show court named in her honour at Melbourne Park should be changed. However, she said that attempts to remove her name from it were “bullying”.”

I have mixed feelings about whether a building should be renamed because the honoree made offensive comments. I think a few years ago I would have agreed that the court should change its name to show its opposition to Court’s bigotry, but now I’m inclined to think that such a reaction would be overkill. After witnessing the increasing inability of anyone on the Left to tolerate discussion, questions or nuance, and to repress any speech that doesn’t meet current standards of ideological purity, I’m just totally fed up with trying to get people to stop saying certain things. There’s nothing like being a member of a group that’s been silenced to make you appreciate free speech.

It’s an odd feeling to have reached “peak left” when I still am actually on the left. I’m just on an imaginary left, one that is pro-woman and seeks to eliminate sex-based oppression as well as class-based oppression, and one that lives in reality and does the best it can to make practical, positive improvements for oppressed people. Sadly, that left doesn’t exist in the real world anymore, but a girl can dream, y’know?

I’m not entirely sure what the solution is to changing people with bigoted beliefs. Is making it impossible for them to speak and bullying them into silence really the way to do it? That often makes them shut up for a while, but all that hatred comes out of the woodwork eventually when they’re given a reason or an opportunity to express it. And sometimes, trying to bully someone just makes them more firm in their beliefs.

It would be nice if education, reasonable explanation, and rational debate could work on more people, but sadly, it works on very few. Especially those whose beliefs aren’t based on any substantial evidence or logic in the first place.

Margaret Court is quoted as saying the following:

 “We know that homosexuality is a lust of the flesh, so is adultery, fornication, all those things … they too know this, this is why they want marriage, because it’s self-satisfying. I think they know it comes against Christianity, the beliefs of God, but in some way it’s justifying.”

and…

“Everybody knows that it is wrong but they’re after our young ones, that’s what they are after”.

This is so baffling it’s actually sort of fascinating. I know those of you who were raised in any homophobic religious tradition have heard this sort of thing before, but I was not ever told that sinners were going to fry in hell during my childhood and I’ve long thought this religious stuff is very silly.

Her basic premise here is that homosexuality is “lust” and that makes it inherently wrong. I had to look up lust in the dictionary to make sure I wasn’t missing something, and indeed I wasn’t. It just means strong sexual desire. I actually have no idea what’s wrong with strong sexual desire…seems pretty normal to me? Many people of all sexual orientations experience sexual desire. In particular, heterosexual men are quite well-known for that quality. If sexual desire is a sin then isn’t heterosexuality a sin too? If God created us, then didn’t he create sexual desire on purpose to further the continuation of the species? This whole premise just makes no sense. I see no reason why lust would be considered a sin in the first place, so I see no reason why “it’s just lust” would be an argument against homosexuality.

I had to look up “fornication” too because this is not a commonly-used word outside of Bible-thumping communities. It means sexual intercourse outside of marriage. Once again, I have no idea what is wrong with that. If Court thinks that no one should have sex outside of marriage, then once again, she should be opposed to heterosexuality as well, since heterosexuals regularly have sex outside of marriage. And it’s a bit ironic that someone who thinks one should be married to have sex also opposes people getting married.

Then she says we want marriage because it’s “self-satisfying.” I don’t even know what she means by that. Marriage rights are important for many financial and legal reasons, like being able to access your partner’s health benefits and being able to visit them in a hospital room if they are ill. What is “self-satisfying” about it? Marriage is a commitment to another person, so it’s not about satisfying the self.

Then the bits about “everybody knows its wrong” and “they’re after our children,” like, whoa there. No, everybody doesn’t think love is wrong. When two people are in love and pledge their commitment to each other and care about each other and take care of each other every day and yes, also touch each other in intimate ways, that is beautiful and there is nothing wrong about it. I have no idea what could be wrong about any of that. And why do homophobic people always think we’re “after the children”? Like, “after them” for what reason? I’m guessing it’s either one of two things: they think we’re all child molesters, or they think that homosexuality is contagious and we’re trying to infect children with it. One group of people very highly likely to be child molesters is Catholic priests, and for some reason homophobic people ignore that and point the finger at us. Homosexuality is not the least bit contagious. Only around 5% of each generation is gay and we cannot increase that. (I know that about 1000% of young people today identify as “queer” but that is because queer is the new cool thing to call yourself, they’re not actually all gay.)

In some cases, if someone is promoting hatred against specific groups of people, and if there is a credible risk of real harm coming to them, then I think silencing them is appropriate, but here I do not. This woman is just an idiot whose views make no sense, and I know these views can be dangerous when held by people in positions of power, but as long as we have full equal rights under the law then people can say stupid shit and we can just roll our eyes.

I will continue to be the best person I can be and live my life as out lesbian so that I prove this sort of bullshit wrong every day.

Reading anti-gay comments

Today I decided to read some homophobic articles just for the hell of it. I’m curious about what homophobic people are saying these days. I know they used to say that we were “destroying the moral fabric of society” just by loving each other. I found that phrase upsetting at first but I eventually learned to find it funny. Like, how can you destroy the moral fabric of society by loving someone? People who say this are nuts.

So I read an article from 2015 called “10 Reasons Why Homosexual ‘Marriage’ is Harmful and Must Be Opposed”. The reasons are:

1.  It Is Not Marriage

They define marriage as a union between a man and a woman and then conclude that since gay marriage doesn’t meet this definition, it’s not marriage. Okay… whatever!

An amusing quote from this section is that same-sex marriage “denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage.” That’s…weird. Somehow, two women getting married negates the difference between the sexes? As far as I can tell, when two women or two men get married, the biological categories of male and female remain intact.

Also, ‘complementarity’ is not a word.

2. It Violates Natural Law

I had never heard the phrase ‘natural law’ before, and just by the sound of it I assumed it was a law of nature. You know, like matter cannot be created or destroyed, and gravity pulls objects together, etc. But no, I looked it up, and apparently ‘natural law’ means the social constructs man have designed for how humans should behave. As the Christians have worded it: “Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” So because men invented ‘natural laws’ outlawing homosexuality, therefore homosexuality is wrong. This is a fancy way of saying “because I said so.”

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

Well that’s just silly. All children have a mother and father– it’s scientifically impossible for any child not to have both, because a child is created from an egg from the mother and a sperm from the father. Whether or not the child is actually raised by both parents is a different story. There are many reasons why a child may not be raised by both parents, and although it’s important for a child to have loving parents, the biological parents aren’t always the best ones for the job. Some biological parents are abusive or unable to care for children for other reasons.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

Homosexuality isn’t a lifestyle, it’s a sexual orientation. It would still exist even if it got no validation, because it’s not something we consciously choose.

People who are homosexual have lots of different lifestyles. For example, I am childless, urban, and geeky, and I spend lots of time reading. Other gays and lesbians might be rural, outgoing, adventurous, or sporty. Some of us are soccer moms!

Are these folks worried that if we “promote” homosexuality, the incidence will increase? Do they think that heterosexuals will be so seduced by the lure of homosexuality that they’ll convert? Because if so, I think they are demonstrating that they have a poor opinion of heterosexuality!

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

I still can’t figure out what is morally wrong about two adult humans loving each other. Why is love wrong, Christians?

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

Why does marriage have to create a family? But seriously though, these people are obsessed with producing children. They act as though the entire purpose of human existence is to produce children. Despite world overpopulation, dwindling resources, and a fragile economy, apparently we should all be having tons of kids. Conclusion: being Christian is about being irresponsible!

Check out this incredibly creepy paragraph: “Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.” ……really? That’s how Christians describe their sex lives? Sounds awful to me!

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

“One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.”

………….okay……..so the State shouldn’t approve of any straight marriages among infertile couples or couples who don’t intend to have children?

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

They’re upset that they might have to perform a same-sex wedding or rent or sell things to gay people. I would agree that a church shouldn’t be forced to perform a same-sex wedding if they don’t want to, because if you are a church you should be able to practice your religion as you see fit. I don’t know why any gay couples would want to go to a homophobic church and try to bully them into performing a wedding ceremony though—that would be really uncomfortable.  I’m always confused about why companies wouldn’t want to sell things to gay customers. You have a business, you need to make money, but you pick and choose who to sell things to? Do you interview all your customers to make sure they don’t do anything in their private lives you disapprove of before selling them a cake? (Answer: no, it’s ONLY gay people they disapprove of). If I had a business, I would still sell things to Christians, even though I disapprove of their silly hatred. Customers are customers.

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution

“If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.”

I used to think this argument was stupid, but now that I see what’s going on in the ‘queer’ community, where they are trying to normalize ‘kink’ (aka sexual abuse) that includes things like ‘age play’ (acting out pedophile fantasies) and how they approve of ‘transwomen’ like Stephonknee acting out pedophile fantasies in public, I’m starting to think this argument isn’t so stupid. This is why it’s very important for lesbians, gays, and bisexuals to speak out against the sex-pozzie culture that is promoting abusive and dysfunctional behaviors. Being gay or bi is NOT about normalizing sexual abuse, it’s not about having an ‘avante-garde’ sexuality, and we have to keep making that clear, since there are pro-abuse infiltrators trying to attach themselves to our movement.

If people on the right are homophobic when they equate homosexuality with pedophilia, incest, and bestiality, then people on the ‘left’ who say these things should be considered homophobic too!

(Autostraddle = homophobic)

10. It Offends God

This is always an invalid argument. ‘An imaginary character I made up doesn’t like it’ is not a way to convince anyone of anything. I can make up imaginary characters and say they disapprove of you too, that doesn’t mean you will care. This is just another fancy way of saying “because I said so.”

Then I read this article “16 People Who Are Anti-Gay Explain Their Stance On Homosexuality.”

I’m not going to go through the whole thing point by point. A couple of general themes were:

(a) I don’t hate gay people, I just hate gay culture.

This means that the person has a superficial understanding of gay culture. They think being gay is about waving rainbow flags, marching around in skimpy outfits, drinking at the bar and being promiscuous. That’s because they only know what they see in short news segments, and this is the sort of thing that ends up on the news because it’s flashy. In reality, gays, lesbians and bisexuals spend most of our time doing the exact same mundane things that everyone else is doing. We wake up to an alarm clock, take a shower, go to work, drink coffee, go home and try to figure out what’s for dinner, visit our friends, engage in hobbies, and spend time with our spouses and families. Our lives are way more boring than what is presented in the media.

(b) They hate people who are ‘flamboyant’ and just want us to be like everybody else for their comfort.

This is interesting. Conservatives do hate the flamboyant types the most—and that goes for both feminine men and masculine women. They don’t hate gays as much if we look like everybody else, but when we are noticeably gay, they object. They want to normalize and standardize humans and make us all the same. What puzzles me is—why would you want everyone to be the same? Don’t you think the world is a more colorful place when there is diversity? Do you want things to be more boring? I just don’t get it. Even if there is a ‘normal’ way to be, I don’t see why everyone has to be that way.

Here’s a couple of comments I do want to quote:

“Like asexuality, homosexuality is a non-helpful trait that some people have, like an extra toe. It has no evolutionary advantage.”

What’s up with these people and their obsession with breeding? I was surprised that someone considers asexuality another deviance. I think it’s good for society for there to be some humans who don’t reproduce. People who reproduce have to spend large amounts of money and resources on raising their kids, and people who don’t reproduce are free to do other things. It’s good that not all of us are focused on reproduction, since there are lots of other important aspects to life. And as I said above, we are facing an overpopulation problem. It’s actually long past due we stop breeding so much.

“As a Christian, I believe that God created us for heterosexual marriage. He created man and woman, and called it good. Heterosexual sex is a gift from God, it is something that we should cherish and delight in. Throughout the Bible, it is clear that homosexuality is a perversion of God’s original gift. It is something immoral. When I see a homosexual couple, it makes me sad. This is not because they sicken me, disgust me, or because I think that somehow I am better than them. It saddens me because they are partaking in an act that is the very perversion of the good gift that God granted us.”

Again…these people literally believe our entire existence is for nothing but breeding. It’s so weird, do these people not have anything in their lives besides their kids? Do they not have hobbies or careers? Do they not have friends, and holidays, and vacations, and favorite TV shows, sports, anything? There are tons of fulfilling and worthwhile things that people do besides get married and have kids.

This woman thinks that hetero sex is a “gift from God”— well I feel the same way about my own sex life! I think that my sex life is a gift from the Goddess. I thank my lucky stars that I am a lesbian so that I can have the best sex any woman can have, and without the risk of pregnancy. I feel sorry for straight women, since they have way fewer orgasms and have to put up with all sorts of bullshit from their male partners!

I guess what I’ve learned from this experiment is that anti-gay bigots today are still obsessed with sameness and normalcy, still obsessed with breeding, and still really ignorant about what gays and lesbians are actually like. Bunch of idiots!

Sorry dude, men aren’t lesbians

Another day, another man who thinks that making cosmetic changes to his body makes him a woman, and who thinks that “woman” is whatever a man says it is.

I got into this goddamn argument with a transwoman. I shouldn’t have—it’s a waste of time and I know it, but he commented here a couple of times so I was following his blog for a while. I’ve learned my lesson!

ce_sc_1

ce_sc_2

ce_sc_3

ce_sc_4

ce_sc_5

The link he provided here basically amounts to “I’m a woman because I say I am, and I don’t care what you think about it.”

It’s interesting that he calls his girlfriend “a biological female.” If a transwoman actually understands what a biological female is, then he knows he’s not one. A transwoman is biologically male, and it’s not “phobic” to state that, it’s just a neutral fact.

A man is an adult human male, and it’s not “phobic” to state that either, it’s a neutral fact.

Lesbians are females attracted to females. We can have any “gender” we want, but homosexuality means attraction to the same sex, not the same gender.

No man is ever a lesbian, no matter what. Not if he takes artificial hormones, not if he has surgery on his penis to turn it inside-out, not if he wears makeup or a dress, and not if he gets his documentation falsified by putting an “F” on it under “sex.” He’ll never be female and he’ll never be a lesbian.

When men say their heterosexual attraction toward women constitutes lesbianism, they are appropriating our identity. When men suggest that their female partners are lesbians, they are erasing what lesbianism is. When men suggest that lesbians can/should/would date men, they are being homophobic.

When transwomen insist upon dismissing what actual lesbians have to say while calling themselves lesbians, they are displaying their lack of respect for women and for lesbians. They are demonstrating that they do not deserve our support.

Same homophobia, different day

Found in Gay American History by Jonathan Katz, p196–197, quoted from a study on female homosexuality from 1967 by eight psychiatrists and psychologists, headed by Dr. Harvey E. Kaye. Paper presented to the Society of Medical Psychoanalysts in New York.

“A comparison study was made of a group of 24 female homosexual patients in psychoanalysis with a group of 24 female nonhomosexual patients. The questionnaire method was utilized, with the patients’ analysts filling out the questionnaires. Our goal was geared toward the establishment of basic clinical data in this area, keeping highly inferential theoretical considerations at a minimum. Within the limitations of the methodological and statistical factors inherent in such a study, the following is a summation of our findings and conclusions.

Homosexuality in women, rather than being a conscious volitional preference, is a massive adaptational response to a crippling inhibition of normal heterosexual development…

Along this vein, we have found a developmental constellation of traits or activities in which the girl shies away from the female role. We believe, furthermore, that these may constitute early prodromata (symptoms) of a potential homosexual adaptation, which should alert parents and family physicians. These are: (a) a tendency toward seeking physical fights in childhood and early adolescence; (b) a tendency to dislike and play less with dolls; (c) a trend toward excessive play with guns; (d) preference to playing boys’ rather than girls’ games, and a tendency not to play house; (e) a tendency to see themselves as tomboys; and (f) development of strong crushes on women during puberty and adolescence.”

Diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria, DSM-5, 2013

(A.) A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, of at least 6 months’ duration, as manifested by at least six of the following (one of which must be Criterion A1)

  1. A strong desire to be of the other gender or an insistence that one is the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender).
  2. In boys (assigned gender), a strong preference for cross-dressing or simulating female attire; or in girls (assigned gender), a strong preference for wearing only typical masculine clothing and a strong resistance to the wearing of typical feminine clothing.
  3. A strong preference for cross-gender roles in make-believe play or fantasy play.
  4. A strong preference for the toys, games, or activities stereotypically used or engaged in by the other gender.
  5. A strong preference for playmates of the other gender.
  6. In boys (assigned gender), a strong rejection of typically masculine toys, games, and activities and a strong avoidance of rough-and-tumble play; or in girls (assigned gender), a strong rejection of typically feminine toys, games, and activities.

Also from DSM-5, 2013, p. 455

“For both natal male and female children showing persistence, almost all are sexually attracted to individuals of their natal sex.

For natal male children whose gender dysphoria does not persist, the majority are androphilic, (sexually attracted to males) and often self-identify as gay or homosexual (ranging from 63% to 100%).

In natal female children whose gender dysphoria does not persist, the percentage who are gynephilic (sexually attracted to females) and self-identify as lesbian is lower (ranging from 32% to 50%).”

Even in the present day, the psychiatric profession believes that normal gay/lesbian behavior is a maladaptive set of behaviors caused by inhibition of normal heterosexual development. They’ve just found a less obvious way of presenting it.

A summary of historical medical treatments for homosexuality, from Gay American History by Jonathan Katz, p129:

“Among the treatments are surgical measures: castration, hysterectomy, and vasectomy. In the 1800s, surgical removal of the ovaries and of the clitoris are discussed as a “cure” for various forms of female “erotomania,” including, it seems, Lesbianism. Lobotomy was performed as late as 1951. A variety of drug therapies have been employed, including the administration of hormones, LSD, sexual stimulants, and sexual depressants. Hypnosis, used on Gay people in America as early as 1899, was still being used to treat such “deviant behavior” in 1967. Other documented “cures” are shock treatment, both electric and chemical; aversion therapy, employing nausea-inducing drugs, electric shock, and/or negative verbal suggestion; and a type of behavior therapy called “sensitization,” intended to increase heterosexual arousal, making ingenious use of pornographic photos.”

Children who display gender atypical behaviors such as wearing the clothing of the opposite sex and playing with the toys that are assigned to the opposite sex are still being identified as deviant and in need of correction, and the medical profession is still using drugs and surgeries as a cure, with full knowledge that these kids will likely grow up to be gay or lesbian adults.

Subtle homophobia on TV

One time I mentioned that in pop culture gay people are presented as only existing in the punch lines of jokes. I’ve been wanting to get back to that but it’s a bit complicated because I’d have to find the right TV show clips and get them on YouTube, which is far beyond my technological skill level! But luckily I have a smart, wonderful, fantastic partner who does these sorts of things for me. (Thanks, honey!)

So here is a clip from Gilmore Girls in which a lesbian mom is the punch line of a joke.

Now, a small disclaimer about Gilmore Girls: I think this show is preposterous and stupid and annoying and I own the entire series on DVD. Why? Probably because there are so few shows that actually are about women, that I’ll take anything I can get. The show got better for me one day when I was watching it with my lovely partner who suddenly blurted out “Is this a parody of heterosexuality?” And I snorted with laughter and ever since then I’ve just understood that the reason this show is so dumb is because they’re making fun of heterosexuals. Ha! 😀

Okay disclaimer over. This is a clip from season 5 episode 15 where there is a play going on and Luke is helping two little boys with set design. One of the little boys keeps randomly and for no reason blurting out that his mom is a lesbian. It’s not natural or realistic that a child would just keep repeating “my mom’s a lesbian” over and over and this dialogue is so weird and awkward that it’s actually painful to watch.

Here’s the clip:

Even after this clip, there are more instances of him randomly saying “my mom’s a lesbian” later in the episode.

I want to point out a few things. First off, the entire point of this kid saying “my mom’s a lesbian” is that it makes everyone else uncomfortable and we’re supposed to find this funny, apparently. (I’m assuming this was an attempt to be comical? Although it definitely didn’t work.) The reason it makes people uncomfortable is because it’s uncomfortable talking about lesbians. The second thing I want to point out is that there are no lesbian characters in Gilmore Girls and at no point do we ever meet this kid’s mom.

This is what I mean by “gay people are only presented in the punch lines of jokes.” At no point is there ever a lesbian character in the show, but lesbians are mentioned in what is supposed to be a joke and characters react by feeling awkward and embarrassed. The implicit message is that lesbians are not regular people that you might know, they’re just something weird and uncomfortable that people joke about.

The writers probably don’t even realize they’re being homophobic. They didn’t say out loud that being gay is gross or wrong or weird. But that is the subtle message being portrayed.

The way to be lesbian-positive in a TV show is to have an actual lesbian character who is a fully-developed character on the show WHO DOESN’T GET KILLED OFF and where her lesbian orientation is treated as not a big deal but is just a part of who she is.

I think this is one of the main reasons people get internalized homophobia—it’s because they are constantly interacting with people who have heard of homosexuality but only discuss it in jokes in order to make people uncomfortable and don’t realize that what they’re saying is that being gay is gross, wrong, weird and embarrassing. We internalize that and when we realize we’re gay all of a sudden it feels like we’ve become the punch line of a joke.

It may not be as obvious as the Westboro Baptist Church, but this is homophobia.

19th century homophobic dickheads trying to explain homosexuality

More from The Psychology of Sex, vol. 2, Sexual Inversion, by Havelock Ellis, 1919, which, I have just discovered, is available online!

Ellis speaks with the tone of a scientist studying cases of abnormal specimens of humanity; he refers to them as “cases” sometimes; he studies them physically and asks for any family history of illness. There is a chapter called The Nature of Sexual Inversion in which he attempts to provide measurable differences between “inverts” and “normal people” and to suggest reasons for the inversion, but he falls short. In fact, it is clear from what he wrote that he found out absolutely nothing about the nature of “inversion.”

He studied what appears to be only a handful of people. He doesn’t give the precise number. There is no universal physical difference apparent among homosexual women or homosexual men. He does write about some observations he’s made but they don’t add up to anything, and they often contradict each other.

For example, inverted women might be unusually hairy, or they might not be:

“There seems little doubt that inverted women frequently tend to show minor anomalies of the piliferous system, and especially slight hypertrichosis and a masculine distribution of hair.” p253

“A woman physician in the United States who knows many female inverts similarly tells me that she has observed the tendency to growth of hair on the legs.” p 254

“Someone I know told me that the homosexuals she knows have hair on their legs.” Okay, yeah, that’s really good research there. “My friend told me so” is totally a conclusive proof of a scientific fact. Newsflash: straight women have hair on their legs too.

“While inverted women frequently, though not always, convey an impression of mannishness or boyishness, there are no invariable anatomical characteristics associated with this impression. There is, for instance, no uniform tendency to a masculine distribution of hair. Nor must it be supposed that the presence of a beard in a woman indicates a homosexual tendency.” p251

So we’ve established that homosexual women might be hairy, or they might not be, and they might have hair on their legs, but women with beards aren’t necessarily gay. Okay then!

He also made observations that homosexual women tend to be muscular and have lower voices. The evidence is entirely subjective.

“Apart from the complicated problem presented by the hair, there are genuine approximations to the masculine type. The muscles tend to be everywhere firm, with a comparative absence of soft connective tissue; so that an inverted woman may give an unfeminine impression to the sense of touch. A certain tonicity of the muscles has indeed often been observed in homosexual women. Hirschfield found that two-thirds of inverted women are more muscular than normal women, while, on the other hand, he found that among inverted men the musculature was often weak.

Not only is the tone of the voice often different, but there is reason to suppose that this rests on a basis of anatomical modification. At Moll’s suggestion, Flatau examined the larynx in a large number of inverted women, and found in several a very decidedly masculine type of larynx, or an approach to it, especially in cases of distinctly congenital origin. Hirschfield has confirmed Flatau’s observations on this point. It may be added that inverted women are very often good whistlers; Hirschfield even knows two who are public performers in whistling. It is scarcely necessary to remark that while the old proverb associates whistling in a woman with crowing in a hen, whistling in a woman is no evidence of any general physical or psychic inversion.” p255–256

There is no measure of what “more muscular” even means. Can inverted women lift more weights than straight women? I don’t see any numbers here. If the women he studied were indeed “more muscular” than usual, it could be because they were doing more manual labour. Didn’t he observe that these women tended to dress as men and take on men’s jobs? Their muscle development isn’t from being gay, it’s from exercising the muscles. Also, he believed that “several” of them had a masculine larynx, or an “approach to a masculine larynx.” This is very, very subjective. Did he measure somehow how low a pitch their voices could go to? Why not test them out using a piano or tuning fork and give us a pitch? Nope. Just his subjective observation that their larynxes were “masculine.” He observed earlier that female inverts liked to smoke. Couldn’t their voices be lower from smoking?

He seems to have studied the genitals of his “case studies,” which I find thoroughly disturbing. He found that inverted women’s genitals are either small or big:

“As regards the sexual organs it seems possible, so far as my observations go, to speak more definitely of inverted women than of inverted men. In all three of the cases concerning whom I have precise information, among those whose histories are recorded in the present chapter, there is more or less arrested development and infantilism. In one a somewhat small vagina and prominent nymphaea [labia minora], with local sensitiveness, are associated with oligotrichosis [less than normal amount of hair]. In another the sexual parts are in some respects rather small, while there is no trace of ovary on one side.” p256

He keeps trying to make a case that sexual inverts have arrested development or infantilism. He also talks about our youthful faces. But here, even though he claims she has a “small vagina” (I shudder to think how he measured it), he also reports “prominent” labia on the same woman. So how is he even concluding that her genitals are “small” if her labia are “prominent?” Does only the vagina count?

“An enlarged clitoris is but rarely found in inversion and plays a very small part in the gratification of feminine homosexuality. Kiernan refers to a case, occurring in America, in which an inverted woman, married and a mother, possessed a clitoris which measured 2 ½ inches when erect. Casanova described an inverted Swiss woman, otherwise feminine in development, whose clitoris in excitement was longer than his little finger, and capable of penetration. The older literature contains many similar cases.” p258

These are probably cases of intersex, and he knows this, but this disproves his point that female sexual inverts have small genitals, doesn’t it? He said the same thing about homosexual men. Their genitals are either big or small:

“The circumstances under which many of my cases were investigated often made information under this head difficult to obtain, or to verify. In at least 4 cases the penis is very large, while in at least 3 it is small and undeveloped, with small and flabby testes. It seems probably that variations in these two directions are both common, but it is doubtful whether they possess as much significance as the tendency to infantilism of the sexual organs in inverted women seems to possess. Hirschfield considers that the genital organs of inverts resemble those of normal people. He finds, however, that phimosis is rather common.” p289

This is hilariously absurd. He examined only 7 people, and observed that their genitals were either large or small, and then says that it seems probable that male homosexuals vary in their penis size. Duh! Kinda like all other males! And I loved the comment about how homosexuals resemble “normal people.” Nice.

Also, male homosexuals may or may not be able to whistle:

“The frequent inability of male inverts to whistle was first pointed out by Ulrichs, and Hirschfield has found it in 23 per cent. Many of my cases confess to this inability, while some of the women inverts can whistle admirably. Although this inability of male inverts is only found among a minority, I am quite satisfied that it is well marked among a considerable minority.” p291

He then goes on to prove that the inability to whistle doesn’t automatically make you gay. No need for non-whistling straight guys to panic.

By the end of the chapter it is evident that he is making subjective speculations based on very little actual research and that he is generally full of shit. When you’re trying to find physical differences between homosexuals and “normal people” and you’re going on about “23 per cent can’t whistle” you know you’ve lost your case. There isn’t any physical difference between gay and straight people.

When he attempts to explain how people become gay, he is hilariously clueless again. He believes the condition is “congenital,” in other words, that we are “born this way,” but he is unable to provide any evidence of a biological basis for sexual orientation. So, naturally, he starts making shit up.

“The rational way of regarding the normal sexual instinct is as an inborn organic impulse, reaching full development about the time of puberty. During the period of development suggestion and association may come in to play a part in defining the object of the emotion; the soil is now ready, but the variety of seeds likely to thrive in it is limited. That there is a greater indefiniteness in the aim of the sexual impulse at this period we may well believe. This is shown not only by occasional tentative signs of sexual emotion directed toward the same sex in childhood, but by the frequently ideal and unlocalized character of the normal passion even at puberty. But the channel of sexual emotion is not thereby turned into an abnormal path. Whenever this happens we are bound to believe—and we have many grounds for believing—that we are dealing with an organism which from the beginning is abnormal. The same seed of suggestion is sown in various soils; in the many it dies out; in the few it flourishes. The cause can only be a difference in the soil.” p309–310

This is a lot of words that don’t say anything. Homosexuals have different “soil.” Okay. He goes on like this:

“If, then, we must postulate a congenital abnormality in order to account satisfactorily for at least a large proportion of sexual inverts, wherein does that abnormality consist? Ulrichs explained the matter by saying that in sexual inverts a male body coexists with a female soul: anima muliebris in corpore virile inclusa. Even writers of scientific eminence, like Magnan and Gley, have adopted this phrase in a modified form, considering that in inversion a female brain is combined with a male body or male glands. This is, however, not an explanation. It merely crystallizes into an epigram the superficial impression of the matter.” p310

So there it is! After trying to describe homosexuals as having “different soil,” he then rolls out the “female brain in a male body” thing. You know what I see here? I see a bunch of overhyped and inadequate researchers trying to figure out what makes people gay, and since they have absolutely no idea, they are pulling theories out of their asses. The only true thing here is that last sentence, which is a fancy way of saying “that’s just an oversimplification of what people tend to think.”

He also has a cute theory about “male germs” and “female germs” that are present around the developing fetus.

“Putting the matter in a purely speculative shape, it may be said that at conception the organism is provided with about 50 per cent of male germs and about 50 per cent of female germs, and that as development proceeds, either the male or the female germs assume the upper hand, until in the maturely developed individual only a few aborted germs of the opposite sex are left. In the homosexual, however, and in the bisexual, we may imagine that the process has not proceeded normally, on account of some peculiarity in the number or character of either the original male germs or female germs, or both, the result being that we have a person who is organically twisted into a shape that is more fitted for the exercise of the inverted than of the normal sexual impulse, or else equally fitted for both.” p311

I’m kind of amazed at how beautiful a disaster that paragraph is.

Ellis has a tendency to quote his “correspondents” in this book. His one “correspondent,” called “M.N.,” had this to say about homosexual men:

“To me it appears that the female element must, of necessity, exist in the body that desires the male, and that nature keeps her law in the spirit, though she breaks it in the form. The rest is all a matter of individual temperament and environment. The female nature of the invert, hampered though it is by its disguise of flesh, is still able to exert an extraordinary influence, and calls insistently upon the male.” p284.

This guy M.N. is a really homophobic dickface. He’s implying here that it’s a natural law that only a female can desire a male. Nope. On the same page, he argues that homosexuals are always unfulfilled:

“There is, however, one terrible reality for the invert to face, no matter how much he may wish to avoid it and seek to deceive himself. There exists for him an almost absolute lack of any genuine satisfaction either in the way of the affections or desires. His whole life is passed in vainly seeking and desiring the male, the antithesis of his nature, and in consorting with inverts he must perforce be content with the male in form only, the shadow without substance.” p284.

Read that paragraph a few times. Seriously. He’s saying that gay men are really women, and they’ll never be fulfilled because the gay men they’re with are women too, which means they’ll never be with the “real” men they really want. A gay man is apparently the shadow of a man, without the substance, due to his feminine nature.

The whole “woman’s brain in a man’s body” thing was made popular by 19th century sexologists who were trying to figured out what caused homosexuality, and this was one of the theories they pulled out of their asses because they didn’t have any concrete facts to present. We still don’t know what causes homosexuality, but I would argue that we don’t need to know what causes it. We don’t need to know what causes some people to prefer red over blue, or why some people enjoy music more than visual art, or why some people put ketchup on their fries while others don’t. We don’t scrutinize behaviors unless we think they’re a problem. Homosexuality isn’t a problem.

I wonder if it ever occurred to these homophobic windbags to ask a gay person why they are attracted to the same sex?

Here’s why I’m attracted to women:

  • Because women are fucking hot
  • Because women are capable of deep, fulfilling relationships (men are about as useful as lumps of clay in that regard)
  • Because the sex I have with women is AMAZING

That’s why. Actually, I think what really requires an explanation is why any women are attracted to men. I don’t get it. And don’t give me the “to continue the species” thing. Homosexuals can have babies. We are fertile! And we do reproduce!

These 19th century homophobic weirdos are really entertaining, but what really puzzles me is why we are still promoting their dumb ideas like they have any merit. Homosexuals aren’t born in the wrong body and we don’t have the soul of the opposite sex. It is normal female behavior to love other females. Being attracted to women doesn’t make us men. In each generation, around 5–10% of women love other women. Sometimes we even wear trousers and drink and smoke! These are things that women do.