Biology in Medicine proposes an urgent and necessary Significant Event Analysis on the NHS approach to gender dysphoria to stop unsafe medical practice.
With biology in medicine, admit that humans share behaviors with animals, incuding negative social behaviors.
A key shared behavior is sexual mimicry, so males can avoid male social competition and take advantage of female cooperativeness to access female groups for unwanted social and sexual gratification. In females it exhibits as male mimicry to avoid male contact and use male hierarchy imitation to gain resources for offspring.
The behavior is present wherever there is sexual competition and strong sexual dimorphism which can be imitated. It is a way of “cheating” the system.
Every major animal group has members who have evolved sexual mimicry behavior, from cephalopods and mammals to lizard and birds.
In humans the primary manifestation is “trans” male behaviors, which protect males from male social violence, and which is used to gain male-competition-free sexual access to female groups such as in prisons, to lesbian social groups and other social institutions to coerce females into sex. It is also used to bypass male competition in dominance hierarchies politically, socially (in sports), and to deny autonomous female assemblies.
We should strive to ensure that sex mimicry is understood as a natural behavior evolving occasionally in response to sexual competition.
Once begun the mimicry creates intense anxiety that it not be detected though it is usually quite obvious. It doesn’t need to be perfect only sufficient to establish patterns of needed responses in other humans.
The patterns it elicits are temporary male unawareness of the mimic (unattractive female and not a competitive male) and temporary female protective impulse (as a disadvantaged female and but not of a male threat).
As the deception fails mimics develop ally’s to insist on the realty of deception which always escalates into both erasing sexual distinctions (gender instead of sex), and claims that any sexual uncertainty (adolescent coming of age, andro- and menopausal changes) are signs of mimicry.
Sexual mimicry leads to self-harm to amplify the effect (self-mutilation) and to categorical effacement (women don’t exist) to remove competition to the deception.
Sexual mimics are convicted of sexual offenses three times the rate of ordinary males. They use mimicry to compete with women and replace them in politics, sports, and other social roles where they seek to avoid competition as a male at the cost of female representations.
Learning of this biological phenomenon is important to our society in the future. It can’t be eliminated (a natural phenomenon) but it can be managed by learning in school, in medicine, and in legal systems to undersrand the presentation of the behavior in men and protecting women from predatory sexual mimics, and protecting female institutions from incursions by males and female autonomy from incursions by males.
For social institutions which have succumbed to the incursions and have been groomed and recruited to support male mimics, we need to report on the degree to which they believe in male sexual mimicry, and reward them for positive direction in recognizing the behavior and taking actions to re-establishing productive male/female boundaries.
A simple scorecard of male/female boundary maintenance can be managed with organizations where a 100% score means all important male/female institutional boundaries are maintained and no special deference is given to males imitating females.
This means in practice no celebration of cross-sex mimicry, no change of institutional language to establish tolerance of mimicry, no mimic use of female/male segregated spaces allowed, no inclusion of males in designated female roles, no institutional external financial support for males imitating and supplanting female roles, no alteration of sex statistics into “gender” statistics, compliance with all appropriate laws (EEOC) on the basis of sex, not gender, compliance with title IX laws on the basis of sex, not gender.
In educational institutions it means that all language about sex is about sex, not gender, that sexual mimicry is discussed as a topic along with negative (female abuse) and positive (avoidance of male violence), its persistence in the animal kingdom, and evolutionary paths to select for “cheating” behavior as a reproductive strategy - in biology, where we began.
You’re badly misinformed on “Brazil” and “Turkey”. Neither country has had anti-homosexuality laws for more than 100 years, Turkey has none for more than 150 years (and never in the modern state), and before that the Ottoman Empire had varying laws.
Straight men sometimes have a preference for sexual mimics, but in general it’s not functionally gay. As in facultative homosexual experiences they deny they’re gay.
It was Bill Clinton after all who claimed a blow job wasn’t sex, and Ovid I think who claimed a mouth had no sex.
The lesbian conundrum has little to do with absence of men it’s simply supernormal stimulation, more women create higher arousal regardless of male presence. Hunt for the research papers.
Gay is a non-clinical name for male same sex attraction, homosexual refers to sexual acts generally. There are plenty of men who exclusively have homosexual sex who claim they aren’t gay, and there are men who claim to be gay but don’t have sex. I’ve met all the variations you can imagine, I’ve had a lot of sex. Being gay has assumed the dimension of a hobby, a sexual hobby, but a hobby like sailing or bird watching complete with clothing, vacations, magazines and language.
Gay men tolerate feminine men and masculine women easily, but don’t have sex with them. In the case of masculine women, the complete lack of a penis is the end of the story before considering lack of muscle, female body proportions and facial features, and body smell.
Men effuse androstenedione which activates part of the brain in gay men. Women effuse estratetraenol, which activates nothing in the brains of gay men.
Sexual mimicry only has to work enough to temporarily not activate male territorial defense. Most men will believe anything for a moment for sex.
It usually is facultative homosexuality where one male is straight and the other imitates a woman to maintain or amplify a barrier to violence. Male mimics have half the rate of violent deaths than other men.
Men imitating women often have overdetermined performance or what’s called “supernormal stimulus” by not just imitating a woman but by amplifying to the point of female hypersexuality such as prostitution. That’s one reason why you see male mimics dressing like hookers so frequently, whether or not they sell sex. It’s quite striking. For every Mrs Doubtfire there are many more streetwalker apparitions.
Overdetermination or supernormal stimulus in mimicry of all types is not unusual. If you look a the European Cuckoo, when it places an egg in a host nest the resulting egg is larger eliciting even more of a incubation response and the chick is even larger than the others and garners more brooding response and food.
Something similar happens in lesbian pornography and straight men. Two naked women elicits a stronger response than one irrespective of the behavior. Supernormal stimulus.
Many people don’t realize that many men who consider themselves straight have homosexual sex, particularly in all-male situations like aboard ship or prisons, or male colonies. It’s called facultative or situational homosexuality.
In all my decades of life I know zero gay men who have a sex partner who compulsively imitates a woman. Gay men are more often attracted to exaggerated masculinity, not exaggerated femininity.
Thanks for the reply. I believe men who have sex with transfeminine males know exactly what they are doing, and are only performatively 'straight'.
This includes cultures where male homosexuality is explicitly forbidden by religion, such as in Brazil or Turkey. Violence against transfeminine males in this context is therefore not caused by transphobia; it is an aspect of the higher rates of violence in same-sex relationships, which is consistently documented. If these men were 'phobic' of transfeminine men, they wouldn't be in relationships with them.
Violence between straight men is at a higher rate still because it is not taking place within the context of sexual relationships, and so there is no 'mate' to preserve.
Lenny Bruce made the same point as you about situational sexuality when criticising the homophobic insults made by men. He had been in the US navy during World War II. Queer theorists are keen on cinema depicting sexual relationships in all-girls schools, including between teachers and pupils, but these would also be examples of situational sexuality.
In my impression, early lesbian experiences were tolerated by the English upper classes because they avoided the problem of young aristocratic women being 'spoiled' for the marriage market by encounters with unsuitable men, whereas upper class young men were encouraged to practice impregnation on prostituted women and actresses. This behaviour caused more than one succession crisis in the British royal family because of a lack of legitimate heirs.
I believe lesbian porn attracts heterosexual males because they want to see sexually aroused women without having to see a naked man. The problem arises when they go past voyeurism to identify with the subject.
As for gay men being uninterested in transfeminine males, I believe that is because 'gay' is a social construct based on exclusive attraction to masculinity, and isn't representative of male homosexuality as a whole. The BBC is currently putting this to the test by introducing a transmasculine woman into its 'gay' structured reality show "I Kissed A Boy".
Superb and easy to follow analysis. I have restacked.
With biology in medicine, admit that humans share behaviors with animals, incuding negative social behaviors.
A key shared behavior is sexual mimicry, so males can avoid male social competition and take advantage of female cooperativeness to access female groups for unwanted social and sexual gratification. In females it exhibits as male mimicry to avoid male contact and use male hierarchy imitation to gain resources for offspring.
The behavior is present wherever there is sexual competition and strong sexual dimorphism which can be imitated. It is a way of “cheating” the system.
Every major animal group has members who have evolved sexual mimicry behavior, from cephalopods and mammals to lizard and birds.
In humans the primary manifestation is “trans” male behaviors, which protect males from male social violence, and which is used to gain male-competition-free sexual access to female groups such as in prisons, to lesbian social groups and other social institutions to coerce females into sex. It is also used to bypass male competition in dominance hierarchies politically, socially (in sports), and to deny autonomous female assemblies.
We should strive to ensure that sex mimicry is understood as a natural behavior evolving occasionally in response to sexual competition.
Once begun the mimicry creates intense anxiety that it not be detected though it is usually quite obvious. It doesn’t need to be perfect only sufficient to establish patterns of needed responses in other humans.
The patterns it elicits are temporary male unawareness of the mimic (unattractive female and not a competitive male) and temporary female protective impulse (as a disadvantaged female and but not of a male threat).
As the deception fails mimics develop ally’s to insist on the realty of deception which always escalates into both erasing sexual distinctions (gender instead of sex), and claims that any sexual uncertainty (adolescent coming of age, andro- and menopausal changes) are signs of mimicry.
Sexual mimicry leads to self-harm to amplify the effect (self-mutilation) and to categorical effacement (women don’t exist) to remove competition to the deception.
Sexual mimics are convicted of sexual offenses three times the rate of ordinary males. They use mimicry to compete with women and replace them in politics, sports, and other social roles where they seek to avoid competition as a male at the cost of female representations.
Learning of this biological phenomenon is important to our society in the future. It can’t be eliminated (a natural phenomenon) but it can be managed by learning in school, in medicine, and in legal systems to undersrand the presentation of the behavior in men and protecting women from predatory sexual mimics, and protecting female institutions from incursions by males and female autonomy from incursions by males.
For social institutions which have succumbed to the incursions and have been groomed and recruited to support male mimics, we need to report on the degree to which they believe in male sexual mimicry, and reward them for positive direction in recognizing the behavior and taking actions to re-establishing productive male/female boundaries.
A simple scorecard of male/female boundary maintenance can be managed with organizations where a 100% score means all important male/female institutional boundaries are maintained and no special deference is given to males imitating females.
This means in practice no celebration of cross-sex mimicry, no change of institutional language to establish tolerance of mimicry, no mimic use of female/male segregated spaces allowed, no inclusion of males in designated female roles, no institutional external financial support for males imitating and supplanting female roles, no alteration of sex statistics into “gender” statistics, compliance with all appropriate laws (EEOC) on the basis of sex, not gender, compliance with title IX laws on the basis of sex, not gender.
In educational institutions it means that all language about sex is about sex, not gender, that sexual mimicry is discussed as a topic along with negative (female abuse) and positive (avoidance of male violence), its persistence in the animal kingdom, and evolutionary paths to select for “cheating” behavior as a reproductive strategy - in biology, where we began.
You’re badly misinformed on “Brazil” and “Turkey”. Neither country has had anti-homosexuality laws for more than 100 years, Turkey has none for more than 150 years (and never in the modern state), and before that the Ottoman Empire had varying laws.
Straight men sometimes have a preference for sexual mimics, but in general it’s not functionally gay. As in facultative homosexual experiences they deny they’re gay.
It was Bill Clinton after all who claimed a blow job wasn’t sex, and Ovid I think who claimed a mouth had no sex.
The lesbian conundrum has little to do with absence of men it’s simply supernormal stimulation, more women create higher arousal regardless of male presence. Hunt for the research papers.
Gay is a non-clinical name for male same sex attraction, homosexual refers to sexual acts generally. There are plenty of men who exclusively have homosexual sex who claim they aren’t gay, and there are men who claim to be gay but don’t have sex. I’ve met all the variations you can imagine, I’ve had a lot of sex. Being gay has assumed the dimension of a hobby, a sexual hobby, but a hobby like sailing or bird watching complete with clothing, vacations, magazines and language.
Gay men tolerate feminine men and masculine women easily, but don’t have sex with them. In the case of masculine women, the complete lack of a penis is the end of the story before considering lack of muscle, female body proportions and facial features, and body smell.
Men effuse androstenedione which activates part of the brain in gay men. Women effuse estratetraenol, which activates nothing in the brains of gay men.
Sexual mimicry only has to work enough to temporarily not activate male territorial defense. Most men will believe anything for a moment for sex.
Interesting; how would you account for mimicry in homosexual encounters using this evolutionary framework?
It usually is facultative homosexuality where one male is straight and the other imitates a woman to maintain or amplify a barrier to violence. Male mimics have half the rate of violent deaths than other men.
Men imitating women often have overdetermined performance or what’s called “supernormal stimulus” by not just imitating a woman but by amplifying to the point of female hypersexuality such as prostitution. That’s one reason why you see male mimics dressing like hookers so frequently, whether or not they sell sex. It’s quite striking. For every Mrs Doubtfire there are many more streetwalker apparitions.
Overdetermination or supernormal stimulus in mimicry of all types is not unusual. If you look a the European Cuckoo, when it places an egg in a host nest the resulting egg is larger eliciting even more of a incubation response and the chick is even larger than the others and garners more brooding response and food.
Something similar happens in lesbian pornography and straight men. Two naked women elicits a stronger response than one irrespective of the behavior. Supernormal stimulus.
Many people don’t realize that many men who consider themselves straight have homosexual sex, particularly in all-male situations like aboard ship or prisons, or male colonies. It’s called facultative or situational homosexuality.
In all my decades of life I know zero gay men who have a sex partner who compulsively imitates a woman. Gay men are more often attracted to exaggerated masculinity, not exaggerated femininity.
Thanks for the reply. I believe men who have sex with transfeminine males know exactly what they are doing, and are only performatively 'straight'.
This includes cultures where male homosexuality is explicitly forbidden by religion, such as in Brazil or Turkey. Violence against transfeminine males in this context is therefore not caused by transphobia; it is an aspect of the higher rates of violence in same-sex relationships, which is consistently documented. If these men were 'phobic' of transfeminine men, they wouldn't be in relationships with them.
Violence between straight men is at a higher rate still because it is not taking place within the context of sexual relationships, and so there is no 'mate' to preserve.
Lenny Bruce made the same point as you about situational sexuality when criticising the homophobic insults made by men. He had been in the US navy during World War II. Queer theorists are keen on cinema depicting sexual relationships in all-girls schools, including between teachers and pupils, but these would also be examples of situational sexuality.
In my impression, early lesbian experiences were tolerated by the English upper classes because they avoided the problem of young aristocratic women being 'spoiled' for the marriage market by encounters with unsuitable men, whereas upper class young men were encouraged to practice impregnation on prostituted women and actresses. This behaviour caused more than one succession crisis in the British royal family because of a lack of legitimate heirs.
I believe lesbian porn attracts heterosexual males because they want to see sexually aroused women without having to see a naked man. The problem arises when they go past voyeurism to identify with the subject.
As for gay men being uninterested in transfeminine males, I believe that is because 'gay' is a social construct based on exclusive attraction to masculinity, and isn't representative of male homosexuality as a whole. The BBC is currently putting this to the test by introducing a transmasculine woman into its 'gay' structured reality show "I Kissed A Boy".
"Let’s fly people safely rather than let passengers and their feelings take command of the cockpit."
Best summation ever!