About a year ago, I wrote an academic paper entitled “On the Heterosexuality of Traps”. With Warski’s Trapnostate in full swing, I thought I’d make my first article for the Meta-Right a re-publish of that essay. Not only is it once again relevant, it will give me some time to write something new. I am also fond of the idea of starting my career in reruns, and bragging that I am now a published academic. Enjoy.
“In soft regions are born soft men” – Herodotus
One of the longest-prevailing arguments in Internet circles, since at least the advent of imageboards in the late 1990s, has been the heterosexuality of so-called “traps”. A trap, by conventional standard, is a male who cross-dresses to such an effective degree, they are easily identified by a typical person as female. This differs, of course, from a transgender individual, who has gender dysphoria and will pursue means to the end of becoming a female by all measurable biological standards. Many have attempted to tackle the latter in sociological circles (Ross, 2000), so this will not be the subject of this paper. Instead, we will focus on the heterosexuality of the following, based on the criterion that the individual in question is a regularly heterosexual male: a) sexual attraction to the “trap”, b) pursuing a relationship with the “trap”, and c) continuing a relationship with the “trap” upon understanding that the “trap” is indeed biologically male. For purposes of this paper, of course, sexual and romantic relationships will be used interchangeably.
Magnus Hirschfeld, probably a Jew, invented the terms transvestitism and transsexuality in Germany in 1910, with his book entitled Die Transvestiten (Hill D. B., 2005). While much of his degenerate work was thankfully destroyed by the NSDAP in 1933, what survives gives us the full scope of knowledge of what constitutes cross-dressing, and therefore traps (Hill D. B., 2005). Hirschfeld was the first to set the dichotomy between who was a transvestite, a trap writ large, since transvestites don’t necessarily need to pass, and a transsexual. Hirschfeld studied dozens of both transvestites and transsexuals, and came to his conclusion early on where each was located on the human sexual spectrum (Hill D. B., 2005).
Homosexuality, and therefore transsexuality, by Hirschfeld’s analysis, was in fact what the Victorians would describe as “sexual inversion” (Hill D. B., 2005).
It’s best to think of this mathematically. Males were active, or negative, in their sexual action. Females were passive, or positive, in their sexual action. To be a transsexual was to sexually invert completely, to the point where even one’s gender inverted to be sexually inverse twice over, or double-negative (Hill D. B., 2005). Consequentially, this meant that to have sex with a transsexual, was to make the sex-having male sexually inverse themselves through the action. Mathematically, this is to multiple three negatives against each other. However, since a cross-dresser was sexually inverse once over, the male having sex with them was only multiplying two negatives together, and so was in mathematical terms having normal multiplicative sex. In other words, by Hirschfeld’s own metrics, a male having sex with a cross-dressing male was as heterosexual as: a male having sex with a female (conventional heterosexual sex), or a female having sex with a female crossdressing into a male (reverse-trap), or with two lesbians. This is known as sex economics to some people (Charnon-Deutsch, 1991). The explanation can be found in the table below.
Table 1-1. Hirschfeldian Sex Economics. Source: Wu, 2017.
Cross-dressing is by no means a phenomenon limited to modern times. Cross-dressing effectively was an asset in the theatre before the prominence of female actors, or actresses, which came with the expanded role women played in mainstream society following the “Enlightenment” (Howard, 1988). Consequentially, being a trap was more than just a sexual issue, it was a profession – indeed a way of life. The most famous user of traps on stage, at least in Elizabethan theatre, was William Shakespeare (Sedinger, 1997). William Shakespeare’s use of traps is partially the reason he was so successful as a playwright, I believe. His audience needed to believe the traps were women to pull off the illusion. If some male performer did not pass, was not a true “trap”, that would just be a homosexual kiss – as taboo in Elizabethan England as having actresses on stage (Sedinger, 1997). When Romeo kissed Juliet, Romeo kissed a “trap”. All those fairies in A Midsummer Night’s Dream? Traps, all of them, without exception. Hamlet’s mother? You better believe it. No one employed traps with more vigour and delight than the Bard. So, was Shakespeare gay? H ard to say for certain, but his marriage to Anne Hathaway and the children they had together are arguments against that assertion (Sedinger, 1997).
Table 1-2. Shakespeare’s Sonnet gayness. Source: Wu, 2017.
The history of the trap is not limited to brief interludes of history, be they Shakespeare’s England, the modern imageboard, or early 20th century Germany. The United States in the 1950s was another of history’s great trap havens (Hill R. , 2011). While culturally kept a secret due to cultural pressures of the time, there was an explosion of transvestites, called TVs, to the point entire magazines were published for their benefit (Hill R. , 2011). A common theme amongst these all-American transvestites, were their wives. Of the three-hundred best-known transvestites of the era, a large majority of them had female spouses (Hill R. , 2011). As the 1950s turned into the 1960s, these wives were abandoned in favour of male partners. As established in Hirschfeldian sex economics, these traps were forced to be gay with their wives, but once liberated became straight. This is to say, then, that the natural inclination of traps is to be heterosexuals, whether it be by cultural definition (the 1950s marriages) or by natural definition (leaving their wives in the 1960s). Therefore, there is never a time when, logically, a trap can be homosexual. And by extension, then, whomever has sex with a trap – so if they are in some ways male, can also not be a homosexual (Hill D. B., 2005). Thus, we see a fundamental truth from these smaller truths: a male and a trap is less gay than a male and female. Traps with females were culturally gay, and sometimes males leave their wives for other males, which means males can be gay and be with a female (Ross, 2000). This means it’s possible to be with a female homosexually in some regard, an impossibility with traps.
Another argument worth mentioning against the homosexuality of traps, is the innate homosexuality of its opposite. For the purposes of this argument, we will assume the opposite of the trap is the so-called “reverse-trap”, or woman who dresses like a man. History is rife with reverse-traps. Ann Morrow, a notable seventeenth-century woman, is one example of this reverse-trap (Baston, Spring 1997). She cross-dressed three times to marry three different women, and whenshe was discovered she was violently stoned to death (Baston, Spring 1997). A woman trying to marry three women is clearly gay (Herrmann, 1992), in addition to being polygamist and confusing – since who would lose the children or pay alimony in the divorce case? There was also Moll Cut-Purse, a female thief who committed her robberies dressed as a man (Baston, Spring 1997). Despite the fact people wrote plays about Moll, what she did was clearly illegal, and she was condemned to the Tower of London f or committing so much thievery (Baston, Spring 1997). And so, we see a common pattern emerge: illegality working in tandem with reverse-trapping. To complete the equation, we must therefore reverse the reverse-trap. Instead of reverse-traps committing illegal actions, we have traps committing legal actions. Since heterosexual sex is the most legal kind of sex, and illegality is the opposite of trap actions, trap sex must therefore be legal, and so heterosexual, sex.
Table 1-3. Crimes Committed in Guadalajara City, 2015. Source: Wu, 2017.
Finally, we come to the proverbial ladyboy. What is called a ladyboy in many circles, is properly known as “gender pluralism” (Peletz, 2006). Gender pluralism is the capacity for an individual to be multiple genders at a single time (Peletz, 2006). It is of course complete nonsense, but humour me for a while because there’s a point to be made here. While ladyboys are a common fixture in Thailand and other southeast Asian countries, they are also found in Carnival-celebrating countries, such as Brazil (Murray, 2000). Ladyboys are males who trap, but also have some elements of transsexuality about them, though this degree depends on the ladyboy in question. Ladyboys, whose anime equivalent is probably futanari (it could not be, but let’s say it is), are in a sense a hybrid of genders and trapping. This makes them a sexual wildcard, and so – if placed on the traditional Hirschfeldian sex economics chart – would be straight no matter with whom they had sex. So, even if one disagrees with the scientific evidence and insists that traps are gay, men and women alike can go to Thailand or Brazil and have completely heterosexual sex with a ladyboy, thanks to gender pluralism (Peletz, 2006).
While there are those barbarians who still skulk the frontiers of civilization, who claim that somehow traps are still gay, I believe I have, at last, solved the ancient problem without resorting to any of the old tropes. Internet arguments are filled with unsourced memes and personal opinions, all of which lack the rigour and command of academia. I have done this without, as Nietzsche warned, letting “the abyss gaze back” into me. I have done it outside the Holy Roman Empire, which as Voltaire said was “neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire”. In response to Hamlet’s “to be or not to be”, quoth I: I be. To paraphrase Karl Marx: “traps of the world, unite!” Forsooth, with this study, the world can put aside its decades-long quarrel, comfortable in the fact that this definitive paper has proven that traps are heterosexual in all conceivable ways, without exception. Nigh the femininity be. There will be doubters for many years who insist, based on feeling and empty rhetoric, that traps are still gay. However, those interested in being
intelligent about this debate can freely bring this essay along with them. Those brave intellectual souls can go into battle well-armed, against the slings and arrows of outrageous insult.
All Romeos can have their trap Juliet, all Hamlets their trap Ophelia, all Brazilians their ladyboy; without the scorns and whips of a weary life spent in the toiling agony of incorrect thought. No one can have reverse-traps, of course, because they’re all thieves and polygamists (Baston, Spring 1997). I beseech all those who would defy this research, and by extension science itself, to come up with a venerable rebuttal to this powerful work. They will find, though, that this will stand the test of time. This isn’t by my choice, but by reason and logic’s choice, choices which cannot be opposed. As Herodotus said: “it is circumstances that rule men, not men who rule circumstances”.
Baston, J. (Spring 1997). Rehabilitating Moll’s Subversion in The Roaring Girl. Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, 317-335.
Charnon-Deutsch, L. (1991). The Sexual Economy in the Narrative of María de Zayas. Letras Femeninas, 15-28.
Herrmann, A. (1992). Imitations of Marriage: Crossdressed Couples in Contemporary Lesbian Fiction. Feminist Studies, 609-624.
Hill, D. B. (2005). Sexuality and Gender in Hirschfeld’s Die Transvestiten: A Case of the “Elusive Evidence of the Ordinary”. Journal of the History of Sexuality, 316-332.
Hill, R. (2011). “WE SHARE A SACRED SECRET”: GENDER, DOMESTICITY, AND CONTAINMENT IN “TRANSVESTIA’S HISTORIES” AND LETTERS FROM CROSSDRESSERS AND THEIR WIVES. Journal of Social History, 729-750.
Howard, J. E. (1988). Crossdressing, The Theatre, and Gender Struggle in Early Modern England. Shakespeare Quarterly, 418-440.
Murray, D. (2000). RE-MAPPING CARNIVAL: Gender, Sexuality and Power in a Martinican Festival. Social Analysis: The International Journal of Social and Cultural Practice, 103-112.
Peletz, M. G. (2006). Transgenderism and Gender Pluralism in Southeast Asia since Early Modern Times. Current Anthropology, 309-340.
Ross, M. B. (2000). Commentary: Pleasuring Identity, or the Delicious Politics of Belonging. New Literary History, 827-850.
Sedinger, T. (1997). “If Sight and Shape be True”: The Epistemology of Crossdressing on the London Stage . Shakespeare Quarterly, 63-79.
Wu, K. (2017). Ninety-Six Charts that will Make You Say “Yowza!”. NIAE Quarterly, 420-469.