Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Social Emotional Learning

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
    No, they didn't. Believing stories made up in the 90s to make trans people feel better just makes you look retarded
    Do you often find yourself in life putting your hands over your ears and rocking back and forth saying "la, la, la, can't hear this, it isn't happening"? Cos you really seem to be maxing out the reality denial.
    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
      No, they didn't. Believing stories made up in the 90s to make trans people feel better just makes you look retarded
      Encyclopedia Brittannica on this issue:

      The Jesuits recorded the observations [in North America] of numerous missionaries and traders who had witnessed men in women’s clothing, work roles, and sexual roles. ...anthropologists later applied the term berdache to American Indians who assumed the dress, social status, and role of the opposite sex.

      The arrival of Europeans in the Americas and the introduction of Christianity had a marked effect on berdache traditions and acceptance. Europeans viewed any gender variation outside of the male-female binary and any sexual practices and behaviours other than the culturally accepted relations between men and women as deviant. For them, the term berdache was one of judgment, one that condemned individuals who occupied those roles, as well as the cultures that accepted them. As colonization continued, berdache people and traditions were pushed out.

      Individuals labeled as “berdache” occupied what the Europeans considered to be sexually deviant roles. Initially, only biological men who adopted women’s social status, dress, and sexual roles were labeled as berdache. Although female berdaches also were present, they were not acknowledged and were later often overlooked by anthropologists.

      The term berdache was also applied to individuals who were anatomically different, such that they did not fit the European definition of male or female, and were judged as freaks of nature, monsters, and deviants. This classification of American Indians who were what would now be considered intersex (previously known as hermaphrodite) was continued by anthropologists.

      In American Indian cultures, many nations accepted the practice of multiple sex and gender roles.


      Are you going with "Jesuits didn't exist", or "anthropologists don't exist"? Or why not both?
      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • Gond,
        Just in case you go with "Encyclopedia Britannica is too modern and woke", here's a 1955 anthropology article from the Journal American Anthropologist, which in turn cites an anthropologist from 1899. Hopefully you agree 1955 or 1899 predate the woke agenda?

        The existence of berdaches [what we today would label a 'transgender person'] or transvestites [among North American native cultures] has been known for many years. The earliest travelers, explorers, and missionaries instanced the phenomenon...

        The term was first used, as far as we can discern, in an anthropological or quasi-anthropological sense by early French travelers and explorers, who used it to designate passive homosexuals, or, more specifically, those individuals who played a passive role to sodomy. Contaminating the classical picture, however, was the element of transvestism... The French found this contamination not only in southeastern North America but in the northeastern sector as well... But again there was the added feature, the assumption of feminine pursuits and feminine attire... An interest in feminine pursuits and transvestism came quite naturally to become associated with berdache. So much so, in fact, that in present-day ethnographic accounts transvestism and effeminacy have become synonymous with berdache... The literature is replete with accounts of berdache who are married... in many instances, to individuals of the same physiological sex...

        Thwaites ([in] 1899...), for instance, defines berdaches, also to be referred to as transvestites, “as those persons, male or female who, while still young, assume the dress and habits of the opposite sex and retain them throughout their lives.”

        Kroeber (1940: 209-10) characterizes berdache or transvestism in much the same manner. “In most of primitive Northern Asia and North America men of homosexual trends adopted women’s work and status and were accepted as non psychological, but institutionalized women.” Here there is mention of two criteria: social role and erotic object. Kroeber is not completely satisfied with the second of these for he goes on to say, “How far invert erotic practices accompanied the status is not always clear from the data and probably varied . . . at any rate, the North American attitude toward the berdache stresses not his erotic life, but his social status; born a male he became accepted as a woman socially.

        Is a 19th century anthropologist saying that some people in native North American societies "assume the dress and habits of the opposite sex and retain them throughout their lives" good enough for you? Or the anthropologists in 1955 noting that the historical literature is "replete" with accounts of same-sex marriages in native North American societies?
        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
          There is a female sex, and there is a female gender, and the two are not the same. One is a biological category, and one is a social category. The word female has two different meaning and so I am being unambiguous and explicit when I say in my definition that I am referring to "the female gender".
          So a female gender in no way is trying to emulating biological female markers? It is only emulating superficial cultural characteristics? So why all the surgeries and hormones then? Also does that make a gay drag queen a female gender?
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
            Oh, that's what's causing your weird statements?

            No, I am no referring to female as a sex in my definition. The definition literally said "the female gender". Not a sex: a gender.

            There is a female sex, and there is a female gender, and the two are not the same. One is a biological category, and one is a social category. The word female has two different meaning and so I am being unambiguous and explicit when I say in my definition that I am referring to "the female gender".

            And please don't follow up by pretending you can't mentally cope with words that can have more than one meaning. Lots of words in English do.

            Hopefully I have clarified this misunderstanding on your part. Female in English can have different meanings. It can be referring to the female sex, or it can be referring to the female gender. That is why in my definition I said "the female gender" to make absolutely clear I was referring to the female gender and not the female sex.

            I am denying "female" is a sex in the sense that in my post when I said the words "female gender", that is not a sex.

            It can be a sex designation or a gender designation depending on the context. You can have the female biological sex, and the female gender, and those two things are not the same.


            "Female" is inherently a sex designation. You even conceded "female gender" is by default for females. How do those who "transition" to "female gender" actually comport to "female gender"? HRT and SRS attempt to comport a male to being female both hormonally and phenotypically with breast implants and creating an open wound in their groin.

            If merely taking on the traditional roles of women and wearing traditional women clothes succeeded in gender transition, HRT and SRS would be unnecessary.

            Females "transitioning" similarly have double mastectomies to comport to how a male body looks. The very act "transitioning" subverts your idea of a "female gender" that is independent of biological sex.
            P1) If , then I win.

            P2)

            C) I win.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              So a female gender in no way is trying to emulating biological female markers?
              A female gender refers to social & behavioral characteristics.

              When you talk about "emulating biological female markers" I presume you're referring to medical interventions? There are a couple of ways you could think about those. One would be that the medical interventions are used when the person is suffering distress that their body isn't sufficiently similar to that of other people of their gender. It reduces their distress by increasing the physical similarities between themselves and others of their gender. The other way of thinking about it as altering the outward biological sex characteristics of their body to conform with the biological sex they would prefer to be. Probably there is diversity in how transgender people themselves conceptualize that process.

              It is only emulating superficial cultural characteristics?
              A "gender" refers to the superficial cultural characteristics, yes. It refers to things like styles of clothing (dress vs pants etc), types of speech used (e.g. he vs she), hair styles (e.g. long vs short), behavioral patterns etc.

              So why all the surgeries and hormones then?
              Obviously transgender people have existed for thousands of years in human societies that lacked the ability to perform any serious level of medical intervention. Getting any form of medical intervention is not an inherent part of being transgender.

              But the research does seem to show that in the present day a lot of transgender people do find it preferable to have medical interventions on their bodies.

              Also does that make a gay drag queen a female gender?
              Drag queens are not inherently gay. But, yes, a drag queen is performatively taking on the female gender for the duration of the drag event: That's pretty much what drag is by definition.
              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                A female gender refers to social & behavioral characteristics.

                The other way of thinking about it as altering the outward biological sex characteristics of their body to conform with the biological sex they would prefer to be. Probably there is diversity in how transgender people themselves conceptualize that process.
                Thank you for conceding it's about sex, not gender. Thank you for ending the charade.


                A "gender" refers to the superficial cultural characteristics, yes. It refers to things like styles of clothing (dress vs pants etc), types of speech used (e.g. he vs she), hair styles (e.g. long vs short),
                Are you saying men can't wear a dress or women can't wear pants? Can men not have long hair? Can women not have short hair?

                behavioral patterns etc.
                You mean like ones influenced by sex hormones?

                Obviously transgender people have existed for thousands of years in human societies that lacked the ability to perform any serious level of medical intervention. Getting any form of medical intervention is not an inherent part of being transgender.
                Those were more third genders than transgender. The didn't need medical intervention as they weren't trying to change their sex. Also, cultural appropriation. [Practically] No one currently is of those cultures.


                But the research does seem to show that in the present day a lot of transgender people do find it preferable to have medical interventions on their bodies.

                Because, as you've conceded, it's about sex, not gender.

                Drag queens are not inherently gay. But, yes, a drag queen is performatively taking on the female gender for the duration of the drag event: That's pretty much what drag is by definition.
                Historically, I would agree. In modern times, it's part of queer culture.
                Last edited by Diogenes; 03-18-2023, 06:31 AM.
                P1) If , then I win.

                P2)

                C) I win.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                  "Female" is inherently a sex designation.
                  It can be a sex designation and it can be a gender designation.

                  If you want to just say "nuh, uh, I refuse to acknowledge words can have any meanings with the ones I prefer" then I'm going to file you with the "gay means 'happy' and only 'happy' and absolutely doesn't mean 'homosexual'" nutbars from decades ago and cease this discussion.

                  You even conceded "female gender" is by default for females.
                  In our society we put people of the female sex into the female gender as our default yes. Social categories created by society, such as genders, are up to society to define.

                  How do those who "transition" to "female gender" actually comport to "female gender"?
                  In my observation they tend to change their mode of dress (e.g. to wearing a dress), change their name, change whether they prefer to be addressed as "she" or "he", change their hair style and makeup preferences, and potentially change the toilet they use.

                  HRT and SRS attempt to comport a male to being female both hormonally and phenotypically with breast implants and creating an open wound in their groin.
                  Indeed medical interventions attempt various bodily changes to change the visible manifestations of the person's sex.

                  If merely taking on the traditional roles of women and wearing traditional women clothes succeeded in gender transition, HRT and SRS would be unnecessary.
                  As I noted to seer, people were gender transitioning for thousands of years before any medical interventions were around.

                  One thing I would note that was historically more common in societies before medical transitions were around was more genders. Typically a person would move from their birth gender to a 3rd or 4th gender. e.g. the society would recognize "male", "female", "trans-man" and "trans-woman" as genders, so a male would transition to a trans-woman.

                  Modern Western society doesn't really have that. In the modern west a 'trans-woman' typically tries/wants to belong to the "female" gender rather than a "trans-woman" gender. I would say that in this modern West this probably motivates and is connected to the idea of having medical interventions to change the body. They want to look like others of their female gender. Whereas if they were just in a 'trans-woman' gender, they would already look like others of their gender. I obviously can't speak to the minds and motives of every transgender person and they probably have a diverse set of reasons and ideas, but it's generally my thought that our fairly strict two-gender culture in the modern West is connected to the desire for medical interventions among transgender people, and that if we were in a culture that had more genders then people might be happier being transgender without feeling a need for medical physical changes.

                  The very act "transitioning" subverts your idea of a "female gender" that is independent of biological sex.
                  No.

                  As I said above, there are at least a couple of different ways of thinking about it. The person could think about it as wanting to look physically more similar to others of their gender. Or they could think about it as they really wishing they were the other biological sex and think about it as wanting to change their bodies to be as much like that biological sex as possible. And, of course, alternative a transgender person could simply never undergo any physical medical interventions at all, as was the case of transgender people in human cultures for the last thousands of years since before modern medicine they just didn't have the option.
                  "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                  "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                  "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    Encyclopedia Brittannica on this issue:

                    The Jesuits recorded the observations [in North America] of numerous missionaries and traders who had witnessed men in women’s clothing, work roles, and sexual roles. ...anthropologists later applied the term berdache to American Indians who assumed the dress, social status, and role of the opposite sex.

                    The arrival of Europeans in the Americas and the introduction of Christianity had a marked effect on berdache traditions and acceptance. Europeans viewed any gender variation outside of the male-female binary and any sexual practices and behaviours other than the culturally accepted relations between men and women as deviant. For them, the term berdache was one of judgment, one that condemned individuals who occupied those roles, as well as the cultures that accepted them. As colonization continued, berdache people and traditions were pushed out.

                    Individuals labeled as “berdache” occupied what the Europeans considered to be sexually deviant roles. Initially, only biological men who adopted women’s social status, dress, and sexual roles were labeled as berdache. Although female berdaches also were present, they were not acknowledged and were later often overlooked by anthropologists.

                    The term berdache was also applied to individuals who were anatomically different, such that they did not fit the European definition of male or female, and were judged as freaks of nature, monsters, and deviants. This classification of American Indians who were what would now be considered intersex (previously known as hermaphrodite) was continued by anthropologists.

                    In American Indian cultures, many nations accepted the practice of multiple sex and gender roles.


                    Are you going with "Jesuits didn't exist", or "anthropologists don't exist"? Or why not both?
                    You.... do understand berdache essentially means boy prostitute/reciever of Sodomy, right? And that it has not a thing to do with gender but rather stereotypical "effeminate" homosexuals, right?

                    And you do know that intersex has nothing to do with transgenderism, right? And that a so-called third gender would be the opposite of transgenderism (which works on a binary and claims that one can change one's gender to the other), right?

                    And that Jesuits making second hand recordings of observations of other people who dont understand a foreign culture or what men and women's clothing in that culture are, is a pretty weak argument, right?

                    You seem to be talking out your bum and frantically googling.
                    Last edited by Gondwanaland; 03-18-2023, 06:51 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                      It can be a sex designation and it can be a gender designation.

                      If you want to just say "nuh, uh, I refuse to acknowledge words can have any meanings with the ones I prefer" then I'm going to file you with the "gay means 'happy' and only 'happy' and absolutely doesn't mean 'homosexual'" nutbars from decades ago and cease this discussion.

                      I understand shifting definitions, but, as you have conceded to seer, it's about sex. Furthermore, logically, it's about sex otherwise HRT and SRS would not be considered "effective treatment".

                      In our society we put people of the female sex into the female gender as our default yes. Social categories created by society, such as genders, are up to society to define.
                      Because in our society, gender is based on sex.


                      In my observation they tend to change their mode of dress (e.g. to wearing a dress), change their name, change whether they prefer to be addressed as "she" or "he", change their hair style and makeup preferences, and potentially change the toilet they use.
                      Who is to say men can't wear dresses, or at least skirts? The Scots have the kilt, for example. Have you never seen Fabio's hair?

                      Indeed medical interventions attempt various bodily changes to change the visible manifestations of the person's sex.
                      Which is not gender. Again, thank you for conceding it's about sex, gender.


                      As I noted to seer, people were gender transitioning for thousands of years before any medical interventions were around.
                      Medical invention is only to change sex, not gender.


                      One thing I would note that was historically more common in societies before medical transitions were around was more genders. Typically a person would move from their birth gender to a 3rd or 4th gender. e.g. the society would recognize "male", "female", "trans-man" and "trans-woman" as genders, so a male would transition to a trans-woman.

                      Yes, different genders. Actually being "transgender" would not require medical intervention.



                      Modern Western society doesn't really have that. In the modern west a 'trans-woman' typically tries/wants to belong to the "female" gender rather than a "trans-woman" gender. I would say that in this modern West this probably motivates and is connected to the idea of having medical interventions to change the body. They want to look like others of their female gender. Whereas if they were just in a 'trans-woman' gender, they would already look like others of their gender. I obviously can't speak to the minds and motives of every transgender person and they probably have a diverse set of reasons and ideas, but it's generally my thought that our fairly strict two-gender culture in the modern West is connected to the desire for medical interventions among transgender people, and that if we were in a culture that had more genders then people might be happier being transgender without feeling a need for medical physical changes.
                      Again, one cannot look like a "female gender", but merely look like female as the biological sex.


                      As I said above, there are at least a couple of different ways of thinking about it. The person could think about it as wanting to look physically more similar to others of their gender. Or they could think about it as they really wishing they were the other biological sex and think about it as wanting to change their bodies to be as much like that biological sex as possible. And, of course, alternative a transgender person could simply never undergo any physical medical interventions at all, as was the case of transgender people in human cultures for the last thousands of years since before modern medicine they just didn't have the option.


                      Again, gender does not have a physicality as it regard social conventions. Attempts to be more like the female sex a subvert the independence of gender from sex.
                      P1) If , then I win.

                      P2)

                      C) I win.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                        Thank you for conceding it's about sex, not gender. Thank you for ending the charade.
                        Please stop lying. I did not concede any such thing. If you have no interest at all in truth, there isn't much point in any discussions.

                        If you want to make a logical argument that something I said in some way has an implication that leads to that conclusion, you can by all means make it and I will show you why it fails. But your basic attitude of "Starlight, you posted your argument against my position, I will respond by declaring you conceded to my position" is just lying.

                        Are you saying men can't wear a dress or women can't wear pants? Can men not have long hair? Can women not have short hair?
                        The culture has an overall behavioral pattern for people in various groups. Obviously individuals can deviate from typical behaviors, and often do in small way.

                        If an individual deliberately and consistently switches to a pattern of behavior which matches to a group they aren't/weren't in, then perhaps they have switched groups. Obviously it's a matter of cultural understanding and individual intention as to whether they have switched groups, whether they are doing it for parody or insult purposes, etc.

                        behavioral patterns
                        You mean like ones influenced by sex hormones?
                        No. It's things like the jobs that culture allows that gender to do, social roles that that gender takes etc.

                        Those were more third genders than transgender.
                        I don't know what that statement is supposed to mean. Third genders is transgender: People who wanted to, changed their gender to another gender. That was what the social construct of more than two genders enabled.

                        The didn't need medical intervention as they weren't trying to change their sex.
                        Changing their sex wasn't an option to them. Had the technology been available to them, they may have chosen to use it.

                        Also, cultural appropriation.
                        That's not an argument.

                        Because, as you've conceded, it's about sex, not gender.
                        Final warning, any more lies that I've "conceded" etc, and this conversation will end. You can make arguments for your position. But don't lie about whether I've "conceded" something when I absolutely and abundantly clearly have not.

                        In modern times, [drag]'s part of queer culture.
                        That kind of assumes there's a single queer culture. Drag is much much bigger in the US than it is in my country.
                        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                          Gond,
                          Just in case you go with "Encyclopedia Britannica is too modern and woke", here's a 1955 anthropology article from the Journal American Anthropologist, which in turn cites an anthropologist from 1899. Hopefully you agree 1955 or 1899 predate the woke agenda?

                          The existence of berdaches [what we today would label a 'transgender person'] or transvestites [among North American native cultures] has been known for many years. The earliest travelers, explorers, and missionaries instanced the phenomenon...

                          The term was first used, as far as we can discern, in an anthropological or quasi-anthropological sense by early French travelers and explorers, who used it to designate passive homosexuals, or, more specifically, those individuals who played a passive role to sodomy. Contaminating the classical picture, however, was the element of transvestism... The French found this contamination not only in southeastern North America but in the northeastern sector as well... But again there was the added feature, the assumption of feminine pursuits and feminine attire... An interest in feminine pursuits and transvestism came quite naturally to become associated with berdache. So much so, in fact, that in present-day ethnographic accounts transvestism and effeminacy have become synonymous with berdache... The literature is replete with accounts of berdache who are married... in many instances, to individuals of the same physiological sex...

                          Thwaites ([in] 1899...), for instance, defines berdaches, also to be referred to as transvestites, “as those persons, male or female who, while still young, assume the dress and habits of the opposite sex and retain them throughout their lives.”

                          Kroeber (1940: 209-10) characterizes berdache or transvestism in much the same manner. “In most of primitive Northern Asia and North America men of homosexual trends adopted women’s work and status and were accepted as non psychological, but institutionalized women.” Here there is mention of two criteria: social role and erotic object. Kroeber is not completely satisfied with the second of these for he goes on to say, “How far invert erotic practices accompanied the status is not always clear from the data and probably varied . . . at any rate, the North American attitude toward the berdache stresses not his erotic life, but his social status; born a male he became accepted as a woman socially.

                          Is a 19th century anthropologist saying that some people in native North American societies "assume the dress and habits of the opposite sex and retain them throughout their lives" good enough for you? Or the anthropologists in 1955 noting that the historical literature is "replete" with accounts of same-sex marriages in native North American societies?
                          Your.... your 19th century quote is literally talking about gay people, you dimbulb

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                            You.... do understand berdache essentially means boy prostitute/reciever of Sodomy, right? And that it has not a thing to do with gender but rather stereotypical "effeminate" homosexuals, right?

                            And you do know that intersex has nothing to do with transgenderism, right? And that a so-called third gender would be the opposite of transgenderism (which works on a binary and claims that one can change one's gender to the other), right?

                            And that Jesuits making second hand recordings of observations of other people who dont understand a foreign culture or what men and women's clothing in that culture are, is a pretty weak argument, right?

                            You seem to be talking out your bum and frantically googling.
                            It's strange how the left typically hates cultural appropriation or the medical-industrial complex, unless it's about destroying "traditional" notions.
                            P1) If , then I win.

                            P2)

                            C) I win.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                              Please stop lying. I did not concede any such thing. If you have no interest at all in truth, there isn't much point in any discussions.

                              If you want to make a logical argument that something I said in some way has an implication that leads to that conclusion, you can by all means make it and I will show you why it fails. But your basic attitude of "Starlight, you posted your argument against my position, I will respond by declaring you conceded to my position" is just lying.

                              The culture has an overall behavioral pattern for people in various groups. Obviously individuals can deviate from typical behaviors, and often do in small way.

                              If an individual deliberately and consistently switches to a pattern of behavior which matches to a group they aren't/weren't in, then perhaps they have switched groups. Obviously it's a matter of cultural understanding and individual intention as to whether they have switched groups, whether they are doing it for parody or insult purposes, etc.

                              No. It's things like the jobs that culture allows that gender to do, social roles that that gender takes etc.

                              I don't know what that statement is supposed to mean. Third genders is transgender: People who wanted to, changed their gender to another gender. That was what the social construct of more than two genders enabled.

                              Changing their sex wasn't an option to them. Had the technology been available to them, they may have chosen to use it.

                              That's not an argument.

                              Final warning, any more lies that I've "conceded" etc, and this conversation will end. You can make arguments for your position. But don't lie about whether I've "conceded" something when I absolutely and abundantly clearly have not.

                              That kind of assumes there's a single queer culture. Drag is much much bigger in the US than it is in my country.
                              I don't expect you to willingly and openly concede, you seem too invested. I've quoted tacit concessions on your part. If you wish to end the conversation because I've point out your tacit concessions, that's fine, it does not change the fact attempts by individuals to attempt to comport to the opposite sex undermines the narrative of a "female gender" distinct from sex, especially as being "transgender.
                              P1) If , then I win.

                              P2)

                              C) I win.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
                                You.... do understand berdache essentially means boy prostitute/reciever of Sodomy, right?
                                It was a word invented to refer to the transgenderism and homosexuality the earlier missionaries observed in North America among native tribes. The word was later used in Europe with an altered meaning, namely the one you give. However, anthropologists continued to use it as a technical term referring to the transgenderism present in North American native cultures.

                                And that it has not a thing to do with gender but rather stereotypical "effeminate" homosexuals, right?
                                Wrong. In anthropological use it referred to transgenderism. Literally in a post above I gave a definition from an anthropologist:
                                "Thwaites ([in] 1899...), for instance, defines berdaches, also to be referred to as transvestites, “as those persons, male or female who, while still young, assume the dress and habits of the opposite sex and retain them throughout their lives.”"


                                And you do know that intersex has nothing to do with transgenderism, right?
                                I wouldn't go so far as to say "nothing to do". There is some overlap of interests between transgender and intersex people. Both benefit from the lack of two strict unchangeable genders.

                                [quote\And that a so-called third gender would be the opposite of transgenderism (which works on a binary and claims that one can change one's gender to the other), right?[/quote]Nope. Third gender is a social mechanism to allow people to change their gender. If a transgender person today had been born into such a society, they would transition to the third (or fourth) gender.

                                And that Jesuits making second hand recordings of observations of other people who dont understand a foreign culture or what men and women's clothing in that culture are, is a pretty weak argument, right?
                                The Jesuits were quite thorough recorders about the cultures they were trying to evangelize into. Their sect has a religious duty to make reports of their observations, and their religious doctrine emphasized looking at the culture to find creative methods of evangelism that were suited to that particular culture, so they were quite keen cultural observers.

                                Plus, y'know, it's not like the native North American cultures were anything particularly unique in this regard. The stuff the Jesuits observed about their transgender and homosexual practices was similarly observed by many different explorers across Africa and Asia too. Most human cultures seem to have had the same 3rd/4th gender constructs to allow people to change gender, and subsequently to have same-sex marriages if they wished. Europe was actually the outlier in regard to having quite a strict two-genders, heterosexual-only culture.
                                "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                                "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                                "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                180 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                417 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                87 responses
                                395 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Working...
                                X