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
    Your.... your 19th century quote is literally talking about gay people, you dimbulb
    Nope. It's transgender people.


    PS if you read the full 1955 article I cited earlier there's quite lengthy discussion in it about whether berdache is gay people or transgender people or whether the terms are being conflated etc. The conclusion is basically that all the anthropologists agree it is transgender people and not gay people. The quote from the 19th century anthropologist is agreeing it's transgender people.
    Last edited by Starlight; 03-18-2023, 07:17 AM.
    "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 Diogenes View Post
      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.
      Clearly you think physical medical interventions somehow prove that transgenderism and sex are connected. If you have some sort of clear argument for your position I suggest you make it.

      If the sum total of your argument is "Medical inventions. QED. Therefore I'm right. Therefore you've conceded." well, um...
      I don't know if you've ever heard of the concept of spelling out premises and showing how a conclusion is derived from them, but you could sure benefit from learning about it.
      "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 Diogenes View Post
        It's strange how the left typically hates cultural appropriation
        I think you're overgeneralizing. As a local TWeb leftist I can say that I've never called something 'cultural appropriation' and don't give two hoots if something is. Cultures borrow stuff all the time from other cultures as a matter of course.

        or the medical-industrial complex
        Do you mean "military-industrial complex", or "big pharma"? I've never heard the term "medical-industrial" complex.

        unless it's about destroying "traditional" notions.
        I literally have no clue what point you are trying to make. Destroying traditional notions?
        "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
          Clearly you think physical medical interventions somehow prove that transgenderism and sex are connected. If you have some sort of clear argument for your position I suggest you make it.

          If the sum total of your argument is "Medical inventions. QED. Therefore I'm right. Therefore you've conceded." well, um...
          I don't know if you've ever heard of the concept of spelling out premises and showing how a conclusion is derived from them, but you could sure benefit from learning about it.
          Medical intervention that attempts to comport an individual to the opposite sex is all the evidence needed. Assuming it was merely about "gender", attempting to comport to the opposite sex would be unnecessary. It's also why attempt to use other cultures to justify medical intervention fail as they didn't need medical intervention because, for those cultures, it had nothing to do with sex. I've stated this multiple times. The very fact that medical intervention is recommended is all the proof I need.
          P1) If , then I win.

          P2)

          C) I win.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Dimbulb 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?
            Used to be that those kinds of people were simply referred to as cross dressers. For that matter, men taking on the appearance of women was common enough even in the first century that the Apostle Paul explicitly forbade the practice (1 Corinthians 11). But nobody until very recently was under any delusion that such men were actually women.
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              It was a word invented to refer to the transgenderism and homosexuality the earlier missionaries observed in North America among native tribes.
              no, it was not.


              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.

              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.”"
              Again, effeminate gays.
              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.
              no, there isn't.
              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.
              er, no. As we see today with 72+ genders, transgender people are only interested in changing between the male/female binary and altering their sex characteristics with it.
              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.
              Your own link said the jesuits made second hand recordings of observations of traders, you braindead twit

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                Nope. It's transgender people.


                PS if you read the full 1955 article I cited earlier there's quite lengthy discussion in it about whether berdache is gay people or transgender people or whether the terms are being conflated etc. The conclusion is basically that all the anthropologists agree it is transgender people and not gay people. The quote from the 19th century anthropologist is agreeing it's transgender people.
                No. Your quote from the 19th century literally described gay people. But to transradicals like yourself, you can't see anything but trans everywhere you look

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                  Medical intervention that attempts to comport an individual to the opposite sex is all the evidence needed.
                  Let's imagine I'm a skeptic, and need just a teeny little bit more evidence.

                  Can you improve on "SRS exists, QED, whatever's in my head about sex and gender is totally definitely true, and btw in my mind you've totally conceded."?

                  Assuming it was merely about "gender", attempting to comport to the opposite sex would be unnecessary.
                  What is the "it" there exactly? Every transgender person's beliefs worldwide about gender identity? They're not all going to be the same. Some people transition, others don't. Does that imply they have underlying differences in their conceptions of sex and gender? Maybe? I have no idea. But I don't think the observation that some people like to transition proves anything at all about sex or gender.

                  It's also why attempt to use other cultures to justify medical intervention fail as they didn't need medical intervention because, for those cultures, it had nothing to do with sex. I've stated this multiple times.
                  It hasn't got any more convincing with repetition. You seem to be projecting your own views and ideas onto other people and cultures, and I don't really personally see any reason to think they necessarily thought the way you do or held ways of conceiving things that you seem to want to assume they did.

                  The very fact that medical intervention is recommended is all the proof I need.
                  Recommended by who? Why does someone making a recommendation prove something? If I say: "I recommend you make better arguments". Would my saying that prove something? Is it "all the proof [you] need"? Did I concede (yet again?) by saying that?
                  "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. Your quote from the 19th century literally described gay people. But to transradicals like yourself, you can't see anything but trans everywhere you look


                    You're so wrong it's quite funny.

                    Btw, I would say I'm fairly conservative on transgender issues: Were I to ever meet a trans person and have a conversation with them about their transitioning I would try to encourage them in the direction of doing as little transitioning (both socially and medically) as they could without excessive distress on their part and only proceed with transitioning if they absolutely felt it was totally necessary. To be clear, I would recommend this course to them out of love to try to maximize their own mental wellbeing because I think society tends to be a bit nasty toward trans people, and some of the side-effects of medical interventions are a bit nasty etc, not because I'm 'against' trans people. It's not come up because I've never knowingly had a conservation with a trans person. A friend has recently had one of their kids come out as trans (I'm not well acquainted with the kid) and this week I have been pondering talking to the friend (who I have reason to suspect is a bit more 'encourage trans people to transition' than I am) to try to suggest they be a bit less supportive of the transitioning process cos the kid is on the spectrum and there's some research showing such cases should be treated very cautiously.

                    But I'm not 'conservative' on transgender issues in the full blown deny-reality sense that US conservatives seem to be, which seems to run the full gamut from "no one can be trans" to "no one in history has ever been trans" to "if anyone is trans, they shouldn't be allowed to transition" to "society should ban trans people". Instead I acknowledge the reality that throughout history in all societies, there have been people who were dissatisfied with their gender, and there have been people who were dissatisfied with their bodies, and that many cultures have offered people the option of changing gender, and that in the present day some medical technologies allow us to make bodily changes in ways that seem to make some people happier.
                    "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 Mountain Man View Post
                      Used to be that those kinds of people were simply referred to as cross dressers.
                      Back when the average Western citizen was pretty ignorant of any societies other than their own, they didn't really have words to describe things outside their experience. So yeah, back in the stupid old days, they didn't have the words for things they do now, and had to make do with what they had.

                      For that matter, men taking on the appearance of women was common enough even in the first century that the Apostle Paul explicitly forbade the practice (1 Corinthians 11).
                      I doubt that passage is talking about crossdressing. Notably very few churches today follow its instructions to have women wear something over their head when praying.

                      But nobody until very recently was under any delusion that such men were actually women.
                      On the contrary, some people in Paul's times mocked the Galli (the transgender state priests of Rome) for exactly this.
                      "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


                        You're so wrong it's quite funny.

                        Btw, I would say I'm fairly conservative on transgender issues: Were I to ever meet a trans person and have a conversation with them about their transitioning I would try to encourage them in the direction of doing as little transitioning (both socially and medically) as they could without excessive distress on their part and only proceed with transitioning if they absolutely felt it was totally necessary. To be clear, I would recommend this course to them out of love to try to maximize their own mental wellbeing because I think society tends to be a bit nasty toward trans people, and some of the side-effects of medical interventions are a bit nasty etc, not because I'm 'against' trans people. It's not come up because I've never knowingly had a conservation with a trans person. A friend has recently had one of their kids come out as trans (I'm not well acquainted with the kid) and this week I have been pondering talking to the friend (who I have reason to suspect is a bit more 'encourage trans people to transition' than I am) to try to suggest they be a bit less supportive of the transitioning process cos the kid is on the spectrum and there's some research showing such cases should be treated very cautiously.

                        But I'm not 'conservative' on transgender issues in the full blown deny-reality sense that US conservatives seem to be, which seems to run the full gamut from "no one can be trans" to "no one in history has ever been trans" to "if anyone is trans, they shouldn't be allowed to transition" to "society should ban trans people". Instead I acknowledge the reality that throughout history in all societies, there have been people who were dissatisfied with their gender, and there have been people who were dissatisfied with their bodies, and that many cultures have offered people the option of changing gender, and that in the present day some medical technologies allow us to make bodily changes in ways that seem to make some people happier.
                        Nice rant. Still doesn't change your 19th century quote from being about homosexuals.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
                          Nice rant. Still doesn't change your 19th century quote from being about homosexuals.
                          LOL. It's clearly not. If you read that definition and think "homosexual" rather than "transgender" then I have to say I think you literally don't know what those words mean.

                          I guess I could go to the effort of trying to find the original 1899 text and checking from the context to be really really sure about the meaning... but if I did that, is there even a 1% chance you would change your mind? I'm thinking not.
                          "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
                            LOL. It's clearly not. If you read that definition and think "homosexual" rather than "transgender" then I have to say I think you literally don't know what those words mean.

                            I guess I could go to the effort of trying to find the original 1899 text and checking from the context to be really really sure about the meaning... but if I did that, is there even a 1% chance you would change your mind? I'm thinking not.
                            Well on the plus side the cited 1899 source is scanned and online on multiple sites. On the minus side the citation actually seems to be wrong, and page 139 in volume 59 (!) of the work does not contain the cited text. Searching the words in the quote gets me no hits, so I am unsure what is wrong, but I think the writers have totally mucked up their citation and I can't find the original quote.

                            In general I will say that if you want to be very sure that anthropologists meant 'transgender' and not 'homosexual' when they talk about berdaches, have a look at this 1983 anthropology journal article:
                            THE BERDACHE among North American Indians may be roughly defined as a person, usually male, who was anatomically normal but assumed the dress, occupations, and behavior of the other sex to effect a change in gender status...

                            The terminology for berdaches defined them as a distinct gender status, designated by special terms rather than by the words "man" or "woman." Literal translations of these terms often indicate its intermediate nature: halfman-halfwoman (Grinnell 1962, vol. 2:39), man-woman (Bowers 1965:167), would-be woman (Powers 1977:38)...

                            The berdache status is occasionally confused with other conditions that partly resembled it. These include forcing female dress upon males who showed extreme cowardice in warfare; homosexuality; and hermaphroditism...

                            Evidence for homosexual activity [among other natives] unrelated to this status is abundant...[hence berdache wasn't meaning homosexual]...

                            Berdaches were often confounded with intersexual persons. Early observers who called them hermaphrodites sometimes assumed they were truly intersexual... Font... recorded his original impression that Yuma berdaches were intersexed and his later discovery of the error. Stevenson... suggested that observers may have misunderstood such native terms as "halfman-halfwoman." One factor in the persistence of the hermaphrodite label may have been doubt about an alternative. Denig... applied it to Crow berdaches even while pointing out that they were defined by their behavior rather than their anatomy...

                            Some cultures clearly separated the two statuses [berdaches and intersex]. Mead's... account of a boy who was classed as a berdache only after he was determined to be anatomically male indicates that the Omaha made such a distinction. Other cultures blurred the line by assigning berdaches and intersexes to the same status... The Navaho treated them as a single category but linguistically separated intersexes ("real nadle") from berdaches ("those who pretend to be nadle") and prescribed somewhat different rules of behavior for them...

                            The transformation of a berdache was not a complete shift from his or her biological gender to the opposite one, but rather an approximation of the latter in some of its social aspects, effecting an intermediate gender status that cut across the boundaries between gender categories. A male berdache, who might be referred to as "she," could be called a man... but not a woman...


                            I see they also note:
                            The Mohave openly ridiculed their male berdaches for insisting that female terms be used for their sexual organs and for their simulations of menstruation, pregnancy, and childbirth and taunted female berdaches for lacking penises...
                            I guess conservative responses to transgender people haven't changed much in a couple of hundred years!
                            "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
                              LOL. It's clearly not. If you read that definition and think "homosexual" rather than "transgender" then I have to say I think you literally don't know what those words mean.

                              I guess I could go to the effort of trying to find the original 1899 text and checking from the context to be really really sure about the meaning... but if I did that, is there even a 1% chance you would change your mind? I'm thinking not.
                              "“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.”" That's literally a 19th century description of an effeminate gay man, my dude.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
                                "“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.”" That's literally a 19th century description of an effeminate gay man, my dude.
                                Why are you so determined to ignore the evidence and push your conclusion?

                                You started this conversation with your outright denial that transgender people had been present in historical North American cultures. And now, no matter how many quotes from anthropologists I give you that say otherwise, you're ignoring them all, have laser focused on this one (which appears to be a wrong citation anyway) and are really clearly obsessively misinterpreting it to say something other than it says, and just vehemently ignoring all the other evidence.

                                What is wrong with you? Why are you so vigorously determined to refuse to believe the basic reality on this issue that native North American cultures had rich traditions of transgenderism? It is just a reality you're psychologically unprepared to accept? It seems like you're okay with accepting the existence of effeminate gay men, but not of transgender people. That strikes me as a bit weird. Why? What's happened to you that that makes you think transgender people can't have existed but gay people can?
                                "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, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                148 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                395 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                113 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                365 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X