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 Starlight View Post
    Why are you so determined to ignore the evidence and push your conclusion?
    Pot, meet kettle

    You started this conversation with your outright denial that transgender people had been present in historical North American cultures.
    Actually I started it by rejecting your rewriting of history about gender. Try to keep up

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      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.
      I was curious about whether perhaps they just cited the wrong volume, so I did a search of every volume for the word "opposite".

      So first to recap for people who didn't read the applicable page, Volume 57, Number 1 (February 1955) of the journal American Anthropologist had a brief article called "A Note on Berdache" (available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/665793 or if you want to look at it without having to register for anything, https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.w....57.1.02a00130). It offers the following quote:

      Thwaites (1899: 139), 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 if you look at its citation for Thwaites, it tells you:

      THWAITES, R. G. 1899 The Jesuit relations and allied documents. Vol. 59. Cleveland, A. H. Clark.

      However, if you look it up on archive.org:
      https://archive.org/details/jesuitre...e/138/mode/2up

      One sees that on page 139, nothing of the kind is said, nor does it seem said anywhere in that volume. So I thought that maybe they got the volume number wrong, and one can find every volume here:
      http://moses.creighton.edu/kripke/jesuitrelations/

      This does only provide the English translation, omitting the original language (as seen in the archive.org link, it was originally published with the original language on the left, and English on the right), but this should be sufficient for us. I went in and did a search for "opposite" on all 71 volumes; no relevant matches showed up.

      It is theoretically possible that there was a typo or something that made it so something marked "opposite" was rendered as something else, so it can't be completely ruled out... but I'm inclined at this point to believe that it was an error of citation of some sort. I wonder what citation was intended.

      Anyway, this isn't too much of a contribution to the topic, but since I did go through the extra attempt to look in every volume, I figured I might as well note the results of my attempt.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
        I was curious about whether perhaps they just cited the wrong volume, so I did a search of every volume for the word "opposite".

        So first to recap for people who didn't read the applicable page, Volume 57, Number 1 (February 1955) of the journal American Anthropologist had a brief article called "A Note on Berdache" (available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/665793 or if you want to look at it without having to register for anything, https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.w....57.1.02a00130). It offers the following quote:

        Thwaites (1899: 139), 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 if you look at its citation for Thwaites, it tells you:

        THWAITES, R. G. 1899 The Jesuit relations and allied documents. Vol. 59. Cleveland, A. H. Clark.

        However, if you look it up on archive.org:
        https://archive.org/details/jesuitre...e/138/mode/2up

        One sees that on page 139, nothing of the kind is said, nor does it seem said anywhere in that volume. So I thought that maybe they got the volume number wrong, and one can find every volume here:
        http://moses.creighton.edu/kripke/jesuitrelations/

        This does only provide the English translation, omitting the original language (as seen in the archive.org link, it was originally published with the original language on the left, and English on the right), but this should be sufficient for us. I went in and did a search for "opposite" on all 71 volumes; no relevant matches showed up.

        It is theoretically possible that there was a typo or something that made it so something marked "opposite" was rendered as something else, so it can't be completely ruled out... but I'm inclined at this point to believe that it was an error of citation of some sort. I wonder what citation was intended.

        Anyway, this isn't too much of a contribution to the topic, but since I did go through the extra attempt to look in every volume, I figured I might as well note the results of my attempt.
        Thanks. I similarly came up blank. Googling the cited text gives nothing either, so it's not likely a typo in the volume number or page number, since the entire collection of works by that author is scanned and online. I note the subsequent 1983 journal article I cited about Berdache, definitions and prevalence, doesn't make that same citation... presumably they couldn't source it either.
        "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 Dimbulb View Post
          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.

          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.

          On the contrary, some people in Paul's times mocked the Galli (the transgender state priests of Rome) for exactly this.
          They mocked the men for being effeminate and not because anybody believed that they 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


          • Meanwhile, our local school board has stopped responding to FOIA requests (Open Records or PIA) and is now clearly in violation of the law.
            I, along with the local newspaper, have filed official complaints with the Texas Attorney General's Office.

            The Newspaper asked for Salary information of the Administration team - the Superintendent responded that he would first have to "prepare his staff", and the Information Officer declined to answer saying it would "stir up trouble".

            My first reaction, "trouble for WHOM"? And why would you have to "prepare the staff"? For what, exactly?

            This could get fun.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              Meanwhile, our local school board has stopped responding to FOIA requests (Open Records or PIA) and is now clearly in violation of the law.
              I, along with the local newspaper, have filed official complaints with the Texas Attorney General's Office.

              The Newspaper asked for Salary information of the Administration team - the Superintendent responded that he would first have to "prepare his staff", and the Information Officer declined to answer saying it would "stir up trouble".

              My first reaction, "trouble for WHOM"? And why would you have to "prepare the staff"? For what, exactly?

              This could get fun.
              Keep their feet to the fire!
              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

                On the contrary, some people in Paul's times mocked the Galli (the transgender state priests of Rome) for exactly this.
                The Galli were eunuchs, you absolute weirdo. Literally nothing to do with transgender or your extremist nutjob obsession with rewriting history.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
                  The Galli were eunuchs
                  Indeed. Eunuchs are usually regarded by anthropologists today as a 3rd gender in those cultures that recognized them as a social category. Their contemporaries were not fully agreed on how to recognize them and some mock them for becoming women or wanting to.

                  They are an example of a gender change accompanied by a physical body change related to biological sex (castration), which is thus overall a fairly similar pattern to many transgender people in the present day.

                  you absolute weirdo.
                  Pot calling the kettle black.

                  Literally nothing to do with transgender or your extremist nutjob obsession with rewriting history.
                  Absolutely a lot to do with transgender. You do seem to be an extremist nutjob in your outright denial of history. If you are still absolutely denying reality with how native north american cultures treated transgenderism, I suggest you have a read of this anthopology paper which is the most thorough treatment of it I can find. If you can read that and still believe there wasn't transgenderism in native north american cultures, you could win olympic medals for the most reality denial in history.
                  "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

                    The Galli were eunuchs, you absolute weirdo. Literally nothing to do with transgender or your extremist nutjob obsession with rewriting history.
                    They were a religious group that castrated themselves and portrayed themselves as women. Some probably did have Gender Dysphoria but they weren't seen as equals in the eyes of the Romans like some people try to claim. Roman citizens were not allowed to become priests in this religion and they were seen as the antithesis of manhood and IIRC a mockery of women as well.

                    Many examples of "transgenders" in history rely on a relatively recent redefinition* of the term. Most people who are not on the far left use the term to refer to those with Gender Dysphoria who want to transition, are transitioning, or have transitioned. However, certain people are using the term to mean anyone who doesn't match conventional gender roles. There is only one person who meets the former definition that I've found in historical records offered by trans apologists, Elagabalus. The rest only match the latter definition which is too broad and includes groups like effeminate gay men, butch lesbians, tomboys, and many more that do not consider themselves "trans". There are certainly real transgender people in the historical record but the amount of dishonesty needed to prop up this movement is staggering.

                    *Or redefinitions of other terms in tandem with this. Like how certain people have tried to redefine the Hebrew terms for intersex, eunuchs, and barren women as "genders"..

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

                      They were a religious group that castrated themselves and portrayed themselves as women. Some probably did have Gender Dysphoria but they weren't seen as equals in the eyes of the Romans like some people try to claim. Roman citizens were not allowed to become priests in this religion and they were seen as the antithesis of manhood and IIRC a mockery of women as well.

                      Many examples of "transgenders" in history rely on a relatively recent redefinition* of the term. Most people who are not on the far left use the term to refer to those with Gender Dysphoria who want to transition, are transitioning, or have transitioned. However, certain people are using the term to mean anyone who doesn't match conventional gender roles. There is only one person who meets the former definition that I've found in historical records offered by trans apologists, Elagabalus. The rest only match the latter definition which is too broad and includes groups like effeminate gay men, butch lesbians, tomboys, and many more that do not consider themselves "trans". There are certainly real transgender people in the historical record but the amount of dishonesty needed to prop up this movement is staggering.

                      *Or redefinitions of other terms in tandem with this. Like how certain people have tried to redefine the Hebrew terms for intersex, eunuchs, and barren women as "genders"..
                      Yeah, no. They castrated themselves for ritual reasons. Not to make themselves women.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                        Indeed. Eunuchs are usually regarded by anthropologists today as a 3rd gender
                        No, they are not. At least not by any reputable anthropologist. There are certainly a number of transradical loons trying to rewrite history and reality to support their cause, though.

                        in those cultures that recognized them as a social category. Their contemporaries were not fully agreed on how to recognize them and some mock them for becoming women or wanting to.

                        They are an example of a gender change accompanied by a physical body change related to biological sex (castration), which is thus overall a fairly similar pattern to many transgender people in the present day.

                        Pot calling the kettle black.

                        Absolutely a lot to do with transgender. You do seem to be an extremist nutjob in your outright denial of history. If you are still absolutely denying reality with how native north american cultures treated transgenderism, I suggest you have a read of this anthopology paper which is the most thorough treatment of it I can find. If you can read that and still believe there wasn't transgenderism in native north american cultures, you could win olympic medals for the most reality denial in history.
                        No, they are not an example of any gender change. No gender changed. Nor was their ritual religious castration anything to do with changing their biological sex, you absolute nutjob.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                          Yeah, no. They castrated themselves for ritual reasons. Not to make themselves women.
                          That was the primary reason, yes. I think the Galli are a bad example to use because of this. However, I can see someone with Gender Dysphoria joining the religion because of what the rituals entailed. The evidence is too limited to rule that out as a possibility.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

                            That was the primary reason, yes. I think the Galli are a bad example to use because of this. However, I can see someone with Gender Dysphoria joining the religion because of what the rituals entailed. The evidence is too limited to rule that out as a possibility.
                            Rather, there is zero evidence that gender dysphoria has existed until quite recently, despite attempts by trans apologists to suggest otherwise with great grasping at straws involved.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                              Rather, there is zero evidence that gender dysphoria has existed until quite recently, despite attempts by trans apologists to suggest otherwise with great grasping at straws involved.
                              I doubt that human psychology has changed that much over history and believe it existed in the past as well. However, I understand why you would believe otherwise given the amount of revisionist history that is happening. Hypothetically, what would it take for you to believe that Gender Dysphoria existed much further in the past?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

                                I doubt that human psychology has changed that much over history and believe it existed in the past as well. However, I understand why you would believe otherwise given the amount of revisionist history that is happening. Hypothetically, what would it take for you to believe that Gender Dysphoria existed much further in the past?
                                I think human psychology has changed quite a bit. Just in the last 100 years alone.

                                It would take a decent bit of evidence, a lot of accounts that pretty explicitly describe something similar. cross-dressing, ritual/religious eunuchs, etc., don't come close to that. And then it would have to show it is distinct from something like homosexuality.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                7 responses
                                59 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                244 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                106 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                194 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                322 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X