I don’t think anyone believes genetic things like that did not exist in the past, but is that really trans in the modern meaning which I will admit Im not sure of exact definitions around it. I mean there are plenty of trans folks today that are genetically perfect xx or xy specimens.
Intersex people are individuals born with any of several sex characteristics including chromosome patterns, gonads, or genitals that do not fit the binary. Intersex folks are not inherently trans; but many were put through gender reassignment surgery post-birth and usually without their permission, so some do in fact, feel they are trans.
see its the use of some. some non intersex are trans to, no? so pointing to a historical body that is intersex does not necessarily correlate with historical trans.
I’m not sure I understand. Where did I say historically intersex bodies mean they’re trans? …are you talking about the grave found in Suontaka, Hattula in Finland? Because they did DNA testing and discovered the deceased had Klinefelter syndrome, which to very crudely summarize (and I apologize if I say this incorrectly) is someone mostly male-presenting with an additional copy of the X chromosome; so XXY instead of XY chromosomes. The deceased was dressed in female clothing of the time, and in the grave they found jewelry attributed to women in that time as well. That’s why they theorize the individual mighthave been trans as well.
yeah I feel its just mixing things though to point to these might have beens. The modern movement to me is individuals as adults (mostly) determining what their gender is which is defined as not the same as their sex. This is my understanding but im never really sure if I have something like this as you sorta have to belong to the culture to really understand it. I belong to my own and you will even get debate within a group about what it means to be part of it as cultures are almost constantly in a state of redefining even if core elements remain the same. So anyway the phrase there are examples of trans (presumably like the modern movement) having existed is different than the phrase there are examples where its theorized that trans individuals might have existed in history.
Trans individuals have been a thing since humans first existed. Historical texts are littered with references, and the history of LGBTQ+ is the same group fighting for rights since forever.
Many cultures feel it is perfectly normal, and considered it expected that some people presented as different than their biological sex.
It’s completely fictional that any gender or sexual minority is new or unique in the modern era.
I mean this gets complicated. Is cross dressing trans? Because cross dressers doesn’t necessarily identify as another sex. Where does an effiminate male stand or a tomboy? What does someone get labled if they identify but don’t otherwise want to take the trappings?
or be intersex. this is sorta been what at least part of this conversation has been about. I mentioned in another post but my understanding about modern trans would be a persons right to determine what their gender is which does not have to be the same as their sex. Im honestly not sure about my own understanding.
So then explain what you meant. Why is being trans before surgical augmentation going to be difficult, if you agree that you don’t need surgery to be trans. Make that make sense, cause it sounds like a transmedicalist shit take
It means there is little you can do about it at that point. Its like people dreamed of flight before planes but the dream was only realized once the technology was there.
trans before surgical augemtation is going to be a bit difficult
It means there is little you can do about it at that point
Not every trans person wants or needs surgery, we are not a monolith of gender. Yet once more you are insinuating that surgery is like some wright brothers fever dream. For some, just living and being accepted as their gender is the goal. Implying that without surgery, there’s little you can do about it, is fucking rude at best, and transmedicalist bullshit at worst. You admit you know very little, yet here you are telling trans people about their experience. You should stop now.
ok. you have to understand there was cross dressing for a long time. so it gets back to is cross dressing trans or whatnot and maybe in some cases but not in others. So if someone identifies as the opposite gender of their sex but does not emulate the gender in any way it sorta becomes moot. Its like just in their heart.
stop? that was the first mention and if you had any nuance you would see that what im saying is if a person is trans and takes no action to emulate their prefered gender then are they trans. Basically what is trans then. Can you define simply and succinctly.
well trans before surgical augemtation is going to be a bit difficult.
My guy, theres evidence of an intersex knight buried with great reverence in, I believe, Denmark, about 1000 years ago.
But what made the knight intersex? The clothing?
Brother, their genitals
You do know what intersex is, right?
I don’t think anyone believes genetic things like that did not exist in the past, but is that really trans in the modern meaning which I will admit Im not sure of exact definitions around it. I mean there are plenty of trans folks today that are genetically perfect xx or xy specimens.
I agree on that very much, but that’s not necessarily the point I was trying to make.
However, there were indeed trans people in the past my friend, who were perfectly xx or xy.
Intersex people are individuals born with any of several sex characteristics including chromosome patterns, gonads, or genitals that do not fit the binary. Intersex folks are not inherently trans; but many were put through gender reassignment surgery post-birth and usually without their permission, so some do in fact, feel they are trans.
see its the use of some. some non intersex are trans to, no? so pointing to a historical body that is intersex does not necessarily correlate with historical trans.
I’m not sure I understand. Where did I say historically intersex bodies mean they’re trans? …are you talking about the grave found in Suontaka, Hattula in Finland? Because they did DNA testing and discovered the deceased had Klinefelter syndrome, which to very crudely summarize (and I apologize if I say this incorrectly) is someone mostly male-presenting with an additional copy of the X chromosome; so XXY instead of XY chromosomes. The deceased was dressed in female clothing of the time, and in the grave they found jewelry attributed to women in that time as well. That’s why they theorize the individual might have been trans as well.
yeah I feel its just mixing things though to point to these might have beens. The modern movement to me is individuals as adults (mostly) determining what their gender is which is defined as not the same as their sex. This is my understanding but im never really sure if I have something like this as you sorta have to belong to the culture to really understand it. I belong to my own and you will even get debate within a group about what it means to be part of it as cultures are almost constantly in a state of redefining even if core elements remain the same. So anyway the phrase there are examples of trans (presumably like the modern movement) having existed is different than the phrase there are examples where its theorized that trans individuals might have existed in history.
Trans individuals have been a thing since humans first existed. Historical texts are littered with references, and the history of LGBTQ+ is the same group fighting for rights since forever.
Many cultures feel it is perfectly normal, and considered it expected that some people presented as different than their biological sex.
It’s completely fictional that any gender or sexual minority is new or unique in the modern era.
I mean this gets complicated. Is cross dressing trans? Because cross dressers doesn’t necessarily identify as another sex. Where does an effiminate male stand or a tomboy? What does someone get labled if they identify but don’t otherwise want to take the trappings?
and whataboutism rears its ugly head
ha true
what exactly am I whataboutisming about?
uh, you don’t need surgery to be trans
or be intersex. this is sorta been what at least part of this conversation has been about. I mentioned in another post but my understanding about modern trans would be a persons right to determine what their gender is which does not have to be the same as their sex. Im honestly not sure about my own understanding.
So then explain what you meant. Why is being trans before surgical augmentation going to be difficult, if you agree that you don’t need surgery to be trans. Make that make sense, cause it sounds like a transmedicalist shit take
It means there is little you can do about it at that point. Its like people dreamed of flight before planes but the dream was only realized once the technology was there.
Not every trans person wants or needs surgery, we are not a monolith of gender. Yet once more you are insinuating that surgery is like some wright brothers fever dream. For some, just living and being accepted as their gender is the goal. Implying that without surgery, there’s little you can do about it, is fucking rude at best, and transmedicalist bullshit at worst. You admit you know very little, yet here you are telling trans people about their experience. You should stop now.
ok. you have to understand there was cross dressing for a long time. so it gets back to is cross dressing trans or whatnot and maybe in some cases but not in others. So if someone identifies as the opposite gender of their sex but does not emulate the gender in any way it sorta becomes moot. Its like just in their heart.
Stop associating crossdressing with transgender people you fucking asshole
stop? that was the first mention and if you had any nuance you would see that what im saying is if a person is trans and takes no action to emulate their prefered gender then are they trans. Basically what is trans then. Can you define simply and succinctly.