The costs of trans visibility

Right, we’ll it’s not an on/off switch of those past cultures got it wrong and now we the enlightened 21st century people are perfectly right. For example the hirjas- indias ancient third gender group, when modern day hirjas move to a place like America they often ( not always) Identify as transgender. I think Hirjas has an interesting history and the ideas of the hirjas as a third gender with amazing blessing powers are interesting. While I would say it is much more correct to say that hirjas are actually just transgender people and intersex people, I don’t think they are “wrong” about this in india. I think they correctly observed non-binary and transgender people in ancient times and made a valid ish social group out of them but influenced by vedic religions, and a patriarchal ancient society.

Even though I don’t think the ancient vedic scriptures show some divine understanding about gender and sex, I still think they prove that indians observed non-binary genders long long ago and that they had their own needs.

man eunuchs are men with their dick cut off, literally, it's not a social construct lol nor it is "innate". Why are eunuchs in the list.

some ancient cultures basically called people “eunuchs “ who shouldn’t have been “eunuchs” it is an abusive social grouping given to non binary people in some ancient cultures. I don’t mean to say modern day eunuchs in that sentence. I’m talking about some messed up ancient ideas about what “eunuchs” were

Man no, they weren't using eunuch (or it's translation in their language) to mean anything other than castrated men, used in various ways.

Some people think it was mostly to guard harems (at least to begin with) but i think it was more about guaranteeing those people would have been exempt from any risk of nepotism, so you could give them significant power risking far less (nepotism was one of the great motivating forces for power upheavel, betrayal and so on, in societies with short lifespans especially).

I really don't understand how you can claim eunuchs, ie groups of men being castrated, have anything to do with gender identity or sexual preference.

At most, according to some, given the very specific roles usually given to the castrated men, the word might originally have meant those roles ("guardian of the bed") and then by metonymy it ended up meaning "castrated man".

Anyway absolutely nada to do with gender or any innate characteristic

What do words mean? You should have talked to me enough by now to know I would know that a eunuch refers to a castrated men and not a gender identity. Of course I know that. I’m talking about ancient perceptions and stories in regards to gender.

Similarly, under any kind of modern conception “guys destined by god to suck semen” isn’t a gender identity or a sexual orientation. In fact out of context and under any kind of modern usage it’s quite a homophobic thing to say. Of course I know that.
However, there exists ancient text that describe a class of guys destined by god to suck semen, and I think it’s important to let texts speak for themselves. Clearly a high school teacher or bro history pod cast tier kind of person would read these stories and assume they were referring to gay men through a biased narrator. Which I ultimately think is correct, my best guess based on these texts is that although that culture didn’t have a clear concept of gay some flawed narrator described some effeminate gay men’s actions. But that’s not necessarily what those texts mean. In any case they were describing a class of people by the authors conception based on sexual acts in the context of his ancient culture. And they confirm non heterosexual activity took place back then.

It’s funny because you yourself are guilty of lumping gender identity and sexual orientation together earlier in this thread by insisting most trans women are gay guys lured into the lifestyle by their teachers. now multiply that by 1000 times worth of ignorance based on ancient resources.

Nevertheless these texts still show the existence of the lgbtq spectrum.

Yes i am talking about "ancient" (past) societies as well. They were simply that, eunuchs, treated differently than other people because their specific mutilation made them different.

Still nothing to do with gender.

The "guy who suck semen" thing instead can quite easily be translated with what we call homosexuality now, i agree.

We do indeed have plenty of evidence for homosexuality in the past , especially because it wasn't even necessarily frowned upon too much here and there historically.

Fact is there is no "non binary" today, it is a meaningless label today, in order to find references to what is today a complete invention you need to simply apply the same invention to the past.

It's hard to find proof in the past of something that doesn't exist today lol. There is no "spectrum" for sex. And there is no gender, there is only sex, and a few people who don't feel inside them they are of their biological sex.

So basically you don’t believe in :

Trans people
Gender
Non-binary people
Intersex people

You also missed my entire point in regards to those ancient conceptions.

In that case you won’t get much from my posts here.

? I believe something close to what you and activists call trans exist. I believe you use gender in that case to mean a biological male (or female) to think he or she is the opposite sex.

I know "intersex" people exist same as people with less or more than 5 fingers exist, and their existence doesn't make us a species with a spectrum of fingers.

I disagree more than 2 genders exist because gender is just sex, and it's biological, and it's a binary.

Not sure what i missed about those ancient conceptions. People had bizzarre sexual preferences, cloth choices and so on all throughout history (and in the present) , that doesn't translate into "non binary exists" today or yesterday.

Because non binary means literally nothing.

lol, going hard in the paint to defend murdering savages who beat a child's skull in, why am I not surprised?

Nope, and when you realize who those people are, you probably understand that the literal opposite is happening.

If after 12 days we have no info on them, what's the probability it's white right leaning boys?

But cases of trauma dismissed by hospitals and then dying at home are unfortunately fairly frequent when head injuries are involved. That doesn't exculpate the original source of violence in any way, but try to follow the logic here, it is NOT NORMAL for us to have 0 info on the perpetrators of violence, on the bullies, and NOT NORMAL for an autopsy to require 12 days.

FWIW the new york post (which tends to be trash, so i'd prefer to wait for confirmation from other sources) is claiming the bullies were girls.

Straight-up smashed a child's face against a paper towel machine repeatedly, that's the ideology you carry water for.

No, my problem is that's very high probability it was girls, from minority backgrounds.

Which is why we aren't told yet, they hope we pass to other topics.

It wouldn't play well to the narrative if the anti-LGBTQ bullies are people from demographics that skew democrat (when adult) more than any other.

Maybe i am wrong and it was 16y white boys in the girl bathroom, but given they have witnesses, including adult ones, if that was the case do you truly believe we wouldn't have been told already?

EDIT: and there might be a malpractice case ON TOP of this which they are trying to hide

I can promise you zero people who actually care about trans lives care what race or gender the bullies are, they just want it to stop. This idea that it would matter or anyone has suggested it would matter is an invention in your head.

Ye i believe it's not people who care about trans, rather people who care about faking they care about trans but they mostly care about some very specific narrative.

There are forces on the left whose sole role is trying to brainwash the west about how being white and male is necessarily associated with being a terrible human being and viceversa.

These forces use all topics discussed politically under those lens. That include trans activism. So a self defined non binary person dies after being beaten by people. If you can pinpoint to white men (or boys) being the perpetrators, that's "clearly" bullying for trans issues.

If instead it's girls from minority backgrounds, then you wait and see and maybe you come out with "tragic incident after a collutation for stupid reasons like it happens in high schools".

Given 12 days passed and we know nothing about the students who beat Nex, what do you think is the case?

Everyone ITT is making the assumption that being trans mattered here.

Girls are mean as **** to each other, and bullying is not a new invention. Children's faces are smashed every single day in classrooms and bathrooms all across the country, and very few of them are part of some special snowflake group. Some people don't need an excuse. They're just shitty kids produced by shitty people.

This girl could've just worn the wrong color shoes that day and it was enough to set someone off.

If you want to be part of society, you don't get to escape the sometimes violent reality that everyone else lives with, too. The more you make this about trans issues, the easier it is for society to ignore the actual problem, which is our woefully inadequate child-rearing skills.

Indo might be right: How can we expect children to understand that bashing someone to death 4,5,6 against 1 is wrong for some perceived difference when their parents, with the fully formed brains and emotional control, can't even stop bashing on people for perceived differences, you know, like the color of their shoes.

Man, you must be a shitty parent with shitty kids.

Yeah I'm talking about that one as it made the headlines, I tend not to trawl the internet looking for murders of specific demographics or indeed any.

Dude. Get a hold of yourself and stop going on like a hysterical Victorian old biddy.🙄 *slaps spaceman smartly*
That was for your own good. It's called tough love. Learn from it.

Eunuchs could still bang the wifes of the kings imo. So yes why are they on the list?

Greeks? Why on the list?

Parents, collectively, because there were 3 attackers. The odds that any one of those children have more than one parent at home are fairly low.

You know how all the lefties pine for a return to the times where families could afford a house and car and annual vacations on a single income? One very important part of that equation was the presence of two parents.

We are rapidly approaching the point where nearly half of kids are living in a single-parent household. Stories like this are just one of the predictable consequences of that.

I'm past the child-rearing phase of my life and would like to think it was a great success. My youngest will graduate high school in a few months and has already been accepted to the college of her choice. As far as I'm aware, neither her nor her brothers have ever laid a hand on a fellow student. It's amazing what a stable household can accomplish.

The **** are you babbling about here? Who said anything about single-parent households? Is this just a free-word association prompt for you?

Sorry, go back to circle-jerking about transgenderism. I do often forget that nobody really wants to talk about the underlying problems in society that create outcomes like this. It's much more important to hand out Victim of the Month medals to a rotating cast of misfits and talk about how tolerant and progressive we are.

Imagine posting like this about a teenager who got beaten to death in a bathroom. I know it's a touchy subject for you, Ins0, but you can always just sit this one out.

Shitty poster who presents shitty parent reasoning must be presumed to be a good parent with good kids because, of course, violence happens with mean girls over the color of shoes everyday?

I'm all about exaggeration for effect, but that statement isn't quite true as you intended it to be taken.