you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (4 children)

I was referring to gender dysphoria, and not claiming that no trans-identified individuals existed before 1970. Yes, I'm well aware of the German institute, and of Hirschfeld.

Would you like to explain what the Hijra? I mean, if you so certainly, definitely, absolutely understand them, what their 'gender identity' means, please, explain what it is, and what a 'third gender' is. If you can't explain it, you can't use it to advocate anything.

All mental illnesses are medical, or else what's being referred to is not a mental illness.

You don't need a brain scan to recognise that someone has depression, but we absolutely needed brain scans in order to determine that depression was a valid, scientific phenomenon, and not made up, so we could separate it from 'long lasting sadness.' People often, correctly, state: 'Sadness is a feeling. Depression is a mental illness.' The two are separate because one is genetic, while the other, largely, isn't.

I don't really understand your last comment. You might want to rephrase it.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (3 children)

Gender dysphoria is what makes someone trans. The idea that it didn’t exist until 1970 is absolutely ludicrous.

The Hijra don’t feel comfortable living as men, so they shed the male label and live separately in a way that better works for them, more mirroring women . It’s not like they had exogenous hormones available in 2000 BC so they couldn’t change physically like we do now originally though now many do. That seems at minimum a cleat analogue.

I can only assume you are trolling at this point.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

The Hijra referred to, and refers to today in South Asia, to men who don't fit the stereotypical roles associated with their sex. But, in truth, they were still considered men, because the people of India did, and do, recognise biological sex, which they recognise is what makes someone female or male.

It wasn't until the 1970s that trans-identification began to any even microscopically noticeable degree.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

You are just factually wrong on both these facts. I won’t be responding anymore because you are either trolling or so like ignorant that meaningful discussion is impossible.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Still no argument from you...