you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]yousaythosethings 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Interesting. Thanks for this. My first thought is "well, that's just clothing" but I guess back in the day what else did people have to signal any kind of transition? And again, nothing about cross-dressing or trans-anything was part of my Catholic inculcation when I was younger, nor do I hear anything approximating anti-gay religious backlash with respect to transgenderism and transgenderism is a lot more obviously destructive. I still think this is mostly about homophobia as I don't think people had a concept of transsexualism or transgenderism, at least not one that was seen as anything other than extreme homosexuality. This reminds me of the three-article rule whereby in NYC you could get arrested for cross-dressing if as a woman you wore less than 3 articles of "female attire" or as a man you wore less than 3 articles of "male attire."

[–]MezozoicGay 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

or trans-anything was part

And almost never in history either, it is modern trend. And in general, most of this "gender identity" stuff can exist only in English and similar to English languages, in most languages in the world "neo pronouns" and "gender identity" makes no sense and could not be described without importing from English.

[–]zephyranthes 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm studying Japanese. Sex is 性別, nature-separate, no spectrum here. 性 additionally carries the connotation of "unchangeable". Lots of ways to refer to a person (some depend on sex). Pronouns are rude.

[–]ArthnoldManacatsaman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

性 additionally carries the connotation of "unchangeable"

In what context?