The Rise of Gender-Neutral Names Isn’t What It Seems

[Gromdor]

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Not at all. I'm asking for evidence of specific claims about how specific indigenous societies allegedly elevated such individuals to positions of esteem. 

Talk about deja vu.  You and I had this exact same discussion, in the exact same pattern.  I listed a group of cultures that had a third gender, used no gender, or otherwise varied from the binary system.  You mentioned "Two spirits" and reject everything.  I say, "What about eveything else?" and then you conceed that you haven't even looked at it or considered it.

The first time I can accept as ignorance.

But with Darkmoon, this is the second time. (That I saw.)  

[HandsomeGorilla]

32 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Talk about deja vu.  You and I had this exact same discussion, in the exact same pattern.  I listed a group of cultures that had a third gender, used no gender, or otherwise varied from the binary system.  You mentioned "Two spirits" and reject everything.  I say, "What about eveything else?" and then you conceed that you haven't even looked at it or considered it.

The first time I can accept as ignorance.

But with Darkmoon, this is the second time. (That I saw.)  

It's not called not actually wanting to understand the argument. Very few of them argue anything in good faith, it's typically just very shallow black and white observations with the unwillingness or incapability of understanding it any deeper.

But, it's one of the main talking points, so it's round and round you go trying to untwist the pretzel logic while they sit there with a stupid look on their face. I don't know why anyone waste their time. If someone was genuinely curious and wanted to learn, sure.

[+Desertrat56]

22 hours ago, and-then said:

For some, maybe.  For most rational human beings, this is just a bizarre expression of a kind of mass hysteria.  To believe otherwise is to imagine that all of human civilization, history, and culture have been in error and only NOW do we see the "truth".  

I'll retire to Bedlam... 

Well, in the 1930's, when my friend was born, her mother named her Buddy June.   Buddy after one of the mother's brothers (which back then was usually a nick name).   My mother's middle name was Lee (not Leah or Leigh) after one of the ranch hands because my grandfather insisted that she have the same initials as he did.   Her older sister was named after a ranch hand that my grandfather was good friends with, named Shirley.   And my Aunt Shirley goes by the name Jo because she was never called Shirley.  One of my dad's sisters, who was born in the early 40's was named Merle, which was a mans name.   Our idea of what is a male and female name has changed over the decades.  

[el midgetron]

Re: the two spirits and third gender. The argument is selective and deeply flawed. If something can be validated by having a historical precedence, well then every culture from the beginning of recorded history practiced slavery. Some cultures practiced human sacrifice, cannibalism and took children as brides. 

Edited March 22 by el midgetron

[spartan max2]

17 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

Re: the two spirits and third gender. The argument is selective and deeply flawed. If something can be validated by having a historical precedence, well then every culture from the beginning of recorded history practiced slavery. Some cultures practiced human sacrifice, cannibalism and took children as brides. 

You and And then seem to be using contradictory arguments.

From And Thens post.

Quote

For most rational human beings, this is just a bizarre expression of a kind of mass hysteria. To believe otherwise is to imagine that all of human civilization, history, and culture have been in error and only NOW do we see the "truth".

 

Edited March 22 by spartan max2

[Arbenol]

10 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Not at all. I'm asking for evidence of specific claims about how specific indigenous societies allegedly elevated such individuals to positions of esteem. 

Challenging those "specific claims" appears to give lie to the fact your main objection to the trans movement centres around protection of minors or trans women competing in women's sport. You appear to want to challenge the idea that people like that have existed throughout history and some cultures not only recognised it, but celebrated it.

Do you know many Samoans?

[acidhead]

 

 

[acidhead]

21 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

Ah great. A new thing for boomers to panic about: gender neutral name 

Truly it is the end times 

Lately you call everybody you disagree with Boomers! What's up with that?!? Hahaha 

[el midgetron]

1 hour ago, spartan max2 said:

You and And then seem to be using contradictory arguments.

From And Thens post.

 

Nope. He’s arguing against the validity of the current thing. And I’m arguing that citing something’s existence in an ancient culture doesn’t make it valid.

1,000 years from now there will be people arguing the virtue of things we hold today. Maybe they will be right, maybe they will be suffering a delusion. 
 

The only point to your comparison is to either:

1). argue that what ancient cultures practiced is a precedence that establishes validity.

2). Every current practice is inherently the pinnacle of our knowledge and virtue.

[+Paranoid Android]

9 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Talk about deja vu.  You and I had this exact same discussion, in the exact same pattern.  I listed a group of cultures that had a third gender, used no gender, or otherwise varied from the binary system.  You mentioned "Two spirits" and reject everything.  I say, "What about eveything else?" and then you conceed that you haven't even looked at it or considered it.

The first time I can accept as ignorance.

But with Darkmoon, this is the second time. (That I saw.)  

Then maybe your can provide the primary sources for that video! Instead of just a pro-trans instagrammer listing off a bunch of unsourced allegations!

[+Paranoid Android]

8 hours ago, HandsomeGorilla said:

It's not called not actually wanting to understand the argument. Very few of them argue anything in good faith, it's typically just very shallow black and white observations with the unwillingness or incapability of understanding it any deeper.

But, it's one of the main talking points, so it's round and round you go trying to untwist the pretzel logic while they sit there with a stupid look on their face. I don't know why anyone waste their time. If someone was genuinely curious and wanted to learn, sure.

I need a better source than "here a tabloid that doesn't cite primary sources" and certainly more than an instagrammer who doesn't cite sources!

Edited March 22 by Paranoid Android

[Golden Duck]

12 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I need a better source than "here a tabloid that doesn't cite primary sources" and certainly more than an instagrammer who doesn't cite sources!

You posted one, but you handwaved away facts as being left wing.

[HandsomeGorilla]

4 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

You posted one, but you handwaved away facts as being left wing.

I've had three people immediately hand wave some of the least biased news sources out there immediately, they wouldn't even look at the source. Hell, I called one out on a lie with a link to a bill he was referencing and he flipped out 

They don't want to know. It reminded me yet again why I ever bother with these snowflake chuckle****s.

[spartan max2]

1 hour ago, el midgetron said:

Nope. He’s arguing against the validity of the current thing. And I’m arguing that citing something’s existence in an ancient culture doesn’t make it valid.

1,000 years from now there will be people arguing the virtue of things we hold today. Maybe they will be right, maybe they will be suffering a delusion. 
 

The only point to your comparison is to either:

1). argue that what ancient cultures practiced is a precedence that establishes validity.

2). Every current practice is inherently the pinnacle of our knowledge and virtue.

Not surprised that you have a very binary outlook on it 

I just found it funny how And Then is arguing that gender isn't a social construct since he feels most of human history didn't see it as so.

While you're arguing about how something being done in the past dosen't mean it should be done now.

[spartan max2]

2 hours ago, acidhead said:

Lately you call everybody you disagree with Boomers! What's up with that?!? Hahaha 

Not everyone, just certain ones in cultural related threads.

As I aged into an adult into my late twenties it became blatantly clear how alot of older people don't understand the modern world or can't accept it.

This is clear in the threads related to women and relationship or any thread involving nonbinary people. Or just youth in general. Home prices lol

There is a bit of a generational divide on these things.

Some of you are very much stuck in the past. 

Edited March 22 by spartan max2

[+Paranoid Android]

2 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

You posted one, but you handwaved away facts as being left wing.

I posted wikipedia which confirmed the phrase "two spirit" did not exist until 1990, yet the websites being discussed claim "two spirit" were celebrated in Native American culture for centuries (maybe even millennia)! Maybe the phrase "two spirit" didn't exist but the concept did - in which case, show me the primary sources for the primary sources of these people! I'm giving a huge benefit of the doubt here to the possibility that the concept existed but Native Americans only recently gained the language able to express what they wanted - but what evidence is there to support this in ancient Native American texts? 

Edited March 23 by Paranoid Android

[+Paranoid Android]

4 hours ago, Arbenol said:

Challenging those "specific claims" appears to give lie to the fact your main objection to the trans movement centres around protection of minors or trans women competing in women's sport. You appear to want to challenge the idea that people like that have existed throughout history and some cultures not only recognised it, but celebrated it.

I'm asking for primary sources that "sekhet" was a third gender in Ancient Egypt, and that "two spirit" were a celebrated group of trans individuals in Native American culture. 

Why is it so hard to get? 

 

4 hours ago, Arbenol said:

Do you know many Samoans?

I do! I grew up in South West Sydney, one of the most multicultural regions in Sydney, the pub that I used to drink at was about three doors down from an Islander nightclub, and many Samoans would go there for pre-club drinks because the pub is cheaper.  

There is a lot of conservatism in Samoan culture, so if you're using them to support trans issues, somehow, I would really think hard about what you are going to say, because I can share some pretty crazy stories (a non-personal example (link) - last year the footy comp in Australia had an issue where 7 players refused to play on game day because the club wore a pink "pride jersey" - 6 of the 7 players were Islanders, and that did not surprise me one bit based on my experience with Islanders). 

 

Edited March 23 by Paranoid Android

[Agent0range]

3 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Instead of just a pro-trans instagrammer 

I don't know why pro-trans is even a thing people say.  99% of people you consider "pro-trans" are really just people who don't give a **** about what someone else does.  

[Arbenol]

37 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I'm asking for primary sources that "sekhet" was a third gender in Ancient Egypt, and that "two spirit" were a celebrated group of trans individuals in Native American culture. 

Why is it so hard to get? 

It isn't hard to get. You seem very keen to discredit any references to gender fluidity in human history.

Quote

I do! I grew up in South West Sydney, one of the most multicultural regions in Sydney, the pub that I used to drink at was about three doors down from an Islander nightclub, and many Samoans would go there for pre-club drinks because the pub is cheaper.  

There is a lot of conservatism in Samoan culture, so if you're using them to support trans issues, somehow, I would really think hard about what you are going to say, because I can share some pretty crazy stories (a non-personal example (link) - last year the footy comp in Australia had an issue where 7 players refused to play on game day because the club wore a pink "pride jersey" - 6 of the 7 players were Islanders, and that did not surprise me one bit based on my experience with Islanders). 

Then you'll know all about Fa'afafine, won't you.

The conservatism of Samoans is related to their Christian beliefs. Beliefs that didn't exist before Europeans arrived.

[Gromdor]

4 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Then maybe your can provide the primary sources for that video! Instead of just a pro-trans instagrammer listing off a bunch of unsourced allegations!

What I originally linked on the other thread wasn't a youtube video. It was a series of sources.  What is the point of me linking it again if you are only going to pretend like you didn't see it one month from now with another poster?

[el midgetron]

3 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

Not surprised that you have a very binary outlook on it 

I just found it funny how And Then is arguing that gender isn't a social construct since he feels most of human history didn't see it as so.

While you're arguing about how something being done in the past dosen't mean it should be done now.

Here I am again, trying to win stupid prizes. 

Even the supporters here have argued that gender isn’t just a social construct. When that’s what defending the ideology requires. Remember the female brain? Remember caving up 16 year old girls to re-connect their biology to their gender? Of course you don’t because right now that’s not what defending the ideology requires. Right now, the defense of the ideology requires you to claim gender is a strictly social construct so that you can cite ancient social constructs as evidence. 
 

 

 

[Golden Duck]

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I posted wikipedia which confirmed the phrase "two spirit" did not exist until 1990, yet the websites being discussed claim "two spirit" were celebrated in Native American culture for centuries (maybe even millennia)! Maybe the phrase "two spirit" didn't exist but the concept did - in which case, show me the primary sources for the primary sources of these people! I'm giving a huge benefit of the doubt here to the possibility that the concept existed but Native Americans only recently gained the language able to express what they wanted - but what evidence is there to support this in ancient Native American texts? 

The primary sources are listed in the Wikipedia article.  All you have do is scroll to the end.

Edited March 23 by Golden Duck

[Golden Duck]

6 hours ago, el midgetron said:

Nope. He’s arguing against the validity of the current thing. And I’m arguing that citing something’s existence in an ancient culture doesn’t make it valid.

1,000 years from now there will be people arguing the virtue of things we hold today. Maybe they will be right, maybe they will be suffering a delusion. 
 

The only point to your comparison is to either:

1). argue that what ancient cultures practiced is a precedence that establishes validity.

2). Every current practice is inherently the pinnacle of our knowledge and virtue.

You should give precedence to learning how to use the word precedents.

[+Paranoid Android]

2 hours ago, Agent0range said:

I don't know why pro-trans is even a thing people say.  99% of people you consider "pro-trans" are really just people who don't give a **** about what someone else does.  

"Pro trans" - a source that is posting for one purpose only - to convince others that transgenderism was part of ancient societies. The instagram video that prompted this discussion is a prime example of that. Differentiated from regular sources that simply give the information without trying to convince you that it's true, 

[+Paranoid Android]

2 hours ago, Arbenol said:

It isn't hard to get. You seem very keen to discredit any references to gender fluidity in human history.

If it isn't hard to get, then awesome - show me a primary source! 

 

2 hours ago, Arbenol said:

Then you'll know all about Fa'afafine, won't you.

The conservatism of Samoans is related to their Christian beliefs. Beliefs that didn't exist before Europeans arrived.

I'm not familiar with that term. Can you provide me with the earliest reference in Samoan writings to Fa'afafine?