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

[el midgetron]

6 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

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

You got me. I used the wrong word, not the first time, won’t be the last. 

You should give precedence to not lying your *** off like you did in the “San Francisco board open to reparations with $5M payouts” thread. And then you crawled back out from under that rock to police grammar, 

[Arbenol]

6 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

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

 

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

Many years here have taught me that you'll never change anyone's minds. If you're really interested in this you could look it up yourself. Or remain in ignorance - up to you.

And good luck finding any pre-colonial Samoan writings.

[+Paranoid Android]

18 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

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

The primary source that "two spirit" was coined in 1990, you mean? That's easy to find! 

Or this primary source (link) from the wikipedia page that denounces "two spirit" as a well-intentioned but harmful term, while pointing out that several Native American tribes had very clear anti-gay rules that made such relationships forbidden (and suggesting some other tribes that are quite welcoming of trans people - but again, the writer chooses not to cite the original primary sources for where these terms are found in ancient Native American writings, so there's no way I can possibly fact check her about the origins of these terms)! 

[+Paranoid Android]

1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

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?

I don't recall the link you posted. Was it a post aimed at me? If you didn't post the link for me, it's entirely possible I didn't even look at it. If you did post it to me, then I would have looked into it, and I couldn't find a source for the origins of sekhet or two spirit in Ancient Egypt or Ancient Native American culture. 

[+Paranoid Android]

7 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

Many years here have taught me that you'll never change anyone's minds. If you're really interested in this you could look it up yourself. Or remain in ignorance - up to you.

And good luck finding any pre-colonial Samoan writings.

If we won't find such writings, what proof is there that such people existed and that this isn't just well-meaning lies by Samoan elders trying to gain clout! To use just one analogy from Australia's past, I was watching a documentary on indigenous Australians, and some were trying to paint the First Fleet as murderers. They said that their oral tradition was filled with stories of the First Fleet arriving and setting up mounds and mounds of dynamite - the natives didn't know what it was and so walked up to the dynamite and got exploded. One was telling us that this happened to his great great great great... grandfather and it was passed on through oral tradition by their great great great great geat... grandmother, who saw it happen. 

Except that dynamite wasn't invented for nearly 100 years after the arrival of early Australian settlers, and the entire "oral tradition" of dynamite killing his ancestors was a load of dingoes kidneys. Oral tradition is limited, and what I am seeing is a modern attempt to pigeonhole ancient beliefs into modern ideas like trans ideology.

Back when I used to be a Christian, people would ask me why I trusted the Bible when it was a victim of oral tradition just like the rest. My answer was that the sheer number of ancient texts gives us a reasonable degree of certainty on the main points of what it says, and the rest is a matter I take on faith. If you guys want to take it on faith that oral tradition of these cultures is accurate, then great. 

[darkmoonlady]

22 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

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

 

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

Native American jstor article written in 83 about gender fluidity...

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2742448

Jstor article 1987 samoan on Fa'afafine, in ancient Samoa. 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25168934?searchText=Samoa gender&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DSamoa%2Bgender&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3Aaf91670628858bd8ecd1c16d994aa9d4

Now beyond this any debate about this is moot because you're MO is easy to spot. Not worth the time. 

 

[+Paranoid Android]

8 minutes ago, darkmoonlady said:

Native American jstor article written in 83 about gender fluidity...

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2742448

Jstor article 1987 samoan on Fa'afafine, in ancient Samoa. 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25168934?searchText=Samoa gender&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DSamoa%2Bgender&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3Aaf91670628858bd8ecd1c16d994aa9d4

Now beyond this any debate about this is moot because you're MO is easy to spot. Not worth the time. 

 

I will see if I can get a copy of the whole article to read/listen to in my spare time. Though these aren't actually going into either "sekhet" or "two spirit" it does still offer something to look up more than an unsupported opinion! 

[darkmoonlady]

1 minute ago, Paranoid Android said:

I will see if I can get a copy of the whole article to read/listen to in my spare time. Though these aren't actually going into either "sekhet" or "two spirit" it does still offer something to look up more than an unsupported opinion! 

It isn't an unsupported opinion, it's you dismissing and practicing feigned inability to put your fingers to keyboard and type it in the search engine yourself. That's a you problem, not a lack of sources. 

[+Paranoid Android]

8 minutes ago, darkmoonlady said:

It isn't an unsupported opinion, it's you dismissing and practicing feigned inability to put your fingers to keyboard and type it in the search engine yourself. That's a you problem, not a lack of sources. 

I searched for "sekhet", every source I found was a pro-trans website, I did not find a single ancient historian arguing the case from a historical perspective, despite your allegations that the sources are myriad (same goes for "two spirit"). You blamed my non-historian background at the time. You always have some reason to blame ME as to why I don't agree with you. It can't simply be a difference of opinion - as I said to you in an earlier post, you appear to get "I disagree" and "I hate" mixed up...

~ Regards, PA

Edited March 23 by Paranoid Android

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, el midgetron said:

You got me. I used the wrong word, not the first time, won’t be the last. 

You should give precedence to not lying your *** off like you did in the “San Francisco board open to reparations with $5M payouts” thread. And then you crawled back out from under that rock to police grammar, 

I didn't lie.  You and your fabled post 71 had links to the current data.  You posted figures that were almost a decade old

[Arbenol]

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

If we won't find such writings, what proof is there that such people existed and that this isn't just well-meaning lies by Samoan elders to gain clout!

Like I said. I don't expect to change anybody's mind. You have no proof of the above (bolded) but it's clear which option you prefer. I don't even know what you mean by "to gain clout".

[darkmoonlady]

6 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I searched for "sekhet", every source I found was a pro-trans website, I did not find a single ancient historian arguing the case from a historical perspective, despite your allegations that the sources are myriad (same goes for "two spirit"). You blamed my non-historian background at the time. You always have some reason to blame ME as to why I don't agree with you. It can't simply be a difference of opinion - as I said to you in an earlier post, you appear to get "I disagree" and "I hate" mixed up...

~ Regards, PA

It's a clear tactic anti trans folks take that isn't difficult to parse. Denying peoples history and existence is dehumanization. It's as if having historically evidenced proof is just a bridge too far, why else is that even an opinion? We aren't talking about UFOs or the Loch Ness monster. We are talking about multiple cultures over thousands of years but to someone like you meh just couldn't be people didn't follow rigid gender rules forever unto the origins of humans. It's a purposefully limited, myopic view serving what other purpose? Are you a professional gender debunker? Otherwise its personal. 

Edited March 23 by darkmoonlady

[+Paranoid Android]

4 hours ago, Arbenol said:

Like I said. I don't expect to change anybody's mind. You have no proof of the above (bolded) but it's clear which option you prefer. I don't even know what you mean by "to gain clout".

If the only evidence is oral tradition,  then that's fine.  But as I look back on my life when I believed the Bible,  one of the biggest arguments against my beliefs was that the Bible is oral tradition and cannot be trusted! I was happy to go on faith!  

I'm no longer religious,  so my views on the bible have changed,  but now I'm being told about how trustworthy and reliable oral tradition is!

I'm not denying the sources. But it's clearly not as settled and obvious as these sources make out - is you recall,  it was an unsourced instagram video that prompted this discussion. And clearly the video is insufficient for a well rounded understanding of trans issues,  considering just some of the issues raised in the article i posted earlier.  

With that said,  there should be plenty of written evidence of trans people in ancient societies,  unless your argument is that trans people only got representation in oral societies like the Samoans.  That's why I was so interested to specifically ask about ancient Egypt, which has a lot of documented evidence and many historians devoting their life to its study. Yet the only reference to "sekhet" in Google are on websites devoted to trans ideology, and that is a red flag. 

Edited March 23 by Paranoid Android

[+Paranoid Android]

28 minutes ago, darkmoonlady said:

It's a clear tactic anti trans folks take that isn't difficult to parse. Denying peoples history and existence is dehumanization. It's as if having historically evidenced proof is just a bridge too far, why else is that even an opinion? We aren't talking about UFOs or the Loch Ness monster. We are talking about multiple cultures over thousands of years but to someone like you meh just couldn't be people didn't follow rigid gender rules forever unto the origins of humans. It's a purposefully limited, myopic view serving what other purpose? Are you a professional gender debunker? Otherwise its personal. 

As mentioned, I'll look at those jstor articles you linked earlier .  But in general,  you're an historian so surely you understand the value in primary sources! Yet you call me names for wanting these sources. 

For the record,  I have some free time tomorrow, so I'll be emailing several ancient Egyptian history departments to ask the experts about sekhet, I wonder if they agree with your appraisal of the "virtual libraries" of supporting documentation!

Edited March 23 by Paranoid Android

[darkmoonlady]

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

As mentioned, I'll look at those jstor articles you linked earlier .  But in general,  you're an historian so surely you understand the value in primary sources! Yet you call me names for wanting these sources. 

For the record,  I have some free time tomorrow, so I'll be emailing several ancient Egyptian history departments to ask the experts about sekhet, I wonder if they agree with your appraisal of the "virtual libraries" of supporting documentation!

Primary documents aren't always documents. Oral tradition is valid and its insulting but since you want to belittle it, despite that, there is ample evidence (again, by reputable sources and scholars.

https://lithub.com/how-indigenous-societies-fought-to-preserve-their-blended-gender-identities-in-the-face-of-colonialism/

 

 

Where do you think historians get their information? They don't pull it out of the ether. Primary sources and documents are the standard in research.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv6wgdvd

 

 

Btw jstor article ancient Egypt gender (including 3rd gender) article.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5615/neareastarch.79.3.0174

[+Paranoid Android]

8 hours ago, darkmoonlady said:

Primary documents aren't always documents. Oral tradition is valid and its insulting but since you want to belittle it, despite that, there is ample evidence (again, by reputable sources and scholars.

When I used to be a Christian, I was always told how unreliable my faith was because it was based on a set of texts that came from *dun dun duuuuuunnnnn* - oral tradition! 

Now I'm being told that oral tradition is valid and it's insulting that I say it has limitations! Keep in mine I'm not saying it's useless - I'm saying it is limited, and when using such sources to back ones claims, it helps to be less certain than "this is how it is and if you have any disagreement you must hate minorities". Which, as noted, is the position you seem to always come from, as you cannot fathom a difference of opinion that doesn't involve hate! 

8 hours ago, darkmoonlady said:

https://lithub.com/how-indigenous-societies-fought-to-preserve-their-blended-gender-identities-in-the-face-of-colonialism/

 

 

Where do you think historians get their information? They don't pull it out of the ether. Primary sources and documents are the standard in research.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv6wgdvd

 

 

Btw jstor article ancient Egypt gender (including 3rd gender) article.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5615/neareastarch.79.3.0174

Thanks again for the links. I'll find it interesting if that ancient Egypt article says anything about gender that isn't in the preamble on the free page (which makes it pretty clear that Ancient Egypt saw men and women as binary). My emails to those Ancient History departments later today may prove insightful to see what "broadly defined as binary" allows and whether sekhet are an exception to the broad definitions:

Quote

Gender in Ancient Egypt

"The ancient Egyptian gender system can be broadly defined as binary, while still related to a wide variety of other social categories such as age, status, ethnicity and occupation.  For example, in the iconography, men and women are consistently portrayed differently...

...Such differences in aesthetic sensibilities among the genders and classes also manifest in grave goods.... 

...Although one's social identity was most assuredly predicated upon one's biological sex, the gulf between the sexes was not as vast as in many other anciet (and modern) societies. 

 

 

Edited March 23 by Paranoid Android

[darkmoonlady]

8 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

When I used to be a Christian, I was always told how unreliable my faith was because it was based on a set of texts that came from *dun dun duuuuuunnnnn* - oral tradition! 

Now I'm being told that oral tradition is valid and it's insulting that I say it has limitations! Keep in mine I'm not saying it's useless - I'm saying it is limited, and when using such sources to back ones claims, it helps to be less certain than "this is how it is and if you have any disagreement you must hate minorities". Which, as noted, is the position you seem to always come from, as you cannot fathom a difference of opinion that doesn't involve hate! 

Thanks again for the links. I'll find it interesting if that ancient Egypt article says anything about gender that isn't in the preamble on the free page (which makes it pretty clear that Ancient Egypt saw men and women as binary). My emails to those Ancient History departments later today may prove insightful to see what "broadly defined as binary" allows and whether sekhet are an exception to the broad definitions:

 

This is exactly what I'm talking like you just ignore what doesnt fit into your idea, this literally from the articles abstract and you carefully didn't include it.

 

 We shall consider notions of binary gender, third gender, and same sex relations, with a final look at the endurance of folk tradition in Egyptian fertility practices.

[+Paranoid Android]

8 minutes ago, darkmoonlady said:

This is exactly what I'm talking like you just ignore what doesnt fit into your idea, this literally from the articles abstract and you carefully didn't include it.

 

 We shall consider notions of binary gender, third gender, and same sex relations, with a final look at the endurance of folk tradition in Egyptian fertility practices.

Because the text doesn't say anything about this. The abstract literally just says "we will consider these issues and discuss them", while the actual discussion of ancient Egyptian history as presented in the actual article, made it clear that ancient Egyptians viewed sex as binary. 

Maybe there's a nuance I'm missing, which is why I'm emailing experts shortly to hear their views on sekhet. 

Edited March 23 by Paranoid Android

[darkmoonlady]

11 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Because the text doesn't say anything about this. The abstract literally just says "we will consider these issues and discuss them", while the actual discussion of ancient Egyptian history as presented in the actual article, made it clear that ancient Egyptians viewed sex as binary. 

Maybe there's a nuance I'm missing, which is why I'm emailing experts shortly to hear their views on sekhet. 

You're emailing experts? What experts? You ignore evidence that doesn't suit your personal narrative so what if your experts disagree with you? What then you keep looking for ones that do? 

Btw the paper was from an archeology journal on gender. Seems like you want to dismiss experts and the university that printed the journal vs just admitting you're wrong. 

Edited March 23 by darkmoonlady

[+Paranoid Android]

11 minutes ago, darkmoonlady said:

You're emailing experts? What experts? You ignore evidence that doesn't suit your personal narrative so what if your experts disagree with you? What then you keep looking for ones that do? 

Btw the paper was from an archeology journal on gender. Seems like you want to dismiss experts and the university that printed the journal vs just admitting you're wrong. 

I told you at least twice that later today I'll be emailing the ancient Egyptian history departments at a bunch of universities,  asking those experts about sekhet in Ancient Egypt!

Don't pretend you don't know what experts I'm talking about! If they tell me that sekhet is a trans person I will accept their response! 

[Piney]

On 3/22/2023 at 5:23 AM, 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. 

Winktes (cross dressing men) among the Lakota were the preferred artists for a warriors apparel or shields. Then there was Berdache in the Southwest who were cross dressing healers and seers.

 

[Arbenol]

13 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

If the only evidence is oral tradition,  then that's fine.  But as I look back on my life when I believed the Bible,  one of the biggest arguments against my beliefs was that the Bible is oral tradition and cannot be trusted! I was happy to go on faith!  

I'm no longer religious,  so my views on the bible have changed,  but now I'm being told about how trustworthy and reliable oral tradition is!

I'm not denying the sources. But it's clearly not as settled and obvious as these sources make out - is you recall,  it was an unsourced instagram video that prompted this discussion. And clearly the video is insufficient for a well rounded understanding of trans issues,  considering just some of the issues raised in the article i posted earlier.  

With that said,  there should be plenty of written evidence of trans people in ancient societies,  unless your argument is that trans people only got representation in oral societies like the Samoans.  That's why I was so interested to specifically ask about ancient Egypt, which has a lot of documented evidence and many historians devoting their life to its study. Yet the only reference to "sekhet" in Google are on websites devoted to trans ideology, and that is a red flag. 

I've never told you that oral tradition can't be trusted. It's well known that much of what's in the Bible has basis in historical fact. And as it's written down it can hardly be described as an oral source. I don't think the equivalence is accurate and it's something of a strawman argument.

However, neither do I believe that oral traditions alone should be trusted. But it appears that many societies around the world have "stories" of non-binary members and cannot be merely handwaved away. 

I am curious. Why are you so invested in wanting this to be a new thing? Ultimately I think the arguments of historical existence of gender fluidity is irrelevant. Transgender people won't suddenly vanish from existence if you can prove it's a contemporary phenomenon. As a society we have two choices. Learn how we can accommodate trans people in a manner that is fair to all, or attempt to eradicate the ideology as abnormal and a  product of mental disorder. Challenging the historical existence seems more like the second option. I prefer the first.

[Piney]

40 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

I've never told you that oral tradition can't be trusted. It's well known that much of what's in the Bible has basis in historical fact. And as it's written down it can hardly be described as an oral source. I don't think the equivalence is accurate and it's something of a strawman argument.

However, neither do I believe that oral traditions alone should be trusted. But it appears that many societies around the world have "stories" of non-binary members and cannot be merely handwaved away. 

I am curious. Why are you so invested in wanting this to be a new thing? Ultimately I think the arguments of historical existence of gender fluidity is irrelevant. Transgender people won't suddenly vanish from existence if you can prove it's a contemporary phenomenon. As a society we have two choices. Learn how we can accommodate trans people in a manner that is fair to all, or attempt to eradicate the ideology as abnormal and a  product of mental disorder. Challenging the historical existence seems more like the second option. I prefer the first.

Historical fact? 

Adam and Eve were fictional,, Moses was fictional, Daniel was a patriotic novel giving Joshua Messiah props in his fight against Antiochus Epiphanes and written after the fact, David was a raider and Solomon a petty warlord who controlled some copper pits.

Then we have that Jesus fella who's actual biography is unknown and never taught what's in the Synoptic Gospels and was never crucified....

 

 

[+Paranoid Android]

48 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

I am curious. Why are you so invested in wanting this to be a new thing? 

I'm not trying to argue it's a new thing.  I'm pushing against the attempt to normalise surgery and chemical castration, and one of the ways this happens is for activists like that instagram vlogger to paint a saccharine image of trans people living in harmony and even holding positions of power and authority.  

But scratching the surface makes the reality more stark in contrast.  That's my goal - to question the narrative that is being pushed down or throats and accepted by others without critical thought!

[HandsomeGorilla]

17 minutes ago, Piney said:

Historical fact? 

Adam and Eve were fictional,, Moses was fictional, Daniel was a patriotic novel giving Joshua Messiah props in his fight against Antiochus Epiphanes and written after the fact, David was a raider and Solomon a petty warlord who controlled some copper pits.

Then we have that Jesus fella who's actual biography is unknown and never taught what's in the Synoptic Gospels and was never crucified....

 

 

Spicy! Where can I learn about this?