What were the rights of transgender people throughout various empires and historical epochs?
Were the "two spirits" in native America a precursor to modern transgenders?
Was the Roman emperor Elagabalus?
Did Christianity instill a culture of heteronormativity in Europe that stifled gay and trans expression?
the conception of femininity and masculinity in many cultures in times pased wasnt realy compatible with how we see it today and was mostly tied to religious and occult ideas of how reality works
there was never any ''expression'' in the way you think of it
it always had a religious, magical or political function, or it was just a question of people enyoing themselves some sodomy, other than that it was seen as a abberation and abomination, or just a higly unhigienic way to use someone else as a masturbation tool, only if it was elevated to a higher function could it be openly ''expressed'', othervise it was hunted down, or tolerated in silence
There's a third gender in Hunduism and they its own caste which is associated with an entity formed from Shiva merging with a godess
It's pretty interesting, but it's still the caste system so it's awful
History isn't linear.
Elagabalus would have been seen as a total degenerate piece of shit in the days of the Republic, and still mostly was in his own days, it's just that nobody cared about anything enough anymore to bother putting an end to that shit (well one of the guard corps eventually did).
His existence is just a symptom of a dying civilisation in the end stages of degeneracy, the sort we're headint towards as well.
Take your fucking /pol/ tier shit out of here.
We're fucking DONE with history as the study of "great men," wars and generals.
Oppressed minorities have been fucking brutally written out of history and we're not going to take it anymore.
From now on, history is going to be the study of how gays, women and transgenders were treated in various empires and historical epochs.
And pro tip, Christian-influenced Europe was probably the worst offender.
If you don't like it, FIND ANOTHER PLANET TO LIVE ON.
I cannot even fucking tell if you're sarcastic anymore.
How did we get here. What historic event caused people like you to not get institutionalized
>Homosexuality is a spectrum 30% of people are somewhere in the gay rainbow
Bullshit. Only 5% people at most identify as LGBBQTARD+++
>The ancient Greeks were very into Gay culture.
Socrates got killed on the accusation of promoting homosexuality.
Nice semi-ironic troll and everything, but the shit you're describing has been dominating discourse since 1968. Today it's dying, avant-garde thinking is reactionary. The next few decades will be hard on post-structuralist faggotry.
Interesting curiosity for the thread.
In the islamic republic of Iran, like in many other muslim nations with law inspired on islamic values, homosexuality is illegal and harshly punished. But apparently Muhammad didn't say anything on transexuals, so that's fair game. In fact, the republic encourages all homos to reveal themselves and have sex changing surgery. The state covers a part of the cost of the operation.
This doesn't reflect the people opinion on homosexuality or transexuality, though.
>What historic event caused people like you to not get institutionalized
Most likely it was the historical event where being curious about how minorities lived in the past wasn't classified as a mental illness.
>Socrates got killed on the accusation of promoting homosexuality.
It was actually a much vaguer accusation of "corrupting the youth."
"heteronormativity" as you call it was the norm in every single fucking culture whether you like it or not.
Romans and Greeks were not "gay" as you think. But there were different cultural values associated with manliness. For them, being gay was fucking wrong, since an homosexual took the place of a women and wanted to be a women which was an humiliating thing to do on itself. who on his sane mind wanted to be a women? they saw these people with contempt but, for them there was nothing wrong in plowing their arseholes like they would a women's as if they were stealing the homo's remaining manhood by doing so.
in fact there's a poem written by a roman guy named Catullus in which he replies to a couple of guys who called him a homo for being, a poet.
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo,
Aureli pathice et cinaede Furi,
qui me ex versiculis meis putastis,
quod sunt molliculi, parum pudicum.
Nam castum esse decet pium poetam
ipsum, versiculos nihil necessest;
qui tum denique habent salem ac leporem,
si sunt molliculi ac parum pudici
et quod pruriat incitare possunt,
non dico pueris, sed his pilosis
qui duros nequeunt movere lumbos.
Vos, quod milia multa basiorum
legistis, male me marem putatis?
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo.
I will sodomize you and face-fuck you,
bottom Aurelius and catamite Furius,
you who think, because my poems
are sensitive, that I have no shame.
For it's proper for a devoted poet to be moral
himself, [but] in no way is it necessary for his poems.
In point of fact, these have wit and charm,
if they are sensitive and a little shameless,
and can arouse an itch,
and I don't mean in boys, but in those hairy old men
who can't get it up.
Because you've read my countless kisses,
you think less of me as a man?
I will sodomize you and face-fuck you.
He was literally willing to prove how manly he was by plowing and face fucking two men.
you'd be a perfectly straight human being in Rome should you avoid kissing or touching other men's dicks.
there are many cultures today that still do this kind of thing, I find it funny because I grew up in a small town in Sinaloa, a place that still share this collective thinking and homosexuals in such society are the lowest of the low. the cheapest of all whores and are constantly humiliated by manly alpha men fucking them.
in Cuba they still do this, and, as in sinaloa they have a term for men who viciously like to fuck other men in the butt "Bubarron" for cubans and "mayates" for sinaloenses. but most people don't think there's something wrong with them.
>should you avoid kissing or touching other men's dicks.
Yeah, I dont want that.
Though I want a cute boyfriend, not really interested in random hookups.
I know man, I think sexuality is a meme anyway.
>be history lover
>find out /his/ finally got added
>while having many controversial opinions, many relevant to history myself, I understand that a /pol/ invasion would be terrible for the board
>decide to come here to start some good discussion and mediate between the inevitable arguments
>this is the first fucking thread I see.
FUCK. YOU. ALL.
>Terming lgbt people as mentally insane
Is the medically correct word. Only reason it's not standard is due to political correctness. Transsexuals are most definitely mentally insane, no matter what your tumblr blogs say.
If a person thinks he's Superman, we'd call him insane. If a person who is black thinks he's white, we'd call him insane. If a person who is man but calls himself woman, we should logically classify him as insane. Only reason it's not so is due to political correctness and feelings taking priority over logic debates.
>What were the rights of transgender people throughout various empires and historical epochs?
can't speak about non-euro cultures, as I'm not familiar, but for the most part, indo-european societies had a general distinction of "manly vs unmanly" rather than "hetero vs. homo" division we see now.
Generally, this ends up expressing in like fashion to >>89547 , that is, where things seem odd to our "homo v. hetero" perceptions of things.
Another example would be the icelandic crime of "ergi", which means "unmanliness". You could be charged with it for being a faggot, being impotent, being unwilling to defend yourself, not supporting your family, or for simply not killing the fucker who accused you of it on the spot (that is, if you don't kill the person who calls you a bitch, you must indeed be one). It was punishable by full outlawry, which is the closest thing to a death sentence in free state icelandic law...
The germanic tribes, according to tacitus, executed homosexuals by drowning them in bogs, covered in wattle mats so as to "hide their shame".
>Did Christianity instill a culture of heteronormativity in Europe that stifled gay and trans expression?
not so much as one would think. European "manly v. unmanly" ethics would have already made modern-style "gay couples" into laughing stocks, if not outright opening them up to execution of some kind, and transsexuals were equally derided in the few cases I can think of off the top of my head.
christianity's biggest contributions to sexual ethics in european lands would be it's prohibitions against:
and yes, I mean abortion. see the didache, which specifically prohibits such.
These are things the pagan european would have accepted before christendom that would have become hard to drop afterwards.
You want to get fucked in the ass and suck the dick of a tranny.
I want to totally dominate cute guys sexually.
I have the Roman, Greeks and Vikings to back me up, who do you have?
Uh, who the fuck said anything about gross-ass trannies?
I'm talking about a fictional, biologically impossible sex that has penises but also has extremely feminine or masculine body types.
In real life I only fug girls.
Though I would be down with pegging or fugging a tranny
I'm not trying to bully you here, but the Romans would literally see me as straight, while I fuck the boypucci of a twink and see you as effeminate and the butt of jokes when pegged by your gf with a wee wee.
>In Ancient Rome the young male body remained a focus of male sexual attention, but relationships were between older free men and slaves or freed youths who took the receptive role in sex. All the emperors with the exception of Claudius took male lovers. The Hellenophile emperor Hadrian is renowned for his relationship with Antinous,
You're spam posting in this thread about soley desiring to fuck "boipucci" proves other wise, you have no desires other than sexual ones with a man, that's entirely a fact. You have a fetishism or a mental disorder
They are, there are no feelings for reproduction, there are nothing but disallusioned desire for the love of a women through a man; for it requires no responsibility and no commitment.
You can most likley live openly and whatever.
Homosexuality will perish upon the return of a difficult lifestyle.
Homosexuals have an increased number of partners, increased drug useage, higher rate of STDs, raise children less effectively than traditional couples, and are massive faggots.
Homosexuality would always be a negative.
>implying it's some thing I flaunt all over
Pretty much everyone has secret fetishes, and it often reflects the opposite of their character.
Today, you're the weak feminine one and I'm just me with secret fetishes.
I really don't have anythinng against gays though
Back it up then, if it's not an opinion. Enlighten us with this neuropsychological proof that the dysmorphic and deluded should be indulged and not treated. Show your evidence, and let your assertions stand or fall on the strength of it.
Were transexuals actually a thing? I get that some woman dressed like men since being a woman sucked for most of history, but I can't imagine anyone thinking they were supposed to be the other gender until recent history. It really seems to be a first world problem more than anything else.
If I were to claim that I'm pre-op trans-race, a Thai man born in the body of a white man, would that hold any legitimacy? Not just to think "I agree with or identify with this culture," but "I am a member of this people and my body does not reflect this."