Lol that stupid argument though. I love it when clueless TRA wannabes throw this one on me. That and "intersex people exist".

Like yeah no, you saw a blog that said Joan of Arc was nonbinary. That's not an argument. That's a theory from a spicy straight college kid.

"And then poor Tunga threw himself in front of a wooly mammoth stampede because Gronk wouldn't validate "her" womanhood"

Seriously though, the reason we don't hear about historical trans-women is because they all committed suicide before the invention of validating lipstick and thigh high anime socks.

Sadly, science has no way to differentiate their skeletons from other males since gender affirming surgeries were not invented at that time.

Ermagerd that reminds me of the late great Gak Eisenberg from the Far Side.

I cringe thinking that this is one of the arguments I formerly accepted and internalized. The people that say trans identity and gender ideology have always existed around the world are reaching so so hard, even purposefully misinterpreting gender nonconformity as being synonymous with trans identity in some cases.

Worst of all is that so many of the other supposedly super inclusive forward-thinking examples of cultures that they claim have always had a gender spectrum actually tend to be extremely patriarchal with rigid gender roles.

Feel this. I've started to get more annoyed at the argument that other cultures (always the ones that were colonized by white Europeans) had a history of gender non-conformity or believed that some people lived "between gender." Because even when that's true, I don't think it's fair to use these cultures as "proof" that trans identity is always valid. My issue isn't with trans identity; my issue is when you use trans identity as the ultimate playing card that gives you a winning hand 100% of the time, especially when it starts to affect women's issues. I also hate when people place the cultures of colonized people on a pedestal as a tool for their own arguments. It gives them a shield from any and all criticism, because it's much easier to call someone a transphobe and/or a racist rather than actually having any sort of conviction.

Yeah, I find it similar to when activists use intersex people as a shield to justify their gender identity talking points. It really feels like they’re trying to distract from the actual topic at hand in the least graceful way possible.

This could just be me, but I’ve also noticed in my experience it tends to be overwhelmingly western white people that are using cultures from across the globe in order to justify their arguments, just like it’s usually non-intersex people who say “sex is not binary because intersex, actually.” Even though I know this isn’t always the case, I’ve seen way too many TRAs people using groups they’re not even a part of to make the most boneheaded arguments just for their own personal gain.

They can't even properly define what makes a person "trans". Easy to say something always existed when you can just bullshit whatever you want about it.

Trans people have always existed! But also there are virtually no relevant differences between the sexes!

[–] yesisaiditxx 10 points Edited

I know that a lot of radical feminists even are sorta anti having children…but I think the whole trans has always existed crowd are looking through a modern lens so much that they fail to see how in the ancient (and perhaps even pre modern economy) world having children WAS LIFE. You were a leech if you didn’t. It’s harsh, but it’s true. You’d be having to live with family as the one odd ball aunt who works around the home with the other women in exchange for just existing. Unless you happened to be born in the most cushioned environment there was you’d be poor as dirt. When you grew old you’d be like a family charity case with no contribution to the current younger working group and no one seriously tending to you. Having someone be trans obviously throws a huge wrench in the “who do we marry this person to? how will this person have kids?” calculation and walking gleefully into that scenario with pride just would not have happened.

Edit: just wanted to add that I figure this was also a major part of the roots of homophobia. Unless you were willing to get married and do what you need to do to have children you were sentencing yourself to this kind of life…and you can’t really blame your family and the people who will have to house and feed you for a lifetime on top of their own household from trying to persuade you otherwise. I imagine a lot of “let’s just get it over with” sex was happening.

[–] notyourfetish 3 points Edited

Some cultures had gay people become caregivers to their sibling's children so that they weren't just "leeching." I can't remember where I read that, but it was interesting.