This is one of those claims that I hear a lot these days. The indigenous 'two-spirit', for instance. The problem with such invocations is that it isn't clear that such claims are accurate or justifiable. For one thing, it's not clear there were 'plenty' of such civilizations. Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, cites all of six. That's a pretty small number.RKA wrote: ↑Fri Jul 14, 2023 9:06 am
It would be more accurate to say that the belief is that the "nature" of human beings is not as limited in scope or dimension as traditionally has been accepted in western civilization (there being plenty of other civilizations and cultures that have in fact traditionally recognized more than just the two gender model of human identity).
https://www.britannica.com/list/6-cultu ... wo-genders
But the larger problem than sheer infrequency of such cultures is that it isn't clear that's such ascriptions are accurate to those cultures. It's not hard to demonstrate, by reference to the historical evidences available and the self-description of numerous contemporary indigenous American tribes, that 'Two-Spirit' is not merely a very new term (coined in the late 1900's), but that the phenomenon ostensibly described is highly questionable. It isn't clear that invocations of such categories are in accord with the actual historical documentation we have on hand of those cultures. That is to say, it seems just as likely that two-spirit may be, at best, a heavily (and misleadingly framed) interpretation of certain cultural aspects of a select few indigenous tribes that are anachronistically assumed to demonstrate the presence of something like the acceptance of multiple genders, in relatively the same sense we mean that today. Which is to say there are plenty of purely academic reasons to be highly skeptical of such claims.
Going to the Britannica article cited, those same issues arise almost immediately with respect to other cultures cited. Without actual citation of any documentation, a string of characterizations are given about the cultures. Yet, even in the way those characterizations are presented, it's not clear that most of these 'categories' of people weren't primarily cultic - that is, created as outgrowths of a prior religious tradition - and almost irrelevant to what is currently referenced in modern debates revolving around 'gender identity'. Take the Hindu 'hijra' which is framed as some sort of ratification of a 'third gender' (a category only officially recognized in India/Pakistan in 2014). Even a cursory glance at discussions of the topic outside of pro-trans sources demonstrates that this is a catchall phrase for 'eunuchs', and which had close ties to cultic beliefs (tied directly to certain strands of Hindu religious beliefs about the oneness of existence). The term does not reference a 'transgender' type or a 'third gender', but specifically references those who are castrated, often for religious reasons, (and a cursory glance at sources indicates, as often as not, against their will by cultic leaders who came to hold sway over them), and in that role (like eunuchs in many other cultures), managed to find a place in cultural positions that benefited from having someone deprived or diminished in their normal sexual drives - midwives, etc. Sometimes looked up to, sometimes looked down on as outcasts and ne'er do wells.
It's not clear that even the non-cultic categories the cultural categories cited weren't just terms for people who lived outside of traditional male/female roles, yet who still very much understood themselves, and were understood by others, to be either men or women. And even then,It isn't clear many of these weren't ostracized, or simply given random descriptions owing to their cultural oddity, rather than cultural embrace. It isn't clear, in other words...
1) That the cultures actually saw those who departed from their cultural gender norms as either routine (as though the culture HAD a position about them), or as something generally positive/neutral rather than negative, or, in many of the cases, as an 'identity' that did not derive from the cultic life of the civilization but served as the basis for creating a special cultic status.
2) That the cultures actually viewed these individuals - or that the individuals viewed themselves - in anything even remotely comparable to what we mean when we talk about 'gender'.
This isn't to say definitively that such civilizations did not have such perspectives, it's to say that most of the time, the appeals to such civilizations often smack of being anachronistic justifications of some position of our own culture, rather than the product of serious and evidence-based research into the actual life and perspectives of such cultures.
Though, I'm not sure what this kind of argument about the presence and acceptance of "other gendered" people in other cultures in history is supposed to accomplish. Even if it could be demonstrated that such people were prevalent and culturally embraced across a wide swath of cultures (a historically and anthropologically tall order), so what? There are lots of practices and views relatively wide spread and embraced among cultures as normal and authentic expressions of human life that we, justifiably, consider absolute rubbish. Even if one can prove the existence, acceptability, and translatability of concept in it's original context, that doesn't logically entail a justification of it as something we should embrace.
Well, technically, there are wide limitations on the freedom of speech. And freedom of speech may have parallels to freedom of expression, but they are not strictly parallel nor identical. I may be free to say that my body is beautiful. But I am not free to express my self-perception by, say, exposing myself in public. Which gets to a big point I, at least, believe is important that grabachair made: a person may be free to say many things, and, let's for the sake of the argument assert, express themselves as much as they want. But, they do not have the freedom to have their expressions accepted, agreed to, liked, or even listened to, or even heard by others. I am not duty-bound to pay any attention to thosee who have every right to express themselves. Nor am I duty bound to expose myself to everything they might wish to express. Thus, there is always the very important balance between allowing a person the freedom to speak (and the more limited freedom to express themselves), and respecting the freedom of speech/expression/conscience of others. It's a difficult balance to find. And those boundaries are always established with debate and conflict.RKA wrote: ↑Fri Jul 14, 2023 9:06 amHow you feel about yourself is important and expressing that is a pretty fundamental human right (ie Freedom of Expression as a logical parallel to Freedom of Speech)...Similarly, our minds and bodies are not separate but intertwined and interconnected in forming our sense of self and identity.
I suspect most people on here would agree with that basic point. Though I might be wrong.
To be fair, virtually every radical reform movement struggles to define the 'something else'. That's not necessarily a knock against radical reformation in principle. Just a point that it's very hard to actually construct a new system. Thus, most radical reform movements begin in the realm of 'anti-status quo', with the positives largely being ill-defined ideals that are scant on details. And thus, when successful, most radical reform movements find their feet very slowly, and - often enough - end up creating a system that doesn't mirror the idealistic sloganeering nearly so well as one might imagine - though some more nearly than others, and some more capable of adjusting and 'progressing' than others. The American Revolution, for instance, had a pretty rocky start, and obviously is an ongoing project toward some of those high-minded ideals. But it is remarkably adaptable, and in most historical estimations, has tended to move often enough in the direction of those ideals in the experience of many. Obviously not perfectly, or close, but...still, in a historically noteworthy way.RKA wrote: ↑Fri Jul 14, 2023 9:06 am
Ummm, "improving" what we have is the whole point of movements like BLM or any "progressive" organization or movement, hence "progress". Although, if you want to get into, "Radical Feminism" (which is still ostensibly the political viewpoint of Sinfest, yes?) IS in fact pretty much about dismantling the entire system we have (patriarchy) in favor of "something else" (which in my experience, RF struggles to define clearly)
That's one of those statements that is a truism. It's generic enough to be able to be applied to almost everything. It also is a point at which a fundamental issue often gets ignored. What 'human experiences' we choose to expose children too directly reflects our cultural agreement about what is worthwhile to expose children to. To my knowledge (admittedly limited), no one in history has ever seriously suggested that we ought to just 'expose children to the range of human experience' in a rigorously logically consistent sense. We don't expose children to, say, the psychology of the serial killer who has quasi-mystical experiences in watching life leave his/her victims. We don't expose children to, say, the intricacies of ancient Greek pederasty. Though the Greeks very deliberately did. Why? Why SOME experiences and not others? For the quite simple reason that, for all sorts of reasons, most every adult in the world believes there are ranges of human experience that would harm children to expose them to it, even though it would give them a more 'nuanced understanding' of human experience. Because, frankly, cultures believe some behaviors and experiences are unacceptable, or at least unwholesome. The transgender debate is PRECISELY a debate about whether this form of life is normal, or healthy, or a cultural boon/bane. And so, to simply elide the very real fact of the heart of the debate and assert that children ought to be exposed to this as an 'acceptable, normal, healthy, appropriate' range of experience is to act as though the debate has been settled, when it has not.RKA wrote: ↑Fri Jul 14, 2023 9:06 am
Children often see things in simple terms, even black and white. The mark of a maturing mind is one that learns to understand and accept nuance and that there are not only shades of grey but entire spectrums of color (a rainbow if you will) of viewpoints. Exposing children to the spectrum of human experience and supporting their exploration of the world is actually a great way to help them grow up without fear of people and ideas that are not like themselves
