I don’t think anyone believes genetic things like that did not exist in the past, but is that really trans in the modern meaning which I will admit Im not sure of exact definitions around it. I mean there are plenty of trans folks today that are genetically perfect xx or xy specimens.
Intersex people are individuals born with any of several sex characteristics including chromosome patterns, gonads, or genitals that do not fit the binary. Intersex folks are not inherently trans; but many were put through gender reassignment surgery post-birth and usually without their permission, so some do in fact, feel they are trans.
see its the use of some. some non intersex are trans to, no? so pointing to a historical body that is intersex does not necessarily correlate with historical trans.
I’m not sure I understand. Where did I say historically intersex bodies mean they’re trans? …are you talking about the grave found in Suontaka, Hattula in Finland? Because they did DNA testing and discovered the deceased had Klinefelter syndrome, which to very crudely summarize (and I apologize if I say this incorrectly) is someone mostly male-presenting with an additional copy of the X chromosome; so XXY instead of XY chromosomes. The deceased was dressed in female clothing of the time, and in the grave they found jewelry attributed to women in that time as well. That’s why they theorize the individual mighthave been trans as well.
yeah I feel its just mixing things though to point to these might have beens. The modern movement to me is individuals as adults (mostly) determining what their gender is which is defined as not the same as their sex. This is my understanding but im never really sure if I have something like this as you sorta have to belong to the culture to really understand it. I belong to my own and you will even get debate within a group about what it means to be part of it as cultures are almost constantly in a state of redefining even if core elements remain the same. So anyway the phrase there are examples of trans (presumably like the modern movement) having existed is different than the phrase there are examples where its theorized that trans individuals might have existed in history.
But what made the knight intersex? The clothing?
Brother, their genitals
You do know what intersex is, right?
I don’t think anyone believes genetic things like that did not exist in the past, but is that really trans in the modern meaning which I will admit Im not sure of exact definitions around it. I mean there are plenty of trans folks today that are genetically perfect xx or xy specimens.
I agree on that very much, but that’s not necessarily the point I was trying to make.
However, there were indeed trans people in the past my friend, who were perfectly xx or xy.
Intersex people are individuals born with any of several sex characteristics including chromosome patterns, gonads, or genitals that do not fit the binary. Intersex folks are not inherently trans; but many were put through gender reassignment surgery post-birth and usually without their permission, so some do in fact, feel they are trans.
see its the use of some. some non intersex are trans to, no? so pointing to a historical body that is intersex does not necessarily correlate with historical trans.
I’m not sure I understand. Where did I say historically intersex bodies mean they’re trans? …are you talking about the grave found in Suontaka, Hattula in Finland? Because they did DNA testing and discovered the deceased had Klinefelter syndrome, which to very crudely summarize (and I apologize if I say this incorrectly) is someone mostly male-presenting with an additional copy of the X chromosome; so XXY instead of XY chromosomes. The deceased was dressed in female clothing of the time, and in the grave they found jewelry attributed to women in that time as well. That’s why they theorize the individual might have been trans as well.
yeah I feel its just mixing things though to point to these might have beens. The modern movement to me is individuals as adults (mostly) determining what their gender is which is defined as not the same as their sex. This is my understanding but im never really sure if I have something like this as you sorta have to belong to the culture to really understand it. I belong to my own and you will even get debate within a group about what it means to be part of it as cultures are almost constantly in a state of redefining even if core elements remain the same. So anyway the phrase there are examples of trans (presumably like the modern movement) having existed is different than the phrase there are examples where its theorized that trans individuals might have existed in history.