D
Deleted member
Guest
You say define the current trans sexual definition as "a new category of transgender" which makes me think you agree to some extent that what we are dealing with now is not what the ancients were trying to describe. I think where we differ is that you are defining this as an evolution of trans identity whereas I am classifying it as something else entirely. I don't want to put words in your mouth but let me know if that sounds like how you see it too.
I'm saying there's a distinction between biologically mediated primary transsexualism (in the 1890s - 2000s sense) and transgenderism, which arose as a cultural marxist political movement out of advocacy by the so-called "secondary transsexuals" who could be treated successfully without transitioning and who did not like this fact. I am linking proper or primary transsexualism as probably something that was associated with historical gender variant roles, and certainly was, for example, in India with the Hijra and Thailand with the Kathoey, both examples of which further reinforce the idea that, for the sake of parsimony, a western cultural expression of the same biophysical manifestation did exist historically.