all 34 comments

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Homosexuals and gender non conforming people aren’t welcome in queer theory. They inconveniently ruin the whole gender norms/roles making people the ‘wrong sex’ thing. Instead, paper over history with modern transgender thinking to legitimise the ‘wrong sex’ thing and delegitimise the people who once pulled against the leash of gender.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Obligatory not QT, but trans. So I feel like I know what you are asking. I don’t know how QT people would answer that. I feel like you have to look at HSTS transsexuals and gay people and see that sort of as different ways the same type of thing presents in an individual or in society. Maybe not exactly, but close. I feel like it would be silly to pretend that doesn’t overlap or someone might develop identity differently in a different society. Pointing it out doesn’t change the identity of the person though. I feel like QT is resistant to that though because it means we aren’t real (unless only the straight ones are, lol).

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 4 insightful - 8 fun4 insightful - 7 fun5 insightful - 8 fun -  (7 children)

Leonardo da Vinci was likely gay, though he was celibate in his life. Barbara Gittings from the Stonewall riots was a cis lesbian and so was Sally Ride, America's first female astronaut.,_lesbian_or_bisexual_people

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

That Wiki-link is just a list of famous LGB individuals 99.9% of whom are all from the 20th century Western world. How does that address my question, when my question was about people outside the modern-day West?

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 3 insightful - 8 fun3 insightful - 7 fun4 insightful - 8 fun -  (5 children)

Antinous - Bithynian Greek youth and a favourite beloved of the Roman emperor Hadrian

Pietro Aretino - Italian author, playwright, poet, satirist and blackmailer, who wielded influence on contemporary art and politics

Louise Abbéma - French painter, sculptor, and designer of the Belle Époque

Emperor Ai of Han

Lord Byron - English poet and politician

Jacopo Bonfadio - Italian humanist and historian

Rosa Bonheur - French painted and sculptor

Francesco Calcagno - Franciscan friar famously executed for blasphemy and sodomy by the Venetian Inquisition

Mervyn Tuchet, 2nd Earl of Castlehaven - English nobleman convicted of rape and sodomy and subsequently executed

Petru Cercel - Voivode (Prince) of Wallachia from 1583 to 1585, son to ruler Pătrașcu cel Bun

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Um..mervyn was not homosexual or gnc that we know of. He was just a rapist. Why do you think this guy who raped his wife and servants is homosexual or gnc?

Petru wore jewelry. Why is he listed here? That’s not gay or gnc. especially for a prince of Wallachia.

Antinous was only associated with homosexuality, and not until Oscar Wilde wrote about him. Literally zero connection to any sort of third gender or transgenderism.

Rosa was a lesbian who wore men’s clothes for practicality. What’s third gender or trans about that? Again just a regular gnc and homosexual person. Proving the opposite of what you claim here.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That Wiki-link is just a list of famous LGB individuals 99.9% of whom are all from the 20th century Western world, while the 0.1% are still from the Western world. How does that address my question, when my question was about people outside the modern-day West?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Seriously, where are all these supposed historic trans two spirit people? The trans muxes and bakla?

These social assignations should be teeming with people who exactly match the transgender rhetoric now and all throughout history. There should be handfuls of examples gb can give if her claim is factual.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 4 insightful - 7 fun4 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 7 fun -  (1 child)

Not all are from the west. If you read through the list you will find people before the 20th century and who aren't from the west. I even provided an example of Emperor Ai of Han, Or do you think homosexuality is a modern, western invention like you do with transgenderism?

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Wow, you listed a single non-Western non-20th century gay person... how does that address my question though? Did this individual exist in a culture that recognised a "third gender"?

For instance, if the "two spirit" people within Native American nations are not gay but trans, then where are the gay people within those nations?

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 3 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 7 fun -  (23 children)

Gay and Trans are both western concepts that shouldn’t be applied to ancient indigenous cultures

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Not really, homosexuality existed and was named in other cultures and in religious books outside of the west and thousands years ago. Also homosexuality is observed among a lot of different species of animals, even among ones who have no social culture or are loners.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 3 insightful - 8 fun3 insightful - 7 fun4 insightful - 8 fun -  (11 children)

“Homosexual” is from the late 19th century.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The name is new but the concept has existed throughout history and in other species. Despite your nominalism bs, homosexuality is not a modern invention just because the name is modern.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

"Dinosaur" is from the late 19th century too. Their remains were unearthed by cultures all around the world before then though. Homosexuality is actually measurable (eye-tracking, for instance). It's not an invention.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 9 fun1 insightful - 8 fun2 insightful - 9 fun -  (7 children)

The term homosexuality is different from same sex attraction.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Homo, meaning same..sexual referring to sexual attraction.

What is homosexuality if it isn’t same sex attraction?

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 2 insightful - 8 fun2 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 8 fun -  (3 children)

You should not apply modern labels to ancient people

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

For no reason other than you say so?

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Is that just regarding sexuality and/or gender identity? I understand and agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but why would that apply to something like sexuality or gender identity but not something like race or disability or neurodiversity? I'm sorry to be pedantic, I'm just a bit confused 😅

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 2 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

No I’d apply it to all of the above

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

only if different means the same.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 7 fun1 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

We shouldn’t be describing ancient people with modern labels

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Homosexuality was mentioned and banned in religious books 2500 years ago, and homosexuality is observed in animals and there were even found evidence of homosexuality among primated hundreds thousands years ago. So no, it is not "appeared" in 19th century.

Or you mean word itself? Naming something differently is not changing the thing itself. If we name shotgun as "healing machine" - when we use it on person, it will still kill them, not heal. Words and language is an instrument, they exist only to communicate between people, so they must mean the same or almost the same for people, so we can communicate and explain our thoughts to each other. That is why all words have their definitions.

[–]FlanJam 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't like the way some people so casually apply modern concepts of gender and sexuality onto historical figures, but that doesn't mean we can't acknowledge of the existence of gay relationships and the existence of same-sex attracted people throughout history. Otherwise we'd lose all ability to talk about lgbt history past a certain point, which would be a shame.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Makes sense! I wish people would maybe just describe historical peoples lives without using current labels. If people didn’t think of themselves as gay or trans I don’t feel like it’s okay to say they were.

I feel like if we use current standards to say gay people existed historically, despite that not really being an identity yet, I feel like we’d have to say that trans people did too if we are being consistent and I know that really upsets GC, so maybe it’s best not to project onto historical people.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

But homosexuality is defined by same-sex attraction. If a people-group label their same-sex attracted population "two spirit" for instance, it's pretty safe to say that they are homosexuals, especially when not calling them homosexuals means you're saying homosexuals don't exist in their culture. So there is really no way around them being homosexuals, trouble is, it means trans people are at best a type of homosexual, a throwback to an earlier time when populations were smaller & the only way a homosexual person could marry a member if the same sex would be to take on the role of the opposite sex.

The problem is this insistence that the modern Western view of transgender exists (as not being a type of homosexual, but a type of DSD, I guess). In that case, one of the two has got to be erased in order for the other to exist. If transexual is a type of homosexual, then neither is erased by the "revelation" that two-spirit people are exclusively same-sex attracted.

I think we need to just keep in mind that all these so-called trans people are consistently exclusively same-sex attracted. Homosexuals & trans people have one thing in common: their sexual orientation. Since "homosexual" is in reference to sexual orientation then transgender people are a type of homosexual.

The biggest problem of all are the "transbians", who are made totally illegitimate by all of this, reduced to a paraphilia. And they are the social majority, as well as a physical majority within the trans population.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I don’t disagree necessarily with how you are looking at it or that HSTS trans people are a “type of homosexual”, but I feel like how you look at it has to do with what you see as more important. If we feel like homosexuality is the important part, we will focus on the homosexuality of third genders in other societies and say that the gender part was because their society couldn’t cope with their homosexuality. If people feel like transgendered identity is the important part, they will focus on gender non-conformity of homosexual people and say that the homosexual identity only existed because society couldn’t cope with their transgendered identity. I don’t agree with the second statement, but I don’t see one way of looking at it as making more sense than the other when we are looking at history. It’s only what we decide the important part is.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 6 insightful - 6 fun6 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 6 fun -  (5 children)

because their society couldn’t cope with their homosexuality

It's not that they couldn't cope necessarily, just that in those days you'd very likely be "the only gay in the village", so a gay person would have had little choice left to them. Gay people were probably very likely partnered with straight people for the majority of history. It's only in recent times that gay people can find each other to date. Nowadays it's taboo to suggest that straight people got into relationships with gay people, bc everyone has decided that heterosexuality "isn't a choice", bc otherwise the gay rights movement will collapse or something. Everyone's got a sacred calf, it seems, inhibiting their common sense.

In fact, modern gay people who completely lack a cross-gender identification are a new type of gay person, while the transgendered type of gay person would be the "original" type. Which firmly secures that neither is lesser, not that that was the goal, but it just seems to be where the evidence points.

that the homosexual identity only existed because society couldn’t cope with their transgendered identity

The only way for that to be true though is if homosexuality just didn't exist in their culture. You've also got to remember the context of desistance – how most underage people who identify as trans desist & most of those end up being gay, not the other way around. Cross-gender identification seems to be a part in being gay, a very useful part in the olden days.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I like the way you are thinking about it and it mostly makes sense to me.

Nowadays it's taboo to suggest that straight people got into relationships with gay people, bc everyone has decided that heterosexuality "isn't a choice", bc otherwise the gay rights movement will collapse or something. Everyone's got a sacred calf, it seems, inhibiting their common sense.

I feel like we should respect people sexual orientations though. I could talk about my experiences with straight men and they don’t make me to believe that someone being male in an abstract sense if everything else tells them female is ever a deal breaker for them, but straight men should still be able to have their orientation respected just like gay people. It’s just the right thing to do even if reality might be more complicated.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 2 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 7 fun -  (3 children)

Absolutely! I believe that they are straight, despite technically being in a same-sex relationship. Even eye-tracking studies seem to confirm that Samoan men open to dating fa'afafine are not even bisexual (just not as "straight" as men unwilling to, apparently).

I recently saw an old British documentary about lesbians (uploaded by BabyRadFemTV) & according to it, 'lesbian' used to be defined as the type of woman who would dress & act like a man & pursue romantic relationships with women. The women they had relationships with were not regarded as lesbians at that time.

I feel like this old view is more accurate than the modern one. Nowadays, we have to all accept that the partner of a lesbian is always another lesbian (or bisexual) & that a heterosexual women can never love another woman. This is why political lesbianism has got such a bad wrap nowadays & seemingly every modern radfem rejects it as being homophobic (even though Sheila Jeffreys is a political lesbian in a very successful long term relationship). Then they wonder why every straight woman identifies as bi – it's bc they can't just be straight anymore if they are open to relationships with women. The modern political lesbian has to identify as febfem in order to avoid the wrath of lesbians & their allies.

Then again, I've heard people say that you can identify as bi even if you're not 50/50 bi – whatever the f*ck that means. I mean, if you're gay but like "5% straight", or whatever, wouldn't you still think of yourself gay? Don't know why a straight person who is "5% gay" is automatically bi. I think if a label were absolutely necessary then "heteroflexible"? But maybe it becomes less about semantics & more about preference as far as these labels are concerned.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)


If someone is 5% gay or 5% straight - they are bisexual. They don't need to act on it, but it is who they are, and they will have harder time understanding exclusive same-sex or opposite-sex attraction.


It is pretty homophobic point of view, pushed by society. That homosexuality is performative, and that it is not just same-sex attraction. I lived in a country where homosexuality was outlawed, and such view was (and somewhat still is) the main view on homosexuality. That only either "manly" or "ugly" women who "can't find a man because of their own flaws" are becoming lesbians, and they are pretending to be men to date women. And that only one who is "filling male role in relationship" is lesbian, other woman is not. Which is ridiculous, because it is way too heteronormative, lesbians are two women - we need no "man" in relationship. Same is with gay men - that only "more feminine one, or who is filling women's role" and one "who is penetrated" are gays. In USSR man who loves men and raped them would not be considered as gay, but his victim will be stigmatized as gay, even if he don't like men and was forcibly raped. That view is saying htat "nice looking" or "feminine" women who exclusively loving women are not lesbians, not homosexual. It is just homophobic view of old society, which was adopted by self-hatred and tries to adapt to society - as it was the only way for lesbians to be together without being prosecuted or shamed. I had such self hatred because of homophobia in society too, and I tried "to be a man" at few points in life, as I wanted to be free like men and seen as a human being, and because my homosexuality put me in troubles (like I got fired from job, beaten and almost "correctively" raped, etc). Lesbian, gay and bisexual are not a performative roles, it is sexualities. All you need to be lesbian is to be female and exclusively love and be attracted to females, does not matter how you look, how you act or how you think.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

What does 5% vs 50/50 mean though? If you can fall in love with both men & women then surely you're 100% bisexual. If you can only fall for one, you're 0% bisexual. Where is there even a possibility of a spectrum there? I suspect that straight people just think if they watched gay porn once & didn't hate it, all of a sudden they don't consider themselves fully straight – if that was the metric, no one would be fully gay either. The difference is gay people don't think of themselves as a little straight if they were to ever watch straight porn for instance. The porn example is just an example, there are probably equivalent examples of these so-called breaches in heterosexuality that supposedly justify a bisexual self-categorisation.

It's only homophobic nowadays, when both partners are more than likely homosexuals. In the olden days lesbian-lesbian relationships would have been unlikely & the further back you go the less likely it would have been possible. Populations were just too small.

The fact that many societies only treat effeminate gay men & masculine lesbians as gay & not the "straight acting" ones, seems to confirm this origin of "third gender" as homosexual in origin. There are societies that label all gay people a "third gender", but then differentiate between the gender conforming & cross-gender conforming ones.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agreeing with this.

There are societies that label all gay people a "third gender", but then differentiate between the gender conforming & cross-gender conforming ones.

Most "third genders" in cultures I know are always very strongly patriarchic societies, and third gender are always gay, weak or infertile men who have less rights or power than men, but more than women. In most cases it is something like "to not shame males with you being not manly enough - we will say you aren't really a man". Women never got such "thrid gender" group (except few islamic countries, but there it is different, I'll explain later). Mostly women were pretending to be men in cases when women wanted to be free from oppression, or to learn science or to work on some jobs (like surgeon) which were forbidden for women to work. Other case is when lesbians were trying to live together, and only way was if they moved to new place and one was pretending to be a man on public ("Sea Purple" nice movie with this part, thought it was forced there). In those Islamic countries I've mentioned before - when husband of woman died, and she has no sons, no brother and no father alive, then she can inherit what her husband owned, but she must try look masculine, wear masculine clothing and never marry or date men ever again.