Berdache

[Torurot]

Ziggy, hope you are going to include a chapter on Pacific Islander's "Fafafini". Capt Cook was a truely great explorer, ahead of his time in many respects.

[Guest]

It's truly amazing how many Ladyboys there were in old times. The "soft men" of the Artic and Siberia, also dressed in women's clothes, married men, with no ill will, the Galli and enarees priests in ancient Greek times, the hijra, historically and today in India/Bangladesh/Pakistan (yep, Islamic states, Islamic backdrop). Ladyboys pretty much existed everywhere in the world, and more importantly, were largely accepted.

It's only since the 1800s that all civilizations (European, Asian, America, Arctic, African) started to stop the practice in view of it being savage and barbarian. Funny how we're coming full circle now, where 200 years later, it's growing in acceptance again.

Just to through gas on the fire, I'm just reading book now on how Jesus, Plato, and a couple of other philosophers were PROPONENTS of gay relationships. It is not so strange, as in those times, gay and transsexual relationships were not necessarily considered bad, so it would not be unusual for philosophers to look neutrally or postively on them.

[Road Runner]

Hello Gents,

Further to the discussion about European explorers try reading  '1421'  by Gavin Menzies published 2003.  The subtitle is  'The Year China Discovered the World'.

The guy who wrote it is an amateur historian and many of the experts slated the book. He seems to have done his homework though and it's a good read.

Does not mention ladyboys anywhere though  

RR.

[Guest]

They are interesting because on the same soil that now has no tolerance for gender benders, and violence is common against them (us), the native Indians showed a progressive society that did just the opposite. One Crow elder said, "We don't throw away our people like the white man. Everyone has a place."

Ironically, some of the first berdache were discovered in Texas. It is ironic, because that is George Bush's home state. He of course is violently against same sex marriage. Likely, berdache lived on or near his ranch, as they were prevalant in all tribes.

I don't doubt your info is factual, it sounds like it should be, and I find it interesting.

Here's the part where my antennae start to go up. What exactly is your point here? You aren't positing an argument or advocating a position- you are just slyly segueing from a factual piece of history into some possibly irrelevant correlations.

I'm not a Bush cheerleader, he does plenty I don't agree with. He does a few things I do agree with.

Political positions should be neutral, in other words, if you were discussing the same topic 15 years ago- or 15 years now, people would look at you funny if you use the name Bush in your conversation. Policies can make sense in context over time. Policies, not people. Ideas, not events.

So my point is this... you seemed to be implying something at the end, but I'm not exactly sure what. Maybe you're not sure? I think a lot of people would read your post and come away with a vague sense of "yeah, stupid Bush"-- but without any specific inferences or positied arguments having been made.

This is the tenor of the general smear, imply, wink-wink communication that has become quite prevalent. Notice when you watch the news how often they actually tell you any specific information, and how much they simply imply things.

People have begun to think this way. We now live in an argument culture, because people have gone so long in a culture of poor mental focus and piss-poor logic that no one understands how to posit or refute any resolution statement.

To tie it back to a joke... I watched a sitcom the other night where one of the characters just kept saying "So's your face!" in response to whatever other people said. Obviously it didn't make sense, but it was funny.

I'm getting tired of pretty much seeing people do the same thing every day. At the end of every complaint about the world they tack on "...Bush stinks". Global warming- Bush stinks. Hurricane- Bush stinks. "I got a flat tire... oh and Bush stinks". My hard drive crashed- Bush stinks.

Maybe I just had a grumpy day? I'm just irritated at the general mushy-headedness of the public these days and this is just one facet of it. Maybe I just read the wrong thing at the wrong time. Blah. Sue me. -it's Bush's fault.

</rant>

[Guest]

It's truly amazing how many Ladyboys there were in old times. The "soft men" of the Artic and Siberia, also dressed in women's clothes, married men, with no ill will, the Galli and enarees priests in ancient Greek times, the hijra, historically and today in India/Bangladesh/Pakistan (yep, Islamic states, Islamic backdrop). Ladyboys pretty much existed everywhere in the world, and more importantly, were largely accepted.

It's only since the 1800s that all civilizations (European, Asian, America, Arctic, African) started to stop the practice in view of it being savage and barbarian. Funny how we're coming full circle now, where 200 years later, it's growing in acceptance again.

Just to through gas on the fire, I'm just reading book now on how Jesus, Plato, and a couple of other philosophers were PROPONENTS of gay relationships. It is not so strange, as in those times, gay and transsexual relationships were not necessarily considered bad, so it would not be unusual for philosophers to look neutrally or postively on them.

To hop back on topic...

What's your opinion on what caused the sudden puritanical attitude towards femen? (I made up a new word!)

[Guest]

Ok, for the record, I'm Canadian, and I'm so a-political, I only voted once in my 45 years.

There are not so many good arguments I saw on "why" Christian (and other) "new" cultures killed off homosexuality (almost literally). They all have histories of it.

The only good things I've seen are that societies have become more patriarchal, meaning, macho man dominates the woman, and of course to be a womaen or "femen" is to be dominated and disrespected, and like who wants that? You know the song, Big Boys Don't Cry, so if you're not a big boy, you're detested. The other thing is that pschologists in the late 1800s started diagnosing homosexualy as having a pathological disorder and/or disease, and with information flow, the majority started to agree with that and view homosexuals as mentally derandged, diseased people; so who wants a son like that?

Now with patriarchal societies more flattening to accept feminism, and pschologists getting a better grip on what's really going on, homosexuality and Ladyboys are slowly coming back into respectful members of society.

Plus, they're damn cute.

[Road Runner]

There are not so many good arguments I saw on "why" Christian (and other) "new" cultures killed off homosexuality (almost literally). They all have histories of it.

Hello Ziggystardust,
Yes I agree with you on that - but the Christian and 'new' cultures seem to have been more zealous and for some reason more efficient at it  

I suspect the sole reason for this effort was to wipe out something that they did not understand  -  and did not want to understand.
Unfortunately we still have the 'benefit' of this thinking in many of today's societies.

The thing I find most worrying is that the 'scientific' community tried to allign their research to fit with the thinking of the day - and don't kid yourselves still do sometimes!
Rather than looking properly at all the facts and coming to a conclusion from the evidence in front of them.

RR.

[kahuna]

See what you started Ziggy....Now you're gonna have us all helping with your research....I liked the term "Two-Spirit." Following is an excerpt form a longer article I found on-line:

Two-Spirit is a term for third gender people (for example, woman-living-man) that are among many, if not most, Native American and Canadian First Nations tribes. It usually implies a masculine spirit and a feminine spirit living in the same body. It is also used by some contemporary gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and intersex Native Americans to describe themselves. There are also native terms for these individuals in the various Native American languages.

The old term "berdache" (from French bardache, from Spanish bardaxa or bardaje/bardaja, from Italian bardasso or berdasia, from Arabic bardaj, from Persian bardaj or barah meaning "kept boy," "male prostitute," or "catamite") is a generic term used primarily by anthropologists and is frequently rejected as inappropriate and offensive by Native Americans. It has widely been replaced with two-spirit.

"Two-spirit" originated in Winnipeg, Canada in 1990 during the third annual intertribal Native American/First Nations gay and lesbian conference. It comes from the Ojibwa words niizh manitoag (two-spirits). It was chosen to distance Native/First Nations people from non-Natives as well as from the words "berdache" and "gay."

[Guest]

(ziggystardust @ Mar. 24 2006,11:38) There are not so many good arguments I saw on "why" Christian (and other) "new" cultures killed off homosexuality (almost literally). They all have histories of it.

So it sounds like maybe it just spread witht he rapid westernization of the world.

so i guess the question that begs is why did anti-feminaization become a western concept? why was it attached, parcelled, and exported with other western culture?

was it simply the biblical fundamantalist culture? is there a specific tipping point you've found in your research?


to segue back to politics: the solution that solves this and just about every other societal concern is private property rights. no other right stands without private property rights.

in answer to your non-political point: i have to wonder why you brought it up- the political part of the issue? i knew you were canadian, but that hasn't stopped the rest of the world. i find it funny that "the world" seems so snippy about their perception of america trying to interfere with other countries. at the same time, every citizen of other countries seems to think they have some important voice in american politics.

my main concern really is mushy-headedness- which, let me point out, i don't generally attribute to you ziggy. i think you are one of the most level headed and articulate people on the forum. a lower priority concern, is any discussion of politics (as well as religion, economics, ethics, philosophy, epistemology, science, etc.) that is going to flow from mushy-headedness. i'm back in school right now and i'm just flabbergasted at the complete lack of intellectual capability these days. everyone i see is like those "jay walking" segments on the tonight show where jay leno goes out and asks people on the street basic questions like "who is the vice president" and they don't know.

so, are you going to clarify whether you had a point with bringing up george bush, or are you backing away from that as an ill-considered reference?

[kahuna]

(grunyen @ Mar. 25 2006,11:20) to segue back to politics: the solution that solves this and just about every other societal concern is private property rights. no other right stands without private property rights.

in answer to your non-political point: i have to wonder why you brought it up- the political part of the issue? i knew you were canadian, but that hasn't stopped the rest of the world. i find it funny that "the world" seems so snippy about their perception of america trying to interfere with other countries. at the same time, every citizen of other countries seems to think they have some important voice in american politics.

Ziggy.....you have, and every other citizen of the world has, every right to criticize "the president..." he is a indeed a buffoon...

Grunyen, I'm at a loss to understand how "private property rights" solve "this (whatever this is) "and every other "...societal concern."  Did you mean social concerns or are you suggesting that private property rights somehow relate to the organization or function of "a" social system?  I am confused.

[Guest]

(....the solution that solves this and just about any other societal concern...)

  Grunyen, I wish it was that simple...on paper maybe it is...but human behavior has always defied simple logic and unfortunately probably always will. We need people to question the status quo, like yourself, because there is plenty of room for improvement...but we also need people to realize that trying to 'change' things is most often an exercise of futility ..... without patience, long term endurance and a little old fashioned compassion for your fellow man. Nobody likes to hear this...I damn sure didn't in my youth...as a matter of fact I can still remember thinking .....that old fart is full of shit....well, anyway...good luck changing the world.

[Guest]

Zig, enjoyed this historical subject...enjoy reading your posts...enjoy seeing a different viewpoint or looking at something from a different angle or perspective.

 Kahuna, I agree with your 'freedom of speech' proclamation. Maybe it should come with a practical warning .....can be dangerous to one's health...because the world is full of people who do not respect other opinions....sometimes  to the point of physical violence.
 Or that it is at least a 'two way' street ...if I can say whatever I want to .....than so can you and everybody else. We all naturally adopt the first part but most of us have trouble keeping the standards high for the second part. Again...human nature...life on the planet earth...

[snejana_demientrovska]

hey ziggy

doe you ever seen in some history about transexuality in the history back from the ancient times to the modern history cause i was wondering on how do they transform themselves since artificial hormones and plastic surgery is not yet invented

enchance such transformation
how do they transform themselves by not just cross dressing but also how do they alterate thier own body?
is castration already a practice from the past transexuals?
also do people punish them and burn them and accuse them of being a witch?
is transsexuality already been pratice by few people long time ago?
what is thier job during those time??

well any information does help cause im interested to know

[fancylighters]

Always wondered if there are any accurate books on how westerners reacted when they first encountered LB's in LOS. Say 100 - 200 years ago.

[Road Runner]

(fancylighters @ Apr. 14 2006,01:34) Always wondered if there are any accurate books on how westerners reacted when they first encountered LB's in LOS.  Say 100 - 200 years ago.

Hello Fancylighters,

That's a very good question!  

I've done some reading about Thai history and found a very good book about British relations with Thailand from the time of the first traders to today.
It's in Bangkok at the moment and I can't remember the title  

None of the books I have read so far made any references to ladyboys.

RR.