Soupnazi630
Gold Member
- Dec 9, 2013
- 17,618
- 5,071
Hermaphrodites are irrelevant to this conversation.Okay, history lesson on gender: Hijras are officially recognized as third gender in countries in the Indian subcontinent,[5][6] being considered neither completely male nor female. Hijras have a recorded history in the Indian subcontinent from antiquity onwards as suggested by the Kama Sutra period.
Gender and sexuality
A group of Hijra in Bangladesh.
These identities have no exact match in the modern Western taxonomy of gender and sexual orientation,[21] and challenge Western ideas of sex and gender.[9]
In India, some Hijras do not define themselves by specific sexual orientation, but rather by renouncing sexuality altogether. Sexual energy is transformed into sacred powers. However, these notions can come in conflict with the practical, which is that hijras are often employed as prostitutes.[22] Furthermore, in India a feminine male who takes a "receptive" role in sex with a man will often identify as a kothi (or the local equivalent term). While kothis are usually distinguished from hijras as a separate gender identity, they often dress as women and act in a feminine manner in public spaces, even using feminine language to refer to themselves and each other. The usual partners of hijras and kothis are men who consider themselves heterosexual as they are the ones who penetrate.[23] These male partners are often married, and any relationships or sex with "kothis" or hijras are usually kept secret from the community at large. Some hijras may form relationships with men and even marry,[24] although their marriage is not usually recognized by law or religion. Hijras and kothis often have a name for these masculine sexual or romantic partners; for example, panthi in Bangladesh, giriya in Delhi or sridhar in Cochin.[20]
Hijras are officially recognized as third gender in countries in the Indian subcontinent,[5][6] being considered neither completely male nor female. Hijras have a recorded history in the Indian subcontinent from antiquity onwards as suggested by the Kama Sutra period.
Date, author and history
A Kamasutra manuscript page preserved in the vaults of the Raghunatha Hindu temple in Jammu & Kashmir.
The original composition date or century for the Kamasutra is unknown. Historians have variously placed it between 400 BCE and 300 CE.[16] According to John Keay, the Kama Sutra is a compendium that was collected into its present form in the 2nd century CE.[17] In contrast, the Indologist Wendy Doniger who has co-translated Kama sutra and published many papers on related Hindu texts, the surviving version of the Kamasutra must have been revised or composed after 225 CE because it mentions the Abhiras and the Andhras dynasties that did not co-rule major regions of ancient India before that year.[18] The text makes no mention of the Gupta Empire which ruled over major urban areas of ancient India, reshaping ancient Indian arts, Hindu culture and economy from the 4th-century through the 6th-century. For these reasons, she dates the Kama sutra to the second half of the 3rd-century CE.[18]
Hijra (Indian subcontinent) - Wikipedia
Kama Sutra - Wikipedia
Okay, I use two Wikipedia pages entries because it is easier
This stuff predates much of what people here would argue from. It is nothing new this recognition that GENDER is a human construct
Gender is in fact identified and correlated to genitalia. In fact the words grow from a similar root.
An exception such as hermaphrodites does not disprove the rule. Just as having twins or triplets or more does not disprove the rule that humans give birth to one child at a time.
Gender as a social construct is not supported by science despite the logical fallacy which the op points out.
It is also a lot more broad than simple bathroom choice. The ludicrous notion of gender as a social construct is allowing athletes to cheat, business owners to cheat the taxpayer and criminals to commit rape.
You can cite many scientists who agree that it is a social construct but you cannot cite empirical or scientific evidence. This is why the science journal editor in the op was not engaging in science but in politics.
