Is there a historical precedent for transgender individuals?

It's a tricky topic with d'Eon because we don't really know the extent of her actual sex/biology, just the brief comments from a doctor who examined her dead body decades after she began living as a woman. Was her penis functional, when did her breasts grow and were they functional, what reproductive organs did she have, etc.

I would consider d'Eon transgender because, due to her masculine appearance and at least outward male genitalia, she was raised and actively lived as a man for most of her life.

Sorta kinda. Overall, these cultures are rare, but in several cultures throughout history that included social roles for what today we could call transgender. Best known example is the Indian Hijras, who identified as something in between male and female. Native American cultures sometimes had Two-Spirits who were both male and female. In many cultures, castratos were treated as a separate social class, but I don't think that counts.

The thing you have to remember here is that transgender was ALWAYS historically tied to religion and spirituality. Hijras were devotees of some Hindu god whose name escapes me. Two-Spirits had multiple souls, and could thus be both male and female. Modern transgender people just identify as something else.

tl;dr Yes, there is historical precedent for binary alternative genders. No, any non-binary system is completely new. The cultures with alternate gender systems were, all in all, a historical anomaly.

No they're mentally ill, and should all be put in death camps

Yes plenty, but they are not the same as the ones today. In fact, there were recently clashes in Naples between the "traditional" Feminielli (basically trannies) and transexuals (mostly Sudaca immigrants)

The Trannies were taking prostitution business from Feminielli so the Feminielli pogrommed them. Pretty funny

This.

t. Abgrund fan.

REEEEEEEEEE FUCKING NORMIE use != not your fancy schlomo sign tyvm

What do you mean by "historical precedent?" Gender is a function of societal norms, and not a consequence of biological hardwiring. The concept of gender and gender-roles vary among human societies in many ways, and as such the transgression of those roles and identities vary with it. Read about the Kwit in Lakota culture (Paula Gunn Allen is a good source), the Hidjra in India, and even the Three Genders of ancient Roman Theology (A fun but historically accurate representation of this concept is found in the song "The Origin of Love" from Hedwig and the Angry Inch, which you should also watch if you're interested in gender studies). Of course, the barrage of people who are about to call me some kind of variant of faggot or feminist jew-cunt liberal cuck might have a valid point, too, so you'll want to weigh your options before considering what I've said here. I only have 20 years of study to bring to the discussion.

Sounds more like hermaphroditism than transex. The first modern trans iirc is the one portrayed in the recent movie, The Danish Girl, that would count as historical since it was like 100 years ago

Why do you not consider it an intertwining of both biological hardwiring and social precedents?

The idea that gender and sex are different things is also a recent development.
Not to say people didn't flaunt gender roles before, or that different cultures didn't have different expectations for what each gender should do, but for most of human existence gender was sex and sex was gender. Many cultures had a third gender but that's not relevant unless you want to claim hermaphrodites are trans, which I'd disagree with.

Because the only thing we have biological hardwiring for is the experience of genital pleasure. The associations made with that stimulation are determined through social feedback. Without social conditioning, we will rub our genitals on everything and surely wind up procreating, but there is no specific need for the establishment of gender as a function of biology.

The *idea* that gender and sex are different things is a recent development, but the *experience* of having a gender that is independent of the shape of your genitals is a condition of the human experience as we know it. Your argument is dependent on the language of twentieth-century psychology, and is thus not a sufficient framework for discussion of human sexuality throughout history. Thousands of cultures experience and codify what we might call "transgenderism" without using the framework of language and systematization of gender binarism that contemporary Westerners do.

Someone make a movie poster for this, Tranny Fight

>She demanded to be recognized as a woman by the state, and Louis XVI agreed as long as she agreed to dress appropriately. He even gave her funds for an appropriately French female wardrobe upon her return.
I'm seeing that in many cultures it seems that people were allowed to live as the opposite sex as long as they never mentioned their previously being different.

But the condition of the human experience as we know it postdates the innovation of gender distinct from biological sex, so the point remains that the *experience* of such a distinction is a novelty of the 20th century.

If a Samoan family has too many sons and no daughters then they will raise one of the sons as a fa'afafine, I.e. Raise them as a woman, they fulfil female roles and typically have relationships with non fa'afafine men. They're pretty widely accepted within the society.

But what happens if they have only daughters ?

They become futas

Eunochs in Siciliy were considered a third gender at times. I don't know if this qualify as transgender for you but if we accept that gender is a social construct (calm down /pol/lack and learn the difference between sex and gender) based on a dichotomous distinction then I think it does.

Women can be married off for dowry. No problem there.

>Because the only thing we have biological hardwiring for is the experience of genital pleasure.
But that's bullshit though. I mean it's obvious that Trannies are a real thing but that just isn't true. Biology determines a whole host of other things.

you can be intersex and transgender.

There are behavioral trends which correlate positively with genetic traits, but the permanence or necessary causation between them is vastly overstated by people who want a simple and programmatic answer, and has yet to be demonstrated objectively. Just look at the vast and dizzying amounts of sexual variety that has been enacted throughout history. It's obvious that there is no "normal" orientation.

Sodom and Gomorrah.

I dunno... If you're already both, and just picking one or the other, it doesn't quite seem the same.

Usually, at least in the US, when a baby is born intersex the doctor will choose a gender for that child, make the necessary surgical modifications, and the parents will raise the child in that role. When these children become adults they will often times decide to switch genders.

yes, there are some cultures out there shich had traditional gender variencees(3ed and 4th genders), ancient indo iranian cultures, soe south east asian cultures, a few african cultures(theres some info to sugest that one particular african tribe had no division of gender in language or culture pre colonialism), some native american cultures, etc

many of these alt genderes were men becoing woman and vise versa codifide as a gender.....the people involved lived lives esentialy as the other gender in many cases(in india it was easier for men to transition to woman, as women who tried to be men would never achieve total social recognition)

the introuction of islam and christianity tended to put violent stops to most of this, or made such people outcasts