Has transsexuality been documented in different cultures throughout history?

It's something that has always existed, there are a bunch of recorded cases. The difference is that today they can actually change their bodies instead of simply acting like a man or a woman.

Al-fagut

damn (s)he's a cutie

wtf

420 friendly really just means "too jewish to pay for their own weed"

>>>/oven/

I'm

Mukhannath

I'd tap that
Back to your room 17 year old virgin.

I read something here a while back about a transvestite prostitute in like 16th/17th century London. Vhe was supposedly very popular

>desperate tranny fucker calling someone a virgin

>legionary, escort me to my chambers
Would you do it?

Pretending to be a man/woman and getting surgery is not the same as being born with some rare genetic condition where you have both parts.

Schizophrenia is natural, say that sanityists

>HA YOU GET LAID
You sound like a MGTOW

>identifying other than how you were sending at birth is ancient
Every shade of nope, if your mentioned context. People screwed the same sex then and now, but purple haired she-twinks are the result of Cultural Marxism and artificial Leftist thought.

...

holy shit i never noticed that mustache
he looks totally different now

Marriage in general is not a human right you autist. And assistance programs are fucking stupid.

Marriage is literally a social contract. It doesn't exist in nature, therefore, it is unnatural. While natural doesn't = good, it also doesn't = bad. Also what is wrong with cannibalism?

Stagnant societies do so well though! I take it you really want to live in the dark ages.

Doesn't marriage lead to gay-marriage, so shouldn't marriage be banned too?

>Posting something this autistic as an argument

>what is wrong with cannibalism

Mostly prion diseases

Every single type of fetish and degeneracy under the sun has been with us since antiquity. You can bet your ass there were Greek hentai fetishists spinning around amphoraes, jacking it to fireblasted, oxidized paintings of Artemis giving jerk off instructions to a callow Corinthia youth.

>Doesn't marriage lead to gay-marriage
I don't even know what's bait anymore.
But did you mean this seriously?

Yes, the picture in question states that gay-marriage leads to polygamy, incest, and pedophilia, but naturally that would mean marriage leads to gay-marriage. I'm just using the same autistic logic as the OP

Stab him

Good image. I would like to add that the tax concessions exist because marriages are expected to have to support children. Gays cannot reproduce and should be legally barred from adopting children lest they rape them or brainwash them into becoming homosexuals

Marriage is mankind keeping women in line. Its the basic function to civilization.
Homosexuality is a sign of sociological decay in any social structure, as it is the refusal to procreate along the lines of natural law.
>False dichotomy

Appreciated. Sure homosexuality has always existed, though it never demanded that people totally stopped reproducing with the opposite sex. Any man will admit that its easier to get along with another man, apply pressure in the right direction?
>However
It wasn't until the creation of the unnatural thing called ALL the waves of Feminism, that we saw attacks on the natural order of things.

Just a transvestite. And a gambling one at that.

Bonus reply:
Self mutilation particularly in the context of sexuality and everything which reinforces it, accepts, and teaches this, is an excellent example of mental and physical abuse, and the worsening of a person in mental duress.
KYS.

It's all in the filter and the camera angle. Without it he/she would look hideous

>that last section encouraging dishonest debate and calling it the "reverse Marxist approach" as if you can wipe out or justify your own irrationality by implying your enemies do the same
>the fact that this was obviously written before gay marriage was legalized, but you're still beating this dead horse and will probably continue to do so in vain for years, if not decades
lmaoing at your life.

Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman, and by proxy the families being joined in union. It confers upon both parties rights and duties, first and foremost that of children and property. Marriage doesn't exist so you can visit your gay faggot lover on his sickbed in a hospital. It exists to promote reproduction and everything else is a consequence of this objective. Why else does a widow inherit the property of her husband, if not to provide for their children?

>8ch
You have to go back

Who cares why it exists? That's not an argument for why allowing homosexual marriage is harmful. Summer vacation exists so that kids could spend the time working on their families' farms. Are you going to argue just because of that that schools in the city shouldn't have it?

my ideal solution to the gay marriage issue would've been
>all "marriages" formerly recognized by the state/states are now termed/classed as "domestic partnership" or some other neutral-language speak.
>homosexual couples are equally eligable for this "domestic partnership" as heterosexual couples.

Hijras, Two-Spirits, and in ancient Greece and Rome gender roles were a bit more loose, at least in the case of men.

Modern transgenderism I think is slightly different from ancient examples however, and has more to do with symbolic-individualism,
and the rise of specialization versus generalization which is a more dominant mode of thought in the West, though I must admit
I am largely ignorant as to what the case is in the East.
I think also that modern transgenderism seems more confusing to people in this age is due to how complex social reality is now
as compared to the more restricted geographical and cultural hierarchies of older and less complexly organized ethnic-cultural
nations.

It's not an expression of love. That was merely after modernist revision. At its very legal core, it is about duty, obligations, and the family. If homosexuals cannot have kids, why should they be allowed to get married? It is pointless to enfranchise them that right considering it will provide no tangible benefit to society or either families.

They already had that available to them. Wasn't good enough. They had to shit on the institution of marriage itself until marriage became one huge stinking bucket full of diarrhea.

And that's not good enough for them either.

>if you don't fuck trannies you're a virgin
Leftist logic

Nigger you are attempting to make the case that having sex is an insult. No shit I'm going to call you a virgin.

he was insulting you for wanting to have sex with a trannie.

>I trust primary documents at face value and completely uncritically

Is there something like this for transgender?

>being an illiterate retard

You should really kill yourself you disgusting fuck.

but that's exactly what he said

Woah, that's quite a jump there Norton. You have a sex problem.

>Intermediate Types among Primitive Folk
sacred-texts.com/lgbt/itp/index.htm

Alexander the Great screwed a Persian tranny which pissed off his first wife.

>It doesn't exist in nature
what is mating for life
rofl

>It exists to promote reproduction
Then concubinate is where is at ma nigga

chopping off your dick has been around for a long time

In my ethnic group we were traditionally a third gender separate from effeminate men and lived lives similar to women.

So no, it's not transgenderism but it is gender variance.

Yeah, but even if it isn't true, it demonstrates the Romans were familiar enough with the concept to use it as slander.

the ancient Indians called them Pandaka

With the pork sword

do all heterosexuals provide tangible benefit to society?