transgender

311 readers

4 users here now

Made to use piefed's features.

Overview:

The Piefed place to discuss the news and experiences of transgender people.

Rules

Keep discussions civil.
Arguments against transgender rights will be removed.
No bigotry is allowed - including transphobia, homophobia, speciesism, racism, sexism, classism, ableism, castism, or xenophobia.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

leaf@piefed.blahaj.zone

Museum classifies Roman emperor as trans – but modern labels oversimplify ancient gender identities (theconversation.com)

submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by Sunshine@piefed.ca to c/transgender@piefed.blahaj.zone

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

We cannot retroactively apply such modern, western identities to the inhabitants of the past and we must be careful not to misgender or misidentify them – especially if our only evidence for how they might have identified comes from hostile writers.

In attempting to fact check the sexual slurs and propaganda from the biographical facts, there is a danger that we lose sight of the fact that ancient Romans did recognise a huge variety of sexual orientations and gender identities – just as we do today. To attempt to crudely ascribe modern labels to ancient figures such as Elagabalus is not only to strip them of their agency, but also to oversimplify what is a wonderfully, fabulously broad and nuanced subject

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Fleur_@aussie.zone 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That is literally what the title is saying

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yes, but its advocating to not point out any trans or bisexual or gay correlation, while neglecting to do the same for any assumed cis or heterosexual correlation.

When a museum talks about Caeser marrying Calpurnia, there is no article saying, well the marriage was different by todays standards and he was also likely fucking slaves, women, boys and other men. However, when someone is documented (possibly intended as a slur , as the article says) as having trans characteristics, then we should be wary of applying modern labels?

[–] Fleur_@aussie.zone 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Where does the article say, "it's fine to label people of the past as heteronormative but not as queer"

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 3 points 1 day ago

It doesn’t. It just says not to do so for trans appearing people. I’m pointing out the unspoken hypocrisy. This entire article is a response to a museum labelling someone as trans,