What exactly do you mean when you say 'Trans people have always existed'?

[RainWithSunnySpells]

I'm hoping that people who genuinely believe this will explain it to me.

I would like to know:
(1) how are you defining 'Trans'?
(2) what is the evidence that convinced you that this was 'always' the case?

I just want to understand this phrase as it genuinely confuses me and I saw it again on a current and sensitive thread that I do not want to derail.

Thanks to everyone who answers.

I'm not the target audience for this post but my understanding is that:

There have always been gender norms, broadly aligned with sexual dimorphism.
Some people don't fit into those boxes as neatly as some other people do.

The uncomfortable truth for me is that:

Those people are often gay, or neurodiverse.
The more rigid the gender norms, the more people don't 'fit' which means you should change the gender norms.

In several historical texts in India, there is reference to transmen and women as part of the King and Queen's private entourage, alongside other servants and help.

I am not the target audience either sorry but while I think there has always been gender non conforming people, there is no evidance that I know of that they were actually trans.

As far as I can gather it’s a simple rebranding of all gender non-conforming people from the past as ‘trans’.

I find it infuriating and/or sad depending on my mood. Anyone who was bold enough to push the boundaries of what men or women ‘could’ do — we are now supposed to accept that it was just because they weren’t men/women after all 😑

This! and as always it’s nearly always women - Joan of arc, James Barry, hapseptshut - that are transed

they never say oh Louis XIV sometimes wore dresses so he was a woman really

Do you have a link?

IMO 'trans' is an unhelpful framing of something which probably has always existed - people of one sex who think they'd be happier if they were the other sex.

So I think those people always existed, but the framing - that they feel this way because somehow they really are the opposite sex and should be treated as such by everyone else - is new. (So-called third genders in other cultures, eg fa'afafine - aren't generally treated as though they are the opposite sex.)

I find this very interesting on this subject. The title is a bit provocative and consequently misleading. But read on, and it builds on other posters' responses with a thoughtful perspective that, while I don't agree with all of it, makes a lot of sense to me on balance.

(Edited to say) A link would help.

https://bprice.substack.com/p/trans-is-something-we-made-up

Also not your target audience sorry...

When I've encountered this claim it's usually referencing other cultures which have more "genders" than just the two. What is conveniently omitted is that these can be cultures with rigidly prescribed gender roles for men and women and far from progressive in terms of attitudes to, for example, homosexuality.

Oh, sometimes I think the phrase is meant to imply transwomen have been in female spaces forever and we never noticed until nasty bigots told us to make a fuss. You can't really have a discussion with people who believe that though!

There are also many of us who just don't like being told what to do.

Someone wants me to wear a skirt? I'll wear shorts. Want me to wear a shirt? I'll wear a spaghetti top.

"Gender non-conformity" is also just a different sense of fashion. Sometimes what I want to wear just isn't fashionable (yet... just you wait!)

Neither of these things need to mean anything else at all.

With regard to most posters' responses - and the piece I posted - at times it actually feels rather culturally colonialist to see this emphatic imposition of "our" terminology and reinterpretation of this facet of human behaviour/character/whatever onto the entirety of geography and history. It feels either cynically exploitative, or naive, or disappointingly reductive for a movement that professes to celebrate individuality.

(You can probably tell I'm not the requested target audience either!)

I take it to mean there have always been occasional individuals who want to live as a different gender while loving in a society where the two genders have clearly defined societal roles

What link? You would have to read books written by historians and foreign travellers who lived in different kingdoms and reigns and wrote about it.

I had a really interesting conversation yesterday and it's a fun thought experiment. I was talking to someone from a very different culture to mine about going to a country with a third culture. She said, "oh but the expectations of women there are getting more strict" and I thought about it.

I've travelled in many majority world countries (second and third world in old money) where local women are expected to dress, act, talk in certain ways but as a white Western woman I am totally exempt from these expectations. I can wear trousers, no head covering, I can smoke, or drink, or drive or whatever. I spend my own money, I have freedoms women in those cultures don't have. I travel without a man around. I'm often served first in home stays, allowed to sit in areas women aren't, fed 'male' food and drinks and so on. It's almost like I'm an honorary man for the duration. There is typically very little judgement on this. It;s not that I'm pushing for it and they are acquiescing. It's just that Western women get an automatic 'pass'. Even in countries where very few Western women travel.

If I could choose, would I choose that middle way? Absolutely. Does that mean I'm a man? Of course not. Gender norms differ wildly between countries but they are often similar in that it's reduced freedom. Why would someone choose that when they could choose more freedom? It makes no sense. So no, I don't choose the gender norms of my own oppression. Doesn't mean I'm a man.

It's not unreasonable to ask for a link. You might have known of a reliable online source with this information.

No, i was unsure what link you were referring to.

Also not your target audience but from what I've seen

1. Trans is defined as not fitting the societal norms of your sex (which appears to include sexuality and disorders of sexual development.)
2. Well there is evidence that people above have always and still do exist.

Now I agree with all of the above, apart from calling those people trans. Many of the historical groups that now seem to come under the trans umberella comprise of effeminate gay males.

1. The Hijra people, originating from the 1200s, mostly comprises of effeminate males and those with DSDs. Many are sex workers.
2. The Mukhannath, originating from the 600s, were effeminate males who were either gay or asexual. These are distinct from Mukhannith, males who wished to change their sex.
3. Kathoey, a term first used writtten in the 1800s refers to effeminate gay men and those with DSDs. They are seen as the third sex. A woman reincarnated as kathoey was seen as a punishment.
4. The Nádleehi role, found in the Navajo people, belongs to an effeminate male, many of which are gay. It is seen as a positive to be a nádleehi.

The question is whether these people had an innate identity which promoted such groups to exist, or whether society developed such groups for people that didn't fit the societal norms. 

Most gay and/or effeminate males don't seem to have an innate identity different to that of other males. Most people with DSDs dont have an identity different to that of those in their sex class. This leads me to think that it is societies doing, not the individual, that leads to these sorts of groupings.

In essence, gender roles and norms are harmful and if we just let everyone be themselves society wouldn't have to create groups for people that fail to comply with the rules.

Jesse Signal has explained the repressive norms which gave rise to many of these categories:

https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/what-is-the-goal-of-our-great-big-e2a

Could you give some suggested further reading? Books, historical sources etc. Title/author will be enough to follow up, it sounds interesting.

These people weren't "trans" in the western version of the ideology.

They have their own name, "Hijra", their own subculture and their own identity. They are also all men dressing in women's attire.

They were basically there to fulfil the gay fantasies of men, but in the "socially acceptable way".

Nothing to do with actually becoming the opposite sex or using women's spaces. The wouldn't have dreamed of that.

Gender ideologist who misrepresent other cultures may as well talk about clownfish.

It like people talking about the historical existence of transwomen in Thailand.

The Kathoey in Thailand have always existed.

Again, they're all men in women's clothing, and again, they don't consider themselves to be "women" and wouldn't dream of thinking that.

They have their own, proud, identity as a "third gender" and also are prolific in the modern sex industry to fulfil men's gay sex fantasies while the men can still pretend not be gay.

It's nothing like "TWAW" or pretending people think they're actually the opposite sex.
It's actually the perfect compromise of a third space which has been going on for centuries.

No transmen in Thai history either.

"The Ladyboys of Bangkok" have been a known stage act since, idk, the 60's, reflecting Kathoey culture.
They don't call themselves "The real women of Bangkok" they don't see themselves that way.

Now apparently according to western ideology it's transphobic to call Kathoey people "Ladyboys" even though that's literally how they see themselves, it's how they identify, they're proud of it, and accepted as that.

But you don’t really want to understand at all, do you? You just want to goad and get people worked up.

If I’ve misunderstood, apologies. There are numerous books on the subject by qualified historians if you’re genuinely interested.

No, please don’t ask for “links”. If you’re serious in wanting to understand, they’re not the least difficult to find.

There might have been ambitious women that worn the clock of the powerful men searching for freedom and graceful men that worn the robes of beautiful women searching for adulation (or reverse stereotypes) but imho Trans is an artificially created market Pharma New Market.

They have managed to create a massively rapid growth from a minimal base, expected to be almost 2 billions in 2030! pure evil money making on the back of young and vulnerable people. see the graphic on this article (sorry I have no token to share).

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2023/04/05/the-evidence-to-support-medicalised-gender-transitions-in-adolescents-is-worryingly-weak