Actually pretty interesting. I think we’re starting to creep up on the actual numbers, as far as you can measure such a thing. I think comphet keeps a lot of people who would otherwise fall somewhere on the bi/pan spectrum from ever experimenting and realizing it about themelves, and I bet that population is actually quite large. As far as transness goes, I would be willing to believe a number within the realm of ~3% to even 5%. I think further complicating this whole thing is that human sexuality and gender identity is a lot more nebulous than the very rigid, medically-originated terminology we use implies. A lot of the identity labels we use (homosexual, transsexual/transgender, etc) were originally medical diagnoses that were later transposed onto cultural identities, which carries a lot of baggage that I think has been left unaddressed, such as the rigidity of their definition, but that’s probably for a post for another time. Anyway, just thought it was neat neat, especially the state queerness leaderboards.
I think about this chart a lot:
I fucking love intuitive analogs for statistical phenomena
I think further complicating this whole thing is that human sexuality and gender identity is a lot more nebulous than the very rigid, medically-originated terminology we use implies. A lot of the identity labels we use (homosexual, transsexual/transgender, etc) were originally medical diagnoses that were later transposed onto cultural identities, which carries a lot of baggage that I think has been left unaddressed, such as the rigidity of their definition
I have to step in with some historical defense here. Magnus Hirschfeld coined the terms (and initiated the modern understandings of) “transvestite”, then “transsexual” to differentiate between gender and sexual variation. Prior to that, western euro/anglo/american ideas had more nebulous concepts like “urning” (his preference) or “invert” which correspond more to modern term like “queer” (without any of the political/confrontational overtones). Even though we have reasons for also cultivating the general term, the specifics are crucial and their introduction was and remains key.
Hirschfeld took great pains to avoid creating the ideas of any false dichotomies. Below I have a few paragraphs to demonstrate this. They are from Homosexuality of Men & Women (published in German in 1920, finally translated to English in 2000 by Michael Lombardi-Nash). The whole thing is about diagnosing, categorizing, but more importantly conceptualizing sex and gender variation. There are some wacky specific ideas in there; a lot of the more general concepts were very strong and have quite a modern flavor to them but you need to read through the language to see what he is trying to say. I hope these make sense out of context, I didn’t want to paste pages and pages although everything before and after is interesting especially to think it was published over a century ago and was well-known about contemporaneously. This was not obscure ivory tower gender theory, in fact efforts were made in the production and distribution to include broad sections of society. For example Hirschfeld entered into agreements with trade unions and eventually all this led him to despise and reject colonialism and structural white supremacy, which is a whole other story.
In Part I, “The Homosexuality of Men and Women as Biological Occurrence”, Chapter 19, “Human Bisexuality (Hermaphroditism) as Basis for Male and Female Homosexuality (The Theory of Intermediaries)”, describing why sex and gender variation are in concurrence with Darwinian evolution and every other characteristic of life and matter (pg 413):
The knowledge of the hermaphroditic character of homosexuality adds it as a link in a series of related natural phenomena, whose absence would mean a break in an uninterrupted line. It would be very noteworthy if the sex drive were an exception to the fluid transitions that lead from one to the other sex, which can be proven in the case of every organ and every function. If all the male features, occasionally in isolation or in great numbers, can appear in the case of women and in reverse all the female ones in the case of men, of which there is not the least bit of doubt, then it would be quite extraordinary if in this case the sex drive were the sole exception.
Accordingly, the absence of homosexuality would be a greater riddle than its existence, which to many appears more disconcerting and more unnatural than, say, the occasional occurrence of a beard on a woman or milk-producing breasts on a man. Just as people deduced undiscovered elements by studying the atomic weights in the periodical table of the elements; just as the position and the orbit of Neptune w ere discovered before sighting the planet by studying the distance between the other planets; just as people described the intermediary stages between the birds and reptiles before discovering Archaeopteryx embedded in the limestone at Solenhofer. so could any thinking, educated person prove the existence of homosexuals before seeing them face to face.
Dr. Kotscher of Hubertusburg correctly states: "All our phylo- and ontogeny (evolutionary and biological development) and the observation of heredity must lead us to admit that there is no absolute female animal and no absolute male animal, but rather in each individual a mixture of both occurs to produce animals of different kinds, in our case, humans of different kinds.
Then he asks “What is a woman?” and “What is a man?”, providing a stereotypical response to each in detail. Starting with the production of ova and onward. So nobody can mistake what he says next for ignorance of quote-unquote-biology (pg 417):
According to this, a completely feminine, “absolute” woman would be one who not only produces egg cells, but would also correspond to the female type in every other respect; an “absolute” man one who produces sperm cells but at the same time also exhibits the average male type in all remaining areas. Such kinds of absolute representatives of their sex are constructed abstractions; in reality, up to now they have never been observed in such an extreme combination. More likely, people have been able to prove that there are remnants, no matter how small, of female characteristics in every male and correspondingly, remnants of the male in every female. However, let us assume that there exist people who, to express it in numbers, are 100 percent male or 100 percent female. There is still no question—and here, too, we are still adhering to simple facts taken from experience—there would often be a great number of persons who, in spite of carrying egg cells, showed features that in general approach the male sex and, on the other hand, there would be persons who, in spite of issuing sperm cells, showed features which in general are suited to the female. Because in our usage of language we usually define possessors of egg cells simply as women and the bearers of sperm cells simply as men, then it follows that there are women with male, men with female features, and these mixed forms are precisely what is understood by the expression “sexual intermediaries.”
Then he spends a few pages setting out his scheme of categorisation (four categories, mentioned below). Worth reading for historical interest, nerds, but not required here. Then comes a (relatively) famous passage where he tells you how many (basic!) categories of gender/sex there are:
page 419
Of further importance is that all these features can appear in isolation or in combination. Every conceivable blend of male and female characteristics can occur, if we take as a basis each of the four main groups as a whole for the calculation of the number of possible combinations; thus, if we imagine that first, the sex organs, second, the remaining physical features, third, the sex drive, and fourth, the other psychological characteristics can be male, female, or mixed, then simply from that, you can obtain eighty-one basic types of sexual intermediary stages.
However, the number of possible variations is much greater when we consider that, indeed, many individual attributes are combined within each of the four groups, attributes which can appear in combination with any other one you like, with as many as you like, with as many of the others as you wish, and each, in addition, of different intensity. Let us take only four different attributes in each group, for example, in group II, hair covering, larynx, chest, pelvis, etc. (in reality there are many, many more), then that already furnishes four times four, or sixteen individual characteristics, which can bear male female, or merged features, which produces three to the sixteenth power, 43,046,721 combined possibilities or intermediary types.
And this is only in consideration of a limited subset of characteristics, not the whole range. So at the very beginning, we have the most rudimentary count of genders to be 81, or a slightly more sophisticated at 40 million, and even this is understood as an almost unforgivable over-simplification which a scientifically-minded person should not succumb to. Elsewhere, by way of carefully explaining the diagnostic criteria, he is careful to make sure the reader understands that sexuality and gender are unmoored from one another and can present in any combination. He presents vignettes of gay/bi trans people, warning doctors not to allow one aspect to mislead them regarding another.
It is very important to understand that all the people who formed the non-erased history of sex and gender studies were colleges with Hirschfeld. Harry Benjamin for example, was taken on a tour of Berlin gay bars by Hirschfeld, who hoped to influence him to a friendly feeling towards gender/sexual variant people. (He also did this with the Chief of Police, which I find suggestive of the impression made by Benjamin, but that’s very speculative.) Benjamin did have access to a view of gender and transition which is remarkably in step with the more enlightened jurisdictions here in 2026, which re-frames any apologia about “being a man of his times”. In fact he chose run things the way he did, even though he had a better framework available. And Freud, fucking Freud, was a direct contemporary. Hirschfeld was a founding member of Berlin Psychoanalytic Society. They disagreed on fundamental issues = divergent conclusions. Hirschfeld wanted the largest most diverse sample size possible, and also favored conducting talk therapy outside + walking rather than in a closed room reclined on couch.
As to the original subject of the thread, a little earlier in the same chapter (pg 361), Hirschfeld answers:
----reached wordcount limit for comment + no time to edit to fit. see reply for small rest of it
His methodology is explained in Part II: “Homosexuality of Men & Women as a Social Occurrence”, Chapter 24 "The Distribution of Male and Female Homosexuality. Statistical Foundations. Worth reading, to understand the historical context of the OP, which is that this knowledge is subject to continuous questioning and replication for over a century now. Being constantly made to re-prove ourselves is a component of repression; such research is not liberatory. Particular the fascist backlash to the original research itself (this was early 20th C Germany remember), which is described. I can post it, if anyone wants, but not now as I need to get somewhere. And maybe nobody read this long ass comment.
This was easily the most interesting stuff I’ve read in a while. Had no idea this was so well understood so far back.
Thanks! I hope you pursue it further. It’s a lot easier now than 5, 15 or 50 years ago.
Hirschfeld’s activism was set in motion when he realized the gay bars of Chicago were very similar to the gay bars he knew back home in Germany. Which yes, does suggest way more questions than answers are available. From this, combined with his training in science, he derived a hypothesis of sameyness of humans when it came to sex. (There are gay people everywhere.) He soon extended this to trans people and to many others. After working for a while on reparative therapy, he gave it up as hopeless, falling back on the understanding of Darwinism as alluded to above. If beaks of Galapogos finches can be illustrated as this, it obviously follows sex/gender would be the same:
All this hateful, bigot shit, all of it is man-made. It’s not natural to be ignorant of, or to hate, any kind of person, just as a bird holds no hostility to a beak shaped one way or another. All the shit we deal with is downstream of (admittedly successful) interventions by fascists. They make their hatreds appear natural which is a total lie. GSM have always existed wherever on earth in every population. While understanding that all modern constructs are products of modern material conditions, we can also see ourselves: all kinds, every where, every time.
Per Scientiam ad Justitiam = Through Science, To Justice
I’m a big ol nerd so one of the ways I came around to accidentally understand humans was by really learning a lot about animals (your Galapagos finch example was one of my entry points into better understanding the fluidity of bodies). Another was by learning a lot about math and physics and how almost nothing is discrete, or absolute.
I stopped short earlier of saying “so it’s always just been hatred and rejection”, didn’t want to put words in your mouth, but yep that was my immediate conclusion.
“so it’s always just been hatred and rejection”, didn’t want to put words in your mouth, but yep that was my immediate conclusion.
I don’t agree with that at all. What I’m saying is that the bigotry was constructed along with the new identities and they were devised to serve the purpose of fascism. Which can’t really be reduced to “hatred and rejection” even though those are tools which it can employ.
Part of the propaganda against GSM is the idea that there is some “natural” reason these people will be subject to universal oppression. Like sex and gender variation are inherently viewed by others as dirty, bad, anti-social, plain icky and other humans will recognize that and react negatively.
Actually it seems that left to their own devices, people react in a variety of ways just as they do to any other uncommon characteristic. Which can be suspicion to adulation to disinterest or anything else. The wide-spread anti-gay/trans sentiments have to be artificially created, by people with power.
Well, it sounds like I may have rubbed you the wrong way, but I was never meaning to exclude manufactured hatred and rejection. I didn’t highlight it specifically cuz I don’t really know and again, want to limit my assumptions, especially in the presence of someone who knows better than myself.
In my experience in life (contrasting that epistemically with the stronger wisdom available from reading the right people), I find that a portion of folks are simply afraid of things they haven’t experienced, and that fear can manifest in lots of different ways, generally depending on external factors more than internal.
And I’ve spent enough time around kids to understand very clearly that hatred is a thing that takes time to learn (must be taught), it doesn’t really seem to arise naturally (though it is very effective at spreading - infectious).
What I was aiming to highlight, was new information to me, regarding the lie around the assertion that “people just didn’t know any better”. And saying, no, according to what you shared, that’s not accurate, hatred and rejection (by motivated powerful people) did this, not pure ignorance. The fact of its only recent translation seems damning, and really struck me as “wow ideas were just locked away like that, pre-tech”. I think I’m saying and thinking the same things as you, but maybe not?
At any rate, apologies if I am still missing something you find crucial.
[Edit: apologies I’ve edited this like 19 times in the few minutes since I posted to flesh it out better lol, I should really exercise better discipline and just collect my thoughts prior to submit. But anyway I’m done now]
you don’t have to agree with me! I am not offended in any case. I am sorry my writing is poor in that I can come across as hostile or upset when I am only trying to be clear. I have tried to improve but it is ongoing problem for me. So I am sorry I was bothering you, I just find the subject interesting and it’s hard for me to resist adding more.
I didn’t see any of the prior iterations of your comment so whatever was said there is between you and god (and possibly a cache somewhere). I also iterated a lot on what I said. I guess we both did that out of mutual care and respect for the subject.
I read it all the way
I read your whole post and I really appreciate your critique! Perhaps I was too careless with my language, as I greatly admire Hirschfeld’s work, and this comment will certainly get me off my ass to read the 1,500 pages of Homosexuality of Men & Women spread across the 3 rather imposing tomes that have been sitting on my desk for an embarrassingly long time. My issue isn’t with Hirschfeld’s work but rather with the terms in their modern form which have been almost completely stripped of all the detail you relayed.
I guess to attempt to explain myself a little more clearly, it took me several years into my transition before I stumbled across Hirschfeld for the first time. I suppose I was so caught up in actually transitioning that I didn’t think to investigate the history of it all. When I first started transitioning in the early 2010s, the term “transsexual” was still in popular use but had been completely deformed into a very rigid and binary transmedicalist definition (at least in the circles where I was coming to self awareness), which obviously adversely affected the way I thought of transness and my own discomfort with slotting myself into such a binary. It’s that kind experience that I view as the baggage that comes from these terms, though I did not mean to lay that at the feet of Hirschfeld. As I said somewhere else in the comments, this is still a half-baked thought and I have a bad tendency to be rather careless with my language sometimes, so I appreciate the correction!
Discovering that Hirschfeld had a century before effectively endorsed the concept of an infinite spectrum of diversity in human sex, sexuality, and gender was a big part in getting me out of the aforementioned funk, so thank you for sharing all this! Who knew that cracking your egg on 420chan’s /cd/ would be so bad for you!
1,500 pages of Homosexuality of Men & Women spread across the
tomes that have been sitting on my desk for an embarrassingly long time.You own it?! How?? I’ve seen it once in a while for sale at an antiquarian/specialist seller, generally with an asking price of at least a grand USD. In my region there is one copy at a public library and one copy in a university library. They aren’t available for loan. I am discussing the English translation; if you are german-reader then I think it is somewhat easier to obtain (maybe?) but still a find. You don’t need to answer any of that of course. The German version would at least be public domain (so cheap imprints are possible) whereas the English translation is so recent that the translator is still alive (and actively translating further works, thanks to him for his service) and the book being out of print and I doubt it sold many copies, very difficult to find.
Whether you should read it or not, I guess depends on what are your interests. It’s for sure worth flipping through especially if you have on paper. I found it very provocative, to learn that “new” ideas are not so new. And that they were found by a totally different route than the modern incarnations. To me, all there is in there is questions questions questions. The path from there to here is quite mysterious and the explanations so far available are not satisfying to me.
One question, how this book came to be published. Like many things about this man, the historical work may not have been done yet (or I may only be unaware of it). Why is it 1500 pages long? It does not exactly warrant that many pages. To the extent that reading it does provoke questions like, “is this this book meant to be read?”. Or was it produced as a decoration? Who actually bought it, which parts did they read, if any? I am not clear if the book itself had much influence, or the many other activities of Hirschfeld and those with whom he worked in various committees and groups were more important.
My issue isn’t with Hirschfeld’s work but rather with the terms in their modern form which have been almost completely stripped of all the detail you relayed.
Yeah it sucks what has been done! You were articulating a very broad consensus understanding, shared between a lot of people otherwise apparently at odds. Which has started to come away the past 10 or 20 years. I hope to learn more about the whole historical trajectory of these concepts.
How did the false history come to be so thoroughly accepted by everyone? This book of Gabriel Rockhill, Who Paid the Pipers of Western Marxism?, is really interesting and I would like to know how these two stories fit together. Even though it will likely not emerge to be at all complimentary overall to Hirschfeld, who’s politics are like much else, not enough investigated or described, and not by people with the relevant expertise to evaluate. It seems that all the recent work on him is very liberal in origin, and kind of mindlessly positive (like what I wrote). I don’t think this analysis is definitive. So one reason I would like for you to peek into Homosexuality is because I think the topic is desperate for marxist/communist perspective (which I assume you have). But there is lots of other source material to work from (and likely even more to be found for the enterprising).
Who knew that cracking your egg on 420chan’s /cd/ would be so bad for you!
Sounds like it worked out just fine.
transgenderSelf made womanleft handed ended up settling at around 11%. it wouldn’t surprise me if queerness gets up to 1/3 or higher.
for sure a bunch of cishet people are rounding themselves off because they’ve never introspected and don’t live in subcultures where it’s safe to talk to someone about whether “everyone has a little same-sex attraction sometimes” or whatever, like we hear sometimes from repressed boomers.
Yeah there was a study posted on here a while back that showed the large jump in LGBT identification from millennials to Gen Z with a breakdown of which type of LGBT, and the lion’s share of the increase was in the B category.
Which suprises me because biphobia is still super rampant amongst Gen Z
Hexbear must be working overtime
running round the clock no time to clean
what else can I say? everyone is gay
Conservatives absolutely shook rn
Unfortunately a lot of them are pretty conservative
They’ll blame it on
cultural Bolshevismwoke propaganda
which carries a lot of baggage that I think has been left unaddressed, such as the rigidity of their definition, but that’s probably for a post for another time.
Am eagerly awaiting this post
Oh no, I shouldn’t have said anything, you might be waiting a long time because I’m lazy as hell
I also don’t feel like it’s a fully cooked up thought so I am hesitant to share but the tl;dr is basically that it’s very hard not to notice that in pretty much every other culture in human history that the people we would today call transgender were integrated into society (because some cultures rejected us, but a lot did not) were given names/roles that were grounded within their culture, typically related to religion. This has been the “natural” state of trans people for most of our history until we get to what could very broadly be described as “Western culture” and the scientific revolution. Starting in the mid/late 1800s, medical scientists began probing the concepts of human sex, sexuality, and gender identity, and began studying queer people as medical subjects. Skipping over a LOT of history here, but eventually we arrive at terms like homosexuality and transvestite (which then is replaced by transsexual, which then much later is (mostly) replaced with transgender). These originated as medical diagnoses, which come with the implication of very strict and rigid boundaries like most other scientific terminology. Because of a tremendous amount of reasons I’m sure, but chief among them the lack of organization among the queer community before this transpired, these terms became identity terms. The baggage I’m referring to is that identity is very nebulous, and even fluid, and these terms are not. There were some attempts to create culturally grounded terms (see: Uranian, Eonism, and to a lesser extent Trans-sensible for examples, I have been meaning to make a trans mega about these), but they never caught on. So we end up with terminology that feels clunky and awkward for the role they’re filling. For an example of a “culturally grounded” term, think lesbian or sapphic! If anyone passing by doesn’t know, lesbian derives from the name for the Agean island of Lesbos, where the extremely gay poet Sappho lived, from which we get the term sapphic. For genders outside man and woman, it gets real bad (in my opinion at least). Nonbinary is a fucking awful term because it’s just a negation of the binary gender system (which is made up, which is a whole other can of worms because gender was invented in an attempt to save binary sex from conceptual collapse, see Histories of the Transgender Child by Julian Gill-Peterson), and it just sound awful (though “enby” ain’t that bad). In the words of sexologist Dr. Havelock Ellis, these terms “… even if acceptable as a descriptive term, still remains one of those hybrid Greco-Latin compounds which it is best to avoid.” (I’ll give a real citation if I make this a real post but he said it in Eonism and Other Supplementary Studies, page 28.)
I guess I’ll split off from that run-on paragraph to conclude that the other problem with all this is that transgender is actually a fantastic term for the phenomenon itself, but we’re unfortunately in a situation where that is also the term for the “Western” expression of it, which makes applying that term to other cultures and times problematic to varying extents. Anyway, I guess that’s not so much of a tl;dr but it’s my unorganized, half-baked thoughts on the matter. Some day I’ll sign up for a few trans megas and yap in a much more coherent way about all this.
it’s very hard not to notice that in pretty much every other culture in human history that the people we would today call transgender were integrated into society (because some cultures rejected us, but a lot did not) were given names/roles that were grounded within their culture, typically related to religion.
Or to sex work, begging, or to positions where us not being able to start a dynasty after an orchi was seen as politically advantageous. What a lot of these roles share is that gender variant people were relegated to a role that was in some ways removed from society at large. That does not mean we were always relegated to the margins, and being on the margins could mean something like “living on the outskirts of the village as a feared but respected shaman”, but that was still a form of othering. Most of the societies that recognized there are more than cis men and cis women still were patriarchal, that is something that just arises very frequently from divisions of reproductive labor and patrilinear transfer of wealth. Western society was just uniquely fucked up in how it treated divergence from such a division by total erasure. Having 3, 5 or more genders still means they can be fit into some sort of restrictive superstructure that facilitates extraction of their labor, and they frequently are.
The third gendering inherent in these categories is also something not all trans people are comfortable with. Serrano has an entire chapter about transmisogyny from terfy cis anthropologists in Whipping Girl. As fitting as it sounds that my orchi would qualify me to be a huge dork advising the political class, i do have a certain problem with that being my only option when that class is the imperial court of pre-revolutionary China and i would also really object to being called a eunuch instead of my friends calling me a hot milf, my neutrals calling me a woman and my enemies calling me a horrible, wretched, man-hating and venom-spewing witch, so i’m with Serrano on that. And there are people in communities in the global south that reject labels like hijra or muxe and prefer trans woman. I get that it’s a double edged sword in many ways, i get that we need to keep the constructivism angle in mind and also have to be mindful of the postcolonial and exorsexist pitfalls that can come from projecting our ideas of transness onto other cutures, but i honestly do not think it’s up to me to tell an indiginous person not to use the same labels as i do just because there is a traditional label in their own culture. As with medical transitioning, always having the option is just a necessity for many of us even when it has historical baggage attached to it. The way forward is to remove that baggage, keep the parts that work for us and universalize access to them.
I am also patient and willing to wait
I see, though, I see. I’m aware of the concepts you discuss, (albeit I was baffled when I first saw “Uranian” anywhere) in fact a New-York-Times-bestselling author planted in my mind long ago that “transgender” is a term coined by the american CDC and is therefore scuffed as fuck. The medicalisation does make me frown a bit, although I also realise that it’s probably at least 10% due to hormone replacement therapy as a medical thing, which is a recent development right? Not every day I see someone cite Jules Gil-Peterson though. Mostly this sounds like I have a lot (more) cool reading to do.
gender was invented in an attempt to save binary sex from conceptual collapse,
I know this but have never seen it put just like this, I think it rocks.
Alright well good halfbaked post, thank you for posting. Very chill.
[HRT] is a recent development right?
Depends on how you define recent. The earliest studies on the effects of “cross-sex” hormones happened over a century ago. I think there was some stuff done before him, but the big name in that area was an Austrian doctor named Eugen Steinach. In the early 1900s/1910s he experimented with implanting rats and guinea pigs with ovaries (into males) and testes (into females) and observed the corresponding physical and behavior changes. Sex hormones had not been isolated at this point, so it was only understood that these sex organs contained what they termed “glandular juices” which was having these effects. In 1923 he produced Der Steinachfilm (trans. The Steinach Film) which, along with a 68 page pamphlet published in 1920, popularized his discoveries to the lay public. These results were interpreted in some crank ways, like the belief among some people, including Steinach himself, that homosexuality could be “cured” by giving gay men a testicular implant to boost their “male glandular juices” (testosterone), but the trans implications were picked up by other people.[1] Apparently a trans woman read about these developments and wanted the prodecure for herself, quoting from Gay Berlin with editted pronouns,
The pamphlet was mentioned by one young [woman] who wrote [sexologist Magnus] Hirschfeld in 1920—a rare surviving letter preserved at the Kinsey Institute—explaining that [she] was “more woman than man.” This correspondent also described that [she] had just had the chance to read about “the book about artificial rejuvenation and sex change,” a clear reference to Steinach. The promise of hormone therapy inspired [her] to write Hirschfeld: “[W]ould it not perhaps be possible to remove my testicles and in their place insert an ovary, and then in this fashion I could become a complete woman. . . . I trust you completely Herr Dr., and perhaps I could serve science as an important experiment.” Included in this missive was a small photograph of [the woman in women’s clothing].[2]
There are other reports of people receiving a very primitive version of HRT around this time as well. In 1916 a 36 year old person known only as “Herr. A” in the historical record approached a Berlin doctor named Max Marcuse about an orchiectomy and hormone treatment. Marcuse denied the request for surgery on the grounds that he deemed the patient mentally ill, but gave them an unspecified “ovarian preparation” which seemed to calm their distress. One of the first surgical sex reassignments was undertaken in stages over the course of 1920-1921 on a 23 year old military officer. They received an orchiectomy, a primitive sort of vulvoplasty while keeping the penis intact, and an implanted ovary for hormone treatment. Though this person later requested the reversal of some of these surgical procedures and then lived out the rest of their life as a man.[3]
According to Julian Gill-Peterson, synthetic hormones were available in the United States by the mid-1930s, though trans people’s access to them were obviously extremely difficult, if not impossible, though not for a lack of trying. Gill-Peterson relates a story of a trans man known to us only as “Bernard” who was well read in the sexological developments of the time and attempted to convince doctors at John Hopkins Hospital that he was actually intersex and needed surgery and hormones to “correct” his supposed birth defect. Unfortunately he was ultimately unsuccessful, though he did manage to fool the first doctor he saw, but that doctor sought a second opinion and Bernard’s ploy was seen through by the second one.[4] So that all said, the most primitive forms of HRT have been around for just over a century now, and synthetic HRT has been possible but not nessicarily available since roughly the middle last century. I don’t have any citation for this but I remember hearing way back in the day that spironolactone was originally prescribed as a blood pressure medication for men in the 1950s until they all started growing breasts because of its anti-androgen effects. So the past 70 or 80 years have mostly been about increasing access moreso than novel developments in HRT.
Yeah 19th century is what I mean by “recent”, as in there weren’t people in ancient Greece or whatever doing the horse urine thing. Relatively new.
Some of this early stuff I’d heard of from looking into Lili Elbe and related things, but… damn I’d never heard about that 23yo military officer, that’s unusual lore. The story of “Bernard” is also new to me. Ty for the info, I had Gay Berlin on my TBR but not Histories of the Transgender Child.
If you want to bend the definition to include orchiectomies then gender-bendy people have been doing those in religious rituals across all sorts of cultures since the Bronze Age or even earlier. Those people must’ve been fucking gnarly to just tank that kind of pain without modern opiods or anesthesia. Our trans ancestors were of a different breed, I can’t even imagine.
Anyway, always glad to share trans history! Truly, we have always been here, and I desperately wish more people knew that.
One of my favourite ways to hold cis people at conversational gunpoint is to ask them about Elagabalus lol
deleted by creator
or genders outside man and woman, it gets real bad (in my opinion at least). Nonbinary is a fucking awful term because it’s just a negation of the binary gender system
we don’t have cultural associations for specific additional genders, and we may never collect enough enough people of the same kind of nonbinary to develop one. I’m not even convinced all of us agenders are sharing an interiority.
one thing we could do is balkanize the binary but the social inertia of it all would make it like how blowing up the moon would give you a pile of rubble where the moon used to be instead of giving the earth a ring.
Yeah I guess I should’ve added that I don’t really see a fix for this problem, it’s just something I’ve noticed. For better or for worse, nonbinary is the term for third and beyond genders, at least at legal level in the US. We’re kind of stuck with it unless a drastic change in the culture happens or something along those lines. The real time to have solidified other terms was roughly the period between 1870-1930 when the medical terminology and categories were being worked out. Queer people would’ve had to have organized a unified front and hammered this stuff out, but the community basically didn’t exist or was extremely fragmented at that point. Ironically these medical terms, particulary for trans people, are what helped trans people discover that there were others like them and gave them language to rally around. So I’m not saying it’s all bad, and I’ve certainly benefitted tremendously from gender affirming care. It’s just an unfortunate historical consequence that I don’t see people talk about is all.
First of all, GOOD post
Second of all, the formatting of this post is the archetype of a bear site post, and I want to marvel in that aspect as well
Oh no, I shouldn’t have said anything, you might be waiting a long time because I’m lazy as hell
eagerly yet patiently waiting on that post, all of this was fascinating
As far as transness goes, I would be willing to believe a number within the realm of ~3% to even 5%.
Back in 2021 there was a study here in Brasil that concluded nearly 2% of the population is trans.
As far as transness goes, I would be willing to believe a number within the realm of ~3% to even 5%
just wondering, what is the reasoning for your guess? cause i feel like mine would be way higher but it’s not really based on anything just vibes
Same here, just vibes, but I don’t live in a very queer area at all. I haven’t even had an IRL queer friend honestly. 1% seems silly low, but I do think we’re still somewhat rare, for lack of a better term, so 1 in 20 feels like a rough upper bound to me. But again, just vibes.
Heterosexuality was never the norm it was just enforced
exclusive hetero anyway
Okay fine
I’m not a big fan of this study, I wish they didn’t conglomerate everything into a gender minority stat
finally some good fucking news
