Did you read my posts? Or did you just assume they said whatever you wanted them to say so that you could attack me for disagreeing with you? I explicitly stated: "I deny that any average reader would have even suspected that the portion of the cite quoted in the OP wasn’t strictly about eunuchs/castrated men. " Why didn’t you read that?
And where do you get off so unfairly jumping on me for not reading an article that wasn’t even linked?? Hell, even if it was linked, it is the poster’s responsibility to bring forward to the OP the relevant information to the discussion, which in this case is just what the poster did!
Well, let us all worship the All Knowing One! Praise you!
Again, that’s exactly in line with what I’ve already said, which was: “Furthermore, there isn’t a single reference to “hijra”, and no one who didn’t already know what they were and wasn’t somewhat prejudicially reading them into the quotation would have imagined a TS/TG connection.” Read my posts more carefully, please, before attacking me in the future!
“Ludicrous”? Now that’s just pure plain horseshit! There you go with the god thing again. You’re foolishly assuming that myself and every other reader would have already known all about all the various cultures and cultural norms of all of India. That we would have known that it is impossible for a few “simply castrated heterosexual males” to wear such clothing. And after all, the quoted portion of the OP clearly states that it is only a subset of these men who wore brightly colored saris!
My point exactly! Thank you for agreeing with the point I made in my initial post and elsewhere that simply castrated heterosexual men do not a TS/TG issue make.
The rest of your protestations are entirely off-base and unfair.
How…odd. When your own words, right there to read, said:
Do the words “article” and “exclusively” mean something to you other than it does to everyone else? Because they could, after all; there are many cultures and countries represented on the Straight Dope Message Board. As I showed, the article did not exclusively refer to them as “Eunuchs”. That’s a simple fact that anyone who clicks on my link can verify. You also claimed there wasn’t a single reference to hijra, right after referring to “the article”. Once again, your own words said that, which tends to lead people to believe that that’s what you meant to say.
Where do you “get off” barging into a thread without even doing the basic research of clicking on Google to accuse people of “yet another example of ludicrous PC-ness”? Don’t you think that was “unfairly jumping”?
I provide the cite, and you respond with sarcasm and abuse. Do you think that’s appropriate behaviour for this forum?
I’ve cited the portions of the thread already. You can keep skirting around the issue that you said that “the article refers exclusively”, or alternately admit you made a mistake in haste, or something. In the interest of establishing what the OP is talking about, one has to rely on experience with the fields of Indian culture and with transsexual culture and history around the world. There is no “prejudice”, it’s a logical conclusion the article is talking about them based on that.
What is this “god” thing “again”? And by saying it’s “plain horseshit” (as opposed, I guess, to the fancy type of horseshit), is it your contention is that it’s fairly common for castrated men to cross-dress? Especially in societies with clear masculine/feminine cultural roles? I’d love to see some good cites equating castration with transvesticism. Based on my research, I don’t think you’ll find them, but hey, we’re here to be educated.
There’s no “assuming” - the point here is to try to answer the OP. People can read what’s in the thread and either bring up facts or experience as counter-points, they can dispute facts and experience, they can read the information or do some basic level of research, such as a 5-second Google search…there are so many other options than to barge in charging “ludicrous PC-ness”. And it’s not dealing with “subsets”, it’s dealing with “what is the most likely cultural phenomenon which fits the OP, which is backed up by doing a 5-second Google search to find the actual article”.
Look, we’re through here. You clearly want a fight, and this is the wrong forum for a fight. Contact a Moderator if you have further problems and need clarification.
Well, I’m not going to argue back, because you explained it pretty well. A tranny from another culture can’t just show up in India and go, “Hey, I’m a hijra.” They’d probably tell you to get lost. To be hijra means to be initiated into something like a guild with its own customs and a distinct membership.
They kind of are. Traditionally Hijra show up when a new baby is born, and if the baby has something wong- and especially if they are intersex- the hijras will take them and raise them. Indian society is very in to gender differences and can be very conformist, so someone that doesn’t fit the norms has little chance of living a normal life. Being a hijra at least gives them a place in society.
This whole “they arn’t talking about hijra thing” is silly. India has a well-documented society of hijra. India does not have a large society of non-hijra castrated men. For most of history, hijra were called “euncuchs”, probably in part because of their connection with guarding Muslim leaders- a job traditionally done by eunuchs. Even non-castrated hijra were called eunuchs. It’s only in recent years that they’ve been able to say they prefer the term hijra (or the various local terms).
*Hijra *also show up at weddings. And they will indeed embarrass you and your family if you don’t give them a lot of money. On the other hand, if you do pay them, they will liven up the whole place - they dance, sing, and have a great time. They’ll get everybody to dance, even your old grandmother and that grumpy uncle who never dances. They are a little embarrassing and people don’t talk about them much, but I’ve never seen outright hostility toward them…stand-offishness, a little fear and nervousness maybe.
*Hijra *also show up at weddings. And they will indeed embarrass you and your family if you don’t give them a lot of money. On the other hand, if you do pay them, they will liven up the whole place - they dance, sing, and have a great time. They’ll get everybody to dance, even your old grandmother and that grumpy uncle who never dances. They are a little embarrassing and people don’t talk about them much, but I’ve never seen outright hostility toward them…stand-offishness, a little fear and nervousness maybe.
That doesn’t mean there isn’t outright hostility, as I’m sure there is - just that I have seen people deal with them in a reasonable, rational way.
Una Persson, your words just continue to be snarky, nitpicky, overly defensive, and manifestly inequitable. I’ll try to remember never to pay attention to your posts again.
Do you have a problem understanding what forum you’re in? Take it to the Pit, contact a Moderator to ask what proper posting behaviour is, or just be honest and admit you were factually wrong when you said, in your own words,
and out of line, personalizing the discussion into an attack when you said:
and
I’ve responded to your attacks with explainations of why I feel there is a misunderstanding on this topic, and requests for cites for both the assertions you are making and the drivers as to why you came in here and started this “ludicrous PC-ness” schtick. You failed to provide those. Contact a Moderator if this is again unclear to you why IMO this is not productive behaviour for this forum.