Sociopath Community

no. 

NO.  so I saw this claim that the Talmud recognizes "eight genders," and honestly, I think that’s bullshit. its a cute idea but its fucking untrue

The Talmud does mention some terms like androgynos (someone with both male and female physical traits), tumtum (someone whose sexual organs are unclear), and aylonit (a woman who doesn’t develop typical female traits). But none of this is about modern gender the way we think about it.

The rabbis weren’t sitting there going, “What’s your gender identity?” They were talking about people whose bodies didn’t fit the usual male/female thing and how to deal with that in religious law. It’s more about biological differences and how those affect religious rules, marriage, inheritance, etc. They didn’t care if someone was "non-binary" or some fucking other shit; they were just trying to figure out how to categorize someone legally based on what their body was like.  like intersex. like me. this shit is mostly different forms of intersex.

So like

Androgynos: A person with both male and female physical traits.
Tumtum: Someone whose sexual characteristics are hidden or unclear.
Aylonit: A woman who doesn’t develop typical female traits.
But here’s the thing—none of this is about gender in the way we think of it today. The Talmud wasn’t trying to be all woke or progressive about gender identity. They weren’t asking, “Do you feel male, female, both, neither?” They were asking, “Okay, this person doesn’t fit the typical male or female mold, so how do we treat them in terms of the law?” It’s all about biological traits and figuring out how to apply rules to people who don’t fit the norm.

also like the whole fucking Adam being created as both male and female—that’s more of a theological thing, not a statement about fluid gender or people being able to switch between genders. It’s a symbolic thing—Adam was created as a whole, then split into two (Adam and Eve). It’s not a modern idea of gender fluidity at all.

 the website you're looking at is misrepresenting things based on ideology and attempting to modernize Judaism and people latch onto it. The Talmud does mention categories for people who don’t fit into the traditional male/female boxes, but it’s not recognizing "multiple genders" like we understand them now. It’s about biological differences and how to handle those in the context of Jewish law.

I know all about this shit I  am both Jewish and intersex

Delora said: 

no. 

NO.  so I saw this claim that the Talmud recognizes "eight genders," and honestly, I think that’s bullshit. its a cute idea but its fucking untrue

They made words for it though, and even have terminology for those who adopted traits of the other sex via human tampering. 

Moreso, doesn't this disprove the argument that "there was nothing like this before now"? 

The Talmud does mention some terms like androgynos (someone with both male and female physical traits), tumtum (someone whose sexual organs are unclear), and aylonit (a woman who doesn’t develop typical female traits). But none of this is about modern gender the way we think about it.

The rabbis weren’t sitting there going, “What’s your gender identity?” They were talking about people whose bodies didn’t fit the usual male/female thing and how to deal with that in religious law. It’s more about biological differences and how those affect religious rules, marriage, inheritance, etc. They didn’t care if someone was "non-binary" or some fucking other shit; they were just trying to figure out how to categorize someone legally based on what their body was like.  like intersex. like me. this shit is mostly different forms of intersex.

The only difference I see is over physicality vs identity politics. 

In the modern scheme you can call yourself either or, while back then it was more about how you physically displayed. Those undergoing hormones would fit the terminology while those dressing the part potentially don't. 

also like the whole fucking Adam being created as both male and female

The male/female conjoined thing's been in a lot of faiths actually, so I take that one with less rigor than the idea that The Talmud has words for these states of physicality. 

That's super neat. 

—that’s more of a theological thing, not a statement about fluid gender or people being able to switch between genders. It’s a symbolic thing—Adam was created as a whole, then split into two (Adam and Eve). It’s not a modern idea of gender fluidity at all.

The option to switch genders wasn't around at all back then, so I'm not surprised that they wouldn't be factoring it in as modern of a framework. 

That being said I'm surprised they recognized it at all. 

the website you're looking at is misrepresenting things based on ideology and attempting to modernize Judaism and people latch onto it.

The last paragraph gave me that impression too, which is why I went at this asking questions. 

The Talmud does mention categories for people who don’t fit into the traditional male/female boxes, but it’s not recognizing "multiple genders" like we understand them now. It’s about biological differences and how to handle those in the context of Jewish law.

But this does prove it did exist, conceptually, before 'Wokeism'. 

I know all about this shit I  am both Jewish and intersex

I was hoping it'd be you responding actually, but in case you weren't around I decided on having it be there generally. 

I hate religion, and yeah that's just how language works.

Delora doesn't go after rich pedophiles. Something I noticed. She's a bourgeoisie reactionary that goes after Jim/CS as she imagines them as poor. She wants children to be taken away from their parents yet doesn't want socialism to support this. It's pretty obvious the level of either covert pedophilia or enabling (gratifies the ego of the reactionary, making them feel "smart") of it going on. We all know what capitalism leads to, which is exploitation of youth including sexually.

Dragoonback said: 

I hate religion, and yeah that's just how language works.

When the words were made is what's important. 

Dragoonback said: 

Delora doesn't go after rich pedophiles. Something I noticed. She's a bourgeoisie reactionary that goes after Jim/CS as she imagines them as poor. She wants children to be taken away from their parents yet doesn't want socialism to support this. It's pretty obvious the level of either covert pedophilia or enabling (gratifies the ego of the reactionary, making them feel "smart") of it going on. We all know what capitalism leads to, which is exploitation of youth including sexually.

 so you track the gross monthly income of every pedophile I target? 

Turncoat said: 

They made words for it though, and even have terminology for those who adopted traits of the other sex via human tampering. 

Moreso, doesn't this disprove the argument that "there was nothing like this before now"? 

 The Talmud’s terms like androgynos and tumtum aren’t about modern gender identity—they’re about dealing with intersex individuals. The rabbis were addressing biological diversity, not identity. They didn’t care about gender fluidity, they just had to figure out how to handle people whose bodies didn’t fit into male/female categories, especially in terms of marriage and religious law.

The Talmud does mention some terms like androgynos (someone with both male and female physical traits), tumtum (someone whose sexual organs are unclear), and aylonit (a woman who doesn’t develop typical female traits). But none of this is about modern gender the way we think about it.

The rabbis weren’t sitting there going, “What’s your gender identity?” They were talking about people whose bodies didn’t fit the usual male/female thing and how to deal with that in religious law. It’s more about biological differences and how those affect religious rules, marriage, inheritance, etc. They didn’t care if someone was "non-binary" or some fucking other shit; they were just trying to figure out how to categorize someone legally based on what their body was like.  like intersex. like me. this shit is mostly different forms of intersex.

The only difference I see is over physicality vs identity politics. 

In the modern scheme you can call yourself either or, while back then it was more about how you physically displayed. Those undergoing hormones would fit the terminology while those dressing the part potentially don't. 

 The Talmud isn’t just about physicality vs. identity politics, it’s about how Jewish law dealt with people who didn’t fit neatly into the male/female binary, based on biological differences. Terms like androgynos and aylonit weren’t about how someone “looked” or “dressed”; they were legal categories for people with physical variations. The rabbis weren’t concerned with modern ideas of gender identity, but they did recognize that some people’s bodies didn’t fit the typical male or female norms and created rules to address that. It wasn’t just about how someone “presented” it was about understanding and categorizing those who had intersex traits or other biological differences, and how those differences affected religious and legal matters.

also like the whole fucking Adam being created as both male and female

The male/female conjoined thing's been in a lot of faiths actually, so I take that one with less rigor than the idea that The Talmud has words for these states of physicality. 

That's super neat. 

 the idea of Adam and Eve being originally one being is actually pretty similar to the Greek myth of Hermaphroditus. Both stories are about the merging of male and female into one. In the Bible, Adam starts off as both male and female before being split into two people, kind of showing that humanity began as a dual-gendered whole. Hermaphroditus, on the other hand, is born with both male and female physical traits, representing more of a literal merging of the sexes. The Adam and Eve story is more about spiritual symbolism, while the Hermaphroditus myth is about biological sex. I agree, it's interesting as fuck.

 

—that’s more of a theological thing, not a statement about fluid gender or people being able to switch between genders. It’s a symbolic thing—Adam was created as a whole, then split into two (Adam and Eve). It’s not a modern idea of gender fluidity at all.

The option to switch genders wasn't around at all back then, so I'm not surprised that they wouldn't be factoring it in as modern of a framework. 

That being said I'm surprised they recognized it at all. 

Exactly. You see it for what it is. I respect that. Most people latch on to perpetuate ideas they like or agree with instead of just seeing it for what it really is. It's one thing to modernize an interpretation, it's another to flat out lie about what text means to the less educated. 

the website you're looking at is misrepresenting things based on ideology and attempting to modernize Judaism and people latch onto it.

The last paragraph gave me that impression too, which is why I went at this asking questions. 

Thank you for not being a moron, because most people latch onto this so hard that they get offended when I try to explain it. 

The Talmud does mention categories for people who don’t fit into the traditional male/female boxes, but it’s not recognizing "multiple genders" like we understand them now. It’s about biological differences and how to handle those in the context of Jewish law.

But this does prove it did exist, conceptually, before 'Wokeism'.  

Well that depends on what you mean by "it" I guess.

I know all about this shit I  am both Jewish and intersex

I was hoping it'd be you responding actually, but in case you weren't around I decided on having it be there generally. 

 You know what thank you for that. Most people dismiss me, but you actually had me in mind. 

I do want to add that with intersex people we can later develop to have different sexual characteristics after puberty without hormonal treatment which they did not have back then. 

Also I have forgotten to add that this is also about eunuchs which can be made that way with a little snip snip. they were typically used as servants 

Delora said: 

Turncoat said: 

They made words for it though, and even have terminology for those who adopted traits of the other sex via human tampering. 

Moreso, doesn't this disprove the argument that "there was nothing like this before now"? 

 The Talmud’s terms like androgynos and tumtum aren’t about modern gender identity—they’re about dealing with intersex individuals.

So what qualifies then as "human intervention" for: 

6. Aylonit adam, identified female at birth but later developing male characteristics through human intervention.

8. Saris adam, identified male at birth and later developing female characteristics through human intervention.

The rabbis were addressing biological diversity, not identity. They didn’t care about gender fluidity, they just had to figure out how to handle people whose bodies didn’t fit into male/female categories, especially in terms of marriage and religious law.

I figured they didn't factor for fluidity over the terminology itself, but they do mention human intervention. Had there been HRT drugs back when The Talmud was being written, do you think they would fall under those umbrella terms? 

An example in the article was over the focus on reproduction; If the wife of the husband was of characteristics that had them unable to birth children then the brother wouldn't be saddled with any responsibilities should the husband die. While they may not be speaking of Inclusion, but rather the room for Exclusion, they still bothered to note divisive enough language to state that differences exist. 

There's many people who think this sort of recognition never occurred prior to Wokeism, while this otherwise serves as historical documentation of a system that is not a Binary but rather a Spectrum, which in itself fits modern views through a more exclusionary lens (rather than inclusionary). 

These categories show that gender complexity has always existed, but the Talmud was more about legal classifications for people with physical differences, not identity politics. It’s not about “multiple genders” in today’s sense—it’s about acknowledging real physical differences, like intersex conditions.

The Talmud does mention some terms like androgynos (someone with both male and female physical traits), tumtum (someone whose sexual organs are unclear), and aylonit (a woman who doesn’t develop typical female traits). But none of this is about modern gender the way we think about it.

The rabbis weren’t sitting there going, “What’s your gender identity?” They were talking about people whose bodies didn’t fit the usual male/female thing and how to deal with that in religious law. It’s more about biological differences and how those affect religious rules, marriage, inheritance, etc. They didn’t care if someone was "non-binary" or some fucking other shit; they were just trying to figure out how to categorize someone legally based on what their body was like.  like intersex. like me. this shit is mostly different forms of intersex.

The only difference I see is over physicality vs identity politics. 

In the modern scheme you can call yourself either or, while back then it was more about how you physically displayed. Those undergoing hormones would fit the terminology while those dressing the part potentially don't. 

 The Talmud isn’t just about physicality vs. identity politics, it’s about how Jewish law dealt with people who didn’t fit neatly into the male/female binary, based on biological differences. Terms like androgynos and aylonit weren’t about how someone “looked” or “dressed”; they were legal categories for people with physical variations. The rabbis weren’t concerned with modern ideas of gender identity, but they did recognize that some people’s bodies didn’t fit the typical male or female norms and created rules to address that. It wasn’t just about how someone “presented” it was about understanding and categorizing those who had intersex traits or other biological differences, and how those differences affected religious and legal matters.

That's precisely my point. 

That being said, would hormones and gender affirming surgery go beyond identity politics and into physical property definitions by the Talmud's terminology, while denying and excluding those who simply dress the part? 

—that’s more of a theological thing, not a statement about fluid gender or people being able to switch between genders. It’s a symbolic thing—Adam was created as a whole, then split into two (Adam and Eve). It’s not a modern idea of gender fluidity at all.

The option to switch genders wasn't around at all back then, so I'm not surprised that they wouldn't be factoring it in as modern of a framework. 

That being said I'm surprised they recognized it at all. 

Exactly. You see it for what it is. I respect that. Most people latch on to perpetuate ideas they like or agree with instead of just seeing it for what it really is. It's one thing to modernize an interpretation, it's another to flat out lie about what text means to the less educated. 

See though, I can use it to perpetuate ideas that I like and agree with, but with it as a tool rather than a reinterpretation. 

It has a modern use in spite of it's original context, merely by the virtue of their wisdom in recognizing more than two outcomes. 

I know all about this shit I  am both Jewish and intersex

I was hoping it'd be you responding actually, but in case you weren't around I decided on having it be there generally. 

 You know what thank you for that. Most people dismiss me, but you actually had me in mind. 

You check two boxes where most people I'd have to talk to on this subject would at best check one of the two. We've also had past disagreements over it which made this an interesting prompt.