Sociopath Community

30% of Jews voted for Trump! Love it!

so when we talk about things like human interference or medical transitions today with hormones or surgeries i think it’s important to point out that back in the talmud’s time they didn’t fucking have anything like that so the rabbis weren’t dealing with the idea of people changing their sex or gender through medicine or surgery they were talking about people whose bodies just didn’t fit into the normal male or female categories naturally like intersex people so when you ask about something like aylonit or saris would they fall under those terms if they had hormones or surgery or some shit i think maybe yeah but at the same time those terms were more about how a person’s body looked not about what procedures they went through or how they identified.

the rabbis were just trying to figure the fuck out how to deal with biological differences not with medical transitions. if there had been HRT or surgery back then maybe they would’ve considered it differently but the whole point of the terms was to categorize people based on what their bodies were like not what they were trying to do to change their bodies. so yeah, it’s a tough comparison because they didn’t have the same options and the terms were more about physical traits, not medical procedures.

if we’re talking about how those terms would apply today with some fucking things like HRT or surgery i guess you could try to fit it into those categories in a way but it wouldn’t be exact because those terms weren’t designed to describe gender identity or transitions they were just about how someone’s body didn’t fit the binary categories and how jewish law would handle that. so i guess i would say that if someone transitioned today, they might technically fall under those categories but not in the same way as the talmud used them.

as for the idea of "human interference" or changing someone’s physical traits with medical means, yeah, i can see how that shit might relate but it’s not quite the same shit as what the rabbis were dealing with since the people they were talking about weren’t going through intentional changes to their bodies. they were just people who were born with bodies that didn’t fit neatly into the male or female categories and they had to figure out how to categorize them within jewish law, especially when it came to marriage and inheritance.

so it’s not exactly about medical transition or fluidity in the way we think of it now, it’s more about dealing with biological variations that didn’t fit the male/female binary shit and how those differences affected someone’s role in religious law. if we were to apply today’s ideas about gender and medical transition to these terms, we’d be doing something that the rabbis never had to consider. the terminology in the talmud was for dealing with biological differences, not the modern understanding of gender fluidity or transitions.

so to sum it up, i think if they had had the medical technology shit we have now, maybe they would’ve used the terms for people who transitioned but it’s hard to say since back then they weren’t thinking about it in the same way. those terms were about physical traits and categorizing people based on those traits, not about medical procedures or identity politics stuff

also as for eunuchs, they were a whole separate thing that’s kind of related but not exactly the fucking same. eunuchs were treated as a distinct category of people, often viewed as non-gendered or in a liminal space, and jewish law had its own set of rules for them, especially when it came to marriage and priesthood. they might fit into this conversation too, since eunuchs were kinda like the extreme end of what happens when someone’s body doesn’t develop the typical male or female traits. they were seen as people who had undergone a permanent change to their fucking body (through castration or some other form of body alteration which would explain the human interference) and were treated differently in religious law because of it. it’s still not the same shit as medical transition today, but there is a bit of overlap in the sense that both eunuchs and trans people have bodies that deviate from the male/female binary, even if the causes and contexts are different.

so yeah, eunuchs might’ve been part of the rabbis’ thinking about gender and biological differences,  ( I think they fucking were) but again, it’s not the same as what we’re talking about now with intentional transitions and medical procedures. the rabbis didn’t have the option of considering someone who transitioned through surgery or hormones, so we’re dealing with a whole different set of issues. but in terms of how they dealt with biological differences, eunuchs and terms like saris and aylonit were all kind of ways to categorize people who didn’t fit the usual categories, even if the reasons and implications were different.

Delora said: 

so when we talk about things like human interference or medical transitions today with hormones or surgeries i think it’s important to point out that back in the talmud’s time they didn’t fucking have anything like that

But it still falls under the umbrella of human intervention, yes? 

so the rabbis weren’t dealing with the idea of people changing their sex or gender through medicine or surgery they were talking about people whose bodies just didn’t fit into the normal male or female categories naturally like intersex people so when you ask about something like aylonit or saris would they fall under those terms if they had hormones or surgery or some shit i think maybe yeah but at the same time those terms were more about how a person’s body looked not about what procedures they went through or how they identified. 

How a person's body looks can be based on procedures though, but yeah it was definitely not about "Gender" politics so much as assigning them sexual labels. 

The fact that they bothered to separate with and without human intervention, rather than lumping them all in as Nonbinary or Androgynous, is meaningful. 

the rabbis were just trying to figure the fuck out how to deal with biological differences not with medical transitions. if there had been HRT or surgery back then maybe they would’ve considered it differently but the whole point of the terms was to categorize people based on what their bodies were like not what they were trying to do to change their bodies.

So the only difference here really is that the means of "human intervention" have modernized. 

If my shampoo is Red, and there was no shampoo when the color Red was codified into language, is the shampoo not Red as per the original intent of the word? Or... is it that the word Red can be applied to things found to be Red after the word was made? 

A man displaying female characteristics via human intervention, and a woman displaying male characteristics via human intervention, would remain the case even if used to identify modern displays. Nothing in the definition itself limits it to only what was around back then so much as the original context didn't factor it when making the definitions. With how broadly they are defined, I don't think it's much of a stretch to apply these terms to modern people who've chosen to "human intervene" on themselves. 

if we’re talking about how those terms would apply today with some fucking things like HRT or surgery i guess you could try to fit it into those categories in a way but it wouldn’t be exact because those terms weren’t designed to describe gender identity or transitions they were just about how someone’s body didn’t fit the binary categories and how jewish law would handle that. so i guess i would say that if someone transitioned today, they might technically fall under those categories but not in the same way as the talmud used them.

as for the idea of "human interference" or changing someone’s physical traits with medical means, yeah, i can see how that shit might relate but it’s not quite the same shit as what the rabbis were dealing with since the people they were talking about weren’t going through intentional changes to their bodies. they were just people who were born with bodies that didn’t fit neatly into the male or female categories and they had to figure out how to categorize them within jewish law, especially when it came to marriage and inheritance.

So you simultaneously recognize how it could be used, but was not their original intent? 

If it was around back when they made this declaration, do you think they would have given it it's own word? 

so it’s not exactly about medical transition or fluidity in the way we think of it now, it’s more about dealing with biological variations that didn’t fit the male/female binary shit and how those differences affected someone’s role in religious law. if we were to apply today’s ideas about gender and medical transition to these terms, we’d be doing something that the rabbis never had to consider. the terminology in the talmud was for dealing with biological differences, not the modern understanding of gender fluidity or transitions.

So what qualified as human interference back in the day? Wouldn't those tools just be seen as more barbaric versions of what we're using today, sort of like comparing how people used to use toothpicks and chewsticks before the toothbrush was invented? 

so to sum it up, i think if they had had the medical technology shit we have now, maybe they would’ve used the terms for people who transitioned but it’s hard to say since back then they weren’t thinking about it in the same way. those terms were about physical traits and categorizing people based on those traits, not about medical procedures or identity politics stuff

But aren't medical procedures about changing physical traits via human intervention..? 

Yes they are stuck on the physical rather than gender politics, so "a man in a dress" wouldn't qualify for them, but I'm inclined to think medical procedures apply similarly to how they did in the past albeit not as sophisticated. 

Delora said: 

also as for eunuchs, they were a whole separate thing that’s kind of related but not exactly the fucking same. eunuchs were treated as a distinct category of people, often viewed as non-gendered or in a liminal space, and jewish law had its own set of rules for them, especially when it came to marriage and priesthood. they might fit into this conversation too, since eunuchs were kinda like the extreme end of what happens when someone’s body doesn’t develop the typical male or female traits. 

They'd be tumtum, right? Or more on point wouldn't they be tumtum adam? 

they were seen as people who had undergone a permanent change to their fucking body (through castration or some other form of body alteration which would explain the human interference) and were treated differently in religious law because of it. it’s still not the same shit as medical transition today, but there is a bit of overlap in the sense that both eunuchs and trans people have bodies that deviate from the male/female binary, even if the causes and contexts are different.

so yeah, eunuchs might’ve been part of the rabbis’ thinking about gender and biological differences,  ( I think they fucking were) but again, it’s not the same as what we’re talking about now with intentional transitions and medical procedures. the rabbis didn’t have the option of considering someone who transitioned through surgery or hormones, so we’re dealing with a whole different set of issues. but in terms of how they dealt with biological differences, eunuchs and terms like saris and aylonit were all kind of ways to categorize people who didn’t fit the usual categories, even if the reasons and implications were different.

I'm not sure, but I think this proves TC is antisemitic.

Buttered Toast said: 

I'm not sure, but I think this proves TC is antisemitic.

No, I don't think so. I think she’s just having her own opinion on some things, and that’s OK. A lot of other Jews actually see this the same way she does. I think the biggest thing for me is that the conversation is respectful and honest, which it seems to be. I’m going to debate her more, but my pet rat died today, so I don’t have the energy. I love this debate and will come back later. She and I are just having fun together since we both enjoy these types of conversations.  :p

if we’re talking about how those terms would apply today with some fucking things like HRT or surgery i guess you could try to fit it into those categories in a way but it wouldn’t be exact because those terms weren’t designed to describe gender identity or transitions they were just about how someone’s body didn’t fit the binary categories and how jewish law would handle that. so i guess i would say that if someone transitioned today, they might technically fall under those categories but not in the same way as the talmud used them.

as for the idea of "human interference" or changing someone’s physical traits with medical means, yeah, i can see how that shit might relate but it’s not quite the same shit as what the rabbis were dealing with since the people they were talking about weren’t going through intentional changes to their bodies. they were just people who were born with bodies that didn’t fit neatly into the male or female categories and they had to figure out how to categorize them within jewish law, especially when it came to marriage and inheritance.

So you simultaneously recognize how it could be used, but was not their original intent? 

If it was around back when they made this declaration, do you think they would have given it it's own word? 

yes. the word would be delusional. they did not recognize any of this back then at all. all they knew was there were cross dressers, people born with physical deformities, gay people who must be killed, intersex people who can be enslaved ect

so it’s not exactly about medical transition or fluidity in the way we think of it now, it’s more about dealing with biological variations that didn’t fit the male/female binary shit and how those differences affected someone’s role in religious law. if we were to apply today’s ideas about gender and medical transition to these terms, we’d be doing something that the rabbis never had to consider. the terminology in the talmud was for dealing with biological differences, not the modern understanding of gender fluidity or transitions.

So what qualified as human interference back in the day? Wouldn't those tools just be seen as more barbaric versions of what we're using today, sort of like comparing how people used to use toothpicks and chewsticks before the toothbrush was invented? 

so to sum it up, i think if they had had the medical technology shit we have now, maybe they would’ve used the terms for people who transitioned but it’s hard to say since back then they weren’t thinking about it in the same way. those terms were about physical traits and categorizing people based on those traits, not about medical procedures or identity politics stuff

But aren't medical procedures about changing physical traits via human intervention..? 

Yes they are stuck on the physical rather than gender politics, so "a man in a dress" wouldn't qualify for them, but I'm inclined to think medical procedures apply similarly to how they did in the past albeit not as sophisticated. 

I have no idea what they would have thought about gender change surgery. they prob would have been scared to death and lose their minds. especially over a pill that makes a man grow breasts 

Delora said: 

also as for eunuchs, they were a whole separate thing that’s kind of related but not exactly the fucking same. eunuchs were treated as a distinct category of people, often viewed as non-gendered or in a liminal space, and jewish law had its own set of rules for them, especially when it came to marriage and priesthood. they might fit into this conversation too, since eunuchs were kinda like the extreme end of what happens when someone’s body doesn’t develop the typical male or female traits. 

They'd be tumtum, right? Or more on point wouldn't they be tumtum adam? 

they were seen as people who had undergone a permanent change to their fucking body (through castration or some other form of body alteration which would explain the human interference) and were treated differently in religious law because of it. it’s still not the same shit as medical transition today, but there is a bit of overlap in the sense that both eunuchs and trans people have bodies that deviate from the male/female binary, even if the causes and contexts are different.

so yeah, eunuchs might’ve been part of the rabbis’ thinking about gender and biological differences,  ( I think they fucking were) but again, it’s not the same as what we’re talking about now with intentional transitions and medical procedures. the rabbis didn’t have the option of considering someone who transitioned through surgery or hormones, so we’re dealing with a whole different set of issues. but in terms of how they dealt with biological differences, eunuchs and terms like saris and aylonit were all kind of ways to categorize people who didn’t fit the usual categories, even if the reasons and implications were different.

 
But it still falls under the umbrella of human intervention, yes? 

no more than a human making a chair is human intervention compared to a human training a horse. 

this is simply about castrating servants and making them more slaves who seem neither to male or female, rather than a gender issue. this was to keep them from seducing masters or sleeping with their masters wives. it was fucked up. that and intersex births. 

so the rabbis weren’t dealing with the idea of people changing their sex or gender through medicine or surgery they were talking about people whose bodies just didn’t fit into the normal male or female categories naturally like intersex people so when you ask about something like aylonit or saris would they fall under those terms if they had hormones or surgery or some shit i think maybe yeah but at the same time those terms were more about how a person’s body looked not about what procedures they went through or how they identified. 
How a person's body looks can be based on procedures though, but yeah it was definitely not about "Gender" politics so much as assigning them sexual labels. 

 
not back then other than castrating someone. 

The fact that they bothered to separate with and without human intervention, rather than lumping them all in as Nonbinary or Androgynous, is meaningful. 

the rabbis were just trying to figure the fuck out how to deal with biological differences not with medical transitions. if there had been HRT or surgery back then maybe they would’ve considered it differently but the whole point of the terms was to categorize people based on what their bodies were like not what they were trying to do to change their bodies.
So the only difference here really is that the means of "human intervention" have modernized. 
no. as I said before, it is actually very different in everything from context to concepts 

If my shampoo is Red, and there was no shampoo when the color Red was codified into language, is the shampoo not Red as per the original intent of the word? Or... is it that the word Red can be applied to things found to be Red after the word was made? 
(you hear a small explosion as my autism implodes)

A man displaying female characteristics via human intervention, and a woman displaying male characteristics via human intervention, would remain the case even if used to identify modern displays. Nothing in the definition itself limits it to only what was around back then so much as the original context didn't factor it when making the definitions. With how broadly they are defined, I don't think it's much of a stretch to apply these terms to modern people who've chosen to "human intervene" on themselves. 

Buttered Toast said: 

I'm not sure, but I think this proves TC is antisemitic.

 I am anti all religion. All religion is just neo colonialist and bourgeoisie bullshit.

Delora said: 

if we’re talking about how those terms would apply today with some fucking things like HRT or surgery i guess you could try to fit it into those categories in a way but it wouldn’t be exact because those terms weren’t designed to describe gender identity or transitions they were just about how someone’s body didn’t fit the binary categories and how jewish law would handle that. so i guess i would say that if someone transitioned today, they might technically fall under those categories but not in the same way as the talmud used them.

as for the idea of "human interference" or changing someone’s physical traits with medical means, yeah, i can see how that shit might relate but it’s not quite the same shit as what the rabbis were dealing with since the people they were talking about weren’t going through intentional changes to their bodies. they were just people who were born with bodies that didn’t fit neatly into the male or female categories and they had to figure out how to categorize them within jewish law, especially when it came to marriage and inheritance.

So you simultaneously recognize how it could be used, but was not their original intent? 

If it was around back when they made this declaration, do you think they would have given it it's own word? 

yes. the word would be delusional. they did not recognize any of this back then at all. all they knew was there were cross dressers, people born with physical deformities, gay people who must be killed, intersex people who can be enslaved ect

This isn't about what they did with these words, this is simply about recognizing that the distinctions existed far enough back for people to have made them. They could have lumped all who were not in the classic binary as some cultural equivalent of the word "Invalid" or "Wrong" and been done with it, yet they bothered with an 8-way split. 

Sure the use for the words have changed, like how seeing a black person in America doesn't translate as "slave" anymore. The point is moreover where old words have the potential to be taken in a modern context, and in that regard it still serves as a talking point to make the claim that the idea of more than two genders has been a concept for a good long time now outside of US culture. 

so it’s not exactly about medical transition or fluidity in the way we think of it now, it’s more about dealing with biological variations that didn’t fit the male/female binary shit and how those differences affected someone’s role in religious law. if we were to apply today’s ideas about gender and medical transition to these terms, we’d be doing something that the rabbis never had to consider. the terminology in the talmud was for dealing with biological differences, not the modern understanding of gender fluidity or transitions.

So what qualified as human interference back in the day? Wouldn't those tools just be seen as more barbaric versions of what we're using today, sort of like comparing how people used to use toothpicks and chewsticks before the toothbrush was invented? 

so to sum it up, i think if they had had the medical technology shit we have now, maybe they would’ve used the terms for people who transitioned but it’s hard to say since back then they weren’t thinking about it in the same way. those terms were about physical traits and categorizing people based on those traits, not about medical procedures or identity politics stuff

But aren't medical procedures about changing physical traits via human intervention..? 

Yes they are stuck on the physical rather than gender politics, so "a man in a dress" wouldn't qualify for them, but I'm inclined to think medical procedures apply similarly to how they did in the past albeit not as sophisticated. 

I have no idea what they would have thought about gender change surgery. they prob would have been scared to death and lose their minds. especially over a pill that makes a man grow breasts 

They already recognized "human intervention" and history has lopped off genitals for a good while, it's not that much of a stretch.