Sapper Redux said:

---

I respect the ethical position you're taking, but I also find it a bit naive about the nihilistic nature of cellular and microbiology.

---

I respect your tone and engagement on this thread. Thank you. Cheers. Let us part as friends.

I'm sympathetic to your view to a point. After all, many physical vices have mental and spiritual effects and vice versa. For instance, gluttony and sloth can cause obesity, diabetes, joint pains, etc which are all known causes of depression. Conversely, promiscuity can lead to STD's like syphilis and HIV which can have direct mental and psychological effects. So the whole mind-body duality doesn't hold up, much less the whole spirit-body duality. So I definitely feel like like taking care of our body in the best way possible is a Christian duty. Our usefulness to God's kingdom can be decreased by physical limitations, and we should try to avoid that if we can.

I have to stop at a certain point though. I see a lot of this thought as the reason that certain Christians (usually fundamentals and evangelicals) are against organ transplants. To me as a doctor and a Christian, that's mind boggling. After all, our bodies are tools for God's kingdom. Jesus literally gave and gives his body for us. That's the example. So if you are brain dead, literally the only value your body has to the kingdom is the ability to give life to someone else. That liver and those kidneys will be good to no one but worms in just a day.

I also don't see the problem with cremation. Give a buried body a few decades and it's just bones anyway. Cremation is just faster. It was a bit amusing to go to New Orleans and see the tombs there. It's "burial", but with the heat the bodies are basically cremated over the course of a year instead of an hour. I don't see that it makes any practical difference. Maybe it's less work for God to rebuild you if your body is still intact and the Resurrection is soon? It's not like the saints from a thousand years ago are going to be disadvantaged in that regard.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Where's your PhD in early modern history from?

---

Just support your statement, oh wise history doctorate holder. You've responded yet again with no facts/evidence, to a simple mockery of a vacuously ignorant assertion. Where, in those time periods, and how, were transgender people treated better vs. America in 2022?

I do not respect your historical knowledge or degree, let alone your ability to engage in any discussion as to a point you bring up, to be clear, but I am curious what the heck you are talking about.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Where's your PhD in early modern history from?

---

Where's yours?

PacifistAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

This thread has nothing to do with transgender people. Can y'all let go of your obsession for just one thread at least, and not derail this as you put your ignorance on full display?

Back to the subject of the OP.

---

That was my fault. Sorry.

---

Nah, another poster, in trying to make a point, took a passive aggressive swipe at me. You responded to what they said. No issue with you. Thanks though.

---

No need to pout or claim victim status this early in the day. I didn't bring up any given issue (or you), just mocked an absurd one.

Also, just to mention it, most Jewish people have no problem with xenotransplantation. We've already been using porcine heart valves for a long time with good results, and the issue was largely settled then. While pig carcasses are unclean, the principle of preserving life is paramount. So as long as the transplant is used to preserve life, xenotransplantation is almost universally considered kosher. I say "almost", because there's really no such thing as absolute rabbinical consensus on pretty much anything.

Zobel said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Where's your PhD in early modern history from?

---

Where's yours?

---

I don't have a PhD in early modern history, thanks smart ass.

You caught me.

Of course, I also do have a doctorate, and am familiar with history. Does that give me credibility, and should I cite it or call out others who don't? Should I demand to be called "Dr" at restaurants/hotels etc too, or in correspondence like "Dr" Jill does?

Do you have one? Is that needed to cite, specifically, that transgender people were not in fact treated better in mid-evil Europe than in the US?

Sometimes I worry about our philosophers on this board.

I think you might have responded to the wrong person.

Zobel said:

---

I think you might have responded to the wrong person.

---

LOL, sorry, I was sort of in a rush and did, I thought like most other posters on this one you had taken that position. Again, my apologies. Have a good day!

Let's fast forward a hundred years or so. Medical science now allows every part of the human body to be easily replaced with animal or artificial replacement. The average human life span could be closer to a thousand. You say no to that and stick to ~100 years, especially where the last twenty or so aren't always that great? That'd be an interesting difference between two segments of the population just based on life span and quality of life.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I'm sympathetic to your view to a point. After all, many physical vices have mental and spiritual effects and vice versa. For instance, gluttony and sloth can cause obesity, diabetes, joint pains, etc which are all known causes of depression. Conversely, promiscuity can lead to STD's like syphilis and HIV which can have direct mental and psychological effects. So the whole mind-body duality doesn't hold up, much less the whole spirit-body duality. So I definitely feel like like taking care of our body in the best way possible is a Christian duty. Our usefulness to God's kingdom can be decreased by physical limitations, and we should try to avoid that if we can.

I have to stop at a certain point though. I see a lot of this thought as the reason that certain Christians (usually fundamentals and evangelicals) are against organ transplants. To me as a doctor and a Christian, that's mind boggling. After all, our bodies are tools for God's kingdom. Jesus literally gave and gives his body for us. That's the example. So if you are brain dead, literally the only value your body has to the kingdom is the ability to give life to someone else. That liver and those kidneys will be good to no one but worms in just a day.

I also don't see the problem with cremation. Give a buried body a few decades and it's just bones anyway. Cremation is just faster. It was a bit amusing to go to New Orleans and see the tombs there. It's "burial", but with the heat the bodies are basically cremated over the course of a year instead of an hour. I don't see that it makes any practical difference. Maybe it's less work for God to rebuild you if your body is still intact and the Resurrection is soon? It's not like the saints from a thousand years ago are going to be disadvantaged in that regard.

---

I appreciate the gracious tone. Forgive what may seem like snark (for it is not) but I must ask: did the pig consent? Does it exist only for our benefit to use for any end we see fit? Is it the same as a person or a willing organ donor? Again, not to be harsh or unfair but what limitation is imposed on taking any animal organ necessary for a perceived failure of my body? This sounds more like exploitation.

There is nothing sacred or reverent about cremation. The body is pulverized/tenderized as part of the process is it not? It's not simply heating an oven til we're ash. When we discuss this we stray into the scientific explanation of the spiritual and wind up with more questions than answers: what about someone else's body that possesses atoms used in mine? With our resurrected bodies who claims them? Does God simply make more, in which case they were never ours? Why did Christ keep His body if it's not important?

Quad Dog said:

---

Let's fast forward a hundred years or so. Medical science now allows every part of the human body to be easily replaced with animal or artificial replacement. The average human life span could be closer to a thousand. You say no to that and stick to ~100 years, especially where the last twenty or so aren't always that great? That'd be an interesting difference between two segments of the population just based on life span and quality of life.

---

I differentiate between artificial and animal, willingly given and taken. I think it has spiritual implications.

But again, so does living 1,000 years. Do we think people will live better over that span? How long must one work for retirement at that point? How does one appropriately relate to friends, neighbors, community and the fullness of their family (generations and generations of children)? Do you have the mental capacity for that or the time to do it all well?

Quote:

---

I appreciate the gracious tone. Forgive what may seem like snark (for it is not) but I must ask: did the pig consent? Does it exist only for our benefit to use for any end we see fit? Is it the same as a person or a willing organ donor? Again, not to be harsh or unfair but what limitation is imposed on taking any animal organ necessary for a perceived failure of my body? This sounds more like exploitation.

---

I think the only way the pig's consent matters is from an animal right's perspective. After all, we have supermarkets and restaurants full of pork, and no one ever asked the pigs what they think about that. So if you're a vegan that eschews animal products and believes that all animal suffering from human activity is wrong, then you've got a consistent case. Otherwise I'm missing the distinction between using their flesh for food and using their organs as transplants.

Regarding cremation, I don't know if it's a listed option, but I think most of them would give you the bones if you ask. In those New Orleans tombs, they pretty much just push back the leftover bones into a pit with a shovel. So it's not like there's any sore of great respect given to the bones at the end. And cremation can be very reverant. Just look at the end of Return of the Jedi and Vader's cremation. Very dignified

AGC said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I'm sympathetic to your view to a point. After all, many physical vices have mental and spiritual effects and vice versa. For instance, gluttony and sloth can cause obesity, diabetes, joint pains, etc which are all known causes of depression. Conversely, promiscuity can lead to STD's like syphilis and HIV which can have direct mental and psychological effects. So the whole mind-body duality doesn't hold up, much less the whole spirit-body duality. So I definitely feel like like taking care of our body in the best way possible is a Christian duty. Our usefulness to God's kingdom can be decreased by physical limitations, and we should try to avoid that if we can.

I have to stop at a certain point though. I see a lot of this thought as the reason that certain Christians (usually fundamentals and evangelicals) are against organ transplants. To me as a doctor and a Christian, that's mind boggling. After all, our bodies are tools for God's kingdom. Jesus literally gave and gives his body for us. That's the example. So if you are brain dead, literally the only value your body has to the kingdom is the ability to give life to someone else. That liver and those kidneys will be good to no one but worms in just a day.

I also don't see the problem with cremation. Give a buried body a few decades and it's just bones anyway. Cremation is just faster. It was a bit amusing to go to New Orleans and see the tombs there. It's "burial", but with the heat the bodies are basically cremated over the course of a year instead of an hour. I don't see that it makes any practical difference. Maybe it's less work for God to rebuild you if your body is still intact and the Resurrection is soon? It's not like the saints from a thousand years ago are going to be disadvantaged in that regard.

---

I appreciate the gracious tone. Forgive what may seem like snark (for it is not) but I must ask: did the pig consent? Does it exist only for our benefit to use for any end we see fit? Is it the same as a person or a willing organ donor? Again, not to be harsh or unfair but what limitation is imposed on taking any animal organ necessary for a perceived failure of my body? This sounds more like exploitation.

There is nothing sacred or reverent about cremation. The body is pulverized/tenderized as part of the process is it not? It's not simply heating an oven til we're ash. When we discuss this we stray into the scientific explanation of the spiritual and wind up with more questions than answers: what about someone else's body that possesses atoms used in mine? With our resurrected bodies who claims them? Does God simply make more, in which case they were never ours? Why did Christ keep His body if it's not important?

---

Can a pig give consent? I don't think so.

As another poster pointed out, we already have genetically engineered pigs through generations of selective breeding for them to be bigger, fatter, more docile, and tastier.
I don't see much difference between raising a pig specifically to be eaten vs. be an organ donor.

AGC said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Where's your PhD in early modern history from?

---

Just support your statement, oh wise history doctorate holder. You've responded yet again with no facts/evidence, to a simple mockery of a vacuously ignorant assertion. Where, in those time periods, and how, were transgender people treated better vs. America in 2022?

I do not respect your historical knowledge or degree, let alone your ability to engage in any discussion as to a point you bring up, to be clear, but I am curious what the heck you are talking about.

---

Sapper has engaged me very maturely and graciously in this thread. I understand that is not always the case. Would you please seek to offer charity in the hope that it fosters a better experience for discussion? We all need more engagement, not less.

---

You are right I suppose, I should turn the other cheek, but degree snobbery and ignorance are things I really can't stand.

Looking forward 100 years; the greatest issue with transplants/replacement organs will remain 1 critical exception, I expect: the brain. In my family's experience certainly it is the saddest thing to see fade/deteriorate over time, and I am not sure that even if it could be as wonderful as being transplanted into a magically/perfectly cloned 21 year old body sans brain that it can be kept at a level of operation, intelligence, memory and stamina that I'd want to live past what I consider my own life expectancy (about 7 decades).

Medical ethics as such I hope will be an expanding discussion point/field in the future, as I don't believe it receives sufficient training/concern/medical attention today. I also don't think we should be working to develop novel gain of function diseases/viruses on our own either, or entrust that to 'scientists.'

Ancient sacrificial rituals actually seem to ask/receive the consent of the animal to be slaughtered.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

I appreciate the gracious tone. Forgive what may seem like snark (for it is not) but I must ask: did the pig consent? Does it exist only for our benefit to use for any end we see fit? Is it the same as a person or a willing organ donor? Again, not to be harsh or unfair but what limitation is imposed on taking any animal organ necessary for a perceived failure of my body? This sounds more like exploitation.

---

I think the only way the pig's consent matters is from an animal right's perspective. After all, we have supermarkets and restaurants full of pork, and no one ever asked the pigs what they think about that. So if you're a vegan that eschews animal products and believes that all animal suffering from human activity is wrong, then you've got a consistent case. Otherwise I'm missing the distinction between using their flesh for food and using their organs as transplants.

Regarding cremation, I don't know if it's a listed option, but I think most of them would give you the bones if you ask. In those New Orleans tombs, they pretty much just push back the leftover bones into a pit with a shovel. So it's not like there's any sore of great respect given to the bones at the end. And cremation can be very reverant. Just look at the end of Return of the Jedi and Vader's cremation. Very dignified

---

Ordering the world and exploiting it are different things. I must eat. But remember the original article: this is a pig whose genes were spliced for this purpose. The the movie The Island (yes there are better examples I'm sure) dealt with the end idea of cloning and organ harvesting if unchecked. Is my death so unseemly or immoral that I must go to such lengths to survive? What greater spiritual truth comes out of this? Indeed the number of objections to my idea here shows how far and easily it goes. The slope slips infinitely.

Zobel said:

---

Ancient sacrificial rituals actually seem to ask/receive the consent of the animal to be slaughtered.

---

Did one ever say "no"?

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

I respect the ethical position you're taking, but I also find it a bit naive about the nihilistic nature of cellular and microbiology.

---

I respect your tone and engagement on this thread. Thank you. Cheers. Let us part as friends.

---

Quad Dog said:

---

AGC said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I'm sympathetic to your view to a point. After all, many physical vices have mental and spiritual effects and vice versa. For instance, gluttony and sloth can cause obesity, diabetes, joint pains, etc which are all known causes of depression. Conversely, promiscuity can lead to STD's like syphilis and HIV which can have direct mental and psychological effects. So the whole mind-body duality doesn't hold up, much less the whole spirit-body duality. So I definitely feel like like taking care of our body in the best way possible is a Christian duty. Our usefulness to God's kingdom can be decreased by physical limitations, and we should try to avoid that if we can.

I have to stop at a certain point though. I see a lot of this thought as the reason that certain Christians (usually fundamentals and evangelicals) are against organ transplants. To me as a doctor and a Christian, that's mind boggling. After all, our bodies are tools for God's kingdom. Jesus literally gave and gives his body for us. That's the example. So if you are brain dead, literally the only value your body has to the kingdom is the ability to give life to someone else. That liver and those kidneys will be good to no one but worms in just a day.

I also don't see the problem with cremation. Give a buried body a few decades and it's just bones anyway. Cremation is just faster. It was a bit amusing to go to New Orleans and see the tombs there. It's "burial", but with the heat the bodies are basically cremated over the course of a year instead of an hour. I don't see that it makes any practical difference. Maybe it's less work for God to rebuild you if your body is still intact and the Resurrection is soon? It's not like the saints from a thousand years ago are going to be disadvantaged in that regard.

---

I appreciate the gracious tone. Forgive what may seem like snark (for it is not) but I must ask: did the pig consent? Does it exist only for our benefit to use for any end we see fit? Is it the same as a person or a willing organ donor? Again, not to be harsh or unfair but what limitation is imposed on taking any animal organ necessary for a perceived failure of my body? This sounds more like exploitation.

There is nothing sacred or reverent about cremation. The body is pulverized/tenderized as part of the process is it not? It's not simply heating an oven til we're ash. When we discuss this we stray into the scientific explanation of the spiritual and wind up with more questions than answers: what about someone else's body that possesses atoms used in mine? With our resurrected bodies who claims them? Does God simply make more, in which case they were never ours? Why did Christ keep His body if it's not important?

---

Can a pig give consent? I don't think so.

As another poster pointed out, we already have genetically engineered pigs through generations of selective breeding for them to be bigger, fatter, more docile, and tastier.
I don't see much difference between raising a pig specifically to be eaten vs. be an organ donor.

---

The point I was referring to was the example of Christ and organ donors. I don't think it lends itself to this situation, that Christ and a genetically altered pig are a substitute. That's why I asked the silly question about a pig's consent.

However I also don't view selective breeding and gene splicing to be the same.

Zobel said:

---

Ancient sacrificial rituals actually seem to ask/receive the consent of the animal to be slaughtered.

---

A lot of Native American cultures felt this way as well. For some, the animals were part of the tribe, and if they had a dominant animal that was hunted, that animal was felt to be part of the life cycle of humans. Almost like a reincarnation idea, but not exactly. Take as a fictional example, the People of the Deer. The deer were considered to be people, and the people to be deer. So they were treated with special consideration, only killed when necessary, and it was sort of bittersweet. I'm doing a poor job explaining it, but it made a weird sort of sense when I read about it.

Don't you think it's a little silly to ask someone for info you yourself are not willing to provide?

Isn't it also a little gate-keeperish to shut down a discussion on the premise that the person lacks a degree?

It'd be much more interesting to see and read citations.

Don't know, wasn't there. But that's the explanation I've seen for the laying on of hands onto the animal in ANE sacrificial rites (including Roman / Greek). The animal is sort of "opting in."

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

I appreciate the gracious tone. Forgive what may seem like snark (for it is not) but I must ask: did the pig consent? Does it exist only for our benefit to use for any end we see fit? Is it the same as a person or a willing organ donor? Again, not to be harsh or unfair but what limitation is imposed on taking any animal organ necessary for a perceived failure of my body? This sounds more like exploitation.

---

I think the only way the pig's consent matters is from an animal right's perspective. After all, we have supermarkets and restaurants full of pork, and no one ever asked the pigs what they think about that. So if you're a vegan that eschews animal products and believes that all animal suffering from human activity is wrong, then you've got a consistent case. Otherwise I'm missing the distinction between using their flesh for food and using their organs as transplants.

Regarding cremation, I don't know if it's a listed option, but I think most of them would give you the bones if you ask. In those New Orleans tombs, they pretty much just push back the leftover bones into a pit with a shovel. So it's not like there's any sore of great respect given to the bones at the end. And cremation can be very reverant. Just look at the end of Return of the Jedi and Vader's cremation. Very dignified

---

My preference is burial. It is a different ceremony and implication entirely. I understand that people disagree and it comes up in my family often give the age of our parents.

nortex97 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Where's your PhD in early modern history from?

---

Just support your statement, oh wise history doctorate holder. You've responded yet again with no facts/evidence, to a simple mockery of a vacuously ignorant assertion. Where, in those time periods, and how, were transgender people treated better vs. America in 2022?

I do not respect your historical knowledge or degree, let alone your ability to engage in any discussion as to a point you bring up, to be clear, but I am curious what the heck you are talking about.

---

See Women, Armies, and Warfare in Early Modern Europe by John Lynn and Founding Mothers and Fathers by Mary Beth Norton for discussions of intersex and transgender individuals in those societies.

I never said they were "treated better than in the US in 2022." Stop with the idiotic straw man arguments. I said that transgenderism was understood as natural and accepted as such in that time period. None of that means they were treated well. They accepted Native Americans as normal humans, but believed them inferior and possibly corrupted by Satan. Beliefs can run a crazy gamut.

Medieval and Early Modern Europeans had a conception of the body and the soul in which the body reflected the soul rather than the idea that the soul had to be gendered to reflect the body.

Zobel said:

---

Don't know, wasn't there. But that's the explanation I've seen for the laying on of hands onto the animal in ANE sacrificial rites (including Roman / Greek). The animal is sort of "opting in."

---

I should have mentioned animal consent a long time ago. This could be quite entertaining.

Sapper Redux said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Where's your PhD in early modern history from?

---

Just support your statement, oh wise history doctorate holder. You've responded yet again with no facts/evidence, to a simple mockery of a vacuously ignorant assertion. Where, in those time periods, and how, were transgender people treated better vs. America in 2022?

I do not respect your historical knowledge or degree, let alone your ability to engage in any discussion as to a point you bring up, to be clear, but I am curious what the heck you are talking about.

---

See Women, Armies, and Warfare in Early Modern Europe by John Lynn and Founding Mothers and Fathers by Mary Beth Norton for discussions of intersex and transgender individuals in those societies.

I never said they were "treated better than in the US in 2022." Stop with the idiotic straw man arguments. I said that transgenderism was understood as natural and accepted as such in that time period. None of that means they were treated well. They accepted Native Americans as normal humans, but believed them inferior and possibly corrupted by Satan. Beliefs can run a crazy gamut.

Medieval and Early Modern Europeans had a conception of the body and the soul in which the body reflected the soul rather than the idea that the soul had to be gendered to reflect the body.

---

Quote:

---

the Middle Ages and Early Modern Europeans had a much more understanding view of transgender people.

---

Ok so they weren't treated better in Europe, they just had a more understanding view of transgender people. As shown by Mary Beth Norton, in her survey of...

Quote:

---

In early American history, Mary Beth Norton described how seventeenth-century British male colonists established governments based on a gendered, hierarchical model of the family

---

Then there is John Lynn's treatise, abstract:

Quote:

---

Women, Armies, and Warfare in Early Modern Europe examines the important roles of women who campaigned with armies from 1500 to 1815. This included those notable female individuals who assumed male identities to serve in the ranks, but far more numerous and essential were the formidable women who, as women, marched in the train of armies. While some worked as full-time or part-time prostitutes, they more generally performed a variety of necessary gendered tasks, including laundering, sewing, cooking, and nursing. Early modern armies were always accompanied by women and regarded them as essential to the well-being of the troops. Lynn argues that, before 1650, women were also fundamental to armies because they were integral to the pillage economy that maintained troops in the field.

---

In fact, he is a terrible historian, clearly motivated to create a PC book about the significance of females in war/armies at the time, and though the book doesn't address transgenderism as such, this is a fair critique;

Quote:

---

Lynn's honest discussion of sex as key motivator for soldiers is praiseworthy, but the insistence on the "libertine lifestyle of the campaign community" seems off key (p. 41). Contemporary woodcuts may depict the soldiers' excesses, but hard living was surely the norm. If army life was such a party, why was recruiting so difficult? Alcohol and sex were important to soldiers, but the word "libertine" raises all sorts of issues, especially when applied to a functional community. The "May marriages" intended to last for a campaign season suggest some concern for stability. Lynn must be closer to the mark when he refers to disapproval by "moralists" of "the libertine life soldiers were thought to enjoy" (p. 73).

Pivotal to the argument is the chapter on women's work, which insists that armies needed women because sewing and laundering clothes violated manly dignity. Included in women's work was pillaging, which Lynn calls "the most essential role of women in support of early modern armies" (p. 159). Lynn does not explore why contemporary sailors not only cooked (a role acceptable for men) but also made, repaired, and washed clothing. It is worth asking whether armies without women could have pillaged at least as effectively as navies managed to do laundry. Lynn does, however, address the tension between women's role as pillagers and the violence against women that naturally accompanied the pillage of property. Lynn's brief survey of the possible responses of the soldiers' women to the rape of "their civilian sisters" suggests ways that military and women's history part company. Military history does not see women as sharing a sense of sisterhood while many women's historians will be uncomfortable with the argument that women would think rape appropriate treatment of "remote and hostile others" (p. 156). Historians of both sorts will be troubled that Lynn offers no examples to support his speculative answer to this fraught question.

Lynn is right that military historians have paid too little attention to women's essential functions in the integrated early modern "campaign community." He offers interesting observations about the armies' conflicted responses to female presence, noting that societies that relied on women to satisfy the soldiers' sexual and logistical needs also decried the moral contamination and venereal disease associated with their presence in camp. In general, the further Lynn moves from the nuts and bolts of military logistics to assessing gender roles, the more speculative the argument. For example, it may be true that the masculine traits required of women for survival on campaign made them natural victims of violence by soldiers determined to affirm gender norms, but how is one to know?

Just as men became soldiers for many reasons, often regretted the decision, and varied in their suitability for warfare, one cannot attribute a set of personal qualities to all camp women. Moreover, the challenges of camp life would not have been so different from those experienced by women in towns and villages, especially those pillaged by the women of the campaign community. One can completely agree with Lynn's insistence on the continued prevalence of "strong, open, and advertised sexuality in military service" and still wince at the contemporary books he chooses to illustrate the point, both of which reflect as much sensitivity to modern literary culture, the nature of the paperback market, and the possibility of film rights as to the psychological dynamics of military life (p. 126,35).

---

What do you assert these books show about transgendered people in this time period (at least the one book about European history)? Is the word 'transgender' even used in either?

Other than a few partisans on this forum, no sentient person above the age of 12 thinks there was a great appreciation/understanding of transgender soldiers in European armies from 1500-1815, is my position.

You've proven my point again that you are inept at rhetoric, and historically ignorant. Thank you, and have a nice day.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I'm going to combine two tangents and note that many Native American cultures had much more gender fluidity than western Europeans. The Lakota had male, female, and winkte which was people that didn't fit into either. Crazy Horse was supposedly a winkte, in that he was a man who was a warrior, but he also would wear women's clothes at times and speak the language as a woman would, at least according to Daniele Bolelli's podcast on the subject.

---

Did the horse consent?

Sapper Redux said:

---

It really is like arguing with a child sometimes.

The critique of the work is fine and fair. But I think you have trouble understanding the difference between historians arguing over interpretation of a source and completely dismissing the argument. That's not what's happening here. The author of the review is looking for more discussion of the issue, an issue which to that point has been rarely addressed by military historians.

And you've completely demonstrated ignorance of colonialism. Where do you think the culture of 17th century New England came from? Do you think they landed in Massachusetts and started drinking iced Dunkies while cheering the Sox? Norton is looking at Anglo settlers in colonial America. It tracks to English norms of the era.

My point is that a society can understand a condition as not being particularly pathological, or focus on a different aspect of the relationship between body and mind but also not see that condition as being socially commendable or good. That's particularly the case in that era because the individual was expected to conform to a social chain of being.

---

Pot meet kettle.

By your omission I assume you are aware neither book even uses the term 'transgender.' Hoping for more discussion of the role of women in European Armies around 1500-1800 is fine, but it's not an advocacy work, or discussion about what you have claimed, or I assume you'd have shown that it does…do so.

I'll just ignore the bolded parts of your infantile response, as unworthy of further derision.