Furthermore, as a role, it was largely the result of barbaric cultural norms, and trying to reframe it as a "third gender" is ethically bereft.

In societies where women are treated as valuable familial property, normalized abuse of male children and adolescents is also often prevalent.

The same article could be written about Afghanistan's "dancing boys"; they have unique social positions, rules, hairstyles, and forms of dress, wearing clothes "similar to those worn by unmarried young women".

We rightfully recognize it as sexual slavery and child prostitution, not a third gender.

That's an interesting parallel with St. Paul's position on sexual morality. He appears to condemn varieties of homosexual behaviour, but it's in the context of institutionalised behaviour in Roman society which possibly parallels that in Afghanistan today.

A communication misfire I see frequently across perceived ideological boundaries may be summarized as such:

Person A: "social phenomenon XYZ is being abused / misappropriated / spun in a way by people with power"

Everyone else: "you are a bigot who opposes XYZ!"

Person A: reasons that if honest self-expression and concern expressed with nuance yields nothing but insults in response that maybe their original position was too cautious...

Interestingly, St. Paul actually condemns both "homosexual" behavior and 'fornication' in very similar terms, and the latter is probably a reference to the practically institutionalized pandering of female slaves as prostitutes that was also a major part of Graeco-Roman sexual norms.

> As an object of desire for men and women, they had sex with both genders. The intricate social rules that governed the appearance of Wakashu also regulated their sexual behavior. With adult men, Wakashu assumed a passive role, with women, a more active one. Relationships between two Wakashu were not tolerated. Any sexual relationship with men ended after a Wakashu completed his coming-of-age ceremony.

> Their most important relationship would be with an older man, which often had both a sexual and a teacher-student element.

That sounds pretty much like a gender role?

I think there’s a train of thought in western (and particularly Americanized society) to see everything as some form of gender grouping when it’s not.

I’ve also seen people who are overly prescriptive and “liberal” with gender terms being offended on behalf of other cultures. Like people being angry about calling Thai ladyboys “ladyboys” and not “women”, when basically every ladyboy self-identifies as a ladyboy.

Most people don’t go around thinking “I do X so that means I must be B gender.” But that’s increasingly common in western society, especially among progressives, and it’s wild, to be frank.

Its strange you say that. Strict gender roles is considered a conservative thought in the US. Thinking of gender as a fluid thing would be considered leftist view.

The introspection of gender roles, as in it being a social construct we can examine and change is also a leftist view, so maybe you're getting that from the fact we're discussing sex and gender at all?

> when basically every ladyboy self-identifies as a ladyboy.

Do they? It seems oddly English for a Thai practice, but they're so tourist-oriented that I guess that really could be what they say.

The Chinese term is 人妖, which if nothing else explicitly identifies them as outside the realm of normal human behavior.

The only reason Westerns keep thinking this is due to their limited exposure to particular aspects of Asian culture. The phenomenon of "ladyboys" is widespread all across Asia.

The second supposition, that "ladyboys are ladyboys" is simply wrong. There are many ladyboys that see prostitution as a quick, simple way to earn a living. The economics of prostitution (supply-demand) basically mean many of them choose to assume a role as a ladyboy for a while, and when that part of their life is over they just cut their hair, stop using make-up and high heels and back to the "respected" society.

I can think of nothing more racist than these continued attempts to fit Western models of thought, or theory, onto other societies and their norms and values and then categorize them according to _our_ values. If we really understood it, we would accept it for what it is, and try to understand it from the Asian perspective.

Wow, what's with vitriol towards “western” shit. Nothing you're bitching about is unique to Asia. Close-minded people are close-minded everywhere. Anything that isn't the prevailing norm is going to be demonized.

And while “ladyboys” aren't very common in the west there are equivalents. Gay for pay is a thing in the porn industry and people who can do it make bank.

Look mommie! A cyber stalker!

It's funny how within 3 comments you're just all over the map on what can and cannot offend you or... heaven forbid... comprehend the pearls of wisdom you keep dropping.

Not 2 comments previously you defensively tried claiming you weren't maligning "all" Japanese women... just 2 of them... and here you are engaging in a worse type of assumptions... "vitriol toward 'western' shit."

AAAAAAaaaaaand there you go again back to the inaccurate equivocations about what is and isn't in Asia... vis-a-vis... the West.

Dude.... happy trails. You enjoy your tea in the Fuhrer Bunker. The RUSSIANS ARE COMING!!!

LMAO

Where do I block trolls on this thing.

> Most people don’t go around thinking “I do X so that means I must be B gender.”

It’s not completely wild if you recognize that genders are socially-constructed categories consisting of a set of behaviors (stereotypes). If you behave in those ways you could reasonably declare yourself to be that gender. This also requires you to recognise that sex is a completely different thing to gender - that is not socially constructed and you can’t declare yourself to be one of the sexes based on behavior or feelings.

Isn't that his point? That it's applying a western social construct to explain a non-western social phenomenon.

Remember: considering that gender is a social construct is also a social construct. It's social constructs all the way down.

> I think there’s a train of thought in western (and particularly Americanized society) to see everything as some form of gender grouping when it’s not.

What? Seeing everything as gender grouping? You can't be serious... where the hell are these people who think a pint of milk is a gender and are they really somehow powerful?

Sounds you've heard a few hot takes on the internet and then concluded that the whole field of gender discourse is that. When you look at our institutions, politicians, companies, even trans acceptance is something that is a struggle. And that's just a small step, never mind accepting gender fluidity.

Painting the struggles of people who do not fit into the western hegemonic gender binary thinking with such broad strokes does nothing good. The issue is much more complex and real than just "people are making up genders".

That’s a role that can only be assumed by one of the gender, which is not the same IMO.

To pull out an analogy straight from the trash, teen girls also have a special position in Japan today. Coupled with the school uniform they have a social niche that is apart from any others, but I wouldn’t call that a “gender” nor “gender role”.

Would you call the Greek erômenos a gender role, too? Now, this would actually help make sense of the otherwise puzzling notion of 'effeminacy', which was quite important to the Classical world but tends to be disregarded nowadays. So I'm not saying that it couldn't be a worthwhile perspective, it's just not the most common one.

Gender role != gender

Author explicitly states ‘third’, suggesting there’s male, female, and wakashu, which is not the case. It’s male and female, with wakashu as a subset of male.

I’m convinced the author is just trying to get attention and be provocative/make a political statement.

Your "filter" to this subject is the author. You are applying the limits of the "filter" to the subject matter. Like saying... well, everything _is_ red, when looking through a red filter.

It sounds a lot more like sexual abuse to me.

Small nit here (and a common misunderstanding among non-jews): one becomes a bar/bat mitzvah

On your "bar/ bat mitzvah" correction: The liberal, american jews I know don't talk this way.

And for example here's a quote from Seinfeld:

"Elaine: I need someone to go with me to Mr. Lippman's son's Bar Mitzvah."

Thank you!

So a bar/bat mitzvah is a title or a state of being, and not a party/ritual?

Yes, exactly. It happens to you whether you are aware of it or not, although it is typically celebrated. Think of it like becoming 18 in the US - one day you wake up and you're old enough to buy cigarettes and are generally responsible for your actions. That's what bar/bat mitzvah are.

I had thought that a mitzvah was a religious duty or deed.

What's disappointing is that even if (sticking with your example) "high school boy" isn't a distinct gender in the way you mean, there is still potential for anthropological investigation into the phenomenon of a person's different roles as they age and change, as with these other "roles" more broadly-speaking. But instead of just having that discussion it is first warped to fit into a very narrow framework of American gender discourse.