💬 Off-Topic Tranny/LGBTQ Historical Revisionism - Retroactive rewriting of history by degenerates

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

In their neverending quest to convince themselves and the rest of the world that other people are just as mentally ill and degenerate as they are, the LGBTQ movement will rewrite and redefine anything they can get their hands on.

Whether it's pop-culture, modern media, or even history.

Can include examples like:

1. Claiming that historical figures were homosexual or transgender
2. Claiming that specific societies in antiquity were more accepting of homosexuality or gender-bending than they really were
3. Claiming that specific societies in antiquity (or even modern-day societies in the third world) have any concept of transgenderism or sexual orientation
4. Claiming that certain societies (like the Native Americans, the Philippines, etc) recognized third genders or nonbinary genders, without realizing that such identities or labels were near-exclusively applied to sex slaves, prostitutes, men who failed to live up to their society's hypermasculine ideals, or (at best) servants and slaves.
5. Deliberate omission of inconvenient facts about the modern LGBTQ movement and how they typically behaved during the 19th or 20th centuries, or any other deliberate omission of unsavory facts about any aspect of actual "LGBTQ history."

Just a place to collect both examples of such revisionism, and brief rebuttals to them. BBQ sauce is always appreciated too.

For my tax, here are some classics:

 

[Seafarer]

For my tax, here are some classics:

I’m surprised that guy is still on YouTube. Those vids need to be archived ASAP since they are very concise and effective rebuttals to the “Greeks were gay” myth.

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

I’m surprised that guy is still on YouTube. Those vids need to be archived ASAP since they are very concise and effective rebuttals to the “Greeks were gay” myth.

Someone already beat us to it:

https://preservetube.com/watch?v=7QVh3kj7CjA

https://preservetube.com/watch?v=BNAT4ybsz_E

 

[Cherry Eyed Hamster]

For my tax, here are some classics:

Tbh it’s just as disingenuous to say the Romans were anti-gay as much as Hollywood asserts they were pro-gay. Greece and Rome perceived sexuality very differently than we do now. They were tolerant of men having sex with other men, as long as the man was the one doing the penetrating. Being a “bottom” was chastised because it was associated with being a “sissy”, which makes sense considering Greece and Rome were very patriarchal cultures. The guy makes excellent points too, just putting in my two cents.

To contribute to the topic, a rather well-known example of revisionist history is the claim that Joan of Arc was transgender. The discourse about her being a tranny is so extensive there’s even an article about it on Wikipedia. It’s infuriating because you know these claims are complete bullshit but you have to cater to clownworld and pretend to entertain it as a possible theory or else you’ll seriously piss somebody off.

As a lover of history, I feel that this is a good thread topic. I’ll be following it.

 

[1-800]

I honestly don't mind when trannies try to cope by saying "This king was gay and transgender!" because almost always upon looking further into it, it's obvious that it was a perverse fetish that whatever historical figure they're talking about had, and just makes troons today look all the more worse.

 

[Cherry Eyed Hamster]

4. Claiming that certain societies (like the Native Americans, the Philippines, etc) recognized third genders or nonbinary genders, without realizing that such identities or labels were near-exclusively applied to sex slaves, prostitutes, or men who failed to live up to their society's hypermasculine ideals

Meant to put this in my last reply, but it really should be obvious to trannies and TRA’s that all the examples of there being a “third gender” in these cultures are reserved for effeminate men, never women. Depending on the culture, effeminate men were either respected enough to be shamans like in some Native American societies, or they were seen as “failed men” and an insult to the male sex, so a “third/ambiguous” gender was created just for them. It’s a dehumanizing practice because it asserts that you have to act a certain way to be considered male, and it establishes women as being below men. You’d think in the 21st century people would want to move away from these practices, but instead leftists see it as political fodder to stick it to white people for “upholding a gender binary” and to fulfill a disgusting LARP.

 

[MTN Dew Rat]

Isn't there a new show out where King James (Yes, the Bibble King) is totally gay, ears pierced and all? With a chamber-fellow that, from what I read, his relationship was rather ambiguous with in real life. Feel like maybe they just wanted to be able to put one over on us Christians by saying "Ha! Now everyone knows the truth about the guy who made the most famous Bible!"

 

[Irregardless]

What I find funny is that it's not just historical figures they do this to, literally everything pre-2000's has gay shit inserted like it was totally common place and normal, and that only recently have people become "homophobic".

Man in the highcastle season 3, like 5 characters in the mid 1950's were suddenly gay after never being shown that way before in the series, along with apparent Nazi BDSM sex parties where apparently everyone was bi. Why the fuck would anybody believe that's realistic.

 

[Cherry Eyed Hamster]

Isn't there a new show out where King James (Yes, the Bibble King) is totally gay, ears pierced and all? With a chamber-fellow that, from what I read, his relationship was rather ambiguous with in real life. Feel like maybe they just wanted to be able to put one over on us Christians by saying "Ha! Now everyone knows the truth about the guy who made the most famous Bible!"

It’s possible King James was a homo, or a bisexual guy, but we don’t have enough evidence to confidently assert that he was. The accusations of him being a homosexual didn’t begin until 30 years after he was dead, and there was nothing to corroborate the evidence for this. I don’t think it was uncommon for men in friendships back then to be more touchy and close to each other, so when folks nowadays hear about historical figures holding the hands of or kissing the same sex, they assume there was sexual attraction between the two.

 

[800 Chupacabras]

I’ve started viewing transgenderism as a hyperstition. It is an idea that “brings about its own reality” and encodes itself upon the world as its own sigil of power. It does not matter what anybody believes at this point, whether anyone is right or wrong, whether it is subjective or objective; it’s beyond the realm of top-down inquiry at this point. This ideology has insisted upon its own existence so strongly that now it is viewed to always have been, when it was either an aberration of the psyche (paraphilia) or a practical tool of social mobility (eunuchs, castrati, two-souls, etc). It’s a monstrous intrusion upon our human reality that’s beyond the control of any commentator or activist.

Archive of article summarizing hyperstition as a concept

I don’t have any specific examples right now, but I’ll quote this idea of mine from the General Trans Thoughts thread. To explain my thought further, I think that looking at the notion of “trans-ness” in history is a gross distortion of reality. Homosexual activity has always existed in some form, whether it was persecuted or accepted, and the act of sodomy is unmistakable. If Foucault can be trusted (dubious), the notion of homosexuality is fairly novel, as it was simply called sodomy throughout most of Western history. Still, there is a clear through-line of sodomy (the action of pounding man-ass) to homosexuality (the pathologized sexual state of mind).

Not so with “trans-ness” as a historical phenomenon. It is aberrant, an Old One that’s intruded upon our space-time. I do think the notion of sex non-conformity is quite useful as a descriptor, as numerous examples of individuals or groups not conforming to sex-related norms exist. But the key term is sex, not gender. The groups and individuals served specific functions as arbiters and intermediaries of the sexes. Court eunuchs, castrati, two-souls, and even hijra all came to exist because there are certain spaces both sexes could not occupy, whether it was in choral role, a vizier’s harem, or multiple roles in tribal ceremonies. What was once a matter of raw social utility has somehow been distorted with this rise in gender ideology. It’s hard to find the through-line here.

 

[Ashamed of Yourself]

Nazi BDSM sex parties where apparently everyone was bi. Why the fuck would anybody believe that's realistic.

Because Nazis had lots of Cross Dressing at their parties. They did not like the homosexual transvestites/transexuals, but they were fine with degenerate 'straight' guys dressing in women's clothing for kinky reason. What we now call the Autogynephile Reference.

The simple minds today just say "they wuz Trannies". No.

 

[Tablet County]

Probably the only genuine example of historical troonery I can think of off the top of my head was Charles d'Éon de Beaumont.

Knowing a little bit about Japanese history, how true is the historical faggotry which allegedly existed in their culture?

 

[Sourceress]

I honestly don't care one whit about historical figures being depicted as gay or bi unless there is somehow a preponderance of the evidence to show otherwise (and there almost never is), but trans is a whole other thing because it seeks to completely rewrite and revise the entire history of the individual, usually in a way that directly detracts from that individual's legacy in a significant way. It doesn't require rewriting history to suppose that one of the millions of "confirmed bachelors" or men who only married for political reasons and barely ever interacted with their wives might have been into other men, but it absolutely does require a vast rewriting of someone's entire history to insist that, say, Joan of Arc only did any of what she did because she "felt like a man on the inside" and was "really a man," not to mention that it destroys her entire legacy as a woman who acted in a way that women simply were not allowed to in the time that she lived and died.

Troon historical revisionism doesn't only exist to perpetuate the myth of "we've always been here" or whatever, it also explicitly reinforces gender roles and stereotypes - the idea that if a man is in any way feminine, he is really a woman and therefore it's a crime and a damn shame if he was forced in his time to be treated like a human being with rights and not degraded as a sex slave who was the property of another man (as women were treated back in the day and, in many places, still are today), and if a woman thought she should be treated as a human being and expressed the desire to not belong to a man and be treated like a broodmare for all her days, she was really a man and that's the reason she deserved to have human rights (not just because everyone deserves those). It's gross. The whole idea they seem to have is that women naturally desire to be the property and sex slaves of men and only someone who was "really a man on the inside" would ever want anything outside of that.

Anyway, my absolute favorite example of troon historical revisionism is Marsha Johnson, who troons have decided is the patron saint of Pride and was totally a true strong brave transwoman who was definitely at Stonewall despite self-admitting to not having arrived on the street until well after the riot began. They hate it when you point out the interview he did literally two days before he died where he explicitly stated, and I quote, "I'm a man."

 

[Scarlett Johansson]

Isn't there a new show out where King James (Yes, the Bibble King) is totally gay, ears pierced and all? With a chamber-fellow that, from what I read, his relationship was rather ambiguous with in real life. Feel like maybe they just wanted to be able to put one over on us Christians by saying "Ha! Now everyone knows the truth about the guy who made the most famous Bible!"

Are you thinking of Mary & George? Because that is completely different.

Anyway I would say Queen Hatshepsut. She wore a false beard but of course people are jumping on the 'shes a troon' bullshit.

 

[Scarlett Johansson]

Probably the only genuine example of historical troonery I can think of off the top of my head was Charles d'Éon de Beaumont.

Knowing a little bit about Japanese history, how true is the historical faggotry which allegedly existed in their culture?

Nobunaga Oda had a sexual relationship with Ranmaru Mori. I believe it was confirmed along with poetry he wrote about him (?) but in feudal Japan they had a practice known as shudo which is like a rite of passage. Idk.

 

[MTN Dew Rat]

Are you thinking of Mary & George? Because that is completely different.

Anyway I would say Queen Hatshepsut. She wore a false beard but of course people are jumping on the 'shes a troon' bullshit.

Yes, that's the one

 

[Sinner's Sandwich]

Nobunaga Oda had a sexual relationship with Ranmaru Mori

Not with Yasuke?? How racist!

 

[Relinquish]

There's an extremely strange Wikipedia article on a "supposed" riot in response to "the violent and constant police harassment of drag queens and trans people". It's called Compton's Cafeteria riot.

The Compton's Cafeteria riot occurred in August 1966 in the Tenderloin district of San Francisco. The riot was a response to the violent and constant police harassment of drag queens and trans people, particularly trans women. The incident was one of the first LGBT-related riots in United States history, preceding the more famous 1969 Stonewall riots in New York City.[note 1] It marked the beginning of transgender activism in San Francisco.[1]

The Compton's Cafeteria riot began on an August night of 1966, the month directly following the July Vanguard picket. The exact date is unknown because there was no media coverage at the time and San Francisco's 1960s police records no longer exist.

If you check the sourcing, almost all of it goes back to a single source, a documentary from 2005, or sources that are circular back to the documentary

When one of the cops grabbed and attempted to arrest a trans woman, she threw a cup of coffee in his face.[5] According to the director of Screaming Queens, Susan Stryker, the cafeteria "erupted".[7][14] Patrons also said that they threw many items such as sugar shakers, tables, and dinnerware at the police and at the windows, causing them to shatter. They also hit the cops with their purses and high heels. In order to request backup, the police retreated into the streets, where the fighting continued. The protesters damaged a police car and burned down a sidewalk newsstand.[7][5] The police responded by fighting back, and they tried to arrest the protesters and load them into paddy wagons.

Burning down a newsstand didn't even get a single line mentioned in police reports? Vague date? A couple of others on the talk page had the same questions I had, but they were quickly shut down. There was a picketing of the restaurant in July 1966 which was documented, it seems odd a violent follow-up wasn't.

Look at this response to someone questioning the legitimacy of the article

 

[MetokurGroomedMe]

it establishes women as being below men.

what would make you think that this isn't something trannies would want?

 

[Dromedary]

There's an extremely strange Wikipedia article on a "supposed" riot in response to "the violent and constant police harassment of drag queens and trans people". It's called Compton's Cafeteria riot.

"In 1966, the press didn't like to report on 'uncomfortable' subjects." YES they did. Tabloids were thriving, the more lurid and sensational news the better. And since the trannydrag segment were on the lowest rungs of society there was little compunction about reporting when they were disruptive. "Queen Bees Stinging Mad at Police Raid!" were headlines. Police raids on gay bars were actually, authentically shitty. But newspapers didn't shy away from colorful stories where men in boas made a ruckus and clashed with cops.