Eunuch identity work in post-slavery democracies

[magusuk89 (imported)]

Something that has struck me lately is how a lot of people in this broad-based community reach back to historic social constructions of what a eunuch 'is'. Not just in fiction/fantasy, but also in terms of academic interests, and musing about how to present ourselves to other people, we often conjure cultural achievements and social structures of the (deep) past to articulate how detesticulated people and people with testicular malfunctions can fit into a society.

A lot of these societies of the past, though, are extremely unlike those of much of the world today. Mostly theocratic with absolute monarchies, they had classes of people who were deprived of access to the law, operating in strata where they were subjected to the agency of other people without much life choice of their own. This means things that made sense to individuals within such societies don't really speak to the experiences of free, voting, economically-active members of a mostly urbanised and technologically advanced consumer society. There is no judgement in this observation, just an acknowledgement of reality.

In terms of group self-description, we have inherited a label from a time before hormone medicines, and access to endocrinology has complicated things immensely. Reality has outgrown our ability to express things concisely. Another feature is that whilst society seems to have a lot to say about people's bodies, it doesn't identify eunuchs consistently as a group anymore, so small wonder there is a lot of attraction to looking back at societies with greater eunuch visibility.

Anyway, my question is really ---- seeing as we are lacking a form of words specific to modern political and economic realities that could be taken-on as an identity reflective of particular personal circumstances, is there anything we can do about this?

Are there any modern cultural reference-points that anchor a sense of eunuch identity/different identities under the umbrella term in a contemporary context within the societies we actively inhabit?

It might benefit from a cultural festival or something. I don't know... but I would be interested in listening to people's thoughts.

[Valery_V (imported)]

Now "eunuch" knows more expanded interpretation as he includes also modern transgender people. During last era the transgender people were practically absent.

Just in case it would be desirable to provide the answer of the expert of Jay Haliczer (https://www.quora.com/profile/Jay-Haliczer) to the following question:

"What is the difference between an eunuch and a transgender person?"

A eunuch is an amab (assigned male at birth) person who has had some or all of their external genitals surgically removed for a social or political purpose. Historically, consent was not a factor; nor was identity.

A transgender person is any person (amab, afab, or intersex) who experiences a gender that they find in conflict with their sex assigned at birth.

So, differences?

1. Eunuchs are amab; anyone may be trans

2. Eunuchs have had genital surgery to remove all or part of their genitals; trans people may or may not have surgery related to being trans, and those surgeries are not necessarily genital surgery.

3. Eunuchs’ genital surgery was performed explicitly to destroy their ability to function sexually. To the extent that trans people have gender affirming surgeries, purpose is to restore desired sexual functioning.

4. Eunuchs became eunuchs in most cases as tools used to protect a power hierarchy; transgender people exist and come out as trans to enable us to better navigate our own identity and to relate to the world on our terms.

5. Eunuchs’ genital surgeries were typically performed at a very young age, changing them so that their bodies met the specific needs of a third party. Trans people do not have genital surgeries until adulthood, and only to serve the needs and wants of the trans person.

6. Eunuchs were oppressed and in a position somewhere between actual slavery and de facto slavery, because in nearly all cases their condition prevented them from functioning socially outside the hierarchy they were mutilated to serve. Trans people make changes to our bodies, including surgical changes, to express our identity. The choice is ours and it is empowering to be able to make that choice.

7. While some eunuchs may have been trans, their transness was not a factor in their having become an eunuch. Their rulers’ desire for a particular type of servant was. All trans people are trans, and make changes to their bodies because they want to.

So? The difference? Basically everything.

[magusuk89 (imported)]

Thanks for your reply!

Yes, it seems appropriate that people whose gender is not that which society expected can find a coherent sense of identity and resonance of shared or similar experience under Trans.

The term eunuch, though, appears to me to suffer from hypersignification, or having too many meanings and potential (mis)interpretations in any scenario.

Someone who has become, or is potentially going to become, detesticulated (as opposed to untesticulated) for medical reasons or a strictly body-related preference will have a lot of shared experiences (both physical and socio-cultural) with someone whose surgery is associated for them with being trans (including non-binary).

There's a non-trivial phenomenon of having testes one was born with removed (or put out of action); there's a non-trivial phenomenon also of having a hormone profile that is low-testosterone in an AMAB body. These phenomena overlap but do not occupy the same footprint (cf hormone replacement therapy and hormone suppression therapy, the 'eat me, drink me' of our world through the looking glass).

Today the social construction and presentation of gender is the thing people encounter most, so the question of genitalia seems to be wholly an individual matter, but it doesn't feel that way encountering the attitudes of many doctors, and potentially sexual partners and people witnessing body diversity in nude contexts. Granted, surgeons can supply prosthetic testes these days to lessen detectability, but that in itself shows how non-trivial the issue is.

One is tempted to facetiously refer to the community as 'friends of an endocrinologist' (like 'friends of Dorothy'), but that might imply good relations with the medical profession that I think a lot of us would be somewhat cynical about!

It strikes me there is also a faultline between people who have had children, and those who have not wanted to or have not had the choice to. Historiography focuses in on eunuchs as 'genealogical isolates' for reasons relevant to historic cultures. There's a lot of complexity there, as the contemporary world is still obsessed with fertility. Sexual activity is another category of contemporary obsession.

More questions than answers... (as usual)...

[magusuk89 (imported)]

To think about things a different way, when transition and all manner of body modifications are available through prompt, efficient, safe and non-traumatic, non-judgemental clinical pathways; and when society no longer intrudes on or stigmatises body diversity, gender presentation, sexual preferences and reproductive behaviour, will there still be a reason to have a forum?

In other words, is this whole platform a sort of field tent on a battlefield, which will be taken down when the war's over, and everybody will be wholly and completely assimilated into the population at large with no reason to talk about the things we talk about?

I'm inclined to say it is not and it would not, because there is a clear lasting value to the sense of representation, camaraderie, exchange of knowledge and experience that attends non-trivial bodily and psychological experiences.

So, the question is really, how is terminology - a 'brand', even - thrown around that gravity well of shared interest?

[attistoC (imported)]

Almost every question of the modern Western world raises the question of the autonomy of identity.

In societies that deny their roots and past, every issue has an identity crisis, I believe.

993 / 5000

Fordítási találatok

That is why there are many naming and definition constraints.

The eunuch condition is a consequence, end result, and designation of a modification of the male body.

For most men, this end result is due to a cure.

They have their eunuch identity: a truncated man. It is not this identity that needs support for them, but the disabled man.

The identity of the volunteer eunuch calls for support from society to achieve this state. And when he has achieved it, he asks the society to support him in this irrevocable decision and living (possibly his pride). Many slave man experiencing the castration for someone with a kind of sacrifice, gift. Such eunuchs desire esteem.

Many eunuchs consciously and personally see a beneficial position in eunuch identity.

And there are those who have been forced legally or illegally to mutilate.

The modern eunuch identity is diverse and all expects a different kind of attention and support from society. Sorry if I didn't express myself well. Sorry if I described these here in this topic.

[magusuk89 (imported)]

Mentioning disability opens up pandora's box.

[Valery_V (imported)]

The identity of the volunteer eunuch calls for support from society to achieve this state. And when he has achieved it, he asks the society to support him in this irrevocable decision and living (possibly his pride).

Many slave man experiencing the castration for someone with a kind of sacrifice, gift. Such eunuchs desire esteem.

Many eunuchs consciously and personally see a beneficial position in eunuch identity.

The eunuch volunteer actually is a transgender.Therefore, it seems to me that he should not be considered disabled. I agree with the ironic sense said by attistoC:

"

The identity of the volunteer eunuch calls for support from society to achieve this state. And when he has achieved it, he asks the society to support him in this irrevocable decision and living."

"Many eunuchs consciously and personally see a beneficial position in eunuch identity.

"

[magusuk89 (imported)]

The eunuch volunteer actually is a transgender.Therefore, it seems to me that he should not be considered disabled. I agree with the ironic sense said by attistoC:

"

The identity of the volunteer eunuch calls for support from society to achieve this state. And when he has achieved it, he asks the society to support him in this irrevocable decision and living."

"Many eunuchs consciously and personally see a beneficial position in eunuch identity.

"

Arguably pre-transition trans people who require medical transition (accepting that this is not all trans people) are disabled, and become abled through medical transition. If we define disability as a state of medical existence that denies desired activity in a long-term and non-trivial way, the designation is a subjective one.

Whose subjective judgement holds power is the central issue. Is it the individual, their boss, the government, doctors, or nebulous 'public opinion'?

[magusuk89 (imported)]

Something else that occurs to me -- I don't think it is true that '

The eunuch volunteer actually is a transgender

'. I think a volunteer is just someone who wants their body changed. The gender question is entirely separate. Otherwise, to be ambivalent or excited about having needful surgery for health reasons suddenly puts someone's masculine gender into question without their consent, which is wrong.

One can do body modifications to address needs related to being trans, but no procedure is inherently transgender.

[Valery_V (imported)]

You are, of course, right. The gender issue concerns the mental state of mind. Should the body be adjusted to your gender? But I meant only my particular case. It always seemed to me that society should not be responsible for my fantasies. Therefore, I have always tried to look like a man from above.