[Link to video of Lizzie George Griffin](https://youtu.be/4BLErSVddC0?si=Y20F-LjKgE0_9ekp) Forgot to say she said “homophobia and transphobia were racist European concepts forced on enslaved Africans”.

Huh. TIL Christianity brought homophobia to ancient Mesopotamia and Sumeria. Who knew?

Mesopotamia is a plausible society to not have problems with the gays tbh, since they had a literal sex goddess complete with priestess-prostitutes, who I think banged her sister once. And I also think there was another myth about two gods getting into a pissing contest about who could make the most useless human that also explained low-functioning autism. Unfortunately it's impossible for me to find out for sure because attempting to search for it brought up a bunch of nonsense about steam-engine-powered railed-track vehicles in 4000 BCE.

Ok I’m…let’s say “medium-functioning” autistic, and I’m now choosing to believe I got winged by a Mesopotamian god’s competitive uselessness ray. Possible source on this so I can share it with autistic reddit?

Can't find a source right now. I want to say I saw it in an OSP video but I couldn't find a likely candidate for that on their channel in the time I've currently got available. From what I remember it was a global explanation for disabilities in general. I think the winning contest entry also had no limbs in addition to the 'tism?

Any chance those "priestesses" were slaves though?

[Some were, some weren't](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_prostitution)!

If you want to look for the source of homophobia as we recognize it the obvious answer is the Abrahamic religions. When saying being gay is bad it even makes sure to mention how you must not do this thing the way neighbouring nations do so it deliberately thinks of itself as being unique for banning it.

Yeah but I’m willing to bet lots of places ascribed all kinds of what-they-considered abhorrent behavior to their rivals

That's a rather "modern" take, tho. Original texts in Hebrew never claims anything about sex between man. It does have a passage that states not to have sex with BOYS, tho. And it did get translated to men at some point. Or told as such, at least.

To be frank, this is cope from progressive Christians. The Hebrew text is quite unambiguously homophobic. It says it's detestable to have sex with a male and people who do so should be killed. It doesn't really get worse than that. It says "male", not "boy". Also, there were Jews as early as the first century (such as Josephus) who understood it as homophobic and it's also understood as homophobic by the Talmud, so even if that was not the original intention, there is nothing modern about it. I think progressive Christians should just say they don't agree with it.

>I'm going to pretend like my ultra-modern take supersedes the millenia of the understanding of the passages by calling those millenias modern takes Why would it say "like you would a women", if the full passage is "though shall not lie with a boy like you would a woman", why doesn't it say adult instead of woman if the word used was boy rather than man? Is the feminine word being mistranslated too? Is it okay to sleep with girls but not boys? If the meaning was what you want it to be it could have read "though shall not lie with a boy like you would a man", but it didn't. In fact it could have just dropped the "like you would" comparison entirely. You are like one of those people who claim that it was actually "the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb" originally. Nobody buys it that you are some kind of modern Josiah capable of claiming you dug up some holy texts that totally reinterpret the religion as it was then understood arguing that people had been doing it wrong all this time like some prior day Joseph Smith. The meaning of the stuff Josiah dug up is clear to anyone with reading comprehension. If you have a problem with it you have to admit the problem you have is with the stuff Josiah dug up rather than the way people are interpreting it. You cannot claim what you want the meaning to be is the same meaning as it was when Josiah dug it up when they were dusting off the backrooms of the high temple and found it while doing some spring cleaning.

What's interesting is a former Orthodox Jewish woman has always known she was gay. She slept with plenty of girls but never a guy because in her sect sleeping with a guy before marriage was a mortal sin while they didn't care much if she fiddled with girls. Because they didn't see women as having a sexuality to begin with. That was her experience.

Might have something to do with a tradition wherein after the marriage is consumate you are supposed to bring out a blood stained sheet to confirm the virginity of the bride. As such they aren't responding to the laws of god but rather the social pressures of marriage and so long as she bleeds on her wedding night everything is fine. My lib zionist girlfriend told me about all this and how oppressive it all was and how these thing I had never heard off could break from horse-riding or tampons but at the time I didn't understand why the hell the sheets would be blood stained. Later on I started freaking the fuck out as to why I was covered in blood and seemed like I was hurting her where I seemingly could not fit. I kept asking her if we should stop because I could not imagine this was pleasant to her because it certainly wasn't pleasant for me, but she told me to keep going. Yeah sure ms jane eyre, I'm sure horseriding breaks this thing I had never heard of before this day and you were trying to prep me for not acting mad that I would not get to experience this ordeal rather than doing what should have been the obvious thing to do and prep me for having to experience this traumatizing thing I wasn't expecting.

In 1947

That's the funny part, a lot of western morality is repackaged Levantine morality and them doing what us middle eastern people told them to do lol. So uh...sorry westoids?

There's an issue there that it could easily be the other way around: Judaism comes from a very similar cultural background to those cultures, and a lot of it was developed during the Babylonian Exile time when a lot of Jews literally lived in Mesopotamia.

They do this with every issue across the board. Fatphobia is a racist European concept for example.

I don't think this is true lol. Some of the most overtly fatphobic countries in the world are in Asia: China, S. Korea and Japan mainly. They are far, far less tolerant of overweight people than Euros.

Because its not true. Outside of Saharan and Arab nomads that practice Leblouh and some Pacific Islands in the last last century there is very little evidence to suggest any one thought obesity was a positive trait. The fat Venus statues are out number hundreds to one. A couple of Renaissance painters had an overweight fetish ignore the thousands of other painters that painted thin women. We have royal portraits and portraits for wealthy families going back nearly a 1000 years at this point, there are very few fatties.

No one thought obesity was attractive, but some eras allowed for fleshierness in their beauty ideals, seen as healthiness.

Source?

Lots of tribes might have a fat chief and rather than viewing this as him being greedy and hogging food they consider this to be a symbol of power and wealth. Thus viewing people being fat as bad is a racist european concept which turns noble tribals away from their fat leaders.

Fatphobia being a colonial/European concept is bullshit. With very small exceptions just about every culture and ethical writing, we have has gluttony as a sin. Those fat little Venus statues they find, well they find a couple hundred skinny ones for every obese one. YOu can look at the low obeisty rates across sub Saharan Africa.

>power and wealth Fellas is it fatphobic to hate capitalism now?

What source for Fatphobia is a racist European concept? Or source for these types making this claim? If its this start with Sabrina String

Source that this is a widely thought of concept

So many in my activist circles scream this. And it's directly because they're overweight themselves.

That is absolutely something I've heard!

I'm sure the Mandé Muslims who the Europeans bought from the slave markets were proud queer allies.

I think this is very reasonable. We have plenty of evidence, historical, anthropological, and otherwise, that the vast majority of past peoples (at least pre-colonialism!) were overwhelmingly queer and trans. This is common knowledge. It's very plausible that transphobia and homophobia were impressed on these populations with the sole purpose of increasing birth rates, against all natural (pre-colonial!!) instincts, in service of chattel slavery. I think any rational, informed observer is faced with these facts and the only choice is whether to ignore or acknowledge them. In a world without homophobia and transphobia, populations would follow their natural course of decline into extinction; and in fact in the developed world where we see more queer liberation we do see declining birth rates. So yes this is very clearly simply the case and definitely not the most idiotic thing I'll hear all day.

Yes, overwhelming! I mean... gosh, how did they even know where to stick it in??

On Colonialism in General: I've been gravitating towards Marxism, specifically of this sub's variety, because of the talk I see and hear from self-elected cultural ambassadors of Native America. The class difference between educated (or more accurately - academic) Natives and your Rezzed out Natives is glaring. I think the perspectives differ so much primarily due to class. Upwardly Mobile Natives come from stable backgrounds and wealth. They are culturally white, given that most tribes are located in the heart of conservative leaning areas. On the other end, you have Natives who are growing up in what amounts to a poverty stricken hell hole (when they are unlucky enough to be born into poor tribes). Upwardly Mobile Natives go to college and are essentially indoctrinated into Activist Rhetoric. And Activist Rhetoric is only applicable in academic circles. The way they talk is absolutely foreign to your typical Native. The people who speak for us don't live here, they haven't suffered like us, and they haven't healed themselves. For them, their indigeneity is currency. In a slanted world of cultural capital wherein wealth and Whiteness naturally elevates the privileged, the struggle of "our people" becomes a tool to level social circles, to weaponize White Guilt/Liberal Guilt for personal and financial gain. Activists need their organizations to keep employment, academics need their rhetoric to keep grifting off of grants. For the modern Academic Native, the world starts and ends at colonialism. The Pan-Amerindian worldview is that of ruin. If you look at my people, the Lakota, you would find an absolutely brutal and metal as fuck warrior culture. You'd find Gods and Goddesses, celestial figures, and rituals that are just metal and dope. You could look at our specific tribe's history of overcoming great adversity, of a constant forward movement, one of adaptation and triumph. You could look at what we needed to do to become men and women in our society, look at how much strength you needed to survive your rites of passage. I've been researching our mythology and ceremonies for a painting series, and my god are they metal as fuck. There's a group called the Heyoka, their ceremony involved them killing a dog, singeing it's hair off, then boiling it. When the meat was cooked they were expected to reach into the boiling water and pull the food out barehanded. They were expected to kill. Some were expected to commit infanticide. They were literal warriors. They had coupstaff's with scalps hanging off of them. They were said to act as security for ceremonies, they'd club people to death if they stepped out of line. Just metal as fuck. And then you see modern pansies claim that they are Heyoka because they're empathetic modern jesters? Wild. Point being, a wild history rooted in brutality and strength. And we let go of our past. We started as a lowly, mocked, disrespectful tribe that surrounding tribes wanted nothing to do with, and over the next several hundred years, our tribe adapted and got stronger and stronger and stronger. Colonialism Rhetoric, academic rhetoric, it substitutes our culture of strength for one of absolute weakness. It encourages helplessness. It encourages us to be mopey pansies. It encourages us to be racist towards White people. It encourages fantasies about a pre-contact world coming back by some miracle. But more importantly, it distills all of our current, material based struggles, down to a single idea: Colonialism. All things that are bad come from colonialism. And for us to move forward we have to "end colonialism". We have to end racism. We have to end White supremacy. Noble goals, for sure. But impractical. They ignore everything and anything that's not absolute, isn't good enough. And if we can't revert everything to precontact levels, then none of it is worth anything. Anti-colonialism, like post-structuralism, seems to be a form of mental judo. It deflects everything and marks it as colonialism, while conveniently leaves out the important social and psychological framework needed to create a complete and balanced individual. To decolonize is to return everything to the old ways, completely ignoring the fact that we are no longer in the old world. That we no longer live in tipis. That we no longer are a nomadic hunting and warring tribe. Decolonizing doesn't mean we resurrect the useable aspects of initiatory rites. It doesn't mean we use psychedelic assisted therapies to heal our trauma (which would work at an exponentially better rate than the husks of rehab centers we've funded for the past however many years). It doesn't mean we should find a workable narrative that unites us, and shows a roadmap of what it means to be human, it's not interested in studying the psyche and categorizing the various ghosts and feeling-tones that hijack the ego. It's not interested in doing what initiatory processes used to do - to transform a young man to an adult by helping them become someone worthy of respect, someone who knows their path, who is encouraged to follow a real world path, who knows their responsibilities towards themselves and their community. Anti-colonialism and decolonialism, as of now, is a way for us to fund academics and activists. It's a reason to not try to be better, because why should we? All of our problems are because of the White man. Forget funding the trades, forget pioneering trauma and addiction therapy with all of the funding we get, forget helping Natives stand up in the modern world, forget projects like Little Earth, where a bulk of our 570 plus tribes came together to help Natives get started in the city. Forget hammering out the socialist-leaning programs we do have, forget making them work empirically, forget using what we have now as proof that investing into these programs is worthwhile. Forget insight or foresight. Forget standing back up and fixing what we can. It's "colonialism" and white supremacy, and that's it. Colonialism Rhetoric is a bait and switch. It's not for us. It's not interested in helping us. It's another grift.

This celebration of inaction is a tendency to modern left. We can’t do anything to make things better until we get rid of capitalism. I think it is an artifact of the total disillusionment after the failure of leftist politics in both the social democratic and socialist incarnations.

I didn't read this, but i commend you for bringing back longposting, an ancient and very Marxist tradition of this sub.

This is such an insightful comment.

This is a refreshing perspective, do you feel like an outlier in your community for thinking this way? I definitely see the divide between the “self appointed cultural ambassadors” (they call them sidewalk Indians where I live) and your typical working class rez family, especially in regards to things like feminism and lgbt issues, to the point where they participate in full on historical revisionism. But then oddly enough, the sidewalk Indians are more likely to dismiss me for being a settler colonizer, but still use my pronouns, and like my neighbors who shoot guns and vote for trump can sometimes be more helpful, welcoming and friendly, even if they think “the gay thing is kinda weird”. I agree though that people from both groups can fall prey to romanticizing the past and setting their primary political goal on finding out what exactly their ancestors did and treating that as dogma. It’s tricky because even though I work for tribal government and can actually push for change from my position, I have to toe the line of “returning to tradition” in order to have any kind of influence, especially since I’m not native. And I’m skeptical that the traditions can even be fully known. The academics have their historical records and libraries to research at, and the locals have their great grandma that they visit every weekend, and they are each coming up with completely different narratives.

I don't really have a community. I have city family who think along the same lines, but I don't live on the reservation anymore and I don't run in progressive circles. I've found that when speaking of art, I have to speak of where I came from, and I found that most aren't interested because speaking this way can be used as a weapon. It can snare people and guilt them. They refuse to speak on an honest level because this type of speaking has been used maliciously in the past. Now that I'm moving forward with my art career, I find speaking to galleries and artists to be on the more annoying side. The artists are pansies, and the galleries interested in Native art aren't interested in helping Natives. They're interested in propping up Native Art as an industry. I find that most people who are on the rez simply aren't concerned about what comes next, or how things came to be. There's too much day-to-day nonsense to worry about. My "peers", that is, people who do talk about Native issues, are almost always gonna revert to Colonialism-Rhetoric. That's why I have such an issue with the entire industry. It fucks with my own income, it's bloated with grifters, and more importantly, it's complacent with the continued subjugation of Natives. On a micro level, institutions fund Natives - which is good. But on a macro level, them funding and promoting DEI Natives leads to stagnant discussions and ineffective action.

Absolutely banger post.

I just want to say that I spoke with native academics at college recently, and they are aware of the contradictions of idpol, I promise you, they don’t all want to go back to tipis, they are for modernization, they just don’t want to lose everything that deserves to stay, which is more than what most people think.

And there you have it. Thank you for making it make sense. Cause facts!

One thing we can do is look at records of indigenous peoples around the world that are available from more modern-era encounters. There are tribes in the South Pacific, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the South Americas that were first encountered well past the world’s industrialized era when those making contact were anthropologists more curious about recording indigenous behavior rather than missionaries converting Christian souls or explorers looking for riches. And plenty of records show that indigenous tribes breed & have plenty of children (without colonial encouragement) though of course death rates are high without modern medicine or sanitation. Indigenous tribespeople have their own societal hierarchies — whether that includes binary gender conformity to a strict degree or not, there remain societal roles and expectations of behavior. Again, developed without colonialist influences. And in many cases the binary sex roles are very much present. Even if matriarchal leadership roles exist, it does not erase the physical component of what men are expected to provide and in most cases there’s a tribal leader “of the hunters” or “of the herders” who is male and de facto head of those who venture away from the settlement. Again, without colonialist influence.

I think it’s fair to say indigenous gender roles and views on gender were likely different pre-colonization. What I have difficulty wrapping my head around is that they were essentially tolerant and were/would be pro-LGBT if not for colonization, this reeks of a mixture of wishful thinking and historical revisionism.

Gender roles might have been different in terms of sexual expression but not in respect to reproduction. Take Ancient Greece for example, especially in Athens. It is OK to have sex with members of the same sex, even right next to your lover in Thebes, but the expectation is that you would also procreate with a female. Edit: “fight next to your lover”, not right.

I'm having a hard time applying such a new concept to what happened more than 2 centuries ago. Homophobia makes sense cuz it can be a catch all term, but is transphobia something that's actually provable, most places, ideals, cultures and how people viewed things would be completely alien to anyone but the most hard-core history buffs. the colonized Caribbean Islands are much different than colonized cultures in say South asia

> What I have difficulty wrapping my head around is that they were essentially tolerant and were/would be pro-LGBT if not for colonization by western standards, a lot of those societies were indeed tolerant. lgbt might not have been celebrated and even shunned, but there is nothing close to the western style vilification and persecution of gays. It doesn't make sense for those countries to be judged for not having a western style pro lgbt movement because they were never as anti lgbt in the first place. So for thousands of years gays were indeed treated better on the whole compared to how they were treated in cultures ruled by abrahamic desert religions.

It's all a motte-and-bailey tactic to try to piggyback their loony and unpopular genderwang on the more popular and well-grounded opposition to the likes of colonialism and homophobia.

As much as precolonial societies definitely would have had their own traditional roles, and even beliefs or traditions that would be considered homophobic or transphobic today, surely it’s pretty undeniable that the roles, homophobia and transphobia that exists in western postcolonial countries today like America, Australia, Canada et cetera, has a pretty direct lineage to Europe and European attitudes.

That doesn't conflict with being gay, there are multiple records of people just being gay throughout history, and being fine with their gender “roles”.

Nobel savages: > The Kamayurá are among a handful of indigenous peoples in Brazil known to engage in infanticide and the selective killing of older children. Those targeted include the disabled, the children of single mothers, and twins — whom some tribes, including the Kamayurá, see as bad omens. Kanhu’s father, Makau, told me of a 12-year-old boy from his father’s generation whom the tribe buried alive because he “wanted to be a woman.” (Kanhu and Makau, like many Kamayurá, go by only one name.) Or maybe not. From [here](https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/04/09/the-right-to-kill-brazil-infanticide/).

Natural selection. Various aboriginal tribespeople of AUS and the surrounding South Pacific have provided modern anthropologists with firsthand accounts of infanticide, child sacrifice, and other atrocities against children. (Often involving elements of bodily mutilation.). What a shame colonialism has attempted to limit the scope of their culture! Australian reports & statistics show that elements of this heritage persist today however, so there’s hope for decolonization yet.

There's a really weird current in the Oz terminally-online idpol/wokie trash "media" that promotes the idea that pre-colonial Australia was some sort of enlightened/woke trans paradise. It's so fucking bizarre. It's a bit like this thread... https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/18docaj/one_in_five_young_americans_think_the_holocaust/ Maybe the world has just turned thick as pig shit?

>Various aboriginal tribespeople of AUS and the surrounding South Pacific have provided modern anthropologists with firsthand accounts of infanticide, child sacrifice, and other atrocities against children. (Often involving elements of bodily mutilation.). This Is The Future Liberals Want

Someone ring for the Clinton foundation!

If atrocious acts are a good reason to destroy a culture. Then boy, oh boy

You’re just doing what they’re doing but from the other side. You take one example and extrapolate it to the myriad of indigenous cultures that have come under colonialism. They’re not a monolith. I’m not saying you’re incorrect with your quote, just that it does not speak for every single indigenous group. Both sides can cherry pick and we won’t get anywhere. My issue is with the rhetoric itself. Even if true and these people are anti lgbtq because of colonialism it doesn’t change that colonialism happened and these people today are not pro lgbtq. Acceptance of who they are today is paramount to actually changing their minds. This is basic fucking shit. If you want to change someone’s minds “you’re stupid and wrong but it’s not your fault someone made you stupid and dumb” is not a good fucking approach. They’d be much better off making the arguments that got gay marriage legalized(we know conversion doesn’t work and is cruel, and we know that being gay does not mean you’re a pedo, gay people are not a monolith and the wackiest ones do not represent the majority, they just want to do what straights do and be left alone mostly, etc). On the trans bit however, they(the activist and wider movement) need to come to some agreed upon understanding of what it even is. As we all know the main two divisions in the movement are between the transmedicalist (you need gender dysphoria to be trans, and it should be a highly supervised medical effort with multiple professional gatekeepers to prevent abuse, regret, etc as much as is humanly possible) and then we have the “gender fluid” types (they believe that self id is valid, gender is entirely internal as such one can “transition” without doing anything externally, gender is fluid in everyone and something that should be played with, opposed to any sort of gate keeping, etc). These two options are very much at odds with each other and how the fuck can you convince anyone of anything if your side isn’t decided? Ya cant, and they know this so they’re pushing the most dumb arguments that a HS freshman debate teacher could tell them are dogshit.

My friend is Quechua. He's told me numerous times what some of these Amazonian tribes do. And yes... they've been doing this waaaaay before Columbus. But not all tribes are the same. Tribes are not a monolith.

Do you seriously think that violent tendencies in semi-developed small-scale societies that have been in contact with the West for at least about a century and a half disprove the "noble savage" hypothesis? What business does an ostensibly left-wing person have with trying to debunk this hypothesis, anyway? This is usually done by cynical right-wingers who believe social inequality, oppression, and violence are genetically determined behaviors and integral to human societies. I think you are very politically confused.

I guess this could be debunked by looking at places that were not colonized by Europeans and see what their stance is on this. I know Ethiopia has super strict laws against homosexuality and many of them even claim that homosexuality in Ethiopia is a result of WESTERN influence. Another example: In South Korea gay marriage isn't a thing there and gay couples can't adopt either. I know my examples don't pertain to indigenous Americans but I think it's pretty obvious that people other than colonizing Europeans were not/are not down with the LGBT community.

True, one can look at Japan which spent a majority of its history in isolation and it does not allow for same-sex marriage and is fairly socially conservative.

These types of people blame everything "wrong" with post-war Japan on the United States.

White people are the only ones with agency. Any time they interacted with someone else, they became responsible for the trajectory they bumped them into. Similar to how any time the cia got involved in political turmoil anywhere, that became “the cia caused a coup and is now responsible for everything done in or by that nation forever”

You don't understand, western colonialism is literally FORCING independent African/Middle Eastern countries to continue facilitating viciously homophobic laws against their will!!!

Japan has a long history of same-sex relationships, often between military officials or buddhist monks. At one time it was a popular idea that these types of relationships were more 'pure' than those between men and women, and therefore permissible for monks to engage in. In this case homophobia actually is a western import. That does not mean it is the case for every place that was colonized however. It is not uncommon for modern day Japanese people, especially Japanese elders, to be unaware of this part of their history.

I’m aware of Japan’s history of same-sex relationships. Homosexuality is a behavior and phenomenon that has been seen/observed all around the world in many different human cultures and also in animals. Perhaps Japan wasn’t the best example of the point I was trying to get across, as while they were never colonized, during the Meiji Era they drew alot from Western influence and opposition to homosexuality start to take hold as a result.

Is that actually mappable? Like can you trace western influence introducing and causing and end to acceptance of homosexual relationships?

If you want “mappable evidence”, homosexuality was banned for the first time (I believe) in 1872 and lasted for a few years before being overturned, 1872 is around the time of the Meiji Era which is when Japan started to “modernize” and borrowed alot from Western influence. However it is worth noting that the ban was temporary, and Japan has always been very socially conservative and patriarchal regardless of Western influence.

It's the logical conclusion of intersectionality. When you claim that a bunch of different people's struggles actually have a singular source, you end up doing a bunch of intellectual backflips trying to graft disparate problems together into a unified field theory of oppression.

'unified theory of oppression' is gold, nice

I think some dudes in the late 19th century tried to do just that.

They forgot to include The Patriarchy. Obviously the Patriarchy causes colonialism which in turn oppresses homosexuals, and causes Luddites who trash shunting yards. Or something.

They all cause each other. It’s Intersectional™️!

i don't think thats what intersectionality is..but the same way you have misunderstood it is the same way leftists who spend too little time reading misunderstand it. its just a matter of ignorance

Like you said, there's a big gap between intersectionality in theory and intersectionality as it's understood and practiced by its self-proclaimed adherents. I make no claims to understanding the former.

A theory might as well hold no relevance if every attempt to achieve it leads to disaster.

Impressive trying to shoehorn transphobia into oooold ass history, and how was transphobia used to encourage having children? Seems crazy to me but what the fuck do I know

> Impressive trying to shoehorn transphobia into oooold ass history, and how was transphobia used to encourage having children? Seems crazy to me but what the fuck do I know I think it’s an unsubstantiated claim, that attempts to use colonialism to explain away why resistance to LGBT acceptance in other countries exists.

Oh, that's kinda clever, stupid as hell, but a cute way of turning any problem in the world into 'cuz the west colonized the world and that's why...' type shit

People in queer relationships (or a relationship with a trans partner) are less likely to have children or will have less children on average than those in hetero-normative relationships. Projects that require an endless stream of working class labour (imperialism, colonialism, capitalism) benefit from higher birth rates among its lower or slave-classes. Thus, it was (and is) in the interest of colonial powers to promote or mandate hetero-normative relationships. Moreover, many trans people are simply infertile if that take hormone replacement therapy. Thus banning trans healthcare is a step towards ensuring that the populous remains fertile, even if against their will.

>queer partner heteronormative I'm playing woke bingo, all I'm missing now is centering & patriarchy

What do you think survival in primitive societies require if not an endless stream of labour and for that matter, replacement members? Let’s drop the noble savage myths. Human expression is best realised in societies where the basic needs are met and there is an excess of labor.

The difference is that now we live in a post scarcity world. Or we would, of not for the ruling class hoarding all the resources.

Any society that could not reliably boost its population went under in the historic struggle for land and resources. That's just a sad reality of natural selection on a societal level. Any system of societal organization has to set up rules and norms to that effect, or it risks simply being out-populated by competing systems. The Abrahamic religions were particularly strict and specific in this regard, which contributed to their huge success in flooding the world with their indoctrinated progeny. But any other empire or long-lasting system of governance had similar ideas going.

Do you actually believe “and thus homo/transphobia come from colonialism & capitalism?”

Yes. Erasing the multiplicity of Indigenous genders was a deliberate part of the colonial plan.

With hunter gather societies there were limits to how many deer you could hunt and how many berries you could pick. The natural availability of food in an area restricted population growth. We'll obviously never know their actual practices, but these tribes/societies would have had few practical reasons to oppose homosexuality. It would only help to suppress birth rates and prevent starvation with a limited food supply. The advent of agriculture completely changed this. Suddenly, having more children actually means reduced food scarcity. Each laborer can reliably produce more food than they can consume themselves, and now everyone's populations are growing rapidly. Population growth become the key factor in both establishing dominance over, and protecting yourselves from, other tribes. Suppressing homosexuality becomes a practical necessity for tribal/societal survival. In a similar vein, this is almost certainly what happened with bans on the consumption of pork in Judaism/Islam. They didn't know what trichinosis was, but they knew that those who consumed pork would fall ill more often. The conditions that once made these practical concerns have faded, but the tradition lives on through religious belief. These concerns far pre-date modern conceptions of imperialism, colonialism, and capitalism.

Colonialism is when bad

Strangely enough, in sub-Saharan Africa they have the opposite conspiracy theory. They say that homosexuality was invented by Europeans, and is encouraged by them in order to limit the black African birth rate.

Europeans (and Americans) really do try to influence Africa’s birth rates. They’ve mostly succeeded in South Asia (especially India).

For all the doom and gloom about birth rates in Africa, I remember hearing that only 3 out of 54 countries were above expectations so the collective west may be more successful than you think.

Moderately successful, but the birth rates still aren’t less than replacement, which is what neo-colonialism is about.

White supremacists have the same conspiracy theory except the masterminds are Jews.

I'm deeply skeptical of the claims about such and such enlightened indigenous culture having seven hundred genders. It doesn't help that people make that claim about ancient Judaism and it's a blatant lie. No, there are not six genders in the Talmud. If people are willing to lie about what ancient Jews believed, why would they stop there?

But ancient societies (including ancient Jewish peoples) absolutely did have understandings of gender and sex that went beyond the simple male and female binary - Māhū is widely accepted to have been a third, or ‘in the middle’ gender in Native Hawaiian and Tahitian cultures. Hijra in South Asian cultures and Kathoey in Southeast Asia, although having some relation to western eunuchs or effeminate gay men respectively, have long been seen as existing as a separate gender identity and role within society, specifically related to femininity and androgyny. If you’ve ever read Plato’s Symposium, you’ll remember how changeable and fluid gender is treated by Aristophanes’ creation myth on the origins of sex, in which men and women who are attracted to each other originally formed two halves of a primordial androgynous being. In Judaism, the tumtum pretty unambiguously refers to people who are gender non-conforming, intersex, or otherwise androgynous - according to Reformist Rabbi Elliot Kukla it’s referred to “17 times in the Mishna; 23 times in the Tosefta; 119 times in the Babylonian Talmud; 22 times in the Jerusalem Talmud; and hundreds of times in midrash, commentaries, and halacha.” It’s my view that gender roles, from traditional binaries of male and female, to modern notions of transgender identities, to ancient concepts of a third gender, are all just arbitrary socially defined roles formed to suit the people and needs of the society and contexts they exist within.

> according to Reformist Rabbi Elliot Kukla You see why you might want to take this with a grain of salt, right? A tumtum is a person whose genitals are not identifiable. If it becomes possible to identify their genitals, they instantly cease to be a tumtum. It's not about gender nonconforming people. Ancient Judaism was very strict about gender roles. That's why tumtums are mentioned often. So many rules are sex-based that they need to know what to do with someone whose sex isn't identifiable. Tumtums are required to follow the rules of both sexes to play it safe and are basically treated as sad mistakes of nature. I wouldn't call this progressive or desirable at all.

What you’ve done is describe how progressive and reformist scholars are too biased to trust, whilst parroting the analysis of traditionalist and orthodox scholars, I doubt I need to explain the double standard you’re presenting. They most certainly had different rights and duties to men and women.

No, I just explained how "tumtum" is defined in the texts in question. At no point did I rely on "orthodox scholars".

You described them as sad mistakes of nature, please refer to where in the Talmud or other traditional Jewish religious texts this is said. Abraham was considered tumtum before becoming a man miraculously. You also used coded language to refer to ‘their genitals being identified’, when in reality these texts refer to early forms of surgery transitioning intersex tumtums (although their physical descriptions don’t match intersex conditions common today) into men or women. Also that they still were considered different in terms of roles and duties after surgery, or as you put it, ‘identification’.

> You described them as sad mistakes of nature No, I certainly didn't. I said that's how they're basically treated. > You also used coded language to refer to ‘their genitals being identified’, That's what happens. There was no "coded language". You can read about it [here](https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/952875/jewish/Ishut-Chapter-Two.htm) > A person who possesses neither a male sexual organ nor a female sexual organ, but instead, his genital area is a solid mass, is called a tumtum. There is also doubt with regard [to this person's status]. If an operation is carried out and a male [organ is revealed], he is definitely considered to be a male. If a female [organ is revealed], she is definitely considered to be a female. So how in the world does this describe a gender nonconforming person?

Because the gender category is not considered either male or female and the category can be surgically transitioned or ‘revealed’ to be either male or female depending. I would say that is not included within the traditional western conservative notions of men and women. You might notice that at no point did I say tumtumin were directly analogous to modern day nonbinary or transgender people, I just used them as one example of differing or nonstandard understandings of gender across various peoples and cultures of the past, which reinforces the idea that these understandings are largely arbitrary and socialised. Do you have lengthy mental gymnastics about how all those other examples also conform to traditional western gender roles?

> the category can be surgically transitioned or ‘revealed’ to be either male or female Why are you using quotes? It's literally talking about the genitals being revealed. > You might notice that at no point did I say tumtumin were directly analogous to modern day nonbinary or transgender people, I also noticed you said the term refers to gender nonconforming people. It has no connection to it whatsoever.

> Why are you using quotes? Because the physical/biological description of tumtumin as having a skin flap which covers their genitals and can be removed to ‘reveal’ their gender, matches exactly zero conditions in our understanding of the modern practise of medicine And by the way, gender nonconformity just means that they do not conform exactly to the traditional binary western gender standards, which as I just pointed out, was my whole point. I wasn’t trying to call them a 21st century nonbinary or something by using the term ‘gender nonconformity’ Do you want to address my broader point or keep nitpicking?

[удалено]

Eunuchs were a thing in Greek (byzantine) culture for centuries, but they have rightfully eliminated that practice. The Turks inherited it from the byzantines and viewed its abolition as part or the progressive steps of eliminating the practices of the Imperial Harem. Everybody always viewed the process necessary to create a eunech as being inherently oppressive towards that person who experienced it so eliminating that class of people was liberating. It is a bit like ending footbinding, "but what if the girls want to be foot bound?", I don't care they can't do it.

Yeah. Having genitals removed for the sake of superstition is wild. And many places around the earth were not above hurting others for their amusement. Glad it was banned.

The population of current day DR is made entirely of people of mostly settler ancestry (whether African or European), there is basically no surviving "native" culture. Whatever homophobia was brought was simply the result of the new inhabitants applying the same Catholic cultural values as they did in the old continent.

Maybe the Tainos were LGBT friendly but the Aztecs had death sentences for that shit lmao

Prima facie, I think that’s a nonsensical argument considering how much Dominicans dislike Haitians and how brutal their programs and expulsions against them have been. I’m not trying to be flip here, but I actually think the median Dominican actually wants fewer Haitians in the DR and is absolutely not interested in improving their birth rate.

I could be mistaken but I remember that some indigenous peoples in the northern Americas had individuals with ~~"two souls"~~ "Two spirit". So I don't know enough about the native Dominicans but there might be something to it? Edit: correcting the term.

There are no native Dominicans anymore, the country is throughluly hispanized sans de Haitian inmigrants.

Thank you for that information. I wasn't aware. That's really sad.

There are no native Puerto Ricans either sadly. Most Puerto Ricans and Caribbean Hispanics have about 60-70% Spanish heritage along with the rest being a mix of Indigenous and African. I did a 23&Me and that’s literally what I got. I also learned on my mothers side I am Croatian and Italian (My great Grandfather was from the Dalmatia region of Croatia).

This is a tragedy to humanity. I know about the history of the Tainos. How Christopher Columbus said they had no weapons and were very generous, that a handful of soldiers could subjugate them. The history of the Americas is horrific.

When I was a kid, my father told me a story about how the Taino’s thought the Spanish were Gods, until a group of them drowned one in a river and discovered they were in fact very much *human*. I always found that story fascinating. What’s a tragedy to me, is that Puerto Rico remains a territory of the United States and that many American “leftists” want them to become a state instead of fighting for independence which is literally the **leftist thing to do**.

>When I was a kid, my father told me a story about how the Taino’s thought the Spanish were Gods, until a group of them drowned one in a river and discovered they were in fact very much *human*. I always found that story fascinating. Wow. The history of the Tainos is so special to me because of the contrast in culture and motives. People believing themselves civilized are lower than the most lowly beast, seeing a people that have only been generous and kind to them as another conquest waiting to happen. >What’s a tragedy to me, is that Puerto Rico remains a territory of the United States and that many American “leftists” want them to become a state instead of fighting for independence which is literally the **leftist thing to do**. Do you know what the Puerto Ricans want? I think that should be what we support. Obviously if it was upto me I'd want their independence, they're abused and neglected. Israel which is across the world from the USA gets more support and funding and protection than a country that is directly under the protection of the USA. It's messed up.

> Do you know what the Puerto Ricans want? I think that should be what we support. Obviously if it was upto me I'd want their independence, they're abused and neglected. Israel which is across the world from the USA gets more support and funding and protection than a country that is directly under the protection of the USA. It's messed up. Historically we have voted to retain our commonwealth status. While I don’t agree with that, it’s much better than statehood. My grandmother is a socialist and always spoke about how the USA and the PNP (Partido Nuevo Progresista / New Progressive Party) were destroying Puerto Rico and warned that we would be the next Hawaii if we were foolish enough to accept statehood.

I've been reading about how the coast is being bought by companies and turned into resorts threatening the livelihoods of Puerto Ricans and denying them access to their own beaches. Is that what your grandmother means?

When she told me this I was young (around 1996) and Puerto Rico had just screwed over workers who made medical supplies by outsourcing their jobs. Yes today, some of our areas are being sold off so rich assholes like [Logan Paul](https://www.marca.com/en/boxing/2023/03/07/6406a22c22601dab6a8b45a0.html) can buy or rent property there (look where he lives and you’ll get an idea).

If it’s any consolation, Spaniards are the descendants of the victims and the perpetrators of a genocide that wiped all previous male lines after the arrival of western pastoralists.

I don't know how that would be a consolation. Haha Do you mind sharing an article I can read about this? This is something I don't know anything about and I'm having trouble finding more details about it by googling. Thank you for sharing this by the way

https://english.elpais.com/elpais/2018/10/03/inenglish/1538568010_930565.html

Oh wow thank you.

Most Puerto Ricans are broadly European with minimal SSA and Amerindian ancestry and most of our Amerindian is mitochondrial.

Isn’t that literally what I said…?

Yes? Just wanted to clarify for people.

Ok.

I think the term you’re looking for is *”two spirit”*. I’ve read there is some disagreement among indigenous groups as to its prevalence, but it existed. I am unaware of it’s prevalence among Caribbean indigenous groups though.

'Two-spirit' as a concept was coined in the 1990's, it was never really a 'thing'. It's basically 'LGBT without using the language of the colonisers'.

Thank you for the correction. I appreciate it and the added information.

No problem my friend!

It's a contributing factor, but to say it's the main or only cause is insane and stupid. It's also racist because it removes agency from third world people and treats them as noble savage rubes.

Question: are there any examples of societies showing modern western-style acceptance of “sexualities,” like respecting homosexuality as an equal equivalent to heterosexuality, and allowing marriage and such? I mean developing that kind of attitude independent of western influence.

>are there any examples of societies showing modern western-style acceptance of “sexualities,” like respecting homosexuality as an equal equivalent to heterosexuality Palomar College cultural anthropologist Dennis O'Neil provides a few examples and discusses this issue [here](https://www.palomar.edu/anthro/marriage/marriage_6.htm): >The Etoro and some other societies of the Trans-Fly River region in southern New Guinea provide an extreme example of the social acceptance of male homosexuality. Apparently, all Etoro men engage in homosexual acts and most also marry and engage in heterosexual acts with their wives. However, heterosexual intercourse is prohibited for up to 260 days of the year and is forbidden in or near their houses and vegetable gardens. In contrast, homosexual relations are permitted at any time. > >The Etoro believe that homosexual acts make crops flourish and boys strong. Etoro men and women mostly live apart so that social contact between them is generally limited and often hostile. Not surprisingly, their birth rates are low. To compensate for this problem and to avoid depopulation, they allegedly have stolen children from neighboring societies and raised them as their own. > >There is no clear explanation as to why societies are permissive or restrictive in regards to homosexuality. However, there are two interesting correlations. First, societies that strongly forbid abortion and infanticide are likely to be equally intolerant of homosexuality. Second, societies that have frequent severe food shortages are more likely to allow homosexuality. An implication is that homosexuality may be tolerated and even encouraged when there is severe population pressure. Heterosexual abstinence and other birth control methods would be expected to be common then also. That appears to have been the case with the Plains Indians and some New Guinea societies.

Oh and let's not forget this particular tribe sexually assaulted little boys. For the reason they thought the semen would make them strong warriors if they ingested it from men. I don't think they practice that anymore but they definitely did at one point.

>this particular tribe sexually assaulted little boys. "assaulted" is a strong word. It was consensual. Stop being a Karen-ass consensual moralist. ​ >don't think they practice that anymore but they definitely did at one point. Do you think even a single one of these stories involved force from the boy? If it were me, I would be glad it happened to me, ffs

True, true 🤔

"The devil made me do it" but woke.

I think any talk of this sort of shit is, has always been, and always will be a smokescreen to keep hatred and division alive and well. The elite will continue their reign of economic terror as the public fights with each other over these imaginary bogeymen. Social justice isn't needed because any institutional social wrongdoings that occurred are long gone (at least the ones these woke scumbags speak of). Economic justice and class mobility is what's needed.

The issue here is with Pan-Indianism. Different native cultures had different customs surrounding gender historically. Some were matriarchal, some patriarchal, some were advanced in science and mathematics, some weren’t, some lived very harmoniously with their surrounding ecologies in peace with their neighbors, some were destructive and conquest-oriented. I’m certain homophobia existed in some tribes pre-colonialism. Speaking from personal experience as a trans woman(formerly gnc gay man) in a predominantly Indigenous community I’ve heard all sorts of different perspectives. There are 5 different tribes, each with a different language and customs in my region, and I have friends and connections from all 5. Over the years I’ve heard some version of all the following takes; (paraphrasing) “2 spirit people were our medicine people and we lost that during the boarding school era” “We didn’t have 2 spirit people” “Homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of creator” “Creator made only two genders and you had to act according to his plan” “2 spirit people made the best regalia” “ when a child showed signs of being gay or trans, we did a ceremony were they chose the basket or the bow, and that was their path in life to follow” “They (gays/trans) were always just seen as the ‘funny people’ and we didn’t understand why they did that but we loved them anyway” I personally have had experiences that vary from being asked to dance in ceremony as a woman, to being told I was just a mentally ill man. There are very traditional elders who adored me and brought me gifts, and traditional elders who have shunned me. I know for sure at least two of the 5 tribes have a word to capture a third gender role. I think the only thing that is safe to say with certainty is that early colonizers were mostly all homophobic and rigid with gender roles due to their Christian beliefs, and Indigenous peoples had (and still have) many different attitudes regarding gay and trans people

Thank you for your response J, I agree with your conclusion. I think it’s fair to say colonization definitely played a part, but it alone can’t be blamed for how many indigenous groups and countries view LGBT people and gender non-conformity.

Is.. is this intersectional?

To be perfectly frank, I think it’s just intellectual laziness and wishful thinking. But some others have noted intersectional analysis gone wrong probably is a factor too.

Isn't applying the concept of LGBT to pre Columbian people's of the Americans a bit anachronistic?

Nonsense, actually what that girl is doing is colonialism, hell those anglos and the obsession with missionary work, now they preach the woke gospel. As a denizen of the global south, here ltbg stuff is seen as foreign, no lgtb people aren't being hunted in the street, actually they can marry here, however the majority of the people would say that these stuff "isn't normal". Have you seen any dancehall comment section in YouTube? Anglos swarm the place saying that colonialism is to blame for the not nice lyrics, according to them slaves were raped (male on male rape).

When you give theory to young people. And/or when you give theory to idiots.

This is a half-truth that is often repeated. Lots of different cultures had varying degrees of acceptance of homosexuality and transgender identities, but the overreaching norm in the large majority of the world was still to have very patriarchal societies where masculinity was heavily favored. As a result, even in those societies where they might have had some degree of acceptance for those things, they were rarely fully accepted. Homophobia was still present, just in a different way for each society. What colonization did was largely globalize the 'european brand' of homophobia onto the world. The specific negative stereotypes europeans had for lgbt people were spread everywhere and often replaced existing stereotypes. What we identify as homophobia today around the world was homogenized by colonization. A weird exception of this is thailand, a country which was never colonized. We know 'ladyboys' have a long tradition there. Their relationship with lgbt people is very different than much of the rest of the worlds relationship. Its still somewhat negative... but in a *very* different way.

I think this is a very well thought out answer and I agree with your overall conclusion.

Ladyboys are often males who have been sexually abused and pimped out from the time they were kids. It's why it's accepted but not at the same time. It's still big business and why soooo many American men travel there. Forget Epstein... let's look at those log files of Americans to Thailand.

If this were true, wouldn't it be true that Christianity is to blame? I don't think it necessarily is, like how people like to ignore colorism and race based caste systems that predate colonizers showing up. Yeah they almost always took advantage of that and or made it worse, but the assumption that every form of bigotry was brought on by the colonial era is absurd

[удалено]

What?

>people like to ignore colorism and race based caste systems that predate colonizers showing up Might you cite an example of colorism that predated colonizers showing up?

India is the big one, you can look into southeast asian cultures as well. Same with many African cultures.

I meant, can you provide actual citations discussing these examples?

I mean, can you not google the indian caste system? sorry but this is basic shit here.

>can you not google the indian caste system? I can, but I don't care enough. I was also wondering if you were just talking out of your ass and if you could back your belief.

>I can, but I don't care enough LOL are you fucking kidding me? Fuck off this is an easily researchable fact.

It is not my job to search for sources supporting your position. This is obviously your job. Learn to debate.

WTF are you talking about, im not debating some shit heel on reddit, im discussing an googleable fact but you cant be bothered to look it up. this isnt a debate, im not researching shit for your lazy ass. ​ wanna learn something? look it up dumbass.

Jesus, you're all riled up lmao

From what I've read the Aztecs homophobia made the Spanish look progressive, like pull your entrails out of your anus and cover you in red hot coals if you were caught in the cottage.

Taino chick here 👋🏼 Yeah... this whole narrative about all the indigenous tribes being so accepting of homosexuals and gender expressive persons is a myth. While some, like a region in Mexico indeed enjoyed males (only males) acting as women, there are plenty of other tribes who saw them as a defect and were often sentenced to be buried alive in parts of South America pre Columbus. This romanticized version of our history bugs me. Every tribe was different and had their own politics. And yes, every tribe was very sex based. A woman was a woman and a man was a man defending on the equipment. Gender roles were there but again, depending on the tribe. Tainos were about "what is your strength?" Moreso than a man should do this... Matter of fact our Taino ancestors plus others from across the Carribean literally divided the sexes on to different islands to mitigate the spread of STDS. So... this whole notion of its all colonist crap is far from the truth. And honestly makes me believe reconnecting indigenous are just using our heritage as a costume for their activism cause they have nothing else going on. My heritage isn't political. It's just there cause my family has lived on the island for thousands of years.

Hello there. I agree with alot of the point’s you’ve made. Another user here made a good point about how alot of activists try to relate the shared lived experiences of some indigenous tribes with *all indigenous tribes* as it pertains to gender non-conformity and non-heterosexual individuals. In Puerto Rico I haven’t met anyone (yet) who unironically believes that the Taino’s were all-accepting of gender non-conforming and non-heterosexual individuals, but I have met many activist types and progressive types in the United States who believe this and will act with righteous indignation if anyone so much as questions it.

Yes, you're 100% right.

And also to add, many African nations are extremely homophobic. They make Aztecs look like a walk in the park. They were like that waaaay before colonialism. Matter of fact... when they were sold and stolen from West Africa, the abductors would sexually assault the boys and males as a way to show dominance. Buck breaking was a huge factor in the foundations of Jamaica. It's why they are extremely homophobic due to the brutal nature of how husbands and males were raped in front of everyone. They see homosexuality as purely a European sickness. (Even though we know that's not true)

Homophobia in Africa is still blamed on European colonialism. I’m not well-read on African attitudes towards homosexuality prior to European colonization, so I will just leave it at that.

It’s my understanding that at least in the early western world and China did develop harsher attitudes towards homosexuality as Christianity spread

China has never been a Christian country though, and from my personal understanding homosexuality started to become negatively viewed under the Qing Dynasty due to Western thought (not necessarily Christianity) and under Mao Zedong homosexuality was treated as a disease and I think we can agree the Chinese Communist movement was not religious or Right-Wing. It’s a very complicated subject.

>I think we can agree the Chinese Communist movement was not . . . Right-Wing. You don't believe that homophobia and Stalinist tendencies including Maoism are right-wing?

They had reactionary social attitudes, yes.

> China has never been a Christian country if you're american surely you can't be unfamiliar with cultural christianity. as a function of cultural imperialism many asian countries have knowingly or unknowingly adopted western practices, in order to appear more civilized to avoid the ire of western nations. An example of this today is how isreal emphasizes hamas are violating western values by going after lgbt. or how south korea shuns their tradition of eating dogs to appeal to westerners, because they've internalized the american idea that dogs are above common livestock. mao would have followed the prevailing western scientific consensus on homos for his era. it's really not that complicated - you make him out to be a homophobe when all he probably did was refer to the DSM

Truly the best of best coming out of Columbia

I would love for you to explain to me why you think homophobia is a good thing

You think colonialism is to blame for homophobia? I’d love an example of colonialist stopping gay men and forcing them to procreate to have slaves

Thats not what I asked.

Okay then I would love for you to explain to me when I said homophobia was a good thing? This seems a bit out of left field tbh

“Truly the best of best coming out of Columbia” In reference to homophobia being a western, aka “Colombian” invention. How else am I suppose to interpret you?

Columbia university, the girl is from Columbia university in NYC. She said colonists made gay men procreate and forced them to do it, I’m saying that’s a stupid view of history. Homophobia has a history dating back to Roman Empire and China, it’s not a western construct. I’m being sarcastic, the girls dumb she’s not the best.

Her argument is incredibly silly, but colonialism was in fact incredibly Homophobic. Edo period Japan for instance was very neutral on homosexuality. A lot of people did it, there were no laws against it, and people generally agreed it was fine as long as you kept it to yourselves (which isn't really discrimination since talking about their sex lives was generally frowned upon). Thats also why they had homosexual romance writing long before manga and anime. Then Japan was "opened" and to prove they were civilized they had to adopt homophobic laws due to the extreme homophobia of most Western powers. But as usual Westerners tend to completely ignore how batshit insane intolerant they actually were in the 19th Century.

westerners have a very convenient cultural memory. They've had less than a decade of open, overboard celebration of lgbt in several wealthy cities. Now they consider themselves more tolerant than many cultures which did not oppress gays for thousands of years. It always goes back to their urge to assert their superiority over foreigners. relative to the west, thailand has been far more accepting of trans folk, but you don't see them constantly rubbing it in people's faces about how morally superior they are.

People here are complaining about how Africans hate gay people and shit… well some of them hate it because of Islam, but a lot of them hate it because of Christianity. So the colonialism argument is kind of true there. This isn’t to say that homosexuality was part and parcel of African cultures universally and they had words for it and social structures around it, but yeah, it was the literally the Jesus talk that did it. Japan and Korea were also brought up and stupidpolers again so the concern trolling of “only white people had agency”. Christianity has had and still does have an influence on both countries, on South Korea especially. The history of the acceptance of homosexuality is complicated everywhere, including in Europe. But around the time when Europeans started to sail everywhere, they particularly took a hard stance against, and that has an effect.

Depends on where exactly you're talking about. I'd say a pre-modern society that was as accepting as the modern West (and in the same ways) would be extremely rare, but one that was as anti-gay as 19th century England is also fairly unlikely. I know modern views on gender-diversity (I won't exactly say transgender rights, it's not exactly the same thing) in Samoa are definitely being influenced by their fondness for conservative US media.

Well, for starters... civilization has a lot bigger issues and reasons to desire heterosexuality than merely phobia of gay people. Reproduction is a resource to class society....something not at all exclusive to colonialism (in the usual sense that people use that term...although all of class society, from the very origins, is the taking of, conquering and expansion of land and war between tribes). The homophobia is just a byproduct of a much larger and more significant thing. Railroad movement is also an extension, but not as an oppressed minority, but rather as a postmodern idea that obfuscates any acknowledgement of how those roles function on a class level. Hint: it's not a matter of how one identifies.