The history of Homosexuality

[Byzantine Prince]

Genetics, hormonal irregularity, environmental conditions all add up, I think.

All those OR (and this is crazy!) maybe it's a matter of aesthetics.

However, can we sum it up as the Greeks were the first ones who were historically recorded to be having homosexual relationships ?

Yeah right. Same sex relationships were condemned in Athens and the rest of Greece except for the military.

And what is the reality about Alexander the Great's preferences ? I heard that his personality was reflected like a homosexual's in the movie. How far is that true ?

He was pan-sexual, he would hit pretty much anything he wanted.

[hellenes]

Genetics, hormonal irregularity, environmental conditions all add up, I think.

However, can we sum it up as the Greeks were the first ones who were historically recorded to be having homosexual relationships ?

And what is the reality about Alexander the Great's preferences ? I heard that his personality was reflected like a homosexual's in the movie. How far is that true ?

That preumption is mostly based on some scholars who judging by themselves are describing ancient Hellenes as homosexuals, homosapiens, etc...
There were strict laws against it, a homosexual couldnt vote and participate in public debates.
In Sparta it was forbidden to have sexual relationships with boys:
«Ει δε τις παιδός σώματος ορεγόμενος φανείη, αίσχιστον τούτο θείς εποίησεν εν Λακεδαίμονι μηδέν ήττον εραστάς παιδικών απέχθεσθαι ή γονείς παίδων απέχονται» (Ξεν. Λακεδαιμόνιων Πολιτεία 11, 13)
«If someone, being himself an honest man, admired a boy's soul and tried to make of him an ideal friend without reproach and to associate with him, he approved, and believed in the excellence of this kind of training. But if it was clear that the attraction lay in the boy's outward beauty, he banned the connexion as an abomination; and thus he caused lovers to abstain from boys no less than parents abstain from sexual intercourse with their children and brothers and sisters with each other» Xenophones' Constitution of the Lacedaemonians 11,13

Another quote from Maximus Tyrtius:

«ερά Σπαρτιάτης ανήρ μειρακίου Λακωνικού, αλλ΄ ερά μόνον ως αγάλματος καλού, και ενός πολλοί, και εις πολλών. Η μεν γαρ εξ ύβρεως ηδονή ακοινώνητος προς αλλήλους.»

«The Spartans like the beauty of the body. But the carnal attraction is throwned upon»

Last Ailianus states:

«Ο Σπαρτιατικός έρωτας δεν είχε σχέση με αισχρότητες. Εάν ποτέ κάποιος έφηβος τόλμησε να ανεχθεί ασέλγεια σε βάρος του είτε εάν κάποιος έφηβος επιχειρήσει να ασελγήσει σε βάρος άλλου, δεν συνέφερε κανέναν από τους δύο να καταντροπιάσουν τη Σπάρτη. Και σε τέτοια περίπτωση, κρούσματος δηλαδή, ή εξορίστηκαν ή κάτι χειρότερο, έχασαν τη ζωή τους» (Ποικιλ. Ιστορ. 111, 12)

The Spartan love had nothing to do with sexual acts. If one teenager had tolerated to be sexualy harassed or sexually harassed other, it was againts both to shame Sparta. In this cases they would be banished or worst lose their lives.»(History 111, 12)

Hellenes

[Mouzafphaerre]

Well, with the Greeks, it must be noted that their perception of what we have dubbed 'homosexuality' was completely different. So much so, in fact, that you can say that only the deed itself was the same.

.
A safe way of having your way without risking illegit children and demanding wives.
.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Lut (لوط) is called Lot in the Old Testament.
.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Some native American tribes (the Hopi being one IIRC) are cited to encourage boys to become catamites and transvestites (Encyclopaedia Britannica). Sounds weird though; how would those people breed? Were all classes encouraged' or only the lowly?
.

[Quietus]

Concerned about how homosexual issues are debated abroad, I came up with the history of homosexuality..

Since when is the existence of homosexuality proved to be? Were there any significant figures or actions concerned with homosexuality ? Did the heretics hunt in medieval times ever concern about such people -not only so called "witches" ? Yes, I know that some Ottoman padishahs had such affairs but how about the other cultures and for figures who are not from royals - if any?

P.S. I am dubious about what may be happening in Turkey when it is a publicized homosexual issue, demonstration etc. -something that we'll face somehow along the road to EU, I think.

Homosexuality is much, much older than history can ever tell. Much like Murder, it can never be pinpointed exactly.

To quote one of my favorite songs ever: "In a same old Cain and Abel syndrome, far more ancient than the Fall of Rome". It is likely old as sexual differentiation itself (eg. two sexes).

As for the history, I've read of Elite homosexual warriors (sacred band?), where an old veteran is paired with a young one to fight in chariots.

[Quietus]

It's probably a birth abnormality, like downs syndrom.

No, it is not a birth abnormality.

[Rosacrux redux]

As Hellenes desperately tries to prove - and nobody pays attention to his quotes and sources - homosexuality was not legit nor socially accepted and most certainly not "the norm" in ancient Greece. The Spartan thing is a common misconception, although the Sacred Band probably isn't (but we are talking about 300 people here). And of course exclusive homosexuality was for the greater part unknown in the Greek world.

The ancient Greeks were much more tolerant to "sexual misdemeanor" than our society (blame it on the Christian morals) but they faced bisexual males as "kinda weird" and the whole male love was considered a vice of the upper classes, not something a good Athenian (or Spartan, or Theban or whatever) would engage self into. Of course there is the other side: the laws against homosexuality were rarely if ever enforced - the only cases we know of men being condemned for having sexual affairs with other men had to do with male prostitution (in the broader sence, to change sexual partners really often was considered also "prostitution" in a way).

But you can read Aristophanes, for instance, as he is very much the "voice of the common citizen of Athens" in the early 4th century: he lashes out against male lovers all too often and calls them with extremely derogatory terms (lakkoproktos, lakkos, kinaidos etc.).

One more thing: homosexuality as a man having affairs only with men, was very, very, VERY weird for the ancient Greek world and was really frowned upon and condemned heavily. Having sex with men too I(in addition to women) was not so "bad", but still not accepteptable or the norm, just a privilege of the elites.

[hellenes]

As Hellenes despretaly tries to prove - and nobody pais attention to his quotes and sources - homosexuality was not legit nor socially accepted and most certainly not "the norm" in ancient Greece. The Spartan thing is a common misconception, although the Sacred Band probably isn't (but we are talking about 300 people here). And of course exclusive homosexuality was for the greater part unknown in the Greek world.

The ancient Greeks were much more tolerant to "sexual misdemeanor" than our society (blame it on the Christian morals) but they faced bisexual males as "kinda weird" and the whole male love was considered a vice of the upper classes, not something a good Athenian (or Spartan, or Theban or whatever) would engage self into. Of course there is the other side: the laws against homosexuality were rarely if ever enforced - the only cases we know of men being condemned for having sexual affairs with other men had to do with male prostitution (in the broader sence, to change sexual partners really often was considered also "prostitution" in a way).

But you can read Aristophanes, for instance, as he is very much the "voice of the common citizen of Athens" in the early 4th century: he lashes out against male lovers all too often and calls them with extremely derogatory terms (lakkoproktos, lakkos, kinaidos etc.).

One more thing: homosexuality as a man having affairs only with men, was very, very, VERY weird for the ancient Greek world and was really frowned upon and condemned heavily. Having sex with men too I(in addition to women) was not so "bad", but still not accepteptable or the norm, just a privilege of the elites.

I dont find it strange since there is this vage presumption that "The Greeks are nationalists so they try to make themselves look good, and even trying to annex the aliens called Makedonians that had no separate language, art, culture..."

Hellenes

[Kraxis]

Don't go there, this is a thread about the history of homosexuality not if Macedonia was/is Greek.

[Rosacrux redux]

I would agree. Bringing the Macedonian issue here is rather counterproductive. Let's stick to the actual matter in hand.

[hellenes]

I would agree. Bringing the Macedonian issue here is rather counterproductive. Let's stick to the actual matter in hand.

I didnt try to bring it here its just a deja vous...
Well I 100% understand that it doesnt belong here it was just a side note to the whole two dimensional Greece-Rest of the Planet universe of historical facts...

Hellenes

[Red Harvest]

Don't go there, this is a thread about the history of homosexuality not if Macedonia was/is Greek.

Same old themes reappear, no matter the topic.

[conon394]

Rosacrux redux

Citing Aristophanes should only be done with caution, he leveled the same vitriol, sarcasm and ruthless humor at just about everything and everyone in Athens…

I would be especially cautious about suggesting Aristophanes can in any particular passage be suggested to represent the average Athenian, or even Aristophanes’ own views. He was a friend of Socrates, yet depicted his as the worst sort of amoral sophist. The same politicians he castigates with various sexual slanders he also tars with the moniker or tradesmen. Now I grant working for a living might well have been just as odious as homosexuality to the aristocratic class, but I doubt the mass of Athenian workers of the lower class would agree.

hellenes

If you’re going to cite Xenophon’s Constitution of the Lacedaimonians you really should be fair and note that Xenophon is also pointed (in the context of your quote) mentioning that Sparta has fallen away from it’s (supposed) lofty idealism ideals as to the ‘platonic’ nature of it’s male-male relations. It is also worth pointing out that both the preceding and following passages note there are other Greek states where men live together live husband and wife or do not proscribe any legal ban on sexual relations between males.

Rather than cherry pick evidence in a rather vain attempt to define some standard morality of homosexuality for all ancient Greeks, why not just be content with Plato’s construction: Some Greek States banned it, some Allowed (or encouraged it) and in some the situation was ambiguous..

[LeftEyeNine]

Rosacrux redux

Citing Aristophanes should only be done with caution, he leveled the same vitriol, sarcasm and ruthless humor at just about everything and everyone in Athens…

I would be especially cautious about suggesting Aristophanes can in any particular passage be suggested to represent the average Athenian, or even Aristophanes’ own views. He was a friend of Socrates, yet depicted his as the worst sort of amoral sophist. The same politicians he castigates with various sexual slanders he also tars with the moniker or tradesmen. Now I grant working for a living might well have been just as odious as homosexuality to the aristocratic class, but I doubt the mass of Athenian workers of the lower class would agree.

hellenes

If you’re going to cite Xenophon’s Constitution of the Lacedaimonians you really should be fair and note that Xenophon is also pointed (in the context of your quote) mentioning that Sparta has fallen away from it’s (supposed) lofty idealism ideals as to the ‘platonic’ nature of it’s male-male relations. It is also worth pointing out that both the preceding and following passages note there are other Greek states where men live together live husband and wife or do not proscribe any legal ban on sexual relations between males.

Rather than cherry pick evidence in a rather vain attempt to define some standard morality of homosexuality for all ancient Greeks, why not just be content with Plato’s construction: Some Greek States banned it, some Allowed (or encouraged it) and in some the situation was ambiguous..

I'll try a better sum up this time : Greeks were not bothered much with homosexuality, or at least they used to react more comfortable or neutral against it than any others cultures did, if they are not obviously inventors of homosexuality ?

P.S. I am aware that homosexuality can not be tracked whole throughout the history, I'm just trying to make a "particular" point.

[Rosacrux redux]

I'll try a better sum up this time : Greeks were not bothered much with homosexuality, or at least they used to react more comfortable or neutral against it than any others cultures did, if they are not obviously inventors of homosexuality ?

Hardly "inventors" of homosexuality, it has been around for as long as human beings are around. Animals are, in extreme cases, also behave in the same way.

Conon

Aristophanes does not slander anyone and everyone, he slanders those he considers worth for slander and in particular he aims at those who'd please his audience to hear about.

But that's not the point, is it? The point is that Aristophanes has used remarks fit for homosexuality (lakkoproktos, lakkos) to slander people. If homosexuality was a norm or a social "Do", would he do so? AFAIK, you use a term as derigatory when it actually applies that way.

[LeftEyeNine]

Hardly "inventors" of homosexuality, it has been around for as long as human beings are around. Animals are, in extreme cases, also behave in the same way.

P.S. I am aware that homosexuality can not be tracked whole throughout the history, I'm just trying to make a "particular" point.

[Mouzafphaerre]

Hardly "inventors" of homosexuality, it has been around for as long as human beings are around. Animals are, in extreme cases, also behave in the same way.

Conon

Aristophanes does not slander anyone and everyone, he slanders those he considers worth for slander and in particular he aims at those who'd please his audience to hear about.

But that's not the point, is it? The point is that Aristophanes has used remarks fit for homosexuality (lakkoproktos, lakkos) to slander people. If homosexuality was a norm or a social "Do", would he do so? AFAIK, you use a term as derigatory when it actually applies that way.

.
This [quoted] one is the 1,000,000th ORG post!
.

[LeftEyeNine]

Sorry to put down your cheer but :

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=57757

[Rosacrux redux]

Aye!

Sorry to put down your cheer but :

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=57757

Damn!

[Mouzafphaerre]

.


It is the one millionth post.
.

[Kraxis]

The current millionth post... There have been previous posts of a similar number.

So it could be the millionth post number 40 for all we know.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.

.

[Watchman]

For assorted reasons I've had to read a fair few respected anthropological works. One thing you pick up from those is that forms of ritualized homosexuality aren't/weren't all that unusual in "primitive" cultures, usually for quite murky and to an outsider near-incomprehensible symbolic reasons, and one tends to get the strong impression from assorted sources that same-sex relationships seem to have been relatively common among various warrior classes. Presumably it has somehting to do with the idea of "bonding under fire" or somesuch, or maybe the blunt fact that there might've not been too many women to go around in the march camps...

[ICantSpellDawg]

http://www.nickyee.com/ponder/social_construction.html

interesting blog

================================================
Catching The Phoenix:

The Social Construction of Homosexuality
by Nick Yee

Introduction

The common use of language creates the illusion that words point to well-defined things or concepts, but they often do not. If a carpenter disassembles a table to make a chair, at what point does the table "end" and when does the chair "emerge"? The world is a continuum, a spectrum that isn’t inherently neatly divided and labeled for us. Words in a particular culture serve to label specific points on this spectrum such that meaningful exchange of information between individuals is possible, and communication is the process that we as humans use to standardize our interpretation of the world such that it becomes possible to share ideas. As this interpretation is standardized, it is laden with assumptions about how the world behaves and how different phenomena are related. Communication is therefore the dynamic process through which social reality is constructed and sustained such that a group of individuals come to share the same worldview and can coexist. The worldview and assumptions of a culture evolve through time, become encoded in the language, which in turn reinforce the assumptions of that culture.

The phrase “social construction of reality” doesn’t imply that there exists no reality independent of human perception, but instead describes the process through which our perception and interpretation of reality is inevitably colored by the assumptions of our culture as encoded in our language (Searle, 1997). The impossibility of communicating complex ideas without the use of a language forces us to conform to the assumptions of the language that we speak in. As soon as you use a word, you have bought into the assumptions of that word, and how it relates to other words and concepts. As soon as you speak in a language, you have tacitly accepted its assumptions and worldview. For example, the brain-teaser involving a boy, his father and the surgeon was difficult to answer because people were bound by the gender-biased assumption of the words (which of course was encoded by cultural expectations).

Constructing Homosexuality

Let’s explore a particular socially-constructed category in more depth. Homosexuality is a recent Western concept (Foucault, 1980) unique among the conceptualization of male-male sexual bonds of other cultures in several ways. Where the western concept of homosexuality assumes a life-long predisposition, other cultures have typically construed male-male sexual bonds as temporary phases, as in the initiation rites of tribes in New Guinea or ancient Crete, or age-based relationships – such as in ancient Greece. An even more profound uniqueness of the Western concept of homosexuality is revealed when it is contrasted with how male-male sexual and romantic bonds were treated in Imperial China where several male emperors were known to have had male harems and favorite male concubines, and also where male prostitution (for male clients) was prevalent up to the end of the Qing Dynasty. The reason why there was no word for homosexuality in Chinese was because it was never seen as a defining or integral part of a person’s identity. Male-male sexual and romantic bonds were construed as relationships between two people as opposed to a psychological essence that defined either person. Moreover, these same-sex bonds were seen as a perfectly acceptable and natural way of life in Imperial China (Hinsch, 1992).

The Assumptions of Homosexuality

Part of the reason why gay culture exists is as a counter-reaction to the oppression and marginalization of homosexuals over the past 150 years in Western culture, but the reason why that marginalization occurred in the first place was because a special category of life-long sexual preferences was created and defined as psychologically aberrant. There are two assumptions that were embedded in that definition and both are problematic. First of all, the concept of homosexuality, and more importantly our conceptualization of sexual orientation, assumes a life-long predisposition. The general sense is that if someone figures out that they are gay today, then they must have been gay when they were born, and they will be gay for the rest of their life. But there is simply not much empirical data that supports the position that sexual preference is a life-long predisposition that never wavers or changes because there are such strong social norms to identify with being straight, gay or bisexual. It is also unclear how many people would choose to have sex with both genders if there were not cultural norms for sexual preferences for one gender. Think about it this way. When someone realizes they are strongly attracted to Asians as sexual partners, they do not have to deal with the anxiety of wondering whether they will only like Asians for the rest of their life because there is no strong social norm for racial preference. But when someone thinks that they are attracted to someone of the same gender, they are suddenly forced to deal with a life-long decision.

Secondly, the concept of homosexuality has come to define an integral part of an individual’s identity in a way that other equally well-defined terms do not. For example, straight people do not think that being straight is an integral part of their identity. In personality psychology, we know that basic traits such as introversion can be measured accurately during childhood and are fairly stable over a life-time, but introverts do not typically report that introversion is an integral part of their identity. No freshmen at college will introduce themselves by saying, “I am an introvert. I realized I was an introvert when I was 13”. There is no Introvert Pride Day, nor is there anything referred to as Introvert Culture. Again, Gay Pride is a counter-reaction to a past injustice, but that injustice was itself created by a socially constructed category that was purposefully meant to be alienating.

Alternatives to Our Conceptualization of Human Sexuality

Western culture chose to conceptualize and divide sexuality in a unique and arbitrary way and there are indeed many other equally plausible ways of categorizing sexuality. For starters, without the assumption of a universal life-long sexual preference, we could have defined people as being “rigid and set” in their sexual preference versus people who are “flexible and adaptable”. We could have defined people as being attracted to people of their same ethnicity or someone of a different ethnicity (which gay men also do interestingly enough – eg. “rice queens”). The Western conceptualization of sexual orientation also conflates physical attraction with romantic attraction. It isn’t clear at all whether the two must be correlated, or whether one can be physically attracted to both genders but only romantically attracted to one. For that matter, it also isn’t clear whether some people are more susceptible to romantic attraction (as in limerence defined by Tennov, 1979) than others.

The concept of homosexuality is particularly misleading when it is applied to historical figures who lived in cultures or time periods where homosexuality was not defined. For example, it isn’t clear whether Chinese emperors who had favorite male concubines were gay - because in a culture where strong social norms for sexual preference did not exist, it could very well have been the case that favoritism among concubines arose out of sexual skills or features of physical anatomy rather than gender. In a contemporary example, are priests who molest altar boys gay or do altar boys become the targets of sexual predation because of the structure and context of priesthood? And for that matter, if a man who is aroused by homoerotic material uses reaction formation (one of Freud’s defense mechanisms) and acts hyper-masculine and marries to avoid being suspected of being gay, but has never had sex with another man – what is his sexual orientation? More importantly, is he a product of the social construction of homosexuality?

Answering Critiques from Biological Determinists

Biological determinists might argue that socially constructed categories are driven by evolutionarily adaptive cognitive frameworks. For example, there is a large literature on how people identify certain traits as being universally attractive. The reality, however, is that human nature appears to be adaptive as well. Pale and tanned skin go in an out of fashion. Plumpness was attractive in the medieval ages, while slim figures are attractive in contemporary western culture. One can argue there is a human need for social status, and a need to conform to social norms, but it is as a culture that we decide what those social norms are. For example, diamonds are actually not particularly rare or in any short supply, but the specifics of the socially-constructed importance of a fairly common stone in the ritual of courtship in western culture could not have been predicted by evolutionary psychology. Even if certain facets of human behavior could be explained solely by adaptive biological mechanisms, the problem is that the specificities of social norms and assumptions cannot be predicted by evolutionary psychology, and it is also hard for biologically deterministic theories to explain cross-cultural differences. And as long as those differences exist, there is room for the social construction of reality.

Some may argue that the near certainty of a gay gene necessitates the categorization for “gay” and justifies gay culture and identification with being gay, but there are many other genetically-determined traits that we don’t care to label in common usage. For example, there is no common word for people born without a sense of smell or taste the way we have words for the blind and the deaf, and colorblind people do not get together to talk about how the world of art has marginalized them. And as mentioned before, there are also genetically-determined traits such as introversion that people simply do not identify with as an integral part of their identity or create a culture from. Moreover, if biological frameworks and constraints determine our lexicon and worldview, it’s not clear why there was no word for homosexuality in Imperial China, or why it was suddenly construed as aberrant and pathological in Victorian England. In essence, the social construction of reality is focused on how we arbitrarily choose certain things in the spectrum of reality and construct them as problems or points of interest out of the millions of equally viable candidates for those positions.

Conclusion

We divide reality arbitrarily typically to create normative categories: right -vs- wrong, acceptable -vs- unacceptable, good -vs- bad, as well as to create ingroups and outgroups. Tacit in every language is the construction of a social reality that frames individuals and concepts as inside or outside the boundaries of social norms. This is why it's dangerous to buy into the assumptions of a language and culture without trying to examine its own biases. The irony of gay culture is that there is an emerging sense of the correct way of being gay - exemplified by TV shows like "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy". There is a certain way a gay man should dress, certain name brands that are favored, certain ways hair should be cut and styled, and certain skills and mannerisms that they should have.

This discussion is not meant to offend individuals who identify as being gay as much as a way to think about the boundaries and assumptions built into our culture’s conceptualization of sexuality and sexual orientation. We, as members of a Western culture, feel compelled to believe that our construction of sexual orientation and creating the label “gay” shows our progressiveness, but what if the oppression of homosexuals was a purely Western construction? What if individuals, including several emperors, who engaged in male-male sexual and romantic bonds in Imperial China were accepted as normal and natural? The marginalization of a socially-constructed group is what promotes identification with that group in a counter-reaction (such as blacks or gays), but in fact, the existence of those labels signify problematic divisions of an arbitrary reality and is mainly used to oppress certain groups of individuals. The irony is that a world where people do not identify or have labels for “straight” and “gay” would be a far more liberating culture to live in because it implies those differences are accepted as part of a natural variation of human nature and not an aberration that requires a special label.

References:

Foucault, Michel (1980). The History of Sexuality: An Introduction.
Hinsch, Bret (1992). Passions of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China.
Searle, John (1997). The Construction of Social Reality.
Tennov, Dorothy (1979). Love and Limernece.

[Rosacrux redux]

Good article and very thoughtfull... but it is basically wrong. Homosexuality as concept and term, is certainly not a "recent western invention" or whatever. Exclusively Homosexual behaviour has been recorded even in ancient Greece (as "astray from norm" and "abnormal-grotesque" - the word in use at the time was "kinaidos") and many cultures had words and patters for exclusively homosexual people and relations.

Even though the article's rational seems flawless and concise as can be, this little detail tears it's structure down...

[ICantSpellDawg]

fair enough, but a huge problem with history is that a thousand authors can write one thing and a thousand more can write something that totally refutes it.

[Watchman]

And when you are writing concisely in general terms, there just plain are corners that need to be shaved in the interests of brevity and readability. If you start listing exceptions and variations and whatnot, you'll often still be doing that ten pages later... As far as I can read it I don't think the author of the article particularly means that the conception of homosexuality as such is a "recent western invention" in the meaning that other times and cultures did not recognize it or have words and opinions for it, but rather that the "recent western" (and relatively hegemonic) conception of it is no more "universal" or "natural" or whatever than any other - in other words, any less a cultural artifact.

Other times and places naturally devised their own responses and attitudes to this fairly universal phenomenom (well, I've never heard of a culture that didn't have some stance on it...); I think what the author is trying to communicate is the idea that the "modern western" conception where homosexuality is seen as a sort of fundamental, defining trait around which the whole social, personal and/or moral identity of a person is or can be constructed is rather unusual when viewed as a wider perspective. This is not to say that other times and cultures might not have done the same, and for example exclusive homosexuality is a major enough deviation from what might tentatively be considered the biology-based human norm that it should not be surprising such people would be seen as odd in the least by their contemporaries; that such nonstandard orientation probably also tended to play havoc with assorted conceptions of procreation, sexual and gender roles, systems and symbolisms related to family lines and inheritances etc. etc. must not have helped any. But that doesn't mean it was necessarily considered a fundamentally identity-defining trait, the way it tends to be in Western culture.

Of course, as usual female deviations of the norms tended to be viewed in a markedly dimmer light...