Comments by "Debany Doombringer" (@debanydoombringer1385) on "Transgender Viking Warriors? DELUSIONAL" video.

@harms123 Wrong. Just wrong. Some of it as far as gender roles, yes. However, throughout history, there are found identical roles. Do other mammals that clearly have roles based on sex also have a "social construct"? Even those that don't live in a herd therefore don't fall into the category of having a social group? Sorry but there are clear sexual differences between men and women and this thing called evolutionary traits that determine a lot. I really hope you're not insinuating women are exactly like men just deformed because they failed to develop male sexual organs. Something believed until fairly recent history. These ideas and beliefs are actually moving us backwards, not forwards and I personally find it hilarious how people so uneducated in history and anthropology aren't even aware of it while claiming to be more intelligent forward thinking.
7
He brought that up.
6
The idea of gender, which is just a term in language, wasn't directly related to your sex is a very modern day concept. Women or men that didn't fit their societal roles wouldn't have been viewed as a different "gender" but more as deformed or messed up. For example, the 2 spirit people today like to include in the LGBT. Native Americans believed your sex was tied directly to your soul. The soul determined if you were male or female or spirit if you will. So to explain those that didn't perform their roles, they were said to possess both a male and female spirit ie they were both sexes. If you went back in time and told them it was a 3rd gender, they'd look at you like you were crazy because the concept didn't exist. They also weren't treated as special in the way people today like to try to claim. They were treated as less than women. They couldn't hold any position within society. All of this mess falls under the noble savage myth and I have no idea why it continues when it was determined to be racist several years ago.
6
@Citrusbanan I think maybe you're correct. That it's a misrepresentation of the word warrior. Warriors didn't ever refer to defense but to offense. Not saying warriors didn't defend, but the title was for those who conducted war, hence WARrior.
5
It's like the 2 spirit stuff. It was an insult and they were treated as less than women, but "oh a 3rd gender so they were better than today" persists.
1