Comments on: The Daily Agenda for Tuesday, August 28

By: Jim Burroway

Jim Burroway — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 22:07:58 +0000

Jim Hlavac, I agree completely. But then, we’ve had an entire century to better sort these complicated issues out since Ulrichs made his stab at it. Pioneers nearly always get things wrong. They are pioneers however for being among the first to understand that there were questions needing answering in the first place.

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 21:32:37 +0000

I agree Jim, I was female in a male body but all the gay men I know are quite happy with their male bodies and in no way want to be women.

By: Jim Hlavac

Jim Hlavac — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 21:27:54 +0000

if gay men have “female psyches,” as Ulrich, and others, have said — wouldn’t that mean that we are somehow “female in a male body”? How then can two gay men fit together — why would we go after each other? Wouldn’t that make us really some sort of male-embodied lesbians? And you say that some gay men think they are girls when they are younger, and Ulrich put it like that to, you say, but when puberty hits they discover they are gay. If the “female psyche” theory is true, we’re really women who seek the other men who have female psyches women. Yet, why do we all know we are men, with mens psyche’s? No, there’s something deeper to gayness than just switching psyhes and bodies.

By: Soren456

Soren456 — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:42:41 +0000

The quotation out of “Araxes” sets the stage almost completely for the 140 years that followed. Ulrichs had every right to take pride in his work.

By: gar

gar — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 15:53:39 +0000

Jim,
Your history write ups are always informative, but this one seems particularly good. Many thanks!