They made sense in a world where trans and gender nonconforming people don’t exist. In this mythical past you imagine, you having sex with a masc presenting woman wouldn’t be straight either, as you’d be having sex with a queer freak. It’s never been about genitals.
Anal sex, hetero or homosexual, was sodomy, and while they usually went after homosexuals, they would be willing to go after “straight” people if it interfered with the woman pumping out babies. If you’re visibly not fitting into the mold, people will deny you’re straight. Many people don’t mind, but the conservatives would throw people out of thefi group if you “feel” off to them.
Trans people have always existed and GNC people have always existed. The old understanding was never accurate intentionally. It excluded people by design, and is only losing meaning because we’re actually questioning it. When it was not questioned, it wasn’t somehow more accurate. We’re not creating new definitions, we’re pinning down the unspoken parts of the original definition.
I’m not trying to minimize anyones life experience with my previous statement. We try to improve society as time moves forward, and if we are successful at that, that means that in the past things weren’t as good/inclusive/knowledgeable as they are now. Public knowledge on sex/gender/biology has advanced a lot since we started using the terms straight gay and bi, I was merely acknowledging the past existed as it was, and that they worked for the more limited public knowledge that we had then, we know more now and they’ve become less relevant/useful because of that. The one thing you are wrong about though is yes, it WAS primarily about genitals, if you had a dick and liked dick, you were gay, same with if you had a vag and liked vag. If you liked both, it was bi, and if you liked the opposite it was straight. Society as a whole didnt fully understand the difference between sex and gender then though, so what genitals you were interested in and what gender you were interested in were used interchangeably, but that didnt stop the primary purpose as it was generally understood back then from being specifically which sexual organs you wanted to do the nasty with.
Tl:dr: as we advance our understanding of our world and old models become inefficient/outdated, it doesnt mean they werent compatable with our modern understanding of the world out of malice, it just means we have advanced to the point they no longer work
People don’t think that rigidly or uniformly. Straight meant opposite genitals AND opposite apparent gender. If one or the other was violated, many would consider things not straight. Some did think it was only genitals, but many would disagree. Just like how white supremacists will say Jews aren’t white, conservatives would identify either same genitals OR same apparent gender as not being straight, even if many people didn’t. Some people might have considered apparent gender to matter, and genitals to not.
They’d all use the same word, but mean different things. That’s why “American values” means liberal democracy to some, Christian nationalism to others, unregulated capitalism to many, and a combination of the three to most people. They all think they’re in agreement, but in reality they aren’t.
Language is always fluid and inconsistent; allowing room for semantic abuse. It’s how fascists bind an unpopular idea, like queers being pedos, to the more popular idea of us grooming kids into being queer. We don’t make people queer either, but it’s a more common of belief that can boost the popularity of us being pedophiles through the vague word “grooming.” If someone accepts that we groom children into gayness, they might spread the term groomer, or internalize it and start to believe we groom kids in other ways.
White could just mean skin color, but it wasn’t only used that way. Straight sometimes just meant genitals, but it was also used to other people that didn’t fit in for just as long.
They made sense in a world where trans and gender nonconforming people don’t exist. In this mythical past you imagine, you having sex with a masc presenting woman wouldn’t be straight either, as you’d be having sex with a queer freak. It’s never been about genitals.
Anal sex, hetero or homosexual, was sodomy, and while they usually went after homosexuals, they would be willing to go after “straight” people if it interfered with the woman pumping out babies. If you’re visibly not fitting into the mold, people will deny you’re straight. Many people don’t mind, but the conservatives would throw people out of thefi group if you “feel” off to them.
Trans people have always existed and GNC people have always existed. The old understanding was never accurate intentionally. It excluded people by design, and is only losing meaning because we’re actually questioning it. When it was not questioned, it wasn’t somehow more accurate. We’re not creating new definitions, we’re pinning down the unspoken parts of the original definition.
I’m not trying to minimize anyones life experience with my previous statement. We try to improve society as time moves forward, and if we are successful at that, that means that in the past things weren’t as good/inclusive/knowledgeable as they are now. Public knowledge on sex/gender/biology has advanced a lot since we started using the terms straight gay and bi, I was merely acknowledging the past existed as it was, and that they worked for the more limited public knowledge that we had then, we know more now and they’ve become less relevant/useful because of that. The one thing you are wrong about though is yes, it WAS primarily about genitals, if you had a dick and liked dick, you were gay, same with if you had a vag and liked vag. If you liked both, it was bi, and if you liked the opposite it was straight. Society as a whole didnt fully understand the difference between sex and gender then though, so what genitals you were interested in and what gender you were interested in were used interchangeably, but that didnt stop the primary purpose as it was generally understood back then from being specifically which sexual organs you wanted to do the nasty with.
Tl:dr: as we advance our understanding of our world and old models become inefficient/outdated, it doesnt mean they werent compatable with our modern understanding of the world out of malice, it just means we have advanced to the point they no longer work
People don’t think that rigidly or uniformly. Straight meant opposite genitals AND opposite apparent gender. If one or the other was violated, many would consider things not straight. Some did think it was only genitals, but many would disagree. Just like how white supremacists will say Jews aren’t white, conservatives would identify either same genitals OR same apparent gender as not being straight, even if many people didn’t. Some people might have considered apparent gender to matter, and genitals to not.
They’d all use the same word, but mean different things. That’s why “American values” means liberal democracy to some, Christian nationalism to others, unregulated capitalism to many, and a combination of the three to most people. They all think they’re in agreement, but in reality they aren’t.
Language is always fluid and inconsistent; allowing room for semantic abuse. It’s how fascists bind an unpopular idea, like queers being pedos, to the more popular idea of us grooming kids into being queer. We don’t make people queer either, but it’s a more common of belief that can boost the popularity of us being pedophiles through the vague word “grooming.” If someone accepts that we groom children into gayness, they might spread the term groomer, or internalize it and start to believe we groom kids in other ways.
White could just mean skin color, but it wasn’t only used that way. Straight sometimes just meant genitals, but it was also used to other people that didn’t fit in for just as long.