Transgenderism is an absurdity that never existed before

1. Ancient and non‑Western records show gender variance, not a modern invention

Anthropologists and historians have documented individuals and institutionalized third‑gender roles stretching back millennia — from gala priests in Sumer and galli priests in Hellenistic contexts to documented gender‑variant persons in ancient Egypt and South Asian hijra traditions — indicating that people who crossed or lived outside strict binary gender roles are not new ^{[5] [1] [6]}.

2. Modern terms and medical frameworks are recent but built on older recognition

While the English term “transgender” and contemporary clinical concepts emerged in the 20th century, medical and philosophical attempts to describe a mismatch between body and inner gender date at least to the 19th century — for example Karl Ulrichs writing of a “female psyche caught in a male body” in 1864 — and twentieth‑century clinicians like Harry Benjamin and Magnus Hirschfeld laid groundwork for modern gender‑affirming care ^{[7] [8] [2]}.

3. Historians warn about anachronism and the limits of retroactive labeling

Scholars of trans history stress that applying present‑day categories to past lives risks distortion; historians debate whether some historical figures should be read as transgender, cross‑dressers, third‑gender, or something else, and they urge that transgender history is best approached as evolving practices of self‑reinvention and identity rather than a monolithic, timeless category ^{[3] [1]}.

4. The record includes persecution and institutional study as well as recognition

The historical record is mixed: there is evidence of social roles and recognition in many societies, but also instances of surveillance, medicalization, and violence — for instance the destruction of Magnus Hirschfeld’s work under the Nazis and the imprisonment of gender‑variant people — showing that visibility has long carried risk and contested meanings ^[8].

5. Recent increases in visibility and identification are the subject of active debate

Contemporary data indicate rising numbers of people identifying as transgender or non‑binary, and commentators disagree about causes; some emphasize greater social acceptance and awareness, while others argue for social or peer influences and changing diagnostic and treatment pathways — a debate exemplified by critical pieces that question drivers of the recent surge and by medical organizations that support gender‑affirming care ^{[4] [9] [7]}.

6. Science and scholarship have both advanced and erred; criticisms matter

The academic record includes rigorous work that distinguishes gender identity from sexual orientation and that supports gender‑affirming care, but it also contains flawed and harmful research histories — investigations that pursued pathologizing or speculative explanations have produced troubling episodes and warrant scrutiny when shaping policy or clinical practice ^{[10] [9] [7]}.

7. Conclusion: historical continuity plus contemporary transformation, not a recent absurdity

The strongest reading of the assembled reporting is that gender variance has longstanding historical and cross‑cultural roots and that the modern emergence of a medicalized, politicized “transgender” category reflects both continuity with older phenomena and new language, institutions, and debates; calling transgenderism an “absurdity that never existed before” ignores substantial evidence and the complex scholarly caveats about categorization and change ^{[1] [3] [2]}.