>>3047032That's not true, though.
>>3053547>is a man."no, u"
Debate championship material over here.
And if that art is garbage, then most of this thread is garbage, because that artist is representative of this thing's whole concept.
And yeah, actually, this thread is quite bad.
Why is all the art here so bad?
I know, I know, Western art thread, but still
>>3053549No, eunuchs are different.
There is no such thing as a eunuch man. A eunuch is a eunuch.
In various cultures throughout antiquity, and extending into the modern age in Imperial China, eunuchs had been often regarded in these heteronormative societies as neither men nor women.
One Assyrian inscription divided the inhabitants of a particular area between men, women, and eunuchs. Some cultures found eunuchs to have a particular beauty or aesthetic purity that was highly prized.
You don't just get to cut off your dick and/or balls and call yourself a eunuch. Your society has to have developed eunuch as a social category, and you need to abide by certain expectations of behavior. You can only take on certain jobs.
There's a famous story of a boy who, in the last days of Imperial China, applied to be a eunuch and had his genitals removed. Pu Yi was deposed, though, so the imperial system collapsed, and consequently, the eunuch system. Therefore, he was no longer a eunuch. Only a man without a dick or balls.
Eunuchs were not trans. They were not NB. They were not men without genitals. They were eunuchs. Sui generis.
