It's not my perspective that asserts this though, it is yours, or more aggressively MysteriousGX's. The concept of cis- only exists as a counterpart to trans-. You've asserted this artificial identity spectrum that leads to the inevitable conclusion that cis- has dominated society for generations. Whether that is explained by being the natural state or due to persecution is going to depend who you're talking to, but I'm not interested in rationalizing imaginary histories.
In what way have I done that. I've outright pointed out that trans people don't actually exist in history. But if the conclusion you want to take from that is that the gender politics of history are somehow devoid of "domination", and that historical systems of domination have no bearing on the treatment of trans people in the present, then you've pretty conclusively demonstrated the way in which that argument is inadequate on its own, because it's leading
you to a faulty conclusion. History before the emergence of biological science was not a gender-anarchist utopia in which anything went, it involved an enforcement of gender normative behaviour far, far more brutal and uncompromising than anything that exists today.
Also, the concept of trans only exists in counterpart to some imagined point of normativity that, until we gave it a name, was largely deemed unworthy of discussion. The idea of being trans wasn't invented by trans people themselves, it was invented by a medical establishment overwhelmingly concerned with normalizing the "deviant" behaviour of non-conforming people. This was done under the logic of nature, that men and women possessed naturally distinct natures that aligned them towards particular roles, and the idea of nature in this case is one that
can be followed back into history far beyond the birth of the biological sciences. Pamphlets were being written in Jacobean England declaring that women were becoming satanic hermaphrodites and society was about to collapse as the divinely ordained natural order that separated men and women was under threat. There are reasons for that that are specific to the time, the repeal of sumptuary laws and rapid urbanization creating a large population of disenfranchised women, but the logic that categorized these things as an offence against nature has a largely continuous history extending all the way to the present day.
As tempting as it may be to fall back on some kind of absolute nominalism and declare that trans people only came into existence with the
word trans, it's a supremely arrogant presumption. It assumes that the experience or state of being a trans person could only be intelligible through a single gendered discourse (a discourse that was created in the European medical profession with the purpose of oppressing and eliminating trans people) and that no other discursive environment could possibly contain these experiences, which is blatantly not true. Similar experiences are found literally everywhere in history, and there's nothing inherently wrong with translating those experience, since almost every modern account of a historical phenomenon represents a process of translation.
Ok I think Tstorm is more on about the work of John William Money and the modern understanding of Gender etc based on his works.
What do you mean by this?
Firstly, the modern understanding of gender is not based on the work of Money. Money was a doctor who specialized in the treatment of intersexed people, and the greatest theoretical advancement to emerge from his work on intersexed people was about
sex. Namely, Money observed that sex did not represent discreet biological categories, as was generally understood at the time, but a conditional alignment of traits, which ultimately included the adoption of gendered behaviour. In this regard, he was largely correct.
Again, I have to point this out every time someone brings up Money, but the one area conservatives seem to shit themselves inside out over him over is the one area where they would actually agree with him. Money believed that gender conforming behaviour was a necessary prerequisite for happiness, and that children should be pressured to adopt normal and clear gendered behaviour, including heterosexuality, and actively discouraged from any kind of gender-nonconformity. This lead him to advocate some extremely abusive treatment aimed at normalizing the gender identities of intersexed children. Money's work also lead to a clear policy of "correcting" the genitals of intersexed children while they were too young to consent, that only ended relatively recently.
Ironically, it's conservatives who are now advocating for the continuation of Money's more controversial work in the form of conversion therapy, active discouragement in the case of trans children, and so forth.
Money never worked with trans people, and would not have been supportive of trans people as he was not supportive of any form of gender non-conforming behaviour. His approach to his intersexed patients was that they were unfortunate victims who needed to be fixed so that they could integrate into society. Almost every awful thing he did can be traced back to that belief that gender conformity was required in order to live a happy or worthwhile life.
I don't know where anyone got this idea that Money created the modern understanding of gender, it's genuinely baffling to me. The modern understanding of gender is not the result of any one person, and if it was it would probably be someone like Simone de Beauvoir who basically had all the fundamentals down in the 1940s.