The transwoman eunuch then disappears from the narrative. Her castration and decision to live the rest of her life dressed as, and identifying as, a woman is not judged, condemned or even commented upon by the trial bishops. This suggests that this transwoman eunuch could not have been the only one and that the church of the time did not view this kind of 'gender identity' as illicit or improper, even though we see quite clearly that Princess Clothild was prejudiced against eunuchs like her who chose to live post-castration as women and we find her openly 'misgendering' (to use the modern word) this transwoman before the court. Yet the church court takes the side of the transwoman eunuch and corroborates her defence against Clothild's accusations.
...
As the historian Roland Bentancourt explains: "In my current research, I have been looking at how saints’ lives, medical handbooks, letters, and art are articulate and self-aware about the various ways in which gender identity can be affirmed through both ascetic and surgical practices". Further in his book, Byzantine Intersectionality: Sexuality, Gender and Race in the Middle Ages (2020), Bentancourt makes clear the medieval Eastern Roman Empire based in Constantinople was "an immensely gender-diverse empire with exceptionally complex approaches to gender [...] medieval writers, philosophers, theologians and doctors studied what we may think of today as modern issues including trans and nonbinary gender identities."
