Talk:Two-spirit

This was all from memory, as my copy of the book is in storage in Illinois.

---

Actually, the Navajo word is nadleeh; the Lakota word is winkte.

---

I think it should be made clear that there is a lot of confusing information in this article as it now stands. It has a very Eurocentric anthropological view. I would encourage folks to look at the work done by Indigenous, Two-Spirit identified folks, such as Terry Tafoya, Beatrice Medicine, and Wesley Thomas rather than rely on the information here.

The idea that most if not all Native American and Canadian First Nation peoples had the concept of two-spirit people seems questionable. There was an immense range of cultures and languages across the continent. I suspect that this kind of homogenizing generalization isn't suppported by studies that pay closer attention to the individual, indigenous cultures of the US and Canada. It all sounds too much like facile statements about "the Western Mind" or "the Arab Soul" or "the Oriental Mentality" or "the Native American Closeness to Nature." Generalities rather than generalizations.Interlingua 06:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The Navajo term is nádleeh ~ nádleehé (nominalization in -é "the one who..." of the iterative of a verbal root meaning "to turn; become; emerge", i.e. "permanently changing", read: "emergent"). Plural marking on nouns is not obligatory. Where did the info come from that the term would not take -ké as in 'at'ééké "girls" but (probably -?! or what else might have been meant?) form an irregular plural such as dine'é? The form is, btw, the very same as in 'Asdzą́ą́ Nádleehé "Changing Woman".

There indeed maybe some sort of convergence nowadays, as the two-spirit movement in a narrower sense is a neotraditionalist innovation that partly seems to be incompatible to traditional horribile dictu berdachism ("two-spiritedness" ironically in some traditional cultures would quite uncharmingly relate to stuff concerning blackmagic, undead and such).

Indeed, the phenomenological range of two-spiritedness (in the modern, wider sense) in various cultures is enormous. (Which hopefully should also become clear from delving into the vast amount of literature that is available.) There mere fact that (also in other parts of the world) there are more than 2 sex (and I consciously choose not write "gender", as a sex/gender distinction as in Angloamerican culture is anything but universal) categories, and that even a taxonomic, hierarchical ordering of such categories may occur, is not to too telling.

Heike B. 11:06, 11 Apr 2006 (CEDT)

Time

Bunches of edits, to dispell the notion that two-spirit is an old concept, that all two-spirits are male, and that being a two-spirit implies men acting as women (rather than a man-woman acting as a man-woman, regardless of anatomy). Ronabop 10:11, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The article still needs a lot of work regarding "Two-Spirit", the modern concept or gender-role, and its historical sources in both American Indians' conceptions of gender roles and the intrusion of European influenced gender roles.

For instance: "These individuals are often viewed as having two spirits, and two sexes, at the same time. Their dress is usually mixture of male and female articles. They have distinct gender and social roles in their tribes. For instance, there was one ceremony during the Sun Dance that was performed only by a member of this group."

Only the last sentence is in past tense, because it is describing a pre-Two Spirit gender-role and activitiy.

I suggest we break the article in two large sections, pre-TS [Two-Spirit], and TS [Two-Spirit].

Hyacinth 20:29, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pre-TS and TS? What exactly is that supposed to mean? Contemporaty and historical is a possible distincion, or pre-colonialisation or something, but pre- and post-TS mean exactly nothing, because I don't think that there is any reasonable relation to a particular medical diagnosis. Not to mention that most "modern" people who call themseves "two-spirit" are not transsexual in the first place. -- AlexR 22:28, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, TS = Two-Spirit. Hyacinth 06:01, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK - but this does not make too much sense, either - what is supposed to be pre-Two-Spirit and (post-)Two-Spirit? I guess you mean something like historical and modern, but I take that guess from what you wrote, the words do not make much sense to me - or is it just me, and I am a bit slow here? Also, I don't think that splitting the article would make much sense, as far as I know many two-spirited people particularly wish to continue the old tradition; and both articles would be rather short, too. The article itself should simply have two headings, currently, I think this would be sufficient. Just my 2 cents. -- AlexR 10:02, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So, we agree that the article should have two sections, one about pre-colonial __________, and one about colonial and post-colonial two spiritedness.

---

--- Deleted this section: "Today, groups of cross gendered male bodied persons have picked up the tradition of the two-spirit and put them into practice. These groups include the Radical Faeries, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence and others" because it is a misnomer to name non-Native groups "Two-Spirit." The Radical Faeries and Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence draw on European, not First Nations traditions, and the use of "Two-Spirit" to speak of non-Native people is usually considered offensive.

---

I disagree that this should have been deleted. There are non-Natives using the term for themselves. Whether or not they 'should' do so is another issue. I'd instead expect that Wikipedia include this reference, even if there is a notation that to the effect that 'this may not be seen as apropriate by Native Americans'. (Though a digression, my use of 'Native American' is another example of allowing people to choose the names they use for themselves.)

Also, I believe that the concept of "Two-Spirit" is not as pervasive among Native Americans as is implied. (I had never heard of this phrase or nor the particular concepts directly related to it until in an academic situation.) I do not intend to say that the concept is inapplicable for all Native American traditions, however. I will suggest that concepts of strict gender role have never had a real analogue among at least Creeks.

I totally agree with the above and put it back again. especially because this article is also part of the LGBT. To make the distinction between 'Native' and 'Europan' more clear I'll say 'use the notion of 'two spirit'and build upon that'--Eezie 01:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC) --

Rather than splitting this article into two, it might be better to indicate that US/Western-style achetypical gender roles have not existed as a complete system among many Native American traditions -- I'm avoiding using 'tribe' or 'nation' to avoid other semantic/diction/political problems. I'd suggest that generally roles -- whether currently classed in US society as roles of gender, religion, politics, medicine, psychology, what-have-you -- come to exist as the need for such roles come about and that the people appropriately suited for them are available to fill such roles. When the people and/or need for the roles no longer exist then the roles are no longer filled.

In less abstract terms -- and to couch it in terms that more easily fit US/Western gender roles -- when soldiers are needed, the most physically capable rise to fill that need; likewise when tender caring is needed those able to provide that step forward. It would generally be accepted, then, that should there be a person that can do both, they do do both without question by others in the society because that person is merely 'doing what they do' (and consequently providing the best possible for the society).

I would then explain the etymolygy of 'Two-Spirit' (I have no idea which language is the source of this English translation). (I have to wonder if this term in English was put forth by a non-Native academic researcher, but I digress...) Finally I would explain that both some Native Americans who would be classed as 'Queer' or 'Trans' (i.e. 'Transsexual' or 'Transgender') in the commonly-held US/Western society and some non-natives are using the 'Two-Spirit' to describe themselves, though they may maintain different meanings for the term.

Note that I would not split the ideas as pre/post-invasion (aka pre/post-colonial) or historical/current. Native American people, cultures, ideas are indeed extant, though their essential elements are not brought out in the commonly-held US/Western society.

--

Making diction edits, particularly to remove the use of 'braves' as this is another inappropriate usage. mossymosquito 21 Jun 2005

There indeed is no universally consistent terminology that people would apply to themselves and others. Of course, they do know both traditional and anglo (two-spirited person, homosexual, transsexual etc.) terms (and there indeed are both — still very viable — traditional as well as modern, neotraditionalist concepts around), but in talking to you they probably will pick what they think you might understand best. You also should be prepared to them being discreet and respectful. If you talk too long and too much about someone absent, you might end up like my former assistant who talked to the bundle keeper's sister about my "queer activities" — until getting the reply: "I saw that. To me she's a person." You also shouldn't get on the nerves of "TS" consultants, unless you want to risk a harsh response like the ethnographer who tried to interrogate Kinipai... Heike B. 11:48, 11 Apr 2006 (UTC)

Removed terms

• Blackfeet
  • Male: Aki-skassi
  • Female: Aki-Gwan

I removed the above terms as there is no source and no indication of which group called "Blackfeet" uses those terms. It is not the Blackfoot of the Blackfoot Nation located in Montana. Hyacinth 20:20, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See http://www.nwtwospiritsociety.org/history.html Ronabop 12:47, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The article linked to above doesn't specify any more than the wikipedia article does.

1. See: Blackfoot. WHICH Blackfoot group uses the terms?
2. According to Bruno Nettl (1989) there is no documentation of MTF (for lack of a better term) Two-Spirit folks, while there are well documented FTM or "manly hearted women".

Hyacinth 22:30, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

a'kiikoan ~ aakiikoan, which is probably what was meant by "Aki-Gwan", simply is the word for "girl", composed of a'kii ~ aakii "woman" and -koan "person" (the latter as in siksikakoan "Blackfoot person" etc.). So, sorry, no "manly hearted woman" here. The terms (Siksika A a'kiihka'si "acting like a woman", aawoowa'kii "misaligned woman"), with dialectal variation (Siksika A/B, Kainaa-Piikani A/B/C), are in use with all groups. In case of doubt, you may look up words in Frantz/Russell's dictionary, curricula and researchers' fieldnotes. Heike B.22:25, 10 Apr 2006 (CEDT)

Corn goddess

Does anybody else question the validity of this statement?

• "The Hopis used to hold a ritual in which a 16 year old male-bodied two-spirit was dressed as the Corn Goddess. All the men of the village then performed anal sex with this individual in order to bring fertility to the corn crop for the year."

This sounds too much like fabrication to me. See Cornholio; specifically the line: "anal sex, called "cornholing" in some circles (perhaps because of the body's difficulty in properly digesting corn kernels, which often show up almost whole in stool.)"

I could be wrong, of course, but a claim of this nature should be verified. It sounds like a fabrication arising from the typical humorous association between anal sex and corn. If it is indeed just some editors fantasy then leaving it in is disparaging to the the Hopi nation.   —Teknic^T-M-C 23:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Since there is no citation, I think it should be removed. If wrong it is probably very offensive to Hopi people. 金 (Kim) 15:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I haven't answered so far, because while I am sure I read that before, I don't remember where. Therefore, deleting it would probably not be appropriate. Also, I fail to see how that is "disparaging" or "offending" the Hopi people, at least any more than any other apocryphical reports (which are not exactly uncommon) -- if the report is wrong in the first place. I don't think that it is appropriate to remove material out of some sense of political correctness just because there is no source given - which is true for about 99% of information in the Wikipedia. -- AlexR 21:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be very offending to incorrectly state that all Hopi men regularly sodomized 16 year old boys. I realize that most info on WP doesn't cite a source, but everything must either be verifiable or be deleted. (See Wikipedia:Verifiability). I've done a lot of searching myself and have found nothing to back this up. A few months ago I even emailed the Office of Public Relations of the Hopi tribe and asked them but recieved no reply. I couldn't bring myself to call them and ask about this particular subject, but if somebody else wants to try then here's the contact info.   —Teknic^T-M-C 03:08, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, well, your indignation about "all Hopi men regularly sodomized 16 year old boys" is exactly what I mean by political correctness censoring stuff. You know, that sentence betrays such an incredible amount of ignorance that it hurts. "Sodomize" for example is a bit of a loaded word, right. Make sure the act itself carries the same load for Hopis, or don't use it. "Boys" in that context is also a bit tricky. Not to mention that fertility rites may be something very stange to the average modern western person, but they would have - this one, if it took place, or any other one - carried entirely different connotations to those performing them. Most certainly they cannot be linked to sexual abuse of minors, as your edit implies. And that is the problem - you don't even consider looking at the alleged ritual without imposing your moral judgement on it - and then demand content to be removed because of your moral judgement. But, as far as I know, that has never been a reason to remove content, and I don't really see why we should start that now. If Hopi people say it is not true and are offended by it, then by all means, let's remove that. But not because of some pc-ish "I am sure it must offend them". BTW, if you have access to US libraries, there are quite a few books out there on two-spirited people, which could be checked. Being in Germany, this is a bit tricky for me. -- AlexR 10:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, where did all that come from? That was too many unfounded accusations and attacks for me to even know where to start. Actually, your entire statement was so unfounded that I don't feel the need to. However, you did a fine job of avoiding the only important issue, that is Wikipedia:Verifiability. I can assure you that I would be the last person to censor verifiable information and I would appreciate it if you wouldn't jump to conclusions regarding my motives. I would be very pleased to finally be able to verify the claim and so we can leave it in.   —Teknic^T-M-C 05:29, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I figured out that the anonymous contributor was actually Sister Unity/Bennett Schneider and s/he said that the info was from "The Other Face of Love" by Raymond de Becker.   —Teknic^T-M-C 23:16, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

It was part of a large edit [1] of April 2004. In reference to a people fertilizing their crops (and corn was certainly a common crop) through sexual ritual, it's not exactly an uncommon or offensive practice in a fairly wide variety of cultures, so it's non-sensical to think of it as being somehow patently offensive. The apparent source itself (The Other Face of Love) was written back in 1965, and shows up in several University libraries' GLBT collections. I don't have a copy of the text here to check where de Becker sourced it from. Ronabop 03:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Sex and relationships

I so totally agree and understand the point AlexR is making about the Corn goddess. There is nothing more offensive than denying my sexuality. Is there any evidence for the 'scalp dancing' and why is there no discussion about that? (Not that I mind) Anyway, the original quotation about the corn godess ritual is no longer appropiate in the current text. But as there is evidence, I added 'sexual rituals' to the summary. --Eezie 01:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

What about the scalp dancing? You mean the "led scalp-dances" in the article? What do you want to discuss about it? -- WiccaIrish 12:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to to start discussing the scalp-dancing. The point is that as soon as sex is involved there is a discussion and removal. While bloody or agressive acts are taken for granted. That's a BIG cultural bias. Think of the disgust two men kissing can raise, while a boxing match raises cheers. And see the analogy with the (christian) culturally-biased attitude "You may be gay, as long as you don't act upon it". Don't you think it's odd that there is NO mentioning of Two-spirit people having relationships or sex (with males/ females?) anywhere in the article? Where they a-sexual? Did they (have to) live alone? What form(s) did this part of their lives take? Denying or ignoring of such an important part of a persons life is in my experience the worst form of bigotry. As long as this kind of questions are not answered, this article is incomplete and not NPOV. --Eezie 15:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Just my $.02: I completely agree with you. I couldn't believe it myself that there wasn't anything about sexual practice in this article; imagine if someone from somewhere unfamiliar with "gay" identity were to read an article that ignored sexual practices. And I mean...come on! Wikipedia has close-up photos of erections, century-old pornography, etc., for informative purposes.

One little quibble, though: The Christian prohibition on male-male or female-female sexual contact isn't a "culturally biased attitude." It's a moral teaching of their religion (some denominations, at least), and therefore becomes a part of the culture of communities following that religion. I'm not saying don't say the moral teaching is incorrect, and the rule abhorrent; I'm just saying it's not really a matter of their being "biased."205.212.73.97 16:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Artzau, your source?

Artzau, what is your source for the word "londo" among the Shatt of Sudan? I would like to add it to the list but I need to verify it. -- WiccaIrish 10:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed "terms"

Being bold, I removed the ridiculously long list of terms (uncited) in dozens and dozens of languages. Partly because the article isn't about names for two-spirits in various languages, it's about two-spirits themselves and about the history and ideology behind it all. The list doesn't belong on this page, in my view. If someone wanted to create a new List of names for two-spirits or something like that, they could try, but it would probably be deleted, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. These same policies apply to stuff within articles as well, not just entire articles...as far as I'm aware. And in any case, how did the section even really benefit this article at all? It's doesn't really add any relevant, pertinent information to the main topic at hand...

So that's my rationale for removing the section. My apologies if consensus turns out to be wildly against me... --Miskwito 23:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I added the terms back until others weigh in. Though my opinions remain the same. Maybe the list could be transwikied to Wiktionary? That's really more where this sort of thing is suited for, I think. --Miskwito 23:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You can move the list of words to Wiktionary. I spent a great deal of time expanding that list. The sources that were recommended are the best to consult and the most carefully researched. -- WiccaIrish 10:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

2007-03-24 Automated pywikipediabot message

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 04:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Most Nations; Gender; "Modern" TS

A few small things I noticed of small things I noticed. I apologize if I missed them in a previous discussion:

(1) This sentence jumped out at me for its inappropriateness: Two-spirit people, specifically male-bodied (biologically male, gender female), could go to war and have access to male activities such as sweat lodges. However, they also took on female roles such as cooking and other domestic responsibilities. ...Right there, in the very sentence itself, it explains why it's inappropriate to refer to TS as "gender female" (or "gender male" for biofem TS, I guess).

(2) The intro part about "many, if not most" nations recognizing TS social roles. There doesn't seem to be much in the article to back that up. And, given the enormous cultural differences among American nations, it actually seems a little unlikely. Remember, it isn't just whites who indulge in "they had respect for nature," etc., romantic bullshit and cultural generalizations. We should be on guard against this kind of thing in this article, and avoid wishful thinking. Which brings up...

(3) The list of "modern" TS. The mere fact that they are listed separately from "historical" TS should set off some alarm bells. How many of these folks are just plain old queer Indians? All the "historical" TSs, presumably (I didn't check the links), operated in a specific social role recognized by their particular national culture (roles which, incidentally, did not correspond very well to identities like "gay" or "transgendered," and which certainly weren't about blanket respect and freedom for personal sexual identity in the way we now value being "queer-friendly" and "nonjudgmental"). Do all the "modern" TSs listed belong to nations which maintain a role of this sort today, which they are filling? For at least the first modern listed, the answer would seem to be no; she's Mohawk, who are specifically mentioned in the article for not having a TS role (or at least, for having little evidence of such--and if there's doubt about it in the past, it's pretty damn likely there isn't one now). In any case, she at least seems to "get it": there's no evidence in the linked article that she identifies as anything but a lesbian.

If an Indian is an activist for promoting social tolerance within their nation (This reminds me of another objection: The asininely romantic implication that the white man introduced the American nations to "homophobia" i.e. identity intolerance; it's somewhere in this article, though clearly refuted by other sections), and would like to create and fill a social identity role that's inspired by one found in another American nation (or perhaps in the past of their own nation), then God bless them. God bless even the Indians who really just identify as "gay" or "lesbian," but who are just making an appeal for tolerance and decency in their nation and are invoking the history of "two-spirit" roles to do so. The problem is, this article says nothing, besides the coining of the phrase "TS," about modern Indian history. Anyone who identifies as TS does indeed deserve to be called that in wikipedia (and by society); but, as it stands, the article leaves the impression that they're simply filling the sort of social role within their nation that's described at length in the article. The distinction must be made. -- 205.212.73.97 15:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

1. This is not about transsexuality, but more to do with what we may term today as intersexed or "transgender" in general (cross-dressing to even transsexual-like behavior). "Male-bodied" and "female-bodied" make more sense than "genetically male [or female]," "TS," "MtF," "FtM," etc., which are modern terms that could or can be incorrectly applied to these individuals. I take it you're transsexual. Let's not appropriate such individuals and label them all "TS," Gays and Lesbians have done enough of that already.

2. Having read all of the books currently out on this subject, I cannot find a tribe that has explicitly held negative views on these kind of individuals prior to the early 1900s. After this, one cannot overlook the influence from Europeans and Christianity. If you look at the ethnographic reports, the transphobia increases in the early 1900s and reaches its height in the 1940s and 50s. This also coincides with the fact that at this time the disconnect of many tribal members from their traditional ways was at its peak before the civil rights movements (AIM in particular) of the 60s and 70s encouraged many of these indigenous people to reconnect with the old ways of their tribe. If you look at the myths and creation stories of certain tribes during the mid-20th century you can see an influence from Christianity compared to much earlier versions of those same stories. You can never ignore possibilities of acculuturation. And yes, there are hundreds of tribes in North America and the differences between tribes can many times be immense. While the argument that this particular "generalization" (your term) is akin to the "noble savage" myth is very wise, it isn't correct. This is why "many, if not most" is used, it certainly does not say "all" or that it assumes such and leaves room for there to be exceptions. With so many different tribes, there's bound to be an exception. This was very much in mind when editing the article.

3. I agree, I believe modern self-identified "two-spirits" should not be included in this article. They may not have been seen as such by their own tribes hundreds of years ago. I removed a list such as that from the article a long time ago but someone reinserted it. -- WiccaIrish 23:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)