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.

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.

--

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

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.

See: Blackfoot. WHICH Blackfoot group uses the terms?
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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)