Talk:Third gender

POV bias and merging this article on a non-notable term

Third gender was widely used until World War II in Europe. It never went completely out of use, but was kept alive in the subcultures of the people described by it. In recent years it has made a comeback. Occasionally other gender is used instead of third gender.

Non-Western cultures often had or have accepted gender roles for third-gendered people, for example the American Indian berdache and two-spirit people, or the Indian hijras (a.k.a. arivanna).

Provide evidence that this is actually true.

Non-Western cultures often had or have accepted gender roles for third-gendered people, for example the American Indian berdache and two-spirit people, or the Indian hijras (a.k.a. arivanna).

What is with this anti-western-culture bias? MOST cultures, even eastern ones, only have two gender roles. That's a very POV statement which is totally inaccurate. The examples you cite are rare sub-cultures.

Also, a quick google test shows that "third gender" only gets 19.2k hits, it's an uncommon term. This should be redirected to an merged with the Gender article, it is not worthy of its own article.

-Nathan J. Yoder 22:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

First of all, 19.2k hits show the term is more than common enough to warrant it's own article. Second, try following the links for proof of non-western third gender. Thirdly, how about some proof yourself, instead of rabidly going after everything you don't understand and/or like? Try editing the article in your usual style and I'll have to do another RfC again, although by now I am getting somewhat tired to have to do them every time you pop up on an articles talk page or start editing one. -- AlexR 12:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not, especially when 99% of those hits are from LGBT websites. It's not any kind of widely recognized term. And I did follow the links, I did NOT see any proof that it's the opposite situation non-western socities. Not just that, but Native Americans are western, not eastern. The burden of proof is on the people who created and support the article to back up their claims, not on the person critcizing a dubious propostion, especially one that makes a generalization about an entire hemisphere of the planet. Go read Wikipedia:Cite sources, it is NOT acceptable on wikipedia to just make claims and not be able to back them up. You can go ahead and cry wolf again, but from what it seems even your own allies are abandoning you now.

Really, you know the assertion about non-western socities is flatly wrong, but it's sad that you refuse to admit it even when it's obvious to everyone. China? Two genders, 1.3 billion people. Europe? Two genders, 728 million people. Russia? 2 genders, 143 million people. Africa? Two genders, 797 million people. India? Two genders, 1.1 billion people. Take note that the vast majority in India still adhere to traditional gender constructs and even oppress women to do this day, that one little sub-culture of India is the exception, not the case. Do you get the point yet?-Nathan J. Yoder 04:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I think most people would agree that 19.2k hits on google, regardless of whether "99%" are from LGBT sites, is notable. If it turned up only a hundred or so you might have an argument here. If you are really sure this is non-notable you can always try to put this page up for a VfD but I wouldn't hold out much hope for it.

Also, your example that "one little sub-culture" is not significant enough for Wikipedia is wrong - I would argue that a sub-culture is at least a significant minority and thus notable according to Wikipedia policy (see NPOV for significant minority policy). This also ignores the various "third gender" sub-cultures in other countries.

I also note you are using an argument from popularity here, something you have criticised others for[1] Axon 17:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it up on VfD, because it should be MERGED (with redirect), not deleted. Where those hits come from his very important, because it's very easy for a relatively self-contained group to get an artificially high hit count when a term really is rare when you consider how many people know it (let alone use it) in the general population.

All it takes is one popular feminist writer to create a new term and within a few months you'll get thousands, if not tens of thousands of hits, even though 99% of the population has never even heard of it. This is even worse if it's spread throughout the "blogosphere", where memes can spread rapidly in a matter of weeks.

From looking at NPOV, they make it clear that you must specify that a tiny minority view is exactly that--a tiny minority view. This article, however, was making it seem like it was somewhat common in Eastern socities, when really it's extroadinarily rare. Thus, you are violating NPOV policy by putting this statement in: Non-Western cultures often had or have accepted gender role. Not only is it factually wrong (it is NOT 'often accepted' and Native Americans are not "eastern"), it's also forgetting to point out that it's a very small minority view.

And no, this is not an argument from popularity, you misunderstand what that means. Argument from popularity refers to saying that your stance is the correct stance because it is a popular stance. Considering that we're the only ones on this article right now, it'd be hard for me to say that my stance on deciding to merge this article is a popular one. What I am suggesting is that a) this is a rare view (statistical fact), b) this is not something that is unique to non-western socities (statistical fact) and c) that this term is rarely used/known to the general population (statistical fact).

Whether or not it's notable is something that does involve how many people/know use it, thus it's not a logical fallacy. It would only become one, in the case of argument from popularity, if I were suggesting that the term third gender was a "bad term" based on its minority usage. Please try to understand logical fallacies better before citing them

By the way, I find it very interesting that you cited my "not notable in the slightest" statement as a personal attack. -Nathan J. Yoder 10:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

A merge or redirect can also be achieved through a VfD if that is what ou would like.

You minsterpret NPOV policy: a significant minority view is considered to be perfectly valid coverage for an article. Gievn the large ammounts of hits on this term, I would argue usage of the term "third gender" does contitute a significant minority.

Your argument that the high number of hits on Google are somehow manufactured of inaccurate are a) against wikipedia policy (see Google test) and b) incorrect given that it obviously constitutes a significant minority view at least. If you can provide evidence from a reputable publication that usage is actually much lower than indicated by the google search that would be acceptable. Otherwise, you cannot claim that this is a "statistical facts" - facts are backed up with evidence.

Actually, I think you are misunderstanding what I say above and the meaning of "argument from popularity": you are arguing that, since most people have not heard of the term (i.e. the popularity of the idea of the lack of popularity of the term) it is a non-significant minority term. It is also a baseless argument, given the google test results. It was also a reference to your continued attempts to back up your own POV based on the your claims of popularity.

Finally, I am not aware of where on this page I have made an accusation of personal attacks against you. Axon 09:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

No, you are continuing to manage to completely and deliberately misinterpret what I say. I never said it wasn't a significant minority, stop and actually read what I say more carefully next time. I said there should be a merge or redirect that would mean, by impliciation, that I am not for removing it. And NPOV explicitly states that small minority views be presented as small minority views, so there is no way I can misinterpret that.

1. Those aren't a high number of hits. I get 1,160 hits for search my own personal username, all in reference to myself. Now just imagine how many hits I could get if I invented a term that has even the slightest bit of popularity with in a certain niche.

Remove all references to books, and you get 7.1k hits, almost one THIRD of the original search results ("hey read this book d00dz" and book websites). Remove transgender and gay and you have 4.3k. Remove references to hindu, native american and indians, you only have 973 left. So if you take out the third gender sub-cultures which practically no one has heard of (don't even DARE to assert that more than a few people know about the Hijras), _attempt_ take out the LGBT sites and take out self-promoting book websites and people giving book recommendations for books most haven't heard of (the biggest one had a total of 2 reviews in Amazon, shock!), it's practically nil.

Try it: "third gender" -book -books -transgender -hindu -gay -"native american" -indian

2. Nothing I've said is against Wikipedia policy, there is absolutely NOTHING on the Google test page that indicates that. The Google test page isn't even Wikipedia policy and the page itself explicitly states that interpreting Google test results is subjective. Please stop lying and accusing me of violations of Wikipedia policy when I've done nothing of the sort.

3. The burden of proof is on you that this is even remotely common, not me. Why would a publication exist to prove that a term's usage is and always has been very rare? That doesn't even make sense. Only the opposite would be true, a publication would exist to show it IS common. If you had bothered to look at the links google provides, it's almost exclusively academic websites in LGBT type studies, LGBT publications and random LGBT type websites. How is that NOT a good indicator that it's rare? Be HONEST now, if you were to survey the general population, how many do you think will have even heard of the term third gender, let alone know anything about it? Even you admit that third genders within socities are rare, so why would the term be known, especially when most of society in the _world_ does not recognize a third gender? And it's not recognized in English speaking socities at all, so how could this term be known? Are we to assume that the general population suddenly has decided to take up gender studies?

since most people have not heard of the term (i.e. the popularity of the idea of the lack of popularity of the term) it is a non-significant minority term. First of all, I never used the word "significant" or "non-significant", don't put words in my mouth. Minority status is determined by how many people use it. How else would expect to determine what makes it a minority term? Popularity of a term is determined by its popularity, that is VERY obvious.

You STILL don't understand what argument from popularity means. Please actually read what it says. Seriously, you're deliberately being obtuse here and it's very counter-productive. That's like saying if I present statistics on how popular blue jeans are, that I'm using an argument from popularity to determine their popularity. Argument from popularity only works when you're saying your argument is right because many people agree with your argument, I'm not doing anything like that. In fact, I've never made a single reference to how many people agree with my argument.

It is also a baseless argument, given the google test results. It was also a reference to your continued attempts to back up your own POV based on the your claims of popularity. I've already given an extremely valid basis for my argument, which is not at all POV. By all means, show me the plethora of non-LGBT websites mentioning this term. You have yet to establish YOUR belief that this term exists outside of a small niche.

I have presented a good argument here, all you've done is say "BUT OMG GOOGLE HITS1!!111!1!" and then proceeded to ignore what actually shows up in those hits and assert that some non-existant policy exists. I'm sorry, but the Google test includes actual _interpretation_ of the results, not just looking at the raw hit count. PLease show some analysis that goes beyond just looking at a raw hit count and you _might_ have some credibility. Thus far, you've done nothing of the sort.

Oh and you used my statement in reference to personal attacks on the RfA, nice try. -Nathan J. Yoder 15:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the burden of proof lies with you to dispute the results of the google test (which, perhaps not explictly wikipedia policy, is nevertheless considered a good rule of thumb for merging or deleting pages) and demonstrate that, according to your claims, the google test is actually non-representative and the term is a non-significant minority view so this page can be merged as per you request. As I have stated before, if you really believe the above put this page up for a VfD and vote for it to be merged.

I do understand what an argument from popularity is, thank you. By claiming that the simple majority (by which, I assume, you mean the "majority" heterosexual, non-academic population) have not heard of the term "third gender" it is not worthy of discussion and is irrelevant (hence the alternative name of the argument from popularity, "appeal to the majority"). Thus, we should restrict all writing on Wikipedia to the topics of Britney Spears, football and maybe pacman.

Regardless, I maintain that third gender is a term in common usage, at least in certain groups. What is more, it is an academic term and thus is worthy of discussion in an academic work like Wikipedia on it's own merits. For example, a majority of people have not heard of string theory for example (only a small minority in academic circles, and in physics circles at that have heard of it!) yet Wikipedia has an article on the subject.

Please keep all discussion of the RfA on the RfA pages in question until such time as the ArbCom have ruled. Axon 16:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, the burden of proof lies with you to dispute the results of the google test (which, perhaps not explictly wikipedia policy, is nevertheless considered a good rule of thumb for merging or deleting pages)

I already did that, you're just ignoring everything I've already said. Why don't you actually attempt to refute what I've said instead of just lying and said I haven't presented evidence? Furthermore, the burden of proof is on YOU, since you're trying to include the term. It is standard Wikipedia practice that when something is contested, the person inserting the thing has the burden of proof. This is getting quite insane, I think I will start an RfA on you, since either you have extremely bad memory, extremely bad reading comprehension or you are lying.

• By claiming that the simple majority

I never referred to a simple majority, this is another lie. I said 99%. There is no way you can misinterpret 99% to mean just a simple majority. This is definitely grounds for an RfA since you're just making stuff up out of thin air that a I never said.

• have not heard of the term "third gender" it is not worthy of discussion and is irrelevant (hence the alternative name of the argument from popularity, "appeal to the majority")

I never said it is not worthy of discussion, I specifically said to MERGE it, when implies that you will DISCUSS it. I'm not even sure how to classify this now, I've repeated multiple times that I want a merge (from the BEGINNING) and even bolded it before this, how can you keep repeating this nonsense? Again, all the more reason to file an RfA against you, this is quite obviously a deliberate misinterpretation of everything I've said. Just so you can't cop-out of this, I'll repeat the word merge many times: MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE, NOT DELETE. Thus, I am now using an argument from popularity.

• Regardless, I maintain that third gender is a term in common usage, at least in certain groups.

I notice how you tacked on that "in certain groups" at the end, and yet you refuse to concede that the general population doesn't know about this. You haven't presented ANY evidence at all that this exists in any significant amount outside those certain specific groups. I already asked you to show that this is significant usage outside LGBT/(gender/feminist academic) circles, you have provided no such evidence.

• What is more, it is an academic term and thus is worthy of discussion in an academic work like Wikipedia on it's own merits.

WHEN DID I EVER SAY IT SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSED. PLEASE POINT TO WHERE I SAID THAT OR STOP WITH THIS ABSURD ATTACK.

-Nathan J. Yoder 17:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Please tone down the hostility and personal attacks, Nathan. It does your argument no favors .

I am aware you wish to merge this page. If you read my comment above you will see that I do acknowledge that you wish to merge this page. This is why I recommend you put it up for VfD and vote "merge" or "redirect" if you do not think it can stand as an article by itself. Please read my comments more carefully.

Unfortunately, I maintain the burden of proof does lie with you to demonstrate that the google test is wrong and that this word is a non-significant minority view and thus not worth an article of it's own. None of what you have mentioned above is any evidence - it's just cries of personal incredulity and conjecture. It is also irrelavant that the "general populace" (whatever that might mean) has not heard of this term. After all, the general populace is probably largely ignorant of the concept of Bayesian filtering but an article exists for this page. This is what I mean when I refer to "simple majority" above.

Similarly, if, as you state above, you do think the term "third gender" is worthy of discussion then I do not really understand what your position is? It either warrants it's own page or it does not.

I also note that, by repeating a word several times this constitutes and argument of popularity. This is not true: repeated arguments are not popular because of their quantity. The argument on popularity requires a majority of opinion. Axon 14:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have used no personal attacks here. Do not confuse pointing out your disingenuous behavior with being a personal attack, if it were, then you could never call someone a liar even when it's obvious that they are.

I've already provided evidence of this case and you have simply disregarded it outright because it doesn't suit you. Instead of saying "oh no, it doesn't count!", why don't you actually address what I said instead of just rejecting it outright? Your assertion that this raw hit count alone is meaningful in determining this terms usage is highly dubious conjecture. So please don't be a hypocrite, if you're going to accuse me of using conjecture, then you better offer more than conjecture (very minimal conjecture at that) yourself.

Plus I've presented evidence and refuted your raw hit account assertion, you have a burden of proof which you've refused to fufill. It is standard practice on Wikipedia for the person to defend inclusion to have the burden of proof. But hey, if you want to go against standard practices, feel free. By all means, misunderstand the google test as well.

And yet again you're demonstrating how disingenuous you truly are. The google test involves interpreting the results of said test, not just relying entirely on a raw hit count. If you had actually read the google test page, you'd understand that. So you yourself are not acting in accordance with a standard Wikipedia practice, the google test. Please do not grossly misinterpret its usage.

You seem to be changing your argument here. You start by saying that it is in common usage, now you've backed off from that assertion and are now saying it is in fact only in minority usage, but deserves to have its own article for some unspecified reason.

And you are also changing your argument about how you used simple majority. I was never referring to a simple majority, which refers to 50% or more people. Clearly, the lack of usage of this term falls beyond even a supermajority, so that's a silly thing to say. The fact is, I never used an appeal to popularity even once and now you're changing your argument in light of that without acknowledging your error.

This is even furthered by your strawman argument that I was saying it wasn't worthy of discussion, which I obviously never said. I don't quite understand this, how can you say you understand that I want a merge while simultaneously saying that I'm asserting that it's not worthy of discussion? With a merge, it would be discussed. Therefore, to suggest that I was saying that it shouldn't be discussed is a horrible and totally illogical strawman.

• Similarly, if, as you state above, you do think the term "third gender" is worthy of discussion then I do not really understand what your position is? It either warrants it's own page or it does not.

What kind of strange line of reasoning is this? A false dichotomy, of course. Your absurd logic is: "If it is to be discussed it must have its own article. If it is not to be discussed, it must not have its own article." What ever happened to it being merged and discussed on another page? Or are you using some strange definition of 'discuss' that I'm not aware of?

I'm wondering why you think this warrants its own article. Third genders within cultures are rare, there really isn't enough to write about to warrant its own article. Using your absurd reasoning, you can justify having an article for every conceivable gender and gender related topic. After all, why not write as many articles as possible? Or perhaps, you could condense it into a single article where a small, minority subject would be all together with other information

• I also note that, by repeating a word several times this constitutes and argument of popularity. This is not true: repeated arguments are not popular because of their quantity. The argument on popularity requires a majority of opinion.

I'm totally confused here, what part of what I said are you responding to? Your last response here is a bit incoherent. What's this about repeated words? The only word I've been repeating is "merge," but me repeating a word is not an appeal to popularity. I could say "hello" 1000 times over, would you accuse me of an appeal to popularity then? Then you said something about repeated arguments, what are you referring to?

An appeal to popularity requires that a person assert that their stance is right because (according to them), the majority agree with that stance. However, I never once said my stance was right because my stance is popular. If you think otherwise, please point to anywhere in this article where I did that. Keep in mind that the issue here is whether or not to merge. So me using an appeal to popularity would mean that I said something like "we should merge this article because it is the popular view to merge this article."

I really don't understand what your last statement here is supposed to mean.... -Nathan J. Yoder 02:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you took my advice and have calmed down, but I see you still make further personal attacks. I cant help feeling you make accusations of "lying" and "hypocrisy" because you can't be bothered to actually argue your point and treat my statements as they stand. You would rather attack me than actually discuss the issue at hand, so it would seem - a sure sign of bad faith if ever there was one.

I reiterate again that you have not supplied any actual evidence that third gender is a topic not worthy of it's own page. It is true, a google test should be interpreted but a result of 17k hits is pretty unequivocal evidence of notability by anyone's standards. Again, if you really think the google test is misleading and want to merge this page simply put it up for VfD, and put forward your "evidence" there. There is really nothing else to say on the matter.

Since you continue to be obstructive rather than constructive I shall be ignoring you from now on. Axon 09:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A wise decision, Axon, a wise decision. Now he can spend some time getting together that reply on the Arbcom page, for which he claimed he had no time yet. ;-) --AlexR 11:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've already addressed your argument a million times now and you have refused to address mine. You have made your own conjectures and refused to back them up. I provide evidence, you claim I've provided none and then you go on and proceed to make statements with no backing evidence yourself. That is extremely disgingenuous and hypocritical. I could present a PhD thesis with completely tons of irrefutable evidence and you'd still complain that I've provided no evidence at all. I WILL put this on VfD now. I love how you're ignoring me now because I've blown your argument out of the water. I'm still curious, in what strange world does including something in an article mean that it's not being discussed? -Nathan J. Yoder 17:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Having actually read through VfD policy, I noticed that VfD is not intended for merger requests. Instead, I have properly placed the request in Wikipedia:Duplicate articles and included a merge tag on the article page. Incidentally, I hope you guys realize that the RfA is just going to die off, since there is no real evidence against me, you had to resort to lies on it and no one except a grand total of 3 people thinks action shuold be taken. Nathan J. Yoder 17:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Have done yet another RfC, going to update Arbcom page later. -- AlexR 22:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, what will happen is that we'll look over the diffs cited in evidence and see what they say. Any "lies" or not will be evident therein - David Gerard 00:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article should be kept and expanded, not merged. I disagree that nearly 20 thousand google hits is not evidence of notability. Articles are kept on far less. The argument that hits which refer to books should be discounted seems strange. If anything, an appearance in a book is more noteworthy than a use only on the Internet. Print media, and especially books, are less likely to contain neologisms. Jonathunder 22:48, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

What difference does it make if it's in book form? You can find virtually any subject or crazy theory, no matter how far-fetched or obscure, in a book. There are a total of 3 books on it in Amazon, which have a total of 2, 2, and 1 review respectively. And about 14 people actually read the reviews of one. These aren't exactly common or popular books within ANY community.

Further evidence can be found just by searching all college websites. 'site:.edu "third gender"' gets 688 results in total. Compare that to the 14.5 million total pages on gender on college websites. That means "third gender" is only mentioned on 0.00475% of .edu gender websites. Gender on the entire web gets 74.5 million hits. If you're going by google raw hit counts, it only makes sense to do this comparison as well.

As I already stated, the topic of third genders are about 2-3 tiny sub-sub-cultures, what about that is deserving of an entire article? You can try inserting theory as filler, but that would go along the lines of 'original research.'Nathan J. Yoder 14:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Almost forgot to ask. On your user page it says that you sometimes use #wikipedia. Did AlexR or someone else recruit you off IRC? -Nathan J. Yoder 14:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Crazy" theories, if sufficiently notable, can be the subject of a decent article. For example, I have contributed to an article on flat earth proponents. This theory has more support and is much less crazy than that. And no, I was not "recruited" by anyone. Jonathunder 21:31, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

You searched for "gender", and then tell others they can't interpret data? You call any hits on "gender" to be "gender websites"? Where do you think ten million hits comes from? Ever thought about "The policy of this institution does not discriminate on accounts of race, nationality, gender, background..." that almost every single *.edu has?

Ooh, let's try this. "string theory" turns up 93,600 hits on edu, whilst "theory" turns up 30,600,000! String theory "is only mentioned on" 0.30588% "of .edu theory websites"! What an insignificant concept!

Ooh, let's try this other trick. Search only in English "gender -civil -rights -clothing -computer -game -games -policy -disease -date -enhance -company" to get rid of rights advocacy sites, dating sites, clothing advertisements, computer games, policy banners as mentioned above, gender-specific disease sites, and "sex enhancement" drug sites. Not to mention that in German, "gender" means "towards", pretty durn common. Look! 65 million hits, which is 87% of your 74.5 million hits, are suddenly gone, leaving you with 9 million!

I would very much refrain from using statistics to argue insignificance. I would reiterate Axon, in case you simply skimmed over his arguments, that "third gender" is a significant term as long as it is recognised strongly in minority circles.

In fact, if you would just pay a half-second's thought to the topic and think who would be concerned enough about "third gender" to make sites on it, you'd realise that looking for "third gender" minus LGBT is as ridiculus as looking for "string theory" minus physics minus physicist - no kidding you'd get no results.

-- Znode 21:54, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

Please read what I say more carefully next time, I explicitly stated that if you're going to go on raw hit counts with no interpretation, then you must accept my analysis above, lest you be a hypocrite. So which is it, are we to exclusively use a raw hit count or aren't we? You MUST choose one.

1. Your analogy with regard to searches is fundamentally flawed. 10 million hits are not going to come from individual non-discrimination policy pages as there are not millions of universities in the world. If you had actually looked at the results, you'd notice that they are almost exclusively from gender and feminist studies related pages. Ok, so you might get some false positives, but even being extremely generous and discounting half of them, you are left with 7 million hits.

2.a. Searching for just theory is not analagous. If you want to make a valid comparison, search for physics theories, not theories in general. If we do a naive search for just 'physics theory' (no quotes), we get 5.1 million. So that's 1.82%.

2.b. If we correct your search even further, by doing string theory without quotes or by searching 'site:.edu superstring OR string theory' (it's often not referred to by the name "string theory"--it is sometimes grouped in with other theories), we get 600k hits. That brings us up to 12%.

2.c. That is VERY significant, as if 96k hits in and of itself wasn't significant enough in itself, as compared to the ~700 from "third gender" on .edu sites. Also note that "string theory" (in quotes) without restrictions gets 755k hits in google.

3. I'm not sure what this search has to do with anything, as we are talking about third gender specifically and not just gender.

4.a. I would very much refrain from using statistics to argue insignificance.

Why? The whole debate here is over its prevalence, which is exclusively a matter of statistics. If you can't determine the notability of a term by how common it is used and not even do it just within the field/community that would be most likely to know it (e.g. gender theories, LGBT groups), then how exactly are you supposed to determine its notabililty?

4.b. I would reiterate Axon, in case you simply skimmed over his arguments, that "third gender" is a significant term as long as it is recognised strongly in minority circles. Axon had arguments? I could have sworn he was just repeating "google test" over and over and engaging in a highly dubious strawman argument that would required complete absence of reading comprehension and logic. If you had read _my_ arguments, you'd realize that I was contesting how strongly recognized it was, even in minority circles.

Axon presented no evidence beyond just a raw hit count that it was strongly recognized even within minority circles. You see, the problem is that he was pretending that I misunderstood his argument (read:playing dumb to avoid substantiating his assertions), when really I was just asking him to substantiate it instead of repeating himself over and over (including "BUT THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON EVERYONE EXCEPT ME!) as if it makes him right.

5. In fact, if you would just pay a half-second's thought to the topic and think who would be concerned enough about "third gender" to make sites on it, you'd realise that looking for "third gender" minus LGBT is as ridiculus as looking for "string theory" minus physics minus physicist - no kidding you'd get no

As I've already explained, your comparisons with searches are false. Removing words like "gay" and "transgender" is more akin to removing the names of other, unrelated fields of physics, not removing physics as a whole. Gay and transgender websites are at best, only tangentially related to "third gender", so it makes sense to exclude them if you are assesing its use in the general population.

Furthermore, third gender is part of gender theory, so the only analogy would be searching for third gender while removing all gender theory pages. If you're going to use analogies, please spend some more time thinking them out so that you don't waste my time.

If you want an idea of how prevalent "third gender" is on LGBT type websites, you can use combined terms like gay "third gender" and compare that to LGBT websites as a whole (e.g. searches for gay, transgender, etc... that exclude anti-gay websites). Even comparing the ~20k hit count for "third gender" would be sufficient. If you notice, there are far, far more LGBT type websites that mention it than those that don't. If we are to use google as our only means of testing, then we'd be forced to conclude that "third gender" is rarely used even in LGBT communities.

6. (Response to Jonathunder) Your assertion is conditional on its notability. This is what I'm contesting from the beginning. Those books listed on Amazon have 2 reviews at most, with only 14 people (at the highest) having voted on the reviews. The fact is, you can find books and even documentaries on all kinds of very obscure cultural phenomenon. There are people who will spend years studying the 50 person wee-wok tribe of some isolated region of the Amazon and will write a book about it. Does it mean that they are a significan culture? No, it just means that someone was interested enough to write a book. As has been mentioned before, the sub-cultures that have third genders are very small, not as small as some obscure tribe, but nonetheless very small.

Here's a break down of book search hits on google in general and on .edu website (book name - total hit count - .edu hit count):

Changing Ones : Third and Fourth Genders in Native North America - 774 - 48

Third Sex, Third Gender: Beyond Sexual Dimorphism in Culture and History - 509 - 71

Sex and the Gender Revolution, Volume 1 : Heterosexuality and the Third Gender in Enlightenment London ("Sex and the Gender Revolution" "third gender" -- adjusted due to variation in how title is cited) - 366 - 78

Total - 1649 - 197

Not terribly popular of a subject, especially in terms of books read. -Nathan J. Yoder 01:07, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You can slice statistics all kinds of ways, but the fact remains articles are kept all the time here on far less evidence of notability. List this on VFD for a merge, if you like. I doubt it will pass. But if you feel so strongly about it, go ahead. Jonathunder 04:16, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

VfD is not for merges, this was already discussed earlier. Just because other articles were included, doesn't mean they should have. I'm afraid you'll have to come up with a more convincing argument than "but they did it toooo!" -Nathan J. Yoder 05:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Request for comments

I'd like to make some input (if I can) here, but there's just two much text to wade through. I'd like to invite those for and against merging the article to clearly and briefly state their respective cases, if they could :-) Dan100 11:15, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

To summarise (briefly :) , my position is that third gender is not a neologism and a notable subject in it's own right given that it passes the google test and returns 19k hits on a google search[2], (and 1k hits on a google groups search[3]). It refers to the various minority cultures across the world that possess are third gender - unique sub-cultures that are of interest and constitute at least a significant minority - and seems to have some relevance in academic circles, such as gender or queer studies. With this in mind, the article should not be merged and should be marked as a stub for future elaboration. Axon 14:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've read the case put on this talk page for a merger and it does not convince me. Gender is not a long article and already links here. The 'Third Gender' is a separate concept that deserves a separate article. David | Talk 21:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to Axon for his statement. I'd really like to hear from the other party too now :-) Dan100 07:59, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

My position is that it's an obscure, ill studied thing (even within "gender/feminist/LGBT-type studies" circles) that refers to very and rare cultures and obscure cultures thusly should not have its own article. I've already shown evidence with google using various searches to demonstrate that it is not well know except within a small group. I've also demonstrated that the existing books on the subject are very unpopular, showing how obscure of a subject this is. They are unpopular both within academic circles and in the general population. The oldest book written on the matter is only from 1996, so it's something that has also been recently brought into any remotely significant level of study.

It does not make sense to make an entire article on a few rare sub-cultures, especially when what little information is available could be included in gender. I'm not sure why gender being small is evidence that this shouldn't be merged, if anything it's the opposite. When an article is too large, it gets split up, but in this case it's the exact opposite. -Nathan J. Yoder 16:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't you worry about the length of the gender article, as soon as constructive work there is possible again, it will be a lot longer again. Or did you really think your removal of content would remain? -- AlexR 17:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I've seen the proposals for the new version of it, they're not that long. Third gender is not going to add that much to it. Considering how unrecognized the theory behind it is, anything that goes much beyond just basic facts would be in violation of no creation of original research and not giving undue recognition to small theories (they are supposed to be given out in accordance to acceptance). The last thing we need is 50 billion tiny articles on every gender subject under the sun, when they'd be better placed on the gender page itself.

Considering that the gender article specifically deals with basic types of genders as historically recognized by cultures, as opposed to random theories and other analyses (aside from basic areas of contention and the biggest socio/biological theories), splitting up something that basic would not make sense. There are even some websites (and a book) proposing a fourth gender, should we make a "fourth gender" article too? What if we find some obscure culture with a fifth gender? Nathan J. Yoder 17:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nathan, I agree that it's a little-used term. However I don't think that means it can't have it's own article - see m:wiki is not paper for one view. But there's also no reason why the material of third gender cannot also be used as part of gender. That might not seem logical from some points of view ("why have a seperate article for material already in another?"), but it's also not very harmful. I'd like to see a way out of this dispute which leaves both sides happy - maybe this is a solution that could do that? Dan100 18:08, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Duplicating the same content in two articles is tedious and the two versions will most likely remain out of synch for most the time. The wikipedia is not paper article, to me, is more about being able to make longer articles, rather than making many smaller articles. Articles should really only be broken up when it's an organization issue that hinders a reader somehow, not because of article size. It's better to combine similar topics when possible and it would be both redudant and teidious (as described above) to duplicate it in both. Nathan J. Yoder 00:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since the content of the articles is not the same, the argument is irrelevant. Also, there is a distinct possibility that both articles will become longer, hence the argument about short articles is not relevant, either. -- AlexR 01:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense, of course the content of the articles is not the same since they're different articles. If that was a valid argument for not merging, then NO articles would ever get merged since the content is always going to be different. If that weren't the case, then it wouldn't be a merger, it'd just be a redirect.

As has already been stated, wikipedia is not paper, so the length of the articles doesn't matter in terms of saving space, it only matters from an organizational stand point. Also, an article getting longer doesn't mean it will get a lot longer. I could add one character to it and that would mean it got longer, but it's meaningless to say. Claiming that the third gender will get to a large size is rather dubious considering the rarity of the subect. If you're going to try to refute my arguments, try to address them in a way that is coherent. I REALLY can't even see where you were going with that "the content is not the same" even thinking over it multiple times, so my guess is that you're just desperately grasping at straws and non-existent straws at that. Nathan J. Yoder 02:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nathan, I understand the 'out of sync' issue. The bottom line is that (as far as I know) there's no Wikipedia policy on this matter. You could, however, list the article for deletion, with the suggestion that it be merged with gender. You'd likely get a lot of input on the VfD. (The outcome would either be keep these articles as they are or 'merge and redirect'.) The only other way out is to leave things as they are - or continue arguing, which isn't pleasant and doesn't really add anything to Wikipedia :-( Dan100 11:32, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Well, as for the continuing argument, Njyoder has an arbcom case pending, so there is a chance that this will not go on indefinitely. -- AlexR 15:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I've already stated multiple times now, the pages regarding VfD specifically state that if you want a page merged, you're not supposed to put it up on VfD. I put it on a page specifically for mergers and it was also put on an RfC. I really woldn't keep harping on that RfA Alex, it's just going to die off and given that you had to resort to lies, distortions and red herrings on it (as shown by your _own_ evidence), it's not really making your side look good. Nathan J. Yoder 02:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Although I think the term is well-enough established and widely-used to warrant a separate article, I think the subject matter would be better dealt with (i.e. better context, higher visibility) in the gender article. Tverbeek 17:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Tverbeek, I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. Does this mean you think it does warrant a seperate article and should be dealt with in the gender article, or just that it should be dealt with in the gender article? I would argue that it could be dealt with in some detail on the gender page and in further detail on this page... that is both options are possible and satisfy both parties, given that Wikipedia is not paper. Axon 07:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Third gender article should be merged into Gender.

I have read all your arguments. I have no questions and nothing to add to the discussion. I have decided that the Third gender article should be merged into Gender. Eyeon 20:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Eyeon and Tverbeek, If you could explain your reasoning and why you think the article should be merged, given that the term is substantially different from gender, that it is notable in it's own right (given the results of the google test) and that the general consensus is to keep this page (Wikipedia is not paper) that would help the discussion on this page immeasurably. Axon 07:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Axon. This article should be kept seperate. If you disagree, you really need to provide a coherent argument to back up your position. Dan100 18:57, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting that you don't harp on people who agree with you (Axon) to provide an explanation. Jonathunder only provided a very brief explanation which doesn't really address the points, David gave no explanation at all. Wikipedia should not be dictated by 'compromise.' And don't kid yourselves about general conensus, this article hasn't received much attention and the people who agree with me have just got here. Nathan J. Yoder 20:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be dictated by "compromise". - well, it has to be, really. We're all only human. Things can only happen here through consensus - and that often means compromise by one or more parties, otherwise you're just stuck in an endless loop... Dan100 (Talk) 20:47, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

You're right, in a case like this it should be done by vote, but the options should be to merge or to stay as-is, not a more convuluted option of managing two seperate versions in two different articles. When I get back from my vacation, I'll see if I can find a better way to promote this article so it receives more attention and can receive a wider range of votes, as it seems to be very low-interest. Nathan J. Yoder 22:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to add a sidenote: I identify with the term "third gender" and was pleased to find that this term had its own article in wiki. There are others like myself who have a hard time finding information that describes how we identify (ie. third gender) and merging this article with gender would minimalize who we are and are difference from those that identify as male and female. Thanks!

I investigate the authority of "wise men" and astrology with science and technology, as well as genetics. I beleive that if this articel relates to castration then it is not a gender issue, due to physiological surgical post natal operation.

Keep this article seperate or expand it

if this is going to be merged with anything, it should be the eunuch article. the concept of a third gender is not, historically, limited to a small minority. there is clear evidence in ancient sources that this was widely recognized, though often the terms for it have been mistranslated by modern scholars who were unfamiliar with the ancient source. allow me to provide a few references I happen to have on hand related to the proposition that a plethora of terms often rendered 'eunuch' in english were refernces to third genders, not just castrated men. the greek 'eunochos' just means 'bed keeper', and there are seperate words for castrated men.

"If a woman marries a eunuch, I think that a distinction must be drawn whether he has been castrated or not, because in the case of a castrated man, there is no dowry; if the person has not been castrated, then there can be a marriage, and so there is a dowry, and a claim on it." - Ulpian, Digest, Book XXIII 3.39.1. Latin: "Si spadoni mulier nubserit, distinguendum arbitror, castratus fuerit necne, ut in castrato dicas dotem non esse: in eo qui castratus non est, quia est matrimonium, et dos et dotis actio est."

"to me it appears the better view that a eunuch is not diseased or defective, but healthy, just like a man with one testicle who is also able to procreate." - Ulpian, Digest, Book XXI 1.6.2. Latin: "Spadonem morbosum non esse neque vitiosum verius mihi videtur, sed sanem esse, sicuti illum, qui unum testiculum habet, qui etiam generare potest."

"Some men, from their birth, have a nature to turn away from women; and those who are naturally constituted in this way do well not to marry. These, they say, are the eunuchs from birth." - Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, III 1.1. Greek: "Phusikôn tines echousi pros gunaika apostrophôn ek genetês, hoitines, tê phusikê tautê sugkrasei chrômenoi, kalôs poiousi mê gamountes. Houtoi, phasin, eisin hoi ek genetês eunouchoi."

those are three I happened to have cited as sources in an essay I wrote recently - there are hundreds more references to third genders in ancient and modern sources throughout the world.

as far as the claim that 99% of these websites are GLBT...if they support their claims with citations from viable sources, if that were even true, why does that matter? if the GLBT community isn't going to research this, who else is going to wade through oceans of sources in dead languages for references to a community that largely no longer exists in the western world? if well researched, sourced materials on the subject are discounted just because they were produced by individuals with a reason to be interested in the subject, then you're never going to get anything on it. Do we discount articles on african culture because the anthropologists who wrote them were mostly black? people do not devote a large ammount of their time to subjects that they are not interested in. unless they're letting their natural interest in the subject lead them to manipulate their sources, there's absolutely no reason to discount them. there's plenty of ancient source material on this stuff - unless it can be proven that this is being mistreated, then it has been established that a good many ancient cultures have had a third gender. if the GLBT community was trying to construe these sources into saying the third gender was elevated or superior, (and I know this has been claimed, particularly in relation to the third gender's association with the spiritual) then we'd have reason to doubt them - but this article is claiming only that it was an acknowledged class, not making any value judgements about that class. the sources I've seen cited are often derogitory of the third gender in the same way that ancient male authors often are derogitory of women, but weither they're celebrated or despised, they were indesputably RECOGNIZED, and understood as a naturally existing class, with legitimate social roles - even if these roles were cheifly as body servants to the wealthy (or the gods) as the very terms eunochos (greek "bedkeeper"), Saris (hebrew/akkadian "eunuch/chamberlain"), Sht, Hm (egyptian "eunuch" "priest")all suggest.

Pliny the Elder references a third gender in his natural histories (11.48-50) "And for that reason they acquire the third gender, on the side of hermaphrodites and eunuchs."

honestly there are so many sources that make it clear that the ancient mediteranian world was totally familiar with the concept of a third gender (as was the east, and many indigenous americans as well, depending on the particular group) I don't know which to cite, and I don't wish to be redundant or to make this comment any longer than necessary. anyone who spends time looking this up can see that this is not a recently invented term, nor is it recognized only by a minority. the third gender itself has always been a minority, of course, but it has generally been recognized by the majority until relatively recently. if you wish, I'd be glad to cite more sources, my latin is bad but decent enough to provide my own translations if necessary, though I'm sure others have better command of the necessary languages. the author who's website I found these references cited on is fluent in english, german, latin, greek, and arabic - and passable with several other languages (hebrew, egyptian), and independant translation of the terms can be arranged I'm sure, if you don't trust a GLBT scholar to put ethics before personal interest. --Feralnostalgia 11:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Those discussions above appear to be long finished (check the dates), with the outcome being to keep the article seperate. The article was a stub for a long time, but I've since expanded it substantially. I just added the Pliny quote from your post above to the article. Wanting to check the context (to see if he was talking about humans), I found your reference is wrong. The correct citation for the quote you provided is 11.110 (complete text). Their translation also differs somewhat, and is headed "the testes - the three classes of eunuchs". I think I'll remove it from the article for now, as I'm a little unclear as to Pliny's understanding of a "third gender". Can you elucidate? ntennis 05:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Current Article is well written

I just wanted to say that the artilce as it now stands is well-written and should serve as a good starting point for anyone looking for information on the different cultural views of the third sex. The referencing is excellent as are the overviews of the various "types" of third genders that exist in certain cultures. Well done. Ntennis! Well done indeed. Lisapollison 23:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Aww shucks! Thanks for your nice comments :) ntennis 02:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

ntennis, I've been following the big debate here about historic views on gender and the third sex and maybe I'm missing something but I just don't see how this article could be improved by further highlighting non-western views on the third gender. It already addresses these issues adequately. If it makes any difference, my background is in Anthropology. My degrees are in Anthropology, Archaeology and Linguistics. I feel you've done an admirable job here. Perhaps user masculinity could suggest some additional examples from non-western cultures to both of us here and then I could get to work on adding them with your help. Perhaps that might adress his/her concernsLisapollison 18:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again! You can see some examples from history that user:Masculinity added to the article in this diff — for now, I moved this new content to the subpage Third gender/Masculinity. Please have a look if there's anything from this that you think can be added to the article. ntennis 00:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

New additions to article

For other editors' information, several new sections were recently added to the top of the article by User:Masculinity. Masculinity, I see that you have a strong interest in this area, and a lot of theories you would like to share. For now, I've moved your recent version to Third gender/Masculinity for discussion, only because it is so large and I don't want to choke up the talk page here.

I also see that you are new to wikipedia, so I encourage you to familiarise yourself with some of the policies and guidelines here. One of the most important is No original research (NOR). This is not a place for personal essays, making arguments, or introducing new information that has not been published in a reputable source such as an academic journal. All the claims made should reflect the scholarship on the subject, except for the lead section, which briefly summaries and introduces the article. In addition to NOR, please read the other two key content-guiding policies, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

When approaching articles that are already well-established, it is considered good practice to seek consensus on the discussion page before making major edits — especially to the intro. Hope we are able to reach one! ntennis 16:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

ntennis,

I get the point.

However, I find the current article problematic because it carries a very western interpretation of ancient and even contemporary gender identities in the non-western world. This western interpretation is coloured by the heterosexual-homosexual phenomenon which is non existent in the non-western and in the entire ancient world. The problem is that most of the published work on this subject is by gay scholars/ activists that have tried to distort ancient/ contemporary identities as they are practised in the non-western world.

But nevertheless, I will try and get the references from published and other sources on the net.

At least, you can add that there is another interpretation of the third gender than forwarded by the gay and lesbian activists who are aggressively trying to reinvent history in order to find validation for the western concept of sexual identity.

regards

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Masculinity (talk • contribs)

I agree that some gay and lesbian historians have appropriated "third gender" types that are found in historical texts, misreading them as homosexual; they are probably motivated in part by a desire to validate their own identities. And they are not the only ones using history for ideological ends. I am actually very mindful of this, and in all honesty, I can't see anything in the history section of the article here that does that at all. Could you outline for me which particular sentences you find problematic? ntennis 08:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably not so much in the history section, but the very first definition of third gender colors the rest. It uses the terms "sexual orientation" and "(heterosexual) male and female", concepts which were unknown to the ancients and to contemporary non-western societies which have the 'third sex' category.

Besides, it is really important to understand third sex in order to understand human gender in its totality. Therefore, I will try to find out references to back up my texts, and edit the rest.

Masculinity

I fail to see how this article "carries a very western interpretation of ancient and even contemporary gender identities in the non-western world." The article clearly places western societies in context, and is dominated by non-western and historical uses of the term. It appears that you want to expunge some of the ways this term has been used. Please do take the time to read the policies and guidelines I linked at the start of this thread. They are honestly a useful guide to approaching a topic as an editor. NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

The terms sex, gender, gender role and gender identity are linked in the lead section. Each has its own article, and does not warrant an extended explanation here. ntennis 00:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

ntennis,

the moment you bring sexuality into the definition of third sex, you present a western --- not only western but gay/ lesbian viewpoint of looking at non-western identities. Because, although some elements of sexual behaviour formed part of the third sex identities in the middle ages, the whole thing was way too different than the binaries of homosexual and heterosexual suggest.

E.g., towards the middle ages, the third sex came to be associated withwith receptive anal or oral intercourse. But the main criteria for doing so was that such participants used their anus or mouth as substitutes for vagina, in their assertion of their 'femininity'.

A man who liked to penetrate another man or indulge in mutual masturbation, on the other hand was not ever considered a part of the third sex. However, the concept of 'homosexual' includes both the categories --- of masculine and feminine. If one must use the word 'homosexual' to define third sex, one should say feminine or effeminate homosexual.

In India e.g., most men who indulge in sex with other men still do not consider themselves to be 'homosexual', and no they are not running away from reality as people from a western outlook may see it.

I am not criticising the west, nor gays and lesbians. But in over enthusiasm, they are creating false notions.

In fact you can understand the wide gap between the way our two cultures looks at things by the following fact:

The post Christianity west does not recognise gender as a natural phenomenon. It sees it only as a cultural one. So a male donning a female dress is doing so because he was raised 'differently'. The east and pre-Christian west believed this to be part of that male's inherent nature. In fact the term used for 'gender' in ancient India was 'prakriti' which means 'nature'.

Because of this difference, the west does not recognise identities based on gender. On the contrary it has sexual identities. Now my argument here is not about which one is right and which one is wrong. However, western scholars will have a great difficulty comprehending non-western identities because they lack the perspective which recognises 'gender' as a natural human quality.

I am not the only one who is saying this. Several scholars have objected to the use of the words homosexual for 'third sex'. And I can bring the quotes.

If this article must include the words heterosexual, homosexual, like you say, in order to accomodate a section of the gay point of view, then it must be qualified as such --- that it is a claim made by a section, and is also counterclaimed by another. That is you should say that there are two scholarly points of view on the matter. Of course if you can find evidences for this scholoarly controversy.

The problem is especially acute because the web is chock full of a section of gay/ lesbian activists who are trying to misguide on the definition of the 'third gender' and most of them are not scholars.

And there is yet another problem with this definition. While including a big section of the western 'homosexual' identity, which were not part of the 'third sex' anywhere in the world, it completely excludes the section of 'heterosexuals' who were part of the ancient 'third sex' as evidenced in native America, polynesia, etc. The moment you define third sex as someone not forming part of the heterosexual-homosexual divide.

masculinity

.....also, if the words 'homosexual', 'heterosexual' must be used to define or understand third sex, it should not be used in the very first definition, but as alternative definitions provided by one section of people, later in the article. Using it in the ver first definition gives undue credibility to this point of view, while there is no reference to a divergence of views. masculinity

It appears to me that you haven't actually read the article — or my posts here — but are instead battling an imaginary foe. The misrepresentation of historical and cross-cultural "third genders" as gay and/or lesbian does not appear in this article. You've clearly been annoyed by some other pages on the web. Please do not take out your frustration here.

Your posts appear to me, ironically, to be a classic example of binary thinking! There is not one "right" and one "wrong" definition at play. Various people, from Vedic times to the present, have used notions of a third gender in different ways. The purpose of this page is to document them, and weight these uses with respect to their notability. You write "the wide gap between the way our two cultures looks at things" — what two cultures? There are many cultures, and multiple views both between and among them. And again: "you should say that there are two scholarly points of view on the matter." No, there are many scholarly views on the matter. Your characterisation of the entire ancient world as monolithic, and the way you split an imaginary global history into pre- and post-christian views on gender is similarly problematic.

I would argue that you are guilty of exactly what you accuse these nameless 'gay and lesbian activists' of doing — inventing your own romantic past and projecting your own favored identities onto it. And your view (third gender = effeminate male) is far more restrictive than the examples in this article show. Please read it! You will see the many other ways the notion of a 'third' gender has been used. As a mid-way point between male and female; a state of being both; the state of being neither (neuter); the ability to cross or swap genders; another category altogether independent of male and female. It has been used to describe non-reproductive women, or even feminists. In fact, anyone who does not fit into a binary scheme of male or female normativity. And when maleness and femaleness are defined in terms of sexual roles — which they usually are, at least in part — then those who do not engage in certain normative sexual practises of men and women (i.e. heterosexual or 'opposite-sex' sexual acts) have been seen as belonging to third sexes. And not just in the modern western world.

In a further irony, this very acknowledgement of a diversity of views is what irks you! You want to expunge all but one definition — i.e. your own personal idiosyncratic definition — and apply it to all times and places. And yet you complain that the article contains no reference to a divergence of views! Please, try to clear your pre-conceptions and approach the article with fresh eyes. ntennis 08:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S I hope this came across more as vigorous argument than incivility. I think we are on the same page. ntennis 14:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Update: I reworked the lead section; hope it is clearer and reads better now. It may address your concern? ntennis 03:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I wanted to answer some of the points that you raised, but couldn't get the time to do the required research. The lead looks O.K. (actually that was the only section that looked problematic), but for the words "sexual orientation". Is there evidence that the concept of "third sex" included "sexual orientation" in any of the ancient or contemporary societies where the third gender is found?

masculinity

Um... yes. It's in the article. ntennis 05:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirect from Gender Binary

I don't believe that the redirect from Gender Binary to Third Sex is appropriate. The Gender Binary should be a separate and distinct, (yet linked as related) article.

Article quoted in a Dutch Court case

Hi,

Here is a bit of trivia that might interest you. This article was quoted in a dutch Supreme Court case. A man wanted his gender information to be removed from his record, claiming he was of third gender. To find the quote search for (70). (his request was denied). Regards, Sander123 09:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mona ahmed book cover.jpg

Image:Mona ahmed book cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The word "sexual orientation" should be deleted from the description of third gender

I want to know, what is the source of this statement:

"The state of being neither male nor female may be understood in relation to the individual's biological sex, gender role, gender identity, or sexual orientation."

Because, the notion of 'sexual orientation' is mutually exclusive with the concept of 'third gender'. Sexual Orientation sees sex only as Man and woman, and does not recognise third gender. Thus a Hijra having sex with men is seen as an MSM. (Masculinity (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC))

A false objection as usual. The sentence is perfectly correct. The concept that a third sex as defined by orientation is used by early 20th century sexologists like Hirschfeld. Paul B (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hirschfeld and the ilk are just initial Western scholars trying to interpret the non-western concept of third gender. They believed that at a time. Then it should be mentioned accordingly. Is it still believed so by Western scholars or do they know better today? Are there instances from the world where third gender is defined on the basis of the western concept of 'sexual orientation'. Just one example?

In any case, Please provide the citation.

(Masculinity (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC))

In this paper titled "Thai Buddhist accounts of male homosexuality and AIDS in the 1980s (THai Sexuality in the Age of AIDS: Essays in Memory of Robert Ariss) by Peter Anthony Jackson; The Australian Journal of Anthropology; Vol.6 No.3; Pp.140-153; Dec.1995) it clearly says that inspite of the fact that a man has sex with men, he is distinct from a third sex (here Pandaka) that has sex with men.

Thus sexual orientation in itself doesn't define third sex. It is the effeminate behaviour of the male combined with an interest in receptive anal and oral sex that does.

Also, note that a man who penetrates another man will not qualify as a third sex. Only someone who gets penetrated will be.

           The Vinaya lists those sexual activities with men, women, pandaka and ubhatobyanjanaka that entail 
           spiritual defeat and a monk's automatic expulsion from the order: 
           1. Anal, vaginal or oral intercourse with a female human,
           non-human (i.e. an immaterial being or animal, 
           2. Anal, vaginal or oral intercourse with an ubhatobyanjanaka human, 
           non-human or animal, 
           3. Anal or oral intercourse(7) with a pandaka human, non-human or 
           animal; and 
           4. Anal or oral intercourse with a male human, non-human or animal.

Rejection of binary sex opposition does not equal third gender

In animals that exhibit sexual dimorphism, a number of individuals within a population will not differentiate sexually into bodies that are typically male or female. In non-human animals, this is called hermaphroditism, and in humans, it is called intersexuality. The incidence varies from population to population, and also varies depending on how femaleness and maleness are understood. Biologist and gender theorist Anne Fausto-Sterling proposed in a 1993 article that five sexes may be more adequate than just two, for describing human bodies.[6]"

The presence of two sexes and a continuum in between is not evidence of a third gender. A third gender would constitute a different social attitude towards individuals in this sexual continuum who weren't male or female. Unless it can be shown that society views intersex people with a different gender stereotype that is not just a mixture of masculine and feminine, this information is redundant. Snellios (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This para is confusing and wrong

"To different cultures or individuals, a third sex or gender may represent (1) an intermediate state between men and women, (2) a state of being both (such as "the spirit of a man in the body of a woman"), (3) the state of being neither (neuter), (4) the ability to cross or swap genders, or (4) another category altogether independent of male and female. This last definition is favored by those who argue for a strict interpretation of the "third gender" concept."

The four kinds of third gender enumerated above all refer to the same individuals -- people who represent a third gender apart from men and women. When the society views them positively they are considered both men and women. When it views them negatively, they are seen as neither men nor women. But, they don't refer to different individuals.

Also, whichever way you look at it, they are always considered as a distinct category independant of male and female so (4) is not an option, its the rule.

Please change this sentence accordingly. (Masculinity (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC))

Jesus was not a eunuch

This statement in the article is wrong and need to be deleted or explained further:

The first Christian theologian, Tertullian, wrote that Jesus himself was a eunuch (c. 200 AD).[71]

It misleads and misinforms by ending the statement just at that.(59.180.154.27 (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC))