Talk:Two-spirit/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Revert

I have reverted this poorly-explained removal of reliably-sourced material with a misleading edit summary. For one, the removed sources include The New York Times, a gold-standard reliable source which cannot possibly be questioned. The National Congress of American Indians is a widely-known advocacy and organizing group for indigenous peoples in the United States, and official publications of the group can of course be cited - they are perhaps the definition of experts on the subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The edit summary was not misleading. That diff includes 5 separate edits I made earlier, with edit summaries which I think are clear individually.

I removed the NCAI source as it didn't appear to me to be published scholarship, or be a news organisation, or have any reputation for fact-checking etc. A source from an advocacy group with unclear oversight appeared particularly biased to me, and was published without any attribution. The statement in the source - "most people associate the term with LGBT Natives" is clearly untrue at first glance, as "most people" don't know anything about Two-spirit. But perhaps I was wrong.

I subsequently removed the NYT citation - while of course it is a reliable source, in this case the cited article doesn't seem to support the text it is used as a reference for, so can be questioned in that sense. The sentence I removed is basically a paste from the NCAI source.

Similarly, I removed the NativeOut sources and text as NativeOut doesn't appear to be a reliable source. It looks like essentially a blog without reputable editorial oversight. Removing what I considered non-reliable sources seemed to take very little of meaning out of the article. There seemed to be better sources with supporting essentially the same information.

Anyway, I hope that makes sense now. What is your view of NativeOut as a source? --hippo43 (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Hippo, You tried to remove multiple reliable sources by mainstream, published Native authors and respected community workers that source the content, not only in the lede but throughout the entire article - breaking references and harming the code. Not only did you cut the NYT, you cut people who have entire books on these topics. Cultural experts are the most WP:RS sources we have, and you seem particularly focused on eliminating them. Then after cutting these RS sources and detailed footnotes, you tried to say the content is unsourced. This is misleading. This is not improving the article, it is degrading it.

This article started, like many WP articles did, with fewer sources. Then as more became available, that could add more nuance to the definitions, these additional sources and footnotes were added. Some of the sources are more traditional by WP standards, like the NYT. Others are in-group and less formal, like resource sites for group members. All add to the understanding of the topic. Articles can include both WP:RS and WP:V sources for this purpose.

In sourcing cultural topics from marginalized communities, we have to also take into account the inherent bias issues on Wikipedia, as well as class issues that mean that sometimes the best sources don't have the same financial backing for expensive-looking websites. So some of the sites may look more amateur, even if they are a solid and official spokesite for that community. So we use both to provide a fuller picture. Members of the Indigenous wikiproject have worked steadily on this article for years now, and this article has been stable. Topics like this require a familiarity with all the sources, including the books that are cited but not available online, as well as an understanding of the cultures and cultural context. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Some cleanup, restructuring and additions

Over the years people have wanted to add in some content that we haven't been able to allow because the contributors didn't source it. A significant amount of it was/is background on exactly what happened at that conference in 1990, what all went into choosing this term (two-spirit), as well as the actually rather large number of people who have never accepted it in their communities (and why). I've been aware of these concerns but, in the absence of RS sourcing, our hands were tied. In going over our sources more thoroughly recently, I realized we already had sources for this material cited here; the folks who had tried adding in this content had just never indicated this. I've now added that material in. It was too much for the lede, so I've done some restructuring of the article for readability - largely by creating the terminology section, in order to go into more detail on the material we've only touched on in the lede, to update it, and to provide a better intro and context for the traditional terminology section. Some of what is there was moved from other sections, hopefully making those sections more concise. I think the structure of the article makes more sense now.

The bit in the lede about four genders... we should have never let the implication stand that that was in any way pan-Indian, as we only have that sourced to the Dineh. That content is still in the article, I've just moved it to the Dineh section, where we have the RS sourcing for it. If anyone else has that gender arrangement, add it to their section, with RS sources. As for any pan-Indian structure, the only other "sources" I'm seeing for that are pop culture and inaccurate, and usually don't mention any specific culture. They're the type of romanticization we now have multiple sources indicating are a problem, and we have multiple sources confirming there's no universal one.

The other changes were to cut the duplication of content between sections, and to give a bit of a timeline in the terminology section, as well as to hopefully provide a sense of how usage has evolved over the almost 30 years that term has been in use. I hope this is more satisfactory to the many editors who've wanted these changes over the years. I just wish we could have incorporated more of these clarifications sooner. Best, - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced change

Anonymous user 60.240.16.200 please discuss your changes on talk and provide sources. Indigenous girl (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Unimportant GRAMMAR question (of a QUOTE), which is a run-on sentence

The following quote in this article doesn't seem to me to make sense, until I look up the linguistic meaning of the word 'gloss', and re-read the quote with that understanding. And I realize that since it's a quote it cannot be fixed in this article (because how it is shown here is presumably how it was originally written in the quoted material), even if my understanding of a 'fix' is correct (which it may not be). Perhaps see if the sentence makes sense to you. (The word 'likely' doesn't seem to me to fit within a correctly formed sentence, AS IT IS FOUND IN THE ORIGINAL QUOTE.)

"Outside Indo-European-speaking societies, "gender" would not be relevant to the social personae glosses "men" and "women," and "third gender" likely would be meaningless."

I think that's a run-on sentence, which could make the sense that it may have intended IF:

1. A SEMI-COLON were added after 'personae' and before 'glosses';
2. and if glosses refers specifically to the quote-enclosed words "men" and "women" and "third gender", in the linguistic 'annotative' sense. (See: gloss(annotation) - Wikipedia)
   

That would yield a corrected sentence (which CANNOT BE ADDED TO THE ARTICLE, because it would CHANGE the quoted material away from a quote!):

"Outside Indo-European-speaking societies, "gender" would not be relevant to the social personae; glosses "men" and "women," and "third gender" likely would be meaningless."

(Or for better understanding of the sentence, the word 'the' could be thought to be placed in front of the word 'glosses', so as to refer to 'the glosses "men" and "women"...'. UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

berdache reversions

Moving this from my talk page to article talk. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, the changes were perfectly sourced. You have not read them. Please add them back in and READ THEM FIRST. https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/17877?redirectedFrom=berdache#eid https://read.dukeupress.edu/american-speech/article/doi/10.1215/00031283-9616142/284645/Revisiting-berdacheNotes-on-a-Translinguistic The third one is in French but it is very important. Many users of this page read French. English does not have a monopoly on facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorrectionAcct (talk • contribs) 21:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I did. The dictionary link you posted loaded no content. I don't see content relevant to your changes at the second link. The link en francais is a long slog for anyone who is rusty or not fluent. Please quote the relevant passage here, along with a translation. Thanks. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary is the most authoritative English language source: you evidently did not read it: https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/17877?redirectedFrom=berdache#eid

The others are firewalled but that is not my problem if you can't read it. This site is anti-intellectual and I'm just deleting this Correction Account. It's interesting because every time I have ever attempted in good faith to correct egregiously false information. All the best to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorrectionAcct (talk • contribs) 21:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ElleM35.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 January 2021 and 19 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Secephalopod.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 19 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Johnsondeh. Peer reviewers: Castilli.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Uniformity

This article should settle on a single form of the word and stick with it. (Two-Spirit vs Two Spirit vs two spirit, etc.) As it is, even the first term used in the opening sentence differs from the article title. --Equivamp - talk 01:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The difference in forms for two-spirit seem to come mostly from quotations, although there is a misquotation of the term from the New York Times article as "Two Spirit" when the article itself says "Two-Spirit"<New York Times></https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/fashion/08SPIRIT.html?_r=0>. Should the quotations with the different forms of two-spirit be replaced by the chosen form of the word? The citation and quote would still be there. Additionally, the form "two-spirit" is used most throughout the article. Is this the chosen form that should be used for the entirety of the article? --Secephalopod (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Direct quotes should not be altered. (If a quote is mismatched, it should be fixed.) When not a direct quote, I've gone with the form in the source. The hyphenated form is not the most common usage. I'm pretty sure the most common form is still "two spirit", and people often capitalize it, so "Two Spirit". Last time there was an RFC, people were !voting, based not on familiarity with the topic, but on how they wanted it to look in a list of topics on WP, and on what they felt was best for English structure. That's how we wound up with an article name that doesn't match the most common form. They pushed for the rename, got a majority, renamed it and then moved on. So some default to the hyphen to match the new title, even though it is not the most common usage in the sources. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 17:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand. So the forms of the term two spirit that are quoted directly from the source will be left alone. For consistency with the article's title, should the forms of two spirit not directly quoted or not a source's name(essentially what is part of the body of the article) to two-spirit? In the Contents page there are sections of the article left as "two spirit" instead of the WP article's title's "Two-spirit". I know at the beginning the different ways of writing the term are listed, but I am not sure if the different forms should be used interchangeably as well. Secephalopod (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The term throughout the article should match the title of the article unless it's a direct quote, no? The opening line explains there are other ways to spell it and that should suffice -- the rest of the article should be consistent after that explanation, unless is there a Wikipedia guideline that says the spelling used in sources should impact the spelling used in non-quotes? I have never heard that reasoning used.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 19:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I've attempted to do this but have been reverted by CorbieVreccan. I'm throwing my support behind consistent capitalization/hyphenization for general use throughout the article (outside of direct quotes), but this appears to be a non-starter with this particular editor, for reasons I really do not understand. It's a stylistic issue, not a substantive one. WP Ludicer (talk) 05:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: if you think the current title is inappropriate, you should make the case for that in a new RM discussion. But as long as the current title has consensus, the prose of the article should match it (except in the case of direct quotes). The policy-based reason for this is that the MoS guideline governing capitalization in titles uses the exact same criteria as the one governing capitalization in running text (in particular, the former defers to the latter).

By my count, you've reverted at least three editors who have tried to edit the opening sentence to be consistent with the title (1, 2, 3), and there are two further editors in this discussion who have also expressed support for the change (well, three now, if you count me). As far as I can tell, you're the only one advocating for keeping the "Two-Spirit" capitalization. At this point, I think consensus is clearly in favour of at least changing the opening sentence to be consistent with the title, so I'm going to boldly do that.

These instances in the body I think should also be "two-spirit" for consistency, but I'd like to better understand the reason why you disagree. From your edit summary, it sounds like you're saying that our spelling of the term in any particular instance should match the spelling used by the source used to cite that instance. Is that right? If so, I don't think this accords with standard practice on wp. For example, I would not expect the article Yogurt to jump around between "yogurt" and "yoghurt", even though the cited sources use a mix of those spellings (and similarly for other, non-WP:ENGVAR spelling variations). Colin M (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Correct. The term should be consistently styled as "two-spirit" in the article to match the article name except in quotations and citations where it is styled differently. Consistent style within articles is an important editing principle and one which should be obvious whether or not it is explicitly expected by the MOS. Afterwriting (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not all that attached to the title or first usage, though, yes, it was pushed through by a team of people who had never edited the article before, and who did not seem familiar with the topic - their priority was standardizing the title with others on a list. The examples in the diff you include were to align with the sourcing - if you look at the sources it should be clear.

The push to use the hyphenated form also came from the unfamiliar editors. The more common form in Native sources, and the original one coined, is "two spirit", sometimes capitalized. However, I do take on board the grammatical, English language reasons for hyphenating; those can't be ruled out, and I haven't tried to expunge them. I don't think there's an easy answer to this. Honestly, I'm not trying to be belligerent here. I just want to respect the source materials, and given the choice of which to prioritize, that's how I lean. There just has never been a clear-cut way to standardize this, as it's not standardized in usage at large, and it's not our role as Wikipedians to force that standardization. The recent user who attempted wholesale changes seemed unaware of this, and got hostile when informed. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

New article about Two-spirit people on History News Network!

http://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/183036. Thought you would all be interested and it could be incorporated into the article. The article is by Gregory D. Smithers, who authored a book Reclaiming Two-Spirits: Sexuality, Spiritual Renewal & Sovereignty in Native America which could be another great source since the official book description calls it a "sweeping history of Indigenous traditions of gender, sexuality, and resistance that reveals how, despite centuries of colonialism, Two-Spirit people are reclaiming their place in Native nations." --Historyday01 (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Myra Laramee

Curious about this. If it's accurate, wondering why there's not more out there about her. Thoughts?

By one account, it was proposed by Anishinaabe elder Myra Laramee, after the phrase came to her in a dream.

Added by Montrealais in this diff. I think it's also worth noting that some of the articles that come up in a search about her also imply that the term was first coined in Ojibwe, and then translated into English... which is the complete opposite of what all other sources document.

I haven't added anything about it to the article, but there's also some writing out there (though maybe only in blogs) about Harry Hay (yeah... I know) appropriating some ideas from African cosmology that sound very like what came to be incorporated into the two spirit concept. Not recalling which African culture. I know several of Hay's white proteges were heavily pushing Hay's re-interpretations/misappropriations/inventions, and some of them were also at the 1990 conference (and/or the ones before it). Hmmmmm. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC) - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): May.mach (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jocelynn19.

— Assignment last updated by WGST320 (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Two-spirit societies - needs cleanup on unsourced

Most of the linked citations are to dead links. Some of the entries may have never been sourced. I started going through them but don't have time right now to do a thorough job. Noting it here in case anyone else wants to take a run at it. Noting also to make certain any sources are for the right group. I just had to revert a spammy link to an occult/spells site that had the same name as one of the groups, but was not appropriate. It included a page that mentioned the '89 and '90 gatherings, but it was clearly a commercial spellcraft, witchcraft and occult site, not a 2S Society page. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Page protection

A series of ArbCom rulings pertaining to gender-related pages, like other sanctions and guidelines for controversial topics suggest page protection when perennial vandalism is an issue. As this page keeps getting hit by IP and SPA vandals, I've pushed the button for indefinite semi-protection, requiring users to log-in and commit to editing here. As I also edit the article, per usual, if anyone has an issue with me being an involved admin, feel free to voice any concerns here, with me directly, or at WP:RFPP. Best, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Remove OR/SYNTH

Large portions of this page are from the previous Two-Spirit identity theory. I would guess nearly half of the current content originates there. I think it would be a good idea to separate these articles again. The original article's talk page is in consensus with many comments on this talk page as well as my own opinion: the content is a personal essay that is poorly sourced and what sources it does include are totally misleading. The major sources are textbooks for college courses and academic faculty internal publications, which is another hint.

I've been checking, verifying, and rephrasing. The statements in the paragraphs I moved under Contemporary issues, once I cleaned up the sources and quotations, had no citations, meaning these are not actually statements but original claims. Quotations were truncated, misrepresented, and recontextualized to support those arguments. (Arguments I have never heard and don't think should be prioritized on a page about culture vs a page about academic theory.) I was not able to find in the cited sources or a quick perusal of larger sources established conclusions like those stated here.

I think that WP:OR and WP:SYNTH need to be invoked here. Because this content was merged, about half of this article is hardcore academic discourse with no sources, which is immensely detracting from the readability and credibility of the page. A section summarizing established theory would be appropriate, and maybe reinstating the previous Two-Spirit identity theory article and linking the section here to it. The OR portions need to be removed regardless. If no one objects to this, I will go ahead and make these changes. Pingnova (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:Two-Spirit identity theory. That article was a mess. Please also see the talk page here. Too much misinformation in that article, it would have been deleted had we not merged it here. I've only glanced at your edits here but, I'm sorry to tell you this, I'm already seeing some serious problems. This article is well-sourced and I'm not seeing your issues with SYNTH or OR. I'll go over this now, but deleting things like the fact this is a neologism, saying it's ancient when it's not... I think you may be relying on either out of date scholarship by anthros or claims that we've dismissed. I think you may need to familiarize yourself with this a bit more. Best wishes, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm already concerned that you are tagging "who" after the cited authors. Their names and works are right there.... - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'm leaving who tags in places where an author's last name with no first name or context such as where the quote comes from, who the author is, or what the source is about because in those uses that is very confusing. Clarity is needed around those quotations.

If the identity theory article was misleading, why was the misleading content merged here? It retains much of the issues previous editors and talk pages raised. I don't understand how that improved the content from the theory page or the content of this page. I'm not saying that was a well written article, just that because of the nature of its content and that it dominates this article, it's probably appropriate as it's own article. For example Queer, Queer theory, and Queer studies are all separate pages despite the subject being the same. This allows the articles to go into detail without detracting from the readability of a main article. And from a Native perspective, Dakota people, Dakota language, and further subdivisions such as Nakota people and Lakota people all have their own pages for further specifics without elongating Sioux, which serves to define that particular topic and give overviews of notable specific topics nested within it.

I removed some terminology and phrasing from the top sections because those sections are intended for general audiences, and there was too much jargon and complex subject analysis to meet readability guidelines. It is a neologism, but that is under etymology, the study of the word itself and not the entire subject. Again if you look at other LGBTQ pages, they do not go into such detail in top sections, but more detailed discussion is included in further sections and pages.

Nowhere did I imply the English term two-spirit is ancient. I specifically dated it multiple times to 1990 and the conference and Native author listed in the existing sources. The identities and cultural practices two-spirit describes are ancient, as the article goes on to demonstrate in sections such as the one listing Native language terms for people of various gender identities. If there is lack of clarity around my editing there, please copy it to this talk heading so we can review it.

The article is not a pure theory article but also encompasses history, etymology, and modern people and culture. There are existing sections to discuss each of those subjects, which I united some of the content of the article under for clarity. The article structure and content is confusing, the sourcing is unclear and misleading in many cases, and a concerning number of claims remain unsourced or attributed to sources that do not support the claim. Which is where my concern for OR and SYNTH comes in.

Before you revert I would definitely prefer we continue this talk conversation to ensure we are on the same page. I am more than willing to make further changes, but they need to be by Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks. Pingnova (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

You removed "modern" from the lede. You moved cited content to new sections and then marked it as unsourced. As I noted, you added pull quotes by pretendians. If you read the sources by Natives, and I ask you to, as well as those by respectful nons who attended the conferences and spent time really listening to the Native attendees, we have sources for the material you marked "unsourced" or "who". You need to read the whole article, and the sources before making massive changes. If you don't know who wrote a source, when they are cited multiple times in an article, that tells me you haven't read the sources. Lots of people have worked on this over the years. Please respect that, and the work cited in the article. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Removing extraneous descriptive text from the general introduction that is later addressed in the etymology section is in no way equivalent to make such a claim as you describe.

If the "pretendian" you mean is Tony Enos, a well known Native musician who is a registered member of Eastern Band Cherokee, I will need some sources to support the claim that he is not Native. Because that is certainly a novel argument I observed nowhere else.

I read the entire article. I edited only clarity and wiki formatting. I retained all sources and if the text they were attatched to changed it was to conform with WP:V and MOS:PMC which specifies: "Quotations must be verifiably attributed, and the wording of the quoted text must be faithfully reproduced." That is not at all how the quotes in this article were presented.

I read most of the major sources and intended to continue working on this page. I can't edit it all at once. Adding templates asking for clarification signifies to all editors including myself that the article continues to need attention.

I appreciate you concern. I am going to escalate this conversation because of conflict with Wikipedia guidelines. Pingnova (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to contact the EBC about Tony Enos. My understanding is that he's now dropped the claim. The WP:ONUS is for you to cite RS sources, not self-claims, that he is Native. If you don't know how to do that, see this helpful essay by the wikiproject: Determining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities, in particular, this section for citing sources: WP:NDN-RS I'm sorry if I sound mean here. I don't mean to, really. But for you to flag Pember and Lang when they are already described by Nation and occupation in the article body was a red flag, as has been some of the wording you've used. You also had some of the same text copied and pasted three times in the same paragraph. I appreciate that you mean well, but you need to take your time and get up to speed here. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Pingnova Tony Enos is absolutely not EBCI. He dropped his Cherokee claim for a bit and is now a member of the non-profit organization known as the Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama. They have state recognition but are not recognized by the three federally recognized Cherokee communities. [1]https://vocal.media/interview/two-spirits-play-a-pivotal-role-to-indigenous-survival. Indigenous girl (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I was aware of the verification requirements but didn't see any results when looking around about him that talked about Echota. The most recent articles on Indian Country Today only mentioned Eastern Band Cherokee and none mentioned any disputed claims. Thanks for verifying. Pingnova (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

"not 'traditional'" and "not accepted by 'traditional' people"

LokiTheLiar, I'm not sure what you mean by this. Within community there are traditional elders and Elders that do not use the term Two Spirit, they instead choose to use the appropriate term in their language. Language retention and revitalization is incredibly important and I personally understand the desire for traditional people to relearn or continue to use traditional descriptors rather than a term in English. Could you please clarify how this relates to a Bat Mitzvah? I really know very little about Judaism so I had to do some googling. From what I understand, Judith Kaplan was the first person to have a Bat Mitzvah in the United States. I have read conflicting this as to when the first actual ceremony was but let's say it was Judith. This would make the Bat Mitzvah ceremony new(ish) but you say it is widely accepted by traditional Jews. The term Two-spirit is new, it is not traditional and it is not widely accepted by traditional people for the reasons I gave above. If I am a girl who likes girls or a man who lives like a woman, my elders aren't going to have a problem with that, however they will use our language to describe these spaces we hold rather than use a new English word that is rather broad and, well, English. I hope I've made sense. Indigenous girl (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The analogy: a "bat mitzvah" is a fairly recent invention (for a very long time there were bar mitzvahs and no bat mitzvahs) and therefore not a traditional part of Jewish practice. However even Orthodox Jews (= traditionalists) do them; they're entirely mainstream within the community. Therefore, those two things are not the same: being traditional and being accepted by traditional people are not the same thing.

And as for the rest of that: maybe it's right and maybe it's not, but the source doesn't support it. It supports that the term is not traditionally used but not that it isn't supported by traditional people. The point of the analogy is that they are different things and you can't use a source that says one of them to mean the other. Loki (talk) 03:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for responding! I appreciate you clearing that up. I know plenty of traditionals that are this way. I made the assumption it was in the source. Indigenous girl (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Offensive terms?

We can't just state that something is offensive, without stating to whom it is offensive and citing evidence. It's a subjective term. Also, "to replace the offensive, anthropological terms that were still in wide use.[5] While "two-spirit" has been controversial since its adoption,[6] the term has experienced more academic and social acceptance than the derogatory anthropological term it replaced." seems to tiptoe round the 'anthropological term(s)' being replaced without naming them.

Can anyone enlighten readers about this? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The term is berdache, source Encyclopedia Britannica and various ones linked on that WL. It's so offensive, I suppose someone didn't even want to list it on this article.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 04:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Male-bodied two-spirit people, regardless of gender identification, can go to war...

...and have access to male activities such as male-only sweat lodge ceremonies. Is this universal? The article makes it clear there is a lot of variety amongst different native american cultures, so it would be surprising and noteworthy if this claim was true about all of them. I can't check the source because it no longer works. LastDodo (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)