Talk:two-spirit

RFV discussion
Native American mixed gender. Someone has deposited a vast amount of research not well formatted. I think that the substantial cleanup effort requires that the definitions be correct and attestable before the translation-table clean up begins. DCDuring TALK 12:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Uhm, unfortunately, having been involved in published research on this topic, it's essentially undefinable in English which assumes dichotomous sex and gender. I would propose, but solely based on research among 'aboriginal north american peoples' (itself a disputed concept) three primary definitions in common parlance:
 * Non-heterosexual people, sexual minorities, especially of Aboriginal North American ethnicity.
 * Non-western gender identified; a person whose dichotomous genetic sex is not the same as the person's gender role or presentation. Especially a person of Aboriginal North American ethnicity.
 * Any queer person, especially one embracing a "Native American"-influenced spirituality.
 * - Amgine/talk 03:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, both senses removed and replaced with. —Ruakh TALK 15:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Etymology discussion
Removed etymology because it is unsubstantiated and suspect for grammatical reasons(see detailed reasons at talk section of Wikipedia article on "two spirit").


 * the "etymology" of this thing is that it has been touted as a politically correct shibboleth since ca. 1993. This is a cultural thing. In the USA, interest groups only feel they are given due attention if everyone is forced to tiptoe around them and emphatically embraces their preferred terminology du jour. "This attempt at rebranding recalls the shifts from homosexual to gay to queer to GLBT." A descriptive dictionary will report this kind of US-specific proscriptivism, but it will not either endorse or reject it.
 * personally, I feel that "two-spirit" is much more disingenious than the mere "LGBT" or "queer" because it is an attempt to simulate a Sapir-Whorfian "indigenous cultural viewpoint" expressed in vocabulary by means of made-up vocabulary. The PC people in the US are very fond of doing this, see "never again the burning times" in radical pagan feminism, which simulates a "genocide survivor" trauma expressed in culture-specific vocabulary. Exactly the same thing is going on in Maafa, again simulating "genocide survivor" vocabulary, shamelessly imitating the real term Shoah. To my mind, this is despicable linguistic fraud. The real crime of cultural chauvinism is perpetrated by the people using such fraudulent mimicry terminology.
 * But I can detach myself from this personal opinion sufficiently to just report the facts. Which are that this is a terminlogical fashion which arose in certain subcultures in the USA in the 1990s. --Dbachmann (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Translations
Per RFC, these have been moved out of the entry until they can be checked and formatted. (Note how badly they are formatted, and how many do not use canonical language names.)


 * Aleut: shupan


 * Blackfoot:
 * a'kiihka'si, aawoowa'kii
 * see the translations in the entry (which use obsolete orthography); ake'skassi (mb), sakwo'mapi / akikwan (fb)


 * Chiricahua: ńdéʼisdzan


 * Chumash:
 * Ineseño: agí


 * Coahuiltec: monaguia (mb)


 * Deg Hit’an (Ingalik): nok’olhanxodelea:ne, che:lxodelea:ne


 * Ho-Chunk (Winnebago): shiáŋge


 * "Illinois" (possibly "Miami", possibly something else): ikoueta, ickoue ne kioussa


 * Interior Salish (Flathead): ma’kalí, me'mi , tcin-mamalks (dress as women, per Lang)


 * Karankawa:


 * Kawaiisu: hu'yupǐz


 * Kutenai: kupatke'tek, titqattek


 * Lakota: bloka egla wa ke


 * Maricopa: ǐlyaxai´ / ilyaxai', yĕsa’a´n , kwǐraxamĕ´ / kwiraxame'


 * Miami:


 * Miwok: osabu


 * Monache: tai'yap (mb)


 * Nisenan / Southern Maidu: osa'pu


 * Nomlaki: tohket ; walusa, tahket (mb)


 * Ojibwe: egwakwe or agokwa ; agokwa (mb), okitcitakwe (fb)


 * Osage: mixu'ga (mb)


 * Paiute:
 * Northern Paiute: moroni noho tüvasa ; tuva'sa (mb), moroni noho (fb)
 * Mono (United States of America): tai'up
 * Southern Paiute: tüwasawuts or ma:ai'pots


 * Patwin: panaro bobum pi


 * Papago: ge kuhkunaj (mb)
 * Pima: wiik'ovat / ge kuhkunaj (mb)
 * Tohono O'odham (Papago), Akimel O'odham (Pima): wi:k’ovat


 * Northern Pomo (Kalekau, Kulanapa): das/dass
 * Clear Lake Pomo: das
 * Southern Pomo: tǃun
 * Southeastern Pomo: das or tlum (mb) / t!um


 * Portuguese: dois-espíritos


 * Quinault: keknatsa'nxwixʷ, tawkxwa'nsixʷ


 * Salinan: coya


 * Sanpoil: st’a´mia ; Sanpoil: sinlhisp (mb) / sinta' (fb) or siwi'xu (mb) / xlau'wam (fb)


 * Shasta: gituk'uwahí


 * Shoshone (Snake):
 * Eastern: waipenait[eN] "womanish one, like a woman; berdache"
 * Bannock: tuva'sa
 * Lemhi: tübasa, taikwahni tainnapa&apos; , waip:ü suŋwe or taikwahni wa'ippena&apos;
 * Gosiute: tuvasa
 * Promontory Point: tubasa waip:
 * Nevada: tainna’wa’ippe or waip: siŋwa, nüwüdücka
 * unspecified Shoshoni: tubasa (mb) / nuwuduka, waippu (or?) sungwe (fb)


 * Tipai: jotes (mb)


 * Tlingit: wⁿcitc
 * Tolowa: minhushre (mb)
 * Tsimshian: Kanâ'ts&apos;, Ma̱hana̱'a̱x , mi'yuuta
 * Tübatulabal: huiy
 * Southern Ute: tuwásawits
 * unspecified Ute: tuwasawits (mb)


 * Wappo: wós
 * Winnebago: shiange (mb)


 * Wishram: ikǃê´laskait ; Wishram: ikle'lashkait (mb)


 * Yana: lô'ya ; Yana: law'ya (mb)


 * Yokuts:
 * Michahai: tono'cim
 * Yaudanchi: tongochim
 * Waksachi: tai'yap
 * Unclear dialect: tongochim, tunosim
 * unspecified Yokuts: tono'ceem / lokowitnono (Tulare) (mb)


 * Yupik:
 * Siberian Yupik (St. Lawrence Island, Yuit, Western Alaskan Yupik): anasik or yuk allakuyaaq, uktasik
 * Kusquqvagmiut (Kuskowagamiut, Kuskokwim river, Central Alaskan Yup'ik): arnaruaq, angutnguaq


 * Africa:
 * Kwanyama: esenge, plural omasenge


 * Indonesian: waria
 * Songe: kitesha, plural bitesha


 * Africa:
 * Bagisu: buyazi
 * Lebou: gor-digen
 * Lugbara: okule, agule
 * Maale: ashtime; mobo
 * Mbo: mangaiko
 * Shatt: londo
 * Swahili: mkesimume
 * Kenyan Swahili: mashoga
 * Wolof: goorjigeen, gordjiguène
 * Zulu: isangoma


 * Asia:
 * Korean: 무당 (mudang)
 * Chukchi: yirka´ɛ-la´ul, qa´cikicheca


 * Southeast Asia
 * Burmese: ʾakhrauk /ʔəčʰɔʔ/ (mostly rendered as "acault")
 * Thai: กระเทย (kathoey) ("hermaphrodite"), สาวประเภทสอง (sao praphet song) (ladyboy, "a second kind of woman"), เพศที่สาม (phet thee sam) ("third gender" or "third sex")


 * in the Philippines:
 * unclear language: binabae
 * unclear language: bading
 * unclear language: lakin-on
 * Cebuano (Sugboanon): bayot
 * Hiligaynon (Ilonggo): agi
 * Tagalog: bakla
 * Tausug: bantut


 * South Asia
 * Hindi: हीजड़ा hijra or किन्नर (kinnar)
 * Tamil: அரவாணி (aravanni)
 * Nepali: meti
 * Urdu: khusra


 * in Borneo
 * Basir (among the Ngaju of Kalimantan)
 * Manang bali (among the Iban)


 * in Sulawesi
 * Basaja (among the Toradjas)
 * Bissu (among the Makassarese and Bugis)


 * Middle East
 * Arabic: مخنثون, مترجلات mutarajjulat , خنثى khuntha
 * Ottoman Turkish: köçek


 * Polynesia:
 * Cook Islands Maori: 'akava'ine
 * Hawaiian: māhū wahine
 * Maori: whakawahine
 * Samoan: fa'afafine
 * Tahitian: māhū vahine
 * Tonga(n): kakafefine/kakaleitī
 * Tuvalu(an): pinapinaaine


 * Chickasaw: hoobuk (spurious: actually a general insult)
 * Fox: i-coo-coo-a/i-cu-cu-a, äyä‘kwä´ (not only can I not find evidence of these terms, their orthographies are terribly obsolete)
 * Gros Ventre: athúth
 * Lakota: kȟoškálaka (spurious: see entry)
 * Luiseño: uluqui / 'uleeki (spurious: see entry)
 * Mi'kmaq: geenumu gesallagee (one editor wrote: "perhaps correctly spelt ji'nmue'sm gesalatl", which is plausible given that the Mi'kmaq Talking Dictionary has "he loves me" (NB 'me', not 'men') = gesalit, and ji'nmue'sm = "likes the company of men (usually refers to a woman)", ji'nm = man, ji'nmug = men, ji'nmu = men (animate obviative plural) ... but if correct, that term would seem to be a rather SOPpy reference to a gay rather than a trans person)


 * Ojibwe: ogichida-akwe
 * Takelma: xa'wisa (The Takelma and their Athapascan neighbors, 1987, seems to use this term of any "go-between", including one in e.g. injury lawsuit negotiations)
 * Tenino (Warmsprings): waxlha
 * Yokuts:
 * Tachi Yokuts: lokowitnono

Moved out of the main entry to here by: - -sche (discuss) 19:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Word unknown but known to exist

 * The Wiyot must have had a word for this, because per Native Americans ISBN 0874368367 "female berdaches played an important role in Wiyot ceremonialism", and per Handbook of North American Indians: California (1978, ISBN 0160045746 "Male berdaches were present in Wiyot society". Sabine Lang adds the further detail that Wiyot two-spirits were excluded from the sweat-house, even during ceremonies; they hunted and could wear either men's clothing or women's clothing. But none of these books give the terms used to denote such people. - -sche (discuss) 07:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Specific two-spirit figures
These were listed as translations of "two-spirit", but are in fact the names of specific two-spirit people:
 * Blackfoot:
 * Alutiiq: Tyakutyik (q.v.)
 * Nuxálk / Bella Coola: (Sxints, Sx̭ınts, Sx’ǐnts) (q.v.)
 * Winnebago:
 * Yuman (Yuma, Kumeyaay/Diegueño (Tipai, Kamia), etc): Warharmi (g.v.)

Moved out of the main entry to here by: - -sche (discuss) 19:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Itelmen
The Itelmen translation (koekchuchami) is incorrect. First, the ending -ami is a Russian noun case ending (instrumental plural). Second, Itelmen uses Cyrillic. The word is probably . —Stephen (Talk) 04:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Good catch! It seems that the reference which had koekchuchami was in error. Regarding the script, Wikipedia says Itelmen used the Latin alphabet when it was first written (in the 1930s), and switched to Cyrillic in the 1980s. Google Books has mentions of both forms (scripts). - -sche (discuss) 06:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the word "коекчучъ" is from a very old Russian book, written in cyrillic by some cool dude who's name im forgot, and probably translated into English very soon after it came out. Probably, it is anyway not spelled correct in the native Itelmen pronounciacation, because Itelmens ain't using this word anymore. The similar words like жупанъ, красикъ, кейевъ (?) were also used here and there, but im not remember in what context (are they Russian, Itelmen or Chukchi). By the way, some tribes of Chukchi had also transgender shamans, but im not find yet any legit pronounce-transcription of their name(s). Tollef Salemann (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC discussion: February 2012
Assuming that the term is valid, the translation tables are a mess. But the first issue is still the validity of the uncited definitions, which differ from the ones that failed RfV. DCDuring TALK 13:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC discussion: November 2013
The translation table is in a form that is a substantial departure from our format, using many multi-part language names, unlinked translations, with non-conforming glosses and at least one out-of place comment. It has the look of a data deposit from someone's academic research project.

Someone who had good knowledge of the range of native American languages, tribes, and geography is needed to render this into our format. Alternatively, the data could be copied to the Talk page and the entry perhaps reverted to a state when it was more conformant. DCDuring TALK 15:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What’s more, there is a hidden translation table with the gloss “Similar mixed-gender identities outside of North America”. — Ungoliant (Falai) 15:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think DCDuring's suggestion of moving the content to the talk page until it can be checked and formatted is best. I have moved it and will begin checking what I can. - -sche (discuss) 20:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Progress report: I've checked about half of the entries, adding them back to the mainspace if they were valid and adding them to the "translations I couldn't find any evidence for" table above if they weren't. - -sche (discuss) 15:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Definition change
, as I know you did some work on this entry, I wanted to make sure that a recent edit that changed the definitions somewhat come to your attention. I for one don't know whether sexual orientation ought to be part of the definition at all. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Sexual orientation is definitely part of it in the Native communities. In some instances sexual orientation is the only way the people are "gender variant," while in other communities there are also factors in traditional ceremonial dress and ornamentation. I really am not sure what's in the books that have been written. My knowledge on this comes from traditional Two Spirits in the Dineh community, as well as ceremonial people in a handful of other Nations. CorbieVreccan (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This article mentions that traditional Two Spirits among the Dineh may identify in contemporary terms as either a gay male or a transgender woman: "Although both Naswood and Enfield identify as nádleeh, they choose a different gender identity in English that influences their gaze and politics. Naswood identifies as a gay male, and Enfield states that she is a transgender woman. Their division in identities is a recent cultural evolution because Navajos did not make this exact kind of differentiation among nádleeh prior to contemporary times." CorbieVreccan (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The term refers to gender variants. It refers mostly to people who belong to defined gender categories which are either equivalent to transgender categories or else third-gender and fourth-gender, it usually also covers known cases of people who would now be considered transgender or third-gender but whose tribes did not have defined gender categories besides ones that would now be termed cis male and cis female. It doesn't refer to just any gender variance, though; for example, a cisgender, heterosexual woman who wears a suit and works as a lawyer or who works as a construction worker is unlikely to be considered a two-spirit. As Corbie points out, there are a few tribal categories which are subsumed under the broad umbrella of "two-spirit" where "cross-dressing" (for lack of a better way of putting it) and other gender-variant actions are either optional or not part of the definition of the category at all, and the only thing "gender variant" about the category is sexuality and (/or?) social role (and the fact that the category was classified by the tribe, or possibly only by outsiders, as a gender category). However, defining the term as "homosexual, bisexual or gender-variant" is inaccurate and gives far too much prominence to sexuality, which is not a primary meaning of the term. "Transgender or ... third-gender", despite being modern terms, are fine to using in explaining the meaning of this term, IMO (or if not, why add "homosexual", another modern term?), but Corbie is right to have highlighted that defining this term as "identifying as transgender" suggests, well, identification with the term "transgender". I'll mull over how this could be (re)worded best. The difficulty in defining this term is that it's a broad umbrella term. - -sche (discuss) 23:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This is further complicated by the fact that many Indigenous people whose communities recognize them as Two Spirits see mainstream/non-Native definitions of gay, lesbian, bi and/or trans as not identical to their understanding of themselves or their roles in their cultures. It's not an exact translation. In these cases they relate more to the (also modern) term, Two Spirit (or, more traditionally, the specific term used in their culture) and not as any of the LGBT terms used by non-Natives. "Two Spirit" itself is a modern, pan-Indian term coined for intertribal organizing. It's not even clear if the term originated in the Indigenous communities, though it does bear a strong resemblance to some tribes' ideas of gender (but not others). One of the ways it tends to differ from current, non-Native ideas of trans is that biology is acknowledged, with people describing themselves as, for instance, "a male-bodied two spirit" or "a female-bodied two spirit," and neither being seen as the same as men or women. It's a different perspective, so making it understandable to a general audience is not the easiest task. CorbieVreccan (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it's getting there, but I really think sexuality needs to be mentioned in some way. In some communities being gay or bi (etc) is the only gender-variance involved. Gender-variant, non-heterosexual? (We gots lots of "non-"s...) CorbieVreccan (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmm, can you name a tribe where two-spirits are distinguished only by sexuality? I'm having trouble recalling one, now that I think about it, though I can think of tribes (e.g. the Tewa, according to some sources) where wearing clothing associated with another sex was optional or not done, and the distinctive feature was an androgynous social role and choice of work as well as range of partners. A number of reference works by gay white men interpret two-spirits as gay based on the fact that e.g. trans-woman-like (femininely dressed, etc) people often took men as partners, but that's a questionable interpretation, and raises the question of why the cisgender men who had sex with two-spirits — as well as cisgender gay men who had sex with other cisgender gay men, and cisgender lesbian couples (as among the Tewa, where they existed alongside and distinct from two-spirits) — aren't considered two-spirits, if sexuality is sufficient to be a two spirit. The defining feature seems to be that two-spirits belong to a not-cis-male, not-cis-female gender category, rather than sexuality — they may have a certain sexuality, but cisgender people might have the same sexuality. By the way, if anyone wondered, my logic behind putting "gender-variant, non-cisgender, or non-binary" rather than just "gender-variant" is that adhering to a socially-defined and -recognized third-gender role doesn't seem "variant" except from the point of view of a culture that only has two gender roles. - -sche (discuss) 20:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know if anyone legit has written about it, but among Lakota I know, "winkte" is used for gay men, even if they are masculine males. Yet the anthropology books I've seen say it only refers to those who are gender-variant in work and dress. Two-Spirit is a modern term that largely relates to cultures with two genders. Those who have four genders may use the term Two-Spirit for the sake of intertribal/pan-Indian organizing, but the traditional people don't usually use it unless they think it's the only word someone from outside their culture will understand. More later. Busy at the moment. CorbieVreccan (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Aha, thanks! Yes, in the modern era some people apply winkte to gay men. It was historically a gender category, though; they did feminine work like embroidery and cooking (Mirsky 1937), beadwork and quillwork (Hassrick 1982), and crocheting (William 1986); they danced in women's dances (Williams 1986); and at least some wore clothing associated with women (Williams 1986). Looking into it, Sabine Lang (Men as Women, 2010) has something that sounds like prime usage-note material; she says two-spirit "originated under very specific historical circumstances and [...] in its original meaning, it encompasse[d] contemporary gay and lesbian Native Americans as well as people, both in the old tribal cultures and in the present, who identify themselves as being of a gender other than [cis] man or woman, such as the Navajo nadleehe, the Shoshoni tainna wa'ippe, or the Lakota winkte. In that meaning, Native American gays/lesbians of today and the alternatively gendered people of the tribal cultures are viewed as essentially identical. This view, however, is not even unanimously shared in Native American communities, especially by people who are still familiar with the traditions of gender variance in their cultures and who will often [...] view gays and lesbians as different from winkte, tainna wa'ippe, and so on." - -sche (discuss) 05:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked it a bit more. I wish we could make this more concise, but only using modern, mainstream LGBTQI+ terminology falls short (see my edit summary). It's important to remember that people who fill this ceremonial role in living cultures still exist, alongside more mainstream (non-Native) LGBT groups; terminology is still evolving, and I think we need to prioritize actual Two Spirit voices over non-Native anthropological ones. Some Two Spirit folks also participate in mainstream groups, but many others do not. CorbieVreccan (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This still leaves out the most central factor of ceremonial role and community, and the over-reliance on "nons" is a problem. See the sources in the WP article. CorbieVreccan (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to re-iterate the ongoing issue we have on the 'pedia and wiktionary with Native topics and terminology: It is very tough to write for a general audience when it comes to matters that are private, and not meant to be defined, let alone dissected, by those outside the culture and community. A lot of the information about these things is purposely not written down, and not shared with non-Natives. Some feel we shouldn't even interact here, and let the misinformation sit. Others, usually young people who may be Native but who are not part of their traditional cultures, or from a culture that does not have a Two Spirit tradition, confidently give interviews or write opinion pieces for mainstream sources where they give incorrect definitions, and those wind up being used as sources. Worse, the anthro misinformation gets recycled ad nauseum. Here are a couple quotes. CorbieVreccan (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Pember, Mary Annette (Oct 13, 2016). "'Two Spirit' Tradition Far From Ubiquitous Among Tribes". Rewire. Retrieved October 17, 2016. "Unfortunately, depending on an oral tradition to impart our ways to future generations opened the floodgates for early non-Native explorers, missionaries, and anthropologists to write books describing Native peoples and therefore bolstering their own role as experts. These writings were and still are entrenched in the perspective of the authors who were and are mostly white men."

"A Spirit of Belonging, Inside and Out". The New York Times. 8 Oct 2006. Retrieved 28 July 2016. "'The elders will tell you the difference between a gay Indian and a Two-Spirit,' [Criddle] said, underscoring the idea that simply being gay and Indian does not make someone a Two-Spirit."

Pruden, Harlan; Edmo, Se-ah-dom (2016). "Two-Spirit People: Sex, Gender & Sexuality in Historic and Contemporary Native America" (PDF). National Congress of American Indians Policy Research Center. "The term/identity of two-spirit does not make sense unless it is contextualized within a Native American frame." "Today, most people associate the term with LGBT Natives; however, the work of the two-spirit organizations is more akin with the traditional understanding."

The outdated anthro-type quote, of straight males trying to "have sex with" two-spirits "for luck" was frightening younger members of the community, as well as those who care for them. It came off as rapey. I've replaced it with those above. Try to put yourself in the shoes of someone being seen as a target that way. It's not just the word, Berdache, that needs to be gotten rid of, it's the attitudes the colonists brought with it. CorbieVreccan (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw that you're an admin on en.wiki, so I thought you'd understand the w:WP:NPOV policy. It applies here too. We're a dictionary, just like Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. We're not in the business of getting rid of misguided attitudes or avoiding frightening people. It doesn't make a big difference to me which quotations are on the page, but you have to understand that we're not going to censor quotations or definitions you don't like in favour of those you do. Our only job here is to describe how the word is used. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Then collaborate instead of just hitting a wholesale revert. CorbieVreccan (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's difficult; I don't know about the topic, whereas you do. Meanwhile, your highest priority is protecting the interests of affected communities, whereas mine is to build a comprehensive, neutral dictionary. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the text of what Neill has written about two-spirit in google books preview. He's not usable. His text on Native topics is laughable and offensive; he knows nothing on the topic. It's full of third-hand misinformation and stereotypes. It's not "censorship" to cut inaccuracies. I realize the use of quotes on wiktionary is simply to show usage, but there's an implication of sourcing, and a chance that readers will look to the source quoted for more information. There's no reason to quote randos that misrepresent the topic, when better ones are available. People in these communities know all too well about genocide and being predated on, and live with it every day. It's not that discussing it is too sensitive; it's discussed all the time. The point is to discuss it accurately. I don't believe in censorship or trigger warnings. The point is to use accurate, current definitions, not outmoded, inaccurate ones, and to draw a distinction between historical usages and current ones. CorbieVreccan (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * When someone says "there are three two-spirits living in this Ojibwe community", they mean there are three individuals, not three ceremonial roles, and likewise when they say "___ is a two-spirit": the term refers to "a person who..." not "a role [for persons who]...". That much of the definition is straightforward to revise, and I'll revise it. Wording the next bit is indeed harder. I can see benefits and drawbacks to both the previous and the current revision/definition, but even the adjective that was retained in both of them is tricky: is it really "gender-variant" to conform to a societally-defined [third, etc] gender? As far as the revision to the second half of the definition, do the speakers who include homosexuals under the term really include only homosexuals and exclude e.g. bisexuals? Some may; others don't. The previous definition resorted to "non"s because it is, in some ways, a category partially delimited by being not other categories (like "non-binary" is). - -sche (discuss) 02:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I added bisexual. It would be very clunky with the current parenthetics, but I think it would be more accurate to put something like, (less often, bisexual). Having both "tribal" and "cultural" is a bit redundant, I know; if we compress it, I'd prefer we go with "cultural", as I think some of the connotations around "tribal" can also add to the past-tensing and othering issues. CorbieVreccan (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * - -sche you said,"When someone says "there are three two-spirits living in this Ojibwe community", they mean there are three individuals, not three ceremonial roles, and likewise when they say "___ is a two-spirit": the term refers to "a person who..." not "a role [for persons who]...". Actually when someone says 'there are three two-spirits living in this Ojibwe community" they are stating there are three individuals who are considered ceremonial people in the two-spirit context. They don't mean three random people who are not straight. As CorbieVreccan shown in numerous sourced quotes by indigenous peoples it is a ceremonial role. There are enough indigenous sources available so as not to use white anthros doing time for pedophilia. I would think that one would want a non-biased entry that is accurate. Using questionable sources that have no in community relationships and are wildly inaccurate perpetuates ignorance. Indigenous girl (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The "who"-clause followed by ellipses in my comment, in "a person who...", show where I was aware of, but elided because they were not the immediate focus of that part of the comment, the parts of the definition that delimit which (indeed non-random) individuals the term refers to. Mentioning that two-spirits generally have a ceremonial role is fine, it was only an error to begin the definition "A ceremonial role...": that was a simple 'rookie' misunderstanding of how definitions are written, similar to when new users of Wiktionary define adjectives as "the state of being X" (as if they were nouns) and other Wiktionarians have to rewrite them to say "being or pertaining to X". If you want to change e.g. the "...cultural category" clause to "...ceremonial category" or "...cultural category that has a ceremonial role" or something like that, go ahead. - -sche (discuss) 08:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

In Cree there are eight terms encompassing sexual, gender and/or spiritual identity. Six of the genders are not heterosexual. Of those six, not every one of the folks that fall into these roles are two-spirit however all Cree two-spirit people fall into these roles. Two-spirit is simply not generic to all non-hetero indigenous peoples. Indigenous girl (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Non-Native people seem to have a difficult time grasping the fact that concepts such as two-spirit or wíŋkte are done a huge disservice when they try to express an entire cultural way of thinking about something using a hyphenated place holder or word from a culture that has no equivalent term and limited comprehension by the dominant culture. Traditionally wíŋkte for example were not pigeonholed into a strictly feminine only role. In 'Fieldnotes from the Pine Ridge Reservation', H. Skudder McKeel notes wíŋkte that are married (to women) who have children as well as others who were killed while actively participating in conflict. It's really difficult when non-Native people want to control the narrative of our communities and cultures yet have no in person context or ability to evaluate sources yet are adamant about defining things inaccurately. Indigenous girl (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Having followed this discussion with interest, it seems important to point out that uses of the word which are considered to be, from a cultural point of view, misguided or offensive, are nevertheless, from a linguistic point of view, valid uses of the word which our definition needs to cover. We deal in "lexical definitions". Our job is not to interpret an entire complex and subtle cultural tradition, it is to explain what is meant by writers of English when they use the word in the contexts in which they use it. Obviously we do not want to propogate misinformation or offence, but let's please start from the citations, rather than from anthropological expertise. Ƿidsiþ 07:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Ƿidsiþ I am not sure what you are speaking of when you mention anthropological expertise. There are valid citations from an indigenous world view. The anthro sourses are kind of crappy and incorrect. I'm not at all offended nor do I think other indigenous peoples would be if the definition were accurate. The term is newly coined in the grand scheme of things (1990s), it was coined by indigenous Peoples for a very specific role which CorbieVreccan has provided sources to. I think it to be worthwhile to mention that the term has been distorted by the dominant culture because, well, it has. To the point where well meaning individuals want to redefine the term away from it's actual intended meaning. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, this. CorbieVreccan (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My point is that a word's "intended meaning" is irrelevant when it comes to looking at how's it's actually used. But I wasn't trying to comment on your reactions or behaviour, it was just a general comment on the nature of this debate. Ƿidsiþ 07:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The definition as it stands now is far more accurate than previous versions though could use a bit of tweeking. I'm in the middle of moving or I would jump in and tweek. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Tweak when you get a chance. Or if it's easier to note here on talk what you want adjusted, just note it here and we can brainstorm. CorbieVreccan (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Serious issues with the "translations" section
The concept doesn't translate easily into all languages. So just saying "two spirits" in any language that doesn't have this cultural role - like all the European languages that were added here - is not an accurate translation. It muddies the definition rather than helping translate it. There's already the problem that some people think this means the person is possessed or has schizophrenia, rather than being a whole person who can express what their culture sees as either "feminine" or "masculine" qualities. So multilingual versions of "two spirits" is not the right translation here, nor are colloquial terms for transgender. As we discussed above, this is a very specific thing, and not all tribes even have it, let alone world cultures. I understand that people want to translate words, but they're going to have to use the original words here if they want to not lose the meaning. CorbieVreccan (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the main problem is that the concept of two-spirits is not the same as the term "two-spirit". You're trying to make an English term match a very hard-to-define concept that isn't reflected in most of the actual usage. As a descriptive dictionary, we have to follow what the people who use the term mean when they use it. The fact that most of the people who use it are completely ignorant about the concept is of interest, and should be noted- but it doesn't change the meaning of the term itself, which is what the translations are supposed to reflect. Yes, the usage of people who understand the concept is valid, too, and the translations for that meaning should reflect it rather than the other meanings- but we have to have both types of meanings. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

It's an idiom that already fails when translated into English. It doesn't mean what most English-speakers think it means when they hear "two" "spirits". Adding machine translations of idioms, two levels deep, gives us two levels of fail. CorbieVreccan (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an entry for the English term. It doesn't matter if most English speakers think it refers to pink unicorns- the English definition will say "pink unicorns", and there will be a usage note that says that most English speakers are wrong about the original meaning. As far as the translations: if it's used in another language with the same meaning as the English, it's a valid translation. Since you don't speak most of the languages, you don't know whether that's true in most cases. You're guessing, based on a superficial understanding of the component words- sound familiar? Chuck Entz (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Look at it this way: someone reads a message on some LGBT forum where someone says "I'm a two-spirit" They come to Wiktionary and read a definition that exactly matches the American Indian concept. They then go back and completely misunderstand the message on the LGBT forum. It's important to accurately describe the usage that's out there, whether it's factually correct or incorrect. Explaining the concept of a two-spirit is better done by an encyclopedia than a dictionary. We can only document it as it relates to the language in question,as it's used. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

There's also a serious problem with almost all of the entries added by user Jedi Friend. Many seem to be taken from an unsourced Australian page that collected them off the Internet, with zero citations. Others are "sourced" from LGBT books by non-Native writers. Many of these are incorrect. Looking at the amount of cleanup needed in the wake of what that user did is pretty overwhelming. Especially knowing that every time I do cleanup here there is pushback. CorbieVreccan (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop doing all the work yourself. Any term can be challenged by tagging with rfv or rfv-sense (including the correct language code) and using the link it provides to post it to the appropriate Requests for verification page. For Highly-Documented Languages like English, verification involves demonstrating usage according to our rules. For other languages, it can also include a mention in our equivalent of a Reliable Source. If it fails verification, it gets removed. A general cleanup issue can be brought to Requests for cleanup. It's better if you have the help of people who know our rules. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Corbie, you've done a lot of good work on this concept on Wikipedia, dealing with people whose understanding of it is not as deep as yours. I agree that Wiktionary itself should not just plug a language's word for "two" and its word for "spirit(s)" together and list the result as a translation. (I also appreciate the concern that the average Irish or French speaker might not "really"/fully understand this concept, which is already an umbrella term/concept for varied roles in unrelated tribes.) The question of whether or not a word like e.g. French bispirituel should be listed as a translation hinges entirely on whether bispirituel exists as a word in French that denotes the thing which two-spirit is used in English to denote... and based on the books quoted by fr:bispirituel and others findable via, it clearly does. The Finnish word also appears to be attested. Other words, like e.g. the Irish word, could be taken to WT:RFVN if there are doubts about their existence. (For the words which are clear cognates of berdache, we could discuss whether they are better listed as translations here or there.) "Bispirituel" (etc) is indeed clearly a calque: either one that French speakers devised directly from the Ojibwe term (as fr.Wikt says) or else which French speakers based on the English calque of the Ojibwe term. The fact that French speakers chose to use calquing as their method of making a word for this does not invalidate that they clearly do have a word, and it should be restored to the translations table. - -sche (discuss) 19:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The more I look at this the more I think a definition reflecting usage in LGBT circles should be somehow split off. The problem is that everyone thinks they're using the same definition, but the LGBT folks, for the most part, are mistaken. It's somewhat reminiscent of Aryan, which is widely understood to mean something that knowledgeable people will tell you is absolutely wrong. We have to document the usage, but we also have to document that there's a distinction that needs to be made clear. I'm not familiar enough with either the modern American Indian usage or the LGBT usage to even start, but I think it needs to be done.
 * It seems to me, also, that there are multiple American Indian concepts that are being conflated under this term. I have my doubts as to what connection actually exists between the "berdaches" that I see described in older ethnographic literature for California cultures such as the Yokuts and Achumawi, and what modern Navajo or Lakhota people think of when they hear the term "two-spirit". Perhaps the reason the concept is so hard to translate is that it's being assembled on-the-fly in the minds of people who are referring to a combination of the examples they're aware of. Or it may be like robin, which means a completely different bird depending on where you are, but they're all small and have a red/orange breast. That's because English speakers transferred the name to a similar bird when the moved to a new continent. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are there so many translations? When the term is used by speakers of other languages I have only heard them borrow the English term. As a 'modern' indigenous person when I hear the term I think of a non-binary person in a spiritual position who has been given this position by Elders in their respective community. Because that's what the role is. It's not a gay Native or a crazy Native or a non-Native person who may be LGBTQ+. It is actually very specific. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said, there are plenty of things in the anthropological literature that seem to be referred to by some people using "two-spirit" that are only vaguely similar. There's a whole lot of synthesis/conflating going on. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Older anthropological literature, written by non-Natives is more often than not inaccurate. Just like a lot of spiritual practices are rife with inaccuracies in some anthropological literature. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No doubt, but we have to be very careful about reading interpretations in from other, unconnected cultures. Just as I would not depict a Yokuts person in a breechclout or a war bonnet saying "how" in front of a tipi, I would also not refer to one of them with a different gender role as a "two-spirit". I don't know who made the connection, but it complicates things. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Um, the at-large community is in consensus regarding the term. Just like the word chief is recognized by all communities even though they may have a tribal chairman or a Sagamo. I grew up in community FWIW, this isn't some bologna that I read in a book or on the internet. Indigenous girl (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW I just searched on a handful of random words and not one of them had the amount of translations that this term does. I am on board with Corbie. They should not be included, this is kind of ridiculous. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Translations are added by volunteers. The number of translations reflects the fact that some people are more interested in this term. Of course, some of that interest comes from bias, so there's more of a tendency to add bad translations that fit one's bias. I think we need to 1) Clarify definitions, so that we reflect real usage. 2) Clarify who uses which definitions 3) Sort out which translations reflect which definitions, and which ones are nonsense. 2) and 3) depend a lot on 1). Chuck Entz (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes there should be a whole lot of clarification. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

There is absolute consensus among Natives that this is not a term to be used as a descriptor by non-Natives. There is also consensus among traditional Natives who have these roles in their communities that it's not a self-chosen definition at all - that the role only exists in traditional, ceremonial community - though that has broken down some in recent years, with urban Natives from nontraditional backgrounds self-identifying without any connection to a traditional ceremonial community. It would be wholly inappropriate to give this a non-Native, LGBT "definition". Though, that is what keeps creeping in here, and in the connected pages. Many of the terms used here, and elsewhere on Wiktionary, only exist in books by non-Natives. That's how bad this situation has gotten. CorbieVreccan (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary is a non-censored, descriptive dictionary. We have entries for every vile, bigoted, mistaken and wrong-headed term ever used. The key is to describe the usage in a neutral manner, but also describe the reasons why it shouldn't be used in certain ways in certain contexts. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral yes, inaccurate and ridiculous, no.Indigenous girl (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not see other definitions prioritizing inaccurate definitions, or posting a machine-translator for people to further fuck them up. Also, Chuck, we don't have to speculate about how people think about the offensive and inaccurate term "berdache". Consensus in 1990 was that it is offensive, which is why "two-spirit" was adopted at that conference as an imperfect, but better than a slur for "boy prostitute", pan-Indian term. It was only the people at that conference who agreed, btw, and not everyone accepted it. Right now the communities in question, our communities, are fighting sex trafficking by non-Natives who prey on women, children, and, yes, two-spirit people. These words matter. These are contemporary, current issues, regularly discussed in community. I say this with respect but, if you have to speculate, maybe you shouldn't be making the call here. It's fine to have the historical writeups about berdache usage. But it is included as a current "translation" for Portuguese, which I removed, and you reverted to put back in. CorbieVreccan (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I respectfully request that the term berdache NOT be used. It's already listed in the article as an out of use term. Stating that a term for a trafficked male child means the same thing as two spirit in Portuguese is not only vile it's also inaccurate. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I wish it were that simple. Yes, we need to label it as obsolete and offensive everywhere we mention it, but we can't change the fact that it has historically been used as a synonym. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I just looked at our entry for . The definition matches closely enough. If you think the word isn't used in Portuguese, you can add pt to the Portuguese section, then click on the "+" in the box it creates to post it on Requests for verification/Non-English. Don't be surprised, though, if enough usage is found to save the entry. I don't know how Portuguese speakers view the word: if they're unaware of its offensiveness, it would be inappropriate to misrepresent their attitudes as matching those for English speakers toward our word. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is an article in Portuguese. Oh my gosh it uses the English term two spirit. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277899663_Ativismo_Homossexual_Indigena_Uma_Analise_Comparativa_entre_Brasil_e_America_do_Norte Indigenous girl (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That justifies adding it as a translation, but it doesn't, by itself, justify removing as a translation (though it does weaken the case for it), and certainly doesn't justify deleting the  entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

If you really think it's necessary to have that clumsy "two" "spirits" machine translator, put it under the unconnected duotheism bit, and leave the other section for actual terms used by Native cultures for gender-variant and third-gender people, sourced to Native sources, not stuff made up by non-Natives. CorbieVreccan (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that would be just as bad. We need to have a sense for what non-Indians mean when they use the term, and move the translations that fit that to that sense. As for the "machine-translator" bit: it's not always easy to tell the difference between a machine translation and a genuine calque. I'm sure there's lots of garbage in there, but it needs attention from someone who can accurately tell the difference. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The idea that the removed translations were "machine translations" seems to be mistaken, a result of not investigating them. The idea that the removed translations are "not an accurate translation" of the English term they're listed as translations of also seems to be contradicted by the attested use of them to refer to broadly this concept. The French translation is attested in texts by (lowercase-n-)native speakers and is an obvious calque; many languages, including French, have a strong, general preference for forming native terms, e.g. by calquing, even if they also use loans (e.g. /fr:two-spirit may also be attested). The Finnish translation, though uncommon, seems to be attested often enough to meet WT:CFI, and the entry was created by a veteran editor and native Finnish speaker so I expect the sense is right, though the term is uncommon enough we could RFV it to be sure. The Portuguese term too is attested and was added by a veteran editor and native Portuguese speaker, though it is possible other terms are also attested and could be added. I was suspicious of whether all the Russian translations were attested often enough to meet CFI, but suggest it may be, and they were added by a veteran editor and native Russian speaker. The translations I'm most suspicious of are Spanish dos espíritus—where WT:RFVN may be needed to check if this meaning is attested (but FWIW it was added by a native Spanish speaker)—and the Irish translations added by an IP: they may be connected to the tendency of some proponents of Irish (in the world generally) to construct Irish terms for everything; I've sent them to WT:RFVN. Regarding the number of translations: compare book, iron, butterfly, dog, mountain, bee, coffee, etc. As Chuck says, this is a volunteer project just like Wikipedia so it's haphazard which entries are complete. That's true not just in translations but even in which polysemous words have all their senses covered—e.g. high or take—and which ones don't yet. - -sche (discuss) 06:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * -Sche, I appreciate your work here. But why does being a "veteran editor" in Finnish, or any other non-Native language, have anything to do with all the terrible sources and mistakes they're making in Native American languages? Why is their ignorance preferable to what we are trying to explain here? Please post the sources for Native people using the French term, because in the trilingual First Nations communities that also speak French, I've never once heard it used. Indigenous girl and I are here giving expert opinions on how these terms are used and I'm getting reverted. I don't see the consensus or reasoning for leaving in terms that are so far outside the scope of what this actually means. This is further degrading the language, not helping. Where is the policy that says, "any amateur can add any crap and you have to have unanimity to remove it?" Keep the "add any word" on the page for "two" and the page for "spirit". Not here. This is something different. If that's not clear, the entry shouldn't even be there. Now I'm wishing I could go back to 1990 and say, "Don't. Use. English." CorbieVreccan (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You said "[t]his is further degrading the language", which seems to be at the root of your problems at Wiktionary. We are not here to police the language or pass judgement on what may degrade it. We are merely here to document it. If you are not interested in that enterprise, you will never be completely happy with Wiktionary. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - -sche, you said," The Portuguese term too is attested and was added by a veteran editor and native Portuguese speaker, though it is possible other terms are also attested and could be added." I went through all of the articles that I was able to find English versions of that are cited. They all refer to berdache in a historical manner. Not one was contemporary. While I acknowledge that the term was used historically it did not mean the same thing as two spirit. Then and now the term was derogatory and exploitative. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * What "mistakes" are you referring to? It seems as if you consider other languages simply having words (or, having lowercase-n-native words as opposed to loanwords?) for the concept to be inherently mistaken. I think the most a descriptivist dictionary can do is: if bispirituel isn't used in French-speaking indigenous communities, a usage note saying that―and ideally saying which word(s) is used instead―could be added to it. And iff there have been requests by major Native groups that foreign languages not use their own (i.e. the foreign languages') terms for two-spirits but instead use one Native term or another (or, refrain from talking about the topic at all?), usage notes to that effect might be added to the Finnish (etc) term, similar to the note in Côte d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast that its government asked all languages to use the French term. But notice that the translations table in Côte d'Ivoire still lists many 'native-to-the-language' translations of the name, because in many languages―including English!―those remain more commonly used than the French form. In some of those languages, and in some here, the "preferred" term might be found to be not attested at all (some languages, like Icelandic, are particularly resistant to ever using loanwords and form words almost exclusively using native morphemes), though I guess we should wait and only cross that bridge when we come to it―after checking how well attested kaksisieluinen and whatever the "preferred" term is are in Finnish (and likewise for the other languages). (I asked a Finnish editor if she can add citations to kaksisieluinen.) - -sche (discuss) 05:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup on sourcing
I have checked the sourcing. It is from the Berdache (Two-Spirit) section of that work. That actual section is written by Kylan Mattias de Vries, in the Encyclopedia edited by O'Brien. Here are the actual quotes. I'm going to bring the sourcing in line with what is actually in the sources. As those who've worked in this area know, the term was created at a conference in 1990. CorbieVreccan (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

"p. 64. 'The term two-spirit is translated from the words niizh manidoowag, from Ojibwa, a subgroup of the Algonquian language spoken in the Manitoba area. The concept and word two-spirit has no traditional cultural significance, and the Ojibwa words were not combined to create the term niizh manidoowag, or two-spirit, until this conference [in 1990]. Because this term was recently created, it has no linguistic equivalent or meaning in other nations and tribes. It does not serve as a replacement for the historical and traditional terms already in use or available in other nations and tribes.'"

"Additionally: 'Berdache is a derogatory term created by Europeans and perpetuated by anthropologists and others to define Native American/First Ntions people who varied from Western norms that perceive gender, sex, and sexuality as binaries and inseparable.' p. 64-5"

"And: 'Nations and tribes used various words to describe various genders, sexes and sexualities. Many had separate words for the Western constructs of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, intersex individuals, [etc] ... Even these categories are limiting, because they are based on Western language and ideas rooted in a dichotomous relationship between gender, sex, and sexuality. This language barrier limits our understanding of the traditional roles within Native American/First Nations cultures.' p.64"

Also, as the English-language and Ojibwe versions of this term were created on the same weekend, it's not accurate to say it's derived from Ojibwe. The Ojibwe terms are actually quite different from this. OMG, someone put in the calque as the Ojibwe word. OK, I'll fix that, too. CorbieVreccan (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to read the source and cleaning things up. This is great! Indigenous girl (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)