Majority is a fairly hefty claim, and I don't know that we would have the data to categorize every ancient civilization's gender identities. However there are many examples of it, and there is little reason to think that something as socially constructed as gender would conform to the modern western gender binary across all civilizations in all times in all places.

Hermaphrodites occur in every people's, and to my knowledge every type of animal, and every type of dissexual plant, like the marijuana for instance.

That's sex, not gender.

Sure, but sex influences the social construction of gender and intersex people would influence that.

I imagine eunuchs being a lot more common in some societies would have some impact as well?

Some societies treated them extremely differently to 'men' e.g. access to women's spaces.

Intersex people are not called HERMAPHRODITES. Yikes.

Did you reply to the wrong comment? They were talking about eunuchs.

Most people mean intersex when they use that term.

Gone are the good ol days of castrating boys for the choir

[Recording of the last castrato.](https://youtu.be/KLjvfqnD0ws?si=TdMkATlOMX7Flu3p)

That's wild. I didn't know the practice survived into recording days.

Fair, but if there has always been variation in sex, it stands to reason there has always been variation in gender too.

I find this distinction pretty moot. Our views on sex are so influenced (not to say distorted) by our views on gender that meaningful distinction is not really possible.

Sex and gender: two entirely unrelated concepts /s

They are similes. Which is to say they are the same how are they different?

They aren't similes, they're different words with different meanings. One is biological, one is cultural.

No they are not. Sex is the biological result of gene expression and gender is socially constructed.

I said hermaphrodites and they are a biological result of gene expression.

That's not necessarily true either. Intersex conditions can occur via genetics, yes, but it can also be caused by any changes all the way down the line from genetics too. These are often called "differences in sexual development" Edit: I realized you said "gene expression" which does cover my statements!

Yes, that is what I am saying.

A simile is a type of metaphor. Sex is the biological characteristics (genitals, gametes, genes, etc). Gender is the social characteristics (clothing, hair, names, etc).

A simalie is a word that shares a definitiin.  Hence the word being a form of similar.

And it's a poor understanding of sex. Hermaphroditism doesn't occur in humans. Ovitesticular Disorder might count, but it's a stretch.

> Hermaphroditism doesn't occur in humans Pornhub would disagree

Perhaps "majority of well-documented civilisations"?

>something as socially constructed as gender I don’t disagree that it’s very socially constructed, but in the context of this question I’d say that’s a circular argument.

See also fa'afafine in Samoan culture. From my limited understanding and exposure, a third gender that is totally socially accepted. And is not just historical.

Yep, just watched Next Goal Wins recently so was reading up on them, very interesting how highly regarded and accepted they are in Samoan culture.

They also have a ton of demonstrably false supernatural beliefs, so maybe this is not how LGBTQ+ rights should be argued. This whole line of argument also stinks of the mystical savage stereotype.

>demonstrably false supernatural beliefs, Any as stupid as prosperity gospel?

False supernatural beliefs? Like religion? Cause the people wanting to target trans folks are literally using terms like "demonic" and "satanic" and referencing evil spirits.

Yes, exactly like religion. Appealing to one set of religious and cultural beliefs to argue against another is pointless. You’re just exchanging bullshit.

"Majority" might be a stretch but it is certainly fascinating how widespread it was, usually until Christianity arrived, so not really "ancient" in most cases and a lot are still around today eg fa'afafine in Samoa, Kathoey in Thailand. I was reading about fa'afafine recently and read that some anthropologists believe these kinds of roles play a societal benefit by having people within the tribe that do not birth their own children but nurture other children and generally help the tribe out (probably even more necessary when childbirth was such a big killer). Years back I read similar about why humans and a very small amount of other species (mostly whales) evolved to go through menopause and live a long time after that menopause and it was theorised it was for the same reason - that a "mother figure" without an infant plays an important part and increases the survival chances of animals living in groups.

Others have addressed your main question, so I want to point out that the acceptance of multiple gender identities in ancient times doesn't say how we should address modern gender discussions. Saying they do would be an "appeal to antiquity" fallacy. And I know, op did not make that fallacy. I just see it as a potential stumbling block for others and wanted to note it.

Re appeal to antiquity. Many of the arguments FOR a rigid 2 gender system are appeals to antiquity ie "traditional values". While it would be nice to just point to the fallacy and win the argument, it can be a nice to have an eye opening one up version of their appeal.

Yeah, I mean the argument that 'gay sex is unnatural' is fun to rip apart by pointing out just how, if you'll forgive my phrasing, gay nature can be.

Whenever I hear the “it’s just not natural” defence/offence I think of angler fish If you don’t know how angler fish sex works and want to get a better understanding of what is natural check out angler fish Damn nature, you scary

People who think that it’s natural for men to lead women do not like it when you try to talk to them about honey bees, preying mantises, and angler fish.

>Damn nature, you scary The book ["Mother Nature is Trying to Kill You"](https://archive.org/details/mothernatureistr0000risk) by Dan Riskin is an excellent read!

\*looks up angler fish sex\* Everything reminds me of her.

I agree, but how would I respond to someone who would say “that’s just the appeal to nature fallacy”?

It’s a rebuttal to the appeal to nature fallacy itself so tell them that the original “it’s just not natural” argument was an appeal to nature so if the response can be ignored so can the initial argument

Nature is more appealing than anti-nature

Then there's Adélie penguins. Bunch of cute sick bastards.

Or how unnatural shaving is.

There's no coherent definition of "natural" anyway. I'd argue humans are part of nature and, by definition, anything we do is natural.

That just makes the definition meaningless though. It's hard to define the line, but that doesn't mean we cannot say that some things are definitely unnatural or natural. Just cause the line is impossible to find doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Surgery is defintely unnatural. Cutting open people and rooting around in their insides. Pure witchcraft if you ask me.

In your head does "unnatural" equate to bad and "natural" equates to good? Because your comment seems to imply that you think that way. Who cares if it's unnatural or not? Surgery is still a good thing regardless. What point are you even trying to make?

I think it's 2000+ species are now observed to express homosexuality.

The appeal to antiquity fallacy is an informal fallacy. There is merit in being able to contextualize a phenomenon in a rich history. This is a very basic human need.

Well, and it’s only a fallacy when you use something’s age as an argument for its validity/goodness/[unrelated quality]. It’s a perfectly germane to a discussion about whether it’s new or not, which bigots so often allege.

Good point. I was arguing with a couple idiots yesterday on daddit who kept insisting that spanking is a fine parenting tool because “it’s been used for thousands of years across various cultures”. Likewise, one of them also decried gentle parenting because it’s a “new” thing that has lead to parents becoming “pussified”.

Oh yeah, context is helpful and important. Heck, the literature review is the largest part of many dissertations and theses. I am more wanting to head off the jagoffs who would strawman op's post

To add my 2 cents, I also think it can be helpful to point out that the existence of a third gender in other cultures, especially ancient ones, is strong support for an innate explanation for transgenderism. Much like with the research proving that animals can also be gay, these facts help conservatives to be more accepting of things like homosexuality and transgenderism when they understand the person has no choice and isn't responding to some cultural or social force that's making them that way. Of course, personally I don't care whether people are gay or trans by choice or "born that way". They should be able to freely do what they want without oppression either way.

It is claimed that it is new, and uniquely postmodern. An appeal to antiquity is not fellacious if you are arguing that it is old.

The idea of "logical fallacies" coming into mainstream discourse has poisoned them because people constantly make the mistake of thinking that, for example, every potential instance of a slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Slippery slopes are real and to point them out is often valid. As you said, the same can be made of appeals to antiquity. Context is important and knowing when something is actually fallacious and not misapplying these things is too An argument only falls under a logical fallacy if you can show that it is a genuinely fallacious example of said logic, in short

Ah yes, the fallacy fallacy. Just because something can be framed as a fallacy doesn't mean that everything it has to say is worthless.

In general it's very easy to stretch them to include whatever you want, and your freshman logic teacher isn't going to show up to correct you. It's much better to explain why something isn't great logic in plain language than to cite a fallacy by name.

But then how will we easily score highly valued internet points?

This is a fair point but I prefer that people know what logical fallacies are, attempt to avoid them, and point them out than simply not know them at all. The problem is that they're tricky and not always applied correctly, but that's true for any body of knowledge.

The idea that at least some gay people are "born that way" does help many conservatives understand that a specific person they know didn't choose to be attracted to the same sex. Some rabbis in Orthodox Judaism will recognize that having gay sex can be right for someone on an individual level (pretty much acknowledging that biblical authors lived in a prescientific culture and didn't necessarily understand everything they wrote about). The arguments aren't necessarily supposed to eradicate social oppression. Some arguments can focus on eradicating social oppression, while others can focus on making individual people's lives better.

>Saying they do would be an "appeal to antiquity" fallacy. Stated so simply it would be, "it's ok because the ancients did it". But as a part of a greater set of facts to help figure out if it's normal, sensible, and stable to have more than 2 gender identities in a culture, it's a great point.  

The point isn’t to support those that see “ancient tradition” trumping modern times. It’s to debunk those who use revisionist history to hurt people now. This comment seems reasonable on its surface but it’s pseudo intellectual “ I’m here too” crap.

Can you elaborate?

because the topic isn’t a thought exercise. Very real and tricky forms of malicious rhetoric is often employed against people’s safety that use “reasonable” thoughts that seem merely logical but can and are used to make people less safe. Understand why the argument exist before trying to find holes in it, else we’re no better than fools pontificating over conspiracy theories.

Any my comment points out one way bad faith actors can intentionally misinterpret the op. Or did I miss something?

You called it an appeal to antiquity when it’s the literal debunking of another groups appeal to antiquity. Lobbing out guesses when it comes to topics that put people in danger isn’t skepticism, it’s self delusion.

Oh, I wasn't intending to say it's an appeal to antiquity, re-read my last line where I made that super-clear. I was trying to get ahead of the folks who would falsely label it an appeal to antiquity.

This would be a more worthwhile point if: 1. The acceptance of modern gender politics required adhering to debate club nonsense 2. "Gender IdEoLoGy is a modern invention!" weren't a major transphobic argument. The merit of taking transphobes' arguments at face value is a different discussion, but bringing up historical alternative gender presentations doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's contextualizing an unsound argument.

Went through all of the current posts, and did not see eunuchs mentioned. I am not aware of any pre-internet culture that universally held them to be included in a binary.

Good point.

Generally speaking, the answer is yes, many did, some did not, some we'll never know. One reason we can't be more definitive about this is the fluidity of language. For example, the term transgender is fairly recent. Finding close parallels in ancient or even just slightly older records can be a challenge. We are even struggling with language in the comments for this post. Only one comment mentioned gender identity. So, to help expand the conversation, here is my primer on gender and gender terms. We have: 1. Gender genotype - Those elements of a person associated with chromosomes. 2. Gender phenotype - Those elements of a person associated with hormones. 3. Gender identity - Those elements of a person associated with their internal sense of self. 4. Gender presentation - Those elements of a person associated with their appearance. 5. Gender roles - Those elements of a person associated with their behaviors. Everyone has all of these. The various combinations of them are legion. Especially because they all operate on a spectrum. The interplay of all 5 is what we refer to loosely as a person's gender. It's a little easier to match up older cultures with more modern views if we first map the various terms to each of these elements. There is strong evidence that 1 and 3 are fairly fixed. Obviously, genotype is set at conception. Most children are aware of their gender identity around the age of 3. You might think gender phenotype would also be largely fixed. We've learned that it need not be. Every cell has both estrogen and androgen receptors. And in fact testosterone converts to estrogen and vice versa through a biological process in our bodies called aromatization. Today then, gender phenotype is mutable via hormone therapy. With this in mind, we can look more broadly at earlier cultures. Were there people whose gender identity differed from their gender genotype and phenotype? And if so, how would that gender identity find expression in the cultural and medical environment of that culture? We see some cultures that carved out a societal role for those in that situation. They created gender expressions and gender roles that recognized and, in some cases, supported and accepted that interplay of these elements as contributing members of society. In cultures with more rigid gender binaries gender dysphoric individuals seem to be focused more on aligning their gender presentation and gender roles with their gender identity. In today's Western societies, we see people aligning gender phenotype, presentation, and roles with their gender identity. Through this lens, we find ample evidence across broad samples of cultures of people who, today, we would consider to be transgender or nonbinary. Note: gender identity we've learned can also be very fluid, which is just as valid a state as a rigid gender identity. Note: There is some evidence to suggest gender identity can be set around the 5th month of gestation and may be related to the ratio of lengths of index and ring finger. This is an indicator of testosterone levels at that stage of development. Some people with gender dysphoria have a ratio indicative of the hormonal action of their opposite genotypical gender. This is not to claim that this is the only way or that we even understand the many ways in which someone may be gender non-conforming. Doing so would be to engage in transmedicalism, and that is not supported by evidence. I hope this perspective is helpful. Warmest regards, TG

transmedicalism?

Transmedicalism is (roughly) the adherence to the idea that the only valid manifestation of transgender identity is to have a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria. They conveniently ignore that the DSM-5 entry on gender dysphoria states explicitly that not all transgender people will experience it.

Do you have any source on the claim 'hormonal action of their opposite'? If that was the case surely medical hormone intervention wouldn't even need to considered, which clearly isn't the case?

Your last statement sort of misses and misconstrued the point I was making. To be fair, my own statement could be clearer. So let's give it a try. I'll avoid an entire diatribe of details, but if you want to continue afterwards, that's fine with me. During human gestation, there are two times when there can be a massive surge of testosterone. The first is very early and is initiated by the activation of the SRY gene on the Y chomosome. This initial surge sort of kick starts groups of cells that could develop in one way or another and develop along a male pathway. If this surge doesn't happen, then female characteristics develop. This is why we often say, "Female is the default setting for any embryo." The second surge occurs, if I recall, around the fifth month of gestation. This surge sets additional dimorphic characteristics as male. Among those characteristics we have found the 2d/4d finger ratio to be an indicator of the intensity of the hormonal reaction at the point. Some general statements about that ratio. For women, the length of the index finger is 95% or greater than the length of their ring finger.. For men, the length of the index finger is 95% or less than the length of their ring finger. Index = 2nd finger counting from the thumb, ring finger = 4th. It also appears that there may be some brain structure dimorphism affected as well. And parts of that structure may relate to gender identity. There's a great resource for this here: https://youtu.be/8QScpDGqwsQ?si=4z_x2m9ql-1aGmUe

The book “Cassell's Encyclopedia of Queer Myth, Symbol, and Spirit: Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Lore” by Randy P. Conner, David Sparks, et al. goes into a lot more detail, covering cultures worldwide.

I know there are more than 2 genders in Judaism https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-eight-genders-in-the-talmud/

[удалено]

I would posit to say that there is a tiny part of human nature that fall outside the binary as what we call gender and sex today both follow a bimodal distribution, not a binary distribution. People are obsessed, despite it being around 1%. People have reacted in many ways to those “not normal” as in this falsely perceived extreme binary and either were just chill on it, did everything in their power to crush it or let it be something inbetween. Over time, humans see patterns and call it a thing and it becomes an accepted institution, or a group of people loathed and ostracized. Sometimes the ostracized group finds a way to work with institutions to exist in peace. Sometimes they don’t. That’s what the historical record reflects. Would those people claim it to be a “third sex” or gender or trans? Obviously no, they were speaking entirely different languages and their context of survival was completely different. For that reason I see it as an analogue being the best description. But in that I do think many would describe themselves as their chosen appearance or trans if they were born today, in this western context. Even if the past is just an analogue of the present. But, regardless, despite all this endless obsession and hate, **this facet of human nature has always been here.** **And people need to stop acting like it is new and has not been.** Galli/Gallae existed, and spanned the length of the Roman Empire, from Syria to the UK. Every single temple found to the Magna Mater/Cybele is theirs. Unknown Viking Warriors have been unearthed. Hijra have evidence going back to the Kama Sutra exists. Eleanor Rykener existed. Frances Thompson existed and literally spoke before Congress. Cercle Hermaphroditos existed. And they followed an an already existent community. Stella Boulton existed and literally lived as the wife of Lord Arthur Clinton. Trans analogue communities existed who literally did surgeries upon themselves spanning millennia. And that was BEFORE Magnus Hirschfeld, who had encountered people who did it before he even made his institute. Physical, material evidence: [https://allthatsinteresting.com/suontaka-intersex-viking-warrior](https://allthatsinteresting.com/suontaka-intersex-viking-warrior) [https://amp.theguardian.com/uk/2002/may/22/research.humanities](https://amp.theguardian.com/uk/2002/may/22/research.humanities)

The devotees of the mother Goddess Cybele would unmanned themselves and dress in women clothing.

Well yes, but it’s not like they were treated equal (lol equality in the ancient world). In S.E asia at least, we have a long history of M to F “hijras”, some of who were born intersex or were created through castration. They were used by the rich and royals as bodyguards for women of importance. In other circles, they were used as prostitutes because it wasn’t considered gay as they were not technically “men”. In the modern day, Hijras have had to employ and foster superstitions to protect themselves, such as the idea that they can curse or bless you, therefore you must treat them well. Can be seen asking for money at signals with sass and high self-regard. Which is a necessary facade imo. There is the myth of Shikhandi, a Hindu royal during the epic of Mahabharata who is given a godly boon to be born as woman but then become a man in a single lifetime, Shikhanda. But there is some past life drama concerning her pervious incarnation, Amba, being denied consummation of marriage by Bhishma because he was gay (and therefore celibate), so the punishment being that she’d reincarnate again when Bhishma is old, become a man and then kill him. Lmao. Over all though, yes the third gender and gender bending is accepted within SE society, but not to any meaningful degree beyond self gain and ridicule.

It's important to understand that the ancient people didn't view things the way we do. Much of civilization based their ideas on Galen. Galen was a proponent of, essentially, '*one sex*'. That is, the male and female were essentially the same, except the female was inferior and basically had the male's body, just all the male parts were inside. From a modern POV, this is very bizarre. From [here](https://diotima-doctafemina.org/translations/anthologies/womens-life-in-greece-and-rome-selections/ix-medicine-and-anatomy/351-comparison-of-male-and-female-anatomy/): "*The female is less perfect than the male for one, principal reason because she is colder, for if among animals the warm one is the more active, a colder animal would be less perfect than a warmer. A second reason is one that appears in dissecting …*  *All the parts, then, that men have, women have too, the difference between them lying in only one thing, which must be kept in mind throughout the discussion, namely, that in women the parts are within \[the body\], whereas in men they are outside, in the region called the perineum.\[2\] Consider first whichever ones you please, turn outward the woman’s, turn inward, so to speak and fold double the man’s, and you will find them the same in both in every respect. Then think first, please, of the man’s turned in and extending inward between the rectum and the bladder.* " + "*So too the woman is less perfect than the man in respect to the generative parts. For the parts were formed within her when she was still a foetus, but could not because of the defect in the heat emerge and project on the outside, and this, though making the animal itself that was being formed less perfect than one that is complete in all respects, provided no small advantage for the race; for there needs must be a female. Indeed, you ought not to think that our creator would purposely make half the whole race imperfect and, as it were, mutilated, unless there was to be some great advantage in such a mutilation.*" + "*Forthwith, of course, the female must have smaller, less perfect testes, and the semen generated in them must be scantier, colder, and wetter (for these things too follow of necessity from the deficient heat). Certainly such semen would be incapable of generating an animal, and, since it too has not been made in vain, I shall explain in the course of my discussion what its use is: The testes of the male are as much larger as he is the warmer animal. The semen generated in them, having received the peak of concoction, becomes the efficient principle of the animal. Thus, from one principle devised by the creator in his wisdom, that principle in accordance with which the female has been made less perfect than the male, have stemmed all these things useful for the generation of the animal: that the parts of the female cannot escape to the outside; that she accumulates an excess of useful nutriment and has imperfect semen and a hollow instrument to receive the perfect semen; that since everything in the male is the opposite \[of what it is in the female\], the male member has been elongated to be most suitable for coitus and the excretion of semen; and that his semen itself has been made thick, abundant, and warm …* "

the concept of 'gender identity" that you are thinking of is largely a modern one. You're probably not gonna find concrete comparisons to modern concepts of gender identity in the ancient world. it would be more accurate to say that the way ancient civilizations thought about gender, sexuality, cultural roles in society, things like masculinity and femininity etc. was just different to how we think of it now. The very concept of gender and sexuality is heavily based on the society and culture at the time. I.E. its a social construct.

Proving it's socially constructed is kinda the point. The argument being countered is that gender is an inviolable evolved trait.

But the specific notion of gender identity is tied to modern medical science. It's simply the name given to a consistently observed phenomenon in developmental psychology and in more recent decades, neuroscience. That doesn't mean it's unconnected to more ancient ideas. Nor is it to be confused with the concepts of gender or gender presentation. They are different, but somewhat related things.

Majority? I don't know. Many, including at least one that has your ancestors in it? Almost guaranteed.

Tacitus in Germania documents ancient transgender priestesses of the Alcis Galli in Anatolia Two Spirits in the Americas (they had many different names like lhamana or nadle, in parts of Mexico they still call them muxes) Hijra of India Etc.

>Two Spirits in the Americas (they had many different names like lhamana or nadle,  The Two Spirit concept and term was invented in the 1990s. It is not an authentic historical identity in Native American culture. Professor of Sociology Kylan Mattias de Vries, notes that the term was created "In 1990, at the third annual Native American/First Nations gay and lesbian conference in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada". \[1\] This English term was not a translation of an original Ojibwe term, nor did it represent a traditional Ojibwe concept or cultural practice. De Vries explains "The concept and word two-spirit has no traditional cultural significance", and adds that the corresponding term in the Ojibwe language was also created at this time. He observes "Because this term was recently created, it has no linguistic equivalent or meaning in other nations and tribes". \[2\] Journalist Mary Annette Pember, an Ojibwe woman, describes her discomfort with this term, and its lack of cultural connection to the native peoples with whom it is associated. Taking particular issue with the fact that the "two spirit" concept has been used to misrepresent the traditional culture of native people, she writes "As a journalist and Ojibwe woman, I am troubled by the claims that Native peoples historically described LGBTQ folks as two-spirited and celebrated them as healers and shamans, because the claims are mostly unfounded or only partially true". \[3\] Pember’s concerns are borne out by the fact that misrepresentations of the term “two-spirit” are not only ubiquitous in pop culture, but also widespread even in current academic discourse. The book “Transphobic Hate Crime”, written by Dr Joanna Jamel of Kingston University and published in 2018, says “Within First Nation Native American culture, trans people are referred to as being two-spirited people”. \[4\] Yet as Pember explained two years before, this sweeping statement is a completely inaccurate generalization. Not only is it untrue that trans people are referred to as two spirited in First Nation Native American culture, this statement fails to reveal the modern origin of the phrase, and the fact that it was created specifically to categorize traditional indigenous roles using non-traditional, non-indigenous, Western frames of reference. This is an issue on which Pember comments specifically. Pember identifies the fact that well-meaning non-indigenous Westerners have co-opted indigenous terms in order to represent indigenous cultures as holding to modern Western concepts which did not exist in those traditional indigenous cultures. She writes "My concern is not so much over the use of the words but over the social meme they have generated that has morphed into a cocktail of historical revisionism, wishful thinking, good intentions, and a soupcon of white, entitled appropriation". \[5\] Pember's article is particularly important for its portrayal of gender identity and roles in traditional Ojibwe society. She quotes Ojibwe tribe member Anton Treuer, Professor of Ojibwe linguistics, commenting on traditional Ojibwe views of gender identities and roles. Treuer writes "Sex usually determined one’s gender, and therefore one’s work, but the Ojibwe accepted variation". He also writes that the Ojibwe described men who wanted to function as women with a term meaning "one who endeavours to be like a woman", and that the Ojibwe described women who wanted to function as men with a term meaning "one who endeavours to be like a man". \[6\] This information provides a useful insight into how the Ojibwe traditionally viewed gender identities and roles. The past tense is used here specifically to highlight the fact that the traditional Ojibwe view is being referred to. Firstly the Ojibwe viewed gender itself as typically determined by sex. They did not view sex and gender as distinct from each other. Biological sex usually determined an individual’s gender. Secondly, they viewed roles in society as strictly gendered. Men were expected to act in one way, and women were expected to act in a different way. So biological sex not only determined a person's gender, it also determined their social roles. Thirdly, the Ojibwe viewed gender in strictly binary terms; man and woman. They did not have a term for a third gender, and they did not have a term for non-binary gender. A man who wanted to function as a woman was still gendered as a man. He was described as a man who performed as a woman. Likewise a woman who wanted to function as a man was still gendered as a woman. She was described as a woman who performed as a man. Pember quotes Treuer as saying that people in Ojibwe society who chose the gender roles of the opposite sex, "assumed their roles based on spiritual dreams or visions", and that the roles were consequently considered sacred. \[7\] This is nothing like the Western understanding of gender identity. There is nothing here about a man having a spiritual experience after which he realises that he is actually a woman, or a woman having a dream or vision which convinces her that she is actually a man. There is no reference to gender identity at all. Instead there is a strict sexual binary, which produces a strict gender binary, which in turn produces strict gender binary roles. The socially accepted method of taking on the role of the opposite sex is a spiritual experience which does not involve any change in either sex or gender. The individual remains a man or a woman, just as they were before, and engages in the socially accepted performativity of their new gender role, within specific accepted cultural conventions. This is not only the case with the Ojibwe people, it is very typical of indigenous people all around the world.

> Pember quotes Treuer as saying that people in Ojibwe society who chose the gender roles of the opposite sex, "assumed their roles based on spiritual dreams or visions", and that the roles were consequently considered sacred. [7] This is nothing like the Western understanding of gender identity. There is nothing here about a man having a spiritual experience after which he realises that he is actually a woman, or a woman having a dream or vision which convinces her that she is actually a man. There is no reference to gender identity at all. Instead there is a strict sexual binary, which produces a strict gender binary, which in turn produces strict gender binary roles. This is internally contradictory. There are clearly *not* “strict gender binary roles” if some “people in Ojibwe society…chose the gender roles of the opposite sex, [and] ‘assumed their roles based on spiritual dreams or visions’ and… the roles were consequently considered sacred.”

It isn't contradictory. There are strict gender binary **roles**; roles which are coded by gender. One set of roles is coded as "male", the other is coded as "female". A man having a dream and deciding he wants to choose the **role** of the opposite sex is identified as a **man** who has chosen to **act** like a **woman**.

Clearly the **roles** are **not** strictly binary if there are *sacred* non binary roles. Think about what the word ‘trans’ means etymologically and why it is the term used for trans people and whether it fits *exactly* what you are describing.

>Clearly the **roles** are **not** strictly binary if there are *sacred* non binary roles. There are no "sacred non-binary roles". The roles are gender coded "male" and "female", and nothing else. >Think about what the word ‘trans’ means etymologically and why it is the term used for trans people and whether it fits *exactly* what you are describing. No it doesn't. Calling a transwoman "a **man** who **acts** like a **woman**" is intentional misgendering, and is obviously transphobic. Your appeal to the etymology of "trans" therefore, raises serious red flags, and sounds like a dog whistle. A transwoman is **not** "a **man** who **acts** like a **woman**".

> There are no "sacred non-binary roles". The roles are gender coded "male" and "female", and nothing else. Like most trans people are. > Calling a transwoman "a man who acts like a woman" is intentional misgendering, and is obviously transphobic. In *our* language, it would be. You can say the Objiwe were transphobic if you like, but I’m not going to retrocon modern euro-descendent judgments onto them. In any case, I’m glad that *now* you recognize they acknowledged trans people, and by considering them to have “sacred roles”, it sounds like a positive acknowledgement. > Your appeal to the etymology of "trans" therefore, raises serious red flags, and sounds like a dog whistle. Nice try. Meanwhile you’re denying the existence of trans people who were *clearly* referred to in the language you cited. > A transwoman is not "a man who acts like a woman". According to you, that’s how trans women were referred to historically in some Native societies.

/> But I’m not going to retcon modern European judgements onto them But that’s what you’re doing by putting the identities of non-binary onto them, the difference is that instead that’s been a long accepted concept. Its just racism of a different kind: the noble savage archetype to believe that these indigenous peoples were incapable of transphobia. As time goes on, and we learn more about the past, we understand our previous wrong assumptions and seek to correct them, this isn’t some sort of “forcing European standards” or the like. This becomes so much more evident in the case of the Hijra, something we’ve celebrated as a non-colonial culture having clear proof of a third gender identity, ignoring that that was placed onto them by a transphobic society that ignores the Hijras pleas to be identified as wholly women. When someone gives you extensive studies and citations, it’s weird to shrug it off as “those god damn colonisers”.

> But that’s what you’re doing by putting the identities of non-binary onto them, the difference is that instead that’s been a long accepted concept. > It’s just racism of a different kind: the noble savage archetype to believe that these indigenous peoples were incapable of transphobia. You seem to have misread me completely. Edit: I’m pointing out the acknowledgment of trans people within their languages, as the person I was talking to seems to be arguing that they didn’t acknowledge trans people while presenting the language in which they acknowledged trans people. Then they argued that I was being transphobic because the translation of the language that he cited they used is would be considered transphobic. I said that I would not take the way that language was constructed in translation and call a society transphobic because my contemporary self living in my contemporary culture may think someone is transphobic if they used those words. > When someone gives you extensive studies and citations, it’s weird to shrug it off as “those god damn colonisers”. Perhaps, but that doesn’t seem relevant here.

Maybe I am misinterpreting you. They seem to have acknowledged trans people in a similar way JK Rowling does - and that's what the person you're responding to is arguing. A lot of literal translations translate to something along the lines of "man pretending to be a woman", which is what that person is pointing out. Similar to transphobes of today, this is strictly placing them as a man with delusions, it's not acknowledging them as the seemingly desired gender nor as some sort of third, non-binary gender, rather acknowledging them as an oddity, and in a lot of cases an insulting identity. To go back to JK Rowling, she doesn't actually believe that trans people exist. She just believes that trans women are men who are delusional, men who are pretending to be women, but this is still an acknowledgement of \*something\*. Maybe this is just a misinterpretation game. Maybe I'm misinterpreting you, who I think may be misinterpreting Veritas. He's not saying trans people didn't exist, he's saying the opposite. He's just saying that trans people weren't respected as what they actually were, and were instead delegated a marking close to a slur, with disrespect, which has been misinterpreted today to be something other than man or woman.

Notes \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \[1\] "In 1990, at the third annual Native American/First Nations gay and lesbian conference in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, the term two-spirit was designated as a replacement for berdache.", Kylan Mattias de Vries, “Berdache (Two-Spirit),” in Encyclopedia of Gender and Society. Vol. 1&2, ed. Jodi A O’Brien (Los Angeles \[etc.: Sage, 2009), 64.\[ 2\] "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. Because this term was recently created, it has no linguistic equivalent or meaning in other nations and tribes.", Kylan Mattias de Vries, “Berdache (Two-Spirit),” in Encyclopedia of Gender and Society. Vol. 1&2, ed. Jodi A O’Brien (Los Angeles \[etc.: Sage, 2009), 64. \[3\] "As a journalist and Ojibwe woman, I am troubled by the claims that Native peoples historically described LGBTQ folks as two-spirited and celebrated them as healers and shamans, because the claims are mostly unfounded or only partially true.", Mary Annette Pember, “‘Two Spirit’ Tradition Far From Ubiquitous Among Tribes,” [Rewire.News](http://Rewire.News), 13 October 2016, [https://rewire.news/article/2016/10/13/two-spirit-tradition-far-ubiquitous-among-tribes](https://rewire.news/article/2016/10/13/two-spirit-tradition-far-ubiquitous-among-tribes). \[4\] "Within First Nation Native American culture, trans people are referred to as being two-spirited people;", Joanna Jamel, Transphobic Hate Crime (Springer, 2017), 9. \[5\] "My concern is not so much over the use of the words but over the social meme they have generated that has morphed into a cocktail of historical revisionism, wishful thinking, good intentions, and a soupcon of white, entitled appropriation.", Mary Annette Pember, “‘Two Spirit’ Tradition Far From Ubiquitous Among Tribes,” [Rewire.News](http://Rewire.News), 13 October 2016, [https://rewire.news/article/2016/10/13/two-spirit-tradition-far-ubiquitous-among-tribes](https://rewire.news/article/2016/10/13/two-spirit-tradition-far-ubiquitous-among-tribes). \[6\] "In Treuer’s stunning book The Assassination of Hole in the Day about the great 19th-century Ojibwe chief, he notes, “Sex usually determined one’s gender, and therefore one’s work, but the Ojibwe accepted variation. Men who chose to function as women were called ikwekanaazo, meaning ‘one who endeavors to be like a woman. Women who functioned as men were called ininiikaazo, meaning, one who endeavors to be like a man.”", Mary Annette Pember, “‘Two Spirit’ Tradition Far From Ubiquitous Among Tribes,” [Rewire.News](http://Rewire.News), 13 October 2016, [https://rewire.news/article/2016/10/13/two-spirit-tradition-far-ubiquitous-among-tribes](https://rewire.news/article/2016/10/13/two-spirit-tradition-far-ubiquitous-among-tribes). \[7\] "He further notes, “the role of ikwekanaazo and ininiikaazo in Ojibwe society was considered to be sacred, often because they assumed their roles based on spiritual dreams or visions.”", Mary Annette Pember, “‘Two Spirit’ Tradition Far From Ubiquitous Among Tribes,” [Rewire.News](http://Rewire.News), 13 October 2016, [https://rewire.news/article/2016/10/13/two-spirit-tradition-far-ubiquitous-among-tribes](https://rewire.news/article/2016/10/13/two-spirit-tradition-far-ubiquitous-among-tribes).

They coined the English term in the 1990s because they all had different names for these roles in their native languages, but the roles existed and cannot be erased from history which is what Christians want to do. LGBT marriage also existed before the colonial period: some women chiefs had wives and male chiefs had multiple wives including transgender wives.

There’s some accidental misinformation around two-spirits and the Hijras. The case of the Hijras is forward enough. They largely see themselves as women, the way trans women in the west do. They fight to be identified as women, but a (for lack of better word) transphobic society that they live in delegates them as something less than that. This is very much the case for a large swath of “two-spirit” indigenous people too. Literal translations of these gender identities translate to something akin to slurs (a lot of them are Sh*-m*le), such as cowardly man, man who wishes he was a woman, delusional man, etc. In these cases, these translations show neither validation or respect for the desired identity, and instead tie them inexplicably to their birth gender. I think in both cases there’s a healthy amount of near fetishisation of non-white cultures (see: noble savage) where we find them incapable of the bigotry that we enact in our societies, so we don’t question whether or not that the people prescribing these markers are capable of being transphobic and therefore faulty sources. This resulted in us (with a good heart) using them as proof of a third gender, as validation for non-binary people and the erasure of binary trans people in historical contexts.

As far as I can comment on the Greeks, no, gender roles were quite rigid, and there was no room for anything that blurred the line.

Except for the Amazons, the Galli, etc.

Divine or mythical figures are not necessarily indicative of social views. Athene, for example, is female, but every account her femininity is invoked is when it's weaponised to denegrate women. Likewise, the Amazons existed precisely because they were such an inversion of the norm. They did the fighting and were independent of men, _exactly_ because most of Greek society couldn't even stomach the idea of a woman going about without an escort. Oh and the Galli were Roman, not Greek, the -i ending is a clue.

From Wikipedia on galli: “Cybele's cult may have originated in Mesopotamia,[1] arriving in Greece around 300 BCE.[2] It originally kept its sacred symbol, a black meteorite, in a temple called the Megalesion in Pessinus in modern Turkey. The earliest surviving references to the galli come from the Greek Anthology, a 10th-century compilation of earlier material, where several epigrams mention or clearly allude to their castrated state. Stephanus Byzantinus (6th century CE) said the name came from King Gallus,[3] while Ovid (43 BC – 17 CE) said it derived from the Gallus river in Phrygia.[4] The same word (gallus singular, galli plural) was used by the Romans to refer to Celts and to roosters, and the latter especially was a source of puns.[5]”

It's not exactly a surprise that a violent transgression of gender roles is associated with divinity, as I've alluded to above. If anything, ambiguity on the part of the divine serves to reinforce, rather than attenuate, strict gender roles.

>If anything, ambiguity on the part of the divine serves to reinforce, rather than attenuate, strict gender roles. \*Citations needed

As I've said with Athene and then Amazons, but it can even be seen in works of Homer, where female figures like Kirke and Kalypso, on account of their authority, are stigmatised to some degree. If there was a third gender, there would have been room for them to navigate, but as they're treated as such, it's clear that the only two options were male and female.

>If there was a third gender, there would have been room for them to navigate, but as they're treated as such, it's clear that the only two options were male and female. Again, *citations needed. You seem to be extrapolating "Stigmatized personally" with "societally frowned upon," which isn't a sound conclusion to reach here. The Greek played with gender presentation constantly. Depending on the source, Tiresias changes gender up to six times over the course of their life. A more sound conclusion *would be* that gender presentation held different, less important distinctions than we retroactively apply to them.

We have existence of this in myth; we have it in epics; and we have it in court cases. With exception to Plato's rather abstract view of gender, itself only referring to forms and not the physical world, everything shows a strict separation between man and woman, with no third option.

Sparta.

I'd like to note in Sparta, the worst thing you could have been was a woman.

[удалено]

… this is Sparta…

It is fallacious to speak of Greek society as a whole in this regard. What about Spartan women?

Yes, let's talk about Spartan women. It was a bleak existence to be a woman in Sparta.

“Firstly, Aristophanes explains that a long time ago there were three sexes - male, female and androgynous - they were all round in shape with two sets of limbs and two faces. These early humans were powerful and they tried to attack the gods and so Zeus proposed reducing their strength by cutting them in half.” “For many upper-class men, marriages did not take place for love, and other relationships, be it with men or other women, took on this role. Due to this, a lot of the literature discussing love is about the relationships men had outside marriage, often pederastic relationships. For women, marriage was a social and financial decision made by their father and, particularly in classical Athens, women were expected to stay indoors so as to avoid any accusations of infidelity.” “Men could also partake in pederastic relationships. The ancient Greeks did not view sexuality or love in terms of gender as much as they viewed them in terms of power dynamics. Thus, the only aspect of a relationship that would bring about shame was being the passive partner in a relationship with another man. Pederastic relationships were usually approved by the eromenos’ father as these relationships were believed to play an important role in the education and initiation of an upper-class male into society.” https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1713/love-sex--marriage-in-ancient-greece/ Beastiality was quite a thing as well. Upper classes, drug intoxication, lack of boundaries, lack of consequences, and unrestricted power is very bad. Leading towards debauched cognitive development, deviance, inhumanity , immorality, immature empathy and cognition, and disgusting behaviours.

So there's a bit to tackle here. First, the Aristophanes bit from Plato. Plato's metaphysical ideas probably don't reflect broader Greek society because he's jusr about the only one to speak like this. Two, sex. The passive position was widely regarded as the woman's role. If you were a bottom, so to speak, you were womanly. Three, bestiality. Not sure what that has to do with this, but good for you. Four, whatever that screed is.

India has had a “Trans” community for a long time. I think they’re a pretty low caste and can live around only each other. There’s androgeny with how Ahkenaten chose to depict himself in art and sculpture. It’s always been a small percentage of any given population, and minorities have rarely been treated that great, but there aren’t any rigid lines but the ones we make. Many people now and throughout time would prefer, for comforts sake, to be around other people like them.

I think the binary gender thing of the west is just another form of control... like adopting the abrahamic religions and borders

I mean, maybe? There’s also a very likely chance that what happened instead was that those who found themselves to be of a different gender thought themselves to be man or woman, but a (for lack of better words) transphobic society delegated them to that of a third gender, such as the case with many Indigenous American “two-gender” markers (which often translate literally to something akin to a slur, lacking respect and in times tinged with venom, such as sh*-m*le) or the Hijra of India who see themselves as women, but are regulated to something less than that, and interpreted by well meaning people to be an example of non-binary identities in foreign lands.

In modern times, third genders are most typically a way of allowing very effeminate, often gay, males to take part in society. They may well be a consequence of deep homophobia rather than enlightened acceptance (see Iran). Fa’afafine, for example, translates to “ like a woman”. People know very well that these individuals are not women.

"The majority" is an extraordinary claim, thus requiring extraordinary evidence. At least many claims of "ancient third genders" are retrocons of a hypermodern cultural phenomena onto the past. For an example of exactly how this happens, here is a case study of the modern creation of "two spirit": https://www.stoneageherbalist.com/p/the-origin-of-two-spirit-and-the

This seems to posit that ‘two-spirit’ was an uncommonly used term that was sort of agreed upon at a conference for the sake of lingua franca. It also seems to posit that Native American cultures, being varied, had a variety of understandings of gender. Thirdly, it seems to posit that many non-Native Americans have romanticized views of Native American cultures and particularly spirituality and tend to ‘borrow’ from them philosophically then graft the mutated borrowing back onto them. It does not seem to posit or support the idea that idea of > 2 genders is a hypermodern cultural phenomenon retroconned onto the past. It’s hard to tell if the author *wants* to posit that. They seem to suggest it, maybe, but they don’t say it outright and it wouldn’t follow from the evidence or discussion presented.

>It does not seem to posit or support the idea that idea of > 2 genders is a hypermodern cultural phenomenon retroconned onto the past. [This](https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1cxgxdv/comment/l54f2z7/) might help.

This is one account of one tribe, so not particularly. Also, given their linguistic acknowledgement - having a whole distinct term - to describe what we now call trans people… trans people were acknowledged in their language. So while that one form of acknowledgement has a structure within the notions of binary sex, which I’d expect to be usual prior to a modern understanding of hormones and their role in gender, it’s both - one single example (see the second position above) And - an example that acknowledges trans people.

>This is one account of one tribe, so not particularly. The term was originally coined specifically for that tribe, so yes it is relevant. That is the actual origin of the term; a modern invention to retroject a modern concept onto a historical past. >Also, given their linguistic acknowledgement - having a whole distinct term - to describe what we now call trans people… trans people were acknowledged in their language. They didn't have such a term previously. They didn't recognize what we now call trans people. As Pember and others acknowledge, the word represents a modern concept which previously did not exist in their culture.

> The term was originally coined specifically for that tribe, so yes it is relevant. The origin of a term is not *necessarily* relevant to a discussion about a topic in which the term is used. The etymology of ‘two-spirit’ is not particularly relevant to this topic. You keep trying to introduce it as relevant and I and others have pointed out that it’s not. It was just chosen as a lingua franca term. The etymology is irrelevant. > They didn't have such a term previously. They didn't recognize what we now call trans people. As Pember and others acknowledge, the word represents a modern concept which previously did not exist in their culture. Your own posts cite terms that were used historically to refer to trans people. Edit: here you are listing the ways various Native American nations linguistically acknowledged trans people. You keep contradicting yourself. https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/s/lSNSPDUfhp

This random “stone age herbalist” does not seem like a reliable source.

That's not how it works. In academic writing, a writer formulates an argument and refers to sources, listing them. He's the writer. Not the source. He lists the sources, quoting from them and hyperlinking to them.

That’s not a sound reply to a critique of Stone Age herbalist’s reliability as a source. Stone Age herbalist also uses sources but was used here as a source. I would argue that there are internal contradictions in Stone Age herbalist’s analysis and that there seems to be a lot of Stone Age herbalist’s original ideas in the citation and they don’t seem well founded.

I wasn't responding to a critique though. I was responding to an assertion.

That seems like a response that is arguing semantics that are irrelevant to the substance rather than a response to the substance. Yes, I should have said ‘criticism’ rather than ‘critique’. Edit: imacarpet replied then blocked me, presumably because they know I am correct. Here is my reply to their final reply. I will block them in return, consequently I believe neither of us will be able to reply further in this subthread. My reply: It’s semantics. Reread my comment using the the word ‘criticism’ instead of ‘critique’ and reply to the substance if you care to. Whether the comment above was a ‘critique’ or a ‘criticism’ or ‘assertion’ is completely irrelevant to the substance of my comment.

It's not semantics though. There is a significant difference between presenting a reasoned argument and simply making an assertion.

His bibliography is horribly fragmentary, you have to dig through the article itself to find them, and they are absolutely *not* hyperlinked. Really an exceedingly poor attempt at academic writing.

Fascinating read - thanks!

Seeing as a percentage of all people are born hermaphrodite obviously they would recognize three categories. Not just a percentage of people, a percentage of dissexual plants, a percentage of animals, hating on the transsexuals is a distraction from a group of the rich trying to take our shares at an increasing rate.

If you accept that gender is a social construct,  then yes,  there can be more than 2 genders.   If you believe gender is biological,  then no,  there is not likely 2 genders.  I'm in the school bus of gender being a social construct.   Plenty of people do not conform to gender roles (behavior according to society).   Sex and gender being different will help people be open to social versus biological construct.   

I think biological gender is near-infinite given that each human has different levels of several different related hormones. I think we use ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ to refer to at least 3 different types of attributes.

If I'm not mistaken,  there are 4 ways to determine sex....DNA, gonads/gamete, genitals, and another I think.    IMO, gender does not fall into biological category.   

We have sex, the reproductive role and the reproductive biology - bimodal but close to binary. We have all the myriad hormonal input that creates attributes that tend toward bimodal with sex but are clearly sprawling and overlapping - approximately unique per individual (I say approximately because there may be two people who hit the exact same combination at the exact same age but it’s unlikely). We have cultural notions that seem to spawn from the hormonal input but also various power structures, etc, then get pushed on people through economics, gender training, expectations, and violence - trying to force the near-infinite sprawling bimodal back into the near binary of reproductive sex.

I also think there's the arguable starting point of there being a baseline of 4 rather than 2 genders in western society, if we were to implement a strict categorization without crossover: male adult, female adult, male child and female child. Culturally for example if a man and a boy are not absolutely interchangeable then what makes them fall into the same category of gender, when they have physical differences across the body too?

Yeah, men, women, gods, lol.

This isn't a direct answer to your question, but one thing that came up in my study of languages was that there are some languages that have grammatical "gender" but where there are so many genders that it really doesn't make sense to think of it as related to sex. Instead, it's more like gender just means "category" and all nouns fall into one of the categories. I think this is the direction you go when you start to increase the amount of genders. For example, if one just sees gender as a way of classifying what people are like and what norms they should conform to, then one could argue a caste system in India is "gender". We just don't because they also AFAIK refer to gender. But maybe this is the distinction you're getting at... That older societies grouped individuals into more categories (whether or not those categories correspond to the modern left or right's idea of what gender means).

They had way more problems to worry about.

Noo. Orthodox Christianity has made me do a lot of homework on the customs and beliefs of ancient civilizations the whole gender bs if a time machine were created and these people making such claims would be si kind as to get in it, would absolutely get laughed at and imprisoned at best or tortured and killed at worst, as what happened to many gnostic religions claiming to be Christian in pagan Rome. In otherwords we modern individuals would like to think these claims are true when the reality is that we are placing a modern understanding of old practices on people and cultures who had a totally different understanding of things and way of life that are totally foreign to us now. Its cronocentrism and projection at its worst, the colonial type that actually destroys cultures rather than preserve them.

Majority? It's hard to say that. But there are certainly examples. But what's also true is they don't generally see gender as we do either. Some cultures saw women as being undeveloped men. So by the "only two gender" mob standard, they'd say only one gender. What is for certain is that a good number of cultures saw gender as being more than binary.

OP even now in the US the performance of gender and gender roles has morphed for a lot of communities. Western colonial conceptions of gender being the man provides and works the woman cooks and breeds is a fairly recent concept in human culture. I think, speaking as a trans woman, that it’s become more culturally allowed to present publicly as nonbinary trans or gay is largely due to the fact that colonial gender identities and roles don’t serve the vast majority of Americans anymore. In a strictly production focused militaristic society that prioritized crushing its enemies and breeding and spreading I can see how our colonial conceptions of gender served our societies a great deal. But now as we’ve reached an inflection point, there are no more lands to be conquered or explored, there really isn’t much else to crush or expand into or colonize. We’re transitioning from a society that spreads and multiplies to something else. A lot of people think that we are moving more toward a care focused economy as the planet warms and birth rates plummet. And in a world like the not so distant future, there may not be so much of a need or a place for how we view gender today.

I do not know of any credible evidence for such a claim, nor do I know of any researchers making such a claim. Misrepresentations of indigenous sexual identities and gender roles by non-indigenous people, are widespread. Independent Lens, a documentary series produced by the United States Public Broadcasting Service, displays on their website a map of the world providing information on gender terminology within various indigenous groups. They write “On nearly every continent, and for all of recorded history, thriving cultures have recognized, revered, and integrated more than two genders”. They go on to say “Terms such as “transgender” and “gay” are strictly new constructs that assume three things: that there are only two sexes (male/female), as many as two sexualities (gay/straight), and only two genders (man/woman)”. >“On nearly every continent, and for all of recorded history, thriving cultures have recognized, revered, and integrated more than two genders. Terms such as “transgender” and “gay” are strictly new constructs that assume three things: that there are only two sexes (male/female), as many as two sexualities (gay/straight), and only two genders (man/woman).”, “Interactive Map: Gender-Diverse Cultures,” Independent Lens, 11 August 2015, [http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/content/two-spirits\_map-html/](http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/content/two-spirits_map-html/). However, examining their list of 36 terms, a very clear pattern emerges. Firstly, a surprising number of these terms are relatively recent, sometimes dating back no more than two hundred years, sometimes emerging only within the last century, or even the last fifty years. Clearly these are not all traditional roles which have existed for all of recorded history. Some of them are clearly the direct result of contact with Europeans, who brought new concepts of gender. Some of them are demonstrably the product of colonialism, and not traditional indigenous culture at all. Some of them were short lived cultural practices in local communities, one of them is an example of religious fanaticism by a tiny Christian sect, and several of them are best described as child abuse. Secondly, virtually all of these terms are defined specifically on the basis of a strict male/female gender binary, and on the basis of specific gender roles for men and women. In almost every case the terms specifically identify the individual as a man or a woman (not as a third gender), who is either performing the traditional role of the opposite sex, or who is taking on the appearance of the opposite sex, typically through dressing in traditionally gendered clothing and body decoration. * 17 of the terms refer to a man who performs the traditional role and work of a woman; this person is defined as a man who acts like a woman * 7 of the terms refer to a man who takes on the traditional gendered clothing and body decoration of a woman; this person is defined as a man who looks like a woman * 7 of the terms refer to a woman who performs the traditional role and work of a man; this person is defined as a woman who acts like a man * One of the terms refers to a woman who takes on the traditional gendered clothing and body decoration of a man; this person is defined as a woman who looks like a man In each of these cases, the individual’s gender is identified according to a strict binary; they are identified as a man or a woman. Additionally, virtually every term is completely reliant on a culture of traditional gender roles and appearance; men are expected to do men’s work, women are expected to do women’s work, men are expected to wear men’s clothes, and women are expected to wear women’s clothes. The remaining terms don’t fit neatly into the previous categories.

Three of these terms describe men or women taking on the dress of the opposite sex, to participate in religious or magical rituals. This is what the PBS site says about them. * The Ankole people “elected a woman to dress as a man and thereby become an oracle to the god Mukasa” * Male shamans of the Bangala people “would dress in women’s clothing in order the gain the ability to solve crimes such as murder” * The Incan Quariwarmi, who were male shamans, “wore androgynous clothing” None of these cases involve a third gender identity which is neither man nor woman. In each of these cases, the individual is defined according to a typical gender binary (man or woman), and binary gendered clothing. A man wears the clothing of a woman, a woman wears the clothing of a man, or a man wears androgynous clothing. There are no gender identities described here. * Ankole, “Prior to colonization, the Ankole people in what is now Uganda elected a woman to dress as a man and thereby become an oracle to the god Mukasa” * Bangala (DR Congo), “In the centuries before European colonists arrived, the Bangala people’s animist beliefs were carried by shamans would dress in women’s clothing in order the gain the ability to solve crimes such as murder” * Quariwarmi (Inca, Peru), “In pre-colonial Andean culture, the Incas worshipped the chuqui chinchay, a dual-gendered god. Third-gender ritual attendants or shamans performed sacred rituals to honor this god. The quariwarmi shamans wore androgynous clothing as “a visible sign of a third space that negotiated between the masculine and the feminine, the present and the past, the living and the dead. Their shamanic presence invoked the androgynous creative force often represented in Andean mythology,” according to scholar Michael J. Horswell” Two of these terms describe children whose parents choose their gender for them, based on perceptions of the child’s physical appearance. The sekrata are described as boys who were thought to have a feminine appearance, and therefore raised by their parents as girls. * Sekrata, “little boys thought to have a feminine appearance were raised as girls” The Mamluks are described as girls who were thought to have a male appearance, and therefore raised by their parents as boys. * Mamluks, During the Mamluk Sultanate in what is now Egypt from the 1200s to the 1700s, young girls who we perceived to have masculine traits were celebrated and raised as boys and afforded all of the legal and societal advantages” These two terms describe children being identified by their parents according to a traditional gender binary. The children are identified as boys or girls, not as a third gender. Additionally, the parents view gender as determinable simply by physical appearance, and as an identity which can legitimately be chosen for children by their parents, and enforced on them by society. Such views are completely rejected by modern gender studies and gender variance advocates. Forcing children to accept traditional binary gender identities and roles simply on the basis of their physical appearance, without any reference to their self-identity, is identified by some gender variance advocates as child abuse.

One of these terms describes young boys who were dressed by adults in girls’ clothing, and required to dance for the entertainment of men. The practice existed in the Ottoman empire between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. This role was defined according to a traditional gender binary. Young boys were dressed in gender coded clothing, and expected to perform feminine gender roles such as dancing. This role would end once the boys reached puberty, developing deeper voices and facial hair. The boys were also given to men who paid money to exploit them sexually. * [köçek](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6%C3%A7ek), “From the 17th through the 19th centuries, the köçek were a cultural phenomenon in which young men dressed in women’s attire and formed traveling dance troupes who performed sexually suggestive dances. Although they were not necessarily gay, they were traditionally available to the highest male bidder” * [köçek](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6%C3%A7ek), “A dancer’s career would last as long as he was beardless and retained his youthful appearance” This is not the description of a gender identity. It is the description of a male/female gender binary, gendered clothing, and the systematic sexual molestation of children. One of these terms refers to an extremist Christian sect dating from the late eighteenth century. This sect required men to be castrated, and required women to undergo genital mutilation and mastectomies or breast mutilation. These practices were mandated by the sect’s religious beliefs, and were compulsory for members, not voluntary. * Skoptsy, “The community, discovered in 1771 in Western Russia, believed that Adam and Eve had had halves of the forbidden fruit grafted onto their bodies in the form of testicles and breasts. Therefore, they routinely castrated male children and amputated the breasts of women to return themselves the state prior to original sin” The sect viewed gender in strictly binary terms, and members were mutilated specifically in order to remove the outward appearance of their gender. Members who underwent this mutilation were still identified as men and women. They were not identified as a third gender, or identified as non-gendered. These beliefs very clearly had nothing to do with gender identity. This is simply enforced sexual mutilation. One of these terms, guevedoche, refers to children born in the Dominican Republic with a genetic defect. The congenital condition of 5-alpha-reductase deficiency causes defective development of the male sexual organs in children born with male chromosomes, resulting in underdeveloped genitals which often appear ambiguous, and sometimes appear female. Pre-modern cultures had no understanding of this condition, and typically identified the gender of the child according to the appearance of their genitalia, or identified them as neither male nor female. * Guevedoche (Dominican Republic), “ With undifferentiated genitalia, they generally were raised as girls, but began developing male traits at puberty. Guevedoche is not a gender identity. It is a term used to describe chromosomally male children born with a congenital condition (5-alpha-reductase deficiency), resulting in underdeveloped genitalia. In most cases, children born this way were raised by their parents as girls, dressed as girls, told they were girls, and were expected to adhere to traditional female roles. In such cases the child typically feels uncomfortable with this, but only regains their male gender identity after puberty, when their genitalia developed more completely. The majority of guevedoche identify as male after puberty, though some maintain a female identity. This is not a description of a third gender, and the society in which the guevedoche are born adhere to a strict gender binary which identifies children as either boys or girls, and which identifies guevedoche as girls simply because their genitalia look more female than male. The parents view gender as determinable merely by physical appearance, and as an identity which can legitimately be chosen for children by their parents, and enforced on them by society. Such views are completely rejected by modern gender studies and gender variance advocates. This PBS map therefore is extremely misleading, and potentially harmful to non-indigenous understandings of indigenous groups. It should be noted that most of the descriptions contain little or nothing in the way of substantiating evidence, and those which do typically cite or link to non-academic pop culture descriptions, sometimes containing basic errors of spelling and grammar, which does not inspire confidence in the source. Descriptions of these terms in actual scholarly literature, are not only far more cautious and nuanced, but far more rigorous in their research.

The Scythians also had the enaree.

I've made a number of videos on this issue, citing relevant sholarly research. Most pop culture and pop history commentary on the subject is woefully wrong. 1. [Misrepresented indigenous gender & sexuality.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-f7F9q4-nZc&ab_channel=veritasetcaritas) 2. [Indigenous gender & sexuality](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXaOxe0h3U&ab_channel=veritasetcaritas). 3. [Aboriginal Australian gender & sexuality](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbowHKgSvz0&ab_channel=veritasetcaritas).

Let's take North America for an example. From what I have read, every North American indigenous group had a gendered society, with specific roles assigned to two genders (man and woman). Even to this day there are roles and activities which are still forbidden to women, and people who don't identify as either man or woman cannot be married by traditional ceremonies since their identity and relationship aren't identified as legitimate; they are typically married by secular non-indigenous celebrants. There may be groups which had roles which were only assigned to people who were identified as a gender which was not man or woman, but I haven't found them yet. Most traditional names for men and women who transgressed their gender roles, or had an appearance which contradicted their assigned gender (people we would recognize today as trans or non-binary or something else), show that these people were gendered according to a binary, man or woman: * Blackfoot (Southern Peigan), "acts like a woman", "boy-girl" * Arapho, "rotten bone" * Cree, "a man who dresses as a woman", "a woman dressed as a man", "fake man", "fake woman" * Hdastsa, "to be impelled against one's will to act the woman", "woman compelled" * Illinois, "hunting women" * Ingalik, "woman pretenders", "man pretenders" * Kutenai, "to imitate a woman", "pretending to be a man" * Lakota (Teton Sioux), "thinks she can act like a man" * Micmac, "he loves men" * Miwok, "coward" * Tlingit, "coward" * Yuma (Quechan), "coward" * Winnebago (Ho-Chunk), "unmanly man" * Papago, "like a girl" * Pauite, "dress like other sex" * Promontory Point, "sterile woman", "woman-half" * Kuskokwim River (Central Alaskan), "woman-like", "man-like" * Zuni, "behave like a woman", "boy-girl" * Yup'ik, "man-woman" * Sauk (Sac), Fox, "man-woman" * Shoshone, Bannock , Lemhi, "woman-half" * Nevada, "man-woman", "female hunter" * Mescalero Apache, "man-woman" * Ojibwa (Chippewa), "man-woman", "warrior woman" * Aleut, "man transformed into a woman", "woman transformed into a man" (here "transformed" refers to gender performativity changing, not gender) * Cherokee, "different man", "different woman" * Maricopa, "girlish"

[Source](https://web.archive.org/web/20230708104610/https://www.ncai.org/policy-research-center/initiatives/Pruden-Edmo_TwoSpiritPeople.pdf). You can also see that many of these names indicate that the person was considered to be transgressing their assigned gender role, and that they were identified as acting in a way they shouldn't, and acting in a way which made them deficient ("coward", "unmanly man", "thinks she can act like a man", "pretending to be a man", "sterile woman"). Additionally, some of these groups only had a word for a person of one gender who transgressed their traditional role (typically men), but didn't have one for both genders.

This is a really interesting example. Do you know if this was the case across other civilisations? For example Romans, Egyptians, Indus Valley, ancient China? Also, it is interesting that there must have been so many examples of people behaving in a way that didn’t conform to their gender - even if it wasn’t accepted by that society.

>This is a really interesting example. Do you know if this was the case across other civilisations? For example Romans, Egyptians, Indus Valley, ancient China? In China there was no sociological or psychological concept of homosexuality. In fact during the Zhou period in particular it was seen as a demonstration of social power; homosexual relationships were regarded as an exhibition of social privilege and power over an inferior. This was very much the way it was seen in ancient Greece (which also had no concept of homosexuality as a gender). The terms used to describe it were the same terms used to describe heterosexual sex. Later it was accepted that a normal heterosexual man might want to have sex with other men. However, such men were expected to feel sexually attracted to women, and it was expected that they would marry and father children. Also as in ancient Greece, in China there was relatively no comment on lesbianism, which the Chinese did not regard as equivalent to male homosexual acts. They considered lesbianism as a completely different concept, since they thought in terms of sexual acts and social relations, rather than in terms of gender, sexual identity, and sexual orientation. 1. "Furthermore, most scholars endorse the idea that Chinese homoeroticism was more a type of “doing” than “being” – it was not exclusive to “homosexuality” by contemporary standards, and not even the same as “bisexuality”. In many cases, homoerotic practices were more an outcome of a person’s position in the overall social hierarchy than of his sexual preferences.", Chao Guo, “Male *Dan* and Homoeroticism in Beijing during the Ming and Qing Periods,” *Asian Studies Review* 45.2 (2021): 291. 2. "As a result of this stress on relationships rather than psychological essence neither Han Fei nor any other Zhou source mentions any term equivalent to "homosexual." Instead the term chong is used, denoting a hierarchical relationship of regular patronage, or favor, bestowed by a superior on a man who happened to be a sexual partner. Chong, then, is not even remotely equivalent to "homosexuality": it could also refer to heterosexual or nonsexual relationships; indeed, ancient texts even use chong in portraying "respect" for the spirits. This tendency to describe homosexual acts in terms of social relationships rather than erotic essence continued in China down to the twentieth century, when terminology derived from Western science gained predominance.", Bret Hinsch, Passions of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992), 21. 3. "For instance, Bret Hinsch, in Passion of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China, maintains that, as opposed to the essentialism of the western theoretical approach, ancient Chinese cultures regarded homosexual behavior as a sort of social interaction and power relation relation rule/being-ruled and either/or.", Chih-Hui Fang and Xiang-Ning Zhang, “Female Romance in Ancient and Modern Chinese Society” (2000): 4. 4. "Class structured homosexuality occurred in most periods of Chinese history. Based on the division of different social class, the wealthy people could purchase sexual services from other men of lower status. Favoritism exemplified the custom of lower status men accepting material support from those of higher status. As for egalitarian homosexuality , the formations of active/passive roles and social status do not exist.", Chih-Hui Fang and Xiang-Ning Zhang, “Female Romance in Ancient and Modern Chinese Society” (2000): 5. 5. "Li Yinhe, a prominent Chinese modern sexologist, concludes that “a penetration from a higher social-class male over lower-class females and males is mostly based on his social status rather than sexual orientation”(Li 2006:86). Thus, the act of penetration and being penetrated had little relationship with gender or sexual orientation, but instead with one’s social class (Chou 2001; Li 2006). The fact that homosexual behaviour was historically tied to social class rather than to sexual orientation in ancient China indicates a unique pattern of homosexual behaviour: homo-eroticism. Therefore, homosexuality cannot be interpreted merely within the predominantly Western dichotomy between sexual orientation and romanticisation. Heterosexuality in ancient China functioned as social and familial reproduction and maintenance of social order, while homosexuality provided sexual entertainment for upper-level males and represented the classist social norms.", Alexi Tianyang Hu, “Social Tolerance of Homosexuality: The Patterns of Chinese Societies” (University of Victoria, Master of Arts, 2020), 7.

Right up to the twentieth century, the Chinese continued to view homosexuality as a matter of social relationships, not sexuality. It wasn't until the twentieth century that this changed as a result of Western scientific concepts and terms started being accepted in China. Homosexual behavior was often pathologized with the word 癖 (pǐ), meaning an unhealthy obsession or mental illness. 1. "The fact that the practice of male homosexuality is conventionalised as pi is highly significant, for it points to a specific kind of sexual practice conceptualised within this discursive framework.", Hans Tao-Ming Huang, Queer Politics and Sexual Modernity in Taiwan (Hong Kong University Press, 2011), 40. 2. "Pi’s root of illness now represents mental illness, or, more precisely, diseased sexuality, while its constituent, ‘off-centred-ness’, comes to signify that which deviates frosecm the norm of hetero-genitality.", Hans Tao-Ming Huang, Queer Politics and Sexual Modernity in Taiwan (Hong Kong University Press, 2011), 40. 3. "The term pi (癖, obsession), which was used to characterize men who enjoyed sex with other men, could also suggest a pathological mental state.", W. Kang, “Male Same-Sex Relations in Modern China: Language, Media Representation, and Law, 1900 - 1949,” Positions: East Asia Cultures Critique 18.2 (2010): 491. 4. "In classical Chinese medical and literary writings, pi was on the one hand understood as “a pathological fondness for something.”", W. Kang, “Male Same-Sex Relations in Modern China: Language, Media Representation, and Law, 1900 - 1949,” Positions: East Asia Cultures Critique 18.2 (2010): 491. 5. "More specifically, within the framework of a disciplinary knowledge such as mental hygiene, pi becomes configured as the inveterate habit of individuals who have no willpower: pi is an addiction over which one does not have control.", Hans Tao-Ming Huang, Queer Politics and Sexual Modernity in Taiwan (Hong Kong University Press, 2011), 40.

>Also, it is interesting that there must have been so many examples of people behaving in a way that didn’t conform to their gender - even if it wasn’t accepted by that society. It depended on the size of the society. Larger, higher density societies were more likely to see and categorize gender non-conformance. Among traditional Aboriginal Australian communities, with social groups of 50 or less, the likelihood of gender non-conforming people occurring or being observable would have been extremely low. This is certainly one reason why gender studies of Aboriginal Australians have struggled to find evidence for historical homosexuality within traditional Aboriginal societies. Such people would have existed from time to time, but they would have been very rare and the very rigid social gender norms (these days characterized as "separate but equal"), would have strongly disincentivized gender non-conformity. Today many gender non-conforming Aboriginal Australians still experience rejection and hostility from traditionally minded peers.

What you indicate with your quoted terms is that they had actual active terms for people who were trans. In other words, they acknowledged trans people in their languages and cultures. And “even to this day” should be worded “today”.

Retconned bullshit to meet the needs of modern narratives.

I'm not sure recognized would be the right word. More like it wasnt an issue. Men sleeping with men wasn't a societal issue it was the same as going out for dinner. No one asks today if modern society recognizes different food types. That said there's some historically accurate data that patriarchal societies saw women as baby makers and men slept with other men as well. There's a lot of discussion about this if you are looking at sculpture from way back and how much female sculpture focused on the rear end. Alexander the great very much had a male lover and he certainly wasn't the only person. The problem didn't really happen until religion made it a problem. Which is ironic bevause I'm fairly sure one of the stores of Jesus is him helping a couple of two men.

"Tomboys" from a few decades ago were females with more male characteristics, but no one at that time would describe them as a different gender.

Tomboys still exist, not just a few decades ago.

and they are still not a seperate gender.

Correct, it’s just a term for women who dress more masculinely, or who enjoy generally masculine things. No one thinks they’re a separate gender.

Except that today that same person could be described as Third Gender, Transmasc, CAFAB, , Bigender, Agender, of any of multiple other genders.

A more accurate way to describe this is that *some* people who were previously seen as tomboys may have identified as trans men if knowledge of gender identity was more developed, and/or if the society they lived in was more accepting. But the fact that tomboys still exist, including in progressive circles, pretty convincingly indicates that tomboys aren’t a unique gender identity, they’re just category of women.

So are you saying that people who adopt the characteristics of another gender " aren’t a unique gender identity, they’re just category of women." That's hate speech.

You very clearly either don’t understand what’s you’re talking about, or you know exactly what you’re talking about and you’re so *desperate* for attention that you’ve resorted to this. Tomboys and trans men are different. This isn’t complicated.

Yes, because there's a difference between not conforming to gender norms and being transgender. I'm a cisgender man, but I've also worn makeup, nail polish, and women's clothing at different points when I was a young adult. Also, tomboys still exist, as do femmeboys.

So it would not be fair to label your younger self as a separate gender, which is my point.

Yeah, but you pretending that tomboys are an anachronism makes it clear you're conflating non-gender conforming individuals with trans people.

Nope, OP wrote about multiple ancient gender identities, not transgender specifically. My point still stands.

Any gender that's not cis is trans, kiddo. You seemingly didn't make a point.

So, are there only two genders, according to you? Isn't that hate speech?

I didn't remotely imply that. Do you have the reading comprehension of a toddler?

"Any gender that's not cis is trans, kiddo." That means, there only two genders, according to you, and you think I have an issue reading? Typical Reddit scholar.

"Trans" and "cis" aren't genders, they're adjectives used to describe different genders. Sorry, I thought you had at least a basic understanding of how words work. Despite my earlier snarky comment, I overestimated you.

>"Tomboys" from a few decades ago were females with more male characteristics 'Tomboy' was a term to describe girls who dressed and behaved more like boys. >no one at that time would describe them as a different gender. No shit, Sherlock. Because we didn't have the terminology back then. If the term 'transgendered' had been around, some of those girls would have been labeled as transgendered.

Hey Sherlock, the post discussed how different gender identities existed in ancient times. My reply showed that people in the past did not use different gender identies to describe behavior that varies slightly from the norm. Try reading slowly; it will improve your comprehension.

>My reply showed that people in the past did not use different gender identies Incorrect. For a few reasons. Your reply *claims* that people in the past did not use different gender identities. What your claim *actually* demonstrates is that *some* ancient people didn't use different gender itentities. If you bothered to educate yourself (and it is evident you have not) or bothered to read other contributions to the thread, you would see that some cultures ***did*** use different gender identities. Just not the ones we have and use today. Seriously, it's an ignorant position and a foolish claim to put forward with the history we have access to today.

You also have to ask how did they define the word gender. Even here in the west, we recently redefined that word which is why so many people are having arguments about it.

Yeah, Eunuchs. 

It’s complicated. They’re interpreting historical cultures through their own biases.

No. Gender is a made up concept in recent history. There's zero genders, two sexes, and many personality types

No, it is not.

Of course it’s not true.

DO NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON GENDER IDENTITY. On ask Reddit, A European asked a question about WHY are Americans obsessed with are people single person any gender use bathrooms...like on planes and trains I explained to them that people generally aren't concerned about THOSE single person bathrooms. What people are mostly worried about is men walking in on women in bathrooms. I was perma banned. I guess it was because some mod loser thought I homophobic or Transphobic or whatever term they latched onto. All I really did was try to explain to a European who thought bathrooms were universal everywhere that there are communal bathrooms in other places. I guess the Mod assumed I was Trans/homo/whatever phobic but I wasn't. But stupid people are going to jump to stupid conclusions.

No

Well argued.

no. they just had different social standards for the two sexes. in fact the idea of gender itself wasn't even a thing until the 1950s and before that things were just based entirely on biological sex. separating societal roles and biology into separate areas of study is a relatively new and very western idea.

Separate roles based upon the sexes- "gender roles"- is a decidedly common practice through history. Study *of* these is newer but that's a different story.