So much for exulting indigenous native Americans for celebrating trans people with a unique transgendered identity they highly revered:
Exalting an ‘Anti-Colonial’ Gender Identity
"“2S,” signify “Two-Spirit,” a term that’s been a form of self-identification among Indigenous North Americans since the 1990s. But the descriptor doesn’t appear to be in wide everyday use outside Canada. And so non-Canadian readers will sometimes ask me to explain its meaning—at which point, I have to admit that I can’t. And I’m hardly alone: While most Canadians know that the “Two-Spirit” category is connected to Indigenous identity in some way, there’s an unspoken rule against requesting more specific information.
Last week, the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (ETFO), the province’s elementary-school teachers union, published what the authors present as a primer on Two-Spirit identity, a document written in close consultation with 2S-identified Indigenous people. Since the report’s target audience consists of workaday teachers who educate young students, I imagined that Niizh Manidoowag: Two-Spirit might finally provide me with a straightforward explanation of what the 2S identifier actually means.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t. In fact, one of the main themes of the 32-page document is that the task of defining the Two-Spirit concept is (quite literally) beyond the powers of Western language and epistemology. And in any case, the category is almost completely open-ended: The act of proclaiming oneself Two-Spirited could be a statement about one’s gender, or sexual orientation, or both, or neither. Or 2S can be a statement about one’s politics, spirituality, or simply one’s desire to present as “anti-colonial.”
According to the ETFO report, there are only two non-negotiable elements of a Two-Spirited individual—both of which are spelled out multiple times in the document, and in bold letters. Neither rule is concerned with sex or gender, but rather with race and political orientation: To be Two-Spirited requires (1) that you are Indigenous; and (2) that you are engaged in a “decolonizing act of resistance”...
The term Two-Spirit was first popularized in 1990, at an inter-tribal Native American/First Nations gay and lesbian summit in Winnipeg, and is derived from the Ojibwa words Niizh Manidoowag. By one account, delegates were looking for a term that would “distance Native/First Nations people from non-Natives, as well as from the words ‘berdache’ [a European term suggesting deviancy] and ‘gay.’” But lore has it that the true originator is a Fisher River First Nation woman named Myra Laramee, who experienced a vision of the world as seen “through the lens of having both feminine and masculine spirit.”
On the surface, that sounds like what today might be called “non-binary.” But that analogy fails on a fundamental level. The idea of gender identity relates to the (perceived) nature of oneself. Two-Spirit people, on the other hand, are described in the ETFO report as possessing a savant-like power (or “lens”) that channels truths about the nature of the external world.
The Two Spirit concept is also entirely distinct from run-of-the-mill gender dysphoria. In everyday progressive gender parlance, it is typically insisted that trans women are just like other women. Two-Spirited people, by contrast, are presented as an entirely unique specimen whose arrival within traditional Indigenous societies was “celebrated”—“highly valued” “gifts” who “possess the best of both gendered identities.”
While the authors of the ETFO report were careful to source their work to Indigenous writers and interviewees, it’s interesting to note that all of the listed societal roles attributed to ancient Two-Spirited people align uncannily with the avant-garde outlook of a white 2022-era environmentalist who’s embraced intersectional conceptions of gender...
Some of the content in the ETFO report might be properly described as “meta.” At one point, for instance, we are told of Marie Laing (a self-described queer Kanyen’kehá:ka writer), who sees Two-Spirit as a “container” for collecting “multiple distinct understandings” of gender diversity. At other points, the tone is religious, with the authors citing lessons from “the Creator” in regard to the storytelling of Two-Spirit narratives. In several sections, Two-Spirited people are lauded as vessels of Indigenous “spiritualism.” But most of the jargon consists of generic anti-racist slogans. We are told no fewer than nine times, for instance, that the authors are following an “anti-oppressive” approach. Colonialism is denounced more than a dozen times, including in its “heteronormative” (three times) variant.
On page 11, we learn that, for some, the Two-Spirit descriptor may not have anything to do with one’s individual identity whatsoever, but rather signals an ideological commitment to collective Indigenous “sovereignty.” In fact, even Dr. Laramee’s own foundational description seemed to imagine the Two-Spirited individual as summoniing a mystically inflected nationalist spirit than binds soul and soil: “It is sacred and is more than just words—it is a spirit/heart language … When Two-Spirit is used, it invokes our sacredness and reminds us that we have always been here, and we will always be here.”
It may not surprise readers to learn that the documented historical basis for the ETFO’s claims is quite thin. And at one point, the report’s authors even concede that “in traditional Indigenous communities, gender roles were very distinct.” But much of the blame for that, we are told, goes to “the harsh indoctrination of Christian teachings”—with Two-Spirited individuals now being cast as Edenic Lorax-like figures who will cleanse Indigenous societies of such Christian contaminants while guiding them back to their ancestral ways.
And yet, for all these lofty themes, some of the actual biographical details offered by self-identified Two-Spirited individuals described in the ETFO report seem quite hard to distinguish from old-fashioned sexist stereotypes—by which men wear pants and exhibit strength, while women wear skirts and nurture their young...
In a remarkable 2013 essay, pseudonymous writer Deirdre Bell noted that progressive mysticism surrounding traditional Indigenous attitudes toward gender often have served to obscure such sexist realities. In particular, Bell poured scorn on “the white trans person who points to American Indian cultures as some kind of more accepting place for people with dysphoria, because many of these cultures had a ‘third gender.’” In most cases that we know of, Bell argued, Indigenous third-gender categorization was a mechanism to negotiate a useful societal role for non-conforming men. Women weren’t eligible...
Just as the Two-Spirit designation often signifies an “anti-colonial” Indigenous person who happens to be exhibiting some (at least vaguely expressed) gay or trans affect, the larger umbrella term “queer” itself now is increasingly used to denote anti-bourgeois political postures."
A more subtle way in which trans mania is misogyny:
"I have a special kind of rage for any white person who claims to identify as a “Two Spirit” person. It’s like wearing a hipster headdress: it proclaims loud and clear that you’re a white person who likes to appropriate American Indian culture while having little or nothing to do with the culture you’re appropriating.
The version of this that’s less enraging but more prevalent (think of it as the “dreamcatcher” of appropriation–common, misunderstood, and talked about in gross ways by all kinds of white people) is the white trans person who points to American Indian cultures as some kind of more accepting place for people with dysphoria/GID, because many of these cultures had a “third gender.” This represents a misunderstanding of what, precisely, being two-spirit meant culturally, economically, and socially for many two-spirit people, and also represents a very limiting, naive, “all these people look the same to me” view of American Indian nations.
Before we start: lumping all non-gender-conforming people in indigenous North America into a single “third gender” or “berdache” or “two-spirit” label is problematic. The cultures of pre-Columbian North America were incredibly distinct from each other, with significantly different gender roles to be observed even in Indian nations that were very close to each other.
What gets even more interesting when you look into the two-spirit phenomenon is where it doesn’t pop up–or doesn’t pop up with the same frequency.
The Iroquois Confederation historically had no two-spirit people in spite of keeping significantly more detailed documentation of the lives of its people than many other American Indian nations. For that matter, neither did the Apache, who treated two-spirit people respectfully and cordially when they met them but did not themselves have two-spirit people as part of their culture.
What would make the Iroquois and Apache different? It’s not a matter of genetics. That’d only be possible if there were no intermarriages between American Indian people from different nations, and that’s simply not true.
The Iroquois had one of the most politically egalitarian societies for men and women in the world, at the time when white folks set out to destroy them systematically. Women had significant amounts of political power, and the society was not simply matrilineal (which can sometimes still involve huge patriarchal gender role issues–hello, Orthodox Judaism!) but involved real equality of authority.
The Apache were famed for their skill in battle, which may mean you’ve never heard one of the most fascinating parts about their culture. Because war was a near-constant fact for Apache adults, while adults tended to have sex-segregated roles in society, children were actually given a very non-gendered upbringing. Girls were expected to know how to do “boy” things, and vice versa. Why? Think about the home front during World War II. It’s a good idea if all your people know the basics, just so that when there are war parties gone, or a sex imbalance after raids, you don’t lose all of the missing/dead people’s knowledge and skill base.
Neither of these societies–which have in some ways more progressive and egalitarian places for women and/or girls than contemporary societies–had two-spirit people. Was this because they were evil and repressive?
Let’s take the Lakota, one piece of the Sioux nation, as an alternate example. Please note that I’m speaking about the Sioux nations from the perspective of someone who has taken time to learn a great deal of a Sioux language and has studied these cultures both in historical and contemporary contexts. The Lakota have a longstanding tradition of two-spirit people, documented as far back as the written record goes. Among the Lakota, polygyny was accepted, and gender roles were extremely clearly established for boys and girls from an extremely early age.
The Lakota two spirit people are never born women. Almost all of them, historically, have been men. Claims of intersexed/hermaphroditic people from the 19th/early 20th centuries should ALWAYS be taken with a significant grain of salt, because of the trouble Europeans in this era had distinguishing between homosexuality and hermaphroditism (both male and female homosexuals were often thought to have hermaphroditic qualities–a historical fact we’ll talk about in another entry!).
Were no Lakota women “born this way” while men were? Let me postulate a different theory: that it’s men in power who impose gender roles, and that Lakota men’s patriarchal society had to have somewhere to put “men who don’t ‘act like’ men” because of male gender policing. Lakota people put two-spirit men in the part of the camp where women and children lived, which was generally not as well cared for and considered not as prestigious because of the patriarchal way that they lived.
While there were occasionally women in the Lakota and other Sioux nations that became part of war parties, they were not regarded as “male” in any way relating to their oppressed status at home. There was no need for the patriarchal Sioux to create a category for gender non-conforming women, nor to give them special status or specific supposed talents (Lakota and Dakota two-spirit people are said to be excellent namers of children and are thought to be able to see visions of the future). That’s something men do for men, because just by dint of having a penis, gender non-conforming men deserved to be able to have their own group and identity.
You see this in large numbers of patriarchal American Indian cultures: societies where there’s a firmly established “third” gender that men can elect to participate in (sometimes as older people, sometimes from an early age), while women’s gender roles are firmly entrenched and allow for little variance. What’s amazing is that many people are invested in the notion that third gender was egalitarian. Check out how careful this website is to show us both male and female two-spirit people–in fact, having more stories of female two-spirit people–while making no mention of the fact that female third gender individuals were incredibly rare compared to male ones.
Let’s take another example of a society that had a significantly different conception of gender and what it meant to be two-spirit. The Dene people of Alberta are a First Nations group that historically believed children could be reincarnations of deceased relatives. So far, so good, lots of cultures think that–hell, sometimes my own mother tells me I’m the reincarnation of my great grandfather. But in Dene culture, if your parents saw the spirit of a woman enter your mother’s body when she was pregnant, regardless of your birth sex you could be referred to as “my daughter” by the man who believed his daughter’s spirit had been reincarnated into you. You wouldn’t have to live as the sex of the person that you were thought to have been before, but would always be considered to in some way have a foot in each gender from your reincarnated past.
The Dene, it’s worth noting, forced women to go hungry at their husband’s discretion whenever the tribe was low on food. Women in this society were among the most oppressed women in all of indigenous North America. These supposedly progressive ways of viewing gender don’t come from cultures that actually treat women progressively. Not once.
It’s very strange to watch the contemporary trans movement attempt to incorporate American Indian cultural conceptions of gender-nonconformity, because it’s so clearly an attempt to shoehorn people of the past into contemporary cultural labels. In some third gender societies, two-spirit was simply a way to handle homosexuality within the group: homosexual men were considered not fully men, a halfway gender that wasn’t quite “normal.” In others, it was a way to handle intersexed people in societies with rigid sex binaries. In still others, it was for men who specifically preferred women’s work and roles, like weaving and cooking.
In almost none of these societies did two-spirit people born male identify *as women*. We have no documented cases (in spite of documentation of other activities and feelings of “berdaches”/two-spirits in history) of two-spirit men anguishing over an inability to be fully recognized as a woman or to have a woman’s body. They tended to identify as a different type of man, or something between masculine and feminine.
To systematically deprive historical two-spirit people of their own thoughts regarding their gender and what the historical record shows was their place in society–to misrepresent these people, who were often oppressed within their groups rather than lauded for their non-conformity, in spite of the all-too-common hagiographic contemporary notion of American Indian nations as places free from oppression–is to erase the nuance of real history in favor of a conception of history in which really, everyone’s just like you, you lucky 21st century son of a gun who has it all figured out.
The continuous use of two-spirit people as a way to show that transgenderism has existed in all societies–and the incredible lack of knowledge of the basics of indigenous North American cultures shown by many trans people who casually refer to there being transgender people in American Indian societies–is appropriative behavior. It is taking the parts of a society that you think you like, without studying them much or looking at their origins, and deciding that the culture they’re from must really be deep and would really get you. It’s de-contextualizing and de-humanizing, and erases differences between American Indian cultures as well as the fundamental ways those cultures historically were different from anything we have on the planet today.
What’s instead true is that American Indian nations that had more rigid
gender roles and assigned women less power historically felt the need to
strip male/female identities from non-conformers, while more
egalitarian societies with less gender socialization lack two-spirit
people because of, rather than in spite of, their lack of emphasis on
sex-assigned gender roles."
