I thought about commenting to add some nuance to the label "brutalist" tagged on Stone Age Herbalist... except I did place him in that corner of the ring framing the debate in my article. As if to demonstrate his greater breadth of interest and scholarship, this morning's substack from SAH dives deep into the esoteric realms of Buddhist history and philosophy: https://www.stoneageherbalist.com/p/interview-buddhism-tibet-and-vajrayana
Margaret Mead: "Among the Plains Indians, the individual who preferred the placid activities of the women to the dangerous, nerve-racking activities of the men could phrase his preference in sex terms; he could assume women’s dress and occupations and proclaim that he really was more a woman than a man. In Mundugumor, where there is no such pattern, a man may engage in feminine activities, such as fishing, without it occurring to him to symbolize his behavior in female attire.
Without any contrast between the sexes and without any tradition of transvestism, a variation in temperamental preference does not result in either homosexuality or transvestism. As it is unevenly distributed over the world, it seems clear that transvestism is not only a variation that occurs when there are different personalities decreed for men and women, but that it need not occur even there. It is, in fact, a social invention that has become stabilized among the American Indians and in Siberia, but not in Oceania.
I observed in some detail the behavior of an American Indian youth who was in all probability a congenital invert, during the period when he was just making his transvestism explicit. This man had, as a small boy, shown such marked feminine physical traits that a group of women had once captured him and undressed him to discover whether he was really a boy at all. As he grew older he began to specialize in women’s occupations and to wear female underclothing, although he still affected the outer costume of a male. He carried in his pockets, however, a variety of rings and bangles such as were worn only by women. At dances in which the sexes danced separately, he would begin the evening dressed as a man and dancing with the men, and then, as if acting under some irresistible compulsion, he would begin to move closer and closer to the women, as he did so putting on one piece of jewelry after another. Finally, a shawl would appear, and at the end of the evening, he would be dressed as a berdache, a transvestite. The people were just beginning to speak of him as “she.” I have cited his case in this connection to make clear that this is the type of maladjusted individual with which this discussion is not concerned. His aberrancy appeared to have a specific physiologic origin; it was not a mere temperamental variation that his society had decided to define as feminine.
Point of clarification: I believe that it is true that berdaches may have played important roles within Lakota society, and that Margaret Mead’s description of the berdache as an institution meant to punish men is likely only part of the story. It makes sense to me that they would have sometimes become important diplomats, shamans, mediators, and medicine people. After all, a man who lives amongst women would understand men better than women do, and women better than men do. It’s easy to see how such a person would play a key role in society, and indeed, this may be part of the social function of transgenderism in traditional indigenous cultures.
It should also be clearly stated that lack of evidence for homosexuality is not evidence of a lack of homoeroticism... but neither should we assume that rates of homosexuality are even-distributed throughout different societies. Some evolutionary theorists believe that homosexuality is an epigenetic phenomenon which might be "switched on" by environmental factors.
Indigenous societies, by definition, are in a sustainable relationship with the ecosystem they inhabit. If they are to remain indigenous, they must regulate their population to maintain it at a sustainable level. If homosexuality was relatively unknown in Northern Turtle Island, that might simply mean that overpopulation was not yet a problem, possibly because long winters and difficult conditions served to limit population growth.
All this is speculative, of course. It seems likely that human sexuality is influence by a combination of social, hormonal, and possibly genetic and epigenetic factors.
Ultimately, desire comes from the soul, meaning that sexual attraction is spiritual. And at the end of the day, de los gustos no hay escrito. People like what they like, and sometimes that's all that can really be said.
I appreciate the open-mindedness. From what i know, traditionally, 'gender-benders' in Native cultures are deeply respected. Also,
a couple of bits: "It is probably technically accurate to refer to both the Lakota and Anishnaabe as patriarchal, but the idea of “right relationship” between men and women were at the heart of both cultures." First of all, those Nations are still here, so present tense " are" and the Lakota are decidedly not "patriarchal", as women are considered the "backbone" of the People, and "right relationship" is with ALL beings, no one greater or lesser, the ant, the cloud, the tree... what's often translated into English in very simplified form as 'All The/My Relations', Lakota 'Mitakuye Oyasin'. And from a Lakota friend i learned that that "winkte" is not "wants to be like a woman" rather more like, behaving like a woman, plus "winkte" includes both male and female, so also for a woman, behaving like a man.
I'm not going to get myself into any arguments/discussions about non-cis or non-hetero stuff, however. Except to say that no one chooses what they are, because it's a product of brain development, and that can happen to any human in any culture at any period of history. How those minority developmental disorders (or variances, would be a less derogatory word) manifest in the social context, of course, is another question entirely and should be treated separately. You only need to look at the 'conservative' attacks on anything that isn't 'cis' or 'hetero' to understand how some cultures would viciously and violently repress and ostracise minorities to understand why members of these minority groups would be somewhat reluctant to express their true selves. This is a good argument for a more spiritual, and therefore liberal, social environment - there wouldn't be any discrimination or allegations of 'agenda' in such a mature society. Dare I say such a society would be spiritually anarchist?
I thought about commenting to add some nuance to the label "brutalist" tagged on Stone Age Herbalist... except I did place him in that corner of the ring framing the debate in my article. As if to demonstrate his greater breadth of interest and scholarship, this morning's substack from SAH dives deep into the esoteric realms of Buddhist history and philosophy: https://www.stoneageherbalist.com/p/interview-buddhism-tibet-and-vajrayana
@stoneageherbalist @thecrowisamessenger @paulcudenec
Margaret Mead: "Among the Plains Indians, the individual who preferred the placid activities of the women to the dangerous, nerve-racking activities of the men could phrase his preference in sex terms; he could assume women’s dress and occupations and proclaim that he really was more a woman than a man. In Mundugumor, where there is no such pattern, a man may engage in feminine activities, such as fishing, without it occurring to him to symbolize his behavior in female attire.
Without any contrast between the sexes and without any tradition of transvestism, a variation in temperamental preference does not result in either homosexuality or transvestism. As it is unevenly distributed over the world, it seems clear that transvestism is not only a variation that occurs when there are different personalities decreed for men and women, but that it need not occur even there. It is, in fact, a social invention that has become stabilized among the American Indians and in Siberia, but not in Oceania.
I observed in some detail the behavior of an American Indian youth who was in all probability a congenital invert, during the period when he was just making his transvestism explicit. This man had, as a small boy, shown such marked feminine physical traits that a group of women had once captured him and undressed him to discover whether he was really a boy at all. As he grew older he began to specialize in women’s occupations and to wear female underclothing, although he still affected the outer costume of a male. He carried in his pockets, however, a variety of rings and bangles such as were worn only by women. At dances in which the sexes danced separately, he would begin the evening dressed as a man and dancing with the men, and then, as if acting under some irresistible compulsion, he would begin to move closer and closer to the women, as he did so putting on one piece of jewelry after another. Finally, a shawl would appear, and at the end of the evening, he would be dressed as a berdache, a transvestite. The people were just beginning to speak of him as “she.” I have cited his case in this connection to make clear that this is the type of maladjusted individual with which this discussion is not concerned. His aberrancy appeared to have a specific physiologic origin; it was not a mere temperamental variation that his society had decided to define as feminine.
Point of clarification: I believe that it is true that berdaches may have played important roles within Lakota society, and that Margaret Mead’s description of the berdache as an institution meant to punish men is likely only part of the story. It makes sense to me that they would have sometimes become important diplomats, shamans, mediators, and medicine people. After all, a man who lives amongst women would understand men better than women do, and women better than men do. It’s easy to see how such a person would play a key role in society, and indeed, this may be part of the social function of transgenderism in traditional indigenous cultures.
It should also be clearly stated that lack of evidence for homosexuality is not evidence of a lack of homoeroticism... but neither should we assume that rates of homosexuality are even-distributed throughout different societies. Some evolutionary theorists believe that homosexuality is an epigenetic phenomenon which might be "switched on" by environmental factors.
Indigenous societies, by definition, are in a sustainable relationship with the ecosystem they inhabit. If they are to remain indigenous, they must regulate their population to maintain it at a sustainable level. If homosexuality was relatively unknown in Northern Turtle Island, that might simply mean that overpopulation was not yet a problem, possibly because long winters and difficult conditions served to limit population growth.
All this is speculative, of course. It seems likely that human sexuality is influence by a combination of social, hormonal, and possibly genetic and epigenetic factors.
Ultimately, desire comes from the soul, meaning that sexual attraction is spiritual. And at the end of the day, de los gustos no hay escrito. People like what they like, and sometimes that's all that can really be said.
I appreciate the open-mindedness. From what i know, traditionally, 'gender-benders' in Native cultures are deeply respected. Also,
a couple of bits: "It is probably technically accurate to refer to both the Lakota and Anishnaabe as patriarchal, but the idea of “right relationship” between men and women were at the heart of both cultures." First of all, those Nations are still here, so present tense " are" and the Lakota are decidedly not "patriarchal", as women are considered the "backbone" of the People, and "right relationship" is with ALL beings, no one greater or lesser, the ant, the cloud, the tree... what's often translated into English in very simplified form as 'All The/My Relations', Lakota 'Mitakuye Oyasin'. And from a Lakota friend i learned that that "winkte" is not "wants to be like a woman" rather more like, behaving like a woman, plus "winkte" includes both male and female, so also for a woman, behaving like a man.
I liked the story very much.
I'm not going to get myself into any arguments/discussions about non-cis or non-hetero stuff, however. Except to say that no one chooses what they are, because it's a product of brain development, and that can happen to any human in any culture at any period of history. How those minority developmental disorders (or variances, would be a less derogatory word) manifest in the social context, of course, is another question entirely and should be treated separately. You only need to look at the 'conservative' attacks on anything that isn't 'cis' or 'hetero' to understand how some cultures would viciously and violently repress and ostracise minorities to understand why members of these minority groups would be somewhat reluctant to express their true selves. This is a good argument for a more spiritual, and therefore liberal, social environment - there wouldn't be any discrimination or allegations of 'agenda' in such a mature society. Dare I say such a society would be spiritually anarchist?