Talk:Hijra (South Asia)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Separate sections?

Do some of the problems with conflicts between sources arise from the differences between the community in India and Pakistan? Would it be simpler to treat India and Pakistan separately? My reading suggests that in India, hijra tend to be Hindu in a predominantly Hindu society, but in Pakistan the situation is slightly different. It would be unteneable to extrapolate one set of experiences as if it applied universally in such a situation, just as it would to state that hijra engage in criminal activities, simply because some appear to. Mish (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I just want to say that I know nothing of the differences, and the only hijra info I have is with Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, Kolkata, and Mumbai hijras. So far as I know, there is no reason to have separate sections for separate countries at this time. Blue Rasberry 20:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the sources say anything much different to one another, except that some are more sympathetic to alternative constructions of gender terminology. However, I do think it is apparent that Pakistan and India are different, and religion is the basis of that difference. The Pakistan tradition is original, evidenced by the Arabic terminology. The Indian tradition may actually be older than the Pakistani tradition, but not with the name hijra. South Indian hijra, also known as ali and aravani may pre-date the eunuchs of the Mughal empire. The name hijra and some Pakistani traditions being borrowed into their own distinct culture.

I will be looking for sources on precisely this question. The sources should give us enough information to decide the most helpful way forward. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is generic, with hijra being the best-known term so used in the title, but also covers the phenomena under different names. I prefer to use the term kinnar. As such, yes, it did predate the Mughals, no doubt the hijra could be shown to be a fusion between two different traditions, one which facilitated Muslim men access to same-sex-sex without running foul of Sharia Law (as with the Xanith), but that is beyond the scope of this article. What we are interested is in the situation within Hinduism, as well as Islam, and the Hindu tradition, does appear different to this day. [1] Mish (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be generic, not specific to Pakistan or India. I also agree that kinnar might be a better title. Hijra is most common in English usage, but there can be exceptions to the general policy WP:UCN. I'd support a proposal for renaming the article.

"Hijra is the Urdu word for eunuch or hermaphrodite but now means a born hermaphrodite who dresses as a female or, more commonly, a born male who undergoes, or plans to undergo, surgical emasculation, and who dons female garb. Depending on the linguistic region in which they live, the hijra are also referred to as kinnar or mukhannis. In the Tamil speaking south of India the term Ali is used to refer to transvestites, eunuchs, transsexuals and hermaphrodites. The term zenanas refers to cross-dressing male homosexuals. True hijras lack of sexual desire clearly distinguishes them from zenana.

For the purposes of this paper, the term hijra will be used to describe those people who are, naturally or otherwise, or seek to become, asexual and who dress and live as women, a third gender. Since the term hijra also describes a way of life, and one at which a living can be made, there are those who adopt the pose without the commitment. Recent attention paid to the emergence of members of the hijra as players in India's political life has brought visibility ..."

—Joseph T. Bockrath, "Bhartia Hijro Ka Dharma: The Code of India's Hijra", Legal Studies Forum 83 (2003): 83–95. [Emphasis added.]

Alastair Haines (talk) 05:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources

There are literally hundreds of reliable sources on the hijra. Wikipedia and common decency require we stick to transcribing their knowledge rather than debating editorial opinions. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• "For the most part, hijras are phenotypic men who wear female clothing and, ideally, renounce sexual desire and practice by undergoing a sacrificial emasculation—that is, an excision of the penis and testicles—dedicated to the goddess Bedhraj Mata."

—Gayatri Reddy, With respect to sex: negotiating hijra identity in South India, (University of Chicago Press, 2005), p. 2.

• "In Pakistan, male sex workers are predominantly transvestites and transsexuals known as Hijras."

—Shehla Baqi, Sharaf Ali Shah, Mirza Alim Baig, Syed Abdul Mujeeb and Ashraf Memon, "Seroprevalence of HIV, HBV and syphilis and associated risk behaviours in male transvestites (Hijras) in Karachi, Pakistan", International Journal of STD & AIDS 10 (1999): 300–304.

• "One ethnographic report of a wife actually striking her husband is described by Nanda (1986: 46) from her research on the hijras (male transvestites)."

—Barbara Diane Miller, "Wife beating in India: variations on a theme", in Dorothy Ayers Counts, Judith K. Brown, Jacquelyn Campbell, To have and to hit: cultural perspectives on wife beating, (University of Illinois Press, 1999).

• "Four hundred and nine Hijras underwent detailed behavioural and biological assessment. Our subjects were young (median age: 24 years), debuted sex early and used alcohol and drugs. Sex with men, women and other Hijras along with co-habitation/marriage were reported. Most (84%) had sold sex. These reported a median of four times and at least one regular client weekly. ... Many reported experiencing physical abuse or forced sex (40%) ... Most (58%) had sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and 38% had multiple infections. The commonest infections were syphilis (50%) and gonorrhoea (18%). ... High STI prevalence, commercial sex, bisexuality and infrequent protective behaviours are described."

—A A Khan, N Rehan, K Qayyum and A Khan, "Correlates and prevalence of HIV and sexually transmitted infections among Hijras (male transgenders) in Pakistan", International Journal of STD & AIDS 19 (2008): 817–820.

There are a range of sources, including anthropology, transgender studies, queer theory, sexology, which we can draw from, and some of these address the relevance of trying to apply western discourse developed around gay or transgender people, including 'third gender' to hijra and other non-Western phenomena. I tend to go along with this in my own thinking - and would extrapolate that to other western discources that have occupied a hegemonic position on such matters in the past - medicine and psychology, for example, which would encompass terms like 'homosexuality', 'transsexualism' (GID and SRS), 'intersex' (or DSD), and so on. However, what we have to do is not a decosntruction of the topic, nor argue over whether (or from it appears here, which) terms and concepts outside the cultural context of the hijra can be used to describe the hijra to a layperson in an English-speaking encyclopedia - but write an article about the hijra using terms non-sepcialist people will understand, that in some way reflect hijra self-perception and experience, can be verified through sources, and do not impose our understanding of them. Mish (talk) 11:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• "None of the hijra narratives I recorded supports the widespread belief in India that hijras recruit their membership by making successful claims on intersex infants. Instead, it appears that most hijras join the community in their youth, either out of a desire to more fully express their feminine gender identity, under the pressure of poverty, because of ill treatment by parents and peers for feminine behaviour, after a period of homosexual prostitution, or for a combination of these reasons." p.116
• "'What is a hijra?' expresses the most common view, held by both hijras and and people in the larger society, that the hijras are an alternative gender, neither men or women"..."The view of hijras as an alternative gender category is supported by linguistic evidence. The most widely used English translations of the word hijra, which is of Urdu origin, is either 'eunuch' or 'hermaphrodite' (intersexed). Both terms, as used in India, connote impotence - an inability to function in the male sexual role - and the word hijra primarily implies a physical defect impairing the male sexual function (Opler 1960:507). In both cases the irregularity of the male genitalia is central to the definition: Eunuch refers to an emasculated male, and intersexed to a person whose genitals are ambiguously male-like at birth. When this is discovered, the child, previously assigned to the male sex, would be recategorised as intersexed-as a hijra." p.13-14
• "The variety of mythopoetic and ritual expressions of transgenderism in Hinduism, including of course, hijra emasculation, suggests that a number of different mechanisms are operating in the devotee's attempts at reconciliation with the mother through the worship of the Goddess"... p.36

Nanda, S. (1999) Neither Man nor Woman - The Hijras of India.

• "You really do not understand, I am the third sex, not a man trying to be a woman. It is your society's problem that you only recognise two sexes" (Mona Ahmed speaking) p.15

Singh, D. (2001) Myself Mona Ahmed. Thames & Hudson: London, New York.

• "The studies of the mahu, xanith, and hijra include homosexual components but are social identities that are not derivative of sexual orientation/practice." p.35

Bolin A. (1996) Traversing Gender: Cultural Context and Gender Practices (in ed. Ramet P.R. (1996) Gender Reversals & Gender Cultures, Routledge: London, New York)

• "Anthropologists are not immune from the temptation to use the word transgender as a shorthand gloss. Despite the care they often take to 'mark out a cultural specificity to the gender and sexual practices of their informants to avoid 'gay' in the USAmerican or European sense,' Valentine points out that they sometimes sweep a variety of nonnormative gender identities under the heading of 'transgender'" p.670
• "The 'third gender' is a uniquely Western concept produced by a society just beginning to grapple with the theoretical, social, political and personal consequences of nondichotomous gender variability." p.671
• "To her," (Ogborn) "life as a hijra is merely an elaboration on the American theme of transsexuality, but in India, hijras exist in a completely different context and constellation of meanings." p.674

Towle, R.B and Morgan, L.M. Romancing the Transgender Native: Rethinking the Use of the "Third Gender" Concept (in Stryker, S. and Whittle, S. (2006) Transgender Studies Reader. Routledge: New York, London)

As can be seen from this small and not exhaustive reproduction of statements from a few sources, we cannot say that being a hijra means one thing, and not another, nor that it being one thing for one person rules it its being a different thing for another. Hijra incorporates a number of ways of being, and as a phenomenon it does not appear to be a unified experience that can be explained as simplistically 'hijras are male homosexuals' (for example). There may be hijras who had such a background - but it is not how the term 'hijra' is defined, nor how it has always been seen by hijras or Indian society itself. The construction of the homosexual comes later than the construction of the hijra, and the western development and understanding of homosexuality was significant in the suppression of the hijra under the Raj, and the role transforming into what it has become since then. Aplying constructs like 'homosexual' to hijra is as inadequate as saying 'they are gay men', or 'they are transsexual', and even 'they are transgendered', with one difference - transgender has a sense in which it is an umbrella term, which incorporates a range of behaviours like this. Homosexuality (for example) only incorporates one aspect of one part of the behaviour some hijra have (or do) engage in. Mish (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Good work with the sourcing, and good work with expressing your take on things.

You claim "we cannot say that being a hijra means one thing, and not another".

I'd like clarification of that. In fact, in an encyclopedia, one is required to provide a definition.

The hijra are members of the species Homo sapiens and not members of the species Homo erectus.

There are many things we can both affirm and deny about the hijra from reliable sources:

the hijra have male phenotype, few hijra have DSDs (or are intersexed), far from all are emasculated (or eunuchs).

There are other things that cannot be asserted about the hijra because reliable sources differ in the PsoV.

Most authorities civil and academic recognize that the hijra are of male sex.

On the other hand, many Western academics, journalists and even hijra themselves--campaigners and private individuals--are still in the process of contesting this, claiming that there would be benefit in adopting a category like "third sex" or "third gender".

So, I think we agree, we cannot define hijra as "intersex" (because this applies only to a very few, it is not characteristic of all). Nor can we define them as "third sex", "third gender" or "transgender", which are PoV and poorly defined themselves.

The question is, what characteristics of the hijra are generally applicable and generally accepted in the reliable sources?

Male phenotype, community living, women's clothing, feminine gender identity, feminine gender roles: these are the things the sources agree about.

Are you claiming that the "third sex" idea is well established in English (so it doesn't need scare quotes)?

Are you claiming the "third sex" idea is well established in scientific and medical terminology with an objective reality?

Are you claiming the "third sex" idea is natural and unopposed, so no one needs to explain or argue for it?

Or do we agree, "third sex" (or "third gender" or "transgender" or "genderqueer") reflect a reliably sourced, notable non-neutral point of view that applies and must be documented, but cannot be asserted as the "hegemonic" point of view on the hijra (or similar groups of people, for that matter)?

Are you denying that the hijra are phenotypically male? Are you denying that they are known for living in communities, wearing women's clothing and adopting feminine gender identities?

If you are not claiming or denying anything, that can be supported or contradicted by reliable sources, then you'd be discussing the topic, rather than proposing improvement to the text of the article. I'm happy to do that at our talk pages, but this is the wrong forum for it.

It seems to me you are bang on topic, saying "a hijra means one thing" (you claim "intersex" and "transgender") and "not another" (you claim "not male"). Is what you mean by "we cannot say that being a hijra means one thing" simply that you can say what hijra are and are not, but that I cannot? I will AGF and presume all you mean is what I'd agree with, neither you nor I can define the hijra, but the sources certainly can and do.

I'd appreciate specific answers to the questions above. I hope it is clear to you how you are, in good faith no doubt, pushing a PoV. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Last statement retracted after observation that, although there appeared to be an attempt to censor any reference to hijra as "male" or "men", a brilliant choice of terminology, "gender-liminal", struck me as precisely the kind of encyclopedic and neutral way to introduce space for "genderqueer" POV from the NPOV. It strikes me that "genderqueer" language rightfully has its place at Wiki, and will have support from a lot of "non-queer" readers, including myself, all the more so if it is introduced honestly as a notable POV (which it nearly always is), but also from a NPOV which permits the reliable sources that analyse "gender issues" from more objective, scientific, but admittedly traditional viewpoints. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What I am saying is that neither the hijra, nor the sources, manage to define the hijra as one thing. Some hijra see themselves one way, others a different way, some sources say hijra are one thing, others say they are something different. The important thing is to reflect what the sources say, but not in a way that we would take a position on what they are or are not. So, we are agreed that they are phenotypically male, mostly, but that does not mean they are male communities, if that is not how they talk about themselves. What we say is that so-and-so describes hijra as males who live in communities as females and dress in women's clothes, and engage in sex with men. We avoid referring to people as homosexuals throughout the encyclopedia, because it is considered as pejorative by many gay people (and the impression I get is that also applies to hijra - they refer to themselves as hijra, which is not the same). I'm not sure about this genderqueer business - 'gender-liminal' I only encounter in academic discourse, and for that reason it is perfectly acceptable within an encyclopedia. To assert that people are best described in ways they identify is not NPOV, it is part of the guidelines, and pushing a description that runs contrary to those guidelines. It is reasonable to include the description as a POV rendered in some sources, but not as what hijra are - especially when you know it is more complicated than that. So, I have proposed how you handle this material in a way that improves the article, but you seem reluctant to look at that.

Yes, I agree that 'third sex' is documented, and can be referred to, but not as the only way of viewing hijra. The way you want included can be substantiated, just as can the 'transgender/transsexual' way of looking at this, but with the caveat that hijra do not precisely match any of these categories, but these are the ways people have attempted to discuss them in a Western context. In the lead, what we need to say has to be as neutral as possible on the different explanations, and the best we can do is use neutral terms, and introduce the fact that there are different interpretations, and summarise very briefly what these are, for what they are. That would follow the more general, neutral, introduction. Mish (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

In response to Alastair's questions -

1. Are you claiming that the "third sex" idea is well established in English (so it doesn't need scare quotes)?

A wikilink suffices to replace the need for "scare quotes". "Third sex" is not a common idea in the West. So no de facto square quotes, but the idea is here.

2. Are you claiming the "third sex" idea is well established in scientific and medical terminology with an objective reality?

Yes. The idea is established but it is not robust. People agree that it means something to do with gender identity, but then people disagree about what if anything might be the physiological basis. So it is proper to use the term, but not proper to define exhaustively.

3. Are you claiming the "third sex" idea is natural and unopposed, so no one needs to explain or argue for it?

"Third gender" has a Wikipedia article, so the explanations go there. It is enough for this article to say that hijras identify in that way.

4. Or do we agree, "third sex" (or "third gender" or "transgender" or "genderqueer") reflect a reliably sourced, notable non-neutral point of view that applies and must be documented, but cannot be asserted as the "hegemonic" point of view on the hijra (or similar groups of people, for that matter)?

I think you are suggesting that outside interests with a political agenda have motivation to present hijras in a certain way.

Undoubtedly so, but irrelevant because I think the best npov in this case is emphasizing the hijra's own pov then framing other pov sources as a response to that. I would ask whether you doubt that hijras claim themselves to be third gender, and I presume you would agree that they do. In the face of genetic typing, Western physiological definitions, and Western semantic arguments, hijras do not male-identify, so the need to prioritize what outsiders say is curtailed.

1. Are you denying that the hijra are phenotypically male?

No, nor am I confirming it. The point is irrelevant in this context, as hijras claim they are not male and say this is physiological fate (and therefore phenotypical). There is a need in this article for the scholarly records on this, but the outsider discussion is not definitive of hijra identity.

While I acknowledge that the sources frequently say something like, "Hijras are men who dress in women's clothing," and while I think that is probably part of the way I would describe the situation to someone who spoke limited English, I think on Wikipedia the audience is able to come to terms with the hijra community's own ideology.

I think perhaps it would be best to agree to a "gender liminal" and other kind of "liminal" description in the lede (Alastair says, "Male phenotype, community living, women's clothing, feminine gender identity, feminine gender roles" - I dislike all these except community living and women's clothing), then cite the sources hard in subsections on the conversations about phenotypic gender prevalence, commonality of various practices, and other points. My fear is that if I do work on this article when the hijra concept in the lede is not enunciated to consensus, then sourced material lower in the article might be more likely to be removed or reworked to comply with a new definition that is not well-considered. Blue Rasberry 16:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

POV

Given I have assumed goo faith, it would be appreciated if you stop your remarks about POV. I appreciate that when one is engaged in POV pushing onto a particular article, bad-faith accusations of POV against opponenets is a tactic that can be used, however, I find this tedious - especially when you have your own POV about gender congruence which you seek to impose on this article. The only POV I have is as somebody who does not identify as male, female, heterosexual, transsexual, transgender, homosexual, genderqueer, third-gender, or any of the mish-mash of constructed identities that are available - from where I am sitting, any attempt to impose such gender categories on people who do not identify with any of them clearly in the way you appear to think they should, is very definitely POV pushing. You are pushing that they are male, when they do not seem to see themselves that way. Mish (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There are two points of view. One point of view, held by far the vast majority of people now alive, and nearly all who are dead, is that, with rare exceptions, physiological sex (male or female) correlates with a bunch of psycho-social affects and effects currently known as gender (masculine or feminine). Indeed, some of these correlations are now known to be causative. Exceptions have, however, been known since close to the dawn of history itself (I found a reference in some Sumerian documents I was reading).

The other point of view proposes, on the basis of well-known exceptions, that the vast majority of people have merely coincidental accord between physiological sex and psycho-social gender. Although the experience of 99% of men and women is that they are clearly and immutably one rather than the other, this new point of view, proposes the hypothesis that gender identity (and a number of other things) is in essence a fluid thing, and men are not so fully men as they think, nor women so fully women as they think.

The new point of view has been trumpeted all over Western Society for more than 30 years now. It has many supporters. It is certainly notable. It can easily be reliably sourced. It applies to scholastic discussion of the hijra. It is already and must remain in the current article.

What is not acceptable is to write the article from that new point of view. It remains an unproven hypothesis and remains divorced from lay understanding of sex and gender.

Since common usage of English assumes traditional understandings of gender, I conceed there is a case that common usage of English carries a load of gender PoV. Third person pronouns are just the tip of the iceberg.

So what do we do? Either we use ordinary English, which expresses the majority PoV, or we use LGBT terminology, which expresses a new, notable and relevant PoV, which can be just as reliably sourced as the common usage terminology.

Personally, I think there's a very good case to stick with common usage in such situations, while also providing the alternative perspective.

However, there is a third way. Scientific and medical usage is agnostic regarding general and comprehensive causation between physiology and gendered socializing. Without radically altering the received terminology of ordinary language, it tweaks it so that it is possible to state repeatable observations of objective reality, without also implying assumed conclusions regarding gender issues, for which we simply don't have sufficient information.

This terminology is still evolving a little since scientific work addressing gender issues is proceding at a rapid pace; but the changes (like some in the DSM) are generally minor and slow, and most do not apply to the hijra.

Now, it really doesn't matter too much what Wiki editors may think about terminological preference, because reliable sources will make terminological decisions for us. Traditional, medical and LGBT terminology exists abundantly in the literature, and we simply need to express all these points of view.

Also, I'm not too fussed about you pushing your PoV. Indeed, I think you ought to be pushing a PoV. Sources have PsoV, and we've got to document them. Every Wiki article documents PsoV, or they wouldn't have any content! Neutrality demands, however, that we allow all reliable PsoV. Sources can't be priveleged as being "neutral", they never are. They can't be used to silence other PsoV. So I'm happy to write up the LGBT PoV for you, if necessary. I'm not against it. It absolutely must be included here. However, I will not allow that PoV to be cited as a reason to weasle or remove either the scientific/medical, or natural language expression of content.

To your very great credit, you've been bold, but not overly bold, and you've discussed things so far. I think we're doing well. But I most certainly will insist on the scientific PoV being included in the article. I do happen to share it, but that's irrelevant. All PsoV must be pushed into the article. None must be censored. PoV pushing in the negative sense is either censoring other PsoV or giving undue prominence to one particular PoV. I doubt anyone is going to call the scientific terminology a PoV undeserving of prominence.

Can we leave off the sabre-rattling and keep asking great questions like those you've been asking, and keep looking for the best possible sources, like some of those you've been consulting. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion refactoring

I have just done a bit of refactoring of this page. I do not think I have done anything controversial. I do not think I have altered any recently active conversations. Blue Rasberry 17:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Shall I leave the article page to you and those who have edited previously, and add my comments here as and when consensus is necessary? I have no interest in being baited by somebody I had assumed good faith with, but who has suggested they are editing at the behest of a third party, and has a substantial history of baiting, incivility and threats as part of his particular POV pushing, for example: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Mish (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's slow down. This article has needed this talk for a long time and I think this is going well. We have created a lot of content recently and I think this can be the basis of a strong precedent if we can find a consensus. There are three of us talking, but I think each one of us represent the desires of separate, non-overlapping, large bodies of like-minded people, so the debate is good. I have not examined the links you provided about Alastair, but I will say that I appreciate his insight on this article and I think he is representative of a common viewpoint so consensus from him will ensure consensus from others.

If you are feeling pressure, then relax. I was thinking of reorganizing recent discussions also to try to compartmentalize some issues, because I think there are several unrelated debates happening. I propose reframing some of the recent talks into section headings based on the following questions, because I think if this board became a set of questions rather than an appeal for agreement to an entire worldview then we ought to be able to draw good conclusions quickly with little work. Here are some questions that I think are showing up repeatedly. I anticipate that if we took these individually we should be able to reach consensus quickly and with little effort. Undoubtedly, the sources already cited can reference multiple opposing answers to any of these questions, so for now I propose just talking this through in a concise way with an end in mind.

• To what extent would it be appropriate to call hijras intersex?
• To what extent would it be appropriate to call hijras transgender?
• To what extent would it be appropriate to call hijras transexual?
• To what extent would it be appropriate to say that hijras are physiologically or phenotypically male?
• How should Wikipedia describe the physiological sex of hijras?
• To what extent would it be appropriate to say that hijras are third gender?
• To what extent would it be appropriate to describe hijras as persons who dress in feminine clothing?
• To what extent would it be appropriate to describe hijras as persons who have a disorder of sexual development?
• To what extent would it be appropriate to describe hijras as persons with gender identity disorder?
• To what extent is sexual reassignment surgery common among hijras?
• To what extent would it be appropriate to describe hijras as sex workers?
• To what extent is survival sex work common among hijras?
• At this stage in the hijra's article development, to what extent would it be appropriate to deferientiate between different hijra communities by geography or culture?
• To what extent would it be appropriate to describe hijras as being of a particular sexual orientation?
• How do hijras self-define their identity?
• To what extent do reliable sources define hijra identity in a way that hijras themselves do not?

I was thinking to cut and paste some of what has already been said to organize the discussion for future editors, because I do not think this will be the last time that all these debates will arise. user:MishMich, user:Alastair Haines, would either of you object to my cutting some of your posts into sections and putting them under new titles? If I split a single post, I propose that I would duplicate your signature and time stamp. I see this as the best solution for organizing a mixture of unrelated debates, even though I dislike changing people's posts.

Also, do you think that all this that I am proposing would be the most expedient and likely way to either reach a consensus among us or identify and minimize the points of contention? Would breaking the recent discussions into parts provide the most useful precedent for future editors? Should any questions be added to the list I just wrote? Blue Rasberry 23:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

My own view is that talk pages should not be altered, because in the event of a dispute, mediation, ANI, etc., diffs may be required, and it makes things easier for those to whom the situation needs to be explained if the talk page is left intact. What would be a preferable approach would be to establish a sub-page beneath the talk page, and there the items you wish to draw upon could be copied in whatever way you wish. This could then be used to work towards a revised draft, as a sandbox, which once we are all agreed would be copied over to the main article page as the consensus version.

I agree that this article is in serious need of some work, but whilst I have only be watching the article in case of vandalism, I have not felt comfortable editing myself before now, because I felt the onus was on those with more direct experience of hijra affairs to do so. However, events have made it such that I became drawn in to editing this article because of the recent interactions. My own academic research began with Social Anthropology and looking at the hijra, in part because I hoped it would give me the opportunity to revisit India, but financial constraints meant I had to base my research closer to home. So, hijra is only marginally of interest to me academically, although I do have a number of sources that are relevant, and in my field, following on from Agrawal, Nanda is probably the most relevant. I happen to feel this was the best decision, because I do feel that it is very difficult to make sense of other cultures from outside them, and for me, an approach like Garfinkles would be the most appropriate - where the undertsandings of those concerned are of primary importants (that is my main bias) - and is known as 'Ethnomethodology'.

I would be very pleased if you could put this together, and would be willing to contribute as far as I am able, and given the article has stood the way it did for some time, provided there are no further attempts to insert material without genuine discussion, then I will refrain from editing until we can agree on a better version. However, if insertions without adequate discussion and consensus resume, I feel that article should to be reverted back to that last stable version before edits began, and be held there until a consensus is reached. Mish (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I also think it important to be clear whether they see themselves as:

• To what extent would it be appropriate to say that hijras are third sex?
• To what extent would it be appropriate to say that hijras are female?
• To what extent would it be appropriate to say that hijras are neither male nor female (ungendered - but not some third sex/gender)?
• To what extent would it be appropriate to say that hijras are assexual?
• To what extent would it be appropriate to say that hijras fulfil a spiritual role?
• To what extent would it be appropriate to say that hijras have a social-welfare role?

And that for each of these, it would be necessary to look at their own views, social anthropology, medicine/bio-chemistry, gender/queer theory, and Hindu & Muslim scholars. Mish (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel that if every one of these questions were answered then the totality of content produced would amount to about three sentences, but sourcing a definition of hijra with consensus would make this article way more attractive.

I disagree that we need to look to so many viewpoints to answer this question. My standards are low and willingness to compromise is high; I do not think it will be possible to have a robust definition that is not vague, and I do not think this would be a bad thing. Blue Rasberry 16:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

More sources

Just addin' in some more good stuff. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Baby girls cannot become hijras. It seems that the female sex role is more fixed in Indian tradition than that of men."

— Gerald N. Callahan, Between XX and XY: Intersexuality and the Myth of Two Sexes, (Chicago Review Press, 2009), p. 145.

• In hijra songs, most references to origins stem from mythology (Bakshi, p. 214). Equally as elusive is the precise definition of hijra. Some anthropologists have described hijras as "eunuchs," or "hermaphrodites … with a physical defect, natural or acquired." Others equate hijras to male prostitutes, or "passive homosexuals" (p. 213). "Ultimately," however, Bakshi argues that "any working definition of hijras must take into account their subjective perception as 'neither man nor woman'" (ibid.).

— Nadia Guidotto, "Monsters in the Closet: Biopolitics and Intersexuality", Wagadu 4 (2007).

• "Only about 1% of the whole hijra community is hermaphrodite or intersexed, remaining are transgender, cross-dressers, homosexuals or bisexuals."

— Humaira Jami, "Condition and Status of Hijras (Transgender, Transvestites etc.) in Pakistan", conreference paper, (Bangkok, 2005).

• "The largest contemporary groups of castrates are the Hijras in India."

— Eberhard Nieschlag, "Disorders at the Testicular Level", in Nieschlag and others (eds), Andrology: Male Reproductive Health and Dysfunction (Springer, 2010), pp. 193–238.

• "There is absolutely no question that at least some hijras—perhaps even the majority—are homosexual prostitutes".
• "Historical sources also support the view that homosexual prostitution is important, if not central, to the maintenance of the hijra community, at the very least, economically."
• One hijra, Kamladevi, told [Nanda]: "Those who say they have no sexual interest are all telling lies. Those who say they have less interest--that they like only to sing and dance--they are the aged people. When they were young, sex was their main desire. Now they say, 'Oh, I think only of God and religion,' but that's all nonsense."

— Serena Nada, Neither Man nor Woman: The Hijras of India, (1990), pp. 10–11.

• "Viewing the hijras solely within the framework of sex/gender difference—as the quintessential 'third sex' or 'neither man nor woman'—ultimately might be a disservice to the complexity of their lives and their embeddedness within the social fabric of India".

— Gayatri Reddy, With Respect to Sex: Negotiating Hijra Identity in South India, (The University of Chicago Press, 2005), p. 4.

• "The hijra origin dates back to India where hijras, sometimes synonymously identified as eunuchs, were devotees of the Mother Goddess Bahuchara Mata."..."Although biologically male, hijras identify themselves with the female gender because they associate femininity with spiritual power."
• "A zenana believes he is a woman trapped in a man’s body and therefore behaves as a woman. They sell sex and normally have multiple sex partners. Unlike hijras, however, zenanas are married to women and often have children."

- Alefi yah Rajabali, Saeed Khan, Haider J Warraich, Mohammad R Khanani, Syed H Ali, HIV and homosexuality in Pakistan, Lancet Infect Dis 2008; 8: 511–15

We are building up a pretty clear picture, aren't we? The hijra are men who identify with women. So they are both men and women in a way, aren't they? Does that make them people who are neither male or female? Interesting question, who knows? Nanda compares them to "female impersonators", but contrasts them on the grounds of spirituality. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

segregate the two "hijra" types/roles, as they appear discrete

I guess we need to look at addressing what a hijra is traditionally, what those who occupy the traditional/religious role say they are, what they say about others they do not regard as hijra, and what others who depart from the traditional role are referred to as (or call themselves) and what they are like. We tend to talk about Roman Catholic priests one way, and paedophile Roman Catholic priests another way: we do not associate all priests with paedophilia, because we know that is not a 'normal' part of the institution (although in Ireland now, many consider the two terms virtually synonymous).

• "There are other female impersonators who do not have the religious powers ascribed to hijras... Emasculation distinguishes real hijras from the fakes... Hijras themselves constantly deride those 'men who are men and can have children' who join their community only to earn a living or out of the desire to have sexual relations with men." Nanda p.11
• "'There are other people who imitate us, who dress up in women's clothing and go where a baby is born, but only we have the power of giving it the blessing'"
• "Only the hijras - those who are 'neither man nor woman' - are given the power by God to make their words - whether blessings or curses - come true." Nanda p.12

That entails a distinction between religious/ascetic hijra on the one hand, who consider eunuchism (either born or made) as the mark of a true hijra, who is neither man nor woman - and those who engage in hijra activities for sexual gratification or profit (or both), and who may well be male female impersonators. This latter group would be "hijra by convenience", although I have found sources that refer to them as such; to call them "homosexual hijra" seems to miss out those who dance for money, yet have not the spiritual power to do so genuinely, as they are not eunuchs; given the sources talk about "real hijra" and "fake hijra", as long as we explain how such terms are used, then we could adopt these terms ourselves as a means of identifying the two different types. "Real hijra" would be the religious/ascetic motivated hijra, "fake hijra" would include those who present as hijra to engage in same-sex sex, or cross-dress, or profit from dancing, or engage in homosexual street-work, or other criminal activities, without the castration or intersex history necessary as the entry-requirements for hijra ascesis.

Would a clear demarcation within the article between the two different types of help overcome a lot of the misunderstandings, and clarify what the sources talk about when they discuss hijra? Mish (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was one of my early proposals. It strikes me as being both logical and tasteful to address traditional spiritual aspects of the hijra before launching into all the modern issues. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I had to leave for a while, I wanted to interact a little more with your second section. If we're not keeping one another honest regarding gender terminology, I think we'll find lots of ways to accurately paraphrase sources in ways we'd both, and almost all readers would be comfortable with. I still think your "gender-liminal" phrase is just brilliant. Other things show you've a natural talent for nuances of wording which is an asset that should allow us to put things very nicely indeed. The only problem I anticipate is that material on the traditional and spiritual aspects of the hijra is far less extensive than the topical "sexy" stuff. I've got a few leads, though. And I bet you'll find material too. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not have a source on this, but a lavanda would be a cross-dressing boy who someone hires when they cannot afford a hijra. Everything said above applies to these people. It seems to me that differentiating the groups might complicate things, but if it simplifies anything, I would not oppose a distinction. As Alastair suggests, there is this culture, and then there are people in various times and places and circumstances who have identified with the culture. I also would like to find a timeless written repository of hijra rituals and regulations, but I am not sure whether it exists. Blue Rasberry 15:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

@AH. The problem with the traditional/spiritual is that it tends to be from older sources, dating back to a time when the values of those who documented and those they documented were different to today. Usually, older work is trumped by more recent work. So, more recent work on how people adopt a hijra identity to avoid the stigma of being taken for a homosexual, it could be argued, displaces older work done when the traditional/spiritual role was more available. I don't understand the logic that joining a stigmatised group helps one avoid the stigma of being taken for a homosexual myself - that is a similar logic applied in the west to trans people (either they take on the stigma of trans to avoid the stigma of homosexuality, or they seek recognition as intersex to avoid the stigma of trans, even though intersex has carried its own stigma, and so on).

@BR. OK, so if the shift is documented, we need to reflect that - say hijra was once one thing, which mainly included one type of person, then it became a broader category as other types of persons called themselves hijra, and now these two types are descibed as real and fake hijra by those who seek to continue being hijra in the traditional ways. It appears that those who follow the traditional path of the hijra are in the minority today. This way we are ensuring the reader does not think the hijra are one thing, but a broad category that encompases a range of ways of being a hijra, and so when we speak of one group, it would be clear that we are doing that, and thereby not misrepresenting another group. Mish (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

We could talk about "real vs fake", or traditional/spiritual versus modern practitioners, and this would be the most satisfying solution once it is done. My concern is that this way will also require the most additional work, and I am wondering if there is a less intellectually satisfying alternative that is good enough. I understand what you mean by "real" and "fake", and yes, since the sources we have strongly document this, I support advertising the existence of the spectrum. But I am hesitant to be too ambitious about what consensus we and all future editors can find. It is not a full analogy, but look at the drag queen article. Gender is not a primary point, nor is sexuality, nor is a particular population, nor is the motivation, nor are social benefits or problems associated with any particular population which practices drag. The lede describes some culture (which is about performance), the public perception of who participates in the culture, and then the reality that anyone can participate in the culture. Any other topic not associated with definitive drag nature could have a subsection. For the hijra article I think we have enough sources to make excellent subsections. Nothing that Mish or AH has said sounds unfair or unrepresentative of large subsets of hijras, it's just that some things said seem to me to be widespread but specific cases, and not the general rule. To me, replacing the text "drag queen" in the drag article's lede with the word "hijra" would be a fair start into a good lede for this article. I might make the terms more "liminal", but even without that the wording in the drag queen lede is good. This is not best, but I am thinking it is an easy way to find a long-lasting solution that perhaps not everyone will like but still few people could easily oppose. Blue Rasberry 19:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

@Rasberry (first post), there is reference in some sources I've found to hijra songs. I've also read a couple of descriptions of the how they function at the birth of a boy.

Mish, I disagree about past and present sources, especially when it comes to history. In history, earlier sources are superior--the Chinese whisper effect. In science recent sources trump older ones, because there's new data. But in fashion and politics, for example, things go in circles, so new sources often tell us more about ourselves than about a subject. I tend to deal mainly with ancient languages, where the data never changes: physical manuscripts trump photographs trump transcriptions trump translations, and certainly trump scholastic interpretations.

But let's avoid that hypothetical discussion until we're fighting over the PsoV of old and new sources, and have to agree to document both! ;)

I've noted Rasberry's interest in hijra rituals. I have a macabre interest in their ritual of castration, but there are far more pleasant ones, that don't make me cross my legs. I've also noted Mish's concerns about older sources. I'll pull some out of the books. Several do indeed show misconceptions, but others are surprisingly frank and descriptive. Alastair Haines (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a historian, but if older sources can be used, great. The drag queen thing would be OK, except that the hijra seems a bit broader, and covers a variety of what in western context would include drag queen, transgender, transsexual, homosexual, cross-dressing, etc. as well as the ascetic role? Mish (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If I picked up Rasberry's point, I thought it was more that the drag queen article goes to the trouble of demonstrating that the "essence of drag" depends very much on the context in which it is preformed. While it may be described in a surface way as exaggerated mimicry of appearance and behaviours associated with women, performed by men, those descriptions actually fail to describe the whole point of drag, which may look the same, but intend quite different things in different cases.

I agree with Mish that the hijra are about more than performing drag, in fact, I'm not sure drag was the original idea behind the hijra dress code. But then, I'm not sure Rasberry was suggesting that, just suggesting that something like treating sub-cultures within a sub-culture might be a lasting way of organising the article, with drag queen being a loose approximation.

The "true hijra" thing is in the sources, and would allow us to consider those hijra first, and as a "whole package". I think that might be good, because it will explicitly interact with gender, and with terminology that is "spiritual" rather than objective, normative or generalisable. I'd think it could be unwise to declare any hijra to be psuedo-hijra, but a diversity of other feature of lifestyle, commonly associated with hijra in the sources, could be tackled separately. Perhaps these could start with "classic" hijra roles, like involvement in celebrations for a newborn son, involvement with the Koovagam festival, only leading up to non-central features of lifestyle like "extortion", and MSM sex work. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that there is a world of difference between having (or claiming) the spiritual power to bless or curse, and extortion involving threats to expose one's genitals. I don't know, but my suspicion would be that quality of performance (including dance) would be different; that would be an aesthetic judgement, and I am not aware of sources that comment on the quality of performance between those of different motivations. Mish (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I remember Serena Nanda used a single word that put things nicely: "ideally". "Ideally, the hijra are ..." asexual, I think it was, but that approach could work for a number of lifestyle features. I'm not sure any of us want to buy in to deciding for the hijra which of them are "proper" or "fraudulant" members of their community. Yet, though there's enough in the sources to suggest that general drift, adopting Nanda's approach has a wiff of healthy neutrality about it. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Intersex and gender incongruence

From the rationale behind the proposed revisions for DSM5: "There is considerable evidence individuals with a DSD experience GI and may wish to change from their assigned gender; the percentage of such individuals who experience GI is syndrome-dependent (Cohen-Kettenis, 2005; Dessens, Slijper, & Drop, 2005; Mazur, 2005; Meyer-Bahlburg, 1994, 2005, 2009, in press). From a phenomenologic perspective, DSD individuals with GI have both similarities and differences to individuals with GI with no known DSD. Developmental trajectories also have similarities and differences. The presence of a DSD is suggestive of a specific causal mechanism that may not be present in individuals without a diagnosable DSD." this supports what I suggested earlier that while there are intersex people are satified with their assignment, there are those who are not, and the way this works out depends on the syndrome. Mish (talk) 07:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a fair reading of the excellent source. Though we are drifting from the topic of the hijra, where any association with DSDs is noted by the sources to lie in public perception rather than in fact.

The incidence of GID among the hijra is not something I've seen estimated so far, however the sources are clear enough that they consider explanation for men joining the hijra communities is sufficiently well explained by other personal and social reasons: not DSDs, nor GID. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but you bought this up (suggesting intersex people do not reject their assignment), they do. So, whatever popular perception may or may not be, the 'belief' that they include intersex people, or the reality, cannot be dismissed by appealing to such baseless assertions. The best we can say is that it is commonly held, but that while some do appear to be, local research has shown that few are (appx. 3% of sample), and figures for incidence are hard to come by. Unless you can come up with something. Mish (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That assignments can be rejected is perhaps one of the oldest and best known stories in the literature (see David Reimer). David had neither DSD nor GID, but was assigned female despite it being known he was male. The vast majority of DSDs require no re-assignment (ISNA would say none), nearly all "inter"-sex conditions are clearly male or female (they are psuedo-herm, not herm). Sex is not assigned arbitrarily, it is assigned on the basis of what people are physically. CAIS girls are girls. CAH girls are girls. Boys with micropenis are boys. Sex is almost never ambiguous, though genitals and secondary characteristics (arguably extending to brain and psychological development) may certainly be somewhat ambiguous. Hijra are not "arbitrarily assigned" male sex at birth, their male sex is observed and documented, and without surgery, their sex will not be medically reassigned. Men and women have some different medical vulnerabilities so it would be irresponsible to medically reassign. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, we know this is your POV, repeating it doesn't really add very much to the discussion. Intersex people do reject their assignment - whether XY or XX, AIS, 5AR, CAH, etc., and some of those who reject their assignment do not embrace the 'other' gender. Maybe a minority of intersex people, but having such a minority documented prevents from stating something universal on this. Hijra is slightly more complex, as that category seems to be predominantly equivalent to trans people in the west, but includes a number of intersex individuals, as well as some who would be closer to homosexual individuals in the west. What that means is that it is a broad group, some who reject their assignment and see themselves as a third sex, some as female, and others who may identify as male (although I am not clear you have shown this yet). However, it still does not give you the authority to refer to them universally as 'men', which is offensive, when the sources often refer to them using female designators, and suggests they do not see themselves this way. But, this is getting very circular, and unless you can demonstrate a consensus that overrides the guidelines (which you did not respond to when I pointed this out), there is no point continuing with that sort of discussion. If you disagree with guidelines, this is not the place to address them. Mish (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Gayatri Reddy, "Hijras of India", in Routledge Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities, (Routledge, 2005).

• "The renunciation of male sexuality through castration is the heart of hijra social and religious identity."

— Moni Nag, "Sexual behaviour in India with risk of HIV/AIDS transmission", Health Transition Review 5 (2005): 203–395.

• "The relationship between hijra desire and male same-sex desire is complex; writing about hijras without locating them within such contexts further routinizes and disembodies the specificity of their sexual difference."

— Lawrence Cohen, "The pleausres of castration: the postoperative status of hijras, jankas and academics", chapter 13 in Paul R. Abramson, Steven D. Pinkerton (eds), Sexual nature, sexual culture (University of Chicago Press, 1995), p. 279.

Sure, sure, my PoV, and that of nearly every source I've seen. Can't lay down one's life, unless one was first alive. Can't graduate from school unless one was first a student. Can't divorce without having been married. Can't retire from a job without first working at it. Can't "renounce male sexuality" without being previously associated with it. Hijra do not renounce female sexuality in the way they renounce male sexuality.

The hijra are physiologically male. Please show me any source that denies the physiology of the hijra is male, and please stop trying to reframe the unanimous voice of the sources by attributing it to being my personal PoV, and then claiming that I am breaching some kind of policy somewhere by writing it up. When editing, I merely document the PoV of reliable sources. That's all Wiki is: a constellation of the PoVs found in reliable sources. Regarding the physiological sex of the hijra the sources all agree. Whatever else they may or may not be, their lifestyle is an option for males and not for females. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Can't lay down one's life, unless one was first alive." Somebody who lays down their life was alive, but once they have done it, they are dead not alive.
• "Can't graduate from school unless one was first a student." Somebody who graduates was an undergraduate, but one they have, they are a graduate not an undergraduate.
• "Can't divorce without having been married." Somebody who divorces was married, but once they do, they are no longer married, they are divorced.
• "Can't retire from a job without first working at it." Somebody who retires was working at a job, but when they retire, they no longer have that job.
• "Can't 'renounce male sexuality' without being previously associated with it." Somebody who was male, and renounces this, is no longer male.

I have supplied you with plenty of references that support this - such as Nanda, Ahmed etc. - that there are hijra who identify as female, or as neither male nor female. I have no objection to you referring to them tending to have male origins, but that does not make them male when they have discarded maleness - to insist that we state that they are still male, despite the documentation that they do not regard themselves that way, that suggests a POV. Mish (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think what you are trying to say is that you don't think the hijra are men, or perhaps you just don't think they are masculine.

That's fine, you're welcome to your opinion. But since the hijra are listed in The International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities, I'm quite comfortable with the reliable sources that are happy to refer to the hijra as both men and as expressing a unique kind of masculinity.

There's a crude and sometimes inaccurate distinction made in various sources that sex (male and female) is biological and gender (masculine and feminine) is sociological. That the hijra are male (sex) doesn't seem to be objected to in the academic literature. That they are feminine (gender) is the typical self-description of the hijra, as well as the academic sources (Nanda respects this using feminine pronouns for the hijra).

Now, male sex + female gender (and vice versa) = "third gender" is very well documented as a political slogan, not so much aimed at refining scientific or objective understanding, but seeking to promote tolerance and win space for people whose sociological gender identity is opposite to their biological sex.

Could you clarify for me, which PoV you hold, and which sources you follow in saying the hijra are not men, not male, not masculine, and not feminine? Alastair Haines (talk) 08:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, there is much confusion about sex because of the introduction of the word gender, which is pretty meaningless, so I try to avoid discussing them as different - to me there is sex, which I denote as sex/gender. The references about hijra's sex are already listed Talk:Hijra (South Asia)#Reliable sources. Most point to 'neither men nor women', and renouncing maleness means renouncing maleness, whether that means being third-sex/gender or whatever, it doesn't mean they see themselves as male, men, masculine, etc. Men and masculinities - yes I am sure they have a POV I do not share: men are men, women are women, some are homosexual, some are paraphiles, and that is it? Mish (talk) 08:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well then, we're actually on the same wavelength, and in line with the best sources in thinking sex-gender is a complex of psycho-physical phenomena in a feedback relationship with our environment, including our social environment. Undoubtedly we disagree about the limits of variation within that overall framework. Some of those limits are still not well understood, but others are.

It may surprise you to know that I think "third gender" is not such a bad popular language kind of approximation for the hijra and a number of similar types of groups in other cultures. But the native American "two spirit" concept seems rather more apt. In nearly all cases, people who are physcially male adopt feminine socialising, not always permanently and not always sexually. "Two spirit" works because there are complex mixes of things associated with men and others associated with women and the whole thing is deeply personal, in heart and mind, not merely a matter of clothing or who takes out the garbage.

Where the hijra seem to have a genuine claim to "thirdness" lies in the spirituality of asexualism. However, this is not strongly documented. What is documented is replacement of "masculine sexuality" by "feminine spirituality" ... as an ideal. If we deem them to succeed, they are women (no longer men, and not anything third); if we deem them to have failed, they are men impersonating women. The only way we can consider the hijra to be "third" is if we accept their claim to be female and yet consider a female who was once male to be less than "fully" female. In the end, either the hijra are not the women they claim to be, or not the third gender they claim to be. Do the hijra say "I am a woman" or "I am not a woman"? It seems from the sources, some say one thing, others say another, and some say one thing in one context and another thing in a another context.

Anyway, it's a lot easier to source the spiritual ideals, than to evaluate how true those might be. And evaluation needs sourcing too. I think the main thing is the spiritual ideal is the theoretical basis of the communities, and should be the first part of what we describe. In theory, a hijra is a sexless and asexual spirit ... In another theory, a hijra is a feminine spirit, more powerful than male spirits ... etc. etc. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have a source that assesses that those who 'fail' are male, and those who 'succeed' are female, by all means utilise it. If we were to work on that basis, that would be WP:OR. Unlike the 'real' and 'fake' thing, which is well documented. I can see the appropriateness of according those hijra who act like the Xanith maleness/manhood as they engage in a temporary period that mixes cross-dressing and homosexuality, or those who engage in hijra activity to support their family and children, or simply as a means of satisfying the preference of their sexual orientation. Perhaps what the sources support would be a range of hijra performance, from those who live as men but engage in hijra activity, including female mimicry - to those who appear to live as women, while identifying as neither male nor female, and pursue an ascetic ideal that includes ritual emasculation. Mish (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair says,

There's a crude and sometimes inaccurate distinction made in various sources that sex (male and female) is biological and gender (masculine and feminine) is sociological. That the hijra are male (sex) doesn't seem to be objected to in the academic literature. That they are feminine (gender) is the typical self-description of the hijra, as well as the academic sources (Nanda respects this using feminine pronouns for the hijra).

Now, male sex + female gender (and vice versa) = "third gender" is very well documented as a political slogan, not so much aimed at refining scientific or objective understanding, but seeking to promote tolerance and win space for people whose sociological gender identity is opposite to their biological sex.

I agree that this is well-sourced and is the predominant view and perhaps only view in the academic reports I have seen. However, my pov is that most hijras make the claim of male sex + female sex (physiology, or whatever) and take a gender (sociological, or whatever) that is specifically non-male, non-female. I just added some content to the religion section of the article; I do not think anyone would dispute that this "neither man nor woman" story is well-known among hijras. It adds some context to the culture, but does not necessarily add much to this current discussion about things other than culture.

Whereas many transsexuals in the West (and in India, and elsewhere) at some point will make a claim to identify at least somewhat with either male or female gender, it is not my pov to think that hijras ever feel this drive. While hijra gender may superficially seem female or be based around female mannerism, that is because it happens to be female derivative and not because it is fundamental to the identity.

I agree with your statement about political motivations, except that I think the claim itself is presented as entirely physiological. That said, it does seem strange to me that such a large number of hijras can claim to be born intersex, when incidence of congenital intersex status is lower in all places with good data. Leaving that aside, people who have enough primary sex characteristics to be female and not enough to be male comprise part of the hijra community, such that a woman with anomalous genitalia might also be a hijra. My pov is that it would be wrong to say that hijras are necessarily male, because some hijras are phenotypically female and intersex persons are arguably (I take no stand on this, but I do want to circumvent the debate) not phenotypically male.

On second thought, perhaps someone might dispute the "neither man nor woman" story. Is it cool that I added it?

Blue Rasberry 17:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem for me. Mish (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll check Rasberry's text, but there are two bigger picture things that need to be mentioned.

People with intersex conditions are nearly all male or female, that is, with the exceedingly rare exception of people with gonadal dysgenesis. Don't let the fluffy term "intersex" fool you, intersex conditions do not fall "in between" the sexes, they are all male or female psuedo-hermaphrodites. Micro-penis is a male intersex condition. Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (in the cases where it actually is a DSD) is a female intersex condition. Hermaphroditism is an intersexed condition and DSD, where people are both partly male and partly female. It also covers an even rarer group of people whose gonadal dysgenesis may extend to both gonads, and in that case, and that case only, we may accurately speak of people who are genuinely, technically neither male nor female. However, given chromosomal information and other things, even this group can be subdivided into people who are male or female. Basically, it is now very well known indeed that all humans are either male or female, with the exception of the rare people who have one testis and one ovary, who are technically both.

If these basic facts about intersex are not well known by editors, we can certainly assume that about readers and so avoid the term until we've explained it.

The other point to mention is that the sources are clear that baby and teenage girls and biological women are not eligible to join the hijra. You'll need a source for the suggestion that biological females have ever joined the hijra. Even then, you'll need enough sourcing to demonstrate that this is truly reliable and not a fringe theory. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This is one POV. Intersex people are assigned male or female, but the assignment does not always accord with the intersex person's wishes. That is why a significant proportion change that assignment as adults. That is not because they 'were' male or female, but because the assignment was mistaken, as evidenced by the later rejection. In the cases where assignment is successful, it is OK to say people are male or female - but in situations where it was wrong, such as those hijra who are intersex and reject their assignment, then their rejection demonstrates that they were not assigned correctly. However, your argument is introducing factors from outside information about the hijra. What we have to do is state that there are those who are intersex, and leave it at that. If you don't believe me, I can put you in touch with people who are male XX CAH, female XY 5AR, and they can explain this to you. If it were well known that male are either male or female, that begs the question why, over the past 60 years, clinicians have had so much difficulty managing to effect accurate assignments in certain cases, written numerous papers on the matter, and developed a set of guidelines for clinicians advising them on how to assign sex in cases of intersex. I agree that we need to ensure this is kept as simple as possible for readers, but on an article about people who claim to be neither male nor female, insisting that some of those people can only be male, because there are only males or females, including intersex people, and none are female, then that is inserting a POV using WP:OR, and is agenda pushing. That is not sabre rattling, that is saying do not use this article to push an agenda. Mish (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because you are poorly informed about intersex, do not assume the rest of us are, nor that you have a grasp of the facts - try reading Vilain, Money, Diamond, Fausto-Sterling, Holmes, McKenna, etc., etc. You do not get to exclude commonly used terms that you don't like because they support a perspective on the hijra you don't like - that is why we have wikilinks, to help people find out more information in-depth. Intersex is a well-known term in the west, as there have been numerous documentaries, magazine and newspaper articles on the subject for over ten years, using that term (not DSD, not pseudhermaphroditism). Browsing any basic medical science book will show you there is a developmental pathway between female and male development, and that if this gets affected in some way, such as female virilisation or male feminisation (or under-virilisation), somewhere along that pathway - then that neonate is born somewhere between male or female, but will usually be assigned male or female, and in some cases surgically modified to clear up traces of the sex other than assignment - which are manifested in symptoms such as blind vagina, bifid scrotum, hypospadias, cryptorchidism, mullerian or wolfian ducts, inguinal testes in XY females, mixed gonadal dysgenesis, ovotestis, cliteromegally, micropenis, and so on. None of these make anybody less of a man or woman - but they are features of development that lay between male and female, and that is why they have been referred to as intersex for over 60 years. Mish (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please forgive me if I am misunderstanding either of you, but I am concerned that this talk is diverging from specific talk about classifying the sex/gender of hijras, and to a general debate about what intersex means. If what has just been written is vital for understanding hijras, can you both please confirm?

To restate my concern, please review WP:OR->WP:SYNTHESIS. If hijras are Z, and male/intersex/X persons are Z, then it is not permissible for us to say that hijras are male/intersex/X without a source that makes that connection. Alastair has sourced some information and written some good content that has a place in the article, but it was, I feel, at the expense of deleting other good sourced content to prevent conflict between statements in the article mainspace. I do not care about the conflict, but I do care that content was removed.

Somewhere in the sources there must be a problem. AH says this, "The hijra fall clearly within the modern scientific, comprehensive and internationally accepted taxonomy of gender and sexual orientation" and in saying that, deleted this "These identities have no exact match in the modern Western taxonomy of gender and sexual orientation." Both of these statements use the same source (Towle and Morgan's Romancing the Transgender Native). I do not think this is worth debating because I think there are numerous sources that say hijras are male and numerous equally valid sources that say they are not.

I explicitly want to avoid defining terms in a general way removed from hijra nature. If you AH and you Mish are debating intersex criteria, then please do it on the talk page here or some other relevant place. For this page, let's keep the talk to establishing whether reliable sources say that hijras are intersex or whether they do not. My pov is that reliable sources say that hijras are and/or are not male and/or are and/or are not female and hijras are intersex. Do either of you disagree with that statement (or rather, is it possible to disagree with that statement)? I am specifically not saying that there is or is not ambiguity in scientific taxonomy or any other formal defining system; just that different reputable systems have different ways of defining things.

This page cites the Nanda book as saying that women who do not menstruate are sometimes hijras. Here is some letter; hardly a reliable source. If it comes to pass that better sourcing than that is needed, I may not be able to provide it, so I think I will just withdraw the assertion for now. I would rather provide text about hijras being not male (and also male!) than I would about providing text that they are female.

Also, should we take this section to a sandbox? I am up for working it.Blue Rasberry 17:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

For starters, I just modified AH's text in a way that makes it acceptable to me (edit: fix link to diff between AH's original and my proprosal Blue Rasberry 14:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)). What do you think, AH? Mish? The diff looks strange, but I think I just changed the first sentence of AH's first paragraph and accepted AH's entire second paragraph over the original.Blue Rasberry 18:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is better. I think the discussion about intersex is completely irrelevant, however, erronious claims need to be attended to, especially when they are intended to support WP:OR conclusions in order to exclude documented information - all we need to say is that traditionally they have been understood intersex people are included in the category, and this has been confirmed in some cases in contemporary society.

The Nanda ref your source seems to discuss is this:

• Hijras' expressions of what they are often take the form of stating that they are in-between, neither men nor women, but the term hijra iteslf is a masculine noun suggesting, as does the word eunuch is less than a perfect man. In fact, however, several hijras I met were raised from birth as females; only as they failed to develop secondary female sexual characteristics at puberty, did they change their gender role to hijra. (Nanda, p.15)

and

• it is the absence of menstruation that is the most important signal that a person who has benn assigned to the female sex at birth and raised as a female, is a hijra. (Nanda, p.18)

This emphasises why applying western understandings may not be fully appropriate, because we tend to assume widespread access to healthcare and monitoring that may not be available in all situations - and even then there are women in the west who only discover they have an intersex condition when they do not menstruate. These are intersex women, but what Nanda is saying is that in this context, they are seen as hijra. Clearly they are female, but not seen as fully female, they become hijra - in a similar way to those not seen as fully male (or in our parlance, male intersex). We do not need to discuss this, really, as the source quite clearly illustrates that some hijra are intersex, and we cannot have it both ways - we cannot say they are all male (and that as intersex they are all male) and not female, because here we have a source that states some of them are female (and intersex female at that). We could go to some lengths to describe accurately that most are born and raised male, some intersex raised male, some intersex raised female - or we can just say most are raised male, but some are intersex (raised male or female). I cannot see what is so difficult about this. Mish (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Almost all hijra fall clearly within the modern international scientific taxonomical definition of "male" on the basis of phenotype, but the self-identified and local societal perception of hijras has no exact match in the same modern Western taxonomy of gender and sexual orientation descriptors [Towle and Morgan Romancing the Transgender Native] and challenge Western ideas of sex and gender. [Nanda]

This is the modified sentence, and I really appreciate Rasberry bringing it to the talk page. I don't quite agree, got to grab some sleep. Main thing is: bravo! Glad you changed it so I can see what you think. When I wake up or get time, I'll try to make some guesses and ask some questions and work at sourcing precisely what you want to say until we get that settled in a way that I'm comfortable with also.

After that, I'll work out if there's anything else I'd like us to be able to all say together from the sources.

You know, I think this kind of topic makes people edgy, we fear confrontations that don't always eventuate. I love the way the two of you discuss ideas and interact with sources.

We'd probably have a much tougher time of it in another article that was more abstract, without the real hijra bringing us down to earth most of the time. Best regards, sleepy time for me. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)