User talk:Secephalopod/Two-spirit

User talk: Secephalopod/Two-spirit

Possible changes to the lead section

I propose we edit the lead section for further conciseness and add in some details from the contemporary issues section of the article. According to Wikipedia's "Manual of Style", the lead section should give emphasis to each statement based on its relative importance to the topic . The lead section could make at least a small mention of the contemporary issues towards the end, maybe one to two sentences given the smaller size of the contemporary issues section as it is currently.

One or two sentences seem like run-ons that could be shortened. For example:

 While this new term has not been universally accepted—it has been criticized as a term of erasure by traditional communities          who already have their own terms for the people being grouped under this new term, and by those who reject what they call the "western" binary implications, such as implying that Natives believe these individuals are "both male and female"[4]—it has generally received more acceptance and use than the anthropological term it replaced.[6][5][7] 

Secephalopod (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Sara, from reading the article I found the definition of the term Two spirited (at least to me) seemed to be unclear; restating it for your readers could help them. 23:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review

I found it interesting how your edits seem to be more in terms of making the projects easier to read for a general audience. I think this topic can benefit from more concise sentences as you said. From what I saw you add to this topic, I believes it helps to provide context to the mixed reception of these terms; while created by indigenous communities, it has had some consequences and backlash. Something I am a little unclear on is when you mention the loss in these communities from colonization; this can be something you adjust to clarify a bit more. Great work! MFol2017 (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

"Native people in their communities who fulfill a traditional third-gender" - Are we sure that it is a third-gender, and not a non-binary construction that lives outside the realm of gender. Also, I noticed that you use "two-spirit" two-spirit and in italics - maybe after the first time you mention it just stick to one. Are we sure that two-spirit people are in the same realm/consider themselves LGBTQ - if so, I would cite that thouroughly. "Increased visibility, while being seen as empowering, has also had undesirable consequences of the spread of misinformation of Indigenous cultures, pan-Indianism, and cultural appropriation of the identities and ceremonial ways under the two-spirit term among non-Natives. " - This sentence could be broken up. Make one about empowerment, and the other about some of the detriments. It is a little wordy. Great job finding so many sources! --Sstorm21 (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

COMMENTS

Excellent work, Secephalopod. This is a challenging topic negotiating the intersection of settler colonial practices and those resisting colonization. I agree with MFol2017's comments about clarifying what you mean when you write "challenged by cultural damage and loss." A little more explanation here would help. Sstorm2 also offers some good comments for your consideration. It's wonderful that you were able to update some of the references to strengthen that aspect of the article. --Jbdolphin (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)