Talk:Hijra (South Asia)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"Third sex"

Any anthropologist who makes claims of a "third sex" is biased and lying. --Eequor 16:43, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And? Hyacinth 18:36, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How about a wee bit of references before you colonise people from a different culture? Just because you don't like the notion of a "third sex" does not mean it is not allowed to write about it any more. Sorry, once more, get a clue about what NPOV is. -- AlexR 22:59, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have talked with hijra myself. They are female. --Eequor 00:22, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nope. They're transsexuals AFAIK. --Rrjanbiah 06:23, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's just a semantic difference. --Eequor 14:16, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, especially for transmen. SCNR. -- AlexR 15:08, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Obviously we are not talking about transmen. --Eequor 18:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

May I quote from the webpages linked and others: (Emphasis mine where added)

• Neither Men Nor Women - The community admits neither men nor women. The traditional view of a hijra is a person we in the west would call an MTF transsexual, but there is some variety. The real question is, "is there a sign?" [1]
• Hijra: THE THIRD GENDER IN INDIA
  There are the people who are not men nor women. They are living their lives in "the third gender". They are called as "Hijra" It means "hermaphrodite" in Urdu language. They compose communities as family and assume a role institutionalized in the society.
  It is not correct to say that all of Hijra is a hermaphrodite, but the castrated and those who changed his gender is also included. And they have their own gender awareness. Because of this gender awareness, they have been assuming the special social role in rituals, in performing arts, and in shamanic activities. [2]
• Find out all about the 200,000 Indian eunuchs living in India who are neither female or male. [3]
• Hijras trace their origins to myths in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. Rama, while leaving for the forest upon being banished from the kingdom for 14 years, turns around to his followers and asks all the `men and women' to return to the city. Among his followers the hijras alone do not feel bound by this direction and decide to stay with him. Impressed with their devotion, Rama sanctions them the power to confer blessings on people on auspicious occasions like childbirth and marriage, and also at inaugural functions. This set the stage for the custom of badhai in which hijras sing, dance and confer blessings. [4]
• Revati and Kajol are not aliens. They are part of this society, but are not fortunate enough to have been born either male or female. They are eunuchs, the people of the "third sex."

And if the following information is only partly correct, labeling them "transsexuals" is even more inappropriate than it is now.

• Hijra (the word is Urdu for "impotent ones") are usually boys and men who were made to be eunuchs -- many of them against their will. The process isn't ordinarily a pretty one. Some, however, are intersex and do not go through this process, and there are also female hijra, called hijrin. [...] The relatively new (as of 2003) Aravani was popularised in India as a politically correct term to describe members of the third gender. Another such term is ali. [5]
• This story seems to confirm that somewhat: Hi my name is Khira from Madras, I'm now 22 years old. I'm a eunuch since the age of 13 years and I earn my living by prostitution. Allthough I'd never been a transsexual, I now live and feel as a very nice looking woman. [6] so does [7]
• Another article that talks about intersex hijras: [8] and so does the BBC: [9]

And mind you, I left out articles that said things like "homosexual transvestites". More stuff can be found from [10]

It is therefore obvious that calling hijras "transsexual" is at the very least an overgeneralisation. We ought to aim for a NPOV version, therefore. Are you willing to do some constructive work this time? -- AlexR 01:29, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Again, they're transsexuals AFAIK. I don't know if there is any difference between transsexuals and shemale--but they're shemales. The term transsexuals and shemale have just entered India couple of years ago (say 1-2 years)--so, in the meantime they're wrongly called eunuchs. However, there are some articles that say Hijra is a collective term for both eunuchs and transsexuals--which is less substantiated.--Rrjanbiah 06:31, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In English usage, the difference between shemale and transsexual is very substantial; indeed, most transsexual women (and most other transwomen, too) would feel very much insulted by being called "shemales". The word is a) used mostly in the sex industry, and most transwomen do not work in the sex industry, and b) denotes a person with "breasts and a penis", which activly uses the latter more or less "as intended". Something that most transwomen, whether they had bottom surgery or not, decidedly do not do. That description obviously does not apply to hijras, either.

The problem we are having here, I think, is using terms which are about a Western cultural phenomenon, essentially. (The cultural thing is not what people feel, but how all these things are spoken about!) And obviously, modern Western culture is substantially different from (modern) Indian culture, which is why expaining a mainly Indian phenomenon in Western terms is a bit tricky. Rrjanbiah, I would very much appreciate more input from you, since it seems you are a lot closer to "the source" here. However, we need to find common ground here with the words we use, do you think you have the time to find that common ground and work with us on the article? -- AlexR 12:16, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I understand the problem is in expressing in English terms. In South India, these people are called "ali" and "number 9" (the euphemistic term is "aravani", see intersex). So, I don't know much about the terms in English and the real meaning it refers to.

I found a good article about "alis", but I was not certain whether "ali" and "hijra" really are the same group. Could you give me a list of names they are called? [AR]

I think, "Hijra" is a north Indian term and the rest are south Indian terms. AFAIK, the term "aravani" is Tamil. I have also called few other Wikipedians to help (User:Chancemill, User:Sundar, User:Harikishoreaj, User:Nichalp, User:KRS, User:Ambarish, User:Arvindn). Perhaps they may help better. --Rrjanbiah 04:54, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The term "transwomen" is new to me. My understanding about these people are that they're shemales. As the topic and their behavior is much weird here, it is hard to do more research. And, according to the documentries and articles, they're more used in prostitution (sleeping with men--oral and anal sex).

It seems, though, that, like in many other countries. hijras are forced into prostitution because they cannot get any other job. Some of the articles listed above talk about that problem. [AR]

Yes, they can't get any other job. But, it also seems they're attracted towards men and sex.--Rrjanbiah 04:54, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, that is a very common prejudice (not erradiced in the West, either.) But since being "attracted towards men and sex" (or at least seeming to be) seems the only way for Hijras to live, they will not necessarily discourage the notion. Also, that is what they leared: If you want to be part of this community, you have to be interested in men and sex. We saw the very same thing in the West, and as soon as other options became availabe for transwomen, the relative number of transwomen working in prostitution sharply declined and it turned out that approximately half of them were much more interested in women than in men, too. So right now it may look as if that were a case, but if the experience in the West is anything to go by, in this case, that may change considerably, if Hijras ever get a chance to be what they are without being prostitues. -- AlexR 15:08, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

All the articles I have read says that they're born male, but in early childhood they're interested in female stuffs and perform surgery at one point of time (mostly for prostitution reason). Perhaps this could help you to classify them into a typical English term?

Actually, no, not really, because the reasons to undergo this surgery (as in the West or anywhere) can be quite complex. From what I have read, for example, hijras underwent this surgery at a time already when their main occupation was not prostitution. Also, these hijras who do not work as prostitures also seem to undergo surgery. So prostitution is probably not the main reason for it. Maybe it is a bit like in the west - to become part of this particular group, thereby legitimising their feelings, surgery is seen as part of being a hijra. Of course surgery itself (or rather the results) are also important by themselfe, but I think it is a mistake to disregard other influences. [AR]

The term "third sex" means that they're not accepted among males and females.

That answers the social question, but, alas, not the question how they view themselves. Although my guess would be that there is more than one self-description around anyway. -- AlexR 15:10, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have seen few interviews in which they ask for freedom like identity for their sex. --Rrjanbiah 04:54, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, User:Vbganesh seems to have some knowledge on this topic --Rrjanbiah 14:03, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A shemale is a person who embraces their duality as both male and female. That wasn't the impression I got, and it seems strange that such a person would seek surgery. --Eequor 14:23, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In fact, while it may sound strange, such persons exist. Just as persons exist who go for bottom surgery (both) and still do not identify just as women or men. To embrace ones male parts does not necessarily mean that one needs a penis (neo or original) for that, just as one does not need a vagina (neo or original) to embrace ones female parts. On the other hand, the existence of said parts does not stop one from embracing the parts that are usually associated with "the other" gender, either. I know it used to be simpler when transpeople were all (or considered themselves to be) just plain women and men with a tiny difference, but we have come a long way since then. -- AlexR 15:08, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

An emphasis on prostitution is commonly used to marginalize transsexuals and encourage negative reactions to them. This does not mean sex workers are more common among transsexuals; it only means the people who usually report on transsexuals are biased against them. It is a 5000 year old argument. Transsexuals in India are likely as normal in their behavior as the rest of the world. --Eequor 14:36, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

'Excuse me, Eequor, but it is undeniable that in many parts of the world a rather large number of transwomen (and please, only extremely few transmen, if you would care to remember) work as prostitutes. It is also undeniable, though, that many do so because it is the only way they can make a living; in the West especially, where increasingly other jobs are open for transwomen as well, or rather, where transwomen (and transmen) are a lot less likely to loose their job during transitioning, the relative rate of prostitution drops; invalidating the prostitution "argument". There is no reason, though, to accuse people of being biased against people making this argument if they are talking about a group, whose members, by all accounts, currently mostly work as prostitutes. It makes a lot more sense to explain to these people what the problem is. Not knowing something is not a crime - refusing to learn, however, is. -- AlexR 15:10, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say prostitution was uncommon. I said it is a mistake to give weight to the claims of biased researchers. Prostitution is not uncommon among cisgendered women, either. Do we define other societies by their tendency to prostitution? --Eequor 15:49, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that Rrjanbiah "gave weight to biased researchers" but simply reported what he had heard (regardless of correctness); besides, I don't really see where the "biased researchers" come from, now. The articles I cited above mostly don't come from any particular group of "researchers" at least. Also, when a large percentage of a certain group works in prostitution, I see no reason not to say so. After all, flatout denying facts is usually a form of discrimination as well ... -- AlexR 17:17, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The cost of successfully transitioning is much greater for FtMs than for MtFs. Why are there not proportionately greater numbers of FtMs in the sex industry? They could do so safely; MtF sex workers are likely to be injured or killed. Cost is irrelevant. --Eequor 15:58, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't know whether to laugh or cry ... really. First of all, the costs of transitioning is by no means necessarily greater for transmen than it is for transwomen. The one thing that is expensive is bottom surgery, and even in Germany, where health insurance pays for it (same in many European countries) most transmen don't have it, because the results are somewhat underwhelming. Secondly, transmen don't, at least after hormones, have much passing problems and usually can get other jobs. Thirdly, when exactly could transmen work as prostitues? Only completely before hormones. Because after hormones, looking like a man, there is simply no market at all. And when a customer finds out that (in the very few cases where a TM works or worked as a male prostitute) that this transmen is somewhat "incomplete" they are subject to just as much violence as transwomen. (Not to mention the fact that cisgendered prostitutes are not exactly safe from violence, either.) And fourthly, I think you are referring to working as a female prostitute. Well, just let me ask back: For most transwomen, working as call-boys would be much safer than working as trans-prostitutes. Any particular reason why they don't? Well, should you be able to figure out the answer to that, you also have the answer to why transmen don't usually work as female prostitutes, even as long as they can. And fifth, I really wonder whether you qualify as a troll. That question was so stupid and insulting, I really have to consider that possiblity. -- AlexR 17:17, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why would they work as female prostitutes? --Eequor 17:31, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I don't know much about the English terms and it meanings. But, AFAIK, they're born with penis and have feminine characteristics (like voice, gestures). And again, AFAIK, only few people modify their genitals (mostly for prostitution) --Rrjanbiah 14:39, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bibliography anyone?

§ I haven't noticed this discussion for some reason. Maybe it all blew up at once. Just reading quickly through the above debate it seems that it would really help to study the work of competent researchers. I know that John Money referred to some studies. Maybe I can find that information. It can be very difficult even for an objective researcher to get good information, let alone the ordinary reporters. In the U.S. a Lakota (Sioux) "medicine man" named Lame Deer was helped by a German (?) to write his biography, and he had lots of fun talking about how Native Americans would give anthropologists a hard time. (They didn't like people asking nosy questions, so sometimes they gave "interesting" answers I guess.) Also, many groups who are not liked by members of the dominant culture will engage in self parody as a way of dealing with some of the insults and taking the sting out of some of the things that are said about them. So it can be difficult to understand some groups just by casual observation from the outside.

I completely and utterly agree with what you said about the problems of research, which is why I proposed the last version. I do not think, however, that Money had some decent information on Hijras (well, quoting Money is always dangerous). I did take some care though, when compiling the references above, at least to exclude those that were too clearly written from a point of view that did not take into account cultural differences and related problems. (For example the ones that said "homosexual transvestites" and so on.) [AR]

§ It would be very helpful, too, I think, if everyone participating in the discussion had a fairly clear idea of the differences between sexual identity and gender identity and role. Gender role things are learned. Some things (e.g., whether your gender tilts its pelvis forward or backward) are learned unconsciously and generally remain unconscious but potent signals. (If you cross-code people may have some unusual reaction and not understand why they are having it.)

Again, I basically agree. However, it is my impression that Rrjanbiah stumbled into this discussion just because it is about something Indian; his knowledge about Hijras seems to be roughly on par with that of your average Westener's knowledge about transpeople. (Which means, it is probably improvable.) I do regard his contributions to the debate as valuable nevertheless, because he can tell us a lot more than Eequor or I will ever know about how Hijras are regarded by the rest of society. That after all is quite important, too. [AR]

Other things are learned from family and friends. It is my understanding that the hijra gender role is different from both the role of the ordinary man and the role of the ordinary woman. Given the fact that many hijra have been neutered, they cannot carry out a complete male gender role if they were born male.

Hmmm... Did you just fall into a closely reated trap to that you just warned us about? ;-) You obviously considerably overestimate the role a penis (or a vagina) plays in everyday live. There are loads of people who are perfectly able to function as men or women without having the associated genital equiptment. People might not have a complete or unambiguous set from birth (intersex), they might loose it during their lifes (accidents, or cancer, for example) and still they are perfectly able to function in a particular gender role. Infertility does not quite count, either, since there are always a number of people who may have the perfect equiptment, even use it "as intended" and still do not have children. [AR]

And as far as the traditional hijra were concerned it would have been impossible in the days before surgical sexual reassignment for them to carry out anything like a complete female gender role. They saw a positive value in being humans who carried out neither a male nor a female gender role, and their gender identity was just hijra. From what I have read, it seems clear that there are many explicit "neither male nor female" elements to their gender roles. But if some people have seen other behavior by people calling themselves hijra then we need to see the most complete and objective studies. P0M 05:44, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I don't believe that there are any "complete and objective" studies; after all, there are not even such studies about western trans-people. There are several studies, but they are all far from being either complete or objective. The problem there as here is that it is questionable whether we even have the right words to describe what is going on, so how could a study be objective if it is not even quite clear how any questions could be phrased?

Let me give you one example (western): The Hamburg University tried about two years ago to make something reasonable complete and objective. The study (which was done on the Internet) unfortunately did not get exactly many participants, and the main reason why trans-people flatout refused to participate was the second question: Are you male or female?. Oops, sorry, but how was I supposed to answer that? (And a lot of people thought the very same thing.) I was assigned female gender at birth. (That is probably what they wanted to know; it is the logical conclusion, but it did not say so.) My legal gender is still female, because I am to lazy to go to court and have it changed. My gender identity is transman, which is not quite the same as men. As long as I keep my pants on, people see a man. (If I pull down my pants, it becomes slightly more complicated ;-) And socially, I live as a man. So what exactly was the correct answer to that question supposed to be? And so much for "complete and objective studies". [AR]

§ Why is this article "totally disputed"? What are the main issues? P0M 05:56, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I put that in when I wrote the NPOV version, just as a matter of experience of debating (?) with Eequor. It probably can be removed. The issue was (is?) whether Hijras can summarily be described as "transsexual". -- AlexR 15:08, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

§ If there are no major misleading features, then maybe it would be best to remove the "totally disputed" thing. As for "transsexual", that word bothered me because it seems to mean different things to different people. I would rather start with as clear a description of hijra, as objective a description of hijra, as can be managed. Then people can decide for themselves whether the word points to the same set of people as does some other word. I do not look for objectivity in an absolute sense, because I don't think it exists. But I would look for studies done by people who have the intention and the methodology to eliminate subjective factors as much as possible. Of course, as you point out, language lays all sorts of traps for the heedless. P0M 03:06, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Removing totalydisputed

Since this argument appears to have been quiescent for months, and the last few comments suggest removing this header, I'm taking it out. Bryan 06:01, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Transsexual

How are Hijras transsexual? According to their religious beliefs they are a third sex. Transsexual is inaccurate because it means you have changed gender to either male or female. The words transgender or androgynous are more accurate indicating a third gender. And I am not sure why certain users are trying to downplay their homosexuality. Hijras NEVER have sex with women. And even though they identify as a third sex, in terms of basic biology a male who has sex with a male is homosexual. Apollomelos 22:48, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry the facts don't agree with what you think you know, but at least some Hijras identify as transsexual - just as some support the gay movement without being gay, or even identify as gay. I also have my doubts as to your claims that they have never sex with women - can you proove that? Mind you, that means you would have to proove a negative, which is usually a triffle difficult. And last - your pointless, factually highly questionable (what is "biological gender" supposed to be?), and discriminiating edit of Homosexuality and transgender nonwithstanding, homosexual is not the same as gay, and a male-bodied person who identifies as non-male having sex with another male-bodies person might have technically homosexual sex, but they are certainly not "homosexuals" or "gays" in the western sense - just as a straight transwoman is not a homosexual man. I also have my doubts that you know all that well what both "transgender" and "androgynous" mean, so maybe you ought to get a clue before vandalizing any more articles. -- AlexR 02:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay Alex I am going to take things slowly with you because I realize English may not be your primary language and I think you are misunderstanding my statements. If the definition of a Hijra is a third gender how can it be male to female or female to male hence transsexual? And I can prove Hijras have never been recorded to have sex with women. Historically they have been religious quasi prostitutes and all of the records indicate it is always a male. Plus the modern accounts have only recorded males as well. Please provide evidence of any record of sexuality with women being part of Hijras. There are multiple meanings of gay and homosexual. One of them is purely scientific meaning one who has sex with another of the same gender. You are greatly mistaken to think there is not scientific meanings and only social constructions. Apollomelos 19:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

P.S. A biological gender is simple. It is whether you were born with a penis (male) or a vagina (female). I think our disagreements are based on you reading words as simply social constructions. Apollomelos 19:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What's the controversy about?

Please sign your postings. Otherwise, one tends to end up arguing with oneself ;-) 金 (Kim) 03:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "biological gender", at least as you seem to intend the term. The whole idea of "gender", as opposed to "sex", came about because researchers needed a term to describe the people who might describe themselves as "a woman with a penis" or "a man with a vagina." (See the articles on gender role and gender identity.)

A "gender" is a learned 'role' and/or a felt 'identity'. Things get a little complicated because a person's community can look at external genitalia and decide that the sex of the person is male or is female, and on that basis the community can have gender role expectations. (I just flashed on an old movie in which one male cop picks up a victim's purse and starts to carry it out to the squad car by suspending it from his wrist. He gets growled at by his superior officer as carrying a woman's purse in that manner is deemed gender-inappropriate for a man.) It also gets complicated when an individual has the external genitalia of one kind but feels that in interiority s/he belongs to a gender that does not correspond to those genitals.

The majority, even the vast majority, of hijra may have been born with male genitalia. How many of them may have been born with intersexual genitals? How many of them may have been born with female genitalia? It's diffiicult to say. If a person is born with male genitalia and feels the situation inappropriate to inner experience then there is a conceptually simple solution, and, in India at least, there is some measure of social support from others who have taken that path earlier. If it were the other way around one would have a possible solution given current levels of ability to surgically restructure human bodies, but such a change could not have a long tradition because the surgical techniques are relatively new. So how do we know that there are not some female --->hijra body type persons out there? How do we know that there could not be such persons? If someone with originally female genitalia acquired the physical appearance of a hijra and became enculturated to that community, how would one know? Do you presume that there is some authority that sanctions people as hijra only if they first apply and demonstrate the original possession of typical male genitalia? 金 (Kim) 03:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A central part of the Hijra religious identification is castration, meaning they are male. There are no female Hijras. And I have never heard of any intersex Hijras either. I would like to see some support of that because it runs contrary to their whole religious identity. Apollomelos 03:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And thanks for the clarification on the usage of gender and sex, that was very helpful. However I still disagree as the religious identification of a Hijra in the Hindu religion is a male who gets castrated and becomes "neither man nor woman". If a Hijra of the female sex exists she is not a true Hijra and violates the religious meaning as well as I have never seen any recorded Hijras of the female sex. Apollomelos 03:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What's the controversy about?

The controversy is regarding how to classify them, which I agree is difficult given the cultural distance between Europe and India. Apollomelos 05:45, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. I wonder if they are as rigid as all that. It would be useful to have citations on the ideology of the Hijra. Is there anywhere that Hijra explain themselves? How formal and inclusive is their organization? Is there an official process of certification or of something like guild membership? 金 (Kim) 03:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can speak to this. I've been a member of the hijra community for about a decade. Hijras I know have as wide an understanding of their own gender/gender identity/etc. as any other group. I've identified myself as transsexual, and still do in the west. My experience of the other hijras around me is that I'd describe them as transsexuals.

As for membership, yes, it's a formal process. Part of that process is getting an authority within the organization to assert that the person is neither a man nor a woman. I think most of the rest of this discussion is because nons usually want to define us in, instead of defining themselves out. Yes, it's an ambiguous definition, and one that leads to contention. In theory, once in, however, it's not kosher to question the original classification.

There's a distinction to be made between a small h hijra, a person who is neither a man nor a woman, sings and dances, etc. and a big H Hijra, a member of the community. Annie

Check this out, my first Google find. I've got to back out of the Void now and get to real-world work. http://archives.lists.indymedia.org/imc-mumbai/2002-August/000141.html

I found these links helpful:

http://www.columbia.edu/~blw2102/ http://www.worldpress.org/Asia/845.cfm http://www.msu.edu/~lees/Kristina/Hirjas.htm http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/hijras.html One thing that is common to everything I have read on the subject is Hijras having a penis and having relationships with men or other Hijras. Apollomelos 05:45, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are there supposed to be two articles on Hijras, or can they be combined?

There aren't two articles--the other one is a page that helps you decide whether you want to find out about the gender-ambigous South Asian community, emigration, or other similarly spelt things.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:46, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

what does this have to do with religion?

How does this deal with Hinduism? This is more of a gender issue. I think the category should be removed.

Well, Hinduism is really not just a religion, but also a culture with very religious roots, I am inclined to say, and Hijras are deeply embedded into it, so in my personal opinion, Cat:Hindusim is fine. Cat:Islam, on the other hand, now that is problematic, because even with some Hijras being Muslims, there is nothing particularly islamic about Hijras. -- AlexR 09:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Based upon the resources both categories are relevant and I believe with continued additions it will become apparent. There is much work to be done on this article especially with their religious integrations. Hinduism is relevant because they are embedded in the Hindu religion as well as mythology, for example they mirror androgynous Shiva. Islam gains relevancy because both Pakistan and Bangladesh that are Islamic societies have integrated them. All Hijras have been influenced in their burial methods by Islam. Islamic Hijras hold their gender identity a result of Allah. Hijras held an important status in the courts of Islamic rulers. Apollomelos 11:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the question is not whether Pakistani Hijras were influenced by Islam, but whether their influence on Islam is big enough to be mentionable, and that is what I doubt. -- AlexR 12:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

well, they play the same rôle as/with muslims as/with hindus; both muslim and hindu hijras revere the gujarati center of hijra culture as well. they certainly influence islam in the subcontinent, which counts, i think, as influence on islam. -- em zilch 0006 02 april 2005 EST

Need for further research

Thanks for the articles mentioned just before the preceding section.

It is becoming clear that there is lots of room for more research into books on this subject. In earlier decades not much objective information seems to have been published. The citations provided above mention a few recent books that could provide citations and useful information with which to improve this article.

I agree that the socionormal account of a hijra is of an individual with male external genitalia. But don't forget that intersexuals by definition have external genitalia that have been only partially masculinized, or, very rarely, may have fully masculinized genitalia and female genitalia as well. (I'm thinking of the increasingly common, after in-vitro fertilization became possible, cases of individuals who have roughly half their cells being XX and half their cells being XY, and who have a similarly complicated situation in regard to their genitalia.) So it appears from that websites cited that some individuals start with, e.g., an ambiguous organ that might be a small penis but also might be a very large clitoris, and that these people have all traces of their external sexual organs removed in the course of becoming a hijra. So we've already gained some ground in this discussion by seeing clearly that it is not only "vanilla males" who may become hijras.

What is, I think, an open possibility is that some people (whether socionormally or not) become hijras who never had male genitalia. With recent increases in the ability to alter sexual organs surgically, it must have become increasingly possible for someone who was born with female genitalia but the gender identity of a hijra to secure the same body appearance as any other hijra. It remains to be seen in the light of objective inquiry how the hijra subculture might react to such individuals should their true history become known to the group. Does the fact that in the past the only practical way for a sexed individual to become an unsexed individual was male humans to have their genetalia removed then become a determining ideological norm that precludes achieving hijra status once people with a female body type can achieve the hijra body type by following a different surgical course? Some psychological studies indicate that people who have, in an experimental setting, been subjected to prejudicial treatment then become more than ordinarily resistant to adopting as their own the privileges of a supposed "superior type" of human being and more resistant to treating others in a prejudicial, bigoted way. If that is a valid experimental finding, then it would seem to me to indicate the likelihood that a hijra would be more accepting of a female->hijra individual than would the average non-hijra indivual be accepting of a male->hijra individual. 金 (Kim) 05:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

The Nanda book does include mention of people who were born as girls, but become hijras because they're infertile. The Dravidian Indian model of sex/gender defines ones gender by reproductive capacity: the logic's along the lines of, if you don't menstruate you can't bear children and thus aren't a woman; you also aren't a man, so you can be a hijra. It's not a surgical process, and the hijra group will know of this person's background, but not mind - as far as Nanda makes out, anyway. --J.

This is very interesting. Can you find the quote from Nanda's book and add it to the article? I haven't heard of it in modern times, but infertile females have certainly been considered a third sex in ancient India and the eastern Mediterranean; this reproductive notion of gender is much broader than Dravidian culture. ntennis 01:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor points

Broken sentence

This sentence:

This is expected a hijra's penis and testes will be removed but not all hijras do so.

Seems to have been messed up somewhere in someones edits. I would have fixed it but I was not 100% sure what it was suppose to say. Is this change acceptable:

It is expected that a hijra's penis and testes will be removed but not all hijras do so.

Dalf | Talk 04:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change, since it seemed that was what the sentence was suppose to say. But double checkers are appreciated. Dalf | Talk 04:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The fascinating documentary

and a personal subjective experience of the hijras in this festival is shown in the fascinating documentary Non-NPOV?

Picture issues

photograph

The photograph accompanying this article violates copyright. It's clearly scanned from Dr. Serena Nanda's "Neither Men Nor Women"(Wadsworth, 98) ISBN 0534509037

Adding a picture

How about adding a picture to the article? It had pictures at one point in time but they were removed for copyright issues. These pictures are from a website about that matter. Perhaps one of them will be suitable?

This is described on the web page I found it at Defining the hijra community: as "A young khusra from Pakistan - as shown in a tv-presentation". Because this is a screen capture from a TV show about the topic of the article this picture would be permissible as a fair use. Such screen captures are recognized as being fair use by the wikipedia (hence the tag). So there should be no copyright problem with this one. At least for keeping it here while we discuss the proposition. --Hfarmer 15:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I could try to track down whoever owns the copyright on this picture to get explicit permission but since they are in Pakistan that might be hard. I have no way of recognizing the station ID that appears in the picture.--Hfarmer 15:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Another picture that could be used is this one but it's copyright is even less clear. I have no idea where the website got it from... File:Hijiraatmuslimshrine.jpg --Hfarmer 15:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I have left this open for comments long enough. It will be done. --Hfarmer 15:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Youngkhusra.jpg

Image:Youngkhusra.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Picture!

You sure these are Hijras...? I don't think so. There seems to be a terrible mistake. These seem to be normal women agitating in support of Hijras ! No ?

 Jon Ascton  (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes we are sure they are Hijra's. It may surprise you but transgender women can and do often look just like genetic women. --Hfarmer (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

A better pic

Can we find a better pic somewhere...anywhere?--Hfarmer (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hijra politicians?

I was curious about this sentence: "Other Hijras have been elected to high political positions." Could somebody who knows who these politicians are possibly add their names to the article, especially if they have their own articles on Wiki? I know I'm curious to read about them/what they do and I'm sure I can't be the only one. RaCha'ar 00:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Castration

The article as it now stands seems internally inconsistent as to the prevalence or otherwise of castration among hijra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.179.173 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 2 July 2006

How so?

And please, next time: Put your entry to the bottom of the page, instead of on top, and sign your entries with -- ~~~~. Thank you. -- John Smythe 15:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of the outer genitals is described as if it was an important part of becoming a hijra. Yet it is claimed that most have no genital modification. Is not that a contradiction?

2007-01-01 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

New source needed for #5 please. Interested to see if this claim is true.

I feel the exact same way reading this, very poorly written overall. Needs more sources. 72.186.157.118 (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The contradiction has been removed now.

2009-08-05 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.70 (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Did Gandhi recommend destroying homoerotic sculpture?

The reference regarding Gandhi asking Congress volunteers to deface lesbian and homo-erotic sculptures on temples are mere hearsay due to two reasons:

1. There is no mention/record of Gandhi ever asking his followers to do so; and 2. Except for a few temples, very few had carvings showing celestial beings engaging in sex. Even here, Only around 10% of all carvings were of sexual nature, the same being restricted to special locations on the temple walls. Of such carvings of sexual nature, very few depicted homosexual behaviour. And these depictions were almost exclusively of lesbian nature. There are very few, in fact an insignificant number of carvings which depict gay sex. --194.145.161.227 13:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Blessed if exposed

"the new born baby will be blessed if exposed to the Hijra's manhood"

What is 'manhood' meant to mean? Genitalia? Masculinity? Something else? I suggest finding a more precise word.

69.177.103.38 16:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe this is a direct quotation from somewhere Chevin 18:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"It is believed that the newborn baby will be blessed if exposed to the Hijra's manhood."

Err.. Sources? And is this supposed to mean what it sounds like? --194.145.161.227 13:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Disrespectful Language

The article contains "is a man who dresses like a woman, " - this is a pretty offensive stereotype, and isn't true. Since the article is about a group of people, in some respects BLP applies.

Since editor who added this material added a large amount of material as many small edits I reverted the mass rather than piece through it all. Anniepoo (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed it. The rest seems OK and accurate, so I think WP:AGF is in order, and that this was a slip? I made slight change - people are intersex or transgender - it is not usually something that is done to them (as would be the case if they were transgendered or intersexed). Mish (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• 'hizra', biological males ... sometimes castrated, sometimes not, who dress and mainly live as women, who socialize and make themselves available for sex with men in other parks in Dhaka.

—Gary W. Dowsett, "HIV/AIDS and homophobia: subtle hatreds, severe consequences and the question of origins", Culture, Health & Sexuality 5 (2003): 121–136.

The reliable sources I looked at estimated the percentage hijra with disorders of sexual development (DSDs, aka intersex conditions) at about 1%. So I'll add a request for a citation to the change that's been made.

Likewise, the reliable sources made it very clear that even fewer hijra could afford sex-change operations, so MtF transgendered hijra are also a very small minority.

Hijra cannot be characterised as intersex or transgender. What they are known for is dressing as women. They are also known for a range of other activities that reflect poverty and desperation, some of which would classify as extortion and generational child abuse. I decided to withhold that information from the lead.

There is nothing wrong with a man dressing like a woman, that's a pretty old-fashioned and subjective standard to apply. Hijra are not considered by the reliable sources to be transvestites, because they do not report doing this for their own erotic enjoyment.

Hijra are reported as being identifiable by a range of behaviours that would be classified as illegal or anti-social. I agree that would be an awful way to provide a definition in the lead. However, it is precisely the fact that they are men wearing women's clothing that is most consistently, objectively and non-pejoratively used to describe them.

The only alternative, simple, objective, non-PoV characterisation I could propose is that they live in identifiable all-male communities, with well-defined structure.

Could we please have reliable sources that say even 25% of the hijra have DSDs or have had sex-change operations.

Could we also please have reliable sources that say less than 90% of them wear women's clothing. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If the term intersex is used, that is the best article to link to, not some other article about a nomenclature rejected by intersex people - that is just offensive.

What are these reliable sources you claim to have looked at?

You are confusing transgender with transsexual - linking transgender to SRS is incorrect, as many can only afford castration, not full SRS.

What they are known for is living and dressing as women - that is, transgender. Some of these individuals are intersex (I have come across no accurate statistics).

Feel free to add reliably sourced material about extortion and child abuse in the text. We should not shy from verifiable fact, as long as it is not WP:OR.

No, they are not transvestites, because they live as women, which is called 'trangender', especially when not involving full transsexual SRS.

No, they do not identify as male, and are recognised as other than male, a third gender, but usually identify as female. We respect people's self-identification. That is NPOV, and is written into the policy/guidelines of the encyclopedia.

There are no reliable sources that quantify these ratios, as far as I am aware, so the best we can say (from sources) is that some are intersex.

Can we find reliable sources that of people who live as women and wear women's clothing, 90% 'wear women's clothing?' I don't know. Do we have a reliable source that says that of people who are astronauts and wear spacesuits, 90% wear spacesuits? I doubt it. Again, I suggest accurate figures for such things are precarious.Mish (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Mish, this time it's my turn to assume good faith.

I want you to restore the citation requests, and apologize for calling requests for citation "disruption".

Rhetoric claiming there no sources for things is empty and rash. I suggest you check your claims and withdraw those statements, before suffering the embarassment of me supplying multiple sources providing exactly the information you claim is not available.

After the citation requests have not been backed by reliable sources (and they can't be), I'll remove the inaccurate designators in a couple of weeks. I'm allowed to do it right now, I'm deliberately being generous, because I want us to agree about an important (not sensitive) matter of fact.

The hijra identify as "male" on identity cards and passports (I have sources), one reason is because they are of male sex, and because the authorities (in most cases) would probably not change this on request. However, what is interesting in what one source reported, is that hijra care to participate in the hajj and returning hijra are rightfully honoured as hajji on return. Male sex helps them on the pilgrimage. This is an interesting spiritual aspect of, at least, Pakistani hijra, and one that deserves to be documented. Unfortunately, this article is not a high priority for me, or I'd add it. But also, articles like this one attract people who obstruct additions, claiming offense, rather than addressing text, facts and sources. Of course, we know they should assume good faith and address text, not editors, but it can be a long time before they get the point.

I am very familiar indeed with sources on Disorders of Sexual Development, and with literature provided by the Intersex Society of North America. There are many people with DSDs who prefer DSD terminology to "intersex" terminology. Part of the reason for that is that DSDs do not necessarily imply any personal confusion about sexual or gender identity, they are not "in between" but perfectly clear that they are male/masculine or female/feminine and do not appreciate others appropriating their physicality as evidence for other, political agendas.

This is a big subject, and I'm happy to guide you through the literature so we can get the lead of this article accurate, objective and reasonable. The more people who get an overview of the literature the better.

But, for the time being, please restore the citation requests, note your apology, and feel free to ask more questions. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Tagging individual words in the lede is disruptive.

That is fine - If you have such sources, you need to cite them. Provided you can provide sources for material from WP:RS, and it is not primary, WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, that's not a problem. Saying you have sources is not sufficient, you need to ensure they are reliable and used accurately.

This is not the place to argue a POV on something.

I agree, the situation of Hijra in Islam is different from Inidian Hindus, who are usually referred to as 'Kinnar', and I have no objection to your documenting this, provided it is clear who this does and doesn't refer to. It is unfortunate that Hijra has become accepted as the general term applying to both types, but so it goes. In India, where the majority of Hijra live, the rules are not the same as Pakistan, as I understand it. [[11]].

Interesting point, but not born out by reality - ISNA has been defunct for nearly three years, and community-based intersex organisation do not tend to promote the use of DSD. Far from it, activists and academics formerly involved with ISNA, and associated with its successor (which is primarily an organisation of groups with ineterests in intersex, rather than an intersex organisation), still use the term "intersex" in books and journals, and avoid the use of DSD. Clinicians tend to use DSD, not intersex people.

I have plenty of literature - although this topic is somewhat peripheral to my core interests, which is intersex.

Not clear where you get the idea you can tell me what to do - not a good way of starting off some sort of communication.

Finally, you might like to familiarise yourself with the general and LGBT studies project specific guidance on how we discuss people's ways of seeing themselves. Essentially, we respect people's self-identification. If people perceive themselves as women, we respect that, and do not refer to them as men. Mish (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting, I have an interest in DSDs, you have an interest in intersex. We're interested in the same thing, but prefer different terminology. That shouldn't be a problem, since there are plenty of sources that use either or both.

It appears to me that you are the one telling people what to do at this page. I agree, that's not conducive to building a relationship.

Anyway, according to the sources, there are very few intersexed (or DSD) hijra. So our common interest, yours and mine, is rather WP:UNDUE here.

I have another interest in the subject, however, and one you may share. According to some of the best sources, the hijra have a historic and traditional spiritual role, which seems to have been "crowded out" and "compromised" by sex work for survival.

There appear to be a number of differing points of view in the reliable sources, which is unsurprising and a good thing. We need to report all PsoV, though the lead should start with things that are all but unanimously held, and move to acknowledging major, significant, contested PsoV.

I've restored women's clothing to the definition, since it seems to be one of the most commonly mentioned and least intense features of the hijra way of life.

I've chosen to make it a quote from an impeccable source, so the accusation of disrespect falls squarely on a researcher whose respect for the hijra is absolutely beyond question.

Alastair Haines (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hijras often do not self-identify as male or female, and some hijras are physiologically female (not intersex). A person is a hijra if they self-identify as a hijra, and hijras may be any sex (male, female, or other), gender (male, female, or other), sexual orientation (straight, gay, or other), or wear clothes associated with any gender (male, female, or other). Anecdotally I would say that most hijras are born with some physiologically male parts, tend to have neither male nor female gender, tend to function socially in some ways as gay males but usually self-identify in some other way, and tend to wear female clothing, but that stereotype does not describe the community or what it means to be a hijra.

I do not feel that these changes are appropriate, but I would like to hear more about why anyone thinks they are. I think it is better to say that hijras are transgender and link to transgender than to sexual reassignment, because reassignment has nothing to do with the definition of being a hijra. Also hijras are better described as intersex than persons with sexual development disorders because intersex is the accepted term within the community of intersex persons. DSD is inherently a negatively connotated term in colloquial use because it contains the word "disorder." Minimizing references to DSDs and sexual reassignment in this article would better meet my understanding of what it means to be hijra.

Governments force physiologically male-born and intersex hijras to legally designate themselves as male in order to receive certain benefits, such as right to paper identification or travel documents. This is changing, but it takes time for new rules to disseminate. If anyone has newer sources than this or this, then show me, please. If anyone has any information about Saudi Arabia acknowledging a third sex on legal documents for international visitors I would love to see it. Specifically, a male who has completed hajj is a hajji; a female would be a hajja; what is a person who is neither male nor female and how is this noted in writing by countries who do not have a third-sex culture? Blue Rasberry 19:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear BlueRasberry,

It's nice to hear your support for this "third sex" political movement. Your sources are nice, fresh press commentary on the political issues and progress or lack of it.

As one of the sources notes, change in public opinion will take more than government rulings, and even those are not complete or uniform at this stage.

Fortunately, scientific terminology is not affected by government censorship (I think), so we still have objective terminology in academic literature, and also political terminology in academic literature. Both points of view need expression here. Of course we must document the views of outspoken hijra like those who've gone to the trouble of actually running for parliament. There are some very political hijra and their politics cannot be censored here.

If no one else writes up what exists in press reports and academic sources regarding the hijra political representatives, I certainly shall ... eventually.

Alastair Haines (talk) 03:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

etiquette

When we are discussing issues about terminology, it is best to bring the changes here first, so that we can achieve consensus before making changes - especially in the lead. Just because a few sources back up the insertion, that does not legitimise the insertion, especially when there are other sources. You might want to consider that it is a synthesis that arrives at labelling people as men because they are biologically (or phenotypically) male. We do tend to equale male biology and masculinity with men - but it is not necessarily so. XY women are not men, despite having some features that are usually taken to be male biology, neither are MtF transsexuals, even though they usually had very clear male biology. Seriously, it is better to discuss things here first when you know that changes you make to the established text are likely to be challenged. You will note that I have had minimal input into this article before your edits, it is simply on my watchlist, and while I do support some of what you are trying to achieve, I am concerned more about the way you are going about it. "I know best, because..." doesn't cut much ice here, I am afraid. I am trying to WP:AGF, but some of these edits do seem to suggest some kind of WP:SOAPBOXing that might compromise WP:NPOV. Mish (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed certain terms or expressions that seem to be contested, and neutralised them where possible. I have also made one or two insertions that are non-controversial and hopefully clarify some of the misuderstanding.Mish (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking more closely at the Reddy source, I can see that she does consistently refer to hijra as men throughout and homosexuals throughout, however, that does not mean we should follow her practice in this. What we do need to do is to include something about how she views hijra, and that would have to be in the body of the article somewhere, ideally where we treat the different ways hijra are seen and understood - and reporting on her understanding would not be problematic. Revising the lede on the basis of her usage is not supported in other texts, the phenomenon itself, nor our own guidelines. Mish (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Etiquette is a good point to bring up here.

I will restore the sourced material I've added to the article,

and request you follow your own advice and propose further changes at the talk page before making them.

Like you, this page is not a major part of my editing.

I'm only here because it's come up as part of background to an article I'm copyediting for a friend's FA process.

The information at that article must be reliable and NPOV, and so I need to research the hijra.

Perhaps the best way forward is to add sourced material regarding the hijra as "genderqueer" POV,

rather than remove sourced material that appears (to you) to run contrary to it.

For all I know, the "genderqueer" terminology has social utility (promoting tolerance for example)

that the well-defined scientific terminology lacks. I have no objection to that, just an objection to silencing objective, well-defined, sourced material.

Alastair Haines (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That is a slight mnisrepresentation of what I did. If somebody makes an edit to established text, and this is challenged, and a dispute arise, the baseline position is to roll the edit back to the established version, and the onus is on the editor making the change is to seek consensus for their change via discussion. That is why I reverted your edit, and then if you look, I neutralised the items you appeared concerned with by removing them, and then replacing with something less problematic, and resinserting those changes you had made that were not controversial. When somebody makes a series of edits to an article, especially the lead, there is little else that can be done - because it is not possible to revert a single insertion. I have made some minor ammendments to your latest efforts, but am not intending to anything with the lead unless more major revisions that have no consensus are made - until we have discussed them here. I would suggest that you do take the duty to discuss and reach consensus seriously, and instead of just bringing sources here, you describe how you intend to use them, rather than just using them out of context, and draft out the change you intend to make, so that we have something specific to discuss. This is much less traumatic than making wholesale changes without consensus, as that almost inevitably leads to edit wars, which never improve the artcile, nor encyclopedia. Mish (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you misrepresenting the situation. I've made a number of sourced additions, all of which have been supported by extra sources and discussion on the talk page. Unless better sources or sourced counter-opinions are provided, there is no warrant to obstruct sourced development of article content.

I'm perfectly happy to discuss reworking sourced content in a way that suits the tastes of other editors, but removal of reliable sourced content by unreliable editors is nothing more than obstruction, and although I'll not presume to know motives, it seems like censoring material contrary to particular editors' points of view. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing continued

I'll keep dropping in sources, cause it will save others the time looking for them. The first sentences of the extract below are particularly worth noting. There is no excuse for Wikipedia not getting this article up to a very high standard, there are thousands, not even hundreds, of quality articles of all kinds on the hijra. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• "'Hijras are the most well-studied type of homosexual in the subcontinent. Hijras have a lengthy recorded history, including mention during the Mughal Period, when some worked in royal courts as entertainers and artists. Hijras are males who adopt female dress and identity and typically live in groups led by a guru (older leader); some hijras self-castrate to complete a process of separation from male identity. They do not marry or take part in mainstream social functions; they exist in Hindu and Muslim societies in all the countries of the subcontinent in a similar form. Typically, hijras work as singers and dancers in social functions such as weddings and feasts. While this tradition continues, some hijras also support themselves through prostitution. Even though it is a widely-held perception that hijras are only sexually receptive, in reality they also are asked to be sexually insertive by some of their clients. Hijras represent a limiting case of male homosexuality that is separate and distinct from most MSM. Despite their long history, hijras are generally a socially marginalized community; they do not identify with the panthis or kothis described above. Their secluded lifestyle and risk factors predispose them to HIV/AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and a variety of other physical and mental health issues. As such, they are one of the populations most in need of services related to the above."

—Gregory Pappas, Omar Khan, Jason Taylor Wright, Shivananda Khan, Lalitha Kumaramangalam, and Joseph O’Neill, "Males Who Have Sex with Males (MSM) and HIV/AIDS in India: The Hidden Epidemic", AIDS and Public Policy Journal 16 (2001): 4–17. Emphasis added.

Use of 'pseudohermaphrodite'

Please note that this term is now archaic, and the term does mean that somebody is not a hermaphrodite, simply that they are a different kind of hermaphrodite from what used to be called a 'true hermaphrodite'. Even a 'true hermaphrodite' in the human sense, is not truly a hermaphrodite, as they are not capable of self-fertilisation, nor do they have both male and female reproductive capacity. A 'true hermaphrodite' is somebody who has asome mixture of chromosomes, gonadal material, and genitalia - such as a testis and an ovary, or ovotestes, a mixture of XY and XX chromosomes. A 'pseudohermaphrodite' is simply somebody who has a single set of chromosomes, such as XY, but has a mixture of gonadal material, internal structures and in some cases genitalia - ovotestis, for example, mullerian and wolffian ducts, and so on. The pseudo relates to their presentation as a hermaphrodite, but without the chromosomal mix found in true hermaphroditism. It is part because of the confusion the term pseudohemaphrodite engenders, and that it is percieved as pejorative, particularly by those women born and raised as women, with XY chromosomes, that the term has been dropped. Women with XY chromosomes are actually female despite their chromosomes, but we tend to confuse male with chromosomes. Some people are born male, with XY chromosomes, and have the same 'condition', but in less severe form. These are male intersex, and by using male intersex, you are being both accurate and limiting the offense caused in such cases. If you find this problematic, I have no objection to using the term 'XY intersex' if it helps clarify. It has nothing to do with political correctness, it is about being sensitive.

There are two places that this could be linked to, one would be intersex, the other pseudohermaphrodite; It would be better to link to intersex, but there is a lot of information there not relevant to this, whereas, pseudohermaphroditism has the most relevant information. Unfortunately, nobody has updated this to reflect the new nomenclature and taxonomy - and until it becomes a page about the archaic usage, there's not much we can do about that. Mish (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Psuedo-hermaphrodite is hardly an "archaic" term. A technical term, usually unsuited to more general articles at Wikipedia, that I grant. However, the current case is an obvious exception. The article claims that the word hijra has been understood to mean "eunuch" (which is only a minority of the real hijra) or "hermaphrodite" (which is quite probably none of the real hijra). The word "hermaphrodite" comes into the article via reliable sources, and was here before I arrived.

Intersex is not a synonym for psuedohermaphroditism, because it can include people with Gender Identity Disorder (GID).

The sources also make it very clear that very, very few of the hijra are pseudohermaphrodite, the numbers I've seen are at the same levels as those recorded for the general population, about 1%. However, the sources leave it an open question how many hijra might have GID. On the whole, the sources seem to suggest that hijra are largely adrophilic men (MSM).

Androgen Insufficiency Syndrome comes in a "Complete" form (CAIS) where, although technically male pseudohermaphrodites, the people we're talking about are actually women, beautiful and happy women, with no sense of gender "liminality" at all, just a disappointment at being infertile. AIS in incomplete cases still typically means people who have no doubts about being women, but with increasing intensity of masculinizing features which are distasteful to them, as women. Nearly all DSDs except GID devolve to people having clear gender identity (male or female), with some physical inconsistencies. ISNA recommends/recommended: "All children should be assigned as boy or girl, without early surgery."

But the issues with the hijra are not about any idiosyncratic birth physiology. The issues revolve around MSM and/or GID.

Typically, men who have sex with men do not cease to be men (and typically don't wish to) simply because they are "tops", "bottoms", "twinks" or "daddies", nor do they cease to be men because they chose to wear female clothing, or dance and sing or adopt behaviours associated in their culture with women. Similarly, soldiers who lose their testicles in warfare do not get reclassified as women on return from the battlefield.

Neither MSM nor castration, where relevant, tell the whole story the sources report regarding the hijra. However, they do tell a very important and documented part of it.

Something I'll be adding (while I'm restoring sourced material) will be more on the traditional spiritual role of the hijra. The traditional castration ceremony involves a sacrifice to a goddess, and part of the metaphysics of the tradition was ideally irrevocable committment to a life of asexuality. Indeed, the name hijra, in Arabic, suggests "leaving and separation", not just the tribe of their own family of birth, but dissociation with any vestage of masculine gender identity or male sexuality.

So, part of understanding the true "soul" of the hijra is understanding the leaving of masculinity. But they have to originally be male to leave it. There can be no rite of passage if there is no passage. If there is a passage it is from somewhere as much as it is to somewhere. And, this is all the more so, since it is quite true, the hijra, at least traditionally, and at least in theory, were not embracing female-ness nor seeking sex with men, they were fleeing male-ness and seeking asexuality.

Perhaps history is testimony to the impossibility of the spiritual vision of the hijra. Can the future make possible the impossible? Who knows? And unless reliable sources document it, we cannot. In the mean time, I'll get on with restoring and expanding the facts from reliable sources. I'll be restoring the word "psuedohermaphrodite" as well, but, since it describes the hijra just as poorly as "intersex", I'll flesh out the context so it is more clear from sources why "hermaphrodite" and "intersex" describe hijra much less accurately than "eunuch" (men without manhood), which is the official designation in Tamil Nadu, at least. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You are not very well informed on these matters. Intersex does not include GID. Even the DSM5 proposal makes a clear distinction between people with GI(D) with and without DSD - given that DSD is a more inclusive category than intersex was (i.e., it includes people who were never classed as intersex), and does not include people GI(D) (which would be bizarre if people with DSD could be included in GI(D) and GI(D) were part of DSD), and GID has never been listed as intersex in any diagonstic manual (e.g.DSM4 or ICD10), it is hard to see how you can support this assertion. Male intersex is an adequate description. AIS comes in a range of forms, which includes people who are assigned male - they used to be referred to as male pseudohermaphrodites, now they aren't, they are referred to as male intersex, and it has been proposed that XY DSD be used instead, but that has yet to catch on. I fail to see the relevance about homosexuals being men, or people who lose their testicles in the war - the hijra do not identify this way - that is why they are hijra, rather than gay men - to begin drawing such analogies is WP:OR and suggests POV WP:SOAPBOXing. The final stuff is fine, as long as it is clear this is what Hijra may have been before the Raj. Mish (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you enjoy baiting, Mish?

Or is it just that you like offering OR and Soapboxing on gender talk pages, but don't like others pointing out flaws in your reasoning when you do?

Fair's fair, if you claim things that don't square with the way I see things, I'll tell you, just like you're willing to tell me what you think and why.

I'm glad you have now learned that DSD is a more recent term than intersex. There are sill researchers and clinicians who would prefer GID to be classed as a DSD because of its setting in the brain. However, the important thing is that there are two kinds of recognized gender liminality: physiological liminality (DSD) and psychological liminality (GID). Not only that, sexual orientation is handled as yet another independent variable, and not considered as a disorder. There are also recognize relationships between the variables: DSD may lead to GID and might even influence sexual orientation.

But the bottom lines are that the liminalities of the hijra have been extensively studied and so are available as content for this article. Also, accepted terminology for those liminalities is well established.

It appears to me that this article will ultimately need to address at least three sets of terminology: the NPOV terminology of medicine, the POV terminology of gender-activists and last, but probably most important, the spiritual terminology historically presented by the hijra as self-identification. To this might be added the official "E" for eunuch designation of Tamil Nadu. It may also be worth looking at other popular-language terminology associated with the hijra.

It might sound as though there's terminological confusion, but there isn't really. With the exception of the terminology of gender-activism, all terminology revolves around the same basic easy concept: men (sex) who renounce their masculinity (gender). It may stem from castration in the Mughal Empire for Pakistani hijra but from something different like a spiritualisation of transvestism in Southern India. There are sources that suggest this, but I need more to be sure. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV of medicine? That is a POV in itself. Referring to somebody's genitals as disordered is far from NPOV, as these are naturally occuring human variations, and some people would prefer clinicians did not (or had not) interfered with them. So, I take it you meant to say the POV terminology of medicine, as one of three POVs - although I would prefer the term perspective, as that is neutral. I am sure that as a theologian you would expect me to respect your discipline and call it a perspective, rather than your POV. As an social scientist, I expect the same respect from you. I look forward to seeing the medical information on the hijra, it will make a change from reading social anthropologists and gender theorists on this subject, and a change from reading clinicians in the west. However, as this is not a medical article, then there is no reason why we need to accord medicine special status, it comes under Sexology & LGBT studies, as well as the national interests. Mish (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Men is not sex, Male can be sex (or gender). Better to say hijra who reject their male sex. Mish (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(BTW, if you look at your earlier comments, you will see a red link for Androgen Insufficiency Syndrome. I think you must mean Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome or AIS, which is different from having insufficient androgens for masculine development, and is covered under Testicular Dysgenesis Syndrome (TDS). AIS can be either Mild (MAIS), Partial (PAIS) or Complete (CAIS) - CAIS assigns as female sex, MAIS male sex, and PAIS assigns either way, depending on appearance. People can have forms of AIS without knowing, especially if they are poor and live in countries where there is no public health care system - such as the USA, or India.) Mish (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ken Zucker's research shows that between 6-7% of people who received some form of follow-up identified with the sex opposite that of assignment and rearing - much higher than the general population. Mish (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead - first sentence - lets make this easier. Baby steps.

Rather than tearing apart a well-established article, let's look at working through it one piece at a time.

Reads:

• are physiological males who adopt feminine gender identity, women's clothing and other feminine gender roles. They have a long recorded history in the Indian subcontinent, from the Mughal Empire period onwards. This history features a number of well-known roles within subcontinental cultures, part gender-liminal, part spiritual and part survival.

various problems, gender role is different from gender identity or women's clothes, yet we say gender identity, clothes and 'other' gender roles. We need to lose the 'other'. Second, they do not adopt a feminine gender identity, but a female gender identity, they do not adopt a feminine gendetr role, but a female gender role. Not sure what a feminine gender role is. The sources suggest that whatever it is, hijra don't tend to emulate this, rather they have a female gender role which is not expecially feminine. Third, some do identify as non-male, non-female, and so 'third-sex' needs to be in there also, as backed up the sources. Thirdly, there appear to be at least some who are male intersex, and some who are castrated, so 'physiologically' is not universally the case either in terms of conditions of birth or circumstances.

Propose:

• are usually people either born or assigned male at birth who adopt a female or 'third-sex' gender identity and female gender roles, and who usually wear women's clothing. They have a long recorded history in the Indian subcontinent, from before the Mughal Empire. This history features a number of well-known roles within subcontinental cultures, part gender-liminal, part spiritual and part survival.

Comments welcome. Mish (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The hijra is defined primarily by community role and secondarily by sex, gender, manners, etc. It is the community role that is inflexible; everything else is fluid depending on place, time, or culture. That said, hijra work cannot be done by people who cannot shock the general population's ideals of gender and sexuality.

For the first paragraph, I would propose "Hijras are persons of any sex who adopt a 'third-sex' gender identity and feminine gender role in order to perform traditional performance work associated with hijra culture. They have a long recorded history in the Indian subcontinent, from before the Mughal Empire. This history features a number of well-known roles within subcontinental cultures, including being officiants at weddings, infant child blessings, or other celebratory rituals."

I know there was past support for the term "gender-liminal" and I too like it, but I dispute that the term is meaningful for people who do not already have some understanding of hijra-ness. Blue Rasberry 15:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

how about "the best known of which is occupying a liminal space between male and female, part spiritual, part survival"? Mish (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It is my understanding that traditionally hijras have more money than typical members of the community which they serve, so "survival" is hardly a motive for the public face of their work, although the marginalized sex workers who are not the norm in the traditional hijra community definitely do survival sex work. Do you question this? "Liminal space between male and female" works and I would not disagree, but I would prefer "non-male, non-female" as the gender descriptor. Blue Rasberry 16:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources are the issue. Do we have any that attest to their affluence? I think maybe:

"the best known of which is occupying a liminal space between male and female, not-male and not-female, some perform spiritual and ritual fumctions, some are more concerned with survival on the margins of society."

Is that better? Mish (talk) 18:03, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

The intent is better but the wording is atrocious and will not last. I was hoping for a simpler, more comprehensible, more permanent wording.

Are sources really the issue? I could get them, but this user:Alastair_Haines is sourcing some things with which User:MishMich seems to disagree I do not want to go to the trouble of sourcing something that is going to be seen as a minority viewpoint, especially when I would prefer it presented as the norm despite being outside the focus of the majority of extant literature.

I assert that the ancient hijra tradition is not founded on marginal survival sex. Would anyone disagree? Rich people do not attract as much attention of social workers as street prostitutes, and affluent people have less time for foreign social researchers than sex workers. This is part of the reason that much Western literature focuses on hijra sex work, but sex work is not the basis of the culture and not fundamental to hijra identity. A hijra is a hijra before and after the age of sexual desirability; these non-sexy people carry most of the culture, and they do it without sex work.

As a sort of comparison, consider the article drag queen. In the Western world, an intersex or transgender person aged in their sexual prime who works in the drag performance industry has a higher incidence of getting involved in prostitution than their peers in the general population - I trust that I need not cite this and that you accept this assertion. But notice that the article does not mention sex work, because the public face of drag is the performance and not the seedy underside. Sex work is not the basis of drag performances. Thoughts about this analogy? Blue Rasberry 19:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely. It is one of the problems with social research, the 'exotic', the 'marginalised', ten to be the subject of research and books, very little work on the rich and powerful. Problem is, we have to rely on the sources that exist, not what is true or what people know to be otherwise. However, you can cite texts that deal with the tradition, and we should be note (here, not in the article) that the research that has been carried has tended to be qualitative, which means the samples are not generalisable, and the statistics contained therein only apply to that sample, and have no statistical significance. That means we cannot say that one piece of research carried out amongst marginalised people says anything other than that situation - and it should not be in the lead, as it too specific in a piece of text that serves as a general introduction. Mish (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Two comments:

1. Gender identity[12] has a very specific definition accepted in reliable sources, which does not include any "third sex".

2. BlueRasberry is correct: the hijra are first and foremost an identifiable community with a long history self-identified in spiritual and asexual terms. That they are now most widely identified with homosexual sex work has much more to do with economic injustice.

It is another matter, that I won't take up now, that they are not only physically exploited for sex locally, but some argue they are also exploited by Western gender lobbyists.

Wikipedia can't offer descriptions of the hijra that presume the normativity of any gender lobby PoV. That PoV must be documented, because it most certainly exists in abundance. However, there is greater abundance of neutral PoV sources and terminology.

By all means, source and include your favourite PoV into the lead, friends, I certainly won't delete PoV sources. However, don't be surprised if I include and give preference to the neutral terminology, which Wikipedia policy requires.

Transgender and "third sex/gender" are PoV terms, very notable PoV terms, most certainly suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, but just as certainly unsuitable as normative, NPoV description. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I take your point, perhaps we need to omit mention of gender identity, and just speak of 'third-sex' and/or female gender. However, the proposal for the next edition of DSM (5) is that GID includes identifying as a gender other than male or female. I am happy to lose John Money's constuction of 'gender identity', as my POV is that it is a relatively recent and meaningless concept, and one which appears to be starting to go out of fashion. I am not sure it can be reliably applied to hijra, unlike gender role. Mish (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Communities in which hijra live

• In Pakistan, many hijra live in well-defined, organized, all-male communities, led by a guru.[1][2] These communities have sustained themselves over generations by "adopting" young boys who are rejected by, or flee their family of origin.[3] Many work as male sex workers for survival.[4]

The first sentence is problematic. One of the sources is Nanda from 1986. In her 1999 book, she says "When a new recruit is about to join the community, her sponsor, who will become her guru, calls a jamat to which the leaders of the seven houses are invited." There is no mention in her later source of this being an all-male community, instead, she refers to the initiate as 'she' suggesting otherwise. Similarly, "The guru sponsoring the initiate answers with her own name and the name of the house she belongs to". Seems to confirm that she is not discussing an all-male community. The other sources, from 1995, as cited in the refercence text, does not state these as 'all-male' communities either. It would be better to leave out the 'all-male', as this is unnecessary, it represents WP:SYNTH, we have already noted their birth situation, and rather than impose a description upon them they themselves (by all accounts) would not identify with we are best reflecting what the sources state about these communities. Mish (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it would better read "many hijra live in well-defined, organized, all-hijra communities..." Also, this applies to South Asia and not just Pakistan, right?

Better to say "These communities have sustained themselves over generations by adopting children born intersex or recruiting interested people of alternative sexualities or genders." The recruitment process is not a result of rejection and this part makes it sound like hijras are a refuge for outcasts rather than an organization that provides a useful service which the general population seeks and purchases.

Better to say, "Many hijras do traditional hijra ritualistic performance work as their profession." Sex work should not be emphasized in the lede even though many hijras get involved in sex work because that is not the self-identified public face of hijra identity. While hijra communities have a higher proportion of sex workers than the general population, I do not like that sex work is listed as a hijra profession and traditional hijra work is not.

Thoughts on this? Blue Rasberry 15:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, we have to go by what sources say, and while sex work is only one aspect, it is pretty well known really. I agree though, it should not be given a higher priority than other work - such as ritual performance, blessings, extortion, social work, etc. Mish (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I would just take the extra step and say that survival sex work is a problem and not a goal for hijra culture. A hijra can be a hijra without living as a person forced to prostitute to survive, whereas without the other things you mention a person cannot be a hijra. That said, yes, many hijras get involved in sex work. Blue Rasberry 20:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The hijra are identified as male in nearly all sources. You are taking the wrong approach to avoid a designation that 95% of the thousands of reliable sources are perfectly happy to apply. We may not like what reliable sources say, but we have to report it. Wikipedia is not censored. At the moment, Mish, you are looking like a skilled contributor using wikilawyering to establish your original research. You'd be wasting your time, because your work would be undone rather soon. Given the quantity of sourcing I've already provided on this talk page, ignoring that material, even as a PoV, stretches AGF. However, I really appreciate the way you are documenting the changes you want to make before making them. I am not unsympathetic to your concerns, and would love to see us include the PoV you rightly want articulated, only it's really important that we do that in such a way as it doesn't crowd out the "hegemonic" standard "sexual dichotomy" PoV. Your commitment to sources, conversation and skill with accurate creative phrasing like "gender-liminal" give me hope we can achieve a challenging resolution here. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

MOS#Identity.

1. Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and Article titles where the term appears in the title of an article. When there is no dispute, the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself, and the most common terms for a group will be those that the group most commonly uses for itself. Wikipedia should use them too. (See for example the article Jew, which demonstrates that most Jews prefer that term to "Jewish person".)
2. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to using the gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies when referring to any phase of that person's life. Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage (for example: She fathered her first child).

WP:WikiProject LGBT studies#Guidelines

The issue is not how they are identified by third-parties, but how they identify. We are free to say what third-parties say about them, and what they record them saying about themselves, but we are advised to use the terms they use to refer to themselves, as detailed in reliable sources. Such sources acknowledge they assert either a third-gender or female identity, not a male identity, so whatever their biology, we have to respect them, and not refer to them as male, or their communities as all-male. Not sure what is so difficult about that, but of you don't like it, escalate the matter. Mish (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC) As Blueberry says, hijra are hijra-identified, and in explaining what that means, referring to them as male is misleading. Mish (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)