Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply |
Member |
I was looking up a word in my Taber's and found "berdache," which is defined as: "An individual of a definite sex, male or female, who assumes the status and role of the opposite sex and who is viewed by the community as being of one physiologic sex but as having assumed the status and role of the opposite sex. Transvestism is not synonymous with berdache, nor is homosexual behavior necessarily a component of this condition." Has anyone heard of this word, which seems to have a French origin and is pronounced: bur-DASH? I sure haven't. I looked on OEDILF to see if there is a limerick for it, and sure enough here is one, written by Chuck Folkers: Berdache rather crudely describes What in most North American tribes Was a person whose gender Was harder to render In accurate terms than in gibes. His author's note says: (bur-DASH) While this term is still used by some social scientists to refer to the mixed-gender or gender-atypical sex roles found among native peoples in North and Central America, it is considered offensive by others, largely because of its etymology. Berdache is indirectly derived from the Arabic bardaj, meaning an enslaved laborer, male prostitute, or "kept boy." Alternate terms have been suggested, including tribe-specific ones like the Lakota winkte or Navajo nadle, or the more general two-spirit.This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh, | ||
|
Member |
Here is an excellent essay that Chuck posted in the workshop. The author is proposing a third gender, and it certainly has linguistic relevance. | |||
|
Member |
Since no one has commented here, I assume that no one knows anything about this word. Therefore, I am going to approve the limerick as is. From Googling and reading a little bit about the word, I think that the OED (and Taber's which copied from the OED) is overstating this word. It seems to apply only to the North American Indians. If anyone knows differently, please let me know. Also, I think Taber's was really off in calling it a "condition." That would be like calling "homosexuality" a "condition." | |||
|