Read on Twitter
Dear Filipinx-Americans, this isn’t how you celebrate pre-Filipino cultures and LGBTQIA+ history — not with anachronisms, not with bad takes, not with bad scholarship passed off as history. Pakiusap.
(Images from maganda.magazine on Instagram, commentary mine)
(Images from maganda.magazine on Instagram, commentary mine)
I’m with you on this, all the way. But applying modern (and Western) terminology to our pre-colonial ancestors isn’t “decolonisation”. It’s misleading and impedes our understanding of both our modern queer identities and that of our ancestors.
In many pre-Filipino societies—in the plural, because there were many—
WOMEN could become (and often were) spiritual and religious leaders. The distinction between trans and cis is a response to our modern struggles, not appropriate for our pre-colonial ancestors.
WOMEN could become (and often were) spiritual and religious leaders. The distinction between trans and cis is a response to our modern struggles, not appropriate for our pre-colonial ancestors.
Visayan ‘babaylan’ and other related terms ultimately derive from a common Austronesian root *balian, but there were a multitude of other names for the various roles they played in society. This role wasn’t limited to women, the “ba” doesn’t mean woman, and the word is not Malay.
The essence is true, but the details can be misleading. We should be careful in retroactively assigning modern identities like ‘trans’ to asog. Perhaps we can describe, instead of label? Other PH cultures also had male shamans that weren’t asog.
Agreed, although one could say the same for a great number of pre-19th century civilisations. ‘Homosexuality’ and ‘heterosexuality’, as terms, were only conceived recently—the Spaniards didn’t have it, either. (Re: “Filipinx languages”, additional thread below the image) https://twitter.com/makadiwata/status/1275713296474259456
There are multiple genders in Tagalog and other PH languages (babae, lalaki, bayogin, etc.), but yes, our languages do not distinguish gender grammatically. Other Austronesian languages like Malay or Māori don’t have grammatical gender, too. (Additional thread below the image) https://twitter.com/makadiwata/status/1275338022506991616
Is it nitpicking to want representation for the diversity of our indigenous languages in the PH? Because ‘siya’ is Tagalog and Bisaya, but not Ilocano or Kapampangan, etc. Tagalog ‘siya’ is also not English “they/them” (sila/nila/kanila), but he/she but without gender.
This sort of fakelore passed off as “ancient myth” doesn’t help us Filipinos, queer or otherwise, understand our pre-colonial heritage better. It‘s not pre-colonial myth, it’s not found in ancient ritual; it’s modern fanfic. Nothing wrong with fanfic, but we have to be honest. https://twitter.com/makadiwata/status/1277466669439266816
Questions on the gender of Lakapati/Ikapati, whether they’re intersex or female, or whether they’re distinct or the same deity, are a hot topic among scholars, researchers, and modern worshippers. I think calling the deity ‘trans’ or ‘intersex’ outright is a misrepresentation.
Like Lakapati/Ikapati, Bathala is a deity—a God—that is, they’re not human and have no need for human gender. Deities are known, in myth and ritual, to shuffle between genders for whatever purpose. This doesn’t make them “trans”, it makes them gods. The etymology below is false.
The belief above seems to come from a false etymology based on the spelling of ‘Bathala’ in baybayin, which is interpreted as ᜊ ‘ba’ for babae (woman) + ᜑ ‘ha’ for hangin (wind, breath, spirit) + ᜎ ‘la’ for lalaki (man). Bathala is from Sanskrit ‘bhaṭṭāra’ or ‘noble lord’.
Lastly, make it a habit to review your sources (and I say this to myself, as well). The internet can be a great tool for research, but can also work against you if not careful. The first two cited sources contain good and not-so-good information, a bad mix of facts and fakelore.
