# Talk:LGBTQ themes in Hindu mythology

Krishna, various stories need adding (changing bodies with Radha), Kali and Shiva taking on Krishna and Radha forms  plus needs expansion of Arjuna/Avaran link.
Avaran story needs sourcing.
Agni and Shiva needs expansion and clarification.
Agni and Soma needs expansion and clarification.
 Krittivasa Ramayana
Arjuna as Vrihannala needs adding.
Shikhandi needs sourcing and rewrite to make clearer.
Kārttikeya need expansion.
Ila
From LGBT topics in Hinduism article:  

Bahuchara-devi (a goddess connected with transsexuality and eunuchism); mentioned
Bhagavati-devi (a Hindu goddess associated with crossdressing);
Caitanya Mahaprabhu (an incarnation of Radha and Krishna combined);
Chandi-Chamunda (twin warrior goddesses);
Gadadhara (an incarnation of Radha in male form);
Gangamma-devi (a goddess connected with crossdressing and disguises);
Harihara (Shiva and Vishnu combined); Another name for Ayyappa
Vallabhavardhana, why?
Yellamma-devi why?
  There are also specific festivals connected to the worship of such gender-variant deities, some of which are famous in India for their crossdressing devotees and homosexual undertones. These festivals include the Aravan Festival of Tamil Nadu, the Ayyappa and Chamaya-Villaku Festivals of Kerala, the Bahucara-mata Festivals of Gujarat and the Yellamma-devi Festivals of Karnataka, among others.

Bhutamatr, has transvestitism at festivals, why? 
Bhakti, the path of loving deovtion, Yogi showing their devotio through trangenderism, associated with Rhada or Vishnu as lovers of Krishnu.
Asanga is the name of a sage that metamorphoses from male to female, or a pince that was cursed to be a women until transformed back by a sage.

LGBT topics in Hinduism has not many references and trustworthiness of the list above is thus questionable. Yellamma is associated with transsexuality and eunuchism like bahuchara. Never heard about LBGT connections to the others. "Vishnu as lovers of Krishnu." is abstract, (Rhada assuming to be a missplelt Radha). Men like Caitanya are known to be incarnations of the female lover of Krishna. They "loved" Krishna like Radha did, this love is supposed to devotional and spiritual in nature rather than sexual. This transgenderism may be associated with Caitanya and Gadadhara, but Vishnu was NEVER a lover of Krishna. Krishna is a full incarntion of Vishnu, virtually Krishna = Vishnu. One can not be a lover of oneself. The legend of Ila can be included. Ila was a king, who was cursed by Shiva and Parvati to be a woman, as a relief, his curse was reduced to an alternating sexuality. He was man a month and female another month. During this period, he(she) married Budha and had their son. Finally, Ila was totally changed into a man and had children with his wife.  I am creating an article on Ila soon. --Redtigerxyz  Talk  06:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I'm not adding any that don't have sources (was the Vishnu lover of Krishna elsewhere? I don't think i ever wrote that). Those that are linked to LGBT but don't have a significant link to the mythology (eg, priests that are incarnations of godesses, or goddesses that are patrons of LGBT but have no stories in the mythos to explain why) i think should have no more than a mention of existance, if that. YobMod 08:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
"Bhakti, the path of loving deovtion, Yogi..."
You are probably referring to Madhura Bhava above, and yes psychoanalytically few of them argue that this is trangenderism, but there are others like Dr.Jean Openshaw of Open University, Raab, Alan Roland who do not agree with this., Anyway caution should be used while presenting a fringe theory (with all the oppositions) as well accepted facts. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is why i have left them here for now. Even if they are accepted as possible interpreations, i do not think they are all important to the mythology (rather than the religion), so can be left out at least up to GA level.YobMod 08:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the Lede has lot of weasel words like, "many examples" , "sometimes explicitly", "sometimes condemned" , "Modern scholars " and we need to work on it. And also , we need rewrite the intro such that the article title is in bold --Nvineeth (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Great idea. I just threw the lead together to allow the article to be sectioned. The only way i can see to remove some of the weasel words is the repeat the articles examples though. If not "some modern scholars", for example, we would have to list every writer doing this, of which there are dozens. Similarly for the "disagremets" - do we have list the disagreements in the lead too? This would seem to put undue weight on them. Or is there another solution?YobMod 10:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Well I agree with you, it can be quite tricky to provide a non-weasel synopsis, but may be by briefly mentioning the characters , I will give it a try when I get time. --Nvineeth (talk) 11:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I rewrote, giving examples of each instance.YobMod 09:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know if Gita Thadani is especially controversial? She has written tonnes of books, so i am suprised to see her name redlink. It sounds like she has had an interesting life too, so would make an interesting DYK (with a link to this article to get more readers! :-) )YobMod 17:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The article at quite a few places, presents the deductions that were arrived through the application of psychoanalysis--whose application is disputed by psychoanalyists like Alan Roland et al--as facts. For Ex, the passage at the end on Ganesha and we need to work on this as well. --Nvineeth (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought i had clarified anything controversial to make it clear it was an opinion? Anyway, Thanks for the additions. Any other criticisms that put theories into context are always welcome! I haven't used any of the sources i know as being psychoanalytical since starting the page (esp. Courtright or Doniger). Vanitu and Patttachuik are using simple textual analysis and gender / queer theory, AFAIK, but maybe they all need criticisms too. I read a 1790s analysis of Kartikeyas conception yesterday, and it makes no mention of any semen or passing of seed from one god to the next, so i'm sure some people must still disagree that this happens at all, let alone disagreeing with any homoerotic interpreations.
Is there a (not too prominent) tag we can add to sentences that need counter opinions or more expansion with other interpreations? Or we could list sentences here. It would make it easier to search for criticisms if i know exactly which parts are disputed in the literature. Unless some experts are willing to continue adding the counter opinions, which would be great :-D.YobMod 08:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Add, mybe Template:Lopsided? Its quite ugly though!
Yes {{lopsided}} looks ugly, I would prefer to add the counter opinions and alternative views instead. --Nvineeth (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I see couple of POV related issues, for ex,

"The macho Arjuna's cross-dressing disguise is a source of comedy in the story, ..." , well according to WD, this might be a source of comedy, but not for all and we must be careful while presenting a personal opinion as fact to the readers.
Similarly with "humerous references" and "joking reference"
I think the comedy is blatant in the original story: It is supposed to be funny that an obviously masculine man is being accepted as a woman. "Humerous and joking" indicate to me that readers are not intended to seriously consider Arjuna to be transexual, but can be removed and readers can decide themselves. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobmod (talk • contribs) 
"who also writes that Arjuna's description as the "world's best ambidextrous archer" is a joking reference to bisexuality" ... sounds like a WP:SYNTH, does Doniger directly correlate this with "bisexuality"?
Jepp, Doniger specifically called this a great reference to bisexuality. Is not particularly an important point, but gives entry into the fact that Arjuna was not sexually active as a kliba.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobmod (talk • contribs) 
Similarly with the phrase, "two pieces of wood perceived as feminine, called the adhararani and utararani, are rubbed together, simulating a spiritual lesbian interaction." .. this is definitely an opinion of "Conner & Sparks" and should be reworded;
Ok.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobmod (talk • contribs) 
I will be rewording with "argue" (see WP:WTA) at few places where opinions are as presented as facts.
Also good.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobmod (talk • contribs) 
" Agni, the god of fire, wealth and creative energy,  is known for his homoerotic encounters that result in birth. " -- "Conner & Sparks" may consider so, but presenting this as a fact tends to suggest that millions of Hindu's worship a god "known" for "homoerotic encounters"; This needs rewording as well.
I'll assign it to Conner & Sparks (Vanitu and Pattanaik also include stories of Agni, but Conner makes the statement most clearly) --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobmod (talk • contribs) 
"exciting ejaculation or temporarily carrying the baby", i think this is not clear ( at least for me ); Not sure how these two can be related. probably needs some clarification
Will try and clarify. Depending on the myths source, various goddesses stimulate Shiva to orgasm (but don't get impregnated themselves), while other goddesses carry the semen/baby until it is born (without actual sexual contact with Shiva). --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobmod (talk • contribs) 
"created by a merging of the phallic god Shiva and the goddess Parvati (also called Shakti and Uma)." — The "phallic" part is widely debated, and there is no scholarly consensus either, see Lingam#Interpretations, will remove this.
Oi doke.
"Mohini's divine nature as an avatar of Vishnu is essential in overcoming Shiva's reticence. This fact proves to be the downfall of the (male) demon Adi,..."  This is again an opinion, and again presented as "fact"; Also I am not sure how "Mohini's divine nature" and demo Adi's disguise as Parvathi be related. This part needs some work;
The source relates them. I read it as meaning that Shiva would not have sex with just any man that is disguised as a woman, the seduction only works as it is a God. When a non-God tries the same thing, it doesn't work.
"Arjuna is the son (or incarnation) of the god-king of heaven - Indra, ", I think "son (or incarnation)" is misleading, ( can't be both  ). According to the Arjuna article, "Arjuna is considered to be an incarnation of Nara, the younger brother of Narayana." I was planning to remove the "son (or incarnation)" part, but I feel that Yobmod is a better judge; Pls do the needful.
I'll remove it. I remeber this as being dependant on whether on is reading the Vedas or later myths, but i don't consider it important.
--Nvineeth (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


### Article, not term paper
You may reasonably revert the edited version I made, but it is important to consider the changes. See WP:UNDUE. Too much information is as much a fault as too little. The density and subtlety of the information requires some pruning. I've made a cut. Not liked? OK, but cutting is still needed, and not all the cuts were wrong. If you can d better, please do. Otherwise, let others have a go. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Your first cut removed all mention of a myth from the entirety of wikipedia (Shiva vanquishing Adi) and important nuances of other stories (whether Shiv knows Mohini is Vishnu makes a big difference in the meaning of the story, and is debated in the sources. Without this context, "Shiva specifically requests that Vishnu to take on the Mohini form again, as he had missed the initial transformation and had heard it was beautiful and wanted to see for himself is extremely misleading). To pass FA, this article is aiming for comprehensiveness, which means including every myth with LGBT interpretations and discusions of all interpreatations.
An active reviewer is great, but removing cited on-topic information is not within the scope of a GA review. If reliable secondary sources on exactly this topic consider these to be important enough points that the cover them, then i don't see how you have decided they are not. In what way does this information not fall within the topic of this article, considering multiple sources discuss them? The "remaining on-topic" criterion is not inended to remove nuances that would then need to be readded for FA. Such large content changes need consensus on the talk page (as Ninveeth and i are doing) - imo, your deletions are damaging. Being "not a term paper" is not a GA criteria (which only expects correct grammar and readibility), and starting content disputes taints a review. WRT "letting other have a go", every other editor contributing here was specifically invited to change my contributions when i created this article, and we have managed to avoid any edit warring by discussing major changes first.
So lets discuss the changes here. What about putting the parts you consider too much detail into the notes section? Simply put <ref group=n>...</ref> around the text, and i will reword so they still make sense, and remove anything i agree to be extraneous detail.[User:Yobmod|Yob]]Mod 09:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm an editor and editors are encouraged to improve the article as part of bringing it to GA. If all you want is a critique, get a peer review. 
I asked you for to provide the key points that the READER should be taking from the Critical Analysis section, and you gave me a list of the topics that paragraph covered. I think I could have made that list my self fairly easily. My QUESTION is: What's IMPORTANT in that paragraph. More specifically, what's MOST important? That is what needs to be included. 
Including everything is how you get an "A". Show you have done the work, etc. It is not necessarily the way to write a good WP article. 
I edited the section referenced earlier to reduce what I considered to be distracting details and to keep the key elements present. I expected a revert. But I could have spent many paragraphs describing change, which description would have then required further explanation and discussion, and the section would still not have been changed or improved. Simpler just to demonstrate. And I am an editor, not just a suggestion box. 
Some suggestions from various Wiki Guidelines:

The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information.
The information [shoould be] understood by the reader without struggle. The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or overwhelmingly confused by your article.
[A good article] it is long enough to provide sufficient information, depth, and analysis on its subject, without including unnecessary detail or information that would be more suitable in "sub-articles", related articles, or Wikimedia sister projects.
And so on. 
Compare this sentence:
Many deities in Hinduism and Indian mythology are represented as both male and female at different times and in different incarnations or may manifest with characteristics of both genders at once, such as Ardhanarishvara, created by a merging of the phallic god Shiva and the goddess Parvati (also called Shakti and Uma).
With my revision:
Many Hindu deities are represented as both male or female. Some may manifest with characteristics of both genders at once, for example Ardhanarishvara, the merging of the phallic god Shiva and the goddess Parvati.
What detail has been lost? On the other hand, what has been gained by being concise, simple and direct? Which is easier for the reader to understand?
In the revision the topic sentence is obvious. The topic is introduced, followed by an example. In the original it's hard to guess the topic: is it androgyny? or Ardhanari?
Similarly, I removed this sentence: This link to Ardhanarishvara gives LGBT people in mythology magical connotations. That's a term paper sentence, in my opinion. 
Similarly: Traditionally, it is believed that Vishnu continues to use the Mohini form in order the play a game on the unsuspecting Shiva, however, in the Telugu and Bhagavata Purana versions,  Say what? I changed this to In some versions of the story, 
I removed this: This fact proves to be the downfall of the (male) demon Adi, when he attempted to kill Shiva by taking on the form of Parvati and seducing the god into sex, so he could be killed by the sharp teeth hidden in Adi's vagina. Shiva initially went along with the ruse, but easily saw through the deception to Adi's non-divine nature and killed him. There is a hell of lot of information in this sentence, and it really is wonderful, and so on, but 

Whatever antecedent This fact refers to is wholly unclear
It introduces "the (male) demon Adi", out of nowhere, with no reference and no link.
It then describes a whole other story, related to Shiva, yes,, but not to Mohini, which is the subject of the paragraph
It goes on to describe a bizzare ruse (vagina dentata), and says Shiva :"went along with the ruse"
this phrase but easily saw through the deception to Adi's non-divine nature  doesn't seem to make sense -- what??
"...and killed him" -- and thus ends Adi, a character about whom we have no context.
What is the point of this story? "Shiva killed the demon Adi." Is that the point? 
This is a paragraph about Vishnu/Mohini and finally Mohini/Shiva -- of Mohini's femininity as a symbol of worldly matters, and relates one of many attempts to induce Shiva into taking an interest in worldly matters Where does Adi fit in? Adi tries to KILL Shiva, not to seduce him into worldliness.
It's an interesting digression, sort of, but not that interesting, and it doesn't further Mohini info at all, and all we end up knowing about Shiva is that he killed another demon who couldn't manage a decent ruse.
And so on. 
I wrote enough term papers on similar topics to know that these sorts of flourishes are what Profs really like, and it does take a while for Encyclopedia Brain to replace Term Paper Brain. Encyclopedia Brain is: Be concise, simple, stay on topic.

Note: I took me about 25 years before I finally managed to crawl out of Term Paper Brain. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
After reading the before/after again, I believe that the edits above were good, relatively minor, and I plan to reintroduce them. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Also: as to your suggestion above this article is aiming for comprehensiveness, which means including every myth with LGBT interpretations and discusions of all interpreatations. 
I'd point to WP:NOT:

[Wikipedia is not] A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.[4] Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight.
Further to your point whether Shiv knows Mohini is Vishnu makes a big difference in the meaning of the story, and is debated in the sources.
GREAT! THAT needs to be said, just that clearly. I removed what I removed because it SEEMED extraneous to the point. That I removed should indicate that its importance was not being made apparent in its original form. It is a good thing to make such points clear. That I cut it, rather than emphasizing it, should indicate that the point was NOT clear. 
A review of the clarity of the writing is, I think, critical for a GA. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I support some of the clarity introduced by Nemonoman; Few of the changes made the article clearer to an average reader without much expertise; I will redo few of them ( I have done one today, and will probably continue tomorrow); Feel free to correct me.  --Nvineeth (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I havn't included "all possible details" - i have sumarised more than 1000 pages of research into a short article on the subject. There are longer and more detailed articles on single fictional character, i don't see why this topic deserves less coverage. Sources are given appropriate weight. The 2 sentences on the demon Adi summarises more than 3 pages in the sources. Deleting it from this article altogether in no way improves wikipedia's coverage of this subject. I didn't complain about changing sentences to improve clarity, i am complaining that you are removing cited on-topic information in the same edits. Expert sources say these things, and not including them makes the article misleading. Simple and short is fine, but not when it removes nuance from complicated subjects. Multiple books are devoted to this subject, there is no reason wikipedia should be limited to a bare bones treatment. If you mean term paper is ucnlear writing, it would be easier to say that and point out examples - Term paper is an vague Americanism, especially to a non-American who has never written anything of the sort.YobMod 20:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
You should not think to include everything in this article just because it exists. If you want to go into greater depth, consider creating and linking to sub articles - like 'LGBT themes in Shiva mythology', etc. Clearly you have already made some editing decisions not to include EVERY little detail -- all I'm doing here is encouraging a few more such decisions in favor of clarity and conciseness. --Nemonoman (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In the Valmiki Ramayana and the Rig Veda, Ila was a king who was cursed by Shiva and Parvati to be a woman due to his wandering into Parvati's sacred grove, where she and her handmaidens bathed, or into a forest where Shiva and Parvati made love. Ila's brothers prayed for the curse to be lifted, and in response his curse was reduced to an alternating gender: He was a man one month and a woman the next. When changing sex, he lost his memory of being the other gender, and was called Sudyumna as a male and Ila as a female. During this period, Ila married Budha (the god of the planet Mercury), who did not tell his wife of her alternate existence as a man. In the Ramayana, Ila bore Budha a son , Pururavas, although in the Mahabarata Ila is called both mother and father of the child. Some time after the birth, sages prayed to Vishnu to lift the curse, and Ila was totally changed into a man and went on to father several children with his wife.[20][21][22] In another legend, Ila is described as born to Manu (the proginator of mankind) and his wife after praying to Mitra-Varuna. Instead of the desired son, Mitra-Varana sent them a daughter, as they had failed to offer the appropriate sacrifice. Mitra-Varuna eventually changed this baby into a boy.[22]

"due to his wandering into Parvati's sacred grove, where she and her handmaidens bathed, or into a forest where Shiva and Parvati made love." Can't this summarized, like For some offence"?
" although in the Mahabarata Ila is called both mother and father of the child. " Does this add much to the info?
"In another legend, Ila is described as born to Manu (the proginator of mankind) and his wife after praying to Mitra-Varuna. Instead of the desired son, Mitra-Varana sent them a daughter, as they had failed to offer the appropriate sacrifice. Mitra-Varuna eventually changed this baby into a boy.[22]" Is this the same Ila? Or just another figure with the same name? The complex Ila story above is not much augmented by a story of a girl changed into a boy. I'd cut it. OTOH, If the "girl was changed to boy story is important", do the complete details of the origin add much value? --Nemonoman (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The reason for the curse is confusing, so could be shortened. I think mentioning Ila is called both mother and father is important, as it has LGBT implications. The source says the other Ila "may be the same person". I have no idea if that makes him less important - he is equivalent to the christian Abel in imortance i would guess. Would Abel having a sex change be important enough in LGBT topics in Christianity? If not, then this can go too.YobMod 20:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Time to take the second Ila out. You are going through a lot of intro, explanation, etc., to say 'in another story, an individual named Ila is born a girl, but is changed into a boy by the god Mitra-Varana.' --Nemonoman (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Oki doke. Maybe it will go into an article on Ila later. Redtigerxyz mentioned creating one.Yob
I never got the time to fully expand the Ila article in my workspace, so have not put in the article space. See User:Redtigerxyz/Ila. All Ilas are the same. I will put in article space when I have made a full-fledged article. If anyone is interested to join in, he/she is most welcome for a joint creation and joint DYK. --Redtigerxyz  Talk  04:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
"In another legend, Ila is described as born to Manu..." This Ila is same as the Ila of the Ramyana, references available in User:Redtigerxyz/Ila. All tales call her the wife of Budha, though there are diff versions of her/his parenthood and ultmate fate.--Redtigerxyz  Talk  04:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I have it from a very reliable source, Jaya by Devdutt Pattanaik, that Budha himself was a transgender person, and it's puzzling why there's no mention of that fact in this article. I'm adding this bit of information since it is undoubtedly greatly significant to the topic. I would be interested to know if there is a reason for its omission apart from oversight. EDIT: I've replaced the paragraph with one which conforms with the source I gave, though in my opinion it summarizes the story pretty well, I would appreciate feedback. Nack314 06:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

There are several versions of the tale. The latest version added overtly concentrated on one version. Restore old version, which summarizes various versions. Redtigerxyz  Talk  15:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. However, the version in my source is still significant since it describes Budha as being transgender, which is nowhere reflected in the current article. Even if we do not go back to my version of the paragraph, I believe it is worth at least adding that factoid to the current paragraph. I'm adding one sentence without modifying the rest of the paragraph. Nack314 19:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicontributor0 (talk • contribs) 

The 2 sentences about Adi were removed as being unclear along with being Synthesis. It therefore needs rewriting, although it is certainly not synthesis. The source clearly links Vishnu's seduction of Shiva with Adi's failed attempt. From Pattanaik:
"Of course, only Vishnu has the power to enchant Shiva by becoming a woman. When a demon tries to do the same, he failed miserably. The Death of Adi (subtitle). The Demon Adi wanted to kill Shiva... (goes on to describe the plot)". 
Although before i only wrote tha Shiva kills Adi, he does this by anally raping him with lightning attached to his penis, which hasn't been included. I'll write it up, as i think we have no examples of rape as a punishment here yet for sexual/gender transgression. It should probably then go as a seperate paragraph, or would be too long. Mayn other sources, including Doniger go into detail about similar myths, which may be useful for later expansion.YobMod 21:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone find this to difficult to parse, if it goes in as a separate paragraph after the Mohini paragrpah? If introducing Adi like this is too abrupt, i can expand with why he wants to kill Shiva, and how he changes sex etc,:
Pattanuik writes that only Vishnu is capable of seducing Shiva by taking female form. When the (male) demon Adi tries to kill Shiva by taking on the form of Parvati, he fails. Adi planned to seduce Shiva into sex and kill him using the sharp teeth hidden in Adi's vagina. Shiva easily saw through the disguise and killed Adi by penetrating him with lightning.

Adi really has nothing to do with Mohini, and if you think Adi is a big deal, then give him a little section of his own. I can't imagine you include the the toothed vagina and not the lightning penis. I guess somebody would find this whole story very LGBT, etc.
Verification check and WP EDITORIAL
The part of "anally penetrating him with lightning" caught my attention and this phrase does not exist in the original book either; Also note that Pattnaik uses "placed a thunderbolt on his manhood" which is clearly different from "anally penetrating". Also note that Pattnaik does not use the raw word(s) either and settles with a euphemism. Also above, its better to avoid "of course" / "In fact" etc., ( see avoiding editorial opinions ) --Nvineeth (talk) 07:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Shiva places a thunderbolt on his own manhood, before having sex with him, and thunderbolt is another word for lightning. The source says: He [Shiva] placed a thunerbolt on his manhood, and Penetrated Adi". We can just quote that directly? There are dozens of sources for this story, although i only used a citation from one source. It seems to be commonly covered even in general book on Hinduism, so i'll find more details before adding it as a separate paragraph. God inside out: Śiva's Game of Dice compares Adi's sexual variance with another demon (Andhaki), and discusses the meaning of the gender change and also the changes into symbolic forms in between, so a paragraph on that would seem warranted. I tried to keep it as short as possible, but that seems to make readers think it to be an unimportant or trivial addition. I didn't use the works "of course" nor "in fact", so don't understand what problem you see with the suggested paragraph. Feel free to edit it fir clarity and remve any perceived editoralising.YobMod 19:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The "Of course" part was reference to the paragraph you have typed at the beginning of this section. The "fact" was indeed reference to the sentence in the article in the previous versions of this article. This is what I was referring to --Nvineeth (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This is too much, or not enough. The reason Aravan was fated to die doesn't appear to have much bearing on the Krishna story. This was in order to give Aravan the chance to experience love before his death, as he had volunteered to be sacrificed in place of Krishna or his father Arjuna. The death was necessary as Aravan's uncle Sahadeva had predicted that success in the war would only be possible if a "perfect male" was sacrificed.--Nemonoman (talk) 04:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Third sex -- or third gender?? Can the article settle on one usage or the other and stick with it throughout? --Nemonoman (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind which. "Sex" is more scientific.YobMod 19:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Is this right? Shamba dresses in women's clothes in order to seduce women -- to seduce women??--Nemonoman (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

He dresses as a woman to get close to women, and then seduces them. We could just remove seduce and leave it as "trick".YobMod 19:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Few things need clarification :

"...link to Ardhanarishvara gives LGBT people in mythology magical connotations"-- what sort of magical connotations? This sentence does seem out of place... It tends to suggest that "All LGBTs around the world derive magical connotations because of Ardhanarishvara"; I think even Nemonoman has raised few concerns with this.
I have no idea what magical connotations, it is just what the source said. I think it is useful to show that these are not jst stories, but religious beliefs that impacts the real world. Could be moved to the ciritical analysis section?YobMod 19:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I removed this sentence, which seemed to be WP:Synthesis or WP:OR, at least without greater elucidation -- but my delete was reverted. Unless it's adjusted, I think it should go. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Update: -- just saw Nvineeth's edit -- I think this fixes it. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
"The two wives, with great affection for each other, executed Shiva's order" --- either we must put "with great affection" (if present in the original text within quotes) or remove this. I could not find "great affection" in p.101 ( just gave a quick glance), the phrase "with great affection for each other" can simply be written as "made love".
--Nvineeth (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Can be removed imo. I didn't write this, it came from another page.YobMod 19:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Conner and Sparks write that the link to Ardhanarishvara gives LGBT people in mythology magical connotations.
I've looked at if for at least 10 minutes total, and I have no idea how to parse it. 

What is 'the link'? What is being linked to what, and what is the nature of the link? There are no antecedents for 'the link'.
What are LGBT people in mythology? Is those supposed to mean gods/heroes who have changed sex or etcera'ed? Do we now refer to these gods/heroes as LGBT people?
What are magical connotations? What does magical mean in this context? Even more unexplained and supernatural that the sex-changes, shape-shifting, etc, that is overt in most of these stories?
I guess this means: Connotations are to be drawn (I guess) about LGBT people in mythology (I suppose) due to some link (I'm not quite sure what) between them and Ardhanarishvara (Maybe??) and the connotations are ? Magical? 
Help? --Nemonoman (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

On "Gender variance in heroes"
Exactly the same type of questions surfaced in my mind; This sentence seems out of context in that para. I also see problems with another such sentence :

His assumed name Brihannala, which means "big reed" is described as a "phallic joke" by Wendy Doniger, who also writes that Arjuna's description as the "world's best ambidextrous archer" is a joking reference to bisexuality, although she points out that Arjuna avoids any sexual interaction with men while in drag.

Now this is quite some information to digest, lets dissect part by part.

what is the link between "reed"and "phallus" and how is this a joke? Freud ( the father of psychoanalysis ) had several ways to correlate a symbol with sexual thoughts etc., this was probably a reference to this, but without any explanation, this part is incomprehensible. To me this part is as ambiguous as a famous statement of Freud : "Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar", but when this cigar can become a phallus nobody knows!
what is this "joke" ?
How does "ambidextrous archer" correlate to bisexuality?
If he was bisexual, then he should have had sexual interaction with men and women, but he avoid this as described in the last part, which in turn proves that he was not bisexual, but was rather a transvestite.... sort of petitio principii; isn't it?
I will be removing this part as well, pls provide clear context, links and then add it back. 
--Nvineeth (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be putting it back, I think. The news is not about Arjuna, but about Doniger. In the intro:
modern scholars and queer activists have highlighted LGBT themes in lesser known texts, or inferred them from stories that traditionally are considered to have no homoerotic subtext. Such analyses have caused disagreements about the true meaning of the ancient stories.
This looks like a pretty good example of the sort of analysis, yes? I agree 100% that Doniger's analysis deserves a Big Fat "F" -- or maybe an E for Effort. But this is what the controversy is about, yes? --Nemonoman (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, no probs, but some clarification is definitely needed; ( I think Yobmod can provide this ) At least the last part with reference to bisexuality is sort of petitio principii; When I get time, I will go thru the book and try to clarify this one. --Nvineeth (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Second thought: the reference might belong in the Critical Analysis section on Doniger. But the more I look at it, the less certain I am that it belongs in either place. D is a bit of a broad-stroke fuzzy thinker, if this is characteristic of her comments. Like the hero of Idiocracy I'm  Not sure. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Being neither Hindu, nor part of the LGBT community, I fear that I may not be aware of loaded words or subtle POVs that may be present in the last two sections. I'm doing a thorough copy edit of the article, as it seemed tough to chew through in its first-pass state. When I look at the last two sections, red flags go up in my brain. I'm sure that there are sensitive toes waiting to be stepped on all over those sentences. So I would appreciate help as I edit that we step on as few as possible. 
Please, please please assume good faith of my edits of these sections: I am accepting 100% of hinduism and LGBT people, but I am a middle-aged american white man, so I am bound to make a lot of insensitive mistakes. With your help, fellow editors, these won't stay in place for long. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, please don't tell "Please, please please" , we know that your edits are in good faith and ever since you have started the review I see several improvements. You can list the issues here or simply mark them inline in the article. We will look forward for it. Thanks --Nvineeth (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted this material. It's about whether Ganesha is oedipal or incestuous: interesting but off topic.
Feminist critic Chanul Chakrabati, in From Myths to Markets: essays on Gender does not infer any homoerotic subtext Ganesha's conception or later celibacy and association with the Ganas, but considers them to be instead Oedipal and incestuous. Yuvraj Krishnan writes that the interpretations of Ganesha as Oedipal and incestuous is based on a misunderstanding of the Oedipal complex and there are significant differences in the legends of Ganesha and Oedipus.
I'm also thinking about removing other items from the "
Same-sex sexual interactions" section that aren't about 
Same-sex sexual interactions.--Nemonoman (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

For neutrality, "Feminist critic Chanul Chakrabati, in From Myths to Markets: essays on Gender does not infer any homoerotic subtext Ganesha's conception or later celibacy and association with the Ganas" should be included. --Redtigerxyz  Talk  16:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

And ready to pass this as a GA. Please comment on the GA nomination page here.--Nemonoman (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Bhishma was born as the youngest son of the illustrious King Shantanu by Ganga. (as seen here.) Which explains, or at least suggests, why Amba had to undertake austerities to exact a revenge over lifetimes, against a man who was granted the boon of choosing the hour of his death. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Amba as a woman is unable to seek revenge from Bhishma, Bhishma is described as a human child born to a goddess and a human king. He is a mortal. Calling him "semi-divine" ("Not fully divine but more than mortal, as a demigod in Greek mythology,") is objectionable.--Redtigerxyz  Talk  05:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
OK. I stand by it, but I'm not ready to fight over it. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"  Agni, the god of fire, wealth and creative energy, has same-sex sexual encounters that result in birth." is a POV interpretation of Conner and Sparks. In all tales, the seed of Skanda (semen of Shiva) is result of the sexual union of Shiva and Parvati. Agni is only described as transporter of the semen to the foster mother(s) of Skanda. In no scripture, it is as a "same-sex sexual encounter" (a Sanskrit exists for it). It is NOT the so-called same-sex sexual encounter that results in birth, the sexual union of the divine couple that results in the seed. --Redtigerxyz  Talk  05:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If my new edit didn't fix your concern, please fix as you see fit. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Your edit balances all POVs. --Redtigerxyz  Talk  16:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


### Agni / Skanda fact check
Can anyone confirm that Connor and Sparks ref describes Agni accepting Shiva's semen. The Encyclopedia Britanica article describes the "seed" as deposited in "the fire", so it's easy for me to confirm that this is not OR, but if I suppose it's right to assure that the citation provides the reference. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Its from the book called Ka by robert callesso  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.181.162 (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC) 

"LGBT" is the self-designation of a US subculture. The article presents no evidence of secondary sources that discuss the relation of said subcuture to Hindu mythology, making the article apparent {{synthesis}}. In particular, "LGBT" is  not synonymous with  "homosexuality". If this article is supposed to discuss Hindu mythology and homosexuality, it should be titled accordingly.
Likewise, "LGBT" is not synonymous with "gender".  If this article is supposed to discuss Hindu mythology and gender in general (for which I am certain there will be plenty of sources), it should be titled accordingly.
I get three (3) google book hits for +LGBT +"Hindu mythology". In two of these, the co-occurrence is incidential, leaving me with a single source,  Jessica DeKuiper, Reading Hindu texts for queer phenomena‎[1]
If this is going to be an article about the LGBT subculture and its "readings" of Hindu mythology, it should be based on corresponding sources. The DeKuiper reference would be a start, but it will not be sufficient to satisfy inclusion criteria ({{onesource}}). I am tagging this article for the time being, to see if these issues are going to be addressed. --dab (𒁳) 14:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This article talks about Lesbian, gay, Bisexual, transgender (LGBT) themes in Hindu mythology. Transgender (Aravanis, HIjras) are part of folk Hinduism for a long time. The queer refers to LBGT. Transgender do not put under the category of  homosexuality. This article has been reviewed for GA by User:Nemonoman and User:Nvineeth, who have analysed the article for WP:OR and synthesis etc. The references are WP:RS and deal with LBGT topics like  "Transsexualism, gender, and anxiety in traditional India, Cassell's Encyclopedia of Queer Myth, Symbol and Spirit, . The man who was a woman and other queer tales of Hindu lore (by an Indian Hindu author). --Redtigerxyz  Talk  16:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
There are several articles in WP about LGBT themes in various mythologies, so your concern is not specific to this article, and it is wrong to make an example of this one. The article addresses much more than homosexuality in Hindu Myth: it specifically addresses female-female relations (the L in LGBT), male-male (G), bisexuality (B) and gender transformation (T). So I think the LGBT title is supported by its content. The article uses plenty of citations, and is not a synthesis. You seem to suggest that LGBT is a synthesis, and so the article is therefore synthetic -- A good point, but one that deserves arguments on a wider playing field than this article provides. I am not particularly swayed by your google point. There are many citations and references to the matters at hand. I'm sure you could find more hits with "Homosexuality Hindu mythology", etc. But to create a 4 articles -- one for each item of concern -- which would provide more hits seems counterproductive. I suggest you go to the LGBT workgroup and tell them that they are US subculture and order them to disband. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
This article references a number of books on exactly this topic. There are no books i could find that were only about homosexuality or bisexuality - the sources cover all aspects of LGBT sexuality. The sources show that covering all the letters in LGBT has been done together, and not only by "LGBT subculture authors". "LGBT" in titles for such religion articles has been discussed extensivly, and LGBT themes or LGBT topics was the consensus standard decided by the LGBT project. Cutting this into seperate articles on only homsexuality and trangenderism would be to the detriment of readers, and cause more controversy imo (although i pushed for inclusion of much of the content, putting the content under a title of "homosexuality" would be POV and i am not comfortable with such a stance, and i doubt the hinduism nor LGBT project would be either).
Conner, Randy P. (1998). Cassell's Encyclopedia of Queer Myth, Symbol and Spirit. UK: Cassell. ISBN 0304704237. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Pattanaik, Devdutt (2001). The man who was a woman and other queer tales of Hindu lore. Routledge. ISBN 9781560231813. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Vanita, Ruth (2001). Same-sex love in India: readings from literature and history. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9780312293246. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Note that even the sources that seem to focus on one aspect (eg same-sex love above) actually cover homosexuality and gender changes, within the same source. Also, the above are not all LGBT authors. YobMod 19:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"Mythology" should be "legend", or "references", or something different, as these stories are well praised by scholars, who were non-hindus, for being supportive towards various themes. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

As I just commented on the Hindu mythology talk page, mythology is not a pejorative term in this context, and therefore myths can indeed be praised by scholars etc. If you still disagree, you can start a requested move discussion to invite greater input. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Just so long as Christianity, and their folklore literature (e.g. The Bible) and other religions are also classified under mythology. Otherwise, you can't say it's not pejorative.

It treats mythology as if it's fact. Folklore is interpretive. There is only so much factuality to be found. Anything involving homosexuality and gender is going to be controversial, and yet this article acts like this is a surprise (because interpretations that promote the idea that homosexuality was valued are controversial while the opposite isn't). Controversial to who? Here is an example of this silly language from the article: "Some LGBT interpretations of popular stories and characters have been controversial." Oh really? What a shock. British colonialism's homophobia, which continues to bear twisted fruit to this day, means it's surprising that anything that doesn't transform homosexual sex into "lions showing dominance" and other excuses is controversial. However, it's apparently not at all controversial to gay people or those who value their existence to claim things like people at any time in history had no idea that gay people exists. Hogwash. Gay people have always existed. I am not gay because I was born in America in 1976. I am gay because I was born gay, yet trained relentlessly from birth to be heterosexual by that culture. People need to think about how ridiculous it is to claim that cultures didn't know what homosexuality is, that it's some "modern" invention. BS. We've existed for as long as humanity has, and before. Homosexuality among primates is hardly rare, especially among bonobos. This article is hilarious when it goes to such lengths to legitimize claims that males eating each other's semen is "merely ritualistic, not homosexual". Give me a break. Yeah, they had no idea that same-sex acts are same-sex acts until someone "modern" came along. Yeah, those lions over there having sex, it's just a show of dominance. Tee hee. Those lions really like to show their dominance a lot, don't they? A zoo recently separated long-term a same-sex penguin partnership. Both birds became depressed and died. The zoo staff then claimed they had no idea that would happen. This is the willful blindness that gay people constantly face, and even gay birds. It's humorous but also grotesque. Maybe someone people will wake up and understand that gay people are born gay, period. We have always existed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.233.132.248 (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC) 

An important question that seems to be missing from this article is not whether or not the literature reflects the existence of gay, trans, and intersex people. The question is — how much has that reflection been censored. There is the false assumption that the situation is that the only thing occurring is that non-hetereosexuals are trying to superimpose "modern gayness" onto historical culture. What about the relentless censorship of us, not just because of the effect of British colonialism's homophobia "gift" to so many cultures, but also in terms of what people of the period did to censor? This constant nonsense about there not being words for our existence ignores the way slang tends to not be recorded officially. Just because censored documents don't include words for us doesn't mean there weren't words. Those words were probably various pieces of slang that were considered too vulgar to print. When it's the heterosexual dominant point of view that decides what kind of person you are, don't be surprised when your life is relegated to unprintable slang. People also are content to keep gay people invisible, often enough. I discovered that both of my parents assumed I'm gay when I was just a toddler. Yet, I went through my entire childhood tormented by having to do everything I could to hide my orientation — because that was expected. The climate for being out was not good at all. Not only did I feel betrayed when I discovered that they knew, it now makes sense of a lot of stuff like the attitude in this article. If a gay kid can get through his entire childhood and young adulthood without so much as a hint that his parents know he's gay it makes sense that gay people can be so easily elided from historical texts, texts that are considered authoritative enough to be written and stored by high-ranking people and organizations. Transgenderism and intersex are easier for people to deal with in mythology, too. It doesn't surprise me to see that more highlighted than plain gayness, especially male gayness. The most baffling thing for the dominant heterosexual patriarchal point of view is a relationship between male equals. "Who is the man and who is the woman?" That's the oldest question. Yaoi and other literature by and for heterosexuals forces gayness into male and female roles. Judging by yaoi there is no such thing as a gay relationship of equals. So, people need to remember that authors have selectivity. There may have been a dozen words to label gay people, none of which made it past the agendas of the writers. Even in literature allegedly about homosexuality you can find a complete elimination of egalitarian homosexuality. In Japan, it's also common for people to confuse gayness with transgenderism. Everything has to be about masculine and feminine, opposites attracting. If you're gay it's simply that you want to be the opposite sex so you can have a typical male-female relationship. It can't possibly be that you're attracted to men your age, with your height, your level of looks, your level of masculinity, etc. Since male-male egalitarian relationships undermine patriarchy it's no surprise that people still want to claim that there was ever a time, anywhere, on a large cultural scale that no one had any idea that gay people exist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.233.132.248 (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on LGBT themes in Hindu mythology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130827022633/http://galva108.org/deities.html to http://www.galva108.org/deities.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Brihannala.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)