I appreciate this article's effort to dismiss the fallacy of "Indian" uniformity within all places throughout the continent, or for that matter within a single tribe. It is a dehumanizing act of fetishism to paint such broad and careless brush strokes. Perhaps this is the fundamental problem with much of the classical anthropological discourse. It is perhaps, however, worth noting that, indeed, some indigenous nations did hold particular special roles for 3rd gendered (or whatever term we want to use) individuals. As a case in point, when I asked my traditional Lakota auntie in her 70s what gay meant she corrected my vocabulary by referring me to the Lakota notion of winkte and explained that such people hold a special relationship in the tribe as persons with unique spiritual ties (she gave more detail, but I'll avoid that here). Whether that remains true today in its integrated role in society (rather than its "acceptance" or "tolerance") is another matter. For other indigenous nations those traditions might never have existed, or if they did, might have been lost in the rampage of colonization, both scenarios are certainly plausible. Perhaps the starting point for creating new traditions is still to turn around and consider the past. For whatever its worth, I would think that the oral history is the most vital and indispensable resource for trying to piece these things together.