Who Is Takatāpui? Māori Language, Sexuality and Identity in Aotearoa/New Zealand
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Keywords: Homosexuality, language, identity, indigeneity Ka ngaro reo, ka ngaro taua, pera i ngaro o moa If the language be lost, man will be lost, as dead as the moa --Maori proverb presented at the Waitangi Tribunal on the Te Reo M[Symbol Not Claim (1986)IntroductionIn Aotearoa/New Zealand(1) the dominant language of everyday life for the majority of the country's population is English. It is also a society in which gay is the most commonly utilized term for in public institutions such as the government and media as well as in more informal day-to-day conversations. However, New Zealand is also home to an indigenous population known as M[Symbol Not who consist of approximately 15% of the national population (Te Puni K[Symbol Not Transcribed]okiri: 2000, 13). Prior to colonization, the M[Symbol Not spoke a language which is today referred to as te Reo M[Symbol Not Transcribed]aori (the M[Symbol Not language; sometimes referred to as Reo), although in contemporary Aotearoa, it is estimated that only between 4 and 8% of the M[Symbol Not population are fluent in this language. According to most reports, despite a major language revitalization movement spanning over 20 years, Reo M[Symbol Not remains in danger of disappearing or being reduced to a language of ritual only.However, in M[Symbol Not media and in discussions with a number of M[Symbol Not individuals and groups(2) over the past five years, I have noted an increase in the use of a Reo M[Symbol Not term--takat[Symbol Not Transcribed]apui--as a way of identifying oneself as homosexual and M[Symbol Not Transcribed]aori.(3) The increasing presence of this term raises a number of questions about language in relation to sexual and other identifications: How does language figure in the negotiation of same sex desires and identities amongst an indigenous group who live as a minority in an Anglo-European colonized society? How central is language to these negotiations? Are there distinct forms of same sex talking and text-making amongst this group whose primary language is that of the colonizer and whose native language is only spoken fluently by a minority? Is language the primary boundary marker for sexual and ethnic identifications? What other socio-political boundaries does language interact with (or transgress) in identity-making projects?This article is an introductory investigation into questions addressing the complex relations between sexuality, language and identity in Aotearoa. I am particularly interested in teasing out the socio-political implications and linguistic practices of identity discourses, and analyzing the multiple interpretative possibilities that occur when a subaltern or minority language (or specific terms derived from that language) is utilized in relation to sexual identification in a postcolonial settler society. I argue that while the development of minority language terms to replace English sexual terminologies and the insertion of these terms into predominantly English language contexts are empowering for some, there may be others who do not agree with or feel comfortable utilizing this terminology for a variety of reasons. The different reactions to just one minority language term for sexual identity that are presented here indicate the complex relations that individuals of a minority group have with issues of identity and sexuality in a society created through colonization.This paper therefore not only underlines a foundational principle in sociolinguistic inquiry--that language is a key domain of struggle over difference and inequality and a means of conducting that struggle (Heller, 2001)--it also contributes towards a more nuanced understanding of the generation of terms for sexual identities, or to put it slightly differently, it highlights the intersectional character of sexuality through analyzing how sexual subjectivities are linked to language. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it