Did heterosexuality exist in the Americas before 1492?

[Kingpoleon]

Heterosexuality and homosexuality have obviously existed since time immemorial in the sense that there have always been people who are only interested in sleeping with members of one sex, but people in most societies would have understood those preferences as behavior patterns rather than personal identities prior to roughly the High Victorian era.

Worth noting that two-spirit identity as young Native Americans talk about it today is a "pan-Native" concept that wasn't present in every individual pre-contact society.

It is hardly surprising that anti colonialism thinking perpetuates pan-Native Americanism, as it is naturally a paternalistic concept that view them not as savages who need to be civilized, but weak children who need to be protected.

[Kingpoleon]

Gender and sexuality are not social constructs, and even if they were, that would not be a sufficient argument to show that we ought to deviate from or abandon them.

I would somewhat dispute the latter. Sexuality can only not be a social construct if it is innate and present when born. Whereas it generally manifests during puberty, it is highly unlikely that society has no influence upon it.

[Kingpoleon]

I was clearly referring to the natives of the United States with that remark. I have been to the pyramids in Mexico and climbed them myself.

Are you unfamiliar with the Mississippian mounds? Cahokia was an entire city built upon high, man made mounds, the largest of which was as big as a pyramid. It was fairly close to Saint Louis, and at its height, was slightly larger in population than the contemporary city of London.

[Kingpoleon]

Unless I am incorrect, the extent to which we can call those "permanent structures" is debatable. Most of those structures are now gone, and those that remain have become increasingly overgrown to the point that they resemble grassy hills. Not exactly Giza.

They have been purposefully flattened for agriculture and housing in the past, but to call them non permanent is rather odd for a structure that’s been standing for over a thousand years. And it was an urban area equivalent to the largest in contemporary Europe.

A mound made of earth rather than rock or metal is unusual for a structure, but that doesn’t make it “not a structure.” Many of our oldest cities appear on mounds unintentionally built over thousands of years as a new city was built on the old. This was a city that could survive extremely high floods; in fact, it was better suited for floods than virtually any of its contemporary cities in the Old World.

What’s more, the movement of such vast amounts of earth is very, very difficult, and it is a feat comparable to a smaller version of Giza. Unlike almost all pyramids, it functioned as a place to live, as an extension of how much land the city had. It was very similar to the tactics used in the Raising of Chicago, in that it increased drainage (very important for urban areas), protected from floods, and, unlike the latter, increased the area of livable land.

[Kingpoleon]

The correct geographical descriptor for this wonderful site is not “close to St. Louis,” but rather “in Illinois.”

Illinois did not exist in the Americas before 1492.