= new reply since forum marked as read
Response to Photographer (Original post)
The op cites "Indian Country Today," which is a newspaper that reports well and has a good reputation but also publishes opinion pieces and discussion of disputed scholarship.
OP -- how about an actual link to your primary source?
There are definite ethnographically attested cases of specific nations and cultures having complex gender categories (to be clear, so does English and modern American culture "recognizes" diversity but also has conflict over it, so the romantic impulse in the op is utopian). Two-spirit is an attested identity category. But it certainly wasn't universal among New World aboriginals ("Native American" as a category comes much later than influence of European gender norms!).
The other side of this is that Western culture has not always been the same either, and ideas about gender identity have changed a lot over the last millennium or so (see Foucault's monumental "History of Sexuality"
. So contrasting a particular historical formation of western culture with a timeless primitive "other" is comparing unlike ontological categories.
This sort of New Age generalization creates a stereotype of Native people. It doesn't have any bearing (or much, anyway, there's a little movement in Indian country to revive this stuff as modern LGBTQ politics) on the experience of modern living Native people. In fact homosexuality remains highly stigmatized in many Native communities and violence and rejection against LGBTQ Native people is a serious problem, as is HIV infection and economic and social marginalization.
The reality is complicated. These just so stories make it harder to see that reality.
But he existence of categories in a language doesn't simply map on to how those categories are used in social life. Words for transgender and gay people have existed in European languages at least for centuries. Foucault writes about how they don't refer to the same things over time and across different contexts.
It's also important to note that the vast majority of modern Narive Americans do not speak an ancestral language at all or do so minimally, or only in ceremonial or intimate contexts. Most speak English and are members of the same cultural world as any American.
I guess the point of criticism of the OP here is that t creates an idealized and universal and ahistorical version of Native culture (and fails to acknowledge the vast diversity of languages and cultures and practices in the pre-contact New World -- or today). Homophobia and LGBTQ as a protected social category with rights are both present in the cultural lives of Native Americans now. We are 400+ years into the colonial genocide and occupation of the Native New World. We can only really speculate about subjects like this "pre-contact" despite ethnographic descriptions of many traditional cultures dating back to the mid 19th century and less sophisticated accounts going back to the dawn of the invasion and occupation era (my preferred terms to "colonial," since it was the European powers that considered their theft to be "colonial" rather than "genocidal" .
Every culture in the world has gender-ambiguous members and words for that category, and has some degree of same-sex sexual behavior, sometimes ritualized or otherwise treated as a normal part of life. But every human culture also has a male/female binary at the heart of its social organization because we are mammals and that's how we reproduce, which is the most important work "culuture" does for us.
Many non-western cultures, including Amerindian and other indigenous ones around the world, also have historically stigmatized gender non-conformism or ambiguity or homosexual sex too. It's not just a Western thing.
It's an opinion piece, written by Duane Brayboy. It's interesting and not as simplistic as the "bipartisanreport.com" you linked makes it seem. Brayboy is not a scholarly expert on this subject, albeit he asserts a Tuscarora identity (North Carolina Iroquoian)
However, read the comments below (yes, "read the comments!"
for some strong (and in some ways homophobic) pushback from Native-identified respondents. Some positively reject this historical narrative as applied to their cultures. 
