It Takes Gendom To Become A Third-Gender Mayor

The election of Madhu Kinnar as the mayor of Raigarh, in the central Indian state of Chattisgarh, is interesting.


As you may know by now, she is the transgender--though not, as some have reported, the first such person elected to public office in India.  Two other trans mayors were elected before Madhu but court rulings removed them on the grounds that their positions were "reserved for women".


That brings me to a greater part of the significance of Madhu's election:  Just nine months ago, India's Supreme Court ruled that transgenders could be legally recognized as a "third gender" or "gender neutral".  Before that, "hijras" were outside the margins of South Asian societies, sometimes regarded as even lowlier than cisgender members of the lowest castes.


As a result, they were subject to extortion and all sorts of violence, even (and, some would say, especially) from the police and public officials.  Also, hijras had few employment opportunities.  So, they often were sex workers or did other kinds of illegal work which, of course, put them in even lower public esteem.  On the other hand, they were often asked to perform at public and sacred ceremonies such as weddings because tradition holds that they are devotees, or even descendants, of the goddess Bahuchara Mata, worshipped by Pavaiyaa or the South Indian goddess Renuka.


While the hijras were never a highly esteemed class, they had somewhat more status than they now have.  Experts often attribute the hijras' loss of what little prestige they had to the influence of Western notions about sex, gender and morality. 


Ironically, the first ripples in what could become a sea-change in the lives of people like Madhu may also be coming from Western influence.  Some argue that "transgender" is a Western concept.  Whatever it is, its current iteration is certainly different from ideas about hijra.  Traditionally, hijra were said to have deformed, or simply different, genitalia.  While that is no longer the (or a) working definition in all hijra communities, some still undergo a ceremonial deformation or removal of the testicles and scrotum. 


The old way of defining hijra is probably the reason why the term has often been translated into Western languages as "eunuch" or "hermaphrodite".  That makes sense when you realize that, until recently, nearly all definitions of gender identity had to do with whatever was or wasn't between a person's legs. (Why do you think they called it "sex"?)  Now, with about eight decades' worth of gender-reassignment ("sex change") surgeries having been performed, and changes in traditional gender role, definitions of "female" and "male" have more to do with psychology (or, sometimes, spiritual terms).  That, of course, is one reason why many trans people choose not to have the surgeries in spite of the fact that the state of male-to-female work has improved markedly, and why people like me see our surgeries as "the icing on the cake" rather than the very thing that defines us as being in the gender in which we live.


But most of us--I include myself--still check the "F" or "M" box.  I did what I did in order to live as a woman, the way I see myself, although I also understand that I came to live by my identity as a woman in a way very different from the way most other women do.  It is for that reason that I fully support anyone who decides to live outside of the "gender binary", as Pauline Park calls it. 


And, it seems that India has made that a legal option.  So, perhaps, the subcontinent has not merely been influenced by current Western notions about gender and sexuality--it has gone beyond them.  It will be very interesting to see how that  affects the lives of trans people, and everyone else, in India--and whether other countries decide to follow its example.  Perhaps mayors of genders we can't even define--or outside of the notion of gender altogether--will be elected.  How would that change politics, and life?

Seat Belt Safety Video: Good For Trans People?

A few weeks ago, I wrote about a ruling from India's Supreme Court that says, in essence, that transgenders are a third gender.  This, I believe, is both good and bad:  On one hand, people do not have to be bound to the gender binary that prevails in most cultures.  On the other, such a law can make further stigmatization--particularly of the hijra--possible.


In that context, it's especially interesting to see hijra in a new video urging drivers to use their seatbelts. In it, transgender actors mimic airline flight attendants giving an in-flight safety demonstration. 


Most likely, the actors were chosen because in traditional South Asian cultures, hijra were believed to possess special powers and, for that reason, were asked to bless births and marriages and are, to this day, sometimes found blessing motorists in return for cash.


On the other hand, that is one of the reasons why hijra have been stigmatized:  People fear those very same powers.  However, it must be said that the most virulent prejudice against them has come as India has become more Westernized.


And, another reason why the video might not be such a boon to gender-variant people is that it casts trans people in one of the most stereotypically female--or, more precisely, feminine--roles: that of a stewardess.  Then again, some might regard that as a validation of us as women.


In any event, here's the video:

A Third Gender In India

Quite possibly the most revolutionary piece of legislation regarding gender identity and expression was passed two years ago in Argentina.  In essence, it says that any Argentinian aged 18 or older can live as whichever gender he or she chooses. It also authorized doctors, surgeons and other medical professionals to provide the necessary care for those who chose not to live in the gender to which they were assigned at birth.  And, for those who couldn't afford those treatments and therapies, the government would foot the bill.

Now something arguably as radical--or, perhaps even more so--has happened in India.  A couple of days ago, that country's Supreme Court ruled that transgenders are a third gender.  So, for starters, all official forms must allow for trans people to indicate their gender as such, just as males and females check off the boxes that correspond with their sex.  It also allows transgenders to receive government benefits and partake of the social programs to which the rest of the country's citizens are entitled.

On one hand, I am pleased with this development.  Although I identify as female, and would continue to do so even if I were offered the option now available in India, I do not believe that people should be bound to the gender binary if they feel it's inappropriate for the way they identify and express themselves.  

On the other hand, given India's history with transgender people, this development could be troublesome.  I am thinking specifically of the hijra, who are both venerated and stigmatized in the subcontinent's cultures.  

Traditionally, hijras lived outside of the gender norms of Indian society and were believed to have special spiritual (and paranormal) abilities cisgenders don't have.  So, they were often called upon to officiate at weddings, funerals and other ceremonies and to cast, or cast away, spells.  But, even with such a status--which, for the most part, they've lost as India has become more influenced by the West--they were still very poor and begged or even engaged in sex work.   To this day, people give them money simply because they don't want to take the chance that a spurned hijra will send some dark enerty their way.

Given such a history, I have to wonder whether India's new ruling might actually further stigmatize the hijra, as well as other trans people.  I can't help but to think about a trans woman who was a hijra in India and was seeking asylum here.  From what she told me, even though some people still believe hijras have special powers, they can be killed with little or no penalty to those who kill them.  And, according to this trans woman (who will remain nameless, for obvious reasons), many men in her native country "accept" trans people insofar as they can use us sexually, or simply as lurid curiosities.

I guess time will tell what how the Indian Supreme Court's ruling will affect the lives of trans people. 

Third, Or Not Specified

Lately I've read a couple of interesting gender-related stories.  One comes from Nepal, the other from Australia.


In the conservative Himalayan nation, which was a monarchy less than three years ago, this year's census will include a "third gender" category. This action came as a result of an order from that country's Supreme Court  mandating that the government encact laws to protect transgender people.


I think it's interesting that such things should happen in such a conservative country.  Then again, Spain, which was considered one of the most conservative and staunchly Catholic countries in Europe, if not the world, legalized gay marriage a few years ago.  So, a couple of years ago,  did Iowa, which--depending on whose definition you accept--is at least partially in the Bible Belt.


So why would jurisdictions not known for being avant garde do something that sanctions what many of its citizens oppose, at least in theory?


I think that answer can be found at least in part in something a Nepalese official said about being able to count and locate transgender people.  Governments everywhere like to keep tabs on people. And conservatives like order, or at least the appearance of it.  I am reminded of something that a Dutch minister once said about his country:  Its "liberal" policies, like the legality of marijuana, are actually rooted in the deeply bourgeois Calvinism that defined the country for centuries.  Nobody, he explained, likes order more than a Calvinist, or someone who's been influenced by Calvinism.  So, he said, by legalizing marijuana and prostitution, providers and customers are no longer criminals and are instead citizens who are bound by the responsibilities of, and entitled to the protections of, Dutch civil law.  In other words, the government can keep some kind of control over them.


That, by the way, one reason (along with having a gay daughter) why Dick Cheney has voiced his support for gay marriage, while Barack has not.


Speaking of control:  How much of it can anyone have over someone who's gender is "not specified?"  That's the case of  Norrie, a 49-year-old Australian who was born male and had gender reassignment surgery twenty years ago.   Norrie, who goes by only one name, was "ecstatic" about surgery but frustrated over having to take hormones and over dating men who, when they "found out I was a trannie, told me I wasn't female."  Some of them threatened violence.


Finally, Norrie decided "Nobody can define me as male, and nobody can define me as female."  Two doctors agreed and, as a result, Norrie now has papers that say "Sex Not Specified."    


In one sense, I'm happy to see this.  I have long felt that there are more than two genders.  While I am female in my mind and spirit, I know that some things about me are, and will always be, male.  Some have to do with my experiences, but I think that others have to do with innate characteristics.  I am content, and in many ways comfortable, in living as what most people would see as a straight woman (even if I am, in fact, bisexual).  I claim my right to so live; at the same time, I support the right of people to be more androgynous or to live by whatever else their gender identity and sexuality might be.


On the other hand, the ruling puts Norrie in a bind:  Her gender identity, while unbound from the gender binary, is still defined by the government, which could (at least in theory) change Norrie's status as it sees fit.  Keeping Norrie and other people dependent on a government to define who they are can't be anything but limiting.  Under those circumstances, how does one travel, particulary to a place that rigidly enforces the gender binary and still outlaws all forms of sex that don't involve a man getting on top of a woman.  


Still, I think that the Australian Government's issuing documents in your name without the gender distinction is one the better things that could have happened for a lot of people.Some day, perhaps (though probably not in my lifetime) people will have the liberty as well as the means to live by whatever they think is right for them.