the turn of the nineteenth century, Europeans referred to same-sex relationships as the “Persian disease,” the “Turkish disease,” or the “Egyptian vice.” In an interesting reversal, many conservative voices in Muslim contexts nowadays attribute homosexuality to “Western depravation”—and call for sanctions. This shift in homophobic discourse demonstrates that the construction of “sexual difference” may vary significantly, shaped as it is by historical and political considerations. It used to echo advocates of colonialism, who sought justification for imperialist expansion in “native” perversions.
Now, it serves the interests of the Muslim Religious Right, which (selectively) denounces globalisation as a source of social evils to better silence alternative opposition. Sustained pressure by feminist and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) activists has succeeded in bringing the issue of “sexual diversity” to the forefront. Yet the recent past is marked by both landmark achievements and worrying trends. This paper explores the last decade—from the early 1990s onwards—and recalls some of the gains made at the global level. It also examines how these gains are currently threatened by the strengthening of the Religious Right. While the focus is specifically on Muslim contexts, Muslim fundamentalists’ efforts need to be located alongside those of their not-so-strange bedfellows, such as the Vatican and the Christian Right.
The long, winding road to emancipation
One major global trend emerging from the current situation has actually been positive: sexual diversity is no longer invisible. Legislators have started protecting the rights of sexual minorities—at least on paper. In recent years, South Africa and Ecuador became the first countries to expand the basis for discrimination to include sexual orientation, and to incorporate anti-discrimination provisions in their Constitutions (New Internationalist, 2001).
However ambivalent one might feel about the inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) personnel in the military or about the struggle for “gay marriages,” it is still a measure of equality that several countries now recognise same-sex couples’ civil partnerships. Although these countries are overwhelmingly Western, activists in Vietnam and Mexico are lobbying for similar changes.1
Medical authorities had to give in too: in 1992, homosexuality ceased to be listed as a disease by the World Health Organisation (WHO). However, transsexuality remains stigmatised through the diagnosis of gender identity disorder (GID), which is still considered a mental illness today.
Activists were also successful in their efforts to broaden the human rights agenda so that it began to address various violations faced by LGBTI people. Mainstream human rights organisations took note—since 1991, Amnesty International’s mandate includes the protection of individuals persecuted on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Though established only a few years ago, the Human Rights Watch now has a dynamic LGBTI programme.
Issues of sexual rights and sexual autonomy have caught the attention of institutions like the United Nations (UN), particularly since the international world conferences of the nineties.2 In an unprecedented move, in 2001, no less than six independent UN experts and Special Rapporteurs issued a joint statement urging activists in LGBT circles to assist with documenting violations.
Such international developments could not have been achieved without the dedication of countless advocates, nor without the feminist and LGBTI organising that has taken place over the last decades—locally, nationally and regionally. But while LGBTI legal rights slowly become more socially acceptable, the discrimination and persecution have not disappeared—far from it. Although LGBTI people’s visibility is on the rise in many parts of the world, the discourses of religious extremism are also increasingly powerful. The growing influence of the Religious Right constitutes another major trend in the global arena.
Beaten by backlash?
Homophobia remains state sanctioned in too many countries (Hélie, 2004), and the voices (and deeds) of “fundamentalist” extremists are instrumental in maintaining the status quo. At the local level, they also help provide legitimacy to those—state and non-state actors alike—committing human rights violations against LGBTI people. At the national and international levels, the Religious Right influences and shapes political agendas.
Manipulating deeply held notions of cultural identity is an effective strategy. The Religious Right (whether Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, etc.) would like us to believe that it promotes a return to “traditional values,” to the “fundamentals” of one’s faith. Rather, leaders of politico-religious movements promote conservative, highly selective interpretations of religion and identity in order to gain or maintain political power. The “traditions” invoked refer to a “pure” and ahistorical past, devoid of any trace of diversity (diversity of ethnic groups, of religious beliefs, sexual orientation, customary practices, or class are simply erased). The mythical “values” promoted are, in fact, those of nationalism, xenophobia, sexism, and homophobia. Therefore, it is not surprising that women, minorities, and LGBTI people are most vulnerable to fundamentalist right wing politics.
The January 2006 case of two LGBT groups being denied Consultative Status at the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) provides a striking example of coalition-building between the Christian and the Muslim Religious Rights at the UN level.3 When else are Iran and the US walking side by side? But the anti-gay stance is a battle each faction fights on its own turf as well. For example, Pope Benedict XVI recently denounced gay marriages as “a grave error.” In November 2005, he also approved a ruling barring homosexuals from priesthood, launching a witch-hunt within seminaries.4
The "traditions" invoked refer to a "pure" and ahistorical past, devoid of any trace of diversity ... The mythical "values" promoted are, in fact, those of nationalism, xenophobia, sexism, and homophobia.In Nigeria, the invocation of “indigenous values” allows for a framing of sexual differences of which the Pope would surely approve. As of January 2006, the government is discussing a bill that makes same-sex relationships and marriages illegal. Justice Minister Bayo Ojo stressed that offenders would face jail sentence, and justified the move stating, “It is un-African and the Holy books prohibit it.”5 Nigerian activists warn that advocacy work has de facto become a punishable offence and that the bill invites “widespread human rights violations of people suspected to be gay or working for gay rights.”
A piece written à propos of last year’s banning of the Vagina Monologues in Uganda confronts religious zealots with eloquent arguments that could also apply to Nigeria: “How can one talk of ‘African cultural and moral values’ in a continent that has tens of thousands of different ethnic and linguistic groups? What is ‘un-African’ about casual reference to the vagina when Karimojong and Dinka women walk freely naked and squat before their children exposing their vaginas? What is ‘un-African’ about homosexuality when...‘homosexuality was not only a condoned but also an actively encouraged’ practice among young males among the Bahima peoples of Ankole?” (Mwendo, 2005).
Fighting faggots and feminists
In Muslim contexts—among others—conservative leaders use (homo)sexuality in various ways. For example, it can effectively divert public attention from crucial domestic issues: the recent trial of 52 Egyptian alleged gay men has helped focus the public eye on another issue other than the ongoing economic recession. It is also handy in dismissing opponents: former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed imprisoned his main political rival Anwar Ibrahim on sodomy charges. Finally, it helps discredit any voice of dissent: in Tunisia in 1998, the government-controlled media challenged six feminist leaders regarding their marital status. The same women (from the Tunisian Association of Democratic Women, ATFD) were later accused of “undermining Islam as well as cultural and social values” (Rothschild, 2005, pp. 27-28). In May 1999, similar arguments were used by the Punjab Minister for Social Welfare to discredit Shirkat Gah, a Pakistani women’s collective accused of “promoting a culture of adultery” and being “responsible for the degeneration of society.”
It is made clear that sexuality and women’s rights cannot—ever—be a priority. Such issues are not meant to be on the agenda (any agenda): aren’t they, ultimately, a luxury of the elites, whether foreign or local?As the examples from Tunisia and Pakistan demonstrate, extremist politico-religious leaders resort to similar rhetoric when mobilising against women’s rights and LGBTI advocates.
The first argument is that homosexuality (or feminism) simply does not exist in Muslim countries. In March 1997, a university professor was dismissed because she had mentioned—in a private conversation with a student—her belief that there were lesbians in Kuwait. The female president of Kuwait University, who fired her, insisted, “Ours is a Muslim society and homosexuality is against Islam” (AHBAB, 1996-1997).
Next comes the claim that women’s (or LGBTI people’s) demands for equality are products of a foreign ideology, and should be rejected on that ground. LGBTI activists and feminists are systematically accused of being agents of a corrupted foreign power; hence, labeled a threat to the social order, to cultural purity as well as traitors to their nation, community, or faith. (Indeed, this is an argument used far beyond predominantly Muslim contexts, from India to China or Serbia.)
Finally, it is made clear that sexuality and women’s rights cannot—ever—be a priority. Such issues are not meant to be on the agenda (any agenda): aren’t they, ultimately, a luxury of the elites, whether foreign or local? At the 1995 Beijing Conference, attempts to introduce any reference to sexual orientation in the final document were obstructed by many Muslim states (as well as their Catholic allies); including Sudan, whose delegate insisted that: “This is something unnatural. The majority of women in the world are expecting us to deal with poverty and disease. We object to the presence of this term. This is a refusal, not a reservation.”
In fact, women are especially vulnerable to growing fundamentalism, indeed primary targets. As Radhika Coomaraswany, former Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, explains: “Communities police women’s behaviour. A woman who is perceived as acting in a sexually inadequate manner according to her community’s standards will be punished.” This is particularly true for lesbians and trans people in Muslim contexts, who are often at risk of persecution by non-state actors (including extremist politico-religious groups or their own relatives). A testimony from Jordan highlights this reality: “Very strong prejudices exist in Jordanian society, that are stronger than any legal prohibition. Lesbians are afraid of becoming visible.... The corner stone of social support in Jordan is the family unit—but in the case of a lesbian who would be open about her sexuality, it may well be her own family that can become guilty of violations against her” (Assfar, 2000, pp. 283-284). Turkish trans activist Demir Demet can also testify to the repeated assaults she faces from police forces.
Activism, dissidence, and resistance back home
Despite these repercussions, people fight back under the most oppressive circumstances. Because strategies are adapted to specific environments, there is a need to at least distinguish between those developed in Muslim countries and in the West (this already being an oversimplification).
LGBTI people located in predominantly Muslim contexts have begun organising relatively recently (some early birds started in the beginning of the nineties). Speaking out publicly takes a bit longer,
particularly for those from within socially and politically repressive societies. Sometimes, it is blatant discrimination that triggers resistance. However, the strategy of reclaiming public space requires not only seasoned risk assessment but also courage strengthened over the long term. For example, Lambda Istanbul, although active since 1993, organised its first Pride March in the Turkish capital a decade later—and at that time only 50 pioneers dared join.Visibility often carries a high price, from humiliation and accusations of betrayal to actual instances of violence, forced HIV testings, rapes, and even murders. Lesbian activism is even more of a challenge, but some are paving the way, such as newcomer Aswat in Palestine (whose future will be further endangered by the recent Hamas election victory).
In countries where being outed as a non-heterosexual is dangerous, people are reaching out to other LGBTIs via the Internet. While often a tool of the privileged, it does nevertheless provide a channel for exchange and solidarity...Despite the risks, support groups are now sprouting, although some still cannot operate openly. Over the last few years, Muslim LGBTI people are getting together in places as diverse as Morocco, Indonesia, Turkey, Malaysia, Jordan, Lebanon, Jerusalem, South Africa, Nigeria, Palestine, Dubai, or Saudi Arabia as well as in countries with large indigenous Muslim communities like India. Breaking isolation is the main priority. This is not a minor achievement when the majority of newcomers to a Muslim LGBTI gathering share their amazement at being able to meet people “like them”: “I always thought I was the only one like that.” In countries where being outed as a non-heterosexual is dangerous, people are reaching out to other LGBTIs via the Internet. While often a tool of the privileged, it does nevertheless provide a channel for exchange and solidarity (which can also be risky, depending on police monitoring).
Interestingly, the most repressive regimes are not necessarily the worst as far as expression of gender identity is concerned. Transsexuals in Jordan and Iran seem to be able to turn the strict gender binary division of society to their advantage,6 with some individuals actually getting support (including financial) from fundamentalist clerics for sex change operations (McDowall, 2004).
Activism, dissidence, and resistance—Surviving as the Other
For LGBTI people in the West, it might be easier to organise openly, but there are also specific difficulties to face. Acceptance by Muslim communities generally presents a challenge, particularly as older members of migrant communities might cling to values dating back from when they left their country of origin, while in fact these societies have changed in the meantime. This tendency is almost certainly encouraged by most community leaders (always male, and often conservative), who may well find that this helps their own authority to remain unchallenged. In addition, the very real issue posed by one’s complex identity, particularly in contexts far too often marked by racism, is not conducive to examining critically one’s own community. Furthermore, racism, stigmatisation, and isolation can lead some disenfranchised youth to become easy prey for the local fundamentalist brotherhood.
Acceptance by non-Muslim LGBTI groups is not a given either, even if one is deeply secular and only identifies as culturally Muslim. Often faced with a mixture of naive orientalism, paternalism, and Islam stereotyping, many stress that “it is almost as hard to come out as a gay in the Muslim community than it is to come out as Muslim in a gay group.”
Maybe as a result of this dual challenge, a number of specifically LGBTI Muslim groups are forming or further expanding in Europe and the Americas. These groups can be strictly faith-based or open to “LGBT Muslims and their friends”; they might focus on social gatherings or on political campaigning, or propose a mixture of activities; they might welcome people from a given ethnic/ regional background or invite all willing souls. Strikingly, many such groups point at the contradiction that many individuals do struggle with—but which mostly mirrors society’s discriminatory glance: “Being both queer and Arab is not easy in a world that discriminates against both” (AHBAB); “Gay and Muslim: Am I an Oxymoron?” (Al fatiha).7 Names such as Sawasiyah (“Equal” in Arabic) also state from the outset a desire for recognition and respect. The team behind a recent documentary on the lesbian and gay Middle Eastern community in the US simply—yet very powerfully—states, “I Exist” (Eyebite Productions, 2002).
Experiencing the need for “a room of one’s own,” women also embark on setting up women-only groups. For example, Bint el Nas devotes its website to “women who identify as LGBT and/or queer and who are identified ethnically and culturally with the Arab world”; they pledge “optimistic subversion” and seek to offer “a space to create something new: images of queer Arab women.” Assal (“honey” in Farsi) is a lesbian group based in the United States (both on the East and West Coasts), mostly functioning as a social support group. In the United Kingdom, the Safra-Project has grown since its birth in 2001, launching its website in 2003 and carrying research (especially with regards to service providers and how they can better accommodate the needs of lesbian, bisexual, and transgender [LBT] women) as well as organising meetings and asserting its presence in the media.
Collective strategies
The emphasis here is on activist organising from within Muslim countries and communities, as opposed to more structured efforts of non-government organisations
(NGOs) that are often based “abroad.” But this is not to suggest that the latter should in any way be dismissed. Indeed, linking to these structures and cultivating alliances with individuals in their midst is a valuable form of networking. Their relative prosperity also contribute to LGBTI’s global visibility: from timely mass faxing to fact-finding missions to holding international gatherings. Queer Muslims continue to benefit from the support of such allies. For example, in 2000, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) organised the symposium “Separation of Faith and Hate: Sexual Diversity, Religious Intolerance and Strategies for Change.”8 And the gay men jailed in Cairo are not entirely forgotten, thanks in part to documenting and advocacy work undertaken by Human Rights Watch.Strategies are designed or adapted according to existing political and social contexts. The diversity of strategies reflects the diversity itself of Muslim contexts: living in Saudi Arabia (where one can be sentenced to death on the ground of homosexuality) has different consequences than living in Mombassa, Kenya (where same sex relationships can flourish: for example, two women sharing a household is comparatively acceptable). The following is an examination of some general trends.
Herstory, History and H*story
As do many oppressed and marginalised groups, queer Muslims attempt to reclaim their past. Identifying one’s own “roots” is crucial both in terms of building a collective identity and in terms of asserting one’s historical legitimacy. A number of LGBTI people are therefore engaged in the search for a more inclusive “tradition” than what is promoted by politico-religious groups. They are looking for a past that acknowledges the existence of otherwise silenced minorities. While many traces of “indigenous” homosexual practices/ homoeroticism have been erased from mainstream history, examples can still be found.
In the twelfth century, a male scholar referring to the elites of the Muslim empires (that run from Syria to Morocco at the time) noted in a Medical Treatise published in Baghdad: “There are also women who are more intelligent than the others. They possess many of the ways of men, so they resemble to (sic) them even in their movements, the manner in which they talk, and their voice (…) This makes it difficult for her (sic) to submit to the wishes of men and bring her (sic) to lesbian love. Most of the women with these characteristics are to be found among the educated and the elegant women, the scribes, Koran readers and female scholars.”9
The Qu’ran is being examined by gay or gay-friendly theologians and believers in order to break the monopoly of male homophobic interpretation. To counter the myth of homosexuality being a foreign/ imported ideology, other groups and individuals are engaged in reclaiming homoerotic literature such as Sufi poet Jalaludin Rimu or the Ottoman “diwan literature.” Still others are involved in re-examining religious texts. The Qu’ran is being examined by gay or gay-friendly theologians and believers in order to break the monopoly of male homophobic interpretation.
Expanding political spaces and building alliances
Many Muslim countries are subjected to rather authoritarian rule, a context which in itself tends to limit the possibilities for LGBTI equality. Nevertheless, when progressive civil society gains space, queer Muslims (who might well have been part of pro-democracy efforts) are taking advantage of newly opened arenas in which to voice their specific concerns. For example, in 1999, the coordinator of an Indonesian national gay rights group noted that the fall of dictator Suharto had an impact on queer people’s visibility: “More people are coming out to their friends, writing in the media about gays and lesbian issues, even if under pseudonyms.”
Collaboration with like-minded groups is also a promising strategy. Coalition-building with other faith-based groups, or on an identity basis, allows for fruitful exchange of strategies and mutual support. As homophobic and conservative politico-religious leaders of various faiths invest in international alliances, so do people working for the advancement of LGBTI rights.One example of faith-based initiatives, among many other examples, is the loose yet sustained relationship that a Quaker gay support group had built with the local UK Al-Fatiha chapter (now Imaan).2 Sexual identity-based initiatives include, for example, the National Religious Leadership Roundtable which, in the US context, represents “leaders of over 40 faith-based organisations including Muslim, Hindu, Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, Mormon, Black Church, and other religious and spiritual traditions, in partnership with other justice-seeking groups.” In 2001, it issued a joint statement condemning “conversion” therapy and affirming that “gay, lesbian, and bisexual (GLB) individuals are an intentional and blessed part of Creation. Therapies to ‘convert’ or ‘repair’ a person’s orientation are misguided and should end. Such therapies deny the inherent holiness of GLB people.”
Another example is Larzish, the first film festival devoted to “sexuality and gender plurality” to take place in India. In 2003 and 2004, it brought together in Mumbai hundreds of queers from Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, Christian, and secular backgrounds. In addition, loose networks of activists collaborate internationally, especially around exchange of expertise in asylum cases.
As Muslim LGBTI movements develop, they are also more likely to be involved in collaborating with institutions. In 2000 for example, Al Fatiha UK was officially contacted by a police liaison officer, keen on documenting marriages imposed onto lesbians and gays. This opportunity might provide a way to tackle one major challenge: ensuring the accountability of states as well as non-state actors responsible for violations of LGBTI people’s human rights.
Broadening the western concept of “homosexuality”
One is often, implicitly or explicitly, asked to fit into one of the following frames: homo/hetero/bi. Trans and intersex activists have complicated the equation by adding gender identity to the sexual orientation picture—but, more often than not, individuals are still expected to “tick one box only.” Still, we seem to always conveniently forget celibates, who also very much challenge both heteronormativity and compulsory sexuality.
Overall, existing categories can render invisible other conceptions of sexual/gender identity, and also do not acknowledge that sexual expression might be fluid throughout one’s lifetime. For example, among Swahili Muslims of Mombassa in Kenya, “men and women shift over a lifetime between homosexuality and Fixed categories... seem too narrow to fully express the range of feelings and relationships people experience. heterosexuality. Lesbians and homosexuals are open about their behaviour. There are well-established rules for fitting them into everyday life.”
Fixed categories also seem too narrow to fully express the range of feelings and relationships people experience. For example, in the Sindh province of Pakistan, three words refer to a female friend: these distinguish between a “friend,” a “close friend,” and a “loving/physical relationship.” These categories can be seen as potential evidence of homoerotic behaviour, but it also reminds us that the “gay” concept and label does not necessarily always fit.
Reference to LGBTI is politically useful for coalition-building, lobbying and organising purposes because it brings together diverse people under a common umbrella. But it also excludes others who, although they engage in homoeroticism, do not identify as lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB). It also makes power structures rather invisible.
Building an LGBTI movement—in Muslim contexts as elsewhere—is not devoid of pitfalls. Indeed, class, caste, income, physical ability, health status, generation (youth/elders), ethnicity, and other factors continue to affect access to leadership positions, and to plain power. Above all, challenging norms associated with mainstream gender roles and gender identity does not necessarily bring about a challenge of gender hierarchies. It should therefore come as no surprise that many self-styled “LGBTI” groups are in fact dominated by gay men (some being truly blind about the privileges that masculinity, even alternative masculinity, affords them). The status of bisexuals, of intersex and trans persons and—let us not forget—of celibates, is still fragile within our movements.
It's up to us
There is a crucial need to be more inclusive of all LGBTI people. This requires a political awareness that can only come from an acknowledgement of the complexity within our lives. We can learn from feminist analysis and expand the reach of bell hooks’ statement that “there is no language that can articulate what it is to be penalised by one’s gender, even as one is privileged by one’s race and class” (Childers & hooks, 1990).
Collective strategies are the most difficult to put into place, but they are also the ones more likely to bring about change. Substantial gains can come from solidarity—real solidarity, like the one that bites and sings between the words of aboriginal activist Lilla Watson:
“If you came to help me,
You are wasting your time
And mine
But if you have come because your liberation is bound with mine,
Let us work together.”
References
AHBAB. News archives 1996-1997. Retrieved from AHBAB website <glas.org/ahbab/>.
AllAfrica Website. Retrieved January 18, 2006, from <allafrica.com/stories/20061190620.html>.
Assfar, A. (2000). Lesbians in Jordan: Yet we exist. In P. Ilkkaracan (Ed.), Women and sexuality in Muslim societies. Ystanbul: WWHR/New Ways.
Baird, V. (2001). The No-nonsense guide to sexual diversity. Verso.
Childers, M. & hooks, b. (1990). A conversation on race and class. In M. Hirsh & E. Fox Keller (Eds.), Conflicts in feminism. New York: Routledge.
Eyebite Productions. (2002). I exist [Documentary].
Hélie, A. (2004). Holy hatred. Reproductive Health Matters, 12(23), pp. 120-124.
McDowall, A. & Khan, S. (2004). The Ayatollah and the transsexual. The Independent (UK), p. 34.
Mwendo, A.M. (2005). What is un-African, when K’jongs, Dinka move naked? The Monitor (Uganda).
Rothschild, C. (2005). Written out: How sexuality is used to attack women’s organizing. S. Long & S. T. Fried (Eds). International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission & Center for Women’s Global Leadership.
Shaheed, F., with Lee-Shaheed, A. (2005). Great ancestors–Women asserting rights in Muslim contexts. Lahore: Women Living Under Muslim Laws (WLUML) & Shirkat Gah.
Vatican to check US seminaries on gay presence. (2005, September 15). NY Times. Retrieved from <www.nytimes.com/2005/09/15/national/15seminary.html?ex=1284436800&en=73c6f6c9030b19d6&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>.
Endnotes
1 South Africa has actually endorsed same-sex unions since December 2005. The Mexican concept is innovative as it seeks legal recognition of any type of shared households, no matter on which basis (sexual or otherwise) relationships are based.
2 These began with the 1994 Cairo “International Conference on Population and Development” and the 1995 Beijing “Fourth World Conference on Women.”
3 In January 2006, the applications submitted by the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) and the Danish Association of Gays and Lesbians (LBL) to obtain consultative status were denied. An ILGA press release (January 27) stated that Egypt and the Organization of Islamic Conference called on the United Nations (UN) to reject the two gay groups’ applications without a hearing (contrary to the Economic and Social Council’s normal procedure). The United States (US) voted alongside Iran, Pakistan, and Sudan to reject the ILGA and LBL applications, denying them a hearing.
4 The ruling concerns “anyone who has engaged in homosexual activity or has strong homosexual inclinations.” The restriction apparently apply to those who have not been sexually active for a decade or more. NY Times, September 15, 2005, “Vatican to Check US Seminaries on Gay Presence.”
5 <allafrica.com/stories/20061190620.html>, J anuary 18 , 2006; Same-sex unions were prompted by their recent recognition in South Africa. In Nigeria, the jail sentence can now be up to five years.
6 This is not to say that homosexual conduct is made easy: in Iran, it is defined as an offense carrying the death penalty. In the summer and winter of 2005, several public executions of male teenagers took place, allegedly because of their sexual orientation.
7 Al Fatiha is the pioneer gay Muslim organisation in the US, which has since expanded into a multi-city chapters network and now has an international reach.
8 The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission’s gathering brought about two dozen sexual rights advocates and faith leaders from different regions. We issued a common declaration that started as follows: “We, people of diverse sexuality and spiritual, religious and secular communities, come together from around the world. We issue a call for solidarity to end religiously motivated and perpetrated intolerance based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or HIV status.”
9 Haddad (a.k.a. Abu Nasr al Isra’ili). (2005). Ktab nuzhat al-ashab fi mu’asarat al-ahbab fi’ilm albah, Part 1, paragraphs 6-8). Cited in Wiebke Walther, Woman in Islam, (Monteclair, NJ, Abner Schram: 1981), 118. In F. Shaheed, Great Ancestors, Narratives Section, p.17. Lahore: Women Living Under Muslim Laws (WLUML) & Shirkat Gah.
PHOTOCAPTION
Photo by A. Hélie
Pakistani man, who offered workshops on gender identity (with a welcomed feminist perspective) at the Al Fatiha conference, joins the Pride March in San Francisco, June 2001.
Photo by A. Hélie
Activists at the World Social Forum in Mumbai (January 2004) put sexual rights on the agenda.
Photo by A. Hélie
Queer women assert their rights to equality and sexuality at the 2004 World Social Forum in Mumbai, India.
Bringing LGBT Concerns to the Forefront:Issues, Challenges, and Gains
ISIS International-Manila and the Women’s Human Rights Defenders (WHRD) Campaign
Summarised by Anna Kristina M. Dinglasan
Isis International-Manila (Isis-Manila), together with the Women’s Human Rights Defenders (WHRD) Campaign, convened a three-hour electronic forum (e-forum) on February 20, 2006. With the theme “Sexual Rights Advocacy and the Women’s and Human Rights Movements,” six women from the WHRD network came together with a moderator from Isis-Manila to attempt to locate the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) agenda in the women’s and human rights movements; to point 
out challenges and barriers that have prevented the building of alliances among women’s, human rights, and LGBT movements; and to identify directions for inter-movements work on the issue of sexual diversity.
The WHRD Campaign is a global initiative that intends to identify and expose gender-based violations and abuses against women human rights defenders as well as to strategise for more appropriate and gender-sensitive responses for the protection of these women. Started in 2005, the WHRD Campaign also focuses on the situation of LGBT activists targeted because of their identity and sexuality, and the rights they are fighting to uphold. The Campaign operates in solidarity with other international efforts to integrate sexual rights issues into the human rights agenda.
The e-forum was moderated by WIA guest editor Malu Marin, who is an Executive Committee Member of the Asia Pacific Rainbow, a regional network working to advance LGBT rights, and Executive Director of Action for Health Initiatives (ACHIEVE). The e-forum participants were: Inmaculada “Macu” Barcia, Manager of the Human Rights Defenders Office of the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) in Geneva; Mariana Duarte, Programme Manager for the Violence Against Women Programme of the World Organisation against Torture (OMCT); Susana Fried, expert on sexuality and human rights advocacy, and former Programme Director at the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC); Lisa Pusey, Programme Officer for Violence Against Women and Women’s Human Rights Programmes of the Asia Pacific Forum on Law and Development (APWLD); Cynthia Rothschild, Senior Policy Adviser of the Center for Women’s Global Leadership (CWGL) and expert on sexual rights; and Mary Jane “Jane” Real, coordinator of the WHRD Campaign and Isis-Manila Board Member.
Locating the LGBT agenda: Challenges and resistance
Malu: Hi all, Malu here, your moderator for this e-forum. Let's start the discussion about locating lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) women's agenda in the women’s and human rights movements.
Susana: To launch this conversation then, I can say that I continue to struggle with where and how these are the same, and where and how these are distinct. At IGLHRC, we are regularly in discussion about the differences between working with self-defined LGBT communities and the pros and cons of identity-based work (the empowering possibilities of claiming an identity and becoming part of a movement) versus its exclusionary aspects and its fixing sexuality problems. And then, in terms of working from a broader sexuality framework, often LGBT folks are met with distrust and nervousness from non-LGBT-sensitive (wrong word, but it is 7 a.m. here in New York!) women's and human rights organisations (and many of these groups ARE LGBT-sensitive) because they are afraid of being "baited" if they take up LGBT issues in the serious and urgent way they might need to be.
Malu: Do others feel similarly in terms of the difficulty in straddling these lines?
Jane: I am provoked with Susana's reflection on identity-based frameworks, of which LGBT is one, so are the women's movement, and the indigenous peoples, peasants, labour, and others groups. In the context of human rights work, this has resulted in issues of conflict of rights.
Mariana: From OMCT’s perspective, the challenge is pretty much the same as the one on women's rights. Most of our member organisations deal with human rights in general and often resist including a gender analysis into certain types of violations against women. For LGBT concerns, we have no particular programme, making the work even more challenging. Integrating this issue depends on the personal commitment from certain people in different sections within the organisation; it is not an institutional commitment.
Malu: Mariana, where is the resistance coming from?
Mariana: I guess it is a bit like what Jane said, the perception of particularity—as for indigenous peoples and others. Many people hesitate to take up issues that do not concern them directly and that which could not be justified because it deals with one group in particular. One could claim that they couldn’t deal with all particularities.
...many women and women’s groups in Asia are still grappling with the whole discourse on sexuality.
- Lisa PuseyMacu: I would also like to add that these perceived conflict of rights play differently at the national/local levels, and I think that it has been easier for the different movements to work in coalition at the international level than to do so at the national level, where movements tend to focus more on their own specific issues. For example, we have had some successes working together in the context of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) where many specialised organisations dealing with sexual orientation and gender identity are unable to obtain accreditation to participate in the UN system, including the UNCHR. They are dependent on generalist human rights organisations for access to the UN system. In this context, both movements have worked together to raise LGBT issues in this forum.
Lisa: I agree with Macu. APWLD has not really taken up LGBT issues in a strong way until now. The sentiment among some members in APWLD is that many women and women’s groups in Asia are still grappling with the whole discourse on sexuality. They are framing their hesitancy to engage in these issues in terms of their understanding of how women are subjugated through control of their bodies and sexualities under a system of patriarchy, and are thus not yet ready to take up LGBT issues, although recognising it as oppression under the same system.
Cynthia: I’ve worked with Amnesty International (AI) for a long time (almost 20 years!) on their LGBT campaigning, and it has struck me that the need to make visible the experiences of certain people has necessitated identity claims and has led to a use of identity politics. The representation of undeniable violations is what gives legitimacy to the rights claims, and to the visibility or existence of the identity. Also, as Mariana noted, for a long time, AI's work on LGBT issues wasn't institutionalised. It rested on specific staff and volunteer interest.
Malu: It is one thing to not deal with "other issues" because "they don't concern" us directly, but there is also the problem of people resisting or refusing to deal with LGBT issues because of homophobia.
Jane: I think there is resistance or nervousness because women's rights or LGBT rights or identity-based claims are perceived as too particular and only the concern of a few. Moreover, I think most of these movements are conceived within a framework of heteronormativity.1
Susana: Jane, I agree entirely. The experience Mariana describes, that is, depending on one or two people in an organisation to "deal with" the hard stuff, is all too common. It allows organisations to act as though they are "covering" the range of human rights issues, when they haven't necessarily done the work of thinking through what "indivisibility of rights" means when this is really taken seriously.
Malu: The challenge then is how to "universalise" the issues of LGBT people. Is the resistance also because of the notion that anything that deals with sex or sexuality is just downright threatening?
Cynthia: But it's also a question of what violations and what issues are on the table, so to speak. Discrimination in the family is the sort of thing a lot of groups might not take on, as in "that's not our issue." But torture of LGBT people, for instance, has a different resonance. It’s harder to deny its importance.
Mariana: Conceptually, local non-government organisations (NGOs) who are members of our network need to understand why an organisation fighting against torture should also focus on LGBT concerns. We have been doing that on economic, social, and cultural rights, showing how the denial of such rights often engenders violations of civil and political rights, including torture, arbitrary detention, etc.
Susana: On the one hand, I think we are talking about the challenge of moving between the "indivisibility" and "universality" ideals of human rights but, on the other hand, always acknowledging that violations happen to particular and specific people because of racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. But for me, "indivisibility" and "universality" are meant to direct our attention to the specific experience of human rights violations of individuals. I agree with Malu, while integrating LGBT issues is critical, I also think we need to create more space to talk about sex and sexuality, so that we get a better understanding of the similar and different ways that sexuality is controlled—sometimes violently and obviously, and other times more insidiously.
Jane: I agree, Susana. I think integrating LGBT issues into women's rights and human rights agenda is a strategy that needs to be complemented by discussing what is “uncomfortable,” “particular,” or “not an urgent issue.” The conceptual links between women's rights and LGBT movements on deconstructing sexuality should be an entry point to create and fortify bridges between these two movements. As with the other movements, I agree with your earlier suggestion of finding thematic linkages, much like what Macu indicated.
Gains, successes, lessons
Malu: The discussion has centred on how LGBT rights are framed within the contexts of the various movements. We've been discussing the challenges and resistances. Have there been "success" stories?
Macu: In recent sessions of the UNCHR, LGBT and human rights organisations have collaborated in preparing oral statements and organising events and briefings to advocate that the UN system play a more active role in addressing violations based on sexual orientation and in raising the profile of LGBT issues. Both movements have also worked collaboratively with the UN special procedures2 to make sure they include violations based on sexual orientation within their mandates. For example, during the “12th Annual Meeting of the Special Procedures,” a coalition of human rights and LGBT organisations issued a joint statement requesting the special procedures to address violations based on sexual orientation in a more systematic and comprehensive way.
Jane: In terms of strategies to “universalise” LGBT issues, the WHRD campaign carried a specific focus on integrating LGBT issues into women's rights and human rights agenda to contribute to a global momentum for the recognition of sexuality rights.
Susana: Yes, the WHRD was a success story in terms of raising the visibility of "sexuality rights" issues, and working hard to do so in an integrated way. As we know, we were met with some resistance, but the discussions were really generative. Some of the resistance came from folks for whom the open discussion of sexuality and LGBT issues was clearly uncomfortable and threatening. Their perception was that the “LGBT agenda” was too prominent during the “WHRD International Consulation” (Sri Lanka, December 2005), even though we (the organisers) had carefully crafted the agenda to be quite balanced. ...we need to tackle such issues based on the violations (torture and so) that occur in order to go back to their roots.
- Mariana DuarteSome participants were frustrated with this, arguing that these were not issues that they could grapple with in their domestic advocacy. Most of them, however, seemed to welcome the open discussion about how sexuality is a relevant lens of analysis for their work as defenders—including issues related to LGBT defenders and the abuses that they face in their work.
Macu: I agree. Also, the WHRD campaign has pushed many of us to incorporate LGBT issues when working with partner organisations.
Mariana: To be clear, there are different motivations and bases for engaging in the defence of sexual rights. Generally, there needs to be a sexuality rights-based approach to integrate movements, as Susana noted. But as far as an organisation like ours is concerned, we need to tackle such issues based on the violations (torture and so) that occur in order to go back to their roots. This has justified OMCT's violence against women (VAW) engagement in the WHRD campaign. Our VAW programme seeks to shed light on and analyse the specific forms of torture and ill-treatment of women as well as its specific causes and consequences. Through a comparison between violations perpetrated against male and female human rights activists, we noticed that there were specific reasons and forms (sexual assault, sexuality- baiting) of attacks against women’s human rights defenders, either because they are women or because they defend women’s (including sexual and reproductive) rights, thus challenging social norms. We felt there was a need to highlight these trends in the context of WHRD work.
Lisa: APWLD has engaged in LGBT issues through the WHRD Campaign at the international level. We have also worked on LGBT issues at the regional level within the discourse on sexuality more broadly. Within APWLD, there are groups working on LGBT issues, but we have identified the need to more actively engage with organisations in the region that work on these issues. We have also identified the need to actively create a safe space for us to discuss and strategise on this at regional and national levels. Creating and nurturing this space is important since the issues are often so “uncomfortable” and “taboo” for many and can also be dangerous to raise for women in many contexts because it so directly challenges the status quo and male power structures.
Malu: Cynthia, I've noted that in the last few years, AI has been integrating LGBT issues more proactively, especially at the country level. My lesbian organisation has worked closely with AI Philippines to push for an anti-discrimination bill in congress.
Cynthia: I am actually thrilled by some of the work and potential of WHRD. For me, one of the things I really want to pick up is the issue of “sexuality-baiting” and threats to the reputation of people and organisations. I think that this and other collaborative work will blossom partly as a result of the WHRD Consultation! To Malu, AI has needed to move at both international and national levels. The lesson is that it would not have happened had it not been for very loud voices within the institution (and in many countries) and pressure/collaboration from outside.
Susana: Well, I can't speak for the US in terms of inter-movement collaboration at the moment, but I can think about some of the work of colleagues in Argentina who are working to oppose police abuse in coalitions that have straddled homeless people's movements, women's movements, lesbian and gay movements—and with strong leadership from transgender and sex workers movements.
Sexuality-baiting
A term that describes the phenomenon of state and non-state actors strategically using pejorative ideas about women’s sexuality in order to attack the reputations of individual activists, the organisations they work for, and their political agendas. The verbal attacks are enacted with a political goal and are targeted at women who are defenders of a range of human rights, not just against those who are defenders of sexual rights. Women around the world are called “immoral,” “abnormal,” “promiscuous,” and “frigid”; we are also labeled “too Western,” “bad women,” or “culturally deviant.” Terms used are often those seen to be most damning within a particular culture or political moment.
Source: Cynthia Rothschild, author of Written Out: How Sexuality Is Used to Attack Women’s Organising Sexuality-baiting
Malu: Let's look at the issue of sexuality-baiting. How is it concretely manifested? How have LGBT activists and women's human rights activists responded to this? Has it bred hostility, or has it opened room for more discussion and dialogue?
Jane: Sexuality-baiting has clearly shown how LGBT activists are under attack; how women and human rights activists are also subjected to violence; and how these have affected their organising. In this context, for me, raising the issue of sexuality-baiting has opened more spaces for dialogue across movements. Most activists are uncomfortable with LGBT issues and people, but many already have a grasp of sexuality that can be a common basis for forging solidarities.
Cynthia: Great questions, Malu. The fear of baiting has inhibited collaboration and stronger work; yet it has opened a door as well. But there also has been a lot of silence on the issue, especially with regards to women's groups and the fear of being labeled "lesbians." And sometimes that’s a legitimate concern. But baiting is so universal that some groups have been able to engage in new collaborative efforts to challenge the perpetrators of baiting. But many groups don't recognise the phenomenon and therefore don't adequately respond. Human rights groups need to be better at documenting the phenomenon and naming it in a rights context.
Susana: Part of the importance of talking openly about baiting is that is also brings activists and human rights defenders back into the picture in a more integrated way.
Mariana: The sexuality-baiting issue is definitely one of the common difficulties faced both by women and sexual rights activists. This point was properly explored by the Campaign both in the context paper and by including sexuality issues in the discussions held during the consultation. I guess women's rights activists will be able to identify more with LGBT rights activists in terms of the language used, "sexuality-baiting" and the conceptualisation it carries with it.
Lesbian-baiting
A particularly homophobic form of sexuality-baiting, and is often used because the attribution of lesbian identity is sometimes seen as the most damning “accusation.”
Source: Cynthia Rothschild, author of Written Out: How Sexuality Is Used to Attack Women’s Organising
Cynthia: This is especially true because “lesbian-baiting” is a particulary common form of sexuality-baiting, and women activists are subjected to both, no matter what their actual sexual orientation is.
Jane: Whether women activists like it or not, they are already being labeled “lesbians” as they defy standards of femininity with their activism. They are compelled to defend themselves. So, eventually, they will have to confront that sexuality-baiting is not about LGBT issues, but, as you said, women’s sexuality is being used to attack women's organising.
...my difficulty with the subject comes from the fact that I work with a very different audience. For example, for many local NGOs working in some countries in the South, sexuality-baiting is not that high as a priority.
- Macu BarciaMalu: One implication of sexuality-baiting is the denomination of sexuality, in general. Thus, even the women's movement also regards sexuality with fear and caution. Sexual rights are always framed from the perspective of being free from threats, dangers, or sexual violation, and not as a right to pleasure and eroticism.
Susana: But we engage in "baiting" of sorts, too. For example, many in the US lesbian-feminist movement have long been distrustful of transgender and male-to-female transsexuals and have excluded them from "women-only" spaces. The discussion, then, becomes about biology, rather than about the use of gender and sexuality as axes of power and exclusion/oppression.
Macu: I think my difficulty with the subject comes from the fact that I work with a very different audience. For example, for many local NGOs working in some countries in the South, sexuality-baiting is not that high as a priority. They are more concerned in how national security and anti-terrorism legislation and measures have been increasingly used to persecute human rights defenders who criticise the government, and to criminalise human rights defenders activities, etc. The level of discussion here and the terminology we are using is one that is completely alien to most of the people with whom I interact.
Susana: In response to Macu, I take your point about our terminology, and admit that we are talking in "shorthand" of sorts here. But as for the larger point, I'm not sure I agree that "sexuality-baiting" isn't a concern for human rights activists in Africa. For example, in Nigeria, the proposed legislation to ban "gay" marriage as "un-African” would certainly seem to indicate that it is an urgent and very real issue, and one that human rights organisations are bypassing. Also, accusations of "terrorism" and "sexuality-baiting" aren't necessarily separate. I remember a situation in India where two gay men were facing persecution. The father of one of the men was threatening to use India's anti-terrorism law against them. Sometimes, the connections are hard to trace, but sometimes they are very stark.
...unless we go beyond a heterosexual framework for our movements, we will not be able to include LGBT peoples, and we will find ourselves excluding them or unwittingly subjecting them to labels and forms of sexuality-baiting.
- Mary Jane RealCynthia: On Macu's comment, I think that this question about current political climate and what we get labeled as is really compelling. It's all threat to reputation, and designed to make us less effective at our advocacy.
Jane: I think sexuality-baiting is not far from being urgent as compared to issues about terrorism as Susana pointed out, especially in a context of rising fundamentalisms and when states are taking on more conservative stances that target sexuality. In this sense, it only becomes “alien” because we refuse to change our lens, and we think that only the struggle against terrorism is political and urgent, and the rest are “non-issues.”
Susana: Jane, you said, "It only becomes alien because we refuse to change our lens." Could you explain?
Jane: Many think that LGBT concerns are not political, that all these issues are a personal dilemma. Since it is perceived as personal, many activists preoccupied with “the political” do not consider it a valid human rights issue to address. And as I’ve said, unless we go beyond a heterosexual framework for our movements, we will not be able to include LGBT peoples, and we will find ourselves excluding them or unwittingly subjecting them to labels and forms of sexuality-baiting.
Working out strategies
Macu: So, how do we change our lens? Help me here. I mean if I’m in a country working with a group of NGOs on issues affecting defenders, and it identifies freedom of association as its pressing issue, how do we start a conversation about sexuality-baiting?
Malu: Thanks, Macu, for raising those points. It is indeed important to consider the local context, but it doesn't mean that we should stop pushing the boundaries. It is a process, and it will involve a lot of dialogue and discussion. We have to start somewhere. I think this is a good segue to discuss strategies if we are confronted with these kinds of situations.
Cynthia: That's a great question, Macu. I think context is everything here. If it's a group of women defenders, for instance, part of the entry point has to do with getting people to talk about the ways their reputations are at risk and how the attacks become personal, and, ultimately, how that closes down space to do political work. I think the links between threats to reputation and closing down of organising space are really compelling and ripe to be explored.
Mariana: To build on what Cynthia had said, if you manage to identify concrete cases of sexuality-baiting of defenders in Country X, you may expose them to your partner NGOs. If your partner NGOs resist to include that in the agenda, you may have other NGOs, which may be more willing to take up the issue, in a joint initiative, perhaps. It may or may not work, but it’s worth trying.
...sometimes groups will not "do the right thing" because of a legitimate fear of being associated with issues of sexuality, or for more "purely" homophobic reasons... that leaves us with decisions to make, the task to keep talking about the indivisibility of rights, and to stand on human rights principles.
-Cynthia RothschildMacu: Sorry to insist, but in my experience, bringing up these issues can be counter-productive sometimes because it can turn off local NGOs instead of bringing them in. For example, in a national consultation organised with local partners, a local NGO decided to opt out of the WHRD campaign when they found out that the campaign also included LGBT issues. I am not saying that we should not raise or work on these issues, but that we need to find better ways to do so. In our work with partner organisations at the local level, we need to find better ways to include an LGBT perspective, possibly through the discussion of cases during our training and consultations.
Jane: To respond to Macu, if freedom of association is about forming groups without trampling on the rights of other groups, then an exercise of that freedom which negates the rights of others (LGBT, women, indigenous peoples) has to be thought out. Indeed, as you indicated, sensitive and strategic timing is needed to raise these issues. I would go with Susana's suggestion that maybe the way forward is to open more spaces where sexuality or its related issues are discussed.
Cynthia: The problems and threats are real. And sometimes groups will not "do the right thing" because of a legitimate fear of being associated with issues of sexuality, or for more "purely" homophobic reasons. But as organisers, that leaves us with decisions to make, the task to keep talking about the indivisibility of rights, and to stand on human rights principles. That can also mean we may lose people along the way.
Susana: On to Malu's point. What are the strategies we know that have worked? I think of the CLADEM (Comité de América Latina y el Caribe para la Defensa de los Derechos de la Mujer, also a member of the International Coordinating Committee for the WHRD campaign) and others' campaign for a Convention on Sexual and Reproductive Rights in the Inter-American human rights system. They have taken the process slowly and worked hard to have small consultations to discuss difficult issues.
Jane: As we have experienced in the WHRD campaign, actual collaborations on various activities among women's rights, human rights, and LGBT groups, can bring some “cross-fertilisation” of ideas, issues, and strategies. At the very least, it sensitised the others about LGBT concerns, and, for some, they have taken the institutional challenge to take on LGBT issues.
Susana: Raising issues of sexuality (and insisting that we understand this broadly)—and to try to do so in ways that folks can connect with while insisting that it’s not appropriate nor even smart to exclude those who are already excluded just because we are challenged by the issues they raise,
such as heteronormativity, or "normalness—is, as have we experienced during the WHRD consultation itself, a challenging but worthwhile effort.
Moving forward
Malu: Okay, folks, we have 10 minutes left. Perhaps, some last words from each one of you about future challenges and possible directions of inter-movement dialogues, especially on LGBT issues.
Mariana: In terms of next steps, OMCT intends to take up more cases of LGBT defenders within the “Observatory for the Protection of HR Defenders” (a joint programme coordinated by OMCT’s “HR Defenders Programme” and the Paris-based International Federation for Human Rights –[FIDH]), and of people being targeted for their being homosexual or transgender, to fulfil our mandate, and to sensitise members of the network locally through our “Urgent Campaigns Programme” as a mainstreaming effort. We're also willing to integrate more inter-movement initiatives to further explore ways of collaborating. We're really open to discussing strategies, on country and global levels. Institutionally, we integrate these cases in our programmes on urgent appeals and assistance to victims of torture, hoping it will eventually bear its fruits locally, within our network.
Macu: At an institutional level, ISHR has included sexual orientation and gender identity in our advocacy priorities for 2006, within the UN System, in particular, in our work with the Human Rights Council and with Special Procedures and the treaty bodies. We are also planning to organise, in collaboration with partner NGOs, an experts’ seminar on sexual orientation, gender identity, and human rights.
Lisa: APWLD is planning to reach out to expand its work to include LGBT issues, in a much deeper way. We are hoping to work more closely with groups working on LGBT issues in the coming years. This will be a challenge for us as a women's network that has focused on many identity-based issues really effectively (for example: indigenous women, migrant women, etc.) as well as the HR movement working on these issues (as opposed to women's movement) but which has not really tackled LGBT groups. Through closer collaboration with groups working on LGBT issues, we will see how we integrate the issues more fully in our work.
I'm not sure that what I would call for is inter-movement dialogues on LGBT issues. Inclusion of LGBT folks and movements, yes, but we need to talk about sex and sexuality, sexual liberation...
- Susana T. FriedCynthia: CWGL is committed to building on an analysis of sexuality and lesbian-baiting; we want to work in tangible ways with the ideas about sexuality-baiting included in the CWGL/IGLHRC report “Written Out: How Sexuality Is Used to Attack Women’s Organizing.”3 Now, the challenge is to lift the analysis to the practical: we want to work with a few groups to see what we might collaboratively do in terms of building documentation on sexuality-baiting of women defenders.
Jane: As already discussed with Isis, the sequel to this discussion is another online forum on sexuality issues among WHRD participants. It’s another concrete way of moving forward and opening spaces.
Susana: I'm not sure that what I would call for is inter-movement dialogues on LGBT issues. Inclusion of LGBT folks and movements, yes, but we need to talk about sex and sexuality, sexual liberation, as Cynthia said. The challenge is how to bring into the conversation folks who are resistant. Many of them are scared for reasons of real fear but others because of their own acceptance of "heteronormativity" as the norm. We do have good examples of building networks that focus on sexuality-related issues, of networks of HR organisations (like OMCT and ISHR) incorporating sexuality issues into the mainstream of their programming. But we need lots more.
Mariana: I agree with Susana that there is still a lot to do. I also agree with the idea that we need to tackle the question by exploring sexuality, the right to choose, on the one hand, and sexuality-baiting, on the other hand, and integrating as many different types of organisations as possible in any debates on these issues.
Malu: It's 11 p.m., our time, so we need to close this e-forum now. Thanks everyone for your active and lively participation. I know that we have barely scratched the surface on the issues surrounding inter-movement dialogue about sex and sexuality (as Susana rightly pointed out). But we did discuss quite substantially some of the problems and issues, including sexuality-baiting, the challenges and opportunities in engaging various movements, and the strategies to move forward.
I hope to meet you all sometime, perhaps for a more substantive face-to-face dialogue and interaction. Have a good day/night everyone!
Endnotes
1 By “heteronormativity,” we mean the normative social construction of gender/sexuality, based on the pairing of male/female, man/women, husband/wife, among the series of oppositions taken to be “normal” and “natural.” In this context, only “traditional” heterosexuality is to be considered “normal” and, therefore, socially sanctioned.
2 Special procedures are either an individual, called a special rapporteur or representative, or an independent expert, or a group of individuals, called a working group, that have been set up by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) to examine, monitor, and report on human rights situations in specific countries (country mandates) or on major issues or themes (thematic mandates).
3 The report uses a human rights analysis to explore sexuality-baiting and also lesbian-baiting, and uses 60+ interviews with women from around the world to tell stories of baiting and resistance to it.
Introduction
In August 2003, a milestone was reached for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and queer (LGBTIQ) advocacy when a group of men and women headed to the Malaysian Human Rights Commission, SUHAKAM, with a memorandum calling for ethical media reporting and the protection of LGBTIQ rights. The memorandum was in response to a local TV programme and subsequent newspaper reports that condemned “effeminate men and masculine women.” In October of that year, SUHAKAM facilitated a meeting (albeit in ways that were potentially harmful to members of the group) between the group and journalists on ethical reporting.
The television programme itself was really just a reflection of prevalent, dominant heterosexism and LGBTIQ-phobia, which took its “spy and snoop” cues from a state that already regulates, monitors, controls, and moralises sexuality per se. Viewership for this programme soared, fuelled by its voyeuristic footages of couples “making out” in parks, transgendered persons being detained, gay men being tailed, and sex workers being raided and rounded up. It seemed to take great pleasure in flooding camera lights on individuals struggling to hide their identities and behaviour.
Tudung
A scarf worn around the head by Muslim women in Malaysia; conceals the hair but not the face.
Source: www.elook.org/dictionary/ tudung.html
Jubah
Robe; chasuble.
Source: dictionary.bhanot.net
Hudud
Islamic laws stating the limits ordained by Allah and including the deterent punishments for serious crimes.
Source: www.elook.org/ dictionary/hudud.html
Sociopolitical context
Sexuality in Malaysia, as with most other discourses in the country, is mired within a political system that teeters on ethnic and religious faultlines. The use of Islam on the political battlefield to jockey for the Malay majority vote is hardly surprising when the definition of “Malay” is linked to “professing the Muslim religion.”
Initially, the Islamic revivalism of the seventies sought to expunge traditional practices in favour of what was deemed “Islamic” or “Arabised” practices. The most visible impact can be seen in the way that women began to dress—many began to don some form of tudung, and today a significant number of women also wear the jubah. When the revivalism became politicised, however, both the Islamist party, PAS (Partai Islam Se-Malaysia), and the main Malay-based party of the ruling National Front coalition, UMNO, were set on an “Islamisation race,” each declaring itself the more religious, and thus more fit to “protect” Islamic (read: Malay) interests.
Sexuality in Malaysia, as with most other discourses in the country, is mired within a political system that teeters on ethnic and religious faultlines.In this push for greater Islamisation, both state and non-state actors are wittingly and unwittingly calling for the implementation of rules, laws, and policies that are deeply influenced or inspired by the ideology of Islamic conservatism (Kasim, Othman, & Anwar, 2003). This, in turn, feeds on and, at the same time reinforces, gender disparities between women and men. There is a growing obsession with segregation between men and women as well as an increasing fixation with “guarding” and policing of “morality,” especially that of women and the young who are regularly blamed for indecency, promiscuity, and “aping” the West.
Legal system in Malaysia
There are two sets of laws in Malaysia: the civil system, which applies to all persons residing in Malaysia; and the state-administered Islamic or Shariah laws1 which are ostensibly only applicable to Muslims.2 The Federal Constitution delineates that “matters of Islam” will be handled under the Shariah laws. However, what has been happening in effect is a quiet “redefinition” of what is considered “matters related to Islam.” The scope of Shariah laws in the country has slowly widened, from personal status laws on marriage, divorce, custody, and maintenance to matters related to the individual’s piety, practices, and preferences (such as fasting, Friday prayers, sexual orientation, and consumption of alcohol). Fatwa
A legal opinion or ruling issued by an Islamic scholar.
Source: www.elook.org/ dictionary/fatwah.html The PAS state governments have also used this provision to enact their own versions of hudud laws in two states, over and above the existing Syariah Criminal Offences Enactments (SCOE) and a civil system already enforced throughout the country. All three sets of laws contain numerous provisions that, blatantly and tacitly, disproportionately discriminate against and violate the rights of women and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community.
The Shariah laws have also found their way into municipal laws, subsidiary legislation, regulations, and policy directives that affect both Muslims and Malaysians of other faiths.
The ominous silence that shrouds the whole codification process of Shariah laws in the country is a major source of concern. The “Fatwa Controversy” in 1997, for example, shocked many Malaysians when three Muslim women were arrested and swiftly charged for taking part in a beauty contest. Very few Malaysians were aware that the SCOE had been quietly amended in 1995 without debate to create an offence out of “dressing indecently,” the definition and discretion of which is left to the arresting officers.
Then came the second shock. The Shariah Enactment had also been amended to give fatwas the automatic force of law upon gazetting; anyone who gives, propagates, and/or disseminates any opinion contrary to any fatwa in force commits a criminal offence. Technically, every time a writer, organisation, or individual asserts the rights of the individual to freedom of expression, they breach the fatwa. But that it does not systematically get used indicates that it has been created as insurance, the quiet threat to be whipped out and selectively used when there is clear threat to the powers of the “guardians of religion.”
These provisions had been sanctioned by the Shariah Technical Committee, State Legal Advisors, and the Attorney General, the Executive Council, and the Federal Cabinet, and then passed by the Lower House without so much as a boo. This collusion is an example of the forces that women’s groups and human rights groups are up against in trying to promote a human rights agenda that is based on gender equality.
Sexuality in Malaysia: A social and political overview
The TV programme that targeted the LGBTIQ community did not produce the episode in a vacuum; its production was facilitated in an environment where sexuality per se is denied, made invisible, controlled, regulated, and attacked.
Male heterosexuality
Generally, the sexuality of the male heterosexual escapes these attacks. That is not to say he is not affected at all. He still has major considerations like if the person he wants to eventually marry is a non-Muslim who is unwilling to embrace Islam. And, as is the case with other Muslims, he may be unlucky enough to be raided by the “moral police” and charged in the Shariah Court with the offence of committing khalwat, which carries a maximum sentence of RM5,000 (USD1,310), or three years imprisonment, or both.
By and large, however, male heterosexuality is rarely asked to take the stand. If anything, policies, practices, and social norms are designed primarily around the sexuality of the male heterosexual. His needs for sex are a “given,” legitimate, and something that he cannot control; rape therefore is “lust out of control.” The state affirms these privileges through personal and family laws, religious programmes on television and radio amplify these and remind women of their responsibilities to their spouses, while snake-oil sellers peddle elixirs that claim to “help the fellas last the distance.”
Female sexuality
Women’s sexuality, on the other hand, is bombarded with mixed messages. On the one hand, the ubiquitous “modern” messages “be-your-own-woman” exists alongside the equally strong “sculpt your sex appeal to success” messaging; on the other hand, she is told that she must guard her modesty and “chastity”; the sexuality of women and girls is held responsible for what makes or breaks the social Apparently, long flowing dresses and headscarves will root out rape and incest, as men will be less likely to be aroused!and moral order. On the one hand, she is the femme fatale whose strong need to flaunt her sexuality causes men to lose self-control; on the other hand, the sexually-vulnerable being requires the protection of male members of her family and society. Her mobility and sexuality are expected to be concordant with her gender identity and traditional roles.
These views form the basis of the main target of the Islamisation project, that is, young persons and women. One of the more vivid expressions of this conservatism can be seen in the politics of PAS, although by no means limited to the examples below nor to PAS alone. There seems to be a predilection for imposing dress codes on girls and women. In October 2003, PAS announced its RM60,000 roadshow to teach Muslim women how to dress. In the run-up to the 2004 elections, PAS vowed to enforce the wearing of headscarves and to prohibit non-Muslim women from wearing miniskirts (Malaysiakini, 20 March 2004). Apparently, long flowing dresses and headscarves will root out rape and incest, as men will be less likely to be aroused!
Aurat
Parts of the body that should not be exposed according to Islamic belief.
Source: dictionary.bhanot.net/ a.html
Khalwat
The crime of being in close proximity to someone of the opposite sex who is neither a spouse nor a mahram.
Source: Zaitun Mohamed Kasim
Mahram
A male, whom a woman can never marry because of close relationship (e.g. a brother, a father, an uncle etc.); or her own husband.
Source: muttaqun.com/ dictionary3.html
The leadership of PAS has likewise made pronouncements that female civil servants are not to wear lipstick, that their voices are considered aurat, or that state jobs should be given to less attractive women as the pretty ones have fewer problems finding husbands to support them. A campaign to promote polygamy, according to a PAS state assembly member and reported in The Star on December 2, 2003, was a better way to help single mothers face their financial hardships than a computer literacy campaign.
Various concerts and traditional performances have also been banned because they featured women performers or because they did not provide for gender segregation.
Further along the spectrum is the neo-traditionalists’ schizophrenia as can be seen within the politics and ideology of UMNO, Jemaah Islah Malaysia (JIM), and Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM or Malaysian Islamic Youth Movement). They will challenge gender stereotypes but preferably not touch the “home”; they have less of a problem with women in public spheres and, indeed, even promote it, but women should be able to balance their work and the needs of their families. The sexuality and behaviour of women are still scrutinised for responsibility where violence is perpetrated against them, but there are some voices within this group that condemn violence against women and challenge laws that are discriminatory. In that respect, the positions taken by UMNO, JIM, and ABIM can sometimes appear to be consonant with that of women’s rights activists who want to promote an agenda based on gender equality. Both will reject the commodification and objectification of women’s bodies and sexuality. The point of departure, of course, is in how one addresses those “problems.”
...the tudung is still not open to debate and is seen as a paramount factor to increasing societal respect for girls and women.For example, the tudung is still not open to debate and is seen as a paramount factor to increasing societal respect for girls and women. In this respect, the neo-traditionalists lean very closely to the ideals of the traditionalists. Headcovers used to be worn mainly by children attending religious school or elderly women, who would drape loose shawls over their heads and shoulders. Today, even national-type schools see a high percentage of Muslim children covering their heads, sometimes children as young as seven or less. While UMNO, for example, may seem less hardline on the issue of tudung, generally they would never go so far so as to say that it is a choice.
The youth, particularly young women, are also targeted. Through the mid-eighties to the mid-nineties, the mobility and sexuality of the young were vilified through the creation of concepts that quickly became part of social vocabulary and control. Concepts such as budaya lepak (loafing culture—essentially youth hanging out at department stores and video arcades) and bohsia (loosely used to refer to young girls involved, or perceived to be, in sexual activity) were hammered and hyped by the government and its machinery (including the media). Various community programmes were put in place apparently to address these “social ills” that were not part of “Malaysian culture.”
There is also pressure for non-Muslims to adopt the Malay-Muslim normative. PAS’s miniskirt ban is one manifestation of this, while at the International Islamic University of Malaysia, there had been heated discussions regarding the enforcement of the headscarf on non-Muslim students.
On the definition of “family,” the traditionalists and neo-traditionalists find comfortable allies in the Vatican and Christian fundamentalists of the Bush administration at international meets...The other issue that seems closed to further discussion is the concept of what constitutes a family and the pursuant subordination of women to patriarchal powers within the home, whether to father or husband. A woman can enter the public sphere and function as her male colleagues would, as long as she has the explicit permission of her husband and as long as the expression of her sexuality is within “Islamic norms,” however that may be defined. On the definition of “family,” the traditionalists and neo-traditionalists find comfortable allies in the Vatican and Christian fundamentalists of the Bush administration at international meets: that the “natural family” can only ever be derived from the marriage between men and women (with polygamy being the sole preserve of Muslim men).
Women’s groups and human rights groups that have been critical of any form of enforced dress codes or those that have challenged the notions of family and the subordinated positions of women within families, or who have defended the right of women to their sexuality, have themselves been denounced as “misguided,” “un-Islamic,” “apostates,” and lackeys of “‘western’ feminist ideology.”
Defying socially defined masculinity and femininity
Men and women who defy traditional gender roles, although they may still draw some disapproval or ridicule, are less of a rarity today. But many more women have entered the “male domain” than the other way around.
However, it is not uncommon for men and women, whose gender and sexual identities challenge prescribed norms, to be victimised either verbally and/or physically, or treated as fair game for ridicule and harassment. Many “accept” the verbal taunts as the price they have to pay for access to the public sphere.
Women who display or sport “accentuated masculine” traits or attire (regardless of their sexual preferences) may attract some amount of comment and/or ridicule. But because pants and shirts have become a normalised part of the female attire and given that “male” attributes and jobs are seen as being more powerful than female attributes and jobs, “masculine women” form less noticeable targets.
Men who defy socialised masculinity characteristics, however, face greater difficulty. For as long as their “effeminate” characteristics and/or attire are deemed to not challenge male gender and sexual identities “too sharply,” they are considered “acceptable” and many find themselves able to maneuver public spheres, although never quite escaping verbal harassment and ridicule. In contrast, traditionally in the Malay community, and to some extent even now, transsexual men or feminised men have straddled being shunned with put-downs on the one hand; yet are also accepted as part of the community—as comic relief anomalies of the village/area. They are socialised, and therefore stereotyped as “good” with make-up, dressing, and all things “feminine.” Discussions about their sexual preferences rarely feature, and many prefer not to even begin to discuss this. Television programmes that 
occasionally feature feminised men typecast them as the “friendly and entertaining” comic relief who is either the bridal make-up artist or fashion designer, or the “misguided” Muslim that must repent.
That said, increasingly today, men who do not subscribe to masculine traits are very much considered and spoken of as a “problem” that requires fixing. The Minister of Social Unity and National Development opined in 2003 that steps needed to be taken to stem the “rise in soft male students” at universities. This particular problem was traced to a rather remarkable causal link—that men were becoming increasingly “effeminate” because female students outnumbered male students at university. There are also anecdotal reports of university students being sent out of classes because they were “too soft” and told to come back when they become “real men.”
With the growing conservatism and the sharper they defy gender and sexual identity norms, the more that transgendered and transsexual persons, particularly male-to-female transsexuals, become vulnerable to legal prosecution under both the civil and Shariah legal systems as well as being easy targets for public persecution, sexual and physical violence, and harassment. Sex-reassignment surgery for Muslim transsexuals is prohibited, through a fatwa by the Conference of Rulers in 1983 (Teh, 2001). These factors reinforce the internalised beliefs of Muslim transsexuals that they are non-entities who are sinners in the eyes of the religion. The fear of not being given a “proper” burial (since their sex becomes unclear) forces many Muslim transsexuals to be content with not having the option for sex-reassignment surgery. For the same reason, many older transsexuals revert back to male clothing (Teh, 2001).
Diversity in sexual preference
What is deemed even more unacceptable than the defying of gender norms is sexual preferences other than heterosexuality. Laws, both civil and Shariah, have over the years criminalised certain sexual practices, some of which explicitly target same-sex couples. Same-sex sexual relations, particularly between men, is often demonised as “un-Islamic,” “unnatural,” “disgusting,” and, according to the head of Education and Research at Malaysia’s Islamic Affairs Department, when interviewed, “a crime worse than murder” (Ramakrishnan, 2000).
It is this “ick factor” that ex-Prime Minister (PM) of Malaysia Mahathir Mohamed, had hoped to ride on when charges of sodomy were brought against his Deputy PM (DPM) Anwar Ibrahim. In spite of the spectacular court trials that saw, amongst others, a mattress being dragged in and out of court and the “Anwar-sodomy” mantra that was being repeated by the media, the public did not seem to buy the supposed sexual proclivities of the ex-DPM—but only because he was supposedly such a religious figure. Very little was said about the charges until a group that called itself the People’s Anti-Homosexual Volunteer Movement (PASRAH) was formed a few weeks later after the charges were made, apparently with the intention of “assisting the Government wipe out homosexuality” (“Combating the Gay Threat,” 1998). The Malaysian AIDS Council and SUARAM, a human rights organisation, came out to condemn the hate-group. However, apart from urging the public not to support the group, nothing further developed on the issue of sexual diversity itself.
Most discussions on LGBTIQ issues have yet to find any dedicated space in the discourse on sexuality in Malaysia, where discussions about sex and sexual rights itself are very cloistered. Most discussions on LGBTIQ issues have been within the rubric of HIV/AIDS, which has invariably made the LGBTIQ community seem inextricably linked and responsible for the spread of the virus, further adding to the stigmatisation of both the community and the discourse on HIV/AIDS.Four years after the sacking of Anwar Ibrahim, it was the turn of the woman leader of Puteri UMNO. She was reported to have bought her female lover an expensive car, which cast aspersions about her sexuality. While several groups, websites, and discussion lists found this fodder for an attack on the moral uprightness of UMNO for “harbouring a lesbian” in its folds, it never quite got to the remarkable heights that the Anwar Ibrhaim trial got to. The accusations of misappropriation of funds were never investigated and, in fact, both that and the charges of sexual misconduct were dismissed by then Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed, “as the work of idle minds seeking publicity.”
Discussions on LGBTIQ issues have yet to find any dedicated space in the discourse on sexuality in Malaysia, where discussions about sex and sexual rights itself are very cloistered. Most discussions on LGBTIQ issues have been within the rubric of HIV/AIDS, which has invariably made the LGBTIQ community seem inextricably linked and responsible for the spread of the virus, further adding to the stigmatisation of both the community and the discourse on HIV/AIDS.
The controls, regulations, and attacks on expressions of sexuality
The provisions of many Shariah and Shariah-inspired laws are constructed around a growing perceived need for the state to control “moral conduct and sinful behaviour,” turning what are otherwise personal obligations into legal obligations, replacing personal values with “state values” that have the force of law. Records of prosecutions of Muslims under such religious offences indicate that there is a bias against working class men and women, students, and young Muslim women, especially for “offences” such as close proximity, indecent dressing, and indecent behaviour (Kasim, Othman, & Anwar, 2003).
The growing conservatism in the country has also given rise to self-appointed “vigilante” Islamist groups or individuals in the universities, the workplace, and also in public spaces, who have taken it upon themselves to harass and police other individuals and groups.
Laws and policing of clothing, mobility, and morality
As previously mentioned, the Shariah Enactments of most states in Malaysia make “indecent dressing” (“indecent,” of course, being left completely in the eye of the beholder and enforcer) and the violation of a fatwa, criminal offences. This provision is used during regular raids on nightspots. Arrest records, however, show that the provision is used selectively against Muslim women. For example, in 2004, a Muslim woman guest relations officer was the only person out of a group of people who had been arrested during a raid to be charged under the SCOE for “abetting another to commit the offence of drinking and selling alcohol, and committing vice (maksiat).”
Over and above these, the municipal laws in the capital city of Kelantan also authorise municipal officers to fine women workers for not wearing the headscarf. In the first five months of 2002, 120 Muslim women were fined between RM20 (USD5) and RM50 (USD13) for not wearing headscarves at work, reported by the Asian Political News on June 17, 2002. The Syariah Criminal Offences (Takzir) of the state of Terengganu hold women responsible for any possible arousal—Section 35 states that “any woman who in any public place exposes any part of her body which arouses passion” can be fined RM1,000 (approximately USD250) or jailed for up to six months.
Men who cross-dress, or transsexuals who wear women’s clothing, are frequently arrested and charged under various offences ranging from soliciting, drug use, “loitering,” and, under Section 21 of the Minor Offences Act 1955, for “indecent behaviour,” which includes cross-dressing [(fine of between RM25 to RM50 (USD7 to USD14)]. Muslims are sometimes sent to the Shariah department to be charged at the Shariah Court for Shariah offences. More than the penalty they have to pay, the humiliation they are forced to endure at the hands of the authorities is simply deplorable, primarily, the attacks on their identity: being stripped of their clothing, having their hair cut short and being forced to wear men’s clothes. Some are sexually violated (asked for sexual favours, told to show their breasts and private parts), while verbal harassment is sadly par for the course (Teh, 2001).
Policing and control of sexual relations
There seems to be a “womb to tomb” obsession with policing her chastity before marriage, and demanding her sexual and reproductive obedience after marriage.Sexual relations and pregnancies outside of a “legitimate” heterosexual marriage are generally deemed socially unacceptable. That said, however, a man who engages in pre-marital or extra-marital sexual relations is often rescued and excused by the “insatiable male sexual needs” myth, while a woman is chastised and demonised, particularly if she becomes pregnant as a result. There seems to be a “womb to tomb” obsession with policing her chastity before marriage, and demanding her sexual and reproductive obedience after marriage. State services and structures amplify this. Sexually active single women, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, for example, will find it nearly impossible to access state health services that have been organised primarily around the “married woman’s reproductive role.”
For Muslims, however, there is an added legal dimension. The State justifies its proprietorship over and policing of personal sexual relations of Muslims in carrying out its duty to “uphold Islamic values.” In matters of marriage and divorce, too, women are constantly reminded ad nauseam, through religious programmes on TV and cheap and plentiful booklets, of their subordinated positions in the home and warned of the dire consequences of challenging this.
As for same-sex sexual relations, there are several laws that criminalise these acts:
- Section 377B of the Penal Code criminalises specific acts, such as anal sex or fellatio, as “unnatural offences against the order of nature,” regardless of who is involved and whether it is consensual.
- What is more often used to target gay men, particularly, are Shariah laws that criminalise sexual “offences” including prostitution, heterosexual adultery, lesbianism, and sodomy that carry a RM5,000 (USD1,700) fine, and six strokes of the cane and/or three years in jail. In 1999, Ramakrishnan reported that 111 men were arrested in Kuala Lumpur on public tip-offs for “attempting to commit homosexual acts” (165 in 1998, 166 in 1997). The head of education and research at Malaysia’s Islamic Affairs Department reported said that before being charged in court though, the men are put through “what we call Islamic counseling sessions….They recite the Qur’an everyday, and we will tell them they have committed a grave sin.” To date, no lesbians have been arrested because “maybe it is hard to gauge who is a lesbian” (Ramakrishnan, 2000).
- The hudud laws of Kelantan and Terengganu prescribe the punishment of stoning to death for married persons caught for the crime of liwat, and 100 lashes “if unmarried.”
Liwat
Sodomy.
Source: dictionary.bhanot. net/l.html Responses to the monitoring, policing, and attacks on sexuality
The policing of sexuality takes on a variety of forms. So, too, do the acts of resistance. Some are personal acts of resistance—the tudung, for example. Many women resist and refuse the pressure to wear tudung as a political statement, and they will stand their ground or accept the verbal harassment or remarks as par for the course. Others who wear it under pressure to conform assert their stamp of personal autonomy either by letting a bit of fringe show, or couple it with close-fitting jeans and short sleeve T-shirts. Some capitulate where it is required as part of a uniform or where it helps them gain legitimacy—at work, school, university, and official functions—but may take it off afterwards, much to the chagrin of groups working on getting women to wear the headcover “properly.” Hukum Syarak
Islamic Law based in the Quran and Sunnah.
Source: www.ehomemakers.net/ en/article.php?id=994
Women’s groups and human rights groups have been, to some extent, vocal in resisting attempts to control the freedom of choice and expression. This includes press statements, public awareness sessions, and mobilising public support. The increasing awareness has seen more and more people speaking up about the issues. Where Islam is concerned, however, the support comes in hushed tones. Muslim women, in particular, will offer support but are reluctant to publicly declare their support for fear of being labeled.
For as long as civil society groups are seen to be providing community services, the government appears quite content to let them function problem-free. Questioning policies and structure, however, is a little dicier and comes at a cost. In 2003, when the Coalition on Women’s Rights in Islam launched the “Monogamy Campaign,” the Muftis of the various states came out in full force to denounce the campaign as “opposing hukum syarak.” The women’s groups were dressed down and told to call off the campaign. Press statements by Sisters in Islam, particularly on the issues of dress and polygamy, are often attacked as being “un-Islamic” and “misguided.”
Organising and mobilising public support comes at an even greater cost. The range of oppressive legislation in the country, which violates freedoms of expression and assembly as well as state apparatus, is often used against groups that try to organise. There is also a large Special Branch Police force (undercover police) that gathers information on activities, especially if there is even a hint of mobilising the public to attend an event. For example, a march organised by the All Women’s Action Society to highlight rising reports of rape was stopped by the police, and a riot squad, fully equipped with tear gas, was sent to the venue to make sure it did not take place.
The transsexual community has over the years organised itself to meet with the Religious Departments and Ministers, and to have their needs and realities heard. There has been some progress on that front, albeit slow and small.
However, while there is some organising and advocacy around issues of women’s sexuality, to date there has been little response and advocacy on LGBTIQ rights. Apart from the response by the Malaysian AIDS Council and SUARAM to the PASRAH (the anti-homosexual group), there has been little else.
For some groups, discussions around the issue have not even begun nor do they feel any urgency to do so. While it is becoming very obvious that the (male)men-(female)women binary, which the gender discourse has traditionally used in Malaysia and elsewhere can no longer avoid sexuality and sexual diversity as part of that discourse, so potent is the stigma of LGBTIQ issues that even those who have begun to discuss the issue cannot fathom it in terms of advocacy. Women’s groups wonder if taking on the issue will somehow undo and/or “de-legitimise” the gains that have been made on women’s issues. And groups that have organised to provide services to the LGBTIQ community seem reluctant to take the issue to a different level, that is, from service provision to advocacy, fearing the repercussions that it may have on the community.
It was against this political and social climate that that small group of people, none of whom would particularly identify themselves as seasoned activists, came together to draft the memorandum, mobilised endorsements from over 130 individuals and nine local organisations, organised to meet with SUHAKAM in August 2003, answered questions from the press. Against that landscape, it was a remarkable step.
References
AFP. (1998). Combating the gay threat. The Straits Times. Retrieved from <www.ilga.info/Information/Legal_survey/Asia_Pacific/supporting%20files/ group_against_homosexuality_form.htm>.
Kasim, Z.; Othman, N.; & Anwar, Z. (2003). Country paper: Malaysia, Muslim women challenge religious extremism: Building bridges between Southeast Asia and the Middle East.
Ramakrishnan, M. (2000). Homosexuality is a crime worse than murder. Time Asia. Retrieved from <ww.time.com/time/asia/features/interviews/2000/09/26/int.malay.gay2.html>.
Teh, Y. K. (2001). Mak nyahs (Male transsexuals) in Malaysia: The influence of culture and religion on their identity. The International Journal of Transgenderism, 5(3). Retrieved from <www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtvo05no03_04.htm>.
Endnotes
1 Primarily Shafie school with some aspects of customary laws.
2 In 1996, the Penang State Assembly amended their laws to include all Muslims, regardless of citizenship. Penang amends Syariah laws with stiffer penalties. The Straits Times. Singapore, 6 December 1996.
(with additional notes by Carlos Perera and Cresantia Frances Koya)
The bulk of this paper is based on the writers’ personal views that have arisen from 10 years of working with marginalised and vulnerable groups, particularly the GLBT (gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders), MSM (men having sex with men), WSW (women having sex with women), and sex worker communities.
To be caught in mid-conversation: An introduction
Carlos and I have volunteered with the AIDS Task Force of Fiji (ATFF) since its inception in 1994, and we started volunteering with the Sexual Minorities Project (SMP) when it was first established under the auspices of the non-government organisation Women’s Action for Change in 1998. Carlos became the coordinator of SMP, soon to be called Equal Ground Pasifik, in 2002. I have served on the SMP Core Group since 1998, and I started working for the ATFF two years ago. SMP and ATFF currently share office space in downtown Suva, Fiji.
SMP is the only organisation in the Pacific region (excluding Australia and New Zealand) working in behalf, and defending the rights, of GLBT people. SMP’s core work involves battling homophobia, advocating the rights of GLBT people, providing support for this community, and upgrading the skills of GLBT people, and enhancing their self-esteem. The ATFF also works with vulnerable groups including sex workers, MSMs, street children, and people living with HIV/AIDS (PLHA).
Our stories are very different. It is our combined internal and external debate regarding our identities as sexual minorities and our principles as radical feminists that has prompted this dialogue.Our stories are very different. It is our combined internal and external debate regarding our identities as sexual minorities and our principles as radical feminists that has prompted this dialogue. This and our work as reproductive health and sexual rights activists in the Pacific region. I “came out” 15 years ago but only started identifying as lesbian in the past nine years. Carlos, on the other hand, has identified as a transgender woman but has in recent years felt more “confused” about his/her identity.
While this dialogue may sound simplistic upon first reading, it must be understood that the bulk of the work done by the SMP and much of our contribution have been a result of learning on the job. In a region riddled with patriarchal structures that assume that you must be heterosexual, that you must “marry and reproduce,” this is no easy task.
Despite this, SMP has managed to successfully lobby for the decriminalisation of sodomy (previously used by lawmakers to discriminate against gay men in Fiji), to protect the “sexual orientation” clause in Fiji’s Bill of Rights; to “out” the homophobic face of Fiji at international fora; and to politicise a community previously unaware of its rights under the Constitution and various international conventions.
It is likely an occupational hazard for people working toward attaining social justice...the discourse within the GLBT community has not progressed much as far as identity politics are concerned. that sometimes attention to personal detail becomes the casualty in the battle for political and legislative gain. It is on the eve of SMP becoming an independent and registered NGO, that Carlos and I have finally had time to discuss how far we have come—and how the discourse within the GLBT community has not progressed much as far as identity politics are concerned.
We believe that this lack of progress is because of the negative impact of Fiji’s masculine culture on gender identity amongst sexual minorities. This idea is discussed by Nicole George’s paper “Contending Masculinities and the Limits of Tolerance: Sexual Minorities in Fiji.” However, our dialogue discusses this theory from the personal viewpoint of a lesbian and a sometime transgender MTF (male-to-female) woman currently living with the confusion discussed in this paper. We have used the phrase “The personal is political” on several occasions and within various contexts but never has it taken on such a complex interpretation and required us to unpack and re-examine how we see ourselves and how other members of our GLBT community perceive themselves and why they relate to us the way that they do.
A brief his/herstory of the “sexual orientation” debate in Fiji
In 1997, when Fiji included “sexual orientation” in its Bill of Rights, it joined a small group of countries (including South Africa and Switzerland) that recognise the rights of sexual minority citizens to protection from discrimination. The inclusion of this clause was immediately opposed by fundamentalist Christian groups that, led by a government backbencher and lay preacher, used the country’s first Constitution Day to march against same-sex marriages, despite the fact that Fiji’s Constitution does not make provisions for same-sex marriage. Later, the Marriage Act was amended to read as “union of one woman and one man to the exclusion of all others” (Strubbe and Tora, 2002).
The SMP, which was established in response to the unfair dismissal of a lesbian woman who was fired after a colleague “outed” her at the theological college where she worked, was immediately thrown into its first gay rights lobby that has lasted almost 10 years. While the right-wing argument does not change much, the faces that spout homophobic statements have reflected a spectrum of political parties and its leaders, high-placed members of the civil service (including magistrates, a director of Public Prosecutions, a police commissioner, various prime ministers and attorney-generals), and faith-based organisations and their leaders.
Earlier this year, a magistrate charging an Australian man and his local partner with having sex and taking nude pictures of each other is on record on print media calling the men’s acts “something so disgusting that it would make any decent person vomit.” The magistrate was forced to release them from their two-year sentence because he had failed to allow them legal representation, and also due to pressure from national and international civil rights groups. This landmark case eventually led to a clarification being sought in the High Court, and resulted in the repealing of the archaic clauses in the Penal Code historically used to discriminate against Fiji’s gay men. There are no such laws against lesbians.
Another member of the church made front page headlines saying that homosexuality in Fiji would cause God to unleash natural disasters and poverty upon the country.In the surge of anti-gay rhetoric that followed this judgement, members of the Methodist Church of Fiji soared to new homophobic heights. Its president claimed that homosexuals should be “put to death and destroyed.” Another member of the church made front page headlines saying that homosexuality in Fiji would cause God to unleash natural disasters and poverty upon the country. Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase lent his support to the fundamentalist Christian diatribe and was soon joined by heads of the Muslim community.
During the anti-same-sex marriage march that followed, an e-mail originating from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) made it into the hands of the public and was eventually reported in the media. The e-mail called on fellow Christians to garner support against gay people in Fiji by supporting anti-same sex marriage marches in various national centres. The DPP claimed that the e-mail was from personal correspondence (although it was sent out on his official e-mail address) and that it would not unduly influence the work conducted by his office, as reported in Fiji One News. Two more applications to hold marches were denied after the Fiji Human Rights Commission warned that marchers would be in breach of hate speech laws, following complaints filed by the SMP with the Commission.
How macho is Fijian culture?
As George discusses in her paper, the “majority of indigenous Fijians privilege the Church or lotu, alongside the vanua or land (traditional Fijian community) and the state or matanitu as the three intersecting institutions which regulate the lives of Fiji’s peoples.”
In May 2000, several members of parliament were taken hostage at the Parliament House by self-proclaimed indigenous Fijian nationalists. In the following days, several traditional leaders and members of various Fijian provinces walked through the gates of the Parliament grounds to proclaim support for this illegal takeover. Some of them were also sworn in as “ministers” in the putsch leader George Speight’s “government.” Soon after the announcement of the takeover, hundreds of people struck Suva, looting the city’s businesses, and burning down several buildings.
As normality returned to Suva, and to Fiji as a whole, various supporters of the nationalist cause claimed that traditional leaders who openly supported the hostage-taking and the Speight government were merely fulfiling their traditional roles as indigenous Fijians. Therefore, they argued, they should not be taken to task under civilian law, and if they were taken to task, that they should be treated leniently.
In June 2001, Fiji Red Cross Society Director-General John Scott and his long-time partner, Gregory Scrivener, were murdered in their Tamavua home. It was first rumoured that their murders were related to Scott’s involvement during the humanitarian response for the hostages during the 2000 crisis. It was thought that he would turn state witness in the trial of the putsch perpetrators. However, soon after, police attention, led by then Commissioner Isikia Savua, turned to a more sinister slant focussing on Scott and Scrivener’s so-called predatory lifestyle.
As quoted by George, Savua stated:
People are focusing on the good side of Mr. Scott and his partner, Greg. But people tend to forget that he’s a practicing homosexual…. I don’t profess to understand everything about homosexuality; it’s just that they tend to be more vicious than the normal heterosexual relationship (cited in Strubbe and Tora 2002).
George argued:
It seems remarkable that the violent form of masculine behaviour evident during this period was rarely referred to in terms which focused upon the malevolent nature of the threat it posed to national or civilian security. The absence of this debate contrasts significantly with the manner in which homosexual forms of masculine behaviour have been described by Fijian conservatives within the public domain. For as we have seen on this subject, Fijian conservatives do not hesitate to describe the threats of a political variety posed to Fijian institutions should homosexuality be condoned.
How does this affect the gay and lesbian identity talanoa?
“…when you’re born and you know that you’re gay from childhood, the stereotype that comes with it is that you have to be feminine, and if you don’t fit in, you have to fit in somehow, so my growing up was really ... if you were to... move quite freely within the spectrum and wear combat boots, jeans, and an oversized shirt to work today, and come to work tomorrow with heels, a black skirt, and a top, you would get for the rest of the day comments like... ‘Oh, you’re a woman today?’traumatic. But upon working with the Sexual Minorities Project (SMP), I found myself. But again the stereotypes just kept hitting me all the time and still I’m confused now because, one, you try to be yourself and be feminine and other stuff but working with government and working with NGOs, they force the stereotype back on you and it’s harder.”
~ Carlos, Personal Communication1
“…as soon as you come out, people assume that if you identify as lesbian, you must therefore want to be a man. And if you were to, in fact, move quite freely within the spectrum and wear combat boots, jeans, and an oversized shirt to work today, and come to work tomorrow with heels, a black skirt, and a top, you would get for the rest of the day comments like ‘You want to be a woman?,’ or ‘Oh, you’re a woman today?’ when, in fact, you were a woman yesterday and the day before and tomorrow as well.”
~ Luisa, Personal Communication
In 2004, I attended a women’s human rights defenders caucus, and I was the only biological male present. I was interrogated as to why I was there... As a feminist, I was rather disturbed and taken aback by this.How does this affect the feminist-sexual minorities’ talanoa?
“In 2005, I was admitted to a regional Pacific workshop on feminist advocacy. Sharing this information with a transgender sister of mine, I suggested that she apply to attend the workshop as well. The friend wasn’t sure how this request might be received, so I called one of the local workshop organisers with the request. She was certainly taken aback and her invitation for my transgender sister to apply to attend the workshop was definitely a wary one. She possibly thought that we were joking.
We realised that they weren’t ready for this level of discourse and didn’t push the idea. Although it would have been interesting to gauge the response of young feminists from the Pacific region to a transgender woman representative. Perhaps my transgender sister can apply to attend the next workshop.”
~ Luisa, Personal Communication
“In 2004, I attended a women’s human rights defenders caucus, and I was the only biological male present. I was interrogated as to why I was there and told at great length why the caucus was so important. No one else present went through this lecture. As a feminist, I was rather disturbed and taken aback by this. Some of them couldn’t see the linkage of how I as a man thought that these issues were important. I stayed anyway and gave my two cents worth. Also that they quickly thought that I worked with the Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre (radical women’s non-government organisation).”
~ Carlos, Personal Communication
How does this affect the bisexual talanoa?
“I asked a female bisexual friend why she hadn’t visited the Sexual Minorities Project (SMP) office, and she said that she thought that SMP was not very welcoming to bisexual people.”
~ Luisa, Personal Communication
“One of the things that we tend to forget is that they are as confused as we are because of how society has portrayed sexuality and gender, and how the patriarchal stuff kicks into play. The bisexuals have no place in society. They can identify as either male or female, but in itself it causes them, like me, more confusion. My personal view is that they don’t have to choose a role but there’s no place for them. Like the gay, lesbian, and transgender now, they know there’s a place where they exist. But for the bisexual community, there’s this whole silent gap.”
~ Carlos, Personal Communication
How does this have a negative impact on the reproductive health and sexual rights response?
“A good example is a transgendered person—because she identifies as a woman and will not accept that she has a penis and will not discuss it openly with her (sexual) partner. But if the partner wants to give the transgender person a blowjob and won’t say it, this affects their negotiating skills because, one, the partner will be (embarrassed) to say it, and the transgender is not thinking about the safety component because she is thinking about how her partner assumes her to be. The only thing that’s going through her head is, ‘How will he want me to act as a woman?’”
~ Carlos, Personal Communication
There isn’t very much gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender- focused counselling in Fiji; we still live in a heterocentric world, don’t we? “There isn’t very much gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender-focused counselling in Fiji; we still live in a heterocentric world, don’t we? Thankfully there is a new group of registered psychiatrists that is banding together and perhaps we could sit down with it and go, ‘This is a gap that we’ve identified, that we think we should work together on.’”
~ Luisa, Personal Communication
“In 2005, I broached the subject of WSWs with a (heterosexual) clinic nurse. As the MSM subject had been broached on several occasions, I suggested that the nurse consider this group of marginalised people. I was rather surprised when she told me that she didn’t feel that they were important enough to discuss. I suggested that the nurse should reconsider this thinking as WSWs are being left out of mainstream reproductive health and sexual health discourse. She was so against the idea of WSWs that she said she would not treat them ‘in her clinic.’”
~ Luisa, Personal Communication
“Seventy-one percent of men who participated in the MSM research reported having sex with ‘straight men’ (AIDS Task Force of Fiji, 2004). And when the AIDS Task Force of Fiji did its research, people didn’t acknowledge it then. But it’s funny when you’re sitting at meetings now, and the government is saying, ‘MSM, there’s plenty out there!’ It’s funny seeing them embracing it now.”2
~ Carlos, Personal Communication
While the last case study implies the beginning of a positive relationship between Fiji’s Ministry of Health and those NGOs working with the MSM and WSW community, a closer look at the Ministry of Education reveals that homophobia is alive and well within its corridors and curriculum.
Education
While the issue of gender disparity has been a topical one in terms of educational research, the topics of gender orientation and sexuality remain untouched. What is evident is that a gender-differentiated curriculum (education is streamed on a While the issue of gender disparity has been a topical one in terms of educational research, the topics of gender orientation and sexuality remain untouched.gender disparaging representation of homosexuality in the Family Life Manual. In this text, homosexuality is categorised with “Rape and Prostitution” under the theme of “Abnormal Behaviour,” and there is one lesson devoted to the topic:
The objectives of this lesson on homosexuality include: ‘to help students understand that homosexual behavior is abnormal and can be avoided; [and] to realise that homosexuality is sinful, immoral, and unhealthy.’ Supportive Teaching notes provided include the lists below. Interestingly, the list for effeminate boys is considerably longer than that of girls who are considered ‘tomboys’ and so at risk of developing homosexual tendencies (Koya-Vaka’uta, 2004).
A number of relevant gender-identity issues are highlighted in Koya-Vaka’uta’s discussion. These are:
- The values and attitudes that underpin the current curriculum are gender stereotypical and outdated. Traditional conservative perceptions of women and girls are still found in texts and in identifying subject choices for students based on their gender.
- The differentiated curriculum is apparent even at tertiary institutions. For example, the Fiji Institute of Technology, under direction from its current head, had imposed a very specific dress code for its students. Girls are expected to wear long skirts or traditional dress and not trousers or shorts.
- There is continued debate on the appropriateness of the inclusion of sex education from Classes 6 and 7 to senior secondary level. Moreover, many educators choose not to discuss sexuality as it is seen as contradictory to predominant cultural and religious beliefs and attitudes. These attitudes and beliefs continue to influence educational decisions, and it will be some time before a more inclusive curriculum is developed in Fiji.
It is hoped that some positive change will come through education reform. Such inclusive goals that we aspire for are found in the “Suva Declaration,” which was tabled at 2004’s first-ever “Education Summit” in Fiji. Entitled “Building a Strategic Direction for Education in Fiji 2006–2015,” the plan’s vision is: “Educating the child holistically for a peaceful and prosperous Fiji.”
Recommendation 5.1.3 reads, “The education process at all levels aligns itself with the rights-based perspective of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the Government of Fiji ratified in 1993. This is to be supported by an educational program on human rights at the primary and secondary levels” (Ministry of Education: 2005: 40).
If the shift in education is toward a rights-based education, then the idea of a gender-inclusive curriculum becomes an important part of this conversation. In view of this, it is hoped that the relevant stakeholders are consulted in the curriculum development process to ensure a holistic and truly inclusive education that does not continue to propagate the filters of the past.
Conclusion
This paper concludes that this dialogue surrounding gender identity is an ongoing one. As active participants in Fiji’s sexual minority discourse for the past eight years, we have only been able to find time to eke out this paper. However, having said that, it is important to acknowledge that while we are not fully equipped to conclude the conversation, we are at least ready to begin tackling it.
...the gender identity exchange must include educators, reproductive health practitioners, social and cultural gatekeepers, and, most importantly, the GLBT community.The gender identity discussion amongst Fiji’s sexual minorities is not as clear-cut as many people would have us believe. While sexuality and gender identity make up the bulk of this discussion, it does not preclude the social, cultural, and economic concerns that affect how members of the GLBT and heterosexual community see themselves and interact with others.
Therefore, not only is the conversation important, it also requires a broad range of partners to participate in the dialogue. Just as reproductive health and sexual rights are not merely part of the health discussion, so, too, the gender identity exchange must include educators, reproductive health practitioners, social and cultural gatekeepers, and, most importantly, the GLBT community. The key to building a healthy community (in mind, spirit, and body), therefore, is engaging in the gender-identity dialogue through a wide and inclusive community-based discussion. This means bringing the discussion to those who are most greatly affected, and giving voice to their stories.
References
AIDS Task Force of Fiji. (2000). Developing sexual health programs for men who have sex with men in the South Pacific: A response to the threat of HIV/AIDS.
George, N. (2005). Contending masculinities and the limits of tolerance: Sexual minorities in Fiji. Unpublished conference paper presented at Changing Pacific Masculinities Workshop, Australian National University Canberra, Australia, November 29, 2005.
Koya-Vaka’uta, C.F. (2004). Searching for an inclusive national consciousness through education: Ethnicity, identity and diversity—The case of Fiji. Presented at Global Pedagogies: Equity, Access and Democracy in Education, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia, December 3-5, 2004.
Perera, C. & Tora, L. (2006, March). Recorded conversations.
Strubbe, B. & Tora, L. (2002, January). Gay Fiji–Murder in paradise. Out Magazine.
Personal communication with members of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Trangender community.
Print and Electronic Media:
Communications Fiji Ltd.
Daily Post
Fiji Broadcasting Commission Ltd.
Fiji One News
Fiji Sun
Fiji Times
Radio Australia
Endnotes
1 Carlos Perera and Luisa Tora: Recorded conversations, March 2006.
2 A World Health Organisation (WHO) Statistics Projections meeting in 2006 revealed that while future infection statistics were likely to arise from the men having sex with men (MSM) community, government agencies lacked statistics on MSMs.
From Manila to Singapore, WIA connected virtually with lesbian activist Eileena Lee, founder of “RedQuEEn!,” Singapore’s first and largest e-group for queer women. Eileena talks on pockets of resistance against the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) people; identifies opportunities for overcoming such resistance; and shares her reflections on GLBT activism in her country.
WIA and Eileena started their virtual chat at 10:11:19 AM (2/28/2006).Laying out Singapore
WIA: To start with, how is Singapore as a society for lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (LBT) women?
Eileena: Contrary to popular belief, Singapore is not all that much of a hell for LBT women. As compared to some cities that I’ve been to, we’ve actually got a rather vibrant social scene for GLBTs. In terms of societal tolerance/intolerance toward lesbians and gays, here’s an entry in the website of People Like Us (PLU), the gay rights advocacy group that I am a part of:
Increasing numbers of gay men and women are out and open about their sexuality. But in official eyes, gay people are still treated as outsiders and, with the Victorian law on the statute books, potential criminals. It’s hardly any wonder that gay aspirations look beyond Singapore, and gay people here find more reason to be cynical about our country than want(ing) to be part of our future. This isn’t good for Singapore’s future, to have a segment of our population write off their homeland in their minds. The government says this must change; it wants every Singaporean to be engaged. So does People Like Us.The Law and people of diverse sexualities in Singapore
WIA: Let’s talk about LGBTIQs (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and queer people) and the law.
Eileena: Here’s something about government attitude and laws; also on the PLU web…
Section 377 [of the Singapore Penal Code]
Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.Section 377A [of the Singapore Penal Code]
Explanation:
Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.
Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.Our [PLU’s] comment:
Section 377 potentially makes any sexual activity an offence, except the insertion of the penis into a human vagina. It is based on the archaic Christian concept that sex is only for procreation. Pleasure is an illegitimate motivation for sex. Thus, any kind of sexual act that does not permit the possibility of conception, e.g., oral sex, anal sex, even masturbation, or sex with rubber toys, is “against the order of nature.”Section 377A broadens it further to encompass mutual touching, even a situation of “if you show me yours, I’ll show you mine.” Section 377A is specific to a situation involving males only.
In both sections, consent or age or majority is immaterial. Furthermore, the law applies even if the activity takes place in private.Legally, we only exist in the Penal Code 377 and 377A. Since gay marriages are not recognised in Singapore, usual normal benefits like housing subsidies and the surviving spouse inheriting the estate of the deceased—in the event of death of a spouse (without a will)—are not accorded people in same-sex committed relationships.
WIA: Singapore criminalises homosexual acts. How much teeth does this provision in your law has, in reality?
Eileena: Well, the law has not been used in a while, although entrapment did exist years ago. Thus technically speaking, Penal Code Sections 377 and 377a are just there but not often policed. But at PLU, we feel that it is incongruent to the government’s public declaration2 that Singapore is open to gay people.
WIA: Yes, we have read how Singapore’s lesbian and gay rights activists have found an entry point for fighting for equality through that declaration. How has the government reacted to this? How does it deflect your claims of their being contrary?
Eileena: It’s a fact that the Penal Code still exists, and the government has rejected our attempt to register ourselves as a legal entity/organisation. On the other hand, ex-gay organisations like Liberty League (LL), which specialises in reparative therapy and CHOICES (which is really ChoiceLESS) are legal organisations which go to schools to preach. In a multi-religious country like Singapore, it is not right that the Christian fundamentalists like LL and CHOICES are allowed to go into our schools to impose their agendas on our kids of multi-religious backgrounds. The government also recently offered to fund LL.
However, as much as I would want them (ex-gay organisations) to disappear forever, I am of the belief that in a truly open society we should co-exist.
WIA: How big, do you think, is the influence of the anti-gay law so as to cause such bias in your government? Do you think things would really change if the law is changed?
Eileena: I think that would be a good start. Finally, people cannot say homosexuality is illegal. Also, the penal code is a colonial hangover that we inherited from the British. Former colonies like Hong Kong have since made the law redundant.
It’s a bit of everything. In Singapore, everyone takes hint from the government, and, so, decriminalisation will be a huge declaration to the population that being gay is no longer illegal, no longer abnormal.
WIA: Decriminalisation—do you ever see that happening—in this lifetime?
Eileena: I am optimistic. When I came out eight years ago, I never thought that we would have a pride centre, but now we do.
The work can be really negative because we are constantly fighting. There’s never a win-win situation because homophobes will and can turn anything around to put down your cause. But that’s really okay because when people are expressing their homophobia, they are begging to be educated. : ) That’s my way of keeping positive.
WIA: :-) Are there lesbian and gay groups in Singapore working on decriminalisation?
Eileena: PLU is.
Love, sex, and religion
WIA: What about religion, how does it view LGBTIQ people?
Eileena: Buddhism does have a precept to refrain from sexual misconduct. Basically, it means that if we use trickery, emotional blackmail, or force to compel someone to have sex with us, that is sexual misconduct. Adultery is also a form of sexual misconduct because when we marry, we promise our spouse that we will be loyal to them. When we commit adultery, we break that promise and betray their trust. Sex should be an expression of love and intimacy between two people, and, when it is, it contributes to our mental and emotional well-being.
But some Buddhists may often use this precept against homosexuals although it’s really about responsible behaviour. If you speak to different monks and nuns, you will probably get very different answers. The culturally entrenched ones will tell you that homosexuality is wrong—but having two to three wives is okay for a man! However, I have met monks and nuns who will tell you that that for as long as you are in a loving, committed relationship (be it heterosexual or same-sex), then sex is just a form of expression of love.The good thing about Buddhism is that we are taught to always ask questions. It’s not about following a set of rules.
Linking: Role of ICTs
WIA: What are the opportunities you see for furthering Singapore’s LGBTIQ rights advocacy?
Eileena: The Internet, and information and communication technology (ICT). I think the Internet is something that has done us a lot of good. It brought Singapore to a completely new era where people are able to choose for themselves to what they want to be exposed. We were previously exposed to only what the government deemed appropriate. Now, we have a population of people that is able to discern, ...the computers and the modems became a lifeline for lesbians and gays fearing to be outed, whose safety is threatened (real or perceived) if they acknowledged openly that they are queer... it also allowed... gays and lesbians to come out virtually.ather than go by and agree perpetually with the government.
WIA: Can you say something on how the Internet could be especially helpful or useful to LGBTIQ women? To lesbian and gay rights activists?
Eileena: Especially in Singapore when the Internet came about and the government actively worked toward having every household own a computer, the computers and the modems became a lifeline for lesbians and gays fearing to be outed, whose safety is threatened (real or perceived) if they acknowledged openly that they are queer. In a way, that helped with the formation of identity. It also allowed some of these gays and lesbians to come out virtually. With this new-found empowerment, more gays and lesbians were able to eventually and bravely come out in real life.
For us activists, ICT was a space where we gathered virtually and shared our thoughts and opinions, and to rally people. I used the Internet to do support work to empower gay/bisexual/queer women. If it hadn’t been for the Internet, I wouldn’t have been able to do all those things that I’ve done over the last seven to eight years. I wouldn’t even be speaking to you right now.
WIA: Have you explored other ways of making the Internet work for LGBTIQ women?
Eileena: The Internet will always be a valuable medium or tool. There’s just no limits to using it. The only limit is that because we use English in the Internet as a common language, we’re unable to reach people who do not speak English. We also can’t reach people without computers.
WIA: But that’s not much of a problem for Singapore, right?
Eileena: There are people who are not comfortable communicating in English, and there are people who are unfamiliar with the Internet. There is also a population that is not digitally linked.
WIA: Would you say advocacy and activism through the Internet is elitist, then, even in such a “techy” country like Singapore? How do groups there resolve this? How do you reach out to those who are not Internet-savvy or not comfortable in English?
Eileena: Activism, in my opinion, is elitist. :-P
WIA: Aiyo!!! : )
Eileena: There are some who have other things to worry about. I’m not saying that they have better things to worry about, but in the order of importance to their lives, activism is the last thing on their mind. Other things that may come as priorities are finances, work, children, and many other concerns.
I have to qualify that I do not see “elitist” as that bad of a word, though.
L rights and activism
WIA: Taking off from your previous message on the tendency of people to prioritise other needs over their right to be lesbian, happy and gay—this is the tendency of institutions as well, that is, to keep people fed, give them jobs, then forget their sexual rights. How do you see a way around this, especially for Singapore, which, from an outsider’s point of view, takes good care of its people (at the expense of some personal freedoms)?
Eileena: It’s a complex situation, sort of like a chicken-and-egg situation. At the expense of personal freedoms, but in whose opinion? If you were to speak to some gay people, they think they have freedom.
What I mean is that this is how I feel about my own freedom as a Singaporean gay woman, but I am not saying that every gay Singaporean women agrees with me. So therein comes the order of importance/priority. Just because I see that as an important thing for myself, I cannot assume that all gay women feel the same way.
WIA: So, in your advocacy, how do you make people feel that LGBTIQ rights are as valid as any other rights, even for non-LGBTIQ women?
...my solution to end bigotry is simple—if all of us gay people can just come out to our parents or work, that’s half the problem solved!Eileena: I don’t. I can’t make people do anything. I can, as myself, give visibility to something that has been rendered invisible. I can provide positive visibility to oppose the negatives and, hopefully, normalise homosexuality. I believe, too, that people are able to discern for themselves. If people still maintain that I am a freak, nothing I do will change their bigotry. It has to come from within themselves.
Additionally, I do feel that people’s negative opinion of gay people will change once they befriend someone who is gay. Thus, my solution to end bigotry is simple—if all of us gay people can just come out to our parents or work, that’s half the problem solved!
WIA: How would you describe the lesbian/gay activism in Singapore? How effective do you think has it been?
Eileena: I reckon that it’s a situation whereby we try to push boundaries, but, at the same time, being mindful not to break any laws. How effective have we been? It depends on what you mean by “effective.” I think we’ve been quite effective in creating visibility in a country where there’s very little gay/lesbian visibility, and, if at all, it’s usually negative.
Lessons
WIA: How about lessons on movement-building; issues within the movement?
Eileena: The male and female divide—it exists not just in the heterosexual community. I have to say that my own experience with gay men has been good. Working experience that is…(LOL). But as in any part of the world, the world we live in is very patriarchal. I think gay men are brought up to be men. I don’t want to sound like I think gay men are terrible people to work with—they aren’t—we just have to acknowledge that men and women are different.
I also want to talk about FEAR. I think fear stops us from doing a lot of things. Fear stops us from being ourselves. Fear works in very insidious ways. I mean, there are gay-affirmative people out there in influential positions, working towards the betterment of the lives of GLBTs. But because of the perceived repercussions of being found out, many of these people aren’t able to openly do their work.
WIA: Would you want to speak about engaging young(er) LGBTIQs in the movement? Is that a concern?Eileena: Younger GLBTs have always been a concern. After all, personally, I know how it feels like to grow up feeling isolated and wrong. It is an area we are treading very carefully as well. In the Pelangi Pride Centre Resource Library, we are able to provide a de-sexualised neutral space for young people to come to for reliable information.
We work in tandem with certain gay- affirmative social workers/mental healthcare workers to address the issues faced by younger GLBTs.
WIA: Are there efforts to engage younger lesbians not only as “clients” or “targets” but as activists in the movement, to strengthen the movement?
Eileena: We have people who are running our monthly women’s nights who are in their early and mid-twenties. However, I don’t know if age is an accurate gauge. I think it all boils down to the individuals’ life experiences and how they feel about the situation, and whether their lives allow them to work towards the betterment of their fellow womenkind.
I think older women (some, not all) have issues to deal with that are so different from those of the younger ones in terms of “gay age” and “gay maturity.” Although they are older of age, they may not be necessarily more mature in terms of gay identity. And for those who have spent a longer time living in the closet, internalised homophobia does work into them in very insidious ways. The key is that we must be aware of how it makes us behave in very unconscious and acceptable but unhealthy ways—acceptable because this has always been the case.
WIA: : ) … Any final words?
Eileena: *thinks…steps onto soapbox…* I yearn for the day when all this will no longer be an issue, when no one blinks an eye about gay/lesbian/bisexual/ transgender/transexual/intersexed/queer. *steps off soapbox* : )
WIA and Eileena both signed out of their virtual chat at 1:11 PM (2/28/2006).
Endnotes
1 PLU is a Singapore gay and lesbian group focused on advocacy and public education. It believes that everyone should have a full and equal place in Singapore society regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, and to this end, works for more informed understanding, the removal of barriers, and a fuller integration of sexual minorities with the larger community. PLU remains an informal group until present as the Registrar of Societies of Singapore has repeatedly refused to grant it registration since 1997.
2 Then Singapore Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong’s statement to the TIME magazine, and current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s statement.
What do we think of pleasure?Sexual pleasure has always been a topic that stirs up a gamut of thoughts and feelings, among which are interest, curiosity, shame, and excitement. There has always been something unquantifiable associated with studying pleasure, understanding its nuances, articulating its links with sexuality, and knowing what it means to each of us individually.
The language we use to talk about sexuality is already controversial—sexuality has come to the forefront of many debates in several different contexts—medical, social, cultural, activist, feminist, public health, and so on. But, in the activist spaces, we are still talking about how to understand sexuality (specifically, sexual pleasure) in order to control it, not about how to enhance its relationship to our well-being.This is partly because we do not have the comfort level to do it; partly because we have traditionally looked at sexual pleasure as being the domain of medicine and commercial media, and not activism and development; and also partly because when we try to talk about it, we are limited in the scope of language that we use to describe it.
Indeed, when it comes to sexual pleasure, it has always been easier to discuss what we should not be doing, as opposed to what we want to be doing. The language of sexual pleasure has been restrictive, fear-based, and limiting. It constantly tries to set boundaries for “normal” pleasure. Advocates for “sexual well-being and pleasure” often hear about how that means individuals have the ability to be “free of sexually transmitted infections” and “free of coercion, discrimination, and violence.” We do not hear of the ability to “have as much pleasure as possible,” or “define sexual pleasure for oneself.” Sexual pleasure has been looked at as something we can “indulge” in only after we remove all the pain and abuse. As if when we remove all the violence, what will eventually remain is a sexuality that we can automatically enjoy!
...what is it about sexual pleasure that causes people to treat it as the most “illegitimate” form of pleasure?We are not as concerned with the pursuit of pleasure when it is derived from areas like our careers, food, and travel. Most people claim to understand and identify with that. But when pleasure is derived from sex, what is it about the pursuit of sexual pleasure that causes people to treat it as the most “illegitimate” form of pleasure? What is it about thinking, constructing, and understanding how we get sexual pleasure that prevents us from talking about it? Oftentimes, we think pleasure is a peripheral, elitist, and luxurious issue to talk about. Many activists think there are many other important and more critical issues to deal with first—whether it is poverty, HIV/AIDS, gender equality, resource management and distribution, or public health issues—before addressing pleasure.
But how do we push a dialogue forward that incorporates these diversities around sexual pleasure, while allowing for it to be affirmative and non-judgemental? For as uncomfortable as it makes us to talk about sexual pleasure, it is critical to understand the role it plays in our well-being.
In an effort to provide a more constructive space to take up and discuss issues of sexual pleasure, The South and Southeast Asia Resource Centre on Sexuality1 designed an e-forum discussion on “Sexual Pleasure, Sexuality and Rights.”2 The discussion was for those interested in critiquing and analysing the discourses around sexual pleasure, sexuality, and rights. We had over 200 participants from all over the world who signed up and took part, enriching the discussion and highlighting several concepts surrounding sexual pleasure that do not receive legitimacy, let alone attention, in the debate on sexuality and rights. The e-forum on the topic ran from October 17 to December 27, 2005.
What does the e-forum space look like?
The e-forum of the Resource Centre is designed for activists, practitioners, academics, students, researchers, and anyone who is interested in issues around sexuality to dialogue with one another, express their opinions, contribute ideas, and share experiences of working on issues of sexuality.
There are some limitations to utilising an e-forum space because many people in South and South-East Asia do not have access to e-mail, and our e-forum caters to those who write in English. Moreover, when we talk about the need for a language on pleasure, many terms related to sexuality do not often translate into local meanings,
which does not necessarily mean that those concepts do not exist in those communities. It is just that local meanings for sexuality and related terms do not always translate literally. Given these limitations, it was not possible to have a comprehensive debate with those working on these issues in South and South-East Asia. But the e-forum is a platform for beginning these discussions. Moreover, the e-forum as a starting point for discussion is also a platform for translations of the discussions into various languages in the region, and a more expanded dissemination strategy, which includes electronic and print resources.The e-forum’s discussions are designed to be structured, moderated spaces that address a particular topic every two months. In those two months, the topic is broken into four sub-topics, each addressing a different aspect of the debate and linking various concepts together.
How did we get ready?
It was a fascinating exercise to try to breakdown sexual pleasure into four debatable sub-topics that all tied together. First, we had to look at how we ourselves looked at sexual pleasure, and if there was a logical way to deconstruct our own ideas related to pleasure and well-being. And given the subjectivity of pleasure, did we want to set parameters for discussion and define boundaries? How did we ensure inclusion of topics that we do not talk about enough, those we have not defined yet, and those that are controversial?
...we realised it would be very difficult to present the idea of talking about sexual pleasure if we were censoring ourselves.Through this process of asking ourselves questions about how we thought and talked about pleasure, what became clear was that we realised it would be very difficult to present the idea of talking about sexual pleasure if we were censoring ourselves. So we began by conducting several brainstorming sessions with staff members on all the potential topics within sexual pleasure. With the idea of being as creative as possible, we asked colleagues to think about sexual pleasure in terms of all the things they were curious about and which they wanted to discuss with others; the topics they thought were relevant for discussion but were never part of the realm of discourses in sexuality. An exciting list emerged—with ideas ranging from sexual practices, behaviours, norms, concepts, theories, entire frameworks turned upside-down, to challenges to the status quo. Next, we researched topics so as to include some of the major debates and contentions therein, and from the categories that emerged, we then tried to define what could be the questions around the categories. Language and how we talk about pleasure was an inevitable way to begin the discussion—what could we say about it if we felt that the language used to describe pleasure was inadequate in the first place?
The language of pleasure: The discussion on the first sub-topic3
We almost always look to language first to try to see if it can convey our diverse realities and multiple experiences. But there is no one way to think and talk about, analyse, construct, express, experience, view, or ensure sexual pleasure. What is defined as sexual pleasure in one context today, for you, or someone else, may not be defined as such the next day. What are our assumptions and ideas around sexual pleasure? Why do we construct pleasure in the ways that we do? When beginning to analyse sexual pleasure, communicating what we mean becomes the biggest challenge, especially if we are trying to articulate a more affirmative perspective of sexual pleasure. And taking from one of the questions posed by an e-forum participant: “What does it mean to talk a language of pleasure?” What is pleasure? Pleasure is what makes us feel good. It increases our sense of well-being and creates a feeling of enjoyment. We pursue, experience, understand, negotiate, and feel pleasure in many ways—in fantasies, in anticipation, in ideas, in deeds, and in thoughts. Pleasure is constructed in a myriad of ways by society, by our peers, by relationships, by norms, by values, and by ourselves. The e-forum participants discussed “The Language of Pleasure” in Sub-topic 1, with much to say on the topic. One of the first questions addressed was: “What kinds of words are used to describe sexual pleasure?”
Going further, what are the assumptions of the language we use to talk about sexual pleasure? Participants highlighted that sexual pleasure was almost always talked about in quantitative ways. And depending on context, we generally feel comfortable identifying levels of “normalcy” in seeking and experiencing sexual pleasure, as if we have to know what “too much pleasure” actually means. The assumptions about what that means about an individual when society tells us that we are out of “normal” boundaries are also damaging. Those who believe in the concept of quantifying sexual pleasure hold on to the idea that desire and pleasure of an individual can be influenced, monitored, modified, and refigured by instituting social, legal, and moral limits of what they consider “appropriate.” For example, people seek and define pleasure in a variety of ways like viewing material with sexual content, having sex with multiple partners, having sex multiple times a day using toys to enhance sexual pleasure, etc.
Can we not just say that there is a variety of ways by which individuals experience, live, and express their sexuality and their desire without judgement or indicators? There are two common responses to these pleasure-seeking behaviours. One believes that sexuality is morality-driven, and anyone engaging in any of these activities is “wrong.” Another response is that these behaviours and desires are not “bad,” but there is a limit. And after a certain point, it is most definitely bad—not only for you, but for others around you. Now, we always talk about how too much of anything is bad for a person, but nothing elicits the kind of response that “too much sexual pleasure” does—we call it “obsession,” “addiction,” “sickness.” What about a third response—the one that says “what does it matter?” That it is irrelevant how many times, how many people, how many things, how many thoughts, and so on? Meaning, so what? Can we not just say that there is a variety of ways by which individuals experience, live, and express their sexuality and their desire without judgement or indicators?
It is difficult to do this for a variety of reasons—the language to support this last response is not really in the realm of the discussion; people have yet to feel comfortable with a sexuality that does not have limits. There seems to be a great need to define and link sexuality to the well-being and order of society. We might say that what one is doing in the privacy of one’s home with consent (of self or of others) should not be of concern to the people at large. But, somehow, many people believe that if we were allowed to pursue sexual pleasure without judgement, we would inevitably become harmful to ourselves and to those around us. This limitation of how we talk about sexual pleasure prevents us from moving beyond a quantifying model.
Sexual pleasure: Can it be still be subjective in a framework? So, now what? Some have argued that the reason we find it so difficult to talk about issues of sexual pleasure is because unlike other issues, there is no one framework or definition of sexuality from which we operate. However, the question becomes: “Do we even want a framework in the first place?” This question was met with mixed reactions. Since sexual pleasure is so subjective, one participant noted that developing a framework only further serves to define boundaries for sexuality, normalising certain behaviours and identities, and marginalising what is still least understood. How can we talk about sexual pleasure and sexuality in a way that the framework does not backfire on us? This broad question seems to have thrown in more questions than the answers it sought.
Participants then looked at what kinds of frameworks are already being used to discuss sexual pleasure. HIV/AIDS has legitimised conversations, programmes, policies, laws, and education on sexuality. Gender mainstreaming has been used to tackle how gender analysis affects health indicators, realisation of rights, and disproportional distribution of resources. We have looked at how family planning has opened up the discussions on reproductive and sexual health. But we are still left with a safety and risk analysis of sexuality. Given that, how else can we talk about pleasure except to talk about it as one more thing of which to be afraid?
...sexual pleasure has become “professionalised” to the point that science and medicine have claimed so much of the language we use today in communicating about sexual pleasure...As mentioned above, medical, media, and commercial interest groups have carved out a framework for themselves in the discussion around sexual pleasure, as limiting as it might be. The medical community commonly leads the discussion on developing technologies that enhance pleasure and conducting research on devising indicators for “normal” experiences and expressions of sexual pleasure. For instance, researchers are constantly devising studies that define how long the “normal” woman’s orgasm lasts; or how many she can have in the course of a day. Or what is a “normal” man’s penis size when he is aroused. Or what kinds of “normal” emotions people experience in sex. They try to develop indicators to understand what “out-of-control sexuality” is: how much sex during the week is “too much”; when does it become an “obsession” or “addiction”? As an e-forum participant noted, sexual pleasure has become “professionalised” to the point that science and medicine have claimed so much of the language we use today in communicating about sexual pleasure that it is now used to describe much of the private space that people use to describe individual experiences, often, inadequately.
The media occupies a space that allows it to create ads that have bold sexual pleasure-seeking messages and images. If you look at popular women’s magazines, they are constantly telling you things like “Five Ways to Please Your Man,” or “How to Give Yourself an Orgasm in Five Different Positions.” The “pleasure industry” largely markets and develops toys and pleasure supplements. What do these “norms” serve to do except to define boundaries that make those who do not fit into them think about the inevitable label of “abnormal”? And as one participant pointed out, if we have one standard language for speaking about sexual pleasure, we inevitably dismiss all the ideas and concepts that do not yet have a label, category, or term.
What about activist groups? The space for sexual pleasure discussions and debates among activists has been fragmented at best, at least from a South and South-East Asian perspective, and we are still trying to find the language to talk about it, and create more constructive spaces to do so. The feminist movement has been one such space, but it has not been a uniformly welcoming or affirmative space. In India, feminists have brought many difficult, taboo, and groundbreaking ideas and debates to the public sphere—violence against women, women’s rights, contraception, and abortion (in relation to family planning)—with many successful outcomes. However, their engagement with sexual pleasure, and even sexuality, has been mixed. Recently, feminists are increasingly speaking about sexuality, mainly in connection to HIV/AIDS (and that, too, only in relation to risk and safety), violence against women, and migration issues. Sexual pleasure has not yet fully entered the realm of discussion.
In taking up whatever activist spaces do exist, several participants shared many examples of what they had experienced in the form of safe spaces. They gave suggestions on what those spaces would need to include in facilitating an open dialogue about sexual pleasure. Some participants mentioned online fora as a non-judgemental, moderated space where people could be who they wanted, identify as they wished, and feel free from shame and guilt to discover themselves. Others highlighted discussion groups and cited examples of the ability to moderate the inclusion of pejorative phrases and words. Some participants suggested that in order to try to include a more expanded view of traditional stereotyped terms around pleasure, the forum could begin creating a dictionary of terms to try to diversify the language around sexual pleasure. Still others thought that creating environments that made it okay for people to accept that they could define pleasure for themselves was an important part of expanding the dialogue to be more affirmative towards sexual pleasure. One e-forum participant observed that there were numerous factors influencing sexual pleasure and its expressions, including how cultures construct people to think about pleasure, which teaches us who, and how, to love. ...the seemingly opposite terms that comprise “pleasurable pain” open up a whole new possibility for talking about sexual pleasure and experiences associated with it...How are we describing sexual pleasure? There are rare conversations about sexual pleasure in and of itself—many people think it is indulgent to do so, given that there are so many other “legitimate” issues surrounding us—so why talk about sexual pleasure? One e-forum participant critiqued the health framework and asked about the purpose of always talking about sexual pleasure from a health perspective. Another participant responded by stating that being able to approach sexual pleasure from the perspective of people feeling good about sexual pleasure actually minimises risk. Several participants talked about how there was not enough emphasis on mutual pleasure and that the denial of sexuality as a part of well-being was part of the problem. Participants also questioned the wide spectrum of sexual pleasure—the intersection of violence and sexuality, pain and pleasure (“pleasurable pain”), and pleasure and guilt. As one participant pointed out, the seemingly opposite terms that comprise “pleasurable pain” open up a whole new possibility for talking about sexual pleasure and experiences associated with it—uncomfortable, to say in the least, but necessary if we want to begin talking about sexual pleasure in a manner that reflects openness and furthering dialogue.
Another interesting thing that was represented in the e-forum discussions was the language used around who accessed pleasure. We can see how even the language used around who is involved in receiving, giving, and expressing sexual pleasure also need to be expanded. We began by talking how pleasure was experienced between two people, and how it should be defined by those two people, to talking about how
men and women might understand pleasure differently. The discussion moved towards using a more gender-neutral language around sexual pleasure, and how associating sexual responses with gender might create pressure for people to try and “normalise” their sexual responses. The debate was taken even further as it was discussed that sexual pleasure was not only the physical but the emotional and mental experiences as well. As one participant shared, sexual pleasure can also be derived from the thought of an act, or the anticipation of it. As others also shared, it is self, it is touches, it is images, anywhere, anytime. There were also participants who asked that definitions and boundaries of sexual pleasure be expanded to include language that referred to “people” and not the gender binary of “man and woman,” and not to assume that “partners” meant that only two people could enjoy sexual pleasure together. Additionally, the e-forum brought up the need to expand the discourse to include the notion that sexual pleasure is experienced and described by those who are attracted to the same sex.In conclusion, as we think about ways to move forward from here, the expansion of the language and understanding of sexual pleasure in such diverse contexts is mind-boggling, to say the least. But, at the same time, it is critical to moving forward a more progressive and inclusive dialogue that more accurately represents the diversity around issues of sexual pleasure.
Endnotes
1 The South and Southeast Asia Resource Centre on Sexuality, based at TARSHI (Talking About Reproductive and Sexual Health), in New Delhi, India, aims at increasing knowledge and scholarship on issues of sexuality, sexual health, and sexual well-being in this region. The Resource Centre specifically focuses on sexuality-related work in China, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Philippines, and Vietnam. The Centre serves as a space for activists, advocates, practitioners, and researchers to better understand, examine, and expand upon the complex issues surrounding debates on sexuality.
2 To learn more about the Centre and the forum initiative, sign up for the e-forum discussions, and read past messages from the forum, please visit the Resource Centre’s website at <www.asiasrc.org>.
3 The forum continued to discuss three other sub-topics on the issues of the regulation and freedom of pleasure, rights, and some best practices.
The 
we!
WiA 
Isis Resource Center holds one of the largest feminist collections of materials in the Global South. With 40 years of publication experience, Isis holds a vast collection.