By Benjamin Lyngdoh
In this age and time, why should anything at all be a spectacle? Why should we gaze upon and even worse why should we frown upon anything? Fact of the matter is that words like ‘spectacle’, ‘gaze’, ‘frown’ and the like are very heavy, connoting a serious degree of societal disgust and intolerance. Contemporarily, we are seeing a visibility of a grouping whereby they are increasingly identified as a community by the name Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT). If there is any community that is widely abused and demeaned these days, it is this community. However, the question is why? Socially, are these people not equals, are they not entitled to a choice and to a life. Why can we not just look at LGBTs like we look at others? Why are they taken as a ‘spectacle’? Accordingly, I place the following pointers –
Firstly, we are all born with a sex (boy/girl). No one is ever born with a gender. Gender is a social construct. The society defines what gender is by way of psychological make-up, behaviour and roles. Hence, let us put things in perspective. When a baby is born into this world, it is defined as a boy or girl on the basis of sex (except in the extreme and rare case of hermaphrodites [these are babies with both boy and girl sexual organs]). As such, there is no gender associated with a baby. Gender becomes visible and imposed only when the baby starts growing into a child and further into an adult. As the baby grows, the psychological make-up and behaviour becomes socially imposed. Further, gender roles come into effect. Consequently, as the baby boy/baby girl grows the so-called well defined and revered societal norms on gender comes into the picture. Some of the norms at the most local level is – only females cook, a male and female return from work at the same time in the evening but the female has to make tea, it is demeaning for a male to touch a broom at home, only males can propose to a female and so forth. Point is, these are gender roles christened by society; but they can be challenged. Similarly, if a LGBT community challenges the gender discourse and gender roles; why should it be a spectacle? However, one answer is certain and obvious; that societies are always resistant to change.
Secondly, just last week we had a programme on gender sensitization at the UGC Human Resource Development Centre, NEHU. At the programme, the opinions and arguments made on gender and gender roles were highly balanced and mainstreamed. There was an equal recognition for all genders. However, I find the discourse highly skewed and unfair. This is because in such a gathering of teachers we are expected to be rational and socially correct; even though in our heart of hearts we may not agree on gender equality and justice. A case in point is that we as teachers all agreed that we must accept all genders equally. However, when the question was raised ‘will you accept if gender norms and roles are challenged by your own children?’ The classroom went into a pin drop dead silence. Food for thought!!! Thus, the real issues on LGBT are not in the four corners of the classroom or educational organizations. It is actually on the streets and in our homes. As such, let me talk a bit about NEHU and my own community. Firstly, if there are LGBTs present in our university and classrooms, how should we respond to the situation and what approach do we adopt? Do we accept them and treat them equally as a normal gendered person or do we frown and gaze and treat them as a spectacle? Secondly, let us look at our homes and how gender skewed and irrational we are so as to give so much macho and muscle to the males. Point being, if a female acts and behaves as a male we proudly say ani kane ka khun ngi te kum u shynrang; (Ah this daughter of ours is a tomboy) but should a boy display effeminate qualities then we say “khun ka pohjait me leh kum ka kynthei.” (You low-caste fool how dare you behave like a girl?).
Thirdly, the recent ruling by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on ‘privacy’ is path breaking and a huge fillip to the LGBT community. The Court ruled not only on Aadhaar but went further on the question of lesbians and gays. The lines that sent the LGBTs into jubilation is that ‘privacy is a fundamental right and is protected under Article 21 (which guarantees right to life and liberty) and it is intrinsic to the Indian Constitution’. Hence, if privacy is a right under life and liberty; who are we to question on gender preference. No one questions the gender preference of the majority, so why should the majority question the minority? Be that as it may, as a result of this legal recourse, the whole debate on LGBTs will change in this country irrespective of societal norms and household roles. This is a good thing as it will at least ensure a sense of sensitivity to not look at them as a spectacle. As such, we can be as conventional as we may be as a community/society; but we have to realize that the LGBT question is not some irrelevant story or utopia. It is a clear and present situation freely prevalent in our midst. Ignoring it will not help. In the context of Shillong at least, I am not sure about the presence of transgender person(s), but we do have lesbians, gays and bisexuals. Clearly, we must not treat them as a spectacle. As said, they have a right to life.
Fourthly, what will the Church do when (not if) two he’s or two she’s walk towards the church leadership and declare that they would like to sanctify their bond into a wedlock. This is a pertinent and valid question. The Church cannot ignore this situation, even though plans for dealing with such contingencies do not currently exist. Let us not go to the Biblical argument here. As Biblically, such a wedlock institution can never be accepted. As such, I do not contest that. However, is not the Church supposed to care and nurture society? For sure it is! Moreover, these days we have a concept called ‘holistic mission’. I have a question. Where does the connotation of holistic mission stand if we continue to look at LGBTs as a spectacle? Hopefully, someone form the Church perspective responds as I do believe that they do have a response and should have one. In any case, one of the answers will be upbringing and counselling. However, what if the upbringing in itself was instrumental or not instrumental towards gender preference of a person? And what if the person is not responding to counselling? Do we ostracise them? The most important fact that we have to factor here is that LGBT preference is decided sometimes by force and sometimes by choice. Either way, it is critical.
Lastly, we can ignore them or be indifferent towards them or demean them. But the fact of the matter is that the LGBT community is one of the most vibrant communities worldwide. Moreover, currently they are not divided on the context of race, caste, creed, religion, faith, colour and country. Come to think of it in the context of our normalised communities, is it not ironic?
(The Author teaches at NEHU)