Months later, I remembered a friend who got a teddy bear and said that he will gift it to the person he loves. People around him curiously asked him whether his lover was a ‘‘he’ or a ‘she’?’ This question seemed to have put the person on a spot, made him a bit uncomfortable. The person tried his best to refer to their partner using gender-neutral pronouns. This was the beginning of my understanding of the role pronouns played in providing an inclusive space for everyone to express their true self and whom they love.

In 2021, at my workplace in Bhopal, I met a person called Gadha who had come from Kerala. We quickly got along as friends. We would hang out and talk about our professional and personal aspirations, families, food habits, literature, cinema, amongst other interests. When you move to a new city, finding such friends could provide an anchor to help you sail through the ups and downs of a new environment. In the company of someone you trust, you can share your innermost experiences, morals, joys, aspirations, failures, and fears..

In one of our meetups, I found Gadha anxious and upset. As a friend, I tried to talk and help. Gadha shared that the primary cause of her worry was the fact that they were frequently misgendered by those around them! Gadha is a non-binary person and prefers the pronoun they/them though everyone would refer to them as ‘she/her.’

Though aware of various gender identities, I still took it casually until this incident. This incident deepened my realization of the emotional harm that misgendering can do. This realization was different from what one would have by reading about this subject. This was different because it prompted me not just to agree with what is being said, but to see a friend’s distress first hand and to change my own ways of addressing individuals like Gadha.

For others who are non-trans/cisgender, this brings great privilege. Being called ‘Sir’ or ‘Ma’am’ correctly all the time is something one may take for granted, and fail to appreciate the feelings of someone who does not have this privilege. Imagine yourself in the place of someone who lives in a world where they are constantly misgendered. How difficult it must be to put up with it? Being mindful of someone’s gender is the very least we can do. It does not take much effort, but surely requires a will, and an intent, of avoiding hurt to fellow humans. Gadha themself says that avoiding to misgender is not really different from avoiding to crush someone’s feet.

Relationships we share with our friends, colleagues and peers is a powerful tool to learn the human experience. Because of my friend, I now keep envisioning and working towards a world where people like them (my friend) are never misgendered. Gender sensitivity should also be extended to someone’s partner, in that we do not assume the partner’s gender, or insist on knowing it. Using gender-neutral language and asserting one’s pronouns out there, is a small step in this direction that will eventually contribute towards a culture of gender sensitivity and inclusion.

Gadha now is doing well. Besides the necessity of using correct pronouns, I have learnt many other things in their company – from making a good Kerala style curry to learning about various scholars and their work in the field of gender studies and psychology.

Let us keep knowing, befriending and learning from people like Gadha.

Notes:

• Gadha’s name and photograph is used with their consent.
• I acknowledge and thank Dr. Ameya Bondre for his inputs and support while writing this piece.
• Gadha’s photo: courtesy author
• Featured image courtesy Wikimedia Commons

On the evening of Friday, March 2, 2018, Coimbatore saw the public screening of ‘Ladies and Gentlewomen’, a Tamil documentary film. Directed by Malini Jeevarathnam and  produced by Pa. Ranjith’s Neelam Productions, ‘Ladies and Gentlewomen’ is the first effort in the history of Tamil cinema to break the silence around the dynamics and body politics of lesbian relationships, which are often socially stigmatised. Also screened were ‘En Aasai En Kanavu’ and ‘Won’t the Real Transformers please stand up?’, two short films on the lives of transmen and transwomen.

These screenings were organised by Queerbatore, a collective formed in 2015 by a few individuals who were part of the Orinam mailing list and network. Queerbatore is now an active WhatsApp group and offline space for people belonging to the LGBTQIA+ community who either live in Coimbatore or have a personal/professional association with the city.

The event commenced with a song rendered by Shyam, a volunteer of Queerbatore.

The song was followed by the screening of Malini’s film.

Post-screening, Vivek Kumaran gave an informative presentation on gender and sexuality to make the audience aware of LGBTQIA+ terminologies. Vivek also urged the audience to  be sensitive, respectful and accepting of persons with diverse identities and to address them by their preferred choice of pronouns.

This was followed by the panel discussion featuring Kalki Subramaniam, Selvam, Vinodhan,  Malini Jeevarathnam, Saurabh Masurkar, and Srijith Sundaram.

Representing the transwomen, transmen, intersex, lesbian, gay and ally communities, these panelists come from different walks of life. What they have in common is their extensive and passionate work for the welfare of the LGBTQIA+ community through their engagement with art, theatre, film, media, activism, advocacy and life.

The intention of this interaction between the panelists was primarily to make people within and outside the community aware of the diversity of identities that exist under the LGBTQIA+ umbrella. Kalki, Srijith, Malini, Selvam, Saurabh and Vinodhan passionately spoke of the challenges, breakthroughs and experiences in their personal and professional circles. The audience was also encouraged to accept whoever they feel they are and to live without the fear of anyone.

Most of all, this event was an Out and Loud call to people from all sections of the society to stand up and unite against oppression on the basis of sex, gender, caste, race, appearance, personal choices or, for that matter, violation of any human right. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

In the video excerpt below (courtesy Prasanth), Kalki speaks about gender stereotypes within the community, followed by a discussion with Srijith on queer history and intersectional activism.

Thanks to the Queerbatore volunteers who shared the images above.

Stunned, I gulped down the food. I assumed my friend expected a strong reaction out of me, instead. But I simply said: “Gimme sometime to digest this!” (I guess I got too carried away by the food.) We didn’t talk much after that for the whole evening.

That night, I slept over it. Then, realisation dawned. And I had things to say, not just to my close friend, but to all of you as well.

Many of us will, like I did, face a “coming out” situation – whether we’d like to face it or not. Perhaps a dear one coming out to us. Or even some of us coming out to our dear ones.

Here are my thoughts on how a heterosexual person should respond when someone comes out to them as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT).

This is all the more important in the Indian context since we know how unpleasant the scenario can be for LGBT people here in terms of social acceptance.

It probably hits you the hardest when the person coming out has been close to you for years, and you’ve been absolutely unaware of their sexual orientation all this while.

Man, that strikes like a bolt of lightning.

A volatile reaction is not unexpected. The surprise may even turn to ire. But this is the defining moment. Harsh reactions would certainly hamper the relationship between you two. If you value your friendship with this person, here are some points to keep in mind.

1. UNCHANGED
Sure you’ve been made privy to additional information about your friend, which you were previously unaware of. But why should his/her sexual orientation change anything that currently exists between you two? He/she is still the same person you’ve known all along.

We all have secrets. Not all secrets mask our personality, our humanity. The top ten things that made my friend my close friend didn’t have “sexual orientation” among them. So I guessed nothing was really going to change!

2. HONOUR
Out of everyone, if my friend chooses to tell me first, or even just tell me something that is so private to him/her, I would be honoured.

It’s a big step for your friend. For anybody to believe and trust in somebody else. So value that decision, and take it like the honour it is. They trusted you. Let’s not prove them wrong!

3. LISTEN
That which everybody should generally do more. And more so in this situation. Your friend is already going through a lot of internal turmoil and agitation. They just need someone to share their feelings with, to speak their heart out, obtain emotional support. So don’t bombard them with questions and your assumptions.

Listen.

If something worthwhile comes to your mind, speak out. Ideally, words that attempt to calm your friend. Words that will reassure your friend of your unconditional support. No big speeches, please.

4. GAY
Also means “happy”. So while you are doing all that listening, don’t sit like a zombie, emotionless, expressionless. You may not speak at that moment, but you can certainly respond through your expressions. Trust me, that’s a lot easier than finding the right kind of words to say!

Have feelings of happiness on your face. A smile, definitely. Laughter, no. Nod. Look into their eyes. That’s the most assuring. And if you are comfortable then, don’t forget to sign off with a warm hug. I think hugs make everybody happy, irrespective of their orientations.

(Also, try reacting a little less surprised or less happy for someone who breaks this news on Social Media. I’m still figuring out that part)

5. DISCREET
More than your friend is. Because, intentionally or unintentionally, it’s not your job to spread the word about your friend’s sexuality. Not unless your friend is OK with it, and the two of you have that understanding between each other. Either way, let’s not be the speakers for something that isn’t ours to tell, unless the situation compels it.

That’s all I have for now. But I would like to conclude with a few additional pointers.

a. If your friend is of the same sex as you, do not assume that your friend fancies you.

b. Please don’t ask silly questions.

c. This would be a good time to cultivate some general knowledge regarding the LGBT community. Know the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity.

d. Importantly, continue doing what you’ve been doing with your close friend – being friends with him/her.

e. And it’s never too late. You can still make up with your friend =)

Know you’ve found that special friend in your life, when you can share anything, absolutely anything, with that person. Please be that person to your LGBT friend(s).

Credits: An earlier version of this post appeared on Raveen’s blog. Orinam thanks his friend (the one who came out to him) for sharing it and Raveen for permission to adapt it for this site.

This article was translated to English from Tamil by PT.

In 2009, the Delhi High Court had ruled that Section 377, that treats allegedly-unnatural sexual acts as criminal offences, is unconstitutional and recommended its reading down. But, the Supreme Court  quashed this earlier verdict in 2013, ruling that Section 377 did not suffer from constitutional infirmity. The SC went on to recommend proper action through the Legislature.

Hence, your protest against Section 377 should now be directed towards the Parliament.

You must realise, however, that the Parliament we have today is not going to accept your request and work towards reading down the section that easily. Your struggle is not going to result in victory without difficulty. There have been many such protests by civil society that have been unheeded by the government.

When Dr B. R. Ambedkar, who was the Chairman of the Constituent Assembly that drafted the Indian Constitution, was India’s Law Minister, he drafted the Hindu Code Bill that mandated equitable property to women in the succession law. When opposition against this provision mounted, arguing that this amendment to existing rights was against our cultural ethos and tradition, Ambedkar was prepared to resign. One cannot expect such determination for your cause among the legislators of today.

Hence, you must strengthen your protest and work towards consolidating this determined struggle. An MP from the BJP, supported by a Hindu organisation, had appealed against the High Court verdict. Soon a Muslim organisation and a Christian organisation joined in support for this appeal. You must therefore understand that any religion, be it the one where you prostrate on the ground or the one where you kneel to worship, is against human rights.

People ask why I support those who indulge in ‘unnatural’ relationships. My response is as follows: if you ask a heterosexual man to live with a man, he will not be able to accept it. That is because it (attraction only to the other sex) is his nature. If you ask a heterosexual woman to live with another woman, she will not be able to accept it. That is her nature.

Similarly, same-sex relationships are also natural. Not understanding this is the problem. Let us keep reiterating these facts to raise public awareness on alternative sexuality.

This article was translated to English from Tamil by PT.

Former Attorney General Goolam Vahanvati’s passing away on 2 September, 2014 marks a moment of sadness for the LGBT community. Mr Vahanvati will be remembered  fondly for  his sensitive advocacy against  Section 377  of the Indian Penal Code.

As a representative of India before the the United Nations Human Rights Council, Mr Vahanvati acknowledged that it was homophobia – not homosexuality – that was a legacy of colonialism, and suggested that Section 377, was in part, enacted to deter Europeans who “came to India to take advantage of its more liberal atmosphere with regard to different kinds of sexual conduct.”

When the first appeals were filed after the Delhi High Court’s judgment, it was Mr. Vahanvati’s statement in the Supreme Court that the Union of India was examining the issue but in the meanwhile did not want a stay of the judgment that saved the High Court’s ruling for 4 more years. Ultimately, the government took the position in the Supreme Court that ‘there was no legal error in the judgment of the Delhi High Court’ and asked that the appeals against the High Court’s judgment be dismissed.

In the history of anti-sodomy law litigation throughout the world, it was perhaps the first time that a national government had taken the line that its own law was unconstitutional.

Mr. Vahanvati presented this viewpoint before the Supreme Court with his customary skill backed up by meticulous research. Mr. Vahanvati’s written submissions on behalf of the Union of India, based on extensive research, again made the point that Section 377 was a colonial imposition and was enacted out of patently racist assumptions of ‘native’ sexual behaviour.

However, this unambiguous position of the Union of India did not convince the bench  who  kept pressing Mr Vanhavati as to why the Union of India had supported the retention of Section 377 in the High Court but had taken the opposite position in the Supreme Court. Mr Vahanvati replied that that  the ‘government also learns and after the[Delhi High Court ]judgment there was subsequent enlightenment.’

The December 11, 2014 judgment in Suresh Kumar Koushal, upholding the constitutional validity of Section 377  triggered widespread outrage and the Union Government decided to file a review petition challenging the Supreme Court judgment. The petition was settled by Mr. Vahanvati and had 76 grounds for review.

Among the review grounds, notable for its sensitive understanding of the impact of the judgment was one which read,

“Following the High Court judgment that decriminalised adult consensual sexual acts in private, including homosexual acts, a considerable number of LGBT persons had become open about their sexual orientation and identity in their families, workplaces, educational institutions and public spaces, amongst others. All those people suddenly have become vulnerable to abuse and discrimination and require immediate relief. ”

While the Government that Mr. Vahanvati represented had clearly learned from the High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court had not, and unfortunately the review petition was dismissed.

After the Supreme Court’s December 11 judgment, Mr Vahanvati went beyond the call of duty and  did something unprecedented in the 377 case. He penned an open letter where he stated that he ‘belongs to the school of thought which believes that an Attorney General must be heard in court and not outside it’ and yet he felt he had to express his opinion on the Koushal judgment because of the ‘importance of the matter’ and because  the judgment had caused ‘widespread anguish and heartache across the country’.

After reiterating the point that Section 377 – not homosexuality –was a western import he concluded with words which still remain meaningful.

‘The world has moved on. It is fast changing. Perceptions have changed. Attitudes have changed. Law does not and cannot remain static. Whenever necessary, the Supreme Court has reflected changed perceptions of the law and has struck outmoded laws down. They did so when striking down rent control laws as socially irrelevant. They also did it by breathing fresh life into Article 21, protecting life and personal liberty. They did it by consigning the archaic judgment in A K Gopalan vs State of Madras, rendered in 1950, into the dustbin of history. Unfortunately, they declined to give a similar treatment to Section 377. Therein lies the tragedy.

One hopes that the LGBT community has more such champions of empathetic  reasoning as Mr. Vahanvati and the ‘colonial legacy’ is finally removed from our roster of  ‘lawless laws’.

Read Vikram’s tribute here.

Goolamhussein Essaji Vahanvati, the 13th Attorney General of India, passed away on September 2, 2014, from a heart attack, at the age of 65. He served in office from June 2009 to May 2014, and was much in the news in the last years of the previous government, particularly for having to defend some dubious legal decisions. We remember him as a supporter of decriminalisation of homosexuality, both from before he became A-G and while he was serving.

In 2008, when he was solicitor-general, Vahanvati spoke before the UN Human Rights Council, trying to argue that India’s homophobia was a colonial relic [see ref, courtesy Aditya]. He stated, “Around the early 19th Century, you probably know that in England they frowned on homosexuality, and therefore there are historical reports that various people came to India to take advantage of its more liberal atmosphere with regard to different kinds of sexual conduct… [a]s a result, in 1860 when we got the Indian Penal Code, which was drafted by Lord Macaulay, they inserted Section 377 which brought in the concept of ‘sexual offences against the order of nature’.

In another piece he wrote in the Asian Age (hat tip to Nitin for posting it on the GB list long back) before he became A-G and while we were fighting the matter in the Delhi High Court, he stated “People have the right to lead their lives, privately, so long as they do not affect others… [I]n our country the right of persons to live their lives privately and on their own terms may take quite some time to achieve recognition. There are several sections in the Indian Penal Code which are anachronistic in a changed world. Section 377 is a prime example.”

The Union of India was against us at that time and it is significant that Vahanvati, who was a well known senior lawyer, was willing to take a public stand at that time.

When he became A-G I remember hearing speculation that he would not stick to his earlier stand when the matter came up in the Supreme Court. He was the first Muslim A-G and there were rumours he was under pressure from fundamentalist quarters not to support LGBT rights. And it did seem that was in the first chaotic days of the Supreme Court of India arguments when the government lawyer who had opposed us in the High Court got up to reiterate the arguments.

Almost immediately another government lawyer got up to say that he was wrong, but the damage was done and the judges were annoyed and demanded the A-G come to clarify matters. I remember we speculated he would not and just avoid the case, but to Vahanvati’s credit he came towards the end and fully supported us and said the law needed to change. Sadly, the judges didn’t listen to him.

Two days after the infamous 11-12-13 decision of SCI, Vahanvati wrote a strong piece in The Times of India titled “Law can’t remain static: Government told SC that Section 377 didn’t reflect Indian values”.  Some excerpts:

” I belong to the school of thought which believes that an Attorney General must be heard in court and not outside it. However, there comes a time when an exception has to be made. I believe this is one such time. Given the importance of the matter and widespread anguish and heartache across the country, i feel that i must depart from this self-limitation to set the record straight and to explain the stand taken by the government in the Section 377 case.

“In my written submissions, therefore, I clearly and categorically stated: “Accordingly, it is submitted that the government of India does not find any legal error in the judgment of the high court and accepts the correctness of the same. This is also clear from the fact that it has not filed any appeal against the judgment of the high court.”

“The concept of intercourse against the order of nature is troublesome. It raised further questions: “What then is the order of nature?” and “What is against the order of nature?” Is it not conceivable that what was perceived to be against the order of nature in 1860 may not subsequently be perceived to be against the order of nature particularly in view of a change in society’s understanding or tolerance of that thing?

“The world has moved on. It is fast changing. Perceptions have changed. Attitudes have changed. Law does not and cannot remain static. Whenever necessary, the Supreme Court has reflected changed perceptions of the law and has struck outmoded laws down. They did so when striking down rent control laws as socially irrelevant. They also did it by breathing fresh life into Article 21, protecting life and personal liberty. They did it by consigning the archaic judgment in A K Gopalan vs State of Madras, rendered in 1950, into the dustbin of history. Unfortunately, they declined to give a similar treatment to Section 377. Therein lies the tragedy. ”

RIP Mr. Vahanvati, we will need more allies like you.

A tribute from lawyers Mayur Suresh and Arvind Narrain is here.

My answer is not really straightforward. I must reflect on key events in my life to attempt to answer this question.

Born into a family that belonged to an ‘upper caste’ as defined by Hindu beliefs, I grew up with the privilege accorded to a heterosexual gender-normative middle-class male. Though our family has seen significant financial turmoil, we never really struggled for food or shelter. As a child, I did not perceive the existence of oppression in my circles, nor did my family tell me anything about it. Why would they? We never saw any of it.

I was sent to good schools and grew up listening to stories of people from difficult backgrounds who had made it big through sheer hard work. All the students I hung out with belonged to a similar social stratum. I assumed my bubble mirrored all of society. At that stage, I did not know much about the evils such caste and poverty that plagued our society. The notion that everyone had the same opportunities and it was up to people to utilise the same and get rich or gain power was constantly reinforced in me. I started passing judgments on people with whom I had no immediate contact with at a rather early age. When I saw homeless and/or elderly people seeking alms on the street, I did not see people who had been socially marginalised. I deemed them lazy and judged them for having being reckless in spending in their younger years, thereby having brought their current state of poverty on themselves. In effect I was a complete believer of the ‘Just World Theory’, where one assumed that everything was fair, and to complain was an act of cowardice.

My first realization that people weren’t neatly divided into the man-woman binary was as a young boy traveling in a local train. I saw a group of transwomen (I know this in retrospect, not then) seeking money from the public, performing their signature claps. Curious, I asked my mother who they were. She answered, out of ignorance – or because she didn’t know how to explain to a child – that they were people who had two hearts. Relentlessly, I sought details and asked her how two hearts would fit into the circulatory system. Questions like these, whether to my mother, or to teachers while discussing sexual reproduction in biology class, were met with discomfort, awkward pauses, shifty answers and attempts to change the topic. I internalized this discomfort as transphobia.

When a classmate, a boy with stereotypically feminine traits, was bullied and excluded by his peers from discussion and socialization, I was among those who joined in the jeering.

My pursuit to learn the Vedas sent me on a fundamentalist spree for a short while.

I may, perhaps, have remained that way throughout my life.

In my late teens, my world, as I had imagined it, broke down. Though I held that people had equal opportunities, the statistics said otherwise. Certain communities had more people in the upper economic strata and some were over-represented in the poorer sections. Inequalities were also evident along gender lines in politics, workforce, social participation etc. In trying to reconcile these facts with with my belief system, I was faced with the following choices:

1. Assume women, gender minorities, sexual minorities etc. were inherently inferior.
2. Accept I was wrong in my assertion that life is fair to all.

I knew that the first possibility wasn’t true, leaving behind the alternative. This was the defining moment when my belief system broke down. I stopped assuming fairness and looked at the world again. Like NEO in matrix, I suddenly saw a whole new layer hovering around our lives. I noticed my relatives advising their daughters not to laughout loud or tell them not to go out after it was dark. I had never heard anyone tell me any of this. I began questioning the male privilege I had taken for granted.

Following much introspection and re-examination of my religious beliefs, I moved out of my safe zone and embraced atheism. I ended up being severely ostracised by peers for an episode in which my actions were deemed contrary to the strongly religious-cultural ethos at my school. No one spoke to me, and my classmates actively avoided me. Two years passed thus, leaving deep and long-lasting marks on my sense of self. During this period of extended social rejection, realisation hit me hard. What I was experiencing then must have been exactly what my supposedly feminine male classmate must have felt all these years. The reasons were different, but the exclusion, and resultant pain must have felt similar. And what I felt was temporary: he must have been experiencing this for a long time. The day after I had this realisation, I walked over to him next in the class, said “I am sorry”, and walked away without explaining why I apologised.

While I was able to emerge from that phase of being secluded and return to my more social self, the realisation that there are people marginalised overtly and covertly – sometimes for their entire lives – remained with me. I started speaking with classmates whom the class mocked often, and trying to learn about why they were excluded. This continued into college.

Unfortunately, this behaviour on my part was driven by a misplaced sense of sympathy. I assumed that it was noble to devote my time for the betterment of others. But as time went by, I realised the folly of a sympathy- rather than empathy- driven approach. Time and again I caught myself believing in nonsense and spewing nonsense, but it only amplified my drive to be a better human being. I kept pushing aggressively and started systematically studying.

In 2011, while in my third year of college, I met some people at Nirmukta, an organisation dedicated to promoting secular humanism and free thought. Interacting both online and offline with this community guided me on the principles of structured logical thought and laid the foundations of humanism for everyone to adhere to. Nirmukta members were patient enough engage with me and my still-evolving convictions, and helped me organise my thoughts in a coherent logical manner.

I read about and grew aware of the injustice meted out to caste minorities and noticed my own relatives engaging in caste-based discrimination. I read about the difficulties and struggles of people with physical and mental disabilities. I observed the difficulties faced by women every single day of their lives, a reality of subjugation, harassment and violence. The prejudice faced by gender minorities and people of different sexual orientations. With the single key of empathy, I learned to love of people regardless of any minor unimportant difference between us.

Subsequently, the biggest challenge crept in. I felt it was no longer adequate to simply believe in these ideas and confront my prejudices. It was necessary for the people I love too to stop inadvertently cause mental harm to others. Within the circle of loved ones, the closest were my immediate family. Coming out to them as an atheist and ally of LGBT people appeared an insurmountable goal. I wasn’t really sure about what my parents believed in. I knew a large number of my relatives were right-wing fundamentalists, but I wasn’t sure how open my parents were to receiving alternate points of view, some challenging their most fundamental assumptions.

Summoning the courage, one day in December 2013, I initiated a discussion at home by expressing my anguish over the Supreme Court verdict upholding Sec 377. Curious, my parents asked what it was. Apparently they really hadn’t thought about any of this. What became a Sunday afternoon of intense discussion, soon became a regular affair at home with everyone discussing the problems faced by sexual minorities and women. I realized that their reservations around LGBT issues were overridden by the humanistic values they held.

A few months later, when I announced that I planned to participate in Chennai Rainbow Pride March, they immediately asked if they could join too!

We still do have animated discussions on feminism and LGBTQI rights, and I know that while my parents still have questions, they are most definitely not fundamentalist in their view.

Back to the original question, what prompts me to speak up and intervene when I see discrimination?

Answer: Why wouldn’t I? It is a shame that inequality and injustice persists. Replace the words ‘women’, ‘caste minorities’ and ‘LGBTQI’ with ‘human’. Rephrase terms ‘women’s rights’ and ‘LGBT rights’ with ‘human rights’ and the answer becomes self-evident.

I guess the answer is best summed up by what Desmond Tutu said “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”

* Geetha TG and Soorya Sriram. What’s going on with men? 

Geetha TG and Soorya Sriram. Transgender Woes.

Geetha TG and Soorya Sriram. A No is a ‘No’ – Not ‘Yes’, Not ‘Maybe’.

One day – he must have been eight at that time – he expressed a desire to smell the lipstick I used to have. It was a maroon coloured lipstick. After smelling it, he asked me whether he could use it. This was the first doubt I had about him and it helped my understanding of him. Once I nodded my head with approval, I noticed that he was,  surprisingly, quite good with it. The way girls purse their lips after applying lipstick, he did the same. I understood that he had been observing me for quite some time. When I told everyone about that incident they started saying that my son was practicing to see what lipstick he would buy for his wife. I laughed with them, but that doubt was poking me. And then with time, I started having more doubts seeing him grow close to girls, instead of playing with boys. His unwillingness to play with other boys at school was a message we chose to ignore.

One day after eating, he asked me to tell him a story. And I started with a fairy tale where a princess is rescued from a demon’s house by a prince. And I can still hear his voice asking me, “Ma, who will rescue me?” Upon asking him why he wanted to be rescued, he said that he would not go to school because his classmates called him “ladyboy”. But other than his unusual calmness and couple of lipstick incidents, I hadn’t noticed anything “wrong” in him. And then I wanted to know the reason behind his being called “ladyboy” and he said that he had once asked one of his friends to become his “husband”, the way his father was my husband. My entire world fell apart. I slapped him so hard that he started bleeding, and I angrily said that he should have concentrated more on studies and “wives” instead of looking for husbands among his classmates. I threatened him, telling him not to call me “Ma” if he wished to do the same again. And that was the last time I heard him talk about his “feminine” nature. He was a child of nine! I do not know what he understood that day. Probably he was scared to lose his mother, or he knew that society had more slaps for him in the future.

After that, he started playing cricket with other boys, joined the swimming and gymnasium team, and later the soccer team. But when he used to come home his eyes would be clearly telling me that he didn’t like them. Yet I was happy to get a “son” who played cricket and soccer rather than with dolls.

He scored well in 10th grade, but asked his dad if he could opt for Arts instead of Science as his major. My husband said if he wanted to pursue arts, he could start looking for his own accommodation. He looked at me and said that he did want to study English in the future, while most of his friends wanted to become doctors or engineers. He was “different” in this respect too – but we did not allow him to select Arts. In +2, he again scored well, and we were so proud of him, but chose to ignore his happiness. He wanted to join either Presidency College or St. Xavier’s College, Calcutta, with Physics as his major. We cursed him for his choice and called him dumb for talking rubbish. We forced him to choose Engineering as we wanted our son to be an engineer and start earning money. But now I know that he is a pure Arts student. If we had allowed him to take English, he would have been happy. He used to write a diary; I do not know whether he still writes or not. Once I happened to read it. It was in Bengali, and looking at the poems he had written, I was amazed. How could a fifteen years old guy think so deeply? His ideas about secularism, religion, woman power, gender issues, transgender issues, call girls and other issues were so insightful.

Anyway, the drama started when we got internet at home. I caught him watching a pornographic movie one day. We were both embarrassed, but I was shocked that it was between two guys! I tried my best to make myself calm. It was just before his +2 final examinations, so I asked him to concentrate more on studies. But by then I had already understood that my son is “different”. I could feel that he wanted to tell me something, but at home, my husband and I had made the atmosphere too tough for him to come out and declare himself as gay. I was scared of the word “gay”. What if others got to know that my son is gay, what if society did something to him? I found him crying one day in his room, but I failed to understand him. Neither me nor my husband said, “Do not cry, we are here”. That’s our failure as parents.

When he was in his 1st year of Engineering, I noticed he was very happy. I had never seen him that happy since the day of the slap almost ten years ago. I asked one of his cousins, who used to be very close to him, to talk to him. He was always scared of talking to me or his father because other than fulfilling his childhood demands of getting him toys, we always said “no” to him. After a month, one day one of his friends came and told me, “Aunty, Tatai thinks he is in love” and before that I saw him chatting on Yahoo messenger. The minute we would enter his room, he would minimize the chat window. And then one day, while snooping on his mobile phone, I saw a message from a guy stating, “Waiting for your call, darling”. I think I began to understand him more than ever before, but chose to be silent despite seeing all this. So my reply was “Who is the guy? Is he older or younger than him?” Tatai was shocked and cried in fear, and again I chose the same line, “concentrate more on your studies”. He kept saying, “I am gay”, but I pretended to not hear him.

I do not complain about my son at all, but he is not outspoken when he needs to communicate his needs or issues. He is too shy to express himself. He doesn’t complain much, and tries his best to be happy with whatever he has. I do not blame him; perhaps we never allowed him to speak out and that became a habit. Or this might just be his reserved nature. So, after a year of his coming out to me, I understood something had gone terribly wrong with his life, but he chose to be silent about it with us. Eventually, I learned from his cousin that the other guy had left him. I was so happy. Yes, happy! I thought this might prompt him to return to what I considered normal. To help things along, at home, we started bashing homosexuals in front of him. But we did not understand that our act of disowning homosexuals tore him apart.

In the meantime, he had become close to one his female classmates, and we all liked her. We praised her excessively in front of him and literally forced him to be close with her! Later, we discovered that she was going through a breakup and Tatai was comforting her, and taking care of her. He made us understand that when he needed our help, we had neither helped not comforted him.

So though we were expecting the outburst, we were in denial. Silently he was making himself ready to leave home. For the first time he went to Pune for his 3rd year internship and that was the beginning. He decided against the job he was offered through on-campus interviews and went to Pune instead, to join the lab he had been working at during his 3rd year internship.

In 2008 he went to Bangalore for another internship, and was excited about Pune. We were running out of time and were desperate to stop him from going to Pune, as we feared him going out of our control and choosing to fully embrace a gay life. But he was determined and bold. On the day after his final year exams, he packed everything and left home. While leaving, he left me a big letter, and in that letter he opened his heart. After reading that letter, I understood. As parents we had crushed our child’s dream. We had wrung him dry from the inside and then buried all his dreams. I felt that whatever he had written in the letter was right. He asked me many questions, and I did not have answers to any of them. But then other than crying, I had very little to do. I asked myself why we did not kill him immediately after his birth, what is the need of keeping a child alive where he is not allowed to do anything he wants. He told me how much he had tried to make us happy, had tried his best to fall in love with girls, and he named all the girls he thought he was dating. I spoke each of them and the uniform feedback I got went thus: “A person like Tatai is hard to find. He is gay, but, above all, he is a human being and a good human being, so we had to accept him.”

And, since then, I started reading more about homosexuality. When he decided to move to Bangalore with a guy he was in a relationship with, he fought with his father, and his father called him a “homo” instead of calling him by his name, and said wrong things against the other guy. He came home just for a week, and the day before he left for Bangalore, for the first time in his life I saw him getting angry. All of his frustrations came out on that day. He cried, he shouted, he broke everything he had, and that lasted for hours. The only question he asked was, “Why can’t you accept me the way I am?” Seeing him we understood again how painful it was for him not to be accepted by his parents. My husband and I had dated each other for nine years before we got married. Everyone was against that marriage, but we fought against all the odds to get married. We asked ourselves whether we could survive in a situation where we were not allowed to be ourselves. And the answer was no. After this reflect, we decided not to stick to our own prejudice anymore.

My son is better than many of his peers. Today when I look around, I find him different from others. And I am sincerely thankful to god for making him different. When he moved to Chennai from Bangalore, I felt something had gone terribly wrong for otherwise he would never have left Bangalore. And this time I was not happy, and did not want to make the same mistake I had made before. I went to Chennai within two months to see him, to comfort him. But his assessment amazed me. I do not think that after a breakup, I could be in touch with my ex-boyfriend as if nothing had happened. When I asked him about the reason of their breakup, he said, “If two people cannot get along, people often tend to blame one of them, or both of them, when the fact is they just couldn’t walk along together on the same path, and decided to break up, without destroying their love for each other. We should not find any reason or logic. It’s our decision and promise me ma that you will keep maintaining a healthy relationship with him the way you used to. He is a very good person.”

I finally understood that my little son who used to shout at the crows, play with the puppies, and save his fish to feed the stray dogs, had become mature. We made a mistake while bringing him up, but not only did he understand us, but gave us his selfless and unconditional love, which makes me so proud. As a mother I should have taught myself how to love my child the way he is, but I did not.

Now after reading articles and talking to others, I have decided to stand by him against all the odds. Whenever someone talks rubbish against homosexuals, I protest. I ask them to read more on homosexuality before commenting. With his calmness, determination and good nature, Tatai made many of us understand that homosexuals are as normal as heterosexuals. There is no room for hatred.

I sincerely thank Good as You for providing me a platform like this, where I can hear other Tatai-s, who are equally good or better than many of us and fought or have been fighting against all the odds to live with “pride”. And I am sure your pride can never be snatched away from you if you chose to be yourselves.

-with love to all of you.

Orinam notes:
1. An earlier version of this essay appeared on the online forum of Good As You, Bangalore, and has been re-published on Orinam with consent.
2. Thanks to volunteer Sami for editorial support

Introduction: Across India, ordinary people who are straight/cisgender allies, including friends, family, classmates, teachers and colleagues, are taking steps to enhance the quality of life of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans* or intersex (LGBTI) person/people in their lives.

These allies are united with us in the fight for equality. In this spirit, and in connection with the fifth year of Chennai Pride, we are delighted to launch Catalysts for Inclusion: The Orinam Ally Video Contest to explore the narratives of our allies who support the cause of LGBTI rights.

If this sounds like you or someone you know, then we want to see you in action! If you haven’t done this before, check out some basic tips on making a video here.

Theme of the contest: Allies supporting LGBT rights

Duration of the Video: A maximum of 5 (five) minutes

Categories: The videos may fall in one or more of the following categories –

➢ Stories of how you, as an individual, group of friends/colleagues, or family, responded to an LGBTI classmate, colleague or family member coming out, and/or helped create a safe space on campus, at your workplace or even at home

➢ Non-LGBTI organizations in India that have made a difference to lives of LGBTI people.

➢ Music, art, photography, poetry, and prose strung into a video that can inspire others to become allies.

Submission: You may submit your video as a password-protected downloadable file (avi, mov, mpg) via vimeo, dropbox or wetransfer. Alternately you can mail/courier us a CD/DVD. For the address or to send us your link, email chennaiintlqueerfilmfest@gmail.com In your mail, please mention ‘Orinam Ally Video Contest’

Language and subtitling: The dialogue, speech, text and/or lyrics may be in any Indian language, including English. We ask that you subtitle in English, as needed.

Who can apply: Straight/cisgender allies based primarily in India (or diaspora of Indian origin): you may be a classmate, friend, colleague, parent, sibling or other relative of a lesbian, gay, bi, trans* or intersex person

Last Date for Submission: On or before 6.00 pm (IST), Sunday, June 30, 2013.

Announcement of winning videos: A panel will review submissions and select a group of no more than six finalists. All will be featured at Reel Desires 2013, the Chennai International Queer Film Festival to be held July 11-13, 2013, and the audience will select the best. The winner and runners up will subsequently be posted on http://Orinam.net and http://Chennaiintlqueerfilmfest.blogspot.com. A cash prize will be awarded to the winner.

Have an idea? Not sure how to proceed?

Check out our blog post with resources and tips on video making. It is easy, we swear.

Information resources for filmmakers

Still have questions? Need help? We are here for you.
Feel free to contact us

We at Orinam are heartbroken by the recent Delhi incident. We hope things will change for the better and women in India and across the world will be treated with the respect and dignity they deserve.

Orinam contributor Suri and author Mahesh Natarajan share their thoughts on the incident.

Suri says:

“I think Delhi is a land where everybody is somebody. It’s full of politically powerful people. So to reaffirm one’s feeling of power, or to compensate for one’s lack of it, they resort to overpowering the bodies of cows and five-year-olds. It’s just what I think. This has clearly gotten out-of-hand.

And I hope everyone here knows by now that rape is not about sex but about domination. Power. Control. Hence men also rape with objects, i.e, candles, bottle, rods. Hence, disembowelment, strangulation.

It’s not about orgasm. It’s about owning someone or something and proving you are the boss. To yourself.”

Mahesh Natarajan says:

“We make the vagina, penis and anus such mysterious, taboo subjects for kids, teach them male superiority through our domestic lives, popular culture and religion, show them the system is broken, that people do get away with murder, encourage them to put themselves first at all times, demonstrate that it is okay to dump our garbage in the neighbors or the street, that the other is inferior, celebrate sexual conquests and raw machismo.

We systematically take away any natural empathy, leave space for the cruel explorations of power and curiosity, and then wonder how hormone crazed youth go so completely berserk, question what kind of curiosity will need them to shove injection vials and what not in these body parts, why they treat their penises like gods and vaginas/anuses like garbage chutes, or shove their penises wherever, and we are so outraged, we want to hang them.

We need to wake up to this basic need to develop empathy, both in ourselves and in our kids. Safety does not lie only in teaching the vulnerable to stay away from risk – we need to teach empathy to the more powerful.”

 Related readings:

• “This is about you and me”: RJ Balaji on Men
• Ghosts of things past: a male rape survivor speaks
• Age 7
• No more Raksha Bandhan!
• Tamil Translation of Kavita’s speech on Violence Against Women
• Cartoons on Gender Equality