Pachu Menon seems to have committed an Himalayan blunder in his article “Transcending Barriers – Ending prejudices against Transgenders” (IC 30/5/16 – 6/6/16). He does not seem to have transcended the difference between a transgender person and one of neuter gender. So I did a bit of research before writing this piece.
Menon refers to transgenders as persons with curious mannerisms, ungainly carriage, who have an odd way of life, are creepy and anomalous, who indulge in ritual performances, begging, prostitution and criminal activities. He also uses the term eunuch (hijra in Hindi). What he had been describing was not transgenders at all, but eunuchs. He hasn’t been able to distinguish between the two.
He later refers to transgenders as “an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity or behaviour does not conform to the sex assigned at birth”, and the inability “to distinguish between sex, gender and sexual orientation/ gender disability disorder”. Besides, the article has several photos of “transgenders” – a TV anchor, actress, principal, public official, entrepreneur, and even a pastor. The faces all show strongly feminine characteristics. However, with so much “make up” and hormonal treatment, any body can be made to look like anything. It is not for me or anybody else to judge whether the persons portrayed in the article are transgenders or eunuchs. To arrive at a correct understanding we need to define both these terms, devoid of connotations. However, since the word eunuch, or even neuter gender, has assumed negative connotations today, it may be more appropriate to use the term “Third Gender”.
Jesus himself referred to three types of eunuchs. “There are eunuchs born so from their mother’s womb, there are eunuch’s made so by human agency, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Mat 19:12). We could use this as a starting point. The first category is, those that have been born with some physical/ genital inadequacy (usually male). In medical terms this condition is referred to as “ambiguous genitalia”. Such persons would have a terrible identity crisis, which could lead to other psychological problems or tendencies. The second category is those made so by “human agency”. Bluntly put, this refers to physical castration, whereby the testicles of the male are usually removed, a process also referred to as emasculation.
This process is often used in draught animals. A bull that would normally be used for breeding, if castrated, becomes a bullock or ox, which is a draught animal only. It is docile and not belligerent like a stud bull (commonly called a saand in Hindi, while a bullock is called a baill).
The third category referred to by Jesus, which included himself, was a sublimation of the sexual drive for a higher cause. Here in India we call this Brahmacharya, a very noble term. In the modern era, with the advance of psychology, surgery and medical sciences, we now have another category of persons who feel that they are a woman caged in a male body, and seek freedom from the same. This modern phenomenon has given rise to the term “transgender”. I looked up two English dictionaries, but the word was missing. Obviously it is of current usage. Before going to transgenders let me first make some observations on the origin and etymological meaning of the word “eunuch”.
According to the “Dictionary of the Bible” by Rev John McKenzie SJ, the term comes from the Greek word “eunouchos”, which means the “keeper of the bed”. This is because such castrated males were specifically employed to guard the harems of the kings. Castration was not practiced in ancient Egypt, Greece or Rome: but it was common in Babylon/ Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq). This was especially so during the Hammurabi dynasty (1728 – 1686 BC). The Hammurabis had a clearly defined code of conduct for eunuchs.
The Hebrew equivalent was “saris”, probably of Akkadian origin, though it is not clear if the term referred to eunuchs only, or servants in general. When Jesus used the term “eunouchizen” it was in a metaphorical, not physical sense.
Then what is Transgender? The prefix “trans” means going from one to another, or crossing over; like transatlantic, transfer, translate etc. In this instance it is an act of crossing over from one gender to another; or possibly correcting the “ambiguous genitalia”. Corrective surgery to remove an ambiguity is quite understandable, if it mitigates the suffering of the inflicted person. However, changing one’s gender for purported psychological reasons is a different ball game altogether (no pun intended).
This latter process, usually performed on males, removes the male genitalia, and makes an artificial cavity to assume some of the characteristics of the female genitalia. I checked with a senior and proficient medical doctor, who confirmed the above. Such external medical surgery does not really transform a male into a female. There will be no uterus, ovaries or fallopian tubes, part of the female reproductive system. It is also anybody’s guess how successful such surgery is, or how satisfying to the newly transformed “female”. Does it give the person a clitoris, the female equivalent of the penis, that experiences sexual stimulation, and leads to orgasm in the female? I have my doubts.
Are unscrupulous surgeons then just exploiting the feelings of hapless victims, and promising to give them what nature has not or did not? Giving female hormones like estrogen will develop secondary female characteristics like bigger breasts (men already have them), less facial hair, and a softer skin texture. The thus “transformed” person would have marked female features. Silicon implants would further enhance the sex appeal. But this is cheating.
I am reminded of the recent much hyped case of Kaitlyn Jenner. Here was a man who had won Olympic medals and fathered children. So he was not a case of ambiguous genitalia. Much later in life he undergoes surgery to become a woman. His photograph adorns the front page of Playboy magazine. The photo is particularly expressive of his/ her cleavage. Barak Obama congratulated him/ her for the courage shown. In many circles it is politically correct to applaud anything or everything connected with sex. Call me an oddball, or a conservative, but I do not see anything to applaud in the Jenner case. This does not mean that I condemn the person either. I would use Pope Francis’ by now famous reply, “Who am I to judge”?
Medical science, like everything else, can be used for noble ends, or misused and abused. My doctor friend, who is also a topper of the Indian Foreign Service (IFS) told me about “she-boys” in Thailand; considered a favourite destination for sex tourism. Young boys are “transgendered” by removing their external male genitalia, or by making an artificial vagina in their rectums. They are then used as sex objects. Such a practice demands outright condemnation. It is both child abuse and sexual exploitation/ human trafficking. It is time that all sex-change procedures are governed by a code of medical ethics, as with organ transplant, to avoid abuse.
Now let us consider some very practical problems. Whether or not it is right, I would term “transgender” a process, not a person. Once the person has been transformed it should be categorized in the new gender of choice. It is not a third gender. But in the case of third gender persons with ambiguous genitalia, where do we accommodate them when it comes to toilets or hostels that are segregated on gender basis? Most new buildings have toilets for the differently abled. Will we now have to also build separate facilities for third genders? It would be a logistical nightmare.
There is another ticklish question. The English language has three genders – male, female and neuter. The last is used for all inanimate things. Hindi has just two. So even inanimate things, feelings or expressions, are either masculine or feminine gender. How do we address the third gender in the language we use, or the forms we fill?
I recently obtained a passport application form and was surprised to find that it provided for three genders – male, female and transgender. I am not aware if this option/ column is shown in other Govt applications, like for a ration/ aadhar card, or for a job. But my IFS friend told me that there is an international apostille that specifies the format for passports. Hence it has been included in the Indian passport system. The question still goes abegging. Who is to be classified as transgender – a person with ambiguous genitalia, a castrated male, or a person that has undergone a surgical sex change? I am of the opinion that this last cannot be classified as transgender, but should be treated as a person of the gender it has opted for, usually female, as in Jenner’s case.
All the persons portrayed in Menon’s article have feminine facial features. In India hijras invariably don feminine dress. If they are all cases of ambiguous genitalia, then why the unambiguous choice of the feminine? Why do we not also see the reverse process?
From the physical let me also touch on the psychological. Every now and then we come across an “effeminate” male or a “tomboyish” girl. Is this a hormonal/ physical trait, or a psychological state? There are those that argue that this could be a genetic disorder. Others, like me, are more inclined to believe that this is due to social conditioning. In our male dominated Indian society a woman could be inclined to “wear the pants” to assert her strength. There are parents that have treated, dressed and brought up a son like a daughter, especially if they had none. The converse is equally true. Such parents could be guilty of psychologically imprisoning a child in an ambiguous sexual orientation.
With the advance in medical and behavioural sciences there are several grey areas that remain unresolved. Human nature is still a great mystery. Perhaps that was the Creator’s design. So without trying to play God we can still make a reasonable attempt at understanding ourselves without being judgmental; and helping those who may physically or psychologically still be imprisoned. We may not be gender benders, but we could be sexual liberators.
JUNE 2016
Leave a Reply