Being a South Asian ‘Gender and sexuality Minority’ rights (former) activist, I find J K Rowling and Trans controversial debate is driven by very western perspectives of gender, sexuality, identity and space, which shouldn’t be taken as universal. Both sides talk about respect, diversity but (knowingly or unknowingly) both sides of the debate are confined into the’ binary notion of human existence’.
1) People who menstruate and people who don’t menstruate.
First, both sides of the debate are focusing only on women and trans women’s perspectives but ignoring the (men and) trans-men’s existence all together. J K Rowling assumes that People who menstruate are the ‘real’ women, not others. What about people who menstruate and feel, identify and live like a man (and/or live not like a woman)? Would J K Rowling call them ‘real’ women too.
Young girls until a certain age don’t menstruate. Are they not ‘real’ girls? Women after a certain age stop menstruation, do they become ‘unreal’ women after those natural events in their body/life?
Thus, J K Rowling’s, to make her point, using the phrase ‘people who menstruate’ is highly insensitive, if the not offensive or hateful.
2) Women or men? Trans-women are women or trans-men are men?
Now the other side of the controversy, trans-women are women, and, de facto, trans-men are men. Why this binary obsession? Why does everyone have to be boxed into this binary gender system: women or men? This notion is very western too. There are other cultures outside of the western ones where more genders than men and women are recognized and accepted, in some cultures even celebrated. When we say trans-women are women, it sounds very good in terms of equality perspective but what about those people who are Hijras, Third genders, Two spirited people, Kathoey, Fa’afafine, Tongan, Mahu, Chibados and similarly Sworn virgins of Albanis, Shikandi of Hindu Epic Mahabharata, Svairini, etc. (I do admit that there are far fewer mentioned/known cultures of F to M non-binary people than M to F ones in ancient history and cultures as well as among the existing cultures and communities.)
I support when ‘trans-women’ say they are ‘women’ in the west but such notion must not be enforced ‘internationally and universally’ to other cultures. After all ‘gender’ is a societal construct (based on biology of course), so it has social perceptions and cultural contexts into it.
Also bear in mind that when you say ‘trans-women are women’, you must also say ‘trans-men are men’ and you can’t ignore the practical implications of such realities, like competing in same sport tournaments or accessing the same toilet, to the least.
3) Equality or Diversity?
I totally support the rights to express (gender, sexuality etc.) within the spectrum of femininity and masculinity and fluidity of identities and expression. But we must see that, at a deeper level, when one say ‘trans-man are men’ and ‘trans-women are women’, one ‘look up’ to men and/or women as the standard of existence (and one perhaps feel her/himslef lower than men and women) and hence strives to become a man or a woman. Ask yourself why the statement is not the-other-way around: ‘men are trans-man’ and ‘women are tarns-women’.
Equality is not about becoming like someone-else who you consider privileged and respected but is about the opportunity for you to become privileged and respected one without losing ‘who you are’.
Thank you.
