Taken from Time:

Oh, those crazy Hollywood liberals—show ‘em an opportunity to school the nation on civic duty, and they never fail to jump. While this tendency can sometimes lean towards the sanctimonious, not so this farcical Funny or Die skit, in which composer Marc Shaiman wrangled a glittering cast of comedians to weigh in on the controversial California ballot initiative passed last month.

As you might expect, “Prop 8 — The Musical” is Shaiman’s attempt to pick apart the anti-gay marriage lobby’s logic. Lending support to the cause are Jack Black, John C. Reilly, Maya Rudolph, Craig Robinson, Neil Patrick Harris and Allison Janney (who, in a cheeky nod to Mormons’ support of the ballot initiative, is listed in the title credits as “Prop 8 Leader’s #1 Wife”). Despite the collection of comedic chops on stage, the spoof isn’t trying to be funny. Well, OK, it is — but the larger point it intends to hammer home is that not all Biblical doctrine is eminently reasonable (avid West Wing watchers will recall one or two of these lines from a famous Jed Bartlet smackdown). And though the video isn’t a full barrel of laughs, it’s packed with its share of wit, with both Black (as a laid-back, rotund Jesus) and Harris turning in pretty good solos. (See the Top 10 Plays and Musicals.)

Shaiman, whose songwriting credits include showstoppers from South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut, called his troupe the “Sacramento Community College Players” because of outrage that the city’s California Musical Theater director had given money to a pro-Prop 8 campaign. In an interview with the New York Times, he calls the video a “viral picket sign.” Though he concedes he executed the idea “six weeks later than he shoulda,” he nailed the viral aspect. In just a few days, it’s racked up more than 2 million views.

lllllllllllll

With all the hype recently over the way women look, should look or what folks think they/we look like; we are now compiling photos of all the women that are perceived as ‘tomboys’ and putting up on the katagender.blogspot.com.

These photos can be of working women, in uniforms, in factory clothings, historical figures, sportswomen, our grandmothers, mothers, ourselves…as long as it is all from Malaysia (whatever you perceive as Malaysian, your grandmother could be from Singapore but now in Malaysia, you know that kind of thing.)

Anyway, this campaign shall be lovingly tagged, dedicated to the cool ‘tomboys’ out there, as: “We are proud of our women just the way they are!”

Do you have pictures of yourself with short, spiky hair? In an ‘unfeminine’ outfit? Wearing those pleather, punk wrist bands, all geared up for some PLU party in Club 69? Posing with your foot upon a ball with the rest of your futsal team?

Pose as you will, get your friend to snap it, and send them Katagender’s way! You know what? Get your mother to pose too, if your family is cool that way. Lo-res is fine, and include a tagline with the moniker, age and description of your choice.

The e-mail address is kata.gender@gmail.com and they’re looking forward to hearing from you ‘tomboys’ soon!

What defines a tomboy? Beats us, you decide. Do you have to be a lesbian to participate? Not at all!

The Tomboy Photo Project is still new, and some submissions have already been sent in. Head on over to Katagender and check them out.

Have some fun, people ;).

Other than Saudi Arabia and the occasional Middle Eastern/Central Asian country, the common denominator of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights 1966 and International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights 1966 is Malaysia’s absence.

Yes, Malaysia is not signed on to the two most important covenants in the history of human rights. Compare this to the fact that Iran, Iraq, and Sudan have signed on to them! I will not make an issue of the efficacy (or lack thereof) of such “binding” covenants, having listed countries like Iran and Sudan that conspicuously breach them, but I will make an issue of the fact that Malaysia isn’t even bothered to sign onto them.

There has been talk about how Malaysians should go about bringing a heightened awareness of diversity to our country. In a country that bleeds and parades diversity, we are certainly very lacking in recognizing the diversity inherent within racial circles. Like class. And sex. And sexuality.

In a country where leaders declare that diversity is a phenomenon of foreign importation, we worry in wonder as to how our futures will flesh themselves out.

Homosexuality? Di-import. Safe Sex? Di-import. Demokrasi? Di-import. Cina dan India? Di-import.

Don’t you think that the zeitgeist of our fundamental Malay supremacists is a revolt against importation?

I love a line from a recent front page interview with the JAKIM Director-General. “But isn’t Islam import juga?”

But that just detracts from the main opinion of my short rant: No, there’s nothing di-import about human rights. There’s nothing di-import about gender-variance. There’s nothing di-import about racial diversity.

Indeed, these elements of divergence and convergence in our cultures are what makes us us. There is a whole fallicious assumption made when we try to prevent foreign imports - as if Malaysia pre-existed its history. The truth is, it didn’t. Malaysia is Malaysia because of its history.

There has been talk but the action is tentative. It is tentative because we do not know where to go. Do we organize a Mardi Gras and have leather clad daddies and drag queens parade the streets in a love for pride? Do we organize rallies lobbying for recognition of sexual and gender diversity? Do we launch nationwide awareness campaigns about hate crimes, safe sex, and sexuality?

Yes!

But also what about getting the government to start signing on to these covenants - as covenant to us, the rakyat - that the government is committed to respecting diversity? That the governent is bound to recognise the civil rights of its people, the cultural and social minorities? That the government - whatver it does - does it without any form of discrimination for any one group of people?

Can we start with respecting and appreciating diversity? Because if we can’t and if we don’t, we won’t be able to continue with respecting same-sex unions, or the preferred gender of a person, or the freedom of professing one’s faith and culture.

Can we please get Malaysia to sign these international covenants?

Please?

Boston remembers Fedra, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia and other transgendered and gender-variant victims of hate who were brutally murdered this year.

“I want people to understand that doing the right thing often does more harm than good. The standard of normal that we aim for is imaginary. People don’t fail to meet the definition of normal gender, but the definitions fail to meet the people. Being born without a vagina was not my problem. Having to get one was the real problem. My “sexual dysfunction” posed less of a threat to my health than the parts of the Syndrome that disabled me. So why is a vagina all I was given to cope with a much greater loss?”

- Tobias K. Davis

Last night, I attended a cold reading of The Naked I, a play in two acts written by Tobias K. Davis as an alternative to the Vagina Monologues, which assumes the stable identity of being female. In Naked, Tobias takes the idea of sex and gender beyond the binary, exploring the voices of transgenders, transexuals, cisgenders, and other gender-variant identities.

* * * * * *

I stumbled into the meeting, panting from a sprint. I thought I was late. I walked in the lounge expecting to see familiar faces but I found out I almost didn’t know anyone who was there. A cap hit me on the waist and fell to the floor. I bent down to pick it up and looked for the owner.

“Hey,” said someone. I saw a guy. A girl. Neither. Either. “What’s your name?” he asked.

“Ummm…” I tentatively gave him my name. “I’m Justin.” His handshake was more ‘man’ than mine.

Introductions soon began. We went around the circle. “I’m Mickey. And I prefer the pronouns he/him/his.”

“Jenny. Ze or male pronouns…”

“Eliza. Female pronouns, she, her, hers.”

As the night went on, we read monologues and short plays from Davis’ work. The reading slowly went into discussing the relevance of the characters to our personal lives. I wasn’t straight. But I think I wasn’t a tranny, too. So I kept quiet and listened.

“I’ve had enough of people calling me ’she’, so I decided if I took T (testosterone), people would start calling me ‘he’.”

“I’ve always been happy about my body, you know, never regretted anything. I mean, yeah, there are some things I’d like to change, but I don’t know, like, I don’t want to change something I’ll regret. It’s just easier to be either man or woman. Right now, I’m both.”

“Today, looking back, I wouldn’t have taken T. I mean, I don’t regret it - but you should dictate what you want to be to the world and not let the world dictate what you are. Now, I walk into a male bathroom and no one bats an eye - it’s something I enjoy - but you know, sometimes, it’s better to be happy with who you are.”

“I wish everyone was like children. They’re so receptive. The 30 year old woman I used the date, well, she’s a single mom, and her 6 year old would always ask me why everyone calls me ’she’ when I’m a boy. Like I mean, I’ve been screwing with her mom. And she knows it but everyone else doesn’t.”

“When I had a boyfriend, he would tell me all about the male bathroom etiquette.”

He kept looking my way while he was explaining the male bathroom etiquette. I finally spoke. “Really? I never knew there was such a thing. No wonder when I said Hi to the guy standing next to me, he gave me a dirty look.”

Last night, I visited St. Luke’s and St. Margaret’s church for the memorial service of Rita Hester, a transgendered member of the community, who was killed 10 years ago. After listening to several speakers who represent various intersections and sections of the community, we walked in the -5 degrees Celsius night carrying candles. We arrived at a plaza, grouped into a circle and started reading the names of those who died this year due to hate crimes.

This year, we remembered (re-member - put them together again in our memories, our visions, and our hopes) Kellie Telesford of Thornton Heath, UK, Brian McGlothin of Cincinnati, Gabriela Alejandra Albornoz of Santiago, Chile, Patrick Murphy of Albuquerque, Stacy Brown of Baltimore, Adolphus Simmons of Charleston, Fedra of Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, Ashley Sweeney of Detroit, Sanesha Stewart of the Bronx, Lawrence King of Oxnard, CA, Simmie Williams Jr. of Fort Lauderdale, Luna of Lisbon, Portugal, Lloyd Nixon of West Palm Beach, Felicia Melton-Smyth of Porta Vallarta, Mexico, Silvana Berisha of Hamburg, Germany, Ebony Whitaker of Memphis, Rosa Pazos of Sevilla, Spain, Juan Carlos Aucalle Coronel of Lombardi, Italy, Angie Zapata of Greeley, CO, Jaylynn L. Namauu of Makiki Honolulu, HI, Samantha Rangel Brandau of Milan, Italy, Nakhia Williams of Louisville, Ruby Molina of Sacramento, Aimee Wilcoxson of Aurora, CO, Duanna Johnson of Memphis, Dilek Ince of Ankara, Turkey, Teish Cannon of Syracuse, Ali of Iraq, and all the other trans women and men around the world who lost their lives to transphobia this year, whose faces we never saw and names we never heard, because they were living on the margins of societies who did not respect nor want them.

(Note: The list of names were taken from Melissa McEwan’s blog, Teaspoon by Teaspoon. She was present last night at the vigil with this to say: “Social justice work is like trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon. But with enough teaspoons and enough time, we will empty it. Each of you have a teaspoon with you. Each of you, by coming here tonight, has chosen to empty that ocean of anger and hate one teaspoon at a time.”)

I was trying to get out of the Federal Highway that night. I was definitely not comfortable having over half a dozen motorbikes chasing after me. They were kicking my car as it slowly negotiated a temporary jam. Sensing danger I tried to call the police, but my hand phone fell and in the darkness my left hand frantically tried to find it. One of the riders then removed a helmet and crashed it against my door. I was a helpless tortoise target.

Then as the minor jam clears I saw a path to the expressway. I quickly turned into it. They were not supposed to be at the Federal Highway, they were supposed to be at their motorcycle lanes, I thought. But the police cannot stop these “rempit” menace, but then the police likes calling people like me a menace. I sped to the toll booth, and then enter the expressway. I ran at 170 kilometers an hour. The gang of motorcyclists soon vanished behind me. My car light was smashed. The right side of my car dented and there were scratches.

I was targeted by this group who kept on yelling derogatory names as I entered my car after dinner at an Indian-Muslim restaurant. I ignored them as I rushed in. They came with their bikes after me. I am a transsexual female. They are a transphobic motorbike gang. They have every intention of beating the hell out of me. If I died that night, police would just treat me as “john” doe. There would be no reports unless someone noticed I had gone missing and found my body. I may survive, but with an experience that will haunt me.

But I remember. And I am fortunate to still be alive to remember what happened. And I remember those who did not have this opportunity. Because they are dead. They are victims of hate crime and violence. Many have died, and many deaths go unreported because our lives are just not worth the time. But as we all grow and begin to show our faces to society, along with our lives and dreams, people will surely remember our lives.

And we will remember our dead. Today is the Trangender Day Of Remembrance 2008.

Tilted World, remembers.

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. ”
– Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

Lately, I’ve been keeping an eye (or two) on the progress of Prop 8 and the events surrounding it. Being far away from where all the action is taking place, I am unable to physically be part of the fight. However, my mind has been tossing and turning over the entire event. The whole “Fatwa incident” has made my mind toss and turn even more uncomfortably too. The inspiring thing though, is that more people are beginning to get their backsides off their seats and are starting to take more action.

The funny thing is that over the past few days while reflecting on all that has been happening, a song keeps playing in my mind: the famous drilling music from one of my favourite musicals, Les Miserables -

“Do you hear the people sing?
Singing the songs of angry men?
It is the music of a people who will not be slaves again
When the beating of your heart, echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start when tomorrow comes”

The music and the chorus and the loud, strong voices – they’ve just been in my head all week long. And I think I know why.

It’s the beating of my heart trying to tell me that the time is drawing near.

We’ve seen throughout history how people have fought for their rights. We know about the fight for women’s suffrage. We also know about the fight for equal rights among coloured people in America and around the world. There’s also the fight against slavery. And we’re all very familiar with how these events turned out. They should be a form of inspiration for us as we face another historic moment where we fight for our rights - the right for same-sex marriages; the right to be treated equally despite your gender and sexuality; the right to dress according to your own sensible sense of fashion.

Now the song is growing even louder in my head.

Since Stonewall, it seems like a growing ripple effect has been rocking boats all over the world: a movement leading into other movements to fight for the same ultimate goal. It feels to me like now is the time when humankind will slowly but very steadily be revolutionized. It’s as though our generation is the chosen generation to make an impact for the future of human rights. It would be great if decades from now, people will be talking about how wonderful their life is because every single human is treated with respect, and equality is a word that actually makes sense. And they’ll be looking into their history books thanking OUR generation for what WE did.

And then there’ll be a beautiful musical written about how the world was changed because of a generation that dared to stand up and make a change (or many changes). And they’ll be singing a similar drum-filled sonorous chorus, something like the song that’s still stuck in my head.

“Will you join in our crusade? Who will be strong and stand with me?
Beyond the barricade, is there a world you long to see?”

Voice Comment: (206) 338-ONG-9

:: download file :: listen on iPhone ::

Duration: 26:18 | 24.5 MB | Stereo |

Along with over 300 people, I attended the Kansas City’s own Fight the H8 rally. I chatted with many people and asking them why was it important that they are out there in the cold to be in this rally.

This will be one of the top issues of my life to fight for the right that was taken away from me simply because I’m gay. Yes, this is personal. You won’t stop hearing from me.

Listen to the audio podcast by clicking “play” on the audio player above.

Nakedwriter covers the Protest Against Prop 8 from downtown Boston.

Under the dreary skies of a downpour, I trudged along the sidewalks to the meeting place. No one seemed to be around. I wondered if the weather had dampened our spirits. “Even God doesn’t like us,” remarked one of my co-protesters.

And then, almost without warning, a group of semi-soaked individuals, umbrella and poster clad, came marching upon us. “Gay, straight, white, black. Marriage is a civil right!” they chanted. I was engulfed by the crowd, pulled along, and marched closely, chanting:

Gay. Straight. Black. White. Marriage is a civil right!

Supporters we passed cheered and clapped, while drivers honked their support. We made our way, half wet, to the plaza in front of the Boston City Hall. It was quite empty, quite quiet.

It took another half an hour before the crowd swelled. All sorts of people, families, couples, individuals, college students, teachers, mothers, legislators, musicians, artists, bikers, were present with their chants and boards.

“Prop 8 = Hate”

“California. WTF??”

“Liberty and Justice for All.”

“All Families are Equal.”

Speeches soon began. They crowds chanted for equality. Boo-ed at DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). Chanted for change. Boo-ed at the people who mislabel us. Chanted for hope.

A journalist asked us, why were we internationals, unconcerned with the legalities of a foreign America, bothered about showing up. “America is seen as a pioneer. Change is followed elsewhere in USA’s footsteps…” pause “when it pertains the rights of LGBTQ,” someone said. “Because we’re fighting for an international cause: the right to love.”

“Because at home, women are told they can’t dress too manly,” I added.

At the date of this writing, the fatwa has not finalized by the Malaysian National Fatwa Council (NFC) yet. However, the fact NFC is planning on issuing such a fatwa is worrisome.

Should anyone have the power to legally and socially define tomboy mannerism? If the council and the policing body have the right to persecute someone based on arbitrary definition of mannerism, what is to prevent them from turning every deep-tenored, pants-wearing, bald-headed women or every limping, french-accented, foul-body odored, six-fingered men into criminals? Bottomline is attempting to criminalize individual mannerism leaves much room for abuse. Two possible abuses can stem from empowering the National Fatwa Council to monitor and control one’s behavior and possibly perpetuating Machiavellian biases towards women.

First of all, this fatwa implies that the council will be capable of defining masculine and feminine behavior. Are Malaysians not concerned that this fatwa is going to set the precedence allowing the council and its policy body the power to criminalize behavior and regulate individual mannerism according to their biases? Who is to prevent them from regulating how one speaks, how one sleeps or what color one’s car should be in the future? There is an interesting pattern of fatwa issuance lately - the 2005 fatwa against taking part in SMS contests, the 2007 fatwa against supernatural exhibitions, the 2008 potential fatwa against yoga to name a few. The Big Brother trend may soon evade every aspect of one’s life.

The other issue is the Machiavellian impact this fatwa can have. A simple example is that the National Fatwa Council could theoretically deem argumentative, aggressive and competitive behavior as masculine in nature. Given the scenario of a wife arguing with the husband, or a women aggressively pursuing a promotion at work or a talented female student needing training resources, what is to prevent a deranged husband from reporting a wife for masculine behavior after a heated argument, old-boy networked males from denying female peers promotions or budget-short schools from prohibiting female students from competition or sporting events and using the fatwa as an excuse. Hope for a fair and just trial is just that - hope.

Another point to surface is that tomboy mannerism and sexual orientation is not mutually exclusive. Just as a woman who is masculine in appearance is not necessarily a lesbian, a feminine woman is not necessarily heterosexual. Mannerism may reflect one’s sexual orientation but it is not the only defining characteristic of one’s sexuality. Attempting to prevent boyish mannerism in women to curb homosexuality is not a very efficient way to address the situation. This fatwa will only alienate straight Muslim women who do not fit into NFC’s standards of femininity, reaffirm the social bias against transgendered Muslims and offend the sensibility of most people.

One can argue that issuing a fatwa against tomboy mannerism goes against the teachings of Islam. Gender variations exist and are legally acknowledged in advanced nations and religion including Islam.

Specifically, Islamic scholars have long acknowledged at least two other gender variations: ‘Khunsa’ (intersexed) and ‘Mukhannathuns’ (transgendered)”

Further example of gender variation is contained in an interpretation this Quranic verse which offers a reference to sexual orientation and gender:
42:49 “To Allah belongs the dominion over the heavens and the earth. It creates what It wills. It prepares for whom It wills females, and It prepares for whom It wills males.
42:50 “Or It marries together the males and the females, and It makes those whom It wills to be ineffectual. Indeed It is the Knowing, the Powerful.”
Arabic: “Lillahi mulku us-samaawaati wal’ardhi. Yakhluqu ma yashaa’u. Yahabu liman yashaa’u inaathan wa yahabu liman yashaa’u adh-dhukura. Aw yuzawwijuhum dhukraanan wa inaathan; wa yaj’alu man yashaa’u ‘aqeeman: innahu ‘Aleemun Qadeerun.”

Scholars have interpret “It marries together the males and females” as the third gender – intersexed or transgendered. Other scholars have interpreted “It makes those whom It wills to be ineffectual” to encompass barren men and women or individuals who have no desire for the opposite gender.

One hopes that fellow Malaysians are able to see the risk and impact of such a fatwa.

____________________

Fatwa against Tomboys: Action and Reaction

A few weeks ago, the National Fatwa Council of Malaysia released a religious decree against women dressing like men, whatever those two identities - women and men - mean. A group of women from various NGOs decided to take to the streets to protest against this fatwa.

Rightly so. Before we can even disagree with the fatwa on trying to control the way women dress, the decree begs the question: what is it to dress like a man? To wear pants? Baggy t-shirts? Shirts without a female cut?

How much man-ness in clothing do we need to have to be considered tom-boys?

Under the syariah law of Malaysia, it is a crime to cross-dress from any one gender to another. Again, how much dressing is cross-dressing? Cosmetics on men? Flat shoes on women?

Unfortunately, the protests against this fatwa (accessed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufgJWGmax-A - check out the comments below the video) uses alienating and dissenting language. The tone is condescending: “Short hair, who cares. Stupid fatwa everywhere.”

There are many problems with this chant: 1. it assumes that the fatwa is stupid. I agree that the fatwa is naive and archaic, but not stupid. Even if it is, calling it only 2. alienates the people we want to convince otherwise.

The main audience of the fatwa isn’t the people who are tomboys or who disagree with the fatwa. It is for those who came up with the fatwa, who support the fatwa, and who think women should not be dressing up as men. What a protest must do for its target audience, then, is engage these parties into seeing the issue with more open-mindedness, to arouse dialogue, and to initiate understanding. Engagement, not alienation.

Calling the fatwa stupid only alienates the parties who disagree with us and turns them away from any further discussion and contemplation. It confirms their suspicion of us as a group of people partaking in the many vices gender-variant members of the community are always accused of.

Short hair, who cares. Rights restricted everywhere?

Or as a friend tells me of a chant she once heard in Illinois: 2, 4, 6, 8 - How d’you know your daughter’s straight?

Why assume?

The Fatwa Council may have reasons behind their decisions - rather than to resist conviction, can we perhaps convince them otherwise?

COMMENTS:

1. I agree that the “Stupid fatwa everywhere” argument is overly simplistic, but it is often the case in political movements that you have to scream to be heard. While these protests probably are, as you rightly pointed out, not the most effective way to enact change, we cannot dismiss their value completely; after all, does it not bring awareness to the issue? Does it not inspire others, who may disagree with their tactics but still care about the same issues, to try to address the problem their own way?

This goes back to the issue of whether it is better to work from the inside or the outside. (Yay Wgs!) Working WITH the council probably will have more direct institutional influence, but if you are not in a position conducive to being listened to, then taking to the streets is not a bad way to start the conversation.

2. You are right when you say that the Fatwa Council have their reasons behind the Fatwa.Fatwas are not simply made,however,it involves deep discussions and debates among Muslim Scholars based on the Quran,the Prophet’s sayings,and also the context of our society.The fact that the fatwa might seem shallow to certain parties is due to the fact that the reasons are not communicated to the public.

My number 2 point is that these fatwas are laws that only govern muslims and are not imposed on those outside the religion.As much as a citizen of a country is required to abide the laws within his/her country,one who declares himself/herself a muslim is also required to abide the laws of Islam.I must also clarify that the fatwa of cross dressing is also imposed on muslim men.

3. Firstly, I want to address point no. 2. The issue of debate and protest over the fatwa isn’t about non-muslims fearing that we can’t do what we want to do. It’s the issue of protecting certain sectors of society who are unfairly repressed without being understood enough. Just as much as you claim that there are reasons behind the fatwa, there are also reasons behind people’s decision to dress up in certain ways. Why should one truth be greater than the other?

A rereading of the Quran and the Sunnah, as is done by Asma Barlas and Kecia Ali, shows us that the interpretation of Islam today, and the decisions made based on them, is constricted to very few people, from very limited backgrounds. Women, for one, are usually excluded although this did not use to be the case. (cf Aisyah, Fatimah, Hafsa).

I question the defense of certain fatwas on the basis that they are decided upon by highly religious and scholarly men, and then not explaining why the decision has been made that way. What happened to Ijtihad and Ijma? Why are fatwas being decreed without any evidence of critical reasoning and consensus?