Dear all,

A bunch of us will be organizing a screening/vigil in conjunction with the Remembrance of Transgender Day.

Following are the details:

Date : 22nd Nov 2008, Saturday
Time : 8.00 pm
Venue : Bau Bau Cafe, Mezzanine Floor, Annexe Central Market
Movie :
A Jihad for Love (81 mins)
A documentary on gay, lesbian, and transgender Muslims across the Muslim and Western worlds.

back up
TransAmerica (103 mins)
A pre-operative male-to-female transsexual takes an unexpected journey when she learns that she fathered a son, now a teenage runaway hustling on the streets of New York.

Why are we celebrating the Remembrance of Transgender Day?

To memorialize those who were killed due to anti-transgender hatred or prejudice. Although not every person represented during the Day of Remembrance self-identified as transgender, each was a victim of violence based on bias against transgender people. It raises public awareness of hate crimes against transgender people, an action that current media doesn’t perform. Day of Remembrance publicly mourns and honors the lives of transgender people who might otherwise be forgotten. Through the vigil, we express love and respect in the face of national indifference and hatred.

On average two transgender people are murdered each month, according to global figures. This year alone 26 transgender people were killed. Out of the 26 recorded murders this year all were brutally violent, apart from one person who died by drowning – a pattern which has repeated over the past ten years and 245 murders. In the Middle East and some parts of Asia and India murders are still rife and often they’re committed by law officials so the deaths are not recorded.

And also to put an end to all sorts of discrimination/hatred/violence against people due to their sexual orientation or identity.

If you have any questions or queries, please do not hesitate to email me. (I do entertain hate mails as well.)

p/s: please bring your own candles.

We are a collective with no name so please bear with us.

Thank you to Bau Bau Cafe for the venue and Amnesty International for the projector. I think this is also supported by Tilted World and Cinta itu Buta.

The recent fatwa issues dealing with women and tomboyism has more than caused a tiny ripple in the Malaysian pool of faith, sexuality and liberality. Despite the fatwa affecting no more than the Muslims themselves, many of us have taken an active stance on the Islamic ruling - more so on the feminist side of things, as the fatwa tethered on the borderline of the equality of women’s rights to men, nudging Muslim women who embrace physical exercise, or male fashion to be lopped together into a stereotypical category of lesbianism as a tomboy.

Which of course, completely ignores the fact that male fashion on females has been acceptable by society norms for decades - as well as physical exercise now embraced as a health tradition among people who intend to live a fuller, better life. Never mind that these women want to look good and feel good after weeks of long workouts at the gym, or the fact that some of the girls would like to take up some self-defense skills from a weekly kickboxing class - let’s stereotype them all together as a tomboy with intentions to one day have sex with other females, turning into a lesbian.

As if it all was too easy for a woman to be swayed into doing the “scissor sister”, just by the activities she takes up! So a good wife is one who spends her time in the kitchen, cooking and cleaning day and night I assume? Womanly attributes you could say, as there’s no place for a woman to be out in the world working (or should I say: wearing the man’s pants), or trying to take up a hobby in sports, and the like? Because at the end of the day, all that she does will justify her beliefs and faith, and it will make her a tomboy and she’ll run off with the nearest lesbian? Really now?

Open up your eyes, Malaysia!

This is all a stereotypical view of how society views the community when it comes to being homosexual or effeminate. In fact, let’s put that away altogether now, and let’s just focus on the matter at hand. What the fatwa is suggesting is that the act of merely performing such rough, physical activities as a woman does not condone very womanly (or feminine if you will) behavior. It’s nearly the same as saying that men should not cook, clean, or do any other job except that of hard toil and labor - the idea that a man is only worth as much as the physical strength and stamina he displays, and a woman only as feminine and domestic as she comes. A really sterotypical look at how Neanderthal we all really can be sometimes in the modern world - the woman has no say, the man holds the reins and all is well (no wonder the feminists are screaming!).

Let’s face it: sexuality aside - all I’m trying to say is the way the fatwa is written makes it seem that men and women are easily persuaded to do the “dirty” just by the hobbies they take up and the clothes they wear. Pink, a seemingly gay color - will make men gayer. Trying to watch your waistline by going to the gym and working out is a no-no for the girls because it makes you a dyke. Come on, can you listen to how silly it sounds! It is understandable if the rules clearly forbid homosexuality - but to set a guideline about how a woman should carry or dress herself (especially when it comes to pants, short hair and very seemingly “manly” attributes) in prevention of sexual deviancy: it’s shallow. I don’t know how you would like to classify this idea even: the ignorance of mankind’s evolution or a misunderstanding motivated by homophobia?

Someone please give me the answers to this.

“We didn’t vote on your marriage.”

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.

I recently wrote this somewhere else (http://thenakedwriter.blogspot.com/). Also included are comments which I thought were pertinent to the issue.

____________________

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?

At about 12.00pm to 2.00pm today, activists from KataGender and Food Not Bombs Kuala Lumpur as well as Tilted World contributers (not me - I had an exam :-P) marched from Ampang Park LRT station to KLCC to protest against the fatwa on tomboyism.

From Malaysiakini:

About a dozen protesters marched through Kuala Lumpur denouncing the recent ‘discriminatory’

MCPX

fatwa(religious decree) against tomboys. 

 Those involved were from two groups Katagender (which promotes gender sensitivity) and Food-not-Bombs, and included several men.

Armed with a large banner which read Lawan semua fatwa menindas perempuan (Oppose all fatwa which oppresses women)”, the protestors marched from the Ampang Park LRT station to the vicinity of KLCC.

Other small posters read ‘Tomboy is not a crime’ and ‘Stop controlling clothing and thoughts of the rakyat’.

As the protesters marched, they chanted slogans such as “Stop oppression against women” and “Short hair, who cares?” which drew the attention of curious lunch-time onlookers.

The group gathered briefly near the Jalan Ampang entrance to KLCC to chant slogans and distribute leaflets but dispersed after security personnel told them to leave.

One leaflet, citing information available on the Internet, explained the difference between gender identity and sexual orientation.

Another was an open letter to the National Fatwa Council. Among other aspects, it decribed the fatwa as discriminatory. The letter will be posted as an online petition, to gather public support.

 Dressing and sexual orientation 

On Oct 23, the council had ruled that Islam is against tomboys - specifically females displaying masculinity. It claimed that tomboys are inclined to behave like men and indulge in homosexuality.

Spokesperson for the protesters Lee Wei San said that the council’s decision was ill-conceived.

“What we are saying is that gender expression, identity and orientation are different things altogether,” said Lee.

She said that women should have the right over how they want to express themselves or dress.

“Why is the woman’s body always the battlefield of society’s morality?”

Another member of the group, who requested anonymity, said when contacted: “We got together because we feel strongly about the issue, even though the majority of us are not tomboys.”

Sign the peitition ‘Open Letter To The National Fatwa Council and Malaysians‘ here.

Love conquers all: Californian feminists and gay-rights activists Del Martin, 87 and Phyllis Lyon, 84 finally got married in June 2008, after a 56-year romance. Martin died in August 2008, but her legacy will live on.

The results mark the end of a 5-month long campaign by both the proponents and opponents of Proposition 8, and the most expensive social policy initiative in history. Some would day, this presents a huge blow to the gay/civil rights movement in not only California, but the world at large as well.

I beg to differ.

In 2000, Californians voted, by a margin of 23% (61.5-38.5), to instate Proposition 22 which, like Proposition 8 ‘08, restricted marriage to that between a man and a woman. (Proposition 22 was overturned by the Californian Surpreme Court in May 2008. Hence, Proposition The difference between the margins of the results of Proposition 22 ‘00 and Proposition 8 ‘08 indicates that the continuous efforts of the gay/civil rights movement have not been in vain, and that there has been a significant shift in attitudes towards same-sex marriage. The outcome of Proposition 8 marks, to me, not a failure but a drastic improvement. And there is good reason to believe that even greater improvements are imminent.

Firstly, all laws are subjected to change. Give it a few years, and gay rights advocates will sponsor another Proposition to be tabled at the ballot. Defeat it again, and a further bill will be tabled. There will be no end to the Battle of Propositions until a solid general consensus is achieved.

Secondly, the majority of the religious conversatives and non-college educated voted “YES” on Proposition 8, while the majority of the nonreligious, liberal and college-educated voted “NO” on Proposition 8. Over 70% of those aged 25 and below voted “NO” on Proposition 8.

As society progresses, the conservatives give way to the liberal and the young give way to the old, will there come a day when the majority of Californians will vote “YES” for the right of same-sex couples to marry? I believe so.

So hang in there, and keep your spirits up, because the gay and civil rights movement will continue long after Nov 4 in California, until every hill is exalted, until every mountain is made low, and until every man and woman in every country in the world is free and equal.

I had the surprise of my life today when scanning through a local Japanese newspaper, I saw two familiar faces sprawling on an ad. After a quick glance at the caption, I realized I did indeed know these two women. I wanted to share their ad and their story with you.

Margot and Koko have been together for 12 years. Along the process, they decided to have a child together - a beautiful precocious girl who is 4 years old now. I had the fortune to attend their commitment ceremony back in 2002. It was a beautiful ceremony held in the rolling green hills of Oakland, California. There were some initial drama but in the end love prevailed and both families attend the ceremony.

Margot and Koko both are very active in the LBGT community in the micro and macro level. I remember when I first came out, they were both there to give me supporting shoulders and friendly ears. Many Asian Pacific Islander (API) lesbians can attest to the same. They are also involved in almost every major LGBT initiatives in the Bay Area since I can remember. Not only were they instrumental in publishing a Chinese-English coming out booklet* but they are key principles of the API LGBT events around the Bay Area as well.

Margot’s stories about coming out to her parents inspired me to be open to mine. Margot, who is originally from Sabah, is open about her sexual orientation and her relationship with Koko to her family. The trust and support given to her in return by her parents is truly inspirational.

Evidence to this support is in the marketing spread where Margot’s dad joins their fight against California Prop 8.

I find their energy and dedication to each other and to the community very inspiring.

Here is the ad and the translation:

letcaliforniaring.org

Ad Translation:
“My wife and I have been married for 50 years. And now, my daughter and her partner have the chance to do the same” – James Yapp.

We knew Koko was the one for Margot when we met her. They met at the Lunar New Year parade, the Year of the Rat. Koko was wearing mouse ears and chatting with everyone. She has always been open with us, and she and Margot love each other. My wife Teoto and I love seeing them taking care of one another, so happy together, year after year.

After 11 years as a couple, California finally allowed Margot and Koko to get legally married. We supported their marriage every step of the way – literally! Together, my wife and I walked Margot down the aisle. We are all family now and family matters so much.

STRONG COMMITMENTS. STRONG FAMILIES.

Join the conversation at www.californiaring.org
================

In the couple’s own words “We want to spread the word out to as many California voters we can get. Please vote no on Prop 8!”

* 4th edition of “Beloved Daughter” booklet contains 14 stories by parents and siblings of Chinese lesbians about their coming-out in both Chinese and English. Please email MAPBLN for a FREE copy!

Comparing the success rates of heterosexual relationship with homosexual ones is like comparing the commercial successes of football with that of jeet kun do.

Almost all heterosexual relationships, especially heterosexual families, are buttressed by the bastions of peer and family support, fiercely guarded by the institutions of law (in most countries) and (conservative) religion, and reaffirmed by the current (but changing) moral-cultural zeitgeist, which in turn fortifies the aforementioned factors that perpetuate the heterosexual relationship as the archetype romantic/sexual relationship. The same cannot be said of homosexual relationships.

All relationships are not without challenges, but homosexual couples often have to make do without the social-cultural bulwarks which uphold heterosexual relationships through thick and thin. Thus, it isn’t a surprise that homosexual couples are more susceptible to crumbling in times of adversity compared to their heterosexual counterparts.

Those “homophobic naysayers” are not unlike the fatalistic schoolteachers who take a dim view of the potential of some of their pupils. Not only are they harden in their belief that their subjects will not succeed, they also drum their message into their subjects that their subjects WILL fail. Of course, some of their more vulnerable subjects eventually take heed of the message. In the end, these “homophobic naysayers” become self-fulfilling prophets. They sow the seeds they want to see (or think will see), and when the plants grow eventually, they point towards the plants and justify their belief in the inevitability of the plants.

Having said that, there are many successful homosexual relationships out there, which thrive despite the negativity that surrounds them. All committed, lasting relationships, heterosexual or otherwise, are internally founded upon and fortified by love, which is more powerful than any external legal-political/socio-cultural obstacle in the world.

Homophobic naysayers claim that gay relationships can’t stand the test of time. Certainly one of the numerous brickbats used to assail the already shaky institution of gay marriage.

As much as I’d love to rail against such a unfair accusation, it’s getting pretty hard to deny the evidence. In the space of at least six months, I’ve seen quite a number of supposedly sturdy relationships crumble and fall under the veriest whiff of a storm. As a statistic in comparison with our breeder brothers, it’s starting to look really bad.

Time to raze the building!
So why do we fail?

Maybe it’s the fact that most of us can be pretty sophomoric in our search for love. Let’s face it, when it comes to relationships, we’re still kids. Our straight brethren might have worked through their rampant teenage hormones with furtive high school gropes way before their early twenties but for some of us gay men - in our thirties even - we’re just beginning to troll the bars in search of that elusive thing called love. Men just out of the proverbial closet with the dating mores of a horny impatient post-adolescent at a dating buffet.

Is it any wonder that we find ourselves splitting up and getting back together as often as the fickle schoolgirls in Gossip Girl do? With quite as little permanence?

Just like those teenagers we abandon our relationships far too easily - giving up on the entire structure at the first sign of adversity. Thinking back, I must have done pretty much the same as well. We expect that solid stone castle to appear magically at the snap of our fingers without even putting in a single hard day’s work building the proper foundation. Then just one stone out of place, a squeaky door, a broken window - and we’re rushing in with sticks of dynamite to demolish the place.

But just like any brick-and-mortar building, a relationship needs daily upkeep, the occasional renovation and lots of TLC to keep from crumbling to dust.