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.

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.

Over the course of a few days, the issue of the fatwa (religious decree) issued against women who dress up as men has become an issue of Muslims versus non-Muslims.

In the past two weeks, women were the target of a religious decree banning them from dressing up as men and partaking in lesbian sex. The National Fatwa Council of Malaysia issued a fatwa condemning women from dressing up as men - which the newspapers report as an opposition against tomboyism, or gejala pengkid (in Malay). Other media services report that the NFC is banning lesbian sex.

Protests soon followed that drew the ire of the police and, as of today, the spiritual leader of Parti Islam Malaysia. The Inspector General of the Police, a few days ago, issued a statement sayig that “non-Muslim” (see note below) NGOs should stay out of the issue. “The fatwa is only applicable to non-Muslims.” It was a warning telling non-Muslims not to interfere. Today, the spiritual leader of PAS issued a statement that such protests were going against the “teachings of Allah”.

What these sentiments fail to understand is that the issue has nothing to do with religion. It is not a matter of protecting the rights of non-Muslims to be free from following religious law, but protecting the rights of every individual to dress the way he or she likes. Both Muslims and non-Muslims who are against the fatwa find that the prohibition of certain dress codes on a particular sex is a breach of fundamental human rights. It is also a form of discrimination against individuals who identify as queer, lesbian, or transgendered.

The fatwa is problematic because it assumes a stable definition of gender and sex. In a time when fashion is becoming increasingly androgynous, practical, and gender-neutral, the fatwa fails to integrate the present conditions of society. T-shirts are worn by women because they are sometimes just practical for work, for hot weather, and for convenience. Pants are worn for the same reasons. They could also be worn for fashionable reasons.

What the fatwa does is to draw a specific distinction between manly and womanly clothes, thus disparaging and destroying the many intersectionalities found within fashion and between man and woman. It upholds the archaic and patriarchal dichotomy between man and woman. It creates spaces for men and women, and segregates one from another. Such limitation on individuals within society can only be seen in terms of a state endorsed institution trying to impose on the privacy and personal decisions of an individual.

Making the issue a Muslim/non-Muslim one only avoids the real issue of the matter. It veers the discussion into contentious debate, pitting non-Muslims against Muslims. This gross misrepresentation of the reasons behind our opposition of the fatwa perverts the real discussion that has been prematurely cut short: the issue of personal rights, gender identity, and the policing of privacy by the state.

We are opposing the fatwa not because it limits our non-Muslim preclusion from Islamic law, but because it limits and condones the limitation of self-expression and personal choice of individuals.

A note on the media reports: the reports are calling the NGOs “non-Muslim NGOs” or “NGO bukan Islam”, which is not true. The NGOs involved are bukan anything, or not anything. They don’t represent Muslims, nor do they represent the non-Muslims. They are representing individuals, regardless of their religious or areligious affiliations, who, for the reasons above, find the fatwa problematic. I hope the media will properly reflect this in their future reports.

From malaysiakini.com.

PAS slams protests over lesbian sex fatwa

Nov 18, 08 11:07am

Hardline Islamic party has hit out at criticism of a fatwa or religious ban on lesbian sex, reports said Tuesday, after civil society groups held street protests over the decision. MCPX One of Malaysia’s highest Islamic bodies last month banned females from dressing or behaving like men and engaging in lesbian sex, saying it was forbidden by the religion. Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, spiritual leader of the Islamic party PAS, said such rulings should be respected by all in Malaysia, which is dominated by Muslim Malays but also home to large ethnic Chinese and Indian communities. “Not only non-Muslims but also Muslims cannot protest against any fatwa,” he was quoted as saying by the state Bernama news agency. “All fatwa are based on the Quran and Sunnah (traditions of the Prophet Mohammed) and… to protest against them is like going against the teachings of Allah,” he said. “Who are we to go against Allah’s commands, are we that great?” Fatwa on yoga next? At least two non-Muslim civil society groups have held street demonstrations in recent weeks to protest last month’s National Fatwa Council ruling. Although the Fatwa Council does not have jurisdiction in civil law, the ruling appears to be an attempt to push female homosexuality towards illegality. A top Islamic cleric last month said the Fatwa Council was also planning to ban Muslims from the ancient practice of yoga if they engage in Hindu “religious elements” during the exercise. Islam is the official religion of Malaysia, and many non-Muslims say they are concerned about growing “Islamisation” of the multicultural nation. -AFP

Published in TheNutGraph on 17th November 2008

by Shanon Shah

JANGAN cabar fatwa. Itulah arahan yang dikeluarkan oleh Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, tanggal 10 Nov 2008. Menurut laporan Utusan Malaysia, arahan tersebut dikhususkan kepada pertubuhan bukan kerajaan (NGO) bukan Islam, Katagender dan Food-not-Bombs, yang berdemonstrasi membantah keputusan Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan tentang pengharaman pengkid 23 Okt lalu.

Malah Ketua Polis Negara, Tan Sri Musa Hassan, juga memberi amaran yang sama kepada “NGO bukan Islam” berkenaan pada 13 Nov. Pulak dah!

Laporan mutakhir untuk Zahid dan Musa — Katagender bukannya satu “NGO bukan Islam”. Ia merupakan satu kolektif pelbagai kaum dan agama, termasuk lelaki dan wanita Islam. Dan bantahan terhadap fatwa ini bukan hanya timbul di kalangan orang bukan Islam. Ramai juga orang Islam yang mempersoalnya. Artikel saya sebelum ini juga merujuk kepada isu ini.

Tapi menurut Zahid lagi, tidak wajar untuk sesiapa “mempertikaikan sesuatu hukum berasaskan logik akal semata-mata untuk kepentingan liberalisme bagi kelompok tertentu.”

Ini bukan satu pendapat yang baru, atau pendirian yang khusus kepada Zahid. Kira-kira tiga tahun yang lalu, presiden Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia atau Abim, Yusri Mohamad, menggunakan hujah yang sama apabila beberapa kumpulan wanita membantah Rang Undang-Undang Keluarga Islam (Wilayah Persekutuan) (Pindaan) 2005.

Menurut laporan Utusan Malaysia, 12 Jan 2006, Yusri berkata, “[P]eruntukan yang ada dalam [Rang Undang-Undang Keluarga Islam] itu tidak seharusnya dibahas atau diperkatakan mengikut akal fikiran manusia kerana ia berasaskan hukum syarak.”

Presiden Abim Yusri Mohamad Katanya lagi, “Kita juga perlu ingat tidak semua orang boleh bercakap mengenai hukum syarak kerana ia berasaskan Al-Quran dan hadis.”

Masa saya Tingkatan Dua, ustaz saya juga pernah berpesan supaya jangan mempersoal hukum agama. Nanti jadi gila, katanya. Jadi saya pun berhenti mempersoal apa sahaja tentang agama Islam, sebab saya takut nanti saya jadi gila.

Namun, saya terus terbaca dan terdengar perkara-perkara berbau diskriminasi terhadap wanita, bukan Islam, dan golongan gay, lesbian dan mak nyah — tetapi bertopengkan “hukum” atau “fatwa”. Inilah yang membuatkan saya hampir-hampir gila, bukannya soalan yang saya ada tentang firman Allah.

Menurut perintah

Tetapi, adakah perintah yang dikeluarkan oleh Zahid itu tepat? Benarkah di dalam Islam, orang Islam mahupun bukan Islam tidak boleh menggunakan akal dan logik untuk menilai sesuatu hukum?

Saya bukannya seorang ulama, tetapi saya merupakan seorang Muslim yang selalu mendapat ilham daripada kitab suci Al-Quran.

Allah berfirman dalam Surah Al-Jaathiyah, Ayat 5: “Dan [pada] pertukaran malam dan siang silih berganti, dan juga [pada] rezeki yang diturunkan oleh Allah dari langit, lalu Ia hidupkan dengannya tumbuh-tumbuhan di bumi sesudah matinya, serta [pada] peredaran angin, [semuanya itu mengandungi] tanda-tanda [yang membuktikan keesaan Allah, kekuasaanNya, kebijaksanaanNya, serta keluasan rahmatNya] bagi kaum yang mahu menggunakan akal fikiran.”

Bagi saya, jelas sekali Islam mementingkan penggunaan akal fikiran untuk menilai dunia dan kewujudan alam.

Tetapi besar kemungkinan pendirian saya akan diserang kerana saya tidak mempunyai tauliah sebagai seorang ulama. Jadi saya ambil satu contoh dari sejarah perkembangan Islam pada awal abad ke-20, yang diceritakan dengan lebih terperinci dalam Islam: A Short Introduction, oleh Abdulkader Tayob.

Pada masa itu, komuniti Islam di India sedang dilanda kekeliruan tentang peranan teknologi dalam amal ibadat. Sekitar masa ini, alat pembesar suara mula digunakan dalam pelbagai konteks di serata dunia. Masyarakat Islam di India tidak tahu sama ada alat pembesar suara boleh digunakan dalam konteks sembahyang berjemaah.

Dalam sembahyang berjemaah di masjid, imam akan berdiri di hadapan dan menerajui semua bacaan dan gerakan yang akan dituruti oleh jemaah yang lain. Apabila bilangan jemaah terlalu besar, saf di belakang mungkin tidak dapat melihat atau mendengar imam. Jadi, beberapa orang mukabbir akan menyelangi saf-saf pada jarak tertentu dan mengeluarkan laungan yang menjadi panduan kepada jemaah lain untuk mengikut pergerakan imam.

Tetapi pada tahun 1963, satu fatwa yang penting diterbitkan oleh Mufti Muhammad Shafie dari madrasah Darul Uloom, Deoband. Darul Uloom diasaskan pada tahun 1867, dan mempelopori ajaran mazhab Hanafi. Ia merupakan salah satu institusi dakwah Islam yang paling terkemuka di dunia. Malah, saya terbaca dalam majalah Off the Edge edisi November 2008 bahawa Mursyidul Am PAS sendiri, Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, telah melanjutkan pelajarannya di Deoband pada tahun 1950an.

Tapi kita berbincang tentang Mufti Shafie, bukan Nik Aziz. Shafie telah mengeluarkan satu fatwa yang mengharamkan penggunaan alat pembesar suara dalam solat berjemaah. Ini bukan calang-calang fatwa. Impaknya pun amat serius kerana walaupun golongan Islam merupakan minoriti di India, populasinya tetap gergasi jika dibandingkan dengan negara-negara lain.

Namun, beberapa tahun selepas itu, alat pembesar suara mula digunakan secara berleluasa untuk solat jemaah dalam masjid-masjid di Mekah dan Madinah, tanpa sebarang pengharaman oleh ulama Arab Saudi. Jadi, Mufti Shafie terpaksalah mengkaji semula fatwanya, dan akhirnya menterbalikkan pengharamannya terhadap penggunaan alat pembesar suara.

Kepentingan umum

Jadi, bagi sayalah sekurang-kurangnya, sesuatu fatwa itu penting untuk mencapai kesinambungan dalam penghayatan agama Islam. Akan tetapi, fatwa boleh berubah mengikut keadaan dan keperluan semasa. Malah, fatwa boleh dicabar dalam konteks tertentu. Dalam sejarah Islam, para alim ulama sering mengeluarkan pendapat tentang hukum-hakam, tetapi mereka amatlah merendah diri dalam hal ini.

Imam Shafie sendiri pernah berkata, “Pendapat saya adalah betul, namun kemungkinan bahawa saya salah tetap wujud.” Dan pemikirannya telah menjadi asas kepada mazhab Shafie yang tersebar ke Asia Tenggara.

Ketika pemerintahan Abbasid, khalifah Mansur pernah cuba mempamerkan Muwatta oleh imam Malik di Kaabah, sebagai panduan kepada rakyat di seluruh empayar Islam. Malik tidak membenarkan Mansur berbuat demikian, dengan hujah bahawa umat Islam di kawasan yang berlainan mungkin mempunyai pandangan dan tafsirannya sendiri. Kata Malik, “Kepelbagaian pendapat itu adalah rezeki Allah kepada ummah.”

Jadi, adakah perintah supaya orang awam tidak mencabar fatwa mengambilkira realiti sejarah tamadun Islam seperti ini? Zahid berkata bahawa pihaknya bersedia untuk menjelaskan fatwa pengharaman pengkid tersebut kepada pihak NGO. Malah, Zahid berkata bahawa Wilayah Persekutuan akan cuba mewartakan fatwa tersebut secepat mungkin.

Jika fatwa tersebut diwartakan, ia akan membawa kuasa undang-undang — mana-mana wanita yang dianggap memaparkan ciri-ciri pengkid akan dilihat sebagai penjenayah. Adakah ini dianggap sebagai contoh hikmah dan kebijaksanaan yang dibawa oleh Islam?

Saya sendiri bukannya mempersoalkan fatwa ini sekarang. Tetapi saya ingin tahu bagaimanakah pewartaan dan pelaksanaan fatwa ini akan menjamin keadilan dan kesaksamaan terhadap rakyat Malaysia?

Benar, kita tidak patut mempersendakan atau memperlekehkan mana-mana ajaran agama di Malaysia yang majmuk ini. Tetapi, bila sesuatu fatwa itu digunakan untuk membentuk dasar awam yang memberi kesan mendalam kepada kepentingan umum, kita semua berhak untuk melontarkan pendapat masing-masing secara terbuka.

---

Shanon Shah yakin bahawa rakyat Malaysia yang berbilang agama dan kaum semakin mampu menangani perbezaan pendapat secara matang.

 

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.

“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.

Pictures from the San Jose March against 8

“We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home”	Love the captions: “Str8 against H8″, “HE created Adam & StEve” etc.
Her gay son was killed in 9/11 but she had nothing but a message of love and peace	Crowd listened attentively to the speakers

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?