The Changing Archetype of Beauty

Pakistan’s Transgender Community Faces Continued Challenges In Attaining Citizenship

Yesterday the Express Tribune reported:

The transgender community in Punjab saw new hope on Wednesday as their voter registration began, and Computerised National Identity Cards (NIC) were issued by National Database and Registration Authority (Nadra), reported Express News.

At least 21 votes were registered and 25 NICs were issued to members of the transgender community in Rawalpindi.

Several transgender activists have been fighting this battle for over 3 years now, and it’s been nearly a year since the Supreme Court issued a notice to register khwaja siras* as citizens of Pakistan. It’s been an impossible task with insurmountable challenges at every step; one of the demands from NADRA at the outset was that every person that applies for a third gender in their National Identity Cards has to sign up for a medical exam that determines their sex. Such unacceptably invasive requirements were met with resistance by the khwaja sira community and repeated meetings with the Social Welfare Department along with endless hearings at the Supreme Court often ended inconclusively.

So when this news came out yesterday I was shocked and elated. At long last justice prevails! I immediately called Bindiya Rana, focal person of Gender Interactive Alliance and a dear friend. Bindiya was livid. Not only had no National Identity Cards been issued, most of the khwaja siras who had spent a lot of money and gone to Rawalpindi to finally claim their citizenship had to face yet another series of impossible requirements.

One of those requirements was to produce NIC copies of their father and mother along with B form! It doesn’t take a genius to understand that the khwaja sira community is made of people shunned by their families at a very early age and they usually have no contact with people who gave birth to them. Instead of asking for their biological parents NICs, they suggested submitting NICs of their gurus who for all practical purposes are their caretakers and guardians.

In a follow-up news report by the Express Tribune today, it says:

Farzana, the president of the Shemale Association in Peshawar, says that, with the government reluctant to issue NICs with the name of the guru, there is little hope that the people of her community will be registered. “Whether in legal or social matters, it’s the guru that’s responsible,” she says.

While efforts by the Chief Justice are appreciated, the oft-debilitating bureaucracies need to understand that they recognize an alternative, marginalized society’s rights they will have to go the extra mile to ensure that there particular needs and concerns are paid heed to. If NADRA cannot be flexible about substituting documents of biological parents with those of the Guru, it will unfortunately be denying citizenship to as many as 10% of Pakistanis.

The Express Tribune’s reporter Rabia Mehmood summarises some additional problems faced by the transgender community in this video below:

* Khwaja Sira is a term with which a majority of transgender people in Pakistan identify with. Some also self-identify as hijras. Only wretched legal jargon (which is also employed by the media) employs the archaic, offensive misnomers such as eunuchs or she-males.

Shockingly Sexist Ads That Are Allowed Today

I came across this list of 48 Shockingly Sexist Ads That Would Never Be Allowed Today a few days ago on a friend’s Facebook profile. Granted it is a list of American ads but I momentarily found myself appreciating how long we have come and the accomplishments of various women’s movements. It wasn’t long before I realized how wrong I was. Sexism is very much an integral part of our entire advertising industry and is abundantly evidenced in any random sample of ads.

I will elaborate but first a little hate for my colleagues and cohorts from IBA, CBM, LUMS and business schools elsewhere.

Getting hired by a corporation as Brand Manager or Marketing Executive, whether a local or foreign one, is pretty impressive and supposedly a Pretty Big Deal. Most companies that have big budgets for marketing have fancy hiring policy whereby candidates with an impeccable academic record go through a few rounds of interviews and standardized tests. The work is exciting and advertising agencies attract a lot of fun, creative type of people. Apparently.

What I fail to understand then is why all of these erudite MBA types combined with cultural artsy types continue to perpetuate the worst manifestations of sexism on Pakistani television. The lazy stereotypes and vapid conclusions are so glaringly obvious that a deeper analysis isn’t even necessary. There seems to be some sort of a checklist that all these marketing whiz kids adhere to which goes something like this:

1. Cooking, cleaning, looking after children is a woman’s job.

2. Men are the sole providers of income.

3. All women spend most of their time at home doing the aforementioned tasks.

4. What bothers women the most is how clean their husbands shirts are, how quickly the dishes can be done and how to impress/avoid mother-in-law from hell.

5. Men like women who are samajhdaar about housework.

The money spent to get these folks a business degree and an education in life is a colossal waste. They are illiterate in the true sense of the world: having no critical thinking faculties to examine trends around them or to analyze their own work. Why else would someone who has been through 20 years of schooling believe in illogical heuristics from the early 1900s.

Here is some of the evidence selected from the sample of ads that are on air currently.

1. The Samajhdaar Aurat.

**

2. The Bickering Aunties Collective or Kitty Party As The Sole Social Activity

**

3. The Sahir Lodhi Endorsed Detergent Makes Your Tablecloth Cleaner

**

4. The Faisal Qureshi Endorsed Toilet Cleaner Because Women Just Can’t Get Enough Of Cleaning Stuff

**

5. The Girl As The Potential Wife Who Will Fuck Up In Front Of Her Suitor And Embarrass Her Family

**

6. The Husband As The Caring Provider Whose Gifts Reflect His Expectations

**

The PTI Rally in Karachi Or Democracy Is Alive And Well In Pakistan But Not Really

I went to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) rally yesterday not because I’m a supporter but because I needed some inspiration. It’s been a tough year for Karachi with target killings and strikes reaching record highs in some months. It’s far too easy to be cynical because Karachi offers you a lot to be angry about and little to celebrate. There was, however, a lot to celebrate at the Mazar-e-Quaid yesterday.

The diversity, energy and will to change in the 150,000+ crowd were reasons enough to gladden the hearts of even the most hardened of skeptics. Without going into what this all means for Pakistan (because it is still quite wishy-washy and feel-good rhetoric), I’m going to share some of the photographs I took with my mediocre mobile phone camera along with some brief notes and observations.

I cannot stress enough how amazing it was that the people gathered there were from all kinds of classes, backgrounds and ideological leanings. From the very religious imams and tableegh jamaats to the working class, from the bankers to the businessmen from Dubai, from the students to the teachers, from the women to even some khwaja siras, it was truly the most impressive mix of Karachiites. This in a city that is so deeply divided and where political congregation is either exclusively MQM, exclusively Balochi or exclusively Jamati..

..and with that diversity comes all sorts of mini movements such as the Free Aafia Movement. As my friends Shaheryar Mirza and Arsalan Khan observed, however, this movement was not led by tableeghis, jamaatis or any of the ‘scary beards and burqas’. The people holding up placards were mostly beardless young(ish) men, presumably folks from Pasban-e-Pakistan (student wing of Jamat-e-Islami).

Another shot of the inqilaabi dudes makes me pause on the term inqilaab (revolution). I don’t want to piss on anyone’s aspirations and desires for change but Shah Mahmood Qureshi, Javed Hashmi, Jahangir Tareen and bordering-on-authoritarian Imran Khan do not represent grass-roots revolutionaries to me. It is far too top-down and domineering to be a liberating movement. The PTI has to be more transparent in its internal democratic processes and avoid propping up another one man fiefdom. While it has changed the political landscape for now, a revolution this isn’t. A helpful strategy would be to include more women and working class in powerful leadership positions.

Waiting for hours for the Messiah himself to show up and speak.

..Some more waiting. Seating was adequate for those who arrived early and most people were more than happy to give up their seats for women and the elderly.

How many times do you get to see really cute grandmas holding placards in Karachi that read “Zardari chor, jaan chhoR“? Lovely.

Another beautiful moment in the rally was when Imran Khan arrived and they released hundreds of red and green balloons in the clear Karachi skies.

A silent revelry as Salman Ahmad takes the stage to lip-sync Jazba-e-Junoon..

As the sun sets, the numbers increase exponentially. The PTI flag is aloft, the Pakistan flags are few and far between.

And some more assorted photos below:

Some final thoughts when I was leaving the rally:

- I dislike and distrust Shah Mehmood Qureshi. His feudal background and nationalist anger always made me uneasy but his lusty praise for Pakistan’s nuclear program and his dangerous refusal to sign a “No First Strike” deal with India makes me positively livid. Imran Khan will have to curb his ego and his war-mongering glee. I’m afraid it won’t be easy because Qureshi sees himself has above PTI and perhaps above Imran Khan as well.

- While Imran Khan as made peace with MQM at the moment, it does leave the latter in a precarious position. Whether this means a shift of power in Karachi remains to be seen but it will make a dent in ANP-MQM nexus.

- I don’t see how the PTI will make serious revisions in Pakistan’s fiscal budget. Concepts such as increasing taxation and foreign investment sound simple enough but will we ever see a cut in Pakistan’s defense budget? Will he be able to bring Pakistan’s military forces under the control of the elected government? Will he be affirm against this burgeoning anti-India right-wing rhetoric that has given our army orgasms for decades? The army question is ultimately the key question if Pakistan is to become serious about issues such as welfare, income inequality and job creation.

- I find PPP fans really irritating now. Saying Imran Khan copies Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto is nauseating. That was decades ago. Get over it. They were popular and charming and fucked up. Get over it. If I end up supporting PTI in the future and thirty years down the road I still treat Imran Khan like a Messiah who could have saved Pakistan, you all have the license to shoot me.

***

As for me, I’ll probably still vote for the Pakistan Labour Party but that’s just me.

This Blog Should Really Be Called Clinton Screams Pakistan Should Do More…

… in honour of scary Clinton demanding all kinds of action and threatening all kinds of repercussions if Pakistan fails to do more this week.

Photos From Pre-Partition Pakistan

I’m not sure if everyone has seen these photos before. Someone e-mailed them to me and this was the first time I’d come across these wonderful gems from the 19th century Pakistan. I cannot vouch for the authenticity of these captions either. I’ve copy-pasted them verbatim from the e-mail. If everyone has evidence to the contrary, please do share!

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Gilani Says Obama Should Do More

In a moment of uncanny chutzpah, our esteemed Gilani sahab called upon the United States to do more for Pakistan.

“Now it’s the time that they should do more,” the Prime Minister told reporters after attending a ceremony at a girls college here.

If you can read between the lines what he really meant was that Pakistan cannot do more and should not be forced into doing what it clearly cannot do.

He said Pakistan during the last decade had sacrificed much in battling the menace of terrorism and emphasised that it should not be pressurised to do more.

Courtesy: the ever-vigilant @mirza9

Beer, Botal Ya Beedi: Bollywood Beats Featuring Binge Drinking

Presenting below a compilation of my favourite Bollywood songs featuring drunk heroes and heroines. This list is not strictly chronological but I’ve tried to demonstrate transition from the old Bollywood to the relatively new. If can think of any that I’ve missed out, please share them in the comments section. Would love to see what other favourites exist out there!

Disclaimer: I would loved to write more about them but an analysis would require far more research than I’m inclined to do at this point in time.

1. Dev Anand in ‘Prem Shashtra’ – Mein Sharab Pi Raha Hoon

2. Helen in ‘Gumnaam’ – Pi Ke Hum Chalay

3. Hema Malini in ‘Seeta Aur Geeta’ – Haan Jee Haan Meinay Sharab Pi Hai

4. Rishi Kapoor and Amitabh Bachhan in ‘Naseeb’ – Chal Meray Bhai

5. Amitabh Bachhan in ‘Namak Halal’ – Thori Si Jo Pi Li Hai

6. Jeetendra in ‘Aatish’ – Sharab Hai Shabab Hai

7. Parveen Babi & Mithun Chakraborty in ‘Ashanti’ – Mein Hoon Sharabi

8. Salman Khan and Sri Devi in ‘Chand Ka Tukra’ – Jo Peetay Nahin Sharab

9. Shahrukh Khan and Jackie Shroff in ‘Devdas’ – Chalak Chalak

10. Salman Khan & Sonakshi Sinha in ‘Dabangg’ – Hum Ko Peeni Hai

–

P.S.: Can anyone explain why Pankaj Udhas has so many sad love songs about drinking?! It’s a strangely awkward and intriguing obsession of his.

Feminists and Fundamentalists

What is a 'reactionary' feminist anyway?

A few days ago Naomi Wolf wrote about what was, in her opinion, a weird possibility of Michelle Bachmann becoming the next President of the United States. In a piece on Al Jazeera she categorises both Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann as “America’s Reactionary Feminists”, and recognises that they represent a ‘perfectly legitimate approach to feminism‘.

The second reason that Bachmann and Palin appeal to so many Americans – and this should not be underestimated, either – has to do with a serious historical misreading of feminism. Because feminism in the 1960s and 1970s was articulated via the institutions of the left – in Britain, it was often allied with the labour movement, and in the US, it was reborn in conjunction with the emergence of the New Left – there is an assumption that feminism itself must be leftist. In fact, feminism is philosophically as much in harmony with conservative, and especially libertarian, values – and in some ways even more so.

Wolf realises such a claim may sound absurd to many feminists trained in Western / Euro-centric interpretations of gender theory and feminist movement(s). She warns:

Many of these women are socially conservative, strongly supportive of the armed forces, and religious – and yet they crave equality as strongly as any leftist vegetarian in Birkenstocks. It is blindness to this perfectly legitimate approach to feminism that keeps tripping up commentators who wish to dismiss women like Margaret Thatcher, or Muslim women, or now right-wing US women leaders, as somehow not being the “real thing”.

But these women are real feminists – even if they do not share policy preferences with the already recognised “sisterhood”, and even if they themselves would reject the feminist label. In the case of Palin – and especially that of Bachmann – we ignore the wide appeal of right-wing feminism at our peril.

This got me thinking about right-wing feminism(s) within the Muslim world and more specifically movements such as Al-Huda in Pakistan. What Wolf identifies as “right-wing feminism” in America is a far cry from, say, the politics of women within the right-wing Jamat-e-Islami. In the States this category would constitute

a powerful constituency of right-wing women in Britain and Western Europe, as well as in the US, who do not see their values reflected in collectivist social-policy prescriptions or gender quotas. They prefer what they see as the rugged individualism of free-market forces, a level capitalist playing field, and a weak state that does not impinge on their personal choices.

Contrast this with women’s issues raised in the last decade by Al-Huda or Jamat-e-Islami: more segregated schools for girls, regulating social and cultural life according to Islamic Shariah, negotiating piety in private and public spheres and opposing America’s war in Muslim lands.

What then is “right-wing feminism”?

Who gets to decide what kind of activism is acceptable as feminist?

Conservative feminism in the United States is perhaps as different from conservative feminism in South Asia as it is from third-wave leftist feminism in France. Perhaps leftist anti-war feminists in Europe have more in common with right-wing anti-war Jamat-e-Islami women. Or perhaps not at all.

The point is there is no singular feminism. It is not a thick text-book sitting somewhere that one can access to in any given time or space and make use of established tools and resources to advance women’s rights in one’s immediate sphere. If we can accept that feminism is local to the time, place and people it is borne out of, we should not have a problem accepting that no feminism is, ipso facto, less legitimate than another.

But secular, liberal feminists in Pakistan have repeatedly expressed their repugnance for these Other feminists in their midst. Amina Jamal’s paper “Feminist ‘Selves’ and Feminism’s ‘Others’: Feminist Representations of Jamaat-e-Islami Women in Pakistan” traces how activists from Women’s Action Forum, for example, have dealt with the Jamaati women.

While in the traditional version of Orientalism the veiled Muslim woman is constructed as the oppressed victim of the barbarity of Muslim men and Islamic religion, in the latest construction she is problematized as an enigmatic Other who defiantly negates Western liberal notions about social development and secular modernity. Hence she is seen to mark the emergence of a significant movement of women who espouse many of the goals of ‘women’s rights’ identified by self-defined feminist activists but reject feminist notions of gender equality as contradictory to the teachings of Islam. Their religiously motivated political activism is a problem for Pakistani feminists who insist on the separation of state and religion as a prerequisite for progressive politics.

Indeed some recent scholarship on Islamic women’s activism has attempted to dismantle the constructed opposition between ‘secular’ and ‘religious’ while drawing attention to successful moves by Islamic women’s groups in challenging male domination without renouncing their religious commitment. Najmabadi’s work on Islamic feminist activism in Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution not only demonstrates a heterogeneity of positions within ‘Islamic feminism’ but also traces the historical roots of the secular/religious dichotomy that divides Iranian women activists. In doing so, Najmabadi contends, Zanan has opened a ‘new space for dialogue’ between Islamic women activists and reformers and secular feminists who had been separated by a 60-year-old rift.

Amina Jamal goes on to say:

The agonistic relationship of Islamization and globalization as well as the transnational human rights activism that emerged in response to contemporary cultural, historical and political conditions, enabled the construction of a feminist internationalist selfhood by organized women in Pakistan that cannot be understood through conventional ideas about universal oppression of women or global sisterhood.

Jamal discusses the engagement of secular, liberal feminists in Pakistan with the Jamaati women in a seminal paper tracing history of women’s movement in Pakistan written by Khawar Mumtaz and F. Shaheed who themselves belong to the former category.

Jamal states that “it was not until 1992 that feminists from the Women’s Action Forum engaged with Jamaati women whom they described at best as an ‘enigma’ for feminists and at worst as simply an ‘adjunct’ of fundamentalist men.”

According to Shaheed and Mumtaz, Jamaat women share some common interests with feminists in Pakistan since they call for increased rights for women in marriage and divorce, end to economic exploitation and elevation of women’s status in society. However, they diverge strongly on the causes of women’s problems since ‘the fundamentalist position’ considers unrestricted social interaction of men and women as the root of all social evils and demands segregation of the sexes in all spheres of social life. Shaheed and Mumtaz (1992: 63) point out that this contrasts with the position of those they described as ‘progressive women’ who believe that women’s social and economic position can be improved only through structural change and challenging the patriarchal structure of the family. Shaheed and Mumtaz try to account for the appeal of ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ among women by reference to the changes in the country’s socio-economic conditions.

In later essays both Shaheed and Mumtaz separately began to deepen their insights regarding the possibility of a gendered consciousness in which women’s relationship with religion could have an independent basis from their relationship with men or the imperatives of adjusting to socio-economic modernity. On the basis of a study conducted in 1994 among urban working and middle class women in Lahore, Shaheed contends that the majority of women’s experiences in Pakistan do not fit into the strain of feminist analysis that views religion as the primary factor in women’s oppression. She charges the Pakistani women’s movement with elitism and failure to engage with religion as a factor in women’s day to day lives.

–

Last week, Newsweek Pakistan interviewed Samia Raheel Qazi, daughter of Qazi Hussain who was the former chief of the Jamaat-e-Islami. The interview is quite stellar as it set up to dismantle many assumptions about Jamaati women and their ‘feminism’.

[Note: I use quotes here because the Jamaati women, like Palin and Bachmann, have never self-identified as feminists but have in several forum expressed a concern for gender equality and a struggle for a better society for women to live in.]

Qazi while discussing how she envisions a better Pakistan says:

Pakistan is a little too male dominated. Men need to realize that they require female support in order to strike a balance in society. Men need to cooperate with women. In Pakistan, women need to understand and sacrifice a little more than men in order to attain their rights. Women need to be more educated and they need to understand their status in society. Some women have chained themselves to their homes, which is not right. They should step outside and educate themselves—not just for their own sakes but also for their families. At the same time, women should not ignore their families either. They might have to work a little hard for this balance, but they should not give up.

I understand that her stated opinion in an interview should be taken with a huge dollop of salt and measured against the Jamaat’s history of standing up for women’s place in the public sphere, right to education so on and so forth. I also accept that this may be complete hogwash and her actions could be diametrically opposite of her speech. The truth is I don’t know anything about her apart from this one interview.

My only problem is when scholars like Ayesha Siddiqua refuse to acknowledge even the faintest possibility of Jamaati women exercising their agency and in doing so deny their ability to negotiate their womanhood. Just today, in a convoluted, ignorant and bigoted piece, she writes:

[If we speak about agency of women in Jamat-ud-Dawa and Jamaat-e-Islami we] confuse the power of making a choice with the absence or presence of an environment that constraints free choice. Freedom of thought is seriously constrained when laws, even man-made, seem to have divine sanction. It is very difficult to challenge religious norms or even argue about the possibility of variation in interpreting holy text.

Why is it impossible for Siddiqua to recognise Jamaati women and their discourse as a product of  a rational mind?

Delving deeper into her biases would go beyond the scope of this post and quite frankly, I’m not trained enough in Anthropology to be able to aptly point out all her logical fallacies and ideological limitations. [She misreads and misrepresents Talal Asad!]

Before I entangle myself in further tangents, I’ll end with an excerpt from Saba Mahmood’s field work in her book “Politics of Piety” which is, till date, the most important text on this topic.

In the course of my fieldwork, I had come to spend time with a group of four working women, in their mid to late thirties, working in the public and private sectors of the Egyptian economy. In addition to attending the mosque lessons, the four also met as a group to read and discuss issues of Islamic ethical practice and Quranic exegesis. Given the stringent demands of their desire to abide by high standards of piety placed on them, these women often had to struggle against a secular ethos that permeated their lives and made their realisation of piety somewhat difficult. They often talked about the pressures they faced as working women, which included negotiating close interactions with unrelated male colleagues, riding public transportation in mixed-sex compartments, overhearing conversations (given close proximity of co-workers) that were impious in character or tone, and so on. Often this situation was further compounded by resistance these women encountered in their attempts to live a pious life from their family members – particularly from male members – who were opposed to stringent forms of religious devotion.

When these women met as a group, their discussions often focused on two challenges they constantly had to face in their attempts to maintain a pious lifestyle. One was learning to live amicably with people – both colleagues and immediate kin – who constantly placed them in situations that were far from optimal for the realisation of piety in day to day life. The second challenge was in the internal struggle they had to engage in within themselves in a world that constantly beckoned them to behave in unpious ways.

Like Wolf, I concede that we ignore these women and their struggle to define their womanhood in private and public life, at our own peril.

To The Folks At The News: Stop Spouting Homophobic Hatred.

This rant is in response to this piece published in The News last Sunday: [http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=48395&Cat=6&dt=5%2F22%2F2011]

–

Right from the outset, I want to state in no uncertain terms that homophobia infuriates me to no end. Whether or not one agrees it is a natural proclivity and/or a conscious choice, the State has no business regulating sexual expression and practice between consenting adults. There are far more pressing matters for the government to spend its budget on than policing what people do in private. Having said that, I understand that lawmakers in Pakistan will not remedy homophobic laws because majority of the citizens would oppose such a move. I’m not naïve enough to believe we’ll follow suit on the precedent set by Delhi last year when it de-criminalised sodomy by reversing bigoted laws set by British colonials. Not any time soon at least.

But what excuse does the so-called independent and free English media have for spouting such hatred?

The problem is not that there are people who are anti-homosexuality: there is enough literature to enrich such a debate, theocratic or otherwise. I can even concede, hesitantly, that it is entirely rational to be opposed to homosexuality if one follows Islam strictly. Literal interpretations of the scripture would demand such a blanket disagreement with acceptance of homosexuality.

The problem is when journalists and medical doctors get their facts blatantly wrong, twist conclusions, conflate several issues and misrepresent a correlation completely. In a country where personal freedoms are easily violated especially if the suspect is poor and voiceless, this is downright criminal. The piece I’m referring to appeared in The News recently and quoted a certain Dr Abrar Umar. Right from the first line, it is reeking with bigotry:

“Homosexuality is fast spreading in the country putting health and social norms at stake and if the issue is not duly addressed, the situation may lead to the epidemic of AIDS. In an ethnographic study of men who have sex with men (MSM) in twin cities, a public health professional working on prevention of AIDS and Assistant Professor of Community Medicine in Islamabad Medical College Dr Abrar Umar alarmed that homosexuality, if not duly addressed may lead to the epidemic of AIDS.”

Let me spell it out for you: homosexuality does NOT lead to AIDS. Having unprotected sex increases the risk to sexual infections as serious as AIDS. This is a perfect example of when correlation does not mean causation. It is well-documented fact all over the world that by itself, the act of two men having sex does not increase the risk of becoming HIV positive. Having sex without adequate protection, however, will lead to an increase risk of contracting diseases whether you have sex with a man or a woman.

Betraying colossal ignorance of basic facts about human biology, the writer states:

“Like other parts of the country, the homosexuals are multiplying in twin cities of Islamabad and Rawalpindi.”

Newsflash: it is physically impossible for gay men to multiply as they cannot get pregnant or give birth. Heterosexual reproduction is what one means by multiplying. If the writer is upset about the alarming rate of population growth, I’m with him. Lord knows we need fewer bigots around us.

Although the numbers are disputed, several studies suggest that approximately 5% of the population in any place is gay.  Evidence of that is reproducible with a simple Google search. A study done at the UCLA  just last month indicates that an estimated 3.5% of adults in the United States identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. Moreover, an estimated 8.2% report that they have engaged in same-sex sexual behavior and nearly 11% acknowledge at least some same-sex sexual attraction.

This basically means that at the very least one person out of every twenty people you know is likely to be a gay dude or a lesbian and you can do nothing to change that. While condemnation of and discrimination towards gay people is fairly recent in history, there is plenty of recorded evidence of acknowledgment, acceptance and even appreciation of homosexual behavior in every civilization in history. Each and every society, be it the Ottomans or the Romans.  It is by no means a new “phenomenon” that requires immediate redress and recourse. If it is still not obvious, let me clarify by saying gay people exist under every religion, regime, reign and renaissance.  I apologise for sounding like I’m talking to a four year old but the article in The News beseeches such condescension.

I can try and ignore the horrendously biased language used in the piece:

For example: In Islamabad, many fashion and production houses are “stormed” with gays and homos in closet. (Emphasis is my own)

…but what gets me foaming at the mouth in anger is when it casually discloses popular locations where gay people allegedly meet and socialize. Do we really need to endanger people who are already deeply marginalized and forced to be closeted because of the potential shame and brutal violence they can face on the streets? It is because of this moral and social policing those gay men cannot be open about their activities. And if you haven’t made the connection already, it is BECAUSE of this forced seclusion they do not have access to adequate protection and are at a much higher risk of getting infected. If safe sex could be appropriately discussed and addressed, many of these diseases could be tackled in the professional and ethical manner they deserve to be treated with.

“Rape, theft, drug trafficking and blackmailing are also associated with the phenomenon.”

…just like they are connected with most marginalized groups. And I repeat, for fuck’s sake it is not a ‘phenomenon’! Did all editors at The News just fall of their building on I.I. Chundrigar and die? Who fact-checked this piece?

More conflation of different terms follows in the piece:

“To a query, Dr Abrar said that about 80 per cent of Haijras (eunuchs) are basically gays who have turned into Haijra identity for better acceptance in the society.”

While it is true that some men resort to cross-dressing and queer gender performance to escape social exclusion and physical violence (hijras and khwaja-siras have somewhat more social acceptance in Pakistan while having zero economic acceptance), this is not the case for many gay people who either don’t want to or can’t just adorn various identities. This also profoundly confuses the umbrella term of ‘trans’ which includes far more gender and sexual variation than just castrated men. In short, anyone who doesn’t identify with the gender or sex (two very different terms meaning two very different things) they were born with is trans. And trans is an adjective just like beautiful is. Not a noun like man or woman. But I digress.

Just when I’m about to give up completely, there is some acknowledgment of the actual issues.

“Poverty, broken families, uneducated parents, absence of sex education and drug addiction drag the children to unprotected environment outside the family.

He, however, added that to have a better analysis of MSM we have to be very specific about their gay and other identities. There is a marked behavioural difference between the two. All the gay subjects in the study except one who is considered fake gay by the others have strong perception that they are gays by birth.

Dr Abrar said that the study reveals that most of the MSM are blackmailed and threatened by the police. Due to insecurity, many MSM enter the transgender while some of them get castrated. The gay segment of MSM faces a lot of pressure from family and the gays who marry are victims of marital disharmony thus problems are replicated.

He added that general rejection by the society and insulting behaviour of the general people put MSM into isolation. Due to homosexuality being a taboo in society and stigma associated with it, MSM are reluctant to go to physician and tell the right history of the ailment. Eventually they cannot get right and in-time treatment, he said and added that most of the MSM are living at high risk of having sexually transmitted diseases especially AIDS. Preventive measures are generally not being practiced by them in spite of awareness among them, said Dr Abrar.”

 Yes! Finally! Issues and problems we really need to talk about!

This piece had the potential to discuss serious concerns faced by the gay community in an objective way. Except it flushed all hope down the toilet with its undisguised homophobia, deliberate dishonesty in how the facts were presented and a total disregard for privacy concerns of its subject. It turned out to be nothing more than a space for violent condemnation of gay men with unwarranted paranoia and supreme hypocrisy.

Well done Dr Abrar Umar and The News for allowing and supporting such bigotry in the most unethical way possible.