On the fluidity of sexuality and power

The diversity of men and women living in this world, with a lesser known population of transvestites and transsexuals with their individual sexualities is difficult for sociologists-let alone eugenicists-to quantify and categorise in the modern and civilised times of today. As an astute and hyper-alert person (for which I take major credit), I find myself wondering on a regular basis about sexuality hinging on emotions and not necessarily on a biological pattern or entity.

Take for example, the phenomenon of straight men and women who often engage in homosexual/bisexual practices in Bangladesh. Very little conclusive data is available on individuals who choose to have such experiences, for to be 'outed' as such would mean certain death and/or painful, long-term imprisonment in the conservative society that makes up Bangladeshi society; a strain of conservatism already stringent in a heterosexualised Bengali culture, forget the implications of religion. In the same environment, same-sex and divergent attraction find neither avenue nor place for expression. Westernisation offers some repose, but this is outside the much-neglected history of the Global South, where sexuality was never historically categorised into straight, gay or otherwise. Men and women were then responsible to duty and family before anything else, and as a result, had to marry, have children regardless of their sexual orientation. The fear of reprisal on the basis of sexuality ensured that gay and bisexual men would not hurt or maim their wives as a result of not finding male partners to be with. Women, as a result of their subjugated place in history and society would have to take this with a smile, and if lesbian/bisexual themselves would also have to repress their emotions. The only difference being that their male husbands did not have to fear any form of reprisal or abuse from them.

However, with the advent of colonialism, homosexuality was penalised and coded, hence made into a criminal code. The adverse effects of this on gay and bisexual men included deeper suppression; at the same time, women's position in society were not lifted nor improved. As a result, straight women, gay and bisexual women and gay and bisexual men often found themselves in the same lot. Whether or not, gay and bisexual husbands abused their wives in private for having to take heterosexual marriages, or whether lesbian and bisexual women abused their husbands in private for being forced into similar heterosexual marriages, it mattered not. Society was supposed to be a code, a blueprint of protection for everyone.

Yet, history proves us wrong. Only a few months earlier, Jasvir Ram Ginday, a gay british-Indian killed his Indian-born wife Varkha Rani, after she realised her husband was gay and threatened to "out" him. The suppression of feelings experienced on Jasvir's side and the dangers of being in a traditional Indian family where women are often traded as marital property and chattel–irrespective of their own sexuality–proves the key to her demise.

For why did Rani's parents agree to wed their daughter to a foreigner from a far away land without thinking about the consequences? Why did they think that only foreign men/suitors are the ones to guarantee safety and security, as if media in South Asia will EVER say anything different?

Hailing from a traditional Indian family where his sexuality must have been repressed, Jasvir was obviously looking for a woman he could use as his scapegoat and cover. When Rani refused, she did not have the economic and immigratorial power to leave the country and go back to her family.

The question arises, would her parents have taken her back even if they knew about her predicament?

Or would they, goaded by tradition, patriarchy, matriarchy and the history of enslaving the young and the vulnerable ask her to accept her fate like a good "Indian" woman? Would she have had anywhere to go?

Had this murder occurred in India, would it not have been possible for Jasvir to not only get away with it on account of the male privilege he enjoys, but also to get married again and keep on [buying] marrying women in the long run?

Of course, yes.

Aside from gender privilege which is never mentioned in LGBTQ movements, a separate aspect of this case hinges on the fact that Jasvir also saw himself as a first world man of colour, going from a 'civilised' European/first world country to a third world country, to arrange [buy] a woman for himself and keep, as a piece of property for him to marry, retain his secrets and bear his children. When the "piece of property" gained a voice and refused to play along, she had to be put down. His attempt to use lack of knowledge of sexuality in South Asia or perhaps, (wilful suppression of info related to sexuality) backfired on him; the only difference is that he was able to technically "retaliate"; in other words, murder someone more vulnerable than him to keep himself safe.

It is worth noting that there are many lesbians/gay women who have murdered their unsuspecting husbands in the same manner and for the same purpose; notions of female fragility prevent them from being hauled to court. For the sake of justice, this must be stopped.

However.

It is amazing to me how the Western world manages to dizzy itself on the saviour complex through constructing the LGBTQ movement, without analysing any of the more relevant issues related to gender, class and race which determine a person's survival in this world AND is part of LGBTQ.

Poverty, race, gender, ethnicity — none of these factors are addressed in LGBTQ circles except what privileged/wealthy, gay white men (and to a certain degree, privileged/wealthy gay white women) want. Within its tight-constrained frame and focus on sexuality, it does not-and cannot address human history which has existed irrespective of the West and white saviour complexes.

It does not address the fact that gender oppression has survived and been advocated by not only straight men, but also gay and bisexual men as well as women themselves. It does not acknowledge the fact that power dictates who ends up with whom, and some gay and bisexual men and women, not to mention their straight counterparts — when vested with power — are able to exercise and apply muscle to ensure the person they want is not only with them but has nowhere else to go, whether for lust, love, control and/or all.

It does not acknowledge the fact that economic and environmental factors count for more of survival than any other factor, for if there is no land, there is nowhere to live. It does not acknowledge the fact that women (and children) and some men as well, will be the first ones — and the most vulnerable — to face the effects of climate change. It does not acknowledge the fact that many outed and closeted gay and bisexual men (along with their straight counterparts, sitting in comfortable executive chairs and seats in corporate companies) are responsible for many of the economic and environmental calamities people are facing in today's times; in short, LGBTQ does not address the issue of power in the form of money and the role it plays in determining everything under the sun. As we do live in a primarily male-dominated world, and I use the word primarily selectively, as I have seen women abuse other women and children, a topic barely discussed in feminism as it is — it is the general idea men (and some women of mainly white and a token few coloured backgrounds) who should be holding on to the wealth, and not any other, with the power to exert it out on others when the mood arose.

It does not address the fact that all this is happening, IRRESPECTIVE of sexuality.

So then, what is LGBTQ actually fighting for, if at all they are fighting for something?

Why are LGBTQ movements NOT addressing capitalism and the myriad problems associated with it throughout history?

For as a person of colour myself, I should like to see people like me represented in it. I would like to see LGBTQ talk about how women, irrespective of their sexuality, abuse other women and are therefore, a detriment to feminism, irrespective of their sexuality. I should like to see LGBTQ talk about how men are manipulated and abused by other men and are therefore, a detriment to male solidarity and survival, irrespective of their sexuality. I should like to see LGBTQ address its own discriminations, including the treatment transsexuals, transgenders, women and men of colour, AND women themselves get within the movement, as it has a primarily white, male veneer to it.  And finally, I should like to see LGBTQ address history in relation to money, capital, colonialism and wealth, with all the problems it brought along with it, to give it a proper, inter-sectional look.

For the LGBTQ movement to succeed, it must first correct its own shortcomings. Otherwise, it will be a movement doomed to failure.

——————————
Nadia Chowdhury, an aspiring writer, is a graduate from York University, Canada.