Lies. All of them.

I was trying to respond to a conversation I have having with someone on Twitter about this, but my facebook messaging was not working. This is about this article (the full version of the news clipping mentioned in the last post). 

So, I am using this instead:

What I had been trying to say, and I am not sure if the meaning was lost in twitterverse or if you just misunderstood me, was this:  

Amod Kanth is supposed to help advocate for children's rights. However, what he is doing here is using dubious assumptions and his personal prejudices to perpetuate homophobia, all the while pretending to be advocating for child rights. I am alarmed by this both on account of being passionate about LGBT rights and on account of being involved with child rights.  

Here are a few select quotes that demonstrate that:  

1. "In 1992, it is mentioned that WHO had removed homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses in its International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10); however, in the same classification gender identity disorders, trans-sexualism and disorders of sexual preferences, such as, fetishism, exhibitionism, voyeurism and pedophilia, have been listed in the broad categories (F-64 and F-65) of the Disorders of Adult Personality Behaviour. The conclusion appears contradictory since most of these disorders happen to be widely prevalent amongst lesbian women, gay men, bisexuals and transgender groups (LGTB), whose sexual orientation and public conduct stand legalized and endorsed through this Judgement."  

He's making the claim that (let alone WHO and the psychiatric world's dated/biased stance on trans-sexuality) "disorders of sexual preferences" are not just widely prevalent amongst LGBT people, but that they are prevalent: implying that, if not a majority of, a very significant number of LGBT have these disorders. Does he have anything to back this up? Secondly, the judgment does absolutely nothing to "legalize and endorse" this judgment: it merely decriminalizes private consensual sex between adults (where does the public conduct even come into the picture)?  

2. "However, the said Judgement which is likely to seriously impact the physical, psychological, emotional and sexual behavior of the children and adolescents in India, in their continuous process of development, 18th year of age, being the end of childhood may not change the situation overnight."  

While I am willing to acknowledge that, no, the 18th birthday doesn't suddenly make one capable of better judgment, why does he not hold the rules on consensual heterosexual contact to this hypocritical standard as well? Am I supposed to be less capable of determining my consent to sex with women than sex with a man?  

3. "Question is being raised whether the sexual rights of any individual is unilateral since ‘sexual orientation’ itself refers to a person’s erotic response and tendency, bisexual or heterosexual, towards other persons of the same or other sex."  

Does this even require responding to? While this could be an interesting complex question to consider for sexuality theories, what does this have to do with the judgment? Even if it is not "unilateral", provided the manifestation of "erotic response and tendency" is not affecting non-consenting individuals (or consenting individuals below legal age), how does it matter?

4. "It is also argued that amongst the ‘sexual minorities’, there are multiple issues- ranging from the substance and alcohol abuse resulting in serious psychiatric problems to potential for serious societal disruptions in India’s highly applauded family set-up having  well  defined positions and roles for husband and wife, grand parents, parents and children,  their related fabric and norms, which will get distorted and ultimately disappear in case such practices are accepted.  

Even if we don’t accept the strong religious feelings across the communities against legalizing homosexuality or recognize the scientific evidence of mental and physical aberrations in homosexual practices, it is evident that promoting these behaviors may aggravate problems like HIV AIDS, anal cancer and anxiety disorders, justifying the adage, “personal freedom ends when public peril begins”." Where do I even start on how epically distorted this is? Yes, I'd be willing to accept there might be higher rates of alcohol and substance abuse amongst LGBT populations, but does Mr. Kanth think about why that is? It is in response to the feelings of utter isolation and depression felt by members of the LGBT community, because "India's highly applauded family set-up" (this calls for a whole other post. Do not get me started on how this inherently patriarchal set-up is actually harmful to Indian society) does not accept them, and forcibly brushes their issues under the carpet. Decriminalizing consensual sex between adults will not exacerbate these problems. In fact, acceptance, at some level, at least from the legal code, might help reduce the instances of anxiety disorders, high risk sexual behavior, substance abuse etc. when at least the LGBT community does not feel like criminals in addition to feeling like outcasts.  I accept, just as any rational person would, that until we have a reasonable alternative to the provisions of Section 377 of IPC, it cannot be delete. However, that does not in anyway justify Mr. Kanth's seriously flawed arguments in opposition of the reading down of that Section. His arguments seem to be based much less on fact, and much more so on his close-mindedness and bigotry. The entire article reads like one written by a man with a political agenda; whether that agenda is one of discrimination, or seeking funds, or winning friends, I don't know.  Besides, why is Prayas or the DCPRC even wasting their time with this? Why are they wasting precious effort and energy opposing something on the shakiest of grounds? I know Prayas recognizes just as well as other child rights groups do, that there is a pressing need for much more comprehensive protections from sexual assault of children: sexual assault is not just through penetration: what about attempted penetration? Forced oral sex? Molestation? (Talking about male children here, I believe these provisions do exist for female children). If I'm not mistaken, there are also no provisions to account for sexual assault on boys by multiple people at a time. Why is DCPRC not concentrating more on fixing these?  This is seriously appalling. And someone needs to set these people right now.

Equal Rights are not a Zero-Sum Game

I wholly intended to write a blog post sooner about the decriminalization of homosexual acts in Delhi, but I just haven't had the time to sit down and jot my thoughts, in a way that is comprehensive enough to do justice to the complexity of the situation. 

However, for now, I am posting a response I wrote to an article by former Indian Today editor Swapan Dasgupta that was published in "The Pioneer" yesterday: 

Equal Rights are not a Zero-Sum Game

 

It is painful to note well-educated, prolific and intelligent people propagate misleading and ignorant beliefs. That is the first feeling I had when I read Mr. Swapan Dasgupta’s article “Aggressive Gay Evangelism.” In his article, published in Pioneer dated July 5, 2009, Mr. Dasgupta claims that the Delhi High Court judgment amending Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code may “open the floodgates” to his eponymous term “aggressive gay evangelism.”

He fears that the decriminalization of same-sex carnal relations will eventually, and invariably, lead to such frightening things as lowering the age of consent, accommodating gay marriage, and allowing the right of adoption to gay couples – all ideas that, presumably, go against the “natural order of society.” Why should these ideas be such frightening prospects to Mr. Dasgupta. It is not as if sexual and gender minorities fighting for further rights would personally be harmful to him in any way.

Mr. Dasgupta is concerned about “in-your-face-gayness” and militant gay activism, and believes all gay activism to be defined by this “perverseness.” This concern can be addressed with two brief points. The first is that some amount of what he terms “in-your-face-gayness” is required for increasing the visibility of an otherwise invisible minority. The second is simply that not much gay activism is militant or “in-your-face” at all – a lot of this activism is happening in the courtrooms, on editorial pages such as these, and in day-to-day lives of people living their lives honestly and openly. 

He further has the audacity to claim that “the invocation of equality and the principles of non-discrimination” with regards to LGBT rights might be a “double-edged sword” as the assertiveness and desire for equality by the LGBT rights movement could very well “spin out of control.” Perhaps Mr. Dasgupta, and others that hold similar beliefs as him, need to understand that equal rights are not a zero-sum game. When a particular minority group gains equal rights, it does not necessarily come at the cost of those same rights that were already afforded to the majority or to other minority groups. For instance, the legalizing of gay marriages does not undermine the validity or sanctity of heterosexual marriages, and altering school curricula to remove heteronormative assumptions does not in any way indicate, as Mr. Dasgupta appears to believe, that “man-woman relations are not the natural order of society.”

Perhaps the reason some heterosexual (or male or upper-caste or rich) people question the needs and demands of minority groups fighting for equal rights is simply because they are worried not about losing their own rights, but about losing the privilege that their status as a part of the majority with exclusive rights had guaranteed them. To use a rather politically incorrect analogy, finding that their domestic help has happened upon an inheritance that makes him richer than they are would decidedly make most people uncomfortable, because it forces them to question what they took for granted about their personal superiority that came from being wealthier, and thus, more privileged. Mr. Dasgupta’s knee-jerk reaction to LGBT communities fighting from equality might stem from a similar concern – what happens to his heterosexual privilege when those homosexuals could have the same rights as he presently does, when their relationships are recognized as valid as his, when their human dignity is considered every bit as respectable as his own?

Decriminalization of homosexual behavior may indeed serve as the starting point for further LGBT activism in the country – indeed, moving towards full equality, as part of the same “gender-neutral, non-denominational, secular, uniform civil code”, in Mr. Dasgupta’s own words, desired by the makers of our Constitution. And since it’s not a zero-sum game that we are playing, perhaps this full equality for sexual and gender minorities would only strengthen the unity of the country. 

And just for kicks, a closing quote from Tocqueville (that great scholar of democracy): 

"If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to the same reproach? Men do not change their characters by uniting with one another; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with their strength. For my own part, I cannot believe it; the power to do everything, which I should refuse to one of my equals, I will never grant to any number of them."

Alexis de Tocqueville, "Tyranny of the Majority," Chapter XV, Book 1, Democracy in America