FACTS againest MYTHS V0L-VI-4-2000
Item
- Title
- FACTS againest MYTHS V0L-VI-4-2000
- extracted text
-
MYTHS
VIKAS ADHYAYAN KENDRA
Vol VI #4/2000
INFORMATION BULLETIN
Myths on Sexual Minorities - II
- Sanjukta Ghosh
COMMENT
History of “Homosexuality” as a Concept
hough human sexuality is indisputably
complex and difficult to explain,
nevertheless, for at least three centuries,
researchers have tried to examine and explain
it. The central arguments till today remain
whether homosexual is congenital or acquired,
ineradicable or susceptible to cure, biologically
innate or a lifestyle choice. This debate is
problematic for any lesbian and gay rights
activism. Each position on this issue is
susceptible to be used by political conservatives
the detriment of homosexual, bisexual and
transgendered communities. That is why
examining each position in detail and gauging
the political ramifications of each approach
becomes imperative. The biological/medical
model, forwarded by physicians, held that
homosexuals were actually victims and ill,
stricken by. something beyond their control.
Thus, the physicians asked, not for sympathy,
but for understanding; that these individuals
be treated therapeutically, not punitively
(Conrad and Schneider 1992). Treatments
included forcing them to meet the right person.
of the opposite sex, castrations, sterilization, and
a commitment to mental health institutions.
Today, people who hold this position within the
scientific community have turned their efforts
on isolating a “gay gene” (Hamer and Copeland
1994). This model is dangerous given modem
humans’ proclivity to experiment with the
pseudo-science of eugenics. In fact, female
“feticide” in India, religious-minority
“cleansing,” ethnic “cleansing” in various parts
of the world are just the more visible outcomes
of the “biological difference” model. Time and
again, research has shown that people who
engage in same-gender sex are no different
than others in any respect other than their
choice of sexual partners. The second theoretical
approach came from psychologists like Richard
von Krafft-Ebing and Sigmund Freud. KraffitEbing regarded same-gender sexual behavior
as originating in a congenital weakness of the
nervous system caused by heredity or excessive
masturbation (Conrad and Schneider 1992).
However, Freud held that homosexual
tendencies were inherent in all of us and that
cultural rules and socialization that “made” us
heterosexuals. Thus, homosexuality was the
result of unfinished maturation. These views
led to “aversion therapy” and shock treatments
that.
A third approach is a constructivist view on
statuses that afford privileges in society. In the
context of human sexuality, the concept of
“sexual preference” becomes significant. The
famous Kinsey Reports of 1948 and 1953 are
important in this context. (See box over)
Thus came the third approach to human
sexuality deriving from symbolic interactionism
and the Kinsey Reports. It views the category
of homosexuality as a product of the meanings
we give the term in a culture (social process at
FOR PRIVATE CIRCULATION ONLY
f — — ————————— —
I
I
I
I
I
9
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
3
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
3
I
I
I
3
I
I
I
I
— »J
The Kinsey Report
In 1948 Alfred Kinsey and his associates studied
almost 16,500 adult men and women and found that
30 percent of adult American males had engaged in
some homosexual activity, and 10 percent were
exclusively homosexual for a period of at least three
years between the ages of 16 and 55. About half as
many women were predominantly homosexual.
Though Kinsey’s research has been criticized, it, for
the first time, posited sexuality as a continuum. Instead
of identifying people as exclusively homosexual or
heterosexual, Kinsey observed a spectrum of sexual
activity, of which exclusive orientations of either type
make up the extremes. Homosexual activity increases
in environments where there are no heterosexual
outlets for sexual desires; many persons who, in such
environments, are exclusively homosexual in practice
identify themselves as exclusively heterosexual in
orientation. The report also recognized a large
population of bisexuals — people who respond
sexually to persons of either sex.
9
i
9
I
|
I
9
J
|
9
9
|
]
|
j
9
What the writer seems
to be arguing is that if
homosexual sexual
behavior is simply a
preference,
then
society can create
taboos around it, enact
laws against it, and
expect people to abide
by them, just like there
are laws against incest
and non-consensual
sex. It is arguments
like these that have
made many activists
revert
to
an
essentialist position on
human sexuality.
What widespreac^^
research on humaiW
sexuality now does
1 show is that same
| gender sexual practice
is common, universal
Kinsey’s 1948 report and the subsequent 1953 study
[ and “normal.”
were the first formal, wide-ranging and systematic
J is no single type of a
research on human sexuality. It categorically asserted
J homosexual.
that there was infinite variety in human sexual
J Biologically and/or
behavior and nothing was “normal,” “abnormal” or
* psychologically people
pathological. Also patterns of sexual behavior changed
J who prefer samegendered
sexual
over an individual’s life span.
partners are no
different than those
who prefer opposite
the macro level), and sees the individuals who
gender sexual partners. Stereotypes such as
fit the category as those who have come to
women become lesbians because of
identify themselves as homosexuals (the result
heterosexual relationships gone awry (a rnytt^
of social process at the micro level). It is worth
that the film Fire implicitly promotes) or fhd^J
pointing out that this perspective allows us to
men become homosexuals because of the
consider identity separate from behavior.
domineering influence oftheir mothers are just
that — stereotypes. What should be accepted
The model of “sexual preference” too has its
by now is that homosexuality is a common
limitations. It feeds into the argument of zealots
variant of human sexuality.
that sexuality exists within the realm of
personal control. An example of this is a letter
Sexuality and Political Activism.
published in the Pioneer (Delhi) in 1995.
Whether or not we see sexuality as biological,
Assailing the position of the president of the
social or a combination of both, the question
Indian Medical Association that homosexuality
that begs to be asked is why should something
is not a crime or a disease, but a sexual
as private and individual as sexuality be a
preference, then, “Can the votaries of such
political issue, a topic for public discussion? The
progressive thoughts give a suitable reply
answer to this lies in the compulsory
regarding the nature of incest and its related
heterosexuality .that is built into our society
threat to the social fabric? For incestuous
through institutions such aS marriage and
relationships, like homosexuality, are very much
family. It is through these institutions that
based on an individual’s sexual preference. Isn’t
fundamental rights and privileges such as free
it a social stigma?” (cited in Thadani 1996).
Q FACTS against MYTHS
|
|
citizenship, health care and insurance coverage,
retirement pensions, property inheritance and
old age security are denied to a section of the
population. That is why rhetoric of some
internationally-known feminists such as
Madhu Kishwar’s become problematic when
they loudly proclaim merely on the basis of
isolated anecdotes that India does not have a
tradition of discriminating against gay and
lesbian populations (1996). The fact is that
there is always a decisive number of people in
every society who are sexually and socially
attracted to members of their own sex. Ensuring
their wellbeing is a must. Since a variety of
aspects in the social, economical, and political
realm interrelate with issues of sexual
orientation, lesbian/gay issues must be included
in the civil and social dialogues and in the
agendas of all NGOs.
^{Lesbians and gay men are just as diverse as
other people and are present within all groups
in India. Some are young, some are old, some
are disabled, some are Hindus and others are
from religious minority communities. Some are
no*;- some are homeless. Many have children.
Jvlue are HIV-positive or living with AIDS.
They may be employed in all sectors of the India
marketplace or unemployed. Many are victims
of physical and verbal violence, some are rape
survivors. Most cannot be open in their social/
family/work situations. They have routinely
faced some form of systematic social, legal, or
economic discrimination from an early age or
they may have faced unorganized action in the
form of ridicule, intimidation, or even outright
physical assault.
The chief areas of concern are: poverty and
^homelessness, marriage and family,
employment and housing,, legal and medical
services. (Note: this list is by no means
exhaustive)
1. Poverty and Homelessness — Young
lesbians and gay men are often thrown out of
their family homes if their sexuality is
discovered. In recent years, newspapers have
often reported how young couples have fled
their homes when pressured by their parents
to get married (to cure them of their
homosexuality). Others have been driven to
leave their family homes because fearing a
hostile reaction if their families become aware
of their homosexuality. This is deeply
problematic especially for lesbians since most
women are groomed into marriage and are not
FACTS against MYTHS
able to be gainfully employed and be financially
independent. In addition, since women earn
far less than men do for the same job, poverty
is almost a sure thing for “out” lesbians in India
who have been ostracized by their families and
peers. A lack of housing, family support, abject
poverty and unemployment leads to a deep
sense isolation and finally, in many cases,
suicide.
The same fate can fall on elderly lesbians and
gay men too. Older lesbians and gay men do
not live openly as lesbian or gay, and
consequently outsiders may not recognize the
intensity of loss or pain of bereavement through
the death of a life-long partner. Depending on
the attitudes of other family members, these
elderly lesbians or gay men can lose their homes
and the personal belongings of their loved ones.
Often these elderly people have no recourse at
all — either social or legal.
2. Marriage and Family: Marriage is still an
extremely powerful mechanism of social control
in Indian culture. It gives people entry into
society, “respectability,” a larger network of
family and friends, and the concomitant social
security. Since marriage is denied to same-sex
partners, it follows that health-care privileges,
insurance coverage, retirement pensions and
property inheritance are all issues that
homosexuals may have to fight for even if they
live in committed relationships. Because
individuals desiring others of the same-sex
cannot marry, they also have problems adopting
children, getting covered by their partner’s
insurance policy, having access to their
deceased partner’s property, getting family leave
or inheriting a share of the family property that
they can rightfully claim.
Furthermore, if it is discovered within a
marriage that one of the partners is homosexual,
that partner most certainly loses custody of her/
his children. Public discourse has generally
sided in favor of denying the homosexual
partner any contact with the child on the belief
that the adult would then indoctrinate the child
into the “homosexual lifestyle.” Besides this
being a fallacy the focus of debate should be
the welfare, needs and rights of children, and
not opinions or presumptions about
homosexuality. In reality, perhaps millions of
children and young people are growing up in
households where one parent or a close family
member is homosexual. Children and young
people who have lesbian or gay parents face
particular difficulties through the exclusion of
their families in the forced and narrow
definition of family. These kinds of social
policies and practices do not protect children,
and, instead, simply create a deeply hostile
environment in which they have to exist.
3. Employment and Housing: People who
have come out as lesbians and gay, routinely
face discrimination by their employers, and co
workers. Many times they have also been fired
or demoted or simply denied employee benefits
such as medical and dental coverage, travel
allowance, special leave, etc. because of their
sexual orientation. In the West, where there
are at least some legal protections for
homosexuals, the educational institution,
instead of creating a climate in which all people
can learn to feel confident about their sexual
identities, has become the hotbed for
conservative politics. Several openly gay
teachers have been summarily dismissed from
their teaching positions even though these
individuals had often won awards for their
pedagogical strategies. In India, fighting to
keep the educational system progressive and a
safe haven for all, and developing regulations
eliminating homophobic bullying should be a
priority.
Homosexuals have also been denied access to
restaurants, public transportation, police
protection, government offices, stores and
housing. Landlords in urban areas are more
likely to rent to married couples than single
people and single women by themselves or
together have historically had the hardest time
having access to safe and clan accommodations.
4. Legal and Medical Services: Despite the
death of several lesbian lovers in the villages
and in cities recently, there is no legislation
barring the anti-homosexual hate crimes.
What makes it even worse is that because of
antiquated and colonial anti-sodomy laws, a
private sex act between consenting adults
within the home, becomes a criminal act. In
addition to being prosecuted under Chap. XVI,
Sec. 377 of the Indian Penal Code, gay men
and lesbians also face charges under Section
294, which penalizes any kind of “obscene
behavior in public.”
Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which
makes sodomy a crime, was drafted in 1883 by
the British. It is an anachronistic vestige of
Victorianism and its enforcement in India is
especially ironic since. Britain itself
FACTS against MYTHS
decriminalized private adult consensual
homosexual acts in 1967. Under the law,
individuals engaged in homosexual sex can face
imprisonment up to 10 years. Because of this
criminalization, there is a high incidence of
harassment and violence directed towards
males who have sex with males both by police
and members of the general public. Reporting
these incidents is obviated by Section 377, and
further compounded by the unsympathetic and
sometimes violent attitudes of the police.
The lack of any legal protection has also led to
a lack of medical services for the homosexual
population. As health care workers have
pointed out, because their behavior is deemed
“criminal” homosexual males seldom access
sexual health services out of fear of visibility.
Furthermore, the law makes the availability of
sexual health services for prisoners difficult. Ir^.
1995, Section 377 was cited by authorities ir"
Delhi’s Tihar Jail to refuse to distribute condoms
among inmates. In fact, the Inspector General
of Prisons Kiran Bedi, justified the refusal on
grounds that under the Indian Penal Code
homosexuality was illegal. This came at a time
when the government acknowledged that there
were more than one million people known to be
HIV-positive.
The disease AIDS has also brought with it
another concomitant problem. Because AIDS
is seen as a "gay disease", many health
practitioners refuse to treat AIDS patients, this
despite the fact that the maximum increase in
the disease lately has been among the
heterosexual population.
Homosexuality in India
—
In India, while homosexuality has beerr^
implicitly accepted as one of the many
expressions of human sexuality since the Vedic
times, it is only in recent years that it has come
to be seen as a “foreign import.” In fact, just
like in other parts of the world, homosexual
sexual behavior in India has variously been
feted, merely accepted or disavowed, depending
on the era and those in power.
One of the key influences on Indians’ attitude
towards homosexuality is Hinduism. However,
examining Hinduism’s attitude towards
homosexuality is problematic because what we
call “Hinduism” consists of myriad ofsocial and
spiritual practices.
Its four primary
denominations — Saivism, Vaishnavism,
Shaktism and Smartism — encompass a broad
4
spectrum of philosophies ranging from
pluralistic theism to absolute monism
(Coomaraswamy 1943). In the present context,
I will discuss Hinduism’s relation to
homosexuality very briefly by looking at the
scriptural authority of the Vedas, post-Vedic
Sanskrit literature (from The Arthshastra, to
the Kama Sutra to the Mahabharat), and later
I will consider Tantric texts.
As several scholars have pointed out, same
gender sex, bisexuality, hermaphroditism and
asexuality are discussed in many Hindu texts
and sex manuals (Thadani 1996 and Mukheijee
in Shah 1998). There are detailed descriptions
of sodomy in the Kama Sutra. Certainly the
text looks favorably on “oral congress” with
eunuchs and it has a lot to say about
androgyny. The Mahabharat and the
Ramayan too contain several references to
Aomen loving women. For example, in
^Mahabharat, Amba is advised by the sages to
make love to other women if she cannot find a
male lover. Also, Sikhandi is transsexual.
Other random examples are: the myth of
Ayappa, a popular deity in southern India, and
a product of the rape of Vishnu by Shiva', and,
perhaps most importantly, Ardhanareswar —
the hermaphroditic form of Shiva, the most
sought after Hindu model of masculinity. The
stories of Ayappa and Ardhnareswar are
important because although the sexual
relationships of Indian gods often follow
heterosexual expectations, the individual God/
desses may change form and be incarnated as
another. Thus, their stories could be read as
gay, lesbian, or multiply transgendered.
J^he Bhagavad Gita, on the other hand, looks
people as souls that are eternal. Since our
bodies are not “us,” gratifying the senses of this
temporary body is seen as a deterrent to
attaining peace. Under such a cosmology,
homosexual or even heterosexual pleasure is
only an impediment to one’s spiritual life.
Several other scholars have pointed to the
numerous temples all over India and the themes
of homosexuality in their carvings as evidence
of acceptance of homosexuality in pre-colonial
India. Thadani (1996), in fact interprets these
sculptures as signifiers of a pre-1500 B.C.
feminine world where sexuality was based on
pleasure and fertility. She, in fact, concludes
that is it the Aryans who first began to suppress
homosexuality through the emerging
patriarchy. After that, both sexual systems
C FACTS against MYTHS
~
coexisted, despite fluctuations in relative
repression and freedom, until British
colonialism, when the destruction of images of
homosexual expression and sexual expression
in general became more systematic and blatant.
Mukherjee, on the other hand, dates the onset
of the repression to Moghul rule during the
thirteenth century (in Shah 1998). Since then,
he says there has been a gradual erosion of
Indian gay culture and “forcing it
underground.”
While Hinduism and Hindu texts are certainly
influential in proscribing and prescribing
sexual norms in India, Islam too has asserted a
considerable influence on Indian culture. And
like Hinduism, Islam too is a melting-pot of
several different histories and traditions.
Another parallel to Hinduism is that Islam has
one ofthe most sex-positive (Churchill describes
Western cultures as “sex-negative” where not
just same-gender sex, but all sex was seen as
sin) stands among the great world religions: the
Christ and the Buddha were both sexually
abstinent, but Mohammed was sexually active
with a number of wives, and had children.
Following from this, Islam holds that sex itself
is not a bad thing and, unlike Hindu tenets,
abstinence is not seen as desirable.
Islam’s position on homosexuality, and its
influence on Indian sexual norms, is difficult
to interpret. While some scholars state that The
Qur’an
unequivocally
condemns
homosexuality, several Muslim societies have
shown a great deal of tolerance towards lesbian,
gay and bisexual communities. Richard Burton,
for example, noted that homosexual eros was
most accepted among Muslims, not Hindus
(1992). Others point out that, homosexuality
was never penalized till Aurangzeb came to
power in Delhi (Row Kavi 1996). In the Mughal
courts, several political leaders, writers and
others in the ruling elite were practicing
homosexuals. Alauddin Khilji even went public
with his male slave lover (Row Kavi 1996).
Among many of the Adivasi communities
(classified by the British and contemporary post
colonial governments as “tribals”), both women
and men enjoyed more freedom than was
common in England to engage in sex with
persons of the same gender. Some of these
communities also had a space for bisexuality.
In fact, as Kishwar has noted, it is this very
sexual freedom that caused these communities
to become targets of Christian missionaries who
worked zealously to introduce to them
European concepts of sexual chastity and
monogamy (1999).
MYTH: Homosexuality is a medical
pathology.
FACT: The concept of homosexuality has
always been in flux. In fact “homosexuality” is
a 19th century German concept, not one native
to India. However, this is not to say that sex
between members of the same sex was not
common in India, just the label. As linguists
have shown, labelling a phenomenon is a
political act and has a normative function. Thus
inversely, it is heterosexuals who have needed
the concept of homosexuality so as to label what
they do “normal” and what others do
“abnormal.” Since the late 18th and early 19th
centuries the category of homosexuality has
emerged as a way of describing a condition and
homosexual describing a person with a
preference for same sex partners. Since then
homosexuals have been a highly stigmatized
category of persons (Foucault, 1978).
Early medical practitioners in the West indeed
saw homosexuality as a disease. Some thought
it was the product of hereditary weakness
(Conrad and Schneider 1992). This lead to
the belief that homosexuals were indeed a
distinct kind of people suffering from an
affliction beyond their control. In India too,
the Unani medical system, for example, treated
homosexual sexual behavior as an inherent
weakness of the body, again beyond the
individual s control. Other Indian schools of
medicine speculated that homosexuality was
caused by “unhealthy and immoral” demands
on one’s body.
Research from the biological or medical model
has enjoyed particularly strong appeal since, if
a particular gene or hormonal pattern could be
found to explain homosexuality, then everyone
could know definitively who the homosexuals
were. Biologists and geneticists have for
decades searched for the biological key to
homosexuality, but such an answer has been
elusive and problematic. As Ricketts notes (in
Heyl 1989) explanations of a direct cause-andeffect relationship between biological factors
and sexual orientation falter because they
cannot embrace the complexity and variety of
human sexual behavior.
G8SO
TS against MYTHS
However, as medicine became an efficacious
technology, new theories began to emerge about
homosexuality. While the cause for this
behavior remained elusive, one common ground
shared by physicians all over the world — that
homosexuality was not a disease but a normal
sexual behavior. Advances in gene and
hormone research now show that same-gender
sex is neither a congenital weakness, nor
hereditary.
Like medical establishments in most other
countries, the Indian Medical Association (IMA)
too does not consider homosexuality a
pathology. And on this basis, IMA president
Dr. K.K. Aggarwal asserted in 1995 that
homosexuality is not a crime or disease, it is an
“individual’s sexual preference” (in Thadani
1'996)-.
MYTH: Homosexuality is a mental illnes^t
FACT: Not so! Psychologists and scholars who
have studied sexual behavior in humans, all
acknowledge that there are a myriad sexual
combinations and all of them are normal.
Neither heterosexual nor any homosexual
behavior is transgressive. And homosexuality
does not figure on the WHO’s list of psychiatric
disorders.
Until the early 1970s the American Psychiatric
Association classified homosexuality as a mental
illness. People “afflicted” with homosexuality
and even suspected of homosexual sexual
behavior were subjected to electric shocks,
aversion therapy and even hormonal injections.
But treatments soon changed after it became
established that homosexuals simply could not
be considered aberrant people.
In the late 1940s in the United States, the
Kinsey studies (cf. above) showed that
homosexual behavior was more common that
was earlier believed. Even in India today,
judging from the number of cases reported to
crisis hotlines recently established, letters to
“Agony Columns, “reports from psychologists
and psychiatrists and anecdotal evidence in
newspapers, homosexuality, far from being a
rarity, is common and naturally occurring as
most other human behavior. That is why
mental health professionals almost all over the
world today do not treat homosexuality as a
disease needing any treatment at all.
G8SO
6
References
Boswell John in “Christianity, Social
Tolerance and Homosexuality” from
Encylcopedia Brittanica Online. 2000.
Available at: http://www.eb.com:180/
in P. Aggieton (Ed.) Bisexualities and AIDS.
Australia: Taylor and Francis. 1996.
Kinsey, Alfred .C., W.B. Pomeroy and C.E.
Martin. Sexual behavior in the human
male. Philadelphia: WB Saunders. 1948.
Burton, Richard Francis. ‘Terminal Essay”
in The Perfumed Garden. New York: Inner
Traditions Inti Ltd. 1992.
Kishwar, Madhu. “Naive Outpourings of
a Self-Hating Indian: Deepa Mehta’s Fire”
Manushi Issue# 217 March 1999.
Burton, Richard Francis. (Translated) The
Kama Sutra of Vatsyayana:The Classic
Hindu Treatise on Love and Social
Conduct. New York: Hippocrene Books.
Reissue Edition. 1995.
Kumar, Minu. “Some Indian Lesbian
Images” in Trikone Magazine July 1996.
p 12-14
Conrad, Peter and Joseph W. Schneider.
Deviance and Medicalization: >From
Badness to Sickness. Philadeplhia: Temple
University Press. 1992.
Coomaraswamy, Ananda K. Hinduism and
Buddhism. New York : Philosophical
Library. 1943.
Evans-Pritchard, Edward. Witchcraft,
Oracles and Magic Among the Azande.
London: Clarendon Press. 1978.
Foucault, Michel. History ofSexuality: An
Introduction. New York: Pantheon. 1978.
Halsall, Paul. “People with a History: An
Online Guide to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and
Trans- History” available at http://
www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/indexbib.html. 1997.
Hamer, Dean and P. Copeland. The Science
ofDesire: The Search for the Gay Gene and
the Biology of Behavior. New York: Simon
and Schuster. 1994.
Heyl, Barbara Sherman. “Homosexuality:
A Social Phenomenon” in Kathleen
McKinney and Susan Sprecher (Eds.)
Human Sexuality: The Societal and
Interpersonal Context. Norwood: Ablex
Publishers. 1989.
Herdt, Gilbert. The Sambia: Gender and
Ritual in New Guinea. New York: Holt
Rinehart & Winston. 1997.
Lipner , Julius. Hindus: Their Religious
Beliefs and Practices. New York:
Routledge. 1998.
Mehra, Sunil and Soma Wadhwa. “Women
Without Men” in Outlook. Dec 21., 1998.
pp. 43-48.
Moss, Kevin. “Russian Gay History” in The
Encyclopedia of Homosexuality, 2nd
Edition, Garland Press. Available at: http:/
/www.middlebury.edu/-moss/RGC2.html.
1999.
Murray, Stephen O. and Will Roskam.
From Boy Wives and Female Husbands:
Studies in African Homosexualities. New
York: St. Martins Press. 1998.
Patron, .Eugene. “Heart of Lavender: In
Search of Gay Africa”, in Harvard Gay and
Lesbian Review Fall 1995. “India” in Wayne
R. Dynes (Ed.) Encyclopedia of
Homosexuality Vol. 1. 1990.
The Bible, Old Testament: Genesis 13:13,
18:20-22,19:4-8.19:24-25, Leviticus 18:22,
20:13, Deuteronomy 23:17-18, Judges 19:2224, Ruth 1:16-17, II Samuel 1:26,1 Kings
14:24,15:12,22:46, II Kings 23:7, Proverbs
10:9 New Testament: Romans 1:24-32, I
Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21,1
Timothy 1:9-10, II Peter 2:6, Jude 1:7,
Revelations 21:8,22:15
The Gulistan of Sa’di by Sheikh Muslihuddin Sa’di Shirazi 1258 Ramakrishnan,
“Bisexuality: identities, behaviors, and
politics” in Trikone Magazine. April 1996.
Katz, Jonathan Ned. “The Invention of
Heterosexuality” in Karen E. Rosenblum
and Tni-Michelle C. Travis (Eds.) The
Meaning of Difference: American
Constructions of Race, Sex, and Gender,
Social Class, and sexual Orientation. New
York: McGraw-Hill. 1996.
Row Kavi, Ashok. “A Guiltless Homosexual
Tradition? How Hindu Religion and Socieiy
View Homosexuality” in Trikone Magazine
July 1996. p 8-9.
Khan, Shivananda.
“Cultural
constructions of male sexualities in India”
Roy, Sandip. “Curry Queens and Other
Spices” in David L. Eng and Alice Y. Hom
FACTS against MYTHS
Ratti, Rakesh. (Ed.) A Lotus of Another
Color. Boston: Alyson Publishing. 1993.
Vidal, Gore. “Someone to Laugh at the
Squares with” in At Home: Essays 19821888. NewYork: Random House. 1988. p
48.
(Eds.) Q and A: Notes on a Queer Asian
America. Philadeplhia: Temple Univ Press.
1998..
Shah,Nayan. “Sexuality, Identity and the
Uses of History” in David L. Eng and Alice
Y. Hom (Eds.) Q and A: Notes on a Queer
Asian America. Philadeplhia: Temple Univ
Press. 1998’.
Williams, Walter, “the Berdache Tradition”
in Karen E. Rosenblum and Tni-Michelle
C. Travis (Eds.) The Meaning of Difference:
American Constructions of Race, Sex, and
Gender, Social Class, and sexual
Orientation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
1996.
Thadani, Giti. Sakhiyani: Lesbian Desire
in Ancient and Modern India. New York:
Cassell Publishing. 1996.
Zwilling, Leonard and Michael J Sweet. ‘In
Search of Napumsaka” in Trikone
Magazine July 1996. p 14-15.
Vaid, Urvashi. “Building bridges: thoughts
on Identity and South Asian G/L/B/T
Organizing” Trikone Magazine Tenth
Anniversary Issue, 1996. p.64-65.
Notes from the Indian National Gay
Conference “YAARIAN ’99".
C8SO
"
Ms. Sanjukta Ghosh is a Professor of Communication at Castleton State College, USA, and is the Director of
the Women's Studies Programme there. A former journalist with the UNI, she was active with the Jana Natya
Manch in Delhi. She completed her Ph.D at the Ohio State University in 1991 and has been teaching and writing
on gender concerns ever since.
Acknowledgement
We at VAK are extremely greatful to Ms. Ghosh forpreparing this issue of FACTS AGAINST MYTHS.
G8SO
GSSD
G8SD
I
>
Please feel free to reproduce material from this publication but
‘
’200 'Mr
z
4
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Facts Against Myths is a monthly bulletin offactual
information on a number ofdevelopment myths and
fallacies, etc, including information against alien
development models, paradigms and false concepts
on caste, creed and gender.
POINTED MATl^'
Produced and Published by:
Vikas Adhyayan Kendra
D-1 Shivdham, 62 Link Road,
Malad West, Mumbai 400 064, INDIA
a : 882 2850 & 889 8662
Email: vak@bom3.vsnl.net.in
Fax : 889 8941
Design & Layout: Kartiki Desai
Printed by : Omega Offset, 4574, Shetty Gaily
Belgaum 590 002. S 0831 -424124 / 433429
I
I
I
I
I
10041
Community Health Cell
No.3A7 Srinivasa Nila
Jakkasandta, I Main 5
Koramangala, Bangalars
I
Position: 6642 (1 views)