Talk:Hijra (India)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Material removed from the discussion page for Hijra (India)

"Third sex"

Any anthropologist who makes claims of a "third sex" is biased and lying. --Eequor 16:43, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And? Hyacinth 18:36, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How about a wee bit of references before you colonise people from a different culture? Just because you don't like the notion of a "third sex" does not mean it is not allowed to write about it any more. Sorry, once more, get a clue about what NPOV is. -- AlexR 22:59, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have talked with hijra myself. They are female. --Eequor 00:22, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nope. They're transsexuals AFAIK. --Rrjanbiah 06:23, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's just a semantic difference. --Eequor 14:16, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, especially for transmen. SCNR. -- AlexR 15:08, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Obviously we are not talking about transmen. --Eequor 18:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

May I quote from the webpages linked and others: (Emphasis mine where added)

• Neither Men Nor Women - The community admits neither men nor women. The traditional view of a hijra is a person we in the west would call an MTF transsexual, but there is some variety. The real question is, "is there a sign?" [1]
• Hijra: THE THIRD GENDER IN INDIA
  There are the people who are not men nor women. They are living their lives in "the third gender". They are called as "Hijra" It means "hermaphrodite" in Urdu language. They compose communities as family and assume a role institutionalized in the society.
  It is not correct to say that all of Hijra is a hermaphrodite, but the castrated and those who changed his gender is also included. And they have their own gender awareness. Because of this gender awareness, they have been assuming the special social role in rituals, in performing arts, and in shamanic activities. [2]
• Find out all about the 200,000 Indian eunuchs living in India who are neither female or male. [3]
• Hijras trace their origins to myths in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. Rama, while leaving for the forest upon being banished from the kingdom for 14 years, turns around to his followers and asks all the `men and women' to return to the city. Among his followers the hijras alone do not feel bound by this direction and decide to stay with him. Impressed with their devotion, Rama sanctions them the power to confer blessings on people on auspicious occasions like childbirth and marriage, and also at inaugural functions. This set the stage for the custom of badhai in which hijras sing, dance and confer blessings. [4]
• Revati and Kajol are not aliens. They are part of this society, but are not fortunate enough to have been born either male or female. They are eunuchs, the people of the "third sex."

And if the following information is only partly correct, labeling them "transsexuals" is even more inappropriate than it is now.

• Hijra (the word is Urdu for "impotent ones") are usually boys and men who were made to be eunuchs -- many of them against their will. The process isn't ordinarily a pretty one. Some, however, are intersex and do not go through this process, and there are also female hijra, called hijrin. [...] The relatively new (as of 2003) Aravani was popularised in India as a politically correct term to describe members of the third gender. Another such term is ali. [5]
• This story seems to confirm that somewhat: Hi my name is Khira from Madras, I'm now 22 years old. I'm a eunuch since the age of 13 years and I earn my living by prostitution. Allthough I'd never been a transsexual, I now live and feel as a very nice looking woman. [6] so does [7]
• Another article that talks about intersex hijras: [8] and so does the BBC: [9]

And mind you, I left out articles that said things like "homosexual transvestites". More stuff can be found from [10]

It is therefore obvious that calling hijras "transsexual" is at the very least an overgeneralisation. We ought to aim for a NPOV version, therefore. Are you willing to do some constructive work this time? -- AlexR 01:29, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Again, they're transsexuals AFAIK. I don't know if there is any difference between transsexuals and shemale--but they're shemales. The term transsexuals and shemale have just entered India couple of years ago (say 1-2 years)--so, in the meantime they're wrongly called eunuchs. However, there are some articles that say Hijra is a collective term for both eunuchs and transsexuals--which is less substantiated.--Rrjanbiah 06:31, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In English usage, the difference between shemale and transsexual is very substantial; indeed, most transsexual women (and most other transwomen, too) would feel very much insulted by being called "shemales". The word is a) used mostly in the sex industry, and most transwomen do not work in the sex industry, and b) denotes a person with "breasts and a penis", which activly uses the latter more or less "as intended". Something that most transwomen, whether they had bottom surgery or not, decidedly do not do. That description obviously does not apply to hijras, either.

The problem we are having here, I think, is using terms which are about a Western cultural phenomenon, essentially. (The cultural thing is not what people feel, but how all these things are spoken about!) And obviously, modern Western culture is substantially different from (modern) Indian culture, which is why expaining a mainly Indian phenomenon in Western terms is a bit tricky. Rrjanbiah, I would very much appreciate more input from you, since it seems you are a lot closer to "the source" here. However, we need to find common ground here with the words we use, do you think you have the time to find that common ground and work with us on the article? -- AlexR 12:16, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I understand the problem is in expressing in English terms. In South India, these people are called "ali" and "number 9" (the euphemistic term is "aravani", see intersex). So, I don't know much about the terms in English and the real meaning it refers to.

I found a good article about "alis", but I was not certain whether "ali" and "hijra" really are the same group. Could you give me a list of names they are called? [AR]

I think, "Hijra" is a north Indian term and the rest are south Indian terms. AFAIK, the term "aravani" is Tamil. I have also called few other Wikipedians to help (User:Chancemill, User:Sundar, User:Harikishoreaj, User:Nichalp, User:KRS, User:Ambarish, User:Arvindn). Perhaps they may help better. --Rrjanbiah 04:54, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The term "transwomen" is new to me. My understanding about these people are that they're shemales. As the topic and their behavior is much weird here, it is hard to do more research. And, according to the documentries and articles, they're more used in prostitution (sleeping with men--oral and anal sex).

It seems, though, that, like in many other countries. hijras are forced into prostitution because they cannot get any other job. Some of the articles listed above talk about that problem. [AR]

Yes, they can't get any other job. But, it also seems they're attracted towards men and sex.--Rrjanbiah 04:54, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, that is a very common prejudice (not erradiced in the West, either.) But since being "attracted towards men and sex" (or at least seeming to be) seems the only way for Hijras to live, they will not necessarily discourage the notion. Also, that is what they leared: If you want to be part of this community, you have to be interested in men and sex. We saw the very same thing in the West, and as soon as other options became availabe for transwomen, the relative number of transwomen working in prostitution sharply declined and it turned out that approximately half of them were much more interested in women than in men, too. So right now it may look as if that were a case, but if the experience in the West is anything to go by, in this case, that may change considerably, if Hijras ever get a chance to be what they are without being prostitues. -- AlexR 15:08, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

All the articles I have read says that they're born male, but in early childhood they're interested in female stuffs and perform surgery at one point of time (mostly for prostitution reason). Perhaps this could help you to classify them into a typical English term?

Actually, no, not really, because the reasons to undergo this surgery (as in the West or anywhere) can be quite complex. From what I have read, for example, hijras underwent this surgery at a time already when their main occupation was not prostitution. Also, these hijras who do not work as prostitures also seem to undergo surgery. So prostitution is probably not the main reason for it. Maybe it is a bit like in the west - to become part of this particular group, thereby legitimising their feelings, surgery is seen as part of being a hijra. Of course surgery itself (or rather the results) are also important by themselfe, but I think it is a mistake to disregard other influences. [AR]

The term "third sex" means that they're not accepted among males and females.

That answers the social question, but, alas, not the question how they view themselves. Although my guess would be that there is more than one self-description around anyway. -- AlexR 15:10, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have seen few interviews in which they ask for freedom like identity for their sex. --Rrjanbiah 04:54, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, User:Vbganesh seems to have some knowledge on this topic --Rrjanbiah 14:03, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A shemale is a person who embraces their duality as both male and female. That wasn't the impression I got, and it seems strange that such a person would seek surgery. --Eequor 14:23, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In fact, while it may sound strange, such persons exist. Just as persons exist who go for bottom surgery (both) and still do not identify just as women or men. To embrace ones male parts does not necessarily mean that one needs a penis (neo or original) for that, just as one does not need a vagina (neo or original) to embrace ones female parts. On the other hand, the existence of said parts does not stop one from embracing the parts that are usually associated with "the other" gender, either. I know it used to be simpler when transpeople were all (or considered themselves to be) just plain women and men with a tiny difference, but we have come a long way since then. -- AlexR 15:08, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

An emphasis on prostitution is commonly used to marginalize transsexuals and encourage negative reactions to them. This does not mean sex workers are more common among transsexuals; it only means the people who usually report on transsexuals are biased against them. It is a 5000 year old argument. Transsexuals in India are likely as normal in their behavior as the rest of the world. --Eequor 14:36, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

'Excuse me, Eequor, but it is undeniable that in many parts of the world a rather large number of transwomen (and please, only extremely few transmen, if you would care to remember) work as prostitutes. It is also undeniable, though, that many do so because it is the only way they can make a living; in the West especially, where increasingly other jobs are open for transwomen as well, or rather, where transwomen (and transmen) are a lot less likely to loose their job during transitioning, the relative rate of prostitution drops; invalidating the prostitution "argument". There is no reason, though, to accuse people of being biased against people making this argument if they are talking about a group, whose members, by all accounts, currently mostly work as prostitutes. It makes a lot more sense to explain to these people what the problem is. Not knowing something is not a crime - refusing to learn, however, is. -- AlexR 15:10, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say prostitution was uncommon. I said it is a mistake to give weight to the claims of biased researchers. Prostitution is not uncommon among cisgendered women, either. Do we define other societies by their tendency to prostitution? --Eequor 15:49, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that Rrjanbiah "gave weight to biased researchers" but simply reported what he had heard (regardless of correctness); besides, I don't really see where the "biased researchers" come from, now. The articles I cited above mostly don't come from any particular group of "researchers" at least. Also, when a large percentage of a certain group works in prostitution, I see no reason not to say so. After all, flatout denying facts is usually a form of discrimination as well ... -- AlexR 17:17, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The cost of successfully transitioning is much greater for FtMs than for MtFs. Why are there not proportionately greater numbers of FtMs in the sex industry? They could do so safely; MtF sex workers are likely to be injured or killed. Cost is irrelevant. --Eequor 15:58, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't know whether to laugh or cry ... really. First of all, the costs of transitioning is by no means necessarily greater for transmen than it is for transwomen. The one thing that is expensive is bottom surgery, and even in Germany, where health insurance pays for it (same in many European countries) most transmen don't have it, because the results are somewhat underwhelming. Secondly, transmen don't, at least after hormones, have much passing problems and usually can get other jobs. Thirdly, when exactly could transmen work as prostitues? Only completely before hormones. Because after hormones, looking like a man, there is simply no market at all. And when a customer finds out that (in the very few cases where a TM works or worked as a male prostitute) that this transmen is somewhat "incomplete" they are subject to just as much violence as transwomen. (Not to mention the fact that cisgendered prostitutes are not exactly safe from violence, either.) And fourthly, I think you are referring to working as a female prostitute. Well, just let me ask back: For most transwomen, working as call-boys would be much safer than working as trans-prostitutes. Any particular reason why they don't? Well, should you be able to figure out the answer to that, you also have the answer to why transmen don't usually work as female prostitutes, even as long as they can. And fifth, I really wonder whether you qualify as a troll. That question was so stupid and insulting, I really have to consider that possiblity. -- AlexR 17:17, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why would they work as female prostitutes? --Eequor 17:31, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I don't know much about the English terms and it meanings. But, AFAIK, they're born with penis and have feminine characteristics (like voice, gestures). And again, AFAIK, only few people modify their genitals (mostly for prostitution) --Rrjanbiah 14:39, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bibliography anyone?

§ I haven't noticed this discussion for some reason. Maybe it all blew up at once. Just reading quickly through the above debate it seems that it would really help to study the work of competent researchers. I know that John Money referred to some studies. Maybe I can find that information. It can be very difficult even for an objective researcher to get good information, let alone the ordinary reporters. In the U.S. a Lakota (Sioux) "medicine man" named Lame Deer was helped by a German (?) to write his biography, and he had lots of fun talking about how Native Americans would give anthropologists a hard time. (They didn't like people asking nosy questions, so sometimes they gave "interesting" answers I guess.) Also, many groups who are not liked by members of the dominant culture will engage in self parody as a way of dealing with some of the insults and taking the sting out of some of the things that are said about them. So it can be difficult to understand some groups just by casual observation from the outside.

I completely and utterly agree with what you said about the problems of research, which is why I proposed the last version. I do not think, however, that Money had some decent information on Hijras (well, quoting Money is always dangerous). I did take some care though, when compiling the references above, at least to exclude those that were too clearly written from a point of view that did not take into account cultural differences and related problems. (For example the ones that said "homosexual transvestites" and so on.) [AR]

§ It would be very helpful, too, I think, if everyone participating in the discussion had a fairly clear idea of the differences between sexual identity and gender identity and role. Gender role things are learned. Some things (e.g., whether your gender tilts its pelvis forward or backward) are learned unconsciously and generally remain unconscious but potent signals. (If you cross-code people may have some unusual reaction and not understand why they are having it.)

Again, I basically agree. However, it is my impression that Rrjanbiah stumbled into this discussion just because it is about something Indian; his knowledge about Hijras seems to be roughly on par with that of your average Westener's knowledge about transpeople. (Which means, it is probably improvable.) I do regard his contributions to the debate as valuable nevertheless, because he can tell us a lot more than Eequor or I will ever know about how Hijras are regarded by the rest of society. That after all is quite important, too. [AR]

Other things are learned from family and friends. It is my understanding that the hijra gender role is different from both the role of the ordinary man and the role of the ordinary woman. Given the fact that many hijra have been neutered, they cannot carry out a complete male gender role if they were born male.

Hmmm... Did you just fall into a closely reated trap to that you just warned us about? ;-) You obviously considerably overestimate the role a penis (or a vagina) plays in everyday live. There are loads of people who are perfectly able to function as men or women without having the associated genital equiptment. People might not have a complete or unambiguous set from birth (intersex), they might loose it during their lifes (accidents, or cancer, for example) and still they are perfectly able to function in a particular gender role. Infertility does not quite count, either, since there are always a number of people who may have the perfect equiptment, even use it "as intended" and still do not have children. [AR]

And as far as the traditional hijra were concerned it would have been impossible in the days before surgical sexual reassignment for them to carry out anything like a complete female gender role. They saw a positive value in being humans who carried out neither a male nor a female gender role, and their gender identity was just hijra. From what I have read, it seems clear that there are many explicit "neither male nor female" elements to their gender roles. But if some people have seen other behavior by people calling themselves hijra then we need to see the most complete and objective studies. P0M 05:44, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I don't believe that there are any "complete and objective" studies; after all, there are not even such studies about western trans-people. There are several studies, but they are all far from being either complete or objective. The problem there as here is that it is questionable whether we even have the right words to describe what is going on, so how could a study be objective if it is not even quite clear how any questions could be phrased?

Let me give you one example (western): The Hamburg University tried about two years ago to make something reasonable complete and objective. The study (which was done on the Internet) unfortunately did not get exactly many participants, and the main reason why trans-people flatout refused to participate was the second question: Are you male or female?. Oops, sorry, but how was I supposed to answer that? (And a lot of people thought the very same thing.) I was assigned female gender at birth. (That is probably what they wanted to know; it is the logical conclusion, but it did not say so.) My legal gender is still female, because I am to lazy to go to court and have it changed. My gender identity is transman, which is not quite the same as men. As long as I keep my pants on, people see a man. (If I pull down my pants, it becomes slightly more complicated ;-) And socially, I live as a man. So what exactly was the correct answer to that question supposed to be? And so much for "complete and objective studies". [AR]

§ Why is this article "totally disputed"? What are the main issues? P0M 05:56, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I put that in when I wrote the NPOV version, just as a matter of experience of debating (?) with Eequor. It probably can be removed. The issue was (is?) whether Hijras can summarily be described as "transsexual". -- AlexR 15:08, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

§ If there are no major misleading features, then maybe it would be best to remove the "totally disputed" thing. As for "transsexual", that word bothered me because it seems to mean different things to different people. I would rather start with as clear a description of hijra, as objective a description of hijra, as can be managed. Then people can decide for themselves whether the word points to the same set of people as does some other word. I do not look for objectivity in an absolute sense, because I don't think it exists. But I would look for studies done by people who have the intention and the methodology to eliminate subjective factors as much as possible. Of course, as you point out, language lays all sorts of traps for the heedless. P0M 03:06, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Removing totalydisputed

Since this argument appears to have been quiescent for months, and the last few comments suggest removing this header, I'm taking it out. Bryan 06:01, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)