Discrimination in the toilets?
 |
|
Hong Nam Katoye |
Matt, Bangkok Lost Boy and fellow blogger, posted on the recently introduced toilets for Katoye in Thailand. I specifically use the Thai word as there is no satisfactory translation in English or other western languages. Transvestite, transsexual, third sex can never encompass the real nature and complexity of the Thai Katoye, especially for outsiders as Matt’s writes:
“It’s difficult for an outsider to really comprehend because there is some conflict between whether ladyboys should be viewed as women or a third sex.”
Matt’s post is interesting because on the one hand it shakes up our certainty and reveals our unsettling fear when faced with difference, but also our near-atavistic acceptance of sexual difference, so much that we don’t notice or question first the existence of toilets for men and toilets for women!
After all, though differentiated toilets may reflect a material adaptation corollary of physiological differences, aren’t they more the reflection of an institutionalised gender-based discrimination? I have been to The Fabric too (the London club mentioned by one of Matt’s reader) and have seen and used the communal toilets without a problem.
But there is something more unsettling in Matt’s post when he writes:
“A cross-dresser is not necessarily someone who wants to switch sexes. In such cases, you could argue that there should be a separate toilet for all lifestyle choices.”
This is reminiscent of the right-wing/fundamentalist Christian argument that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and therefore does not deserve particular respect. I am sure that it is not in Matt’s intention to show disrespect to Katoye (or to think that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice) but that he describes Katoye as “men with gender issues” speaks volume of our inability to accept differences and beyond that to understand and comprehend what is “not us”.
Follow the link to Part Two.
[email_link]
 |
|
|
| Gentlemen on the left, Gay on the right. No Ladies? | Interestingly the Thai writer translated Katoye as “gay” which confirm that, when borrowed, western words lose their meaning and with that all the symbolic we attach to them | |
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Thanks for pointing this out, Roger. I’ve never understood why we need gender-specific loos. Though as a girl who spends far too much time in gay clubs (including Fabric!)I’m pleased that they exist because gay clubs are the one place where queues in the ladies are shorter…
But there’s a more serious issue here. I don’t know about Thailand, but in Indonesia we face a very real problem not with discrimination in toilets but with discrimination in healthcare. Waria (the Indonesian equivalent of katoey) are processed according to their ID cards (male) into the men’s wards in clinics and hospitals. When you live as a woman, that’s no pleasure. So they avoid health care entirely. Result: extraordinarily high levels of untreated STI and HIV infection and much else.
When did you get a blog?
But my point is that not all people who cross-dress want to become women. Cross-dressing can be a lifestyle choice. It seems you are suggesting that all cross-dressers are gay.
I don’t want to debate terminology or anything, but when I referred to “men with gender issues” that wasn’t intended to be disrespectful, although maybe it came across like that.
Yes, it’s my ignorance, but I still have a hard time understanding that there can be a third sex. This is partly because the katoeys I’ve spoken to have, more often than not, said they are women and that’s how they want to be seen. here do you draw the line between man, katoey and woman?
It’s not about acceptance. I accept the differences between people, but I don’t always understand them fully.
Matt,
I always had a blog (I have been switching from one provider to another until I finally bought a domain name…) This one is just my uptenth attempt at keeping it up and running!
I do not assume that Katoye are Gay. They are not, simply because “gay” is a Western concept (I could go into the details but that would take me long).
What I objected was the assumption that being a Katoye or a transvestite was a “Lifestyle choice” and therefore did not desserve particular attention.
Even if it is a lifestyle choice and that it is not always a “gay” thing (Grayson Perry as an example), Katoye, transvestites and other people who don’t fallow “the norm” (Goth?) should not be disregarded because of their life style.
But I know you did not mean to be disrespectful!
My argument was that cross-dressing does not always mean that a person wants to switch sexes. If a man dresses as a woman, but does not want to be a woman, then surely it is a lifestyle choice in some cases.
My point was not that being a katoey is a lifestyle choice, but that cross-dressing can be.
I understand that “gay” is a Western concept. I argued for hours with a friend of mine who made the argument that he was homosexual, but not gay. I then brought this up with some gay friends who scoffed at the idea.
I’ll write more after work. Interesting stuff.
:p
I understand your friend’s point when he said he was homosexual but not gay, because the Western understanding of “gay” is often associated with a lifestyle, such as going to Soho, following a particular dress code, dedicated clubs and pubs where gay go, “heroes & Icons” one must admire (Kilye ???). Your friend may self-identify as homosexual, i.e. having sex with men, but not with a “Gay lifestyle”.
Interestingly, this is the point you made about cross-dressers! Ergo: Cross dresser is a lifestyle, it is a choice, and therefore it does not deserve special attention because it is a lifestyle. It is a tautological argument that ignores the “why” different lifestyle needs to be recognised and accommodated with.
I have to go back to work too and would like to write more about this later and I have promised myself that if I wanted to keep this blog up and running I should not give it time outside the specified time I have allocated to it! (I know, not flexible!)
[...] that went on here with regards to katoey toilets at a Thai school and the subsequent talk over at Roger’s blog, I asked someone whose opinion is perhaps a little more in touch with the issue than any of ours. [...]
Homosexual is an AWFUL word and should NEVER be used. Why? Because is the clinic term to refer to people who are mentally SICK. If someone said to be “homosexual” they are directly implying that I should be treated because I am “not normal” and I need pills and treatment to get better. Whoever uses this word (gay or not) definitively has no idea what are they talking about. Bad word, bad word.
Interesting point of view Adriana, and though I do not share it, I have approved it. It is true that the concept of homosexuality was born 2 centuries ago and then described a medical condition, I do believe that the definition has very much evolved. Nowadays, it could simply describe people who have sexual relation with people of the same sex. I don’t personally find it derogatory or representative of a pathological condition. It is all in the connotation and context. Both change with time.
Leave your response!
Recent Comments
StatPress
Visits today: 89Monthly turn over: 3720
RSS Feed by Feedburner
HIV/AIDS News
Blogroll
Tag cloud
Web Hosting
Archives
Most Commented
peripheries bookshelf
Planned books:
Current books:
Bad Samaritans: The Guilty Secrets of Rich Nations and the Threat to Global Prosperity by Ha-Joon Chang
Recent books:
View full Library