Nanda defines hijras as occupying an alternative gender role, distinct from either men or women. She draws comparisons with the American Indian berdache, the xanith of Oman, and the mahu in Tahiti. In contrast, she points out, the transsexual role in Western culture is not accepted as a fully recognized gender. This nonacceptance, she argues, is due to a lack of religious sanction and an ‘unyeilding Western commitment to a dichotomous gender system’ which expects all ‘normal’ persons to conform to one of only two gender roles. Western ideology, uncomfortable with ambiguity, strives to resolve in-between categories.
Walter L. Williams, in review of Serena Nanda’s Neither Man Nor Woman: The Hijras of India (via crfloor)
I’ve myself read extensively on hijras, and have some base disagreements with this. It implies acceptance of the third sex in Indian culture, which simply isn’t the case. Not for any sort of Western ideology, as is the case with our own problems with transgender identity (such as the fact that my spell-check doesn’t recognise the word “transgender”) but rather out of the Indian caste system which, though sidelined to a degree, still sets out rules of behaviour and of what is right, what is expected, etc. This quote seems to stem from a misguided belief that the “East” is a spiritually accepting locale due to some anticipation of mysticism, when they’re honestly just as human as anyone else on this rock, and have their own problems. Hijras are segregated, are mocked, and though in some stations are regarded as female, for the most part this is not the case. It’s a messy topic no matter where it happens, and nowhere is it accepted. This is not a case of Western ideology being inferior to Eastern, but rather of them both being crippled in different ways.
As for a direct quote, calling the hijra a “fully recognised gender” is a laugh and a half. They are regarded as a subculture, the same way you might have ganguro in Japan or the noble juggalo in our own North American culture.
Also, on further research, the xanith of Oman, referred to here as an Eastern acceptance of the third sex, carries about as much social significance as saying “transsexual”. It’s not a third sex eliminating the male/female dichotomy, it is simply a reference to someone in between. Someone not conforming to gender norms. Just as in Western society.
(Source: treesplinter)
