Necessity is the mother of invention...

Rev Hellfire

Happened across this article on girls assuming male roles in Afghanistan which may be of interest to some. Its interesting in a way how societies we see as more oppressive than our own can be at times more accommodating in other ways, ie. Iran and its support for sex changes.

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/09/21/cross-dressing-girls-in-afghanistan-social-rules-and-accomodations

Nevyn

Eh in Iran homosexuality it outlawed and men who like other men are forced to have a sex change no matter what their gender identity is.

That is just wrong on so many levels.

amacachi

Good old Afghanistan and men having open relationship with 10 year old boys.

deirdre_dub

Thaedydal wrote: »

Eh in Iran homosexuality it outlawed and men who like other men are forced to have a sex change no matter what their gender identity is.

That is just wrong on so many levels.

I couldn't agree more. Still, as a trans woman, it is quite a shock to discover that there is a country where trans rights are far ahead of gay rights in that country, ahead of trans rights in my own country, and that the country is otherwise very conservative. It really puts our own country to shame in that regard - if Iran can figure out trans rights, why can't we?

I think Iran shows the danger of having one part of the LGBT spectrum with far more rights than another. In Iran, if you are LGB, then you can either live as LGB without rights, or you can shoe-horn yourself into T and gain lots of rights. That is just plain wrong.

It very very wrong indeed to put people through transition for any reason other than that they need it in order to live true to their gender identity. And, whereas Iran is a great with M2F trans people, I'm not sure what they story is with F2M...

Links234

deirdre_dub wrote: »

I couldn't agree more. Still, as a trans woman, it is quite a shock to discover that there is a country where trans rights are far ahead of gay rights in that country, ahead of trans rights in my own country, and that the country is otherwise very conservative. It really puts our own country to shame in that regard - if Iran can figure out trans rights, why can't we?

I think Iran shows the danger of having one part of the LGBT spectrum with far more rights than another. In Iran, if you are LGB, then you can either live as LGB without rights, or you can shoe-horn yourself into T and gain lots of rights. That is just plain wrong.

It very very wrong indeed to put people through transition for any reason other than that they need it in order to live true to their gender identity. And, whereas Iran is a great with M2F trans people, I'm not sure what they story is with F2M...

I think it's a problem to look at Iran in terms of acceptance of transgender people, because while they might be "ahead" of us in rights, social acceptance of trans people is a completely different thing. there is a massive gender divide in Islamic countries, women are second class citizens and for the families of transgender women in particular they feel it is a great shame for them to have a 'son' that is being socially demoted. there's a severe amount of trans people who are ostracized from their families and are otherwise rejected socially.

There's a documentary called Be Like Others about transsexuals in Iran.

Ireland may well be much more socially accepting than Iran, if in our rights aren't as good.

Azure_sky

deirdre_dub wrote: »

I couldn't agree more. Still, as a trans woman, it is quite a shock to discover that there is a country where trans rights are far ahead of gay rights in that country, ahead of trans rights in my own country, and that the country is otherwise very conservative. It really puts our own country to shame in that regard - if Iran can figure out trans rights, why can't we?

It's got nothing to do with rights stemming from political philosophy or ethics. It's due to some verse in the Koran apparently. Iran is a theocracy-faith rather than philosophy predicates their laws. So transsexuals are accepted but homosexuality is punished by castration. I don't think I'd like to be a woman in Iran anyway.

deirdre_dub

Azure_sky wrote: »

It's got nothing to do with rights stemming from political philosophy or ethics. It's due to some verse in the Koran apparently.

Nope. See the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexuality_in_Iran for more information.

A summary - in 1963, a radical religious cleric in Iran said that there is nothing in the Koran which is opposed to corrective surgery. Being a radical, his word bore no weight with the powers that be, or with society in general, so LGBT people still faced religious and social persecution.

The reason why Iran is so accepting is because a trans woman activist, Maryam Hatoon Molkara, managed to bend the ear of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Eventually, she got through, and the Ayatollah sanctioned her surgery.

The reason, apparently, was because he felt that because of her feelings, she should observe all the rites specific to women, including the way they dress, in order to be able to properly fulfill her religious duties. So it has nothing to do with the Koran as such - it's a pragmatic decision based on the realities of trans people's lives.

I don't think I'd like to be a woman in Iran anyway.

I'd be a woman anywhere.

deirdre_dub

Links234 wrote: »

I think it's a problem to look at Iran in terms of acceptance of transgender people, because while they might be "ahead" of us in rights, social acceptance of trans people is a completely different thing. there is a massive gender divide in Islamic countries, women are second class citizens and for the families of transgender women in particular they feel it is a great shame for them to have a 'son' that is being socially demoted. there's a severe amount of trans people who are ostracized from their families and are otherwise rejected socially.

Much of what you've said above also applies in Ireland, though generally to a lesser degree.

Yes women's rights are better here. But women's rights don't have as much an impact on my life as trans rights. As for the social stigmatisation - it seems to me that very few Irish trans people suffer no social stigmatisation or familial rejection.

Ireland may well be much more socially accepting than Iran, if in our rights aren't as good.

I guess the big advantage that Ireland has is that it is easier for trans people to be visible. And it is that visibility that will eventually bring about the most social change.

Azure_sky

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Nope. See the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexuality_in_Iran for more information.

A summary - in 1963, a radical religious cleric in Iran said that there is nothing in the Koran which is opposed to corrective surgery. Being a radical, his word bore no weight with the powers that be, or with society in general, so LGBT people still faced religious and social persecution.

The reason why Iran is so accepting is because a trans woman activist, Maryam Hatoon Molkara, managed to bend the ear of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Eventually, she got through, and the Ayatollah sanctioned her surgery.

Yes but her sucessful arguement was predicated by the fact that transgenderism does not contradict the Koran, unlike homosexuality. Thus, the laws in question still revolves around religious sensibilities.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

I'd be a woman anywhere.

Personally, I think I'd rather be dead than live in an Islamic state such as Iran.

deirdre_dub

Azure_sky wrote: »

Yes but her sucessful arguement was predicated by the fact that transgenderism does not contradict the Koran, unlike homosexuality.

Just as with the Bible, if you want the Koran to contradict transgenderism, you can find a way.

As has been pointed out by plenty of gay Christians, the Bible doesn't contradict homosexuality. Does that stop you from being persecuted by the church?

I imagine that the Koran is no more condemning or accepting of homosexuality than the Bible is. The difference between gay rights in Iran and Ireland isn't a religious one - it is a social one in which fewer Irish people accept the religious argument condeming homosexuality. The difference between Iran and Ireland in terms of trans rights similarly isn't a religious one - it's a social one, where a powerful leader (who happened to be a religious leader) decided to buck the trend and take the liberal, compassionate, view.

Personally, I think I'd rather be dead than live in an Islamic state such as Iran.

Better dead than red? (That's a saying from the cold war, in case you didn't know / are young!)

deirdre_dub

deirdre_dub wrote: »

As has been pointed out by plenty of gay Christians, the Bible doesn't contradict homosexuality. Does that stop you from being persecuted by the church?

You have to remember that, even though the decision that transgenderism doesn't contradict the Iranian Koran dates from 1963, trans people still faced religious persecution, as the cleric that made that decision was a radical, and so wasn't listened to by society, by the powers that be, or by other religious leaders.

In other words, in 1963, most Iranian religious clerics believed that the Koran contradicts transgenderism. I imagine that more than a few still do...

Azure_sky

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Just as with the Bible, if you want the Koran to contradict transgenderism, you can find a way.

Religious cherry picking-often true.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

As has been pointed out by plenty of gay Christians, the Bible doesn't contradict homosexuality.

Leviticus 20:13:

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

I imagine that the Koran is no more condemning or accepting of homosexuality than the Bible is. The difference between gay rights in Iran and Ireland isn't a religious one - it is a social one in which fewer Irish people accept the religious argument condeming homosexuality.

I would say it's more to do with the fact that, unlike the Islamic republic of Iran, Ireland is not a theocracy.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

The difference between Iran and Ireland in terms of trans rights similarly isn't a religious one - it's a social one, where a powerful leader (who happened to be a religious leader) decided to buck the trend and take the liberal, compassionate, view.

But again we come back to the fact that the argument for the acceptance of transgenderism was sucessful due to the fact that it did not contradict the Koran. If the religious leader in question accepted trans rights purely from compassionate and liberal thinking then why is this not extended to homo/bi sexuals? Why the inconsistency?

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Better dead than red? (That's a saying from the cold war, in case you didn't know / are young!)

Communism and Islamic theocracy/Sharia law are not the same thing.

deirdre_dub

Azure_sky wrote: »

Leviticus 20:13:

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Indeed - the Christian conservatives see that as condemning homosexuality, whereas gay Christians say it has nothing to do with homosexuality. As you say, religious cherry-picking - all religious books are vague enough that you can read absolutely anything into them. Indeed, religious books have to be vague - any system that proclaims access to universal truth has to be vague enough that enough people are able to see themselves in it - otherwise, the system is never going to get enough support to survive.

I would say it's more to do with the fact that, unlike the Islamic republic of Iran, Ireland is not a theocracy.

Gay rights in Ireland started when Ireland was still something of a theocracy. What gay campaigners did was to question what the bible actually said, educate people as to what gay is and isn't, and also argue that the christian virtues of compassion, tolerance and love were more important than sexual orientation.

But again we come back to the fact that the argument for the acceptance of transgenderism was sucessful due to the fact that it did not contradict the Koran.

And we are still left with the fact that the existence of such "contradictions" depends on who is doing the cherry-picking. I mean, it used to be contradictory to the bible to say that the earth goes around the sun. If it was contradictory to the bible to say that the earth goes around the sun, why isn't it still contradictory? Because society has moved on - because society no longer accepts the religious argument - because those cherry-pickers who (still!) believe that the sun goes around the earth are now laughed at.

If the religious leader in question accepted trans rights purely from compassionate and liberal thinking then why is this not extended to homo/bi sexuals? Why the inconsistency?

Because religion is contradictory - it has to be! Also, because no gay or bi person had the good fortune to gain access to, and then successfully bend the ear of, such a powerful leader.

The final argument for the trans phenomenon in Iran being a social thing and not a religious thing is this - such treatment of trans is far from universal in the islamic world!

Communism and Islamic theocracy/Sharia law are not the same thing.

I think you are missing the significance of "better dead than red". It's not that important to the discussion at hand...

Azure_sky

Deirdre, I actually typed out a long reply but the page "timed out", or whatever. (Pro tip: Always copy and paste long replies.)

Anyway, I'll just condense my response.

The mental gymnastics of both conservative and liberal religious people never fail to amuse me. I do think the three "great" religions of the middle east are inherently homophobic, and thus the conservative religious folk are actually being more true to their faith-but this in itself is not a good thing. Being an atheist I don't have to worry about balancing my inclinations and nature with religion.

Ireland was in many ways a semi theocracy but it was officially a secular state. Homosexual activity was illegal, a remnant of British law, but was never really enforced unless one of the partipants was under-age. Compare to modern day Islamic states where execution or castration often follows gay sex. I think states which are official theocracies do socially progress slower than conservative secular states such as Ireland up to twenty years ago via the nature of their constitution.

As for the better dead than red quote; I can't think of many societies which would be worse than a one based on Sharia law. I can't imagine myself surviving in such a society for many reasons.