Erasure of Women and Queer Voices in EBTs

[NgXinZhao]

Finally, read this whole topic. A few questions I have. To understand more of the whole gender sensitivities.

@Akaliko

Reparative reading is a queer theory strategy of reclaiming texts from cis and straight culture that didn’t include queer audiences, and of reimagining them through a queer lens. Feminists have used such strategies to re-insert themselves into a patriarchal paradigm that omitted their stories, and first nations people have used similar strategies to insert themselves and reclaim colonial histories where they are left out.

1. Can straight males do reparative readings on behalf of queer? Or is that considered mansplaining? I see that some definition of mansplaining is if the woman asks for it to be explained. Wouldn’t participating in an open forum like this one be considered fulfilling those criteria or not? Sorry, I deleted my post you quoted, so you can’t do a detailed breakdown to show me exactly which part is mansplaining and why.

Say if one day, a queer or even straight female devotee come and complain to me (in person) that the suttas are sexist, not queer-friendly, can I offer a way to read the suttas in a way that they can relate to?

2. Do people feel offended by the usage of females vs women, or should I just use womyn and allow the listener to decide if MTF trans are considered within those categories, whichever ones they are? There are fierce debates amongst feminists on the trans identification issue, which I don’t want to be involved in.

3. I had been trying to use gender-inclusive terms as far as I can be mindful of, eg. instead of mankind, I use humankind. Unless it’s within the Pali words itself has gender in it. There are some other areas of speech which is not easy to make gender-inclusive. Eg. when say having retreats in our retreat centre. It’s not that we have a lot of money to build all sorts of buildings for each gender+ sexual orientation category, which by now is so many I dunno if anyone’s keeping track anymore. For practical reasons, the sleeping quarters for lay yogis are separated into males and females. For those whose gender is more fluid, wouldn’t it be fair for them to decide for themselves where they belong to? Or is the solution to just have a 3 space for all the queers, regardless of their gender + sexual orientation combination?

Or should every retreat organizers read some sort of queer guidebook on which gender and which sexual orientation shouldn’t be placed in the same room together? This would totally discourage a lot of people from wanting to organize retreats. Given the logistics involved, would queer people still find this binary gender segregation offensive/ hurtful etc? Of course, when you (all) reply, more than one voices are to be heard, queer is going against blanket generalization after all.

@Akaliko

In many parts of Asia and India today you see women sitting behind men,

For many centres too, the gender separation is for males left, females right. Dunno where to put the rest.

@inb4dead

Fascinating read but is self really constructed? I thought all constructed things were not self.

I think the meaning is that all constructed things are not self, so any “self” which is constructed are not self too. Gender, sexual orientations included.

6. Given that there’s many rules difference between monks and nuns, it’s kinda important for the applicant to know which side of the gender they fall into. And it’s not really possible to create a third kind of Sangha for gender non-conformists, it’s already so hard to get nuns revived. There’s no perfect solution for some queers who wish ordain is there then? We are just at the stage of voicing out stage only. This can make some to question why raise the issue when there’s no solution? As one obvious solution by those with little faith is to abandon the religion altogether. However, I think we have less danger of it now, cause we are like devas in terms of no hatred towards queers compared to the Abrahamic faiths.

Let me voice a bit of some of the thoughts perhaps behind some homophobic attitudes.

Say sexual orientations are impermanent, liable to change with conditions, this is from queer claim. One possible condition for the change in sexual orientation is exposure to information and societal attitudes outside. Might it not be the case that due to LGBT++, Queer culture going mainstream, that more and more people who were originally straight, become more willing to follow and allow for their own sexual orientation to change into gay, lesbian, bi, etc.

While this is good for population control of humanity, there’s still the overall sexual stigma and prejudice towards LGBT people in some contexts. Eg. the reading of pandakas in the Vinaya.

Some monasteries and monastics may very well take pandakas as referring to trans, gays, lesbians, bi, etc. And thus not allow ordination for these people.

This might cause some people like parents who wish for their kids to be ordained or straight people who wish to become monastics to totally avoid even learning about LGBT, queer knowledge and culture. I don’t want to list any homophobic stuffs which might be exhibited for fear of being accused as homophobic myself.

If this post itself comes off as offensive to queers and women, do tell me gently cause I had been doing my best to be gender inclusive and understanding.