SuttaCentral
SN 37. Matugama Samyutta is Connected Discourses on Women. But it has no corresponding Chinese SA counterpart, and is not about the voices of women.
There are also no any connected discourses on the queer’s voices in EBTs.
It seems the Buddha teachings shown in EBTs, and particularly in SN/SA suttas, are mainly about the arising and the cessation of dukkha for every human, but not about women and queer voices.
Hi Thomas, thanks for confirming this.
Finally, read this whole topic. A few questions I have. To understand more of the whole gender sensitivities.
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?
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.
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.
For many centres too, the gender separation is for males left, females right. Dunno where to put the rest.
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.
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.
Ven. @NgXinZhao, I’ll offer some of my musings:
Are you talking about queer theory here? Because lots of gays would emphatically deny that sexual orientation can change.
much metta 
Given some of these posts includes issues of seating arrangements and accommodation, it’s important to note (for our broader community, not really replying to either post here but more generally) that in the context of meditation retreats, community halls, toilet blocks etc, it isn’t the role of individuals to decide who can define another’s gender or say who can use these spaces. In many countries these places are covered by anti-discrimination legislation and whilst these vary from place to place, these laws recognise trans people as the gender they affirm themselves and protect their right to be free from discrimination. Regardless of people’s personal views, it’s essential that our community and spiritual organisations have an appreciation of the serious legal and discrimination issues involved and understand our obligations under the law.
Language matters. Language is not neutral. Gender is not neutral. Perhaps another phrase to consider is “gender inclusive language” which venerable used above and reflects the intention quite nicely, recognising the importance of gender and honouring the importance of inclusivity for all.
So many people have expressed just how important it was for them to see Bhante Sujato’s translations using inclusive language, saying how for the first time they felt they were being spoken to by the texts, instead of just men. When I went to university (over twenty-five years ago) these institutions were just grappling with having to change from exclusively talking in terms of man, he, him, his etc (completely ignoring any other gender) and these day’s whenever I see old fashioned language talking about experiences exclusively through a male perspective I find it really jarring and cannot believe that this was the norm for so long! Thank goodness that has largely gone the way of the dodo over the course of my lifetime! The younger generation are really championing inclusive language and seem much more invested and aware of the harmful implications of exclusionary language. I think this is great, and as an elder queer, I fully endorse the next generations right to overhaul language as they see fit for the world that they want to live in in their future. As one young person said, it doesn’t take much effort for me to use inclusive language, but it means a great deal to others. This sort of kindness in speech feels very Buddhist to me.
Thanks Venerable. I appreciate the efforts you are making. One way to learn about the questions you have is to listen to and ponder the experiences of others in threads like this (and elsewhere) and see what goes on so you can gain greater understanding. This might require actively resisting the impulse to chime in or fill up the thread yourself, especially when people don’t have any personal experience of the issues involved, or understanding of the basic terminology, or awareness of a cultural context. Listening is a very important step in understanding other’s experiences beyond our own. I see from the progression of your posts in this thread that you have (somewhat belatedly perhaps 
) tried to listen and understand. I guess in such threads where minority voices are speaking it’s good to recognise where you are not actually an expert in a given field, and not feel like your opinion matters more than others on subjects you don’t have lived experience of: see the idea of mansplaining (or also queersplaining) which you referenced above. Importantly, we are not asking you or others to help solve all these problems for us but rather with us.
You also probably shouldn’t expect that LGBTQIA+ people will want to do the work of explaining these concepts to you individually for your benefit alone: the day is only so long, we have had these types of conversations hundreds of times before in our lives, it’s repetitive, time-consuming, exhausting, and exposes us to other’s ignorant opinions as well as hostile and bullying behaviour. In any case, there is already heaps of information out there. It’s always good to do some investigating ourselves on issues that affect women, LGBTQIA+, indigenous groups, BIPOC groups and any other groups, rather than expecting them to do this work for us.
If you’re interested in hearing from the point of view of some queer and trans folks (there may be more viewpoints but hey, we gotta start somewhere right?) about the kinds of issues that matter to them in Buddhist spaces, you could refer to these two resources:
Welcoming the Rainbow: A Guide to LGBTQIA+ Inclusion for Buddhists
Developing Trans* Competence: A Guide for Meditation and Retreat Centers
Yes, I read it from queer, a graphic history.
I also remember that the queer theory book has some feedback from the lesbian and gays that it doesn’t reflect the reality faced by them, going too far out to overthrow all the sexual constructions.
Thanks!
Thank you Ven. @Akaliko for offering your thoughts. There is a lot I could say in response, but in honor of your desire to stick to the topic of gender/sexuality in the EBTs specifically, I’ll just respond to your point here:
I’m all for Ven. @Sujato’s decision to use more gender-neutral translation choices! It’s good to offer new, fresh translations that are more accessible to people who previously felt left out.
At the same time, I don’t think that invalidates other translations that don’t use gender-neutral language. I’m glad there are options. It’s very hard to translate from a more “grammatically gendered” language like Pali into an increasingly less gendered one like English. Take, for example, how to translate “Bhikkhu.” Ven. Sujato has offered a reasonable defense of making it “mendicant,” but that hardly makes “monk” and “almsman” less accurate translations. Some people find “mendicant” strays too far from the masculine grammar of “Bhikkhu,” and imho that’s a valid opinion, even if it’s not the only valid opinion.
It’s the same with Bible translations — there have been attempts recently to make more gender-inclusive bible translations, with predictable socially conservative backlash. I think some of the movement to gender-neutrality is warranted (particularly in situations when it’s, well, more accurate), but there are also some times where I find myself more drawn to the more traditional, “masculine” translations. I mean, there is a poetic ring to “fishers of men” that “fish for people” doesn’t have 
. Plus, there are times where the gender neutrality imho goes too far and obscures the original meaning. Like I said before, it’s nice to have options.
Thank you, Ven. @NgXinZhao, for clarifying. Yeah, queer theory is quite controversial. I’m glad that book had feedback from gays and lesbians who disagree with it. It’s important that all perspectives are heard.
Hi venerable, my statement is about sexuality generally (sexual expression, sexual interests) but not about sexual orientation. I disagree with your incorrect re-phrasing of this as sexual orientation as if it was a ‘quote’ from me, it is not. Can you please edit it to correct this or, if you have a reference, attribute it to the book solely. Many thanks!
To return this thread to its original topic… Have y’all read this paper on Ananda as a “gay ancestor?”
It adds an extra level of irony to AN 4.159.
Ok edited.
Since it’s not explained, I guess it’s that sexual orientation is more underlying tendancies. Like straight males like females.
This underlying tendancies expresses itself as sexual interest (and sexual expression) for the lay person when they sign up for tinder and the like. For monks, such sexual interests should not be expressed in anyway. Ideally, not even interest should be cultivated, but abandoned. And eventually the underlying sexual orientation too, latest by non returner stage.
So the sexuality which grow, change over time is more of abandonment via non returner.
And here’s a brand-new article on the topic by Brenna Artinger—
@Bernat started a new thread for discussing it:
Thanks so much for this wonderful thread. 
I particularly appreciate the input from the other monastics.
Personally, reading the suttas I haven’t been so bothered by erasure. For whatever reason I actually find the Theragatha more inspiring/relatable than the Therigatha. However, even in modern Buddhist literature we are sold the story of heroic young (straight) men battling their kilesa. I sometimes have to remind. Myself I’m not a 20 yr old roughty toughty monk, because this is the only story we have of forest monastics. How I connect with the wildness of the world is surely different due to my age and being a Bhikkhuni, along with all sorts of other conditioning.
In regards to Bhikkhuni vinaya, I have often questioned how man-handled it is. Not only is there no Vibhanga for most of the rules regarding female sexuality, the rules themselves are obtusely worded or just a bit weird… and then to add to this, there what @Akaliko mentioned with regards to interpreting vinaya for queer monastics.
I won’t quote this whole beautiful list (but do scroll up) but also think that the way queer folk have to more deeply consider vinaya through there own personal experience, rather than just taking the rule as the rule, give for an opportunity to more deeply know the workings of the mind and the heart. Echoing what Bhante @Sumano said way back at the top about creativity.