Concept of LGBT Anf The Problems They Face
Concept of LGBT Anf The Problems They Face
LGBT stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. It intends to signify a
diversity of sexuality and gender identity and also used to refer to anyone who is
non-heterosexual or non-cisgender. To recognize this inclusion, letter Q has been
added for those who identify as queer or are questioning their sexual identity as
LGBTQ, recorded since 1996. Before the sexual revolution of the 1960s, there
was no common non-derogatory vocabulary for non-heterosexuality; the closest
such term, “third gender”, traces back to the 1860s but never gained wide
acceptance in the United States. The first widely used term, homosexual, was
thought to carry negative connotations and tended to be replaced by homophile
in the 1950s and 1960s, and subsequently gay in the 1970s. As lesbians forged
more public identities, the phrase “gay and lesbian” became more common.
The murder of the LGBT activists Xulhaz Mannan and Mahbub Rabbi
Tonoy in Bangladesh marks the turning point for LGBT activism in the Indian
sub-continent as we stare the latter half of 2016. So to put it simple, everyone is
afraid to death of stirring up the hetero-normative pot that’s anyway boiling over.
The courts are full of failed marriages; the cities are brimming with abandoned
children even as teenage pregnancies surge and dowry deaths reach a crescendo.
But LGBT rights seem to threaten the very fabric of society. And the irony is that
another Supreme Court judgment has given transgendered persons a sense of
dignity, but affirmative action doesn’t seem to see the light of day on the ground
level.
Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code has a strange history that reveals its
fundamental instability. The British Raj instituted the current status in 1860 to
criminalize all sex acts between consenting adults that are not heteronormative.
The law criminalizes any sexual act “against the order of nature,” but often
promotes corruption by authorities who harass, blackmail and extort from sexual
minorities and sex workers in India. In addition to confusion about the law, its
dubious dependence on what constitutes “natural”, and its gross mockery of
equality, there are three powerful undercurrents to this law that have not yet been
written about. These three major areas are: 1) the need for education amongst the
young voters (since India has the world’s largest population of youth); 2) the need
to recognize Section 377 as a law that economically hinders India’s efficient
development into a world super power; and 3) the troubling hatred of women
enshrined in Indian law at a time when the country’s global reputation is marred
by high profile rape cases.
We must view Section 377 as a law with global reach. Many western
countries, including the U.S. most recently, have legalized marriage equality. Not
only does the U.K. no longer have such a law, but the new constitution of Nepal,
India’s northern neighbour, explicitly outlines “protection, empowerment or
advancement of gender-based and sexually oriented minorities.” Section 377 is
an obstacle to economic development of the world’s largest democracy. Section
377 perpetuates and institutes a new class of citizens deemed untouchable by
virtue of their gender and sexuality.
We must recognize the dire threat to development and democracy that
legally-supported sexism allows. Section 377 tacitly enshrines hated towards
women by perpetrating violence against all things “female”. The ongoing
institutionalization of the draconian law also contradicts the April 2014
recognition of the Third Sex. This is India’s “Tryst with Destiny”: the British-
instituted Section 377 must be repealed for once and for all to establish a strong
democratic society, transformative education, gender equality, economic
prosperity, and human decency.