Cisgender Privilege and Its Ignorance of Equality

Natalidita Ningthoukhongjam *

Trans-Gender (Nupi Manbi) Community of Manipur at work in Imphal :: March 10 2013 :: Pix - Deepak Oinam

"People changed lots of other personal things all the time . . . Why was gender the one sacred thing we weren't supposed to change? Who made that rule?"
- Ellen Wittlinger, Parrotfish

In April, India's apex court made a historic ruling in favour of a specific category of transgendered citizens. They are now to legally enjoy the status of a third gender, along with socio-economic recognition that will provide them some of the privileges that they had been earlier denied. While the decision has been applauded and welcomed by many, its imperfections remain conspicuous.

The ruling covers only eunuchs and those who have had sex change operations, leaving the remainder of the transgender and transsexual communities stranded. It spells out that gays, lesbians, and bisexuals—many of whom may identify as transgendered—are excluded from its protection.

The definition of 'transgender' used by the court clearly suffers from a limited scope. Does sex change, whether forced or voluntarily obtained, alone determine one's gender identity?

Gender is a pattern of belonging, a pattern that has been constructed, adjusted and renegotiated over millennia. Gender is what makes us identify pink with girls and blue with boys, an association whose history may be muddled, but does not enjoy a 'natural' origin.

And 'natural' is the catchword here. We like to think gender roles are natural, even divine. Yet there have been moments when we consciously rebelled against gender norms; females are now allowed to vote, receive equal education, and become doctors and engineers. It seems dubious that at the turn of the last century, women were mocked for wanting to be an active part of democracy.

From our vantage, at least, it is horrifying to imagine a time when young girls were married off as soon as they hit puberty, deprived of the chance to decide what they wanted to do with their life. That this is a tradition still followed in some parts of the country must be an unpleasant thought for all the fathers who wake up early each morning to drop their daughters off at tuition centres.

The 'naturalness' of gender is therefore suspect because we don't always accept gender roles for what they are. So why does gender assume such a rigid, exclusive construct when somebody wants to switch? Why does it suddenly become sacrosanct when a guy wants to put on make-up and wear a skirt, or when a girl cuts off her hair and ride a bike?

In socio-cultural tussles, there is usually a dominant class who wants to preserve the existing order of things. In this tussle, that class is peopled by the cisgender majority. A cisgender person is somebody whose gender identity matches with the sex he/she was assigned at birth. I am a ciswoman, having been born a female, and having identified myself as a female, as far as gender is concerned.

There is no confusion between the 'I' that I am and the 'she' that gender ideology has prescribed for me. My body agrees with it. My lifestyle picks and chooses, but hardly steps outside of it. This does not make me special. I am, however, privileged. I do not have to battle an identity crisis when faced with the 'gender' field in forms.

I do not have to suffer harsh catcalls in the street on account of the mismatch between my body and my appearance. I do not have to fear approaching somebody I'm romantically interested in; I do not have to worry they might call me a 'freak'.

I do not have to deal with people ogling me everywhere I go. I am not a punch line for tasteless jokes. I am not a slur that people fling on men who are not 'manly'. When it comes to making a living, I have endless opportunities; my prospects are not limited to costume designing, make-up, or shumang-lila.

I am not special because these are privileges enjoyed by all cisgender people. We are free, and this freedom perhaps blinds us and eliminates our capacity for empathy. We take the easy way out and decide to either ignore or lash out. A few of us shield ourselves with our transphobia, perfectly secure with the knowledge that this is a way of being we will never have to fight for.

A few of us actively try to make the lives of the 'other' miserable, taunting them or reacting with violence. To what productive end? Hatred resolves nothing; it only exposes the lowest and meanest side of us. There is a reason why beauty pageant contestants lie they want to be the next Mother Teresa, but no one happily admits their ultimate dream is to emulate Adolf Hitler.

When the Supreme Court circumscribes the definition of 'transgender', it is another way of exercising cisgender privilege. Yes, the court would not want to go against its own criminalisation of homosexuality, but in deflecting the contradiction which might have occurred there, it has to an extent defeated its purpose.

Should every transgendered person have to undergo surgery just to enjoy the same rights? Should they, at the same time, sacrifice their sexual orientation? By enforcing such criteria, we are still imposing unfair restrictions on the LGBT community.

We are still perpetuating the tradition of looking down on a certain group of people, of alienating them just because they choose to be different. When it comes to issues like casteism or racism, the practise of systematic marginalisation immediately takes on a disagreeable flavour.

Why it becomes acceptable, even preferable, in this context is a question we need to examine, and respond to with an educated perspective.