http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/world/asia/20pant.html?scp=2&sq=Nepal&st=cseQuote"I have prepared this presentation for members of this assembly," he said, giving them a beaming smile. The female members were too shy to join the crowd.
"There are some people on earth who consider themselves neither male nor female" he continued. "They like to be called third gender, which comprises roughly 10 percent of the total population."
A man interrupted. "Oh, yes, I had seen this term in a medical book I have at home," said the man, Mathabar Singh Thapa, of the rightist Janamukti Party in the 601-member assembly. "But, I have a question. Do they have genitals?"
"They do," said Mr. Pant, trying not to giggle. "But, they don't have natural sexual orientation."
Hypatia sez: I like what the guy is doing for LGBT rights, especially his courageously pioneering the subject in a hostile environment earns major kudos from me.
I just find the whole Hindu take on all LGBT people as "third gender, neither man nor woman" to be totally bizarre. I'm glad I don't live under Hinduism. In my culture, gay men are men, lesbians are women. Trans men are men, trans women are women, and gender identity is completely independent from sexual orientation. Over there, none of our understanding applies. As I read it, the Hindu definition of "man" and "woman" is limited to people who make babies heterosexually. Anyone who varies from that is considered a non-man or non-woman. I find this an extremely patriarchal and heterosexist worldview, saying you're not a woman unless you pop out babies. If anyone tried to call me or my lesbian sisters "third gender" instead of woman, I'd be really offended.
Androgynes deserve recognition as their own category outside the gender binary, a "third gender" if you will. I'm OK with that. But I am no androgyne.
