I am not a fan of taking values from celebrities on social media where they are consumed by themselves. Certainly not from muscled youth whose good looks and fairer complexion are largely explained by assortative mating. Their upper middle-class background with access to tremendous economic opportunities and social networks determine their posh English accent, fame, and wealth. They also have the privilege to correct the English pronunciation of others.
Regardless, all of this is denied to a vast majority of Pakistanis from working class families, whose chances of upward social mobility are hampered by the system that keeps such celebrities on the top. It was different with veteran actors like Qazi Wajid, Farooq Zameer, and Talat Hussain, with whom the average Pakistani could connect as the socio-economic disparity was not that pronounced. Moreover, figures like Tariq Aziz emerged from the masses.
It is not so with the current breed of celebrities, who were nowhere to be seen through the floods that afflicted a third of Pakistan and whose hashtag tweets reek of performative activism. Much of their social media is a cry for attention where they continue posting in a bid to stay relevant.
It is this context that informs my reaction to the podcast with actor Muneeb Butt where he delves into the distinction between intersex and transgender folks. Apparently, he is playing an intersex character in one of the Pakistani dramas. He uses the outdated and politically incorrect term “hermaphrodite” to refer to intersex individuals and goes on to state that transgender folks are “by choice” whereas intersex folks are “by birth”. Further, he states that intersex folks in his experience are intellectually bright and skillful.
The idea, I believe, is about the acceptance of difference in a conservative society. However, the approach is timid and defensive, as the conservatives have pushed back at even such a limited nudge for acceptance. They argue that there is no place for trans folks in Islam which is based on the binary of male and female and that both “trans” and “gay” are part of a “western agenda”.
I think the focus should be on substance over semantics and the actor should be excused for using the incorrect terminology. However, before jumping into such a role and declaring it openly on social media, he should have done his homework. As it stands, operating under conservative scrutiny, he has thrown the transgender folks under the bus, just as the transgender folks throw gays and lesbians under the bus in Pakistan.
This is a politics of respectability, where minority groups clash with one another in the race to climb up the social ladder. But such lateral violence is not helpful and only a collective push has a greater likelihood of changing the status quo.
This means instead of infighting, there needs to be a broad-based consensus on the issue of human rights across various groups on the basis of religion, sexuality, gender expression, class, ethnicity, and other factors. The idea to push is that Pakistan is not just for hardcore Sunni practitioners of Islam but a haven for the minorities of the subcontinent, including Ahmadis, Dalits, Christians, working class labourers, gays, lesbians, trans and intersex, dark skinned individuals, anyone, and everyone.
Islamically, trans folks, whose anatomy traverses their innate gender, have been accepted by the highest of the Sunni and Shia religious authorities at Al Azhar and Qum respectively. Both religious bodies allow for gender reassignment surgeries (GRS). The former does so based on the jurisprudential idea that such a procedure would be a cure to manifest the hidden, whereas the latter allows such surgeries in the absence of an express directive against such procedures.
Of course, GRS was absent in the past and the mukhannathun of Medina (trans folks) who were not the khuntha mushkil (intersex individuals) were accepted in Medina. They would even frequent the Prophet’s household.
The order to banish some of them only arrived when they shared the physical attributes of women to unrelated men. Similarly, the ghayr uli al irba (men without desire for women) have been part of Muslim societies. Additionally, noted scholars like Ibn Hazm openly praised the beauty of men. On Ibn al Tubni, he wrote that beauty was fashioned by the sighs of those who gazed upon him. Similarly, Ibn Dawud openly confessed his love for Ibn Jami. However, Pakistani Muslims need go no further than the poetry of Mir Taqi Mir that he penned on the boys of Delhi.
The conservative case against the social acceptance of individuals with diverse gender expression and sexual orientation is not supported by historical precedent. And given the proper socio-economic and political conditions, the case for the jurisprudential affirmation of diverse individuals can also be made. This, however, will also depend on whether gay men desire to live an honest life based on monogamy and ethical conduct or whether they are content with multiple secret sexual encounters where they engage in objectification, and consumerism of the worst kind. Additionally, this will not emerge from half-baked initiatives by self-serving celebrities but from individuals who do not have the privilege to play a role and return to their comfortable lives. For they live their reality every day of their lives. Their worth is based on an inalienable human dignity and is independent of any skills or intellectual brightness. Life has value irrespective of any materialistic criteria, as is true of quadriplegics and those with severe mental health issues.
In essence, it would be better for celebrities to focus less on showing off on social media, and to stop milking the stories of the lives of others for self-aggrandizement. People do not need pity but rather their God given inalienable right to live their life with dignity and in peace, away from the stranglehold of moral busybodies and the clutches of self-centred celebrities.
Regardless, all of this is denied to a vast majority of Pakistanis from working class families, whose chances of upward social mobility are hampered by the system that keeps such celebrities on the top. It was different with veteran actors like Qazi Wajid, Farooq Zameer, and Talat Hussain, with whom the average Pakistani could connect as the socio-economic disparity was not that pronounced. Moreover, figures like Tariq Aziz emerged from the masses.
It is not so with the current breed of celebrities, who were nowhere to be seen through the floods that afflicted a third of Pakistan and whose hashtag tweets reek of performative activism. Much of their social media is a cry for attention where they continue posting in a bid to stay relevant.
It is this context that informs my reaction to the podcast with actor Muneeb Butt where he delves into the distinction between intersex and transgender folks. Apparently, he is playing an intersex character in one of the Pakistani dramas. He uses the outdated and politically incorrect term “hermaphrodite” to refer to intersex individuals and goes on to state that transgender folks are “by choice” whereas intersex folks are “by birth”. Further, he states that intersex folks in his experience are intellectually bright and skillful.
The idea, I believe, is about the acceptance of difference in a conservative society. However, the approach is timid and defensive, as the conservatives have pushed back at even such a limited nudge for acceptance. They argue that there is no place for trans folks in Islam which is based on the binary of male and female and that both “trans” and “gay” are part of a “western agenda”.
I think the focus should be on substance over semantics and the actor should be excused for using the incorrect terminology. However, before jumping into such a role and declaring it openly on social media, he should have done his homework. As it stands, operating under conservative scrutiny, he has thrown the transgender folks under the bus, just as the transgender folks throw gays and lesbians under the bus in Pakistan.
This is a politics of respectability, where minority groups clash with one another in the race to climb up the social ladder. But such lateral violence is not helpful and only a collective push has a greater likelihood of changing the status quo.
This means instead of infighting, there needs to be a broad-based consensus on the issue of human rights across various groups on the basis of religion, sexuality, gender expression, class, ethnicity, and other factors. The idea to push is that Pakistan is not just for hardcore Sunni practitioners of Islam but a haven for the minorities of the subcontinent, including Ahmadis, Dalits, Christians, working class labourers, gays, lesbians, trans and intersex, dark skinned individuals, anyone, and everyone.
Islamically, trans folks, whose anatomy traverses their innate gender, have been accepted by the highest of the Sunni and Shia religious authorities at Al Azhar and Qum respectively. Both religious bodies allow for gender reassignment surgeries (GRS). The former does so based on the jurisprudential idea that such a procedure would be a cure to manifest the hidden, whereas the latter allows such surgeries in the absence of an express directive against such procedures.
Of course, GRS was absent in the past and the mukhannathun of Medina (trans folks) who were not the khuntha mushkil (intersex individuals) were accepted in Medina. They would even frequent the Prophet’s household.
The order to banish some of them only arrived when they shared the physical attributes of women to unrelated men. Similarly, the ghayr uli al irba (men without desire for women) have been part of Muslim societies. Additionally, noted scholars like Ibn Hazm openly praised the beauty of men. On Ibn al Tubni, he wrote that beauty was fashioned by the sighs of those who gazed upon him. Similarly, Ibn Dawud openly confessed his love for Ibn Jami. However, Pakistani Muslims need go no further than the poetry of Mir Taqi Mir that he penned on the boys of Delhi.
The conservative case against the social acceptance of individuals with diverse gender expression and sexual orientation is not supported by historical precedent. And given the proper socio-economic and political conditions, the case for the jurisprudential affirmation of diverse individuals can also be made. This, however, will also depend on whether gay men desire to live an honest life based on monogamy and ethical conduct or whether they are content with multiple secret sexual encounters where they engage in objectification, and consumerism of the worst kind. Additionally, this will not emerge from half-baked initiatives by self-serving celebrities but from individuals who do not have the privilege to play a role and return to their comfortable lives. For they live their reality every day of their lives. Their worth is based on an inalienable human dignity and is independent of any skills or intellectual brightness. Life has value irrespective of any materialistic criteria, as is true of quadriplegics and those with severe mental health issues.
In essence, it would be better for celebrities to focus less on showing off on social media, and to stop milking the stories of the lives of others for self-aggrandizement. People do not need pity but rather their God given inalienable right to live their life with dignity and in peace, away from the stranglehold of moral busybodies and the clutches of self-centred celebrities.