On December 2nd, 2020, an online event was hosted by “Prajnya 16 Days Campaign Against Gender Violence” http://www.prajnya.in/16days and https://www.prajnya.in/ entitled “The Violence of Heteronormativity: A Symposium”. Maya from Vikalp was one of the panelists in this session. The session sought to speak about the overarching structure of cis-heteronormativity fueled by the tenets of patriarchy, which together influence every aspect of existence.

Cis-heteronormativity refers to the structural “normalization” of certain ways of being at the expense of others. In a patriarchal, cis-heteronormative world, then, being cisgendered and heterosexual is the epitome of ideal existence. Added to this, the principles of patriarchy recognize a cis and straight man as the dominant being. In such a structure, where do the other identities go? That is for certain that non-male, non-cisgendered, and non-heterosexual identities exist. But how do they find space in this hierarchical and violent environment?

As Dr. L Ramakrishnan introduced the panel, they said that when we think of violence, we think of it in very tangible terms, i.e. “overt forms of violence”. But there exist societal expectations such as fulfillment of gender roles which include behaving in a certain way according to the gender socially assigned, being in a heterosexual marital relationship, having children etc. which may themselves impose violence on those who trespass these norms. This category includes non-cisgender and non-heterosexual persons. Maya from Vikalp then started off the discussion around queer women, the historical development of the queer movement, and the invisibility of queer persons and women.

Maya spoke about how heteronormativity is something that can completely ensnare one, so much so that even queer identifying persons have it inside them. It then becomes a lifelong struggle to understand it and constantly fight it, both inside and outside. Institutions all around us rigidly embed heteronormativity in the form of imbibing gender roles, furthering the division of men and women, and using biological difference to make one subordinate and one superior. Such perpetuation of heteropatriarchy completely invisibilizes queer women. Speaking from her personal experience, Maya said that initially it was hard to be able to see how any women who loved women could be out there. “Queer experiences found no echo outside ourselves” is how she put it. There simply did not exist the language to address the kind of experiences that women and other queer persons were having. As work on the ground took off, it was realized that “these women were perhaps so mingled with the structure” that they couldn’t be seen.

Taking the conversation forward, Maya talked about the institution of marriage, one of the primary organs necessary for a full and proper functioning of patriarchy. She spoke here from her personal experiences of her ground work, and said that for many Dalit and tribal women, marriage is not a sacred thing, something done only once in a lifetime. The queer Dalit women she interacted with had married and then separated, and then continued to live with their partners whether as neighbours, in the form of a commitment, or simply as friends. So what is often needed is perhaps a different perception, a different prism to look at these women.

The invisibility rendered to these queer women’s lives created other issues too. Many tribal women with whom interactions were done in Gujarat made specific arrangements with their brothers. They said to their brothers “marry the woman I love, so we can live together”. Till date, says Maya, these women live together.

The conversation then flowed towards the important issue of trans persons’ lives and experiences. Maya iterated how one could always see “masculine women”, but there did not exist the terminology of the word ‘transgender’. The very first terminology that was developed was that of the term “lesbian” which came from urban centers. In Uttar Pradesh during her field work, Maya described how there existed colloquial terms to describe a relationship between two women – “rangli” and those to describe transmasculine persons – “babu” or “bhai“. It was only later when activists started to organize that they became familiar with the term “transgender”.

In Maya’s past and continuing experience on ground, she saw that despite the plethora of issues that transmasculine persons faced – eviction, homelessness, violence – they did manage to enjoy a certain level of acceptance. This can be attributed to their ability to dwell in both worlds of the private and public. Given this, they are able to contribute economically to the family and thus may find acceptance eventually. In the rural areas where she worked, a Patel family recognized and gave space to a trans man since all of the daughters had been married and he would be the only masculine figure who could inherit the vast agricultural lands they had. From her ground work, she saw that the partners of transmasculine persons suffered some very permanent changes. Many are dismissed from property rights, are never able to return home or speak to their families, are vulnerable to extreme violence and forced marriages, and often have no option but to elope and find space elsewhere. This also brings troubles, for they have to now adjust to unfamiliar surroundings which may be hostile too, they suffer loss of earlier social capital, and have to exist within the unsupportive outer world.

Speaking about her own personal life, Maya held that heteropatriarchy completely marginalizes queer experiences because it is so “divided into men and women pockets and related roles which play up in daily lives”. The following is what she recounted from her own experience with heteronormativity:

“Marriage is so embedded in your daily life, that I had to get married. And when I did get married, I also produced a son, which was the best thing you could do on this earth. But my love for women basically got me into a lot of trouble. In school, to begin with, and then later in my workplace, and in my married life as well. In my workplace, in one of the women’s group, we were at that point of time asked not to raise the issue because it would unsettle a lot of other issues. Later on, even when I moved to trade unions, I had just returned from my field work and I realized that most transmasculine persons and women who love women joined the rebellious religious current that we call the Bhakti movement, and there, women could dress the way they like which for women is very difficult. So they would wear dhoti, kurta and live with other women as well. Later on in my research, I also saw that couples who were eloping were running to these religious places. So when I attended one conference, I was very happy to share my experience, because this was an eye opener for me too. We had a very enjoyable session, but even before I reached my workplace, I was told “you lower the prestige of our organization by talking about such issues”. And pretty soon, within months, I had to quit. Trade unions don’t really tell you to quit, but they do it in a way that you have to quit. I think this is another way of being violent, which is not direct, but very indirectly you are told to ease off and sort of get lost. And so I got lost but I found myself in the process. And here I am, still recovering.”