The Queer Sacred
I was at a talk last night given by the creator of the website ThinkStraight.sg
He talked about reclaiming the term ‘Queer’. ‘Queer’, not used as a derogatory term, but as an umbrella term to describe persons of all sexual orientations & genders, apart from your conventionally defined heterosexual males in male bodies & females in female bodies. In another words, anyone not straight.
.
Why use the term ‘Queer’ as opposed to LGBT? Because LGBT has only 4 categories —- insufficiently inclusive to also include people who were asexual (not sexually attracted to anyone), pansexual (sexually attracted to male, female, transgenders & all other queers), intersexed, non-gendered, comfortably haemophrodite etc etc etc. ……
.
By this definition of Queer, Jesus was queer, so was the Buddha(s), etc divine & sacred beings (the Prophet Mohd. Seems to be your conventional het male tho’) . Why do I say this? Well many Catholic/Protestant congregations would probably get upset at the idea of Jesus having erections in the close proximity of the women (or men!) he hung out with. Unimaginable! Jesus was too divine & above it all to be sexually tempted! He transcends sexual arousal. The Buddha(s) too, preached gender & sexual transcendence
.
A feminist Buddhist Venerable gave a talk on Buddhism and Gender at the Poh Ming Tse recently, and she pointed out how in various cultures and religions, the sacred tends to transcend gender. Think about how nuns, monks, priests, priestesses are intentionally asexualized. At least in their ideals (we have heard enough of the actual practices, yes). In Indian American culture, some tribes had 4 genders, where ‘Shaman’ is a gender of its own.
.
Most cultures recognize the 3rd gender & they tend to have special roles. It’s a Judeo-Christian view that adopts gender and sexual binaries. Even tho’ the Christian founder, by ThinkStraight’s definition, would be considered Queer.
.
Why the fascination & portrayal of the sacred as having transcended sexuality and gender? Perhaps because sex is viewed as human & soiled? Because sex is a form of power play ? At a health talk I once attended, the patient is depicted with the male hand. The caregiver is depicted with a very androgynous looking hand. Why? Because anything sexualized disturbs us?
Why do we accept the Queer amongst the sacred, but not amongst ourselves?
Hi Mathia,
Does every Christian person acknowledged that Jesus is queer?
I have many friends who are Christians and from the way I see, they see and acknowledge only two human sexes,that is straight male and straight female, anything beyond or in-between, is sinful, or so to say, it satanous.
Such questions, I think, are worthy of decades of studies and volumes of texts by people more qualified than myself. But over the years, I’ve made some observations and I think they might contribute to a better understanding.
I’ve noticed in almost all of the mainstream religions I was exposed to, gender is presented as a function of sex. You are either male or female, from birth, and the implied biological function of your genitalia is your prescribed gender identity. If this isn’t taught explicitly (as in the case of mainstream Judeo-Christian religions and denominations), then it is left implied. Schools and families take this up, teaching that the opposite of male is female, and there is a very sharp divide between the two. (Which implies that there is no way for a male to become a female, and vice versa, and that gender identity is derived from this divide)
In recent years, I’ve looked into various spiritual and occult traditions — that is, teachings that aim to uncover the workings of the universe and determine man’s place in it, and how man can transcend himself. I’ve noticed that spirituality also posits male and female as opposites — and elaborates by teaching that the union of male and female leads to divinity.
The yin and yang are not seen as mere opposites; in Taoism, they are seen as complementary halves of a greater whole. The lightning bolt, a metaphor for the spark of creation (among other things), is taught to be the result of a fusion between what are basically male and female principles (positive and negative, active and passive, etc.) Tantra teaches that one can find a state of enlightenment through the union of the male and female principles, which is basically sex based on esoteric principles. Other spiritualities hold that sex is a metaphor for the unity of male and female principles, is a metaphor for creation itself, and can be harnessed to meet, if not become, the transcendent divine. The other examples you brought up also hint at this concept. The term ‘becoming one flesh’ comes in here: you become one with someone else, with all differences, including sex organs, effectively erased in the supreme act of creation.
The alternative is asexualisation. Male and female becomes irrelevant, as in the case of Buddhism as you described it, because fixation on one’s sex, gender identities, or indeed fixation on anything at all prevents one from seeing things more clearly, and therefore hinders one from reaching enlightenment. Here, the point is not creation or unity. The point is transcendence by going beyond male and female principles. But such a path, I think, is very similar to the path of union and male and female — by uniting male and female, the seeker(s) is both and neither and have found the divine. Or enlightenment, as the case may be.
(I have, of course and most unfortunately, simplified everything. A fuller picture would delve into abstract terms and jargon that most people would find impossible to understand without context)
All this spills over into the real world as an acceptance of sex and sexuality, and an acceptance of people with various gender identities. Some cultures, as you have brought up, posit non-heterosexual gender identities as signs or actual manifestations of divinity in human flesh. But not all cultures have been influenced by the spiritual paths mentioned above, and the most dominant one in Singapore and the West (among others) was influenced by Judeo-Christian religions.
Spirituality, I think, is an attempt to understand divinity and man’s relation to the divine. Religion can be seen as how these studies are taught, interpreted and passed down.
Current Judeo-Christian teachings, the ones I’ve learned at least, do talk about the binary of man and woman, but not so much about the unity of them, and do not explicitly call for a union of men and women for spiritual reasons (have sex to find a state of grace in each other) as often compared to mundane (have sex to go forth and multiply). But, as I’m not a Christian, I can’t be sure if this is true.
I’ve noticed that in countries where gender identity is a political issue, where acceptance of other-gendered people is not the norm, the prevailing culture has been influenced strongly by Judeo-Christian teachings. And this doctrine, I think, do not talk a lot about, much less elaborate upon, the spiritual aspects and implications of what it means to unite male and female. And so, the only accepted sexual norm is the heterosexual division, united only briefly and only in the flesh.
(And I think you’re able elaborate more on Christian sexual attitudes towards sex, and fill in any gaps I have missed.)
Singapore may be an Asian country. But Singapore was a British colony, a possession of a predominantly Christian nation. The British Christians left their mark on Singapore, through churches and religious teachings, and laws that enforce heterosexual norms. These teachings left a deep imprint on our culture; among other things, you may only identify yourself as male and female, not male transgender, female pansexual,and so on and so forth. We just can’t see that such identities are even possible.
I think the final piece of the puzzle lies in the notion of separation of church and state. The state has become the real world, the physical world we live in. The church is conflated with spirituality and the metaphysical. The separation of church and state has become the separation of physical and metaphysical. Which is unnatural, because ‘metaphysical’ means ‘beyond physical’, an extension of the physical, not an entity apart. Society can accept the queer as sacred, because we think queerness exists in its own world — if we even see it as queer at all. We don’t accept the queer in the physical world, because we don’t see the queer as a part of or an extension of the physical world, and because how we see the physical world is coloured by religion and culture.
Which brings me to a final question. If a prerequisite for divinity is the transcendence of gender, why is humanity blocking itself from divinity by insisting on a gender divide?
Societies notions of gender can easily be seen in forms we need to fill out
Mr – male; whether there’s a woman in your life is irrelevant. You’re male. Whole. Self-sufficient
Miss – female; no man in your life. Incomplete. What’s wrong with you? Available for the taking. Would you like me to introduce you to that eligible young lad?
Mrs – female. Complete. Child-bearer. Where are you children? WHy no children? How can you be so selfish? Taken. Owned. Unavailable. Does her husband mind if I talk to her? Have you asked your husband?
Ms – female. Rabid feminist. Angry. Unapproachable. Unfeminine.
Dr – If you’re sufficiently wise, gender is irrelevant. You’re respected. Pedestalised. Unreachable. Asexual (if you’re female). Desired (if you’re male)