The Politicisation of Gender and Sexuality through taxonomy

The world is obsessed with taxonomies, I told myself upon reviewing some of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual – Fifth Edition (DSM-5) diagnoses. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) revamps and republishes its “bible” about every 20 years. The dubious, new edition will apparently appear in 2013.

People must find it soothing to categorise things. It makes a chaotic world simple to understand, to interpret and to analyse. What can be more precious than a framework to view things through? It abolishes nuance, ambiguity and uncertainty. Of course there is always the fallback category – Not Otherwise Specified. An old office joke goes something like this: a document marked “do not file” is filed in the Do Not File file.

The catch-all approach works well for only certain demographics within certain periods and the taxonomy is also mostly congruent with socially acceptable practice.

This exact notion and enunciation may explain my aversion for structure and total lack of obsession with organised environments. My tax files are somewhere. I’ll find them but don’t ask me to. As a bean-counter I cannot think of anything more laborious and heinous than filing something while at home. I do not care for unexpected traffic congestion, it brightens the scenery. It gives me time to look at my surroundings, whereas we would just normally drive mechanically on the same highways without ever noticing interesting things along the way.

If you think you are completely unaffected by taxonomies, think again. Everything from the law to art to Medicine is neatly categorised. Medicine made criminals of people, and to this day where criminality has been waived the social implications, ramifications and stigma still remain and these do have the uncanny ability to influence every aspect of your life right down to economics.

Medical taxonomy decides how your doctor will treat you, or mistreat you, depends on the doctor. Classifications imply certain things and impose a set of features on your personality, which might otherwise not have been there. An official (though unwarranted) diagnosis might mean you cannot get that apartment. It might mean that you could be fired from your work. It might mean you could be harassed, defamed, assaulted and killed. One only needs to look at Uganda, Jamaica, Iraq and Iran as worst case scenarios.

Before 1973, homosexuality was in the DSM, which basically made all lesbian, gay and bisexual people mentally ill and in many societies, criminals. The APA declassified homosexuality as an illness and now goes a step further and clearly states that conversion therapy/reparative therapy (pray-away-the-gay) is unfit for medical practise and causes much harm.

While the DSM might prevail over America, the rest of the world uses the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems - 10th revision, or more commonly known as the ICD-10. The current tenth version does not contain “homosexuality” as a mental illness effective from 1990. In fact the current text of the ICD-10 explicitly states “sexual orientation by itself is not to be regarded as a disorder” at the introduction to F66 (Psychological and behavioural disorders associated with sexual development and orientation).

While the steps taken by the APA and WHO are definitely beneficial to a large number of socially rejected individuals it still to this day stigmatises and vilifies transgender, transsexual and other gender variant individuals. The ICD-10 includes Gender Identity Disorder (GID) as elaborated on in section F64. The DSM-5 seems to be no more progressive and classifies GID in section 302.85 - Gender Identity Disorder in Adolescents or Adults.

The ongoing work on the DSM-5 was and still is not without criticism and controversy. It was reported that 70% of members on the DSM-5 task force have clear conflict of interest being puppets of Industry. The DSM-5 is also marred by the appointment of Kenneth Zucker and Ray Blanchard. Dr. Zucker is infamous for utilising reparative therapy to cure gender-variant children. Dr. Blanchard conjured up a derisive diagnosis called Autogynephilia which further vilifies transgender people and classifies some as having a paraphilia (sexual perversion). How uncanny is it that these two are responsible for things related to Gender Identity Disorder? Uncanny is perhaps better replaced by abhorrent.

There was a petition to remove the two “esteemed” doctors from the task force and another article Bitterness, Compulsive Shopping, and Internet Addiction - The diagnostic madness of DSM-V by Christopher Lane ridicules the propositions in the DSM:

The American Psychiatric Association risks losing sight of that distinction by grimly—and rather inexpertly—debating whether avid shopping should be considered a sign of mental illness. The fifth edition of the association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is expected in 2012. The APA isn't just deciding the fate of shopaholics; it's also debating whether overuse of the Internet, "excessive" sexual activity, apathy, and even prolonged bitterness should be viewed, quite seriously, as brain "disorders." If you spend hours online, have sex more frequently than aging psychiatrists, and moan incessantly that the federal government can't account for all its TARP funds, take heed: You may soon be classed among the 48 million Americans the APA already considers mentally ill.

Also take into account that the whole process of drafting the DSM-5 is cloaked in secrecy as members of the task force had to sign a nondisclosure agreement. Robert Spitzer, the head of the DSM-III task force went mad at learning about this and said: “When I first heard about this agreement, I just went bonkers. Transparency is necessary if the document is to have credibility, and, in time, you’re going to have people complaining all over the place that they didn’t have the opportunity to challenge anything.”

Do you trust a process and an imminent publication like this?

The only positive is the input by Dr. Drescher according to the New York Times:

Dr. Jack Drescher, a New York psychoanalyst and member of the sexual disorders work group, said that, in some ways, the gender identity debate echoed efforts to remove homosexuality from the manual in the 1970s.

“You had, in my opinion, what was a social issue, not a medical one; and, in some sense, psychiatry evolved through interaction with the wider culture,” Dr. Drescher said.

France is leading the way by declassifying transgenderism as a mental illness.

One might say that South African law protects us from discrimination brought on by these taxonomies, but neither section 9 of the Bill of Rights nor The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act explicitly mentions gender identity as a prohibited discrimination criterion, it is inferred or implied via gender. This needs to be rectified.

You see, the cosmic irony is that taxonomy might stigmatise and vilify you but another is necessary to protect basic human rights of equality and dignity. Could taxonomies be a shining example of a necessary evil?

Minister of Intolerance and Prejudice storms out of art exhibition

In an obscene turn of events reserved for pasquinade the dear Minister of Arts and Culture (residing in the Ministry of Intolerance and Prejudice), Lulu Xingwana, stormed out of an art exhibition held on Constitution Hill. The dear Minister was so indignant that she called the artworks "... immoral, offensive and going against nation-building."

Now that’s pretty rich coming from an obvious plebeian only in official title by virtue of bestowment by the Moral Compass of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, and probably owning a matching flashy car (probably a BMW 7 series as is precept and precedent) holding the sceptre over Arts and Culture.

“While viewing the artwork, Xingwana appeared most upset by the work of Muholi and Mntambo, which deals with intimacy between women.”

The artworks which scarred our dear Minister for life and caused all the brouhaha that the she couldn’t even read her speech was “... a series of photographs by prominent artist and lesbian activist Zanele Muholi, of naked, black women embracing each other, Xingwana slammed the work as "pornographic", spoke to her aides, and left in a huff. Her personal assistant read out her speech.”

Yes indeed, the pious Minister cannot stand visually stunning and tasteful photographs of women which in fact does not even show societal taboos such as certain parts of breasts and “below the belt areas”. Those were all cleverly and indeed artistically covered. The Minister thinks it amounts to pornography. Now I wonder if the porn label only relates to the assumed gay imagery...

It is especially ironic and terribly regressive that this happened in very close proximity to the much esteemed South African Constitutional Court, hence why the precinct is known as Constitution Hill. This is the same Constitutional Court which scrapped old discriminatory statutes and effectively ordered Parliament to legalise same-sex marriage otherwise the old Marriage Act would have been amended by means of their pronouncement to be non-discriminatory. This same Court gives ultimatums to Government yet the Minister of Arts and Culture provides a nice symbolic desecration in return and tramples all over the Bill of Rights with her tantrum. Uncannily this Bill of Rights explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and provides freedom of speech as long as it doesn’t grossly violate another group’s rights.

The Minister was sweet enough to throw in the What-About-The-Children card as some kind of substantiation for her theatrics. This is quite odd when one considers that none of the imagery amounts to pornography. The artist says to the Times of South Africa in rebuttal that "...children need to know about these things. A lot of people who have no understanding of sexual orientation, people are suffering in silence...”

A constitutionally protected minority apparently has to be swept under the rug and children should preferably be protected from this constitutionally protected minority. A plethora of comments on articles covering this national disaster make complete fun of the supposed moral superiority of the new nationalists. The more things change the more they stay the same indeed – from one bunch of nationalists to another. Is anyone else seeing the pattern here?

This hideous event caught some attention beyond the South African borders as well when the Guardian in the UK reported on it. The Guardian states the delineating statement which should have tipped off Her Piousness:

In the exhibition's catalogue, Muholi's artwork is described as being "without precedent in South Africa, where there are very few instances of black women openly portraying female same-sex practices."

The Minister however strongly denies it was the implied sexual orientation which caused all the ire as the Mail & Guardian reports that “[The Minister’s personal assistant] denied that the minister objected to the fact that the women were lesbians. ‘I don't think it's based on sexual orientation. It's more to do with the fact they're not wearing clothes and engaging in what looks like sexual acts. The minister stands by what she did.’”

The Minister should have expected very substantial fallout. But then again maybe this is the direction the regime under Jacob Zuma is going. Just before the April 2009 general elections Mr Zuma played lay preacher at the Rhema Bible Church which is spearheaded by former World Iron Man wannabe Ray McCauley. Not long afterwards we learnt that Jacob Zuma in distinct demagogue fashion placed same-sex marriage rights and abortion on auction for the loudest sycophant when the earth-shattering news broke as elaborated on by the Mail & Guardian in Zuma's new God squad wants liberal laws to go.

In February 2010 we learnt of the looming national debate on morality as envisaged by none other than Jacob Zuma. This came literally days after the discovery of the president’s umpteenth child and lover (the latest one being illegitimate). Some now rightfully wonders what practice what you preach means in modern day South Africa.

Annelie Lotriet of the official opposition party in South Africa, the Democratic Alliance (DA), released a very critical statement on Xingwana’s hissy fit calling the Minister a bigot with no capacity to uphold the Constitution and suggests that Xingwana should rather tender her resignation. The statement by the DA also states the history of Jacob Zuma’s bigoted utterances: “same sex marriage is a disgrace to the nation and to God. When I was growing up, 'ungqingili' [homosexuals in isiZulu] could not stand in front of me, I would knock him out.” Lotriet also reminds the reader that Jacob Zuma recently appointed the rabidly, anti-gay Jon Qwelane as ambassador to Uganda.

The DA further raises some concerns:

It would appear that, below the surface bigotry and prejudice run deep in the ANC. It is disgraceful.
If this government is serious about creating a genuine democracy built on a foundation of human rights, it needs to act against the kind of prejudice the Minister espouses. One would hope the Minister has enough perspective to sanction herself and resign, should her pride prevent her from doing so, President Jacob Zuma needs to take action.

Lastly it would only be befitting to get the opinion of a renowned South African artist and professor of fine arts, Penny Siopis.

Siopis tells the Times of South Africa that:

"The fact is, as a minister she is a representative of our Constitution. It does not matter if she has a personal distaste for what she sees."

If this kind of atavistic behaviour is a sign of things to come and some indication of the Zeitgeist within the ANC, I see a very gloomy future for the LGBTIQ community in South Africa. One can only hope that the Constitution is protected from the nationalists’ prejudice and conservativism. Bigotry knows no boundaries and symbolic gestures are often a taste of things to come.