My friend, a researcher
and ‘male feminist’ activist working for a Jakarta-based NGO, once told me
something I had never known before. It is a biological fact, he said, that
there are at least 16 different types of sexual orientation. Homosexuality,
lesbianism and transvestism form a minority of three people are familiar with.
Many other preferences have either been suppressed or forcibly relegated into
one of the three categories.
I just looked at him in
deep silence. I was thinking of many people who might be suffering both in
understanding their gender identity and dealing with harsh treatment they
experience from some people.
Surprisingly, many of
the cases of so-called sexual disorder he has been dealing with are biological
in nature. They become a problem only because of the social and psychological
factors his clients have to bear. It is such a myth that one who manifests
‘uncommon sexual orientation’ must be yoked by the weight of environmental
factors or pressures; those orientations are at any rate the very genetic
buildup that are supposed to be their very gender identity.
I remember how he
emphasized about sexual orientation and gender identity when presenting his
assessment in one of the graduate classes back in the days. They are normal
only to be taken abnormal in a society whose sexual preferences are strictly
binary. Therefore, despite societal imposition on the changing of the
‘offending’ femininity, even the best tongue of persuasion would falter except
a radical surgery, which is very expensive medically and legally, is conducted.
These clients of his
are doubly persecuted: rejection by family and society as well. Many have
misunderstood their stance as religious and cultural defiance to the norms.
Some have consistently insisted on implementing sticker regulations to make
them value the dignity of man. In the meantime, embarrassed by their ‘uncommon’
behaviors, clients’ families have been acting as the reinforcers of so-called
correct living.
Another section of the
society is offended by the unnaturalness of the behaviors. Any explanation,
they say, must take into account the supernatural interventions due to a
particular sinful mode of living. A curse or a form of punishment must be the
logical outcomes of any wrongdoing. The prescribed situation is a direct affront
to the very structure of a decent community. At this point, they believe, those
‘abnormal’ people need to understand the dire consequences of perpetuating the
same sinful mode of living their ancestors have committed before. Though
difficult, it is perceived that they are capable of redeeming their parents and
themselves for the sake of posterity.
Many clients,
undoubtedly, have come to see my friend on the account of their stigmatization.
Blending into the mainstream proves to be unbearably treacherous. While some
are living under physical threats on a daily basis, majority have to deal with
the emotional doubts of their worth. Their pressing question is if they are
indeed abnormal.
It is very liberating
to know that DSM IV – TR excludes homosexuality. It is no longer considered
part of mental disorders. You will see it no more in abnormal psychology. But,
I have been wandering, about other sexual orientations not discussed in the
manual. On what grounds, homosexuality should be put outside the realms of
psychiatry? Thinking through my friends’ stories, I imagine much more
complicated backgrounds when dealing with such clients of my friend. I am
talking about the precipitating factors and comorbid possibilities that may
have triggered and even aggravated the biological predispositions. It is very
likely that environmental factors might prove to be too strong an element in
the psychological makeup that the very sexual preferences have been released
from its biological case to serving as the way out or a fulfilling compensation
to clients’ insecurity.
Psychology and
psychiatry cannot afford reeling at the core issue!