---------------------------------------------------------

Introduction

'Sex' is a biological concept whereas 'gender' is a sociological one. This means that the organs/genitals we are born with, go to determine our biological sex i.e., whether we are male or female. On the basis of our biological or anatomical sex certain roles and responsibilities are assigned to us and this forms 'gender'. However, many people are not comfortable with the roles and responsibilities that automatically get attached to them because they belong to a particular biological sex. For example not all girls like to cook and not all men are physically strong. These roles and responsibilities are not the same across different cultures and contexts. For example, in contrast to patriarchal societies, the woman is the head of the household in a matriarchal society. Also, we know of or come across people who are born with indeterminate or ambiguous genitals. This means that they are not born as either a biological male or a female, but have the biological characteristics of both, making them intersexed. In these cases, it is very often left to the doctors to assign a particular biological sex to the child. Many intersexed people may not identify or feel comfortable with the sex that they have been assigned but are forced by society to conform to the corresponding gender roles. We also know that there are many people who change their gender and sex in varying degrees from dressing and behaving in ways that conform to their desired gender to surgically altering their bodies to fit that of their desired gender. So we see that gender is played out in many different ways.

Another sense to the word ‘sex’ lies in sexual acts. Sex is usually not talked about openly. However, messages on sex, sometimes subtle and at other times not so subtle do manage to reach people. For example, very early on in our lives, we do learn that sex is not something that should be talked about openly or that we are not to speak about body parts such as the penis, vagina, breasts etc in public. There are implicit or direct messages that spell out a strict code of conduct around sex. For example, incest is social taboo, sexual activity with children is variably penalized, a man can have sex only with a woman, and a woman can have sex (if at all!) only with a man, and so on and so forth. Regardless of norms and strictures of desirable conduct, sexuality is experienced in a variety of ways. There are innumerable sexual behaviours that people engage in, some of which have been slotted and categorized as being specific to particular 'sexual identities' like heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, lesbian, gay, and indeed many others that we are only just getting to know about. So we see that, like gender, sexuality is also played out in many different ways.

Though the two are different aspects, gender and sexuality do overlap in some ways. Playing out gender also involves playing out sexuality. ‘Boys will be boys’, when said with a wink and a smile conveys a lot.

In this E-Discussion, participants were invited to offer their views around four lines of enquiry:

(i) Politics of identity

How many genders are there? Only two, male or female, or are there more? What are the common and not-so-common ways in which people express their gender and their sexuality? Are the identities and labels associated with these something that we acquire at birth or something we ourselves choose eventually? How much of it is what we perceive ourselves to be and how much the roles and expectations thrust upon us by society? What happens to those who do not conform, either to the norms that govern sexuality, or to those that govern gender, or to both? How can we be more inclusive and affirmative in the way we address sexuality?

(ii) Negotiating spaces

There appear to be strict boundaries around how we can manifest gender and sexuality. But there are also spaces to negotiate within and around these. Are some processes of negotiation more valid than others? Are the rights of some people more compelling than that of others? Who gets included and who gets left out? Are we ready to include more people, more behaviours, more expressions, or do we fear something will be at stake if we do this?

(iii) Hierarchies of marginalisation

Though the formation of identities or the naming of groups based on sexual preferences helps to mobilize people for political rights, it also ends up putting people into boxes. Are there communities within the diverse field of genders and sexualities, which are more stigmatized than others? Does it then help to address the specific concerns of these groups? But does it mean that we create a hierarchy of groups based on oppression and privilege? Do some groups get pushed lower down the hierarchy as other groups rise upwards? Are there groups that get totally left out of the hierarchy?

(iv) Campaigns and movements

Are there any campaigns and movements focusing on sexuality and diverse gender expressions whether at the local or the national levels in the South and Southeast Asia region? What is their focus? Do they come from an anti- violence framework, a sexual health framework or the framework of sexual rights? Or any other? Are there any alliances between different campaigns? Do we see the need for further collaborations?

A summary of all that was discussed follows. Not everything that was discussed was directly in response to, or completely in keeping with the mentioned lines of enquiry.

Top

Politics of identity

Sex: Normal, Natural or Perverted

Beginning with sex, a participant based in Pune, India sought to differentiate between ‘natural’, ‘normal’ and ‘perverted’ sex. He defined Normal Sex as “any sex between the two individuals with mutual consent, giving sexual satisfaction to both the partners without causing any physical or mental trauma or harm to either of the partners, where only one is not insistent upon the sex without peno-vaginal relationship and which is entirely a private act”. Natural Sex was said to be exclusively for the purposes of procreation, and therefore limited to heterosexual penile-vaginal sex. Perverted Sex was not defined as such but illustrated with an example of group sex. Privacy appeared to be a significant element demarcating Perverted Sex, whereas consent appeared to be a significant element of Normal Sex. Thus homosexuality, masturbation - individual or mutual, oral sex or anal sex – was all referred as Normal and Non-Perverted sex. On the other hand, since group sex includes more than two people, even if heterosexual, it was referred to as Non-Normal or Perverted Sex. Heterosexual rape involving penile-vaginal sex was referred to as Natural Sex because it is between man and a woman; but since it lacks consent, it was referred to as Perverted Sex.

Categorisation based on nature, normalcy or perversion was seriously contested and even disagreed with in the ensuing discussion. A participant based in Australia admitted to having had group sex many times and stated that she derived sexual satisfaction from the very lack of privacy. Further contesting the stated notion of privacy, it was argued for that matter that sex involving only two people is not completely private either. The presence of another person can be understood to be a violation of privacy. It was said to be bizarre because such privacy can then only be in complete individual isolation. Referring to an article by Helen Nissenbaum (pl check spelling of last name), titled "Privacy as contextual integrity", it was argued that 'norms' governing sexuality are variable.

Another participant based in Kolkata, India disagreed with the use of the word 'perversion' to describe anything other peno-vaginal sex. Reflecting on the notion of Natural Sex, the participant stated that there is ample evidence of homosexual behaviour between animals living in a natural state. The so-called definition of 'natural sex' comes from law-books written centuries after the evolution of the human race, the paleolithic and neolithic ages. Even in Ancient Rome and Greece sex between males was seen as 'natural' and 'normal'.

Further contesting procreation to be the only objective of Natural Sex, a Gynecologist-Biomedical scientist based in Mumbai-India said that heterosexuality or peno-vaginal sex is no more a pre-requisite for procreation, thanks to artificial reproductive techniques like in-vitro fertilization.

A participant based in Chandigarh, India referred to the ancient Hindu text, Kamasutra but another participant cautioned that the Kamasutra is not to be regarded in a narrow sense as a 'sex' manual. The book, written variously by different men and their scribes, gives an insight into the political and social realities, and cultural customs in ancient India. It talks of the goals of life, in a spiritual sense, not just sex. Even while talking of sex, the language is actually ambiguous with words like 'congress' used to describe intercourse. It is based on a very heterosexual model of sex and love. The Kamasutra was therefore thought to be less than appropriate for a modern and contemporary discussion on sexuality as this.

Fluidity of Identities

A participant based in Delhi, India reflected on the notion of identities, like heterosexual or homosexual. Fixing of labels and identities creates limitations and boundaries in terms of the way a person is expected to behave, dress or express oneself. While it is important to have labels and identities in order to organize people politically, it could be potentially unfair to those who may not identify themselves based on their sexuality. For e.g. some same-sex desiring people do not identify as homosexual or gay. Identities could be fluid, which means that an individual may not hold on to one specific identity constantly. Also, an individual could hold many identities at the same time.

Agreeing with and commenting on the idea of fluidity, a participant from Mumbai said we are in constant war with ourselves to define and redefine our sexuality. He somehow attributed the diversity of genders and sexualities to nuclear families. There seemed to be a bias because at one point he hinted at such diversity and redefinition as “confused”. Responding to this, another participant clarified that the ‘war’ to define and redefine is not only with ourselves; it could be with the society. People may sense themselves to be female from birth, but have been declared to be 'male' due to their external appearance. In such cases, the 'war' is between the person who is saying "I am female" and authority figures in society saying "You are male". It might therefore be useful to make a distinction between "internal identity" (how we perceive ourselves) and "external identity" (how society perceives us).

Expressing agreement with the notion of fluidity of identities, another participant from Delhi said that identity is complex and each one of us is many things at one time. Some identities come to the forefront and some we choose to use strategically. Being LGBTQKI etc. is one thing and then that identity gets complicated with the intersections of caste, class, religion, ethnicity, ability, etc. and our lives are mediated by all of this. Not everyone wants to organize politically, some want to and some just want to be.

Reflecting further on ‘fluidity’, another participant noted some of its limitations:

1. It is often not clear whether we are talking about sexuality in general being fluid, in the sense that it can flow into a variety of individual-shaped containers, or whether we are suggesting that it is fluid within individuals;

2. If we are talking about the latter of the above two possibilities, then we need to take into consideration that many people's experiences of their identities are that they are not completely (or even significantly) fluid, that they are relatively fixed. Many gays and lesbians, for example, would suggest that their sexual orientation is their 'natural' one, and that the only reason it wasn't expressed from the outset was due to societal pressures. And again, many transsexual people feel the same way: that they did not 'flow' into their preferred gender, as it were, but that they have always had that gender, yet have often been unable to live it.

3. There are political consequences to pushing the notion of identity as being 'fluid' without qualification. 'Fluidity' implies that the identity can be pushed in a variety of directions, which in turn implies that 'perverse' identities can be 'corrected'. The notion of various identities as an 'illness' in need of a 'cure' is already prevalent in many societies, and people with non-heteronormative identities are already often under significant pressure to 'cure' themselves of something they feel are an integrated part of who they are; continually emphasising identity as being fluid can actually add to this pressure.

This part of the discussion concluded with a thought that identity should be in terms of people deciding what they want to be known as; not in terms of others deciding for them. This does not exclude the fact that for some people, identities are fixed. Fluidity means to allow choice to those who want it.

Top

A participant, a Geographer, located at School of the Environment, University of Brighton, in England offered some points to understand ‘space’ better:

1. Space is not just a vessel. It actively shapes gender and sexuality. Where we are influences (but does not dictate) our actions and thus our identities, lives and the policing we experience.

2. Gendered and sexual acts create space, for example, the very basics like male/female toilets. It means not only is space an active agent in the construction of gender and sexuality but it is itself shaped by these practices, including the policing of certain practices and the valorisation of other actions.

3. All of this is temporal- that is in the same physical place different spaces can be formed and re-formed. Think of the night spaces, spaces of fear that alter temporally, safe spaces etc.

When we think about negotiating spaces, we have to consider space not simply as a vessel- as above- but both acted upon and acting. Space is made and is making. When considering 'safe' space there have been numerous debates about who can and can't be included in order to make spaces 'safe'. It implies that these spaces do not simply 'exist' but are a product of who is in them, how the interrelations are negotiated as well as potentially monitored and controlled. It is not just that space is there; rather we need to consider how it can be made and remade.

Some more illustrations of ‘spaces’ and its varying implications:

(i) Poorly lit spaces

Spaces which we would consider safe under bright lights or broad daylight, become unsafe during the evenings when it is poorly lit, especially for women. There are spaces where men may also feel unsafe, especially men who do not conform to gender norms. Equally, there are spaces, which are safe precisely because of poor lighting or no lighting at all - than when they are well-lit. For example a transgender person may feel more secure that gender nonconformity is not so easily visible in a poorly lit space, and this thus reduces the chances of violence or abuse.

(ii) Ghettoisation

Of spaces which might be socially contested or delicately negotiated, there is greater visibility of some, for example, spaces for gay men as compared to those for women, transsexual and/or transgender people. There is an acceptance in some spaces, which become known as "the hangout"; although this may not necessarily translate into broader social acceptance. There is often a tendency towards 'ghettoisation'. It doesn't help those people who are unable or unwilling to live in these ghettos.

(iii) Public versus Private Spaces

Then there is the public and the private aspect to spaces. When we say that a certain space is our private domain, which are the spaces we are talking about? Can we say that engaging in sex in the park or the backseat of a car in a parking area is private? If not, then is it a public space and the act is a private affair? How do we negotiate spaces in this case? A participant offered a personal experience as an illustration: “I went to a party where I knew most people. At one point, I lifted my companion's top and began sucking on her nipples. This provoked someone nearby to say, you realise you're making people uncomfortable? My companion replied, you mean you're feeling uncomfortable. Most people in the party didn't have a problem with it, not even the party's hosts. But out of deference to this small group of people, we stopped.” Should spatial customs be dictated by a minority, by a majority and/or by something else altogether?

A participant shared an article from the New York Times, titled “A Safe House for the Girl Within”, by Penelope Green, dated September 7, 2006. The article is about a group of people in the 1960’s in New York who regularly met in a house where the men dressed as women. Their gender preferences aside, a participant wondered about their sexuality: if they prefer other men, then are they homosexual? If on the other hand they prefer women, while they are playing the role of a woman, then does that make them lesbian? In response, another participant pointed out that it is possible for transgender people to be bisexual. It was also pointed out that transsexuality is not the same as transvestitism; and that gender identity is not necessarily an indicator of sexual preference. Although people assume that "men in dresses" are gay, this is far from necessarily being the case. For example, many (if not most) male transvestites - that is, men who dress in clothing that their society considers to be appropriate for the female sex - actually identify as male and heterosexual; wearing ‘women's clothes’ is merely a turn on. Transsexuals, however, identify as having a gender that does not match the external physical characteristics they had at birth. They may have any sexual orientation: if a given person was born looking 'male', but identifies as a woman, and if that person is attracted primarily to women, they may well identify as lesbian. And that person does not wear ‘women's clothes’ as a turn on; they feel they are merely wearing the 'correct' clothes for the gender they identify as.

(iv) Local versus foreign spaces

A participant from New Delhi, India shared his observations of the Warias of Indonesia. Warias are biologically male but in their gender appearance are closer to women. They do a show every Thursday night in Surabaya. This participant, dressed up especially for the show. He wore a wig, a black bikini top, with matching black belt, and black jeans. Commenting on the space, the participant said, it is a "regular family space". It has stalls for playing games like hoopla. The audience is a mix of men, women and children. There is nothing odd or bizarre about it. He added, “My own appearance in drag was an act of negotiation. I would not dress in a bikini top or wig in my own neighbourhood in New Delhi, where I live. I would not even dress like that in any other part of Surabaya. It was just that night, at the Waria show, where I assumed it will be accepted. […]I was in a place where not many people knew me. I was unlikely to run into a friend of a friend, or an Aunt or an Uncle. Further made easy by the presence of Warias, as a set of people who were perhaps as gender-queer as me”

Gender preference aside, the discussion once again turned to the sexual behaviour of this group, that is, the Warias. In response, a participant from Myanmar (Burma) shared experiences from his own visit to Surabaya. He said it is not easy to generalize, but according to him they preferred sex with (heterosexual) men. Also, some of them who do sex-work may not bother with the sex or sexual orientation of their clients so long as they are paid. This participant also mentioned about waria-like-people of Myanmar who are called Apwint (literally means visible/open).

(v) Religio-historical connotation to spaces

A participant from the Philippines, shared her experience of a gay beauty pageant. Such shows are common fare in the Philippines, which is predominantly Catholic (90%). Back in the pre-Catholic days, babalaynes or spiritual leaders were women and transgenders, who often married and co-habited with men. Celebrations of feasts days of saints and the Virgin Mary, which are mostly in the style of processions, in fact, are a manifestation of what theologians call Folk Catholicism, a merry mix of Christianity and pagan practices and beliefs. This particular gay pageant was held in the heart of the city plaza, at the city ampitheater where other town activities are usually held. The pageant was held on the same day as the feast day of the Virgin of the Penafrancia, the province's major Marian devotion. The pageant was part of the fiesta (feast) celebrations. Thus, transgender people have managed to negotiate space in spite of religio-historical changes.

Adding a comment on transgender people in the Philippines, this participant said they are both similar to the Hijra (of South Asia) and the Warias of Indonesia; that is, there are 'outstanding' as well 'tame' ones. She said, “I am of the latter type. I normally have no trouble entering women's bathrooms (I have since stopped entering men's bathrooms because of a variety of uncomfortable experiences ranging from catcalls to verbal innuendos).”

This part of the discussion concluded with the suggestion of further studies of different gender and sexuality experiences across race, class, ethnicity, etc.

Top

A participant from the South and Southeast Asia Resource Centre on Sexuality, New Delhi referred to Gayle Rubin's (1984) article, ‘Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality’. Modern Western societies appraise sex acts according to a hierarchical system of sexual value:

marital, reproductive heterosexuals
__________________
unmarried monogamous heterosexual couples
most other heterosexuals
solitary sex
________________
stable long-term homosexual couples
_________________
bar dykes and promiscuous gay men
_________________
transsexuals, transvestites,
fetishists, sadomasochists, sex workers
__________________
pedophiles

In the same article, according to another diagram, the sex hierarchy can be seen in terms of "the charmed circle vs. the outer limits", according again to the value that society places on different kinds of sex. The Charmed Circle therefore includes sex that is: heterosexual, marital, monogamous, reproductive, non-commercial, coupled, in a relationship, same generation, and that, which occurs at home. It should not involve pornography, fetish object, sex toys, or reversal of roles. The Outer Limit on the other hand has within it sex that is: homosexual, unmarried, promiscuous, non procreative, commercial, masturbation, orgies, casual sex, cross generational, sex in public (like bushes or baths), pornography, using fetish objects, sex toys, or unusual roles.

Another participant from India said the Outer Circle should be promoted and encouraged “as it liberates the soul and frees the self of its inhibitions.” Other participants agreed but cautioned that one's desire should not, in any way, harm or hurt others. Still others expressed concerns over promoting the Outer Circle in its entirety. For example, sex in public (like bushes or baths), and cross-generational sex. A 50 year old having sex with children less than 10 years of age? It was clarified that cross-generational sex does not have to be only between minors and adults. It could also be between [adults], for example, a 28 year old and a 60 year old. Agreeing with the clarification, another participant said, consent is fundamental and indeed most important. If a person is over the legal age for consensual sex (16 years or in some countries 18), how does it matter whether the partner is 50 or 95? Commenting on sexual activity with children, especially in the context of child marriages in India, it was said that it is a crime regardless of the age difference. A 17 year old boy seducing a child of 12 is just as guilty as anybody who 'marries' a bride aged 12 or even below.

Switching from sexuality to gender, but within the context of children, an openly out queer man, living in New Delhi shared his personal experience – of gender marginalisation within the family. He said his association with his 8 year old nephew has come under strict family scrutiny, sanction, and censure, only because he does not conform to gender norms. The 8 year old’s mother told this participant not to expose her son to the idea of ‘fluid’ genders. The participant expressed his deep sorrow and hurt at the drawing of strict boundaries, and of marginalisation. He reluctantly resolved to keep himself entirely away from the child, a decision, which he referred to as ‘self imposed marginalisation’. The participant said he is left with a sense of stigma, a sense of shame about who or what he is. He said it is worse because it's delivered by a close family member, and that his gender dangles on the margins of his family.

Another participant, from Bangalore, India brought to attention the element of ‘class’. He said through his work in South India among sexuality minorities and sex-workers (women, men and transgender) he finds 'class' as one of the main factor that marginalises sex-workers and sexuality minorities. It is often not articulated in the sexuality minority discourse in India, and is perhaps an indication of marginalisation of working class sexuality minorities’ voices in these spaces. The marginalisation faced by a rich, English speaking, internet savvy gay man with his own private space, who identifies with the global gay movement/communities is very different from that faced by a poor, non-English speaking homosexual male sex-worker without access to internet, private space and a sexual identity and with no knowledge about the existence of sexuality minority movements/communities. Poor people face the brunt of police and goonda (hooligan) violence in public places. It is class that often determines if one is a sex-worker or not; if one is a castrated hijra sex worker or a female-to-male transsexual who went through sex reassignment surgery; if one has private space to have sex or not; if one has access to internet, English language and global LGBT communities or not; if one has to go to public places to pickup sex-partners or not (instead of using internet, mobile phone etc).

Highlighting another strand to marginalisation, a participant shared news dated 17th October 2006 about a 48-year-old woman who lives with her 55-year-old first husband, and a 54-year-old second husband. The short point of the news was: how to protect the interests of the woman, within the framework of law? The participant noted that regulation by law of personal relations, though seemingly protective, can sometimes be oppressive.

Another participant, a gynecologist based in Mumbai, India confirmed that polyandry and polygamy is fairly common, though in urban India it remains largely hidden. He referred to polyandry marriages in one of the tribal society in Uttarakhand, where they still follow the Pandava tradition from the Mahabharata times.

A participant from Bangalore reflected on the institution of marriage (heterosexual monogamous, through laws and social practice) and the role it plays in facilitating various oppressions, marginalisations. Some of these include:

1. Heterosexism - allowing only man-woman marriage

2. Monogamy - not recognising marriage of 3 or more people

3. Patriarchy - marriage laws are very patriarchal, husband has absolute control over his wife's sexuality – E.g., if A's wife has consensual sex with B without A's consent, A can take B to court for using his wife (as if she is an object owned by him) using the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 497 (Adultery)

4. Capitalism/Market Economy - promoting nuclear families, more the number of families the bigger the market - very unsustainable in the long run

5. Casteism, Communalism, Racism - only same-race, same-religion, same-race marriages are accepted in most societies. Inter caste marriages lead to murders often in northern India and even in parts of South Tamil Nadu.

The participant added, “Marriage laws promote heterosexual-monogamous family based living systems and limit other ways of living. Often property is inherited by family members (i.e. blood relatives or through marriage) which limits people from exploring other ways of living. If the institution of marriage is freed from heterosexism and monogamy it can offer diverse revolutionary ways of living and relating”.

Another participant from Kolkata, India added that Section 497 (adultery) is useless and should be scrapped. He said, it falls under a chapter in the IPC titled 'Offences Against Marriage'. The intention of the legislation has always been to protect, promote and impose the institution of heterosexual marriage. Whenever it has been challenged in the courts (on Constitutional grounds), it has been argued that it should be made 'gender neutral' - meaning the wife should also have equal rights to sue the husband, or the woman that he has been adulterous with. Many women's groups have advocated for the same. The participant called it absurd because in this way one will be pushing the reach of criminal law further – to regulate and penalise consensual sexual relationships between adults.

Top

Campaigns and Movements around the Region

Voices Against 377, India

A participant from New Delhi, India shared information about the Voices Against 377, a coalition comprising of individuals and organizations based in Delhi and working on issues of women's rights, child rights, sexual rights, and larger human rights. The coalition aims to raise awareness about sexual diversity, marginalisation and rights, and to challenge the penalization of sodomy in India – Section 377, Indian Penal Code.

Giving an account of its origin and background, the participant said: Naz Foundation Trust (India), a Non Governmental Organization filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Delhi High Court in 2001 challenging the constitutional validity of S. 377 and requesting a modification of the law to exclude adult consensual same-sex sexual activity in private. In 2003, the predominantly Hindu right-wing government (National Democratic Alliance, NDA) filed its reply arguing that the Indian society by and large, disapproves of homosexuality and that this is enough for it to be considered a crime. This is when Voices Against 377 was formed, for several reasons – to make a point that there were people who were concerned about the issue, to reach out to people and discuss sexual diversity and rights, and to raise awareness about the law and the need for it to be reformed.

Since then, Voices Against 377 has reached out to other movements such as movements for health, women's rights, secularism and peace, and dalit rights to draw the links between their concerns and the rights of sexually marginalized people. It has also reached out to students, lawyers, and mental health professionals to sensitize them to issues affecting sexually marginalized people. The coalition has also organized a few public actions to reach out to the general public and, strategically, to the print and television media in order to raise visibility around the issue and mobilize public opinion towards the desired legal reform.

The participant said that campaigns and movements require a lot of energy and motivation to keep going. At times, Voices Against 377 has lost steam, but has been galvanized back into action by events such as the entrapment and unconstitutional arrest of four men on false charges of engaging in “unnatural sex” in public, and more recently by way of making its intervention in the ongoing PIL in the Delhi High Court.

Another participant from the HIV/AIDS Unit, Lawyers Collective, New Delhi, India gave an account of a new Legislative Bill, the HIV/AIDS Bill 2006. A copy of the Bill is available on-line.

The Bill was finalised and presented to the National AIDS Control Organisation (NACO) in August 2005. At present, it is being considered by NACO and the Ministry for Health, both of whom have expressed their support. The Lawyers Collective is at present in the midst of initiating a civil society campaign to support the Bill, and to put pressure on the government to introduce it in the Parliament of India at the earliest.

As has been seen in the past, social legislation such as the Employment Guarantee Act and the Right to information Act, are introduced in Parliament through the pressure of grassroots campaigns. Therefore Civil Society support and mobilisation is necessary to ensure that the government introduces the Bill in the Parliament and most importantly accepts the premise of the Bill in addressing stigma, discrimination and inequality, and in ensuring the provision of treatment, prevention and information services as essential to addressing the HIV epidemic in India.

A participant from the Gujarat State AIDS Control Society (SACS) informed of his own involvement, along with that of others, in the myriad consultations and the facilitation of drafting of the Bill. He endorsed the Bill and called it a socially useful legislation. He urged everyone to generate all possible support for it in whatever manner possible.

Top

The E-Discussion Forum gathered a spectrum of views on given sub-topics /lines of enquiry. For example, Politics of Identity offered some ideas on fluidity; Negotiating Spaces brought forth a series of illustrations on different connotations and implications of ‘space’; Hierarchies of Marginalisation invited some local and region specific comments, especially on class and the institution of marriage; Campaigns and Movements provided some information on two local initiatives in India.

The forum gathered participation from far and wide, including not only South and Southeast Asia but also Australia and the United Kingdom. The content of discussion is of course limited to the contributions made by the participants. That by itself may not give a full picture of the topic, but introduces some of the issues in the region, with a view to people continuing to have a wider discussion in other forums.