brewsterbudgen

BigJohnnyBKK, on 2012-05-05 21:48:47, said:

BigJohnnyBKK, on 2012-05-05 18:07:11, said:

"Toms and Dees provides highly personal yet representative snapshots of female same-sex relations in Thailand. Megan Sinnotts ably discusses the tense relations that bodies marked as tom (from “tomboy”) or dee (from “lady”) have with the prevailing norms of gender and sexuality in Thailand—more specifically, how they produce and de-produce, are undone by and are undoing these norms.

Developing on an insight of Foucauldian vintage, Sinnott challenges the assumption of “a stable, universal homosexual subject,” arguing that tom-deeism only began to emerge in Thailand during the 1970s. Of course, this is not the same thing as saying that female same-sex relations had never existed in the country prior to the seventies. Although sketchy, the historical record on female same-sex sexuality points to the rather well known practice of “len pheuan” (playing with friends), which dates to the Ayutthaya period (1350-1767) and which was legally prohibited for various reasons. But, as Sinnott points out, “Len pheuan is distinct from tom-deeism in that len pheuan is a description of a sexual behavior and is not an identity.” Put differently, “playing with friends” does not imply a doer behind the deed: sexuality is what one does not who one is.

Tom-deeism, on the other hand, signifies the unchanging ‘truth’ about certain bodies, linking sexuality with identity (i.e., a form of self-knowledge). It is buttressed by Western sexology and heteronormativity and became a standard discourse in Thai society by the 1970s. Female same-sex relations are thus now viewed or identified through the discourses of homosexuality and gender/sexual deviance: “The introduction of these pathologizing Western discourses in Thailand has led Thais to assume that toms and dees are and have always been ‘deviant’ and against cultural norms.”

In any case, Sinnott insists, the growth of tom-deeism in Thai society since the 1970s has been a by-product of rapid industrial development, which was dependent on cheapened female labor, and its accompanying social changes. She sums up thus: “The main factors that have opened the social space for the growth of the tom-dee subculture are the changes in marriage trends, rates of education, and rates of employment in occupations away from family, including industrial labor, service work, and professional occupations, as well as the development of a Thai middle class.” These are catalysts nurtured by the general conviction that female same-sex relationships are “asexual and aspects of female friendship.” For Thai women, having sex with a tom partner may also be less shameful—as it does not signify promiscuity—than engaging it with men.

So toms and dees are not only fairly recent discursive constructs, they are also coming out of the closet, so to speak, though “direct verbalizations of self as tom/dee, transgendered, or homosexual were uncommon” because they were deemed to confrontational. Hence, there is a stark “contrast between visual explicitness and verbal silence.” Their presence may help disrupt the ‘natural’ links between sex, gender, and sexuality, but by and large they have modified and adapted to rather than destabilized or subverted the gender and sexuality norms of Thai society. In fact, tom-deeism may represent the hybridizing and staying power of these norms in Thai society. And, perhaps most importantly, toms and dees may have ‘come out’, but only to be contained within or interpellated by another discursive closet of their own making; a closet with norms and regulations that are not necessarily emancipatory for many toms and dees.

Sinnott seems to suggest that the dynamics of tom-dee relations pivots on the ‘deviant’ or ‘mis-gendered’ tom masculinity. A tom is gendered and recognized as somewhere in between a woman and a eunuch. Toms often explain their identity as deriving from some genes, karmic consequences, or rational choice. Although gradually solidifying, dee “is not exactly an ‘identity’” and a dee is often considered to be an ‘ordinary’ woman who happens to like other women: “A dee, then, is not usually considered ‘homosexual,’ since she is feminine in dress, demeanor, speech and all other markers. Even sexually, a dee is understood as being attracted to masculinity, thereby rendering her ‘ordinary’ in the dominant discourse.” Put another way, Sinnott writes, “Dees who made little distinction between their tom lovers and men consequently made little distinction between themselves and ‘ordinary women.’” The status of dees in the Thai female same-sex community is therefore also ambivalent: dees are somehow internally excluded.

Sinnott deftly unpacks the impacts and ambiguities of tom masculinity. Like most ‘ordinary’ men, toms are interpellated and undone by hegemonic masculinity, by an ideal manhood no body could ever achieve. But, Sinnott continues, “Most toms positioned themselves as situated between ideal masculinity and femininity, strategically accessing claims to both genders, yet simultaneously distancing themselves from both ‘men’ and ‘women.’” Like men in Thai society, toms are expected to be “good providers, protectors, and leader,” and more specifically to have the attributes of “high-class Chinese men, such as [possessing] pale skin, small features, and wealth….” “The most sought-after toms,” Sinnott contends, “were often Chinese and wealthy.”

At the same time, ideal toms are expected to selflessly take care of their lovers and to be highly sensitive; these, of course, are characteristics drawn from hegemonic femininity. Hence, toms are in some sort of gender ambivalence. This may open the door to the emergence of a ‘butch phallus,’ which challenges the fact that masculinity is the natural domain of men as well as provides an alternative form of masculinity. Conversely, tom masculinity also reinforces the notion of female passivity and dependency. According to Sinnott’s research, many toms ultimately pressure their dee partners to leave them and pursue their ‘natural’ roles in life as wife and mother. This is a tacit admittance that heterosexual conjugal life is some sort of a moral law and confirms the view that dee is not a sexual identity (but a temporary practice or predicament).

The sexual relations between toms and dees in Thailand are however heavily pre-scripted along the lines of gender binarism rather than sexuality: “Same-gendered sex (dee-dee, tom-tom) is considered by toms and dees to be almost as ‘deviant’ as same-sex sexuality is positioned within homophobic discourses in the West.” Hence, there seems to be a general aversion among toms and dees to the category ‘lesbian,’ which is based on sexuality. However, as Sinnott points out, although toms and dees often mock penetrative sex like heterosexual couples they have to abide by a golden rule; that is, the practice of tom “untouchability.” Sinnott elaborates that like ‘stone butches’ and unlike ‘ordinary’ men, ‘real’ “toms do not allow their partner, or cannot ask their partner, to touch them sexually.” She perceptively comments: “The extreme irony of untouchability is that, rather than imitating sexual behaviors of men, it most fully demonstrates the femininity of tom identity. Toms are expected to provide sexual satisfaction to other partners, while minimizing their own physical needs.” Sexual reciprocity may however be more common that toms and dees are willing to admit.

Sinnott also deflates the myth of urban tolerance for female same-sex relations in Thailand. She argues that Thai elites “often had the strongest condemnation of same-sex behavior” and the “middle class urbanites…oppose homosexuality, believing that it was a form of sexual/gender deviance and psychologically abnormal.” The rural working class people, on the contrary, may oppose homosexuality on far more practical grounds: women need to get married and have children; conjugal life promises the greatest financial security for women as well as their parents and siblings—as ‘good daughters’ they must provide for the latter. (In other words, rural working class people may tolerate tom-deeism as long as women can also be good daughters.)

Sinnott ends her study with the prospects of the tom-dee community in Thailand, which is on the whole quite apolitical. She briefly examines the agendas and activities of two Thai female same-sex organizations, Anjaree and Lesla. And Sinnott concludes that beyond female same-sex solidarity lurks prejudices in the forms of class, ethnicity, and sexuality. (The feminist movement is all to well aware of these and other –isms that are impeding sisterhood.) The tom-dee community may have to be more assertive and political to cope with the rather homophobic (and nationalistic) campaigns and discourses of the Thai bureaucracy, medical professions, media and academia. And perhaps they can also do so by helping to undo gender’s grip on the body, identity and sexuality: we have bodies; they can perform identities; and they may have sexual desires. In other words, toms and dees should be interpreted as ‘tom-ing’ and ‘dee-ing’ rather than ossified identities with aprioristically determined sexual desires."

BigJohnnyBKK, on 2012-05-04 18:13:15, said:

TommoPhysicist, on 2012-05-04 14:34:34, said:

princejohnjay, on 2012-05-03 11:53:26, said: