First, the good news: Tiwonge and Steven have been pardoned! (Warning on link for misgendering.) Although psychological violence continues to be done to Tiwonge via misgendering, and their life is likely to continue to be hard, I am glad that these two are being spared, and I wish them well.
Now to my topic, which is not so much about them as about the conversation we in the West are having about them:
Tiwonge Chimbalanga is a woman. (Whether she’s a trans woman or an intersex woman or a woman according to her own cultural ideas that Western thought is not capable of understanding is irrelevant to this particular conversation: she is a woman, and that is all we need to know here.) Steven Monjeza is a man. Therefore, calling them a “gay couple” (much less “Malawi’s first openly gay couple”) is both inaccurate and highly offensive.
But.
I’ve been seeing a lot of commentary, on Twitter (with its limitations on characters) especially, calling them, therefore, a “straight couple”.
I have a problem with this.
Acknowledging that Western1 ideas of sexuality and gender are not universal and therefore are likely to be inadequate to conceptualize or express this couple’s reality, how we talk about them reflects on us. And the language of “gay couple” and “straight couple” doesn’t reflect very well.
Our best information on Steven, from his own words, is this: “I have never had sexual feelings for ladies, but I had them with Tiwo”2. To Western understanding, this implies either asexuality or homo/bisexuality3 — which is to say, not straight. And as a not-straight person, I really, really hate being referred to as being part of a “straight couple”. It’s not a matter of denying the reality or privilege of my relationship, or wanting to score “queer points”, but that it feels wrong, and, intentionally or not, erases my identity.
The problem is that we use the same words for orientation as for relationships. Unquestionably I am a part of a woman/man couple, and I have abundant privilege therefore — but I am not straight, my relationship is not the same as it would be if all parties were straight, and I do not, as “straight relationship” implies, have straight privilege. We need a way to talk about relationships which does not by implication of orientation erase the identities of people like me, like Steven — for never is there a “bisexual couple”, or a “pansexual relationship” or a “queer relationship” (unless the genders of one or more participants is understood to be “queer”, or outside the binary). No where in “straight couple” or “gay couple” do we allow for anyone who does not fit neatly into the gender binary, for that matter4.
None of the alternatives I’ve encountered have seemed satisfactory. My so-far favorite — male/female/mixed relationship — is a step up, but still highly problematic in that it assumes binary gender, and would lump together relationships involving people with nonbinary genders (who do not, generally, receive societal approval and relationship privilege) with binary woman/man relationships (who do).
What I want are new words, words which allow us to describe the ways in which some relationships are privileged above others5 but which do not state or imply anything about the orientations of the people involved, which do not assume one man and one woman as the default (nor casts them as diametrically opposed, as does “opposite-sex couple”), which acknowledge that man and woman are not the only genders possible.
Given the beautiful complexity of humanity, I’m not sure that entirely unproblematic language is possible, but I am completely convinced we can do better than this. We have to.
- “Western” itself being a problematic expression, but generally understood to refer to white-dominated, Western-European(-descended) societies, such as the USA, Canada, the UK, Australia, etc. ↩
- New York Times, Feb 13 2010 ↩
- Given that a man can be gay — as a rule or in general attracted to men, or having the identity of such — and still fall in love with a woman. ↩
- Which is to say, someone who is neither a man nor a woman (trans men and women can fit as neatly into the binary as can cis men and women). ↩
- For if, as has been suggested, we simply only ever say “couple” or “partners”, we lose the ability to identify the relationships that are marginalized in society — the “colorblind” theory as applied to relationships. ↩
Arwyn
In my bathroom hangs a plaque with a picture of a yin yang and the word BALANCE. I can never get it to hang straight. This probably says something deep and meaningful about my life.
Fascinating. I have no idea what the words might be or if they even can exist in the English that we use to describe and prescribe our understandings of the world. But if people can imagine it, if people can be it, then people of goodwill must find ways to talk about it inclusively.
Like you, I like specific language that allows me to quickly, succinctly say exactly what I mean. In this case, I’m not sure we have the language yet, and probably won’t until our society figures out a few things about sex and gender. It feels like we’re in a transitional stage right now, where the concepts of non-binary sex/gender are finally seeping out into mainstream thought (I’ll admit to only very recently being able to grasp them). I don’t like some of the connotations of “queer” but at the moment, queerness seems like the best descriptor we have for couples that don’t conform to the hetero norm.
As said poorly on Twitter, and I’m not sure I’ll say it much better here, I just say “couple” when I’m referring to romantic partners, or “spouses” if they are married (legally or via their own private vows). While there are difficulties with colorblindness (sexblindness? genderblindness?), I don’t always find it necessary to specify people’s genders, biological sex, or orientation. I have to ask myself, why would I need to nail down the details of a pairing every time I refer to two people? Is that like my grandmother insisting on specifying the race of any noncaucasian person included in her stories? I’m just not sure we need to transmit so much information in every utterance. When we need to be more specific, can we just say all the things we need to say instead of insisting on one short word? With all the possible permutations of sex/gender/orientation, especially as we move away from the binary and toward an understanding that’s more on a continuum, can we really give discrete labels to such nondiscrete – and sometimes fluid/nonconcrete – identities?
I do the same thing Jess, but then I wonder if it is the right thing to do and whether not mentioning it also erases people’s identities. I’ve heard arguments to that effect too.
Great post Arwyn and something I admit I had not thought of (them being a bisexual couple, as opposed to a straight couple. I guess I must have missed the part where Steven said that in the news reports.) I have been pointing out to people on Twitter when following the #malawi hashtag that they are not a gay couple. The major news sources are almost all misgendering Tiwonge, it’s ridiculous.
I suppose that, barring our own terminology, a reasonable thing to do would be to ask Tiwonge and Steven. I realize we can’t necessarily do that in this specific case, but when there are no good options allowing the people in question to tell us what their preference is would be the best option. It gives them the power of language, and removes most of the issue of US labeling THEM in ways that don’t work for them.
In the larger sense, giving certain communities this power is also a reasonable way to proceed. It won’t be perfect, but if there is a general consensus, it is still better than applying our definitions to someone else’s life.
This is perhaps another instance where the language one uses is contextual. Using a more familiar example, a couple I know are legally married but really prefer to be called “partnered”. Most of the time I use that language. But when referring to a family reunion with someone who has no need to know nor interest in the complexities, it’s easier to refer to my “son-in-law” rather than “my daughter’s partner.” I used to (and still sometimes do) make a fuss about being referred to as “Mrs. Husband,” except in the case of his office party or some other setting where I was really his appendage, and would never see these people again, in which case I let it ride.
I do understand the slippery slope of letting errors go unchallenged, but I prefer to pick my battles. In a situation of complexity, I love to be able to discuss it fully and use as many words as necessary to describe the situation, when it’s germane. Otherwise, I might just let it go. A few terms we might use for shorthand: “queer” is good, though offensive to many, “different” or “complicated” might be terms we could use to refer briefly to the relationship without being specific.
Interesting stuff to think about. Thanks, Arwyn!
As a queer cis woman in a relationship with a queer trans man I have been thinking about how to define my partnership for sometime. As my boy becomes more and more ’stealth’ due to taking testosterone I am sure we are seen by some in society as a straight couple. But not a traditional one…I have a skinhead and he is definately a little camp
I think people often think we are both gays pretending to be straight!
I have come to the conclusion that we are in a queer relationship. This has happened for several reasons, but mainly because queerness defines us individually. The queers are our gang.
Great news for Tiwonge and Steven! What is the best way to describe two partners? I’m looking forward to seeing what you all come up with. And I still vote for you posting a poll and seeing what your readers think.
Two-word descriptions often feel like an inadequate way to describe two people in love. And so final and judgmental. I appreciate wanting to have a two-word phrase, but what if this is a situation that deserves more than that? After all that Tiwonge and Steven went through, I’m comfortable taking a sentence to describe their love instead of a few words.
I think ultimately, like with race, intent and perception of that intent impact the reality of what we say. And what I mean by that is, when you are good intentioned, and take the time to think out what you say, it is a lot harder to be offensive. People may not always be comfortable with the descriptions you choose, but they will always appreciate the place in your heart that they come from.
What about “same-gender” and “mixed-gender” couple?
I echo what you say about being uncomfortable when identified as part of a “straight” couple. I’m a bisexual woman married to a straight man, but my husband also self-id’s as queer because of other aspects of his sexuality. We have, singly and together, many aspects of straight privilege, but not all, and many of the assumptions that society makes about us due to our appearance make us both very uncomfortable.
How about “an item”? Nice, old-fashioned term that pigeonholes nobody, but identifies that a relationship exists – which after all is the part that’s important (unless fine details like that do matter to you, in which case I apologize if I offended you). Same goes for “couple” to me – except that that term excludes relationships with more than two partners.
In the case of the relationship discussed above, I would probably call them a “queer” couple (if required to identify to that degree), because the two of them together encompass many degrees of ‘the queer spectrum’.
’scuzi, that should be “finer” details. Trying not to call it a label here, and the language doesn’t offer me many options.
I have almost always referred to my significant other as “partner”, and it feels weird to me when I say “husband”. It may be that his identity is more queer than most realize, or that I’ve just changed my thinking/language around the whole thing. I work to support LGBTQQIA youth, and so I am very conscious of the language I use and what can be implied (or not) by it.
Partner, couple, significant other… all of these also imply only two people in a committed relationship- what about people who love more than one? I have many friends who are in triads, quads, and more, and, when thinking about it, those relationships have no “gender markers”. hmmm…
I find it very problematic that you are using the plight of Tiwonge and Steven as a jumping-off point to talk about yourself and your relationship and what labels you prefer. That’s not a good look.
sandra dee — That’s a fair point, and I thought about that while writing — I tried to avoid that by explicating that this isn’t about them, but about the way we’re talking about them, and it’s only one, topically relevant, example of such.
What I am trying to do is not make it about me-me-me (and to the extent that it is so is a failure of my writing, and I own that), but about the language we regularly use and how to make it most respectful for all persons. For Tiwonge and Steven, yes, and particularly Steven, (although as I said on Twitter, they have far bigger concerns, and I doubt they care: we’re talking about Western language, here, after all), and for me, yes, as a queer person in a woman/man relationship, but also for other queer/bisexual people, who are made invisible by the gay couple/straight couple language we use.
And you could argue that that’s not worthy of my or anyone else’s time, but then you’d be working from the Derailing For Dummies crib notes, and I don’t think that’s your intent.
Nowhere in my comment did I say it wasn’t worth time analysing. Yes, it’s annoying that our current vocabulary doesn’t account for all relationships, but using this particular story to illustrate that is gross. When a woman is regularly misgendered because of societal norms that is not the time to be messing around with a question like this. You could have just as easily written a post where talking about how you doesn’t like how your relationship is labelled without throwing these two into the mix. They’ve been through enough already.
Sandra — You’re right, you didn’t say that, and I apologize.
But one of the things I see going on with these two — in addition to the misgendering, which is just the cherry on the cake of the mockery of a trail, the jail time, the public humiliation, the sentence, the insulting pardon, and so on — is that in an effort to correct the misgendering of Tiwonge, Steven’s sexuality is being denied.
Now, I don’t know how he identifies. I don’t know how he would identify in his own terms, if he were free to do so in his own culture. From the few comments from him that I’ve read, in Western parlance he would likely identify as gay (again, given that gay men can fall in love with a woman), or queer (or, possibly, asexual, depending on how he meant “I have never had sexual feelings for ladies”). But just as we are assigning “trans” to Tiwonge (whose womanhood, as I said, is not being questioned at all by that statement), because that best matches our Western understanding, we should continue to respect our best, limited, understanding of Steven’s orientation. And to my mind, that means that calling him part of a “straight couple” is offensive.
Again, I’m not saying I know what he wants. Maybe he’d love to be seen as part of a straight couple. Maybe he just wants all of us Western pontificators to shut up and leave him alone (which is what I’d place money on). But just as I’m going to continue to speak up to correct the misgendering of Tiwonge rampant in mainstream and alternative media and among my acquaintances, I’m not going to be silenced when I see what looks like — on the part of Westerners, to my Western understanding, which I fully acknowledge to be potentially erroneous in his own mind and culture — to be erasure of Steven’s orientation. As you say, haven’t they been through enough already?
And yes, just like it matters to all trans women how Tiwonge is being talked about, whether or not she identifies as trans (or intersex, or a woman according to her own culture) because she is understood by Western culture to be trans (her misgendering would be offensive and insulting to her regardless), I think it matters to queer people, especially nonmonosexual queer people or queer people in woman/man relationships, how we talk about Steven and his relationship, given what we have heard about his sexuality.
Unlike with Tiwonge, there isn’t an easy fix to Steven’s problem, because we don’t have the words yet — which is what I was trying to talk about in this post.
Is that — trying to talk about this small thing, that matters to queer people and might matter to Steven, when what the two of them have been through is so much worse — gross? Well, it might be. I try to balance topical relevance with avoiding vulture-syndrome, and though I try to err on the side of avoidance, I know I can fail. Perhaps, as you say, I failed with this one.
I just really don’t like you using them as an introduction for your reflections, as a visual aid for your theories. I mean, I thought you had some fair points, but I don’t think using Tiwonge and Steven as a framing device was a wise choice. The whole post could have not included that and still worked, and that would have not co-opted other people’s lives to make a point, which is not something people should be doing.
One thing that comes to mind, is you keep talking about “Western” culture/language/thinking/etc. Is it only Western culture that lacks an understanding of these alternatives in gender and sexual orientation? I know there are cultures who have much broader understandings of gender, but my impression was that they tend to be smaller, more isolated groupings, whereas most of the rest of the world (Western and non) tends to have more strict interpretations of gender (but maybe that’s just showing my Western/cis/straight bias/privilege). But, for example, how is TIwonge’s gender, and the couple’s sexuality/identity, viewed in Malawi? Weren’t they jailed to begin with *because* the local authorities considered them a “gay couple”? How accepting are non-Western cultures of alternate genders and orientations, are they better than we are at giving appropriate labels? (and I guess I’m also curious to see what your definition of Western is)
Marcy — I gave my best definition of “Western” (which is a problematic identification, but the best I know of at the moment) here: “generally understood to refer to white-dominated, Western-European(-descended) societies, such as the USA, Canada, the UK, Australia, etc.”
As to your questions, I don’t know the answers to most of them, but I specified Western not because I think the West has a monopoly on bigotry, but because it is the only culture I live in, and therefore the only one I can speak on with any authority. Other culture-groups have their own problems, but I don’t know what they are. It was not so much wanting to castigate the West, in particular, as much as wanting to acknowledge that my thinking and my knowledge is limited and is influenced by this particular culture-group.
(One of the first steps in dismantling any marginalization, as a person who benefits from the oppression of others, is simply to acknowledge it. We privileged folk tend to think that how and what we think is universal, when it isn’t. I want to point out that the way we in the West think about relationships and sexuality are not universal truths, but culturally influenced memes.)
Sandra Dee — Fair enough. Thank you for your thoughts.