General assembly votes to allow congregations to admit gay ministers but only if they specifically elect to do so

I suppose the relationship between religion and sexuality isn’t as black and white as some would hope to portray…

(Source: queeraspie, via rcabbasi)

With all the violence currently occurring in France, I have to question if the country will now pop up in those “LGBT-safe” country guides, or are these lists saved for countries from “The Global South” that don’t adhere to a dominant North Atlantic way of being?

elektrokardiogrammatology:

‘Freedom from norms’ resonates with liberal humanism’s authorization of the fully self-possessed speaking subject, untethered by hegemony or false consciousness, enabled by the life/stylization offerings of capitalism, rationally choosing modern individualism over the ensnaring bonds of family. In this problematic definition of queerness, individual agency is legible only as resistance to norms rather than complicity with them, thus equating resistance and agency. Both Saba Mahmood and [Sara] Ahmed critique this conflation and redirect their attention to agency that supports and consolidates norms, but even this turn presupposes some general universal understanding of what counts as norm, resistance and complicity. As Mahmood asks, ‘[Is it] possible to identify a universal category of acts - such as those of resistance - outside of the ethical and political conditions within which such acts acquire their particular meaning?’ The rhetoric of freedom is also of course a mainstay in philosophies of liberal democracy and is indeed a foundational tenant of American exceptionalism. But finally, queerness as transgression (which is one step ahead of resistance, which has now become a normative act) relies on a normative notion of deviance, always defined in relation to normativity, often universalizing. Thus deviance, despite its claims to freedom and individuality, is ironically cohered to and by regulatory regimes of queerness - through, not despite, and claims to transgression.

Terrorist Assemblages, Jasbir Puar, p. 23

“Gays, like women, are becoming a readily deployable tool in service of geopolitical interests that are oppressive and anti-emancipatory. As people concerned with fighting all forms, and all networks of injustice, we must not allow that to happen.”(Mikdashi 2011)

Pinkwashing is “the attempt by a state or people to highlight its treatment of gays to show how progressive it is, in turn covering up human rights violations from which it wishes to detract attention.”[1] It has repeatedly been used by western powers, for example, as a way to construct themselves as “superior” or “advanced” because they support LGBTQ rights, and to construct the Other as “backwards” because they supposedly don’t support these rights. A person or institution is engaging in pinkwashing when their motives are not to help LGBTQs but rather to further a separate agenda.

In the recent past, Israel has perhaps been the most avid “pinkwasher” due to its repeated attempts to divert attention away from its brutal occupation of Palestine by constructing itself as the “only gay haven in an otherwise homophobic Middle East.” Israel has launched publicity campaigns that are aimed at constructing Israel as a safe space for Middle Eastern homosexuals. This campaign, which has included widespread advertising, is aimed at showing that Israel is the only homophobia-free country in the Middle East. This is specifically in contrast to Palestine, which is automatically cast as a dangerous and violent place for LGBTQs.

It has been reiterated by numerous Palestinian LGBTQ groups that Israel is currently engaged in pinkwashing.  “In the last years Israel has been leading an international campaign that tries to present Israel as the “only democracy” and the “gay haven” in the Middle East, while ironically portraying Palestinians, who suffer every single day from Israel’s state racism and terrorism, as barbaric and homophobic” (Palestinian Queers for BDS, 2010).  Israel’s worsening image globally has led it to launch a pinkwashing campaign in which it portrays itself as the only homophobic-free democracy in the Middle East.  Stand With Us, a self-declared Zionist organization, were quoted as saying: “We decided to improve Israel’s image through the gay community in Israel” (Puar, 2010).  As Puar points out, the reason behind this is that “within global gay and lesbian organising circuits, to be gay friendly is to be modern, cosmopolitan, developed, first-world, global north, and, most significantly, democratic,” (Puar, 2010).

A useful way of describing pinkwashing is that it relies on the “ideological capital of tolerance” – in other words, at a time when gay rights are on the agenda of western liberals, Israel has seen the usefulness of portraying itself as a gay-friendly country. The special emphasis on sexuality is what makes Israel’s campaign a case of pinkwashing: by diverting attention away from its political role in occupying Palestine to its supposed role as a gay-friendly country, Israel is effectively attempting to re-brand itself.  An alternative definition of pinkwashing is the following: “Pinkwashing is the attempt to justify Israel’s occupation of Palestine by portraying it as a progressive and democratic haven for LGBT individuals in direct contrast with the rest of the Middle East” (Sager 2011).  As argued by Puar, Israel’s pinkwashing campaign also aims at creating a certain image of itself: “Israeli pinkwashing is a potent method through which the terms of Israeli occupation of Palestine are reiterated – Israel is civilised, Palestinians are barbaric, homophobic, uncivilised, suicide-bombing fanatics” (Puar, 2010; italics mine).

An important aspect of pinkwashing is the idea that the Palestinian cause is unworthy and illegitimate because Palestinians are homophobic.  This carries two assumptions.  One, that homophobia only exists in certain places among certain peoples, when in fact it is universal and exists even in Israel.  Two, that the Palestinian cause should be discredited because Palestinians are homophobic, as though only “ideal” or ”perfect” peoples deserve to be free and govern themselves.

This campaign is problematic on several levels.  First, Israel is not free of homophobia and portraying itself that way is simplistic and misleading.  Second, Palestine, as well as other Middle Eastern countries, have vibrant LGBTQ scenes which include organizations, events, campaigns, and media promotions.  Third, it appears that Israel is attempting to divert attention away from the occupation of Palestine and the various crimes it repeatedly commits there by re-branding itself as a gay-friendly country and thus endearing itself to western democracies and human rights organizations.  Finally, Israel is using and reproducing old Orientalist assumptions many in the west have about the Middle East, particularly with regards to homosexuality.

Since the wave of uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa, there have been repeated instances of pinkwashing emerging from the western mainstream media. In an excellent article, Maya Mikdashi and RM[2] argue:

The “gay issue” is becoming an increasingly hot topic in western media coverage of the Arab world. In fact, beginning with the spate of gay killings in US occupied Iraq, the status of non-normative sexualities has perhaps been enfolded within a discourse that highlights the plight of “women” in Arab/Muslim countries, and the ideological, material, and military mobilization that such a discourse licenses.

A critical reader might ask what lies behind this interest in gays? Where did it come from and what kinds of discourses and practices is it contributing to? What assumptions does this conversation make as to international practices of sexuality and politics, and what silences about other forms of oppression is this anxiety over the status of gay Arabs in Arab democracies implicated in?

This is not to say that homophobia does not exist in the Middle East. It does. It exists in every country in the world. However, the question here is: are these groups/governments legitimately and honestly concerned about LGBTQs in the Middle East, or are they simply using them and their struggles for their own ends, whether it is to show how much more advanced they are or to deflect attention away from their own homophobia/political problems? Does the Israeli government, for example, honestly want to help Palestinian LGBTQs, or is it simply using them to make a point about Israeli society being more advanced, and to whitewash its occupation? Indeed, if the Israeli government wanted to help Palestinian LGBTQs, wouldn’t removing an occupation be the first step?

Palestinian Queers for BDS write on their website[3]:

As an integral part of Palestinian society we believe that the struggle for sexual and gender diversity is interconnected with the Palestinian struggle for freedom.

As Palestinian queers, our struggle is not only against social injustice and our rights as a queer minority in Palestinian society, but rather, our main struggle is one against Israel’s colonization, occupation and apartheid; a system that has oppressed us for the past 63 years. Violations of human rights and international law, suppression of basic rights and civil liberty, and discrimination are deeply rooted in Israel’s policies toward Palestinians, straight and gay alike.

PQBDS show that the struggle for sexual rights cannot be separated from other political struggles, such as the one against Israeli occupation. They are interlinked, and should be fought together.

This focus on LGBTQ Middle Easterners is not new. It fits in with an Orientalist worldview in which Middle Eastern countries are seen as especially oppressive when it comes to minorities. Historically, these minorities have usually been religious minorities and women. More recently, however, there has been increased focus on LGBTQs as themost persecuted group in the Middle East. Again, this is not to say that LGBTQs do not face persecution in Middle Eastern countries: they do. My point is to ask why the west engages in pinkwashing, and why it repeatedly attempts to construct homophobia, sexism, and persecution of minorities in general as constantly happening in the Middle East, and never at home.

Similarly, focusing on LGBTQs in the Middle East fits into the framing of sexuality in Other societies that Orientalists usually engage in. Rather than focus on how specific histories of colonialism, imperialism, and western domination have led to certain types of homophobia in the modern Middle East, the focus is instead on how Islam, Arab culture, or other inherent traits are the reasons behind the homophobia in the Middle East.

In his monumental book, Desiring Arabs, Joseph Massad creates an intellectual history of how western scholars have tried to impose western categories of sexuality, namely the strict binary between heterosexual/homosexual, onto other cultures, and how this has led directly to specific forms of homophobia found in places such as the Middle East today:

The categories gay and lesbian are not universal at all and can only be universalized by the epistemic, ethical, and political violence unleashed on the rest of the world by the very international human rights advocates whose aim is to defend the very people their intervention is creating.

Moreover, Massad points out that it is necessary to look back to western history in order to understand how the categories of gay/lesbian were created for specific political and economic purposes:

We can say that homosexuals did not exist in Europe before the medical and juridical discourses of the second half of the nineteenth century invented them as subjects of medical and juridical intervention, and before capital created relations of production that made possible the development of new residential and migratory activities, and new kinship configurations within and without the biological family that led to the development of forms of sexual intimacy that would be linked to identity and community.

What Massad is essentially arguing is that while same-sex relationships and relations have existed in the Middle East as far back as can be accounted for, they were not understood or practiced in the forms that the west adopted in the late 18^th century, namely as strictly tied to identity or as strictly tied to the binary between homosexuality and heterosexuality. People in the Middle East did not identify themselves according to their sexual acts (and neither did people in the west, before the identity of homosexual, and later heterosexual, was created by the medical profession). This is not to say that people in the Middle East today should not identify as gay or lesbian or queer, as many do. It is to show the importance of going back in history in order to understand contemporary sexualities and sexual relations in the Middle East and to show how these evolved over time.

To return to the point of pinkwashing and the Arab uprisings, it is clear how LGBTQs are once again being used to prove a point about Middle Eastern culture. In her article on how the MENA uprisings have been framed, Maya Mikdashi makes the excellent point that the focus is almost always on issues of gender or sexuality:[4]

The legitimacy of a popular uprising and/or revolutionary struggle can be gauged by how it treats “their women” and “their gays.”

The act of pinkwashing in this instance, therefore, is to delegitimize the MENA uprisings because of their supposed lack of attention to LGBTQ and women’s rights. Rather than acknowledge the immense people power, creativity, bravery, and peacefulness of the millions of protesters that took to the streets in Tunis, Cairo, Damascus and Sanaa, the western mainstream media has chosen to divert attention to the ever-present Orientalist obsession: how minorities in the Middle East are (mis)treated.

As an Egyptian that has lived in Europe, it has become clear to me how essential pinkwashing is in the construction of the binary between the civilized “West” and the uncivilized “East.” It is difficult to get into a discussion with a Dutch person, for example, about Muslims without questions about Islam and women, Islam and homosexuality, and Islam and freedom dominating the conversation. Homosexuality is often used against Muslim “immigrants” (if you’re not white you’re forever an immigrant), rather than focusing on what Dutch society and government could be doing to help “integration” (which often means assimilation).

In conclusion, it is crucial to note that LGBTQs in the Middle East cannot be separated from the societies they are in, as Mikdashi points out:

Gay Arabs cannot be cut out of the fabric of their societies; they are Arab, they are Muslim, Christian, conservative and progressive, soldiers and civilians, communists and capitalists, sexist and feminist, classist and revolutionary, and both oppressors and the oppressed. Islamist discourses are not ossified and stuck in the 16th century, as most Western commentators assume. They are plural, responsive, dynamic, and they represent the point of view of a large and diverse public.

It is extremely problematic that queers in the Middle East are being used by western Orientalists in their constructions of themselves as superior and more civilized. Queers are being used as tools to delegitimize the tremendously important uprisings that are happening across the Middle East. People that are both queer and Middle Eastern recognize the intersectionality of these different identities, and therefore continue to fight both homophobia at home and racism, imperialism, and Orientalism, abroad.

Originally published here: http://w3.unisa.edu.au/muslim-understanding/documents/salem-pinkwashing.pdf

Sources:

Mikdashi, M. (2011). Gays, Islamists and the Arab Spring: What Would a Revolutionary Do? [Online]. June 11. Available from:http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/1836/gays-islamists-and-the-arab-spring_what-would-a-re

Palestinian Queers for BDS. (2010). Palestinian Queers for BDS Call upon all Queer groups, organizations and individuals around the world to Boycott the Apartheid State of Israel. [Online]. 28^th June 2010. Available from –   http://pqbds.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/palestinian-queers-for-bds-call-upon-all-queer-groups-organizations-and-individuals-around-the-world-to-boycott-the-apartheid-state-of-israel/

Puar, J (2010). Israel’s Gay Propaganda War. Pinkwatching Israel. [Online]. July 1. Available from – http://www.pinkwatchingisrael.com/israels-gay-propaganda-war/

Sager, Maggie. (2011). Palestinian queer activists challenge the ‘pinkwashing’ of the Israeli occupation. [Online]. February 16, 2011. Available from –http://mondoweiss.net/2011/02/palestinian-queer-activists-challenge-the-pinkwashing-of-the-israeli-occupation.html

Sites with more information:

http://www.pinkwatchingisrael.com/

http://www.pqbds.com/

http://www.aswatgroup.org/

http://www.queersagainstisraeliapartheid.blogspot.com/

---

[1] http://room410.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/would-you-want-israel-at-your-gay-wedding-3/

[2] http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/1836/gays-islamists-and-the-arab-spring_what-would-a-re

[3] http://www.pqbds.com/about/

[4] http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/4506/the-uprisings-will-be-gendered

totheexclusionofallothers:

Homonationalism Gone Viral: Discipline, Control, and the Affective Politics of Sensation

liminalbeast:

http://frontdu20mars.github.com/Vid%C3%A9os/2013/01/31/video-de-la-rencontre-du-20-mars-2012-avec-haneen-maikey-et-ramzy-kumsieh.html

Foucault, Michel. History of Sexuality Vo. I (p.43)

On the emergence of the modern, North-Atlantic-based, normativized and universalized sexual-based identities (i.e. LGBTQI…) 

(Source: hummussexual, via hummussexual)

“What is Queer BDS? Pinkwashing, Intersections, Struggles, Politics” is 1 of 2 public panels organized by Queer Visions at the World Social Forum: Free Palestine. Held in Porto Alegre, Brazil from November 28 to December 1, 2012, the World Social Forum: Free Palestine brought together activists from around the world organizing for justice in Palestine. Palestinian Queers for Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions, Pinkwatching Israel, and alQaws: for sexual and gender diversity in Palestinian society invite activists, social movements, and queer groups to join and endorse Queer Visions at the World Social Forum: Free Palestine.

Public Panel II: WHAT IS QUEER BDS? PINKWASHING, INTERSECTIONS, STRUGGLES, POLITICS

In different parts of the world queer groups and allies have aligned themselves with the Palestinian Liberation Struggle. Despite Israel’s attempt to win the favor of queer people in order to legitimize its occupation, activists and scholars have publicly and collectively renounced Israeli pinkwashing, occupation, and apartheid. A global queer movement is gaining momentum to promote Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions as a political tool to force Israel to abide by International Law.

In this panel, different activists will share their experiences, challenges and views on the contemporary state of queer solidarity for Palestine. They will talk about the diverse struggles that they have faced in promoting queer politics and BDS in their respective communities. Our special guest this afternoon is Angela Davis. Her vision and experience has empowered us all. We are honored to have her as our guest on this panel.

SPEAKERS

RAMZY KUMSIEH (PQBDS/QUEERISTAN, PALESTINE/THE NETHERLANDS)

NATALIE KOURI-TOWE (QUEERS AGAINST ISRAELI APARTHEID, CANADA)

SELMA AL-ASWAD (SEATTLE, USA)

SARAH COLBORNE (PALESTINE SOLIDARITY CAMPAIGN, UK)

ANGELA DAVIS (UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ, USA)

MODERATOR: Mikki Stelder (The Netherlands)

“Sexual Discourses in the Zionist Project: Queer Politics and Liberation” is 1 of 2 public panels organized by Queer Visions at the World Social Forum: Free Palestine. Held in Porto Alegre, Brazil from November 28 to December 1, 2012, the World Social Forum: Free Palestine brought together activists from around the world organizing for justice in Palestine. Palestinian Queers for Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions, Pinkwatching Israel, and alQaws: for sexual and gender diversity in Palestinian society invite activists, social movements, and queer groups to join and endorse Queer Visions at the World Social Forum: Free Palestine.

Public Panel I: SEXUAL DISCOURSES IN THE ZIONIST PROJECT: QUEER POLITICS AND LIBERATION

The State of Israel has launched a campaign to recruit Jewish-Israeli and international gays and lesbians into the Zionist project. Tel Aviv has become a gay h(e)aven, and Israel a “beacon of freedom” because of its gay rights standards in comparison to “the rest of the Middle East.” However, underneath Tel Aviv’s sandy and gay friendly beaches lies a history of expulsion, ongoing occupation and apartheid. The obliteration of Palestinian lands and bodies through Israel’s promotion of “gay equality” as the final feature of the human rights project is called Pinkwashing.

By promoting gay rights as the endpoint of human rights, Israel obscures not only its obliteration of Palestine, but simultaneously silences queer voices who argue that their liberation is always already bound up with the liberation from any form of oppression. Palestinian and international (queer) activists argue that to achieve a radical equality queer politics has to be intrinsically anti-racist, anti-occupation, anti-sexist, and anti-classist.

In this panel, different speakers will talk about pinkwashing, queer politics, and Palestinian liberation. In conjunction, they will share their views on the use of sexuality in a larger context of Islamophobia, imperialism, neoliberalism, globalization, and settler-colonialism.

We invite the audience to participate in a discussion on the ties that bind queer liberation to Palestinian liberation, and join in the struggle for Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions, and against Pinkwashing.

SPEAKERS

HANEEN MAIKEY (ALQAWS: FOR SEXUAL AND GENDER DIVERSITY IN PALESTINIAN SOCIETY, PQBDS, JERUSALEM, PALESTINE)

DEAN SPADE (SEATTLE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, USA)

LYNN DARWICH (BEIRUT, LEBANON)

To watch Lynn’s video, write to lynn.darwich[at]gmail.com.

GINA DENT (UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ, USA)

MODERATOR
Tamsila Tauqir (Safra Project, UK)

hummussexual:

الاغتراب باللغة – ثورات أجندات وتابوهات لغوية / نسرين مزاوي

ان كانت الكلمات “مثلي” و”مثلية” هي فعلا إنجاز لغوي ثقافي يحتفي به المثليين والمثليات في المجتمعات العربية لماذا يتم التنازل عن هذا الإنجاز الغض لصالح إستيراد مصطلحات لغوية خارجة عن السياق التاريخي السياسي والثقافي المحلي للمكان؟!

l نسرين مزاوي l

عندما تعبر الكلمة عن اجندة من الأفضل أن نعي الأجندات المختلفة من وراء الكلمات، وعندما تتمحور الأجندة في كلمة من المُحبذ التدقيق بإختيار الكلمات.

منذ قرابة العشر سنوات بدأ الحراك العربي المثلي بالظهور أجتماعيا وسياسيا. حلم، اصوات والقوس، ثلاث جمعيات مثلية عربية بدأت بالعمل بشكل أو بآخر في السنوات الأولى للألفية الثانية، وتلاها فيما بعد ميم، بداية وغيرها. حلم – حماية لبنانية للمثليين والمثليات والثنائيين والثنائيات ومتغيري ومتغيرات النوع الاجتماعي، أصوت – نساء فلسطينيات مثليات والقوس للتعدديةالجنسية والجندرية في المجتمع الفلسطيني.

في السنوات الأولى للعمل بحث المثليين العرب عن كلمة بديلة للكلمات “سحاقية”، “لوطي” و “شاذ” حيث تستعمل هذة الكلمات للذم وتم أستحضار كلمة “مثلية” للتعبير عن الهوية الجنسية المثلية باللغة العربية. مع السنوات تم تذويت الكلمة من قبل الأقطاب المختلفة المعارضة والمتضامنة وتحولت كلمة “مثلية” الى جزء من اللغة يتماهى معها المثليين والمثليات وتفسح للنقاش مساحة اوسع من المساحة التي حُصِرت بكلمات الذم المختلفة. تثبيت الكلمة “مثلية” لغويا هو إنجاز اجتماعي سياسي وثقافي للحركة المثلية العربية لا بُد ان يُحتفى به، ولكي نفهم قدر هذا الأنجاز يتوجب علينا الوقوف ولو قليلا حول الكلمات المختلفة المستعملة اليوم عالميا ومحليا للتعبير عن هذة الهوية معانيها والأجندات المختلفة التي تعبر عنها.

اكثر الثقافات المهيمنة عامة وفي الخطاب المثلي خاصة هي الثقافة الغربية الأمريكية لذلك لتوضيح الفكرة سأتطرق الى المصطلحات المستخدمة بهذة الثقافة وبعضها يُستعمل محليا بتلقائية وعفوية يومية ومن ثم سأعود الى المصطلحات العربية.

في اللغة الإنجليزية تستعمل كلمات مختلفة للدلالة على المثلية الجنسية وكل من هذة الكلمات تبطن بداخلها اجندات سياسية اجتماعية معلنة او غير معلنة، فكلمة Gay  على سبيل المثال ترمز الى المثليين عامة واستعمالها يحظى بنقض من المجموعات النسوية حيث أنها تضم المثليين الرجال والنساء بخانة واحدة الا أن الواقع الأجتماعي الثقافي والأقتصادي لهاتين الفئتين مختلف تماما ومن هنا فان إستعمال كلمة واحدة للتعبير عن هاتين الفئتين المختلفتين ما هو، بمنظور نسوي، الا تعتيم على خصوصية النساء المثليات وإجحاف بحقهن وبحق قضاياهن. من هنا تصر تيارات نسوية على إستعمال كلمة Lesbian ومن خلالها يتم إلقاء الضؤ لغويا اولاً وقبل كل شيئ على الخصوصية النسائية في الوضعية المثلية. بالمقابل، كثيرا ما يتم إستعمال كلمة Homosexuals الا أنها تثير الحساسية لدى رجال ونساء على حد سواء حيث يرى بعضهم انها تشدد على البعد الجنسي للهوية وتحصرها وتحددها بالممارسة الجنسية بينما هي أوسع من ذلك. بالمقابل لهذة الكلمات توجد كلمات أخرى لتعبر عن فئات مختلفة داخل هذة الفئة مثل: Bisexual, trans-gender, trans-sexual  وكلمات أخرى لن اطيل بتفصيلها جميعا.

ارتفع في السنوات العشر الاخيرة بشكل ملحوظ استعمال كلمة Queer، ولم تقتصر الكلمة على هوية انما تطور الخطاب حولها ليتحول الى نظرية فكرية ذات اجندة سياسية اجتماعية من المجدي الوقوف عليها قليلا والتمعن بها.

كلمة “كوير” قد تترجمها بعض القواميس الى “غريب الاطوار” إلا انها في الواقع تخلط بين هذا وبين الجنون فالكوير هو بمثابة المعتوه والأخرق والأبله وقد استعملت هذة الكلمة أصلاً للدلالة على المثليين لشتمهم وإهانتهم. مع الثورة المثلية في المجتمعات الغربية قام المثليون والمثليات على مدار سنوات بإسترداد الكلمات ومن بين الكلمات التي إستردوها وحولوها الى مصدر قوة هي الكوير وتستعمل اليوم للتعبير عن “هوية لا هوية لها”.  فيفترض الفكر الكويري والنظرية الكويرية ان الهوية غير ثابتة ويجب الأمتناع عن تحديدها وقولبتها. فاذا كنتَ اليوم ذكرا هذا لا يعني أن لا تكون غدا أنثى وأن كنت اليوم مثليا غدا قد تكون مغايرا أو متحولا أو ثنائيا وغيرهم وربما قد تجمع بين عدة مركبات قد تبدو للوهلة الاولى متناقضة وربما قد تمتنع عن اي تعريف وعن اي هوية. الهوية الكويرية اليوم لا تقتصر على الدلالة على الميول الجنسية انما على انتماءات وهويات سياسية وغيرها ناقضة لمنظومة الهويات المصقولة والمفهومة ضمنا كالهوية القومية أو العرقية أو الدينية وغيرها. لن أطيل بالتنظير الكويري لكن أكتفي بالقول ان ما جاء به فوكو وباتلر فيما بعد ليمحي الهويات ويتعالى عليها جميعا ليدمجها في خليط متجانس ومتساوي وفي حيز لانهائي من المساواة ومن الحرية، تحول الى هوية أخرى كغيرها من الهويات وان كانت جذرية الا انها مساوية لأي هوية أخرى تختزل وتأطر الفرد بهوية فكرية سياسية اجتماعية وثقافية تتماهي والفكر الكويري. لكن الأنكى من هذا هو عملية مصادرة هذة الكلمة من “المعتوهين” و”الخرقاء” و”البلهاء” بواسطة التنظير الجم حولها وتحويلها الى كلمة يتباهى المرفهين بالتماهي معها.

ان كلمة “كوير” من حيث السياق الثقافي التاريخي ما هي الا اقرب الى كلمة “شاذ” باللغة العربية، وفي السنوات الاخيرة تم إستيراد كلمة “كوير” لكن كلمة “شاذ” بقيت في مكانها، فلم يحلو من الثورات غير الثورات المستوردة. بالإضافة الى هذا فأن نشاط المثليين السياسي في حركة المقاطعة أضاف الى سلة المصطلحات المستوردة مصطلح ال pinkwashing وهي كلمة لن تجدوها في القواميس المختلفة، ومحاولة ترجمتها الى اللغة العربية هو تحدي لا يستهان به. في أحسن الحالات ستعرض عليكم القواميس المختلفة ترجمتها ككلمتين منفصلتين وليس كلمة واحدة وان أردنا ترجمتها عنوةً فستكون “غسيل زهري” أو “شطف وردي” وهكذا ستبدو كأضحوكة خفيفة مثيرة للدعابة لا لأي شيئ أخر. طبعا لكي نرد الى الكلمة مكانتها ومعناها الدقيق لا بد ان نستورد معها ملاحقها الثقافية وسياقها التاريخي والسياسي. فاللون الزهري بهيئة مثلث مقلوب، لمن لا يعلم، هو الرمز الذي استعمله النازييون للمثليين الرجال في معسكرات العمل والأبادة النازية، اما للنساء فقد استعمل المثلث الاسود، وقد تحولت هذة الرموز والالوان فيما بعد الى رموز مثلية يتماهى معها المثليون ويفتخرون بها. من هنا فان مصطلح “البينكواشينج” يستعمل للدلالة على طرف يستعمل الحقوق المثلية وموقفه المنفتح ازاء المثليين وقضاياهم بهدف “تبيض وجهه” والتغطية على أمور أخرى قد تكون جرائم بحق الإنسانية كجرائم اسرائيل مثلاً المرتكبة بحق الشعب الفلسطيني.

من هنا اود العودة الى الكلمات العربية لأطرح تساؤلات لغوية تكمن في طياتها أجندات سياسية أجتماعية وثقافية. اولاً، ان كانت الكلمات “مثلي” و”مثلية” هي فعلا إنجاز لغوي ثقافي يحتفي به المثليين والمثليات في المجتمعات العربية لماذا يتم التنازل عن هذا الإنجاز الغض لصالح إستيراد مصطلحات لغوية خارجة عن السياق التاريخي السياسي والثقافي المحلي للمكان؟! ثانياً، إن كان ولا بد التعبير عن هوية ثورية جذرية (راديكالية) كالهوية الكويرية لماذا لا تُستخدم كلمة “شواذ” لماذا يتم إستيراد كلمة “كوير” المنقحة والنقية والخالية من المذمة بفهومها المحلي، لماذا لا تكون الثورة عربية في عصر كله ثورات عربية؟ لماذا يتم إستيرد ثورات الأخرين مصقولة مهذبة وسوية؟ فإن كانت خُلاصة رسالة الحراك المثلي العربي أن المثلية موجودة بكل ثقافات العالم وبكل مجتمعاته منذ الأزل وأن على كل مجتمع أن يجد طريقه لاستيعاب وإحتواء أفراده وتقبلهم على مجمل هوياتهم، انتمائاتهم ومعتقداتهم فهل يجد المثليون العرب طريقهم الى احتواء مجتمعاتهم واستيعابها لتحتويهم وتستوعبهم بدورها أم يغتربو عنها بلغتهم فتغرب عنهم وجهها؟!

نسرين مزاوي- باحثة إجتماعية وناشطة نسوية – الناصرة

والرد على الحمقاء هنا:

من هنا اود العودة الى الكلمات العربية لأطرح تساؤلات لغوية تكمن في طياتها أجندات سياسية أجتماعية وثقافية. اولاً، ان كانت الكلمات “مثلي” و”مثلية” هي فعلا إنجاز لغوي ثقافي يحتفي به المثليين والمثليات في المجتمعات العربية لماذا يتم التنازل عن هذا الإنجاز الغض لصالح إستيراد مصطلحات لغوية خارجة عن السياق التاريخي السياسي والثقافي المحلي للمكان؟! ثانياً، إن كان ولا بد التعبير عن هوية ثورية جذرية (راديكالية) كالهوية الكويرية لماذا لا تُستخدم كلمة “شواذ” لماذا يتم إستيراد كلمة “كوير” المنقحة والنقية والخالية من المذمة بفهومها المحلي، لماذا لا تكون الثورة عربية في عصر كله ثورات عربية؟ لماذا يتم إستيرد ثورات الأخرين مصقولة مهذبة وسوية؟ فإن كانت خُلاصة رسالة الحراك المثلي العربي أن المثلية موجودة بكل ثقافات العالم وبكل مجتمعاته منذ الأزل وأن على كل مجتمع أن يجد طريقه لاستيعاب وإحتواء أفراده وتقبلهم على مجمل هوياتهم، انتمائاتهم ومعتقداتهم فهل يجد المثليون العرب طريقهم الى احتواء مجتمعاتهم واستيعابها لتحتويهم وتستوعبهم بدورها أم يغتربو عنها بلغتهم فتغرب عنهم وجهها؟!

h/t kawrage

جدلية: الحركة المثلية في فلسطين ومقارعة الخطاب الإسرائيلي

CFP: Sexual Sovereignty: Citizenship, Governmentality, and Territory

American University of Beirut, March 13-15 2013

We invite submissions for 20-minute papers for a conference on Sexual Sovereignty, to be hosted by the Center for American Studies and Research (CASAR) and co-sponsored by the Center for Arab and Middle Eastern Studies (CAMES)

This 3-day conference will focus on the relationships between processes of state formation, territorialization, and claims to sovereignty and the politics of gender and sexuality. Themes of the conference include settler colonialism and indigenous sexualities, homonationalisms, sexual rights discourses, and Orientalism, religion and sexuality, and recent Arab uprisings and questions of gender and sex.

Possible paper topics include: biopolitics and sexuality; pinkwashing and Palestinian global solidarity organizing; systems of confessionalism and gender; feminist and queer movements in the Middle East and North Africa; Arab revolutions, uprisings and gender; fundamentalism, secularism, and gender; mobility, space, geography, sexuality; securitization, militarization, and masculinity. 

We are especially interested in hearing from gender and sexuality studies scholars based in the MENA region.

Confirmed Keynote Speakers:

Peter Coviello, Bowdoin College
Beth Povinelli, Columbia University
Sima Shakhsari, Wellesley College 
Paul Amar, UC Santa Barbara
J Kēhaulani Kauanui, Wesleyan University

Please e-mail a note of interest and paper title with 250 word abstract to Jasbir Puar at jp02@aub.edu.lb no later than January 5th. Inquiries welcome.

h/t: Kawrage