India Poised For Transgender TV Show Host

Although this appeared in yesterday's New York Times, I never got around to posting about it for some odd reason.

64 million people will be able to see India's first transgender TV host later this month. The article offers a fascinating insight into a culture quite different from ours, particularly with regard to some issues which are still considered taboo, aside from the obvious: that transgender people, known in India as hijras, are clearly not accepted by society.

Hijras appear in positive roles in Indian mythology, but modern society has tended to be less tolerant. A majority are shunned by their families. Many find it impossible to obtain conventional jobs and turn instead to begging and sex work for a living.

“Transgenders in India are seen as immoral and evil,” Rose said, calmly leafing through the script of her first show — an interview with a prostitute about her recently published autobiography. “I will break that image by being articulate, intelligent and a bit like the girl next door.”

“This is a radical development,” she added. “There have been transsexuals in Indian movies, but always as the object of ridicule or as villains. This is the first time in the history of Indian television that a transgender person has been featured as a television anchor.”

Interestingly enough, the channel is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

The channel was not searching for controversy, but executives were so impressed by Rose’s screen presence and determination to fight prejudice that they agreed instantly to give her a show despite her lack of experience.

I'm going to be very interested in hearing about how this show is received in a country where discussing feelings about marriage is perceived by her as a bigger taboo than discussing her sex change operation.

Rose said she had no desire to shock, but just hoped that she would be watched.

“As a person, I am very open, but this is a big television channel which goes out to millions of people,” she said. “We don’t want any bad reaction.”

She said she felt it would be fine to talk about hormone therapy and her coming sex change operation. But discussing her true feelings about marriage, for example, would still be too much of a taboo.

I do wish Rose great success with breaking this important barrier and I hope to follow-up in the coming weeks or months with an update.

Video: (h/t Jami.)

Gender Identity Framed: Female Spectacles

I took the afternoon off from work to accompany txrad on his search for new glasses.

The first shop we went in had a nice selection. We spent about 20 minutes trying on different frames. I found one pair I really liked -- they had a darker tortoise shell design on the outside of the frame while the inside portion of the frame was a light incadescent blue. They were interesting and they looked very good on txrad. And he loved them.

As I was browsing for myself, the clerk went over and motioned for txrad to come to a different section. He thought she had a pair he would like. Instead, she directed him to a section and said, "these are the men's glasses here."

He asked her what's the difference? She basically said nothing really. Many of the frames are unisex, but some are designated as women's glasses. He asked if there was a difference and why. She told him there really wasn't a difference except the manufacturer chooses to categorize some frames as women's.

We still aren't sure why she felt the need to advise him of this when he didn't ask and didn't care.

Apparently, according to the clerk, there are some people who want to know. It's important to them. Because we sure wouldn't want to compromise anyone's masculinity by having them unwittingly purchase women's frames.

He probably would have bought those if we hadn't gone to another shop and found a pair, a bit more expensive, that are similar to what he has now, and look great on him. I almost wish he had -- just to buck the obnoxious system of gender idiocrity in this country.

OK, I know that's not a word.