The acceptance of Homosexuals in the Philippines is a subject over which there remains significant disagreement. Partly this is to do with a truly exasperating refusal, on the part of Academics, to adopt common terminologies and taxonomies, a fault which is certainly political in origin. We argue that there is no room for politics in science. Adding to this is the confusion introduced by such things as ‘Queer Theory,’ Philosophical Postmodernism and Identity Politics. These make it hard to dig down and find accuracy in the published literature; indeed, one often suspects that the authors working in this field are guilty of deliberate obfuscation.
Extract
The following extract, from an article published in 2008, is not free from errors of terminology or taxonomy but it remains useful, providing an overview of Homosexuals and homosexuality as found in the Philippines, and with small variations elsewhere. I have interpolated my comments, the original is in italic.
Homosexuality is a recent Western concept (Foucault, 1980) unique among the conceptualization of male-male sexual bonds of other cultures in several ways. Where the Western concept of homosexuality assumes a life-long predisposition, other cultures have typically construed male-male sexual bonds as temporary phases, as in the initiation rites of tribes in New Guinea or ancient Crete, or age-based relationships, as in ancient Greece.
First of all, the authors are correct in their claim that Homosexuality is a recent Western phenomenon. In fact I would suggest that although the term was invented in 1869, the modern form, which I have called the New Gay Man did not appear until after World War 2. Now clearly, males had been having sex with other males for millennia before that, but all of those relations were either Pederastic, that is, with a distinct age, race or class hierarchy or they were Transgender, in which one party plays the social and sexual role of a woman. Both of these are asymmetrical. Another form, perhaps the most common, is Situational, an opportunistic form that occurs when there are no women available, Clearly there is some overlap between these.
The New Gay Man model positions itself as an ‘egalitarian’ or symmetrical form with no status hierarchy at all. This is rare in history, although it may have occurred in Imperial China — but all three of the other forms were much in evidence there too. We can be quite sure that in the context of European culture (which includes North America) there was no trace of an ‘egalitarian’ model prior to 1945.
The authors move on to emphasise a fundamental error of ‘the Western concept of homosexuality,’ in that it ‘assumes a life-long predisposition,’ or in vernacular, ‘once a gay always a gay.’ This has been a most pernicious creed as it operates as an effective barrier to those who, for whatever reason, have dabbled in Homosexual behaviour, from moving on and even from admitting to those behaviours, which are a perfectly normal part of adolescence.[1] Other cultures have seen it as either a temporary phase associated with an age hierarchy (Pederasty) or even as an entirely opportunistic behaviour which appears only under certain circumstances and vanishes when those change (Situational Homosexuality.) It is not clear why this difference between the West, principally US America and the rest of the world exists. However ‘the West’ in this context describes a culture with predominantly sex-negative Lutheran/Calvinist roots and that does appear to be implicated.
An even more profound uniqueness of the Western concept of homosexuality is revealed when it is contrasted with how male-male sexual and romantic bonds were treated in Imperial China where several male emperors were known to have had male harems and favorite male concubines, and also where male prostitution (for male clients) was prevalent up to the end of the Qing Dynasty. The reason why there was no word for homosexuality in Chinese was because it was never seen as a defining or integral part of a person’s identity. Male-male sexual and romantic bonds were construed as relationships between two people as opposed to a psychological essence that defined either person. Moreover, these same-sex bonds were seen as a perfectly acceptable and natural way of life in Imperial China (Hinsch, 1992).
To put that another way, sex between males in Imperial China was considered completely normal and implied neither a social stigma nor any de facto psychological or political disposition. This assertion has been repeated by numerous other specialists in this area.
Homosexuality has been viewed in different ways throughout the years and has been characterized primarily by the prevailing institutions within the society. Societies differ in the extent (to which) much homosexuality (or some form of same-sex intimate relationship) is sanctioned or rejected. The framework such as the cultural milieu including the moral and religious criteria where homosexuality is viewed, the social and political environment specifically the legal definition where it is protected and/or sanctioned, and the forces such as media that propagate and instill ideas on how it is understood, contribute to the overall acceptance of homosexuality.
In the Philippines, there is a very broad definition of homosexuality. Anyone who does not fit into the hetero-normative ideal of being male or female will be categorized as homosexual, a bakla. To simplify things, the Filipino includes distinct concepts under the homosexual umbrella. Among the concepts included in this general meaning are physicality, gender identity, sexual orientation and sexual roles. Interspersed with these concepts are the general categorizations of homosexuals by the young Filipino.
Here we can see the authors straying off the path, in that they come close to conflating sex, sexuality and gender. This is wrong. First, there is no ‘hetero-normative ideal of being male or female.’ Which one is cannot be altered or chosen and is therefore not subject to any ideals, but to simple biology.
Sex is innate and biologically determined, sexuality describes how we have sex (or would like to) while gender is that set of behaviours that advertises our sexuality to others. This both provides an attractive model to those we desire and inhibits approaches from those we do not. A simple example would be in the long-hair bakla, who is male but has pseudo-female sexuality and desires to be penetrated by masculine men. She knows that her gender, if performed well, will attract such men and repel women, whom she would have no sexual or romantic interest in.[2] So she makes of herself ‘Helen of Troy with her arse on fire.’
In a series of focus group discussions and key informant in-depth interviews, Cruz (2006)posits a multi-tiered approach to homosexual definition that starts with the gender identity of a person; if the person presents himself/herself opposite to the (physical sex,) then he is considered (to be) a Homosexual – a flaunting and flamboyant homosexual.
It might be a result of the fact that this paper was written over a decade ago but the notion that Transsexual Homosexuals or ‘longhair baklas’ locally, are all ‘flaunting and flamboyant’ is nonsense. Most work very hard to blend and know perfectly well that overtly bakla behaviours would out them.
For the male homosexuals of this category they are the parloristas or beauconeras, those who work in beauty salons and are the ones joining gay beauty pageants. They are characterized as males mimicking a woman by using feminine clothing, sporting long hair and painted nails, talking and acting like a female. Butch or tombutch are the terms for homosexual females under this categorization.
Again, this might be a reflection on the age of the article, but longhair baklas or Transsexual Homosexuals are no longer confined to the parlours. Large numbers of them work in call centres and other online professions. There certainly are plenty of bakla parloristas and beauconeras but the latter in particular are likely to have more conventional day jobs, including call centres, local government, sales and so on. Having said that, being an accomplished beautician is a respected career here and these are always in demand.
There are also persons who are comfortable with their assigned biological self and they do not present themselves as the opposite sex but they are romantically and sexually attracted to the same sex with little traces of characteristics of the opposite sex. They are branded as full-blown homosexuals or gays and soft-butch or lesbians.
Big oops times two. ‘Assigned biological self.’ What the authors are here trying to say is ‘actual sex.’ There is nothing ‘assigned’ about sex, it is determined at conception and can never be changed. Males in this category are more likely to be described as pamintas, pa-men or macho gays. (The authors appear to acknowledge this in the next paragraph, thereby contradicting themselves.) That is because all of the male categories under discussion are recognised to be Homosexuals or gays, in one form or another, so these terms have no real taxonomic meaning. This instance appears to be a sop to trendy ‘Queer Theory’ notions. (Which we should dispense with.)
Secondly, the here authors make the classic Western error of imagining that people are attracted to sex. This is nonsense. People are attracted to gender, which may be promissory for sex but the two are quite different. In the Philippines, the ‘full-blown homosexuals’ are actually looked down on by the wider bakla community, (Kabaklaan) for their refusal to embrace their feminine natures.
If the sexuality of a person cannot be determined by his/her appearance and (or) personality, the next tier to be evaluated is the role he/she engages in during sexual intercourse for the person to be considered a homosexual. There are males who belong to the category of paminta (coming from the root word, pa-men, a homosexual acting like a man) who defies the first two tiers of homosexual definition. Their female counterparts are the lipsticks or femmes who are females who still present themselves as females but are romantically and sexually attracted to females. This category is equivalent to the western concept of the ‘closeted’ gay.
And yet:
For males, if he takes on the passive role (or penetratee) willingly then he will be considered a homosexual but this categorization is defied when the male takes on this role in exchange for money or any favor.
This illustrates two things: one is that willingness to be penetrated absolutely defines the Homosexuals. The other is that a good deal of sexual behaviour between males, across Southeast Asia and indeed, globally, is in fact Situational. For example, a category not mentioned here but discussed by others is the call-boy, a masculine male who is prepared to penetrate baklas for money. Another class exists amongst longhair baklas, who make themselves as beautiful and feminine as possible in order to have paid-for sex, particularly with foreigners, with whom their preference is to penetrate, although anything is possible for enough cash money. These may be married with children; kabaklaan is a career for them.
Another categorization of sexual orientation is the bisexual, who is defined as someone who can get romantically and sexually attracted to members of both the opposite and the same sex.
This is flat wrong, in the Philippine context. It is a reasonable expression of the Western definition, but the Filipino one is quite different. Since I presume the authors were themselves Filipino, quite why they used a Western definition is not something I can explain.
The most common definition of ‘bisexual’ not only in the Philippines but across Southeast Asia would be ‘A male who both penetrates and is penetrated in sex.’ Â Note that females cannot be ‘bisexual’ since they have no penis and cannot penetrate.
To explain this, a man is defined by the fact that he penetrates, while a woman is by being an actual or potential mother. A Homosexual can be a father and yes, a Lesbian can be a mother. However, males have an opening which can serve as a substitute vagina, but females have no equivalent to the penis. (Fingers don’t count.) Therefore since males can both penetrate and be penetrated, they can be bisexual; since females can’t, they can’t.
Types of Bisexual
These are the main types of bisexual: first, Shorthair Bisexuals are Homosexuals who are happy to switch roles with their partners. While they may not be completely feminine, they are highly feminised and might be considered femboys. These may well form intimate relationships with others like themselves, which are somewhat symmetrical, but if they get involved with a man (ie not a Homosexual) will adopt the female sexual role — and may well progress to full longhair presentation.
Second there are pamintas or macho gays who are also prepared to switch; these are markedly more masculine in presentation. Then there are versatiles who may be full longhairs but are prepared, again, both to penetrate and be penetrated. These may also, somewhat disconcertingly, switch between masculine and feminine presentations depending on social circumstances. There are ‘LGBT bisexuals’ who are usually longhair but will have relationships with women. (These are known as ‘t4t’ in the West, meaning ‘trans for trans.’) Finally there is a secretive group called silahis who appear to be Autogynephilic pseudo-bisexuals.
I have uploaded a link the full paper to my site here: https://www.rodfleming.com/links/sex-gender-links/
Flaws
However the paper as a whole is flawed by the consistent use of Western terminology and taxonomy. That is why I have only discussed an extract. For example, it does not distinguish between the social acceptance of heterogender male relationships, to wit a longhair bakla who presents and is accepted as a woman with a masculine man, and homogender relationships where both parties appear to be men or something like. The former case is broadly accepted but the latter much less so. Indeed, if the bakla is beautiful her partner will be praised for his good taste! Nothing comparable ever happens to homogender couples, who remain somewhat regarded with suspicion. This is because they break the ‘boys go with girls and girls go with boys’ rule. Homogender relationships are commonly described as a ‘not match’ or in Tagalog, pompyangan, a clash of cymbals.
The authors also fail to mention, for reasons unknown that in the Philippines, across Asia, Latin America and most of the world only the receptive partner, that is the one who is penetrated, is considered to be ‘gay’ or homosexual. This is because the cultures understand the fundamental rule that men penetrate and so as long as the man does not compromise this, he will not develop ‘green blood’ and become a Homosexual himself. This again is completely at odds with the Western New Gay Man’s understanding — but it is many thousands of years older and better established.
In those sections of the paper that discuss acceptance in the population, to omit such a parameter effectively renders the whole paper pointless. It is never wise to attempt to discuss Asian cultures from a Western standpoint (and vice versa.)
(Cruz, JC and Mallari RBC. Revisiting Social Acceptance of Homosexuality Among Filipino Youth: Some Theoretical and Methodological Implications. May 2008 Philippine Population Review.)
Notes
[1] For reference: just because you sucked your best friend’s penis when you were thirteen does not make you a Homosexual. It just makes you curious.
[2]Â I am well aware that there is a class of male-to-feminine transitioners known as Autogynephiles (Blanchard) who do not conform to this model, but these are outwith this discussion, since they are by definition, not Homosexuals.