Dawn of The Rainbow

“No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin,

or his background, or his religion, or his gender.

People learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally

to the human heart than its opposite”

-Nelson Mandela

Multicultural India has developed its discourse on sexuality differently based on its distinct regions with their own unique cultures. Sexuality encompasses many ideas and has many facets. However, one common aspect remains the existence of a subtle conspiracy of silence and taboos that clouds the Indian world of sexual desires and expressions. The Indian concept of sexuality has evolved and has been immensely influenced by various rulers and religions and manifested in our attire, behavior, recreation, literature, and scriptures. In the modern era, with rapid globalization, the unique Indian sexuality is getting defused.

India is a conservative country and anything that does not follow the accepted social norms and is different is bound to startle our system. Especially expression of sexuality has received uncalled and undesired attention. For example; public display of affection (PDA) is unacceptable in India. Kissing and hugging also are taboo. In fact, under section 294 of the Indian Penal Code, Public display of affection (PDA) is a criminal offense with the punishment of imprisonment of up to three months or a fine, or both. Such a strong response to sexuality, a biological need, push people to behave in ways where they either repress and suffer or express and face the consequences. Worst still is for people with sexual expression and preferences that do not fall within the norms of traditions. LGBTQ+ communities in India are the worst affected and it is not surprising that any form of sexuality (apart from the conventional) is rejected and there is a strong taboo against it.

Pride Month is a special month that celebrates the LGBTQ+ community and helps increase the understanding and acceptance of individuals identifying as LGBTQ+. It was the year 1969 when the gay rights parade in New York was met with violence by the New York Police Department the need to support the community and increase scientific evidence was met. Ever since June has been celebrated as Pride month to help debunk myths regarding the LGBTQ+ and reduce crimes against the community. Science today no longer considers LGBTQ+ as abnormal or a deviation. Studies have been conducted to show it is not a choice. However, due to the taboo attached to it, the community is discriminated against and is forced to make choices where they either have to suffer in silence or commit suicide.

Society’s stigmatizing of the LGBTQ+ community can be very harmful and lead to anxiety, self-doubt (“what’s wrong with me?” I’m not normal”), and a perceived need to be “cured”.

Some experts continue to suggest conversion therapy, which aims to change the LGBTQ+ preference.

Public attitudes have tended to stigmatize LGBTQ+ activity to extent that many of those engaging in it have suffered social and legal mistreatment far beyond the domain of sexual behavior. In recent years, gay activism has increased markedly as the community has battled discrimination and social stigmatization. The need for such battles varies from country to country and culture to culture. Today, Pride month is celebrated all around the world with the aim and hope that one day the community will not have to beg for acceptance and will be met with the same rights as others do.

Research evidence may be playing a role in changing attitudes towards the LGBTQ+ community. Although until the late 1970s homosexuality was considered to be a diagnosable disorder, it is no longer listed as a psychiatric condition in the DSM. Evidence indicating that lesbians and gay men do not differ in psychological adjustment from heterosexual women and men has contributed to this diagnostic change (Rothblum, 1994).

STRUGGLES FACED BY HOMOSEXUALS.

Today, individuals identifying with the LGBTQ+ may be accepted by more Indian youths than ever before, but within the boundaries of family, home, and school, acceptance of their sexuality and freedom to openly express their gender choices remain a constant struggle for them. In urban India, where social media and corporate initiatives have created increased awareness of LGBTQ+ rights, the scenario looks more upbeat for gay men than for transgender people or lesbians. While urban homosexual voices that are heard through several online and real-world platforms form an important part of LGBTQ+ activism, these expose only a small part of the diverse challenges faced by the community.

Far away from pride parades, meet-ups, and heated discussions on Twitter, families in rural India have their ways of dealing with LGBTQ+ individuals. In some parts, secret honor killings are planned so that the only way for one identifying with the community to survive is to run away under the cover of the night to some city, with no money or social support.

In other parts, lesbians are subjected to family-sanctioned corrective rapes, which their family members often perpetrate. yjayanti Vasanta Mogli, a transwoman LGBT activist and public policy scholar at Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Hyderabad, who has openly spoken about her abuse at school, says that lesbians and transmen in rural areas end up at the bottom of the hierarchy when it comes to basic human rights within the unit of family and village.

She invokes B.R. Ambedkar when talking of the rural socioeconomic environment. “Ambedkar thought of the village as a unit of violence and that is truest for LGBTQ+ issues,” she says. “Village medics and babas often prescribe rape to cure lesbians of homosexuality. Refusal to marry brings more physical abuse. Stories of family acceptance that you see on TV and other media are more of an urban phenomenon.” Even in educated urban India, suicides by LGBTQ+ individuals make headlines every year. It comes as no surprise then that a tribunal recently ruled that the only danger to lesbians in India is from their own families.

Over the years there has been a notable global increase in the acceptance of the LGBTQ+. T. W.

Smith et al. (2014) examined the responses to 2000 questions asked in hundreds of surveys since

1981. Their findings show that residents in 90% of all surveyed countries have become more accepting of homosexuality over the past 20 years. Age and gender were shown to have an impact on an individual’s likelihood of accepting homosexuality. Empirical data findings often term the negative attitude as a defensive function: people have a higher level of intolerance towards homosexuals of their same sex as compared to the opposite sex.

The negative attitudes toward the LGBTQ+ generally stem from misled information, myths, and misconceptions such as it being abnormal or unnatural or that it is by choice that homosexuals are attracted to the same sex. These are myths that have been debunked over and over again in recent years by researchers all over the world. Researchers aimed at finding out if spreading awareness about different facts and debunking the myths and misconceptions could change peoples’ negative attitudes.

Summary and Conclusion.

Acceptance of their sexuality and freedom to openly express their choices remains a constant struggle for the LGBTQ+ community.

A Transform Happily Psychologist conducted an intervention to study whether accurate information will bring about change in biased thinking towards the LGBTQ+. The intervention was conducted with the help of the homosexuality attitude scale (HAS) questionnaire and a structured interview process with a total sample of 50 individuals aged 18 years and above. Data was conducted, processed, stored, and analyzed using statistical procedures to compare the means of the population.

Analysis of the data revealed that people had a lower tolerance level towards the LGBTQ+ community. There were gender differences observed in the data obtained. Females were seen to be more tolerant towards homosexuality and were also more comfortable working closely with gay men while the opposite was true for male participants. These gender differences could be attributed to the following reasons:

1.?????The nature of women is more emotional and caring.

2.?????Women are socially sensitive and usually do not like to see people suffer, be abused, or discriminated against as compared to the male population.

The analysis of the data also revealed differences in scores of levels of tolerance towards LGBTQ+ in different age groups. In the pre-test, the eldest age group of 46 and above received the highest score of tolerance followed by the age group of 18-25. The age group of 26-35 was seen to have the lowest tolerance level among all age groups. These differences in scores could be attributed to education obtained, the time individuals grew up, life experiences, traveling countries, exposure to other cultures, religiosity, and political identity to name a few. The results also revealed that most of their participants were tolerant towards LGBTQ+ but accepted that they would not support any of their family members identifying with the community.

Through this intervention, awareness was spread regarding the biology of the LGBTQ+ community and the hardships faced by them. This also suggests that awareness workshops and interventional studies could help change the negative mindset of the society which could aid in curbing discrimination against the community and could also help reduce homophobia among people. Interventions cannot completely bring about attitudinal change. Personal experience plays an important role in changing the attitudes of people. However, an intervention is a stepping stone in bridging the gap and rethinking prejudice against the LGBTQ+ community toward a less biased society.

By Rachel Vaz