THE MALE-FEMALE TANTRIC UNION IN VAJRAYANA: HOMOPHOBIC HETERONORMATIVITY OR BASIC BIOLOGICAL AND INNER ESSENCES?

Worldly notions of gender and sexist male-female distinctions

“Man is defined as a human being and a woman as a female — whenever she behaves as a human being she is said to imitate the male.”

–Simone de Beauvoir, ‘The Second Sex’

From a worldly perspective, the question of gender identity and transgender is a hotly debated topic in feminist, transgender and LGBT circles, with the greater freedom and expression now enjoyed by transvestites and transgender people (in some cultures and countries). I am not an expert on this topic. However, much as I am a liberal who believes people should be able to love, dress and look as they please (within the bounds of human ethics and non-violence), I tend to agree with gender-critical commentators who resist and push back against the idea that someone becomes the same as a biological ‘woman’ merely by changing their physical appearance to look like a woman and saying they identify as such.

Transgender women often choose to demonstrate their ‘womanhood’ with silicone breast implants, injections of synthetic female hormones, dresses and high heels. However, fully functioning breasts (that produce milk), womb and vagina cannot be implanted in a biological man (yet). For that reason (and others), many biological women (who have grown up being identified as female) have argued that there is more to being a woman than supposedly identifying as, looking and acting like one (with all the sexist ideals about what that means physically and socially). For more on this, read Abigail Shrier’s article, The Transgender War on Women and Australian feminist and academic, Germaine Greer who explained in an interview that:

“Apparently people have decided that because I don’t think that post-operative transgender men are women, I’m not to be allowed to talk. I’m not saying that people should not be allowed to go through that procedure, what I’m saying is it doesn’t make them a woman.”

The point being that whatever one may think about Greer (or any other biological woman) in terms of her physical appearance and conduct, being born into a body with naturally functioning breasts, womb, periods, vagina and female hormones, they are more woman than any post-operation transgender ‘woman’ with artificial breasts, synthetic female hormones and castrated penis can, or should claim. 

It is not just lesbians and gender-critical feminists who are resisting such claims, in June 2020, popular British writer, J K Rowling (author of Harry Potter) also spoke about transgender activism and the hate she, and others, have faced from transgender women for merely daring to question or disagree with their claims to be accepted as full women, with the same status as biological women.

In addition, it is worthy to note that transgender men (who are biologically women) do not seem to have the same public heated debates with biological men about being called ‘men’ and do not make the same aggressive demands to have access to men-only spaces, such as bathrooms and changing rooms etc. The reason for that is perhaps obvious to biological women, transgender men feel equally unsafe around biological men in such men-only spaces, as do biological women.

Notions of race and white or black skin colour, does physical appearance and feelings over-ride biology and lived experience?

Like a white person identifying as being a a black person (which has happened recently in the case of Rachel Dolezal, who incurred the wrath of many white and black people for doing so), it is not merely a matter of changing the tone of one’s skin colour or hair texture. One of the things that has so infuriated some of her critics is their belief that she, unlike African Americans, has made a choice without experiencing the trials of what it is to grow up black in the US.  Thus, both women and black people rightly resist such shallow sexist (and racist) ideas of what it means to be female and/or black.  The lived, inner experience (and hormonal biology) of growing up as a female or person of colour, in particular, a female who is often physically weaker, with lower levels of testosterone yet with the extraordinary capacity to use her body to give birth to and feed children, who has a womb, monthly periods and has sexual intercourse with a vagina and so on, is more than just skin-deep, or trivial functions, and a fundamental part of what it means to be a female.  However, that does not mean that transgender people don’t experience prejudice, discrimination and bullying, they do and that is wrong. But it is not the same prejudice/lived experience as the sexism, misogyny and biological experience of that of biological females.

Whatever one’s view is though, in terms of Vajrayana/Tantric Buddhist physical union practice transgender people would be deemed male or female based on their biological and inner bodies (not their post-operative trans bodies), and (according to Tibetan medicine and tantric texts) they would not be able to artificially change that (for more on that see below).

Buddhist sexuality: is it misogynist, homophobic and/or heternormative?

There is no doubt that Buddhist cultures (in their various manifestations) is misogynist. In 2016, an excellent article by Devdutt Pattanaik ‘There’s a Misogynist Aspect of Buddhism that Nobody Talks About’ was written about this issue here.  He says:

“Hinduism is patriarchal. No doubt about it. So are Christianity and Islam, Sikhism and Shinto, Jainism and Judaism. But Buddhism? It is not the first religion that comes to mind when we talk about misogyny. The assumption is that Buddhism is rational, modern, agnostic, and liberal in matters of gender and sexuality. Book after book has conditioned us to see the celibate and chaste Buddha as a kind of androgynous, asexual, gentle sage with a beatific smile. Yet, some of the earliest and most systematic documentation of rejection of female sexuality in Indian literature is from Buddhist scriptures, especially the rules of monastic discipline (Vinaya Pitaka), traditionally attributed to the Buddha himself.”

While I agree with him that Buddhist culture, and perhaps some of the Vinaya discipline and rules, can (and has been interpreted in a misogynist way) I would also assert that other types of Buddhist philosophy or teachings (such as tantra/Vajrayana) are not themselves misogynist, homophobic or heteronormative in specifically banning female sexuality and/or LGBT relations. According to Buddha, all relations based only on sexual desire, attachment and dualism are a source of suffering, and thus homosexual ones are no different from heterosexual ones, in that respect.

However, Buddha gave clear instructions that advise people to base such relations on love and compassion and in addition, in particular, to not engage in penile penetration of certain orifices, such as the mouth or anus for reasons to do with inner channels, chakras and so on.   So, in that respect, certain types of sexual conduct (particularly that of male homosexuals) are generally forbidden/not encouraged if one is serious about yogic practice and enlightenment.

As for monastics, all conduct based on worldly sexual desires is discouraged and forbidden. Although only sexual penetration of orifices is a breach of the root monastic vow of celibacy, other types of sexual contact or relations (even that of a monk being alone in a room with a woman) are breaches of secondary vows. Thus, male-male, female-female, male-female sexual relations are breaches of monastic vows and lifestyle. If a monastic struggles to maintain such discipline and vows, they should seriously consider disrobing and giving back their vows, rather than bring themselves and monasticism into disrepute.

Buddha also taught that generally, people should not eat murdered animal flesh (meat) either, and gave many reasons for that in the Lankavatara Sutra, not only due to the cruelty and lack of compassion for the animals, but also for reasons connected to the subtle body, chakras and the negative mental habit that is formed by eating animal flesh (more likely to be reborn in the animal and lower realms) and even the bad smell that is emitted and scares animals by meat-eaters.

Of course, many who identify as Buddhists engage in such forbidden types of sexual conduct and also eat meat regularly. That does not mean they are not Buddhist per se, but they are certainly not following Buddha’s advice on these topics and would not necessarily be termed good Buddhist practitioners. Like a liar saying they are honest, what one identifies/labels oneself as is not the ‘proof in the pudding’ as to what one actually is per se.

In any case, for that reason too, physical tantric union practice would not be physically permissible (or even possible) between a biological man-man or woman-woman.