I love Arnold Clavio. I love how he handled his interview with Miriam Qiuambao and Naomi Fontanos (Chairwoman of Society of Transsexual Women of the Philippines) on the topic of transgender women being allowed to compete in the Ms. Universe pageant. Clavio kept the mood light, he did not show any bias or transphobia, and he asked the right questions.
I also love Naomi for not letting Miriam get away with her attempt to impose her version of the truth on Naomi. I love Naomi for standing up for transwomen and LGBT people.
But most of all, I love Miriam for embodying what a beauty queen should be. Sure, she does not completely understand the difference between sex and gender. Sure, by saying that womanhood is determined by chromosomes, she has effectively misinformed her more than 250,000 Twitter followers. But I don’t take this against her. It is irresponsible, definitely! But she is a beauty queen, not a gender and sexuality expert. So chill out!
I also love Miriam for using her own masculine childhood experience of playing with soldiers and “going on adventures” and how it did not turn her into a man. And of course, I agree that just because you played with dolls when you were young, it doesn’t mean you will become a woman. I’m not quite sure where she got this line of thinking but hey, beauty queens will be beauty queens. So don’t worry girls, you can do boy stuff and still be a beauty queen when you grow up. Take it from Miriam!
And I just love how she constantly used her faith throughout the discussion. Sure, it was arrogant of her to say that she knew the truth and Naomi didn’t. Hell, she was practically telling Naomi that Naomi’s entire life was a big lie! Sure, she probably doesn’t know that the existence of an absolute truth has been debated by philosophers for so many millennia. But on stage, “Leave it to God” will earn you more beauty queen points than “The truth in a particular context – (is) a statement that is known to be correct —ie. in accord with reality, as corroborated by evidence or related experience.”
So do I hate Miriam Quiambao? Of course not! This whole fuss just reinforced my original belief that beauty pageants should just be abolished in the first place. Miss Universe is run by a rude, disrespectful, macho businessman who cares about ticket sales — not gender equality. If it has to do with gender at all, it perpetuates gender stereotypes. It objectifies women and reduces beauty to being young, single, and infertile (read: get older than 27, marry your partner, or get pregnant and you are disqualified).
Do I love Miriam? Of course! Well, maybe not as much as before but I am still a huge fan of her outer beauty. You could say I’ve lost hope in her when I saw how things turned out after I wrote her an open letter. But when the dust has settled, when people start overreacting to other news, when we start getting used to small steps that lead to social change, I will continue to be amazed by Miriam’s statuesque pose. I will still watch Miriam get clobbered by Eugene Domingo in Kimmy Dora Part 2. And yes, Miriam Quiambao will continue to be Ms. Universe in my eyes!
Image from http://miriamquiambao.tripod.com/home.html
May I point out that, if you would step back a tad, it may dawn on you that the Bb. Pilipinas is a commercial enterprise and someone's exclusive property. It is nothing more than a contest with plainly established rules. You might do well to reference the same before digressing into homophilic/phobic diatribe. We all play by rules–of one kind or another–and risk disparagement for the choices we make. So, yes, do choose to chill out.
I like the frankness of the article. I'm assuming this is a reaction to hate towards Miriam Qiuambao, which I'm glad for (the article, not the hate.) Though one part that irked me, " But she is a beauty queen, not a gender and sexuality expert. So chill out!"
Many supporters of the LGBT community are far from experts, yet they know that telling trans women that they are fake women (so publicly too) is highly rude and degrading.
Ignorance is the root of this prejudice, I know, and ignorance is no one's fault.
However, when a girl steps on your foot and fails to notice (therefore fails to apologize,) it does not make your foot any less stepped on.
"when a girl steps on your foot and fails to notice (therefore fails to apologize,) it does not make your foot any less stepped on." – I love that analogy! 🙂
You know, to a certain extend, I feel some of the hatred might have been a direct result of my open letter. That doesn't make me feel guilty but it does make me feel sad that respect and civility are hard to come by these days. You would think people could feel hatred and could disagree without being rude but I guess it's easier said than done.
Regarding "But she is a beauty queen, not a gender and sexuality expert. So chill out!", mental_detritus raised a similar question and here is how I responded:
mental_detritus: "May I ask that you clarify what you mean by the statement "But she is a beauty queen, not a gender and sexuality expert. So chill out!"? I hope that this does not mean that being a beauty queen is inherently incompatible with being a gender and sexuality expert, or that being a beauty queen is something negative."
rondevera: This article is a result of my experience when I watched Clavio's show. While Miriam was talking about chromosomes, I cringed and felt so disappointed that Miriam did not understand the difference between sex and gender. But then I realized that it was not fair for me to expect that kind of discussion to be surfaced without a gender and sexuality expert on the show (a psychologist? a doctor? an LGBT rights activist? etc) I hope it didn't come across that I was implying there is a dichotomy between being a beauty queen and being a gender and sexuality expert. I have no doubt that there are beauty queens out there who are also experts in gender and sexuality. But Miriam is not one them. So in hindsight, I was actually telling MYSELF to chill out. I hope that made sense.
I appreciate your thoughts! Thanks for sharing! 🙂
I believe Miriam Q is a forthright person but not terribly open-minded and definitely misinformed. I felt extremely offended (yet, it is to be accepted in our religious, patriarchal society) that she implied her beliefs gave her the last word about the definition of womanhood.
I won't comment lengthily on whether transgenders should be included in Ms. Universe and other "women-only" beauty pageants (YES, if they want to be). I'm bringing up the mixed signals that I get in general about beauty pageants and beauty queens…
I'm not a fan of beauty pageants, from many perspectives. Aesthetically, they are too kitschy for my taste (Did you see the video intro to Bb. Pilipinas 2012? I almost died laughing; whoever did that should be shot.) As a promoter of alternative definitions of beauty, I find women who are willing to embrace their own strange, unique beauty much more attractive than the contestants.
May I ask that you clarify what you mean by the statement "But she is a beauty queen, not a gender and sexuality expert. So chill out!"? I hope that this does not mean that being a beauty queen is inherently incompatible with being a gender and sexuality expert, or that being a beauty queen is something negative.
As a counterpoint, I think that pageant contestants, in general, shouldn't be disparaged for their conscious choice to join a competition, or engage in an activity that seems contrary to what feminism preaches. I'm finding faint parallels in the general disapproval of the "feminist" community for women who like dressing up sexy, undergo plastic surgery for cosmetic purposes, those who shave body hair, are housewives, are in the BDSM community, or those who engage in sex work.
It's all about informed, free choice. To be a supporter of feminist and LGBT causes will sometimes mean supporting people for making decisions that run contrary to high expectations, such as being a misinformed fundie beauty queen.
//May I ask that you clarify what you mean by the statement "But she is a beauty queen, not a gender and sexuality expert. So chill out!"? I hope that this does not mean that being a beauty queen is inherently incompatible with being a gender and sexuality expert, or that being a beauty queen is something negative.//
This article is a result of my experience when I watched Clavio's show. While Miriam was talking about chromosomes, I cringed and felt so disappointed that Miriam did not understand the difference between sex and gender. But then I realized that it was not fair for me to expect that kind of discussion to be surfaced without a gender and sexuality expert on the show (a psychologist? a doctor? an LGBT rights activist? etc) I hope it didn't come across that I was implying there is a dichotomy between being a beauty queen and being a gender and sexuality expert. I have no doubt that there are beauty queens out there who are also experts in gender and sexuality. But Miriam is not one them. So in hindsight, I was actually telling MYSELF to chill out. I hope that made sense. 😀
It does make a whole lot of sense! Thanks for the clarification. 🙂
By the standards of the Bb. Pilipinas (Ms. Universe is a bit less fussy due to its global scope), Miriam does make the perfect beauty queen, upholding traditional values and Christian belief. Of course, this is puzzling in terms of her recent sexed-up persona and divorce, both of which are entirely acceptable in other liberal communities except for the traditional Christian one. Not disparaging her choices, just highlighting the fact that people can be quite bipolar with their life choices and beliefs. Strange.
//As a counterpoint, I think that pageant contestants, in general, shouldn't be disparaged for their conscious choice to join a competition, or engage in an activity that seems contrary to what feminism preaches. I'm finding faint parallels in the general disapproval of the "feminist" community for women who like dressing up sexy, undergo plastic surgery for cosmetic purposes, those who shave body hair, are housewives, are in the BDSM community, or those who engage in sex work.//
Excellent point you bring up here. You are right. It's about informed, free choice. Your examples remind me of how some members of the LGBT community disapprove of open relationships because they think it perpetuates negative stereotypes. Thanks, that's definitely worth rethinking.
Just thought of another idea that might need rethinking: how some in the feminist and LGBT communities (and society in general) are against those who use their sublime physical assets for financial and personal gain. The negativity isn't as bad for actors, but gets worse for beauty queens, models and starlets. Let's not even mention porn actors and other sex workers here.
Most of this probably is just ill-concealed envy, but I seem to think some of it is a knee-jerk reaction to what they perceive as commodification of people's bodies. The industry is obviously soul-sucking and opportunistic, but if a beauty queen or car show model feels empowered, is comfortable, not at all abused, and is gainfully compensated for her efforts, then are they in any way objectified? Where do you draw the line between being objectified and reveling in your power as a naturally sexual, beautiful person?
Thanks for all the blog posts and replies, BTW. Learning so much!
I'll be honest. I have respect for LGBT's, for their rights but I don't wanna be a fundamentalist like I have to believe in everything. I wish in issues like these we can't be on the too extreme cause I don't wanna be called hypocrite for not agreeing to something I don't want to but still supporting the others aspects