Arch Sex Behav (2008) 37:668–670

DOI 10.1007/s10508-008-9345-x
BOOK REVIEW

Sexual Identity: Effeminacy Among University Students

By Noraini Mohd Noor, Jamil Farooqui, Ahmad Abd. Al-Rahim Nasr, Hazizan Bin
Md. Noon, and Shukran Abdul Rahman. International Islamic University,
Malaysia, 2005, 231 pp., RM43.50.

Sam Winter
Published online: 12 March 2008
_ Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

The study of sexuality and gender are (perhapsmore thanmost other topics in the
humanities and social sciences) inextricably linked to culture and values.
Researchers in gender and sexuality inevitably bring their own values (and often
those of their culture) to the table, whether or not they are aware of doing so.
That fact is never so clear as in the research that forms the basis for this book.

Published by the Research Centre at the International Islamic University of

Malaysia (IIUM), the book reports on the work of five researchers into the
(perceived) problem of effeminacy among male students in higher education.
These students are apparently often known on campus as ‘‘lelaki lembut’’
(literally ‘‘soft men’’ or ‘‘softies’’). Their effeminacy is evident; we are told, ‘‘in
terms of dressing and physical outlook (using make-up and dressing as women,
looking beautiful and attractive like women) as well as behavior (acting
effeminately, speaking softly, and behaving like women)’’ (p. 21). These
characteristics, argue the authors, ‘‘highlight the desire of softies to emulate
women’s look, attire and behavior’’ (p. 21).We are told that softies are ‘‘mild
transsexuals’’ (p. 11) in that they ‘‘adopt themanner, style, dressing and gestures
of females’’ (p. 11), though ‘‘the extent towhich they really want to belong and
identify with the opposite sex and to undergo sex reassignment operation, is still
unclear’’ (p. 11).

The links between effeminacy and transsexualism (and indeed between

effeminacy and homosexuality) are a matter of some concern to the authors.
They draw our attention to some of the Malaysian research on these topics,
mentioning Teh and Khartini’s research into mak nyahs (the Malay word for MtF
transpeople). I find Teh and Khartini’s research (made available to an
international audience by Teh (2003)) compelling reading. It paints a sad picture
of prejudice and discrimination against an entire gender community, with
consequent social marginalization. The book under review pays little attention to
this aspect of Teh and Khartini’s work, remarking only on these authors’ plea
(understandable in view of their findings) for Malay society to attempt a better
understanding of the mak nyah community, and to improve communication.

It is clear that the authors of this volume would want to ensure that young
boys do not become mak nyahs. They note that male effeminacy is often
observed well before a student reaches university, often in childhood and early
adolescence, worrying that such effeminacy, ‘‘if allowed to continue, may lead to
transvestism, transsexualism or homosexualism in later life’’ (p. 10).

We are told that the problem of male effeminacy has apparently been
causing increasing concern inMalaysia, even drawing comment from a Senior
Minister (Datuk Dr. Siti Zaharah Sulaiman),who called upon universities to
‘‘examine the roots of the problem before the situation gets worse’’ (p. vii). The
authors embrace the task, taking a view of the topic that is as energetically
problematizing as that of the Minister. Their aims are not only ‘‘to gain a better
understanding of sexual and gender identities’’ (p. 12), but also in worryingly
worded passages, ‘‘to explore the origins and determinants of effeminacy and
related problems’’ (p. 12) and ‘‘to make some recommendations to deal with the
problem’’ (p. 12).

The authors pursue their research in three steps. First, they developed an
instrument for measuring students’ perceptions about softies, and gave it to 150
students. The authors dwell on what the students say about softies (e.g., the
causes of softy behavior, typical softy activities, preferred softy careers, softy
sexuality), as well as their suggestions for dealing with the softy

S. Winter (&)
Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong, Run Me Shaw
Building, Room 418, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong S.A.R,
People’s Republic of China
e-mail: sjwinter@hku.hk Arch Sex Behav (2008) 37:668–670

problem. These last suggestions make for interesting reading. Just under half
the students argue for imposition of stricter university rules about effeminate
appearance and behavior. Others argue for better religious education, or for
attempts to understand softies, or offer them counseling. One gets the
impression that the student body at IIUM backs the establishment view that this
softy problem is really one that needs to be dealt with. Yet, if one looks more
closely at the data, one wonders whether this is truly the case. The authors tell
us that the mean score for the students on this scale was 104.67. Yet, the scoring
range for their instrument is 58–290, with highest scores indicating more negative
attitudes. It seems that the students are overall rather more accepting of the
softies than rejecting, an aspect of the data that remains unremarked upon by the
authors.
 The authors’ second step was to develop a set of questionnaires for the
softies themselves, aiming to measure their ‘‘states of psychological functioning
and emotional disturbance’’ (p. 12) for comparison with matched samples of
‘‘normal’’ males and females. Forty-five softies agreed to take part in this aspect
of the research (largely, one suspects, because one softy offers to distribute the
questionnaires among friends). The respondents display varying levels of
effeminacy. The authors note, with evident relief, that many are ‘‘still at the initial
stage of being full mak nyahs’’ (p. 68).

The questionnaire results are in some ways predictable. Softies, it turns

out, are more like their female than male classmates in several ways; in terms of
attitude to their bodies, their sex roles, and their thinking styles. They also display
levels of self-esteem much lower than either males or females. This finding
prompts deeper reflection than is given by the authors, who suggest that it is all
due to their dissatisfaction with their bodies and uncertainties about self. What,
one wonders, about the effects of daily prejudice and discrimination? One
suspects that Teh and Khartini might have something to add here to the
discussion.

Perhaps the most intriguing finding is that the softies display lower levels
ofmental distress than either their male or female counterparts. The authors are
clearly taken aback, and we find them reflecting on what it all means: ‘‘...having
seen that these individuals are quite satisfied with their condition, should we
impose our values and standards on them and force them to change?’’ (p. 37).
They conclude ‘‘although it will be difficult for the Malaysian public to accept them
due to religious and traditional values of society, the findings of the present study
suggest that effeminates are here to stay.Of course, counseling and other forms
of rehabilitation techniques will only be offered to those who request for them’’ (p.
37). As we will see, the tolerance in this passage is more apparent than real.

The third step in the research is to interview some softies and their friends
about the softy lifestyle. Predictably enough, only five softies were willing to be
interviewed. To their credit, the authors later on remark that one of the reasons
for this non-cooperation might be ‘‘a general distrust of the researchers who were
associated with the university authorities’’ (p. 66). I imagine they may be correct.

While only five softies are willing to be interviewed, 20 ‘‘friends of softies’’

step forward. But who are these people? They are selected not by the softies
themselves, but by research assistants employed by the authors for this stage of
the research project. Not surprising then, some of the ‘‘friends’’ seem to be less
supportive of softies than one would expect. Suggestions for helping their softy
friends range from (at the liberal end of the spectrum) weekly lectures, military
training, inculcation of Islamic values, and enforcing proper dress codes, to (the
more radical solutions of) public punishments and dismissals. With friends like
these, who needs enemies?

The interviews with the five softies, reproduced in full in Bahasa Malaysia
and comprising half the book, provide what is, for this reviewer, one of the few
uplifting sections of the book. One catches a view of people who are comfortable
with their identity as softies, see themselves as different rather than deviant,
recall being different since their early childhood, have experienced discrimination
on- and offcampus, yet who are optimistic about their futures, assert their right to
be different within Islam, and claim (despite accusations to the contrary) to be
good Moslems.

If this section is the most uplifting in the book, then the final chapter
(‘‘General Discussion, Recommendations and Conclusions’’) is, for this reader,
the most depressing. The authors make clear their position in the fourth
paragraph: ‘‘What is needed is an environment that curbs further propagation of
this [behavior], by not tolerating and making it difficult to be practiced’’ (p. 62).
Later on, we get a list of specific recommendations aiming ‘‘(i) to control softies’
activities on campus; (ii) to rehabilitate softies to accept their sexuality; and (iii) to
prevent the increase in the numbers of softies on campus’’ (p. 67). Universities,
we are told, need to have a clear policy about softies. ‘‘It has to be clearly stated
that softies’ lifestyle is an undesirable phenomenon to the university, its
community and, most importantly, it is against the teachings of Islam’’ (p. 68).
Softies’ behaviors, being undesirable and contradictory to the norms of the
university, must be accordingly punished (e.g., cross-dressing). The punishment
meted out should be strong enough to induce uncomfortable and unpleasant
feelings in the softies so that they are less likely to repeat these behaviors (p.
68). Earlier in the book, the authors appeared to come out against forced
counseling and rehabilitation. It becomes apparent in the final chapter that the
agenda is to make life so unpleasant for the practicing softy that he steps forward
of his own free will to request help. And the authors end their book with some
suggestions for such rehabilitation. Counseling is there, alongside modeling and
Islamic teaching.

There on the list too is behavior therapy. I have worked for 8 years in the
area of sexual and gender diversity. But I also have 30 years of experience as an
educational psychologist,

Arch Sex Behav (2008) 37:668–670 669

using techniques such as behavior therapy, and seeing for myself the very great
benefits for children, adolescents, and adultswithwhomIworked. But it saddens
me greatly, both as a psychologist and as a behavior analyst, to see these
techniques (along with other methods for helping people) being touted for such
questionable goals, targeted upon people for whomthe only justification for
‘‘treatment’’ is that they do not fit in, and for whom the only limit on their quality of
life is that those around them cannot accept their difference. As I indicated
earlier, all of us who research sexuality and gender bring our own values, and
perhaps those of our own cultures, to our work. That is as true for me as it is for
the authors of this book. I amone of thoseEnglish straightmarried Christian males
who find in human sexual and gender diversity a celebration of the richness not
only of humanity, but also of creation. Iama psychologistwho sees inmembers of
sexual and genderminority group people who are neither deviant nor disordered.
Rather, the deviance and disorder lies in the unwillingness or inability of those
around themto accept their diversity. This book clearly comes out of another
values set. While I accept the right (within limits) of the researchers to do this
work, and the publishing house (within limits) to publish it, I believe that those,
like me, who take a different view of sexual and gender diversity have an
obligation to search out scientificwork that serves to suppress entire social
groups, and (where we find it) to blow the whistle, speaking out against
intolerance and prejudice aswe do so. In the case ofMalaysia, the country’s
failure to sign the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights only
increases that obligation.

Reference
Teh, Y. K. (2003).TheMakNyahs:Malaysian male to female transsexuals.
Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.

Http: //www.springerlink.com/content/rk2pu53w652577ko/fulltext.pdf