A gender critical response to "Section 377A: Putting children first", published 3 August 2022
A 400-word limit couldn't quite contain everything I really wanted to say, but I tried.
I had originally submitted the below letter to Singapore’s The Straits Times on 18 August, before 377A's repeal became known news on 22 Aug 2022; unfortunately and understandably, this therefore did not get published.1
I have since submitted this letter as a comment to Jason Wong's Facebook post directly instead, in hopes that we can come together on the common ground that safeguarding children is needed.
I write in response to "Section 377A: Putting children first", published 3 August 2022.2
I am a same-sex attracted Singaporean woman who is thankful that Jason Wong and Mohd Khair have raised the alarm on the rise of gender ideology in Singapore (the belief that anyone is whatever "gender" they feel like).
I fully agree with the sentiment that our children, youth, and even adults, are being negatively impacted by this ideology that has spread across social media, which tells them that "gender", a term often used interchangeably with "biological sex", is now being pushed as an innate, undefinable, and unquestionable selfhood that is separate from, and which may even supersede, the reality of biological sex. Pink Dot themselves have advocated for this, asking that "transgender Singaporeans [be allowed] to change their legal sex without the need for medical or surgical requirements."3
What I would like to point out however, is that the topics of child safeguarding, gender ideology, heterosexual marriage, and 377A, are four completely separate issues that seem to have been conveniently lumped together under the same umbrella.
Gender ideology does not form the basis of 377A, which discriminates against ONLY men having sex with other men. A biological human male who identifies as a woman (transwoman), for example, would not be exempt from this. Neither would a woman who identifies as a man (transman) be prosecuted on the basis of 377A, as she is biologically female. Consequently, 377A also has nothing to do with heterosexual marriage - it is only concerned with sexual acts. (The family unit argument likewise falls under this.)
Gender ideology (TQ) has nothing to do with same-sex attraction (LGB). A homosexual is one because he or she is same-SEX attracted. We are homoSEXuals, not homoGENDERals.
Jason Wong and Mohd Khair are absolutely right that this is happening in Singapore (see: "Ashlee"4, and "Ah Girls Go Army"5). Too often, similar opinions are immediately denounced as hate speech, bigotry, and intolerance, even as the Tavistock in UK is currently being sued by 1,000 families for performing said "gender-affirming care" on teenagers6, and numerous people who have been lied to and harmed by gender ideology, known as "detransitioners"7, have been growing rapidly, speaking their truth that biological sex is real and immutable.
I hope we can come together on safeguarding issues, without throwing same-sex attracted and non-conforming Singaporeans under the bus.
My work + life also kept me from responding timely, and there was a five-day waiting period after that between submitting my letter to ST, and being able to publish it on other platforms once I had received confirmation (read: no reply) that my letter was not going to be used. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯