Justice4Harvey (Part 1/2): The impact of the 377A law on male-on-male sexual assault, and how gender ideology messes it up
Part 1: The Civil Lawsuit. A tragic story that of course deserves justice, but which is not helped by gender ideology confusing the narrative.
Disclaimer: This is an opinion piece. I am not a legal adviser, nor a lawyer of any sort. I admit that I may be misinformed on some facts, in which case, please feel free to correct me and I will update my post. I have done my due diligence on the facts of this case to the best of my limited abilities otherwise.
I will be using biology-based pronouns (male pronouns) to refer to Harvey throughout this piece. This is not to be unkind, but because female pronouns will continue to confuse the narrative on exactly WHY Harvey was unable to pursue a case against his rapist (male-on-male rape), as well as the reasoning for why biological males should not be placed in female prisons regardless of their gender identity and/or behavior.
I wish Harvey peace of mind, healing, and all the best with his pursuit of justice against his rapist. This should never have happened to you.
Part 1: The Civil Lawsuit
The infamous 377A law. Singapore is a country where sexual activity between two males is still illegal in law, the appeal of which has been rejected multiple times, with the most recent rejection at time of writing being in Feb 2022.
I stumbled across this petition on change.org as a random recommendation. The story and resulting discoveries blew my mind, but for many of the wrong reasons.
To summarize this story: Harvey, “assigned male at birth”, was sexually assaulted by another male. Harvey was denied legal action multiple times to pursue his assailant on the basis that any sex act between males is illegal in Singapore as per 377A, including non-consensual acts (in this case, rape). Harvey later transitions, destroys public property during a PTSD-induced flashback, and gets arrested for it; he also publicly doxxes his assailant, sends terrorist threats to the police, gets charged for it as well; then finally uses the basis of being "a transgender woman" to refuse being placed in male prisons for said charges.
This is also despite admitting on said Change.org petition that:
Harvey is a non-operative transgender woman. This means that [he] has not and may not desire to get gender-affirming surgery to the extent demanded by the law in order to be recognized as a woman.
I will be pulling quotes from the following main sources, as the story is fragmented between various articles:
[1] Harvey’s change.org petition (Archive)
[2] Harvey’s carrd.co campaign detailing the case (Archive)
[3] Nestia’s coverage of the timeline and events (Archive)
(Make note of the second quote under 2014 that says “State does not recognize Harvey as a transwoman; IMH places her in male forensic ward.” I’ll get back to this later.)
2014, Feb - "Harvey", born biologically male, “was arrested for alleged terrorism-related offences. Normally people are released on bail but as I have Asperger’s Syndrome, I was remanded in IMH for 11 days awaiting a psychiatric report. [3]" Harvey is then sexually assaulted by another male while at the Institute of Mental Health (IMH). He lodges a police report about the sexual assault.
2016, Mar - The police report is closed as the "rape was not considered serious or severe enough [2]", and no action was taken against Harvey's rapist. Harvey files for a civil suit of "negligence and vicarious liability" with National Healthcare Group (NHG) instead as the only route left.
2021, Mar - The civil suit is struck down due to 377A, in addition to "denial of right to legal capacity" due to being on the autism spectrum.
National Healthcare Group's (NHG) lawyers also invoked that the existence of S377A, meaning that Harvey cannot get any claims for damages from a civil suit since [he] was 'engaging' in a criminal act, even if it was really sexual assault. The court ordered that [his] case cannot be reinstated while S377A exists.
NHG’s lawyers argued that Harvey was unfit to represent [himself] because of “an abnormality of mind,” citing, in particular, [his] gender identity “disorder”. [3]
Because sexual acts between males is criminalized in Singapore, even if said "sexual acts" was really due to sexual assault, Harvey was unable to pursue justice against his rapist.
This is horrific. Of course anyone reading about this should be furious about the sheer injustice of it. Sexual assault is sexual assault, regardless of who it happens to.
377A further stigmatizes and prevents males of all sexual orientations from seeking proper legal action against male on male rapes. It's used against them, as seen here. But the law still is kept on record to appease “traditional views of mainstream society”, even if they've said it's only in name:
The Court of Appeal on Monday (Feb 28 2022) ruled that Section 377A of the Penal Code - which criminalizes sex between men - stays on the books but cannot be used to prosecute men for having gay sex.
[...] The law makes it a crime for a man, whether in public or in private, to commit any act of “gross indecency” with another man, and carries a jail term of up to two years.
In 2007, after a robust parliamentary debate on whether Section 377A should be repealed, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said the status quo must remain but made it clear that the law would not be proactively enforced.
This was because the Government took the view that a balance had to be struck between accepting homosexual individuals as part of society and respecting the more traditional views of mainstream society, said the court.
[...] The expectations of gay men that Section 377A will generally not be enforced in the context of private consensual acts merit legal protection, said the court.
(Archive)
In Singapore, male-on-male rape was only recognized as a criminal offense from 1 Jan 2020, a whole year before Harvey’s civil lawsuit (which was started in Dec 2016) was dismissed in Mar 2021 [2], and two years before 377A was amended to not be enforceable for private consenting (male) adults.
I repeat: The entire issue is because Harvey is male. He has been discriminated against on the basis of being sexually assaulted as a male, regardless of the numerous other reasons listed on his campaign about “not fit(ting) the idealised image of a victim [2]”. You will notice that the campaign also mentions every other factor (“Class, race and gender”) except the most important one:
SEX.
It is the very basis of Harvey’s BIOLOGICAL MALE SEX that 377A was invoked against him, not his gender.
If Harvey was a really a “woman” who had been raped by a man, “she” would never have had the civil suit thrown out because of 377A, since it only applies to males. (And yes, transwomen are male - because if they were female they would never have needed to transition in the first place.) And that is why I insist on using factual, biology-based pronouns for Harvey, to accurately explain the precise problem with this case.
(The following comments are speculation on my part.)
You'll notice that the petition, the campaign, and the article, all started in 2020s, all refer to Harvey as a "transgender woman", a "transwoman", with she/her pronouns. The entire campaign has been framed as the story of a transwoman who was assaulted because she was forced into a male ward, assaulted by a male rapist, and is now being denied legal action due to transphobia.
The assault happened in Feb 2014, where Harvey says “I was detained together with male prisoners because I was assigned male at birth, despite being anatomically intersex and female presenting [3]”.
But Harvey apparently only started socially and hormonally transitioning as a transwoman in Mar-June 2018.
I don’t claim to know Harvey’s personal history or medical diagnosis. I will say however that there are often known overlaps between people who are on the spectrum and/or have trauma in their history identifying as transgender in their future, and it concerns me that Harvey might possibly fall under one of said cases where gender ideology was offered as a bandaid solution; especially with regards to the trauma he has experienced, particularly that he apparently transitioned AFTER the fact, and not before as the sources are saying.
I’m not sure if Harvey is able to re-open the case against his rapist now that the laws surrounding 377A have been modified to finally, officially recognize male-on-male rape as a criminal offense. From my layman’s perspective, I think he should, if the statues of limitations and whatever haven’t run out yet (again, not a legal person). It has clearly caused him an immense amount of pain and suffering, and he should never have had to experience this the way he had, let alone for so many years. Harvey was targeted because of his sex, refused legal action on the basis of his sex, and then discriminated against on the basis of his sex. Not his gender. You cannot argue your case when you can’t directly acknowledge what contributed to it.
It is my hope that if he does, that Harvey will be able to finally bring his rapist to justice, and get the closure he needs for himself.
All the best, Harvey.
How did a case about pursuing justice against his rapist (as a victim) become one of not wanting to be placed in a prison of his biological sex (as an offender)? To be covered in [Part 2: The Criminal Convictions]
Further Reading:
TransgenderTrend:
- Autism and Gender Dysphoria
- Detransition Studies
Jesse Singal:
Gender Dysphoria, Trauma, and Online Misinformation (Archive)
Parents of Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria:
Other Causes for Gender Dysphoria