Pride with Prejudice: talk on sex and gender falls through at Singapore's Science Centre
Activists have pointed to conservative talking points echoing those made by U.S. Republicans and alt-right hate groups.
On Sunday, June 2, Science Centre in Singapore announced an event titled “What is the difference between Gender and Sex?,” scheduled to be held on Friday, June 14, at Projector X.
The ticketed event, open only to individuals aged 18 and above, was introduced as a talk featuring Mie Hiramoto, professor of sociolinguistics and and linguistic anthropology in the Department of English Language and Literature at the National University of Singapore (NUS), youth counsellor Alexander Teh of local LGBTQ+ non-profit Oogachaga, and drag queen Becca D’Bus, all of whom had intended to showcase their personal journey exploring the concepts of sex and gender and the intricate relationship between the two.
In just a few hours following the announcement, local organization ProtectSingapore, which “aims to protect the values of marriage, family, children and conscience,” issued a call for action against the event on their Telegram group, which counts over 2000 members.
Using terms such as “gender and sexuality ideologies,” the group resorted to familiar tactics of fear mongering, alluding to the idea that the very existence of queer people poses a threat to the traditional fabric of Singapore society, which emphasizes children and families within heterosexual marriage.
They also proceeded to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the speakers involved, accusing them of being “likely biased” as a result of their LGBTQ+ identity, and on the grounds that “none of [them] are scientists,” before asserting that their results are “highly controversial and unproven.”
By the end of that same day, Science Centre had issued a statement that the event was cancelled, offering little explanation, instead thanking “everyone who have provided us with feedback,” and adding they “would like to take the opportunity to review our approach to this session.”
This rather impressive chain reaction, which unfolded in the span of merely 12 hours or so, points to a status quo that has taken roots since Singapore made the historical decision in August 2022 to repeal Section 377A, a British colonial era law that used to criminalize consenxual male same-xex relations, a process that cultimated in late November that same year.
In the same breath, former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had also announced that the definition of marriage as the union between a man and a woman would be enshrined within the city-state’s constitution, eventually adding more roadbloacks on the way to true equality between queer people and their cisgender heterosexual counterparts.
A few days later, Minister of Home Affairs K. Shanmugam had come forward to clarify that the prevailing media guidelines, which restrict the discussion of queer themes in public media and imposes strict age limits on who can consume such content, would remain unchanged despite the repeal.
To many activists at the time, these steps backwards had outshined the promise of a more inclusive Singapore that came with the announcement of repeal, and hinted at an uncomfortable status quo whereby queer people, particularly sexual minorities, would exist in a limbo beyond decriminalization while still falling short of legal recognition. In a sense, it felt as though repeal was as far as the People’s Action Party (PAP), the country’s ruling party since 1959, was willing to go.
In light of this Science Centre debacle, it’s becoming harder to not validate the concerns voiced by activists as early as 2022. Despite clear restrictions on who could access the event — thereby excluding children, which ProtectSingapore claims to protect — the speed at which the group rallied to shut down the event shows that societal taboos on the question of queer rights and recognition did not go away with 377A.
The language used by ProtectSingapore will sound familiar to anyone who has previously been exposed to key alt right arguments leveraged in the U.S. by Republicans and other conservatives staunchly opposed to increased gay & trans rights, including reducing queer viewpoints to mere “ideologies,” and casting doubt on the science behind sex and gender, which remains unequivocal.
In an exit interview with CNA shortly before ending his time as Prime Minister last month, Lee warned against the dangers of “wokeness,” which he described as a Western movement, “when you become super sensitive about other people’s issues and you become hypersensitive when other people […] say things […] or refer to you without the respect which you or your super subgroup feel you are entitled to.”
Initially referring to it in the context of academic & institutional safe spaces, which he said can become “very burdensome,” it’s easy to see how this example could be applied to ProtectSingapore’s response to the Science Centre event.
In a statement issued by Pink Dot, Singapore’s largest LGBTQ+ advocacy group and host of the eponymous annual rally, activists said that “no one is being forced to attend such events but denying others the opportunity […] stifles necessary and open discussions vital for a more inclusive society.”
Indeed, much of the barrier to queer integration lies in the lack of information and education opportunities for people to understand the complexities that come with sex, gender, and sexuality, and how these can be overcome in the Singapore context. Against this backdrop, more conversation and learning opportunities are needed; the opposite can only sustain a cycle of perpetual ignorance.
While ProtectSingapore disregarded the listed speakers as “none of them are scientists,” there is value in incorporating the perspectives of people who have firsthand experienced gender and sexuality dysphoria.
Since I started working with queer Singaporeans to highlight the various struggles and activist spaces the community turns to here, I’ve come to realize the importance of exposure to get the average citizen to empathize with the cause. Many local queer people have shared experiences of being their family’s first queer experience, and the reticence their loved ones displayed in response to them coming out was oftentimes due to fear and lack of background on these issues.
While the rise of social media has provided invaluable platforms for queer people in Singapore to express themselves, figure out their identity, and seek much-needed support they might have issues finding in their everyday lives, it’s also given a rallying tool for conservatives to rally and oppose change in the city-state.
The Science Centre eventually shows the challenges that inevitably come when trying to bridge digital and physical spaces in Singapore, in the context of inducing social change. Fostering meaningful conversations on the topic of gender and sexuality will remain a challenge so long as the marginalized aren’t given the necessary platforms to get their message across to both the general population and relevant authorities.