Over the past few years, groups opposed to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people have taken to holding anti-LGBT events and publishing articles in the mainstream media under the guise of parent groups.
No matter how many experts offer arguments, evidence and theories to refute their objections, these anti-LGBT activists simply push their status as parents to insist that their arguments hold water, rather than focusing on the issue itself and engaging in a rational discussion in the public realm.
They have, in essence, overextended parents’ legal right to “participate” in the educational affairs of a school for the well-being of their children as the right to “decide” and “prioritize” the education policy of the nation — and it continues to mislead the public. The ways in which anti-LGBT groups discuss the issue is not helpful, and they are fundamentally anti-intellectual and anti-democratic.
Moreover, whenever it is revealed that these “parent groups” are in fact anti-LGBT groups, that their leaders are also active in anti-LGBT activities and that they are closely linked to conservative Christian organizations, these groups insist that they are not anti-LGBT, but rather exercising their natural rights as parents to protect their children and that this has nothing to do with their religious background. They also appeal to the freedoms of speech and religion, which are irrelevant to this issue, to defend their anti-LGBT viewpoints.
These anti-LGBT campaigners have long fought a confusing battle in the name of parenthood. For example, anti-LGBT campaigners earlier this year appeared under the guise of parents to spread hatred and homophobic statements at the review meeting for the nation’s second report on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights; during a dispute on the number of seats for parents on the Taipei City Gender Equality Committee; at a public hearing of a social studies curriculum review committee, where they asked the members to demonstrate anal sex; and at a Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) news conference presenting a concluding opinion on Taiwan’s first Convention on the Rights of the Child report.
At the CRC review meeting, members of anti-LGBT groups who appeared disguised as parents belonged to the Mothers Shield Alliance, the Republic of China Association of HIV/AIDS and Child Care, the National Alliance of Presidents of Parents’ Associations and Nation Parents Meet. They not only interfered with other people’s speech, they also held up a sign that read: “LGBT out of Taiwan” and even hit people.
They claimed to be parents who love their children, but their actions are full of hatred, and the “parent” claims seems to be nothing but a cloak to cover their anti-LGBT identity, and their children are just tools they use in their fight. If they really love their children, why can they not discuss children’s rights on the basis of equal dialogue and evidence backed up by credible studies?
Chung Yuan Christian University professor Tseng Shu-hsien (曾淑賢) on Nov. 23 published an article in the Chinese-language Apple Daily titled: “Has Taiwan’s child policy gone wrong?” chiming in with the anti-LGBT movement disguised as “parent groups.”
At the end of the article, she said that gender rights groups should not adopt the approach of social movements against parents in the field of education, but are these opponents really expressing their opinions as parents when they advocate “LGBT out of Taiwan”? Is this really a matter of “parents” opposing LGBT groups? If they are so concerned about their children’s upbringing and future, why are they never seen discussing environmental, labor or class issues? LGBT groups are more active and vocal on these issues.
Tseng last year also wrote an Apple Daily op-ed citing a study by academic Daniel Potter on family transitions to question the capability of LGBT people to be parents. I have looked up Potter’s study, which states that the legalization of same-sex marriage contributes to the stability of same-sex families and that it is positive for children’s development.
Tseng repeatedly defends anti-LGBT groups and writes to newspapers as an academic, but she clearly distorts academic research and misleads the public.
In my own academic research, I have heard many LGBT people talk about considering suicide in their adolescence because of discrimination, isolation and not being understood. Due to various pressures, many LGBT people grow up scarred, while some never get the chance to grow up.
Taiwanese society has experienced some tragic events involving adolescents belonging to sexual minorities, such as in 2000, when Yeh Yung-chih (葉永鋕) — a 15-year-old student at Gaoshu Junior High School in Pingtung County who was constantly bullied by his classmates due to what they said was his effeminate behavior — was found dead on the bathroom floor at school and the 2011 suicide of Yang Yun-cheng (楊允承), a 13-year-old student at Lujiang Junior High School in New Taipei City who had been bullied by his classmates for being a “sissy.”
Much earlier, in 1994, two Taipei First Girls’ High School students committed suicide together. In their suicide note, they wrote: “It has been so hard to be a human being. The setbacks and pressures that have defeated us are beyond most people’s imagination, and there is no place for us in this society. We feel that it is so difficult to deal with daily life, and we often succumb to depression.”
Today, when anti-LGBT groups disguise themselves as parent groups that refuse to recognize the existence of LGBT adolescents and even go so far as to spread hate language and advocate “LGBT out of Taiwan,” we, as citizens, need to stand up for LGBT adolescents and kick homophobia and hatred out of Taiwan, so that LGBT adolescents can grow up safely.
Jiang Ho-ching is a doctoral candidate in anthropology at American University in Washington.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
Heavy rains over the past week have overwhelmed southern and central Taiwan, with flooding, landslides, road closures, damage to property and the evacuations of thousands of people. Schools and offices were closed in some areas due to the deluge throughout the week. The heavy downpours brought by the southwest monsoon are a second blow to a region still recovering from last month’s Typhoon Danas. Strong winds and significant rain from the storm inflicted more than NT$2.6 billion (US$86.6 million) in agricultural losses, and damaged more than 23,000 roofs and a record high of nearly 2,500 utility poles, causing power outages. As
The greatest pressure Taiwan has faced in negotiations stems from its continuously growing trade surplus with the US. Taiwan’s trade surplus with the US reached an unprecedented high last year, surging by 54.6 percent from the previous year and placing it among the top six countries with which the US has a trade deficit. The figures became Washington’s primary reason for adopting its firm stance and demanding substantial concessions from Taipei, which put Taiwan at somewhat of a disadvantage at the negotiating table. Taiwan’s most crucial bargaining chip is undoubtedly its key position in the global semiconductor supply chain, which led
RSS