From the time children start learning how to talk, they are taught that everything has a name and how to differentiate between different things. If we didn’t teach them to differentiate between green and red and the meanings associated with different colors, for example, we would worry every time they crossed the road. Similarly, if we fail to teach our children about different sexual identities, the society we create is likely to be homophobic, full of discrimination, prejudice and sexist bullying.
Recently there has been much vocal opposition to teaching about homosexuality in elementary and junior-high school based on the firmly held belief that fifth and sixth graders are too young to learn about such things. It has even been said that this would not be about teaching respect for gender, but, rather, involve teaching children about sex.
The experience of the Canadian government shows that such fears are not only unwarranted, they are in fact harmful. Beginning in 1994, the Public Health Agency of Canada published the Canadian Guidelines for Sexual Health Education to teach elementary school children how to understand different sexual identities and orientations.
These materials have been constantly amended and evaluated, and last year, Questions & Answers: Gender Identity in Schools was published. This book was intended to strengthen gender knowledge among teachers, administrative educational staff and health specialists. Apart from teaching children about sexual orientation diversity, it also included information on the meaning of such terms as “transgender,” “homophobia” and “heterosexism.” The book gives particular importance to schools directing their efforts toward supporting transgender youth and their parents and guaranteeing that transgender students are not bullied, discriminated against or threatened because of their gender identity.
These guidelines have now been in circulation for 17 years — not only have they not been discarded, they have been further enhanced, requiring that educational workers keep up to date with the latest ideas in the fields of sex and gender so they can respond to actual situations in schools.
This is ample proof the Canadian government and public do not think that elementary school students are unable to understand gender diversity and homosexuality, or will become sexually confused as a result of such education.
The Canadian government is fulfilling its responsibility by working to improve education about homosexuality and oppose homophobia, aware that only by properly training educational workers can the serious problem of homophobia be eliminated from school campuses and society at large.
Of course, gender issues should be thoroughly and properly taught. Furthermore, this should not be restricted to just formal educational materials and instructions, but could include any innovative measure that encourages youth to absorb such knowledge.
In France, for example, the government has invested a great deal of public resources in educating people about homosexual issues and public action to oppose homophobia.
One example is how the French government — planned jointly by the then-health and sports ministry and the National Institute for Prevention and Health Education — in October 2008 issued a call for theater plays against homophobia based on the theme “young homosexuals as seen by others” (Jeune et homo sous le regard des autres). In all, more than 900 plays were submitted, of which the jury selected five that were then recorded as short films together with Canal Plus and used as educational materials. A profoundly moving 59-page booklet was also produced to complement these five short films and distributed to provide a basis for further discussion after the films were shown.
We at the Taiwan Alliance to Promote Civil Partnership Rights (TAPCPR) believe it is not only children who need to be educated about gender diversity — providing gender education focused on heterosexuality is far from adequate — it is a need that applies to society at large.
Homosexuals do not live in a vacuum, they are an integral part of society and initiate innumerable social contacts through their daily lives. In addition to partners, there are also all the family, friend and social networks. The state has a duty to build a society where every member can live in a secure and equal environment and learn how to interact with and mutually respect others. Simply issuing empty calls for respect while stopping children from learning about homosexuality is hypocritical because social relations based on true respect and equality cannot be created out of thin air.
The TAPCPR views legislation and education as the two cornerstones of opposition to homophobia. The gender advancements represented by the Gender Equality Education Act (性別平等教育法) are there for all to see. The state should show some determination and implement the regulations in Article 18 of the act, which states: “The compilation, composition, review and selection of course materials shall comply with the principles of gender equity education. The content of teaching materials shall present fairly on the historical contributions, life experiences of both sexes, and diverse gender perspectives.”
The state should also strive to put an end to any and all actions of a homophobic nature.
Lee Shao-fen is a member of the Taiwan Alliance to Promote Civil Partnership Rights. Victoria Hsu is an attorney at law and a member of the Taiwan Alliance to Promote Civil Partnership Rights.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
Pat Gelsinger took the reins as Intel CEO three years ago with hopes of reviving the US industrial icon. He soon made a big mistake. Intel had a sweet deal going with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the giant manufacturer of semiconductors for other companies. TSMC would make chips that Intel designed, but could not produce and was offering deep discounts to Intel, four people with knowledge of the agreement said. Instead of nurturing the relationship, Gelsinger — who hoped to restore Intel’s own manufacturing prowess — offended TSMC by calling out Taiwan’s precarious relations with China. “You don’t want all of
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
In a recent essay in Foreign Affairs, titled “The Upside on Uncertainty in Taiwan,” Johns Hopkins University professor James B. Steinberg makes the argument that the concept of strategic ambiguity has kept a tenuous peace across the Taiwan Strait. In his piece, Steinberg is primarily countering the arguments of Tufts University professor Sulmaan Wasif Khan, who in his thought-provoking new book The Struggle for Taiwan does some excellent out-of-the-box thinking looking at US policy toward Taiwan from 1943 on, and doing some fascinating “what if?” exercises. Reading through Steinberg’s comments, and just starting to read Khan’s book, we could already sense that
RSS