Along with Saturday’s elections, citizens will be able to vote in 10 referendums, five of which are concerned with same-sex marriage or gender equity education.
Three of these referendums were proposed by groups that do not support LGBT people and two by pro-LGBT groups. Interestingly, many parents support one of the referendum propositions submitted by the anti-LGBT side.
Referendum No. 11 asks voters whether they agree that the “gay and lesbian education” called for by the Enforcement Rules for the Gender Equity Education Act (性別平等教育法施行細則) should not be taught in elementary schools and junior-high schools.
This begs the question: Is the Gender Equity Education Act (性別平等教育法) not supposed to safeguard gender equality? And if it is, what harm could the “gay and lesbian education” that the act calls for possibly do to future generations?
As defined by Article 2 of the act, gender equity education means “to generate respect for gender diversity, eliminate gender discrimination and promote substantive gender equality through education.”
In plain language, it is for schools to teach students to respect those of a different gender or sexual orientation and to prevent gender prejudice and bullying.
The referendum concerns Article 13 of the enforcement rules, which stipulates: “The curriculum related to gender equity education ... shall cover courses on affective education, sex education and gay and lesbian education in order to enhance students’ gender equity consciousness.”
One could say that the point of “gay and lesbian education” should be to tell students that LGBT people should receive the same respect and rights as everyone else.
A quick online search will produce examples of existing textbook content about “gay and lesbian education.”
The Central Election Commission’s Web site and the Executive Yuan’s declared opinions about referendum No. 11 also explain the purpose of the “gay and lesbian education” that the act says should be provided, in terms similar to the above.
Again, one must ask what could be inappropriate about teaching such a course.
The Council of Grand Justices has confirmed that same-sex marriages should be safeguarded by law. No matter whether it is done by amending the Civil Code or drawing up a special law, as soon as such legislation is enacted, same-sex marriage will become a reality in our society.
Furthermore, social networks have developed to the point where it is almost impossible to suppress or control the flow of information in Taiwan.
Elementary and high schools are relatively capable of giving fair and objective guidance to their students.
If we say that schools cannot mention LGBT-related issues in their teaching materials, and instead leave children to be bombarded by possibly true and possibly false information via TV, the Internet or other media, might that not more easily cause children to get bad attitudes and mistaken ideas, and might it not tend to encourage undesirable consequences such as bullying and gender prejudice?
If something already exists, but we are unwilling to understand and encounter it, it can only lead to more suspicion and misunderstandings. That is probably not the outcome that people want to see.
Whether you accept the above points of view, we all undoubtedly care about what happens to the next generation.
Let us hope that before going to vote in the referendums, everyone who has the right to vote can fully understand what “gay and lesbian education” really entails.
Anderson Chang is a judge.
Translated by Julian Clegg
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS