The battle of St James - the unpublished letters

source: various letter writers themselves

3 May 2007 
Letter sent to the Straits Times, unpublished

I refer to the letters published in the 3rd May edition of the Straits Times which disapprove of any move to decriminalize homosexuality. What characterises Mr. Tang Shangjun’s and Mr. Aaron Ho’s views is a fuzzy notion of the harm which homosexuality supposedly causes society, and, more disturbingly, a lack of self-awareness when it comes to the values which undergird their espoused views.

I want to contest Mr. Tang’s assertion that "actual harm to society" is done when gay and lesbian groups are able to lobby for social approval of their activities. Wherein lies the harm? I can only infer that Mr. Tang claims that harm will occur, because he believes that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice", and that heterosexual Singaporeans will happily rush to join the gay hordes, given half a chance. The bulk of credible psychological research suggests that this is not the case.

It would probably help the debate if at this point we distinguished between homosexuality as a matter of sexual orientation, and homosexuality as an identity, wherein a person chooses to accept his or her sexual orientation and incorporate that into her identity. It is terribly misleading to characterize homosexuality as a ‘lifestyle choice’, as if it were a matter of choosing a hobby, or a set of clothing. The first real choice lies in whether a homosexual person chooses to be truthful with himself or herself. Another set of critical choices lie further ahead – should she inform her parents and siblings? Her friends? Her colleagues and superiors? These are where the real choices lie, and Section 377A makes them immensely more difficult for the gay person to make.

What, really, are the social consequences of forcing gay people to remain in the closet, where Mr. Tang would have them? Families whose members are unable to be truthful and open with one another, in which gay sons and lesbian daughters are forced to constantly enact a charade of heterosexuality so as to appease their parents. Sham marriages in which gay men and lesbian women marry, out of a sense of filial duty, but in which they and their spouses are never truly happy. A society, which values ‘face’, more than it values honesty and loving relationships. This is the "actual harm to society" that we should be aware of. This is the real cost of retaining Section 377A.

Removing Section 377A does not involve, as Ms. Istayana Putri Ibrahim suggests, making ‘autonomy’ an absolute value; like Mr. Tang’s view, such a view hinges on the assumption that homosexuality is chosen – one can therefore ‘autonomously’ choose. Ultimately, the core value that is at stake here is equality. Do we treat the gay and lesbian members of the Singaporean community as equals, and respect them as such, or must they be relegated to the shadows and margins? If we take our National Pledge halfway seriously – its injunction to "build a…society based on justice and equality, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation" (emphasis mine) – then it behooves us to choose equality and acceptance, over and above a deepseated prejudice that masquerades as social concern.

Respectfully yours, 
Dominic Chua Kuan Hwee

* * * * *

7 May 2007
Letter sent to the Straits Times, unpublished

I am writing in response to Agnes Chai Shiang Jen (Ms)'s letter "Are Homosexuals truly born gay?" that was published on 27 April 2007.

While I respect her right to hold her opinion, her conclusions were not the same as the conclusions the researchers she apparently quoted from. While she cited the LeVay brain study, she did not do so for the twin study. I would assume that she was referring to the study conducted by Bailey and Pillard in 1991.

According to their data, 52% (29/56) of identical twins, 22% (12/54) of fraternal twins, and 11% (6/57) of adoptive brothers were both homosexual.

If there is no genetic basis for homosexuality as Ms Chai concluded, then there should be little variance in the percentages where both brothers were homosexual in the Bailey and Pillard study.

It is generally accepted that left-handedness is an inborn trait. If I use Ms Chai's line of reasoning, then we would expect 100% of identical twins to be both left-handed. However, in a similar twin study done on left-handedness by Porac (1992), only 76% of the expected 100% identical twins are both left-handed.

Clearly, Ms Chai's letter was misleading in use of the twin studies to draw her own conclusion. I would hope that due diligence is exercised before citing any scientific research to justify one¡¯s own opinion.

Yours sincerely, 
Siew Meng Ee

* * * * *

16 May 2007 
Letter sent to the Straits Times Forum, unpublished

I refer to Dr Alan Chin Yew Liang's letter "Figures speak for themselves: Practising gays have higher risk of HIV" dated 15 May 2007.

I am glad that he has rescinded his position that homosexuality is a disease that needs to be cured.

However, his statement that "homosexuality can be considered a lifestyle choice and thus does not qualify to be considered as a protected class under the law." I find it extremely ludicrous how a group of people can be protected by a law that states that their actions are illegal.

The debate today is about the decriminalisation of homosexuality, and I have yet heard of a proposal to set up a "protected class under the law". In fact, the crux of the issue is equality - so that they are not to be treated differently from others.

The issue of practising gays having higher risk of HIV should be addressed, like practising heterosexuals, by the promotion of safe sex.

Smoking increases the risk of lung cancer, and it is addressed by education - printing warning labels on the cigarette packs, and public education campaigns.

I am surprised yet again, that Dr Chin has referred to a specific study to justify his stand. His bias is clearly evident when he wrote "one of the few rational, scientific commentaries on the Spitzer study was offered by Scott L. Hershberger". He again failed to acknowledge the numerous other scientific commentaries that challenged the validity of Spitzer's study.

Bancroft mentioned in his commentary "Can Sexual Orientation Change? A Long-Running Saga (2003)" that the sample consists of men and women who principally sought treatment because of their religious beliefs and who were presenting themselves as evidence that such change was both possible and desirable for others (for 93%, religion was extremely or very important, and 78% had spoken in public about their "conversion," in many cases in their churches). Assessment of change was entirely based on their recall of how things were before treatment. Given their powerful agenda of promoting such treatment, it would be surprising if they did not overestimate the amount of change. A similar problem exists with the evaluation of any treatment for which the patient has a vested interest in proving its worth. Spitzer addresses this issue by pointing out that simple bias of this kind would have produced a more clear-cut picture of reorientation and no gender difference. He is partially right, but he cannot justifiably conclude that because there was not maximum distortion, that distortion did not occur.

In another commentary, "A Methodological Critique of Spitzer's Research on Reparative Therapy (2003)" by Helena M. Carlson it was stated that "participants in the study come from a very narrow stratification of the population 97% were Christian, 95% were Caucasian, the mean age for males was 42 years, the mean age for females was 44 years, 76% of the males were married, and 47% of the women were married. Some participants were directors of ex-gay ministries and some had publicly spoken favorably of efforts to change sexual orientation, often at their church. Thus, this is a population of highly religious, White, Protestant, middle aged, and middle class men and women."

As a medical doctor, Dr Chin would agree with me that although the sample size was larger than those in previous studies, it is far from being a representative sample.

Finally, as I had mentioned in my earlier letter, "Dr Spitzer himself said in subsequent interviews "...the kinds of changes my subjects reported are highly unlikely to be available to the vast majority [of gays and lesbians... [only] a small minority -- perhaps 3% -- might have a "malleable" sexual orientation.". This statement, made in 2005, was totally glossed over by Dr Chin. Who better to judge Spitzer's study than Dr Spitzer himself?

Dr Chin stated that "the point is that even if one person can change, then homosexuality is not an immutable trait and we should not deny anyone the right to change." I think he has missed Dr Spitzer's point that only a small minority might have a "malleable" sexual orientation - one person can change does not mean that everyone else can.

I don't think the issue is denying anyone the right to change, but denying anyone the right not to change, especially if homosexuality is not decriminalised.

Siew Meng Ee

* * * * *

18 May 2007 
Letter sent to the Straits Times, unpublished

I refer to your online letter by Dr Alan Chin (ST Online May 15) which discussed homosexual orientation and reparative therapy. His reference to the work of Dr Robert Spitzer was incomplete and therefore misleading. For the sake of fair play the reading public needs to hear the comment of Dr Spitzer himself about his research which has been misused by Dr Chin in his letter.

Let me quote from Dr Spitzer's own commentary which was published May 2001 in the Wall Street Journal.

"My study concluded with an important caveat: that it should not be used to justify a denial of civil rights to homosexuals, or as support for coercive treatment. I did not conclude that all gays should try to change, or even that they would be better off if they did. However, to my horror, some of the media reported the study as an attempt to show that homosexuality is a choice, and that substantial change is possible for any homosexual who decides to make the effort.

"In reality, change should be seen as complex and on a continuum. Some homosexuals appear able to change self-identity and behavior, but not arousal and fantasies; others can change only self-identity; and only a very few, I suspect, can substantially change all four. Change in all four is probably less frequent than claimed by therapists who do this kind of work; in fact, I suspect the vast majority of gay people would be unable to alter by much a firmly established homosexual orientation.

"I certainly believe that parents with homosexually oriented sons and daughters should love their children -- no matter how their children decide to live their lives -- and should not use my study to coerce them into unwanted therapy."

Yap Kim Hao

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None