Head of camel, rump of ape

This is a comment on the section on homosexuality in the Ministry of Education’s Sex Education Package. Please browse through it first before returning to this article (by clicking the ‘back’ button).

My friend Russell Heng felt it wasn’t too bad. It was, in his words, "straining at the leash". Yes, but the leash is intact.

In many places, it screamed ‘designed by committee’ at me. Whenever you see a strange beast, with the head of a camel and the rump of an ape, an ill-fitting compromise, full of internal contradictions, it’s a sure sign that something has been designed by a committee that could not quite agree. I could hear two voices: one, representing those who actually knew a thing or two about homosexuality (the first half in the excerpt below), but the other voice would best be described as the government’s enforcer of doctrine (the second half). 

"Adolescents should be sensitive to the fact that homosexuals are not strange or repulsive people, and that they also have a need for love, acceptance and permanent relationships with other people. Homosexuals do not live just to satisfy physical/sexual needs - they also want to be happy and to develop their abilities and personalities fully. 

However, homosexuality does not offer a complete, natural life experience, because the human physique is not designed for homosexual intercourse. Moreover a person cannot conceive through homosexual intercourse."

Of course the enforcer of doctrine would have the last word. Literally. Look at the last flourish at the end of the Teacher's Resource, "Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice." What do you think it’s trying to push?

Now let’s get down to business. Besides the small stupid mistakes, see box below, I take issue with the package on three grounds:

1. The specified learning outcome is unintellectual and unrelated to understanding sexuality;
2. The Teacher's Resource is confusing and self-contradictory;
3. The tone is one of disapproval and denial.

However, much depends on the delivery. The package is just a template. The individual teacher's own personal knowledge, attitudes and skill will no doubt play a big part in how the question of homosexuality is dealt with.

In this respect, I request readers who have personal experience of this Sex Ed (homosexuality) program to email me. Confidentiality is assured, as with all mail to Yawning Bread. Tell me what actually happened in your class.

* * * * *
 

Now, let's look carefully at the Sex Ed package. 

1. The specified learning outcome is unintellectual and unrelated to understanding sexuality

I'm sure it would have struck you is that the learning outcome is specified to be: "Pupils will be able to understand that homosexual acts are against the law in Singapore".

Is that all? Is that the main objective of it all? Here is a course on sexuality, and the chief thing they must end up knowing is that there is a law!

It’s like saying we teach a course on civics, basic politics and constitutional history, and the primary outcome must be that the kids should understand that to criticise the king would be a criminal offence of lèse-majesté.

What does it show? It shows how fearful we are of knowledge. How sensitive we are to enquiry.

You see this hamfisted attempt at pseudo-teaching again in the Handout, which appears to be a little exercise for the teenagers to map out what they know of the subject. Four of the six questions concern the law (the fifth is about AIDS and the sixth sucks up to abstinence). Nothing about understanding and accepting difference, nothing about the comparability of homosexual and heterosexual love and recognition of long-term relationships, nothing touching on the issues of discrimination, stigma and concealment. After all, the handout is entitled "Homosexuals and the society" (sic). Surely these aspects are relevant to the place of homosexuals in society?

The Handout requires the pupils to tick "correct" or "incorrect" to each of the six statements. Can the subject of sexuality be reduced to simple right and wrong answers? Well, yes, if the questions are THOSE questions.

Overall, it has the stink of indoctrination, not education. The way it’s designed, it is repulsive to the intellect: this is what you’re required to know and believe, you’re not supposed to think. 
 

2. The Teacher's Resource is confusing and self-contradictory;

Attraction or action?

Much of the Teacher’s Resource seemed to have been written by someone who appears to know about the subject. But at key points, the enforcer of doctrine steps in and makes a hash of logic and sense.

The 3rd paragraph of the Teacher’s Resource says, "A homosexual is someone who is sexually attracted to another person of the same gender (homosexual orientation)" (emphases are mine).

Yet, in the next paragraph we read that "….being attracted to another person of the same gender, without a sexual dimension, does not make one a homosexual."

Huh?  Does that mean that you’re homosexual only when you DO it?

But earlier, the 2nd paragraph had pointed out that "sexual orientation is different from sexual behaviour because one may not express one's sexual orientation in one's behaviour." So doing it doesn’t mean you’re it.

So, where lies the definition? Attraction or action? You can hardly get more confused than this. 
 

The mysterious lifestyle and the many types of homosexuals

This next section makes one wonder whether anyone on the committee has ever met with a single homosexual person, as it reveals a poor grasp of reality. It says,

"Different types of homosexuals can be distinguished. These include:

• the group who openly indicate their sexual orientation. Some homosexuals in this group have adopted a homosexual lifestyle. 
• those who 'cruise' in bars and clubs looking for a partner or quick sexual fun. 
• the 'closeted' (hidden/secret) group that do not dare reveal their sexual orientation openly due to societal norms. This group of homosexuals almost always restrain themselves from any homosexual deeds. 
• those whose homosexual behaviour is situation-bound, such as what takes place in prisons."

The way these "types of homosexuals" are defined is so artificial. Look carefully and you'd draw these conclusions:

1. Openly gay persons (type 1) do not cruise for sex (who are defined as a distinct type 2);
2. Closetted persons (type 3) are not homosexually active, neither do they cruise (type 2);
3. Those who engage in homosex when situation-bound, e.g. in prisons, are homosexuals (type 4) even if they have heterosexual orientation.

Ask anybody who knows a thing or two about real gay people and real incidences of homosex and you'd see how removed from reality these type classifications are. If they are so absurd, what use are they as a Teaching Resource?

Next, what on earth is a "homosexual lifestyle", as mentioned in type 1? If any student asks his teacher, the latter will get no help whatsoever in the Teacher’s Resource. The Resource uses the term without ever defining or describing it. It is used as if it’s common knowledge.

But here’s a funny thing: gay people themselves don’t know what a "homosexual lifestyle" is, though of all people, they’re the ones believed to be living it. Secondly, the term is mainly used by the Religious Right in America as a term of denunciation. It’s set up as a bogeyman for their propaganda, not a description of reality. Yet, it appears here in the Ministry’s package. 
 

3. The tone is one of disapproval and denial

This is a lot more subtle. You see this defect in the choice of dismissive or loaded words. For example, in the opening sentence of the "Nature" paragraph, a proviso is immediately inserted that it is not proven:

"The 'Nature' school of thought, believes that homosexuals are born into it though there have been no conclusive studies to support this."

On the other hand, the opening sentence of the "Nurture" paragraph, just states the position:

"The 'Nurture' school believes that homosexuals are conditioned by environment - homosexuality is learned behaviour."

In the "Nature" paragraph, scientific studies are described as "claims":

"Some experts in this area have also claimed that there is a tendency for male homosexuality to run in the family….. They claim that they were born like this."

In the "Nuture" paragraph, the word used is not "claimed", but a more authoritative "observed".

"It is observed that with male homosexuals, the family dynamics is one of a dominant mother and submissive father."

… even though this "observation" has next to no scientific basis. It's little more than speculation from more than 50 years ago, with no significant empirical corroboration since.

Another example of a loaded word:

"Studies and research in this area show that many homosexuals are helpless about their feelings and emotions for members of the same gender."

The word "helpless" plants the idea of a defect. It implies an external force or situation greater than yourself that is destructive. It would be more neutral and accurate to say, "Studies and research in this area show that many homosexuals describe their feelings and emotions for members of the same gender as natural to them."

Furthermore, there are mentions here and there of changing behaviour, self-control, etc. Why so much mention unless that is being subtly suggested as the recommended route?

"Many feel that homosexual behaviour can be corrected. Some studies conducted have shown certain success of 'correcting' the behaviour with therapy…

People's sexual behaviour can be changed (if they want to) and through professional treatment and self-control."

And of the course, the final flourish,

"Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice."

But before that, the last paragraph introduced something new:

"As the majority of the adolescents who are attracted to others of the same sex develop a normal heterosexual relationship with a marriage partner as adults, adolescents' fear and uncertainties about homosexuality should not be reinforced."

It is good that adolescents' fear and uncertainties about homosexuality should not be reinforced, but the reason given is the wrong one. Sure, some people with homosexual longings get married, and they appear to live "normal" lives. But most of these are loveless, sham marriages. The Sex Ed package does not admit that such sham marriages exist – no mention is ever made of them – and instead leads the teenagers down the merry path that appearances = substance. They're married, therefore they can't be homosexual after all.

The proper reason why adolescents' fear and uncertainties about homosexuality should not be reinforced should be that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. It's OK if you're gay. If others have a problem with it, it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with you. It only means the other guys are blockheads.

To suggest that when someone is married, it is proof that he is not homosexual, reinforces denial. Get married, boy (or girl), and your homo-erotic fantasies will go away.

This is really bad advice. Firstly because it won't work, and secondly, because it perpetuates the notion that homosexuality is second-class and to be denied wherever possible.

But all that is secondary anyway. First and foremost, the children must know it's against the law. Teaching outcome achieved. End of argument.

© Yawning Bread 

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None