If equality means treating like things alike and unalike things unalike, then not every complaint of inequality is valid. Some are genuine. Others are smuggled-through attempts to flatten meaningful distinctions.
Last year, Pink Dot published an “equality scorecard” claiming systemic discrimination against LGBTQ people in Singapore. But behind the emotional appeal is a strategic move: to redefine what counts as equal—and, in doing so, push contested moral claims into law and public policy.
This article puts each of those claims under the spotlight. And by the end, we’re confident you’ll see: not a single one stands up as a true case of discrimination.
1. Decriminalisation of Gay Sex
We hate to flog a dead horse, but here’s the backstory you probably missed. Yes, 377A was repealed in 2022—but not because most of the public wanted it gone.
The real reason was a legal loophole. The PAP moved to close it first, knowing the courts could strike the law down for breaching the Constitution’s equality clause.
The irony was that particular legal loophole only existed because Parliament had, in 2007, scrapped Section 377—the one that banned anal sex between men and women. In trying to “modernise” things for heterosexuals, they created an inequality: the same act was now legal for straight couples but still a crime for gay men. That inconsistency became a legal weak point. And that’s what finally forced the government’s hand.
Gay sex is not biologically equivalent to heterosexual sex. It involves higher medical risks and is linked to disproportionately high rates of HIV transmission—resulting in unique public health threats and increased taxpayer costs.
Just as we deter smoking and other high-risk behaviours, it’s not unjust to treat harmful practices differently. It is, in fact, protective of individuals and society to restrict behaviours which lead to harm down the line.
2. LGBTQ Youth
Pro-LGBTQ Sex Education in Schools
Such programmes present LGBTQ behaviours as equal to heterosexual ones and self-determined gender as equivalent to biologically-determined gender. But that’s far from the truth.
Heterosexuality aligns with the body’s natural design for sex and produces children, homosexuality does not.
And unlike biological gender, transgenderism rejects the body’s natural design as reflected not just in genitalia, but also in chromosomes, body structure, and more which surgery cannot change.
Citing intersex conditions to deny this is like using Tetra-Amelia Syndrome to deny humans have four limbs – outliers don’t change the rule.
And human beings aren’t clownfish. ← (Click this. Thank us later.)
Clear MOE Policies Against LGBTQ Bullying and Discrimination
Bullying is always wrong, and not uniquely LGBTQ-related. Such policies inevitably privilege LGBTQ ideology while punishing reasonable disagreement.
Actual equal treatment would improve general anti-bullying frameworks to tackle bullying as a whole. We do this by fostering respect, not through ideological indoctrination.
Protecting students from harm doesn’t mean forcing everyone to affirm contested beliefs.
Sensitivity Training for Teachers
Respect matters, but teachers must not be forced to endorse views that contradict conscience or objective biological reality, like using preferred pronouns or celebrating same-sex relationships.
The best way to “support” students is never to affirm what isn’t true. Education should not be ideologically driven but rather, grounded in biological reality. Teaching staff should be taught to neither affirm nor dismiss students’ LGBTQ struggles, but to respond with objectivity and compassion.
3. Gender Identity
Non-Binary Gender Recognition
Unlike binary genders, “non-binary” identities lack grounding in physical reality. Humans are sexually dimorphic. Developmental outliers don’t change the rule.
Changing Gender Markers Without Surgery
Is Pink Dot advocating for legal sex changes without surgery? Letting people change legal sex based only on self-declaration without surgery poses significant risks. Beyond that, unlike the gender binary, such identities flatly reject biological reality.
Conclusion
So far, the scorecard’s claims haven’t revealed discrimination. They’ve revealed a strategy: take contested ideas about sex, gender and identity, and repackage them as if they’re settled moral truths.
But as we’ve seen, not every sexual act is biologically equivalent. Not every feeling is grounded in reality. Not every claim to identity warrants public affirmation. When equality is used to flatten meaningful distinctions, it stops being justice and just becomes ideology.
This is just the beginning.
In Part 2, we’ll turn to the heart of the matter: marriage, adoption, employment and housing, where the push for “equality” isn’t about fairness at all. It’s about rewriting who counts as family, what the state should reward, and why public policy exists in the first place.