How did one little survey on Section 377A and the LGBT community cause so much fuss among netizens? Regardless breaks it down play-by-play, from the mysterious origins and curious circulation of the survey, to the ambiguously phrased questions which supported multiple interpretations.
Like many other places, social and moral norms are increasingly contested in Singapore. One site of such contestation is Section 377A. While arguments in favor of repeal have asserted identity and self-fulfillment based on SOGI, arguments in response have focused almost exclusively on the moral and social consequences of repeal, revealing conspicuous gaps in conservative discourse.
The challenge and opportunity for conservatives of all creeds is to articulate a proper anthropology and address the deep search for meaning without descending into false utopianism or ideological dogmatism.
"If you don't let me do this, I'll commit suicide". What happens when "mental health" is used to hold you hostage to acquiesce to beliefs you disagree with? Is there a healthier alternative to the compelled affirmation of every new identity and behaviour in a culture where the modern psychological 'self' has been unmoored from biological realities?