The Science Centre Got a Drag Queen, a Queer Prof and a Transgender to School Us on Sex & Gender


On the second day of “Pride Month” Science Center gave to me, two related concepts (sex & gender), and one pseudo-science ideology.

Fortunately, Singaporeans alerted to the forum expressed displeasure with the fact that it featured only LGBT activists and ideologues while purporting to be a credible platform for discussion of the differences between sex and gender.

In response to the public outcry, Science Centre Singapore (SCS) cancelled the event, saying that they would “review their approach” to the session, and refunded in full those who had purchased tickets to the event. Market sentiment around the Science Centre plummeted as a result of the controversy – a cautionary tale of how it is wise to avoid dabbling with controversial LGBT ideology altogether.

It was wise of them to do so. While discussions on sex and gender are appropriate, especially in times of incredible gender confusion, it is important for organisations to guard against being used by gender ideologues to pursue their own ideological goals.

Protect Singapore having mobilised its active followers on Telegram, said after the cancellation, “We welcome discussions in the public space on this complex issue regarding gender dysphoria, but panels should be better curated, and should include organizations and individuals who provide scientific information on sex and gender. Our society would be better served with truth and science instead of ideologies.”

A Refreshing Pushback

Singapore’s society has pushed back against LGBT activist attempts to normalise their ideology in the past, but this time, the pushback was notably more pronounced.

Granted, it was an M18 session hosted offsite at Cineleisure, but many questioned if the Science Centre should even have been in the business of organising the event stacked with activist or ideologically motivated speakers to begin with.

Doubtless, Singaporeans have watched the decline of culture and common sense in the West, which has been on full display for a number of years now. For instance, as a result of unchecked propaganda, as of Jan ’24, nearly 30% of Gen Z adults identify as LGBTQ in the US.

What is clear, is that ordinary, clear-headed folk have decided to dispense with the fiction propagated around gender because truth matters more than being made subservient to a lie in the name of “diversity”.

On the other side of the aisle, those who embrace the ideological view of gender and sex denounced those who expressed the common sense view, mocking them as regressive transphobes who need to get with the times.

Their adhominem and chronological snobbery aside, it is ironic that the progressives who ordinarily champion rationalism and empiricism, have uncritically bought into a fictitious metaphysics around sex and gender.

Fortunately, everyday members of the public are increasingly aware that radical LGBT ideology is foisted upon a nation through the capture of key institutions such as in the areas of science and tech, healthcare, media, academia, the school system, sports, and professional bodies such as the Singapore Psychological Society. Examples abound both at home and abroad.

The Intention of the Event

A Science Centre spokesperson said it regularly organises ticketed dinner events under its Science Cafe event series, where it promotes “interest in science and curiosity through featuring speakers from diverse disciplines who share their views on particular subjects” and that “Our Science Cafe session in June was intended to discuss the sociocultural factors that shape society’s understanding of sex and gender”.

This is perfectly reasonable, especially when it comes to gender roles which are partially socially constructed.

Why then, was the event cancelled?

Although SCS’s spokesperson told the Straits Times that it had “received public feedback expressing concern about the content to be discussed in the session, as well as the composition of the speakers” members of the public who are unfamiliar with the event’s publicity would still be left in the dark because the original publicity material was redacted to remove all speaker information, leaving only the event title and details.

This was what the Science Centre originally ran with.

It is noteworthy that none of the experts featured identifies with their biological sex in a straightforward common-sense way, calling into question their credibility as speakers to discuss the topic free from ideological bias.

What is apparent, is that in a climate where discussions around gender and sex are heavily politicised because of the LGBT attempt to rewrite standard human anthropology, the choice of speakers would not have fulfilled that objective satisfactorily given their specific beliefs on the nature of how gender is to be ontologically understood.

Were They Really Qualified?

One might argue that all three speakers were not the right people to provide an objective, science-based perspective on sex and gender.

The original publicity (see below) for the event was what prompted concerns and disappointments from members of the public. In the original publicity, the three speakers are introduced along with the titles of their respective segments.

Various media outlets in Singapore, along with Pink Dot have questioned the need to reconfigure the event, claiming that the featured speakers are experts in their fields, and suited to discuss and educate on the differences between sex and gender. (Regardless probably did a better job of that when we handled this topic here.)

Taking Pink Dot’s word for what it’s worth, here is a closer look at each of the speakers:

1. Becca D’Bus, Drag Queen – Real Name: Eugene Tan

Eugene is a prominent local activist who has been featured multiple times in mainstream media.

  • He was the main organiser of IndigNation 2014 and actively involved in the IndigNationSG (an LGBTQ Activism Coordination Platform) steering committee every year since then.
  • In 2015, TODAY ran a piece promoting his drag performance and persona, Becca D’Bus whose single ambition in life is to “perform for a sea of 6.9 million people all dressed in pink”. (But remember, there is no “gay agenda”)
  • In 2015, FEMALE Mag Singapore also promoted his drag performance in its December issue.
  • In 2016, Straits Times wrote a theatre review which briefly praised his performance.
  • In 2022, Straits Times interviewed Eugene to discuss his life as a gay man in relation to the now-repealed S377A of the penal code.

In interviews with the media, Mr. Tan said of his presentation, “I would have looked at drag across all gender presentations, masculine, feminine, and the vast space in between and outside of it, to consider, perhaps less the misconceptions about drag queens, but perhaps what else we don’t talk about or think about enough.”

While Mr. Tan’s presentation is not appropriate for the purpose of the event as communicated by SCS’s spokesperson, which is to “promote interest in science”, it could very well be a hit at an arts and performance panel of sorts.

Nevertheless, his qualifications in science? None.

2. Alexander Teh, a Transgender Youth Counsellor at Oogachaga

  • Alexander was born female but sincerely believes she is a man and therefore has constructed an identity as one, having undergone some surgery and now lives as a Transman.
  • Alexander came out and shared their story in 2016.
  • Alexander was behind one of Singapore’s largest trans social groups, The Purple Alliance’s Trans*It! which seems to have gone dormant since 2021.
  • Alexander has 4 years of working experience as LGBTQ youth counsellor at Oogachaga, Singapore’s most established LGBTQ+ Community Organisation (which was supported by the High Commission of Canada to build their website. One wonders if there is an ongoing relationship with the Canadians and if that amounts to foreign interference in civil society.)

Alexander’s scientific qualifications: Plausible. Alexander holds a Master’s of Counselling, and a graduate diploma & Bachelor of Arts in Psychology.

Psychology is not traditionally considered a scientific discipline, though an argument can be made when it is practiced with adherence to the scientific method of inquiry, using empirical data.

However, as a Youth Counsellor for Oogachaga, Alexander is ideologically committed to an affirmative therapeutic method that exclusively affirms someone experiencing gender dysphoria in their chosen gender identity, never with an aim to helping the sufferer reconcile with their biological reality.

Alexander is therefore an activist, undeniably biased in their beliefs, and arguably unsuitable for an objective and unbiased presentation.

(Read more about how gender affirmative therapy makes gender dysphoria worse rather than better, here.)

Since it was organised by SCS, it would have been helpful to feature representatives from mental health organisations who practice from a multidisciplinary clinical perspective as well.

3. Dr. Mie Hiramoto, Associate Professor in the Department of English Language and Literature at the National University of Singapore

With her vast experience and publication record, she should have been apt for the task. Why then were ordinary folk unconvinced about her ability to be objective?

Dr Hiramoto, was slated to present “Redefining gender and sexuality: Insights from science and culture”. Arguably, this would have been more appropriate in a social science symposium where the redefinition of sociological phenomena is studied.

This was however inappropriate for a scientific inquiry which should have focused on correctly understanding gender and sexuality, rather than redefining it.

Second, Dr Hiramoto’s self-identification as “she/they” indicates her self-identification as queer, and specifically identifying with a non-binary or gender-fluid perception of self. By doing so, she demonstrates her belief that gender identity can be disconnected from biological sex.

This is a clear non-starter in an empirical discussion on sex and gender because one would not reasonably expect a queer academic to correctly express the immutable link between biology and gender when they themselves do not believe in it.

Qualifications in relevant science? Some. Apart from her involvement with inter-disciplinary sociological research, as a language professor Dr Hiramoto does not appear to possess the scientific accreditation to discuss sex and gender from objective, biological foundations.

They’re not bad people. They’re just ill-suited.

The three aforementioned individuals may very well be lovely people, each with their own set of life experiences and expertise. Nevertheless, a wrong view on the nature of gender is still wrong, even if it comes from a person in a lab coat.

It boggles the mind why the SCS would think it appropriate to organise an event on a hotly contested socio-political issue featuring a lineup of speakers with a clear history in LGBT activism but dubious claims to expertise, without any countervailing voices to offer alternative perspectives.

Unfortunately, framed in such a way, the event appeared to be more of a bald-faced promotion of gender ideology under the protective lab coat of the Science Centre rather than an objective conversation over the topic – one which more liberal societies are currently backpedalling from.

Haunting Questions Abound

Several media outlets covered the story, some more fairly than others. Yet, unsurprisingly, nothing has yet been written to ask meaningful questions of the event. Colour us shocked.

These questions demand answers.

  1. Was it in the public’s interest for SCS as a recipient of taxpayer money, to be involved with platforming controversial, unscientific gender ideology through a panel of activists as if it were settled science?
  2. How did this event come to be organised? It is incredible that an MOE-affiliated statutory board thinks these speakers and intended topics are appropriate. Who thought featuring Drag under the banner of the science centre was even a good idea? Why does it bear a resemblance to this method of school infiltration seen in the US?
  3. How, for at least 6 months, did no one in MOE or SCS raise the fact that the intended talk was not appropriate? This is highly unusual considering MOE’s usually cautious approach to sensitive matters. Did nobody consider the contradiction between SCS’s plans and the standards of its parent ministry, MOE? Organising an event like this clearly runs against the Government’s promise of “not trigger(ing) wholesale changes in our society… maintain(ing) prevailing norms and values of Singapore society” made while repealing S377A in 2022.
  4. Is the fact that this is happening in June to coincide with “Pride Month” a coincidence? The timing of the event was particularly poor in light of former PM Lee’s recent interview in which he spoke out against the woke agenda.
  5. In light of the suspicious timing, was this event intended as a test-balloon heralding the first step into the ideological capture of our Government institutions? It almost looks like the Science Centre event was just an extension of Pinkfest.

    Did Oogachaga Director, Leow Yangfa accidentally let the cat out of the bag when he let slip to the media that this “event had been planned since late last year”. It would be reasonable to deduce that if the event is held in June (Pride month) and planning for it began at least six months in advance to coincide with Pride, those involved must have known and agreed to this, and plausible deniability would have been built in as well.

    If the event had gone ahead, it would have been the first Government backed institution to run a pride event, and would have emboldened activists to “try” working with another Government or Government-backed institution to normalise it.
  6. What was Oogachaga’s involvement in the planning of the event? Not only was an Oogachaga staff involved as a speaker at the event, it was Oogachaga (instead of SCS) that revealed knowledge that the “event was planned since late last year”. Curiously, Oogachaga also expected to be consulted before the cancellation of the event, implying that they saw themselves as integral to the event’s planning.

    Were they co-organizers? If so, then the previous two questions may indeed have found an answer. Yet, this raises another question. Just how much has the Government failed to keep to its promise of not promoting LGBTQ ideology in Singapore if it is actively partnering with activist organisations for events like this right now?
  7. What are the checks and balances in place at the Science Centre? It has always been MOE’s stance to approach matters of sexuality with caution. There is no excuse for the lapse in featuring a three-activist panel, unless, it was a deliberate decision extreme carelessness by a member of the staff. Did a staff member manage to obscure this detail from their superiors? Were background checks not done on the individuals invited? How were their obvious conflicts of interest not recognised?
  8. Will SCS or MOE conduct a review of the internal processes that led to this situation to make sure an incident like this does not happen again?
  9. When did diversity, instead of truth and objectivity become the standard for scientific discourse and biological reality? People who are critical of the event make a fatal error when their primary critique of the speaker list was that it was insufficiently diverse.

    On matters of objective truth, people should stand on a firm “no” when it comes to activist attempts to get a foot in the door.

Truth is the lifeblood of any community. Should one’s “gender identity” (a term concocted in just the last 70 years of human existence) be normalised as merely subjective instead of intrinsically linked to one’s biology, people will then be able to lay claim to all forms of absurd rights that flow from self-professed gender identity being real. This then places children and women at risk of abuse by the medical industry as well as by men encroaching on women’s activities and spaces.

The Event Could Have Easily Continued, Just Not Organised by the SCS

LGBTQ activists have organised all kinds of events promoting LGBTQ ideology and life choices in private spaces. As active organisers and participants of such events, it is odd that they would themselves suggest that such dialogues or LGBTQ events are somehow banned in Singapore, knowing very well the freedoms and tolerance from others that they already enjoy.

Singaporeans are generally tolerant and willing to live and let live. However, when LGBTQ activists demand that a statutory board organise events to satisfy their agenda, they go too far by forcing the use of public funds and attention to promote their beliefs.

What lies ahead?

Since the repeal of Section 377A, there has been a worrying trend of attempted mainstreaming of LGBTQ ideology and behaviour through national institutions. First it was NTU and the National Arts Council, now it is the SCS. Will the Government continue to disappoint its people by failing to deliver on its 2022 promises? Only time will tell.

Share this article

Recent posts


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Recent comments