• Sat
  • Dec 27, 2014
  • Updated: 11:10pm
CommentInsight & Opinion

Discussion about gender and sexual orientation should start with respect

York Chow says diverse views over issues of gender, sexual orientation and the law need to be fully discussed in public in order to help overcome stereotyping and discrimination

PUBLISHED : Tuesday, 02 July, 2013, 12:00am
UPDATED : Tuesday, 02 July, 2013, 5:28am

Since assuming my position in April, I have met over 130 different stakeholder groups from various fields to listen to divergent views. A number expressed concern about the possibility of legislation being brought in to protect people against discrimination due to their sexual orientation and gender identity.

Three things have become increasingly clear: first; lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals and their families do currently face enormous hardship. Second; the government must put in place policies and laws to protect these minority groups from discrimination. Third; the proposed legislation would neither destroy "family values" and freedom of speech nor would it lead to reverse discrimination.

There is plenty of evidence that sexual minorities in Hong Kong still face discrimination and harassment in employment or education. A study last year by the non-governmental organisation Community Business found that the majority (79 per cent) of the working population surveyed think LGBT individuals face discrimination or negative treatment. A 2009 survey by the Boys' and Girls' Clubs Association of Hong Kong suggested that 53 per cent of lesbian, gay and bisexual student respondents have faced discrimination, including bullying.

The present situation necessitates support for legally protecting this population. Irrespective of one's personal views, the right to non-discrimination in public is an irrefutable right of all humans.

Yet many LGBT individuals still struggle to access this right, fearing, not without reason, that they will lose their job or face harassment if they disclose their sexual orientation or begin to transition to their identified gender. Cultural discrimination against LGBT individuals has been propagated for centuries by different religious factions.

While we have seen some progressive guidance, it is time all religious leaders began approaching this issue with objectivity and universal compassion. Everyone, irrespective of their religious views, deserves the freedom to live and love without being stigmatised.

Some have argued that the proposed anti-discrimination legislation would destroy family values in Hong Kong. In my view, each family has their own private definitions of family values, which may differ from one to another. What matters is our collective stance and related government policies on public activities. When we talk about families and family values, we need to remember that LGBT individuals are also someone's family members. They are someone's sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, mothers or fathers. These families should also have the community's support, and we must not neglect their voices and their rights.

Another common concern is that the legislation would result in "reverse discrimination", whereby freedom of expression and religion would be unreasonably curbed or result in legal liabilities. Many of the concerns may stem from people's reluctance to change their discriminatory attitude and behaviour. We need to eliminate misunderstanding and misinformation about the impact of such a law.

For instance, it is necessary to distinguish between private and public activities. In overseas examples where such legislation exists, private activities such as one's own beliefs or parental guidance fall outside the coverage of the law.

One may still privately hold a belief as long as one does not act on it publicly in a way that would be discriminatory. Anti-discrimination legislation would level the playing field for all, irrespective of their sexual orientation or gender identity. It would neither entail "special treatment" for the LGBT population nor aim at changing personal values. In short, a balanced approach is possible.

Internationally, the rights to freedom of expression and religion can be reasonably limited to protect the rights of others from discrimination or other abuse.

Many jurisdictions have placed limits on freedom of expression in the interest of social cohesion and prevention of harm, such as banning speech which incites hatred or violence. Such provisions already exist in Hong Kong to protect everyone against vilification on the basis of race or disability.

Various groups have passionately expressed their views on the question of whether one's sexual orientation is inborn or acquired. Some hold the belief that if sexual orientation is acquired, it can be "fixed". But this misses the mark.

Many inborn conditions are treatable, and many acquired ones are not. Whatever one's belief on the origin of sexual orientation, homosexuality is not, and should not be viewed as, a treatable condition as is claimed by proponents of "affirmative/reparative therapy". The effectiveness and benefits of such treatments to change one's sexual orientation remain unsupported by scientific evidence, a position shared by many international professional bodies in the fields of psychiatry and psychology, including the Hong Kong College of Psychiatrists.

A number of lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals have told me that they face immense pressure from their own families to change their sexual orientation, including demands to undergo such therapies to "cure" them. This may hurt more than help. As Britain's Royal College of Psychiatrists noted in their submission to the Church of England's Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality in 2007: "There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment."

Moreover, as the college declared in its 2010 position statement: "So-called treatments of homosexuality create a setting in which prejudice and discrimination flourish." All service providers and mental health specialists should adhere to their professional standards and guidelines. Above all, do no harm.

We need more public dialogue and deeper understanding on this issue. A respectful discussion would dispel stereotypes and encourage empathy. Isn't it time to start?

Dr York Chow Yat-ngok is chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission


For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive



This article is now closed to comments

John Adams
In my opinion this is probably the most rational, well thought-out, fair, open and honest assessment of the LGBT 'situation' that I have ever read that was written by someone in authority in Hong Kong.
Besides which, I think the conclusions are absolutely correct.
I fully commend Dr York Chow on this article and for what he is doing for LGBT community.
Sincere thanks to you Dr Chow !
I am sure that your medical training played a great part in your judgement.
(I have very close experience of and friendship with someone who was in a transgender situation, and I saw the struggles that person went through to resolve his/her true sexual identity over several years. Happily that person did eventually resolve his/her sexual identity but he/she had to emigrate to another S.E Asian country to start a new life in his/her new sexual role with marriage partner because of prejudice among those in HK who knew him/her in his/her previous life from birth)
It is irrefutable that many if not most LGBT people are born with these characteristics, and that is certainly the case for transgender persons ( ! ).
But they are all PEOPLE , and so they deserve our respect.
everyone deserves respect and to live without discrimination.
thank you for making the point that everyone needs protection from views such as yours.
What a fair and balanced article, Dr York Chow. As fellow human being, we need to treat every human being, irrespective of his/her religion, education, status, skin colour, appearance, rich or poor etc ...... with respect and without prejudice. The concluding statement - "We need more public dialogue and deeper understanding on this issue. A respectful discussion would dispel stereotypes and encourage empathy....." - yes, it is time for us all to give careful consideration to protect the minority with our best interest.
Thank you Dr Chow, for a wonderfully written article.
I agree with John Adams and I want to thank Dr. Chow.
Just a quick note to draw the readers to a few points:
1. Politics and religions should be separated. Otherwise, should we ban the use of condoms just because of Pope John Paul II's words?
2. Jesus says NOTHING about homosexuality in the four gospels.
3. Most of the proscriptions against homosexuality come from the Old Testament. The Old Testament did mention homosexuality as an abomination, but if one had actually read the Bible, the same book of Leviticus also considers eating shellfish, or wearing clothing of two fabrics, an "abomination". Everyone is, of course, entitled to his or her opinion, but please at least be consistent. Spare me the hypocrisy and double standards.
4. As for the proscriptions against homosexuality in the New Testament, they are NOT god's words. Paul is just a conservative person heavily influenced by Jewish culture. He is not GOD!
so you want to pass laws to MAKE PEOPLE respect these very confused people?
why not pass laws forcing people to respect indians, pakistanis , etc. where do you draw the line
I know you draw the line that suits YOUR NEEDS as usual, you all are selfish, all of you


SCMP.com Account