‘Gay lifestyle’ term inappropriate

I write in response to the report “Liberal attitudes on gay lifestyles not prevalent here” (Aug 26) on the Our Singapore Conversation survey conducted by the Institute of Policy Studies. In particular, the article said the survey found that “society, in general, did not accept gay lifestyles, although … younger and more educated Singaporeans were relatively more accepting.”

As a socio-legal scholar whose research focuses mainly on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender activism (LGBT) in Singapore and other parts of South-east Asia, I am concerned by the use of the term “gay lifestyle”.

Both general and LGBT-specific online media have questioned its use in the survey.

The researchers have explained that the term was used as they believed that it was something understood by most Singaporeans within the local context.

Indeed, the Media Development Authority has media content codes that refer to similar language. For instance, the free-to-air television programme code for local television broadcasters states that “films that depict a homosexual lifestyle should be sensitive to community values. They should not, promote or justify a homosexual lifestyle”.

Unfortunately, as gay media watchdog GLAAD pointed out, homophobic groups and opponents to equal rights for lesbians and gay men have used “gay lifestyle” to denigrate them and suggest that their sexualities can and should be cured.

Given that lesbians and gay men also have a place in Singaporean society — as Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has acknowledged in Parliament — the use of the term should be more closely questioned.