May 17, 2019 was a meaningful day not only to Taiwan but to the whole world, because it’s the day that Taiwan legalized the same-sex marriage. Since that day, Taiwan has been the first in Asia that allows same-sex marriages, and has considered as the lighthouse of gender equality in Asia. Gender Inequality Index (GII), is the mostly used principle to judge a country’s gender equality, and the lower a country’s GII is, the fairer genders are equal. According to a report published by Gender Equality Committee from the Executive Yuan (2019), the GII of Taiwan is the ninth lowest in the world and lowest in Asia (See Picture1 in appendix). Moreover, many countries have legalized same-sex marriage since the trend of gender equality becomes popular. It seems that we may not need to worry about gender equality issue in the world, or in the countries which encourage gender equality. Nevertheless, the truth usually hurts. The right of marriage has been protected legally, though the society still contain differential treatments and discriminations toward LGBTQ people (See Picture 1).
Picture 1
A large number of researches have pointed out the seriousness of the problems. From the research conducted by Hatzenbuehler et al. (2010), depression and drug abuse have significantly increased among LGBTQ people after the passage of discriminatory laws. What’s even worse, according to American Journal of Public Health. (Russel T, Joyner K, 2001) and Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention. (Bagley at al., 2000), even if in the countries legalize same-sex marriage, the suicide rates of LGBTQ have always been the highest among the whole society. In the US, there are approximately 134 thousand LGBTQ children attempting suicide per year. We can easily conclude that once there are still discriminatory ideologies, regulations and unequal treatment, the reform of unfriendly environment to LGBTQs will be urgent. To tackle this circumstance, I designed a survey aiming to realize the condition of gender equality and LGBTQ experience. The survey is divided into three aspects.
First, the primary family aspect. Primary family is the very first influencing the LGBTQ people. According to the statistics by曾琬雅 (2009), 李佩雯 (2018), problems with primary family members are always the top asked issues. Also, in my survey, 32% of unfriendly treatment happened among primary families. However, 60% of my respondents don’t realize this fact (See Pictures 2,3). Moreover, my survey result showed that how the primary family react and behave to their gender orientation will extremely influence LGBTQ people’s self-identity and expression. The aftermaths are either mostly positive or mostly negative. Furthermore, every respondent of my survey thinks that considering their child sick or serving ties with them could cause worst influence on them (See Picture 4). Although some parents may misunderstand that LGBTQs are uneducated, immature and virus-carrier and refuse to face the problem directly (黃玲蘭, 2005；Ben-Ari, 1995), this will eventually cause the estrangement between family members (黃玲蘭, 2005). Therefore, I strongly suggest the primary family to physically or mentally support their LGBTQ family members because the very first influence from primary family will form long-lasting changes.
Picture 2
Picture 3
Picture 4
Second, the campus or workplace aspect. Bullies as well as discriminations among campus and workplace are the most common and the most serious. 周華山 (1997) states that compared with Europe and U.S., Chinese society tends to tolerate and overlooks the unfriendly treatment to LGBTQs on campus and workplace, because Chinese care and emphasize “Group identification” a lot. It means that LGBTQ people are usually forced to hide and suppress their true feelings considering the harmony and solidarity. Based on my survey results, about 70% (17 people) of my respondents have experienced or heard of unfriendly treatment toward gender orientation. Among them, more than 50% (14 people) of these incidents happened on campus. (See picture 5,6) In addition, according to the research project from the Ministry of Science and Technology (Peng-Wei W et al, 2018), 56.4%of teenagers were bullied due to their LGBTQ orientation. The suicide possibility of LGBTQ teenagers who were bullied is 31%, and it’s almost two times to those who’ve never get bullied. Hence, the urgency of solution is obvious. In order to resolve unfriendly treatment in places such as campus or workplace, teachers, classmates, leaders and co-workers should stand out and support them with actual actions. Some people may doubt the effectiveness of fellow’s support. Conversely, 76% of respondents (19 people) of my survey believed that it’s “Usually helpful” and “Very helpful”. (See picture 7) Besides, correct sex education is also needed to eliminate discriminations. Based on the survey result, 80% of respondents (20 people) agreed with the effectiveness of correct sex education. (See Picture 8) Unlike some opposition groups’ claim, the content and purpose of sex education is not encouraging students and our children to have sex freely. Instead, it aims to teach students to respect each other’s differences and bodies. In general, supports from fellows and leaders as well as the correct sex education are necessary to avoid discrimination and bullies in places like campus/workplace.
Picture 5
Picture 6
Picture 7
Picture 8
The last one is social culture/public places aspect. Although the protection law of same-sex marriage has just been passed, outdated regulations, thoughts, misunderstood in public place and mass culture are still hurting LGBTQ people. On the basis of my survey, laws against LGBTQs will most likely increase suicide rate (57.7%) and Depression rate (76.9%) (See Picture 9). Even 92% of my respondents all agreed that there are rules or ideologies in the social culture discriminatory or needed to be revised (See Picture 10). Ironically, today we can still hear hate speech and discriminatory behaviors toward LGBTQs in the society. Hate politics infringing human rights, fake messages misleading elders and children, and even fake news interrupting president election, these incorrect and discriminatory incidents are full of our daily life. (See Picture 2-7 in appendix) To solve this problem, we can start from public figures. From idols, singers, to mayors and councilors, we can utilize their fame, influence and authority to either raise the attention of the society or change the current environment. Some people may think that supports from public figures cannot influence throughout the whole society because they are far from the true public will. Nonetheless, 73.1% of respondents (19people) in my survey think that their supports can diminish incorrect thoughts effectively. (See Picture 11) With their fans, voters and parties promoting friendly and equal ideologies and actions, some people around us will discuss and promote them. Finally, the whole society will therefore become more friendly because there is no more discrimination staying in the society hurting LGBTQs.
Picture 9
Picture 10
Picture 11
Over several decades, we have seen lots of progress of gender equality in the society. Unfortunately, the remaining discriminations make the reform of unfriendly environment to LGBTQs urgent, and there are still some room for improvement. From primary family, to campus/workplace and public space, every civils should devote themselves to tackle the problems. Based on the survey, we conclude that if the society start changing with more supports and empathy from family members, fellows and public figure, it’ll become a friendlier place not only for LGBTQs, but for everyone.
Appendixes
References
Hatzenbuehler, M. L., McLaughlin, K. A., Keyes, K. M., & Hasin, D. S. (2010). The impact of institutional discrimination on psychiatric disorders in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: A prospective study. American journal of public health, 100(3), 452-459.
Jen‐peng, L., & Naifei 1, D. (2005). Reticent poetics, queer politics. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 6(1), 30-55.
Patterson, C. J. (2000). Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of marriage and family, 62(4), 1052-1069.
Russell, S. T., & Joyner, K. (2001). Adolescent sexual orientation and suicide risk: Evidence from a national study. American Journal of public health, 91(8), 1276-1281.
Bagley, C., & Tremblay, P. (2000). Elevated rates of suicidal behavior in gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth. Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention, 21(3), 111.
Wang, F. T., Bih, H. D., & Brennan, D. J. (2009). Have they really come out: Gay men and their parents in Taiwan. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 11(3), 285-296.
李佩雯. (2018). 當 [他們] 也是 [我們]: 已出櫃同志與原生家庭之跨群體溝通關係維繫研究. 傳播研究與實踐, 8(1), 65-101.
曾琬雅. (2009). 敘事治療對已出櫃同志父母之諮商過程探討. 諮商與輔導, (278), 32-35.
黃玲蘭. (2005). 從[同性戀認同歷程] 談女同志的現身壓力與因應策略. 元培科學技術學院通識教育中心
周華山. (1997). 後殖民同志. 香港同志研究社
Survey
Copy and paste your Google Survey link here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfLmm0sXLJekKy_8AQItxkuznyTFox1EttaIO0bvmIRANBQ6Q/viewform?usp=sf_link
Comments