Fridae

what has sexuality got to do with how well a person discharges his/her political duties? it would be both foolish and lame to correlate the two together~!

And what does ex-DPP chairman Shih Ming-teh (施明德) do between his bed sheets... can he provide a video of all of his sessions... all of his sexual activities please... coz he wants to be so open about everything and the world around him... he can obey the rule of his own principles!

Others don't need to be so open coz they have their own inner voices and drumbeats to follow...

Now wouldn't Taiwan be more interesting with Shih's streamed exploits on national television? ;(

Hell!

Or perhaps Shih could have asked how my gege, 艾未未 Ai Wei Wei was doing?

He could have asked whether Taiwan would be well served, as far as viewpoints of difference were concerned, under Communist Party rules? ... or perhaps whether his type of invasive question is best suited to an older China... and an outdated DPP member

my point of view is Tsai should declare her sexual orientation not bcos she was challenged by Shih,simply bcos homosexulity in Taiwan is widely accepted by the public . If she is a lesbian and admit it this will shut everyone s mouth once and for all

I GLBT Taiwanese citizens vote in this election, choose your / our friends!

I would love to see Tsai Ing-wen's (蔡英文) answer Shih's question by jumping him and straddling his shoulders Octopus' fashion and pull his ears hard and then harder... all the while holding her forefinger to her mouth in hushed silence...

Shih, like the true male snake he is, could then smell the scent of a real woman worth electing... sniff long and longer as if his life depended on it... odor de jolie... it should be bottled. ;)

While I agree that people should not be outed as gay, I think there's merit in wanting or expecting elected parliamentarians and in this case a would be president to be open about something as basic as one's sexual orientation in this day and age. If the individual or the public isn't ready at this time then so be it. I don't think lying about one's sexual orientation is the way to go even if that means one would get a better shot.

Actually, what does her orientation have to do with the job requirements? It's like asking her which brand of toothpaste she uses. Or whether she prefers pads or tampons. Yes, if she is gay, then answering may have a good effect for other gay men and woman, but she's running for president, to represent all Taiwanese. So, again I ask, what does her orientation have to do with the job requirements??

I think that voters build a profile in their minds about candidates mostly based on personality, voting record and experience, but they also take into consideration donors, looks, social life, education and family... The "In" "Out" side of the equation is a political decision and it expresses how she views gender issues. Her statement "If I answer him I will become an accomplice of gender oppression" Indicates she just wants people to engage fairly and with respect, no matter how golden muscle ken, femme or masculine or butch or queeny or draggy they are.

How ludicrous for someone to equate public disclosure of one's sexual orientation to integrity in running a country. The vast majority of world leaders in history have been very public heterosexuals. Have they been any more honest in running a country? I'd like to ask Shih how often he has sex with his wife because that information is really crucial for me to judge whether or not I can trust him as a politician! OY.

Im all for being out of the closet and open, honest and all that....but her response ""There is nothing wrong with any sexual orientation or marital status, and no one has the right to question others..." was very supportive of gays, nothing wishy washy or politic-speak about it. Id vote for her.

This is a very precise example of how most politicians use good concepts for bad reasons and the word "honesty" for dishonest purposes. It's nothing new of course... the word "sophism" was used by Plato to describe just that, a long time ago.
What's surprising is that it still works. Not with everyone of course, but maybe with enough voters so that it still makes it worth using such sophisms in a democratic context where the rule of "majority" is all that counts.

Good for her. A person's sexual orientation has nothing whatsoever to do with their ability to do their job, no matter what the profession may be.....

"Good for her", agreed... as for the rest of your comment, dear #19, much as I'd love to go along with it... well, I don't, and here is why :

Whether we like it or not, a homosexual person's orientation has innumerable consequences on his/her ability to handle matters, be they professional or personal, NOT because of the orientation per se but because of the way mainstream society reacts to it. That may sound like a strange paradox but homophobia, not homosexuality is what mainly shapes the thoughts, opinions and behaviour of lesbians and gays.

If we lived in a world free of homophobia, your remark would be entirely true, this Fridae article would not have been written and hell, Fridae would most probably not even exist ! But our planet's name is Earth, not Utopia and on Earth homophobia is alive and well, affecting and actually shaping our human societies in countless ways, visible or not ...

If this lady is a lesbian, her whole life cannot but be affected, deeply and significantly. Therefore her actions are ALSO affected and that's nothing to worry about but it's a fact that cannot and should not be denied. All because she was born in a society where it's not exactly ok to be a lesbian. Now if anyone tells me it IS ok to be gay in Taiwan, my answer is well, if it WAS that easy, Mr Shih being a politician would NEVER have bothered to ask the question. He raised THAT PARTICULAR point and not whether she prefers cats or dogs because he knows the dart will hurt somewhere somehow and all to his political gain.

I have no idea about politics in that country, from the article i realised that both of them are from the same party, what i can say is that a person whom uses other's privacy matter to attack one hoping to achieve certain agenda, this kind of people to me is really shallow minded and gain no respect at all... - Simon (Not Leeb)

I totally agree, Simon. I'm not well versed into Taiwanese politics either, but when one politican starts to raise the issue of another's sexuality you can be sure they are enemies, no matter what party they belong to.

"yveserwan," while I don't always agree with your comments, I have to admit, you have considered reason behind all your comments. Emotion may play a role, but I appreciate what appears to be your sense of fair play and ability to put your head around the arguments from multiple perspectives. That, my friend, gives you a really beautiful mind that is altogether rare, whether in what we loosely term gay culture or culture-at large. Thanks for brightening the discourse.

To counter, it's not a person's orientation that has innumerable consequences. Rather, it's our decisions of how we think, speak and act over our orientation and how we react to what we perceive or experience from other's thoughts, speech and actions regarding orientation and gender issues. But then, I think your comment eventually reads this way...

... and thanks to you Mr Slingtown for your appreciation. I do strive not to take ANYTHING at face value, I do my best to avoid stereotypes and clichés at all costs, and to see things from different angles.
A man I greatly admire was once making a point during a dinner conversation and someone said to him "I'm sorry Henry, I disagree" to which he answered "well, no cause to be sorry, I disagree too... in a way". My point (and his) being that there are so many ways to look at any given issue that we can never be totally in agreement - even with ourselves! that's why it's worth sharing, exploring and trying new perspectives. That's why I'm happy that you "don't always agree with [my] comments".... if you did it would be rather disturbing lol.

I didn't want to complicate things further but yes, my comment does "eventually reads this way". I did point out that it's not our sexual orientation per se which shapes us, it's the homophobic context in which we are born and to which we are forced to react, because it questions our nature in the most radical way.

Now, do we constantly and truly "decide " to act, think, speak in this way or that... what is the actual scope of our "free will"... well that is an entirely other question and a very challenging one, right ?
:-)

Ahh...the discussion of free will. I don't find it challenging at all. But that's probably because I think it's a red herring. The above discussion about reaction is merely about a highly dependent state based on all that has come before to all things up to the moment of reaction. The idea of free will as somehow defining our humanness is merely a false construct, as grasping at being separate rather than an integral, inseparable part of that which is and is not. Oops...I am no longer on topic. My free will has clearly taken me down the yellow-brick road...

Maybe she just finds men extremely annoying to live with.

There is a lot to be said for the concept of 'dont ask, dont tell' when it comes to the sexuality of public figures. A persons sexuality is about as relevant to his/her ability to carry on a job as is whether he/she eats Coco pops or muesli for breakfast

hello denseaus... seriously ? your gay identity in this not-exactly-gay-friendly world has not in the least influenced your thoughts, behaviour, attitude, opinions, assumptions and life-experiences any more than your breakfast menus ?

And then in turn all of the above (thoughts, behaviour etc) did not have any impact whatsoever on the way you do your job (or anything else for that matter) ?

Come on... no one is saying that Mrs Tsai's (alleged) homosexuality is influencing her political stance and/or actions in a NEGATIVE way - as a matter of fact I believe it's likely to do just the opposite. But to say it doesn't affect it in the least is totally unrealistic and absurd.

I'd like to add that I can't help but cringe when I hear people using the word "job" in politics. Regarding a political FUNCTION as a "job" is a relatively modern way of labelling it which roughly started in the 60s and is very revealing of how low politics and politicians have stooped since the end of the war. Politicians themselves often like to refer to their FUNCTION as a "job" nowadays, probably to make it sound more down-to-earth, nearer-to-the-masses, let's-roll-up-our-sleeves and such demagogical garbage but this seemingly innocent language slip could in the long run harm and deface their status and their task irreversibly.

The substitution partly stems from the fact that they actually have to WORK and that for this work they get PAID, but that doesn't make it a JOB, no more than a soda-pop machine is a salesperson just because it gives you a product in exchange for your money.

Mixing up concepts and placing the wrong label on
everything is a modern plague and this is one disturbing example. I regret to note that the present President of my own country (France) is one of the worst examples of self-serving politicians doing a "job" as he loves to call it, and when asked, as a child, what he wanted to be as an adult he may very well have answered "I want to be famous" because that's undoubtedly what he loves most about "the job". As a result he has consistently made a fool of himself and one can't help but wonder how his FUNCTION will survive in the eyes of the French after this clown's pathetic performance finally comes to an end.
(Sorry guys for the inflammatory digression into French politics) :-))

LOL esoteric is what you don't understand ?

Fair enough, polity is always like above as expected, a reflector of previous history about gay rumuors, STALE!

性傾向應該和領導能力沒關係唄。。。

'Coming out', in many people's minds, often conjures up images of a large publicity conference where the hapless closeted 'victim' will be bombarded with fatuous questions fr rude/ignorant journalists (if you can call them that; most are in fact tabloid writers) who then proceed to sensationalize, exaggerate ot twist the details when writing their piece. Above scenario's esp. very prevalent in Taiwan media. Hence I completely understand, and sympathise with, Ms Tsai's decision to not mix work with her private life...which is why it's called private' in first place! :p

Hmm...not sure who the "we" caesar2003 is referring to. Maybe there's a recently vacated royal postion, say some ramdom queen, and he's speaking for his subjects?? That's really the only possibility I can think of since he's certainly not speaking for me. Personally, I find it a bit too self-serving for me to use the "we" when it's really only my little sweet demure self who's thoughts I am sure.

I believe there is what appears to me to be a generally accepted idea in democratic government that politicians are elected to "serve the public," often including such wording as part of the swearing-in ceremony. The argument about it not being a job was so persuasively presented that I felt I should revise my own post to remove references to '"job description" to better reflect this difference. Since immunity from prosecution during the term of a politician is also something that's not unheard of in Western countries, I wonder, is this also part of caesar2003's understanding of a job?? Yes, yes...persuasive arguments, one and all...

People get off-topic just as I am doing now. I am sure the moderator does a bang-up job moderating so that those commenting won't need too. Thank goodness it's the moderator's...ahem...job.

Hahaha thanks for the witty support slingtown !
...and for adding two very relevant arguments to the issue ("serving the public" and the immunity factor).
It seems to me that fridae moderators never remove a comment for being off-topic and it's probably just as well. I have seen heinous/insulting comments chopped off but not always, especially when they're not using "officially rude" words. There again why not, after all this board is for conversation and conversations can get pretty heated up at times. When and if someone insults me I just laugh and take it from where it comes :-)

I agree with both sides of the argument which has started above.

The comments:

"A person's sexual orientation has nothing whatsoever to do with their ability to do their job",

"A persons sexuality is about as relevant to his/her ability to carry on a job as is whether he/she eats Coco pops or muesli for breakfast",

and "性傾向應該和領導能力沒關係唄" ('Sexual orientation should not be related to leadership')

These comments actually do have some truth in them...

The reason why I say this is because when Tsai Ing-wen is doing her 'job' or 'function' (whatever you want to call it), her sexual orientation makes no difference to the rest of us as citizens. It's her choices and decisions as a human being that either positively or negatively affect us - not that I'm Taiwanese! :P

Yveserwan, I'd like to add to this:

"hello denseaus... seriously ? your gay identity in this not-exactly-gay-friendly world has not in the least influenced your thoughts, behaviour, attitude, opinions, assumptions and life-experiences any more than your breakfast menus ?

And then in turn all of the above (thoughts, behaviour etc) did not have any impact whatsoever on the way you do your job (or anything else for that matter) ?"

Surely this does affect a person, and in this case, it surely affects Tsai Ing-wen too. But Berlusconi's girlfriends affect him, and Sarcozy's love of fame* affects him too.. and whether you eat coco-pops or muesli for breakfast could possibly have its effects on a person too... lol...

To clarify, I don't disagree with anyone else's point of view here, I just wonder whether there actually needs to be a debate on how her sexual orientation effects her or not, because we all have our own shit going on, whether gay, straight, married, single, or whatever, and and if she is a good politician, her gayness (or lack of) should make no difference to the citizens of Taiwan at all..

Just offering a point of view.. :)

'kel00' #36... and your balanced point of view is welcomed.
I agree with your comment "her gayness (or lack of) should make no difference to the the citizens of Taiwan at all.." and I would go even further to suggest that it WOULD NOT make any differnce to the citizens of Taiwan.

The bottom line is the people of any country (especially in a country like Taiwan that is progressive on human rights) want sincere, uncorrupt politicians that listen to the needs of their citizens and deliver on issues like economy, jobs, taxes, rights, health etc.

After any election the sexuality of a leader is of no consequence compared with issues involved with the job (yes job!) that they have been entrusted to carry out by the people. This can be seen from my country (Australia a country not unlike Taiwan in many ways and with a very large proportion of Asian voters) where we have an openly female gay asian minister in cabinet (Penny Wong, finance minister) and the leader of our third largest political party is an openly gay man.
Their sexuality is rarely even publicly mentioned ( unless ironically from the gay community holding them to account for their performance on gay rights)

The vast majority don't give a rats!

Wonderful comments from our resident genius Yveserwan!

Authenticity is rare in politicians and trolls.

...and in you, Kumabro, as your profile pics clearly indicate :-))

But Yveserwan, you ARE a genius. And I mean that most sincerely. Molieresque even. You could play Tartuffe entirely sans effort.

Is total authenticity necessarily a good thing in politicians? If public figures always said what they really thought, where would we be? Look at the effect on international relations by Wikileaks. It just doesn't work for politicians to be entirely honest.

dear jupiter101, might i ask that you please try to be at least a little more sensitive to the readership. afterall, i feel certain there are some tops and versatile readers that want their place in the line as well. bottoms can't always get the line, right? I bet you would agree that tops and versatiles should get a chance to join the line. oops! there's that pesky, idealistic "should" cropping up it's little head (no offense meant to all the big heads out there...no really, i mean it); slap my bottom (err...top). aww, damn it!! you get my point, right?

or might i misunderstand? certainly, i'd hate to think that australia practices some sort of role segregation...bottom line, top line, versatile line. i mean, wouldn't it be just so much more fun if we could have a single integrated line. oh! i see. that might turn into a cluster-f*** line. now i see why there might be segregation. ok, so may i ask that in your next posting, you reference the top line or the versatile line? thanks. you're a dear. always good to make everyone feel included :-)

yes, yes. i too have been thinking how alike taiwan and australia are. surrounded by water, barbie and beer weekends, mainland china wanting to own everything, having a very LARGE proportion of asian voters...yes yes yes, so very alike. i guess we should all be happy that australia's progressive immigration policies have been so effective; sounds like asians have become a large proportion of voters.

hmm...very large proportion of voters you say? would you say this is the same as vast majority?? ahh...so you are the ear of the vast majority of voters who just happen to be asian. good good good. how wonderful!

as to sexuality never even being publicly mentioned down under, i wonder as to how you came know that Penny Wong is from isle of lesbos or that the third largest australian political party is helmed (i like this word so much, don't you?) by a spartan (i loved loved loved '300', didn't you?? woof!)?? ah yes, you have the ear of the vast majority. yes yes yes yes...your authoritative voice makes me confident that i need not do a google search of australian news to see if sexuality is ever mentioned in the australian press. i'm sure that's a topic that strictly reserve for barbie-talk.

i must say, it's awfully impressive that you choose to stay so in-tune with the hearts and mind of the vast majority. afterall, they don't give a rats. i feel it must really sting not getting the rats, especially if you always hoped for rats (do you know when you first starting hoping to receive rats? don't worry yourself; i'm sure this is a perfectly normal desire. it probably meshes nicely with bukake.). for sure, you deserve better; i'll do my best to see you get your rats. here in bangkok, we have rather alot and i'm sure the generous folks here would love to share with you. oops! so sorry; i digress yet again. focus focus focus!

truly, your word is that of a scholar...informed, trusted, spreading truth and justice. i bet rupert murdoch pesters you night and day to helm (i just had to work this word in one more time) his hard news empire, you becoming robin to his batman, representing the interests and speaking for the vast majority. i've got your back; once you've hit the big time, i'll do my best to remind people your voice of truth started here on fridae! how fortunate for all of us!! hip-hip hooray!!

post 41 slingtown...an example of an *unbalanced* point of view?

tongue in cheek is always the most unbalanced of views. but i own it when I do it. can you say the same?

'caesar2003', i know this sounds rather trashy of me, but it's hard to view you objectively. afterall, with your facepic being even smaller resolution than the thumbnail and your dickpic being the only clear one on your profile, i can't help but feel you are trying to tell the world something important about yourself.

i'm not looking for your kudos, boys. rather, i just hope to engage in thought-provoking conversation, though sometimes i do lose my objectivity and decide to come down to your level, ass-to-ass, so to speak.

as to the rants of random queen, this might be as close as you come to chatting it up with royalty. so i suggest you use your opp wisely!

Now we know where all the angry, bitchy Queens hang out... heheee...

BYE! :P

Well, I don't think anyone should pry into another person's personal life and I support what Tsai Ing Wen said to such an inappropriate question from a leader in the DPP. If the candidate was a single man I doubt that he'd be asked the same question.

agreed,u cannot force someone 2 come out.violate their rights.and wat has sexuality gotta do with how well she can run the country?zzzz

Regardless of anyone's sexual orientation, Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP will bring forth positive changes for a free and independent Taiwan. President Ma (or governor Ma as I jokingly refer to him as) has seen a widening income gap between rich and poor and has made economic agreements with the Communist Party of China from a position of weakness. It is in my humble opinion, and those of my Taiwanese friends, that Ma will serve the interests of the Communist Party and its cliques. And to stay on topic, an individual's sexual orientation is one's own private business. I would not support outing individuals, although the outing of hypocrites who are lgb (I have not seen a transgender individual in politics who has sought to hurt and oppress others, not there are many) I can certainly tolerate. And btw, I find politics in Taiwan incredibly interesting and enjoy the party like atmosphere during election season. I wish my compatriots in the states could have that passion!

Shih, dont force her to go public about her sexual orientation, & Tsai, stay cool, you answer him quite without fear or favour. We leave it to both of you to support the queer revolutionarily struggle in China & Taiwan, so please stay focus on that.

That's more like a moral hostage. Sexual orientation is just like everything else that deserves privacy, and it's up to the discretion of the person himself/herself to choose whether to disclose or not. If a president even need to be honest even about irrelevant personal things to the country, then I think they ain't choosing a president after all. Besides, conservative citizens who knows about it will only see the presidential candidate as having "gay agenda".

"Hey citizens, I got a mole on my butt and my bank account has $3,216.27! Vote me as president now!" XD