The SOGIE (SOGIE, Tagalog: ['sɔdʒi]), also known as the Anti-Discrimination Bill (ADB), is a

proposed legislation of the Congress of the Philippines. It is intended to prevent various economic
and public accommodation-related acts of discrimination against people based on their sexual
orientation, gender identity or expression.[1] The current versions of the bill are championed by Kaka
Bag-ao, Geraldine Roman, and Tom Villarin in the House of Representatives, and Risa Hontiveros in
the Senate. The version in the House of Representative passed its third reading most recently on
September 20, 2017, but died in the Senate.[2] It has been refiled for the 18th Congress.

The problem with all the discussions surrounding the sexual orientation and
gender identity legislative proposals are many. But it’s on the fundamental
grounds that the flaws are truly significant.

One sees this in the opening portion, for example, of Senate Bill Nos. 159 and
689, defining the following terms:

“Gender Expression: refers to the outward manifestations of the cultural traits

that enable a person to identify as male or female according to patterns that,
at a particular moment in history, a given society defines as gender
appropriate.”

“Gender Identity: refers to the personal sense of identity as characterized,

among others, by manner of clothing, inclinations, and behavior in relation to
masculine or feminine conventions. A person may have a male or female
identity with the physiological characteristics of the opposite sex.”

The definitions are important because on them, along with the definition of
“sexual orientation”, are practically built the entire structure of alleged “rights”
that SBs 159/689 (or the “Anti-Discrimination” bill) are supposed to protect.

But one searches in vain for any factual or scientific data to back up the
definitions. Or serve as sufficient rationale why additional legislation is even
needed at all.
Instead, SBs 159/689 misleadingly refer to international law when no
international law recognizes SOGIE “rights.”

Then SBs 159/689 rely on a five-year-old Pew survey finding “73% of adult
Filipinos agree that homosexuality should be accepted by society.” But SB
689 fails to mention that “nearly two-thirds (65%) of Filipinos surveyed said
homosexuality was immoral” (Thomson Reuters, 2014).

This proves that Filipinos, while correctly believing homosexuality should be

tolerated, equally correctly don’t agree with it.

In the end, the SOGIE bills (House Bills 134 and 136 and Senate Bills 159
and 689) substantially base their “logic” on two UN studies without any
objective factual data.

Pathetically, SOGIE’s foundations are thus revealed to be merely self-

referential (e.g., Pew surveys), anecdotal, biased, or outrightly misleading.

Practically no effort was made to gather information from the relevant labor,
educational, judicial, or police agencies.

And yet Filipinos are expected to acquiesce to the wholesale reengineering of

Philippine society on this flimsiest of grounds?

Its congressional backers base their claim on gender being non-binary, like “a
rainbow.” If true, can they at least be identified and enumerated?

How can the proposed laws protect something if even their authors don’t know
what they are?

This is no way to make legislation.

The bills’ authors can’t identify the said genders because their proposed law is
based on fantasy not fact.
The gender identities and expression aren’t based on biology. Nothing
remotely scientific supports the claim of categorizing a gazillion genders
mutable through time. Not our history or culture. Not race, which is biological
as well.

What then? The only thing such “genders” are based on are the purely
emotional and subjective belief of whoever claims it.

Yes, at most that’s all what SOGIE is: feelings, idea, a belief.

But as beliefs, such are already constitutionally and legislatively protected. So

what reason could these additional legislation, these SOGIE bills, have?

Furthermore, not only are these proposed SOGIE laws completely

unnecessary, they are also constitutionally infirm.

One may have the constitutional right to believe something and express that
belief but legislation cannot be made to force you to agree to that belief or its
expression. Others are also entitled to such innate constitutional rights.

What is provided for under the Constitution is the guarantee to be left alone to
believe and speak as one wants, so long as such does not violate others’
rights.

To ask for more rights over and above that of others to protect your own
belief, ideas, and expression violates the neutrality that government is
constitutionally required to do. It violates individual property rights as well.

You are in effect asking for a privilege not available to other beliefs, speech,
or expression.

It may be argued that educational institutions, religion, and even media are
given dispensation but note this is mostly only as to taxes. And such is
neutrally available to all beliefs, religions, or expression. Nothing is taken
away from, confiscated, forced, or makes a specific belief or thought superior
to or treated with privilege over and above other beliefs, expression, or
religion.

Incidentally, public toilets have been long segregated based on privacy,

modesty, and safety. And definitely biology. One sees this in the design
difference between the toilets for men and women. Beliefs cannot be a
reasonable basis to segregate toilets. Certainly not such that would justify
putting one specific belief over all others.

The SOGIE bills should be defeated for their utter non-conformity not only with
our Constitution but also sheer common sense.

And conflict with many other laws, particularly those protecting women,
children, labor/business/property, schools, the military, as well as penal and
civil relations.

And the SOGIE bills become even more repugnant when read alongside the
ill-advised Safe Spaces Act.

Let the LGBTQ ‘live their

truth’
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:12 AM August 17, 2019

“We just want to use the bathroom” is how Ice Seguerra, a transgender celebrity, boils
down the issue of LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer) rights, in his
comments pertaining to the ordeal that Gretchen Diez went through recently.

Diez, a transgender woman, tried to enter the ladies’ room of a mall last Tuesday but
was prevented from doing so by a woman restroom attendant. When she argued with
the woman and demanded to know on what grounds she was being barred, Diez was
brought to the mall’s security office where, in the words of a supporter on Facebook,
she was “pushed, slapped and handcuffed.” Diez was then marched in full view of the
public and transported to the Camp Karingal police station, facing charges of unjust
vexation.
ADVERTISEMENT

It would seem, though, that all’s well that ends well, with Diez eventually freed from
detention and the attendant writing a note of apology. Diez’s legal team, however, is
said to be still mulling charges against the mall management.

But the case then took on a life of its own, with public officials jumping into the roiled
waters of LGBTQ rights and the debate over the pending Sogie (sexual orientation and
gender identity and expression) Equality Bill.

The Sogie bill, also known as the Anti-Discrimination Bill, is intended by its champions
“to prevent various economic and public accommodation-related acts of discrimination
against people based on their sexual orientation, gender identity or expression.” The bill
has undergone many iterations since it was first filed in 2000 (19 years ago!); the
closest it got to being enacted was in the last Congress when the House passed it on
third reading in 2017, before it was shot down by the Senate. Champions in the present
Congress, though, are still working to get it passed, and the case of Gretchen Diez has
certainly pushed it back to the spotlight.

–– ADVERTISEMENT ––
Sen. Risa Hontiveros, who sponsored the Sogie bill in the last Congress, has refiled the
same legislation, explaining that the Diez case proves how “LGBTQ persons face
harassment and discrimination every day.”
Seguerra, speaking to reporters, testified how he, a local celebrity and the former chair
of the National Youth Commission (NYC), has had to think twice whenever he needed
to use a public restroom, especially abroad and especially if there were other Filipinos
who would recognize him. It had gotten so bad, he shared, that whenever he traveled as
NYC chair, he would simply avoid drinking liquids the whole day.

The incident between Diez and the restroom attendant comes at an ironic time in the
history of Filipino public awareness and acceptance of LGBTQ rights. The
confrontation came after Pride Month was observed last June, with parades in many
places around the country. The most prominent of these was Metro Manila Pride,
celebrated in Marikina, the longest-running public observance of gay pride and the
struggle for full gender equality in Southeast Asia. Suddenly, it seemed, rainbow-
themed pedestrian lanes were all over the metropolitan area—including one, ironically
enough, just outside Farmers Plaza where Diez was forbidden from using the restroom
of her choice.

This is the stark reality facing the Gretchens and Ices of the world. No matter how
much public demonstrations of support are galvanized, petty, ignorant and egregious
acts like banning a transgender from using the “wrong” restroom will still take place—
unless the Quezon City government, for instance, seriously implements the very
ordinance it has passed prohibiting such acts of discrimination in the city (thankfully,
Quezon City Mayor Joy Belmonte has chastised the mall for its action and thrown her
support behind Diez). Nor will they fully ease the fears and unease that LGBTQ
members feel in public whenever they “live their truth,” as Hontiveros put it, while
others refuse to acknowledge, or will even challenge or punish, this truth.

But the Sogie law, if it ever comes to pass, will be a powerful tool to educate the public
and generations to come about what it means to be human, to be imbued with inherent
rights and dignity, and to respect those same rights irrespective of sexual identity or
gender orientation, or even the way one chooses to dress. Members of Congress need to
use this moment to think hard about the need to make the country a safer, more
inclusive place for ALL Filipino citizens (including, they should be reminded, LGBTQ
sons and daughters, siblings and other loved ones in their own families). “We just want
to use the bathroom” is, above all, an issue of basic human rights.
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/123358/let-the-lgbtq-live-their-
truth#ixzz61CjVZ4zM
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

What is your take on the proposed SOGIE Bill?

Ad by Tipalti

Automate accounts payable and global payouts with AP automation.

Tipalti makes mass payouts to global suppliers, partners, affiliates, publishers, and
freelancers.

Learn More

7 Answers

Jim Coronel, studies at Ateneo de Manila University (2020)

Answered Sep 2, 2019 · Author has 289 answers and 761k answer views

Originally Answered: What are your opinions toward the Philippines’ SOGIE Equality Bill?

I recently read the bill in its entirety. SOGIE is definitely a divisive bill, that’s for sure.

The notion of equal rights and opportunities for the LGBT+ community doesn’t really sit well
with socially conservative Filipinos on account of anti-LGBT+ sentiment arising from their
Christian faith which, in turn, comes from a common misconception on homosexuality—that
homosexuality is a sin when the Bible says only homosexual acts are. EDIT: By saying that, I
don’t mean to insult Filipino Christians who believe so and Christianity itself. Many of my
relatives also believe in this, yet I don’t hate them. I’m just stating the truth as it is.

The detractors have had a field day twisting the intentions of the bill, saying that it gives
special treatment to them. It doesn’t.
PHOTO: A list of common misconceptions shared by Sen. Risa Hontiveros, which are
debunked at the right column. These arise from critics seeking to discredit the bill.

From what I read, it’s an anti-discrimination bill. It enumerates in full detail instances of
discriminatory practices, which the bill, when approved, penalizes. SOGIE also sets up police
services specifically for gender rights violations. Nothing wrong with gender equality,
especially since we score highly in the world rankings on gender equality, so why not bring
us up higher?

I feel pessimistic, however, with its fate. Where Duterte himself supports its passage, the
Senate is divided on the issue. It doesn’t help as well that Gretchen Diez’s unpopular antics
further call SOGIE into question.
 In any case, I really hope that the bill will be passed soon.

631 views · View 5 Upvoters

Sponsored by QR-Code-Generator.com

Start creating QR codes now.

Takes only 30 seconds to create your first QR code. No signup required. It's free, start now.

Start Now

Related QuestionsMore Answers Below

 What is your stand on the SOGIE Bill?

 Why should we disagree with Sogie Bill?
 What is a sogie bill?
 If you were a politician, what would be your first bill proposal?
 What is wrong with the NMC bill?

Juan Apolinario C. Reyes, K to 12 textbook writer at Great Deeds Textbook (2015-present)

Updated Aug 24, 2019 · Author has 197 answers and 83.3k answer views

Originally Answered: What is your take on the proposed SOGIE BILL?

The foundation ideas of the SOGIE BILL are among the most pernicious and absolutely false
claims I have heard in my life. The claims their proponents have about gender, that it is a
social construct only, is false.
This is among the many flawed thinking I meet when people make claims about human
behavior, individual or collective human behavior. To present my case I wish to call your
attention to IQ as an analogy, the intelligence quotient.

IQ is not a social construct only. It is both a social construct and an endowment of one's
biology. The environment can either suppress or encourage the full manifestation of IQ. For
example, young kids who were exposed to large doses of mercury and lead become stunted
in their IQ. Improved diet in a population results in improved IQ over time. Improved diet,
health, and medicine are at play behind the Flynn effect.

But IQ is not a social or environmental construct only. It is undeniably a legacy of biology

that is why our culture discourages couples with IQ below 69 from copulating and making
kids. People with IQ below 69 are put under the category of mental retardation. Couples
with this handicap are observed to give birth to kids whose IQs range from 36 to 69. The
world mean for IQ is 100.

Let us go back to gender.

Yes, it is a social construct. But it became a social construction because it was a response to
the set of attributes males and females brought with them upon their birth, and a response
to a set of differentiating characteristics that were observed between males and females for
hundreds of thousands of years. Male and female characteristics do overlap in many ways,
but because they also show markedly different traits as groups, society came to agree that
the two are different populations.

The biological foundation of gender is found in the chromosome. For males, it is the Y-
chromosome. This chromosome is the match that lit up the development of distinct traits
seen among males. Among many other things, these biological traits have to do with
muscle mass, texture of skin, quantity of hair, the male hormone testosterone, etc. The part
of gender which is a social construct came about as a response to these biological traits.
Therefore, gender is not a social construct only.

Sweeping statements like "gender is a social construct only" are bound to be false. I write
for both biology and math and physical sciences. What I see in biology is that it is
impossible to make sweeping statements. When you talk about living things, believe me,
there is bound to be an exemption somewhere, many exemptions.