That by itself is not that much of a problem, but later he posted on social media saying

I don't want to make that sissy gesture, which sparked controversy.

As a response to his comment, a New Power Party chairwoman Wang Wanyu commented, urging him to be mindful of his word, as a few careless words can hurt thousands of people.

The Taiwanese Gender Equality Education Association condemned Wang's statement, argued that while there's nothing wrong with Wang not wanting to make a heart gesture, the issue lies in his use of the derogatory term sissy to express this.

They point out that while in some contexts the term might be used positively or empower feminine quality, in many cases it carries discriminatory connotations, reflecting a disdain for femininity.

I believe this event presents a very good opportunity for us to reflect on the nature of gender roles and how, in our society, even something as simple as a heart gesture can make a person feel so insecure about their masculinity that he has to resort to using a derogatory term to distance himself from it.

So let's talk about it.

We humans as language users tend to think about language as simply a tool for communication, but in reality, it's hardly the case.

Let me explain why.

So if you have been following me for a while, which I doubt any of you exist, according to analytics, the majority of you are one-time viewers who found my videos through YouTube search or Google search.

But anyway, it's nice to imagine.

If you are one of my imaginative followers who has followed me for a while, you know

I like big words.

And today, I will introduce three big words that can help us understand the situation better.

So the first big word would be

Speech-Act Theory

So, what is speech-act theory?

Speech-act theory is a concept in linguistic and philosophy of language that refers to the action performed through speech.

Introduced by J.L. Austin in his 1962 book, How to Do Things with Words, the theory explains that when we speak, we are not just conveying information, but also performing action.

There are three main types of speech acts.

1.

Locutionary Act

Locutionary act is the act of saying something with a specific meaning, focuses only on the literal meaning of the words, not the intention or effect.

2.

Elocutionary Act

Elocutionary act is the intention behind the statement, like requesting, promising or apologizing, which is more than just the words themselves, it's about what the speaker is trying to achieve through their statement.

3.

Prolocutionary Act

The prolocutionary act is about the outcome or effect of the statement on the listener, which is separate from the speaker's intention and the literal meaning, such as persuading, frightening or amusing.

For example, imagine your friend just pulled out a fresh cheesy pizza, and you really want to have a piece of it.

You might say, wow, the pizza looks really good.

Here the locutionary act is simply expressing admiration for the pizza, you are literally stating the pizza looks appetizing, it's just the surface meaning of the words.

The elocutionary act here is actually a hint or a request, you are not just commenting on the appearance of the pizza, you are subtly trying to get your friend to offer you a slice.

The intention behind the statement is to prompt the friend to share, even though it's not explicitly stated.

The prolocutionary act is the effect this statement has on the pizza's owner.

Maybe your friend will feel guilty and say, ok, fine, you can have a slice.

Or maybe they laughed and said, nice try, but this one is all mine.

The effect on the listener, whether they decide to share the pizza or not, is the prolocutionary act.

The outcome depends on how the pizza owner interprets the hint.

Ok, so I think now we can start by breaking down a Sonny Wong statement using speech act theory to better understand the nature and the effect of his speech.

Sonny Wong said, I don't want to make that sissy gesture.

On the surface, the locutionary act is simply Sonny Wong stating a preference.

He don't want to perform a particular gesture.

The words themselves are just conveying his decision, which might seem straightforward.

However, the locutionary act here go beyond the surface meaning.

By choosing the term sissy, translated from the Chinese term niáng pào, Sonny isn't just setting a boundary.

He implicitly expressing disdain or rejection of certain behavior by associating it with negative stereotypes about femininity in men.

The locutionary act involves the intention behind his words to distance himself from anything perceived as unmanly and to reinforce traditional gender norm.

Additionally, in response to the criticism he faced for using the word, he later hinted on social media that it might have been part of the movie's promotion, suggesting that the intention could be to provoke outrage intentionally, aka rage baiting, which is an equally problematic intention if not more so.

Finally, the prelocutionary act is about the impact this statement has on others.

Hearing this, listeners might feel reinforcing their own biases against non-traditional gender expressions, or they might feel insulted or marginalized if they identify with or support more feminine behaviors in men.

The use of sissy can perpetuate harmful stereotypes, leading to the normalization of gender-based slurs, further stigmatizing those who do not conform to the rigid gender roles.

This can harm not only those directly affected by such stereotypes, but also those who adhere to traditional masculine roles, as it traps them in limiting and harmful expectations.

It discourages vulnerability in men who want to be perceived as masculine, suggesting that expressing gentleness or making cute gestures is incompatible with being seen as a quote-unquote real man.

Many have argued that such language affects those who don't conform to traditional gender norms, but I would argue they actually harm the men who do want to follow the traditional masculine gender role equally, if not more so.

Let me explain why in the following video, and share some research to back up this claim.

So here you go.

To explain why, I think it would be helpful to introduce another big word of today, hegemonic masculinity.

So let's start by explaining what this word means.

So what is hegemonic masculinity?

Hegemonic masculinity refers to the dominant form of masculinity in a given society, which often upholds certain ideals about male behavior and roles.

This concept, introduced by sociology R. W. Connell, suggests that hegemonic masculinity set the standards for what is considered normal or ideal masculinity.

It typically emphasizes traits like physical strength, authority, heterosexuality, emotional stoicism, and competitiveness.

These traits are often reinforced through cultural norms, media portrayals, and socialization process.

From a young age, boys are often socialized into this expectation through family, education, peer groups, and media.

For example, boys might be encouraged to engage in competitive sport, avoid showing vulnerability, and in this case, avoid cute gestures as a way to assert themselves in a way that aligns with traditional masculine roles.

But who is to say what specific actions, gestures, or demeanors are considered acceptable masculine behavior?

One big part of them was formed through the so-called discourse of power, which is our third big word of today.

So what is the discourse of power?

The discourse of power refers to the way in which power is expressed, communicated, and maintained through language, idea, and social practices.

It is a concept rooted in the work of French philosopher Michel Foucault, who argued that power is not just about direct control or coercion, but also embedded in the way we talk about and understand the world.

Discourse shapes what is considered true, normal, or acceptable in influencing people's beliefs and behaviors.

Those who control the dominant discourse have the ability to define reality for others, determining what knowledge is legitimate and which voices are heard or silenced.

Through discourse, power is both exercised and resisted, meaning that while it can reinforce existing hierarchies, it also provides avenues for challenging or transforming them.

In this context, Sun Yat-sen's comment is an exercise of power through discourse, by labeling the hard gesture as sissy.

He is contributing to a discourse that polices and regulates acceptable masculine behavior.

This reinforces a social hierarchy where masculinity is narrowly defined, and deviates from this norm are stigmatized.

The use of derogatory language becomes a mechanism of control, marginalizing those who do not fit within the perceived boundary of gender norm.

On the other hand, those who push back on his comment can be seen as engaging in a form of resistance against the dominant discourse of masculinity.

By challenging Sun Yat-sen's comment, they are questioning the narrow definition of masculinity that his words uphold.

The resistance can create a space for alternative discourses that are more inclusive and diverse, allowing for a broader range of expressions of gender identity.

In this way, the discourse of power is not static, it's constantly being negotiated and contested.

Those who challenge the dominant discourse are attempting to shift the balance of power, opening up possibility for new ways of thinking and being.

This dynamic process underscores how power operates within society, not just through overt control.

Through the subtlety of languages, norms, and cultural practices that shape our understanding of the world, and our place within it.

Okay, so now back to my original point.

I argue that this kind of attempt to narrow the definition of acceptable masculinity not only marginalized those who don't conform to traditional masculine standards, but also equally harmed, if not more so, those who do wish to follow traditional masculine gender roles by limiting men's ability to express vulnerability and emotional tenderness.

To explain why, I want to first present a statistic.

According to World Health Organization, men are nearly twice as likely to die by suicide as women.

In many countries, the suicide rate among men is significantly higher.

For example, according to the latest data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention in 2022, in the United States, the suicide rate among men was approximately four times higher than that of women.

Specifically, while men represent about 50% of the population, they account for nearly 80% of all suicides in 2022.

While the reasons for high suicide rate among men are complex and multifaceted, many experts point to the societal expectation and rigid notion of masculinity as significant factors.

Traditional gender roles often emphasize stoicism, self-reliance, and emotional restraint in men.

This concept sometimes refers to as hegemonic masculinity, aka the term we just learned today.

It discourages men from seeking help or showing vulnerability, which can result in untreated mental health issues and tragically higher rate of suicide.

Research in psychology, sociology, and public health has explored this connection, revealing how the pressure of conforming to traditional masculine norms can have severe mental health consequences.

In practice, it can manifest in the following way.

1.

Emotional suppression Hegemonic masculinity often demands that men suppress emotions such as sadness, fear, or vulnerability.

This emotional repression can lead to internalized stress, anxiety, and depression.

When men are discouraged from seeking help or expressing their feelings, they may struggle to cope with their mental health challenges alone, increasing the risk of suicide.

A cohort study titled Association of High Traditional Masculinity and Risk of Suicide

Published in JAMA Psychiatry in April 2020, researchers explored the link between high traditional masculinity, HTM, and suicide risk among US men.

Using data from Ad Health study, the analysis found that men with high traditional masculinity trait are 2.4 times more likely to die by suicide compared to non-HTM men, so they were less likely to report suicidal ideation.

The study underscored the potential influence of high traditional masculinity on men's suicidal risk.

2.

Social isolation and stigma around mental health The expectation for men to be self-reliant and independent often lead to social isolation, depriving them of deep supportive relationships that are crucial in times of crisis.

This isolation can be particularly damaging when men feel that seeking help would be seen as weaknesses, intensifying their sense of loneliness.

A study published in American Journal of Men's Health in September 2018 titled Masculinity,

Social Connectedness, and Mental Health, Men's Diverse Pattern of Practice, used life history interviewed with 15 men aged 20 to 50 in New Zealand to explore the interplay between masculinity and social connectedness.

The researcher found that while some men successfully establish support networks, others struggle to mobilize support due to their adherence to the traditional masculine ideal of independence.

These men often compartmentalize their relationships, keeping emotional issues separate and failing to seek support even in times of distress.

This reluctance, rooted in societal expectation, often left them feeling isolated and unsupported.

The study underscored the need to challenge this legit masculine ideal to foster better mental health and societal connectedness among men.

In another research publication titled The Relation of Masculinity and Help-Seeking Style with the Economic Help-Seeking Behavior of College Men, published in the Journal of Men's

Study, author Davy J. Weimer and Ronald F. Levant examined how traditional masculinity and help-seeking style influence college men's avoidance of academic help.

The study involved 178 male undergraduates, found that gender conformity to masculine norms, particularly self-reliance and dominance, significantly correlated with avoiding academic help, paralleling patterns seen in other areas of men's help-seeking behavior.

3.

Pressure to Conform

The pressure to conform to the societal ideal of masculinity can be overwhelming, leading men to feel inadequate or worthless when they perceive themselves as failing to meet this expectation.

This stress can be particularly intense during significant life transitions, such as job loss, relationship breakdowns, or aging, where the perceived loss of masculine identity may drive men into despair.

The connection is highlighted in a study published in Psycho-Oncology in August 2022 titled The

Impact of Hegemonic Masculine Ideals on Self-Esteem in Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Androgen

Deprivation Therapy, ADT, compared to ADT-naive patients, aka patients who have not yet received androgen deprivation therapy.

The research involved 57 patients on ADT and 59 ADT-naive patients, and it revealed that hegemonic masculinity ideals significantly lower masculine self-esteem regardless of

ADT status.

The study also found that younger patients were particularly affected by body image issues.

These findings underscore the importance of addressing the pressure of hegemonic masculinity to better support men, particularly those who are undergoing life-altering experiences like prostate cancer.

4.

Toxic Masculinity

Toxic masculinity, a subset of hegemonic masculinity, involves harmful behavior such as aggression, dominance, and control.

But before I start this one, I want to make it clear that not all traits traditionally associated with masculinity are bad.

There are some traits that we traditionally associate with masculinity are healthy and good for you and people around you, which we call positive masculinity.

Toxic masculinity is a trait that we traditionally associate with masculinity that tend to lead to negative consequences, and those who have traits that are associated with toxic masculinity are not necessarily men.

It's just traditionally associated with men, which is also a stereotype we should not generalize to old men.

So I just wanted to get this out of the door, because nowadays when you use this term, sometimes people just start thinking you are just a man-hater, which is not the case.

I can also foresee someone might see it as a double standard, because I just a while ago said using the word cc in a derogatory way is not okay, and now I use the term toxic masculinity.

Well, here are the differences.

The differences between using the term cc derogatorily and discussing toxic masculinity lie in how each term treats the quality they describe.

Cc is a term that inherently implies having feminine qualities is bad, simply because they are feminine.

By using the word negatively, it unfairly portrays femininity as inferior.

The insult is rooted in the idea that being like a woman is somehow less valuable or undesirable, which reinforce harmful gender stereotypes.

On the other hand, toxic masculinity does not suggest that masculinity itself is bad.