Once the long debate over the decriminalisation of male homosexual conduct was over, the original legal debate was transformed into arguments about various social and moral disputes. Different parties, including the government, church people, social workers, teachers, lawyers, doctors, cultural workers, journalists and so on, whether pro — or anti-gay, contributed to policing a range of binary divisions: normality versus abnormality, heterosexuality versus homosexuality, masculinity versus femininity, Chinese tradition versus Western culture, and so on. The result was a separation between the straight dominant culture and the gay subculture, in the context of which a distinctive social type of ‘homosexual’ was generated. It is this ‘homosexual’ type that led to the development of homosexual identities in Hong Kong, including gei (gay), geilo (gay man), memba (a Cantonese derivative of the English term ‘member’ used exclusively by Hong Kong gay men for self-identification), les (lesbian), TB (tomboy), TBG (tomboy girl), tungzi/tongzhi, and others (Ho 1997; Kong 2011).
The decriminalisation Act had numerous effects in the 1990s: it not only protected gay men who engaged in private sexual acts, but also triggered the emergence of a range of ‘tongzhi-scapes’ in Hong Kong. These included the emergence of tongzhi groups such as the Hong Kong Ten Percent Club (1992 [1986]), the Association for the Welfare of Gays and Lesbians (1989), Horizons (1991), 97 Tongzhi Forum (1992), Satsanga (1993), Isvara (1994), XX Gathering (1994), Queer Sisters (1995), the Blessed Minority Christian Fellowship (1995), Lui Tung Yuen (1996), Freeman (1996), Joint Universities Queer Union (JUQU) (1997), and the Hong Kong Tongzhi Conference (1996, 1997, 1998). The rise of a pink economy was also enabled and ‘scenes’ such as bars, discos, saunas, fitness centres, shops, and guest houses proliferated. There was also an increase in the visibility of representations of tongzhi in mainstream media, including in films such as Boy’s? (directed by Hau Wing-Choi, 1996), A Queer Story (directed by Shukei, 1997), Happy Together (directed by Wong Kar-wai, 1997), and Bishonen (directed by Yonfan, 1998). Specific tongzhi media also spread, such as the Hong Kong Lesbian and Gay Film Festival (also known as the Hong Kong Tongzhi Film Festival) (1989-), tongzhi magazines and newsletters such as Tongzhi New Wave (1988), Contact Magazine (1992) and plays such as Scenes from a Men’s Changing Room (directed by Edward Lam, 1991), books and novels written by gay writers Edward Lam, Michael Lam, Julian Lee, and Jimmy Ngai, and more academic texts including those by Samshasha, Chou Wah-shan, Anson Mak, and Yau Ching. Last, but not least, tongzhi cyberspace including websites and chat rooms (for instance, www. gaystation. com;www. gayhk. com) emerged which provided an important means for tongzhi to engage and identify with one another through shared sexuality, language and values.
The 1990s in Hong Kong was overshadowed by the whole 1997 hand-over issue. The 1989 ‘June Fourth Incident’ in China is believed to have been a turning point that triggered the colonial government to grant more civil and political rights to Hong Kong people, for instance the Bill of Rights was enacted (in 1991) and the Equal Opportunity Commission was established (in 1996). However, in terms of sexuality, the laws did not change much. In the 1994—95 legislative session a straight ex-Legislative Council member, Anna Wu, put forward a bill (Equal Opportunity Bill) containing provisions outlawing discrimination on the grounds of sex, family status, disability, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and so on, but this was strategically postponed (Chan 2007: 44—45). In June 1995, the Sex Discrimination Ordinance and the Disability Discrimination Ordinance were enacted and later bills protecting family status (1997) and race (2008), but sexual orientation was left untouched. A consultation paper entitled ‘Equal Opportunities: A Study on Discrimination on the Grounds of Sexual Orientation’ (Hong Kong Government 1996) reported that discrimination against homosexuals was widespread in Hong Kong, most notably in areas such as employment, accommodation, and social services. It concluded, however, that education rather than legislation would be more effective in combating discrimination.
The tongzhi movement in Hong Kong began to be more progressive in the 1990s with the building of tongzhi identity as the major concern. Tongzhi identity started to become more political and the movement had shifted from conduct-based claims to both identity-based claims and relationship-based claims. They sought the right to disclose sexual identity without being penalised, the right not to have to hide their sexual identity, the right to same-sex marriages or domestic partnerships, and the right to access social and legal benefits (Wong 2004: 201-2).
Tongzhi groups at that time were mainly self-help, service-oriented and community-based in nature with the aim of developing a positive self-identity (Kong 2011: 52). They tried hard to dissociate homosexuality from pathology, to downplay the ‘sexual’ aspects of tongzhi identity, and to stress the similarities between heterosexuals and homosexuals (Kong 2011: 53). These non-confrontational and assimilationist politics are best illustrated by the Chinese Tongzhi Conference 1996. The conference manifesto emphasised that confrontational politics in the West such as coming out and mass protests and parades ‘may not be the best way of achieving tongzhi liberation in the family-centred, community oriented Chinese societies which stresses [sic] the importance of social harmony’. Tongzhi have been seen as good citizens (‘productive and contributing members of society’), identified with the same ‘core’ values promoted by the Hong Kong government (such as ‘loving families, long-term partners, the success of the Hong Kong economy, the work ethic, and good dim sum’). Similar to assimilationist politics in the US (Bawer 1993; Sullivan 1995), this kind of non-confrontational identity politics, with its emphasis on normalisation, desexualisation, sameness, and respectability, defined the second wave of the tongzhi movement in Hong Kong.
Although the tongzhi movement has aimed at inclusion in the mainstream, internal schisms have started to grow inside the tongzhi community. For example, many Caucasian gay men in Hong Kong have had an economic and socially privileged position which is culturally seen in terms of sophistication, modernity, and cosmopolitanism. They assumed a more dominant role in the early stage of the tongzhi movement. The Hong Kong Ten Percent has been seen as a ‘local’ (read ‘Chinese’) and more grassroots tongzhi group, while Horizon is seen as a ‘global’ (read ‘European or American’) and middle-class inclined tongzhi group. Lesbians and other queer women have always felt excluded and dismissed in the gay-male-dominated tongzhi groups. Even the use of ‘tongzhi’ as a common identity had been accused of over-representing middle-class gay men (Mak and King 1997). The organisers of the 1998 Tongzhi Conference deliberately wanted to include lesbians in the organising committee but some lesbians and queer women felt that the invitation was tokenistic and simply a politically correct gesture (Loo 1999: 365-73).
This triggered anger and frustration that subsequently led many lesbians to move out of male-dominated tongzhi groups and set up their own exclusive women-only organisations.