A critical enthymematic deconstruction of anti/pro LGBTQ+ arguments on Malaysian social media

Abstract

Malaysian social media platforms have been a dynamic space where both supporters and opponents of LGBTQ+ rights voice their opinions, either contesting or reinforcing discriminatory sentiments. We conducted an enthymematic deconstruction of arguments on two popular Malaysian social media platforms, expanding the concept of topoi within the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) to explore how various standpoints are (de)legitimised. The findings show that both sides deliberately draw from the same broad categories – religion, biology and society – to support their respective views. Specifically, anti-LGBTQ+ arguments include appeals to divine punishment, God’s original design, contrary to natural order, pathological disorder, harmfulness and existential consequences, while pro-LGBTQ+ ones are arguing about religious pluralism, God’s creation, natural order, health/normality, harmlessness and overpopulation. Both groups’ appeal to the same foundational principles highlights the dialectical nature of their arguments, allowing each side to negotiate and adapt its values and beliefs in line with the wider cultural and ideological discourse. This helps explain the persistent and contentious nature of the issue in Malaysia, characterised by its diverse demographic makeup.