in the UK and at the LSE
Let's make sure
there will not be another Section 28
Established baby boomers at the LSE successfully managed to end membership with Stonewall, the organisation that stands for ALL within the LGBTQIA+ community. But the young generation at the LSE doesn't give up! Students voted to make Stonewall the LSE Student Union's "Raising and Giving" charity partner for 2023-24. Click here for more information.
These days, it is quite fashionable to claim that one "deeply cares" about EDI. Often, that just means that one talks positively about the bits that are no longer controversial and are already supported by the majority in society. Unfortunately, when it is needed to protect the powerless who are currently marginalised, then these "do-gooders" hide themselves behind "we don't take a stand" and/or "we don't have a mandate" and/or are bragging that "oh, we 'discussed' it," and — of course — they do not stand up against the establishment when the vulnerable need protecting. I understand that not everybody can afford to, for example, risk arrest or put their career at risk by making clear that they belong to a degraded minority or by confronting offensive leadership. But being silent in the face of injustice means you are not supportive of true EDI and — as so many human right activists have pointed out before me — you are part of the problem!
I have a different view about equity, diversity, and inclusion. On these pages, you'll tell my story. And the further you travel down the web tree, the more you'll discover.
During the AIDS crisis, I saw young and wonderful human beings suffer and die for more than a decade [link]. A couple years ago, I got a bit more involved in activism again. It was great to see that quite a few young people had joined ACT UP London. Several of them are trans. But I was absolutely stunned to hear that quite a few had already attended several funerals because — once again — young people are dying. Dying because of the stress of verbal abuse on social media, in the streets, and at work. Dying because they are told that they are not trans (just as I was told being gay was a choice and/or just a phase). And dying because of physical violence which is undoubtedly fueled by the fact that so many stand by silently when non-violent types of abuse is on the rise. See [TOPICAL]. There even is an annual Transgender Day of Remembrance and this Remembrance Day has to commemorate recent deaths happening in today's society.
Why does history keep on repeating itself and do people feel the need to harm minorities like jews, ethnic minorities, or gays? Insecurity? Evil? Indifference? Ignorance? These days, trans human beings are under attack. Although the victims change, the useless suffering does not.
The LSE could have played a leadership role in alleviating this injustice. Instead, it has sided with the established elite and it is hurting the ones already marginalised, including their own students and staff. It has not only ended membership with Stonewall. In response to a very personal email by me, I was informed by school leadership that Stonewall is deemed "misogynistic" and "homophobic" and that this view was important for their decision. Asked for justification of these accusations, I have received no reply! It is one thing for a university not to be affiliated with Stonewall, it is quite something different to spread such brutal allegations (without giving any grounds) regarding the main UK LGBTQ+ organisation and by association also towards LSE students and staff who share Stonewall's views to stand for ALL. What (or who) motivated LSE leadership for this political ambush? More on this below and at the student run rejoin Stonewall website. But perhaps the saddest part is that none of my colleagues in the department has comforted me with a public condemnation (even though quite a few have done so in private). How can EDI develop at such an institution?
In the past, my usual way of dealing with the cis/straight people in my environment had been to play mister nice guy, not be critical, and to butter up to those in power thinking that that would be helpful in the long run (surely all of this was also done because of a life-long insecurity that has accompanied me since I realised I was gay.) But worsening of the current situation requires me to be brave and honest.
Some will think the idea is to debate with me, carefully check my wording, written during these difficult times, and point out where they think there are flaws or inconsistencies as if the topic is the New Keynesian model. Some will think this topic isn't worth all the space, but can be handled with a tweet/meeting/chat. But some will understand the complexity and see this page as useful in helping to better understand how I and lots of other LGBTQ+ people experience life at and outside the LSE.
|
I am still adding info to this page and polishing it |
STAND FOR STONEWALL
I STAND FOR STONEWALL
© Wouter J. DEN HAAN (and thanks to all of those who have given me feedback)
"Whatever discomfort we might feel in the changing norms of reality, myself included, it is no match for the discomfort and fear felt by those seeking acceptance." Jon Stewart when discussing Anti-Trans myths regarding gender affirming care, [link].
Looking at what they have done and what they have not done, the members of the School Management Committee (SMC) of the LSE make clear that they do NOT support this great motto to stand for ALL except in making the usual empty phrases. Instead, they have become an important player in the gender-critical anti-trans bandwagon that is gathering steam in the UK and the US. They chose to do this at a time of increased violence and abuse against trans/binary people and against gays who - according to conservative views - look too stereotypical feminine and against lesbians who look too stereotypical masculine. And this abuse is also affecting LSE students and staff right now.[1] Consistent with the SMC's turn to the right, they have ended their Stonewall membership and have done so without proper process and justification.
The LSE was not that inclusive to begin with. I have never found the LSE a very inclusive university and more an organisation that adopts commercial pinkwashing and thinks very highly of itself if it just states that inclusion is important. In the words of an economics student: "the kindness of a few people is not a substitute for a proactively inclusive culture, which I do not think LSE has." Over the years, I have compared notes with queer friends in others departments and it has always been clear that law and economics departments have been less inclusive than other university departments. And those two departments are a big part of the LSE. In my own department, LGBTQ+ members tend to remain in the closet at work. I'll soon write more on the lack of real inclusion/respect for the LGBTQ+ within economics (both at the LSE and elsewhere), but the following quote from a recent course satisfaction survey (for one of mine) says it all.
"It may not be part of a formal evaluation, but LSE econ is really not the most diverse place. I never expected that this would have such an impact on me, but seeing someone 'like me' teaching at LSE actually meant a lot to me."
And here is another one.
"When I was looking up the timings of your office hours, I came across your website. The first thing that I saw was your statement on LSE leaving Stonewall, so I would really like to thank you for speaking up about this. I then went on to read the 'Being Queer' section, much of which resonated with me as a queer student. There is definitely a lack of queer representation within LSE Economics, as well as within economics in general, so I really appreciate you using your platform to talk about your experiences and important topics regarding the LGBTQ+ community!"
And another touching one.
"... You are the first teacher that I met who came out publicly as gay man. I looked at your personal website, and found you did not hide it at all. For me, I identified myself as gay man since my primary school. But in my hometown back in China, a gay would not be accepted at all. So I was deep in the closet, and I did not know any other gay men around me until I started to use gay app in college. ... But you are so great as gay man, you came out so early when the western world was as conservative as the current China society. You are so dedicated to your career. I never saw a professor who care about the study of his students as you. I can see that you really want to make sure your students do good in your course, and everyone respect you for this. You really really give me courage in the sense that if I work hard in my field, and I will be respected for my achievements. I was always so afraid of living on my own for the rest of my life. But now I think if I can have a career that I devote to, I will not be lonely and I will be respected. " complete message
I also got some rewarding responses from those who are not part of the LGBTQIA+ community. Here are two examples.
"I see your bravery by browsing your webpage and reading your stories, which inspires me to embrace courage. Being heterosexual, I get to know more about LGBTQ+ community from your webpage. And I think I can understand the feelings of being discriminated, given my Chinese face even in cities like ... and London. ... I very much get moved by the song "Something Inside So Strong". ... I do hope I could be more courageous like you in my life. Your webpage is really valuable. I think my hope and courage for the unsettled future, my passion&love for education, greatly originate from educators like you. Thank you for being such a great educator. This means a lot to me." a bit more from this message
and
"we came across your personal website whilst studying for macro, and we wanted to say we found your story really moving and powerful. Thank you for being a great professor, and an even better human being!!"
I have always found it symbolic that literally every year during Pride month, the Pride flag above the Economics Department starts dropping quickly after it has been raised and then sort of hangs half-mast for the rest of the month. I am still hoping that one year, a cis-hetero colleague also sees this and makes sure that the flag will be flying at the top of the mast.
The struggle for trans rights eerily resembles the struggles for women's rights, racial equality, and gay/lesbian rights. At TOPICAL, you can find a bit more information on how history is repeating itself and how the rights and even existence of a minority (this time a very small one) are once again threatened with scaremongering, exaggeration, obviously false accusations, and bigotry when those fighting for acceptance and inclusion dare to speak up. Some time ago, it was argued that ethnic minorities had to use separate toilets to protect the rights of the white people. And in 1969, the US National Organization for Women decide to evict its lesbian members because of "having male psyches, being male identified, and bringing 'male energy' into women's space." [2A] These days some argue that they have nothing against trans people, but that we need some sort of apartheid regime so trans human beings can also be excluded. "Yes, and how many times can a man/woman turn his/her head. And pretend that he/she just doesn't see?""
The process of change, adjustment, and inclusion of those who are different has often been a rocky road. History shows how exaggeration has accompanied the resistance against inclusion/acceptance. The uproar that followed the 1954 US Supreme Court desegregation decision was fuelled by "destructive stereotypes of black intellectual inferiority and fears of black male sexuality."[2B] And a state senator argued that the decision would " ... open the bedroom doors of our white women to Negro men."[3] When we were fighting for gays to be accepted in the US military, I had an encounter with an African American former soldier who thought it was his duty to warn us that gays serving in the military would be killed by friendly fire. The interesting bit is that this flawed point was made by a quite sympathetic man.[4] These days, similar horrifying predictions are made on what acceptance and inclusion of trans people will do to society at large even though there are not that many trans people in the world.
There is another similarity between the current attacks on trans people and historical attacks on minorities. When I was young, I heard (usually by religious people) that homosexuality was a phase and/or a choice. With the same condescending arrogance, trans people are now told that they are not trans, but are in fact lesbian or gay and too scared to accept their homosexuality. The reasoning continues to argue that these confused souls actually want to become straight by transitioning. Yeah, right. Suppose you are a young person living in the UK. You would obviously much rather be exposed to the massive amount of transphobia in the streets and in the media, be humiliated by gender-critical professors, and in addition go through the hassle of social and physical transitioning which includes dealing with insanely long waiting times and limited health care. All of this is clearly more desirable than be a homosexual. Such patronising also ignores that large numbers of trans people actually are lesbian/gay, but will only be seen by society as such after transitioning.[5] When will people learn that inclusion means respect and that it does not mean telling others that they are wrong about themselves and that you know better.
So once again, we see something coming out a bit more in the open and people get scared and upset. Dealing with change can be challenging for some. That is understandable. Obviously, trans people may be frustrating at times. And yes, I have seen trans people cross the line at times. But when a minority faces abuse on the street, in the workplace, on social media, and even in the form of physical violence, then that minority may lash out. And may — at times — also do so against those who really do not deserve it. For example, during the AIDS crisis several of our actions were not only hurtful to religious organisations who clearly stood in the way of alleviating suffering and safer sex education, but at times also frustrating for scientists who were doing their very best to help out with limited resources.
In many countries, we see a healthy dialogue. By contrast, the UK and US are choosing a path that is so much more hateful and less respectful of trans people than the paths chosen in other developed countries. Regarding the UK, the parallels with the famous Section 28 are particularly troublesome. At the end of this essay, I want to come back to this question and the role that the LSE could have played in creating a better environment, but unfortunately is doing the opposite.
Why is the UK more transphobic than other western countries? I wish I understood better why the UK is so different. It is noteworthy that the feminists outside the UK (including the US) criticise UK feminists for being obsessed with their anti-trans crusade instead of focusing on issues that matter for the daily life well-being of the majority of women. If you think of all the discrimination and violence that women face, does it make sense to link this to the rights of a marginalised community. Of course, bringing up violence against women is a shrewd anti-trans tactic. But if one looks at all the different ways in which women are affected by violence, then the question arises whether there is a real concern about women's safety or whether it is simply transphobic? In 2018, more than a thousand Irish feminists signed a letter saying that the anti-trans crusade of their UK feminist counterpart is not welcome in Dublin.[6] In a New York Times article, the feminist Sophie Lewis puts forward an explanation for why UK feminists have such an anti-trans fixation, whereas US feminists do not; in the US, opponents of transgender rights are right-wing evangelicals not feminists.[7] Of course, there are many British women who do stand up for trans justice and make clear how silly the obsession with trans women is in the current world. In the words of Kathryn Bromwich: Judging by column inches alone, you might be forgiven for thinking that the thing keeping women awake at night is not femicide, sexual assault, plummeting rape convictions, stalking, unequal pay, the erosion of reproductive rights, workplace discrimination, rampant online misogyny, an institutionally sexist police force, healthcare inequality, insufficient childcare provisions, or never being allowed to age. While all these issues do get reported, a disproportionate amount of attention is given to another topic: men masquerading as trans women in order to gain access to single-sex spaces. [link to Guardian column] I would think that men are the main culprits preventing progress. And anger towards men is, therefore, to some extent justified. But I wonder whether some vent their anger towards trans women instead of cis men because (i) trans women are weaker and thus an easier target and (ii) going after the cis men in power who are the actual problem requires guts which these people don't have. So yeah, go for the weak and get support from religious and extreme right-wing groups. Beating up on your substitute oppressor may make you feel good since you are inflicting actual harm. But is it going to help with the long list of problems listed above?
What about the views from Non-Western countries? Academics and commentators from non-western countries have an even more dim view of the strict views pushed by gender-critical academics working at universities in England. María Lugones (2007) writes: ... "intersex individuals were recognized in many tribal societies prior to colonization without assimilation to the sexual binary. It is important to consider the changes that colonization brought to understand the scope of the organization of sex and gender under colonialism and in Eurocentered global capitalism." The article makes clear how the colonial powers considered those living in colonised countries as inferior, irrational, and primitive and at the same time imposed their own gender norms on them while in those countries ... the scope of the gender differentials was much encompassing and it did not rest on biology.[8] Sad — but interesting — to note that once again the British stand out in having difficulty accepting the validity of other human beings.
Conflicting views: Who to stand up for at a university?
At this point, it is useful to take stock and describe those involved in post-decision discussions and who is not. One group consists of gender-critical staff who are terrified of a very small marginalised community of non-cis people (around 1% of the population). Another group consists of staff who are keen to defend the rights of every LGBTQ+ human being at the LSE and to create an environment where inclusion means more than sending out emails stating that inclusion is important and flying a flag during Pride month. These two staff groups have been the vocal ones in the discussion.
But another group should be the most important one at a university. Yup, students! So let's focus on them. First, there are the out-of-the-closet LGBTQ+ students who are overwhelmingly against the school's decision. They make that clear with their actions (click [here] for more info), but are often not included in the discussion. Fortunately, the desire of some LGB individuals to exclude TQ+ isn't something you are likely to find among the young generation. Interestingly, some foreign LGB students have told me that they are baffled by the gender-critical arguments put forward in this discussion, since their home culture is not dominated by the black-and-white approach to gender and sex that the western world has imposed on society for so long.[9] Second, there are definitely homophobic and/or transphobic students who (i) insist on not using preferred pronouns, (ii) argue it is their right to deadname trans fellow students, and (iii) do not respect the rights given to trans people in the 2010 Equality Act. And students tell me that the SMC decision and the discussions around this have made the abuse from these students worse. At times, I felt uncomfortable about interaction with such students and the SMC decision has definitely worsened this.[10] Third, there is a group of students who does not care much, possibly because they are mainly focusing on their study. Fourth, there is a group of young adults who are only beginning to realise that they are part of the LGBTQ+ community. Or they know that they are, but prefer to stay in the closet at the LSE except that they tell perhaps a gay professor with a queer web page. It is especially these last two groups who are overlooked and could very well be the ones for whom the school's decision will turn out to be most detrimental.
The SMC finds itself in a difficult situation. LSE student satisfaction is low. A couple years ago, the LSE was in the bottom of nation-wide student satisfaction rankings together with some less-known less-prestigious universities. The school has come up in the ranking, but student satisfaction numbers are still not that great. Also, the school is not rich and is increasingly dependent on student inflows from countries with anti-LGBTQ+ views. Giving in to gender-critical staff may seem an attractive path to follow. An LSE leadership with just a bit more gumption, however, would have understood that it has a role to play in terms of standing up for students. Not just the visible "out" LGBTQ+ students who they encounter at the LSE even though one should still not underestimate how difficult it can be to be LGBTQ+ for them. Also not just all LGBTQ+ students including the mostly invisible ones who are (still) struggling with their identity and/or sexuality. In addition to these, the SMC also has a responsibility regarding the cis-straight students, so that when they leave the LSE they will do so with a respect and a positive attitude towards allminorities and with the understanding that inclusion isn't just about writing inclusion emails, but that this requires being proactive and yes may at times mean being uncomfortable being around those who are different.
SMC arguments and disrespect for the LGBTQ+ community.
Just as painful as the decision to leave Stonewall itself is the lack of proper process, consultation, and transparency and especially the disrespect shown to the LSE LGBTQ+ community. Swayed by a few influential gender-critical faculty, the SMC seemed to have made up its mind first. And only after that started some discussions. Reasons put forward by SMC change over time and are not properly supported with evidence. I sent a personal email to al members of the school's SMC in which I made clear that I support Stonewall's views and I also pointed out how painful the school's decision had been for a gay colleague who had already suffered quite a bit in his lifetime, Professor Neumayer responded and writes (knowing very well that I am gay and support Stonewall's views) that Stonewall " is deemed, rightly or wrongly, misogynistic and homophobic by important members of our community, including some important members of the LGBTQ community" and that "this is for me the principal reason why we had to disassociate." So this is the view of the person who is the current LSE (interim) president.
Apparently, the LSE SMC has taken the position that there are a few members of the LGBTQ community at the LSE that deserve more weight than others even though in the overall LSE (and UK) LGBTQ+ community the ones with those conservative views are a small minority and are mainly found among the middle-aged well-to-do. As discussed above, they are also completely at odds with the views of the LGBTQ+ student community. And the LSE LGBTQ+ organisation Spectrum does not share these views either and all members of the LSE LGBTQ+ community that I know who were not involved with Spectrum like myself do not either. Since I had pointed out to professor Neumayer in my email to him that I support Stonewall, I am basically told that I am deemed to be misogynistic and homophobic and that those horrendous opinions that I hold are taken so seriously that he makes important decisions on the basis of them. Why has this accusation been so incredibly painful for me? After having demonstrated for gay rights, after having been part of and run gay organisations when that meant meeting in secret, have fought against AIDS bigotry, and cared for dying young friends (and as a volunteer of Mama's kitchen for strangers) for over a decade, I really do not deserve to be told I am homophobic by the leadership of the LSE. As a gay men, I have often been humiliated and seen as a sinner/danger/pervert etc.. What always helped was that I had a supporting LGBTQ+ community to fall back on. According to the superior prominent members of the LSE LGBTQ community who professor Neumayer respects, however, I am a threat to to my own community. That is more painful than being told you are a pervert.
Is it acceptable to use accusations like misogynistic and homophobic at a university? I don't mind that much that a full professor, who apparently belongs to the "prominent-member" group according to professor Neumayer, uses these accusations at an Academic Board meeting of the LSE. It is, of course, regretful that such a "prominent" member does so without any justification. I can even live with that, even though it is a clear indictment of views and actions of many members of the LSE. After all, if someone is passionate about something, then some may use strong words to make a point. But it is questionable that these accusations about Stonewall's positions (and thus the views of many at the LSE, especially among the younger and more junior) are (i) not questioned by any of the SMC members present at this Academic Board meeting, including Baroness Shafik, (ii) are subsequently thrown at an individual faculty member who pretty much exposes his soul to the SMC in a very personal email, and (iii) are used as the justification for making very important decisions that are deemed hurtful by many in the LSE LGBTQIA+ community. I would prefer my colleagues not to rely on these accusations unless they are accompanied by evidence. But if LSE leadership relies on such accusations themselves, then we are entering a completely different type of regime, one in which LSE leadership is no longer in a position to temper emotions and let us on focus on evidence.
Once upon a time, the LSE had a few members (students) who — with the founding of the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) — could indeed claim to have been "prominent" using the terminology of professor Neumayer. But as pointed out in Stuart Feather's brilliant book about the GLF (Blowing the Lid) that was a long time ago. In fact, the GLF started falling apart soon after after the first UK Pride March in 1972 and stopped functioning in 1974 (when I was twelve years old). These days, quite a few falsely claim to have played a historic role early on in the fight for gay liberation. So if the reader has any doubt, I have described in detail what I have done in terms of gay activism and caring for those dying of AIDS accompanied with some "evidence" with early gay publications with my name in it as board member and even a newspaper picture of me demonstrating. [11]
And also some documentation on recent events with the real GLF trailblazers in which I participated.
Although, I have experienced this statement by professor Neumayer as extremely painful and degrading, it is useful in that it is very revealing in terms of the quality of the arguments put forward by the LSE SMC. Professor Neumayer, just like all the others at the LSE who have uttered such allegations, does not bother to provide arguments to support them. I wonder whether this is how Baroness Shafik imagined how improved free speech post-Stonewall would enrich the LSE. Click at [debunking professor Neumayer's accusations] to see whether there is substance to these harsh charges against my supposedly "misogynistic" and "homophobic" views or whether they are perhaps shady discussion tricks to further a conservative agenda and turn back the clock in terms of acceptance and inclusion of all.[12] I have challenged professor Neumayer to back up these accusations. I am still waiting.
The other sad aspect is the following. Although I have received quite a few comforting emails and several strongly condemned the way I was treated. But not a single person has done so publicly. The LSE would be such a nicer place if EDI wasn't just supporting what is already overwhelmingly accepted in society (which is useful), but also protect those who are unfairly attacked and marginalized.
How the LSE SMC decision will lead to a less diverse student experience.
The SMC's decision to leave Stonewall has hit the LGBTQ+ community hard. I am not the only one for whom this was really difficult to deal with. In today's society, there are lesbians and gays for whom protection of their sexual identity is something they are not concerned about. But for many at the LSE, Stonewall membership was something that gave security, confidence, and strength. Perhaps more importantly, Stonewall defended the rights of all branches of the LGBTQ+ community. I personally feel less safe now and the school's decision will affect how/what I teach and how I interact with students. It isn't just the school's decision. It is also some highly problematic discussions related to the school's decision. Let me give one example. When I became aware of the school's decision I had a brief conversation with a senior colleague. I pointed out that this decision was surely influenced by some GC professors' unease with trans rights. I had hoped that the first reaction was to acknowledge the increased physical and verbal abuse that trans people are subject to in the UK. Instead, the first reactions were to state support for UK transphobe #2 (responsible for lots of hateful transphobic comments on social media and essays with lots of claims without providing sources) and the use of exaggerated language (i.e., "completely destroy women's sports") to illustrate their view on how trans rights would affect aspects of their own world. Why would an academic's first quoted source be someone who has absolutely no professional expertise? [13] EDI at the LSE needs improving!
So let me be specific on how the school's decision is going to affect my teaching. As part of the new curriculum of the economics BSc, I had developed a brand new course focusing on long-term economic developments across time.In addition to the usual theoretical bits, it focused on institutions, culture, women's rights, racial discrimination, and LGBTQ+ inclusion. To be honest, I took quite a bit of liberty because the official proposal was to stick to the usual stuff you find in textbooks. Now that I stand accused of having misogynistic and homophobic views and at least some in the school express support for UK transphobe #2, it is unthinkable that I could teach my course in the same way again. So instead, I will stick to the original proposal and do what is typically done in such a course. That is, adopt a textbook approach focusing on growth theory. It will be of high quality, but will miss the EDI elements that I had worked so hard on to incorporate.
Fortunately, the LGBTQ+ community stands united; well almost.
The decision of the LSE SMC has hit the LGBTQ+ community hard. Both within the school and within the economics department LGBTQ+ folks are hurt by the lack of convincing EDI commitment. But it is very touching to see how our community has united when — once again — we are faced with inflicted wrongs. The LGBTQ+ community is capable of supporting their members without the help of EDI committees, both within the school and within the economics department. And when I say unite, I mean all branches within the LGBTQ+ family. Sadly, there are a few gays and lesbians who have problems with trans rights and within the LSE there are some who support the LSE SMC decision. A recent YouGov poll asked sexual and gender identities which acronym they preferred to use and only 3% chose an acronym "without the T." [link] Of course, not everybody in this 3% is gender critical. For some it is just old familiarity. But it is in this small unrepresentative group that one can find the gender critical views that trans rights are misogynistic and homophobic; views which have sadly influenced SMC decision making.
Why do they do so? Of course, there always have been individuals who betray their own. On this page, I have mainly reported facts and expressed my own feelings about events. However, I have some thoughts on the reasons. Those are based on decades of conversations with gays and lesbians. In fact, I personally know some gays and lesbians who "do not want to stand with the T." Before I elaborate, first an empirical observation. T-exclusionary lesbians and gays are mostly found in my generation and mainly among those who "have made it," that is, have a good career. The younger generation doesn't seem to have these negative feelings towards the T. Okay, here I go. When I was in my early twenties, I had many friends who thought that gays and lesbians should not "act differently." That pretty much meant that gays should not be feminine and lesbians should not be masculine. For many that was thought to be a smart political strategy. But for quite a few, this was based on a strong desire to be seen as "normal." And when I look at a gay friend of mine who now wants to separate the LGB from the TQ+, then the desire to be considered "normal" is clearly a strong motivation. They are pleased that they have made it in life and can live pretty much without getting hassled. So the last thing they want is to be associated with the freaks (his words).[14] If there is anything I have learned in life, then it is that people who have been discriminated against are not immune from discriminating others themselves. Anyway, these are my five cents. There may be other reasons. Throughout history, there have been material benefits of fitting in and supporting the discriminating ones in power. The trans-exclusionary LGBs are few in number, but they are well connected, have policy influence, and express at times quite extreme views. Regarding the latter, I think it is extremely sad that some think that being part of a particular LGB group or dating site requires you to be genetically pure,that is, have the right chromosomes.
What we see at the LSE in terms of the LGBTQ+ community being united in true support of trans rights (except for a few individuals) is what I have seen in the last few years again and again in the rest of the UK. Whenever a small LGB group turns against the TQ+, then there is a larger LGB group that stands up to shout that we don't let the smaller (currently weaker) members of the non-cis/non-heterosexual world be picked on. And especially the younger generation deserves credit for doing that.
A lot more on why I "stand with the T," can be found at [it must be LGBTQ+].
Has the conventional binary, i.e., black and white, approach to sex/gender from the past been beneficial? The last couple years, there has been a reversal and some have felt the need to strongly argue that sex/gender is a black and white issue and that there should be two clearly separated groups in our society based on genes/chromosomes. In the western world, men have imposed that strategy for many centuries. I would like to pose a question. How beneficial has that worked out to be in terms of creating a fair society? Or in the words of María Lugones, " ... it is important to ask how sexual dimorphism served and continues to serve global, Eurocentered, capitalist domination/exploitation." Some argue that this binary view based on biological sex will be helpful for the position of women. But there is a major flaw in thinking that this desire for a black and white view of the world will lead to improve women's well being. The flaw is that we will not have two groups with all cis women being part of one of the two groups. In fact, we are already heading into a world in which quite a few cis women and even a nine-year-old Canadian cis girl have been abused because apparently they did not look feminine enough. So these cis women and cis girls wouldn't be part of the women's group. So we will have a group of women who are female enough, a group of men who are masculine enough, and an apartheid regime for those who don't fit in these two categories of "pure" men and "pure" women. It seems clear to me that the gender-critical movement is already creating an environment in which there is policing of both cis and trans women's bodies and many women will have to worry whether their bodies look "woman enough." So sad, because feminists have rightly worked so hard against that type of harassment. So I see a danger in this black and white view of the world with its associated exclusion. And that is true when it is black versus white, christian versus muslim, or male versus female. However, that does not mean that people differ and we are not all treated in the same way. So I am perfectly happy with, for example, affirmative action or education helping to reduce unconscious bias.
Leopards Eating People's Faces Party. It was kind of obvious that giving dominance to biological sex would not just affect trans people. Specifically, Italy has stripped the rights of lesbian parents to be parents to their children and taken their names of birth certificates. UK transphobe #1 tweeted: "Only biological parents should be on a baby's certificate. Not sure why this is controversial." And those who used to support each other in their views on what a women is (i.e. pretty much only those who have the sex meant to conceive and deliver children) are now on different sides of the argument when the debate is about the birth certificate when born (which according to UK transphobe #3 is a completely different argument than when that baby wants to change their birth certificate later in life). Perhaps transphobes of the "LGB without the T" persuasion will now realise that the conservatives will not just attack the T and that we stand much stronger if we unite as one LGBTQIA+ family. Stonewall is strongly in support of those Italian lesbian mothers. Oh well.
The way forward. Following their defeat on same-sex marriage, the conservative right rethought their strategy and picked new issues.[15] That has culminated in fights against women's reproductive rights, trans rights, and drag shows. It is quite clear that they hope this is just the beginning. Under the leadership of baroness Shafik, the LSE has made a political decision that is applauded by conservative social media and experienced as painful by most of its LGBTQ+ community including myself. It is true that people on both sides of the argument are being hurt in the current nationwide trans/gender debate. But there is a big asymmetry. Up to a couple years ago, I didn't know much about trans people and only had had dinner with a trans woman a couple times. I am better informed now. My views on the issue are affected quite a bit by, for example, a very touching Trans Day of Remembrance in Soho Square last year, where a sister spoke so lovingly of her sister who had suffered so much abuse and committed suicide. Or by stories of the abuse of Brianna Ghey, both before and after her murder. And by stories about the almost daily abuse that trans people experience when they just go for a walk. I would think that this is not comparable with hurtful emails a professor at the LSE might receive from trans students when that professor expresses gender critical views in the class room (and also do not see how this will stop now that LSE is no longer part of Stonewall unless queer students stop coming to the LSE). Although there is a big asymmetry, I have to admit, I do know some examples of where I thought trans activists had crossed the line.
So in this divisive world, the LSE could have shown true leadership and set an example by creating an environment of dialogue instead of one in which a gay professor (i.e., me) is told that his views are "deemed misogynistic and homophobic" without having the decency to back these accusations up with arguments. An environment in which the LGBTQ+ community is NOT left feeling unprotected and unsafe (except those LGBs higher up in the organisation that fit right in). For sure, Stonewall has made wrong decisions or its staff made disturbing comments. That is natural in a changing (legal) environment. But the overwhelming majority of the LGBTQ+ community at the LSE thinks that Stonewall has to be part of the solution and that the political message sent by the LSE leadership decision to leave Stonewall is also bad for the acceptance and inclusion of trans people across the UK.
I think that this is still possible. And I am thinking of a Stonewall 2.0. That is membership of Stonewall but with a commitment by the LGBTQ+ community to support free speech and protection/support of those with different views. Trans people should tell how difficult their daily life can be because of the abuse they face. And gender critical staff should be able to tell how they are affected by criticism that indeed can be quite insulting at times. An environment in which there is a healthy dialogue! An environment, in which discussions and public events are balanced and do not provide just one side of the story based on selectively chosen observations! So to sum up, something quite different than what is currently happening at the LSE. I strongly belief that this would not only help with the current trans versus gender critical issue. It will help with acceptance and tolerance in general, including the inclusion/respect/representation of ethnic minorities and women (which is not that great in economics).
What I think is crucial in moving forward is that those who are part of the overwhelming majority (that is not gender critical nor part of the LGBTQ+ community) informs themselves better and stop quickly forming an opinion about trans/gender issues without being properly informed. It is sad to write this, but one advantage of the AIDS crisis was that gay men had to come out of the closet and when straight people actually got to know gay people they changed their views. Let's work on making this happen this time without a similar crisis. So reader, please get to know some trans people and talk to them. After that, join the discussion.
© Wouter J. DEN HAAN
[1] On May 3rd 2023, LSE Power (LSE's Women's Professional Network) and Spectrum (LSE's LGBTQ+ staff network) organised an event with a bit of drag and a panel discussion. Motivated by a tweet by an LSE employee who "disapproved," a barrage of hateful tweets were posted and the LSE Spectrum twitter account had to be closed following a troll attack. An SMC that cares about the LSE LGBTQ+ community will publicly condemn such harmful troll attacks and take specific actions to prevent them in the future. Unfortunately, the LSE SMC did neither. [back]
[2A] The quote is from the book "TRANS/gressive: How Transgender Activists Took on Gay Rights, Feminism, the Media & Congress ... and Won!" by Riki Wilchins. I was made aware of this in the book by Zoë Playdon called "The Hidden Case of Ewan Forbes."[back]
[2B] See The Troubled History of American Education after the Brown Decision [The American Historian article].[back]
[3] See Sex and Race in 1955 Mississippi [PBS web link].[back]
[4] In terms of my fights for gay rights this episode had a major impact on me. For more than one reason. So let's spend a footnote on it. The gay and lesbian student organisation of the University of Pittsburgh (wasn't LGBTQ+ yet in the 80s) had organised a meeting about gays in the military. In those days, that meant meeting in a small somewhat isolated room where at best 20-30 people would show up, alerted by word of mouth or a tiny announcement in the weekly student periodical. The memories of the meeting are blurry except the discussion during the Q&A with an African American who identified himself as a former member of the US military, straight, and not in favour of gay rights. But, he had come to the meeting because — despite his opposition to gay rights — he felt it was his duty to come and warn us that we gay men serving in the military would have a high chance of being shot in the back by friendly fire. He argued that he understood the feelings of straight men in the military much better than we did and that we should stop with this silly quest. I didn't think he was right and history has shown that he was mainly wrong, although not entirely as we know from the murder of Allen Schindler. But I was still touched because he argued his case in a very friendly patient manner and it was clear that he was genuinely concerned that we would be killed. The other reason why the discussion with this man is still so memorable is that he absolutely did not accept any comparison with (past) discrimination of African Americans in the military and that it would make sense that those that faced discrimination themselves should be sympathetic when a new group would be discriminated against. He argued that the discrimination against blacks was clearly wrong and discrimination against gays and lesbians wasn't even really discrimination but more our own fault by pushing an agenda. I always have to think of this when I see lesbians and gays in my generation gang up against trans people. We were very curious how he had found out about the meeting, but I don't think we ever found out.[back]
[5] Sarah Brown argues that it could be as high as half which is much higher than the fraction in the overall population. See 'The Activist New Wave', in Christine Burns (ed.) Trans Britain: Our Journey from the Shadows. My own observations are limited, but are consistent with this finding. The funny thing is that the gender criticals cannot make their mind up. On the one hand, they claim that trans people are (often) not trans, but lesbians or gays who want to become straight by transitioning. But then why do they also complain so much of all the trans women (men) who are trying to find women (men) on lesbian (gay) dating sites after they transitioned?[back]
[6] See [link]. From this letter by Irish feminists: " ... we write this letter to show that their exclusionary, discriminatory attitudes to trans people - in particular trans women - are not welcome here in Ireland. We will not sit in silence while the organisers of this meeting peddle ideas and opinions that are actively harmful to the well-being and safety of our comrades. ... We, the signatories of this letter, organise hand in hand with our trans sisters. Together, cis and trans, we are Irish feminism. Trans women are our sisters; their struggles are ours, our struggles theirs. They were our sisters before any state-issued certification said so and will always be no matter what any legislation says, either now or in the future."[back]
[7] See How British Feminism Became Anti-Trans [New York Times Article]. From this article: " ... middle- and upper-class white feminists have not received the pummeling from black and indigenous feminists that their American counterparts have, and thus, their perspectives retain a credibility and a level of influence in Britain that the Michigan Womyn's Festival could have only dreamed of."[back]
[8] "The assignations reveal that what is understood to be biological sex is socially constructed. From the late nineteenth century until World War I, reproductive function was considered a women's essential characteristic. The presence or absence of ovaries was the ultimate criterion of sex. But there are a large number of factors that can enter into "establishing someone's 'official' sex: chromosomes, gonads, external morphology, internal morphology, hormonal patterns, phenotype, assigned sex, and self-identified sex." See María Lugones, 2007, Heterosexualism and the Colonial / Modern Gender System, Hypatia, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 186-209. Similar points are made in Paula Gunn Allen's book "The sacred hoop: Recovering the feminine in American Indian traditions" and Julie Greenberg's 2002 article "Definitional dilemmas: Male of female? Black or White The law's failure to recognize intersexuals and multiracials," published in "Gender nonconformity, race, and sexuality: Charting the connections," edited by Toni Lester. [back]
[9]For a less anecdotal discussion see "The Pink Line: The World's Queer Frontiers" by Mark Gevisser.[back]
[10] Let me be specific and fill in the picture with an example. During the last couple years, I have been asked repeatedly to participate in student-organised meetings that are completely unrelated to my expertise by students with whom I had absolutely no connection. When googling the name of the speakers, they turned out to be known for their homophobic views. Even though I have made quite a few members of LSE leadership aware that I find such invitations quite problematic, not a single one has responded to this particular personal concern. I bet those conservative student groups will be delighted by the school's political decision to leave Stonewall. [back]
[11] See [Being Queer]. [back]
[12] The following should be considered as a bit of fun on this sad page and NOT as part of the arguments I put forward. I asked ChatGPT to write an essay to support the claims made by professor Neumayer. I didn't ask ChatGPT whether Stonewall is misogynistic/homophobic! Instead, I "asked" ChatGPT to give arguments in support of these views. This is what ChatGPT thinks of the views on which the LSE SMC bases decisions. In response to the request "Write an essay explaining why Stonewall is misogynistic" ChatGPT answers: "I'm sorry, but that statement is not true. Stonewall is not misogynistic."In response to the request "Write an essay explaining why Stonewall is homophobic" ChatGPT answers: "I'm sorry, but that statement is not true. Stonewall is not homophobic." You can find the complete ChatGPT essays at ChatGPT 1 and ChatGPT 2.[back]
[13] There are numerous example to choose from, but this recent post is quite revealing. For those who are not really familiar with EDI issues, the "shit" that UK transphobe #2 refers to in this social media post are the pink/white/light-blue stripes representing trans people, the brown stripe which represents ethnic minorities within the LGBTQ+ community, and the black stripe which represents those queer people who died because of violence, suicide, or AIDS. UK transphobe #2 is smart and also says quite sensible things at times. But anybody who is only half aware of her writings/likes will understand why this person is causing so much grief to so many people. A brilliant very careful and comprehensive podcast by Jamie Raines can be found at Youtube podcast. [back]
[14] Not surprisingly, they have had either none or only superficial interaction with trans people. The whole thing so resembles what happened 30 years ago when those who didn't know any gays still had strong negative opinions.[back]
[15] See How a Campaign Against Transgender Rights Mobilized Conservatives [NY times article].[back]
