Is every UK LGBTQ organisation — except one — homophobic?

In the twisted world of the Gender Critical movement, one of the more bizarre claims I’ve seen is that organisations like Stonewall — and, according to some extremists, almost every LGBTQ organisation in the UK — are homophobic

This is a view promoted by people in what I shall refer to as the Alliance of Lunatic Gibbering Bigots, because their real name doesn’t need spreading around. And — of course — it’s largely related to their attempts to remove rights from trans people. In fact, they’ve made this claim explicitly, in response to a letter from a Labour MP that reiterated support for trans rights. They essentially claim that they are the One True Way.

Such a claim is a weird thing to try and get one’s head around, so I thought by writing it down, it would help provide some clarity, and some rebuttal.

It seems to me there are three strands to this, some more batshit mental than others. Let’s start with the easy one. The Q word.

Often, if you describe yourself as Queer in a discussion about this, you’ll be lectured by someone about how homophobic that is. And yes, the word’s a strong one, and many of us have been on the receiving end of it when used abusively. I respect the right of some to hate the word that’s been flung at them in anger.

But what I don’t accept is that using the word, as a gay man, or as an organisation representing the community, is a sign of being homophobic. It’s no more an indication of that than a black person using the N word is being racist. We can — those of us who wish — use these words ourselves, because we are adults and capable of distinguishing context.

Objections to the word also sometimes centre on the idea that some people who use it appear to be in heterosexual relationships (Newsflash! Some people are bisexual!); I don’t think that’s really even worth dissecting, other than to note that some with the Bigot Alliance appear quite happy to split bisexuals away from the community too.

The second, and a larger, strand of the claims of homophobia relates to people transitioning. The claim appears to be that by supporting the right of people to transition, pressure is being put on young people — who might otherwise come out as lesbian or gay — to change gender.

Some of this rests on the familiar — for these are often right wingers we’re talking about — islamic bogeyman. Yes, in Iran there have been cases of people who have had gender reassignment, not least to avoid the death penalty for being gay. But we are not Iran, and contrary to the claims that people are being rushed through transition, waiting lists in the UK for even first appointments at gender clinics are very, very long.

I also find it a struggle to believe that are are parents who would be so horrified that a child is lesbian or gay that they’d force them to transition gender instead. It’s hard to imagine people who would be so disapproving, or so worried about the struggles facing lesbian or gay children, that they would instead force those children to become part of an even more marginalised — and often hated — group.

This argument, to me, seems not to make sense. But, nevertheless, for some Alliance members and others it is central to the idea of “lesbian erasure” in particular. Young girls that exhibit tom-boy tendencies or other traits, instead of growing up into well adjusted lesbians, will be ensnared by the “trans industrial complex” and presumably become trans men, thereby causing the erasure of lesbians.

By and large, those making this argument are women — there is far less fuss about the idea of gay men being erased — and I’m not a woman, so perhaps not as well qualified to express a view. But I still maintain that the idea of parents and doctors deliberately engineering situations so that people struggling with their sexuality are pushed into a much costlier — both in terms of medical and social costs — transition instead seem somewhat fanciful.

Indeed, some surveys of how people identify themselves seem to suggest that, as other options have become more widely talked about, including non-binary, or less stigmatised, such as trans, the number of people identifying in all non-straight categories has increased. There has not been the shift in proportions of people identifying as lesbian or gay to the column marked ‘trans’ that would back up this daft theory.

So no, I don’t accept that it is in anyway homophobic to accept peoples right to transition, nor the related argument made that transitioning is itself a form of conversion therapy.

A still more mind-boggling aspect of this, related to the idea of erasure, is the obsession with sex. Follow gay journalist Owen Jones on Twitter and you’ll often see, if he reiterates his support for trans people, weirdos demanding if he’d “lick pussy” for a trans man.

This, and similar comments directed at others, is based on two ideas. First, many people who identify as trans do not have “bottom surgery.” That is that, while it’s relatively easy to change the appearance of breasts — to remove, or add them — it is far fiddlier, and expensive, to modify the nether regions, and while some people are determined to save up for this, others simply don’t bother. That is their right, in my view.

But the big leap made by those object to trans people is that some of these people will, after transition, identify as attracted to others of their gender, and will subsequently demand that other people have sex with them, and scream “You’re a transphobe” at anyone who declines.

When the Gibbering Bigots talk of “lesbians being forced to have sex with male bodied people” this is what they are banging on about. An imaginary trans woman, who has chosen not to have bottom surgery, hits on a lesbian, and demands that she play with her penis.

Outside of the ravings of the bigots — and possibly a few trolling Russian Twitter bots — I think you’d be very hard pushed to find any one — trans or otherwise — who is demanding that someone has sex with them. I certainly can’t imagine any of the trans people I know behaving in such a manner.

But the idea of the male predator is central to the beliefs of many anti-trans people, and it’s no different in this case. The logic here appears to be that if you support the rights of trans people, then some of those trans people are still going to have penises, and they’re going to force lesbians to have sex with them, and therefore you’re denying the right of lesbians only to be attracted to women, and therefore you’re homophobic. Repeat ad nauseam for gay men.

This argument, it seems to me, relies so heavily on the idea of widespread non-consent in sex that it’s little more than a scare story.

None of the logical — and I use the term with great reservations — leaps taken in any of these arguments made by anti-trans activists appears to stack up; none of them, to me at any rate, justifies labelling Stonewall — or any other UK LGBTQ organisation — homophobic, just because they support the rights of trans people.

It is, in my view, nothing more than the usual attempt to smear and reverse victims, seen so often when people who are called out for their racism turn round and say “No, you’re the real racist. You hate white people.”

The Alliance of Lunatic Gibbering Bigots knows homophobia is bad; they know most people won’t think too deeply about these issues, and that’s why they’re keen to throw as much mud at Stonewall as they can, in the hope that some of it sticks.

They’re wrong, and they should be fought every step of the way.