We still face numerous communication challenges related to gender and sexual diversity, Markus Hoppe says. As a diversity trainer and co-founder of the Hamburg-based WELCOMING OUT initiative, which works toward enabling people to feel confident in coming out, he is more than familiar with repetitive, damaging narratives that are faced by the queer community time and again. In his guest post, he calls on everyone, and especially on the communications industry, to take a very close look at the battleground disputes, such as gender language, and the contentious arguments used there.
Article body copy goes here
“When I got up this morning and told my wife about the diversity workshop I had to attend today, all she said was, ‘My condolences!’ […]”
Hey, my name is Markus Hoppe. As you can easily tell from the previous sentence, I work as a diversity trainer, among other things. Correspondingly, the quote mentioned above was the introduction provided by a participant in the feedback round of a diversity training session I hosted at the Hamburg Fire Department some time ago. It clearly demonstrates the following: for some people, the word “diversity” is already a red flag, which, at the very least, is accompanied by an eye roll and the anticipation that the topic to follow will be rather strenuous. But is that expectation justified? Here’s the full quote:
“When I got up this morning and talked to my wife about the diversity workshop I had to attend that day, all she said was, ‘My condolences!’” And that’s exactly how I felt when I joined this workshop: I didn’t feel like it and was sure it would be annoying and exhausting. But now that the workshop is over, I have to say that I understand why it is important to address the topic of diversity, and why it affects me more than I thought. And above all, I now know that drawing attention to this topic doesn’t necessarily have to be annoying and exhausting. Great job, thank you!”
So, based on the participant’s experience, the following can be said: no, expectation and actual experience do not always correlate. The question that remains is: why does something like “diversity” trigger such negatively connoted expectations for some? Granted: there are sometimes activist voices from the queer community that point out existing problems and discrimination to non-queer people, however, in a way that is likely to generate resistance. Needless to say, this can also end up shaping expectations regarding “diversity”. However, in my experience, there is something that has a much stronger influence on negatively connoted expectations, because it stirs up fears and is (deliberately) misleading: a phenomenon that I observe time and again, and especially currently on a very massive scale, is that many controversial discussions around the topic of diversity are conducted on the foundation of bogus arguments. By this, I mean that many debates are based on a basic assumption that is actually false, and any chains of argumentation that start from there ultimately miss the true essence of the issue because they start from untrue premises. To demonstrate what I mean in more detail, I will use another quote as an example:
“If we all should now become gay, lesbian and trans, then evolution is at an end.” (Sabine Mertens, initiator of the Hamburg petition “End gender language in administration and education,” Hamburger Abendblatt, Feb. 08, 2023)
I love this quote, because it is ideally suited to point out some of the most common false premises about gender and sexual diversity that are still integrated into mainstream debates and reporting. Briefly, for your understanding: Sabine Mertens initiated the above-mentioned petition in Hamburg, which in the meantime has also reached the required number of at least 10,000 signatures, the amount needed for it to be tabled in the Hamburg parliament. “Gender language” is the petition subject, which is indeed an emotionally and controversially discussed topic in society. Thus, essentially, it calls for a ban on “gender language in administration and education”. But is this really the only thing that concerns Sabine Mertens?
False premises are distorting the discourse
Obviously not, because gendering is “only” about making all genders visible in language. Therefore, although there is a reference to gender, there is no direct reference to someone’s gender identity, and certainly none to their sexual orientation. And yet, within this context, it would appear that the topics of gender and sexual diversity are the drivers for Ms. Mertens. The only connection that could be derived at this point is based on the first false premise: there is a kind of lobby of supposed minorities that would like to impose things on the supposed majority. Ms. Mertens talks about how “we all” “SHOULD become gay, lesbian and trans.” Here, the word “should” is decisive. This would appear to be the apparent intention of a group that is not specified in any more detail. And, according to this logic, this group uses, among others, “gender language” to achieve this goal. Now this may sound like an absurd, isolated case; in fact, though, this motive is often found in the rather dismissive discussion of issues revolving around gender and sexual diversity.
The second false premise in the quote is the idea that it is possible to influence sexual orientation and gender identity from the outside. Here, specifically, the word “become” in the quote plays the crucial role. To this very day, it has still not been clarified in detail which factors, and to which extent, result in people being, for example, homosexual or trans. On the one hand, though, it is clear that there is an interplay of the most diverse influences and, on the other hand, that this “being” cannot be changed from the outside. That means: it is neither something that can be learned nor something that is “trending”. Thus, it is not the case that supposedly too much information about the topic or too much visibility of LGBTIQ+ issues results in people becoming gay, lesbian or trans. Not in school, not in the media, nor anywhere else. There is as much scientific consensus about this as there is about man-made climate change. And yet this false premise is used throughout an incredible number of debates.
“All” is the keyword for a third, very widespread false premise: “If we are ALL to become gay, lesbian and trans now, then evolution is at an end.” There are other versions of this statement, such as: “if all humans were LGBTIQ+, then humanity would become extinct”. Aside from the fact that this conclusion ignores the fact that queer people are also capable of reproducing (and do, in fact, reproduce), the actual point to be made is: not all humans are LGBTIQ+. Therefore, this narrative only makes sense if it is assumed that sexual orientation and gender identity can be influenced from the outside, and that there will thus be more and more LGBTIQ+ people, if things go according to this ominous “gender lobby”. The fact that people sometimes feel that the number of LGBTIQ+ people is increasing has to do with the fact that those who have always been there are becoming increasingly visible, as discrimination decreases. Why? It’s like it was with left-handed people. When preference of the left hand was still socially sanctioned, people were forced to practice using the right hand, and the share of naturally left-handed people actually writing with their left hand was very small. The numbers then increased in line with the decrease in social sanctions, until they leveled off at about 10-12 percent of the population, stagnating there for decades. Currently, we are also in this stage with LGBTIQ+ individuals, where more and more people are becoming visible as part of the community, and again, their share will eventually level off.
Bogus arguments serve to disguise anti-human positions
These serve as three exemplary false premises that quietly, surreptitiously and subtly keep finding their way into social debates. The question remains: why are they used? What is the intention, the motivation behind them? If these false premises are deliberately used, then, presumably, to make certain sociopolitical positions acceptable to the majority. Possibly there is a misanthropic attitude behind such positions that is not compatible. However, by disguising it as a bogus argument, e.g., the protection of children, it then becomes capable of gaining majority support. In addition, what happens then is that different topics that have nothing to do with one another, or are only indirectly related, are mixed up, as demonstrated in the example of gender language and sexual orientation.
Often, however, these pseudo-arguments are not consciously used. Rather, they are picked up and then adopted and reproduced without reflection. Possibly because they already fit one’s own attitude quite well. After all, we humans tend to avoid cognitive dissonance, therefore gratefully accepting supposed facts that reinforce our personal worldview.
Self-reflection and a critical view
Yet what does all this have to do with WELCOMING OUT or CROSSMEDIA or the work of agencies in general? Well, in a nutshell, it has a lot to do with finding a conscious way of dealing with discussions and debates on the topic of gender and sexual diversity and checking statements for consistency. This ability, as well as the willingness to treat the other person with acceptance and respect, and to be sincerely open to dialogue at eye level, is a first step on the road to straight allyship, which we at WELCOMING OUT are particularly dedicated to.
Straight allies, or heterosexual (cisgender) allies, are people who are not part of the queer community but who advocate its concerns and equal treatment. Therefore, straight allyship also requires reflection on one’s own attitude. What is my attitude towards queer people really? Have I possibly also fallen for some of the false premises mentioned above? Working these questions out with yourself, in addition to clarifying your own attitude, can be very revealing. Changes in perspective can be very helpful here.
Putting yourself in the other person’s position
A popular question that we encounter again and again in our diversity trainings is: what role does sexual orientation or gender identity actually play in a job context? Or: why do queer people always have to come out? Heterosexual people don’t have to, after all. Here, such a change of perspective for heterosexual people could be to imagine, for a week, that one is in a same-sex relationship and would like to keep this a secret at work. Or try for a week to avoid any conversations about your private life in the context of your job. If you do this for a week, you’ll realize why this topic is so relevant at work. Another step toward straight allyship.
Practicing detecting these false premises either in yourself or in the reasoning of others, and then dissolving them, is something that is incredibly important and powerful on the path to real acceptance and equal treatment of queer people. Because it helps to more clearly perceive what actually is the case, and not merely to reproduce pejorative narratives.
A call for empathy and support
This brings me to my final point: the responsibility of organizations whose daily business is communication, marketing, and media. Because this is not just one person interacting with another. As the reach grows, so does the responsibility to check the truth of the messages that are being conveyed. Are these messages possibly based on a false premise, therefore potentially even making them latently misanthropic? Are they possibly reproduced and, depending on the case, maybe reinforced by the reach?
At the same time, this field of activity also holds great possibilities. This is because, naturally, outreach can address and dissolve common prejudices based on false premises and serve to spread messages that focus not on differences but on commonalities. This is something that CROSSMEDIA, as one of the supporting organizations of WELCOMING OUT, is already doing.
So, I would like to invite all readers to take what I’ve written here to heart and implement it for yourselves, or in a job context with others. Why should you do this? Well, again, a change of perspective helps. Maybe you have people in your life who mean a lot to you, but you don’t know whether your expectations of their identity correspond to reality, because they may still be in the closet. With your WELCOMING OUT and subsequently your straight allyship, you help these non-out queer people to be able to confidently and fearlessly stand by their true, full selves. Is there anything more beautiful you could do for a cherished person?
What Do You Think?