BARCLAYS: NICE TO STONEWALL, NOT NICE TO ANYONE ELSE

You will find no shortage of pieces on this blog detailing Stonewall’s endless uselessness. This doesn’t particularly add to any of those but it’s too good not to document. Today they’ve been advertising their ‘workplace conference’ in Manchester:

Yes, it’s that Marcus Collins.

 

He’s a ‘keynote speaker’ apparently, perhaps giving advice on being a rubbish failed popstar. Hey, it might help SOMEONE. Maybe. But that weirdness isn’t why I’m posting. No, the incredible part is the conference being supported by Barclays and featuring Managing Director Adam Rowse as a keynote speaker. I’ve written previously about the absurdity of Stonewall pinkwashing ethically abhorrent organisations such as Barclays but today we don’t have to delve into their involvement in the arms trade to see the bleak irony. Let’s be charitable, maybe Stonewall were busy today and missed one of the main headlines:

Yes, today Barclays announced that it’s cutting many thousands of jobs after itsprofits fell to ‘only’ £1.7 billion in the first three months of the year. This is clearly an ideal time to be promoting a ‘workplace conference’ sponsored by them. It’s emblematic of Stonewall’s insular cluelessness that they would think this was absolutely fine. They are, after all, not interested in wider social justice and equality but rather with fighting for the rights of LGB people to be laid off (as long as it’s not because of their sexuality). I’m sure the Mayor of Liverpool, also a keynote speaker, can also offer helpful advice on this.

I do repeat myself about these things but it’s impossible not to: an organisation which professes to campaign for ‘equality and justice’ cannot attempt to draw a line around the concepts and say ‘we’re only interested in a formal kind of equality and justice, for these kinds of people, in these contexts’. Especially not when it’s happy to lend itself to issues beyond homophobia in order to drum up support. Stonewall’s failure to speak up about the activities of its corporate ‘allies’ as long as they profess to be nice to LGB people in the UK (it’s okay if they sell arms to regimes which kill foreign LGB people) exposes it as a self-serving moral vacuum.

Stonewall and O2: Won’t Someone Think of the Children?!

I don’t want to spend too much time on this because, you know, even I have limits. But it’s another week and so we have another woeful Stonewall initiative backed up by some  vague (I’m being charitable here) ‘research’. This time it’s tackling ‘endemic levels of online abuse‘ in “response to statistics showing that almost a quarter of gay young people experience cyberbullying.” What are these statistics and where do they come from? Who knows? They don’t tell us and a quick Google search throws up nothing. How does it define the rather nebulous term of ‘cyberbullying’? Your guess is as good as mine. What is the age of these ‘young people’? Um. Still, it sounds like the kind of thing which demands action, right?

Don’t worry! Stonewall have done their own research (in association with Childline, no less!) It apparently surveyed 248 young LGB people. Via Surveymonkey. This self-selecting, unsound and statistically useless ‘research’ found “deeply worrying levels of ‘sexting’ among gay young people”. This ‘sexting’ is  ’shocking’.  We’re told that:

Shockingly, 59 per cent of all gay young people who participated in the survey had created a sexual photo or video of themselves.

Then Stonewall’s Chief Exec (I miss you, Ben) pops up to call it ‘disturbing’. The moral outrage and hysteria over a laughably dodgy survey is such that by this point you may have forgotten that you’re reading a Stonewall press release and instead think you’ve stumbled onto the Daily Mail’s site. It’s notable that the release doesn’t say why any of this should be so terrifying – it just takes it as a given that we’ll be clutching our pearls at the thought of teenagers sharing “self-generated sexually explicit images”. The accompanying report relies on similar shared assumptions about anything sexual, from porn to ‘adult’ hook-up sites.

Such idiotic and evidence-free outrage was, of course, heavily in evidence when the government was pushing its ‘porn filter’ which (inevitably) ended up blocking a whole lot more than porn. Heck, even Stonewall’s site was blocked. Rest easy, however, as Stonewall are working with O2 to refine their censorship in order to keep the kiddies safe. Hooray! Once more Stonewall rushes to stamp its banal approval all over some incredibly problematic behaviour and provide a handy ethical veneer for a company under fire. Reactionary demagogy must get the donations rolling in and is so much easier than actually thinking about how filters don’t help and are deeply sinister. Heck, even The Telegraph has run pieces from this angle. Filters are never going to help kids and it’s arguable that they could impact on LGBT youth worse than most. The ‘guide’ to online safety which Stonewall and O2 have produced is pretty basic stuff and doesn’t remotely justify the moral indignation running through it or, indeed, its message that “Internet filters play an important role in protecting gay young people from unsuitable or adult sites.”

Interestingly enough, O2 recently partnered with the racist, homophobic, sexist and generally deeply reactionary The Sun. Shocking and disturbing, indeed. Won’t somebody think of the children?!

Farewell, then, Ben Summerskill. We barely knew you. Can it be a coincidence that his departure came only a week after I blogged about the “self-serving and ultimately pointless” Stonewall Workplace Equality Index? Who can say? What I can say is that he name searches and as a result tweeted me to accuse me of ‘bullying’ as a result of my repeated criticisms of the organisation, which is a bit silly.

Some of my other blogs about Stonewall and its brand of politics:

Whatever good it may once have done I think Stonewall has become a largely useless organisation (I mean, its latest campaign needs no comment from me) which lends its services to the murky practice of pinkwashing dubious companies and organisations. There is much worth reading out there about its terrible record on transgender equality, while some have already noted its terrible boldness in claiming marriage equality as its own given that it was a very late convert to the cause.

This great piece touches on many of the current problems with ‘gay politics’. Ostensibly a look at a book which claims to ‘de-mythologise’ Matthew Shepard, it manages to be wide-ranging in its critique. The lede (“Many of us have a habit of being overly credulous to stories that flatter our biases”) is a succinct skewering of the banal clicktivism which passes for much current gay politics, with its endless e-petitions and inaccurate memes. Its questioning of why so many need Matthew Shepard to have been an ‘innocent’ in every possible sense (rather than a rounded human being who was the victim of an awful crime) is also highly relevant. I think this mentality in part feeds into why gay politics is so terrible when it comes to, for example, issues of immigration or why there is tunnel vision on Russia’s treatment of its LGBT citizens and not other marginalised groups.’Gay identity’ must be essentialised and presented as ‘pre-politics’ so that any perceived attack on it can be portrayed as an attack on ‘innocents’. Issues of immigration, sex work, drug use or even foundational questions of social justice are seen as post-politics: they are messy, complicated and open to debate because the ‘victims’ are not innocent but rather viewed as partly complicit. This also offers much to our understanding of why groups like Stonewall have had almost nothing to say about Chelsea Manning, who is seen to be targeted for her actions in leaking information rather than for being LGBT and so unworthy of attention. This piece interestingly presents this as a pathology of the wider left:

However well intentioned, the urge to treat Matthew Shepard as a blameless angel demonstrates so many of the pathologies in contemporary social liberalism. First is the left’s attraction to heroes and martyrs — a drive to personalize and individualize every issue, in a way that seems to directly cut against the theoretical commitment to identifying structural causes for social problems…

This seems very compelling to me and I’d extend it to include an attraction to villains and victims. Witness the endless Daily Mail-bating and the trend in current feminism to take endless photos of sexist products on supermarket shelves. These are big, complex structural issues reduced to us and them, and the ‘goodies’ tend to be the victims. Rather than argue for systemic change or a social justice which encompasses everyone we increasingly seem to focus on the ways in which we as good, deserving individuals are targeted by the bad guys – a mentality which surely ultimately leads to a cul de sac?

I’m not so lacking in self-awareness that I ignore the piece’s references to a :

proud, self-aggrandizing radicalism…the superior virtue of a radicalism that…had little personal investment, little risk. 

It is of course always important to acknowledge the value of incremental, practical gains. It’s also important to recognise, acknowledge and interrogate your own privilege, one which in my case allows me the luxury of exploring these issues in a blog without facing persecution or violence for it. In terms of LGBT politics this is particularly the case in the US, which clearly lags behind much of Europe in terms of LGBT rights. For all my issues with Macklemore and Same Love (and indeed with the gay marriage movement) for example, I can still acknowledge that it was quite a major deal for an American staple like the Grammys to prominently feature same-sex marriage. Crucially, however, this does not mean that any of this should be beyond critique. Many of the criticisms of Stonewall and wider gay politics could be met with ‘but they’re doing something good!’, an assertion which has the ring of a truism about it yet contains multitudes in terms of unchallenged ideologies and assumptions. We cannot allow critical thought to (further) be eroded by the oppressively banal ‘cult of positivity’ which, in guises such as twee/cupcake fascism, seeks to drain the politics (the conflict) from daily life and replace it with a reactionary detachment and ‘niceness’.

This takes me back to Stonewall and how criticism of its work is framed as ‘bullying’. This riposte hinges on the ‘fact’ that it’s doing ‘nice things’ and so should be beyond reproach (an argument which was also made to me re: Ben Cohen). But this presents politics as a zero sum game where people and actions can only ever be ‘good’ or bad’ and where the politics of the ‘goodies’ is all that can be seen to exist. This is not the case. Interrogating these assumptions can help us understand the ideology behind them; they can help us understand our world in a deeper, more critical sense. In this way we can begin to see that our activism is not inherently good and we are not heroes for engaging in it. Indeed, sometimes our well-intentioned activism can be harmful and sometimes it can rest on mistaken assumptions about people which come from the blindness of our own privileges. Rather than seeking to further mystify this by presenting critics as ‘baddies’ who need to be shut up, we should be open to it and the insights it can offer. We should celebrate it, even. Critique is not the enemy of action:  our politics can encompass both and it’s necessary that they complement each other.

Ben Summerskill steps down as Stonewall boss

The Stonewall Workplace Equality Index – Because Awful Companies Like Gays Too

Another year brings with it another edition of the Stonewall Workplace Equality Index, which professes to detail “Britain’s top gay-friendly employers”. According to Ben Summerskill’s foreward:

Research shows that lesbian, gay and bisexual employees are more productive, creative, loyal and successful when they have the confidence, support and security to truly be themselves at work.

I’m sure that’s true but unfortunately my commie leanings don’t tend to go down too well with my boss. ‘Being yourself’ at work is a rather broad philosophical point, particularly in the age of emotional labour where you’re actively encouraged to “‘be yourself’ at work”(albeit an apolitical, idyllically submissive version of yourself). This fits right in with how Stonewall frame their Index as a service to capital and exclude all considerations other than “efforts to create inclusive workplaces for lesbian, gay and bisexual employees” (sucks to be you, transsexual people!) The section on LGB Community Engagement notes that “LGB people are also consumers and service users, representing a market estimated to be worth £70–81 billion per year in Britain alone.” There’s money in them hills! So the Home Office may, for example, have an utterly dire record on immigration re: gay people and Barclays may be the biggest UK investors in the arms trade which provides weapons to regimes like Saudi Arabia and Russia, but they are nice to their LGB employees! Whoo! Hilariously, we’re told that “Stonewall set additional criteria for global employers, to recognise support for LGB employees worldwide.” We can widen the scope a little but only to folk sitting in your offices.

Apparently you also get points for promoting ”commitment to LGB equality to the wider community” and “working with your suppliers on sexual orientation equality.” This ‘equality’, clearly, is very narrowly defined. The examples above just focus on the wider implications for LGB people of certain organisations – if we extend this to human rights and social justice generally the list becomes even more problematic. Goldman Sachs may be commonly described as “the most evil corporation in the world” and a “great vampire squid” but as a gay person I’m encouraged to view it through one prism only: what’s in it for me? An insidious pragmatism is present, pushing the pervasive myth that morality and politics are not located within the workplace. Stonewall’s Index, then, serves much the same purpose as Corporate Social Responsibility programmes: it elides politics, discourages a wider critical engagement with organisations and presents an essentialist view of sexuality which is both pre- and apart from politics. From this perspective there is no contradiction in Stonewall praising a Home Office which pushes racist and homophobic immigration policies or a Barclays which invests in companies that sell arms to Uganda (and indeed operates there). We’re actively discouraged from even beginning to make those links and so instead we push on with our single-issue e-petitions.

This is what happens when liberation movements become parochial and self-absorbed. As they lose any analysis of where power lies in society and how it operates, battles around areas like sexuality, gender, race, geopolitics and economic justice come to be seen as disparate and unconnected. Once this is the case it’s very easy for the movements to be co-opted by those in power and end up providing a useful service to societies which remain patriarchal, racist and capitalist. Thus we end up with the LGB demand to be ‘allowed’ to be part of the military machine or to be granted ‘equal’ access to socially destructive companies like Goldman Sachs.

This is particularly egregious as the Index is so self-serving and ultimately pointless, even on its own terms. Companies have to apply to enter it. This is free but, we’re told, “The majority of entrants are members of Stonewall’s best practice employers’ programme, Diversity Champions”. Membership of this programme costs £2,500 or £4000 for global organisations. Every single member of Stonewall’s ‘directory of gay-friendly employers’ is a member of this. This tells us absolutely nothing about how the vast majority of people work (I work in an organisation of about 13 people and none of them give a toss about my sexuality). It does, however, provide a steady stream of income for Stonewall. My friend works for a global organisation who has applied to the Index every year for a few consecutive years. Despite being LGB-friendly to the point of having networks, social groups and regular events specifically for LGB staff, it’s never made the list. Instead, Stonewall keep coming up with recommendations for training and seminars – all of which cost money. While this goes on my gay friend merrily goes about his working life…and we continue to shrink ourselves to one-dimensional beings while allowing egregious organisations to benefit from it.

Something Rotten: Mugabe’s Son, Tom Daley and Gay Identity

image 

We’ve seen before how quickly and widely misinformation can spread if it fits the right narrative. This is undoubtedly true in broad terms but I’ve tended to write about it with a particular, personal regard for LGBT issues. Because, truly, something is rotten in the state of Denmark. It seems increasingly unavoidable to me that the mainstream LGBT (for which read: overwhelmingly white gay male) ‘community’ is underpinned by a collective delusion based on a peculiar mix of victimhood and self-regard. Critical thought is notable by its absence. The Maria Miller and ‘hanged gay men in Iran’ memes went unchecked and were widely shared because they reflected these ‘values’. They assured us that we were oppressed. It’s noticeable that much of this comes from  gay people who are privileged in many other ways – intersectionality requires us to be aware not only of the many different ways in which people can be oppressed but, crucially, the ways in which we may oppress others. Where is the cachet in this? There is none and so it’s largely absent and, if raised, derided. Instead we face a seemingly endless parade of stories detailing how awful things are for us, with the truth being largely irrelevant. A story about a ‘teenage gay couple’ kicked out of McDonalds while ‘celebrating their anniversary’ went viral – it turned out they weren’t a couple, weren’t gay and weren’t even kicked out. Evidence of the awful homophobia faced by a waitress in America travelled around the world in hours – it now appears that it was a cruel hoax perpetrated by the waitress herself. The corrections to these stories are, of course, never shared with remotely the same zeal. Where’s the fun in truth if it doesn’t victimise us? Indeed, given that those of us living in the ‘democratic’ West face less and less problems due to our sexuality, there’s been a marked upswing in stories about how awful things are for gay people in other countries. Aside from serving the narrative these stories have the added bonus of being difficult to check. So there is little to no engagement with the people who actually live in these countries, little to no efforts made to listen to them and be led by them. Instead their oppressions become ours and we do with them what we like.

We saw this on Thursday when a ‘story’ about Robert Mugabe’s son being gay quickly spread across the internet. Despite originating on a website no-one had ever heard of, relying on suspiciously vague sources and being about a son who doesn’t actually exist, the report got as far as being reported on one of the main LGBT news sites in the UK (now altered to try and save their embarrassment.) People began to realize that the story was a hoax within the hour…yet even today I can still see it being shared. At a glance you can understand the appeal of the story – notorious homophobe has gay child. Karma! If you think about it, though, it’s actually a pretty twisted one. If it had turned out to be true you would imagine that life for the son would have been pretty difficult and there’s something rather perverse in celebrating homosexuality as a ‘punishment’. Yet this was irrelevant to the ‘lol gotcha!’ angle from which people were reporting it. Now, of course, the story has nothing to offer us and so the treatment of gay people in Zimbabwe will be forgotten until the next e-petition. As for discussion of wider issues in Zimbabwe – a non-starter.

image

The concern with our own sexual identity rather than with the truth can also be seen today in the response to Tom Daley’s rather low-key assertion that he’s in a relationship with another man. Daley explained that he was motivated to speak out to correct misconceptions, stated that it shouldn’t be a big deal and went to pains to point out that he was still attracted to girls. This rather measured approach was almost immediately lost in a frenzy of ‘Tom Daley is gay!’, ‘Tom Daley is one of us!’  and ‘Tom Daley is so brave!’ hysteria. There was almost instant recourse to that favoured trope, the tormented gay kid, to emphasis the earth-shattering importance of the ‘announcement’. Daley’s concern with misrepresentation and his avoidance of labelling himself became irrelevant; indeed, while some have stated that he’s ‘come out’ as ‘bisexual’, others have dismissed this and claimed him as ‘gay’ (Pink News did and have since altered the headline). The crucial thing is that he’s no longer ‘Tom Daley, diver’ but rather ‘Tom Daley, LIKES MEN, IS BRAVE’. The need to align this calm announcement with the victim narrative is unsurprising but is instructive of the patronising and simplistic way in which we handle these matters. We can’t even grant teenagers the right to identify themselves (or, indeed, to not identify as anything). We can only deal in absolutes and, regardless of Daley’s wishes, he’s now a gay role model who can save other gays. His sexuality isn’t his any more – somebody think of the children!

What the hell is going on? We trample over facts with complete disregard and dehumanise anyone who ventures a sexual interest of any kind in their own sex, all to maintain the particular notions of sexuality which our identities rely on. How can this possibly be viewed as a good thing? Who exactly is it supposed to be helping? If we’re in the business of imagining kids who need saviours, it’s perfectly conceivable that someone struggling with their sexuality will be repelled by the strict, delineated identities which we deal in. You will be gay, it will be the core of your being and you will be a victim. This is what the transgressive defiance of Stonewall has transmuted into and it’s ugly. Rather than spending all of our time looking for homophobic bogeymen we should take the time to think about our own attitudes and the assumptions about sexuality which underpin them. As I’ve written before, the kind of world we speak of wanting seems to be one in which people can be whomever they want in terms of sexuality; our rhetoric and actions, however, completely contradict this and demands clear (and oppositional) identities. We can do better than this. We can be better than this. More and more it seems that the approach of Western gay politics is in many ways a barrier to ‘equality’.

EDIT – 12/12/13 An edit to include a particularly egregious illustration of the above from noted gay neocon Andrew Sullivan. Apparently Sullivan knows Tom Daley’s sexuality better than Tom himself does. Quite some feat! You can hardly get a better example of the dehumanizing that I wrote about than Sullivan’s hideous bet that “Daley will never have a sexual relationship with a woman again.” Placing bets on the future sexual activity of teenagers – doesn’t it make you proud?

Sullivan knows that Daley can’t possibly be attracted to women because saying so is a “a classic bridging mechanism” – one that he deployed too. Yes, Sullivan said he fancied women and men but didn’t really, so everyone else who says so is clearly lying. As arguments go that’s up there with the attacks on trans people which go ‘well I liked playing with dolls but I didn’t have to change my gender to do it!” It’s not just unsophisticated, it’s downright stupid.

Sullivan also wheels out that hoary old argument about how male bisexuality isn’t really a thing “because male sexuality is much cruder, simpler and more binary than female.”  Leaving aside the role of gay men like Sullivan in perpetuating this with their sneering demands that people ‘take sides’, his dire analysis that this state of affairs is “much more nature than nurture” completely neglects the role played by patriarchal society. I wrote a bit about that here but suffice to say, given that science has yet to provide any semblance of a clear ‘explanation’ for sexuality, I don’t have much faith that Sullivan has much of a foundation for his assertions beyond his own prejudices.

 As I wrote above – Daley’s sexuality isn’t his anymore and while Buzzfeed and HuffPo may trawl the internet for the inevitable homophobic responses, any sophisticated analysis has to take account of the unhelpful prejudices found in many gay people.

How ‘LGBT Awards’ Ceremonies Dehumanise and Devalue

It has been noted that “news is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising.” A general point, this could nonetheless have been written specifically about much of the LGBT media which drowns in adverts, advertorials and fluff pieces about celebrities. Gay Star News goes that bit further and is increasingly little more than press releases and ‘features’ which are clearly paid for, in lieu of any original content. It shares with Pink News the tendency to report on anything, anywhere which happens to somehow involve a gay person – a trait sent up by Fagburn here – and a lack of critical thought which at times makes it (and PN) seem like satire.

I’ve written previously about the increasing tendency for marketing to use homosexuality (rarely bisexuality, never transexuality until recently) as an effective, easily-ticked box in marketing campaigns. Aside from flattering the liberalness of many, such a move is certain to be grabbed on by the gay media. Where they go, many gay people follow and all analysis falls away in the face of a trite appreciation that a person or organisation has ‘supported’ the community. As we’ve seen, this leads to the horror of gay magazines lauding men who’ve assaulted their wives, gay charities associating themselves with ethically repugnant companies like Barclays and (in the latest and perhaps most egregious example) Pink News associating itself with one of the world’s biggest manufacturers/dealers in weapons of death and destruction. There is no activity, indeed no crime, too horrendous that the gay media won’t eagerly accept your cash (or your flesh) and sprinkle some of their pinkwashing powers over you.

The association of Stonewall and Pink News with Barclays and BAE Systems respectively comes as part of their award ceremonies. It’s no great insight to say that the vast majority of award ceremonies are nothing more than extensions of the PR industry; given the convergence of marketing with ‘gay visibility’ the gay media has been slowly cottoning onto the fact that they’re an easy way to get coverage and, more importantly, cash.  The Stonewall Awards came first in 2006 and though they at least ostensibly serve some purpose (to “celebrate those who have had a positive or negative impact on the lives of British lesbian, gay and bisexual people”) it was quickly obvious that they were a facile and craven embarrassment. This was (and is) not only due to their willingness to endorse supremely dodgy people and organisations but also the fact that all you really need to do in order to stand a good chance of winning is to do or say something ‘nice’ concerning the gays. The ‘Broadcast of the Year’ in its second year was Hollyoaks, for God’s sake.

Attitude Magazine was paying attention and their own award ceremony came in 2008. This sublime piece of nonsense barely even pretends to be little more than marketing – certainly this year their association with various companies (primarily a branch of the tax-dodging, union busting, asset-stripping Virgin) seemed to be the central point (aside from the fact that it helps to flog some magazines). So banal and transparent are these ‘awards’ that their attempt this year to obtain some gravitas on the back of the campaigns around Alan Turing by giving him a special award seemed almost insulting.

This year Pink News has joined the fray, meaning we have three of these absurd spectacles in the space of a few weeks. It takes a lot to make the Stonewall Awards look good but the Pink News Awards somehow managed it. Having no information about how nominations are arrived at, the three awards voted for by readers mixed hilarity (‘Advertising Campaign of the Year’ literally seemed to mean ‘featured some gays’) and idiocy (‘Parliamentary Speech of the Year’ ignored everything any politician had said which wasn’t about gay marriage) with a peculiar, and largely unremarked on, self-interest. Two of the groups nominated for ‘Community Group of the Year’ had seen Ben Cohen (owner of Pink News) involved in their creation and both concerned gay marriage, a particular hobby horse of Cohen and PN in the past year (Nick Clegg, perhaps the most despised politician in the country, received a ‘Special Award’ for his ‘work on gay marriage’). The videos from the nominated ‘Equality Network, Scotland’ on gay marriage had all ‘premiered on Pink News’. Most notably (and curiously), there was an unheralded ‘judged award’ (judged by whom and on what basis, we’re not told) for “Business Network of the Year”. I mean…what? Who even conceives of such an ‘award’? Perhaps someone who sits on the board of the winning ‘network’ Intertech with responsibility for ‘Media and PR’. That’s a pretty massive coincidence, right?! Pink News itself doesn’t make the link.

(27-10 edit – Ben Cohen has drawn attention to the list of judges here and stated that he did draw attention to his link with Intertech, but only in the room and edited out of the video by the director. He also explained that nominations were decided by “the pinknews team and board”. Funnily enough, BAE Systems and Pink News are both listed as ‘supporters’ of Intertech here. But then, as Ben said: “it’s up to us how we do the awards. They’re ours. If you want to do your own you can of course!”)

This perfectly illustrates why I care about this stuff – it’s not just random grumbling. Under the pretext of ‘supporting the LGBT community’ or ‘promoting equality’ or whatever, marketing and self-advantage is advanced with almost zero criticism. People and organisations involved in at best dubious, at worst reprehensible activities are given a sheen of liberal respectability. In short, these absurd awards further the instrumentalisation of homosexuality as a tool for marketing and for leveraging profit. Gay people become one-dimensional beings, of interest only because of their sexuality (and ostensibly only interested in this themselves). Further, it robs ‘equality’ of all meaning – the phrase becomes little more than ‘can already-privileged white gay people advantageously access and exploit existing structures to their own ends’? These awards, birthed from the gloopy neoliberal swamp that is most of our gay media, dehumanise, degrade and in a very real sense devalue equality.

It’s interesting the way this survey was reported as showing that homophobia was ‘rife’ in the UK. In actuality it doesn’t even begin to demonstrate that – instead it shows that the expectation of homophobia is present with many gay (the report uses ‘gay’ interchangeably with ‘gay, lesbian and bisexual’) people. This being Stonewall, the expectations of trans people were obviously absent.

I’ve written previously about the facile notion of ‘equality’ adopted by groups like Stonewall and how:

Their entire existence rests on cosying up to power, pointedly avoiding radicalism but flattering the perverse blend of exceptionalism, victimisation and self-entitlement of a largely-privileged group of (mostly) metropolitan white gay men.

Clearly a survey showing that gay people still feel discriminated against is manna from heaven for Stonewall. Indeed, they need a new cause given that Ben Summerskill claims in his introduction that “one strand of Stonewall’s domestic focus – legislative equality – is effectively complete.” Quite remarkable that he appears to be claiming credit for gay marriage when he had ‘no view’ on it in 2010 but thought it would be very expensive and would make no “real, practical difference to people’s lives”. And of course the ‘T’ part of LGBT would have something to say about having achieved ‘legislative equality’ but again, it’s Stonewall so we can’t expect too much there. Summerskill presents the survey as showing that gay people “continue to face disadvantages in many walks of life”. Yet how can we possibly know that’s what it shows? It looks at expectations and nothing else. It’s well-documented that surveys of the public find the fear of crime to vastly outweigh the actual risk and much is written looking at why this is so. Indeed, it’s noted that “both risk of crime and fear of it are higher in areas of poverty, unemployment and deprivation”, a finding which raises issues of class and how it affects your reality. Such issues are entirely absent from the Stonewall survey as is any discussion of the possibility that the expectation of homophobia may be exaggerated or even unfounded in some circumstances. For example, the survey finds that “More than six in ten (63 per cent) gay and bisexual men and four in ten (38 per cent) lesbians and bisexual women would expect to experience homophobia if they took part in team sport and were open about their sexual orientation.” Which team sport?! The pull quote is from Matt Jarvis, the West Ham player who posed for Attitude, so it seems clear that we’re pretty much talking about football here rather than, say, water polo. This clearly carries very tradionally male, macho connotations which perhaps explain why far less gay women seem to be worried about it. There are so many questions and challenges here yet the analysis is entirely absent and instead we’re presented with instance after instance of presumed homophobia. Instances which can’t help but sometimes seem absurd – does anyone really have an opinion on whether Sky One portrays gay people ‘realistically’ or if Channel 5 would tackle a complaint about homophobia worse than the BBC?! The fact that over twice as many respondents believe Channel 5 would indeed be worse at this (with ITV and Sky also doing badly in that regard) doesn’t seem to be down to anything other than perceptions of the channels – perceptions which can’t help but seem tied up with class.

Issues of class loom large over the survey. The hypothetical situations asked about carry strong class connotations –  becoming a school governor, adoption and fostering, running for political office. The sweeping heading of ‘Equal Legal Treatment’ covers only gay marriage and “tackling homophobic abuse around the world”, the two causes célèbres of Stonewall’s constituency. The ‘Police and the Criminal Justice System’ section does cover expectations when suspected of committing a crime but it’s so bereft of context that it’s almost laughable. There are a myriad of reasons why people may experience the law differently – one big one is touched on with reference to how gay people from “black and minority ethnic backgrounds” expect worse treatment from the police etc but this is bizarrely glazed over. In fact there are a few references to how people of colour have worse expectations than their white counterparts yet there are zero mentions of ‘racism’ in the survey and Stonewall’s ‘recommendations’ make absolutely no reference to these findings. This underlines one of the main flaws of the survey, namely that people have a myriad of reasons why they may ‘expect’ discrimination, whether justified or not, and it’s an incredibly difficult task to even begin to unpick them all. Would a 40 year old wealthy white gay lawyer expect to be more discriminated against when, say, dealing with the police than a 20 year old black male from Hackney? What are we comparing here? The words ‘poverty’, ‘homeless’ and ‘unemployed’ appear nowhere, with the only references to welfare being in the context of seeking advice at the Citizens Advice Bureau and a mention of “applying for social housing” (there is a page on “public services” but it’s not explained what this refers to, given that we have separate sections for criminal justice and schools.)  The sole mention of class (‘social group’) is in a paragraph looking at which ‘occupational groups’ are more likely to be out at work; three short paragraphs later and we’re being told that ‘gay consumers’ are more likely to spend their money on organisations which they think are nice to gays. The survey presents some mythical world where sexuality is the sole determinant of how we interact with and experience society.

The class connotations are nowhere clearer than in Stonewall’s own presentation of the report which leads with an explicit link between paying tax and experiencing discrimination when using public services. An implicit positioning worthy of the Daily Mail, instantly linking the right to be free of discrimination to the ability to financially contribute. You’ll struggle to find this observation anywhere in the media, which instead as we’ve seen has focused on the ‘rampant homophobia’ angle. We’ve seen before how expectations of homophobia can run far away from the reality and can be manipulated to divisive and damaging ends. Half-baked surveys like this and their hysterical coverage seem certain only to make that situation worse.

Homophobia still rife in UK, survey claims