Editorial team:
Phoebe Reast-Jones, Shaina Gatharia, Ezra-Parker Cunliffe, Niamh Hanlon
Thank you to Lauren Wallace-Dean for organising and coordinating the printing and distribution of the magazine.
Thank you so much to everyone who contributed to this magazine’s content.
This magazine is dedicated to the five people who were tragically killed in the November 2022 Colorado nightclub shooting:
Daniel Davis Aston (28) Kelly Loving (40) Ashley Paugh (35) Derrick Rump (38) Raymond Greene Vance (22)
Winstanley College LGBTQ+ Society, December 2022
Page
“We deserve to experience love fully, equally, without shame and without compromise.” Elliot
I’m delighted to introduce the second issue of the LGBTQ+ Review, Winstanley College LGBTQ+ Society’s magazine! Thank you so much to everyone who has contributed to this edition. From reports to reviews and art, this issue of the magazine really epitomises the full breadth of talent present in our society. It reaffirms my genuine pride to have had the opportunity to chair the society this year.
The society was re-established in February 2022 following a period of absence due to Covid, and since then we have grown to become college’s most active society. This year alone, we’ve raised somewhere in the region of £406 for five amazing charities – National Aids Trust, The Peter Tatchell Foundation, The Michael Causer Foundation, akt mcr and Outright International. We’ve held awareness campaigns, ranging from LGBTQ+ participation in STEM to LGBTQ+ history, International Pronouns Day and the Qatar World Cup. Most notably, we helped to organise our Pride event in July which was very special and a great way to round off the 2021-2022 academic year.
In the new year, the society will undergo some changes as our Lower Sixth reps step up to help take over the dayto-day running of the society before eventually taking over the reins of the society in May I sincerely believe that they will build on the work done by the society so far and make it more active and more inclusive than ever. I’m really excited to see what the future for the society holds and hope that you are too.
Asriel Wilde (they/them)
Chair of the LGBTQ+ Society
Contents
‘So, what did the 1967 Sexual Offences Act change?’ Callum Andrè Forster Page 3
‘Reflections on a gay life and a long one’ Patricia Hatchett Page 5
Positive LGBTQ+ news from 2022 Asriel Wilde Page 9 Sporus Phae Inçledon Page 12
‘Why is the Qatar World Cup so problematic?’ Phoebe Reast-Jones Page 13
‘Now more than ever, solidarity with the LGBTQ+ Asriel Wilde Page 15 community is vital for protecting trans lives’ ‘Fight Club and Queer Theory’ Phae Inçledon Page 19
‘Our Flag Means Death review’ Eloise Eccles Page 21
Boyfriends Phae Inçledon Page 23
Well, more than is normally accredited to it. It is often seen as possibly just a piece of legislation, devised by Roy Jenkins, to blindside the public from Harold Wilson's poor economic decisions. Critics often cite the fact that it was only “homosexual acts in private shall not be an offence provided that the party’s consent thereto the act in private twenty-one years", meaning that only men aged over 21 could legally be in a homosexual relationship, to discredit the Act. By “in private” it means that they must be the only people in the building (not to say if they lived in an apartment building, they had to ask their neighbours to step out for a few minutes; that would be very awkward). However, what can’t be overstated is that the cultural change shook the stuffy, archaic, British establishment-centred culture of British society. Many were tired of the ideals held by previous generations and the first major Act of rebellion was staving through youth culture, with bands like the Beatles releasing “St. Peppers” in May of that year, openly discussing themes of drug use (most blatantly in ‘Lucy in the sky with diamonds, which abbreviates to LSD). This new liberal legislation, along with reforms to abortion rights and divorce, was the government's new age of colour.
Firstly, it’s important to recognise the dramatic change it was from the 1956 sexual Offences Act which completely criminalised homosexual relationships, in modern formal law since 1533. This Act in 1956 also led to horrendous atrocities such as the dramatic increase of gay conversion therapy. Thankfully, this didn’t last too long as it was widely criticised by a large denomination of younger people, who immediately started the ball rolling for calls for its abolition.
In 1968, "Homosexual Acts Among Males" by Wainwrights Churchill was the first book that openly talked about homosexuality and its history, causing British people to revisit concepts such as the Kinsey scale (the first theory of asexuality scale published by Alfred Kinsey in “sexual behaviour in human males" published in 1948) and encouraging the use of terms such as "pansexual" and "bisexual" to become more widely used.
So, what did the 1967 Sexual Offences Act change?Callum Andrè Forster
Arena Three was the first lesbian magazine in the UK that was set up in 1964. This helped many lesbians in the 1960s feel a sense of acceptance. This nurtured a culture of LGBTQ acceptance, that ultimately led to the creation of the 1967 Sexual Offences Act. Jane Traies discusses how, what was a small homemade magazine feebly stapled together, became a special document reserved in the British Library, due to its massive cultural effect. Although female homosexuality wasn’t criminalised it came under the same level of prejudice as with men, with many refusing to acknowledge their existence.
Only three years after 1967, the BBC broadcasted the first gay kiss in a performance of Edward 2nd between James Laurenson and Sir Ian McKellen (known to many as Gandalf in Lord of the rings or Magneto in X men). Sir Ian McKellen describes in a recent interview with the BBC how the kiss “wasn’t out to shock people” but rather to perform a play that was written by Christopher Marlow almost 500 years before, which happens to have a gay lead. Ian McKellen would however later continue to fight for LGBT rights against section 28 (as he felt it was abhorrent when one Conservative chief whip described it as a “piece of red meat for the right") and would become the face of the campaign for equal marriage rights in 2013.
Also in 1970, the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) was set up following the Stonewall riots in America to openly debate LGBT issues. They were not about law reform. They met at the London School of Economics in 1970 but disbanded in 1973 due to the number of different opinions (understandable as it was the first time LGBT people could debate openly in this form).
The first UK gay pride was held in London Hyde Park in 1972 with only about 1000 people in attendance, thankfully this number is tiny compared to the 1.5 million at 2019 London pride. Annually, this, along with LGBT history month helps to centre people's attention, especially to atrocities such as those in Qatar, where people can still be executed for their sexuality. This was shocking to a still socially conservative Britain, a lot of whom felt that gay people should keep it private. However, this challenged this and presented the idea that for true equality, gay people should be able to express themselves to the same extent as straight people. It gave the calls for equal rights a voice that gained media coverage.
So, of course, the 1967 Sexual Offences Act was not perfect by any means and still contains what would in the present be classed as abhorrent homophobia in the most liberal reform. However, what it symbolised and what later followed helped to make the 20th century the most significant development of society in Britain, even unparalleled by the industrial, empirical age of the Victorians.
I am a 75-year-old lesbian. Female homosexuality has never been explicitly targeted in any legislation.
I grew up in an era of sexual repression and toxic homophobia. When I was a kid in the 1950’s, sex outside marriage was considered a sin. Sexual attraction between two men was something to be ashamed of. It was thought to be a mental illness needing treatment. Mutual attraction between women was on no-one’s agenda.
Geraldine Bedell sums up what it was like1 . ‘Loving the wrong person could make you a criminal. Smiling in the park could lead to arrest and being in the wrong address book could cost you a prison sentence. Homosexuality was illegal and hundreds of thousands of men feared being picked up by zealous police wanting easy convictions, often for doing nothing more than looking a bit gay. It wasn’t until I was twenty that The Sexual Offences Act 1967, decriminalised sex between two men over 21 and ‘in private’.2
Dame Kelly Holmes, the double Olympic gold medallist, waited 34 years before she felt safe enough to be open about her sexuality. She told the Sunday Mirror: “It was illegal to be gay in the army. The risk if you were caught, was to be arrested, court-martialled, thrown out, sometimes jailed. I had wanted to be in the armed forces since I was 14 and was desperate to stay in, so couldn’t let them know. But it was hard because it consumed my life with fear.”3
Although the 60s was a decade of liberation for many women, my teenage years were years of confusion and furtiveness. LGBTQ+ kids were not recognised, we were shunned and shamed, and it was easier to just keep quiet. I was 17 in 1964, when the North-western Homosexual Law Reform Committee (NWHLRC) was formed4 to promote legal and social equality for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. I remember the headlines when it became the campaign for Homosexual Equality in 1969. That really started me thinking, but I was confused and shy and kept quiet.
Following the Stonewall riots in New York, the LGBTQ+ liberation movement began to take off. I remember reading about it in the papers and they seemed far removed from my everyday life. They were the spark for the formation of The Gay Liberation Front (GLF) in the UK. I had just finished my training
as a nurse and was fiercely aware of inequality generally. This was the first time ordinary LGBTQ+ people in the UK were speaking out about the need for change, but I was still afraid.
In the 1970s, British establishment attitudes to LGBTQ+ people were still entrenched. The Nullity of Marriage Act 1971 defined the legally valid reasons a marriage could be or annulled in Britain. It was the first time in British law that marriage was explicitly defined by statute as being between a male and a female. Most people I knew thought this was right and proper.
In the same year, April Ashley attracted lurid headlines and established a precedent that a person's sex cannot legally be changed from what it was at birth, even after surgery. It was ruled that ‘intercourse using the completely artificially constructed cavity could never constitute true intercourse’5 .
It felt like the ground rules for love and marriage were not going to be easily shifted, though change was in the air. The 1971 Gay Liberation Front Manifesto proclaimed that ‘Homosexuals, who have been oppressed by physical violence and by ideological and psychological attacks at every level of social interaction, are at last becoming angry.’ Peter Tatchell was causing outrage in the newspapers. He describes the GLF as ‘Britain’s first direct action, human rights movement of openly lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.’ 6
In 1972 The first Pride march was held in London, with the theme of being ‘out and proud’. It attracted less than a thousand participants. I didn’t go, like most LGBTQ+ people then, I was too scared to come out, and many of us still felt ashamed of who we are. It marked a significant turning point. Tatchell recalls ‘Many of my friends were too scared to march. They thought everyone would be arrested. That didn’t happen, but we were swamped by a very heavy, aggressive police presence. They treated us like criminals. It was quite scary’ and ‘We got mixed reactions from the public – but predominantly curiosity and bewilderment. Most had never knowingly seen a LGB or T person, let alone hundreds of queers marching to demand human rights.’
7Switchboard was started in 1974 to give advice and information, and signpost people to the newly developing “gay scene”. Volunteers self-identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual. Switchboard’s current CoChair Natasha Walker looked at the archived log calls; ‘One of the most prominent types of calls we received throughout the 70s were in reference to the countless police raids during this period. Numerous calls from people informing Switchboard of raids that had happened, but our volunteers also received calls tipping us off about impending attacks. Each from a person questioning their identity, with themes of shame, confusion and loneliness. Themes which remain constant in the calls we take today. 45 years after that very first logbook, Switchboard is still here – providing calm words when needed most.’8
In the early seventies dedicated newspapers began to be published. I bought my first copy of Sappho magazine, from the local bookshop in 197. Its’ aim was to "educate society about the true facts of lesbianism, support lesbians and women's causes”. It was not embarrassing to buy, as it also covered feminism and the Women’s Liberation Movement, so it didn’t identify the purchaser as having only gay interests.
I have a vivid memory of the indignant figure of Mary Whitehouse in the seventies and her highly vocal campaigns against what was called the ‘permissive society’. She had set up the national Viewers and Listeners Association in the sixties and was vitriolic in her attacks on the BBC. In 1974 Denis Lemon, the editor of Gay News was found guilty of ‘blasphemous libel’. Both he and his paper were fined, and Lemon received a nine-month suspended prison sentence. An unexpected consequence was an increase in the paper’s circulation. She suggested that an imaginary group, an ‘intellectual/homosexual/humanist lobby’ was to blame.10
The eighties were a horrible decade for LGBTQ+ people. Terry Higgins died of AIDS, and the first UK Aids charity was founded. Very little was known about AIDS and there was widespread misinformation from the popular papers that called it the ‘Gay plague.’ I remember the government’s TV adverts, that helped create an atmosphere of fear. Anyone who lived through the Thatcher years will remember the bitter and violent defeat of the miners fighting Pit closures, and the horrible scenes at Orgreave, of the police on horseback, charging strikers and wielding their truncheons. Less publicity was given at the time to the support for miners from LGBTQ+ groups, immortalised later in the 2014 film Pride.
A backlash for that support came in 1988. Margaret Thatcher introduced Section 28, legislation which banned local authorities from ‘promoting homosexuality’ and banned the discussion of LGBTQ+ issues in schools. Everyone was shocked, teachers were worried that kids could not be told the truth. They found it harder to stop bullying and name calling, and they feared being prosecuted for saying the wrong thing. There were protests and campaigns to get the law changed and in 1989, Stonewall was founded in the UK to fight back14. The law wasn’t changed until 2003. Life for LGBTQ+ people were poisonous under Section 28 and made worse by the HIV epidemic.
Stonewall has made a huge contribution to gay rights in modern times. Their website sums up the eighties - ‘Under Tony Blair’s government in the 2000s, a raft of positive legislation was introduced. The UK Government lifted the ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual people in the armed forces, the age of consent was lowered to 16, same-sex couples were granted equal rights when applying for adoption, and Section 28 was finally repealed across the UK. We also saw the Civil Partnership Act and the Gender Recognition Act introduced in 2004, granting same-sex couples the same rights as married couples, and allowing trans people to acquire new birth certificates. Finally, The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 outlawed the discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities, services, education, and public functions on the grounds of sexual orientation.
The Civil Partnership Act and Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act was passed in England and Wales in 2004. That was personally very important as it allowed me and my partner to have formal recognition of the importance of our relationship, when I was nearly sixty years old.
The nineties saw a steady flow of people in the public eye coming out. It meant a lot to me as a lesbian when Angela Eagle defeated the Tories in Wallasey, and then went public about her sexuality. It also made headlines when Stephen Twigg, who was openly gay, was elected to parliament. Waheed Alli was the first gay member of the House of Lords.
I think the seeds of the Tory antipathy to Europe and the Human Rights Act were sown in the late nineties, when the European Commission ruled that the age of consent should be the same for everyone. The European Court of Human Rights also found the dismissal of two people in the Royal Navy because of their sexuality, to be a breach of their right to a private life, under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.17
There was a big campaign by Outrage! and Amnesty International on behalf of The Bolton 7, a group of gay and bi men who had been convicted of gross indecency. They were awarded compensation by the government, after the ECHR which ruled there had been a violation of Article 8 and the right to a private life.18 Again, in 2006 the European Court of Human Rights held that denying a state pension at age 60 from a male-to-female trans person was a breach of the right to respect for private life.19 No wonder this government want to redefine Human Rights!
In 2013 Alan Turing was given a posthumous royal pardon for his conviction of ‘gross indecency’ which resulted in his being chemically castrated and later committing suicide. It was only last year that the government announced plans to legislate to ban conversion therapy, but it hasn’t happened yet.
Despite the progress made in my lifetime, and the increased visibility of LGBTQ+ people in the media and public life, we still have a long road ahead before we achieve genuine equality. Women and members of Black Pride report feeling marginalised, harassed and unsafe in public. Confusion and fear are still out there. There is a toxic debate about trans relationships and gender boundaries. Hate crime is rising 20and certain groups now wish to separate the “T” or the “L” from “LGBTQ+.”
Stonewall is still campaigning – their priorities now are to ban conversion therapy and improve the treatment and welcome we give to LGBTQ+ refugees. They need all the support we can give them.
Positive LGBTQ+ news from around the world in 2022
Asriel WildeNews regarding LGBTQ+ rights around the world has often been quite dire this year, though many good things have happened which have been overlooked. Here’s just a few of them.
1. Every state in Mexico legalises gay marriage
It is now legal in all of Mexico’s 31 states as well as Mexico City for two people of the same gender to get married. Tamaulipas and Guerrero became the final two Mexican states to legalise gay marriage in October 2022.
2. Andorra legalises gay marriage
The General Council of San Marino unanimously voted to approve gay marriage in July 2022, which will take effect in February 2023. It becomes one of the last Western European countries to do so.
3. San Marino becomes the first country with an openly LGBTQ+ head of state Paolo Rondelli made history when he became the world’s first openly gay head of state, serving a six-month term as one of two Captain Regents from April to October 2022. He joins a growing list of LGBTQ+ world leaders, including Xavier Bettel, the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Ana Brnabić, the Prime Minister of Slovenia and Leo Varadkar, who on 17 December will serve a second term as Ireland’s Taoiseach.
4. Ireland protects transgender people, banning trans hate crime
Ireland added gender identity and expression to its official list of protected characteristics in October 2022, allowing people found to be discriminating against gender diverse people to be punished with up to five years in prison.
5. US elections – a record number of LGBTQ+ people are elected
An historic number of LGBTQ+ people were elected to a variety of offices in the November 2022 elections. Maura Healey and Tina Kotek were elected as governors of Massachusetts and Oregon respectively, both becoming the first lesbian women to lead US states. Zooey Zephyr was elected as the first trans state representative in Montana, a deeply conservative state, while in New Hampshire James Roesener became the first trans man elected to a state legislature. Erick Russell in Connecticut became the first LGBTQ+ Black person elected to state-wide office in US history.
6. Heartstopper released as a TV series to critical acclaim
Alice Oseman’s graphic novel series Heartstopper was released on Netflix in April which review aggregator Metacritic suggests has received “universal acclaim”. It has been praised for its depiction of young LGBTQ+ people of a diverse range of identities. Netflix renewed the series for two more seasons in May 2022.
7. Footballer Jake Daniels becomes the UK’s only openly gay professional male footballer. In May 2022, Jake Daniels became the UK’s only openly gay professional male footballer, being the first footballer to be publicly out since Justin Fashanu in 1990. He was shortlisted as Celebrity of the Year by the National Diversity Awards for his decision.
This year, the 2022 FIFA World Cup is being held in Qatar, spanning across approximately a month (20th November – 18th December) and costing an estimated $220 billion. However, this tournament has much more than an economic impact, especially when considering both the environmental and social controversies surrounding this event.
Qatar itself is a small country situated in Western Asia bordering Saudi Arabia to the South as well as the Persian Gulf which surrounds around 80% of the country. It won the bid to host the 2022 World Cup in 2010 and since then many huge issues have come to light.
Regarding specifically the tournament itself, many questions have been raised regarding both environmental concerns and issues regarding human rights abuse. Qatar has been heavily criticised for its reliance on low-wage migrant workers in preparation for the tournament, who have been bound to work through an incredibly coercive labour system known as Kafala, often without them knowing just how legally binding the contracts they are agreeing to are. Furthermore, since 2010, throughout preparations for the tournament, it is suggested that thousands of workers have died (exact numbers are impossible track due to Qatar’s secrecy regarding human rights) and many more have come forward to Amnesty International about abuse ranging from wage theft and dangerous working/living conditions to physical and, in some cases, sexual abuse. This clear record of violations of the workers’ most basic human rights whilst constructing spaces for the World Cup has been heavily criticised by many NGOs and begs the question of why FIFA, who will be well aware of such disgusting actions, have allowed it to go ahead?
In addition, many environmentalists have huge concerns regarding the carbon emissions of this project and FIFA’s apparent desire to hide them. According to the association itself, the estimated carbon footprint of the whole event sits at 3.6 million tonnes of carbon waste. However, Mike Berners-Lee, a professor from Lancaster University, suggests that the footprint sits at a much higher value, at over 10 million tonnes. Why is the 2022 Qatar World Cup so problematic?
Why is the 2022 Qatar World Cup so problematic?
This deliberate misleading on behalf of FIFA is an extremely dangerous decision, given the worldwide impacts this sporting event could have on society. In fact, despite FIFA’s claims of programs to offset the environmental impacts, there have been some clear corners cut, such as the assumption that all flights to Qatar would be one-way. Despite, the claims that a large solar plant would help provide energy for the event, climate activists are still sceptical of how effective FIFA’s arguably performative claims will be. Only time will tell.
Moving away from the World Cup itself, there are many questions surrounding Qatar’s longstanding history with its treatment of LGBTQ+ and female members of society. Many human rights activists fear that Qatar is attempting to ‘sportswash’ (a term coined in 2010 to describe the use of a sporting event to remove scrutiny regarding controversies) these discriminations. Within Qatar’s legislation there are high penalties for those who pursue homosexuality, but many take further issue with the widespread police harassment and intimidation of LGBTQ+ Qataris, with many queer fans expressing concerns regarding their own safety when travelling to the tournament. This has been brought to media attention through actions such as Joe Lycett and his challenging of public figures who are contributing towards media for the World Cup. In addition, Qatar’s clear restrictions surrounding free speech such as imposing regulations concerning journalist access to the World Cup and sanctions for those challenging the countries’ often divisive beliefs and values raise questions surrounding how little we truly know of the mistreatment and discrimination in Qatar.
Combining all of this shows a clear picture of a tournament heavily drenched in problems and concerns from an international audience, ranging from environmentalists to LGBTQ+ people. It begs the question, how far are large corporations such as FIFA willing to go, in an attempt to hide probable corruption and questionable morals? Arguably, at the heart of this controversy, lies not social or environmental distress, but instead economic and political gain, as is common in our ever interconnected and ever corrupt global society. This matter goes much further than just football.
Asriel Wilde
The world is rapidly becoming a hostile place to be transgender. According to the Human Rights Campaign, at least 32 transgender people have been murdered so far in 2022, the majority of these being Black trans women. On Trans Day of Remembrance - 19 November 2022 - Club Q, a trans inclusive queeroriented nightclub in Colorado, was attacked leading to the tragic deaths of five people, including two transgender people. A doughnut shop in Tulsa, Oklahoma, was firebombed by a far-right extremist for hosting a drag show. Since the Taliban took control of Afghanistan last August, harrowing reports of trans people being imprisoned, raped, tortured and killed have emerged. These assaults on trans people are nothing new – our community has experienced attacks like these for decades – but what has changed is an increasingly hostile environment for trans people in politics and in the media.
The media environment in particular is becoming exceptionally hostile to transgender people. Headlines over the past few years have included those such as ‘Lesbians are being erased by transgender activists’, ‘Schoolchildren are identifying as transgender just to be rebellious’, ‘Trans activists have no shame’, ‘The tyranny of the transgender minority has to be stopped’ and, perhaps most strikingly of all, an article in the Mail on Sunday in 2018 with a title reading ‘Terfed out by the Trans Taliban’.
This comes amid a spate of attacks from politicians, who previously expressed solidarity with the trans community, spreading the mistruth that “trans women are men” in the face of biological, sociological and historical evidence to the contrary as it is politically expedient for them to do so: in the July Conservative Party leadership race, Penny Mordaunt dismissed the assertion that she had previously backed self-identification for transgender people when it was proposed by Theresa May’s government as “smears” and Rishi Sunak, who in the same leadership race promised to make the UK “the safest and greatest country in the world to be LGBT+”, is now reportedly proposing a review of the Equality Act 2010 to gut its protections for transgender people. On his first day in office, he appointed Kemi Badenoch as minister for women and equalities, who has previously referred to transgender people as ‘transsexual’, referred to trans women as men and who held meetings with the LGB Alliance, a trans-exclusionary organisation which is recognised as a hate group in countries such as Ireland and Australia.
Perhaps a few years ago, the prime minister’s statement would have been correct. Until 2015, the UK was consistently ranked by the Rainbow Map as being the best European nation for LGBTQ+ rights. However, by 2020, it had fallen to 9th place. By 2021, it had entered 10th place. This year, it has fallen to 14th place. The UK has allowed itself to enter a freefall while allowing many European and South American countries such as Brazil, France, Norway, Argentina and Cyprus, the latter of which has taken the UK’s spot as the best European country to be LGBTQ+, to steam ahead of it through implementing policies such as the right for transgender and gender-diverse people to self identify, a policy which the UK shelved in 2020 under pressure from ‘gender-critical’ activists. Additionally, in 2021, the UK shelved its proposals to ban conversion therapy for transgender people, a barbaric practise considered in some circumstances to be akin to torture by the UN.
What is particularly scary is how the anti-trans rhetoric of the 2020s mirrors the anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric of the 1980s. Margaret Thatcher’s now-infamous 1987 speech in which she declared “we are teaching children they have an inalienable right to be gay” during which she announced her proposal to introduce Section 28 is mirrored by a speech by Suella Braverman, the home secretary, in September during which she criticised the teaching of trans issues in schools. She also criticised schools that allow trans people to socially transition by using their preferred pronouns and adopting the uniform that makes them most comfortable. Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust, the only site in the UK with a gender identity service, has been accused by the press as “transing the gay away”. Trans identities are often portrayed as a fad or a phase as opposed to an innate aspect of a person and the government’s own National LGBT Survey found that only 9.4% of transgender people identify as straight.
This artificial attempt to sow division within the LGBTQ+ community is not without consequence. A recent YouGov poll has shown that support for trans rights has been eroded since 2018, and police forces across the UK have identified a 56% increase in hate crimes against transgender people between 2021 and 2022, the largest jump out of any of the protected characteristics. The NHS, under pressure from the government, has recently drafted tighter restrictions on gender-affirming care for young people in the UK, suggesting that identifying as transgender is just “a phase”. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (JCEM) found that only 8% of trans people choose to detransition and of those the majority only choose to do so temporarily.
This faux panic around causing harm to young people through ‘unquestioning’ promotion of ‘trans ideology’ is often centred around the premise that affirming trans identities, particularly through medical intervention, is often irreversible though this is not the case. People under 18 cannot undergo genderaffirming surgery in the UK and puberty blockers are only given to young people after years of intensive therapy during which all other options are explored. Hormone replacement therapy is only given to people over 16, and even then, only after even more extensive therapy.
Stonewall has found that two in five trans people in the UK believe that they have been hate crimed, and two in five trans young people have attempted suicide. One in eight have reported being physically attacked by colleagues or customers at work. Additionally, a 2020 Galop poll found that 80% of trans people had experienced a hate crime in the previous twelve months, demonstrative of an alarming increase in anti-trans hate crime perpetrated by individuals who are bolstered by increasingly divisive rhetoric from those who are supposed to protect us.
This highlights the importance of effective allyship with our community. We make up around 3.1% of the UK’s population, and the proportion of trans people is even slimmer. In college, we make up only around 7.4% of the student body. We can’t win this fight on our own. We have already made the case that transphobia very much does exist, and it seems to be getting worse. Trans people have existed for thousands of years, and no amount of discrimination will change that. YouGov has found that a majority
of Britons are sympathetic to trans issues, and it is probable that the trans panic will one day blow over. However, for a community which has proven to be one increasingly prone to cheap political point scoring and inflammatory jibes, and a community in which a majority of its members have experienced hate crimes, abuse or discrimination, it certainly feels as though things are about to get worse before they get better.
Phae Inçledon
Fight Club is a skilfully crafted short novel by Chuck Palahniuk, and is a masterclass precedent for transgressive literature, exploring the life of a man who develops a second personality* – Tyler Durdento escape the draining, capitalistic, and repetitive routine he is entrapped in, working in a blue-collar job and suffering with insomnia. The novel went on to be adapted into the 1999 David Fincher film featuring Edward Norton, Brad Pitt and Helena Bonham Carter, as well as being considered one of the largest, most significant, staples of pop culture in decades. Though Fight Club is often attributed to being a virile critique of corporate America, through masculine denotations such as gratuitous violence and assertion of power, a less common albeit quite present approach is that of queer theory, as both the novel and film are intrinsically rich with homoerotic subtext from the onset.
The basis of a queer interpretation of Fight Club is grounded on the significance of fighting - the physical, and perhaps emotional, intimacy attributed to fighting shares a substantial likeness to sex; perhaps serving as a cautious, pseudo-sexual tactic employed by The Narrator due to his inability to pursue a nonfictitious homosexual relationship. The Narrator’s (or ‘Tyler's’) myriad of sexual innuendos are only apparent when looked at through this approach, such as instances where Tyler’s implements the rules of ‘only two guys to a fight’, and ‘no shirt, no shoes’, which are largely suggestive to facets of engaging in sex. Additionally, the secrecy of these fights, echoed in Tyler’s rule of ‘Do not talk about Fight Club’, addresses and mirrors how a closeted gay man may be unable to disclose any details of his sexuality.
Moreover, it can be inferred that Tyler is the physical manifestation of The Narrator’s desires, ‘all the things you wish you could be – are me’, Tyler is depicted to be attractive, successful and outgoing – greatly contrasting The Narrator’s introverted and withdrawn disposition, as it can be observed he has no preexisting friendships prior to Tyler’s appearance, only exacerbated by his struggles with insomnia. And while this could largely be interpreted as The Narrator’s own contempt for himself taking a tangible form, this envious perspective is greatly overshadowed by what can be understood as Tyler being The Narrator’s ‘ideal man’, the product of his own internalised standards for what a man, or rather a partner, should be.
Additionally, The Narrator and Tyler share a very profound and close relationship, as explored through the development of Fight Club and Project Mayhem – they are depicted to bathe, live, and fight together, as well as sharing a likeness to a married couple from TV, ‘Most of the week we were Ozzie and Harriet’, as referenced by The Narrator. It is through this richly entwined relationship the two share, that it can be inferred they are (or rather he is) gay, as it is continually alluded to throughout that The Narrator harbours attraction for men, specifically Tyler. Angel Face, one of the more significant members of Fight Club and Project Mayhem, wins over more and more of Tyler’s attention as Project Mayhem progresses, and is an individual who serves the purpose of illustrating The Narrator’s possessiveness over Tyler. The Narrator’s inherent sense of envy does not go unchallenged, however, as he acknowledges this in a dejected reference to the magazines he picks up in an earlier scene, ‘I am Jack’s inflamed sense of rejection’, he admits this to himself after seeing Tyler and Angel Face become increasingly friendlier with one another. This jealousy eventually culminates in the fight in which The Narrator breaks one of his own rules, as he gratuitously beats Angel Face out of disdain and jealousy, claiming, ‘I wanted to destroy something beautiful’.
Albeit, despite the large number of people who choose to recognise and even appreciate this approach –including Brad Pitt himself – it does not come without controversy, as ultimately Tyler and The Narrator are the same person. The idea that this queer representation appears in the form of one individual who has two ‘personalities’* is rather warped and quite discouraging for queer consumers, and for such reason is rejected by few.
* I would like to acknowledge that the concept, or rather ‘representation’, of DID (dissociative identity disorder) is rather erroneous as it appears in Fight Club, as it disproportionately depicts how the disorder works and how it affects people, and it would be unfair to individuals who do have DID to claim the film or book accurately represents it in any way, shape or form. And for this reason, many fans of Fight Club reject the idea that Tyler Durden is a second personality altogether.
In this dark time, full of chaos, uncertainty and lies, there was only one thing that could really lift us up and drag us from our pit of despair: a gay pirate slow burn. Right?
The ingenious David Jenkins gifts us this 18th century romp, based on the true story of wealthy landowner Stede Bonnet (also known as ‘The Gentleman Pirate’), who left his family, land, and fortune to become a pirate, and briefly sailed with the infamous Blackbeard in 1717. Actor and comedian Rhys Darby plays Stede with (let’s face it) a historically inaccurate level of flamboyancy which I, for one, believe to be perfection itself. His passion for literature, theatre, his prized collection of “summer linens”, and his naivety regarding piracy make Stede Bonnet one of the most endearing characters of modern television. Vocal ally of the LGBTQ+ community and annoyingly talented screenwriter, director, producer and actor Taika Waititi plays Blackbeard (his real name being Edward ‘Ed’ Teach), the ‘sunshine protector’ to Bonnet’s ‘sunshine’ and is first revealed towards the end of Episode Three. Playful, kind, and surprisingly pacifistic in his middle-age, he is the direct opposite of the bloodthirsty tyrant written about in the piracy books: and he falls head over heels for Mr Bonnet.
Their romance is played out over ten episodes, with the first three half-hours building Stede’s character as an excruciatingly inadequate “pirate captain” and introducing us to the rest of the crew: including the only educated shipmate Lucius Spriggs (Nathan Foad), his soon-to-be boyfriend Black Pete (Matthew Maher), and non-binary nun-trained assassin Jim (Vico Ortiz). During a rip-roaring pilot, we very quickly learn that this crew are not exactly pros, and their amateur (see rubbish) attempts at pillaging lead them to be boarded by the Royal Navy. One thing leads to another, and Stede ends up stabbing the warship captain (and, coincidentally, his childhood bully) Captain Nigel Badminton (Rory Kinnear) through the head with a sword. Easily done. This minor faux pas injects the episodes with light-hearted conflict that drives the series forward and provides a foundation for the pirates’ love story to unfold.
Throughout the series, Stede and Ed’s romance flourishes, providing many heart-warming moments that will have you giggling and kicking your feet. Episode Seven features the perfect depiction of nervous flirting (a scene entirely improvised by Darby and Waititi), in which the pair invent a world where Ed
opens his own Bar and Grill, with Stede eagerly adding to his imaginary world, culminating in Lucius (third wheel to the pair’s undeniable chemistry), unable to believe this unlikely duo are falling for each other, incredulously murmuring that “this is happening”.
Unfortunately, this series does not end on such a high. After the pair are captured by Nigel Badminton’s twin brother Admiral Chauncey Badminton (also Rory Kinnear) and sent to the Royal Privateering Academy, Stede flees back home to his wife and children, leaving Ed behind, who returns to his cutthroat ways, attempting to disguise his broken heart. However, Stede’s wife Mary Bonnet (Claudia O’Doherty) supports him in realising his true feelings for Ed, and he endeavours to set out on a dinghy to find him, only being successful in locating his shipmates, who Ed had abandoned on an island, in order to rid himself of all traces of Stede. This gut-wrenching cliff-hanger sets up for the long-awaited second series, due to air late 2023. Huzzah!
Our Flag Means Death gives a refreshing queer storyline, in that the characters’ LGBTQ+ identities are not the focus of the series. As much as I acknowledge the vital importance of shows such as Heartstopper for the queer community, portraying the questioning of identity, becoming comfortable with using a label (or not), and the coming out process, it is rare to see a series in which the gender of parties involved in a relationship are not mentioned, and that has characters already comfortable and secure in their sexuality and gender, normalising queer identities. This story will sweep you off your feet, whisking you away for a feel-good adventure, letting you experience the gradual unfolding of the most tender of relationships, while simultaneously making you scream “I WANT WHAT THEY HAVE!” at your telly boxes.
All episodes of Our Flag Means Death are available on HBO Max.
