Homophobia in Texas Debate

Aiden Buchanan | 3 min read

SUMMARY: This piece explains how queer debaters can still face bias despite debate’s reputation as an inclusive activity. Through disccusing three main issues: harmful “jokes” that cross into homophobia, discomfort from teammates in shared tournament housing, and judge bias against nontraditional gender expression, we examine how queer debaters should not have to hide their identity to succeed and calls for coaches, tournament officials, and organizations to address these problems to make debate more inclusive.

Being queer in an activity known for its liberalism might sound like it wouldn’t be a problem. Judges and competitors are often assumed to be supportive of queer advocacy and at least somewhat predisposed to accepting LGBTQ+ identities. However, existing in that same activity within a red state can be a very different story. There are three kinds of biases I want to explore to show that debate might not be as bias-free as we sometimes think.

First, there is the commonality of homophobic language. Oftentimes, it can feel like we live in a post-bias world where homophobia doesn’t exist in these spaces anymore, so people feel comfortable making jokes about how ridiculous it is. However, sometimes these jokes cross into territory that is genuinely harmful. There is a thin line between a funny joke and a homophobic comment, and it’s important to recognize where that line is. So before making these kinds of jokes, be mindful of two things. First, consider how close you are with the person you’re speaking to. If you just met them or don’t know them very well, maybe hold back. Second, think about what you’re actually saying. If it isn’t really a joke and instead sounds more like “you aren’t a real man/woman because you’re gay,” then it’s definitely something that shouldn’t be said. 

Second, there are issues surrounding out-of-town tournaments and rooming situations. When rooms get assigned, it is almost always the case that people of the same gender are placed together. However, when teammates know you are gay, this can sometimes create an uncomfortable atmosphere. Teammates may be explicit or implicit in their discomfort about sharing a room. If you are that teammate… please don’t be.

Here are a few ways to make sure you aren’t giving off that kind of energy. First, be aware of your body language. Gay people are people (shocking, I know), and we can read body language just like anyone else. If you constantly act awkward, tense, or uncomfortable around us in shared spaces, we can tell. Second, remember that we are just like you and we probably aren’t into you.

Third and finally, I want to talk about judging stereotypes. For many queer people, there is less pressure to conform to traditional gender stereotypes. This has led many queer debaters to express their gender in ways that may differ from what is considered “normal.” This might look like more traditionally feminine expression from queer men, more traditionally masculine expression from queer women, or androgynous presentation from anyone.

However, some judges, particularly those who identify as conservative, may view these expressions as unprofessional or nontraditional. They may expect debate tournaments to reflect a more traditional or rigid standard of presentation. As a result, when queer debaters express their gender in ways that fall outside these expectations, they may face clear negative bias.

Because of this, queer debaters are often left with two unfair choices. Either they hide their preferred gender expression: the identity they may have spent years learning to feel comfortable with in a world where discovering queer identity is often difficult or they risk losing rounds because judges view their authenticity as too “nontraditional.”

Neither of these should be acceptable outcomes. But as students working within this system, it can sometimes feel difficult to create meaningful change. One of the most important sources of hope we have is the support of our coaches and our community. Stay aware of which judges demonstrate these biases. Tell the NSDA. Tell tournament directors. Tell coaches. Tell anyone willing to listen. We should not continue giving judging opportunities to people who create hostile environments, and those in positions of power do have the ability to make that change, even when students cannot.

All of this is to say: queer debaters face hardship. We face exclusion. We face bigotry. But the world does not have to stay that way. At every step, both small and large changes can improve the quality of life for all of us. We all benefit when biased judges are no longer in our pools. We all benefit when our teammates feel safe enough to be themselves.

So if you take one thing from this, let it be this: All we want is to be ourselves. Let us.