Queerphobia
Queerphobia and anti-2SLGBTQIA+ discrimination is the hatred and exclusion of two souled, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, or otherwise gender non-conforming or non-heterosexual peoples. This form of discrimination materializes in many ways, both explicit and implicit, and can range from subtle microaggressions to dangerous acts of violence. In the United States, the Trump administration has increasingly targeted 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals through executive orders, such as those barring trangender people from serving in the military; the erasure of queer people from historical records; attacks on DEI programs; and more. Further, the ACLU reports that across the country, over 600 anti-2SLGBTIA+ bills have been introduced in state legislatures. These developments follow a trend where queerphobia has increased dramatically over the past few years. The Human Rights Campaign reported in 2024 that hate crimes over gender identity increased 16% and those over sexual orientation increased 23%. The Center for American Progress similarly reported that 36% of 2SLGBTQIA+ people have experienced discrimination in the past year.
This broader queerphobia in American society is also present in the debate space and exists in a variety of forms. A queer-identifying debater we interviewed notes, “Judges come into rounds with their own preconceived notions about the world, and these biases are especially amplified around queerness and identity.” These biases alter judges’ attitudes and perceptions during the debate, and often influences their decisions and post-round comments. Furthermore, queerphobia is also deeply ingrained into the culture of the debate community. Another debater we interviewed highlights that, “Although queerphobia is often less overt, it is demonstrated clearly in our interpersonal relationships. Debate still tends to be a very ‘boys club’ and that culture continues to push non-traditional identifying debaters out of the space.” From subtle comments in conversation to a shift in behavior when queer debaters are present, these actions continue to isolate and exclude 2SLGBTQIA+ people in debate.
A common way many queer debaters express their identities and advocate for change is through the kritik, yet this method often leads to amplified queerphobic sentiments. “When I started reading a queer K, people's attitudes completely shifted. There's this huge stigma against identity Ks, especially queer-based ones, and they're never taken seriously. It continues to be seen as an otherworldly, weird aspect of the activity, and there is certainly a huge movement towards the exclusion of queer arguments.” However, this form of in-round advocacy is vital to fostering change in the space. “If we look at the way debate has changed over decades, the biggest catalyst has always been through the arguments we introduce. Because debate innately lacks many rules, the norm is shaped by what debaters decide to run, and disclosure shells, word PIKs, and IVIs are all proof of this.” These norms within debate can also spillover to broader governance. As many policymakers come from a background in debate, the arguments and ideas that we introduce shape their worldview and, in turn, can influence actual policy. “Especially as we are seeing a swing back towards conservatism, it is more important than ever for queer people or minorities being affected to go into debate and spread those ideas.”
Additionally, K’s themselves can help debaters strengthen their 2SLGBTQIA+ identities. The debaters we interviewed all mentioned how the process of researching and reading queer literature aided their own understandings of both themselves and their place in the world. “There is a value in learning different understandings of queerness and how queer people exist in the world as it allows us to comprehend our ontological positions in the grander scheme of the world.” This exposure to queer literature allows us to understand how queerness “affects how we make policies, how we deal with other countries, and how we interact in our day to day lives.” Authors such as Edelman or Halberstam and arguments from queer futurism to quantum queerness are all common starting points in the debate space, and there are vast resources across various organizations that can aid new debaters in understanding and utilizing these kritiks.
Beyond the use of in-round kritiks, other forms of advocacy are also vital in combatting anti-2SLGBTQIA+ sentiments both inside and outside of the debate space. Grassroots initiatives can promote resources for queer youth and call for the establishment of accessible equity offices while protests over systematic inequities can put institutions under greater pressure to change. In any case, taking action starts with acknowledging the presence of queerphobia in debate. If we continue to ignore these underlying, discriminatory frameworks, debate will never become the safe, equitable ideal we believe it to be.