Conference Agenda

Scholarly literature on the ‘anti-gender’ movement in Europe has so far focused much of its attention on Central, Eastern and Southern Europe, often attributing the centrality of traditional gender and sexual norms to far-right and nationalist movements to the Catholic tradition. Taking the case of the UK, this paper demonstrates that anti-gender discourse has underpinned British media Euroscepticism over decades. Gender and sexuality have been overlooked by scholars of Brexit: mainstream academic accounts tell the story of the British as ‘reluctant Europeans’ with the hostile press focusing on national sovereignty and immigration in their construction of the European ‘Other’. Others cite the attempt to maintain power in the face of imperial decline. Yet, the UK’s accession to the EEC also coincided with significant challenges to gender and sexual norms, disrupting the patriarchal structures of the British Empire at a time when decolonisation was challenging its racial hierarchies. Later, both the EU and the European Court of Human Rights became key drivers of UK anti-discrimination law, particularly in relation to sexual orientation discrimination, sexual and family rights and legal gender recognition. Drawing on trans- and queer-feminist theories of nationalism and applying feminist narrative analysis of news media articles, this paper recounts a dominant story of ‘Europe’ as a threat to threat to the Church, the traditional family, and traditional gender roles as important aspects of ‘English culture’. Overall, the paper shows how news coverage of sexual rights stemming from ‘Europe’ have been underpinned by exclusive conceptions of national identity that deny women and queer folk a legitimate place in the nation. These findings are crucial for understanding the continued existence of gender and sexual inequalities in post-Brexit Britain but also the operation of anti-gender discourse across contexts.

Drawing on Miranda Fricker’s concept of epistemic injustice, this study examines the EU’s equality frames, highlighting the importance of intersectionally disadvantaged groups as ‘knowing agents for social change’ (Emejulu & Sobande, 2019: 3). By integrating epistemic justice and intersectionality into a single analytical framework, the research critically assesses five ‘Union of Equality’ strategies from 2020 onward—encompassing anti-racism, gender equality, LGBTQI+ equality, Roma equality, and disability rights.

The findings indicate a notable emphasis on intersectionality and epistemic justice in European equality policy frameworks. The strategies explicitly acknowledge systemic discrimination, referencing examples such as the #MeToo movement and harmful media portrayals; however, transformative measures that challenge power structures outright are less prominent than more instrumental goals geared toward economic or labour-market integration. Mechanisms for inclusive policymaking, such as the collection of intersectional data and the promotion of diverse storytelling in education and media, highlight a growing awareness of epistemic injustices. Although the strategies recognize how social identities intersect to produce disadvantage, they often treat these identities additively rather than as mutually constitutive. Efforts to involve historically and socially marginalized groups into policy are plentiful, yet they tend to favour expert networks and established organizations over grassroots voices, potentially limiting broader participation.

How does shared knowledge and understanding of one another on a personal level help to bridge differences in other aspects of life? One way that we can relate is through empathy and mutual understanding from shared identity traits. I focus on the example of gender and sexual identity among LGBTQIA+ politicians, as expressed through legislative political affinity groups. Many legislatures permit affinity groups outside of committees to allow like-minded politicians to connect on areas of mutual interest, whether geographic, policy, or leisure. Using an intersectional understanding of identity (i.e., Crenshaw 1997), I explore how LGBTQIA+ groups facilitate bonds between politicians with divergent political opinions in a way that can help to overcome the rampant polarisation observed in contemporary political life.

The political science literature has shown that the presence of LGBTQIA+ politicians in office can lead to advances in pro-LGBTQIA+ policies. However, we know less about how participation in professional LGBTQIA+ spaces might activate ties of shared understanding among members. The paper explores new data from four prominent LGBTQ+ cross-party affinity groups in four legislative settings. I focus on affinity groups related to LGBTQIA+ issues that have been recently active in each parliament. These include the French National Assembly’s Study Group on Discriminations and LGBTphobias, the UK House of Commons’ All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT+ Rights, the Scottish Parliament’s LGBTI+ cross-party group, and the European Parliament’s LGBTI Intergroup. Not only are these legislatures unique for their elevated number of LGBTQIA+ politicians, but they have also been notable for the cross-party mix of ‘out’ LGBTQIA+ politicians.

By exploring how identity-based connections are made between sexual minorities in cross-party settings, I am able to trace spillover effects for further cross-party action in more formalised parliamentary settings (e.g., voting behaviour, co-sponsorship work). I take inspiration from scholarship on ethnic and gender identity’s effects on political behaviour that has been less explored for sexuality. I argue that identities that divide us in one setting might bind us in another.