More than three-quarters of young pupils in the UK have heard homophobic language at school, new research has revealed.
In conjunction with VotesforSchools,LGBT+ young people’s charity Just Like Ussurveyed 31,875 pupils, including 4,307 aged between nine and 11 at primary schools.
The survey, held in June, found that the 78 per cent of primary-school children had heard homophobic language at school. That figure increased to 80 per cent for secondary school pupils, aged 11 to 18.
Among the primary-school children, some noted that the homophobic language was intended as a “joke”. One said: “We mainly hear people call each other ‘gay’ as an insult or a joke. This is because we see it trending on TikTok.”
Young children are hearing the word “gay” being used as a joke. (Envato Elements)
LGBTQ+ dad Matt said his son had been pressured into playing a TikTok game where if you guessed wrong you would be called gay. The boy refused to play, saying it was “hurtful” to use the word as an insult.
A pupil in a Glasgow primary school said: “Because I’m a boy and have long hair, I have been called gay as an insult.”
Now, Just Like Us has launched resources for schools in a bid to tackle homophobia in classrooms.
‘Real-life consequences’
Laura Mackay, the charity’s chief executive, called the findings of the survey “deeply concerning”, adding: “Homophobic language should never be dismissed as ‘just a joke’ because we know it has real-life consequences, impacting the self-esteem and feelings of shame among LGBT+ young people and those from same-sex families.
“We are worried about young people reporting a rise in games aimed at children on TikTok where gay is being used as a derogatory insult.”
Another gay educator spoke out about students learning misogyny and anti-LGBTQ+ hate from the internet, with one name being repeated by his students: Andrew Tate, the influencer who facing trial in Romania where he has been charged with rape, human trafficking and forming an organised crime group to sexually exploit women.
Darts player Noa-Lynn van Leuven has qualified for the darts world championships – the first time a trans woman has done so.
Dutch player Noa-Lynn van Leuven, who transitioned in 2021 and has faced controversy for playing against cis women, qualified for her first PDC (Professional Darts Corporation) World Championship on Saturday (19 October) following a 5-3 victory over English star Beau Greaves in the 21st PDC Women’s Series in Leicester.
Van Leuven’s appearance at Alexander Palace in December will mark the first time a trans woman has secured a place in the mixed-gender competition, the largest and most prestigious event in competitive darts.
Commenting on her loss, Greaves said van Leuven “power-housed” her: “Sometimes in darts you’ve just got to allow it to happen and that was one of those days for me. Fair play to her, she played really well and she deserved the win. I fell asleep at times where I should have been hitting more trebles, and she punished me.”
However, not everyone has taken the result with such good grace.
Social media users misgendered the Dutch star, using he/him pronouns and calling her a “man”. Others labelled her a “cheater” and said she “stole a spot from a woman”.
Noa-Lynn van Leuven will play in her first world championships. (PDC Darts)
This is not the first time Van Leuven has been attacked for being a trans darts player.
Earlier this year, she was thrust into the centre of a gender storm after she became the first trans player to win a PDC tour event, the mixed-gender Challenge Tour in Germany, and beat Ireland’s Katie Sheldon in the PDC Women’s Series.
People accused van Leuven of “only being trans to win darts matches”, and tennis legend Martina Navratilova, who has repeatedly opposed trans women competing against cis women, wrote on social media: “No male bodies in women’s sports please, not even in darts. Again, women get the short end of the stick and it stinks.”
Van Leuven’s involvement in the Dutch women’s darts team also prompted two compatriots, Anca Zijlstra and Aileen de Graaf, to quit the national squad, citing disagreement with rules around trans inclusion.
In addition, British darts player Deta Hedman twice refused to take on van Leuven, first at the Denmark Open in May, then in a singles match in July, saying there shouldn’t be “a man in a women’s event”.
Van Leuven spoke out after that, saying that a “lot of people forget that I am also a human being” and telling PinkNews she things got so bad that she didn’t even want to step out of her to house for a while. She has also spoken about getting death threats and being left “haunted” by the abuse.
“In my DMs, on Instagram, it was getting so harsh, from bullying to death threats. I remember going home, I was at Schiphol [Amsterdam airport]. I looked around for one-and-a-half minutes before entering a bathroom because I was getting texts like: ‘If I ever see you walking into the ladies’ room after my daughter, I will kill you’,” she told the i news.
“They still haunt me to this day. It has impacted me massively.”
The Professional Darts Players Association notes on its website that governing body the Darts Regulation Authority (DRA) encourages mixed-gender events in darts with the only exceptions being the Women’s Series and Women’s Matchplay operated by the PDC.
The DRA Trans & Gender Diverse Policy says transgender and non-binary players must be treated with respect, welcomed as any other member would be and accepted “in the gender they present”.
Uganda’s recently-adopted anti-LGBTQ+ law could have cost the country as much as $1.6 billion (£1.23 billion) in the year since it was approved by parliament.
The Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA), which carries the death sentence for “aggravated homosexuality”, was signed into law by president Yoweri Museveni in May 2023. Homosexuality was already illegal in Uganda, but the new legislation strengthened the law, including by criminalising the “promotion” of homosexuality.
In the year since it came into effect, queer Ugandans have faced a major increase in abuse, including beatings, attacks and arrests.
Now, in a new study, Open for Business has estimated that the law has cost the country between £470 million (£360 million) and $1.6 billion. That’s between 0.9 and 3.2 per cent of its gross domestic product, the standard measure of the value created through the production of goods and services in a country during a certain period.
The losses include foreign direct investment, international aid, trade and tourism.
Queer Ugandans have faced increased hostility since the new law took effect. (Getty)
Open for Business, which researches the economic effects of anti-LGBTQ+ policies, said the combined losses over a five-year period could rise higher still – possibly to a staggering $8.3 billion (£6.4 billion).
“This represents an inflection point for the country’s economy. The potential loss of talent and productivity, coupled with heightened stigma and discrimination, further deepens Uganda’s economic vulnerabilities and undermines efforts to diversify the economy and strengthen public health services,” the coalition of global companies said.
The new legislation fuelled a spike in abuse towards LGBTQ+ people within months of being passed. Last year, the Convening for Equality coalition reported 306 rights violations based on the victims’ sexual orientation and gender identity, between January and August last year.
Queer Ugandan human rights activist Arthur Kayima branded the law “vile”, adding: “Rather than focusing on the real issues Uganda is facing, Museveni [causes] distraction by attacking our fundamental right to exist.”
The new French government has been formed, with Michel Barnier to serve as prime minister – but what does it mean for LGBTQ+ rights in the country?
Although a left-wing alliance of parties won the most seats, right-wing politician Michel Barnier was appointed prime minister, after a summer marked by political uncertainty in the wake of large election loses by president Emmanuel Macron’s party.
Barnier, 73, has been a member of the Republican Party since 2015 but is best-known for leading the EU’s Brexit negotiations with the UK.
As far back as 1981, he voted against a bill that eventually set the same age of consent for gay and straight people. Up until 1982, it was 15 for heterosexuals but 21 for homosexuals. This bill is widely considered the last step to homosexuality being decriminalisation in France.
In 1999, Barnier voted against same-sex civil partnerships. France’s oldest prime minister, he replaced centre-right Gabriel Attal, the country’s youngest prime minister and first out gay PM.
Shortly after the new government was announced, Attal asked his successor “to state clearly in his general policy statement that there will be no going back on IVF [In vitro fertilisation], abortion rights and LGBT rights”.
Barnier responded on national TV that he intends to be a “a bulwark for the preservation of all these rights acquired by the men and women of France in terms of freedom and social progress”.
His answer seems to indicate that has changed his mind on the subject, Régis Schlagdenhauffen, an associate professor at the School for Advanced Studies in Social Sciences, in Paris, told the Associated Press news agency that Barnier might have “become wise”.
Two Canada Post workers in the Canadian province of New Brunswick have been suspended after refusing to deliver flyers from Campaign Life Coalition calling for a ban on gender-affirming care for minors.
The flyers, which describe gender-affirming medical procedures as “chemical and surgical mutilation” and declare that “God doesn’t make mistakes,” were distributed ahead of the province’s October 21 election.
Shannon Aitchison, a Canada Post carrier and union representative, was suspended for five days without pay. Aitchison, who has atransgender child, said she couldn’t deliver the materials. “The third flyer was straight-up nonsense,” she told the Brantford Expositer. “‘God doesn’t make mistakes,’ so you’re telling me my child is a mistake?”
According to the news outlet, five postal workers in the Saint John area refused to deliver the flyers. Two were suspended, and others used personal days to avoid delivering the controversial material.
Canada Post defended its decision, stating that the flyers did not meet the legal definition of “non-mailable matter” and thus had to be delivered. “Our important and longstanding role to deliver the country’s mail should not be seen as tolerance or support for the contents of any mailing,” Canada Post spokesperson Valérie Chartrand said. “We are a neutral third party regardless of our views.”
CBC reported on August 26 that Campaign Life Coalition has been distributing similar flyers across New Brunswick, supporting Premier Blaine Higgs’ “parental rights” policies. Similarly to far-right measures in some areas of the United States, these policies require teachers to get parental consent before using a student’s chosen name or pronouns if the student is under 16.
PinkNews examines the issues faced by bisexual people at work, the impact of bi-erasure and what colleagues and employers alike can do to support their bisexual colleagues.
A common experience for many bisexual people is the feeling of being invisible, and this rings true for the workplace. Many bisexual people are faced with the choice of being out and living their authentic selves or trying ‘fit in’.
With the amount of time spent at work, having to hide a huge part of one’s identity can be emotionally draining and can lead to burnout, mental health issues and even exacerbate imposter syndrome.
LGBTQ+ people are often discriminated against and even bullied at work: Data from McKinsey suggests that up to 30 per cent of LGBTQ+ people believe that their sexual identity will harm their career progression.
Katherine, an art history professor at a small state university in the rural US Midwest, believes her bisexual identity has positively impacted her career in academia – but she remains acutely aware of the issues it poses, too.
The bisexual Pride flag. (Getty)
She tells PinkNews: “While working in a Women’s and Gender Studies department for five years, in a way [being bisexual] legitimises my research and teaching interests. When introducing myself to students in those classes, it creates a safe space for my LGBTQ+ students to share their experiences and perspectives.”
However, living in a largely conservative part of the country and with anti-LGBTQ+ bills on the rise, Katherine still maintains a level of care in how she discloses her sexual identity.
“I mostly have fear from outside the university setting from internet trolls and conservative politicians,” she explains. “But this is also one of the reasons I try to be so open with students. So many of them come from rural communities where they can’t explore their own sexuality or gender.”
The impact of bisexual erasure at work
Many in the bisexual community contend with bi-erasure – the tendency to remove, ignore and even falsify experiences of bisexuality in legacy media, academia and history. In its most extreme form, bi-erasure can also manifest as the belief that bisexuality doesn’t exist.
Bisexual people can experience specific micro-aggressions at work, including assumptions about their partners and relationships and inappropriate questions about their personal lives. Bisexual women are often fetishised and bisexual men are often told that they are “too afraid to come out as gay.”
Frustratingly for the bi community is that sometimes bi-erasure and micro-aggressions come from within the LGBTQ+ community itself.
Fears of experiencing this could be preventing bi people from being out at work. Data from Catalyst found that in the US, just 17.5 per cent of bisexual men are out at work, compared to 50 per cent of gay men. For bisexual women, nearly 20 per cent are out compared to 49 per cent of lesbians.
Katherine admits that bi-erasure does happen frequently: “People tend to view any monogamous relationship, regardless of the gender of those involved, as being straight or gay.”
She says she combats bi-erasure by being more open with friends and family, yet she does acknowledge the negative impact it can cause.
“I think the bi-erasure affects me in the way that it is part of me, and I hate that in some cases I cannot share that part of me for fear of being targeted politically.”
Supporting bisexual colleagues and employees at work
Here in the UK, the most recent census data reveals that 1.28 per cent of the population (640,000) identified themselves as bisexual. For Gen Z specifically, those born between 1997 and 2012, four per cent identified themselves as bi.
As the younger generations feel more comfortable being out and head into the workplace, the responsibility of employers and colleagues to recognise all facets of the LGBTQ+ community is even more crucial.
Aside from simple steps like respecting pronouns and challenging bullying and discrimination, there are some other things business leaders and co-workers can do to support the ‘B’ in the LGBTQ+.
Education
Bisexuality is often misunderstood and can be attached to stereotypes. If employers understand that being bisexual is a valid sexual orientation, and that the sex of an employee’s partner, partners or spouse does not immediately categorise them as ‘gay’ or ‘straight’, it can create an empathetic working environment where everyone has the opportunity to live their authentic lives while at work. Business leaders should consider targeted training and resources that specifically tackle the bi-experience.
Listening and communication
Active listening is a powerful tool for supporting bisexual employees. Much like the rest of the LGBTQ+ community, no two peoples experiences are the same. Creating opportunities for open conversations where bisexual employees can share their experiences, concerns, and suggestions. Be empathetic and validate their feelings, showing that you genuinely care about their well-being. Encourage a culture of respectful communication, where everyone’s perspectives are valued.
Respect privacy and the ‘coming out’ experience
Coming out is a personal journey, and it’s important not to pressure anyone to disclose their sexual orientation. Never assume someone’s sexual orientation or share their personal information without their consent. Part of an inclusive workplace is creating a safe space where employees can choose to share when they’re ready promotes trust and respect.
The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a legal challenge to a Tennessee banon trans healthcare.
The bill, approved by state lawmakers last year, mimics similar laws in other states, with civil penalties for any adult who aids a minor to receive getting out-of-state gender-affirming care without their parent’s consent.
Several families, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued Tennessee to prevent the bill passing into law.
The case will now be heard by the country’s top court in October.
The ACLU’s deputy director for trans justice, Chase Strangio, said: “The future of countless transgender youth in this and future generations rests on this court adhering to the facts, the constitution and its own modern precedent.
“These bans represent a dangerous and discriminatory affront to the well-being of transgender youth across the country and their constitutional right to equal protection under the law. They are the result of an openly political effort to wage war on a marginalised group and our most fundamental freedoms.”
Following the Supreme Court’s decision to take the case, 64 trans adults, including actor Elliot Page, filed a brief sharing their own experiences.
What is the Supreme Court case US v Skrmetti?
Following the passing of the bill in the state house of representatives and senate, the ACLU, and Lambda Legal, aided by lawyers from Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, sued Tennessee.
The pushback was, to a large degree, over the bill’s aim to outlaw medical care for trans youngsters up to the age of 18, while those currently receiving gender-affirming care would have been forced to end it by July 2023.
Samantha Williams, from Nashville, who brought the case on behalf of her trans 15-year-old daughter, said it was “incredibly painful” to watch her child suffer as a consequence of the proposed legislation.
“We have a confident, happy daughter now, who is free to be herself and she is thriving,” Williams said. “I am so afraid of what this law will mean for her.”
In June 2023, a federal judge blocked the bill from going forward. But a federal appeal court overturned that decision last September, allowing the bill to go into effect, a decision the ACLU described as “beyond disappointing.”
In June this year, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. While the outcome will specifically affect the Tennessee bill, it is likely to set a legal precedent for similar laws in other states.
Data collected and shared by the ACLU found that at least 530 anti-LGBTQ+ bills have been proposed in the US since the beginning of the year, with 112 of those being healthcare restrictions.
Lambda Legal senior lawyer Tara Borelli said: “This court has historically rejected efforts to uphold discriminatory laws. Without similar action here, these punitive, categorical bans on the provision of gender-affirming care will continue to wreak havoc on the lives of transgender youth and their families.”
Tool company Stanley Black & Decker is the latest US firm to face right-wing criticism and calls for a boycott for having diversity, equality and inclusion policies (DEI) in place
Consumers’ Research, which describes itself as an independent educational organisation which dates back to 1929, and which boasts that it targets “wokeness” in businesses, has called out the Connecticut-based company for supporting racial equality, LGBTQ+ causes and net-zero climate goals.
The not-for-profit organisation was originally set up to test consumer products and report the results, a bit like Which? – the United Kingdom organisation that promotes informed consumer choice by testing products.
However, in 1981, Consumers’ Research was sold to conservative commentator M. Stanton Evans. It completely abandoned its previous core mission, moved its headquarters to Washington, D.C., and entirely stopped assessing products. Its New Jersey testing laboratories were closed down by 1983.
The organisation went dormant in 2000 before being resurrected over 20 years later as a Republican-aligned group, launching a campaign against so-called woke companies in 2021, and seeking to “[put] corporations on notice” and expose “numerous companies that have chosen to put woke politics above consumer interests”.
They have a section on their website which encourages visitors to report “companies who are going woke.”
In 2022, Consumers’ Research was instrumental in forcing insurance company State Farm to drop a partnership with GenderCool, a group that shares positive stories about transgender and nonbinary youth.
Consumers’ Research ran an advertising campaign calling State Farm “a creepy neighbour” and accusing the insurance company of targeting children with books about gender identity. State Farm dropped their support.
Black & Decker boycott
Stanley Black and Decker has been called out over DEI (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
In urging a boycott of Stanley Black & Decker, the group says: “Stanley Black & Decker should focus on its customers, not woke politicians”, and urges customers to “contact Stanley Black & Decker and demand that they drop their ESG [environmental, social and governance] commitments and stop their DEI hiring practices”.
In a threat shared on X/Twitter, Will Hild, Consumers’ Research’s executive director, labelled Black & Decker “the latest formerly great American company to become tools of the radical left”, adding: “The company has abandoned their consumer focus and instead now says their ‘highest priority’ is advancing DEI both internally and externally.”
The tool-maker is the latest US firm to be targeted by conservative bigotry as culture wars continue to rage.
The backlash to businesses with DEI commitments have become the focus of right-wing pundit and failed political hopeful Robby Starbuck.
In recent months, Starbuck has stirred up social media storms against brands such as Harley-Davidson, Jack Daniel’s, Ford, Lowe’s and John Deere. A number of the companies have caved in and issued internal memos announcing they will abandon DEI commitments, such as support for Pride festivals, end partnerships with the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and stop commenting on “polarising” issues.
Starbuck, who produced an anti-trans film that was banned by Amazon’s streaming service, has insisted in several posts that “we are winning, and one by one we will bring sanity back to corporate America”.
Stanley Black & Decker is the latest firm to be criticised for DEI commitments. (Igor Golovniov/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
It’s not just Starbuck driving the fight. Former president Donald Trump has also been highly critical of DEI initiatives, while Project 2025 – hard-line right-wing policy group The Heritage Foundation’s vision for a second Trump administration – has attacked equality measures within government agencies.
The HRC has been critical of Starbuck, labelling him a “MAGA weirdo” and condemning businesses for “cowering” to him.
“This is obviously something that is having a moment, so to speak,” Eric Bloem, HRC’s vice-president of programmes and corporate advocacy, told USA Today. “This notion that we need a return to sanity or a return to neutrality is something that doesn’t resonate with people who are legitimately focused on business outcomes.”
HRC’s 2024 LGBTQ+ Climate Survey found that more than 80 per cent of LGBTQ+ people would boycott a company which rolled back DEI commitments, with more than half saying they would urge others to also not buy goods from such businesses.
Orlando Gonzales, HRC senior vice-president programmes, research and training, said: “The LGBTQ+ community is an economic powerhouse, and we want to work for and support companies who support us. “Attacks on DEI initiatives are short-sighted and make our workplaces less safe and less inclusive for hard-working Americans of all demographics and backgrounds.
“This new data confirms that companies like [brewers] Molson-Coors, Ford and others that abandon their values and backtrack from commitments to diversity, equity and inclusion, risk losing both top employee talent and consumer dollars.”
Health research groups have responded to the lack of inclusive questions in the 2026 Census in Australia. They say that excluding gender, sexual orientation or diverse sex characteristics questions would make populations “invisible”.
Multiple health and research organisations have said that failing to add questionsimportant to the LGBTQ+ community in the upcoming census would put these groups at further risk of “marginalisation and disadvantage”.
Eight health research groups, including the Australian Human Rights Institute and the University of New South Wales’(UNSW) Kirby Institute, have urged the government to reconsider its decision.
He also said that the federal government informed the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to cancel questions on sexuality, gender and diverse sex characteristics because they “weren’t appropriate”.
Health research organisations say LGBTQ+ groups are at ‘increased risk of marginalisation’
Multiple health research organisations have issued a joint statement, urging the government to reconsider its decision to exclude questions aimed at the LGBTQ+ community in Australia’s 2026 Census.
The statement read: “When populations are invisible in the Census, they are at increased risk of marginalisation and disadvantage.”
The groups added that the questions had already “undergone rigorous testing” and the decision to exclude them was “not sufficient”.
It continued: “The omission of comprehensive data collection on sex, gender, and innate variations of sex characteristics in the 2026 Census will undermine our ability to understand the health needs and socio-economic well-being of LGBTI+ populations.”
“We call on our leaders to be clear and bold in ensuring no one is overlooked due to data gaps,” it concluded.
The statement was signed by UNSW’s Kirby Institute, the Centre for Sex and Gender in Health and Medical Research, the Centre for Social Research in Health, the Social Policy Research Centre, the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, the Australian Human Rights Institute, UNSW’s Community of Practice for Inclusive Research for Queer and Trans People, and People with variations of sex characteristics, and UNSW’s School of Population Health.
A gay former pupil and his mother are suing a school district where he allegedly experienced relentless bullying, including verbal abuse, threats of violence and another student making a “straight pride” poster with his face on it.
The legal complaint, filed by the student’s mother in June 2023, details that when he attended Ronald Reagan Middle School, in Haymarket, Virginia, he faced “regular and relentless anti-LGBTQ+ bullying” from classmates.
The defendants named in the case are the Prince William County School Board, the principal, Christopher Beemer, and assistant principal Jenita Boatwright.
Beemer still works as the school but Boatwright has left.
The claimant alleges that Beemer, Boatwright and the school board responded to requests for help “with victim-blaming and inaction”.
The openly gay student started in sixth grade at the school in August 2019 which is when the alleged victimisation began, with the first incident involving classmates taking his belongings and passing them around the classroom while voicing homophobic slurs, it is claimed.
The teacher reportedly did not put an end to the bullying and it happened three more times.
The verbal harassment is said to have continued and in December 2021 five students surrounded the boy outside the school building, again using homophobic slurs.
In the complaint, the boy’s mother says two teachers who were nearby did nothing to help and when the student got into his mother’s car, the bullies gave her the middle finger.
It is also alleged that in 2022, one student made the “straight pride” poster while a number of bullies cornered him in the toilet, banged on the stall door and shouted: “There’s a girl in here,” threatening violence.
A judge denied a school board motion dismiss the case but Beemer and Boatwright’s was granted in part.
The case asserts four causes of action: sex discrimination under Title IX civil rights protections against the school board, an equal protection clause violation against the individual defendants, a violation against the individual defendants, which the judge dismissed, and gross negligence against the individual defendants.
District judge Rossie D Alston Jr gave the plaintiffs 14 days to file an amended complaint for the charge that was dismissed.
A school board spokesperson told Inside Nova it does not comment on active cases but “remains committed to providing an inclusive and excellent education for every student and has no tolerance for harassment, bullying or intimidation of students”.