Stonewall, the largest LGBTQ rights organisation in Europe, appears to have quietly changed its definition of the term ‘transphobia’. Although the change significantly narrows the scope of what may be considered transphobic under the definition, Stonewall’s partners were not even alerted to the update.
According to the UK-based charity Sex Matters, Stonewall made several edits to its list of LGBTQ+ terms over the past month. This database of appropriately inclusive terms is maintained by Stonewall to help those unsure “what language to use to refer to the LGBTQ+ community, or how to define a key term”.
For example, the list can help you distinguish between people who are ‘aromantic’ and those who are simply ‘aro’. The latter is apparently used to describe “a lack of, varying, or occasional experiences of romantic attraction”, while the former denotes a “person who experiences little to no romantic attraction”. What a relief to finally have separate terms for these vastly different experiences.
Some language is, evidently, too inclusive even for Stonewall. Comparisons by Sex Matters of the 2024 list and the version currently on the website show that terms such as ‘genderless’, ‘bigender’ and ‘neutrois’ have gone and disappeared.
More striking, however, is the changes to Stonewall’s definition of ‘transphobia’. Unlike many of the other terms on the list, many readers will be familiar with this one, perhaps because they themselves, or someone close to them, has at some point been accused of suffering from this most serious ‘phobia’. To many of us, the precise meaning of the term has always seemed mysterious.
As per Stonewall’s old definition, transphobia “is the fear or dislike of someone based on the fact they are trans, including denying their gender identity or refusing to accept it. Transphobia may be targeted at people who are, or who are perceived to be, trans”.
That definition always had several unpalatable implications, including for free speech. If the mere act of disagreeing with someone’s stated “gender identity” is “transphobia”, discussion of serious questions surrounding sex and gender becomes impossible.
As Kathleen Stock put it to a House of Lords committee in 2020, this definition is so broad as to include perfectly common conceptions about men, women, and the fact of biological sex. “Since I and other academics, as well as several thousand members of the general public, reject the importance of gender identity for determining womanhood or manhood,” Stock told the committee, “my views are counted as “transphobic” and so hateful, only possibly borne of “fear or dislike”.”
The updated definition from Stonewall largely fixes this problem. Now, ‘transphobia’ is defined as “[p]rejudice or negative attitudes, beliefs or views about trans people. This can include the fear or dislike of someone based on the fact they are, or are perceived to be trans”.
Although some institutions have withdrawn from Stonewall’s Diversity Champions programme, more than 100 UK universities, including most of the Russell Group, are still members. As such, the organisation and its definitions of key terms remain very influential in the higher education sector.
The old definition has been used to substantiate countless otherwise baseless accusations of transphobia against academics, staff, and students for years. Many more have undoubtedly been intimidated into silence. The new definition is much less definite about the sorts of beliefs and behaviours that count as transphobic. This is a welcome change, which can help broaden the conversation on topics of sex and gender.
This is what makes the silence surrounding the change so puzzling and indeed frustrating. Stonewall has not issued a statement about the redefinition, nor do they appear to have alerted their partner organisations to the update. This means that many EDI and HR departments around the country are likely still relying on the old, stifling definition.
While we applaud Stonewall’s willingness to update their terms and narrow the definition of ‘transphobia’, we also urge them to be open about such changes and alert their partners when major definitions are rewritten.
Indeed, it would be interesting to learn what motivated the change. Depending on the answer, Stonewall’s reasoning for abandoning the old definition could help spark a new, constructive conversation about transgenderism and transphobia in the UK. Then again, this might be too much to ask from an organisation that still defines ‘gender’ as the “sense of being a man, woman, non-binary or another gender”.
CAF has reached out to Stonewall for comment on this story.