Out of the Closet, Into the Round: Queerness in Debate

Being queer in the US right now is not a safe place to be. Starting with the recent election of Donald Trump, who has vowed to reverse the Biden administration expansion of Title IX that prohibited schools from preventing transgender students from using bathrooms, locker rooms and pronouns that align with their gender identities. But even before him, things were not looking up for the queer community. Last year alone, it is estimated that over 500 anti-LGBTQ bills were introduced to state legislatures nationwide; and at least 75 of these bills have been signed into law. The queer community is reaching out to our government in hopes of being able to live safely, but instead they receive hatred that makes them feel unsold in their own communities and neglected by the people they trusted to help them. But at least debate is a safe place to be? Right? 

The debate world is, admittedly, better than the outside world, but it's still not as good as it should be. In a master's thesis paper by Douglas Roberts from Minnesota State University, self-identifying queer debaters are interviewed. Tree, a first-year, non-binary, aromatic asexual debater who competes in IPDA, NPDA, and NFA-LD, sums up the implicit homophobia that still exists in the debate space: “It's weird being the only person to write their pronouns on the board when nobody else does it. Sometimes, people look at it for a second, they're like, why are they doing that? I'm doing that because otherwise you won't respect my pronouns.”  

And often, when others deem people as “not looking queer”, is where even more of the misgendering occurs. Lake, from the same interview, is nonbinary, and identifies as a lesbian, and has participated in debate in the formats of IPDA and NFA-LD for now eight years, and they add onto this by saying that they "don't think that people should have to pass in order to be valid in their like identity and also like be correctly gendered.” 

For many, the common way for debaters to embrace their queer identity in the debate space is through kritiks. However, even these arguments are becoming unsafe for debaters. Douglas Roberts cites an unacceptable argumentation of a K: “my opponent ran a Kritik and claimed that I was their link in the first affirmative speech that I was the 'white, heterosexual, cisgender oppressor.' They never asked what pronouns I used or what identities I am associated with, so when I made that first ever disclosure within the debate space, I was really uncomfortable.” 

But past argumentation containing microaggressions, even the act of running a queerness K is becoming harder and harder. It’s becoming more and more common to hear the claim that Ks are cheating. And an increasing number of circuits are banning their use entirely. Coaches are scared to teach debaters queer theory, competitors don’t want to answer it, and judges don’t want to evaluate it, and turn to banning instead of learning. If all we do in the debate community is ban the things that we don’t understand, how are we supposed to create a safe and inclusive place for queer debaters to express their identities? 

Even if you happen to find yourself on the national circuit, although these arguments become more accessible, it still isn’t perfect because of judging. Turns out coaches aren’t the only adults that are afraid of Ks. Judges are found to be biased surrounding queerness in 2 ways, the appearance of debaters, and queer argumentation. Research finds that judges find a masculine style is the only “credible” style of debating. This leads to judge bias in favor of “dominant” styles and upholding of the “dominant” approach. 

When judges decide rounds based on bias surrounding irrelevant factors such as the race, gender, or the personal appearance of participants. Now, marginalized debaters face an uphill battle with credibility when it comes to judges that react negatively towards debaters not in their identity group. For

queer debaters that already face troubles with asserting their identity, it makes queer debaters lose hard fought rounds simply because of judges not being able to accept other viewpoints. Even though winning is not everything in debate, losing because a judge dismisses you due to your identity is a different story entirely. When judges aren’t able to accept queer theory, opponents can easily beat it with “extinction outweighs." Queer debaters often face similar stigma that female debaters experience, specifically with trying to overcome the masculine governance and communicative format upheld by the debate space. 

But how do we fix such an ingrained problem in our community? 

Access to debate for marginalized debaters, in the form of both success and acceptances is significantly less than the white cisgender male. In forensics, competitors are more likely to self-disclose in forensics primarily due to the idea that the community feels more like a home. Queer debaters may withhold their identity because of negative or concerning trends within or around debate. So, when judges and opponents react negatively to queerness, it encourages queer debaters to “return to the closet."

The solution must start within the community itself, with competitors, judges, and coaches continuing acceptance. Issues like implicit bias need to be addressed and the community needs to consider how we engage with the queer debaters that we interact with and further our role of protecting marginalized community members in rounds with us. Comments and reactions need to be thought thoroughly beforehand, and you need to understand the implications of words before you say them. Only by fostering a culture of deliberate empathy and unwavering support can we truly ensure that all

debaters, regardless of their identity, are given the space to thrive and feel safe within the community.