O for Outing

Revealing secret sexual preferences to hurt and shame

When I was young, an 'outing' meant a day out. A trip to the seaside perhaps, or the zoo. Only later did it come to mean the practice of revealing the secret sexual orientation of a public figure.

At the UK general election in 1987 I acted as agent to a Liberal Party candidate. There was speculation about the sexual preferences of the Conservative incumbent. Although the man would appear in the constituency at election times with a glamourous female in tow, the rumours persisted. Several of our party workers wanted us to refer to these suggestions in our election literature. I refused, as did the candidate. We argued that what he got up to in his private life did not effect his ability to carry out his duties as a public representative. We could, we believed, win the seat on the strength of our policy proposals. We were wrong about that but not about the refusal to 'out' our opponent.

I used the incident in my novel Transgression, reversing the situation so that the Tory MP, on being faced with possible exposure of his inappropriate behaviour towards women, responds with the threat of exposing his Liberal opponent's homosexuality: “What do you suppose the good citizens of Topford would make of the idea of having a shirt-lifter for an MP?”.

That book was an exploration of the changes in attitudes to sex and sexual orientation that had occurred over the preceding 70 years, through the experiences of 4 fictional characters, one of them the MP.

A few years later the real MP admitted his homosexuality after having been 'outed' by Murdoch's despicable rag, the 'News of the World'. He lost the seat to Labour in the 1997 landslide.

Attitudes have changed yet more since I wrote that book. Same sex marriage is now an accepted reality throughout most of the civilised world. Gay couples, both male and female, live openly and no eyebrows are raised among neighbours. They adopt, or obtain children using surrogacy, and those children survive and thrive just as well as those in more traditional family settings.

Unfortunately, the true picture is more nuanced than I have suggested in that paragraph. Gay men, women and couples are still sometimes faced with harassment by the ignorant and by religious fundamentalists, even in supposedly enlightened countries. So too, sadly, are their children.

For the most part, however, the bigots and bullies have turned their attention elsewhere: to the tiny proportion of human beings who are unhappy with the gender identity assigned them at birth. Discrimination against transgender individuals is on the rise. People who should know better vocalise their hatred through ignorant comments on social media and even in mainstream publications.

Strangely, it is rarely trans men towards at whom this opprobrium is aimed. Instead, people divert their hatred for, and misunderstanding of, men in general onto trans women, refusing to believe that such individuals are not evil men in disguise. Some seem unable to see that trans women deserve the same protection as all women.

It seems obvious to me that a man with evil intentions who wishes to invade a female only space does not need to disguise himself as a woman to do so. On the other hand, forcing someone who identifies as a woman, and dresses accordingly, into an exclusively male space is, to say the least, inconsistent with the belief that men are dangerous to be around.

In any case, the provision of separate spaces for men and women seems to me to be an archaic notion. Not so very long ago a woman who entered a bar would be assumed to be looking for business. Such places were regarded as male preserves that no self-respecting woman would dare to set foot in. Women were excluded from many clubs dedicated to such sporting activities as golf.

Thankfully, those days are in the past. Such Apartheid practices are frowned upon. In some jurisdictions they are unlawful. I am tempted to ask why, now that they have won the right to share so many spaces that were once exclusively male, women continue to insist on retaining female only facilities.

I suppose it comes down to a generalised distrust of men. A distrust that men themselves have earned thanks to the despicable behaviour of far too many. Could it be, however, that having common spaces might reduce the opportunities for misbehaviour that can only arise when a lone male or small group succeeds in infiltrating a space reserved for females?