Debate contribution: International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia

Debate contribution by Mr Doug Beattie MC on 12 May 2025.

MLA

Mr Doug Beattie MC

Party at the time

Ulster Unionist Party

Date

12 May 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4937934

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I am mindful that what we say today will have an effect on many sections of our society. Therefore, I hope that we remain respectful. As somebody who has supported the LGBTQI+ community in the past by, for example, tabling the first motion on ending conversion therapy, supporting same-sex marriage and attending various events to promote the community, I have always tried to ensure that my language is respectful, even when there have been differences of opinion. A difference of opinion is not homophobia, transphobia or biphobia; it is a difference of opinion. When I spoke at a pride talk in 2023, as I have done on multiple occasions, those differences came to the fore. My belief, based on expert safety advice, that the Irish Rugby Football Union (IRFU) was right to ban transgender woman from women's rugby was not popular, but I accepted the dissenting voices with respect. I did so even when they asked for the mic to be taken away from me. It is worth remembering that it was an Ulster Unionist, Jeffrey Dudgeon, who, in 1981, successfully brought the UK Government to court in order to end the criminalisation of homosexuality in Northern Ireland. That was only the start of a long road to equality that now sees the LGBTQI+ community being a protected group under equality legislation. The LGBTQI+ community exists and cannot be washed or wished away. Without a doubt, members of that community have suffered bullying, particularly at school and in the workplace. The inability of some people to accept them for who they are has an adverse effect, and widespread discrimination has, at times, led to violence. None of that is acceptable. Nowhere in the Assembly do I see anybody advocating that the rights of the LGBTQI+ community be undermined. There is a reality, however, that individuals' rights will, at times, conflict with other rights. That is something that can be dealt with comprehensively with a sexual orientation strategy. That leads me to the DUP amendment, which is a statement of fact. I say again that it should not be controversial for women to want their own spaces or sports or to have language associated with them. Women want privacy, safety and dignity. That is the absolute minimum that we should be providing, be that through service delivery, sporting bodies or the advice and language that is used by public bodies.

That is not so. We do not have every word to exactly meet what we want to say, but, from working on that strategy, I take it that there is an endgame to it and that a strategy will be produced. I do not speak for all women — I do not pretend to — but a large number of women have contacted me on the issue, and I am representing what they said. The DUP amendment goes to the heart of women's rights, and, while the motion is not about women's rights, given the recent Supreme Court ruling, it has a direct effect on them. This is the challenge: how do we support the LGBTQI+ community without causing the diminution of women's rights? It can be done. Legally, indeed, it should be done. Anyone who ignores the rights of women and of the LGBTQI+ community simply fails both. I will support the motion and the DUP amendment. The amendment from People Before Profit ignores medical advice and the potentially serious risks associated with puberty blockers, including reduced bone density, reduced fertility and changes in adult height. Therefore, I cannot support it. I do not want to see the LGBTQI+ community treated as any less than anyone else. I want a no-tolerance view of homophobia, transphobia and biphobia. At the same time, I do not want to see women's rights trampled over just for a vote or to get yourself invited to pride. Let us look at both. Let us come up with a practical solution instead of sucking our teeth and giving not an inch, even if that inch is where we will end up anyway. There are solutions. People in the House know that: solutions have been put on the table, and people have ignored them. Let us find the solutions. Let us not just trade angry words across the Chamber when we know that we could have done things in this Building that accommodated both the LGBTQI+ community and women's rights.

733 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Second assessment

Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 23 October 2026. How the second assessment works

Verdict

Not flagged

Public interest or divisiveness

Mainly advances the public interest

Against the published rubric

The contribution addresses a recognised flashpoint, single-sex spaces and transgender inclusion. It does so by engaging with the motion, the amendments, a recent Supreme Court ruling, a forthcoming sexual orientation strategy and stated medical risks of puberty blockers. It does not use loaded terms such as 'ideology', does not misgender anyone and explicitly condemns bullying, discrimination and violence against LGBTQI+ people. The line about women's rights being 'trampled over just for a vote or to get yourself invited to pride' is a partisan jab, and it frames the issue partly as competing rights. It is a minor part of an argument that otherwise deals with what the measures would do.

Public interest or divisiveness

The main thrust is a substantive position on how competing rights should be balanced, with repeated calls to 'find the solutions' and to accommodate 'both the LGBTQI+ community and women's rights'. It also urges members not to 'trade angry words across the Chamber'. Its gender-critical stance on sport, spaces and puberty blockers is argued on legal, safety and medical grounds rather than through hostility towards trans people as a group. Apart from a brief barb at opponents, it mainly advances debate on the substance.

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:23 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification