How to Deradicalize DEI

A classical liberal's guide to LGBT diversity training

Jamie Paul here. My friend (and boss) Rio Veradonir was commissioned in 2023 to write a chapter for an anthology book designed to provide DEI trainers with a more liberal alternative to the far-left style of DEI that had become the norm (and remains so). He asked for my help in writing it, and together, we produced a version of the following essay. Unfortunately, the organization overseeing the project shut down. The book was passed off to another org, but the project eventually died on the vine. So instead of leaving it languishing in digital purgatory, we’re publishing it here. Sadly, it’s just as relevant now as it was then.

---

When Columbia sociologist Musa al-Gharbi reviewed the meta-analytical literature on the efficacy of the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) industry, what he found was a mountain of evidence showing that these trainings and seminars simply don’t work. Worse still, in many cases, they appear to worsen the very problems they set out to solve. The DEI programs in use among universities, corporations, governmental agencies, and other institutions across society, al-Gharbi realized, far from reducing bias, served mostly to increase group hostilities and make people more afraid of communicating and collaborating. Queer DEI initiatives have been no exception. We are right to strive for a more diverse and inclusive society. The question is, what is going wrong?

The prevailing approaches to diversity, inclusion, and queer issues fall into two general categories: the “liberal” approach and “critical” approach. The critical approach is what currently dominates the diversity industry, and it’s responsible for why it has so profoundly failed. The liberal approach, as we will see, has a long and proven track record of success. The first step is in understanding the three fundamental ways in which they differ, and why these differences matter.

First, the liberal method focuses on universal rights and emphasizes individuality. It doesn’t ignore people’s race, sex, gender identity, or sexuality, but it recognizes that not all members of particular group categories are the same. People’s various identity characteristics are a part of who they are, but they remain, above all, individuals. The critical approach, however, centers identity politics and portrays people not as individuals but as representatives defined by their group status. Second, the liberal approach advocates equality and equal treatment under the law, whereas the critical approach advocates equity or equal outcomes. This entails advocating for and ultimately implementing a sort of reverse systemic discrimination in an attempt to balance the scales. Third, and perhaps the most salient difference between these two schools of thought in practice, is that the liberal approach operates by persuasion; the critical approach operates by coercion — shutting down respectful disagreement or discussion with notions of “privilege checking” and an insistence that select identity groups should have a say on certain issues.

Being persuasive and inclusive necessitates free speech and open dialogue rather than silencing people or telling them that their opinions don’t count just because they’re the wrong skin color or sexual orientation. I happen to be bisexual. That doesn’t mean that I have any authority over straight people or any more right to discuss LGBT issues than they do. It might mean that I have a bit more personal experience, but it doesn’t mean that the opinions of straight people don’t matter or that they need to “check their privilege.”

The critical approach doesn’t work because it is not built to work. It lacks any capacity to inspire. As al-Gharbi’s analysis found, it makes members of minority groups less happy. Telling people that they’re inescapably held back by their race, sexual orientation, or gender is not an uplifting and empowering message. Even if there’s some truth to it, in practice, it depresses morale — and just as importantly, it alienates potential allies. Telling folks that they’re bad people because they belong to a majority group — and whatever critical advocates insist, that is what large swaths of society hear — understandably turns people off. Go to almost any LGBT activism or “social justice” conference and it’s so often the six percent leftmost sliver of society treating white, cis, and straight men as if they’re second-class citizens. It’s not a welcoming or inclusive environment to be in; in fact it’s palpably mean-spirited and off-putting to the other 94 percent of society who have not drunk the critical social justice Kool Aid.

Nobody can say that the critical approach hasn’t been given a fair shot. We’ve run this experiment for the better part of a decade, and the results are clear and unimpressive. Fortunately, there is a better way.

Liberalism — the political doctrine that advocates civil liberties, individual freedom, and equality under the law — is the philosophical foundation of human rights and LGBT rights. Without liberalism, there would be no LGBT rights; and without liberalism, they have no future. Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, who invented the concept of sexual orientation, wrote in 1870, “Sexual orientation is a right established by nature. Legislators have no right to veto nature; no right to persecute nature in the course of its work; no right to torture living creatures who are subject to those drives nature gave them.”¹ Liberalism has grounded LGBT rights from their very inception, and it has been the vehicle that has delivered the incredible progress we have seen ever since.

The most visible LGBT victory was legalization of same-sex marriage across the Western world. But the LGBT movement was not of one mind on the matter. Even back in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, there existed both a liberal strain and a critical one. The liberal majority within the movement supported same-sex marriage on the basis of equal treatment under the law, and succeeded at reforming marriage through democratic and legal persuasion. That’s why we have full civil rights, legal protections, and marriage equality. The critical minority, by contrast, derided the campaign for marriage equality as bourgeois “respectability politics.” The critical approach’s goal was not to fight for same-sex marriage, but to dismantle the institution of marriage alogether. They argued that marriage was an inherently patriarchal, homophobic institution that couldn’t be saved and needed to be completely torn down.

At every turn, the critical approach to marriage backfired on the LGBT movement. It gave the Christian right an opening to claim that LGBT people were hostile to family values and marriage. It was the liberal approach and its patient efforts to reform the system through persuasion and coalition-building that delivered the progress we have seen. Today, same-sex marriage is legal in 38 countries and counting. LGBT rights enjoy 68 percent support in the US, and substantially more in some other countries. To no one’s surprise, the critical approach failed to bulldoze the institution of marriage. To think that a fringe of radical activists would overturn a millennia-long human convention, and without ever having to engage in persuasion, is the height of absurdity. The only thing they succeeded at achieving was backlash.

The liberal approach celebrates these victories, whereas the critical approach is incentivized to downplay or deny progress. The push to deconstruct institutions loses all justification if you admit that things are actually going pretty well. The writer Andrew Sullivan, perhaps as much as any single individual, profoundly changed the conversation around same-sex marriage starting in the 1980s. In 2011, he said: “If you change the society and the culture, the politics will follow.” He was right. You cannot put the politics first. You cannot demand the outcomes. There is no shortcut to changing hearts and minds. That’s where enduring progress starts. This is a dynamic I and others in LGBT activism have repeatedly witnessed firsthand.

In the mid-2000s, psychologist J. Michael Bailey conducted a study using penile plethysmography to measure the sexual attractions of men who identified as bisexual. The study failed to find evidence that these bi-identified men were aroused by both men and women. Based on the results, there didn’t seem to be much difference between bi men and gay men. The results were covered, with a rather credulous glee, by the New York Times, who ran the story with the headline “Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited.” Many bi activists, including the organization I work for, the Bi Foundation, were frustrated and disappointed. Bi activists of the critical approach took to vilifying the scientists — not only slandering Michael Bailey personally, but espousing the critical social justice dogma that science, as a tool of the oppressor and the cisheteropatriarchy, cannot be trusted.

That’s not what the Bi Foundation did. Instead, we reached out to Mike and offered constructive criticism on his research methodology. We pointed out that he had been recruiting subjects from ads in gay magazines, which, it stood to reason, translated to a crop of respondents who leaned heavily toward the gay end of the spectrum. We politely suggested that recruiting through bi organizations and publications might yield different results. Bailey responded, realizing that this had never occurred to him, and agreed to revisit the research. What he found in this second look was clear evidence that bi men do, in fact, exist, which the New York Times Magazine covered in another story in 2014. This follow-up study was enormously important in terms of the public understanding and acceptance of bisexuality. It happened because instead of vilifying science and scientists, we worked with them. That’s the liberal approach in action.

Inclusion within a liberal framework is a path to integration — not a Trojan horse for dismantling categories, systems, and institutions. From the critical point of view, the existing system is irredeemably bigoted, so why would anyone want to assimilate into such an evil system? But that perspective is built on a false premise. Working within the system to produce tangible results is evidence that our society is becoming more tolerant, accepting, and inclusive. But like all worthwhile endeavors, this process is not easy. It requires hard work, dedication, nuance, and above all, patience. In order to effectively advocate for diversity, inclusion, and LGBT rights, there are a number of guidelines that will be of great help.

Be inclusive, but realize that you can’t please everyone

Being inclusive of all the different kinds of LGBT people without upsetting one subset or another can be extremely challenging. Making every effort within reason to be accommodating and welcoming is important, however it’s important to understand that trying to please everyone is not only a minefield, but ultimately an impossible project. Making everyone happy is almost never going to happen, but by using a liberal approach that emphasizes common humanity, individual freedom, human rights, and diversity, we can realistically make most people happy most of the time and better encourage tolerance and dignity.

Straight people aren’t the enemy

This should be obvious, but it’s a defining feature of the critical method, and part of the reason why that approach to diversity and inclusion doesn’t work. Casting the relationship between the LGBT community and the rest of society as a winner-take-all death match is toxic, antisocial, and a recipe for discord and group hostility. Liberalism rejects zero-sum conflict in favor of incentivizing mutually beneficial cooperation. How do we learn to coexist despite our differences? One way of doing that is to stop acting like our differences render us incompatible adversaries. We’re not sides in a war. We can cooperate, and we can create a mutually beneficial system where everybody is better off.

Tolerance means tolerating debate and dissent

Everyone is occasionally guilty of being sanctimonious. Inclusion is about tolerance, and that means tolerating respectful discussion. It’s perfectly reasonable to admonish people not to use slurs, for example, and to be courteous, civil, and polite. But as long as people are being respectful, pushback is fine. When we silence people, stifle conversation, and shout down disagreement, it seems like we don’t have any arguments to defend our positions.

Of course, toleration has its limits. As the philosopher Karl Popper famously pointed out in his “Paradox of tolerance”, “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.” While we should not tolerate intolerance, however, that should not extend to anyone who disagrees, questions, or expresses concerns. Much of the time, people who have qualms might be wrongfully assuming that the project or program is using the critical approach. Remember, most of the organizations in the DEI space use the critical method, so this assumption is a rational one. Allowing people the space to vent and patiently quelling their misconceptions goes a long way. People need to feel heard, and lumping everyone who doesn’t immediately hop on board in with Popper’s “those who are intolerant” is a fantastic way to squander precious opportunities to win people over.

There are some areas where incompatible ideas clash, and finding ways to let people have their say and foster civil dialogue is crucial. Take gender-critical feminism, for example. Gender-critical feminists believe that gender identity is a falsehood, which often puts them at odds with trans activists over such issues and leads to intensely hostile name-calling in every direction. Liberalism believes in freedom of belief and freedom of expression. We must foster an ethos where everyone can civilly have their say, and where parties agree to disagree when persuasion is not effective.

Don’t discriminate

Replacing one form of prejudice with another is not progress. Discriminating against white people is not the answer to finding racial equality. Prejudging cis and/or straight people is not the answer to LGBT equality. The way toward a non-discriminatory future is by not discriminating, full stop. The critical approach can employ all of the jargony gobbledygook and pretzel logic they like in trying to argue that reverse-discrimination is both necessary and righteous. It won’t matter. The instinct for fairness runs deep, and people can smell hypocrisy and double standards from a mile away.

Don’t force people into boxes or claim to speak for them

Claiming to speak on behalf of an entire group of people as if all LGBT people think the same is deeply offensive. A tactic commonly used by extremists is to falsely speak for entire classes of people as if they were a monolith. But they never are. This goes back to the liberal value of treating people as individuals. Both LGBT and cis/straight people fall all over the political spectrum. Don’t let any one political side dominate the discussion.

Pronouns are fine — but they must be optional!

Many pro-LGBT spaces have taken to encouraging people to share their pronouns in an effort to make trans people feel included. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, but it has to be optional. People shouldn’t feel social pressure to do it if they don’t want to. Some trans people are in the closet, and encouraging them to reveal their pronouns forces them to either lie about who they are or to out themselves. Identifying as cis must also be optional. Not everyone is okay with being labeled as cis, and respecting gender identity means respecting that too. Similarly, pressuring gender-nonconforming people to identify as trans or non-binary is sexist. Some people have a troublesome tendency to police people’s gender by insisting that they must be trans or non-binary because of things like fashion choices. Expecting anyone, trans or cis, to conform with any gender roles is a form of sexism. It’s a common problem in LGBT or progressive spaces, and we as liberals need to stand up to it more.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking that the enemy of my enemy is my friend

This is a problem in many liberal circles where people should know better. Many folks, in reacting against critical social justice, forget that there are other illiberal ideologies out there. Just because some other illiberal ideology also happens to disagree with critical social justice doesn’t mean that they’re our allies. We’re using a liberal framework, not a far-right, post-liberal, theocratic, or fascist one. Critical social justice isn’t the only threat to liberal values or LGBT rights.

Avoid elitism and condescension

Inclusion means using language that everyone can understand. Terms like “hegemonic heteronormativity” or “Latinx” don’t advance inclusivity. Progressive activists are approximately six percent of the population in the United States. They’re also overwhelmingly educated, white, and affluent. Diversity and inclusion shouldn’t be a social club for the well-heeled — it’s a project to make society a freer place for everyone.

Be sensitive to ways you might alienate specific groups

Being inclusive means including people without offending others, which can sometimes be tricky. Take biphobia, which refers to a prejudice specifically against bisexuality. Sadly, there’s a lot of biphobia in the LGBT community. Many gay separatists don’t want bi people in their circles because they “sleep with the enemy.” Another aspect of biphobia is bi erasure: bi people are excluded from conversations that they should be in. And a lot of the time this can happen without even realizing it. Referring to “same-sex marriage” instead of “gay marriage” is more inclusive, for example, because of course, not all people who marry a person of the same sex are gay. Many of them are bi. Instead of “gay rights”, “LGBT rights” is more inclusive. Instead of “gay pride”, just say pride. Try to be mindful that people aren’t being needlessly left out.

Don’t be a moral micromanager

Perfection is an unrealistic standard. If the goal is to encourage people to be more inclusive, the best way to do that is to reward them for being inclusive. If someone is being truly exclusionary, calling that out is one thing. Agonizing over every little thing is quite another. Folks will slip up a little here and there, saying or doing something in good faith that is unintentionally insensitive. That doesn’t make them a monster — and castigating them for it will only make matters worse. We can always find something to criticize about people. We’re all flawed. We should all therefore show grace and leniency.

Avoid simplistic moral dichotomies

Another problem with the critical approach is that it tends to have a kind of “sinners and saints” framing. This worldview treats people who belong to “marginalized communities” as always being right, and their “lived experience” as unassailable ironclad proof that what they feel is not only always reasonable, but supersedes any real-world evidence that might contradict it. Unless, of course, one’s lived experience goes against critical dogma, then it suddenly doesn’t count for much at all. Reality is not so cut and dried. Again, liberalism sees people as individuals, not as avatars for group categories. No one is right or wrong, good or evil, valid or invalid just for existing. Everyone walks their own path, with their own unique set of experiences, circumstances, and perspectives. Those have real value, but they are not the be-all and end-all. Just as we don’t discriminate to end discrimination, we don’t essentialize to end essentialism.

Appropriation is a sign of progress

If the “straight world” wants to embrace aspects of LGBT culture, that’s a great thing. It’s a sign of acceptance and even honor. Let’s not be offended by that. When people start throwing around accusations of “cultural appropriation”, keep in mind that there’s not necessarily anything wrong with appropriation. Liberalism is multicultural. It recognizes that the desire to segregate cultures is ethnocentric, racist, sexist, homophobic, and just plain unworkable. The world is getting smaller, more global, and more interconnected. Cultures are going to mix, and that’s more than okay — it’s wonderful. It shows that liberalism and multiculturalism are thriving.

Be ready for accusations of rainbow capitalism

It has become trendy to denounce Pride events because they receive funding from corporations. Somehow, we are told, these celebrations of LGBT rights are bad because the wrong people paid for them. The general trend of big businesses embracing LGBT visibility and messaging is pejoratively referred to as “rainbow capitalism”, an animus predicated on the supposedly self-evident assertion that corporations are always evil. This is false. There’s nothing wrong with rainbow capitalism. In fact, it’s a sign of progress. It shows that corporations are responding to matters of queer rights. We should encourage it.

Be ready for accusations of speech as violence

Enemies of liberalism always look for excuses to silence critics. If speech one doesn’t wish to hear is successfully construed as literal violence, then censorship can be played off as nothing but self-defense. It’s a cheap authoritarian trick, and it must be stood up to.

***

Look around society today through a historical lens. What do you see? Even with the current populist backlash, the level of LGBT rights and acceptance across the West today would have been unimaginable even a generation ago. In a word, what we see when we look around us is progress. Liberalism did that. Our job is to fill in the rest of the gaps, protect our past gains, and continue to spread human rights to other parts of the world where people still lack them.

Science is not our enemy. Corporations are not our enemy. Straight people are not our enemy. Diversity, inclusion, and LGBT rights do not require abandoning liberal values. In fact, it’s the other way around. LGBT rights are a liberal value. A liberal approach to diversity, inclusion, and equality — not equity — is what got us as far as we’ve come. And it’s what will take us where we want to go. Liberalism works. We need more of it, not less.

See also: “Memory-Holing ‘Wokeness’”

---

Subscribe now and never miss a new post. You can also support the work on Patreon. Please consider sharing this article on your social networks, and hit the like button so more people can discover it. You can reach me at @AmericnDreaming on Twitter, @jamie-paul.bsky.social on Bluesky, or at AmericanDreaming08@Gmail.com. Cover image generated by ChatGPT.

1. From Araxes: A Call to Free the Nature of the Urning from Penal Law (1870)