Gay Shame: The Rise of Gender Ideology and the New Homophobia

by Gareth Roberts

Only a few years ago, it seemed that the fight for gay rights was legal equality was achieved, prejudice rapidly dying out. Mission accomplished, right? Wrong, argues Gareth Roberts. Homophobia is making a major comeback under the guise of the ideology of 'gender identity'. The enforcers of this new creed insist that attraction to people of the same sex is 'hateful'. They argue that effeminate men and butch women can't just be gay, but must 'really' be trans. Worse, this ideology has colonised the gay rights movement, capturing institutions like Stonewall and the gay press completely. Anyone who disagrees risks professional suicide. So what happened to the funny, grown-up culture, truth-telling and knowing irony of gay men? How and why was the older gay rights activism, which gifted such progress to homosexual people, hijacked? In this passionate, witty polemic, Gareth Roberts answers these questions and argues that we need a new gay liberation movement.

Genres: Nonfiction, Gender, Politics, LGBT, Transgender

274 pages, Kindle Edition

First published April 1, 2024

About the author

Gareth Roberts has written TV scripts for various soap operas (including Brookeside, Springhill, and Emmerdale), Randall & Hopkirk (deceased), the revival of Doctor Who, the Sarah Jane Adventures, and Wizards vs Aliens.

Also for the Doctor Who universe, he has written the interactive adventure Attack of the Graske, the mobile phone TARDISODEs accompanying the 2006 series, several Big Finish audios, and multiple novels, as well as contributed to Doctor Who Magazine.

Reviews

[Tucker · Rating 1 out of 5]

An ordinary "sex-realist" aka "gender-critical" screed: deliberately insulting, repetitive, and hanging on very few facts about anything. What Roberts calls the “ideology” of “genderism” supposedly prioritizes a person’s undefined gender identity, a “mysterious sexed soul,” over their physical sex. Roberts opposes doing so, seeing sex as an unchanging, binary fact of overriding importance. “So there,” he says in his glossary. (Not an argument, of course.) Later, he says being trans “is not really an ideology, it is a power display.”

In his acknowledgments, he lists Helen Joyce, Kathleen Stock, and Graham Linehan. He recommends Abigail Shrier and Kellie-Jay Keen, and he counts J.K. Rowling among "the most reasonable and rational people." If you recognize those names, you’ve probably already drawn your own conclusion.

I fundamentally disagree, for reasons of crucial importance to me, with the author’s position against trans people. I’m predisposed to dislike his book for that reason. Nonetheless, it’s necessary for me to occasionally read such books so that I will not be accused of not having read my "opponents" — and I really do want to know which anti-trans arguments people are swallowing. The answer in this case: mostly just another “gender-critical” regurgitation, imitating the above-mentioned authors.

Having read Gay Shame, I have more specific reactions. Roberts argues that he’s focused on trans people’s impact on others, and therefore he intends his book to be about the (non-trans) victims and not the (trans) perpetrators. But he isn’t positioned to make general comments about trans people, including whether our existence is inherently destructive. His lack of curiosity and empathy about a particular group of people disqualifies him from writing a book undermining said group. He hasn’t read anything whatsoever written by a trans person (except for a single tweet that women are great, and he somehow found a way to complain about that). He doesn’t acknowledge that trans people have been community organizers, health advocates, and academics and that we live among everyone else and often have the same kind of jobs and family structures that everyone else has. He doesn’t know any history of what it has meant to be trans. The number of trans people’s names he acknowledges in this book can be counted on one hand, and none are meaningfully discussed.

He pretends that there’s little information to be found about trans men, especially the gay ones (i.e., the ones who date other men). He has not looked. Trans men exist, many are gay, and we’re easy to find. We candidly share our life stories, perspectives, imagination, and research. He could buy one of our insightful books. I’ll guess the reason he ignores the diverse sorts of actually existing trans people is that the realities of who we are and how we live undermine his thesis.

He insists it’s his prerogative to refer to people as the sex they were born as. Plainly, this is forced outing of post-transition people, which puts us at all kinds of risk. When someone reinforces a trans person’s previous gender role (even if others were already aware of it) and undermines the trans person’s current gender, there are consequences for the trans person. Does Roberts care? No.

Nowhere does he talk about actual challenges faced by trans people that may be specific to other parts of our identities, careers, relationships, resources, backgrounds, or situations. He doesn’t talk about harms that are suffered, rights that are needed, or real reasons why a trans person experiences, perceives, or says or does anything at all. We are mere ciphers to him, not individuals who have unique lives, our own reasons for being, and our own ways of explaining ourselves.

If print newspapers, including gay ones, disappeared “in about 2014,” it’s because they went digital, not because trans people ate them. If his perception is that they never wrote about certain kinds of people, he should try to remember whether he skipped over those articles because they did not interest him at the time.

The words “transsexual” and “transgender” have a long 20th-century history, and before “nonbinary” there was “genderqueer” too. Gay organizations have long included trans individuals and trans-specific programs. When those organizations weren’t founded with a T in their names, eventually they updated their names to include the T. Roberts claims this process began in the “early 2010s,” but it began long before. (For a couple examples I can give, the National Consortium of Directors of LGBT Resources in Higher Education was founded as such in 1997, and the GLBT Historical Society took on its current name in 1999.) Roberts doesn’t acknowledge this history and pretends it all emerged from Tumblr. He’s simultaneously claiming to have had “a small hand in creating” Hayley Cropper, a trans character who aired 1998–2014 on a soap opera, while also claiming that gay men like himself “only noticed gender in 2015” after trans people ate the gay newspapers.

If “sex is a spectrum,” he asks, then “what exactly are people 'transitioning' from and to? Why is there any need?" Excuse me: Multiple life possibilities aren’t preempted by the question of why one should be anything at all. By analogy, sexual orientation's a spectrum, yet Roberts doesn’t ask himself why he needs to be gay. He further claims that to be “homosexual” is to be “exclusively” so, and he tells us he’s been gay his whole life, yet he claims that trans people are the ones with excessive certainty about a monolithic, inflexible identity. "I don't know 'who I am’ now,” he feigns. Oh, really? He’s open to the possibility he might be straight?

I wrote a lot more on Medium, split into a 10-min read and a half-hour read, which I share gladly in case you need more detail on this.

Could everyone please stop making self-contradictory assumptions about trans people. Could everyone please stop penning opinions about what “trans” means if they haven’t interviewed any trans person nor read any trans person’s book. Could everyone stop turning to anti-trans orgs for information. This isn't research, isn't informed in any way, isn't insightful nor profound.

[Philip Watts · Rating 5 out of 5]

Honest, clear headed and witty

This is a very honest statement of where same sex attracted men now stand in a world seemingly dominated by the madness of Transgenderism. It sets out how it came to pass, what harms have been done to and are still being perpetrated on children in the name of TQI++. It also sets out how many GC women and some men have suffered for holding views that chime with biological truth.
A short review cannot really do justice to the quality. It is a real eye opener for those not aware of the battleground and should be read by all men, gay, straight or bi.
It’s also very witty as uses the word “Bobbins” to perfection.

[Alan Hughes · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent book; funny, insightful and important. I'd venture the very poor ratings given here are by people who will brook no discussion about these matters. The more open-minded among us will find much that is thought provoking, and a good few laughs at the bigots expense.

[N S · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating summary of how very well funded LGB pressure groups having achieved their missions by 2015 decided rather than to disband to put all their efforts behind transgenderism and push for the appalling medicalization and sterilization of minors who don’t conform to 1950’s gender stereotypes and who largely would have been lesbian or gay if left alone. All aided by social media rabbit holes and the atomization of societies into a warren of communities where algorithms act as a slippery slope into mental health crises. Also all aided by the wish to ‘be kind’ and not repeat the treatment of racial minorities and LGB people in society.

[Charlotte · Rating 1 out of 5]

Gareth is a failed script writer. He rose to notoriety after posting transphobic content online.

The book is hateful, boring and low quality, like his scripts. The content is not researched and lacks intelligence.

The premise of the book is silly at best:

“Homophobia is making a major comeback under the guise of the ideology of 'gender identity'. The enforcers of this new creed insist that attraction to people of the same sex is 'hateful'. They argue that effeminate men and butch women can't just be gay, but must 'really' be trans.”

17.6% of the transgender community identify as straight. A community where 82.4% of its members are not straight is unlikely to be homophobic. Gareth should talk to some trans people before letting his imagination run wild.

[Wesley Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love how narrow-minded people are reviewing this book without reading it. This novel is crucial in our world right now. Read more. Learn more. Educate yourselves please. Prejudice works both ways.

I am reading this a second time to really delve into the compelling points the writer makes. If you remove biological sex (fact) from the equation and people can identify as whatever they choose, where does that leave gay men and women who are attracted to MEN OR WOMEN?

Gareth eloquently presents his points and facts in a coherent yet unsettling manner. However, he manages to worm comedy and heart into the seriousness of the subject matter. I highly recommend everyone read this.

Oh, and for any left extremist that reads this review: he is not transphobic. His arguments are similar to J. K. Rowling's: protecting same sex spaces such as changing rooms, sports, and women's abuse shelters. Among others. He is presenting his points with facts, data, and a wealth of life experience and very little bias but rather a genuine concern for the original LGBs that started the fight for equality and all their hardwork being tarnished by children being able to get access to puberty blockers and having their genitalia mutilated when if left as is, they would most likely just end up gay. The trans extremists (not all trans folk) have taken over the flag, which is why the LGB Alliance is paramount in this society.

This review was left to detail the content and tone of the book. If you are going to comment with bile and poison then don't bother, I will have the comment removed and block the poster.

[Steve · Rating 1 out of 5]

Whenever right wing websites want a gay man to write anti LGBT articles, Roberts is usual the one they call. Now he's written a whole book this time devoted to championing transphobia. Fellow transphobes will happily give Roberts their money, everyone else should avoid. This is one of those books that is designed to make bigots feel validated. If someone's written a book about how their prejudice is the right stance then it must be fine, right?

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Obviously a gay perspective. Critical Theories gave a much deeper analysis. A good introduction for many.

[Roman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sometimes too polemical or too superficial for my taste, but its theses resonated with me and my experiences.

[Edvard · Rating 1 out of 5]

While there are some good points on the nature of homophobia among the current pride movement and 'genderism' ideology, most interesting points are poorly discussed (namely gay men's internalised homophobia) nor is there any discussion, acknowledgement, or differentiation between *actual* transsexual people and those appropriating the transsexual experience. As such, transsexual people with actual gender dysphoria are lumped in with the non-binary and 'trans' crowd who just want to 'identify' as something. Some of my closest and oldest friends are actual transsexual people (whom the non-binary kinds call 'true scum') who loathe the 'genderism' ideology for many reasons. The two are not the same, yet herein they are tarred with the same brush.

Another glaring issue I saw was the author's readiness to throw men in general (especially gay men: some of that internalised homophobia which was so poorly discussed, perhaps?) under the bus as dangerous, violent rapists who are a huge threat to women. Gay men, apparently, hate women because we're jealous and resentful of them (at which point I truly wished the author would just talk about himself and his own misogyny instead of generalising it onto all of us.) Gay men being anti-male is nothing new to me, but for one to cite almost affectionately man-hating political lesbians like Julie Bindell takes the cake. Saints preserve us.

All of this, of course, was backed up with a tiny selection of cherry-picked statistics. By which I mean one set of statistics, i.e. 'men make up 97% of rapists' or whatever. He even admitted himself that by UK law, only men can be charged with rape because of the legal definition, but doesn't think to unwrap that as clearly skewed and misleading statistics. The WHO and the CDC beg to differ: according to them, women are just likely to commit sexual assault as men. One felt the lack of academic rigour, and would have hoped an author writing a book about this subject would do a bit of research instead of... well, relying on anecdotes and a quick browse through an anti-trans (read: anti-male) feminist's facebook post or whatever.

He devotes many pages to 'straight cis men' claiming to be women to get into women's spaces such as changing rooms and violently assault them, etc. Yet, ironically since he is a gay man, has nothing to say of the trans women wishing death on gay men because, apparently, 'gay men can have sh*t and armpit fetishes but don't want to have sex with a vagina', or 'AIDS didn't kill enough gay men'. Nor of Stonewall -- the erstwhile gay charity he rips apart in the book -- teaching and encouraging trans men how to have sex with gay men in bathhouses and gay saunas without revealing they are biologically female.

All in all, a book with some salient points which are, alas, swamped by too many generalisations based on 'lived experience', perpetuation of myths regarding sexual violence etc, and a general pandering to gynocentrism in order to win over the majority. Alas, such tactics do not work on me, and I was left summarily unimpressed.

[Michael Mcphail · Rating 5 out of 5]

Yes

[Ian B. · Rating 3 out of 5]

I remember during lockdown seeing my first ‘Transwomen are women’ tweet, in capital letters repeated five times, as was the fashion then (it had been posted by a well-known American actress, a lesbian in fact), and I thought, What, literally? Surely not.

Having paid attention and read fairly widely since then, and landing on the gender-critical (or as Roberts prefers, sex-realist) side of the fence, I expected to feel slightly more enthusiastic about this book. Perhaps as a journalist, the author is better suited to short- than long-form pieces; I wasn’t entirely convinced that he achieved an overarching theory for the strange embrace of genderism by some gay men. I was already familiar with quite a few of his case studies, so perhaps this lessened the impact. His style is often enough broad and knockabout. Some of the jokes land, and some don’t, and at times I felt Roberts went for easy humour instead of digging deeper, which I regretted. However, he does rather wittily demolish various cultural shibboleths of trans: gay and lesbian rights deriving from ‘transwomen of colour’ chucking bricks at Stonewall; implacably consigning those who disagree with you to the ‘wrong side’ of history; and the claimed existence of transgender people from the first stirrings of civilization:

What this is actually referring to is a common human sportiveness… Playing with and subverting gender roles – in all kinds of ways, from the tacky to the transcendent – is a part of every human culture… Reclassifying men as women for all purposes, and according them the legal rights and special protections of women is not – that is brand new, and very specifically of the modern West. I’d suggest that it could only have sprouted from the soil of modern, wealthy Western delusions.

I also enjoyed his identification of the class element to genderist beliefs: amongst a certain, influential set, it has become terribly ‘low-status’ and ‘déclassé’ to even so much as faintly allude to the outside possibility that the Emperor may not be wearing any clothes. The trouble is that so many of the people in charge of our institutions – publishing included – are the ones congratulating themselves on their high-status beliefs, so it’s important that curious readers have books like this to choose from.

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent account of the LGB (specifically gay male) case against gender ideology. Roberts carefully takes the reader through the takeover of the LGB movement by the TQ+ arrivistes, and how and why they have done so much damage. He identifies the lingering homophobia that fuels the TQ+ movement – different in kind to the homophobia of old, but as, if not more, pernicious.

These kinds of polemics can be a dull read, especially if you are in general agreement with the author's point of view. However, Roberts is so good a writer that one reads with pleasure; his prose is intelligent, witty, and at times eye-poppingly insightful – as when he describes the way in which some gay men see a surrogate mother as “a 3D printer of human beings.”

The book is very much the product of the generation of LGB who lived through the AIDS era, the accompanying activism, and the social breakthroughs of the equalisation of the age of consent and gay marriage. It is a threnody for the hope of resolution that time promised, and how the TQ+ have taken a huge dump in the middle of public opinion.

Roberts ends with a couple of scenarios for the future: one in which gender ideology quietly goes the way of such bad ideas as eugenics and lobotomies; the other in which the TQ+ create a totalitarian dystopia via their control of what has become known as the lanyard classes. It’s a couple of years since the book was published, and so it seems that the former conclusion is likely to be the outcome (thankfully). Although recent reactions from the activist community and crimes by very damaged people should cause us to take seriously Roberts’ warning that, even in the “good” scenario:

“There is a growing and terrible air of a death cult about genderist activism. The whiff of Waco or Jonestown is in the breeze. (…) I’m afraid I can’t see a future where genderism ends without some awful event, or more likely a string of them.”

[Neil Fulwood · Rating 3 out of 5]

Where to start? There’s an appreciative quote from Julie Birchall on the front cover, which is a huge red flag. Plus Roberts writes for The Spectator, which ditto. But then again he did write one of my favourite NuWho episodes. He should probably stick to the time travel. Although Roberts’ is often a voice of common sense, too frequently he lets the objectivity slip and reveals himself as a horrible old reactionary. He also buys into some outright nonsense, pace his belief that Antifa is a structured organisation staffed by thugs with a fascist agenda, when it’s actually a decentralised movement whose activists are anti-fascist (hence the name, Gaz) and committed to non-violent protest. It’s a damn shame he lets himself down like this, because his identification of a strand of homophobia within gender identity rhetoric is something that needs more coverage and discussion, and when he writes of young people encouraged down the path of puberty blockers and irreversible surgical procedures it’s a howl of protest against innocence betrayed. This could have been a keystone text in the gender ideology debate, but Roberts steers it far too close to an own goal.

[Amy Bannatyne · Rating 1 out of 5]

"They argue that effeminate men and butch women can't just be gay, but must 'really' be trans. "

Literally nobody is arguing that.

"How and why was the older gay rights activism, which gifted such progress to homosexual people, hijacked?"

This is simply untrue. Trans people were there at Stonewall. Indeed, trans people instigated that moment of activism. To claim that trans people were somehow late to the party is simply untrue.

The rest of the book is similarly disconnected from historical fact. Avoid.

[Puppet · Rating 1 out of 5]

A ranty book. Terf-esque. Lots of mud slinging. He bemoans the loss of gay visibility, while at the same time talks about how he never really liked the term. Perhaps the shame in the title refers to his own?

[Rory Luukas · Rating 1 out of 5]

One star is far more than this book deserves. It's hate filled rubbish with absolutely zero grounding in fact or reality.

[Jen · Rating 1 out of 5]

Hateful and transphobic. Also endorsed by hateful and known bigots. Avoid this book. Do not give money to these people

[Phillip Tyler · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely essential reading for all gay men.

[Tracey McAndrews · Rating 3 out of 5]

Shockingly bias but you have to you must hear the opposing point view for a well rounded understanding of a topic.

[Mark Gee · Rating 1 out of 5]

Did not Finnish

[Monique · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book often drags with niche British TV references that assume the reader is already in the know.

Just as the pace picks up and the author’s passion shines, it’s slowed again by outdated pop culture nods and repeated points that make the structure feel unfocused. Feels like reading an essay by college student.