EDMO Training Series on Identity-Based Disinformation Module 3: Identity-based disinformation about LGBTQ individuals and communities

The EDMO Training session on disinformation targeting LGBTQ individuals and communities marked the conclusion of the three-module series on identity-based disinformation.

The training was introduced by Lisa Ginsborg, who emphasized how disinformation directed at LGBTQ communities cannot be understood merely as isolated false information. Rather, it operates through the amplification of pre-existing prejudices and negative narratives, often intersecting with hate speech and foreign information manipulation and interference.

Guy Fiennes provided the initial analytical overview, drawing on a synthesis of a five-year overview on hate targeting LGBTQ communities, conducted in the context of his work for the Institute for Strategic Dialogue. The research revolved around six key areas, including hate crimes, government and legislative actions, book bans, violence and terror, online harms, and tech platform policies, in Europe and the UK. His presentation noted that while workplace discrimination has fallen and increasing numbers of individuals across Europe report living openly as LGBTQ, hate crimes and hostile discourse have simultaneously intensified. The rise in anti-trans hate crimes, however, appeared significantly steeper than sexual orientation-based hate crimes, even when accounting for more gender non-conforming individuals living openly. He pointed to the UK Police’s explanation that a significant spike in anti-trans hate crimes between 2021 and 2022 was likely due to a spike in online anti-trans discourse.

Fiennes addressed the issue of intersectionality, emphasizing that vulnerability is not distributed evenly. Individuals who belong to multiple marginalised groups, such as LGBTQ people with migrant backgrounds, religious minority identities, or economic disadvantage, face significantly higher risks of discrimination and abuse.

As for legislation and government actions, he examined several national contexts to illustrate how discursive shifts translated into concrete policy measures. In the United Kingdom, for instance, he highlighted changes to the legal interpretation of “sex,” which have resulted in the exclusion of transgender individuals from certain state-funded services, including domestic violence shelters. Fiennes also underlined how some far-right political parties had expressed aspirations to copy tactics from other national contexts, primarily anti-LGBTQ legislation in Russia and the United States.

Moving to more authoritarian contexts, Fiennes described how Russia has formally classified LGBTQ identity as a form of extremism, creating a framework for both online and offline repression. The consequences of such policies are affecting not only LGBTQ individuals but also the broader community and cultural production, by restricting how identities can be represented, discussed, or even acknowledged across media, education, and public discourse, ultimately limiting visibility and reinforcing marginalisation.

Fiennes mentioned book bans as a key area of contestation. In the United States, bans often intersect with racial politics, targeting works that address ethnicity and interracial relationships. In contrast, in the UK and Hungary, the focus is more explicitly on LGBTQ content.

Another important dimension of his analysis concerned the role of extremist violence. Fiennes stressed that anti‑LGBTQ attacks cannot be attributed to a single ideological source. Instead, they emerge from a spectrum of extremist actors.

Fiennes identified the online sphere as a critical site of both reproduction and innovation. While the narratives circulating online are often historically familiar, digital environments enable their rapid dissemination and adaptation. A recurring pattern is the framing of transgender individuals as threats to women and children. He noted the phenomenon of “transvestigations”, where public figures are subjected to conspiracy theories questioning their gender. These attacks disproportionately target individuals who do not conform to traditional gender norms, including women of colour, successful female athletes, and lesbians.

The final part of Fiennes’ presentation concerned digital platforms and content moderation. He argued that, while many restrictions are introduced with legitimate aims, such as combating sexual exploitation, they often have unintended consequences for LGBTQ communities. A key issue is the tendency of platforms (and users) to classify LGBTQ content as inherently sexual or offensive. This leads to disproportionate censorship, particularly in automated systems without contextual understanding.

Fiennes emphasized that these outcomes are not always the result of explicit anti-LGBTQ intent. However, they can be exploited by actors who aim to reduce visibility. By framing LGBTQ identities as inappropriate or risky, they create pressure for platforms to adopt overly restrictive policies in the context of potential for heavy fines, and a lack of incentive to safeguard LGBTQ+ visibility.

This applies as well to emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence. Large language models and content filters often rely on blacklists that can inadvertently exclude LGBTQ-related terms, reinforcing patterns of invisibility. The result is what he described as a form of “erasure” of queer people and voices from digital environments.

Download presentation >

The case study presented by Bulcsú Hunyadi offered an illustration of how disinformation can be institutionalised within state policy. In Hungary, anti-LGBTQ narratives were not incidental or peripheral but central to the strategy of the previous government, especially after 2017 until its electoral defeat in 2026. Hunyadi emphasised that anti‑LGBTQ narratives were not simply circulated by fringe actors but were actively promoted by top-level politicians, including state officials and leading members of the ruling party. This centralisation was reinforced by a coordinated system, i.e. a broader network of actors aligned with or supported by the state, including state-controlled media, pro-government “private” media, pro-government social media “influencers” and government-organised non-governmental organisations (GONGOs), all of whom repeated and amplified the same core messages.   The aim was to polarise society and trigger collective fear and anger to manipulate public discourse and reinforce political power.

Hunyadi explained the concept of a “moral panic button,” a framework originally used to describe anti-immigration rhetoric but fully applicable, in his view, to LGBTQ-related disinformation. This framework involves systematic amplification of perceived threats, which are exaggerated or fabricated, to generate fear, anxiety, and a sense of urgency within the population. A crucial element of this strategy is the construction of scapegoats. Hunyadi underlined that the previous Hungarian government repeatedly shifted its targets over time, selecting different groups, ranging from migrants and minorities to LGBTQ communities.

Importantly, this system was also sustained by structural conditions: Hunyadi pointed to the weakening of institutional checks and balances on government and media platforms. In such an environment, disinformation could circulate with relatively little resistance, contributing to its persistence and visibility.

Overall, it was stressed that anti-LGBTQ disinformation became a key tool in the Hungarian government’s programme after 2017, and Hunyadi listed the recurring narratives that structure anti-LGBTQ discourse in Hungary. These narratives acted not as isolated claims but formed an interconnected system, each reinforcing the others. These include the framing of LGBTQ rights as an ideological imposition or a “lobby”, the depiction of sexual minorities as contradicting “normality” and as threats to traditional values and national identity, and the central claim that visibility endangers children. Particularly significant is the conflation of homosexuality with pedophilia, which served to legitimise restrictive legislation under the guise of child protection. The adoption of Hungary’s 2021 “child protection law” exemplifies this dynamic, translating discursive strategies into concrete policy measures.

Hunyadi also detailed the methods and techniques through which these narratives are constructed and sustained. These include the use of misleading referendum questions, the distortion of legislation and developments in Western Europe, and targeted attacks on individuals or organisations associated with LGBTQ advocacy. Despite the scale and coordination of these efforts, however, he presented evidence suggesting that public opinion has not uniformly followed the direction of government messaging. Poll data collected after the latest Hungarian elections indicate majority support for key LGBTQ rights, suggesting that disinformation’s impact on attitudes may be partial or contested.

Download presentation >

The contribution by Ivan Ruta Cuker shifted the focus from political strategy to societal reception. Drawing on survey data from the Czech Republic and Slovakia, it examined how disinformation is received and internalised differently by the public, depending on pre-existing conceptions, knowledge, and previous experience.

One of the most striking findings presented by Cuker concerned the discrepancy between public perception and lived experience in relation to harassment of LGBTQ individuals. Survey data from the Czech Republic and Slovakia show that respondents tend to underestimate the prevalence of harassment, often perceiving their own country as relatively safe.

However, empirical evidence shows that a majority of LGBTQ respondents report having experienced it. In the Czech Republic, for instance, a substantial proportion of LGBTQ individuals report having experienced some form of harassment. The contrast between these two perspectives reveals a significant perception gap.

Further data on mental health indicate a stark disparity between heterosexual and LGBTQ populations, with significantly higher rates of mental health struggles among the latter. When asked to account for these differences, respondents most frequently point to family rejection and lack of support, especially during childhood. This shows that some understanding of structural and social factors exists within the population. At the same time, however, other explanations reveal persistent misconceptions. A notable proportion of respondents incorrectly attribute mental health issues to biological abnormalities, such as hormonal imbalance, or to innate psychological disorders. Cuker also observed a relatively low level of confidence in legal or institutional solutions. Respondents tend to regard the lack of legal protection as a less significant factor, which he interpreted partly as a reflection of broader distrust toward state institutions in both societies.

Cuker placed particular emphasis on “proximity”. Individuals who personally know LGBTQ people are consistently more accepting and less likely to have prejudicial views. This effect influences attitudes toward workplace inclusion and social acceptance.

A central part of Cuker’s analysis was represented by the comparison between the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Overall, the Czech Republic emerged as relatively more liberal, with higher levels of acceptance and lower endorsement of negative stereotypes. Slovakia, by contrast, displays more conservative patterns, which Cuker links in part to higher levels of religiosity. These differences are reflected across multiple indicators, including beliefs about the causes of LGBTQ identities and support for related rights.

Importantly, however, Cuker showed that both societies exhibit a mix of acceptance and misunderstanding. Even in the more liberal Czech context, significant proportions of the population continue to hold incorrect beliefs about LGBTQ individuals.

Cuker showed how disinformation builds on existing misconceptions rather than creating new beliefs. Persistent ideas, such as viewing LGBTQ identities as a disorder or believing that children raised by same-sex couples are disadvantaged, provide a foundation on which misleading narratives can easily expand and appear credible.

Download presentation >

GLAAD’s intervention shifted the focus from how disinformation is produced or consumed to how it is amplified across digital platforms. As part of this effort, GLAAD has developed a comprehensive guide to anti-LGBTQ online hate and disinformation, offering definitions and analyses of recurring narratives and tactics used for both disinformation and harassment. The guide is designed to support researchers, journalists, and the general public.

Leanna Garfield provided an overview of common anti-LGBTQ tropes and strategies, including narratives centred on “protecting children,” critiquing so-called “gender ideology,” framing LGBTQ identities as mental illness, and the notion of “trans terrorism.” She also highlighted case studies such as the use of the term “transgenderism,” which misleadingly frames transgender identity as an ideology. Another case study examined AI-generated harassment, in which synthetic content is used to promote and normalise violence against LGBTQ people. A further example focused on trans health disinformation, where individuals presented as medical experts employ fear-based rhetoric to distort evidence-based healthcare for nonbinary and transgender people.

GLAAD situated these narratives within a broader political context, emphasizing the close relationship between online discourse and legislative developments. Influential digital actors are often connected to political movements, allowing disinformation to directly shape public opinion and, ultimately, policy outcomes.

A key contribution of GLAAD’s analysis concerns the monetisation of disinformation. Platform algorithms tend to reward engagement, meaning that controversial or emotionally engaging content often achieves higher visibility. As a result, anti-LGBTQ content can generate both attention and financial profit. Recent changes in platform policies have further enabled such monetisation, effectively transforming disinformation into a lucrative activity and incentivizing its continued production.

Through its Social Media Safety Index, GLAAD evaluates major platforms based on their public-facing policies related to LGBTQ safety, privacy, and expression. The findings reveal concerning trends, since protections for LGBTQ users are weakening rather than improving. Policy rollbacks, including reduced enforcement of hate speech rules and the removal of fact-checking mechanisms, have eroded safeguards.

GLAAD underlined that the consequences of these dynamics extend beyond the digital sphere. The spread of disinformation and hostile narratives contributes to real-world environments in which discrimination and violence are more likely. At the same time, growing concerns were highlighted around data privacy. Platforms collect and infer extensive user data, including information about sexual orientation and gender identity. In increasingly hostile political contexts, such data collection poses significant risks, as it may be exploited for targeting or discriminatory purposes.

GLAAD offered key recommendations, including stronger enforcement of policies and mitigations that protect LGBTQ people and others from hate, harassment, and misinformation, as well as greater transparency and enhanced user protections. Nevertheless, the significant challenge lies in the gap between formal policies and their enforcement, as harmful content continues to circulate, safeguards are inconsistently applied, and platform decisions often lack transparency. GLAAD also noted a related problem: platforms suppressing legitimate LGBTQ content and expression, an increasingly serious issue they must address.

Finally, Garfield introduced GLAAD’s new AI safety report, Build for Everyone: A Framework for LGBTQ Representation and Safety in AI, a comprehensive assessment of how artificial intelligence systems impact LGBTQ people, alongside recommendations for how companies can ensure their technologies are safer, more accurate, and more inclusive.