Rights, religion and children
What topics drive online discussions about LGBTQI+ in Ukraine
An analysis of comments by Ukrainian Facebook users about LGBTQI+
In brief. What the analysis found
We used artificial intelligence to analyze comments and posts in the Ukrainian segment of Facebook that deal with attitudes toward LGBTQI+ people.
1
A neutral tone accounts for the largest share of comments – 46%.
2
One comment in five (21%) expresses support for the LGBTQI+ community.
3
The most frequent negative comments repeat stereotypes without calling for violence.
4
Rights are the most popular topic in the comments, both for those who support LGBTQI+ rights and for their opponents.
How we counted
The collection and analysis of the data were carried out by the company Artellence on commission from Insight NGO.
The analysis covered posts and the comments beneath them on Ukrainian-segment Facebook pages and accounts with 10,000+ followers for the period from March 2020 to May 2021.
Among the posts analyzed, nearly 4,900 were identified as relevant, together with 85,800 comments on them from residents of Ukraine.
The analysis itself was based on 11,900 comments – comments by Ukrainian users that were selected by keywords.
We asked for their tone to be analyzed in order to understand the mood of the Ukrainian segment of Facebook:
- the analysts classified as positive/negative those comments that express an unambiguous position;
- comments that show no unambiguous attitude they classified as neutral.
Automated labeling of comments by algorithms allows for a margin of error of up to 20%.
The algorithm also segmented the comments by the topics around which the discussion of LGBTQI+ unfolds, in order to identify the most common arguments both “for” and “against”. As a result, three main lines of discussion emerged: rights, religion, and children. That said, more than half of the comments were not assigned to any topic, since in online conversations individual comments often lack a clear, complete thought.
“For”, “against”, and “abstained”
How Ukrainians express their attitudes toward LGBTQI+
Of the total number of comments in the Ukrainian segment, most were classified as “neutral” – that is, in the discussion people did not express explicit support for the LGBTQI+ community nor, conversely, repeat stereotypes about it. In all, the algorithm identified 46% of comments as neutral.
Support for the LGBTQI+ community was expressed in roughly one comment out of five (21%)
Negative comments were segmented by the algorithms according to the tone of hate speech – from disagreement to demonization and calls for violence.
Intensity scale for negative comments
1. Disagreement
Description: disagreement at the level of ideas or beliefs, endorsement of stereotypes.
Examples: false, anti-scientific claims, expressions of distrust, attempts to change or influence someone’s point of view.
2. Negative actions associated with the group
Description: the rhetoric about a group of people is negative but contains no calls for violence.
Examples: indignation, poor treatment, othering.
3. Insults, negative characterizations
Description: the rhetoric contains insults and negative characterizations of a group of people.
Examples: “criminals”, “sick”, “aggressors”.
4. Demonization and dehumanization
Description: the rhetoric divides people into “real humans” and “subhumans”.
Examples: “monkeys”, “rats”, “demons”, “cancer”, “monsters”.
5. Violence
Description: the rhetoric contains calls for physical violence or metaphors of violence or death.
Examples: beatings, rape, torture.
6. Death
Description: calls to kill a group of people.
Examples: execution, death, extermination.
The analysis was carried out using grounded theory. Users’ comments were analyzed, key themes were extracted from them, and those were then grouped into concepts.
Although the share of negative comments is fairly large – 33% – a significant part of them are expressions of disagreement. This category also includes comments that endorse stereotypes and deny facts.
Among all negative comments, prejudiced attitudes toward LGBTQI+ account for about 80%. Insults are present in 10% of the negative comments.
Threats of direct violence and death appear in Facebook comments quite rarely.
Repeating stereotypes and using obscene language and labels about the LGBTQI+ community as a whole becomes the groundwork for more aggressive hate speech, creating an “us against them” frame. As a result, the large volume of statements that can be classified as “soft” hate speech creates a favorable environment for hate crimes.
So what we call “everyday homophobia” operates at the level of stereotypes for the majority of the population. Such stereotypes quickly turn into prejudice against and stigmatization of the entire LGBTQI+ social group. Already at this stage we often encounter manifestations of discrimination.
The final stage in this chain is hate-motivated violence against LGBTQI+ people. What matters here is that this hatred arises precisely because a person belongs to the LGBTQI+ community, and it would not exist if the person did not belong to it. The people or groups of people who attack LGBTQI+ people are prejudiced specifically on the grounds of homophobia or transphobia, and they commit violence solely because the person is gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.
Here are a few examples of the different categories of comments (the authors’ original spelling and punctuation have been preserved) ↓
NEUTRAL
“Oh, we had a student like that. A very nice traditional family. A proper upbringing. Hanged himself, because his parents would have condemned him for his orientation. A sad story. I’ve met people kinder than him maybe once or twice”
NEUTRAL
“We do write about the fires and about how to help the people who lost their homes. We write about children from the occupied territories who want to enroll in Ukrainian universities. We write about people stuck at checkpoints. And now we’re writing about LGBT activists. We think it’s important to write about different people in the east who are fighting for their rights and who need help”
DISAGREEMENT
“Homosexualism — is not normal and not natural, don’t write lies. I get that there are quotas for lgbt, but there’s no need to “shove in” outright rubbish”
DISAGREEMENT
“At home let them do whatever they want.But what’s all that propaganda for?.Since ancient times this was counted a sin and a perversion..It’s not from nature,even among animals-if it happens,then very rarely.The ideology of LGBT destroys and panders to such values as family,child,mother..Because there can’t be 2 moms or 2 dads!!!”
DISAGREEMENT
“Gays is when they’re makeup artists, not street sweepers”
DEMONIZATION
“LGBT isn’t satisfied with equal rights, they need domination, control… a satanic sect”
DEMONIZATION
“As current events show, when degenerates get a lot of rights and freedoms then normal people are left with hardly any”
SUPPORT
“LGBT people are just as normal as you and me. They’re there on television, you see them in TV series and in film, because they exist in society. And they have the right to be represented in the public and media space”
The most commented-on news story of last year — the rainbow flag by the Motherland Monument in Kyiv
The number of posts about a news story does not always correlate with the number of reactions from users. In 2020, for instance, the biggest outburst of discussion in the comments of the Ukrainian segment of Facebook was set off by the news about the rainbow flag by the Motherland Monument.
In 2021, the topic that drew the largest number of posts was the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia, marked on May 17. It received considerably fewer reactions from Ukrainian commenters, however.
This is a clear example of a heightened reaction to specific events. In other words, the topic of countering LGBTQI+ phobias does not produce the same surge as, say, the action with the rainbow flag and the Motherland Monument. Why?
In our view, this happens because May 17 and the events connected with it do not touch on other topics that are painful for a society marked by discord and a strong emotional divide among commenters.
The case of the LGBTQI+ flag by the capital’s monument shows us an intersectional overlap of a number of “explosive topics”, where the LGBTQI+ topic was combined with the topic of historical memory, painful for the general public, which already provokes strong emotional reactions and a sharp split among commenters.
The flag case showed us how such an overlap can help raise attention to LGBTQI+ in general and give a powerful push to discussion of the LGBTQI+ community’s problems.
A comparison of two news events:
- The rainbow flag by the Motherland Monument (587 comments)
- The International Day Against Homophobia (287 comments)
Only comments from Ukrainian users were included in the analysis database.
The chart uses comments from Ukrainian accounts. It does not include people who are not residents of Ukraine, accounts with poorly filled-in profiles, or bots/trolls. Surges of comments are usually caused by reposts from accounts in the Russian Federation.
Three topics that generate the most discussion in the Ukrainian Facebook community
The algorithm segmented the comments by topic – that is, by the arguments and stereotypes around which the discussions unfold.
A significant share of the comments was not assigned to any topic, because individual statements in online conversations often lack a complete thought, carry emotion alone, and contain no logical argument. Still, we can single out and look at the most popular lines of discussion in the LGBTQI+ context.
More than 2,000 comments concerned discussion of the LGBTQI+ community’s rights. These include comments of support as well as neutral and negative ones. The next two topics of discussion, with roughly equal results, are children and religion.
Rights
Negative comments mostly contain the word “rights” in the context of denying that violations of LGBTQI+ rights exist, or that LGBTQI+ people in Ukraine have any problems with rights at all. There are doubts along the lines of “what rights are they lacking” or “LGBT people are demanding exceptional rights for themselves”.
The overwhelming majority of commenters reject the idea of human rights for everyone and emphasize that there are “normal people” who deserve those rights and “abnormal” ones who deserve no rights at all. LGBTQI+ people are placed in the latter category.
Overall, one can trace a more negative background to the commenting, in which people doubt the need to uphold human rights in Ukraine and doubt that such rights exist at all.
They tend to comment on posts in a way that distances them from the existence of a problem of unequal treatment of LGBTQI+ people: “heterosexual people have problems too”, “why is it about LGBT again”, “what, are there no more important matters than LGBT”, “I’m not against it, as long as they don’t promote it”.
NEGATIVE
“Straights”…don’t go on marches!!! Why do “these ones” have to march!? What for!? I’m against, for example, my children seeing these”marches”! Why are my rights being infringed!?”
NEUTRAL
“Your opinion ends where other people’s rights begin. Nobody has the right to break the legislation of Ukraine and promote hatred, even if that’s your “opinion”. And going by your “logic” about opinions, what harm are the people doing who go to court, they have an opinion too)”
SUPPORT
“same-sex marriage is banned, they can’t adopt children. The feeling of public condemnation because of sexual orientation, discrimination in employment on the grounds of sexual orientation (that happens too), being in the risk group for street violence”
Religion
The topic of religion comes up quite often in the context of upholding the rights of LGBTQI+ people in Ukraine. Here it is hard to draw a clear line between people by their attitude to LGBTQI+ issues, because most often they start discussing religious and quasi-religious questions that take the discussion into an entirely different plane, far removed from human rights and their violation. The topic of religion is too emotional, so clear, well-argued points of view are scarce in such comments. For the most part people focus on “sin or not a sin” arguments.
The overwhelming majority of positive statements have to do with questioning religious dogmas and prescriptions – the very approach different denominations and churches take to judging homosexuality is problematized, and emphasis is placed on the importance of a secular state and on the past atrocities of various churches and religious institutions against LGBTQI+ people. Such comments also often stress that religion is about love, forgiveness, and acceptance, not about hatred and violence.
Negative comments focus on quoting the Bible and equating homosexual orientation with sin.
Neutral comments mostly share a similar negative background but differ from openly negative ones in a somewhat lower emotional temperature. There are statements in which users call homosexuality a sin but do not call for punishing all LGBTQI+ people. Comments that link LGBTQI+ with the “degeneration of the nation” and with a “threat to survival” equated with sin stand out separately.
What is interesting here is the negative labeling of such important topics as sex, sex education, access to information about safe sex, gender, sex, gender equality, LGBTQI+, and so on. Almost everything written on these topics in a negative context is linked to a decline in morals and to immoral acts or an immoral way of life. And those phenomena, in turn, are often linked to so-called “LGBT propaganda”.
One comment in five on the topic of religion is positive (20%), and neutral comments make up almost 40%, which considerably outweighs the number of those who are openly negative toward LGBTQI+ in the context of religion.
SUPPORT
“but homosexualists are born the way they are. Then it’s logical to assume that God created them exactly that way. And the Bible was written by people, and we can’t know for certain where they were guided by divine inspiration and where they were writing on their own”
NEUTRAL
“there’s definitely no christian in you, just sin and nowhere in the bible are gays condemned for the mere fact of being gay, at most, and that’s a stretch, anal sex is condmened. So I advise you not to pass your madness off as God’s will”
NEGATIVE
“There’s one good priest, one prayer from him and he’ll “fix everyone’s brains”. Send all the lgbt to CATECHESIS)”
Children
A sensitive topic, and the one with the largest share of negative comments.
The topic of children is intersectional, since the questions raised in the comments mostly concern not LGBTQI+ but adjacent topics. As a rule, people express their attitudes toward sex education in schools, access to contraception, changes to school curricula, anti-discrimination review of textbooks, and children’s right to access information in general.
The general background around the topic of children looks like a “mixed stew of opinions”, in which people vent their emotions about a whole pile of reforms in different areas of life: bullying, juvenile justice, sex education, violence against children in families, and so on. But when we look at the negative comments, it becomes obvious that people “pour out” all their frustration and protest against reforms onto the LGBTQI+ community, even though the two are often not connected in any way. Commenters blame LGBTQI+ for everything that strikes them as “bad”. In such comments we see the paternalistic attitude of a patriarchal society that is trying to preserve a conservative agenda in which children are almost always the property of their parents, and parents are the ones to decide everything for their children.
Children are presented as an object that cannot make decisions on its own or hold any rights. LGBTQI+ people, meanwhile, are treated as an ideology capable of destroying the established conservative patriarchal order. The main theme of such statements is bans. What is proposed for banning is any information that departs from the conservative kind.
Positive comments are mostly scattered across the segment of reform and modern values, where the child is no longer merely an object but becomes a subject of interaction and has rights. People who comment positively on the topic of children write about the need to protect children from bullying, violence, and self-harm through anti-discrimination norms and by giving children access to the information they need.
Neutral comments largely repeat the previous two scenarios. The only thing that sets them apart is a more moderate emotional background. Clearly, these commenters are ready to take in the arguments of both sides and to debate.
SUPPORT
“Children’s rights are equal regardless of whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. Violence, aggression, hate speech that causes violence against people from the Lgbt community – that’s bad. But telling them that homosexuallity exists , and that out of 100% of children up to 7 % are lgbt – that’s good.”
NEUTRAL
“the fact that you don’t know about the LGBT among your clasmates says only 2 sad things: 1. People didn’t really trust you since you were an unpopular kid nobody wanted to be friends with and 2. You don’t keep up close relationships with your clasmates for the same reason – since you understand that they don’t want to see you or talk to you as a friend)))) That’s all. No more and no less. Otherwise you’d know more than “everyone seems to have familys”
NEGATIVE
“so that’s why there’s total lgbt propaganda on the planet, children are told right there in kindergarten from the age of 4-5 already…. that it’s normal and all that…., at a teenage unconscious age they’re all but urged to experiment…the goal – to get rid of overpopulation …”
Conclusions
1. The largest number of comments are relatively neutral in their attitude toward LGBTQI+.
2. Commenters’ statements can be grouped around three main topics: human rights, religion, and children. A large share of the comments is hard to assign to any specific area.
3. The most commented-on topic is human rights. It attracts the most interest from users of the Ukrainian FB segment. Here we see how the discourse of “human rights” is gradually coming into everyday use among the broad public in Ukraine – what exactly people think about human rights, what they associate them with, and how they misinterpret the human rights context.
The main concepts that can be traced in the comments: “LGBTQI+ rights are not a priority right now”, “expanding LGBTQI+ rights violates my rights”, “human rights means the same rights for everyone”
4. Religion is the second most widely covered topic that can be singled out among the comments. It is too emotional, so clear, well-argued points of view are scarce in such comments. For the most part people focus on “sin or not a sin” arguments. That makes this topic hard to develop in a human rights context. The difference between the topic of “religion” and the topic of “children” is that religion can be discussed in secular contexts from the standpoint of rationality, logic, and human rights.
5. The topic of children in discussions of the LGBTQI+ community is one of the hardest to talk about, because it is precisely this topic that homophobic organizations and users rely on most for manipulation. In the context of children it is difficult to use logical arguments, because here people’s irrational fears and reactions “switch on”.
6. Within the tone of negative comments, the largest share is the stigmatization and stereotyping of LGBTQI+ people. We often call this kind of homophobia and transphobia “everyday”. It dominates in societies where human rights standards are not promoted enough by the state and where respect for human rights is at a fairly low level. One marker that can be singled out here is people’s attitude toward the defense of their rights at public actions and demonstrations. They often react negatively to actions held by the LGBTQI+ community, casting doubt on the importance of the right to protest and of LGBTQI+ people publicly standing up for their rights.
7. The neutral segment of commenters is, in our view, the most important and most open audience for informing and drawing into further discussion. This segment can be seen as the moveable middle. People are ready for discussion, especially where it concerns human rights – they are ready to consider arguments and change their point of view.