Conspiracy theories in online deliberation on gender identity legislation: Dilemmas of prejudice and political partisanship and implications for LGBTQI+ claims

In many countries, particularly in the Global North, legal reform is taking place to allow members of LGBTQI+ communities to express their gender identities freely (Cooper, 2019, 2020). These reforms aim at challenging the view that gender is organized around biological sex, and that sex and gender coincide. This view has often been described as cisgenderism, the ideology that delegitimizes people's own definitions of their gender and bodies (Ansara & Hegarty, 2014). Among the legal reforms taking place is decertification, which often means that the state no longer registers or classifies people according to gender or sex, while at the same time the state gives people the right to self-define their gender in legal documentation (Cooper, 2020). Although it is acknowledged that these laws will not change oppressive ideologies and practices overnight, it is expected that eventually they will turn the tide towards a more inclusive and pro-diversity stance toward gender (Cooper, 2019).

Relevant research has placed emphasis not only on the legal processes and epistemic underpinnings of laws, but also on the argumentative contexts within which these laws are discussed, both before and after being past. Cooper (2019), for example, focuses on the different arguments put forward by a critical feminists in the British context, arguing that they seem to be organized around two different foci. The first depicts gender as identity-based, putting emphasis on self-determination, while the other considers gender as relational, developed through social processes and places, emphasizing the materiality of gender.

Other researchers have focused on lay people's accounts of the decertification legislation proposed in the UK (Peel & Newman, 2020). In these accounts, strong opposition to legal reform regarding the self-definition of gender was evident. Gender was frequently treated as an immutable biological fact completely apart from and irrelevant to the way people understand and experience their own gender. The debates over gender have been proven to be quite heated and scholars, stakeholders, and proponents of LGBTQI+ rights are often the targets of the rhetorical charge of promoting “gender ideology”. The construction of “gender ideology” is often nested within widely used conspiracy theories, with important implications.

Conspiracy theories against “gender ideology”

The term “gender ideology” is often used to oppose activism and scholarship oriented to the deconstruction of essentialist assumptions about gender and sexuality. According to adversaries of this activism and scholarship, “gender ideology” is the wider ideological context within which claims are made and activism takes place and usually relates to sexual citizenship debates, LGBTQI+ rights, and gender education. Gender conspiracy theories represent “gender ideology” as part and parcel of a secret plot of powerful groups aiming to accomplish illicit ends (Marchlewska et al., 2019; Paternotte & Kuhar, 2018; Soral et al., 2018) and depict feminism and queer activism as threatening for traditional values and natural order (Hopton & Langer, 2022; Van Anders et al., 2014).

According to gender conspiracies, scholars and activists campaigning in favour of gender-equality attack traditional moral values and norms, which are commonly constructed as sine qua non values of human nature. Scholars who approach gender as socially constructed are depicted as enemies of humanity and proponents of “gender ideology” are represented as endangering “the nation”. Such nationalistic rhetoric is usually nested within demographic concerns, which construct children as the future of the nation and oppose non-traditional forms of parenting and kinship. Finally, concerns by adversaries of gender reform may be related to Islamophobia, with gender conspiracy being related to the danger of Europe from Islamization (Kuhar & Paternotte, 2017; Rheindorf & Lehner, 2019).

Conspiracy beliefs that relate to gender are often mobilized as a response to policy changes in favour of the LGBTQI+ community and are motivated by the far-right rhetoric of political actors and organizations as well as religious officials (Korolczuk & Graff, 2018). Political and religious leaders using this rhetoric warn against the secret plot of conspirators (i.e., transnational organizations, NGOs, rich and powerful individuals) and encourage action to be taken against them, while simultaneously portraying themselves as the true democratic psyche of the people in contrast to the imposition of gender ideology.

In this paper we contribute to the scarce but growing literature on gender conspiracy theories, focusing on discourse opposing LGBTQI+-related legislation in Greece. In line with critical feminist perspectives (Lafrance & Wigginton, 2019) we aim to: (a) map the different tropes mobilized within this discourse, (b) illuminate their relationship with a particular historical and argumentative context, and (c) reflect on their social and political implications. Our overall aim is to explore the potential implications that conspiracy theories may have in the Greek context for LGBTQI+ rights and politics. We begin by grounding our research approach within existing social psychological approaches to conspiracy theories, before going on to describe our study and specific discursive data produced in the Greek context.

Conspiracy theories, individual differences and intergroup functions

The term “conspiracy theories” is often used to define beliefs that explain important social, political, historical, or environmental events (that have a negative effect on people) through recourse to the machinations of secret and powerful agents who are trying to pursue illicit ends (Douglas et al., 2019). Although they have not been a longstanding concern in social psychological research, the study of conspiracy theories seems to have gained ground during the last decades (Douglas & Sutton, 2018). This is probably because of significant socio-political events (from the New York terrorist attacks in 2001 to the COVID-19 pandemic) in recent years that have facilitated the movement of conspiracy theories from the margins of social and political life to the mainstream (Byford, 2014) and the rise of the internet.

A large volume of social psychological research has been concerned with the exploration of potential individual differences among people who believe in conspiracy theories. For some researchers, conspiracy theories may constitute a flawed way of thinking related to some cognitive deficit (e.g., Darwin et al., 2011; Goertzel, 1994; Sunstein & Vermeule, 2009). Others have considered conspiracy theories as an attitude of distrust towards politics and possibly the product of ordinary cognitive processes (Douglas & Sutton, 2018; Imhoff & Lamberty, 2018). Within Social Psychology a research strand that takes an approach to conspiracy theorizing as a political attitude explored its links with political extremism and maintained that political extremists are more prone to show distrust and adopt conspiracy theories concerned with the alleged sources of socio-political problems (Krouwel et al., 2017; Van Proojien et al., 2015). Moreover, researchers have examined the relation between the readiness to participate in democratic processes and conspiracy theories, maintaining that belief in these theories may have negative consequences for democratic citizenship (Ardèvol-Abreu et al., 2020; Jolley & Douglas, 2014).

However, some research has demonstrated that conspiracy theories may be widespread in the political spectrum, not only at the extremes (Uscinski et al., 2016), and conspiracy theories can be mobilized by different political actors (both lay and institutional) to discredit political opponents (see also Miller et al., 2016). This points to another important facet of conspiracy theories: their intergroup functions. As Moscovici (1987) argued, conspiracy theories are social representations that play an important role in intergroup relations (see also Biddlestone et al., 2020; Reicher & Hopkins, 2001). In this vein, extant research has examined how conspiracy theories may be mobilized to justify intergroup relations at an international level (Cichocka et al., 2016; Mashuri & Zaduqisti, 2014; Swami, 2012) or to account for in-group collective behaviour (Chayinska & Minescu, 2018; Kofta & Sedek, 2005). In this latter strand of research, conspiracy theories are not viewed as aspects of someone's mind or personality, but as collective set of ideas used to forge or undermine political projects.

The assumption that conspiracy theories constitute lived ideologies disseminated in the public domain is central to research influenced by the turn to language in social psychology and in particular by the pioneering research of Billig (Billig, 1988; Byford, 2014). This work has approached conspiracy theories as situated rhetoric and highlighted its discursive functions.

Conspiracy theories as situated rhetoric

Billig (1988) claimed that we should look at conspiracy theories as arguments that attempt to undermine other arguments and that we should scrutinize the context in which they are mobilized as well as their rhetorical ends. Examining the antisemitic rhetoric of the National Front, Billig (1988) argued that different versions of Zionist conspiracy theories were mobilized in the party's different magazines to attack rival factions within the party.

Reicher and Hopkins (2001) also scrutinized the way intergroup relations and identities are constructed and managed in political discourse. Combining insights from Self-Categorization Theory and Billig’s (1987) Rhetorical Psychology, they suggested that different constructions of out-groups and in-groups are strategically managed by political actors in order to mobilize people towards different political projects. Building on this, Sapountzis and Condor (2013) examined the deployment of conspiracy theories in an intergroup context, pointing to the complexities of these rhetorical constructions and attending to local accountability concerns (such as avoiding the stigma of nationalism).

Conspiracy theorists’ interest in addressing an audience beyond their own conspiracist community and in managing potential charges of prejudice and irrationality has been considered in Byford's work (2014). Conspiracy theorists, he maintained, have always been encircled by sceptics such that they are constantly oriented to potential or actual charges of irrationality, paranoia, or prejudice. Being aware of the marginality of their views (not necessarily in terms of numbers, but in terms in political legitimation), conspirators often mobilize the tools of rhetoric and discursive constructions of facticity.

We aim to contribute to this strand of research by applying the tools of Critical Discursive Psychology (CDP) to conspiracy theories mobilized in the context of the public deliberation in Greece regarding a new law safeguarding the right to self-defined gender identity. We approach conspiracy theories as lived ideology in action, oriented to the situated construction of in-groups and out-groups. We also wish to contribute to recent research interested in the potential macrosocial implications of conspiracy theories against what has been called “gender ideology”, as discussed further above.

Method

Background to the study

LGBTQI+ rights, and the adoption of legislation that would safeguard these, constitute a thorny issue in Greece. This is partly due to the negative attitudes towards LGBTQI+ people, a finding replicated in different studies in Greece, and often related to religiosity (Georgiou et al., 2018; Grigoropoulos, 2010). In 2017, a new law was introduced allowing people to change their registered gender in accordance with their self-defined gender identity, without the condition of any prior medical/surgical intervention (Law 4491/2017 Government Gazette A, 152/13.10.2017). The new bill entered public deliberation in May 2017, when the Greek Ministry of Justice created a virtual space where people could post comments (http://www.opengov.gr/ministryofjustice/?p=8078). In this article, we examine the conspiracy theories mobilized by adversaries of the new law in this virtual deliberation space.

The data

Public consultation on the new law lasted from 2 May to 12 June 2017. Overall, 863 comments were posted on the Ministry's website created for this purpose. It is often claimed that using online discourse such as this has important advantages as a form of naturalistic data compared to data produced by methodological tools (e.g., questionnaires) that present participants with conspiracy theories (Douglas et al., 2019). What is more, online discussions, such as public deliberations, constitute a form of everyday politics that allows researchers to capture the views of the public, which has advantages over other forms of naturalistic data such as political speeches, parliamentary debate, or news coverage (Wood & Douglas, 2013).

Despite the potential usefulness of online comments in social scientific research, there are important ethical concerns regarding consent. While some authors maintain that online comments constitute a form of public discourse (Holtz et al., 2012), as argued above, others tend to suggest that researchers should avoid directly identifying commenters (Jowett, 2015), since with the use of search engines people who post comments can be traced. Following this latter approach, we omitted names, nicknames, and personal information of commentators.

Analytic procedure

In the first stage of the analytical process, we conducted a careful reading of the data corpus which resulted in a broad thematic categorization. We generated seven initial categories, but it became clear that there were conspiracy theories that were cutting across these. We therefore changed track, looking for conspiracy theories across the thematic categories, as discussed further below and in the analysis section. The data were read and re-read independently by the first two authors to identify comments that could be classified as conspiracy theories if they contained the following elements: (1) certain people or groups acting in secret, (2) malevolent intentions (e.g., planning to reduce earth's population), and (3) powerful groups or people that planned the conspiracies (George Soros, Western political and economy elites, the Bilderberg group, etc.) (Douglas et al., 2019). Hence, to be classified as part of a conspiracy theory, comments should construct the bill as the object of a secret and behind-the-scenes plan by powerful forces with bad intentions. To be included in the dataset, comments needed to fill all three criteria and posts that seemed to just hint towards a conspiracy theory or question mainstream politics, without providing an elaborate conspiratorial account, were excluded. The researchers reached high agreement in their classification, with the first author identifying 67 comments and the second identifying 65 comments. Sixty-three of these were common between researchers and constituted the final data set. The comments were then translated from Greek to English and reverse translated by two independent researchers.

For data analysis, we used CDP (Bozatzis, 2009; Wetherell, 1998), specifically, the notions of argumentative lines, ideological dilemmas, and accountability. Argumentative lines refer to the way the content of discourse is organized, attending to prior argumentation that constitutes part of the wider argumentative fabric of society (Wetherell, 1998). Ideological dilemmas are contradictions found in people's talk, informed by dilemmatic ideological elements that pass into common sense (Billig et al., 1988). A well-founded dilemma which informs the present analysis is the dilemma of prejudice (Billig et al., 1988). Since there seems to be a widely held norm against prejudice, participants may try to avoid openly expressing prejudiced views that will accrue the stigma related to homophobia/transphobia/cisgenderism/anti-queer prejudice. Finally, the analysis focuses on the rhetorical strategies mobilized by participants to manage their accountability concerns, meaning that people need to construct the facticity and plausibility of their opinion or version of events (Edwards & Potter, 1992). The extracts presented below illustrate four different, albeit often interrelated, argumentative lines that conspiracy theories supported.

Analysis

Our analysis indicated four argumentative lines. According to the first, a population reduction plan is behind the proposed bill and similar (gender- or sexuality-related) legislation. The second argumentative line represents the bill as an exceptional threat to Greek moral values and cultural and religious traditions. A third argumentative line constructs “gender ideology” as an overt violation of biology and humanness. Finally, a fourth argumentative line constructs the bill as an attack on democracy and democratic rights. In many comments multiple argumentative lines coexisted.

A population reduction plan is behind the proposed legislation

According to many commentators, a plan of population reduction and control was behind the bill. The bill, but also “gender ideology” in general, was depicted as violating reproductive rights. Empowerment of the LGBTQI+ community or rather the institutionalization of their rights and claims—often in combination with laws that give access and facilitate medical abortion—were constructed by commentators as the main means of population reduction and control.

Extract 1

The population reduction plan tends to baptize a mistake “correctness”; a

big mistake the cost of which will be immense both for those who will sign

[the bill] and for the institutions, because it will hurt the innocent

conscience of many people, mostly young people who through the lustful

identities that you promote, they may end up full of confusion, despair,

sickness. The Pride deemed to accompany this “correction” is a big lie

which rapes the consciousness of the Greeks. It is a first-degree crime,

high treason, betrayal of an entire People.

If you had more “tsipa” [shame] than Tsipras [the

name of the Greek prime minister at that time] you would introduce a

real public deliberation, in person and not a show deliberation through

the Internet. You are afraid of the power of real people who do not

tremble like your employees, the people who serve the most illicit interests.

The commentator starts with an explicit reference to an alleged plan of population reduction. The plan is depicted as covered by the smokescreen of (political) correctness that the bill is considered to promote and the implications of which are constructed as particularly severe. The severity of the proposed legislation's outcomes is emphasized by different rhetorical features of the text. First, is the mobilization of arguably cisgender language as well as sexualized and violent imagery (lines 5–7). Second is the use of extreme case formulations (“immense”, “full”) (Pomerantz, 1986) and lists (“confusion, despair, sickness”) (Jefferson, 1990). These constructions may leave the commentator open to accusations of prejudice and transphobia. Hence, the commentator seems to orient to managing accountability concerns by presenting her/his opposition to the bill as occasioned by her/his ability to foresee the cost of the bill for the vulnerable category of “young people”.

This comment (extract 1) also constructs a link between global and local politics. The population reduction plan is introduced by a commonplace rhetorical device in conspiracy theories, namely a personification (line 1), which presumably allows the commentator to avoid presenting the actors behind the conspiracy theory. However, early in the text (lines 4–5) s/he introduces an unspecified “you” formulation, which later on shifts to an open accusation against the Greek government, personified in the name of the then prime minister and through word-play comparing the prime minister's name (Tsipras) with a word (tsipa) denoting shame in Greek. This shift in the attribution of responsibility from unspecified invisible actors to the Greek government provides a connection between the (global) conspiracy of population reduction and local Greek politics.

Interestingly, not only is the legitimacy of the government in taking such decisions questioned, but also the process of online public deliberation itself (lines 11–12). Online public deliberation is construed as not constituting a democratic participatory process but as a mockery that does not concern everyday people. Interestingly, and quite ironically, the means of online participation is used by speakers to question the democratic character of the procedure itself, which is juxtaposed with “real” public deliberations held in person. It is noteworthy that such a comparison between online deliberation and in-person referenda is a common trope used in different contexts to oppose legislation related to LGBTQI+ interests (Marchlewska et al., 2019; Michos et al., 2020). Referenda are depicted as empowering people by giving them their voice back. What is noteworthy is the complex and potentially contradictory constructions of the agency of those affected by the secret plan of population reduction. The idea that a true democratic process would give voice to the powerful will of the people is in potential contradiction to the way in which Greek people are positioned in the first part of the extract as victimized and lacking agency.

The bill violates Greek moral values and cultural traditions

As other authors have also maintained (Golec de Zavala & Cichocka, 2012), conspiracy theories serve important intergroup functions, not only by constituting particular out-group images but also by shaping images of the collective self. In the comment above (extract 1), and others similar to it, two groups of “others” with different degrees of agency are constructed: those responsible for the population reduction plan (the global conspirators in collaboration with the Greek government) and their unagentic victims (the Greek youth). The commentator in extract 1 does not identify with either group. However, in the following extract, an inclusive ingroup is constructed as the bill is depicted as violating Greek moral values.

Extract 2

What is the relation between Legal Recognition of Gender Identity,

National Mechanism for the Development, Monitoring and Evaluation of

Action Plans on Children's Rights? Is their co-occurrence within the same

legislation accidental, or the ideological perversions of the modern

“Western Civilized World” wish to “abduct” the children from the way

their parents want to nurture them and introduce them to ideas of

nurturing that are perverse and criminal? Who is abolishing our

children's Christian upbringing, full of Love for Jesus Christ, in order to

raise pervert children, without moral restraints, without knowledge of

Truth and lie, without anchoring it in the traditional Greek values of

Homeland, Orthodoxy and Family? Who trusts a state which does not dare

to stand up for the values upon it was founded, but on the contrary

desecrates them and wants to eradicate them? As time goes by, and

independent of the governments (“Right-wing” “Left-wing”

or “Centre”), our Grekilismós (γραικυλισμός)¹ [the tendency to imitate Western

standards] is becoming more apparent, the effort to

vanish all the elements of our national and religious identity, our

degeneration and our course to nihilism.

(…) Without Christ, Romiosíni (Ρωμιοσύνη) [the values of the Eastern Orthodox

Roman Empire] and Family co-understanding nothing

can be done and in the long run stop trying to convert us to something

that we will never become!

The commentator in extract 2 formulates her/his account through successive rhetorical questions. The first problematizes the co-occurrence of provisions on children rights in the same bill as gender identity. In common with accounts identified in other studies (Kadianaki et al., 2022; Michos et al., 2021; Michos et al., 2022; Μίχος & Φίγγου, 2019) human rights rhetoric, and the legislation which guarantees them in this case, is constructed as a smokescreen to culturally threatening Westernizing practices and values (in this case related to gender identity). The rhetorical questions in lines 1–11 introduce an escalation of moral critique which ends in constructing the abolition of the essential Greek tripartite values of Homeland, Orthodoxy and Family from children's upbringing as a perversion. Nevertheless, the co-articulation of these values has a specific intertextuality in the Greek political context, since it is a moto that was used by the military junta that tormented Greece from 1967 to 1974, and thus leaves the commentator open to accusations of accepting extreme right-wing values. Therefore, it seems that the commentator is orientating to accountability concerns (Edwards & Potter, 1992) when s/he dissociates her/himself from accusations of political partisanship and ideological orientation. The Greek state—disassociated from political parties and other institutional actors—is given agency as it is accused of aligning with conspirators.

What is also important here is the use of the term Graikilismós (γραικυλισμός). This term refers to the tendency to imitate Western standards, and it is often used to mock those Greek people who support Western European standards and values, while at the same time abandoning the values of Romiosíni, the values of the Eastern Orthodox Roman Empire, which are represented as being the “authentic” nucleus of Greek values. Hence, Graikilismós in the Greek context serves as an accusation. For the commentator the juxtaposition reflects a conflict between the essential characteristics of Greek national identity and the superficial façade of Western progressiveness (Bozatzis, 2009; Figgou, 2018). According to the argument employed by the commentator, the proposed bill is constructed as an effort to alter the “true” nature of Greeks. Hence, the employment of the Graikilismós vs Romiosíni contradiction does important rhetorical work. The same juxtaposition (of the antithetical occidental and oriental aspects of Greek national identity) has been also identified by other authors (Kadianaki et al., 2020; Michos et al., 2021) in the context of discourses on LGBTQI+ claims and rights. These authors have also emphasized the construction of LGBTQI+ claims as a sign of Western invasion and national degeneration.

The bill violates human biology

Other commentators (e.g., Marchlewska et al., 2019) have proposed that in the context of gender conspiracy beliefs the construct of gender itself is under attack. In debates, gender is usually counterposed with “biological sex” and social constructionism (as the background of gender studies and gender ideology) is juxtaposed with the reality of nature. Adopting a biologically essentialist line of arguing, the commentator in extract 3 below constructs the law as a threat to “human ontology”.

Extract 3

Of course, there are many other reasons which make this proposed law

literally a nuclear bomb against the biological foundations of humans

and their ontology. You had better take back this inhumane and

perverse bill whose aim is to serve the masters of the new order,

downgrading the human being to sub-human. If you don't take under

consideration the wrath that is widespread in our society, regarding

your actions on issues of morality and human ontology, you know that

your end will be inglorious…

Extract 3 starts by constructing the illegitimacy of the proposed legislation through a metaphor conveying a particularly vivid image (Wooffitt, 1992). Through the analogy between the bill and a nuclear bomb the consequences of the former are highlighted and are represented to threaten the foundations of essentialized human biology. Essential features of humanness are constructed as in danger to changes engendered by the legislation and, as a result, making the human “inhumane”, “perverse” and “sub-human”. Human ontology is constructed as intrinsically linked to a moral order and a change in the former is depicted to cause a disruption of the latter, leading to the punishment of the perpetrators (their “inglorious end”).

Although the masterminds behind this plan are again the unnamed leaders of the New Order, a local actor (most probably the government who proposed the bill) also appears. Direct reference to the government or Greek politics is not made. The commentator engages in an imaginary conversation with this unspecified “you” who is depicted as acting without taking into consideration the will of the people and as being completely alienated from Greek society and its “wrath”. Again, the legitimacy of the bill is questioned, and its introduction is represented to be in discordance with the will of society.

The bill violates human rights and democratic values

The construction of the legislation and the decision-making procedures as undemocratic was a common argumentative thread in our data. Interestingly and, although democratic values and human rights are often considered as vehicles of cultural invasion in anti-LGBTQI+ discourse (Μίχος & Φίγγου, 2019), in this context these values and rights were accepted by the commentators and used as a rhetorical tool to attack the proposed bill. For example, in the extract below the bill is criticized as violating the rights of LGBTQI+ people who are pathologized and constructed as “in need of protection”.

Extract 4

We must not defer to the global dictatorship that seeks to impose itself by

enforcing such legislation. Instead, we must resist and fight these inhumane

laws, which do not guarantee freedom and human rights, but instead violate

them. We must resist those who do not try to promote them through

democratic procedures but to impose them dictatorially. We must help those

people who suffer from this disorder and passion, but in another way, without

flattering them. We sympathize with these people, but let us help them

effectively and not let them be the “victims” of globalization

Here, the commentator openly questions the deliberation process as in extract 1. However, the argument does not concern the Greek government that proposed the bill but a vague “global dictatorship” trying to take control. Apart from the word “dictatorship”, terms like “enforcing” and “imposes” are used to construct the procedures as an undemocratic process by which conspirators attempt to execute their plans and to present the proposed legislation as violating democracy and human rights.

Interestingly, the Greek government that proposed the bill is not constructed as an agent at all; the main actors behind the plot are those from a “global dictatorship” trying to take control of the world. This formulation allows the commentator to resolve an apparent paradox: to argue that a legally elected government acts in a non-democratic manner and to present the government as set against the people. This rhetorical move is reinforced by the first plural formulation “we”, which enlists the message recipients to the political agenda of the writer and constructs a “national audience”. Through this argumentative line, the local Greek political agenda is linked to a wider global conspiracy discourse.

In this conspiracy theory, queer subjectivities are also depicted as victimized. They are seen as the agentless victims, who are being manipulated to take part against their will. They are also pathologized, depicted as suffering from a “disorder”, implicitly related to gender or sexuality, thereby invoking the notion of sexual or gender non-conformity as an illness. Medicalization and psycho-pathologization in discourse concerned with queer rights can serve, as other commentators have suggested, to depoliticize queer claims and undermine queer activism (Kitzinger & Wilkinson, 2004). By the same token, in the context of conspiracy discourse this may also serve to manage important accountability issues. By constructing gender diversity as a deficit and queer subjectivity as disorder, the commentator constructs the secret agents behind conspiracy theories as monstrous and the need to unmask them as extremely urgent, while at the same time constructs him/herself as sympathizing with LGBTQI+ people, trying to save them from global dictatorship.

Discussion

In this article, we examined conspiracy theories mobilized in a Greek online forum for public consultation regarding proposed legislation allowing people to change their registered gender. Following the principles of CDP (Wetherell, 1998), we examined conspiracy theories in their argumentative context and we identified their rhetorical functions. We maintained that conspiracy rhetoric is flexibly deployed to attend to some relevant political or ideological business, such as avoiding the stigma of prejudice and adhering to extreme right-wing values, while at the same time it serves to delegitimize the legislation, attack “gender ideology”, promote cisgenderism, and to construct specific understandings of the LGBTQI+ community.

A recurring rhetorical implication in the conspiracy theories we identified is the positioning of LGBTQI+ community members as victims of various conspirators’ machinations. In common with other studies (Sapountzis & Condor, 2013), this representation seems to be oriented to manage the dilemma of prejudice (Billig et al., 1988) and to avoid stigma associated with discriminatory talk. Commentators who use conspiracy theories argue that they are not against the LGBTQI+ community, which was represented as a powerless group, but against powerful conspirators who act in secret. This rhetorical trope not only challenges the specific legislation but undermines LGBTQI+ community claims in general, as these are constructed as a destructive instrument of a broader New World Order plan.

What is more, the linkage between a global conspiracy theory and the proposed legislation was used to delegitimize the latter and to present it as being against the will of the Greek people. Commentators portrayed their opposition to the legislation as being based on a prototypical image of “the Greek people”, while they constructed the bill as outside Greek morals and values and therefore as not serving the interests of the nation (Reicher & Hopkins, 2001). Furthermore, constructing their critique of the government as outside politics, commentators positioned themselves as “ordinary” citizens whose participation in the public deliberation is beyond political partisanship (Andreouli & Figgou, 2019; Michos et al., 2020).

We argue that the data demonstrate the potential contribution of the study of conspiracy theories on understanding the rhetorical articulation of cisgenderism and heteronormativity. Existing research has demonstrated, for example, how medical expertise is given primacy over people's own self-definition and bodily experience in the United States, as a form of new bio/logics (Van Anders et al., 2014), or how “mundane transphobia” may be enacted in interview contexts in talk shows (Riggs, 2014). In this context, as a form of situated political rhetoric, it allows people to simultaneously present themselves as unprejudiced and weakens arguments for trans rights by delegitimizing the proposed legislation and by questioning the democratic character of decision-making processes.

To sum up, our analysis, in common with other research findings, suggests that conspiracy theories can play an important role in intergroup relations (Biddlestone et al., 2020; Chayinska & Minescu, 2018; Cichocka et al., 2016; Swami, 2012). It also shows, however, that the intergroup context should not be taken for granted (Reicher, 2004). Commentators, quite skilfully, rhetorically redefined which groups formed the intergroup context. In that respect, commentators deployed an essentialized, prototypical version of Greekness and Greek politics and demarcated the boundaries of humanness, nature, sexuality, and gender. This is not irrelevant since, as Butler (2021) argues, the opponents of gender ideology seem to be “in the business of nation-building” and fascist overtones are evident in targeting migrants and other minority groups as well.

Related to this argument is the final point we would like to make. There are theorists who argue that there appears to be a conspiracy culture in today's world (e.g., Knight, 2000). Although there are certain similarities between conspiracy theories around the globe, it is equally important to highlight the different and multifaceted functions they can accomplish as they are embedded in particular contexts. In terms of research, it is extremely interesting, for example, to examine the way well-known global conspiracy theories (such as Zionism, Freemasons, new world order and others) are linked to local political projects. Accordingly, the study of conspiracy theories related to opposition to so-called “gender ideology” may be a fruitful endeavour in documenting and dissecting the prejudiced and transphobic arguments used to undermine attempts to ensure LGBTQI+ rights and instead promote a cisgenderist and heteronormative status quo.