There’s a well-known saying that “the standards that you tolerate become the ones that you accept.”
We are at a particularly dangerous turning point in history.
At the time of writing, we are witnessing daily extreme violence against and murder of those whose only ‘crime’ is to dare to challenge the unbounded exercise of state power against populations whose only wish is to be free and to be left alone to live in peace.
To distract populations from these and other genuine concerns, a sadly successful and familiar strategy is to assign blame to minorities, labelling them as a ‘threat’ to traditional societal norms.
These minorities include immigrants, muslims, socialists, feminists, and members of the LGBTQIA+ community.
A case can be made that the recent rise of attacks on minorities began with the demonisation of the transgender community, and of transgender women in particular.
In part, this is because anti-transgender fearmongering has proved to be a successful ‘wedge’ issue. Parties that support transgender rights can lose support from voters who are willing to change their voting habits in the name of “protecting women and girls” from non-existent threats.
As a transgender woman myself, I am keenly aware of the daily attacks on my community, fuelled by misinformation and outright lies.
Recent anti-transgender narratives accuse us of being mentally ill and (in the US) domestic terrorists who should be locked up or completely removed from existence.
Sadly, these narratives have been promoted so widely and aggressively that they have been quite effective, resulting in increased violence against transgender people globally, and many have lost their jobs and access to healthcare.
As a very small (1% of the population) and vulnerable minority, we cannot survive without the help of the wider population. Active allyship is more important than ever.
While some might regard transgender and LGBTQIA+ issues as somewhat niche, the successful exclusion of one minority facilitates the exclusion of others, and ultimately to the wider division of society.
Trans rights are human rights.
What needs to be done
In this context, it is absolutely critical that every one of us is aware of and resists the discrimination that fuel this strategy.
It is not enough that each of us does not harm; we must actively promote unity and speak out against instances of discrimination and blame.
This does not only apply to individuals, but also to organisations.
It is particularly disappointing that some organisations promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) by establishing committees and initiatives, but fall short when it comes to concrete action against discrimination.
The effect is purely performative and ultimately ineffective.
AIPPI World Congress
Recently, I learned that the international intellectual property organisation AIPPI had decided to hold its 2027 annual Congress in Dubai, where homosexuality and transgender identity are illegal.
As an active participant in AIPPI’s annual Congress, I made a formal complaint to the DEI leadership and the President of AIPPI.
I pointed out that, in addition to its poor human rights record more generally, Dubai is particularly notorious for its treatment of transgender people, including those only transiting through Dubai airport. Transgender women have been detained, strip-searched, and denied entry.
For this reason, I have not transited through Dubai airport for many years. The Australian government’s travel advice is that I may be denied entry to Dubai.
I therefore asked AIPPI to reconsider its decision, noting that I would not (and likely could not) attend the Congress if it is held in Dubai, and that its decision is inconsistent with its stated DEI values.
I also sought support from various national groups of AIPPI, and as a result, formal complaints were also made by the Dutch, UK, Italian, and Australian national groups.
However, the Bureau of AIPPI has responded to these complaints in an official statement, concluding that it would maintain Dubai as the Congress venue in 2027.
The association said it weighed its “long-standing commitment to geographic rotation and engagement across regions with differing legal, cultural and religious contexts, alongside our core values of inclusion, respect and equal participation”.
It added: “Our mission is to bring together the world's IP community. Engagement in diverse settings is an essential part of that mission. Our commitment is to dialogue and professional exchange across borders.”
Simply put, AIPPI’s position is that its desire for “engagement in diverse settings” outweighs its “core values of inclusion, respect and equal participation”.
It follows that those purported values cannot possibly be “core values” of AIPPI; rather, they are empty marketing words that tick boxes; those values are wholly absent when meaningful action is required.
It seems to this writer that AIPPI is either ignorant of the political climate for the LGBTQIA+ community, or doesn’t really care, and I am calling them out for it, and for failing to live up to their own statement published last year: “At AIPPI, inclusivity and accessibility are about more than removing barriers — they are about creating spaces where everyone belongs.” (emphasis added).
I believe the problem is a structural disconnect between AIPPI’s DEI committee and the venue selection committee, and the complete absence of participant safety criteria from the venue selection criteria.
Although AIPPI said it “will incorporate the lessons from this exercise into future venue selection processes”, it is difficult to see what those “lessons” might be, and there is no suggestion that the outcome would be any different.
Indeed, the Bureau states that it will "continue to balance geographic rotation with robust duty-of-care expectations and a consistent framework for assessing and mitigating inclusion risks".
It is difficult to see how there is any “balance” when “geographic rotation” wins out against active discrimination to the point of illegality.
The response also states: "We also recognise that, for a truly international association, it is almost impossible to identify venues that meet every inclusion goal for every member in every jurisdiction at all times. Our role is to mitigate constraints where we can and rotate fairly over time so that no region is privileged.”
In other words, it’s just too hard to make everyone happy, so we won’t exclude any country from hosting our Congress.
However, by supporting countries whose laws or policies prohibit the identities of some participants and/or otherwise threaten their safety, AIPPI effectively normalises those laws or policies: “the standards that you tolerate become the ones that you accept.”
In some aspects, organisations are like people: accountability leads to growth, respect and stronger relationships; better outcomes for all, not just the few.
In its statement clarifying its position, AIPPI said it will take practical steps to enable participation, including applying a non-discrimination conduct policy for all participants, staff, suppliers and venues.
