Simulating Agonism: How Anti-Gender Actors Represent Themselves as Legitimate Participants in Debates on Equality Politics

This study examines how anti-gender actors represent themselves as legitimate participants in debates on equality politics. Drawing on Mouffe’s distinction between agonism and antagonism, we argue that anti-gender actors foster conflict and exclusion through “moral panic” and the “politics of fear” regarding the issues related to equality politics, while at the same time presenting themselves as neutral, rational, and pluralistic. This dual strategy allows them to insert themselves into democratic debate and present themselves as legitimate “adversaries” rather than “enemies” to those who genuinely advocate for equality politics. We contend that such efforts to simulate agonism are particularly evident in Slovenia, where anti-gender organisations operate as covert allies of the Roman Catholic Church. In a context where public trust in the Church is low and the separation of church and state is strongly valued, efforts to re-Catholicise society rely on secularised means. We argue that this renders strategies of simulating agonism and conforming to secular–democratic values especially salient in the Slovenian context. To identify these strategies, we conducted semi-structured interviews with Slovenian anti-gender actors. Our analysis revealed four interrelated tactics: “self-victimisation”, portraying themselves as excluded and marginalised; “call for dialogue,” stressing a purported willingness to engage with opponents; “depoliticisation”, framing their role as neutral and non-ideological; and “claim of public support”, invoking a “silenced majority” allegedly constrained by a prevailing climate of “leftist” fear and censorship. The significance of this study lies in the fact that, despite extensive scholarly work on anti-gender mobilisations, analyses drawing on interviews with anti-gender actors themselves remain rare.