The new trend in LGBTQ+ EDI is aiming for "increased visibility of LGBTQ staff." This is an admirable goal, but requires additional support that needs to come with that messaging. THREAD (1/?)

Firstly, any LGBTQ+ person needs to come out when they feel comfortable. It comes with a whole array of benefits for one's mental health and personal well-being, but plenty of societal difficulties that this theme does not address. (2/?)

LGBTQ+ people in STEM in the UK already report a lower amount of career progression according to the @AdvanceHE ASSET 2016 study, so why would people actually tarnish their career prospects? https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/asset-2016 (3/?)

It is hard enough to grab a permanent post. LGBTQ+ faculty while being out and visible have a harder time, with many people harboring conscious and unconscious bias, especially in STEM. (4/?)

Many times such outness leads to less platforming in the research arena, when LGBTQ STEM professionals are "more likely to have experienced devaluation of their professional expertise than their non-LGBTQ peers" https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/7/3/eabe0933.full.pdf (5/?)

Re: teaching. Without previously negotiated support regarding teaching quality reviews / evaluations, coming out as a faculty member is a severe risk. I remember some threatening evaluations some LGBTQ+ faculty I saw first-hand at a uni back in 2008. (6/?)

Increased visibility means increased workload for those that are out in ways that are not in line with job prospects, progression and workloads currently allocated. This is asking for free labour. (7/?)

So how do we fix this? Well, the only way to show support is through workload support, through jobs, and through progression. In turn, this means that the universities need to spend money. (8/?)

Solution one: instead of increasing visibility of LGBTQ staff, *HIRE AND PROMOTE* already visible LGBTQ+ academics. Explicitly show that EDI work and various identities are important. Put your money and resources where your mouth is. (9/?)

Solution two: Proactive support for the entire LGBTQ+ community. And I do mean entire. There should be safeguards in line with tangential LGBTQ+ identities / sub-communities that will be protected from any public outcry and potential 'disrepute' to the university. (10/?)

Solution three: Safeguards of research time / career progression. The time that ends up being put into EDI work is almost never logged by universities and is tiring. This needs to come out of somewhere, which may mean giving LGBTQ+ staff doing it teaching relief! (11/?)

Solution four: Platforming visible LGBTQ+ academics for their work and not just their EDI work. The fact that there's too few LGBTQ+ people to choose from is not an excuse. That's the field's problem--maybe you should try hiring them more often (see solution one). (12/?)

There are many more needs besides these, but I'm now tired. But 'increased visibility' without financial backing to me sounds like trying to buff up your LGBTQ numbers without any financial investment. The investment is required and safety needs to be secured first. (13/13)