ENGLISH VERSION

On 21 July 2026, a lecture on trans identity was held at Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf as part of a compulsory course. Prior to the lecture, an invitation email sent to external individuals claimed, among other things, that “trans ideology” was scientifically untenable and posed a threat to the development of children and adolescents. This announcement, as well as the content of the lecture itself, the reactions to it and the subsequent media coverage, has caused considerable concern among many students and staff members.

In its public statements, the university rectorate has consistently emphasised the importance of academic freedom. We explicitly share this commitment. At the same time, research, teaching and science communication are bound by ethical standards that also extend to the language used to frame research findings and academic positions. Particular care must be taken to respect the dignity of the individuals and groups about whom or with whom we conduct research. A polemical term such as “trans ideology” denies those affected recognition of their gender identity and pathologises it. Moreover, the term undermines the very argument of academic freedom by denying the scientific legitimacy of the interdisciplinary research that has been conducted on the subject for decades.

Particularly in compulsory courses, lecturers have a responsibility to present the relevant state of research adequately, including the breadth of the field, its controversies and its methodological limitations, even when they themselves have no research expertise in the subject. This responsibility was not fulfilled in the lecture. On the contrary, the content presented served to distort the academic discourse and to dismiss trans identity wholesale as an “ideology”, in line with problematic and anti-scientific positions. Research findings were weighted selectively, key findings received insufficient consideration, and personal assessments were frequently not clearly distinguished from statements supported by established scientific evidence.¹ Moreover, students enrolled in this compulsory course could not and cannot avoid the content being taught: not only were they required to attend, but they must also complete an exam on the material. This creates a particular relationship of dependency in which the positions presented are not merely open to discussion but are also relevant for examination.

By presenting research findings in an unbalanced manner, the lecture also facilitated the highly problematic media coverage that followed. This coverage invoked slogans such as “cancel culture”,² while a high-reach media outlet repeatedly disparaged those who criticised the substantial orientation of the lecture as “freaks”.³ At the same time, the wide range of critical voices from within the university was reduced in the reporting to protesting students, thereby systematically obscuring both the breadth of the criticism and the scientific dimension of the problem. Against this background, we received statements including that one could “not feel safe as a female student on this campus” and that individuals felt “abandoned by the university”. A university must protect the safety, dignity and rights of all members of its community and must not leave those affected to deal with such experiences alone.

As members of HHU, we express our solidarity with all students, staff members and others who feel hurt, unsettled or threatened by the lecture or its public aftermath. We express our particular solidarity with the trans, non-binary and queer members of our university. We call upon the university leadership to issue a clear public statement of solidarity with the students and staff members who have been disparaged and to communicate with due care by listening to those affected and prioritising the protection of members of the university community. The public event on trans identity announced by the rector may constitute an important first step towards facilitating academic exchange, adequately incorporating different research perspectives and rebuilding the trust of affected members of the university community.⁴

We distance ourselves from portrayals of trans identity as an ideology, a threat to society or a scientifically untenable phenomenon. We stand for a university in which controversial questions can be discussed openly, scientific standards are binding, and all members can study, teach and conduct research without fear of denigration, intimidation or public disparagement. Academic freedom and adherence to ethical standards in research, teaching and science communication are not opposing principles; rather, each depends on the other.