by Júlia Vicente
On December 4th, Queer(ing) Radboud 2.0 was held at Theatre C, Elinor Ostrom Building, Radboud University. I attended this event as a writer for Raffia Magazine, but also as a student eager to learn more about queer theory and connect with others who share similar interests.
From my perspective as an exchange student from Spain that has been studying in the Netherlands for five months I can say that compared to many universities in Spain, Radboud University stands out for its progressive approach. For me, the fact that a public and recognised university is providing a space to discuss sexual diversity is a positive sign for the gender diversity movement on campus.
Being an exchange student has been more challenging than I initially thought. I expected the Netherlands to be culturally similar to Spain, particularly in terms of openness and social attitudes. However, I was surprised to find differences in how gender diversity is perceived and supported. While the Netherlands has many spaces, clubs, and initiatives that foster inclusion and diversity. In Spain, discussions around gender diversity are also prominent, but they manifest in different ways—often through strong legal protections and public discourse.
This event broadened my understanding of how other cultures and education systems approach diversity. Seeing institutions and student organizations actively support inclusion gave me a new perspective on societal challenges and progress, making me reflect on my expectations shaped by my experiences in Spain.
When I was asked to write about the event Queer(ing) Radboud, even though I had doubts about living up to it, I agreed. Not because I was reluctant to attend the event or write about it, but because I was afraid I wasn’t the right person for the job. It was my first time attending a talk on this topic, and I worried that it was meant for a selective audience as activists or people already well-informed about the subject. However, I am grateful that I attended the event—it was a learning experience. I heard from people I identified with and people I didn’t. I heard stories that made me sad and happy, and some that motivated me. But the most important thing I learned was that I was the right person to attend—just as anyone else could have been. My friends, my brother, or my parents would have also belonged there. I do not know why I assumed such an event would have a selective audience.
At the entrance to the theater you could share your ideas to improve queer space at the university in exchange for a pair of colourful Radboud socks. Once inside, I spotted Nanette, the editor-in-chief of Raffia magazine, and sat down next to her. There were four empty chairs at the dais. Gradually, the room started to fill up with people of varying ages, appearances, and attitudes. I wondered if we all had something in common. Simply being there, sharing the same space, felt like a good starting point for finding common ground.
After a few minutes’ delay, Daniël Wigboldus, President of Radboud University, gave the opening speech. According to him, one of the greatest challenges in times when extremes seem to reign in politics is staying true to oneself, as only each individual can define who they are. He also commented that, while it is nice to hear about all that is going well in the university, focusing only on the positive will not change the current state of affairs. With this in mind, he reflected on the university’s evolution, using its slogans from the past 15 years to illustrate the changes it has undergone. Fifteen years ago, the University’s slogan was You are not a number, to affirm that every individual is different. Then came Change your perspective, encouraging people to see the world through different lenses. Finally, the current slogan, ‘You have a role to play’, goes further because it calls for active responsibility to change the world. Professor Wigboldus concluded his speech by applauding the organisations involved in this development, such as the Gender and Sexuality Alliance, as well as individual students.
Next, the panel discussion Looking Back and Looking Forward began, moderated by Reia Lee-Pfenninger, a member of the Halkes Women+ Network and a PhD candidate researching gender in the workplace.
“I can’t wait to hear your own perspective, your own voice, and your own thoughts,” Reia said in her welcome speech. I shared her excitement, especially about hearing from the panelists who would soon take their seats. However, last-minute changes had led to three withdrawals and two substitutions among the five originally planned panelists. Still, as Reia noted, changes are always interesting. The panel was as follows: Ash Reitsma (they/them), a Masters student in Literature and Society. Ash was only supposed to speak on behalf of the Gender and Sexuality Alliance, of which they are a co-founder. But, due to the changes, they also covered a bit about the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Office and spoke on behalf of the CoC. Next to Ash was Fleur Hubau (she/her), a masters student in philosophy. She is also treasurer of Dito & GSA and the DEI ambassador. In the third chair, Friderike Landau-Donnelly (she/her), former assistant professor of cultural geography at the university and co-initiator of Queering Radboud 1.0 together with Klara. Klara Raiber (she/her) was the last panelist. Klara is also a member of the university staff and an assistant professor of sociology.
The discussion, titled Changes & Challenges: Since QR 1.0, explored the current state of queerness at Radboud from the audience’s and panel’s perspective. The panel began talking about resources and policies because, as Reia said, everything needs money. “Are there adequate resources and policies in place to support queer-friendly initiatives? How has the university’s commitment towards queerness evolved over the years?”. Ash spoke first, briefing us about the initiatives taken by the DEI office. Their inclusive toilet policy and the construction of an inclusive changing room in the sports centre were approved, and they wrote a guide for gender diverse people in collaboration with the GSA. A DEI student developed a teacher training course that was shared with the Educational Design and Teacher Development. Last, but not least, were the DEI ambassadors—students who deliver workshops on diversity, equity, and inclusion. Currently, these workshops are not mandatory to attend, however, there was a general consensus that basic DEI training should be mandatory. A crucial problem, which surfaced after Queering Radboud 1.0 was the lack of awareness of these policies and their perception by the university community. Not only should these measures be in place, but people must be made aware of and trained to exercise them. The good news is that awareness campaigns work. After the intro market, GSA gained about 50 more followers on Instagram and in their WhatsApp groups. You just have to show up to connect with people—you never know who might be looking for a sense of belonging.
This is how Fleur found herself at the first Queer(ing) Radboud event a year ago. She said that it was her first queer event and that she would never forget how powerful it was for her personally.
Due to time constraints, we had to move on to the second and final question of the panel, which was about community and feeling safe and included: How has the university improved over the past year in making queer individuals feel safe and included?
Fleur, speaking on behalf of Dito, was the first to respond, talking about the big lunches that the Student Church allows them to organise, not only by offering their space and kitchen, but also by supporting the activities they organise. She stressed the importance of these gatherings as meeting points for young, queer people who can meet each other, talk, exchange ideas, and find themselves in a safe environment.
Just when everything seemed to be about progress and meaningful questions were being asked, one question sparked a debate I hadn’t been aware of: What can be done, or what has not been done, to make spaces safe?
This question was meant to be answered with a concrete example: the insecurity felt at the intro market this year and last year due to the presence of the Groot-Nederlandse Studentenvereniging (GNSV), a conservative-nationalist association. I had to ask Nanette about the context of this problem. She told me that at last year’s Introductory Market several people were hurt in a struggle between members of Actiegroep Nijmegen and the GNSV. This year, despite what happened, the GNSV managed to get a place in the internal market and that made a lot of people feel insecure. The panellists and the audience discussed the fact that the real problem is that the university and the coordinators have had a lot of discussions about it, but not with Actiegroep Nijmegen itself. Minorities who feel insecure because of the GNSV have not been asked. The message that came out of the discussion was that if a minority group is affected, we should talk to them, not about them.
It is obvious that safety concerns still exist this year, so we need to acknowledge that they are real and represent a broader community issue—not just one affecting queer people, but also one raised by them. Safety and feeling safe in a space is a mixture of many factors. Entering a space where there are more people who are openly out like you gives you the safety to show who you are. This is achieved by speaking out and being seen, but of course there is still a lot of work to be done.
The final question was addressed to the panellists: If you could give us one short take-home message, what would it be?
Ash focused on kindness, urging us to be kind and supportive of each other, and to be proactively kind in informing one another as queer people among ourselves and as allies working to improve the lives of queer people. Fleur emphasized continuities, stressing the importance of ongoing efforts for structural support and funding, and ensuring that we show we are planning for the future, not just staying stagnant. The concept of about everyone was also discussed, with the idea that queering, as a political verb, affects all of us. It’s not only about making space for those in non-majority positions of sexual practice, identity, or family, but about how we move and carry ourselves as human beings, which can become a collaborative global project. Finally, Klara highlighted the importance of questioning and being critical, reminding us that we need to stay critical and ask questions when we are unsure about the events or actions at our university, and to keep standing up for ourselves.
And with these four ideas she ended the panel discussion Looking Back and Looking Forward.
After a short coffee and tea break, we went back inside to watch the film ‘Kiezen, Snijden, Zwijgen’. The protagonists of the documentary, Sharan Bala and Marieke Schoutsen, were also sitting in the audience. I knew the documentary was about intersex, but I didn’t know what intersex was. I had looked up a definition on the internet along the way, but it still was not clear to me. Seeing and listening to Sharan and Marieke’s testimonies made me understand better what they had experienced and why they decided to make the documentary. I can’t say that I understood everything they went through, but I can empathize with the anger and frustration of knowing that your identity is considered taboo, that you had to keep secrets throughout your childhood, and that you only discovered your true self as an adult.
If, like me, you don’t know what intersex means, it refers to the experiences of people born with a body that doesn’t quite fit the normative definitions of male or female. The title of the documentary ‘Kiezen, snijden, zwijgen’ refers to the medical protocol that was officially used to treat intersex people until 2006. For many intersex children, the decision about whether they should become a boy or a girl was made at an early age. As a result, they were subjected to unnecessary and often irreversible treatments to make their bodies conform to the social image of a male or female body—all while being forced to maintain secrecy.
After watching the film, we were lucky enough to have a Q&A session with Sharan and Marieke, moderated by Gijs Hablous, a PhD student with expertise in intersex. They talked about how they met, the process of starting the project and developing the film, the impact it has had on their lives and their vision for the future.
I believe the most important message was the need to share their stories and raise awareness about the rights being violated. As one speaker put it: “Please share my story with three other people. Tell them about who I am, about my strength, about my existence, and about the rights that are being violated. This way, you can spread our message and raise awareness in society, because that’s what we have to do at the end of the day, right?”
For example, by attending Queer(ing) Radboud 2.0 and sharing my experience with you, I am contributing to this call for storytelling. Telling our stories matters—it helps others become aware, and being heard empowers others to find their own voices.
Finally, dinner in the courtyard. A time for people to talk and get to know each other. I spoke to Fleur and she told me that she met the people she was sharing the stage with today only a year ago, when the first edition of Queer(ing) Radboud took place. She told me that it’s not an easy job, that sometimes it’s hard to see the progress in the big picture, but that you should not stop, you have to keep working.
I don’t know if I will be able to attend Queer(ing) Radboud 3.0, but I hope that from wherever I am I will be able to read that more people attended and that organisations have received more support and help. It is a path that only moves forward, and I am sure that more and more people will join along the way.
At first, I thought this event was meant for a specific audience—activists and people already well-informed about queer issues. But by the end, I realized that spaces like these are for everyone, including those who, like me, are still learning. Queer(ing) Radboud was not just a celebration of achievements; it also inspired me to think critically about how our communities can move toward a more inclusive future.
References
Lambeets, K. (2023, 6 September). Should GNSV have been allowed at the intro market? Vox Magazine. https://www.voxweb.nl/en/should-gnsv-have-been-allowed-at-the-intro-market
Home – GSA netwerk. (2019, 11 March). GSA Netwerk. https://www.gsanetwerk.nl/
Raffia 