LGBT Rights and Theoretical Perspectives

LGBT Rights and Theoretical Perspectives Francis Kuriakose, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam and Deepa Kylasam Iyer, Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1291 Published online: 17 December 2020 Summary The question of LGBT rights was first examined as part of gender and sexuality studies in the 1980s, predominantly in the United States. This was a result of the LGBT movement that had articulated the demand for equal rights and freedom of sexual and gender minorities a decade before. Since then, the examination of LGBT rights has traversed multiple theoretical and methodological approaches and breached many disciplinary frontiers. Initially, gay and lesbian studies (GLS) emerged as an approach to understand the notion of LGBT identity using historical evidence. GLS emphasized the objectives of the LGBT movement in articulating its identity as an issue of minority rights within the ambit of litigation and case law. However, the definition of LGBT identity as a homogeneous and fixed category, and the conceptualization of equality rights as the ultimate project of emancipation, was critiqued on grounds of its normative and assimilationist tendencies. Queer theory emerged in the 1990s as a counter-discourse to GLS, using the individual-centric postmodern technique of deconstruction as the method of analysis. This approach opened up scope for multiple identities within the LGBT community to articulate their positionality, and reclaim the possibilities of sexual liberation that GLS had previously obscured. Subsequent scholarship has critiqued GLS and queer theory for incomplete theorization and inadequate representation, based on four types of counter-argument. The first argument is that queer theory, with its emphasis on self as an alternative for wider social interaction, concealed constitutive macrostructures such as neoliberal capitalism, as well as the social basis of identity and power relations. The second argument highlights the incomplete theorization of bisexual and transgender identities within the LGBT community. For example, understanding bisexuality involves questioning the universalism of monosexuality and postmodern notions of linear sexuality, and acknowledging the possibility of an integrated axis of gender and sexuality. Theorization of transgender and transsexual rights requires a grounded approach incorporating new variables such as work and violence in the historiography of transgender life. The third critique comes from decolonial scholarship that argues that intersectionality of race, gender, class, caste, and nationality brings out multiple concerns of social justice that have been rendered invisible by existing theory. The fourth critique emerged from family studies and clinical psychology, that used queer theory to ask questions about definitions of all family structures outside the couple norm, including non-reproductive heterosexuality, polyamorous relationships, and non-marital sexual unions. These critiques have allowed new questions to emerge as part of LGBT rights within the existing traditions, and enabled the question of LGBT rights to be considered across new disciplinary fronts. For example, the incorporation of the “queer” variable in hitherto technical disciplines such Page 1 of 24 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020 as economics, finance, and management is a development of the early-21st-century scholarship. In particular, the introduction of LGBT rights in economics to expand human capabilities has policy implications as it widens and mainstreams access of opportunities for LGBT communities through consumption, trade, education, employment, and social benefits, thereby expanding the actualization of LGBT rights. Keywords: activism, gender identity, heteronormativity, intersectionality, LGBT politics, LGBT rights, LGBT studies, postcolonial theory, queer theory, sexual orientation The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) communities and the broad coalition of sexual and gender minorities they represent have used both legal and social means to secure rights and alter social norms. The modern human rights framework that encompasses discrete sets of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights has been instrumental in enabling 1 the LGBT communities to access these rights for themselves. The theory of LGBT rights spans the history of these struggles, the articulation of plural and diverse identities, the legal expansion of these rights, and the socio-historical understanding of how sexual orientation and gender identities have been formed and enacted through everyday lives. While the LGBT communities have utilized human rights jurisprudence to secure rights, theorizing about LGBT rights in turn has expanded the scope of the human rights framework. This article discusses the major theoretical frameworks that illuminate the conceptualization and actualization of LGBT rights. Tracing the theoretical development of LGBT rights, the article illuminates three features that stand out. First, historical, social, and cultural understandings of sexual and gender minorities inform the modern theoretical debate concerning the realization of LGBT rights. Second, theoretical development of LGBT rights is marked by the sustained academic tension between various paradigms as well as endogenous and exogenous critiques that challenge the origin and notion of identity. Finally, academic theorization of LGBT rights has significantly been informed by the politics of LGBT social movements and community mobilizations. Sexual and Gender Minorities in History The historical presence of sexual and gender minorities and the question of their social, legal, political, and cultural status precedes the modern notion of human rights by centuries. Ideas concerning same-sex erotic love and romantic friendships, as well as gender variance in different cultures, have been depicted in religious and secular texts, as well as through nontextual images. It is instructive to compare modern ideas of sexual orientation and gender identity with those prevailing in ancient cultural traditions to understand the persistence of certain social norms as well the significant divergences. In ancient Greece, sexual orientation was not conceptually anchored in the gender identity of the object of sexual desire (Nussbaum, 1999). Similarly, evidence from the middle kingdom papyrus of Kahun in Egypt shows mythological representation of homosexual acts between two male figures, Seth and Horus, that were described as acts of “dominance” and Page 2 of 24 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020 “submission” (Bullough, 1973). From these descriptions, it is clear that a distinction was made between active and passive sexual partners regardless of their sexual orientation. Furthermore, sex acts were considered as behavior rather than part of a stable and sustained identity. Similarly, in ancient India there was an attempt to categorize sexual behaviors and individuals who expressed them. In the text of Kamasutra an individual identifying as neither male nor female is depicted as “third type of nature.” Furthermore, classification of sexual acts included various forms of non-vaginal sex (Parekh, 2008). There are descriptions of “masculine women” as well as indications of lesbian sisterhood among wives in a polygamous marriage (Douglas & Slinger, 1979). In the treatise of political economy Arthashastra minor penance is reserved for non-procreative sexual acts, revealing that specific types of sexual behaviors were condemned (Vanita & Kidwai, 2000). In ancient China the word for homosexual was without gender specification, and used as an adjective because homosexual acts were considered sexual behavior and not identity (Wu, 2003). From allegorical tales and classical poetic essays, accounts of male homosexuality of members of the royal family are described during the period of Duke Ling in the state of Wei (534–493 BCE) and the former Han dynasty (206 BCE – 23 CE) (Ruan & Tsai, 1987). The erotic paintings of the Ming (1368–1644 CE) and Qing (1644–1911 CE) imperial courts are suggestive of female homosexuality (Wu, 2003). In the Chien Lung and Chia Ching periods (1736–1820 CE) there are descriptions of establishments where young male transvestite actors performed for an exclusive male clientele (Ruan & Tsai, 1987). The Silla dynasty of Korea had elite warriors known as hwarang among whom male homosexual relationships were common and publicly acknowledged (Kim & Hahn, 2006). Furthermore, theatrical and dramatic performances with an all-male cast performing female roles and “drag” acts were common. These textual evidences from various pre-modern cultures provide important information. First, an array of sexual behaviors and gender characteristics were widely recognized and fairly tolerated especially among upper class people and their households. Second, sexuality was considered behavior rather than identity, and the sexual act was described as that between a dominant (active) and submissive (passive) partner. Third, the passive homosexual partner had lower social status and was often under the patronage of his dominant partner. Finally, non-heterosexual relationships and non-normative gender identities received some form of condemnation through social and legal opprobrium. A comparative analysis of pre-modern notions of gender and sexuality emphasizes competing visions of identities and rights that continue to persist in normative ideas across many cultures in the early 21st century. Additionally, such cross-comparison also illuminates what differentiates the modern human rights framework from pre-modern notions of rights, gender, and sexuality. A brief overview of the modern human rights framework, and how it applies to LGBT rights, is discussed in the following section. From Human to LGBT Rights Modern LGBT rights are conceptualized as part of the broader framework of universal and fundamental human rights. The human rights paradigm presupposes a set of permanent essential facts about the human condition. Consequently, these rights are broadly generalized, Page 3 of 24 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020 fairly abstract, and brief so that they might be applied to a wide range of contexts and communities. The underlying rationale of this paradigm is that it protects activities and relationships that enrich human life so that individuals are not reduced to mere instruments in pursuit of extraneous and arbitrary goals. The modern human rights paradigm is based on the Kantian notion that rational agency is synonymous with membership in a moral community (Rorty, 1993). The contemporary understanding of what constitutes human rights has evolved from historically competing visions of rights, with the tension between religious and secular notions having been particularly significant. It is important to understand how these rights came about because doing so also reveals why human rights are composed as they are, and has bearing on the scope of extending them to the LGBT community. Religious humanism, stoicism, and natural rights theorists of antiquity significantly influenced the secular and modern understanding of rights. The earliest philosophical contribution to this thinking was the presupposition of universal human laws beyond customary and local specifications. The holy scriptures of many religions mandated humanistic principles as “duties.” The first prominent philosopher to put forth the idea that universal truth and forms existed was Plato (Plato, 2000). Following this idea, in the later Roman period, an appeal to universal human laws beyond customary and civil laws was made by Cicero (Cicero, 1928). Philosophers also deliberated upon the nature of the system that actualizes rights. Aristotle argued that concepts of justice and rights depend upon the constitutions and political circumstances which deliver them (Aristotle, 1995). The proposal that only a peaceful and stable political system enables an orderly concept of justice and faith was given by St. Augustine (Augustine, 1998). The actualization of such political systems delivering universal human rights emerged after the European enlightenment. The birth of the nation state led to the re-imagination of moral human conduct as being within the purview of the secular state authority as well as the universal society of humankind. The individual citizen was the claimant of such rights. Limiting the state’s intrusion into private life while guaranteeing a minimum set of rights to the individual became the norm of conceptualizing civil and political rights. A minimum right to life, liberty, and property was proposed by John Locke (Locke, 1952). Furthering the argument, Rousseau argued that popular rights ought to represent the general will of the people (Rousseau, 2013). These human rights principles were reflected in many national constitutions and international human rights documents. The basic set of human rights include civil and political rights such as the rule of law, freedom of expression and association, equality of opportunity, and the right to a basic level of material well-being (Lukes, 1993). As these abstract rights are transferred to specific substantive issues for the LGBT community, they cover a gamut of laws dealing with access issues such as zoning, licensing, immigration, affirmative action, and sex and solicitation law. They also involve laws governing living associations, transfer of property, and tax law, as well as legal frameworks governing social benefits associated with medical insurance, aging, judicial and prison reform, and law enforcement. Page 4 of 24 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020 Theoretical Approaches to LGBT Rights As claims regarding the rights of various types of minorities began to be articulated within the modern liberal human rights paradigm, the study of sexual and gender minorities was undertaken within the disciplines of sexuality and gender studies in the humanities and social sciences. Gay and Lesbian Studies (GLS), social constructionism, and queer theory are the three main theoretical frameworks that provided distinct methodologies by which to examine the lived experience of LGBT communities (Carlson, 2013). These approaches grew out of the larger paradigms of modernism and postmodernism. The modernist approach uses scientific and rational methods to understand knowable meanings (Seidman, 1993). GLS is a modernist approach in which sexuality and gender are considered as stable and static identities. In contrast, the postmodernist approach opposes biological determinism (also called essentialism) of identity. Queer theory and social constructionism are postmodernist approaches that have questioned normative understandings of sexuality and gender by adopting anti-essentialist positions. Although queer theory and social constructionism hold that gender and sexuality are fluid and dynamic, their anti-essentialist positions are distinct from each other. Queer theory critiques essentialism by emphasizing self-reflexive understanding and resists all master narratives. Social constructionism rejects essentialism by bringing out the role of historical and cultural processes in shaping the meaning and interpretation of identities. Gay and Lesbian Studies The process of consolidating the needs and demands of sexual and gender minorities began 2 with the homophile movement of the 1950s in the United States. Inspired by the civil rights movement and second wave of feminism, the social movement for gay liberation brought a wide range of sexual and gender minorities under the umbrella of LGBT in the 1960s 3 (D’Emilio, 1992). The gay liberation movement brought visibility and a semblance of solidarity through the gay pride march, and consolidated the seemingly diverse and disparate sexual and gender minorities. The social movement for gay liberation was the foundation for GLS that emerged in the area of sexuality studies. GLS examined sex and sexuality from the viewpoint of an essentialist construction of identity (Gammon & Isgro, 2006). Its main objective was to forward the cause of the gay liberation movement, while resisting homophobia and heterosexism (Abelove, Barale, & Halperin, 1993). The methodological approach proposed by GLS was to use historical narratives to understand the lives of gays and lesbians in order to cement notions of stable, static, and universal identity categories. This approach helped in institutionalizing homosexuality within the minority logic of ethnic-type identity. The main epistemic contributions of GLS was making the “closet” visible and the process of “coming out” central to the claiming of gay or lesbian identity (Cass, 1984; Dank, 1971). Page 5 of 24 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020 Social Constructionism Social constructionism is a theory that argues that identity categories such as gender and sexuality are defined and interpreted by historical process and cultural institutions (Subramaniam, 2014). Social constructionism adopts an anti-essentialist position by holding that identities are not strictly determined by biological characteristics, but socially constructed. The boundaries around identity categories are always evolving and fluid, and can therefore be contested and redefined. The anti-essentialist position of social constructionism opens its scope to include sexuality and gender identity as fluid and dynamic across space and time. It also enables social constructionism to question inequality and hierarchical categories as products of unequal systems of knowledge and power relations. The universal, essentializing, and transhistorical sexual subjecthood proposed by GLS was critiqued by social constructionists predominantly through the work of Michel Foucault (Seidman, 1997). The main argument of social constructionism was that homosexual acts were historically present before the homosexual identity. The inference was that identities were socially constructed phenomena that were passed through social communication (Foucault, 1981). While social constructionists supported the idea of sexual orientation as identity, their main points of contention with GLS were two-fold. The first was that far from the natural, biological, and essentialist notions of identity that GLS proposed, constructionists argued that identity was historically, socially, and interpersonally created. The second argument was that universalizing identities concealed the differences of lived experience of racial and ethnic minorities, communities from different socio-economic classes, and non-normative sexual and gender minorities. Beyond the debate between GLS and social constructionists, both the theoretical branches were critiqued for being discourses of compulsory homosexuality that crowded out other forms of personal, private, and intimate relationships. This was illustrated by several examples, such as the Australian notion of “mate” and South Asian reference to “yaar” as forms of intimate male bonding (Durber, 2006; Rao, 2017). These forms of relationships questioned the normalizing tendency of GLS and social constructionism in homosexualizing all forms of same-sex intimacies. Queer Theory The third main theoretical position applied to sexuality and gender is queer theory. The word “queer” can be used in three distinct ways within gender and sexuality studies (Gammon & Isgro, 2006). In the first sense, queer merely stands for gay and lesbian identity. In the second sense, queer represents a wide range of non-normative sexual desires that are non-reductive, ambiguous, fluid, and marginalized. Finally, queer can be used as a critical lens through which to deconstruct identity-based theories and discourses (Angelides, 2001; Jagose, 1996). Queer theory, used in the third sense of the term, began as an offshoot of GLS and feminist studies and politics in the 1990s (Duggan, 1995; Stein, 1999). Using postmodern and poststructuralist approaches and inspired by Queer Nation, queer theory critiqued metanarratives that were used to justify linear notions of history and the stable formation of 4 identities. Instead, queer theory argued for self-reflexivity in understanding the lived Page 6 of 24 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020 experience of LGBT individuals, and argued for a fluid and flexible sense of the self. Queer theory began to challenge the heteronormative construction of sexuality into homosexual and heterosexual binaries (Fuss, 1991). In effect, queer theory pointed out that universal notions of identity led to the erasure and invisibility of differences. Therefore, institutionalizing gay and lesbian identities as essentialist sexual minorities led to homonormativity replacing heteronormativity. Indirectly, this argument also countered the project of rights as the emancipatory ideal for sexual and gender minorities, and the use of law and litigation in claiming these rights. Instead, queer theory decentered individuals and encouraged them to work for varied objectives ranging from sexual liberation to the changing of social norms through everyday lives. Queer theory’s position on deconstructing identities has been criticized from three perspectives. The first critique is that queer theory’s emphasis on the individual comes at the cost of community. Consequently, queer theory delegitimizes social identification, and results in individual isolation and communal fragmentation (Kirsch, 2006). Second, queer theory in its emphatic promotion of self-reflexivity ignores structures in which individuals are situated. As a result, the theoretical lack of attention to material conditions conceals the aspect of postmodernism that is a product of late capitalist structures (Hennessy, 2000; Jackson, 2003). Third, queer theory has not fulfilled its radical promise of reducing binaries such as “heterosexual” and “homosexual” to the point of critical collapse. This argument points to the incomplete theorization of other types of sexualities and gender within the queer canon, and aspires to reclaim the radical nature of queer (Halperin, 2003). Page 7 of 24 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020 Table 1. Theories of Sexuality Studies Paradigm Modernist Central Assumption Analytical Focus Methodology Impact Identity as stable, innate, static LGBT as essentializing identities Historical examination of identity and social movements Litigation, lobbying, advocacy Social Constructionism Identity as socially constructed LGBT as nonessentializing identities Structural examination of history and society in identity formation Critical examination of history Queer Theory Identity as fluid, flexible, dynamic Destabilizing identities Deconstruction of metanarratives Everyday living as resistance Postmodernist Gay and Lesbian Studies Source: Authors’ compilation Page 8 of 24 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020 A comparative examination of the three theoretical approaches of sexuality studies is illustrated in Table 1. Four Critiques of LGBT Theories The most persistent academic tensions in theorizing LGBT rights have been between Gay and Lesbian Studies (GLS) and queer theory (Carlson, 2013; Lovaas, Elia, & Yep, 2006). The contested terrain between GLS and queer theory has implications in academia, politics, community mobilization, and in building interpersonal relationships (Lovaas et al., 2006). Although both GLS and queer theory are approaches to studying sexual subjectivities using qualitative methods of enquiry and rooted in social movements of the LGBT communities, significant differences persist. The main point of contestation is that whereas GLS theorizes LGBT identities as essentialized and stable, which comes with an attendant minoritizing logic, queer theory proposes fluid and reflective sexual subjectivities. Consequently, GLS has been associated with the assimilationist position of claiming equality and non-discrimination rights through formal channels of social transformation such as legislation and litigation. In contrast, the reflexive position of queer theory is more conducive to social destabilization of meanings and identities, shifting the orientation from law to discourses. Furthermore, the “project identity” that came out of social movements that GLS examined is opposed by the “resistance identity” of queer theory (Castells, 1997). For queer theory, while the individual rather than the collective became the center of agency politically, language rather than class became the unit of analysis analytically (Foucault, 1972). As a result, the theoretical strategy favored by queer theory was that of destabilization and deconstruction, as opposed to the historicizing tendency of GLS. This academic tension has also influenced each theory’s intellectual development through theoretical and methodological expansion, and its political engagement through community mobilization (Gamson, 2000). Consequently, both methodologies are understood to provide only a partial picture of the lived experience of communities. Subsequent scholarship has advocated the use of mixed methods as a way out of this academic impasse (Carlson, 2013). Furthermore, interdisciplinary research and the application of these theoretical paradigms in other disciplines have demonstrated the possibilities and limitations of these approaches. Capitalist Structures and LGBT Identities The critiques of GLS and queer theory should be examined from the perspective of successful campaigns for select rights amid ongoing political action to expand the scope of rights. The first critique is about the absence of examination of structural conditions for the development of sexual and gender identity. In particular, queer theory has been critiqued for its use of the postmodern and poststructuralist frameworks, for these conceal structural dimensions in which sexual orientation and gender identity are conceived and enacted. Eagleton (1997) argues that postmodernity has real material conditions that spring from a decentralized universe where technology, consumerism, and culture have given pre-eminence to neoliberal capitalistic structures represented by the service, finance, and informational industries. Neoliberal capitalism and the neoclassical economics on which it is founded focus Page 9 of 24 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020 on the individual at the center of economic production and consumption. Consumeristic capitalistic structures use external devices such as advertising to mask and maintain internal psychological phenomenon such as desire, blurring the boundaries between inside and outside, high and popular culture, and art and everyday life (Eagleton, 1997). These capitalistic structures perpetuate the idea of the self for its own sake, and as an alternative to wider social interaction. Consequently, the impossibility of communal identification and the undesirability of group identities and objectives are emphasized through these late capitalistic structures (Kirsch, 2006; Mandel, 1972). The structural conditions of neoliberal capitalism and heterosexist reframing of queer practices have limited the queer potential to oppose beliefs about boundary and category (Whitney, 2006). Within this structural condition, queer identity is principally mediated through queer enterprises (Vaid, 1995). Queer as a category of identity is acceptable as a “product” and “performance” that allows visibility of the “other” and whose world can be regulated within the acceptable limits of heteronormativity. For example, the image of the “camp” for homosexual men and that of lesbian “chic” for a wide range of lesbian women testify to this limited tolerance within the ambit of consumerism (Zimmerman, 2000). LGBT identity-based consumerism is shaping identity politics and gay culture into a discourse of exclusive lifestyles, foreclosing pathways for deeper structural change (Whitney, 2006). Traditionally, communities have resisted external and structural forces that reduced the role of maintaining social relationships. But continued separation and objectification of the individual from her social environment have gradually resulted in the disappearance of the individual as subject (Jameson, 1991). Queer theory has inadvertently become a subject-less critique through its persistent focus on the individual to the exclusion of structures and social relationships. The refusal to engage with the wider society has produced internalized homophobia (Kirsch, 2006). Subsequent scholarship in queer theory has addressed this dilemma of incorporating context into the queer. One argument is that queer could potentially identify “with” something as opposed to identifying “as” someone, so that social networks remain alive (Kirsch, 2006). However, some scholars argue that winning certain objectives through coalition building comes at the cost of the larger goals of the social movement, by privileging the needs of the elite constituencies within these communities (Mayo-Adam, 2017). This is because coalitions simultaneously reinforce the hierarchical exclusion and continuous marginalization of issues that challenge conventional power dynamics. Additionally, the episodic nature of rights campaigns prevents the formation of enduring collective identities, and creates division within communities. The “alliance model” of coalition building, which is plural, inclusive, and devoid of hierarchy, is one way of imagining queer revival that guards against hierarchical and exclusionary trends. The main objective of such communal mobilization is to develop a discourse that involves the interplay of productiveness and playfulness, efficiency and pleasure, so that the formality of structures can interact with the informality of social relationships (Drucker, 2011). The second argument to expand the scope of queer is to include the historical material analysis of non-conformist and marginalized LGBT communities within the queer methodology (Drucker, 2011). An important consideration in such an analysis would be the growing income and wealth inequality that exacerbates differentials in power among different classes of LGBT communities. This strand of thought would also open the possibilities of examining how sexual Page 10 of 24 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020 and gender identities that originally developed in pre-capitalist structures—such as the trans communities of Latin America, Africa, and Asia—co-exist with modern LGBT identities in these contexts. Bisexual and Transgender Theorization The second critique of GLS and queer theory comes from other sexual and gender minorities —such as bisexual, transgender, transvestite, and transsexual communities—alleging their 5 erasure, marginalization, and inadequate theorization. Two arguments have been forwarded against existing theoretical frameworks for undertheorizing bisexuality (Angelides, 2006). The first is that despite the presence of historical analysis of bisexual politics, the epistemic historiography of bisexuality has not received comprehensive theoretical attention (Storr, 1999). In the sexual orientation analysis of both GLS and queer theory, bisexuality is acknowledged as the intermediate position in a bipolar spectrum containing two types of monosexuality called homosexual and heterosexual orientations. The hierarchical dichotomy of monosexuality over bisexuality has prevented theoretical arguments that question the duality of gender, the necessity for either or sexualities, and the nature of desire. As a result, the centrality of bisexuality to the meanings and manifestations of eroticism is either absent or subsumed under one of the two binaries (Garber, 1995). The second reason for under-theorization is that bisexuality is used to describe sexuality as a whole rather than as one among the many sexual orientations (Gammon & Isgro, 2006). The axes of gender and sexuality have been taken separately following the evolutionary concept of sexuality in biology and its teleological model of temporal succession in psychology (Hamer & Copeland, 1994; Rado, 1940). The evolutionary concept of sexuality defined bisexuality as an embryonic and primordial hermaphroditism that was universal and prehistoric (Angelides, 2001). This argument was used to justify the linear notion of sexuality, where bisexuality remains a potential to be developed into one of the two types of monosexuality. At the same time, this assumption denied the potential of bisexuality to be a distinct sexual orientation. GLS conceived itself as a study of discursive norms of sexuality in the same vein as feminism analyzed gender (Butler, 1994). Thus, sexuality was separated from gender as an academic field of enquiry beyond the evolutionary concept. The founding thinkers of queer theory also sustained this framework of binary economy of inside-outside dialectic to deconstruct sexuality (Edelman, 1994; Fuss, 1991). The problem of incomplete theorization of transgender, transvestite, and transsexual communities is a result of insufficient appraisals of the Anglo-American feminist interpretations in addressing the emerging questions posed by the transgender context. For example, violence perpetrated by the state and law enforcement agencies on transgender communities, demonstrates the limits of their citizenship rights (Namaste, 2009). The invisibility of violence in the examination of transgender theories shows the politics of knowledge production vis-à-vis marginalized sexualities and gender identities. Similarly, theories about transgender communities have not adequately brought out the fact 6 that female impersonation acts and performances are often explicitly related to work. Besides the regulation of gender roles, regulation of public spaces and labor relations—such as that of Page 11 of 24 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020 street work, prostitution, and gay bars—could potentially have a direct impact on the livelihood, autonomy, and physical transformation of transgender related communities (Valentine, 2007). Emerging questions in transgender research are those that impinge on the everyday life and well-being of trans individuals. For example, the right to gender identity encompasses the legal right to change one’s name based on self-identification that is backed by due principles 7 of individual autonomy, self-determination, and the right to privacy (Campbell, 2019). Yet legal name change may require a psychologist’s certification (as in Bolivia and Puerto Rico, for example), litigation against the state (as in Chile), or disclosure of confidential documentation (for instance, in Ecuador) (Campbell, 2019). Improving the everyday wellbeing of transgender communities also involves many other issues that mainstream sexuality theories have not adequately addressed, such as the provision of appropriate rest rooms and locker rooms, dress codes, and use of proper nouns and pronouns (Elias, Johnson, Ovando, & Ramirez, 2018). Decolonial Scholarship The decolonial critique to GLS and queer theory questions the coloniality of power and its values of racialization and marginalization of identities and communities. The decolonial critique examines intersectionality and the collective agendas of grassroots communities to bring out concerns about relative inequality among LGBT communities as well as between LGBT communities and the others. Their main critique is toward the Western-style identity politics with concerns about visibility and the closet, as well as the privatization of material relations that GLS and queer theory inadvertently support. The approach of GLS to claiming rights is through litigation, single-issue activism, and lobbying the media. In contrast, decolonial scholarship advocates the creation of safe spaces, sexual experimentation, and social interventions in all contexts, including those without a colonial past (Popa & Sandal, 2019). The fundamental assumption of the decolonial approach is that sexual and gendered subjectivities are produced and affected by different configurations of acts, identities, and relationships (Thoreson, 2018). One of the ways in which decolonial approach has enhanced the understanding of LGBT communities in non-Western contexts is by engaging with debates about language, naming practices, and terminology (Gore, 2019). Queer communities have practiced traditional forms of community bonding while developing their own terms of endearment and inventing new vocabulary, in addition to adopting those foisted upon them (Gueboguo, 2012). For example, men who have sex with men (MSM) and women who have sex with women (WSW) are terms used for same-sex activity in various contexts in the Global South as opposed to strict LGBT labels. Similarly, terms of endearment in indigenous communities for gender non-conforming individuals are varied and signify distinct community or ritual roles (Campbell, 2019). The debate about naming and terminology enables grounded theorization of LGBT identity, appropriation of rights, and resistance to external frameworks of power and knowledge production. Page 12 of 24 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020 Another manner in which the decolonial approach critiques mainstream theorization is by revealing the limitations of formal and legal channels in actualizing rights. Gay identity migration from Western models are facilitated through the channels of international LGBT activism and media. Although superficial similarities exist between commercial gay culture in many parts of the world, the material conditions and local power relations shape the sexualization of queer communities in local contexts. In these contexts, the priority of the LGBT communities is often more fundamental than the claiming of rights, and involves advocating against ignorance, misinformation, myths, and misconceptions. For example, the involvement of non-governmental organization (NGO) in the sphere of sexual rights activism results in the prioritization of health advocacy, community building, kinship support, conflict resolution, and reconciliation, all of which mediate microlevel practices of LGBT individuals (Gore, 2019). Struggles for diversity might be more essential than struggles for equality rights of minority politics. Therefore, strategies of LGBT mobilization may vary from health advocacy, social justice, or a hybrid of many priorities. The decolonial approach also exposes the limitation of mainstream theorization through the perspectives of native studies and indigenous grounded theorization (Smith, 2010). “Nativeness” is taken as the subjective other to the Western self. This results in study of the subject through ethnic representation and ethnological survey, rather than examination of the diverse objects of study using appropriate methodologies. Both the liberal subjecthood of GLS that is free of history, and the subject-less critique of queer theory, become limited analytical frameworks when it comes to understanding an indigenous subjectivity that is genealogical and rooted in history. Postcolonial theories also critique GLS and queer theory on the dominance of power structures. For example, postcolonial critique portrays “queer of the canon” as the deconstructing self as opposed to the unprivileged “queer as the collective” who are targeted, pathologized, and disciplined (Ritchie, 2015). The concept of intersectionality, which specifies differences, is privileged over the concept of “assemblages” that refuses to view the body as a discrete organic thing (Puar, 2012). In this context, the role of the state in appropriating the politics of queer must also be examined. As a public relations strategy of countries’ brand building in the age of global capitalism, the measure of LGBT friendliness is taken as a mask under which states attempt to divert international attention from other human rights violations they might perpetrate within and across their borders (Franke, 2012). Known as “pink washing,” the rhetoric of homophobia and the manner in which gay populations are treated is also used as a justification for military action against specific nations and communities. Thus, queer as postcolonial postmodernist construct acts like a settler against indigenous queer subjectivities. In this context, the hybridity of the indigenous self becomes the source of its agency. The recognition of the indigenous queer self is found through the community as the native queer collective confronts homonationalistic LGBT subjecthood (Ritchie, 2015). Beyond Marriage Equality The fourth critique of GLS and queer theory questions how claims for LGBT rights have shaped the idea of family, spousal rights, and parenthood. In the long struggle for marriage equality the LGBT community has sought to actualize their important civil right to be Page 13 of 24 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020 considered equal before the law and have access to the benefits of legal recognition. Furthermore, marriage also has an expressive aspect through which a personal commitment is publicly acknowledged and legitimized (Nussbaum, 2009). Despite these advantages, access to marriage is directly mediated by resources that enable individuals to navigate social and legal institutions. As a result, marriage as an institution could be restrictive and exclusionary to many types of LGBT family units that do not conform to the traditional normative ideals. The LGBT movement for marriage equality has opened up broader conversations about the meaning and definition of family. For example, the movement for LGBT marriage equality argued for “sexual orientation” as a valid identity category which rests on longitudinal and horizontal contingency. The longitudinal contingency of identity refers to the historical specificity of LGBT identity formation (Knauer, 2016). The formative period of a generation has a significant impact on the way individuals choose and adopt LGBT identities to express themselves. This historical specificity of identity becomes salient because LGBT communities in general, and older generations in particular, live within fictive kinship networks and “chosen families” based on affinity. Absence of legal recognition of such families translates into the impossibility of sharing medical, financial, and other spousal rights with those who are not related by blood or marriage. Marriage equality also rests on the horizontal contingency of identity with its intersectional components. A large number of non-white LGBT couples and those with limited financial means, living with higher rates of poverty and low levels of educational attainment, are outside the purview of marriage (Polikoff, 2016). The presence of children adds an immense stress to these family structures. Furthermore, sexual minority parenthood in many nonWestern cultures takes place within heterosexual unions. The fundamental aspects of parenting such as child support and child care have to be ensured. Second parent adoption, assisted reproductive technologies that are gender-independent, and non-marital presumption of parenthood are some factors that increase the salience of sexual orientation and gender identity in determining who a parent is (Polikoff, 2016). Marriage rights have also opened up new conversations in matters of “consent” in sexual autonomy. Affirmative consent has been the foundation of sex law and is accepted over other standards such as force, resistance, or non-consent in common law jurisprudence. Fischel (2019) argues that while affirmative consent is the least problematic criteria that we have in sex law, a sexual justice politics that aims to create an egalitarian, feminist, and democratically hedonic sexual culture has to differentiate between consent, desire, and pleasure. This, Fischel argues, is important to overcome a bureaucratic approach to sex regulation that can conflate affirmative consent into “wantedness,” thereby criminalizing unwanted sex, and at the same time trivializing actual sexual violence and harassment. What are the pathways to make diverse family structures have equal rights? Theoretically, there are three possibilities. The first possibility comes from queer theory that categorically critiques marriage as an essentialist, patriarchal, and heterosexist institution. Queer theory resists social norms governing family through the lived experience of diverse family structures involving non-homosexual queer couples, non-couple families, and polyamorous relationships. The second possibility comes from the liberal framework that calls for a legal framework to move toward non-essentialist positions by safeguarding gender fluidities and multiplicities (Ball, 2016). One way to accomplish this is to move away from test-case litigation into a broad 8 definition framework of anti-discrimination laws. Marriage laws that leave sexual orientation Page 14 of 24 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020 open ended would in practice include a wide gamut of queer couples. Third, there is the possibility of reclaiming the power of social mobilization to set agendas for law and social norms as well as limit the forces of counter-mobilization to set the agenda for LGBT politics (Kuriakose & Iyer, 2020). Renewed activism involves reframing LGBT identity issues by expanding priorities, and returning to everyday politics of resistance to question normativity. Interdisciplinary Research and Practice As the rights of LGBT communities began to be articulated through social movements, associated questions began to surface in the technical disciplines of social sciences. For example, in a comparative study of law and economics, data from 30 countries showed that protection of LGBT rights improved economic growth (Badgett, Nezhad, Waaldjik, & van der Meulen Rodgers, 2014). The study also argued that investment in education, training, and equal protection in the labor market improve the productivity of LGBT communities. Researchers have found that the actualization of LGBT rights also leads to greater freedom of choice for individuals and communities to engage in activities they value (Nussbaum, 2001; Sen, 1999). Moreover, the greater potential for economic development in turn encouraged countries to protect the human rights of their LGBT citizens in their aspiration to appear modern and progressive to their international partners. Business studies as an area of research has examined the influence of LGBT rights on organizational value, labor relations, and career pathways of LGBT employees. One of the observations is that even in firms or organizations with liberal attitudes and gay-friendly policies, standards of respectability and professionalism remain founded on hetero-norms that continue to dictate what is acceptable the portrayal of homosexuality (Williams, Giuffre, & Dellinger, 2009). These standards were particularly stringent in careers with professional accreditation, such as bureaucracy and accounting, where the workplace had been desexualized to comply with standards of legality and rationality. As a result, LGBT employees continued to face hostility, isolation, and inequitable access to professional development (Githens & Aragon, 2009). Another study found that LGBT employee groups are deeply concerned with how to manage their identity safely and positively without threatening organizational efficiency (Gedro, 2009). Button (2004) found that the career choices of LGBT individuals were limited to those in which the impact of sexual orientation and gender identity was minimal. LGBT-support policies have been positively correlated with firm value, productivity, and profitability (Pichler, Blazovich, Cook, Huston, & Strawser, 2018). Firms which were early adopters of LGBT-friendly policies set a competitive model and influenced the socio-economic environment in which standards and regulation would develop later (Gedro, 2009). Assimilation and access to workplace benefits have been secured by formal and informal means, using conventional and queer radical approaches, and by organizing as “special interest groups” such as employee resource groups or “employee networks” (Welbourne, Rolf, & Schlachter, 2017). As a result of these developments, “queer economics” has emerged as an approach to critique traditional economics for its theoretical and methodological lack of engagement with LGBT communities (Jacobsen & Zeller, 2008). Queer economics has argued that with the availability of reliable data on LGBT demographics, the economic role of LGBT communities could be Page 15 of 24 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020 reasonably portrayed in the larger political economy of development. For example, employment benefits, tax benefits, disclosure, and wage effects of sexual orientation could then be modeled into the econometrics, rather than being added as an external dummy variable to the existing model (Badgett, 2008). Similarly, the impact of sexual division of labor, demand for children, and investment in individual members of the family on the sexual orientation and the gender identity of heads of household could be examined (Matthaei, 2008). Queer economics has also shown that patterns of gentrification and housing access, as well as the manner in which urban spaces were claimed by communities, have a specific impact on LGBT families (Knopp, 2008). Furthermore, Gluckman and Reed (2008) found that consumerist capitalistic enterprises targeting urban LGBT culture and the gay lifestyle lead to an extractive structure that does not cause deeper structural changes in the lives of all classes of LGBT communities. Conclusion Theoretical frameworks of LGBT rights can be broadly classified under modernist and postmodernist approaches. While the modernist approach involves using historical evidence to understand identity as a stable and static category, the postmodernist approach questions all metanarratives and destabilizes identity. The liberal and liberationist frameworks of Gay and Lesbian Studies (GLS) are modernist approaches, whereas social constructionism and queer theory are postmodernist. Deriving from the LGBT movement’s identity politics, GLS predominantly used litigation as the strategy by which to gain equality and non-discrimination rights. By contrast, queer theory examined what lies beyond minority politics and legal frameworks, based on everyday lives and the resistance of diverse communities under the LGBT umbrella. Although all the three theoretical frameworks have analyzed sexuality and gender, they have received criticism on grounds of not questioning capitalist structures under which these theoretical assumptions operate, and for incomplete theorization of other sexual and gender minorities. Mainstream theories have also faced decolonial critiques from various positions of intersectionality, such as nationality and ethnicity. Finally, theorizing about LGBT rights has challenged the meaning and definition of family. Drawing from and moving beyond GLS and queer theory, the question of LGBT rights remain alive in four types of well-defined research avenue. The first strand is the question of confronting LGBT rights beyond legalism. The use of litigation for gaining equality and nondiscrimination rights in marriage, employment, and other areas has certainly secured an assortment of rights for LGBT communities. But to move beyond legalism it is necessary to examine the creative possibilities of the grassroots, and methods of social mobilization, community building, and alliance-making with a coalition of interest groups. This approach involves external and internal reorganization. Externally, the LGBT movement has to re-invoke its solidarity and commonality with allies working on gender, labor, the environment, and other issues for a common future. Internally, the LGBT movement has to commit to multiplicities as a fundamental principle of its foundation. Only by dismantling hierarchies within can the voices of marginalized groups within the LGBT umbrella be affirmed. This step would enrich LGBT rights by affirming the intersectionality of the LGBT experience, and would complete the arc of theorization of rights. Page 16 of 24 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020 The second strand of research is the continued decolonization of the existing canons of LGBT rights. Postcolonial and native studies have questioned the applicability and desirability of the epistemology and politics of LGBT rights in non-Western contexts. The critiques of GLS, social constructionism, and queer theory question the understanding of lived experiences of sexual and gender minorities through intersectionality of race, ethnicity, and nationality using the historical nature of identities. The approaches to decolonization include reclaiming language and terminology of traditions at the grassroots; accessing rights and community solidarity through extra-legal means such as development aid, civil society activities, and arts; and examining an integrated approach to sexuality and gender. The third strand is how theoretical frameworks of LGBT rights have seeped into interdisciplinary research. Interdisciplinary research informs how the queer researcher is defined and navigates through traditions of social sciences. For example, from microenvironments such as workplace culture to macro variables such as gross national product and economic growth, queering the disciplines involves not just adding queer variables to existing models but rather remodeling the fundamental assumptions, collecting the relevant data, and including appropriate methodologies. These forms of interdisciplinary research are closely tied to practice and policy making. Finally, the theoretical framework of LGBT rights is set to confront new realities. For example, the fourth industrial revolution—encompassing big data, artificial intelligence, and the gig economy—is changing the paradigms in which human identities and social relationships have operated so far. Virtual realities and cyber space are emerging as new jurisdictions in which the scope of human rights is extended beyond the society. New realms such as outer space are fast becoming extensions of our current physical reality. In the ever-expanding universe that human beings continue to inhabit, all rights, and especially LGBT rights, have to be examined in new and challenging contexts. References Abelove, H., Barale, M., & Halperin, D. (1993). Introduction. In H. Abelove, M. Barale, & D. Halperin (Eds.), The lesbian and gay studies reader (pp. xv–xxii). New York, NY: Routledge. Angelides, S. (2001). A history of bisexuality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Angelides, S. (2006). Historicizing (bi)sexuality: A rejoinder for gay/lesbian studies, feminism, and queer theory. Journal of Homosexuality, 52(1/2), 125–158. Aristotle. (1995). Politics. Translated by E. Barker. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Augustine. (1998). The city of God against the Pagans. Translated by R. W. Dyson. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Badgett, M. V. L. (2008). The wage effects of sexual orientation discrimination. In J. Jacobssen & A. Zeller (Eds.), Queer economics: A reader (pp. 237–255). Oxford, UK: Routledge. Badgett, M. V. L., Nezhad, S., Waaldijk, C., & van der Meulen Rodgers, Y. (2014). The relationship between LGBT inclusion and economic development: An analysis of emerging economies <https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/15396/lgbt-inclusion-anddevelopment-november-2014.pdf> [Report]. Los Angeles, CA: Williams Institute. Page 17 of 24 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020 Ball, C. A. (2016). A new stage for the LGBT movement: Protecting gender and sexual multiplicities. In C. A. Ball (Ed.), After marriage equality: The future of LGBT rights (pp. 157– 180). New York, NY: New York University Press. Bullough, V. L. (1973). Homosexuality as submissive behavior: Evidence from mythology <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224497309550808>. The Journal of Sex Research, 9(4), 283–288. Butler, J. (1994). Against proper objects. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 6(2– 3), 1–26. Button, S. (2004). Identity management strategies utilized by lesbian and gay employees <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1059601103257417? journalCode=gomb>. Group and Organization Management, 29(4), 470–494. Campbell, B. (2019). Transgender-specific policy in Latin America. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Carlson, D. L. (2013). Postqueer? Examining tensions between LGBT studies and queer theory: A review of LBGT studies and queer theory <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/ 10.1080/19361653.2014.840767>. Journal of LGBT Youth, 11, 1–6. Cass, V. C. (1984). Homosexual identity formation: Testing a theoretical model <https:// www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224498409551214>. The Journal of Sex Research, 20(2), 143–167. Castells, M. (1997). The power of identity. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Cicero, M. T. (1928). De legibus. Translated by C. W. Keyes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Dank, B. M. (1971). Coming out in the gay world <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/ 10.1080/00332747.1971.11023666>. Psychiatry, 34(2), 182–197. D’Emilio, J. (1992). Gay and lesbian studies: New kid on the block? In J. D’Emilio, Making trouble: Essays on gay history, politics, and the university (pp. 160–175). New York, NY: Routledge. Douglas, N., & Slinger, P. (1979). Sexual secrets: The alchemy of ecstasy. New York, NY: Destiny Books. Drucker, P. (2011). The fracturing of LGBT identities under neoliberal capitalism <https:// www.researchgate.net/publication/ 233547100_The_Fracturing_of_LGBT_Identities_under_Neoliberal_Capitalism>. Historical Materialism, 19(4), 3–32. Duggan, L. (1995). Making it perfectly queer. In L. Duggan & N. D. Hunter (Eds.), Sex wars: Sexual dissent and political culture (pp. 155–172). New York, NY: Routledge. Durber, D. (2006). Desiring mates. In K. E. Lovaas, J. P. Elia, & A. Y. Gust (Eds.), LGBT studies and queer theory: New conflicts, collaborations, and contested terrain (pp. 237–256). Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press. Page 18 of 24 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020 Eagleton, T. (1997). The illusions of postmodernism. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Edelman, L. (1994). Homographesis: Essays in gay literary and cultural theory. New York, NY: Routledge. Elias, N. M., Johnson, R. L., Ovando, D., & Ramirez, J. (2018). Improving transgender policy for a more equitable workplace. Journal of Public Management & Social Policy, 24(2), 53–81. Fischel, J. J. (2019). Screw consent: A better politics of sexual justice. San Diego, CA: University of California Press. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and The discourse on language. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (1981). History of sexuality (Vols. 1–3). New York, NY: Vintage. Franke, K. (2012). Dating the state: The moral hazards of winning gay rights. Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 44, 1–46. Fuss, D. (1991). Inside/out. In D. Fuss (Ed.), Inside/out: Lesbian theories, gay theories (pp. 1–10). New York, NY: Routledge. Gammon, M. A., & Isgro, K. L. (2006). Troubling the canon: Bisexuality and queer theory <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J082v52n01_07>. Journal of Homosexuality, 52(1/2), 159–184. Gamson, J. (2000). Sexualities, queer theory, and qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 347–365). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Garber, M. (1995). Vice versa: Bisexuality and the eroticism of everyday life. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Gedro, J. (2009). LGBT career development <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/ 10.1177/1523422308328396>. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(1), 54–66. Githens, R. P., & Aragon, S. R. (2009). LGBT employee groups: Goals and organizational structures <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1523422308329200>. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(1), 121–135. Gluckman, A., & Reed, B. (2008). The gay marketing moment. In J. Jacobssen & A. Zeller (Eds.), Queer economics: A reader (pp. 297–303). Oxford, UK: Routledge. Gore, E. (2019). Queer activism in Africa. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Gueboguo, C. (2012, May 31). Naming homosexuality in Francophone Africa <https:// qaynzine.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/naming-homosexuality-in-francophone-africa/commentpage-1>. QZine. Halperin, D. M. (2003). The normalization of queer theory. In G. A. Yep, K. E. Lovaas, & J. P. Elia (Eds.), Queer theory and communication: From disciplining queers to queering the discipline(s) (pp. 339–343). New York, NY: Harrington Park Press. Page 19 of 24 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020 Hamer, D., & Copeland, P. (1994). The science of desire: The search for the gay gene and the biology of human behavior. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Hennessy, R. (2000). Profit and pleasure: Sexual identities in late capitalism. New York, NY: Routledge. Jackson, S. (2003). Heterosexuality, heteronormativity and gender hierarchy: Some reflections on recent debates. In J. Weeks, J. Holland, & M. Waites (Eds.), Sexualities and society: A reader (pp. 69–83). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Jacobsen, J., & Zeller, A. (2008). Introduction. In J. Jacobsen & A. Zeller (Eds.), Queer economics: A reader (pp. 1–4). Oxford, UK: Routledge. Jagose, A. (1996). Queer theory: An introduction. New York, NY: New York University Press. Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism; or, the cultural logic of late capitalism. London, UK: Verso. Kim, Y. G., & Hahn, S. J. (2006). Homosexuality in ancient and modern Korea <https:// www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13691050500159720>. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 8(1), 59–65. Kirsch, M. (2006). Queer theory, late capitalism, and internalized homophobia. In K. E. Lovaas, J. P. Elia, & A. Y. Gust (Eds.), LGBT studies and queer theory: New conflicts, collaborations, and contested terrain (pp. 19–46). Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press. Knauer, N. J. (2016). LGBT elders: Making the case for equity in aging. In C. A. Ball (Ed.), After marriage equality: The future of LGBT rights (pp. 105–126). New York, NY: New York University Press. Knopp, L. (2008). Gentrification and gay neighbourhood formation in New Orleans: A case study. In J. Jacobssen & A. Zeller (Eds.), Queer economics: A reader (pp. 353–373). Oxford, UK: Routledge. Kulick, D. (1998). Travesti: Sex, gender, and culture among Brazilian transgendered prostitutes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Kuriakose, F., & Iyerr, D. K. (2020). Rights through resistance: What lies beyond legalism for the LGBT movement? <https://www.epw.in/journal/2020/17/perspectives/rights-throughresistance.html> Economic & Political Weekly, 55(17), 28–34. Locke, J. (1952). Second treatise of government. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Lovaas, K. E., Elia, J. P., & Yep, G. A. (2006). Shifting ground(s): Surveying the Contested terrain of LGBT studies and queer theory <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/ J082v52n01_01>. Journal of Homosexuality, 52(1–2), 1–18. Lukes, S. (1993). Five fables about human rights. In S. L. Shute & S. Hutley (Eds.), On human rights: Oxford amnesty lectures (pp. 19–40). New York, NY: Basic Books. Mandel, E. (1972). Late capitalism. London, UK: Verso. Page 20 of 24 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020 Matthaei, J. (2008). The sexual division of labour, sexuality, and lesbian/gay liberation: Towards a Marxist-Feminist analysis of sexuality in U.S. capitalism. In J. Jacobssen & A. Zeller (Eds.), Queer economics: A reader (pp. 194–228). Oxford, UK: Routledge. Mayo-Adam, E. (2017). Intersectional coalitions: The paradoxes of rights-based movement building in LGBTQ and immigrant communities. Law & Society Review, 51(1), 132–167. Namaste, V. (2009). Undoing theory: The transgender question and the epistemic violence of Anglo-American feminist theory <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j. 1527-2001.2009.01043.x>. Hypatia, 24(3), 11–32. Nussbaum, M. C. (1999). Sex and social justice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Nussbaum, M. C. (2001). Women and human development: The capabilities approach (Vol. 3). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Nussbaum, M. C. (2009). Hiding from humanity: Disgust, shame, and the law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Parekh, S. (2008). Homosexuality in India: The light at the end of the tunnel <https:// www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/j236v07n01_09>. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy, 7(1–2), 145–163. Pichler, S., Blazovich, J. L., Cook, K. A., Huston, J. M., & Strawser, W. R. (2018). Do LGBTsupportive corporate policies enhance firm performance? <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ abs/10.1002/hrm.21831> Human Resource Management, 57(1), 263–278. Plato. (2000). The republic. Translated by B. Jowett (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Dower. Polikoff, N. D. (2016). Marriage as blindspot: What children with LGBT parents need now. In C. A. Ball (Ed.), After marriage equality: The future of LGBT rights (pp. 127–156). New York, NY: New York University Press. Popa, B., & Sandal, H. (2019). Decolonial queer politics and LGBTI+ activism in Romania and Turkey. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Puar, J. (2012). I would rather be a cyborg than a goddess: Becoming intersectional in assemblage theory. philoSOPHIA, 2, 49–66. Rado, S. (1940). A critical examination of the concept of bisexuality. Psychosomatic Medicine, 2(4), 459–467. Rao, R. (2017). Criminal love? Queer theory, culture and politics in India. New Delhi, India: SAGE. Ritchie, J. (2015). Pinkwashing, homonationalism and Israel-Palestine: The conceits of queer theory and the politics of the ordinary <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/anti. 12100>. Antipode, 47(3), 616–634. Rorty, R. (1993). Human rights, rationality and sentimentality. In S. L. Shute & S. Hutley (Eds.), On human rights: Oxford amnesty lectures (pp. 111–134). New York, NY: Basic Books. Page 21 of 24 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020 Rousseau, J. J. (2013). The social contract. In S. Lazar (Ed.), The anthropology of citizenship (pp. 35–37). Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell. Ruan, F. F., & Tsai, Y. M. (1987). Male homosexuality in traditional Chinese literature <https:// www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J082v14n03_02>. Journal of Homosexuality, 14(3–4), 21– 34. Seidman, S. (1993). Identity and politics in a “postmodern” gay culture: Some historical and conceptual notes. In M. Warner (Ed.), Fear of a queer planet: Queer politics and social theory (pp. 105–142). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Seidman, S. (1997). Difference troubles: Queering social theory and sexual politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Smith, A. (2010). Queer theory and native studies: The heteronormativity of settler colonialism <https://read.dukeupress.edu/glq/article-abstract/16/1-2/41/34686/QUEERTHEORY-AND-NATIVE-STUDIESThe>. A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 16(1–2), 41–68. Stein, E. (1999). The mismeasure of desire: The science, theory, and ethics of sexual orientation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Storr, M. (1999). Bisexuality: A critical reader. New York, NY: Routledge. Subramaniam, B. (2014). Ghost stories for Darwin: The science of variation and the politics of diversity. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. Thoreson, R. (2018). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI) rights and Sub-Saharan Africa. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Vaid, U. (1995). Virtual equality: The mainstreaming of gay and lesbian liberation. New York, NY: Anchor Books. Valentine, D. (2007). Imagining transgender: An ethnography of a category. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Vanita, R., & Kidwai, S. (Eds.). (2000). Same-sex love in India: Readings from literature and history. New Delhi, India: MacMillan. Welbourne, T. M., Rolf, S., & Schlachter, S. (2017). The case for employee resource groups: A review and social identity theory-based research agenda <https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ PR-01-2016-0004>. Personnel Review, 46(8), 1816–1834. Whitney, E. (2006). Capitalizing on camp: Greed and the queer marketplace <https:// www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10462930500382401>. Text and Performance Quarterly, 26(1), 36–46. Williams, C. L., Giuffre, P. A., & Dellinger, K. (2009). The gay-friendly closet. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 6(1), 29–45. Page 22 of 24 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020 Wu, J. (2003). From “Long Yang” and “Dui Shi” to Tongzhi: Homosexuality in China <https:// www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J236v07n01_08>. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy, 7(1–2), 117–143. Zimmerman, B. (2000). Camp. In B. Zimmerman (Ed.), Lesbian histories and cultures: An encyclopedia (p. 142). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Notes 1. The civil and political rights have been enumerated in the international human rights treaty known as the Interntional Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), while the economic, social, and cultural rights have been enumerated in the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966. 2. The homophile movement was prevalent in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s prior to the confrontational activism of the gay liberation movement. The homophile movement argued for equal rights and respect for all regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The prominent homophile organizations were the Mattachine Society and Daughters of Bilitis, who used publications to raise awareness among gays and lesbians as well as reach out to mainstream society. 3. The second-wave feminist movement (1950s–1970s) in the United States and the wider Western world was led by educated women who demanded equality rights for women in all legal spheres, and especially in employment and wages, based on the principle of social justice. The movement was inspired by the civil rights movement and used confrontational politics as its strategy for legislative reform. 4. Queer Nation was an LGBT organization founded in New York in 1990. Outraged by the escalated violence against the homosexual community in the aftermath of the AIDS epidemic, Queer Nation attempted to increase LGBT visibility through a variety of tactics including direct action. 5. The multiplicities of sexual and gender identities have expanded to include intersex, gender non-conforming, asexual, and other communities who have emerged in the LGBT scholarship canon. 6. An example of this type of scholarship on trans communities is that of Kulick (1998), whose work demonstrated the sustained consideration of work in the lives of “travesti” women of Latin America. 7. Two notable legal frameworks to protect transgender rights from the Global South come from Latin America and India where transgender and gender non-forming identities have traditionally existed. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights advocates gender identity as constitutive of right to equality which has encouraged legislation to protect trans communities and communities with non-conforming gender identities in Latin America. The Rights of Transgender Persons Bill 2014 and The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill 2019 are two legislative measures taken by the Indian Parliament to prevent discrimination and enable the realization of rights for the transgender community. 8. Some examples of pluralistic anti-discrimination laws are race laws in the United States that do not narrowly define or enumerate races that are under protection, and anti-discrimination laws of gender identity that protect a wide range of appearances, mannerisms, and related characteristics that come under gender. Page 23 of 24 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020 Related Articles LGBTQI Rights and Sub-Saharan Africa Queer Activism in Africa Transgender-Specific Policy in Latin America Decolonial Queer Politics and LGBTI+ Activism in Romania and Turkey Page 24 of 24 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020