Suchergebnisse

The prevailing social model among the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) in South Korea is to maintain somewhat sexually free but separate social enclaves. This strategy avoids significant public backlash and government oppression. However, the situation leaves them without legal protection, social acceptance, or significant public space for expressing their sexual identity. Supporters of greater integration pursue a politically activist model, which advocates government recognition and protection of the LGBT as an oppressed minority. This strategy faces determined opposition from some Christian groups and a mostly indifferent public. We highlight a complementary "bridging-dialogue" model in which individual LGBT persons nurture communicative social ties with members of the larger society in ostensibly non-political settings. Although emerging and limited, the bridging strategy attracts many more participants than does identity politics and generates genuine dialogue and other social exchange among different groups, including conservative Christians and foreign-origin LGBTs. Bridging-dialogue also appeals to a younger generation of Koreans, who are more tolerant of and curious about ethnic and sexual diversity. (Pac Aff/GIGA)

This article examines the role of courts in rural sexual minorities' lives. It focuses first on state action, explaining that courts' failure to apply heightened scrutiny to sexual orientation classifications harms rural sexual minorities uniquely in family and employment law contexts, where judges explicitly invoke antigay rural norms to justify discriminatory treatment. It argues that by taking rural sexual minorities' relative political powerlessness into account in Equal Protection claims, courts are more likely to find that all sexual orientation classifications are suspect. It focuses second on private discrimination, and it discusses ways to protect and strengthen rural sexual minorities' privacy rights. It argues that privacy is central to protecting sexual minorities' liberty to live, create families, and work in rural environments.

"Coming Out and Political Attitudes Among Sexual Minorities" published on by Oxford University Press.

Why do insurgents target certain groups for extermination? Despite a great deal of attention to the targeting of civilian ethnic minorities, comparatively little scholarship exists on insurgent violence against sexual minorities (lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transsexual individuals). This article maintains that the decision to target sexual minorities follows three distinct logics: two strategic and one ideological. First, insurgents face an incentive to outbid rivals by targeting sexual minorities when homophobic violence is politically and socially legitimated. Second, territorial control creates an incentive for insurgents to signal their ability to selectively punish, which they can accomplish through homophobic violence. Third, revolutionary ideologies provide legitimation for exclusionary violence in the pursuit of transforming society. Statistical analysis of insurgent violence against sexual minorities from 1985 to 2015 lends strong support for these arguments. Process tracing of the spread of violence against sexual minorities in Iraq and Syria clarifies the strategic causal mechanisms. When progovernment militias targeted perceived homosexuals with impunity, antigay violence was adopted by insurgent groups seeking to legitimize their claims to power; violence then quickly spread to competing insurgents. Two additional cases from Latin America demonstrate that ideology plays an important role in influencing which groups embrace homophobic violence even under these strategic constraints.

AbstractWhy do unthreatening social groups become targets of state repression? Repression of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people is especially puzzling since sexual minorities, unlike many ethnic minorities, pose no credible violent challenge to the state. This article contends that revolutionary governments are disproportionately oppressive toward sexual minorities for strategic and ideological reasons. Since revolutions create domestic instability, revolutionaries face unique strategic incentives to target 'unreliable' groups and to demonstrate an ability to selectively punish potential dissidents by identifying and punishing 'invisible' groups. Moreover, revolutionary governments are frequently helmed by elites with exclusionary ideologies – such as communism, fascism and Islamism – which represent collectivities rather than individuals. Elites adhering to these views are thus likely to perceive sexual minorities as liberal, individualistic threats to their collectivist projects. Statistical analysis using original data on homophobic repression demonstrates that revolutionary governments are more likely to target LGBT individuals, and that this effect is driven by exclusionary ideologues. Case study evidence from Cuba further indicates that the posited strategic and ideological mechanisms mediate the relationship between revolutionary government and homophobic repression.