Neste artigo, tenho por objetivo debater a participação de LGBT na política institucional brasileira, focando nas candidatas que se autoidentificam como travestis/transexuais. Primeiramente, faço revisão do debate acadêmico sobre representação política e representação descritiva. Utilizando dados quantitativos, investigo o perfil social destas candidatas (sexo, idade, escolaridade, ideologia política, performance eleitoral etc.), contrastando-as com candidatos LGB. Por fim, analiso qualitativamente o material de campanha (banners, websites/blogs, perfis no Facebook/twitter, vídeos on-line) das candidaturas trans. Os dados quantitativos e qualitativos nos ajudaram a responder a algumas questões: a) quais são as semelhanças/diferenças entre os perfis sociais das candidatas trans e LGB?; b) as candidatas trans têm envolvimento prévio com o ativismo político LGBT ou estamos testemunhando novo tipo de engajamento na política sexual?; c) elas se utilizam da identidade travesti/transexual (e suas experiências de discriminação) como um tipo de capital político?; d) suas propostas políticas estão comprometidas com as demandas do ativismo LGBT? ; In this article, I discuss LGBT participation in Brazilian institutional politics, by focusing on candidates who identify as transgender. Firstly, I review the academic debate on political and descriptive representation. Using quantitative data, I investigate the social profile of those candidates (sex, age, education, political ideology, electoral performance, etc.), by contrasting them with LGB candidates. Finally, I conduct a qualitative analysis of electoral propaganda (banners, websites/blogs, Facebook/twitter pages, online videos) for transgender candidates. Both quantitative and qualitative data address the following questions: a) what are the similarities/differences between Transgender and LGB candidates’ social profiles? b) are transgender candidates previously involved in LGBT activism or this is a new type of engagement in sexual politics? c) do they use their transgender identity (and their experiences of discrimination) as political capital)? d) do their political programs engage the demands of LGBT activism? ; Este artículo tiene como objetivo debatir la participación de LGBT en la política institucional brasileña, focalizando en las candidatas que se autoidentifican como travestis/transexuales. En primer término, se hace una revisión del debate académico sobre representación política y representación descriptiva. Utilizando datos cuantitativos, se investiga el perfil social de dichas candidatas (sexo, edad, escolaridad, ideología política, performance electoral, etc.), contrastándolas con candidatos LGB. Luego, se analiza cualitativamente el material de campaña de las canditatas trans (banners, websites, blogs, perfiles de Facebook/Twitter, videos online). Los datos cuantitativos y cualitativos han contribuido a responder algunas cuestiones: a) ¿Cuáles son las semejanzas/diferencias entre los perfiles sociales de las candidatas trans y LGB? b) ¿Tienen las candidatas trans un involucramiento previo con el activismo político LGBT o estamos frente a un nuevo tipo de compromiso en la política sexual? c) ¿Se valen estas candidatas de la identidad travesti/transexual (y sus experiencias de discriminación) como un tipo de capital político? Y d), ¿sus propuestas políticas están comprometidas con las demandas del activismo LGBT?
In 2017, transgender woman Danica Roem stunned political observers in Virginia by unseating a long-time anti-LGBTQ legislator from a conservative district in the Virginia House of Delegates.1 She was the first openly transgender person elected and seated to a state legislature. Delegate Roem's election was historic in LGBTQ political representation, but it also occurred in a period when backlash against the LGBTQ community seemed to be growing (Taylor, Lewis, and Haider-Markel 2018). These two threads led us to ask: How are LGBTQ candidates achieving historic successes even as forces seem mobilized against them?
LGBT issues have played an important role in elections. They have been the focus of direct democracy, that is referenda and ballot initiatives in which citizens voted on LGBT rights. The issues considered evolved over time from nondiscrimination ordinances in the 1970s to same-sex marriage bans in the 2000s and transgender rights in the 2010s. Religiosity, partisanship, and ideology generally predicted electoral outcomes. While supporters of LGBT rights have often been defeated at the ballot box, the tide started to change in the 2010s. Beyond direct democracy, LGBT issues have played a role in general elections. The religious right exploited them to mobilize the conservative electorate or to persuade voters to reconsider their party loyalties. The 2004 US presidential election, when same-sex marriage bans were on the ballot in several states, offers an important case study. LGBT actors are also important in elections. LGB voters have generally been more progressive and more supportive of the Democratic Party than the general population. Additionally, the number of openly LGBT candidates has significantly grown over time. In the early years, gays and lesbians running for office faced an electoral penalty but made up for their disadvantage by strategically competing in more favorable districts. By the late 2010s, however, large subsets of the electorate, including Democrats, progressives, nonreligious voters, and people with LGBT friends no longer penalized gay and lesbian candidates. The penalty remained stronger for transgender candidates. LGBT issues have also been important outside the United States, as shown by same-sex marriage referenda in Europe and beyond and by the increasing success of lesbian and gay candidates in the United Kingdom and New Zealand. Future research should explore issues concerning minorities in the LGBT community, the shifting position of right-wing parties on LGBT rights, and the role of LGBT issues and candidates in elections outside the Western world.
Lesbietes, geji, biseksuāli cilvēki un transpersonas gadu gaitā ir kļuvušas par diskriminācijas upuriem visā pasaulē. Slikta vai nepietiekama likumdošanas un politikas īstenošana ir izraisījusi šo iedzīvotāju neapskaužamo stāvokli sabiedrībā. Lai arī situācija dažās Eiropas daļās ir mainījusies, daudzviet ir nepieciešami ievērojami uzlabojumi. Šī darba mērķis ir novērot, salīdzināt un analizēt likumus un cilvēktiesības LGBT cilvēku jomā. Uzmanība tiek vērsta uz Eiropas Savienību kā unikālu ekonomisku un politisku partnerību starp 27 Eiropas Savienības dalībvalstīm un Montenegro kā kandidātvalsti. Kopš dibināšanas Eiropas Savienībā tiek skatīts cilvēktiesību jautājums, bet pēdējo 20 gadu laikā cilvēktiesības ir kļuvušas svarīgas kā nekad agrāk. Visā pasaulē dažādas institūcijas un organizācijas cenšas uzlabot un aizsargāt vispārējās cilvēktiesības, kā arī minoritāšu tiesības. Tas, cik valstij un tās sabiedrībai ir svarīgi uzlabot LGBT cilvēku stāvokli, tiks skatīts piemērā no Montenegro, valstī, kas cenšas pārvarēt tradicionālās un morāles normas, lai veidotu labāku nākotni. 2009. gads bija pirmā reize, kad nacionālajā līmenī tika izveidota plaša koalīcija, lai cīnītos par seksuālo minoritāšu tiesību īstenošanu. Seksuālo minoritāšu tiesību aizstāvēšanu atbalstīja valsts iestādes, nevalstiskās organizācijas un starptautiskās institūcijas. Laika posmā no 2010. līdz 2011. gadam kāda nevalstiska organizācijas no Montenegro izvērtēja situāciju, kurā atrodas LGBT cilvēki, veicot pētījumus šīs minoritāšu grupas vidū un pārējo iedzīvotāju starpā, izlases kopai sastādot 1000 respondentu. Starptautiskā un Eiropas likumdošana un standarti sekoja ar to īstenošanu Montenegro, un iepriekšminētie pētījumi ir šī darba saturs. Darba 3 nodaļas sniegs secinājumus un priekšlikumus, kā uzlabot LGBT cilvēku stāvokli Montenegro. Atslēgas vārdi: LGBT cilvēki, tiesību akti, Eiropas Savienības, Montenegro ; Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people over the years are victims of discrimination in all parts of the world. Lack or bad implementation of legislation and policies resulted with their bad position in societies. While situation in some parts of Europe is improved, on the other side, in some parts still a lot of needs to be done. The aim of this paper work is to observe, compare and analyse laws of human right focusing on LGBT people. Focus is on European Union as unique economic and political partnership between 27 European countries and Montenegro as Candidate country. Since founded, European Union is dealing for human rights but in last 20 years human rights begun to be more important than ever. All over the world different institutions and organizations are trying to protect and improve human rights in general and rights of minorities. How important is for one country and its society to improve position of LGBT people will be seen trough example of Montenegro which is trying to overcome traditional and moral norms for tomorrow`s better future. For the first time, in 2009 was formed a broad coalition at the national level to promote realization of the rights of sexual minorities. Promotion and support of human rights of sexual minorities in Montenegro was supported by governmental institutions, NGO`s and international institutions. During 2010 and 2011 one Non- governmental institution from Montenegro examined situation in which are LGBT people, based on survey with representatives of this group and survey among the citizens with a sample of 1000 respondents. International and European legislation and standards followed with their implementation in Montenegro and mentioned surveys are content of this paper work which trough three chapters will give conclusions and recommendations regarding improvement situation of LGBT people in Montenegro. Key words: LGBT people, legislation, European Union, Montenegro
Public opinion on LGBT Americans' rights has become more supportive of equal treatment over time. The movement toward greater egalitarianism has been particularly pronounced on attitudes toward same-sex marriage and gay adoption. Today, the general public is overwhelmingly supportive of laws to protect gays and lesbians against job discrimination, the right of gay and lesbian couples to adopt children, and legal recognition of same-sex marriages. It is also overwhelmingly supportive of legal protections for gay and lesbian employees, although we do not know whether abstract support for equality in the workplace translates into support for the hiring of gays and lesbians in all occupations. Yet, many questions concerning LGBT Americans' rights remain controversial. The general public is especially polarized on the questions of whether transgender individuals should be able to use the bathrooms of the gender with which they identify and whether business owners in the wedding services industry can discriminate against same-sex couples on religious grounds.Systematic research on political attitudes of LGBT individuals using probability samples is practically nonexistent, although there are many studies of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals' attitudes, identities, and behavior that use convenience samples. The existing studies demonstrate that lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals tend to identify as ideologically liberal and favor the Democratic Party in their affinities and votes. LGBT Americans are far more supportive of equality in all issue domains although bisexuals—compared to lesbians and gay men—are more lukewarm in their embrace of equality on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.Scholarship on LGBT Americans in public opinion has primarily explored attitudes toward gays and lesbians and has tended to focus on attitudes toward same-sex marriage and adoption. It examines psychological, political, and demographic correlates of public opinion regarding LGBT individuals and explores links between interpersonal contact with LGBT individuals and attitudes toward them. Generally speaking, moral traditionalism, gender role conceptions, and attributions for the existence of homosexuality are especially important psychological predictors of attitudes toward sexual and gender identity minorities. Partisan and ideological identities play an important role too as do cues from ideologically compatible political elites. Of the several demographic attributes that researchers have included in their models, religion-related variables stand out for their predictive prowess. Finally, interpersonal contact with sexual and gender minorities, as well as community exposure to LGBT individuals, is associated with more favorable views toward them.Another yardstick by which commitment to equal treatment for LGBT Americans could be measured is whether and how sexual orientation and gender identity influence political fortunes of candidates for electoral office. Scholarship to date suggests that sexual orientation and gender identity function as important heuristics that influence voters' thinking about LGBT candidacies. Some scholarship mines survey questions that inquire about respondents' willingness to support hypothetical LGBT candidates for office. Others use experimental design to isolate the influences of sexual orientation and gender identity on political evaluation. Altogether, these studies demonstrate that LGBT individuals do not face a level playing field when they launch campaigns for office.
Political parties are a core feature of the American political system, and partisan identification is a major determinant of both individual attitudes and political behavior. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the major political parties in the United States have become increasingly polarized, and partisan affect has intensified, with individuals more hostile toward the opposing party. This increased polarization and tendency to follow elite cues has also affected LGBT politics.Among openly LGBT candidates for political office, almost all have run as Democrats. In June 2018 only 2.9% of openly LGBT elected officials in the country were affiliated with the Republican Party. Outreach to LGBT voters by Democratic candidates has increased over time; in contrast, Republican candidates have been generally hostile to LGBT people and issues. This growing gap in outreach is reflected in vote choice patterns. Since 1988, at least two-thirds of LGBT voters have supported the Democratic nominee for president. In the 2016 election, 78% of LGBT voters supported the Democratic nominee for president, Hillary Clinton, while only 14% supported Republican Donald Trump. In the 2018 midterm elections LGBT voters favored Democratic candidates by a margin of 82% to 17%. LGBT interest groups also tend to be affiliated with the Democratic Party, with the notable exception of the Log Cabin Republicans. Until the 1990s, most straight Americans were not interested in or aware of LGBT public policy issues, but today the members of both political parties reflect the increased partisan polarization of the country. Democrats are more likely to support same-sex relationships and marriage, laws protecting LGBT people from discrimination, transgender rights, and other supportive policies; Republicans, in contrast, are more opposed to those policies and support religious exemptions from antidiscrimination laws.This increased sorting among the LGBT public reflects an increasingly salient national divide between the two major political parties, including their understandings of LGBT identity. Democrats have for several decades understood LGBT identity as permanent (that people are born that way) and thus deserving of maximum legal protection. In contrast, many more Republicans understand LGBT as a choice or as a result of one's upbringing and environment and thus not a basis for claims for equal rights. This represents a shift over time; in 1977, only 13% of Americans believed that homosexuality was something that people were born with. As more Americans became familiar with the science demonstrating that being gay is genetic and not a "lifestyle choice," a partisan split emerged. Scholarship suggests partisanship is likely driving acceptance of the science. Regardless of the cause of the partisan split on the nature vs. nurture debate on LGBT identity, that split is reflected in the increasingly large differences between representation of LGBT people in elected office, in party support for LGBT policies, and in LGBT partisanship.
Rethinking glbt as a political category in U.S. politics / Zein Murib -- Politics outside the law : transgender lives and the challenge of legibility / B Lee Aultman and Paisley Currah -- The treatment and prevention of HIV bodies : the contemporary politics and science of a thirty-year-old epidemic / J. Ricky Price -- Queering reproductive justice : toward a theory and practice for building intersectional political alliances / Kimala Price -- The "b" isn't silent : bisexual communities and political activism / Charles Anthony Smith, Shawn Schulenberg, and Eric A. Baldwin -- Embodying margin to center : intersectional activism among queer liberation organizations / Joseph N. DeFilippis and Ben Anderson-Nathe -- From "don't drop the soap" to PREA standards : reducing sexual victimization of LGBT people in the juvenile and criminal justice systems / Sean Cahill -- The politics of the politics and sexuality section / Angelia R. Wilson -- The politics of the LGBT caucus : a history and its lessons / Martha Ackelsberg -- Power, politics, and difference in the American Political Science Association : an intersectional analysis of the New Orleans siting controversy / Susan Burgess and Anna Sampaio -- Where has the field gone? : an investigation of LGBTQ political science research / Barry L. Tadlock and Jami K. Taylor -- Unfulfilled promises : how queer feminist political theory could transform political science / Jyl Josephson and Thaøs Marques -- The how, why, and who of LGBTQ "victory" : a critical examination of change in public attitudes involving LGBTQ people / Jeremiah J. Garretson -- Equality or transformation? : LGBT political attitudes and priorities and the implications for the movement / Donald P. Haider-Markel and Patrick R. Miller -- Case studies of black lesbian and gay candidates : winning identity politics in the Obama era / Ravi K. Perry and X. Loudon Manley -- Equality in the House : the congressional LGBT equality caucus and the substantive representation of LGBTQ interests / Paul Snell -- Gay and lesbian candidates, group stereotypes, and the news media : an experimental design / Mandi Bates Bailey and Steven P. Nawara -- Marriage equality : assimilationist victory or pluralist defeat? / Courtenay W. Daum -- The state of marriage? : how sociolegal context affects why same-sex couples marry / Ellen Ann Andersen -- Queer sensibilities and other fagchild tools / Jerry D. Thomas -- You don't belong here, either : same-sex marriage politics and LGBT/Q youth homelessness activism in Chicago / Jason Stodolka -- Political science and the study of LGBT social movements in the global South / Julie Moreau -- Homonationalism and the comparative politics of LBTB rights / Miriam Smith -- Top down, bottom up, or meeting in the middle? : the U.S. government in international LGBTQ human rights advocacy / Cynthia Burack -- Pink links : visualizing the global LGBTQ network / Christina Kiel and Megan E. Osterbur -- Whither the LBBTQ movement in a post/civil rights era? / Gary Mucciaroni -- Scouting for normalcy : merit badges, cookies, and American futurity / Judy Rohrer -- Queering the feminist dollar : a history and consideration of the Third Wave Fund as activist philanthropy / Melissa Meade and Rye Young -- Single-sex colleges and transgender discrimination : the politics of checking a "male" or "female" box to get into college / Heath Fogg Davis