Still much to be achieved: Intersecting regimes of oppression,social critique,and ‘thick’ justice for lesbian and gay people

Abstract

Tying together theories of democratic justice and intersectionality, and presenting a contextual and updated theorization of the social-sexual organization, this article discusses the scope of justice offered to lesbians and gays in Denmark. Analyzing relations of recognition and representation in educational settings and asylum policy, it shows the obstacles to and/or opportunities for justice, including the different effects of intersections of heterosexism, sexism and racism on the agency of various groups of lesbians and gays. Considering justice as a process, the article argues that lesbians and gay movements’ democratic pursuit of justice both push existing boundaries of justice and feed on them. And, it indicates conditions for transformation.

Keywords

Democratic justice Denmark intersections of heterosexism sexism and racism

Introduction

The gender and sexuality politics terrain in Denmark is currently marked by deep divisions. One the one hand governmental proclamations and mainstream media celebrate the public presences of women, lesbians, gays, and transgender people (Danish Government, 2016; Mathiessen, 2017; Ministry of Immigration and Integration, 2015); recent changes, such as trans people’s right to change the gender on their IDs, same-sex marriage rights, and more gender equality, are cast as testimonies of a linear progress brought about by a successful politics of equality and new forms of national belonging, defined by ‘woman- and homo-friendliness’. Meanwhile, misogyny, homo- and trans phobia are ascribed to other countries and racialized groups of immigrants.¹ On the other hand radical queer, transgender, feminist, anti-racist communities, and voices within the main organization, LGBT Denmark, foreground extant sexist, heterosexist and racist structures plus the marginalization of transgender people and bisexuals (Bissenbakker et al., 2014; Everyday Sexism Project Denmark, 2017; LGBT Denmark, 2017b; QueerPower, 2017). Stressing intersecting inequalities of gender, gender identity, sexuality, race, class and nation, this position questions the scope of change. Hence, modalities of subordination and domination, alongside visions of equality and justice have become highly contested.

Focusing on the case of lesbian and gay people² here,³ aiming to contribute normative analysis and evaluation to these political conflicts, I make three arguments. First, society offers what I propose to call ‘thin’ justice (formal equality) rather than ‘thick’ justice (substantive equality).⁴ The latter requires granting lesbian and gay citizens equivalent rights and immunities, along with their effective implementation; equal cultural respect; an effective political voice and the situating of the vindication of equality within the domain of democratic contestation; redistributive interventions, alongside the elimination of sexual oppression itself. Second, perhaps counter-intuitively the achievement of ‘thin’ justice may promote, provided certain conditions, the reaching of a ‘thick(er)’ justice over time. Third, because the intersectional dimension of sexual justice cannot be separated from racial, gender, and age-related justice,⁵ different groups of lesbians and gays need something different to function as equal citizens. Apart from a few studies (Albæk, 1998; Stormhøj, 2007, 2015; Ussing, 2002), these issues have not been discussed in the Danish context in a political-theoretical perspective,⁶ and none have applied an approach of intersectionality.

The article makes three key contributions to the field of feminist and sexuality-related political theory. (1) It challenges a pervasive dualism in terms of the politics of formal equality – with proponents claiming its progressiveness (e.g. Roseneil et al., 2013; Seidman, 2001), and opponents its regressiveness (e.g. Duggan, 2003; Eng, 2010; Spade, 2015; Warner, 1999) – I want to contribute to an emerging third position, arguing that both inclusion and transformation are needed to expand justice for lesbians and gays (Weeks, 1998; see also Stychin, 2001). Extending this position by suggesting the idea of what I call ‘a politics of small steps’ (referring to law reforms and changes that promote social betterment in the present, yet also transform the ‘frames’ of inclusion) allows me to consider the relationship between the pursuit of formal equality and substantial equality as a dynamic one that may approach the ideal of ‘thick’ justice over time. (2) It capitalizes on feminist theorization of ‘thick’ justice, especially Nancy Fraser’s work, which is theoretical, as she has not carried out empirical analyses, this article applies her theory to a specific context, thereby nuancing and revising it. Furthermore, Fraser’s crafting of justice within a framework of radical democracy offers an understanding of justice as a battleground between the state and lesbian and gay movements. Expanding this notion, I propose considering the temporality of justice, whereby it is turned into a process that may be limited or expanded in acts of struggle: the idea of creating justice by social movements’ continuing performing or claiming it. A further analytical gain of Fraserian theory is its attention to economic injustices, thus contributing to an underexplored area in much of the literature on sexual citizenship⁷ and justice⁸ (Richardson, 2017: 218 (exceptions are, e.g. Bell and Binnie, 2000; Evans, 1993; Spade, 2015; Young, 1990)). (3) Using the lens of intersectionality, the article paves the way for analyzing the specificities and varying degrees of constraint on the agency of different groups of lesbians and gays, thus addressing a gap in sexuality-related political theory.

Positions on the politics of formal equality

Scholars disagree on the achievements and pitfalls of a politics of formal equality, the template for including LGBT people in contemporary western societies. Included in the brief review to follow are Ammaturo (2017), Andersen (2009), Bamforth (1997), Bech (2002), Bell and Binnie (2000), Brown (2006), Butler (2004), Duggan (2003), Eng (2010), Evans (1993), Kaplan (1997), Petersen (2012), Phelan (2001), Richardson and Monro (2012); Roseneil et al. (2013), Rydström (2011), Seidman (2001), Spade (2015), Warner (1999), and Weeks (1998). In analyzing this literature, I identify four major positions: A view stressing the politics as (1) progressive, (2) regressive, (3) ambivalent, and (4) as potentially transformative over time, with each position containing various sub-positions. Writers within the first position stress the progressive, yet incomplete, social inclusion and legal equality of lesbians and gays (Bech, 2002; Roseneil et al, 2013; Seidman, 2001). This process has brought about more life chances to homosexuals (Roseneil et al., 2013); made living as a homosexual less strenuous, and sexual identity less significant, socially and individually as a result of normalization (Bech, 2002; Seidman, 2001); contributed to transforming key social institutions (marriage and family) (Bech, 2002); and challenged the normativity and naturalness of heterosexuality (Roseneil et al., 2013).

Besides the ineffectiveness of formal-legal measures in addressing oppression (Bamforth, 1997; Phelan, 2001; Spade, 2015), for some writers within the second position, the rhetoric of the freedoms and rights of the individual is key to current neoliberalism’s discipline, encouraging homosexuals to become ‘ordinary citizens’ by including them into the intimate realm, consumption, and the national order (Duggan, 2003; Eng, 2010; Evans, 1993; Petersen, 2012). The point is that neoliberal inclusion upholds normative frameworks and can block the pursuit of substantive equality. Another key point is that entitlements are conditioned by the sexual citizen behaving in specific ways (privatized, de-eroticized and domesticated), whereby sexual dissidence is neutralized (Ammaturo, 2017; Bell and Binnie, 2000; Duggan, 2003; Evans, 1993; Warner, 1999). Moreover, a crucial problem is how neoliberalism’s sexual politics enacts its own exclusions and hierarchizations along axes, most importantly, of race and class (Ammaturo, 2017; Eng, 2010; Spade, 2015). A final problem is how the regime of formal equality depoliticizes, construing inequalities as individual, natural, or cultural, making them more difficult to address (Brown, 2006; Richardson and Monro, 2012; Spade, 2015).

The third position, the ambivalent, weighs pros and cons against each other foregrounding the gains of formal equality (less suffering, more life chances and protections) as compared with its absence (cruelty, expulsion etc.). Concurrently, it insists on the normalizing effects of these politics and their contributions to sustaining the status quo (Andersen, 2009; Butler, 2004; Kaplan 1997; Rydström, 2011).

The fourth position claims the need of both civic inclusion, in order to counter the reinforcement of present inequalities in citizenship, and of a continuing critique of these inclusionary frames (Weeks, 1998). Suggesting the idea of ‘a politics of small steps’, I indicate how formal equality initiatives may pave the way for more transformative politics to become possible over time. Propelling such a progressive spiral, which cumulatively alters the terrain of later justice struggles, depends on contextual factors, which I discuss later.

Theorizing ‘thick’ justice for lesbians and gays, and its structural impediments in Denmark

My articulation of ‘thick’ justice feeds on an expansive conception of justice as developed by feminist thinkers (Fraser, 1997; 2003a; 2003b; 2009; Nussbaum, 1999; Young, 1990), foregrounding three interrelated aspects: (1) justice comprises all aspects of institutional organization, insofar as they are potentially subject to collective decision; (2) democracy is both a component and a condition of justice; (3) justice encompasses both negative and positive liberty.⁹ Nancy Fraser proposes a tripartite theory of justice, grounded in culture, economy and politics, corresponding with recognition, redistribution and representation. In order to illuminate the often hidden intertwinements between the different forms of injustice, it aims to investigate every practice from the perspective of recognition, redistribution and representation. Drawing on her approach, I argue that lesbians and gays suffer from all three forms of injustice,¹⁰ though in varying degrees, implying that justice can only be achieved by simultaneously remedying all of these.

Fraser (2003a: 36) puts forward a radical equalitarianism: the equal participation of all in social life, with which she evaluates society’s institutional arrangements. Cultural value patterns produce unequal relations of recognition between groups, generating a status hierarchy that denies some actors equal participation. Achieving justice requires changing these patterns so that they convey equal respect for all. Relevant here is Fraser’s (2003a) analysis of heterosexism: heteronormative value patterns produce status inequalities causing a systemic oppression of homosexuals, including making sexual differences invisible. Such patterns are institutionalized in laws and policies and organize everyday practices. In the economic order, an uneven distribution of resources and burdens violate justice by denying some people the means and opportunities to participate on an equal standing. The remedy is redistribution. Thinking from the horizon of radical democracy, unequal access to representation and decision-making procedures within all institutional settings that enable or constrain members’ actions produces various forms of political misrepresentation. These forms hamper justice by denying some people their equal say in terms of common affairs and in their framings. Democratization is needed (Fraser, 2009). Importantly, as the three forms of oppression are empirically intertwined, they can amplify each other producing either disempowering or empowering spirals.

Because of the contextual and temporal nature of heteronormativity (Brown, 2012; Ryan-Flood, 2009), Fraser’s analysis of heterosexism, which I take to be USA-based and to reflect the social-sexual regime of the past, needs revision to capture the current social standing of lesbians and gays in Denmark. Research (Edelberg, 2011; Nyegaard, 2017; Rydström, 2007, 2011; Søland, 1998; Von Rosen, 2007) testifies that, during the 20th century, the repression of homosexuals has been weakening, though not without backlashes. Key nation-specific factors include: a welfare state characterized by a tradition of egalitarianism that institutionalizes social rights independently of family relationships; a strong faith in the legitimacy of state-intervention; cultural changes redefining marriage, family and sexuality; a bottom-up formative process, building on a participatory model of citizenship that enables lesbian and gay movements to influence political power; a political culture of consensus in favor of solving social problems scientifically¹¹ and requiring compromises across the political spectrum; a decrease of traditionalistic political parties; and a lesbian and gay movement, strategically promoting tolerance, acceptance, and equality rather than confrontation, and working with rather than against authorities, with the latter three factors weakening opposition to lesbian and gay rights claims. These factors paved the way for Denmark’s early move toward decriminalization (1930) of homosexuality (Rydström, 2007). In tandem with the particular role played by European institutions in promoting a human rights based protection and equality agenda (Ammaturo, 2017; Roseneil et al., 2013), they have also laid the ground for subsequent developments: anti-discrimination legislation and laws recognizing same-sex relationships and parenting that came about from the late 1980s.

Fraser’s theory also needs updating to match sexual-politics trends of neoliberalism, accelerating in the 1990s in Denmark (Pedersen, 2011: 22): the partial and conditional inclusion and equality of certain groups of lesbian and gay citizens. These moves are accomplished by a process of normalization that integrates homosexuals, provided that they conform to dominant racial (white), cis-gender, sexual, familial, and work practices (Petersen, 2012); a process of purification that tries to free the homosexual from the mark of otherness (Richardson, 2005), yet, a mark that will stick because of the weight of history, and which leaves her/him continually prey to exclusion (Stormhøj, 2015); and a process of recoding the notion of homosexual liberation as an access to conventional life (Edelberg, 2014; Petersen, 2012). Importantly, these trends do not displace the older one of repression. Rather, they coexist, I suggest, in various combinations within different institutional fields, and produce their own field-specific dynamic of inclusion (the privileged) and discrimination (the vulnerable and dissidents).

Summing up, the extent and speed of processes of legal equality and civic inclusion in Denmark have been relatively fast, yet they follow a general north-western European trend (Petersen, 2012). Still, because these processes are modeled by hegemonic norms, they leave many aspects of inequality unchanged, make substantial equality for lesbians and gays precarious, and render facets of their social life insecure with anti-discrimination legislation remaining insufficient (Edelberg, 2014; Rydström, 2011; Stormhøj, 2009, 2015).

In revising Fraser’s theory, I also profit from feminist intersectional perspectives. In line with Fraserian thinking, a macro-group level approach to intersectionality¹² foregrounds social structures and common location within power relations (positionality), thus addressing the fact of interlocking systems of oppression (Collins, 2015; Crenshaw, 1994). My main focus will be on the intersection of heterosexism, sexism, and racism. Sexism refers to the tendency of devaluing traits associated with the feminine (Lorber, 2011). Following Anthias and Yuval-Davis (1992) and Hervik (2015), racism denotes discourses and other social practices that privilege traits linked with ‘whiteness’, and, in turn, disprivilege expressions associated with people of color, or ethnic, national and religious minority groups, constructed as ‘the others’. These entanglements may account for how life conditions and experiences of lesbians and gays are shaped by various axes of advantage/disadvantage that produce complex inequalities.

(In)justices for lesbians and gays

To assess the justice of social arrangements, the following analysis is designed as a confrontation between ‘is’ and ‘ought’: the evaluation of empirical relations of recognition and representation with the norm of equal participation. The examples selected demonstrate aspects of the relations of recognition embedded in educational settings and in regulatory and legal institutions dealing with migrants, relations of representation in school and asylum policy, and the economic effects of these relations.¹³ These areas are selected, because they allow the evaluation of the limit/opportunity of the scheme of formal equality, and how transformation may be produced; represent relatively underexplored areas; reflect the timeliness of the debates; and because of empirical availability. As knowledge on the social conditions of lesbians and gays in Denmark is limited and fragmentary,¹⁴ availability of material has been decisive. The material is found in case studies and surveys. Concerning timeliness, the combatting of bullying in schools has recently become a political priority (Hansen et al., 2014). As to the current refugee crisis, a growing number of asylum seekers are framing their claims in terms of persecution on the grounds of sexual orientation (LGBT Asylum, 2015). Because norms shaping relations of recognition and representation are area-specific, generalizations based on these examples cannot be made. The patterns found may ground future research in areas resembling the ones selected.

The first area concerns relations of recognition in educational settings, and the political influence of LGBT NGOs on anti-bullying policies. Heterosexist bullying (hurtful name-calling and physical attacks) is an indicator of misrecognition, as is public inaction when it comes to such behavior. Recent research shows mixed results: schools are supportive as well as particularly problematic places for young lesbians and gays. Today, they meet a more ‘homo’-affirmative climate than did previous generations (Graugaard et al., 2015) and have more positive experiences with school peers and staff (FRA, 2009;¹⁵ Gransell and Hansen, 2009). Still, the high level (63%) of closeting during schooling before the age of 18 (FRA, 2013) combined with the widespread practice of normalization questions schools’ inclusiveness. In the FRA survey (2013), 26% of young lesbians and gays answer that they often experience heterosexist bullying in schools; 40% that they experience it sometimes; and, around 50% experience others often being harassed on grounds of sexual orientation. The high level of harassment reported is related to younger people’s dependent position making it difficult for them to choose those with whom they interact in school. Foregrounding the social aspect, Hansen (2011) explains bullying as ‘the need to belong to the “normal”‘ which is urgent in youth. One way of ‘doing’ belonging is by engaging in practices punishing sexualities outside the boundaries of normative heterosexuality, which is a way of demonstrating especially masculine identity (Messerschmidt, 2012). Particularly among high school boys, a high level of disapproval of same-sex practice is found (Sex & Society, 2011). Approaching bullying through the lens of intersectionality,¹⁶ homophobia interacts with sexism in various ways, only some of which can be discussed here. Physical attacks used by bullying males, attempting to teach gays to be ‘real men’, that is, someone who can return aggression, may be read as homophobic sexism. And boys appearing ‘soft or shy’, thereby demonstrating insufficient commitment to male values, risk sexist, homophobic victimization where the perpetrator bullies in manners traditionally directed towards girls such as gossip, intentional exclusion and so on (Daley et al., 2007). Because boys are often more severely punished when behaving ‘queerly’ due to their role in maintaining male privileges, gay youth is more inclined to closet than young lesbians are (Messerschmidt, 2012). In terms of the level of bullying experienced, boys become victims to bullying in schools twice as often as girls do, and also perceive the school climate as more intolerant towards them than lesbians do (FRA, 2013). While girls can engage in behavior beyond the ‘traditional’ feminine because of the valorization of masculinity, still, lesbian youth may experience sexual assault as males raise doubt about their lesbianism or make a pass at them, both instances that may be conceptualized as sexist homophobia (Daley et al., 2007).

Several works (FRA, 2009; Hansen et al., 2014; National Institute of Public Health, 2014) demonstrate that stress, isolation, lack of feeling safe, poor school performance, absenteeism, and dropping out of school are some of the effects of sexist and/or heterosexist misrecognition. With school curricula often ignoring the issue of homosexuality (FRA, 2016b; Sex & Society, 2011), this lack reinforces the isolation of lesbian and gay youth, as does representing heterosexuality as the only ‘natural’ and valuable option. Viewed from the angle of redistribution, high levels of absenteeism and modest grades can lead to reducing the chances of lesbian and gay youth entering into higher education and may translate into economic hardship. Gransell and Hansen (2009) show how disempowering spirals of low level or lack of education, marginal labor market position or unemployment, and economic problems may occur.

Since 2000, political efforts to prevent and combat bullying in schools have increased (National Institute of Public Health, 2014: 98). Yet, currently only 78% of primary and lower secondary schools have developed anti-bullying strategies, though they are mandatory (DCUM, 2017). None recognize heterosexist bullying and assaults on grounds of non-conforming gender behavior (FRA, 2016b). Teachers lack the awareness, incentives and skills to acknowledge and tackle these issues (FRA, 2016b). And practices involved in naturalizing heterosexuality (framing it as inborn, or as transhistorical (see Butler, 1990)) are left unaddressed by school authorities (Engel and Houe, 2014; Sex & Society, 2011). There is an urgent need for systematic training of teachers and school staff (Engel and Houe, 2014); yet, authorities are reluctant, referring to constraints resulting from cutbacks (FRA, 2016b). Generally, bullying becomes individualized, requiring only interpersonal conflict-solving and mutual trust-building (Hansen, 2016). However, LGBT NGOs and other organizations engaged in combatting discrimination, and forming partnerships with public authorities (LGBT-Ungdom, 2017; Norm Storm Troops, 2016; Sex & Society, 2017), continually attempt to promote a ‘thicker’ justice, which would frame the problem of bullying as a structural one that would require institutional solutions (FRA, 2009; Hansen, 2016). Still, this partnership has proven successful in identifying gender and sexuality-related bullying (Sex & Society, 2011), and in changing the view on same-sex practices among youth over time (FRA, 2009).

The second area concerns asylum policy focusing on its relations of representation and recognition. Importantly, the handling of (lesbian and gay) refugees and asylum seekers is a complex process situating a multiplicity of actors (immigration authorities, caseworkers, NGOs, lawyers, and asylum seekers) in networks of power, knowledge, and law (Drud-Jensen and Knudsen, 2008).¹⁷ Migration laws have been repeatedly tightened since 2000 (Myong and Bissenbakker, 2014) as Third World migrants are cast as threats to the socio-cultural stability and welfare of the country and as costs (Ammaturo, 2017). While supra-national court decisions offer improved protection of LBGT migrants (Ammaturo, 2017), research points to areas of deep concern, only some of which can be discussed here. Their situation when coming to Denmark is given a low priority politically, though they are considered as especially vulnerable by supra-national agencies (FRA, 2017) and face particular difficulties when applying for asylum, when they are deported, or during integration (Knudsen, 2011; LGBT Asylum, 2015; see also Sältenberg, 2016). Racist and heterosexist assumptions play out in various ways in terms of application procedure. Two are central: ignorance of lesbian and gay ways of living, and/or the use of heteronormative frames of interpretation; and, the deployment of western understandings of sexuality. In the country of origin reports, information about homosexuality which is part of the assessment process, is often extremely scarce, based on heteronormative notions, and does not include the voices of locally-based LG NGOs, if they exist at all (Knudsen, 2011: 112). Often, the credibility of asylum seekers is called into question, because only certain racialized/westernized identities and practices are intelligible (e.g. having a stable homosexual identity and a consistent sexual activity, and framing one’s story within the discourse of ‘coming out’), or because authorities perceive lesbian and gay people stereotypically (e.g. assuming that gays behave in a womanly fashion), and lack knowledge about how to handle sensitive issues around gender and sexual orientation (Knudsen, 2011; LGBT Asylum, 2015, 2017; Provencher, 2011). Moreover, heterosexism and racism sometimes interact with blindness to gender-specific oppression. When information about homosexuality is available in the country of origin reports, the homosexual is often assumed to be a male figure, and also based on racialized knowledge, to be able to practice ‘his’ sexuality in a gay subculture, wherefore lesbians suffer from discursive erasure, which may have serious repercussions (Drud-Jensen and Knudsen, 2008: 54–55). Though lesbians risk persecution in their home country, if their sexual identities are disclosed, they are assumed to enjoy the same subcultural autonomy, and therefore risk being denied asylum. When deported, lesbians may also risk, on their return, so-called correctional rape, often by relatives and acquaintances, and often on the request of their close family (Hojem, 2009: 8). There are no special accommodation facilities for lesbians and gays in terms of reception conditions, though they are victims of both racist, sexist, and homophobic harassment and violence, often without reporting the abuses and authorities not recording them (FRA, 2016a; LGBT Asylum, 2017). The scarcity of research makes it difficult to assess the prevalence of the patterns found, yet research does suggest a lack of equal concern for colored lesbians and gays, who are ignored, silenced, and delegitimized if their identities and experiences do not fit the normalized definitions and criteria of the Danish state. These injustices may, in part, explain a higher level of rejection of lesbian and gay asylum seekers than among other groups of applicants (LGBT Asylum, 2015). The low prioritizing of lesbian and gay asylum seekers results in a lack of economic resources for gathering and assessing country of origin information and for training of caseworkers (FRA, 2017). NGOs engaged in this group of refugees only survive by private donations.

While recently succeeding in having prosecution on grounds of sexual orientation recognized as a basis for asylum,¹⁸ yet, because of increasingly restrictive laws, LGBT Denmark is no longer represented at The Refugee Appeals Board making final decisions on granting asylum (Knudsen, 2011; LGBT Asylum, 2015). Evaluated by the standard of democratic justice, this and other NGOs still have their say when new laws or amendments are introduced. Yet, they are not accorded a voice in final decision-making and do not have the opportunity to test the legitimacy of the decisions made or to criticize color-, sexuality- and gender-blind knowledge. Nonetheless, the continuing calls to justice enacted by the collective agency of NGOs, contesting the boundaries of the historically specific asylum regime by airing various injustices, do have (as the small successes testify) and may have future transformative effects, influencing political power and the public opinion.

Concluding discussion

In conclusion, I focus on two concerns: the intersectional nature of (in)justice, and the struggles for ‘thick(er)’ justice. The lens of intersectionality suggests forms of inequality – misrecognition, misrepresentation, and maldistribution – that produce hierarchies of disempowerment, along lines of racial, gender, and age differences. Recognizing these inequalities legally and politically implies rejecting the idea that ‘one-size-fits-all’. Rather, ‘thick(er)’ justice requires questioning the white, westernized, hetero, male, cis-gendered foundation of the extant standard of justice, alongside demanding both differentiated (based on particular needs) and universal (based on the common humanity of all) measures to redress injustices.

Making ‘a politics of small steps’ transformative by cumulatively changing the terrain of later justice struggles is an ongoing process that LGBT movements have participated in for a long time through their acts of justice, such as critique and will to compromise. My analysis and the research of others indicate conditions for the success of such transformation: the formation of partnerships between LGBT movements (and other civil society associations facing equivalent problems) and public authorities, in control of the former, based on their problem representations (Field, 2007; Pedersen, 2005). LGBT organizations also need to engage strategically with reformist politics, combined with continuing to critique its premises, pressing for ongoing reforms (Langdridge, 2013; Stormhøj, 2015), and to hold authorities accountable for the security, well-being, and rights of lesbians and gays (Field, 2007). Moreover, in order to reduce the malign effects of marginalization leaving some lesbians and gays with the burden of vulnerability, fostering ties of solidarity in lesbian and gay communities is needed (Stormhøj, 2015). Transformation also depends on access to the media, which are key to the framings of justice claims, the formation of alliances with center-left political parties and cultural elites offering advocacy, and a responsive state encouraging citizens’ involvement from below (Hobson, 2003; Rydström, 2011). Yet, with the retrenchment of the Danish welfare state and the rise of neoliberalism, there is a risk of reinforcing racial and gender-normative hierarchies and processes of normalization within lesbian and gay communities, and of blocking off more critical and collective claims to a ‘thick(er) justice’ on behalf of LGBT movements.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Footnotes

Notes

Christel Stormhøj, PhD, is Associate Professor at the Department of Social Sciences and Business at Roskilde University, Denmark. Her major fields of research include feminist and queer theory, citizenship and justice from a gender, sexuality and democracy perspective, social critique, feminist and LGBTQ activism and politics, and the religion/secularity divide.

References

Albæk

(1998) Frisindets grænser: Homoseksuelle mellem moralske dilemmaer og politiske hensyn [The limits of sexual permissiveness: Homosexuals between moral dilemmas and political considerations]. Politica 30(4): 405–422.

Ammaturo

(2017) European Sexual Citizenship. Human Rights, Bodies and Identities, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Andersen

(2009) Det norske seksuelle medborgerskab [The Norweigian sexual citizenship]. In: Mühleisen

Røthing

(eds) Norske seksualiteter [Norweigian sexualities], Oslo: Cappelen Academics, pp. 121–139.

Andreassen R (2005) The mass media’s construction of gender, race, sexuality and nationality: An analysis of the Danish news media’s communication about visible minorities from 1971 to 2004. PhD Thesis, University of Toronto, Canada.

Anthias

Yuval-Davis

(1992) Racialized Boundaries: Race, Nation, Gender, Colour and Class and Anti-Racist Struggle, London: Routledge.

Bamforth

(1997) Sexuality, Morals and Justice. A Theory of Lesbian and Gay Rights Law, London: Cassell.

Bech

(1997) When Men Meet, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bech

(2002) Det onde i Danmark [The evil in Denmark]. Dansk Sociologi 13(3): 49–74.

Bell

Binnie

(2000) The Sexual Citizen, Cambridge: Polity.

10.

Bissenbakker M, Danbolt M, et al. (2014) Den skandaløse påstand om strukturel racisme [The scandalous claim about structural racism]. In: Peculiar.dk. Available at: www.peculiar.dk (accessed 15 April 2016).

11.

Brown

(2012) Homonormativity: A metropolitan concept that denigrates ‘ordinary’ gay lives. Journal of Homosexuality 59(7): 1065–1072.

12.

Brown

(2006) Regulating Aversion, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

13.

Butler

(1990) Gender Trouble. Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, New York: Routledge.

14.

Butler

(2004) Undoing Gender, London and New York: Routledge.

15.

Christensen

Siim

(2006) Fra køn til diversitet – intersektionalitet i en dansk/nordisk kontekst [From gender to diversity – intersectionality in a Danish/Nordic context]. Kvinder, Køn & Forskning 15(2–3): 32–42.

16.

Collins

(2015) Intersectionality’s definitional dilemmas. Annual Review of Sociology 41: 1–20.

17.

Crenshaw

(1994) Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics and violence against women of color. In: Fineman

Mykitiuk

(eds) The Public Nature of Private Violence, New York: Routledge, pp. 93–118.

18.

Daley

, et al. (2007) Traversing the margins: Intersectionalities in the bullying of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services 19(3–4): 9–29.

19.

Danish Government (2016) Regeringsgrundlag. For et friere, rigere og mere trygt Danmark [Government manifesto. For a freer, richer and more secure Denmark]. Available at: https://www.regeringen.dk/regeringsgrundlag/ (accessed 25 April 2017).

20.

DCUM – Danish Center for Educational Environment – (2017) Undersøgelse om anti-mobbestrategier i folkeskolen [Inquiry about anti-bullying strategies in primary and lower secondary schools]. Available at: http://dcum.dk/media/2113/dcum-antimobbestrategirapport2017.pdf (accessed 1 October 2017).

21.

Drud-Jensen

Knudsen

(2008) Grænsekontrol – når ikke-heteroseksuelle søger asyl i Danmark [Border control – when non-heterosexuals apply for asylum in Denmark]. Kvinder, Køn & Forskning 17(4): 50–63.

22.

Duggan

(2003) The Twilight of Equality, Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

23.

Edelberg P (2011) Storbyen trækker. Homoseksualitet, prostitution og pornografi i Danmark 1945–1976 [The pull of the metropolis. Homosexuality, prostitution and pornography in Denmark 1945–1976]. PhD Thesis: Copenhagen University, Denmark.

24.

Edelberg

(2014) The queer road to Frisind: Copenhagen 1945–2012. In: Evans

Cook

(eds) Queer Cities, Queer Cultures: Europe since 1945, London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 57–73.

25.

Eng

(2010) The Feeling of Kinship, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

26.

Engel SD and Houe T (2014) Seksualundervisning på læreruddannelsen [Sex education at teacher training]. Mater Thesis: Roskilde University, Denmark.

27.

Evans

(1993) Sexual Citizenship, London: Routledge.

28.

Everyday Sexism Project (2017). Available at: https://everydaysexism.com/country/dk (accessed 25 April 2017).

29.

Field

(2007) Counter-hegemonic citizenship: LGBT communities and the politics of hate crime in Canada. Citizenship Studies 11(3): 247–262.

30.

FRA – European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights – (2009) Homophobia and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity in the EU member states: Part II. Available at: http://fra.europa.eu/ (accessed 3 April 2009).

31.

FRA (2013) LGBT Survey. Available at: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2013/eu-lgbt-survey-main-results (accessed 2 May 2014).

32.

FRA (2016a) Current migration situation in the EU: Hate crime. Available at: http://fra.europa.eu/…/fra-2016-november-monthly-focus-hate-crime_en.pdf (accessed 5 October 2017).

33.

FRA (2016b) Professionally speaking: Challenges to achieving equality for LGBT people. Available at: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2016/professinal-views-lgbt-equality (accessed 15 May 2016).

34.

FRA (2017) Current migration situation in the EU: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex asylum seekers. Available at: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2017/march-monthly-focus-lgbti (accessed 5 October 2017).

35.

Fraser

(1997) Justus Interruptus, New York: Routledge.

36.

Fraser

(2003a) Social justice in the age of identity politics. In: Fraser

Honneth

(eds) Redistribution or Recognition?, London: Verso, pp. 7–109.

37.

Fraser

(2003b) Distorted beyond all recognition. In: Fraser

Honneth

(eds) Redistribution or Recognition?, London: Verso, pp. 198–236.

38.

Fraser

(2009) Reframing justice in a globalizing world. In: Scales of Justice, New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 12–29.

39.

Gransell L and Hansen H (2009) Equal and unequal? Available at: http://www.casa-analyse.dk (accessed 9 August 2009).

40.

Graugaard

Giraldi

, et al. (2015) Self-reported sexual and psychosocial health among non-heterosexual Danes. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 43(3): 309–314.

41.

Hansen

(2011) (Be)longing: forståelse af mobning som længsel efter at høre til [(Be)longing: bullying seen as longing for belonging]. Psyke & Logos 32(2): 480–495.

42.

Hansen HR (2016) Parentesmetoden [The Bracket Method]. Copenhagen: Dafolo.

43.

Hansen

Henningsen

Kofoed

(2014) When classroom culture tips into bullying. In: Schott

Søndergaard

(eds) School Bullying: New Theories in Context, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 267–298.

44.

Hervik

(2015) Race, ‘race’, racialisering, racism og nyracisme [Race, ‘race’ racialization, racism and new racism]. Dansk Sociologi 26(1): 29–51.

45.

Hobson

(2003) Recognition Struggles and Social Movements: Contested Identities, Agency and Power, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

46.

Hojem P (2009) Fleeing for love: Asylum seekers and sexual orientation in Scandinavia. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org (accessed 9 April 2016).

47.

Kaplan

(1997) Sexual Justice. Democratic Citizenship and the Politics of Desire, London: Routledge.

48.

Knudsen SP (2011) Migrationsvæsenets skab [The closet of immigration agencies]. Master Thesis, Roskilde University, Denmark.

49.

Langdridge

(2013) Gay fathers, gay citizenship: On the power of reproductive futurism and assimilation. Citizenship Studies 17(6–7): 728–741.

50.

LGBT Asylum (2015) LGBT asylum applicants in Denmark – applying for asylum on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. Available at: http://www.lgbtasylum.dk (accessed 31 March 2016).

51.

LGBT Asylum (2017) Nyhedbrev nr. 8, april 2017 [Newsletter no.8, April 2017]. Available at: www.lgbtasylum.dk (accessed 12 September 2017).

52.

LGBT Denmark (2017a) LGBT historie I Danmark [LGBT History in Denamrk]. Available at: http://lgbt.dk/om-os/historie/ (accessed 25 April 2017).

53.

LGBT Denmark (2017b) Politisk program [Political manifesto]. Available at: http://lgbt.dk/plitik/ (accessed 25 April 2017).

54.

LGBT Ungdom (2017) Homepage [LGBT Youth’s homepage]. Available at: http://lgbtungdom.dk/ (accessed 4 October 2017).

55.

Lorber

(2011) Gender Inequality: Feminist Theories and Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

56.

Mathiessen

(2017) Løkke tyvstarter ‘Pride-ugen’: Jeg forstår ikke homoseksuelle [Løkke starts the pride week ahead: I don’t understand homosexuals]. Ekstra Bladet. 14 August 2017.

57.

Messerschmidt

(2012) Gender, Heterosexuality, and Youth Violence, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

58.

Ministry of Immigration and Integration (2015) Citizen in Denmark. Information to new citizens about Danish society. Available at: https://www.nyidanmark.dk (accessed 6 June 2015).

59.

Ministry of Immigration, Integration and Housing (2016) Tal på udlændingeområdet pr. 31.01.2016 [Statistics on foreigners 31January 2016]. Available at: https://www.nyidanmark.dk (accessed 4 April 2016).

60.

Myong

Bissenbakker

(2014) Love without borders? White transraciality in Danish migration activism. Cultural Studies 30(1): 129–146.

61.

National Institute for Public Health (2014) Skolebørnsundersøgelsen 2014 [The survey on school children 2014]. Available at: http://www.hbsc.dk/downcount/HBSC-Rapport-2014.pdf (accessed 14 April 2016).

62.

Norm Storm Troops (2016) Homepage. Available at: http://www.normstormerne.dk/#home (accessed 26 April 2016).

63.

Nussbaum

(1999) Sex and Social Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

64.

Nyegaard

(2017) Heteronormative foundations of modern citizenship in early-twentieth-century Denmark. NORA – Nordic journal of Feminist and Gender Research 25(1): 4–18.

65.

Pedersen

(2005) Marginalization and power in living with and researching living with HIV. Outlines 7(1): 70–90.

66.

Pedersen OK (2011) Konkurrencestaten [The competion state]. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzel.

67.

Petersen MN (2012) Somewhere over the rainbow. Biopolitiske rekonfigurationer af den homoseksuelle figur [Biopolitical reconfigurations of the homosexual]. PhD Thesis, Copenhagen University, Denmark.

68.

Phelan

(2001) Sexual Strangers, Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

69.

Provencher

(2011) Coming out l’oriental: Maghrebi-French Performances of Gender, Sexuality, and Religion. Journal of Homosexuality 58(6–7): 812–833.

70.

QueerPower (2017) About QueerPower. Available at: http://spip.modkraft.dk/sektion/queerkraft (accessed 5 April 2017).

71.

Richardson

(2000) Claiming citizenship? Sexuality, citizenship and lesbian/feminist theory. Sexualities 3(2): 271–288.

72.

Richardson

(2005) Desiring sameness? The rise of a neoliberal politics of normalization. Antipode 37(3): 515–535.

73.

Richardson

(2017) Rethinking sexual citizenship. Sociology 51(2): 208–224.

74.

Richardson

Monro

(2012) Sexuality, Equality and Diversity, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

75.

Roseneil

Crowhurst

, et al. (2013) Changing Landscapes of Heteronormativity: The Regulation and Normalization of Same-Sex Sexualities in Europe. Social Politics 20(2): 165–199.

76.

Ryan-Flood

(2009) Lesbian Motherhood: Gender, Families and Sexual Citizenship, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

77.

Rydström

(2007) Same-sex sexuality and the law in Scandinavia 1842–1999. In: Rydström

Mustola

(eds) Criminally Queer. Homosexuality and Criminal Law in Scandinavia 1842–1999, Amsterdam: Aksant, pp. 13–40.

78.

Rydström

(2011) Odd Couples. A History of Gay Marriage in Scandinavia, Amsterdam: Aksant.

79.

Sältenberg H (2016) Queer migrants in Sweden: Subjectivities and spatiotemporal multiplicities. Master’s Thesis, Lund University, Sweden.

80.

Schott

Søndergaard

(2014) School Bullying: New Theories in Context, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

81.

Seidman

(2001) From identity to queer politics: Shift in normative heterosexuality and the meaning of citizenship. Citizenship Studies 5(3): 321–328.

82.

Sex & Society (2011) En kortlægning af behov og ønsker til seksualundervisning på ungdomsuddannelserne i Danmark [Mapping the needs for sex education among high-school students in Denmark]. Available at: http://www.sexogsamfund.dk/…/Download.aspx (accessed 7 March 2012).

83.

Sex & Society (2017) Om Sex & Samfund [About Sex & Society]. Available at: http://www.sexogsamfund.dk/…/aspx (accessed 4 October 2017).

84.

Søland

(1998) A queer nation? The passage of the Gay and Lesbian Partnership legislation in Denmark, 1989. Social Politics 5(1): 48–69.

85.

Spade

(2015) Normal Life: Administrative Violence, Critical Trans Politics, and the Limits of Law, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

86.

Stormhøj

(2007) Homoseksuelles medborgerskab i et retfærdighedsperspektiv [Homosexuals’ citizenship from a social justice perspective]. Kvinder, Køn & Forskning 16(4): 33–41.

87.

Stormhøj

(2009) Perspectives on the social conditions of people engaged in same-sex relations. NORA – Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research 17(2): 104–119.

88.

Stormhøj

(2015) Crippling Sexual Justice. NORA – Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research 23(2): 79–92.

89.

Stychin

(2001) Sexual citizenship in the European Union. Citizenship Studies 5(3): 285–301.

90.

Ussing P (2002) Ligestillede som om de er ligeværdige [Enjoying equal rights as if they had equal moral worth]. Master’s Thesis, Aarhus Universitet, Denmark.

91.

Von Rosen W (1993) Månens kulør: Studier i dansk bøssehistorie 1628–1912 [The colour of the moon: Studies in Danish gay history 1628–1912]. Copenhagen: Rhodos.

92.

Von Rosen

(2007) Denmark 1866–1976: From sodomy to modernity. In: Rydström

Mustola

(eds) Criminally Queer. Homosexuality and Criminal Law in Scandinavia 1842–1999, Amsterdam: Aksant, pp. 61–90.

93.

Warner

(1999) The Trouble with Normal, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

94.

Weeks

(1998) The sexual citizen. Theory, Culture & Society 15(3–4): 35–52.

95.

Young

(1990) Justice and the politics of difference, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

96.

Young

(1995) Gender as seriality: Thinking about women as a social collective. In: Nicholson

Seidman

(eds) Social Postmodernism. Beyond Identity Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 187–215.