Attitudes toward LGBT Rights: Political Tolerance and Egalitarian Values in the United States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew R. Flores
Keyword(s):  
Civil Liberties ◽  
The United States ◽  
Core Values ◽  
Political Tolerance ◽  
Lgbt Rights ◽  
Transgender People ◽  
Lesbian And Gay ◽  
Lgbt Issues ◽  
Lgbt Community ◽  
Lgbt People

Attitudes towards political groups and their rights are often shaped by the core values held by individuals. In reference to LGBT people and their rights, research has often shown that core values play a role in understanding affect towards the group and related policies. Values such as moral traditionalism and egalitarianism have long been understood to be determinants of people’s attitudes toward LGBT rights. LGBT issues are framed relying on competing value frames, which change in their dominance over time. However, core values tend to be stable but American attitudes toward LGBT people and rights have undergone sharp increases in their favorability. One explanation for this change is an increasing political tolerance among the American public. Political tolerance is the degree to which the public supports the civil liberties of members of different social groups, and it is distinct though related to attitudes on LGBT issues of equality (e.g., marriage equality). Political tolerance encompasses attitudes toward the rights for LGBT people to exercise their free speech, political and social organization, and live free from government intrusion. In the US, adults have consistently expressed greater political tolerance for lesbian and gay people than issues of LGBT equality. Political tolerance toward lesbian and gay people has increased since the 1970s, but egalitarian values have remained rather stagnant. The effect of egalitarian values on political tolerance for lesbian and gay people was stronger in earlier years, and as Americans have become more tolerant of lesbian and gay people, the role of egalitarianism in affecting political tolerance has diminished. There are limitations of existing data, especially regarding the political tolerance of bisexuals, transgender people, and others who are generally considered to be within the broader LGBT community.

scholarly journals COMMUNICATIVE INTENTION OF THE FACEBOOK COMMUNITY “ZAPORIZHIA PRIDE” IN THE CONTEXT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

2020 ◽  
Vol 9.1 (85.1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pavlo Miroshnychenko ◽  
◽  
Yuliia Liubchenko ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Opinion Leaders ◽  
Lgbt Rights ◽  
Negative Stereotypes ◽  
Transgender People ◽  
Self Presentation ◽  
Communicative Intention ◽  
Lgbt Issues ◽  
Lgbt Community ◽  
Lgbt People ◽  
Official Information

The main aim of the article is to determine the communicative intention (quantitative and qualitative indicators, targeting, conflict-generating) of posts on Facebook “Zaporizhzhia Pride” aimed at protecting the rights and freedoms of the LGBT community. To analyze the communicative intention of the Facebook community “Zaporizhzhia Pride”, two experts processed 13 posts, which provide information about the peculiarities of the organization of the Equality March in Zaporizhzhia, as well as information exposing social myths, negative stereotypes and prejudices about the LGBT community in general, and about the Pride in particular. The main communicative goal of the posts of the “Zaporizhzhia Pride” is to properly inform the representatives of the LGBT community, those who support the LGBT rights movement, about the peculiarities of the organization, conduct and security of the event. The authors of the posts also articulate calls and motivations for active participation and support of the Zaporizhzhia Pride action quite clearly. Facebook community “Zaporizhzhia Pride” addresses opponents of the action with rational arguments, debunks myths and superstitions, negative stereotypes and attitudes towards homosexuals and transgender people. An effective communication and information tool for the anti-discrimination discourse of the Zaporizhzhia Pride Facebook group is interviews and speeches by public opinion leaders of the Zaporizhzhia region, people popular among young people who support the ideas of the Pride and LGBT people. The intentions of “self-presentation”, actually “presentation” and “indirect presentation” prevail. This proves the strong desire of the Facebook group “Zaporizhzhia Pride” to create a positive image of the event itself, themselves as activists of the movement for LGBT rights and freedoms, this community as a whole. Considerable attention to the issue of security shows that the authors are aware of the threats and risks for participants and supporters of the action, and therefore understand the conflict between LGBT issues, the Equality March itself, both in Ukraine and in the Zaporizhzhia region. At the same time, the conflict-generating of the posts of the “Zaporizhzhia Pride” is low: the instruction to provide all official information about the event encourages the authors of the texts to communicate in a balanced and meaningful way.

Attitudes Toward LGBT+ People and Policies: Political Tolerance and Egalitarianism

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren Elliott-Dorans
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Military Service ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Tolerance ◽  
Equal Rights ◽  
Indirect Contact ◽  
Lgbt Issues ◽  
Lgbt Community ◽  
Will And Grace ◽  
Lgbt People

Political tolerance and commitment to egalitarianism have long been examined as possible contributors to attitudes toward LGBT+ people and policies. Since the 1970s, American attitudes toward LGBT+ issues have changed drastically. During this period, public policy and measures of public opinion toward LGBT+ rights have focused on a variety of areas, such as nondiscrimination laws, gay military service, and family matters such as adoption and marriage. Interestingly, although support for equality has remained the same in the United States, individuals have become rapidly more supportive of LGBT+ people securing equal rights in a variety of domains. There are three primary reasons for this shift: elite messaging, attributions of homosexuality, and contact with members of the LGBT+ community, both direct and indirect. These factors have led to an environment in which the value of equality is more readily applied to LGBT+ issues, therefore increasing support for these rights over time. Elite messaging has played a key role in this shift. Across LGBT+ issues, equality frames are often countered with moral traditionalism, thus leading to an increased propensity for individuals to associate LGBT+ issues with these values. The effectiveness of equality frames has been bolstered by the growing belief that homosexuality is a fixed rather than chosen trait, which yields a greater reliance upon egalitarianism when evaluating LGBT+-related issues. At the same time, both direct and indirect contact with the LGBT+ community increased following the Stonewall Riots of 1969. Americans were first introduced to gay characters on television in the 1970s. LG characters gained more prominent roles throughout the 1990s on shows such as The Real World and Will and Grace. Following Stonewall, LGBT+ activist organizations also advocated that members of the community “come out of the closet” and reveal their sexual orientation to the people in their lives. Thus, the chances of Americans knowing—or at least feeling like they knew—an LGBT+ person increased. Consistent with Allport’s Contact Theory (1954) and Zajonc’s work on “mere exposure effects” (1968), affect toward LGBT+ individuals has generally grown more positive with greater interaction and familiarity. These various factors interacted with underlying predispositions to drastically move public opinion in favor of greater equality for LGBT+ people.

The Case for Gay Reparations

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Omar G. Encarnación
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
Moral Imperative ◽  
Universal Approach ◽  
Lgbt Community ◽  
History Of ◽  
Collective Experience ◽  
Lgbt People ◽  
Past Wrongs ◽  
Western Democracies

This book makes the case for why the United States should embrace gay reparations, or policies intended to make amends for a history of discrimination, stigmatization, and violence against the LGBT community. It contends that gay reparations are a moral imperative for bringing dignity to those whose human rights have been violated because of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity, for closing painful histories of state-sponsored victimization of LGBT people, and for reminding future generations of past struggles for LGBT equality. To make its case, the book examines how other Western democracies notorious for their oppression of homosexuals have implemented gay reparations—specifically Spain, Britain, and Germany. Their collective experience shows that although there is no universal approach to gay reparations, it is never too late for countries to seek to right past wrongs.

Historical Views of Homosexuality: Asia

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Rich ◽  
Andi Dahmer ◽  
Isabel Eliassen
Keyword(s):  
Local Governments ◽  
National Level ◽  
The West ◽  
Lgbt Rights ◽  
Transgendered People ◽  
Lgbt Issues ◽  
Lgbt Community ◽  
Bisexual And Transgender ◽  
History Of ◽  
Antidiscrimination Policies

How does Asia compare to other regions in terms of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) rights? While Asia lags behind the West on typical metrics of LGBT rights, this fails to capture the diversity of tolerance historically in the region. At the same time, conservative backlashes to LGBT policies are evident across the region, often invoking traditionalist or religious opposition, as also seen outside of the region. Moreover, much of the literature myopically focuses on one or two countries in Asia, rarely attempting to make broad comparisons across East, South, and Central Asia. Part of this is due to terminology differences, where “homosexual” is commonly used in some countries as a catch-all term for members of the LGBT community, compared to others in the region countries, especially in South Asia, with a longer history of specialized terminology for transgendered people. Yet broader comparisons in the absence of terminology differences remain rare despite growing attention to LGBT issues in public opinion polls, news, and academic work and despite the fact that the legal avenues chosen by LGBT rights proponents often mirror those chosen in the West. State policies on LGBT policies also range considerably in the region, with only Taiwan currently recognizing same-sex marriage at the national level, but with decriminalization and antidiscrimination policies at the national and local levels increasingly common. However, a commonly overlooked trend is that of harsher LGBT policies enacted by local governments. Meanwhile, despite trends in the West of growing public tolerance on LGBT issues, far less consistency emerges in Asia, further complicating state efforts. It is important to highlight Asia’s diversity in terms of rights and tolerance, but it is equally important to integrate evidence from Asia into cross-national research on LGBT issues to understand what is unique about the region and what may have been ignored in other regions.

scholarly journals LGBT Rights and Inclusion in Small Island Developing States (SIDS)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iffat Idris
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Development ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Development Cooperation ◽  
Small Island ◽  
Small Island Developing States ◽  
Lgbt Rights ◽  
Lgbt Issues ◽  
Lgbt People ◽  
The Right

This review looks at the extent to which LGBT rights are provided for under law in a range of Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and the record on implementation/enforcement, as well as approaches to promote LGBT rights and inclusion. SIDS covered are those in the Caribbean, Pacific, and Atlantic-Indian Ocean-South China Sea (AIS) regions. The review draws on a mixture of grey literature (largely from international development agencies/NGOs), academic literature, and media reports. While the information on the legal situation of LGBT people in SIDS was readily available, there was far less evidence on approaches/programmes to promote LGBT rights/inclusion in these countries. However, the review did find a number of reports with recommendations for international development cooperation generally on LGBT issues. Denial of LGBT rights and discrimination against LGBT people is found to varying extents in all parts of the world. It is important that LGBT people have protection in law, in particular the right to have same-sex sexual relations; protection from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation; and the right to gender identity/expression. Such rights are also provided for under international human rights conventions such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, while the Sustainable Development Goals are based on the principle of ‘leave no one behind'.

LGBT Rights and Theoretical Perspectives

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis Kuriakose ◽  
Deepa Kylasam Iyer
Keyword(s):  
Queer Theory ◽  
The United States ◽  
Gender And Sexuality ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Equal Rights ◽  
Lgbt Rights ◽  
Early 21St Century ◽  
Lgbt Community ◽  
Trade Education ◽  
Lgbt Movement

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 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.

LGBT Military Service Policies in the United States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Goodhart ◽  
Jami K. Taylor
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Military Service ◽  
The United States ◽  
Psychological Disorder ◽  
Service Members ◽  
Transgender People ◽  
And Bisexual ◽  
Lgbt People ◽  
The Military ◽  
The U.S

For most of its history, the U.S. military has maintained a policy of exclusion toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people serving in uniform. The justifications for these exclusions have included the view that being homosexual or transgender is a psychological disorder, that it undermines military morale and effectiveness, and a fear that LGBT people would be vulnerable to foreign espionage. Explicit policies banning consensual homosexual sex—and excluding from service those who engage in it—date to the period between World Wars I and II, but de facto efforts at exclusion have existed since the early days of the republic. Regulations governing homosexuals in the military came under pressure in the 1970s and 1980s as societal views toward lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people changed, and those LGB service members discharged under the policy increasingly challenged their treatment in court. (Public pressure to change regulations governing transgender people in the military arose mostly in the 2000s, though litigation efforts date to the 1970s.) In addition to general shifts in public and legal opinion, the debate over LGB people serving in the U.S. military was affected by the experience of foreign militaries that allow LGB people to serve. United States law began to loosen formal restrictions on LBG people serving in uniform with the passage of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) in 1994, but it still required LGB people to serve in secret. Changing public perceptions of LGB people and problems implementing the ban galvanized support for eliminating such restrictions. In 2010, President Obama signed legislation repealing DADT and removing all restrictions on LGB people serving in the military. However, transgender people do not enjoy the same rights. The Trump administration has revised Obama-era rules on transgender service members to enable greater exclusion. The issue is being contested in the courts and appears ripe for further political and legal dispute.

scholarly journals Increasing American Political Tolerance: A Framework Excluding Hate Speech

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 237802312090395
Author(s):  
Anna Boch
Keyword(s):  
Hate Speech ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
General Social Survey ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Tolerance ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Social Survey ◽  
College Educated ◽  
New Framework

According to prior research, political tolerance has either stagnated since the 1970s (if to be tolerant one must be tolerant of every group in all circumstances) or steadily increased (if tolerance is measured using an index, averaging across groups). Using General Social Survey cross-sectional and panel data on civil liberties, this article proposes a new framework: separating out the groups that use hate speech from those that may be only controversial. The United States is unique among Western liberal democracies in not having a prohibition against hate speech. By applying a dichotomous hate speech framework to measuring political tolerance, this article finds that the proportion of Americans who are always tolerant has increased by 8 percentage points from 1996 to 2018. Meanwhile, tolerance of groups that use hate speech has remained flat and even decreased among groups that historically were more tolerant of such groups, including the college educated.

scholarly journals THE REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY AND INSTRUMENTALISATION OF LGBT RIGHTS: HOW DID ATTITUDES TOWARDS LGBT PEOPLE CHANGE IN UKRAINE AFTER EUROMAIDAN?

2021 ◽  
pp. 127-150
Author(s):  
OLEKSII SHESTAKOVSKI ◽  
MAKSYM KASIANCZUK ◽  
OLESIA TROFYMENKO
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Public Perception ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Lgbt Rights ◽  
Association Agreement ◽  
Lgbt Community ◽  
Lgbt People ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Lgbt Individuals ◽  
The Revolution

The aftermath of Ukraine’s Revolution of Dignity provoked a lot of criticism among the students of LGBT topics. The principles of non-discrimination and protection of LGBT rights are an exemplary manifestation of European values to which Euromaidan declared adherence. The Association Agreement between Ukraine and the European Union, which was signed after the Revolution, as well as visa-free travel, which was granted to Ukrainian citizens, obliged this country to liberalise LGBT-related laws due to the EUʼs policy on the instrumentalisation of LGBT rights. However, there is a view that this step may cause conflicts in Ukrainian society, which is still predominantly homophobic, and only lead to a superficial change in the condition of LGBT people owing to pressure from the European Union. Some scholars (e.g. Shevtsova [2020], Wannebo [2017]) claim that the instrumentalisation policy has even resulted in a backlash against the LGBT community and worsened the overall situation for them. But has this backlash (if it really happened) entailed a corresponding change in public opinion on LGBT issues? Surprisingly, the dynamics of public attitudes towards the LGBT community and their rights remain unexplored. The paper proposes to fill this gap by a comparative analysis of two cross-sectional surveys on this topic, which were conducted before (in 2013) and after (in 2016) the Revolution of Dignity in several regions of Ukraine. Within the framework of the study, three research questions have been posed: 1. Have Ukrainians’ attitudes towards the LGBT community changed since Euromaidan? 2. How different (e. g. positive) were the attitudes towards LGBT people among Euromaidan supporters? 3. Have the events that happened after the Revolution of Dignity, such as Russia is hybrid war against Ukraine, been able to affect attitudes towards LGBT rights? The results show that there have been modest, albeit statistically significant positive changes in Ukrainians’ attitudes towards the LGBT community since Euromaidan. However, practically no change in terms of support for LGBT rights has been recorded. Our findings are consistent with other relevant nationally representative surveys according to which public perception of LGBT individuals has not worsened. This fact suggests that the instrumentalisation of LGBT rights has not faced any backlash, at least from the general population. Other data in our study indicate that not all proponents of the Revolution of Dignity displayed favourable attitudes towards LGBT people; nevertheless, they held more positive views on the LGBT community and same-sex marriage than those who did not take part in Euromaidan. The respondents who have experienced the impact of the Donbas conflict also demonstrated relatively better attitudes to LGBT individuals and expressed support for their rights. Still, this may be linked to a significant percentage of Euromaidan participants among them.

Elections and the Role of LGBT Issues in the United States and Abroad

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriele Magni
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Direct Democracy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Early Years ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Lgbt Rights ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Lgbt Issues ◽  
Over Time

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document