Sexual and Gender Diversities - Implications for LGBTQ Studies.pdf

Journal of Homosexuality ISSN: 0091-8369 (Print) 1540-3602 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjhm20 Sexual and Gender Diversities: Implications for LGBTQ Studies Surya Monro To cite this article: Surya Monro (2018): Sexual and Gender Diversities: Implications...

Journal of Homosexuality ISSN: 0091-8369 (Print) 1540-3602 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjhm20 Sexual and Gender Diversities: Implications for LGBTQ Studies Surya Monro To cite this article: Surya Monro (2018): Sexual and Gender Diversities: Implications for LGBTQ Studies, Journal of Homosexuality, DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2018.1528079 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2018.1528079 Published online: 18 Oct 2018. Submit your article to this journal View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjhm20 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2018.1528079 Sexual and Gender Diversities: Implications for LGBTQ Studies Surya Monro, Ph.D. School of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, Huddersfield, England ABSTRACT KEYWORDS This think piece provides a critical analysis of the terms lesbian, Citizenship; sexual orientation; LGBTQ studies; gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) from an interna- SOGIE; international tional perspective that draws on citizenship studies, providing some indications of the implications for LGBTQ studies. It out- lines difficulties with the LGBTQ acronym in the Global North and South. Internationally, scholarship to support the human rights of non-heterosexuals and gender-diverse people is badly needed, but the think piece concludes that it is crucial to con- sider the social context of different cases, and to address the materialist, cultural, neo-colonial, and other forces that affect the formation of non-heterosexual and gender-diverse identities. The last 25 years have seen a number of important developments regarding sexual and gender identities and the sociopolitical context that shapes them. Transgender studies has emerged as a substantial scholarly field, and a plethora of gender variant identities are now evident. The diverse groups known as nonbinary or genderqueer include “people [who] have a gender which is neither male nor female and may identify as both male and female at one time, as different genders at different times, as no gender at all, or dispute the very idea of only two genders” (Richards et al., 2016, p. 95). Authors such as Monro (2005) have argued that this gender pluralization has profound effects on the ontological foundations of sexual orientation. It means that male, female, and the lesbian/gay/heterosexual (LGH) categoriza- tions that are built on these identities are not discrete, and a range of other sexualities become apparent—for example, sexual expressions between a nonbinary person and a cisgender male. There are other important chal- lenges to discrete notions of LGH and, indeed, LGBTQ. In the Global South, identities exist that are forged differently to those generally interpreted as LGBTQ. Alternative means of conceptualizing gender and sexual diversity have evolved, including the term sexual orientation and gender identity expression (SOGIE; Koko, Monro, & Smith, 2018), but these have not been properly integrated into scholarship about gender and sexuality CONTACT Surya Monro [email protected] School of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, Huddersfield HD1 3DH, England. © 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 2 S. MONRO internationally. Overall, more understanding of queerness in a global context is needed (see Wesling, 2008). This reflection piece discusses issues concerning the term LGBTQ from a critical international perspective, using some concepts taken from citizenship studies. The field of LGBTQ studies is diverse and evolving, with a range of programs in the United States and internationally, and a specific body of literature (see, for example, Alexander, Meem, & Gibson, 2017). The empha- sis on identity politics that characterized early Northern scholarship has continued, as reflected in the acronym LGBTQ. Claiming identities such as “gay” can be a powerful basis for activism to effect social and cultural change, but at the same time this may lead to other groups or subjectivities being subsumed or overlooked (see Richardson & Monro, 2012). The creation of programs of study that address non-normative sexual and gender identities, including LGBTQ studies, is important for the production of intellectual and social resources that support diversity and tolerance. These programs serve as a locus for capacity-building among students and academics. Empirically grounded knowledge, and theoretical analysis, can be used by educators, advocates, and others working to support the human rights of people with non-normative genders and sexualities. The field of LGBTQ and related studies will develop in an ongoing way given processes of globalization. For instance, Western- originated words are used in varied ways internationally; the notion of queer has been criticized by some African scholars, who see it as a neo- imperial concept (see Nyanzi, 2014); while other African scholars have embraced and worked with it (Matebeni, 2014; Nyanzi, 2014; see also Matebeni, Monro, & Reddy, 2018). Academic knowledge production grounded in lived experience and activist knowledge (for example, Monro, 2015) can be seen as central to the development of LGBTQ studies internationally. Historically, the development and consolidation of gay and lesbian studies is linked with lesbian and gay rights movements (Wilton, 1995); recently emerging areas of scholarship and activism regarding, for example, nonbinary genders may become similarly important. The following discussion begins by briefly outlining some concepts drawn from two areas of citizenship theory: universalism/particularist debates within sexual citizenship literatures (Monro, 2015; Monro & Richardson, 2014) and transnational citizenship (Ong, 2005). It then analyzes issues concerning the term LGBTQ in the Global North and South.1 The think piece concludes by indicating some implications for LGBTQ studies inter- nationally. This short piece does not address intersex and variations of sex characteristics (see, for example, Kaggwa, 2013; Monro, Crocetti, Yeadon- Lee, With Garland, & Travis, 2017a); there is a strong need to develop intersex studies but that is beyond the scope of this piece.  JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 3 Citizenship studies Citizenship is a concept “encapsulating the relationship between the indivi- dual, state and society” (Yuval-Davis, 1997, p. 4). Sexual and intimate citizen- ship literature (for example, Plummer, 1995; Richardson, 2000, 2017) is by now well developed, and a smaller body of trans citizenship scholarship has also emerged (Hines, 2013; Kuhar, Monro, & Takacs, 2017; Monro, 2000, 2003, 2005; Monro & Van der Ros, 2017). Citizenship studies concerning sexual orientation and gender identities have historically been dominated by theories from the United States and Western Europe but can be applied internationally (see Richardson, 2017). Citizenship theory initially revolved around social, political, and legal rights and responsibilities. Sexual citizenship theorists challenged this focus, looking at issues such as whether the engagement of LGBTQ activists with state institutions will result in challenges to the heterosexism of these institutions, or conversely entail the assimilation of LGBTQ people into homonormative identities (see Monro & Richardson, 2014). The universalism/particularist debate is one useful aspect of sexual and trans citizenship theories. Universalist approaches to citizenship include everyone and may seek to treat everyone the same in terms of rights and responsibilities. This is important for LGBTQ studies in a number of ways. LGBTQ in its entirety, is universalist as it groups lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender people, and queers together, potentially implying that their concerns are shared. Such universalist approaches may inadvertently sub- sume or marginalize the specificities of individual or group experiences. For instance, Monro, Hines, and Osborne (2017b) demonstrated the systematic erasure and/or marginalization of bisexuality in the U.S. and UK sexualities scholarship over the 1975–2015 period, as lesbian, gay, and queer studies were developed. In the Global South, Matebeni (2014) questioned the exclusion of bisexual and transgender people in some South African contexts and pointed out that the terms lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) and queer can hide diversities between groups of people. In contrast to universalist approaches to citizenship, particularism deals with the concerns of specific groups—for example, nonbinary people. It is especially useful in addressing the concerns of less visible groups. For exam- ple, research findings from an empirical study (Monro, 2015) have shown support for bisexual-specific, or particularist activist interventions to tackle biphobia. Research contributors explained why bisexual [and pansexual] people may have particular issues: If I have a partner of either biological sex, I might need a triple bed instead of a double bed…if I was dying in a hospice, who would be my next of kin? Both partners might equally be, but legally they can’t be…most of us might not think about that because we are not in that situation. (Meg-John in Monro, 2015, p. 150) 4 S. MONRO Particularist strategies to address the rights issues of people with non- normative genders and sexualities are evident internationally. For instance, in Bogotá the municipal government supported a multifaceted campaign by bisexual activists to raise awareness specifically about bisexuality and to tackle biphobia (Salazar & Galvis, 2009). Overall, there is a need for both particularist and universalist approaches to LGBTQ citizenship. Transnational citizenship studies form another resource that may be useful in exploring issues concerning the LGBTQ acronym and LGBTQ studies. Initial notions of citizenship were rooted in ideas of belonging to a discrete nation-state. However, as theorist Ong explained, globalization is changing simplistic individual-nation state connections and is having a “mutating” effect on citizenship (2005, p. 697). Ong argued that the components of citizenship, such as rights and territoriality, are increasingly disarticulated. New political spaces are emerging, termed here “assemblages,” consisting of rights claims, mobilizations, discourses, interests, and resources. These are shaped by market forces, bureaucracy, and other concerns, including both humanitarian ones and those associated with economic self-interest (see Studemeyer, 2015). It is in this context that international LGBTQ and SOGIE organizing and scholarship takes place; it can be seen as a set of assemblages. There are specific, more particularist assemblages around LGBTQ issues as well as more general, universal ones—for instance, transna- tional Queer of Colour organizing (see Matebeni, 2014). Importantly, Ong’s analysis of transnational citizenship accounts for both hyper growth (which could include, for example, a booming pink economy in certain cities, supported by a wealthy, internationally mobile queer elite) and what Ong termed “zones of exclusion” (2005, p. 698). As Ong noted, political claims relating to exclusion focus not just on legal rights, but also on surviva- bility. SOGIE people’s survivability can also be thought of using the term necropolitics. Necropolitics concerns the ways in which some (queer) subjects are subject to quotidian processes of life-threatening violences; they are rele- gated—by the exercise of political and economic forces—to “death zones” (Haritaworn, Kuntsman, & Posocco, 2014). This can be because of phenomena such as racism and gender binarism, as well as, for example, war or state persecution. The term necropolitics helps to explain why some LGBTQ and other non-normative people thrive, while others perish; it fractures complacent notions of LGBTQ and poses a more complex, contradictory reality. A concern with survivability and necropolitics can be combined with particularist foci to inform LGBTQ studies. For instance, people who become forced migrants due to SOGIE concerns face particularly sharp survivability challenges (see Koko et al., 2018). However, the lived experiences of LGBTQ forced migrants in, for example, Africa are highly diverse, and it is important not to frame particular groups in such a way as to encourage notions of victimhood. Queer migration scholarship forms a useful contribution to  JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 5 particularist approaches to sexualities/trans citizenship. It includes LGBTQ migrant activists and scholars directly confronting normative and exclusion- ary discourses of belonging (Chávez, 2010). Reflecting on Ong’s (2005) assertion about the importance of market forces in shaping citizenships, it does appear that the material context is crucial to LGBTQ people’s lives, wherever they are. Factors such as access to employment have a knock-on effect concerning LGBTQ people’s abilities to travel, access safe accommodation, and take part in LGBTQ “scenes” (Koko et al., 2018). They interlink with other structuring factors such as space; those LGBTQ people whose movements are restricted because of a lack of material resources—or other factors such as being very young, or ill—have vastly different experiences to wealthier LGBTQ people—even within a particular country such as the UK (see Monro, 2010). In the Global South, material and spatial differences can also have a profound effect on the way that sexual and gender identities themselves are constructed. For example, Sinnott (2012) demonstrated that cultural pro- cesses of commodification and the market are strongly shaping emerging non- heterosexual identities in Thailand. In South Asia, LGBTQ identification tends to be associated with being urban and middle- or upper-class, while other identities such as “Kothi” are more prevalent among a less wealthy and/or rural population (see Monro, 2007, 2015). Hijras are strongly influenced by material and social structures—for example, the Hijra in Bangladesh come largely from working-class backgrounds (Hossain, 2012). LGBTQ categories in the Global North The terms encompassed within the LGBTQ acronym are relatively recently evolved social constructions originating in the Global North. Each one of the LGBTQ terms has been contested. For instance, for some lesbian feminists, lesbianism concerned political support for women and emotional connec- tions with women as well as—or instead of—sexual expression between women. This extended to conscious development of lesbian studies as a means of staking out political territory (see Wilton, 1995) and the territorial appropriation of female bisexuality by lesbian feminists such as Kitzinger, who stated that: Labels used to invalidate a woman’s lesbianism by indicating that she is not a ‘real’ lesbian include… ‘bisexual’…meaning that she is also attracted to men… this collection of invalidatory labels has the effect of severely reducing the number of ‘real’ lesbians in existence. (Kitzinger, 1987, pp. 67–68) Other “border skirmishes” continue to abound—for example, debates about the meanings and level of inclusivity of the term transgender (see Monro, 2005). There is a problematic tendency for lesbians’ concerns to be less visible than those of gay men (Richardson & Monro, 2012). In the UK bisexual 6 S. MONRO community, there are divergences about whether the terms queer and/or pansexual (attracted to people regardless of gender) or omnisexual (attracted to varied types of people) are better terms than bisexual, especially given the plethora of gender identities now available (see Monro, 2015). Meanwhile, a substantial proportion of the population internationally engages in same-sex sexual expressions without clearly relating to LGBTQ categories. For example, same-sex male sexual expression in UK saunas can take place with no verbal communication (see Monro, 2015), and in the United States, being “on the down low” involves publicly identifying as heterosexual but being behaviorally bisexual (see Pettaway, Bryant, Keane, & Craig, 2014). While the idea of queer can be used to destabilize rigid sex/gender categorizations, debates about the meaning and utility of the term also exist. Queer, as readers will know, can be used as a verb (to mean challenging or destabilizing heteronormativity and/or gender binaries) and/or as a noun to mean non-heterosexual, non–gender binary, or sometimes as a shorthand term for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. The latter use can, again, become problematic, as certain groups may be overlooked (see Monro, 2015). In addition, although queer is useful internationally in providing a space or assemblage for non-normative sexual/gender organizing, it does not always resonate in some Global South countries—for instance, Taiwan (Sinnott, 2010). Therefore, tagging queer onto LGBT does not fully remedy the deficits associated with the acronym. The further addition of a “+” onto the acronym, while demonstrating inclusivity, can also act to subsume or hide sexual and gender diversity if the different interests of the groups are not made explicit. LGBTQ categories and non-heterosexual identities in the Global South Given the historically contingent, contested, and ultimately fictitious nature of the terms included in the LGBTQ acronym, it could seem rather surprising that they have taken hold internationally. This may be more to do with global inequalities—specifically, South/North inequalities associated with the after- math of colonialism and the power of globalized capitalism—than with the particular worthiness of the terms. Localized identities in, for instance, African countries may contrast with those included in the LGBTQ acronym. However, these local identities can themselves be contested and are under debate (Matebeni et al., 2018). The global spread of notions of LGBTQ identities and rights is in conflict with—and is fundamentally shaped by—globalized patterns of prejudice and persecution regarding SOGIE populations. Globalized homophobias, bipho- bias, and transphobias rest on colonial legacies in a great many countries. For example, efforts to secure safety, recognition, and human rights by African LGBTQ people are undercut by the framing of homosexuality as “un-African,  JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 7 ” largely as the result of the legal and religious assemblages associated with colonialism (see Matabeni, 2014; Reddy, 2001). Moreover, the imposition of LGBTQ typologies internationally, by activists or others, can have the unfor- tunate effect of reducing the possibilities for sexual/gender identification and expression (Sinnott, 2010). Sex/gender configurations are varied internationally, particularly in Asia, where a wide range of other forms of identity are apparent, some of which do not separate out gender and sexual identities in the way that is taken for granted in the Global North. In India, for instance, the category of “Kothi” encompasses aspects of both gender and sexual variance (see Monro, 2007), and in some instances terms such as gay are used to refer to what, in the Global North, would be called transgender (Sinnott, 2010). Terms such as gay are becoming more widely used, but this is not the case everywhere. For example, Jackson showed (in 2010) that “Thai homoeroticisms are not con- verging towards Western models” (2010, p. 405). As Sinnott contended, it is important not to assume that the West is the originator of terms regarding gender and sexual diversity. There is a history of sex and gender pluralism in South Asia going back at least 4,000 years, underpinned by ancient ontological systems and spiritual practices (see Monro, 2007; Sinnott, 2010). Given these genealogies concerning sexual and gender variance, and the problematic hege- monies associated with neo-colonialism and globalized capitalism, care is needed by scholars regarding the ways that LGBTQ terms are deployed. Discussion and conclusion This short reflection piece has provided a critical analysis of the terms included in the acronym LGBTQ, addressing some of the associated elisions and limitations. Internationally, the emergence of nonbinary and other gender-diverse identities renders a discrete typology of homosexuality/het- erosexuality defunct; other subjectivities exist that cannot be described as simply homosexual, heterosexual, or, indeed, bisexual. The piece addresses some of the tensions concerning the LGBTQ acronym in the Global North, and then draws on scholarship from the Global South to address the ways in which, internationally, LGBTQ terms are problematic but can also be used strategically by some Southern actors. There are other typologies available at regional and local levels—for instance, South Asian Kothi and Hijra identities that configure gender and sexuality in a different, less separated, way than that found in the LGBTQ acronym (see Hossain, 2012; Monro, 2007). The think piece shows that citizenship concepts are useful in addressing some of the key issues raised by (1) the pluralization of sexes and genders in the Global North and (2) the formation of genders and sexualities in the Global South. These concerns revolve around the utility of LGBTQ sexual and gender identity categories; their continued relevance; their exclusions and 8 S. MONRO elisions, and the existence of other schema for understanding gender and sexual diversities. It would appear that while universal approaches to LGBTQ citizenship might be useful in some contexts, particularist forms of citizenship analysis are key in foregrounding the rights claims and concerns of specific groups. Transnational citizenship usefully addresses the way that globalization affects citizenship claims; notions of non-normative sexual and gender rights assemblages are highly pertinent to the future development of LGBTQ studies. The application of the acronym LGBTQ in a universalizing fashion is ultimately flawed, erasing as it does the highly complex and varied identity formations associated with sexual and gender variance internationally. LGBTQ studies scholars and students, while perhaps retaining the name LGBTQ for their field, can usefully address these variations, the social con- texts in which they are forged, and the globalized power dynamics and interplay of assemblages—both those associated with tolerant and inclusive approaches to sexuality and gender and those associated with bigotry and prejudice. One of the key problems with the ubiquitous use of the acronym LGBTQ is that the forces that shape subjects’ sexual and gender identities— heterosexism, gender binarism, homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, and sexism—affect everyone, albeit in different ways. For example, cisgender heterosexuals may experience their gender expressions being policed in a way that shapes them toward greater normativity. Locating sexual and gender non-normativity with individuals who identify as LGBTQ removes the responsibility, in effect, for tackling oppressive sexed/gendered norms from the majority of the population. This problem may also pertain to other terms, such as SOGIE. However, the term SOGIE has a broader remit than LGBTQ, and it may be more useful for the field currently termed LGBTQ than the LGBTQ acronym. Universal conceptualizations of sexuality and gender var- iance such as SOGIE have broad remits—for example, shared concerns with people’s erotic rights and globalized prejudice. The term SOGIE encompasses LGBTQ but as part of a wider, globalized schema that includes the many other identities that exist internationally. This reflection piece suggests that LGBTQ scholarship needs to use the term LGBTQ critically and in a contextualized fashion. Globalized power dynamics, as well as localized social contexts, require interrogation. There is also a need for more attention to the material forces shaping gender and sexual categories and subjectivities. This should, of course, take place along- side attention to gendered, racialized, and other inequalities. The existence— or absence—of human rights frameworks and mechanisms is also a key factor affecting the survivability of non-heterosexuals and gender variant people (see, for example, Matebeni et al., 2018). In understanding issues pertaining to non-heterosexuals and gender-diverse people, the more inclu- sive acronym SOGIE may be useful, but what is really crucial is attention to  JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 9 social and political context and forces such as prejudice, consumerism, nationalism, and culture. Notes 1. The umbrella term the Global North includes the United States, Canada, and Europe, and the umbrella term the Global South refers to Africa, Australia, most of Asia, and many island nations. It is acknowledged that these terms are geographically imprecise Acknowledgments The author would like to acknowledge Zethu Matebeni, Vasu Reddy, and Ahonaa Roy. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author. References Alexander, J. F., Meem, D. T., & Gibson, M. A. (2017). Finding out: An introduction to LGBTQ studies (3rd ed. ed.). Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage. Chávez, K. R. (2010). Border (In)Securities: Normative and differential belonging in LGBTQ and immigrant rights discourse. Communication & Critical/Cultural Studies, 7(2), 115–136. doi:10.1080/14791421003763291 Haritaworn, J., Kuntsman, A., & Posocco, S. (Eds.). (2014). Queer necropolitics. London, UK: Routledge. Hines, S. (2013). Gender diversity, recognition and citizenship: Towards a politics of difference. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Hossain, A. (2012). Beyond emasculation: Being Muslim and becoming hijra in South Asia. Asian Studies Review, 36, 495–513. doi:10.1080/10357823.2012.739994 Jackson, P. A. (2010). An explosion of Thai identities: Global queering and re-imagining queer theory. Culture, Health and Sexuality: an International Journal for Research, Intervention and Care, 2(4), 405–424. doi:10.1080/13691050050174422 Kaggwa, J. (2013). The struggle for intersex rights in Africa. In S. Ekine & H. Abbas (Eds.), Queer African reader (pp. 203–208). Dakar, Nairobi and Oxford: Pambazuka Press. Kitzinger, C. (1987). The social construction of lesbianism. London. Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage Publications. Koko, G., Monro, S., & Smith, K. (2018). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ) forced migrants and asylum seekers: Multiple discriminations. In Z. Matebeni, S. Monro, & V. Reddy (Eds.), Queer in Africa: LGBTQI identities, citizenship, and activism. London and New York: Routledge. Kuhar, R., Monro, S., & Takacs, J. (2017, October). Trans* citizenship in post-socialist societies. Critical Social Policy. published online. doi:10.1177/0261018317732463 Matebeni, Z. (Ed.). (2014). Reclaiming Afrikan: Queer perspectives on sexual and gender identities. Athlone, South Africa: Modjaji Books. Matebeni, Z., Monro, S., & Reddy, V. (2018). Queer in Africa: LGBTQI identities, citizenship, and activism. London and New York: Routledge. 10 S. MONRO Monro, S. (2000). Theorizing transgender diversity: Towards a social model of health. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 15(1), 33–35. doi:10.1080/14681990050001547 Monro, S. (2003). Transgender politics in the UK. Critical Social Policy, 23(4), 433–452. doi:10.1177/02610183030234001 Monro, S. (2005). Gender politics: Activism, citizenship and sexual diversity. London, UK: Pluto Press. Monro, S. (2007). Transmuting gender binaries: The theoretical challenge. Sociological Research Online, 12(1), not paginated. doi:10.5153/sro.1514 Monro, S. (2010). Sexuality, space and intersectionality: The case of lesbian, gay, and bisexual equalities initiatives in UK local government. Sociology, 44(5), 1–15. doi:10.1177/ 0038038510375743 Monro, S. (2015). Bisexuality: Identities, politics and theories. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Monro, S., Crocetti, D., Yeadon-Lee, T., With Garland, F., & Travis, M. (2017a). Intersex, variations of sex characteristics, and DSD: The need for change. Huddersfield, UK: University of Huddersfield Press. Retrieved from http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/33535/ Monro, S., Hines, S., & Osborne, A. (2017b, February 1). Is bisexuality invisible? A review of sexualities scholarship 1970-2015. Sociological Review. Published online. doi:10.1177/ 0038026117695488 Monro, S., & Richardson, D. (2014). Citizenship: Gender and sexuality. In H. A. Van der Heijden (Ed.), Handbook of political citizenship and social movements (pp. 60–85). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Monro, S., & Van der Ros, J. (2017, October). Trans* and gender variant citizenship and the state in Norway. Critical Social Policy. doi:10.1177/0261018317733084 Nyanzi, S. (2014). Queering queer Africa. In Z. Matebeni (Ed.), Reclaiming Afrikan: Queer perspectives on sexual and gender identities (pp. 65–68). Athlone, South Africa: Modjaji Books. Ong, A. (2005). (Re)Articulations of Citizenship. PS: Political Science and Politics, 38(4), 697–699. Pettaway, L., Bryant, L., Keane, F., & Craig, S. (2014). Becoming down low: A review of the literature on black men who have sex with men and women. Journal of Bisexuality, 14(2), 209–221. doi:10.1080/15299716.2014.902346 Plummer, K. (1995). Telling sexual stories. Power, change and social worlds. London, UK: Routledge. Reddy, V. (2001). Homophobia, human rights and gay and lesbian equality in Africa. Agenda: Empowering Women for Gender Equity, 50, 83–87. Richards, C., Bouman, P., Seal, L., Barker, M. J., Nieder, T. O., & T’Sjoen, G. (2016). Non- binary or genderqueer genders. International Review of Psychiatry, 28(1), 95–102. doi:10.3109/09540261.2015.1106446 Richardson, D. (2000). Claiming citizenship? Sexuality, citizenship and lesbian/feminist theory. Sexualities, 3(2), 255–272. doi:10.1177/136346000003002009 Richardson, D. (2017). Sexuality and citizenship. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Richardson, D., & Monro, S. (2012). Sexuality, diversity, and equality. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Salazar, L., & Galvis, J. (2009). Apuntes sobre el trabajo, necesidades y retos del movimiento de personas bisexuales en Colombia. Atrevidas Magazine. Bogotá, Colombia: Revista de la Red de Mujeres Enredadas LBTI. Sinnott, M. (2010). Borders, diaspora, and regional connections: Trends in Asian ‘queer’ studies. The Journal for Asian Queer Studies, 69(1), 17–31. doi:10.1017/S0021911809991586 Sinnott, M. (2012). Korean-pop, tom gay kings, les queens and the capitalist transformation of sex/gender categories in Thailand. Asian Studies Review, 36(4), 453–474. doi:10.1080/ 10357823.2012.739995  JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 11 Studemeyer, C. C. (2015). Geographies of flexible citizenship. Geography Compass, 9(10), 565–576. doi:10.1111/gec3.12247 Wesling, M. (2008). Why queer diaspora? Feminist Review, 90, 30–47. doi:10.1057/fr.2008.35 Wilton, T. (1995). Lesbian studies: Setting an agenda. London, UK: Routledge. Yuval-Davis, N. (1997). Women, citizenship and difference. Feminist Review, 57, 4–27. doi:10.1080/014177897339632