BLOG 2 – Out and… disenfranchised?: How Our Democracy is Invalidating Sexual Citizenship

Discourse that surrounds education and politics in this country continuously creates barriers that disenfranchise the LGBTQIA+ community in our democracy. Gender and sexual dimorphism are reinscribed from our education system all the way up to our political system, and people who exist outside of this heteronormative binary are systematically excluded by the operation of social institutions in a wide range of ways (Monro, 2005: 1). In a time when identity politics is under constant debate, it is extremely important to understand why this is such a big issue for a democratic country. The recognition of sexual citizenship which is the gendered and embodied claims to sexual entitlements such as freedom of expression, bodily autonomy, and institutional inclusion (Olesky, 2011: 16), is important for broadening the conventional forms of citizenship we traditionally associate with political identities (Olesky, 2011: 16). As well as help to push back against the discourse that seeks to de-mobilize the LGBTQIA+ community’s political power.

Despite efforts in UK schools to implement positive teaching of LGBTQIA+ identities in schools through affirmative LGBT+ relationships and sex education (RSE), anti-LGBTQIA+ groups have expressed anxieties over the concept of “British values” and who gets to define them (LSE, 2019). In May of 2019, there were several high-profile protests surrounding the teaching of RSE and the No Outsiders Programme in a Birmingham school that was promoting the change (Saunston, 2020: 1997). Despite this being the only area with major protests the National Association of Headteachers reported that up to 70 schools in England encountered varying degrees of resistance to the program (Saunston, 2020: 1997). Teaching LGBTQIA+ does not promote same-sex relationships, it also does not encourage children to experience same-sex attraction or push a ‘gay agenda’ (LSE, 2019). It teaches values of tolerance and empowers LGBTQIA+ children in the system who previously had no such opportunity. How can LGBTQIA+ children and their identities be validated and empowered politically if discourse surrounding LGBTQIA+ issues repeatedly dis-engages these children? Identity and politics go hand in hand, and if groups push narratives that invalidate these identities, then we are not providing equal value to everyone’s citizenship and political identities.

The disenfranchisement of LGBTQIA+ individuals can also be seen in the democratic system and voting reform. In June 2021, the UK government introduced an election bill that requires voters to show a form of valid photographic identification to vote (Gov.co.uk, 2022). This bill disproportionately affects the LGBTQIA+ population, particularly trans and non-binary voters with 96% experiencing at least one barrier to obtaining appropriate ID (Stonewall.org.uk, no date). For trans and gender non-conforming people the photograph, name, and/or gender marker on their ID may not reflect their appearance or gender identity (Stonewall.org.uk, no date). Therefore, the ID bill is only creating barriers for the LGBTQIA+ community and increasing the inequalities this community faces in our democracy, with the parameters for identity constantly being re-defined and re-evaluated within a heteronormative binary. In the case of the voter ID election bill, there were extremely few allegations of in-person voter fraud with 34 allegations out of 58 million votes (Electoral Reform Society, 2022). The extremely low rate of in-person voter fraud denotes how the rationale for this bill only limits the votership of LGBTQIA+ individuals through the parameters of identity and who can or cannot vote.

(Electoral Reform Society, 2022)

The way our society perceives the citizenship of sexual minorities is extremely damaging to the political presence of the LGBTQIA+ community, and this is especially true considering the presence LGB (Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual) voters have in our electorate. In the first study analysis done on the sexuality gap between heterosexual and LGB voters in Europe and the UK, it was found that LGB men and women are more likely to:

a) be ideologically inclined towards the left and support typical leftist economic policies

b) vote for parties that are presumed to cater to their policy objectives as well as socially liberal centrist parties

(Turnbull-Dugarte, 2020: 25).

(Turnbull – Dugarte, 2020: 16)

Table 1 shows that on average, LGBs are 8.3% more likely than heterosexuals to identify as left-of-center after controlling for demographic and class-based characteristics. Moreover, even after variables capturing cultural predictors of electoral behavior and valence politics variables are controlled, Model 2 shows that LGBs are still 7.1 % more likely to identify left (Turnbull – Dugarte, 2020: 17).

Model 3 in Table 2 shows us that LGB voters are more likely to support a leftist party than comparable heterosexuals when controlling for demographic and class-based elements by 9%. The positive effects can be seen in Model 4 with the cultural and valence indicators of LGBs being 7.2% more likely to vote for the left (Turnbull – Dugarte, 2020: 18).

The data here shows that LGB voters have an important presence in politics on a wide scale, so why then are we seeing so many barriers to the political mobility of the LGBTQIA+ community in the UK? These figures are even more pronounced in the UK specifically, with this study finding that LGB voters are almost 10% more likely to vote for Labour, and 14% more likely to vote for any socially liberal party compared to their heterosexual peers (Table 3) (LSE, 2021). It is apparent that there is not enough value placed on sexual citizenship and political identities of LGBTQIA+ individuals, and moreover, not enough research on the matter. The study in this blog is the only study that has been done on LGB voters in the UK, and even then, Turnbull-Dugarte emphasizes that this study does not look at the voting behaviour of Trans, non-binary, and other queer gender identities (LSE, 2021). The lack of sufficient data on sexual citizenship allows discourse surrounding LGBTQIA+ issues to cloud the political rights of queer people, but Turnbull-Dugarte’s study is an excellent steppingstone in denoting the importance of sexual citizenship, and the necessity of having the political voices of the LGBTQIA+ community heard.

Table 3

So where does this leave us? Sexual citizenship is an underrepresented part of our democracy, overshadowed by discourse that invalidates its political power. Without more research, it is hard to gauge how this would affect the wider LGBTQIA+ community, but the data we do have shows that discourse in the UK is damaging the voices of a proactive political community. It Is hard to know where to start with tackling such an issue, but more focus on educating people on tolerance and exposing the inequality that is very clearly present here is pushing in the right direction. I would be very interested to hear your thoughts and opinions, so what do you think?

Bibliography

BU School of Public Health (2020) Building Sexual Citizenship [YouTube]. Available at: Building Sexual Citizenship – YouTube (Accessed: 23/03/2022).

Electoral Reform Society (2022) Voter ID: An Expensive Distraction. Available at: Voter ID: An Expensive Distraction – Electoral Reform Society – ERS (electoral-reform.org.uk) (Accessed: 19/03/2022).

Gov.co.uk (2022) Elections Bill 2021: Summary factsheet – Voter identification. Available at: Elections Bill 2021: Summary factsheet – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) (Accessed: 18/03/2022).

Monro, S. (2005) Gender Politics: Citizenship, Activism and Sexual Diversity.?. London, Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press.

LSE (2019) A ‘Right to be Queer’: centering LGBT+ youth in debates over inclusive relationships and sex education. Available at: A ‘Right to be Queer’: centring LGBT+ youth in debates over inclusive relationships and sex education | British Politics and Policy at LSE (Accessed: 14/03/2022).

LSE (2021) The UK’s sexuality gap: LGB voters remain significantly more supportive of the Labour Party. Available at: The UK’s sexuality gap: LGB voters remain significantly more supportive of the Labour Party | British Politics and Policy at LSE (Accessed: 14/03/2022).

Olesky, E.H., Hearn, J., and Golanska, D. (2011) Introduction: The Limits of Gendered Citizenship, Olesky, E.H.(?) The limits of gendered citizenship: Contexts and complexities. New York: Routledge. pp. 1-16.

Saunston, H. (2020) Trabalhos em Lingustic Aplicada. CONFLICTING DISCOURSES OF ‘DEMOCRACY’ AND ‘EQUALITY’: A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF THE LANGUAGE OF PRO- AND ANTI-LGBTQ+ INCLUSION IN THE RELATIONSHIPS AND SEX EDUCATION GUIDANCE FOR SCHOOLS IN ENGLAND. 59(3). pp. 1995-2016.

Stonewall.org.uk (2021) Needing ID could stop LGBTQ+ people from voting. Available at: Needing ID could stop LGBTQ+ people voting | Stonewall (Accessed: 14/03/2022).

Turnbull-Dugarte, S.J. (2020) European Journal of Political Research. The European lavender vote: Sexuality, ideology, and vote choice.59(3). pp. 517-537.