Introduction
As noted in earlier chapters, representational harms against same-sex conduct and related gender diversity can drive ongoing stigma against LGBTQ+ peoples that reinforces inequity (Colbran 2022). This can include misrecognition, erasure, omission, or covert surveillance of LGBTQ+ identity. Moreover, gender non-conformity is often conflated with homosexuality, and as such, same-sex attraction is a catalyst for anti-LGBTQ+ hate, and organized responses to that hate (Duncan et al 2019).
This chapter analyses the relationship between digital knowledge production processes, misrecognition of same-sex attraction and homophobia, and the broadening of LGBTQ+ cultural representation in popular culture and advertising as a strategy to minimize representational harms. The chapter also considers the impact of ongoing masculine gender role enforcement on the negotiation of same-sex attraction within the broader social environment, and within same-sex relations. The sharper focus on same-sex attraction in this chapter is based on the prevalence of legal, political and social proscription against same-sex conduct, and political organizing around same-sex expression, conduct and relationship rights (OutRight Action International 2018, ILGA World 2020a, 2020b).
This chapter first summarizes the range of stigma against samesex attraction, with a focus on representational harms perpetrated by or through digital platforms. Then discussed is the impact of continued same-sex attracted stigma on a range of same-sex attracted groups, and the role that gender role enforcement might play in reasoning behind this continued stigma. It then applies the human capabilities approach to LGBT inclusion and economic development as an additional avenue through which to secure LGBTQ+ enfranchisement, and in doing so integrates research on same-sex attraction and the market (Richardson 2018).
The chapter suggests that macroeconomic approaches to identifying the intrinsic value of individuals based on their capacity, rather than on their sexual expression, conduct or relationships, might mitigate representational harms. At the same time, the chapter considers that this approach can perpetuate medico-legal categorizations based on sexual conduct rather than identity, and notions of homonormativity. However, if the final destination is autonomy, as Galtung (1969) and others argue (Solanke 2017), then prioritizing agency through macroeconomic data presents another lever through which to address the inequalities of structural violence amplified by representational harms through hybrid media, and as noted in Chapter 3. The literature drawn on is based on a combination of keyword searches: ‘representational harms’, ‘same sex attraction’, ‘heteronormativity’ and ‘violence against same sex attraction’.