Liotard, Philippe: sociologist, assistant professor at the Université Lyon I, illustrator at
Quasimodo
magazine.
Long, Laurent: specialist in Chinese affairs and gender issues.
Mangeot, Philippe: former student at the ENS, former president of ACT UP-Paris, director of
Vacarme
magazine.
Masanet, Philippe: former student at the ENS, historian.
Mendès-Leite, Rommel: ethno-sociologist, instructor at EHESS, specialist on AIDS and gender issues.
Mott, Luiz: professor of anthropology at the Federal University of Bahia, specialist in gender issues, founder and president of Grupo Gay da Bahia and the Bahia Anti-AIDS Center.
Ouardi, Samira: PhD student in information and communication sciences at CELSA, Université Paris-Sorbonne.
Pénet, Martin: journalist, PhD student, specialist in the history of song.
Plagne, Nicolas: former student at the ENS, historian, specialist on Russia.
Plummer, David: professor at the University of New England, Australia, specialist in gender issues.
Queiroz, Jean-Manuel de: professor of sociology at the Université Rennes II.
Raemdonck, Dan van: linguist, professor at the Université Libre de Bruxelles, president of the European Association for the Defense of Human Rights.
Rebreyend, Anne-Claire: research and teaching assistant in contemporary history at the Université Marc Bloch, Strasbourg.
Ressouni-Demigneux, Karim: art historian, specialist in the Middle Ages and the Italian Renaissance.
Revol, Thierry: assistant professor at the Université Marc Bloch, Strasbourg, specialist on the Middle Ages.
Riethauser, Stéphane: journalist, founder and coordinator of the Swiss Commission jeunesse et école de l’antenne gaie suisse Pink Cross.
Rommeluère, Eric: vice-president of the Université Bouddhique Européenne.
Rousseau, Jean-Marie: union official, former editor of the monthly magazine
Homophonies
.
Row Kavi, Ashok: journalist, founder of the Indian gay newspaper,
Bombay Dost
, founder of The Humsafar Trust.
Sibalis, Michael: professor at Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada, specialist in the history of homosexuality in France.
Sidéris, Georges: historian, specialist on Byzantine history.
Simonetti, Gian-Luigi: former student at the Scuola normale superiore in Pisa, Italy, specialist in Italian literature.
Siouffi, Gilles: former student at the ENS, linguist, assistant professor at the Université Montpellier III.
Tamagne, Florence: historian, assistant professor at the Université Charles de Gaulle-Lille III, specialist on the history of homosexuality.
Tassin, Claude: biblical exegete, historian of Judaism, professor of theology and religious studies at the Institut catholique de Paris.
Teboul, Roger: hospital psychiatrist, ethnologist.
Tin, Louis-Georges: former student at the ENS, specialist on Renaissance literature, specialist in gender issues.
Vale, Alexandra Fleming Câmara: anthropologist, professor at the Universidade Estadual do Vale do Acaraú, Brazil, specialist in gender issues.
Venner, Fiammetta: publication director of
ProChoix
.
Waipang, Au: pioneer of gay activism in Singapore, leader of People Like Us.
Weishut, Daniel: psychologist, member of Amnesty International’s LGBT Commission.
Weiss, Adam: student at Harvard University, specialist in gender issues during the Middle Ages.
Yi Huso: researcher, co-director of the Korean Sexual-Minority Culture and Rights Center.
Zaoui, Pierre: former student at the ENS, former member of ACT UP-Paris, specialist on ethical and political philosophy.
ABNORMAL
Anthropologist Mary Douglas contends that “it is not possible to define deviance until the extent of normalcy has been defined.” Applied to the consolidation of sexual categories, Douglas’s proposition can be inverted without questioning the ontological links between what is normal and what is excluded, or abnormal. Thus, speaking of heterosexuality does not absolutely imply a necessarily orthodox sexuality, as assumed by normative morality requirements. Douglas’s proposition, therefore, carries with it a germ of criticism of nineteenth-century categorization, a method which simultaneously confirms one of its unspoken objectives: to normalize differently, but always normalizing. Obviously, the application of objective justification tests to subjective representations immediately results in a typological control and prioritization. Even without initial mention of negative or positive value, either implied or under the alibi of scientific character, perceptions inevitably establish morals, set limits, and reveal the forbidden or the wrongly authorized. Contemporary interpretation leaves little doubt about this and, as Mary McIntosh in “The Homosexual Role” contends: “the practice of social labeling of certain individuals as being deviants demonstrates a double mechanism of social control.” The word “homosexuality” (“
homosexualität
”) publicly appeared in print for the first time in 1869, in Prussia, in two pamphlets distributed by Karl Maria Kertbeny (alias Karoly Maria Benkert) in reaction to a Prussian bill intending to penalize sodomy. From that date forward, the word “homosexuality” has retained much of its essential meaning, always referring to the sexuality between persons of the same gender. It is very probable that the word “heterosexuality” (“
normalsexualität
”) appeared around the same time or shortly thereafter. However, unlike the term “homosexual,” whose definition has changed little since the nineteenth century, the meaning attributed to “heterosexual” has varied consistently over the years. Jonathan Katz, in his evocatively titled book,
The Invention of Heterosexuality
, notes that the word “heterosexual,” introduced for the first time in the United States in 1892 in a Chicago medical journal, referred to a
perversion
, a “morbid sexual passion for a member of the opposite sex.” The author of the article, Dr James G. Kiernan, claimed to refer to the definition proposed by Richard von Krafft-Ebing, whose
Psychopathia Sexualis
was not translated into English until 1893. But Kiernan in fact had mistranslated the German text, a mistranslation that persisted for quite some time; as late as the 1920s, for example, a prominent American dictionary continued to associate heterosexuality with a perversion. The confusion surrounding the definition of “heterosexual” may be further attributed to the fact that prior to current categorization, the sexual norm would have been linked to procreative sexuality, and not necessarily heterosexuality, as the terms are not interchangeable.
The denotative rigidity of the term “homosexual,” while perhaps initially established to garner social scorn and therefore validate the normalcy of its binary opponent, “heterosexual,” nonetheless attests to its originating and constant status. Following this logic, we could go so far as to assert that heterosexuality was born of homosexuality—the normal born of the abnormal.
The initial confusion between heterosexuality and “perversion” is possibly the effect of this mechanism; that the assumptions upon which the nineteenth-century authors had relied were the “anomalies.” Then, in a process of contagion, everything that had been cited or mapped, whether positive or negative, became confused in a climate of “monstrosity.” One only need look, even today, at the reactions of certain heterosexual people who are not inclined to question or even name their heterosexuality. They are so unused to defining and naming their practices, that when others qualify them, they perceive it as an insult.
The abnormal, therefore, is that to which we continually assign an identifying label, or word. Depending on the historical period, the abnormal person was an introvert, a Jew, a fag, a dyke, etc., who, once identified, was beaten, locked-up, disqualified, or mocked. While particulars vary, the abnormal person is always the one singled out. Disqualification, exclusion, and homophobia are all predicated upon the identification and articulation of the abnormal. Ironically, it is also through this identification that resistance is established: for the abnormal individual strikes back, forming alternative sub-cultures and political ideologies. However, it is important to keep in mind that abnormal persons, or minorities, also create, name, and reject representations of the abnormal within their own communities. Queen, fag, butch are labels that speak of internalized homophobia.
—
Catherine Deschamps
Douglas, Mary.
Ainsi pensent les institutions
. Paris: Usher, 1989. [Published in the US as
How Institutions Think
. 1st ed. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse Univ. Press, 1986.]
Dynes, Wayne, ed.
Encyclopedia of Homosexuality
. New York: Garland Publishing Inc, 1990.
Foucault, Michel.
Les Anormaux, cours au Collège de France
. Paris: Gallimard/Le Seuil, 1999. [Published in the US as
Abnormal: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1974–1975
. New York: Picador, 2003.]
Goffman, Erving.
Stigmates
. Paris: Minuit, 1963. [Published in the US as
Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity
. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1963.]
Katz, Jonathan.
L’Invention de l’hétérosexualité
. Paris: EPEL, 2002. [Published in the US as
The Invention of Heterosexuality
. New York: Dutton, 1995.]
McIntosh, Mary. “The Homosexual Role.” In
Queer Theology/Sociology
. Cambridge, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1966.
Plummer, Kenneth.
Sexual Stigma: An Interactionist Account
. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975.
Rosario,Vernon, ed.
Science and Homosexualities
. New York, London: Routledge, 1997.
—Heterosexism; Medicine; Otherness; Perversions; Psychiatry; Rhetoric; Shame; Theology.
ADOPTION
With regard to adoption rights in France, the homosexuality of the adopting parents is considered prejudicial to the child’s interest. Although the French Civil Code stipulates that “all persons aged twenty-eight years or older” have the right to adopt, in reality, candidates are often denied at the mere mention of their homosexuality. The procedure for adoption in France is made up of an administrative phase during which applicants must first be approved by social services; this is followed by a judicial phase during which the adoption is confirmed. In 1993, a single man mentioned his homosexuality during the social services interview and was immediately denied approval; the reasons given for the refusal were the “absence of a constant maternal reference” as well as his “lifestyle choice.” At first overruled during the judicial phase, the rejection was finally validated by the Council of State in 1996, thus creating a legal precedence on the subject: the homosexuality of the adoptive parent or parents was enough justification to automatically refuse approval.
Initially, this
jurisprudence
could be considered in tandem with previous legal decisions in France with regard to single heterosexuals who wished to adopt. In one such case, the judge affirmed that the justification of the denial was not so much the single person’s refusal to lead a “married” lifestyle, but rather the presumed “absence of the image of the other sex” in the life of the adopted child. However, when the adoptive parent is homosexual, it is a further complication: homosexuality itself implies the “absence of the image of the other sex.” In this light, and contrary to what is officially provided for in the law, a homosexual in France can never hope to be allowed to adopt.
This jurisprudence is not unanimous in all jurisdictions of France, however. Regularly in fact, administrative courts annul refusals of acceptance based on the candidate’s homosexuality. In their judgments, these courts consider that “this aspect of the [petitioner’s] personality cannot justify a refusal of acceptance, unless it is accompanied by behavior that is prejudicial to the child’s education.” However, the Council of State inevitably
censures
these decisions.
Moreover, in February 2002, the European Court of Human Rights rendered a judgment, which is open to criticism, stating that refusal of acceptance by reason of homosexuality is not discriminatory, given the “divisions” among specialists with regard to the child’s best interests, the “profound divergences” of national and international public opinion on the subject, as well as the small number of children available to be adopted in France.
As for same-sex couples, their legal inability to adopt lies in the fact that the Civil Code only allows adoption by married couples (that is to say, given the current status regarding gay marriage, heterosexual married couples). This legal language is nothing short of
discrimination
specifically targeted against gays and lesbians. Nevertheless, there is also an official will to explicitly maintain this form of discrimination. For example, in France in 1996, to guard against the possibility of allowing homosexuals to adopt, adoption rights were also refused to common-law couples. Moreover, during the 1999 debates on PaCS (Pacte civil de solidarité [Civil solidarity pact]), which would recognize civil unions between couples, whether gay or straight), the Minister of Justice repeatedly said: “The government will not propose to modify the legislation to allow two individuals of the same sex to jointly adopt a child.” Further, she claimed that children need a “mental, social, and relational identity,” which was only possible when the child had, “during his childhood and adolescence, a father and a mother.” Previously invoked by psychoanalysts, anthropologists, and sociologists, the argument of the necessity of a masculine/feminine dynamic in children’s lives was now being taken up by jurists.
Fundamentally, this definition of what makes a good parent puts into question the legitimacy of single-parent families, who are nevertheless protected by French law in the same manner as other families. Further, the definition contradicts the evolution of family law in France since the end of the 1960s, which has been characterized by a decreased importance placed on masculine or feminine parental roles. The view may be changing, however; in 2006, the Court of Cassation (the court of last resort) ruled that parental rights over one partner’s biological child can be granted to partners in a same-sex relationship. In Denmark, Germany, Israel, and Norway, same-sex partners also may adopt their partner’s child. Elsewhere, as of 2007, Andorra, Belgium, Guam, Iceland, the Netherlands, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom permit same-sex couples to adopt children. On the other side of the Atlantic, numerous states in the US also recognize this right of same-sex partners to adopt the other partner’s child, whether biological or adopted; and some states also recognize the right of joint adoption by homosexuals. As for Canada, eight of ten provinces now allow adoption by same-sex couples. Despite these recent strides, however, many countries still do not allow gays and lesbians to adopt at all.
—
Daniel Borrillo and Thomas Formond