Show Summary Details

Page of

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 18 February 2025

LGBT Movements in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Chinalocked

LGBT Movements in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Chinalocked

  • Travis S. K. Kong, Travis S. K. KongDepartment of Sociology, University of Hong Kong
  • Hsiao-wei Kuan, Hsiao-wei KuanDepartment of Law, National Taipei University
  • Sky H. L. LauSky H. L. LauDepartment of Sociology, University of Hong Kong
  • , and Sara L. FriedmanSara L. FriedmanDepartment of Anthropology, Indiana University Bloomington

Summary

Although Taiwan, Hong Kong, and China broadly share common social and cultural norms rooted in Confucian values and culturally Chinese family ideals, they have developed distinct political and economic trajectories since 1949 that have created very different possibilities for LGBT movements. Coming from the conservative political, social, and moral milieu of the 1950s through the 1970s, in the 1980s and 1990s, these societies witnessed a blooming of sexually alternative, even queer, cultural productions, commercial venues, and political activism, together with distinctive “gay,” “lesbian,” or tongzhi identities, among other self-identification labels. By the late 20th century, flows of people, ideas, concepts, and relationships had grown increasingly salient for emerging terms of identification and modes of organizing in all three societies. The diverse combinations of democracy, socialism, authoritarianism, and postcolonialism have shaped the content and direction of sexuality-based identities and sexual rights movements in these three societies. How explicitly these communities pursued visibility and claimed sexually specific identities, however, varied significantly both internally and in comparison across the three societies. The shared histories have created significant commonalities across the region; yet the different degrees of physical and societal openness and the extent of access to domestic and foreign interlocutors in these three societies have produced striking differences in LGBT citizens’ ability to claim diverse rights and protections under multifaceted forms of sexual citizenship.

Subjects

  • Groups and Identities
  • World Politics

You do not currently have access to this article

Login

Please login to access the full content.

Subscribe

Access to the full content requires a subscription