Bu makaleyi alıntılamak için: H. Burcu Baba, “The Construction of Heteropatriarchal Family and Dissident Sexualities in Turkey,” Fe Dergi 3, sayı 1 (2011), 56-64.
The Construction of Heteropatriarchal Family and Dissident Sexualities in Turkey
H. Burcu Baba
Nation states create their sexual regimes not only to discipline and manage the populations within the state but also to establish their differences from other states and set their borders through the bodies of the citizens under their mandate. The article contends that heterosexuality is naturalised through the argument that sexual orientation is an issue which concerns only a small minority of the population that deviates from the norm. In Turkey, the depiction of a homosexual category, that is hyper-sexualized and devoid of parenting abilities works in the construction of the heteropatriarchal family, which constitutes one of the main pillars of the nation state. The article scrutinizes the institution of motherhood in relation to the nationalist ideology, why parenting is reserved only for heterosexual people and how sexual dissidents are excluded from the practices of parenting a child.
Keywords: Queer Theory, LGBT movement, feminist movement, heteropatriarchy
Türkiye’de Heteropatriyarkal Ailenin İnşası ve Muhalif Cinsellikler
Bu metnin temel amacı ulus-devletlerin tabiyetleri altındaki vatandaşların bedenleri üzerinden, cinsiyeti ve cinselliği kullanarak hem kendi nüfuslarını idame ettiklerini hem de küresel anlamda sınır belilerdiklerini örnekler üzerinden tartışarak, Türkiyenin hetropatriyarkal rejimi içerisinde eşcinsellere ebeveynlik yolunun nasıl ve neden kapalı tuttulduğunu irdelemek. Cinsel yönelim konusunun sadece heteroseksüel normdan sapma gösteren küçük bir azınlığı ilgilendirdiği savı üzerinden heteroseksüelliğin doğallaştırılmasını tartışmaya açıyor. Ulus devletin temellerinden biri olarak heteropatriarkal aileyi, milliyetçilik bağlamında annelik kurumunu ve ebeveynliğe giden yollların hangi sebepler ve yöntemlerle cinsel muhaliflere kapatıldığını anlatıyor.
Anahtar sözcükler: Kuir Teori, LGBT hareketi, feminist hareket, hetero-patriyarka
I do not have a positive opinion of gay marriage.” In 2010, Aliye Kavaf, the State Minister responsible for the affairs of Women and Families, declared in an interview with the daily Hürriyet that she believes gay people are sick.1 Her declaration was a precursor of the conservative policies both Kavaf and her political party are determined to follow at the expense of women and sexual dissidents in Turkey. Kavaf is a member of the Justice and Development party which has been in power since 2001. This neo-liberal party with moderate Islamic tones ardently supported Turkey's membership to the European Union. As a minister, she was the head of an institution responsible for the well-being of women but even the name of the ministry was problematic and telling about the underlying ideology. The ministry responsible for women and families clearly situated women not as individuals but a part of the family institution. Until the Prime Minister, who makes insistent calls to women to have three children, has decided to scrap the ministry and establish a new institution under the title of "Ministry of Family and Social Policies," Kavaf’s efforts aligned with the conservation of the existing gender and sexual inequalities. Considering that only 0.1 percent of women between the ages of 45-49 have never been married, it would be safe to conclude that alternatives to heterosexual marriage barely exist for women. 2 We should also note that majority of women in Turkey are married with children; at the end of their reproductive period only 2.4 percent have never given live birth, which would not necessitate a call to women to have more children. In order to apprehend the scope of the recent events, this article utilises the framework of sexual orientation and the construction of heteropatriarchal family in relation to the ideology of the nation state. Kavaf’s claim that homosexuality is an illness, the annulment of the Ministry of Women, and the Prime Minister’s call to women to make children are the seemingly unrelated consequences of the same sexual ideology to regulate and control individuals through the institution of heteropatriarchal family.
Nation states create their sexual regimes not only to discipline and manage the populations but also to establish their differences from other states and set their borders through the bodies of the citizens under their mandate. The privileged position of heterosexual and patriarchal nuclear family within the nation-state and the subordination of women’s bodies and labour in tandem with market relations resulted in a normative heteropatriarchal sexual order. As Andrea Smith contends “heteropatriarchy is the building block of the nation-state form of governance”.3
In Turkey, the idea that the family is the building block of society is carved onto the minds of individuals as early as they attend primary school. The intended form of family in this statement takes a strictly specific form: the heterosexual, nuclear family which became dominant globally during the rise of capitalism. With the spread of modernism and capitalism around the world this type of family became dominant to a degree that it has been naturalised as the norm. The ideology of motherhood has immensely changed since the establishment of the nation-state. One aspect of motherhood has not changed much; the sacralisation of mothers and the moral values it is surrounded with. The primary responsibility of women was set as mothering and educating the new generations to build the nation from the early times of the republic. Despite all the rifts among different groups of people in the country there is still almost a consensus about family and the role of women as mothers.4 In this context, the sexual orientation of a person involved in parenting is not subject to question and in fact all parents are considered heterosexual.
For a closer look at the construction of the heteropatriarchal family in Turkey, I first present a brief overview of feminist theories on compulsory heterosexuality and reproduction and elucidate the use of queer theory to deconstruct the normative sexual regime. In the second part, a brief genealogical investigation of the sexual regime in Turkey starting with the formation of the nation state in the early 1920s sets the context and reveals the intersectionalities of nationalism, militarism and class dynamics. Later, the LGBT Movement that has actively engaged in sexual politics since the early 1990s with its achievements as well as limitations will be elaborated upon in relation to how sexual dissidents are prevented from engaging in parenting practices.
In terms of LGBT rights, Turkey is considered a 'hinge'5 country that is situated in the Middle East since most of the countries to its east penalize homosexuality whereas most countries that fall to the west provide legal rights. Although same sex involvements are not penalized according to the constitution, the Turkish Republic offers no legal protection to its citizens against discrimination based on sexual orientation. The trajectory of sexism and heterosexism can be followed in the ideology of nation states as well as the deployment of 'traditional' against the 'modern', or the 'Orient' against the 'Occident'. 6
Parenting by LGBT people, either on their own or in same sex couples, stands in contrast to the depiction of a 'homosexual' category, that is hyper-sexualized and devoid of the putative parenting abilities, which in turn works to construct the hetero-patriarchal family as one of the main pillars of the nation state. The sexual regime constructs and maintains a normative motherhood discourse for women while condemning the LGBT individual as the unnatural other, morally corrupt, an exception and not worthy of full citizenship. The position of the few dissident LGBT who are engaged in mothering practices seem to have no place in this paradigm. The project that this paper is a part of aims at uncovering the ways these sexual dissidents combine the performances of parenting and belonging to a sexual minority that does not conform to the social norms in contemporary Turkey.
Compulsory Heterosexuality and Mothering
Mothering and its relationship to compulsory heterosexuality has been a popular topic in feminist scholarship in the West and the discussions around the issue tend to take place from a constructionist perspective. It was either blamed as a curse on women that accounted for the appropriation of female bodies and labour or glorified as a celebration of womanhood. If “one is not born a woman but becomes one” as Simone de Beauvoir claims, the role of reproduction is central in the construction of women as a sex. Adrienne Rich's depiction of motherhood as a patriarchal institution that alienates women from their mothering experiences is foundational. 7 As against the institution of patriarchal motherhood she deploys mothering as an empowering experience. The use of the word mother as a verb is inclusive of males and such usage has prominence for this study. In this sense, mother is not something that a woman can be but an action that anybody, regardless of their sex, can do.
Unlike Rich, Monique Wittig describes heterosexuality as a political economy “the category of sex is the product of a heterosexual society in which men appropriate for themselves the reproduction and production of women and also their physical persons by means of a contract called the marriage contract.” 8 She conflates sex and gender identities and contends that lesbians should not be considered women since they escape this system that marks women as the sexed category through their specific relationship to men. What is central for this study is not the problematic prescription of lesbianism as a feminist strategy but the attempts to deconstruct the ontological status of gender and the explanation of why the hetero-patriarchal system would wish to render queer mothering as an oxymoron.
Judith Butler is one of the most prominent feminists writing from a constructionist perspective in relation to compulsory heterosexuality and reproduction. 9 For her, gender is “the truth effects of a discourse of primary and stable identity” (174), “a stylized repetition of acts” (179) and in line with her theory of gender performativity, these repetitive acts are more than performances by the pre-existing subjects. They constitute the subject. Hence, identity is constantly in the process of formation and “...acts and gestures, articulated and enacted desires create the illusion of an interior and organizing gender core, an illusion discursively maintained for the purposes of the regulation of sexuality within the obligatory frame of reproductive sexuality” (173). This point also helps to apprehend the construction of national gender identities as an on-going project in Turkey.
Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick looks at the relationship between same-sex desires and the desire of all persons in society mainly through male homoerotic desire in literary texts. 10 Because of her rejection of the essentialist/ constructionist debate as an impasse, she sticks to the wording of minoritizing versus universalizing in the explanation of sexuality but does not subscribe to either side. According to the former perspective only a minority of people are homosexuals and the definitions of sexuality have effect only on their lives; whereas the latter view suggests that the definition of homosexuality affects people from all sexualities. She starts Epistemology of the Closet with the claim that “an understanding of virtually any modern Western culture must be, not merely incomplete, but damaged in its central substance to the degree that it does not incorporate a critical analysis of modern homo/heterosexual definition”. I would like to extend this to include modernization projects in non-western countries and argue that naturalisation of heterosexuality has been an indispensable part of the authoritarian modernization adventure in Turkey.11 In order to scrutinize the sexual regime in Turkey and its formation in relation to modernization the most appropriate theoretical tool would be Queer Theory, which will be the subject of discussion in the following part.
Queer Theory first appeared as a critique of identity to upset existing normative sexuality ideologies, as a deconstructive strategy to analyze both sexual regimes that operate in binary constructions and the production of knowledge about sexuality in the academia.12 On the other hand, the use of queer as an umbrella term became popular for practical reasons. Each year one more letter is added to the acronym of LGBTQI2 to be inclusive of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, intersex and two-spirited people. There appears a need to distinguish between this use of queer as an umbrella term and its use as a verb to upset or trouble normative and disciplining policies of the governments, which is closely related to the use of the word in critical queer scholarship and praxis.13 As David Halperin describes it, queer is an action, “resistance to the normal”, rather than a site.14 Thus, it does not have a direct referent and it does not represent any stable category of people.15 Through a ‘subjectless critique’ queer scholarship strives to upset the norm and technologies of normalisation and because heterosexuality is the norm, it is the target of queer analysis.16 Here, Queer Theory is of significance since it is not only about and on queer people but about the entire society and by this it problematizes the ways individuals are constituted within and by sexual regimes.
As Michael Warner claims, Queer Theory is an intervention on gay and lesbian studies as well as the heteronormative sexual order. To denaturalize the existing categories and look into the context in which they appear, entails an attack on identity politics and can be taken as a threat to activism in that field.17 As a result, it has been subjected to criticism from LGBT activists just as the post-structuralist feminists are criticized for dissolving the category of women as the base of the movement. To find strategic ways around these claims for political reasons without falling into essentialist traps is a challenge and one needs to proceed with caution in order not to fall into the trap of taking the acronym LGBT as a less evolved version of queer. A queer politics that makes room for global and local alliances among non-conforming people seems to offer solutions. In light of current criticism to Queer Theory for being predominantly white, male, upper- middle class and Western oriented, one might claim it has proven futile to be used in other contexts and geographies.18 However, these points need to be evaluated in juxtaposition with the mainstreaming of queerness in the differing contexts and places of gay life-styles in Europe and North America, where the main themes are a gayby boom, same-sex marriage and adoption rights equal to heterosexuals, reproductive technologies and gay tourism. While it is possible to asses this process as the seduction of some LGBT individuals by capitalism, the dynamics that led to the privileged position of some LGBT people in North America and Europe necessitates a more nuanced and complex analysis. These experiences can hardly be universalized even within the Western geographies and critical queer scholars, who engage with Post-Colonial theory, Crip Theory and race and class analysis, provide perspectives at these intersections.
Being an LGBT individual is not always a radical act or an act of resistance that brings critique to the prevailing heteronormative order and the differences among these individuals need to be taken into account. As Jaspir Puar avers in Terrorist Assemblages some queer subjects/ LGBT people are complicit in existing hetoronormative power structures.19 Puar, building onto the concept of 'homonormativity', argues that during the US war on terror the rising tolerance to queer people in the country has hailed some queers into a homonormative form of nationalism. 20 This does not mean that the heteronormative order of the society has been disrupted or that all queer individuals enjoy equal rights. While these homonormative queer bodies signify the difference between the oriental other of the West, they are also used to mark the terrorist as queer.
Nation-states discipline and use sexual identities in line with their national ideologies. The USA which portrays itself as an exceptional and superior state legitimizes its imperial policies as the protector of civil rights and even democracy around the world by tokenizing LGBT rights. Thus the redemptive discourse to save the women of the orient from their own patriarchal cultures is extended to include queers in other parts of the world. It would not be mistaken to claim that identities based on same-sex sexual desire are utilised to signify the differences between the West and ‘the other’ and to draw the borders of a nation state of the USA to realize its imperial ambitions. Another example with similar national strategies is Israel, which depicts itself as the only democracy and the gay heaven in the Middle East. Israel’s efforts to conceal its on-going abuse of human rights in the Palestinian land under the rainbow flag has been met with criticism. In line with Puar, a Jewish scholar, Judith Butler, ,analyses how some populations are marked as doomed for death and how some deaths are not recognized as worth mourning such as queer people and people under occupation.21
Intersectionalities of heteronormative oppression with sexism, racism, nationalism, capitalism are prone to bring about perspectives that further lead people to question the power relations further. Through critical engagement, the deployment of critical Queer Theory provides a radical base for praxis, much needed strategies to subvert normative ideologies and help form alliances against the universalizing sexual discourses. It is strategic to form global solidarity networks without undermining local dynamics as explicated in the work by Chandra Mohanty on third world feminisms.22 In her call for decolonizing and reorienting feminism, Mohanty criticizes those Western feminists who depict a homogenous and servile category for women in the Third World. While asserting that the western eyes are blind to the forms of agency and resistance, especially of Third World women, she underscores the importance of the transnational feminist alliances against capitalism. Though she does not problematize binary sexual order and heteronormativity directly in her work, her call is still of central importance to the extent that it paves the way for being a real ally despite the rifts of colonial and orientalist history. At the face of the dangerous discourse, under the guise of ‘Gay Global’, which depicts dissident sexualities around the world as emanating from the West, Mohanty’s call of caution is worth hearing.23 Not unlike the women of the Third world countries, the sexual dissidents are compiled into a homogenous group and their ongoing resistance both in their day to day lives are rendered invisible.
The authoritarian modernization process in Turkey which started with the establishment of the Turkish Republic can be considered a social engineering project and the regulation of reproduction and sexuality are inherent elements in the formation of the state through the Kemalist ideology, the nationalism of the military elites who established the Republic. 24 The modernization of women was a priority in this process and Republican women were taken as the symbols of the Westernized development of the country. The creation of the ideal female citizen was through the discourse of 'mothers of the nation' and it set women at a task that was impossible to achieve.25 The policies of the state undermined women’s sexualities and furthered the division between inside and outside the house within the so-called public and private realms and yet did not touch the traditional roles of women in the house, within the promoted form of family. Kemalism not only left the binary opposites that constructed the genders in a hierarchical relation within the country untouched, it also brought barriers against women who wanted to get organized and mobilized and thus left the sexual regime unchallenged until the 1980s for the next wave of feminism. 26 The polished look of the modern Turkish woman, free from the veil and possibly working out of the house, was in fact a veil hiding the increased workload both qualitatively and quantitatively.
A history of same- sex desire remains to be written in Turkey and the research on homoeroticism is very recent. 27 However, the trajectory of same sex desire especially among males can be followed from the early Ottoman period. As Droor Ze'evi explains in his work on sexuality in the Ottoman Empire,28 , same sex relations were frowned upon like all the other forms of sexual relations outside marriage but the punishment for these was no different than opposite sex relations out of wedlock. In their interpretation of Islam, as the guiding principle of daily life and morality, the Ottomans did not attribute same sex attraction to any specific identity but warned all Muslim men against such kind of temptations. Though Ze’evi does not mention sexual identities or relations between consenting adults, or women, his work stands in direct contrast to the ad nauseum argument that same sex desire is a contamination of the relations with the West. As Serkan Delice emphasizes in his careful analysis on sexuality in the Ottoman Empire, there is a need for studies that take into consideration historical continuities by avoiding reductionist approaches towards the sexual ideology either in the form of idealizing or blaming it.29
In the Republican times until 1980, gender or sex non-complying individuals such as male belly dancers were seen as part of the folk culture and not considered as a threat to sexual order promoted by the state. What is considered alien is not the existence of some individuals who act like a member of the opposite sex but the ones who claim that they desire a member of their own sex. As Pınar Ilkaracan30 argues, the anxiety around homoerotic desire in Turkey explains the silence about gay, lesbian and bisexual issues. Trasexual hate-crimes can be discussed more comfortably since they seem to comply with the existing binary sexual order and do not constitute a threat to the preservation of the system. However, visibility does not always entail acceptance and even turns those individuals into open targets violence and police perpetuated brutality. 31
The atmosphere of tolerance behind the walls that was inherited from the Ottoman times was observable until 1980. 32 However, the military coup in 1980 devastated the life of many gender and sex non-complying individuals and subjected them to state violence. The highly heterosexist attitudes of the military continues to this day. In a country as militarist as Turkey, the fact that the military considers homosexuality an illness, a psychosexual disorder, is revealing. Ironically, “doing” military service is taken as proof of heterosexual masculinity and a rite of passage to becoming a man.33 It can be read as a precondition to being a full citizen and its counterpart for women seems to be mothering.
Following a strong wave of feminism in the 1980s, Kaos GL in Ankara and Lambda in Istanbul, were established and this was followed by the publication of the first gay and lesbian periodical in Turkey; Kaos GL. Both of the groups survived court cases to abolish them on the grounds that they are trying to promote homosexuality and were against the common morals in the society. In 2006, Ankara Prosecution Office turned down the attempt to abolish Kaos GL and since then it works a legal NGO. Lamda, on the other hand, had to appeal the ruling of the court in order to remain open in 2008.
The representation of women in the mixed group meetings was at times limited to one or two until recent years. In a hetero-patriarchal society, few women have the liberty to take on a divergent sexual identity and the class dynamics seem to be more influential on them. 34 The invisibility of lesbians and bisexual women is still an issue that needs to be read along the lines of sexism. It seems that female same sex desire is not considered a threat unless it extends to the exclusion of men. Sexism and heteronormativity do not only intersect in the lives of bisexual and transsexual women and lesbians but they feed into each other; they are interlocking systems and one cannot address them separately.
The state policy of total silence on LGBT politics was disrupted by the declaration of Aliye Kavaf. This statement by the minister fuelled the discussion on LGBT rights and the responses from LGBT organizations and prominent civil society organizations were quick. Support for the minister's claims came from conservative circles while LGBT activists and feminists along with many other civil society organizations including The Turkish Psychology Association (Türk Psikologlar Derneği) and The Turkish Medical Association (Türk Tabipleri Birliği) announced that homosexuality is not a psycho-sexual disorder but a sexual orientation just like heterosexuality and demanded that the minister apologize. The fact that civil society organizations react to the homophobic statements of the Minister can be recounted as the success of the LGBT organizations in changing public opinion. The efforts of activists seem to resonate in the civil society to build an alternative discourse in opposition to the hegemonic heteronormative discourse, which is apt to be called resistance in a Foucauldian definition of power. The achievements of the Turkish LGBT movement can also be observed in the alliances it has been able to establish in civil society, the less pejorative discourse in the media, and the newly established LGBT organizations in cities other than Istanbul and Ankara. The movement aimed at more than identity politics since its inception, hence the motto of Kaos GL: “The emancipation of homosexuals will also emancipate the heterosexuals.” The vision of triggering change in the heteronormative order is what makes the movement radical and enables sex and gender non-complying people to work side by side with feminists.
Still, there is urgency to pressure governments for protection of sexual orientation rights by whatever means possible due to hate crimes that are on the rise in Turkey, which is proof that the sexual regime is a matter of life and death. These murders are not recognized as organized crimes against LGBT people and the Government refuses to take action. The main legal channel that would offer protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation on an individual basis is the European Court of Human Rights since it has ruling power over the national courts. However, this channel has not been popular among the Turkish LGBT people so far. The hopes that the process with respect to Turkey’s accession to the European Union is liable to bring about the much needed change at a more collective level have not been met so far. Turkey's Accession Progress Report 2009 for European Union was a failure for coping with homophobia but this did not have much impact in the country since the rules of the union tend to be flexible in fields not directly related to the economy to accommodate the 'cultural' differences.
Despite the apparent policy of total silence about same sex issues followed by the government agencies, the existence of a consistent system can be gleaned from various reproductive policies to prevent parenting by gender and/or sex non-complying people. What they seem to be protecting are first of all the heteronormative reproductive policies by trying to prevent reproduction of queer people and reserving this right for heterosexual married couples.35
Parenting by same-sex couples is unheard of since there is no marriage, partnership or joint custody rights. On the contrary, until recently lesbians were under the risk of losing the custody of their children from their heterosexual relationships due to a 1982 Supreme Court ruling when a lesbian lost the custody of her daughter on accounts of her sexual orientation. In the absence of any law concerning the issue, this case set a dangerous legal precedent for similar custody cases.
Another reproductive policy that jeopardizes parenting by LGBT people is the 2010 ban on the use of cryobanks outside the country. The prohibition was introduced by the Ministry of Health on the grounds of the preservation of 'Turkish race and/or ethnicity' and does not even mention LGBT individuals; however, since there are no sperm banks in the country, that source was one of the few ways to have a child for the women who can afford it.
One last policy that points to the existence of a complete reproductive politicy is the mandatory sterilization of transsexuals who would like to go through sex-change operation. One has to sacrifice her or his reproductive capacity in order to be officially considered a member of the sex he or she feels they belong to. These laws and regulations help preserve the hetero-patriarchal family and help the depiction of same-sex involvements as the end of biological reproduction by actively constructing queer parenting as an oxymoron.
In the struggle of the LGBT individuals to achieve legal protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation there is a potential to reveal how the sexual regimes work at peoples' peril and a critical Queer Theory is promising in the way it opens the whole system and the power relations to questioning. Turkey, taken as the border state where the 'Occident' meets the 'Orient' can also serve as a topography of transgression. The strategic use of post-structuralist and transnational feminist and queer perspectives help deconstruct the binaries and have central importance in showing that what lies underneath are power relations that oppress very similar groups of people on both sides of the established polarities such as heterosexual and homosexual, cisgender36 and transgender, and men and women. The power relations, social institutions and prevalent discourses in the country have been presented as the constituting elements of subject formation not only for a minority of queer people but for the entire population within the sexual regime in Turkey, which is gradually becoming more constraining under conservative policies. There is an urgent need to reveal the intersectionalities of sexism and heterosexism, the embeddedness of heteronormativity in state policies and the organization of life through sexual policies without reducing the marginalised groups to special interest groups asking for special treatment.
Queen’s University, Department of Sociology.
Sunday Supplement, “Homosexuality is a Disease’ says
Turkish Minister,” March 7,
2Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies (HUIP), Turkey Demographic and Health Survey 2008, (Ankara:Hacettepe University Press. 2009).
3Andrea Smith, “Heteropatriarchy and the three Pillars of White Supremacy” in Color of Violence: INCITE! Women of Color against Violence. ( 2006).
4For analysis an of the ideology of mothering see: Eda Acara, A Case Study on the Discourse of Women’s Conscientious Objection in Turkey unpublished MA thesis. Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, 2010. And Sevi Bayraktar, Makbul Anneler Müstakbel Vatandaşlar: Neoliberal Beden Politikalarında Annelik. (Ankara: Ayizi Kitap 2011)
5Tarik Bereket and Barry Adams, “The Emergence of Gay Identities in Contemporary Turkey.” Sexualities, 9:31. 2006. Retrieved 3 October, 2009.
6Edward Said, Introduction in Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient (London Penguin 1995 Revisited edition)
7Adrienne Rich, “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” Signs, Vol 5, No 4. 1980. Retrived 12.11.2008. ( http://www.jstor.org/stable/3173834 ); Of Women Born: Motherhood as an Experience and as Institution. (New York: Norton& Company. 1986.)
8Monique Wittig, “The Category of Sex”, P. 6. in The Straight Mind and Other Essays.( Boston: Beacon Press. 1992)
9Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. (New York: Routledge. 1990.)
10Eve K Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet. (Los Angeles: University of California Press. 1990. )
11For an analysis of this project see: Serpil Sancar, “Otoriter Türk Modernleşmesinin Cinsiyet Rejimi” (The Sexual Regime of the Turkish Authoritarian Modernization), Doğu Batı, Özel Sayı: İdeolojiler II, no.29. (2004)
12Steven Seidman, Difference Troubles: Queering Social Theory and Sexual Politics. (UK: Cambridge University Press. 1997.)
13Janet R Jacobsen, “Queer is? Queer Does? Normativity and the Problem of Resistance”. GLQ 4:4. Duke University Press. 1998. Pp.511-536.
14Ibid. Halperin in Jacobsen
15In this sense, an attempt to queer the institution of motherhood would refer to upsetting the patriarchal normative ideology around it, very much in line with the theory of Rich explicated in the previous part.
16Michael Warner, Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 1993).
17Chandra T. Mohanty, Feminism without Borders: Decolonizing Theory Practising Solidarity. (New Delhi: Raj Press. 2003.)
criticism of Queer Theory see: David L. Eng, Judith Halberstam, José
Esteban Muñoz, “What is Queer about Queer Studies Now?”
2005. A Special Issue of Social Text. Number
19Jaspir Puar, “Introduction: Homonationalism and Biopolitics.” Pp.1-37 in Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times. (USA: Duke University Press. 2007.)
20Homonormativity is a concept coined by Lisa Duggan not as a counterpart of heteronormativity but as a complementing ideology. It can be described as particular kind of sexual politics constituted by neoliberal policies which fragments LGBT communities by setting hiarachies of worhiness according to how much they conform to the heteronormative sexual regime such as acting according to the gender norms or being monogamous. As Martin Manalansan explains “homonormativity is a chameleon-like ideology that purports to push for progressive causes such as gay marriage and other ‘activisms’but at the same time it creates a depoliticizing effect on queer communities as it rhetorically remaps and recodes freedom and liberation in terms of privacy, domesticity, and consumption. In other words, homonormativity anesthisezes queer communities into passively accepting alternative forms of inequality in return for domestic privacy, and the freedom to consume.” (142) Martin Manalansan, “Race, Violence and Neoliberal Spatial Politics in the Global City” Social Text 84-85, Vol 23, Nos 3-4, Fall-Winter 2005.
21Judith Butler, Frames of War: When is Life Grievable. (London: Verso. 2010); Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence. (London: Verso. 2004)
22Chandra T. Mohanty, 2003. Feminism without Borders: Decolonizing Theory Practising Solidarity. New Delhi: Raj Press.
23For example Joseph Massad criticizes the LGBT organizations in the Arab World and without distinguishing among the organizations, their demands and efforts he claims they have a destructive effect on LGBT people in those countries. Joseph Massad, “Re-Orienting Gay Desire: the Gay International and the Arab World.” Public Culture, 14-2, pp. 361-385. 2002 (http://muse.jhu.edu.proxy.queensu.ca/journals/public_culture/v014/14.2massad.pdf )
24Zürcher, E. J. Turkey: A Modern History. (New York: I.B.Taurus, 2004).
25Selda Serifsoy, “Aile ve Kemalist Modernizasyon Projesi, 1928-1950” in (ed.) Ayse Gul Altınay, Vatan Millet Kadınlar (167-201) (Istanbul: İletisim yayıncılık, 2000)
26Sirin Tekeli, ed. Women in Modern Turkish Society. (London and New Jersey: Zed Books, 1995 )
27See Serkan Delice, ‘Osmanlı’yı Bugün Nasıl Tefsir Ediyoruz? Tarih ve Toplumsal Cinsiyet Üzerine Düşünceler’ (How do we conceptualize the Ottoman today? Thoughts on History and Gender), Cinsiyet Halleri: Türkiye’de Toplumsal Cinsiyet’in Kesişim Sınırları, (ed.) Nil Mutluer (Istanbul: Varlık, 2008), pp. 72-87.
28Dror Ze'vi, Producing Desire: Changing Sexual Discourse in the Ottoman Middle East, 1500-1900. (London, England: University of California Press. 2006.)
29Serkan Delice, “Osmanlı’yı Bugün Nasıl Tefsir Ediyoruz?”
30Pınar Ilkkaracan, “Turkey: How Adultery Almost Derailed Turkey's Aspiration to Join the European Union” in Sexpolitics Richard Parker (ed.) Pp.247-275. (Sexuality Polity Watch, 2007)
31For an insightful analysis of the issue see: Pınar Selek, Maskeler, Süvariler, Gacılar. (Istanbul: Aykırı Yayıncılık, 2001)
“Another Struggle: Sexual Identity Politics in Unsettled
33Pınar Selek, Surune Surune Erkek Olmak (Crawling to be a Man) (İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2008).
34Yasemin Öz, “Görünmezlik Kıskacında Lezbiyenler.” İn Cinsiyet halleri: Türkiye’de Toplumsal Cinsiyetin Kesişim Sınırları Nil Mutluer (ed.) (Istanbul: Varlık Yaınları, 2008)
35For analysis of legal regulation of sex reassignment and sexual citizenship see: Ayça Kurtoğlu, “Sex Reassignment, Biological Reproduction and Sexual Citizenship in Turkey,” Fe Dergi 1/2 (2009): 79-88.
36Cisgender is a relatively new term used to define a group of people whose gender identity matches with the sex they were assigned at birth or is seen appropriate in general, unlike transgender people.
Acara, Eda. A Case Study on the Discourse of Women’s Conscientious Objection in Turkey unpublished MA thesis. Saint Mary’sUniversity, Halifax, 2010.
Bayraktar, Sevi. Makbul Anneler Müstakbel Vatandaşlar: Neoliberal Beden Politikalarında Annelik. (Ankara: Ayizi Kitap, 2011).
Bereket, Tarik and Barry Adams. “The Emergence of Gay Identities in Contemporary Turkey.” Sexualities, 9:31 (2006).
Retrieved 3 October, 2009.
Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York: Routledge, 1990).
Butler, Judith. Frames of War: When is Life Grievable. (London: Verso, 2010).
Butler, Judith. Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence. (London: Verso, 2004).
Delice, Serkan. ‘Osmanlı’yı Bugün Nasıl Tefsir Ediyoruz? Tarih ve Toplumsal Cinsiyet
Üzerine Düşünceler’ (How do we conceptualize the Ottoman today? Thoughts on History and Gender), Cinsiyet Halleri: Türkiye’de Toplumsal Cinsiyet’in Kesişim Sınırları, (ed.) Nil Mutluer (Istanbul: Varlık, 2008): 72-87.
Eng, David L., Judith Halberstam, José Esteban Muñoz “What is Queer about Queer Studies Now?” A Special Issue of Social Text. Number 84-85 (2005). http://www.dukeupress.edu/Catalog/ViewProduct.php?productid=15316
Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies (HUIP), Turkey Demographic and Health Survey 2008, (Ankara: Hacettepe University Press. 2009)
Hürriyet Sunday Supplement, “Homosexuality is a Disease’ says Turkish Minister,” (March 7, 2010).
Ilkkaracan, Pınar. “Turkey: How Adultery Almost Derailed Turkey's Aspiration to Join the European Union” in Sexpolitics Richard Parker (ed.). Sexuality Polity Watch (2007): 247-275
Jacobsen, Janet R. “Queer is? Queer Does? Normativity and the Problem of Resistance”. GLQ 4:4. Duke University Press. (1998): 511-536.
Kurtoğlu, Ayça. “Sex Reassignment, Biological Reproduction and Sexual Citizenship in Turkey,” Fe Dergi 1/2 (2009): 79-88.
Manalansan, Martin. “Race, Violence and Neoliberal Spatial Politics in the Global City” Social Text 84-85, Vol 23, Nos 3-4, Fall-Winter (2005).
Massad, Joseph. “Re-Orienting Gay Desire: the Gay International and the Arab World.” Public Culture, 14-2, pp. 361-385. (2002) http://muse.jhu.edu.proxy.queensu.ca/journals/public_culture/v014/14.2massad.pdf
Mohanty, Chandra T. Feminism without Borders: Decolonizing Theory Practising Solidarity. (New Delhi: Raj Press, 2003).
Oktem, Kerem. “Another Struggle: Sexual Identity Politics in Unsettled Turkey.” (2008).
Öz, Yasemin. “Görünmezlik Kıskacında Lezbiyenler.” İn Cinsiyet halleri: Türkiye’de Toplumsal Cinsiyetin Kesişim Sınırları Nil Mutluer (ed.) (Istanbul: Varlık Yayınları, 2008).
Puar, Jaspir. “Introduction: Homonationalism and Biopolitics.” Pp.1-37 in Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times. (USA: Duke University Press, 2007).
Rich, Adrienne. “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” Signs, Vol 5, No 4. (1980).
Rich, Adrienne. Of Women Born: Motherhood as an Experience and as Institution. (New York: Norton& Company, 1986)
Said, Edward. Introduction in Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient (London: Penguin, 1995 Revisited edition).
Sancar, Serpil. “Otoriter Türk Modernleşmesinin Cinsiyet Rejimi” (The Sexual Regime of the Turkish Authoritarian Modernization), Doğu Batı, Özel Sayı: İdeolojiler II, no.29. (2004).
Sedgwick, Eve K. Epistemology of the Closet. (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990).
Seidman, Steven. Difference Troubles: Queering Social Theory and Sexual Politics (UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
Selek, Pınar. Maskeler, Süvariler, Gacılar (Istanbul: Aykırı Yayıncılık, 2001).
Selek, Pınar. Sürüne Sürüne Erkek Olmak (Crawling to be a Man) (İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2008).
Serifsoy, Selda. “Aile ve Kemalist Modernizasyon Projesi, 1928-1950” in (ed.)Ayse Gul Altınay Vatan Millet Kadınlar (Istanbul: İletisim yayıncılık, 2000): 167-201
Smith, Andrea. “Heteropatriarchy and the Three Pillars of White Supremacy” in Color of Violence: INCITE! Women of Color against Violence. (2006).
Tekeli, Sirin. ed. Women in Modern Turkish Society (London and New Jersey: Zed Books, 1995).
Warner, Michael. Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993)
Wittig, Monique. “The Category of Sex”, in The Straight Mind and Other Essays (Boston: Beacon Press, 1992).
Ze'vi, Dror. Producing Desire: Changing Sexual Discourse in the Ottoman Middle East, 1500-1900 (London, England: University of California Press, 2006).
Zürcher, E. J. Turkey: A Modern History. (New York: I.B.Taurus, 2004).