Creating queer safe space: relational space-making at a grassroots LGBT pride event in Scotland

Andrew McCartan, C. Nash
{"title":"Creating queer safe space: relational space-making at a grassroots LGBT pride event in Scotland","authors":"Andrew McCartan, C. Nash","doi":"10.1080/0966369X.2022.2052019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Queer safe space is commonly understood simply as space that is safe for queer people. In this paper we seek to develop a more nuanced conceptualisation of queer safe space attuned to how the process of creating space as simultaneously queer space and safe space can mean making compromises with both safety and queerness. Our research uses a case study of ‘Free Pride’ a grassroots LGBT Pride group in Glasgow, Scotland that sought to create a radical and inclusive event space, particularly for transgender people, but attracted controversy when it banned drag performers from the event, before reversing this decision. Drawing on in-depth, semi-structured interviews with the organizers of Free Pride, alongside online statements collected from those involved in the controversy, we show how the contradictions and complexities that arose from the group’s decision and its reversal highlights the contested political underpinnings of contemporary Pride events and the potentially fraught relations that can exist between certain identities within LGBT communities. Ultimately, Free Pride’s decision-making raised questions over how queer people relate to one another at Pride events, the inclusiveness of drag for trans identities, and the importance of seeing and being with one another in Pride spaces. We argue that although the process of queer space-making involved these complex and contradictory negotiations between safety and queerness, Free Pride ultimately created a queer safe space focused on queer collectivity.","PeriodicalId":12513,"journal":{"name":"Gender, Place & Culture","volume":"74 1","pages":"770 - 790"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gender, Place & Culture","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2022.2052019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Queer safe space is commonly understood simply as space that is safe for queer people. In this paper we seek to develop a more nuanced conceptualisation of queer safe space attuned to how the process of creating space as simultaneously queer space and safe space can mean making compromises with both safety and queerness. Our research uses a case study of ‘Free Pride’ a grassroots LGBT Pride group in Glasgow, Scotland that sought to create a radical and inclusive event space, particularly for transgender people, but attracted controversy when it banned drag performers from the event, before reversing this decision. Drawing on in-depth, semi-structured interviews with the organizers of Free Pride, alongside online statements collected from those involved in the controversy, we show how the contradictions and complexities that arose from the group’s decision and its reversal highlights the contested political underpinnings of contemporary Pride events and the potentially fraught relations that can exist between certain identities within LGBT communities. Ultimately, Free Pride’s decision-making raised questions over how queer people relate to one another at Pride events, the inclusiveness of drag for trans identities, and the importance of seeing and being with one another in Pride spaces. We argue that although the process of queer space-making involved these complex and contradictory negotiations between safety and queerness, Free Pride ultimately created a queer safe space focused on queer collectivity.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
创造酷儿安全空间:苏格兰草根LGBT骄傲活动中的关系空间营造
酷儿安全空间通常被简单地理解为对酷儿人群安全的空间。在本文中,我们试图发展一种更微妙的酷儿安全空间概念,以适应同时创造酷儿空间和安全空间的过程如何意味着在安全和酷儿之间做出妥协。我们的研究以“自由骄傲”(Free Pride)为例,这是苏格兰格拉斯哥的一个草根LGBT骄傲组织,该组织试图创造一个激进和包容的活动空间,特别是为跨性别者创造空间,但在取消这一决定之前,该组织禁止男扮女装表演者参加活动,引发了争议。我们对“自由骄傲”组织者进行了深入的、半结构化的采访,并从参与争议的人那里收集了在线声明,我们展示了该组织的决定及其逆转所产生的矛盾和复杂性,突显了当代“骄傲”事件中有争议的政治基础,以及LGBT社区中某些身份之间可能存在的令人担忧的关系。最终,“自由骄傲”的决定提出了一些问题,包括酷儿人群在“骄傲”活动中如何相互联系,变性人对变装的包容性,以及在“骄傲”空间中相互看到和相处的重要性。我们认为,尽管酷儿空间的创造过程涉及到安全和酷儿性之间复杂而矛盾的谈判,但自由骄傲最终创造了一个关注酷儿集体的酷儿安全空间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Closedness and openness in Tehran; a feminist critique of Sennett Gendering the BRI: a viewpoint The gendered body during Covid-19: views from Australia, the United Kingdom, and Japan - Introduction to themed section (Re)making live-in or live-out choice: the lived experience of Filipina migrant domestic workers in Macao Gendered experiences during COVID-19 in Turkey and the meaning of home
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1