Queering the World Society: Global Norms, Rival Transnational Networks, and the Contested Case of LGBT Rights

Kristopher Velasco University of Texas at Austin

ABSTRACT: As the world society is increasingly populated by illiberal actors, is it possible the mechanisms once used to explain compliance with liberal normative standards are now influential in explaining defiance to them? I investigate this question by examining how integration into the world society via rival pro- and anti-LGBT networks influences the expansion and contraction of LGBT rights from 1990-2018. Through extensive original data, I use time series, cross-sectional and multinomial models to showcase how global LGBT norms can spur defiance and backlash – not just compliance. Moreover, the relative strength of these rival networks is associated with policy changes in alignment with that networks’ preferences. This study contributes to our understanding of the changing international system by revealing how illiberal actors simultaneously co-opt and subvert the mechanisms built by the liberal world society to advance illiberal outcomes. Countries are increasingly enacting policies that are not just counter to, but in active opposition of, normative standards set out by the international community

(Bromley, Schofer, and Longhofer 2019). This is occurring through democratic backslide, the derision of formal education, protectionist and retaliatory trade policies, and most relevant for the present study, discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities (Schofer et al. 2019; Hadler and Symons 2018; Hendrikse 2018; Kurlantzick 2013). Why is this happening?

Given that these events are occurring around the globe, I turn to global and transnational-level theories, rather than localized accounts, to answer this question. While realist scholars present the global redistribution of power via material resources as a key explanation, I draw on world society theory to provide a culture-based understanding because “this is more than a power transition: it’s also about culture,” (Reus-Smit 2017: 851). While world society theory is typically used to explain the isomorphic diffusion of liberal policies (for review see Drori and

Krucken̈ 2009), is it possible the mechanisms outlined within this process are also fundamental to explaining the broader retrenchment presently taking place? This is a pressing question for world society scholars as the theory’s very foundations of a liberal global context are being challenged (Boyle et al. 2015; Bromley et al.

2019; Hadler and Symons 2018).

To answer these questions and illuminate the changing international system, I utilize LGBT rights as an ideal case.1 First, compared to most scripts analyzed by

1 Two notes on language. First, I use the term “LGBT” throughout the manuscript. Across transnational organizing, though, there are alternative preferences such as “LGBTI” to acknowledge intersex communities (as evident in the now-named International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association) or to not explicitly use identities and instead advocate for “SOGIE” rights, meaning sexual orientation and gender identity/expression (Mekler 2018). Second, while language today is more inclusive, this language does not reflect how debates and policies have unfolded historically regarding these communities – which were traditionally focused on the regulation of gay men because men’s sex lives were considered part of the public domain while the sex lives of women were considered to world society scholars, LGBT rights are less institutionalized on the world stage

(Wilkinson and Langlois 2014). Therefore, this emergent norm is a better barometer of the changing forces than other issues (Hadler and Symons 2018).

Second, because LGBT rights are seen as the “apex” of 21st century human rights discourse (Rahman 2014), they have become an explicit target both on the international level and in a multitude of domestic contexts around the world

(Ayoub 2014, 2015; Fetner 2008; Symons and Altman 2016; Weiss and Bosia

2013). Consequently, examining the strategies and tactics used by illiberal actors to undermine this issue can advance our understanding of how they may subsequently counter other norms as well (Bob 2012; Terman 2019).

Specifically, I argue that transnational networks of illiberal, anti-LGBT actors simultaneously employ two tactics, co-optation and subversion, to reframe LGBT norms as existential threats to the family and religion, sovereignty and the nation, and/or child well-being and population demographics and, therefore, in need of a backlash policy response to protect against such threats (Ayoub 2014, 2016, 2019;

Boyle et al. 2015; Buss and Herman 2003; Frank et al. 2010; Frank and Moss

2017; Korolczuk and Graff 2018; Nuñez-Mietz and García Iommi 2017). First, through co-optation, they utilize the norms already established within the liberal world society to justify their claims and illiberal motives – such as using rationality and pseudo-science to argue against LGBT protections. Second, through subversion, they weaken the legitimacy of the norm in question by advancing an alternative framework – such as promoting “natural family” or traditional values throughout the United Nations (U.N.) (Korolczuk and Graff 2018). Therefore, be regulated by their husbands in the private sphere (Adam et al 2009; Connell 1990; Frank and Moss 2017; Frank and Phillips 2013). Public advancements and subsequent backlashes of policies specific to other aspects of the LGBT community are a much more recent development. greater exposure to international norms via these actors simply means that the norm is a greater threat in need of policy protection (Nuñez-Mietz and García

Iommi 2017; Terman 2019). To get a full account of how global norms influence domestic policies, then, it is imperative to consider how a country is simultaneously positioned within the “twin countervailing forces” of supportive and rival networks (Hadler and Symons 2018: 1725).

To test this argument, I use time-series cross-sections and pooled multinomial logistic regress models to predict a country’s changing adoption and implementation of 18 LGBT policies based on embeddedness within both pro- and anti-LGBT transnational advocacy networks from 1990-2018. Policy change is measured as either expansion, contraction, contestation (both types of events occur), or status quo. By creating original datasets to measure both pro- and anti-

LGBT transnational advocacy networks over time, as well as a policy index encompassing changes in the adoption, scope, and implementation of progressive and regressive policies, this project gives new insights into transnational explanations for where and why backlash and resistance occurs.

To date, most world society scholarship, and studies of norm diffusion more broadly, focuses on the mechanisms and processes by which policies supported by liberal values are successfully adopted (for counter example see Bromley et al.

2019; Boyle et al. 2015). This results in an understanding that a state’s response to global norms lies somewhere between status quo and full compliance and that any act of resistance or active backlash must be attributable to domestic attributes preventing the socialization to global norms (for caution against this theme see

Ayoub 2016; Frank and Moss 2017). In contrast, my findings reveal that a transnational network of anti-LGBT actors, anchored across state, religious, and civil society actors like the World Congress of Families, Alliance Defending

Freedom International, the Vatican, and Russia, are co-opting the structures and mechanisms within the international system to coordinate the transnational diffusion of LGBT backlash and resistance as well (Boyle et al. 2015; Korolczuk and

Graff 2018). The conceptual model used in this analysis, of simultaneously considering both countervailing forces, can be used to understand the adoption, resistance, or retrenchment of a range of liberal norms as networks of actors hostile to the present system grow.

Liberalizing the World Society:

Understanding the Foundations for LGBT Rights

Though there are several theories to explain the international system, I draw on theories within sociology and constructivist political science that prioritize cultural dimensions (Dobbins et al. 2007; Katzenstein 1993; Strang and Meyer 1993).2 I do so primarily because the present “crisis of liberalism” is rooted within cultural contentions like beliefs in markets after the 2008 financial crash, nationalistic identities and borders, and trust in democratic institutions (Castells 2018; Leith et al. 2019; Rupnik 2018). Therefore, to understand if liberal cultural traditions are waning, and the implications this carries for policies and ideas rooted within them, it is appropriate to draw on theories characterizing the cultural operations of the international system – namely, world society and other neo-institutional theories.

Neo-institutional theory argues that to understand the structures and policies of an organization, it is important to consider the broader institutional environment the organization is embedded (DiMaggio and Powell 1983; Meyer and Rowan 1977).

2 While there are other mechanisms of diffusion, such as coercion, present research suggests that this is an ineffective route for LGBT policies (see Velasco 2019). Shifting this logic up to the global scale, world society theory contends that states, themselves organizational actors, adopt cultural scripts legitimized on the world stage to be identified as legitimate, modern actors complying with normative standards (Beckert 2010; Boli and Thomas 1999; Meyer et al. 1997). This process of isomorphism is instrumental in explaining the expansion of a variety of policies rooted in the same overarching cultural scripts dominant within the international context.3 Below, I outline how these cultural foundations, particularly individualism, laid the foundation for the expansion of LGBT rights and, inadvertently, are key to undermining LGBT rights.

Creating the Individual: Liberal Norms and the Expansion of LGBT Rights

Following World War II, international institutions like the U.N., backed by victorious Western countries, created a global public sphere interwoven with secular, liberal values like human rights, democracy, and, perhaps most importantly, the supremacy of the individual as a fundamental social actor over the state and family (Frank et al. 2010; Habermas 1991). A key ramification of this new

“world culture” and, specifically, individualization is that “sex shifted from an activity meant to propagate the collective order through sanctioned reproduction to an activity meant to enhance individual pleasure through self-expression,”

(Frank et al. 2010: 871). As international organizations grew in number and influence, world cultural values like individualization became increasingly institutionalized and diffused to states and reshaped how (primarily Western) individuals morally understood their sexual experiences (Dehesa 2010).

3 Though presenting the high-level overview, it is important to note that scholars have advanced this broader theoretical project by considering how global norms change, how INGOs decide which norms to advocate for, and the recursive and dynamic interplay between the local and the global (Çakmaklı et al. 2017; Chorev 2012; Halliday and Carruthers 2007; Wong 2012). Developing a new “sexualized society,” especially after the sexual revolutions of the 1960s and 70s, challenged the relationship between sex and the state

(D’Emilio 1983; Frank and Moss 2017; Richardson 2017). To change how states governed their lives, LGBT activists increasingly saw transnational activism and targeting international institutions as imperative to overturning hostile domestic policies, similar to Keck and Sikkink’s boomerang models (1998). In 1978, for example, activists from several countries founded a leading international LGBT organization – the then-named International Gay Association (now ILGA)

(Paternotte 2016). ILGA made targeting international bodies a central component of their organizing tactics to help legitimize their cause within what they perceived to be sympathetic arenas and, because, international organizations are “highly contested normative spaces” (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998: 897) – the decisions they make carry implicit and explicit messages to member-states on appropriate behaviors.

Today, LGBT activists have made strides in advancing their claims within international organizations like the U.N., European Union, World Bank, and the

Organization of American States, among others, by arguing that LGBT rights are fundamental human rights (Ayoub and Paternotte 2014; Mertus 2008; Kollman

2007; O’Flaherty and Fischer 2008; Velasco 2018). For example, in 2013, the U.N. launched the Free and Equal Campaign to promote LGBT rights around the world

(Bailsey 2016). In 2016, the U.N. mandated a new Independent Expert to document violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (OHCHR 2020). After decades of activism, LGBT rights are considered the

“apex” of modern human rights discourses – making queer rights synonymous with being a 21st century state (Rahman 2014: 279). The following quotation from then- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on International Human Rights Day delivered in

Cairo, Egypt in 2011 perhaps best symbolically demarcates the arrival LGBT rights on the international agenda:

“Like being a woman, like being a racial, religious, tribal, or ethnic minority,

being LGBT does not make you less human. And that is why gay rights are

human rights, and human rights are gay rights.”

From this, I follow Nuñez-Mietz and Iommi (2017: 200) in defining global LGBT norms as “a set of principled proscriptions and prescriptions bound together by the ideal of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity,” rather than a set of more specific rights like gay marriage or the decriminalization of same-sex sexual acts – which are different manifestations of the same underlying norm.

Understanding the Contested Nature of LGBT Rights

In keeping with world society theory, as LGBT norms grow, this should be similarly coupled with the diffusion of corresponding policy reforms. Indeed, this seems to be the case as several studies link the legitimation of LGBT norms to such policies as the decriminalization of sodomy (Asal, Sommer, and Harwood 2012; Frank and

McEneaney 1999) and legalization of marriage and civil unions (Fernandez and

Lutter 2013; Kollman 2007, 2016) – amongst others (Ayoub 2015, 2016). Initially, such studies paint an optimistic narrative of the changing policy landscape – a pathway of diffusion mimicking several other policies that came before. Indeed, these positive transformations led one U.S. outlet to declare on the 50 th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots that “the struggle for gay rights is over”

(Kirchick 2019). However, looking at the global landscape today, it is apparent that this diffusion process has been disrupted.

Figure 1 tracks the changes in LGBT policies for all countries with a population greater than 500,000 beginning in 1990. 4 First, the dotted line represents the percent of countries that are expanding policies within each of the three-year intervals. This means that during the pooled years, countries only expanded LGBT policies. In total, more than 85 countries across all continents fall into the expansion category at some point, resulting in 37% of countries banning on employment discrimination, 13% with full marriage equality, and, as of 2018, even four countries banning conversation therapies for minors. It is this dotted line, and the story of expansion that undergirds it, that is typically focused on and is reflective of ideal-typic trends within world society scholarship.

[FIGURE 1 HERE]

By plotting the full range of policy changes, however, Figure 1 makes visually apparent that the full picture of LGBT policies is more complicated than these typical accounts. Policy contractions, as represented by the solid line, are also prevalent throughout the observation period. This is particularly true in the latter part of the 1990s as a reaction to this new movement and between 2012 and 2014.

For example, in 1998, Botswana expanded its criminalization of same-sex acts to include women in addition to men (Frank and Moss 2017). Meanwhile,

Turkmenistan adopted a new criminal code in 1997 that explicitly states:

“homosexual acts, i.e. sexual intercourse between men, shall be punished with a

4 See ‘Data and Methods’ below for how data were collected. term of imprisonment for up to two years,” (Carroll 2017). During the peak period:

Russia adopted a law criminalizing LGBT “propaganda” as a means to protect child morality (Persson 2013), Uganda re-introduced its now-infamous “Kill the Gays” bill implementing the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality” – a bill that was nullified on a technicality but reintroduced in 2019 (Bhalla 2019; Nuñez-Mietz and García Iommi 2017; Picq and Thiel 2015), and Nigeria adopted its Same-Sex

Marriage (Prohibition) Act which re-banned same-sex marriages but also criminalized “gay clubs, society organizations, processions or meetings in Nigeria”

(Okoli and Halidu 2014: 22).

Aside from clear policy expansions or contractions, other countries experience moments of contestation in which both types of policy changes are made. Periods of contestation, represented by the dashed line, are evident in the mid-1990s and from 2012-2014, but peak between 2003 and 2005. Most illustrative of this situation is the United States. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned state sodomy laws in Lawrence vs. Texas (Barclay et al. 2009). Although most states already decriminalized these acts, Lawrence was nevertheless a national achievement. The following year, Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriages (Bernstein and Taylor 2013). These events occurred, however, while several U.S. states were amending their constitutions to enshrine heterosexual definitions of marriage (Soule 2004). Periods of contestation help illuminate that contradictory policy changes are possible, acknowledges the complexity in state governance, and, most importantly, helps shift the focus from seeing a country as one dimensionally “good” or “bad” on LGBT rights.

While the expansion of LGBT rights receives the most attention from researchers, the decrease in expansion coupled with the increases in contraction and contestation after 2011 calls for new investigations into why this norm polarization is taking place (Ayoub 2014, 2019; Hadler and Symons 2018; Nuñez-

Mietz and Iommi 2017; Symons and Altman 2016; Velasco 2019). Typically, cases of backlash have been investigated via case studies. Although helpful to demonstrate contradistinctions within dominant processes, their local focus treat backlash as deviations from global trends – processes more attributable to internal politics, histories, and cultures.

But is it possible that all policy changes, regardless of orientation, are linked together? That rather than a deviation from global trends, are policy contractions and contestations manifestations of the same global processes traditionally used to explain compliance? Frank and Moss (2017: 96) suggest that this may indeed be the case, but caution that their “foray here is merely exploratory.” Therefore, a more comprehensive evaluation into this question is needed to address these questions.

Queering the World Society:

Norm Defiance and Antithetical Resonance by the FAIC Network

The institutional logic promoted by world society typically prioritizes homogenization in organizational structure and, importantly, that exposure to the normative context is productive toward advancing compliance. But need this be true? Below, I challenge this common assumption by arguing that greater exposure to global LGBT norms is also driving policy contraction and contestation through active norm defiance (Terman 2019). Drawing on counter-movement literature, I evaluate the conditions under which exposure to the world society is likely to drive different outcomes by giving greater attention to anti-LGBT actors within the norm diffusion process – a set of actors commonly overlooked (Boyle et al. 2015). A transnational coalition of anti-LGBT actors, which I label as the FAIC network, mimics the tactics of LGBT actors by making global norms locally resonant (in a process called vernacularization [Levitt and Merry 2009]) but does so to heighten perceptions of threat. By making LGBT norms antithetically resonant, FAIC actors and the cultural norms they promote give incentives for political elites to defy

LGBT norms and protect the domestic context through different policy contractions

(Nuñez-Mietz and Iommi 2017; Weiss and Bosia 2013). Below, I outline how this opposing force came to be and how they and their political allies justify state oppression of LGBT communities by simultaneously co-opting legitimized values within the world society but also subverting these norms as well.

Anti-LGBT Actors Enter the Global Arena

Since the U.N. created a pathway for civil society organizations to lobby the institution, the number of international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) on the world stage is continually increasing, especially since the 1990s (Davies

2014). Within world society scholarship, these organizations are theorized to be cultural carriers of the world society, promoters and diffusers of liberal cultural models (Boli and Thomas 1999). Consequently, across a range of studies, scholars use either INGOs aligned with a particular issue (e.g., human rights INGOs promoting human rights norms) or the totality of INGO ties to measure world society embeddedness. One key limitation with this approach is that it therefore assumes all INGOs are messengers for liberalized global norms.

Less attention, however, is given to conservative and religious civil society actors at odds with new cultural norms like individualization and liberalizing sex (Boesenecker and Vinjamuri 2011; Boyle et al. 2017). Especially since the 1990s, the NGOization of religious activism continues to fill the public sphere with actors

“adapting, displacing or even rejecting international standards” in lieu of other models (Berger 2003; Boesenecker and Vinjamuri 2011: 347).5

Against this backdrop, Bob (2012: 2) makes an intervention into research on the diffusion of Western, liberal norms by highlighting how this area of research prioritizes pro-liberal actors. Instead, Bob argues that global movements “involve not just a single ‘progressive’ movement promoting a cause, but also rivals fighting it.” Consequently, as LGBT activists built transnational coalitions, this shifted the scale of contention upward and changed the political opportunity structure such that a rival network, fueled by the rise of religious activism, could also emerge at the same scale (Bob 2012; Fetner 2008). Further, Bob (2012) notes that rival networks do not deny the existence of the norm, instead they use its existence to motivate actors toward their ultimate goal of dismantling it.

What conditions allowed this rival network to emerge, how does it operate, and who does it entail? Meyer and Staggenborg (1996) outline three conditions that facilitate the emergence of counter-movements: 1) the initial movement shows signs of success; 2) the movement’s goals threaten the interest of some population; and 3) political allies exist to aid this oppositional mobilization. Given that the previous section outlined the success of transnational LGBT actors, below, I

5 Of course, while I focus on the present era, it is important to acknowledge that LGBT- related politics have deep historical roots within international relations. For instance, the British Empire installed the criminalization of same-sex acts across its colonies to protect against what they saw as corrupting local practices and to maintain Christian morals (Gupta 2008). This history continues to plague the lives of LGBT people as dozens of former colonies still have such laws on the books and the legal systems imposed on Commonwealth states make undoing these provisions difficult (Asal et al. 2012). Therefore, to understand modern LGBT organizing, both in support and in opposition, it is important to remember that sexual politics are an enduring feature of international relations – not just a late 20th century/21st century phenomenon (Frank and Moss 2017). primarily focus on how the LGBT movement’s goals are presented as threats and how this mobilizes opposition.

The FAIC Network:

Translating LGBT Norms as Threats based on the Family, Anti-Imperialism, and

Children

Opponents of LGBT rights, and gender justice more broadly, claim such policies are a fundamental threat to society in a multitude of ways (Boyle et al. 2015; Htun and Weldon 2018; Korolczuk and Graff 2018). As an attempt to bring coherence to the various facets of these arguments, rooted in different religious, historic, and cultural justifications, I organize these arguments around three key themes for how and to whom LGBT rights threaten society: 1) traditional, religious definitions of the family and gender roles; 2) the nation, sovereignty, and self-determination;

3) the well-being and innocence of children and their very pro-creation. 6 Together, these elements form the acronym FAIC (Family/Anti-Imperialism/Children) to better articulate the intentions and aims of the varied, multidimensional network.

Rather than discursively referencing an “anti-LGBT network,” which implies a unified, singular front, the FAIC acronym better represents that this is a loosely networked set of actors with potentially competing interests but, at the present moment, are able to align in a mutual goal of countering the advancement of LGBT rights and promoting an alternative cultural agenda – they are for something and do not conceptualize themselves as being just anti-LGBT (Boyle et al. 2015; Boyle

6 It is important to clarify that although I am organizing the tenets of the network around these three themes, in practice, there is a significant amount of overlap in how these threats are constructed, deployed, and their theoretical underpinnings. For example, although opponents argue that LGBT rights threaten gender norms, this threat cannot be fully disentangled from masculine conceptions of the state or how changing gender norms and support of reproductive autonomy are portrayed to threaten the very reproduction of the nation itself. et al. 2017; Bob 2012; Korolczuk and Graff 2018).7 Below, I outline the origins of these three distinct sets of threats while simultaneously introducing the key actors and organizing strategies around co-optation and subversion. Moreover, I demonstrate how the same processes that explain the rise and compliance of LGBT norms are also instrumental in explaining why countries defy them by highlighting how FAIC actors ensure the antithetical resonance of global LGBT norms.

The first threat LGBT rights present is to the “family.” Because the family is the fundamental social unit of society, opponents argue, LGBT norms present an existential threat to society itself (Asay and DeFrain 2012). Of course, to understand this line of argumentation, it is imperative to properly define how the

“family” is constructed within FAIC discourse as LGBT people are certainly interested in maintaining and building families. FAIC actors (e.g., Human Life

International, Mormon World Family Policy Center, Catholic Family and Human

Rights Institute) use a “traditional,” heterosexual definition of the family, which they deem as “natural” (Boyle et al. 2015). The “traditional” or “natural” family is not just a structural term, but also defines the substantive content of the family through clearly prescribed gender roles and normative behaviors (Buss and

Herman 2003; Edgell and Docka 2007). Moreover, proponents of this model typically justify it by turning to religious doctrine (Buss and Herman 2003; Epstein

2006). For example, Pope John Paul II coined the term “gender ideology” as a way of dismissing liberal norms around gender equality. In 2002, the Vatican’s

Pontifical Council for the Family claimed that gender ideology “has led to a misunderstanding of the complementary difference between man and woman and

7 To demonstrate the coalitional aspect of this network, Bob (2012) refers to it as the “Baptist-Burqa” network. However, this language narrows the understanding of which actors, and their theological origins, are participating as it masks other Christian denominations like Pentecostals and Catholics or those with no religious affiliation. ‘a growing confusion about sexual identity’ that ‘complicates the assumption of roles and sharing of tasks in the home,’” (Corredor 2019: 615). Consequently, any new cultural ideas challenging heterosexual definitions of family and traditional gender roles are not just an afront to social cohesion but a direct challenge to God.

Drawing on religious doctrine from multiple faiths, the Vatican continues to partner with evangelical, Muslim, and conservative Jewish and Orthodox communities to mobilize actors against growing LGBT norms (Bob 2012; Boyle et al. 2017; Corredor 2019; Friedman 2003). Therefore, while other scholars frame anti-LGBT opposition based on family or religious discourse, I put these two together because the distinction is inseparable.

Bob (2012) argues that rival networks adopt strategies and tactics similar to the initial movement. Indeed, FAIC actors have not left the global arena uncontested. In response to increased threats to the “traditional family” from liberalizing cultural scripts, conservative NGOs started to more intentionally push back in the mid-1990s (Friedman 2003). In 1995, the Howard Center for Family,

Religion, and Society in the U.S. developed the World Congress of Families to better coordinate and anchor transnational organizing efforts amongst pro-“traditional family” advocates (Friedman 2003; Korolczuk and Graff 2018). The inaugural Congress brought together over 700 organizations. Since, World

Congress of Families has held ten major world congresses, each growing in size, and now sponsors a robust series of regional conferences that, in total, have now brought over 3,000 different organizations (Pro-Fam 2019). The Southern Poverty

Law Center and the Human Rights Campaign, two leading NGOs in the U.S., consider World Congress of Families the premier international anti-LGBT organization (Southern Poverty Law Center 2019). After seeing how LGBT activists leveraged international organizations to advance their, World Congress of Families and its network of allies made targeting the U.N. a central organizing tactic to subvert LGBT norms and promote an alternative normative agenda. In 2008, a set of NGOs, religious leaders, and state actors came together to create the U.N. Family Rights Caucus. According to its website, the mission of the Caucus is “to protect and promote the natural family as the fundamental unit of society as called for in Article 16 of the U.N. Declaration of

Human Rights,” (2019). Also, the Caucus is advancing resolutions through various

U.N. committees and treaty bodies (UN Family Rights Caucus 2019). By co-opting the same human rights norms that LGBT actors have done before them, the U.N.

Family Rights Caucus is able to muddy the normative landscape and give state actors an outlet to simultaneously deny LGBT norms while still arguing they are adhering to international standards – just different ones. In other words, by working to legitimize a traditional family norm within the international community, this allows member-states the ability to legitimize anti-LGBT animus and negative treatment under the guise of following international standards.

Second, in calling back to the legacies of colonialism and foreign imposition,

FAIC proponents argue LGBT norms are a threat to national sovereignty (Frank and Moss 2017). At the UN’s International Conference on Population and

Development in Cairo in 1994, Christian and Muslim civil society actors passed out leaflets saying, “speak out or surrender your sovereignty,” (Friedman 2003). As the international space and global institutions have grown in their support for LGBT rights, so too has this line of argumentation. For example, in Poland and other post-Communist states, opponents of LGBT rights argue that they are an external imposition by the EU (Ayoub 2013, 2014, 2016, 2018; O’Dwyer 2018). Across Africa, several leaders draw on legacies of imperialism to argue that LGBT norms are fundamentally “un-African,” (Currier 2010, 2012; Nuñez-Mietz and García

Iommi 2017). Indeed, the Foundation for African Cultural Heritage based in

Nigeria, highly involved within the FAIC network, makes this exact argument

(McEwan 2017). Consequently, in some African countries anti-LGBT opponents are able to find allies with those worried about neo-imperialism across the political spectrum (Currier 2012). As nationalism rises, ironically, so too have transnational linkages between nationalist actors trying to counter global values, of which LGBT rights has become synonymous (Gupta 2008; Szulc 2018). The promotion of national sovereignty and self-determination as a framing device is powerful because it is a protected norm within Article I of the U.N. charter (Reisman 1990) – limiting the extent to which foreign actors, including the UN, can pressure or compel various countries because resistance is a legitimate stance within the international framework.

Of course, even though some actors try to make a secular argument based on

U.N. law and international norms, there are also actors making sovereignty claims based on religious grounds. For example, in 1998, Botswana expanded their criminalization of sodomy to include women along with men. In response to international denouncement, Botswana’s Evangelical Fellowship, “expressed disgust at the efforts of ‘so-called pressure groups and foreign elements to have our laws changed to accommodate such animalistic and satanic acts under the pretext of human rights,’” (as quoted in Frank and Moss 2017: 958). Similarly,

Franco of Spain defied calls to liberalize sex laws and decriminalize sodomy by stating he wanted to “to restore a pure, conservative, Catholic, and monarchial state” (Limón 2012, 166). The third threat is to children, including their well-being, innocence, and the pro-creation of. Throughout all their organizing strategies, FAIC actors typically de-emphasize any religious underpinnings to their arguments to instead make secular, rational arguments for their positions – reflecting need to co-opt the discourse of the liberalized public sphere (Boyle et al. 2015; Habermas 1991). Of course, this is just a strategic framing device as many of these arguments are deeply religiously motivated (Stoeckl and Medvedeva 2018). Nevertheless, given that the U.N. is built on liberal beliefs, rationality is necessary (Ruggie 1982). For example, on their website, the U.N. Family Rights Caucus (2019, emphasis added) explicitly states:

“While a number of our member organizations represent various religious

faiths, the U.N. Family Rights Caucus is not a religious-based organization. The

positions and policies we adopt are based on what has been proven to bring the

best outcomes for men, women, and children and thus society.”

It is particularly within this third set of threats that the secularized rationality of anti-LGBT discourse is most evident. Opponents argue LGBT norms threaten children in two ways. First, FAIC actors appeal to norms established through the

UN’s Rights of the Child treaty to argue that societies should not allow for same- sex parents to exist because they are worse for children than opposite-sex parents and thus a violation of this treaty – a claim backed by discredited science (Perrin et al. 2013). To make these claims, academics and professionals become fundamental to the network and are often invited to present at World Congress of Families conferences. Key academics used to validate these claims are sociologists Mark Regnerus and Bradford Wilcox (McEwan 2017). Additionally, despite its secular name, the American College of Pediatrics is a conservative organization arguing that “gender ideology” hurts children and goes so far as to claim that recognizing transgender identities is an active form of child abuse (Cretella et al. 2018) – thus violating the aforementioned treaty.

The second way LGBT norms are argued to threaten children is by putting their very existence into question and creating a “demographic winter,” (Trimble

2013). FAIC actors argue that since same-sex partners cannot reproduce, this puts future population growth in jeopardy. As Trimble (2013) highlights, this argument is deeply rooted within racialized, imperialist discourse in that the true worry is changes in gender and sexuality will reduce white populations within Western countries as non-white communities maintain higher rates of childbirth (Trimble

2013). It is no coincidence, then, that it is at the UN’s International Conference on

Population and Development in Cairo in 1994 where transnational FAIC actors first started coordinating. Consequently, population and demographic centers also hold prominent roles within FAIC networks to assist with the secular, pseudo-scientific framing of their opposition. For example, the Center for Family and Human Rights

(previously the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute), published a memo in

2011, written by a PhD holder, to grant academic legitimacy to their claims. The memo, titled, “Promoting Life and Family: The Ultimate Solution to Eastern

Europe’s Demographic and Economic Crisis,” states:

“Today Europe faces a demographic crisis that requires a cultural remedy.

Increasingly the answer becomes clear: a culture that esteems the covenant of

marriage and the sanctity of life must be re-embraced if Europe is to experience any lasting positive change to its demographic and economic

crisis…Hungary is taking a particularly bold approach by embracing pro-family

and pro-life values specifically within the text of its new Constitution. Its

fundamental text states that ‘Hungary protects the institution of marriage

between man and woman, a matrimonial relationship voluntarily established,

as well as the family as the basis for the survival of the nation. Hungary

supports child-bearing.’”

Taken together, the different dimensions and motivations of FAIC actors present a robust counterweight to pro-LGBT organizing. Importantly, these actors are not seeking to dismantle the institutions promulgating the world society, instead, through mimicking the tactics of their liberal counterparts, the FAIC network is instead trying to reshape the cultural content and normative values these institutions are advancing in hopes of similarly diffusing their preferred policy prescriptions. Of course, these actors are also at a strategic advantage in that their preferred policies and cultural norms are dominant in much of the world

– just not within the epistemic communities of the U.N. Just like their progressive counterparts, FAIC actors work to ensure LGBT norms resonate in local contexts by engaging in the process of vernacularization or translating the norm to meet local communities (Merry 2006). These opposition actors draw on one of the three dominant frames to ensure that LGBT norms resonate as threats to different collective identities and to create an in-group vs. out-group dynamic (Terman

2019) that motivates action (i.e. backlash).

Conceptual Model, Hypotheses, and Typology of LGBT Policy Changes Figure 2 visualizes this theorization. Global norms are not just diffused and made salient in domestic contexts by actors in support of the norm but also by those in opposition. Consequently, the left half of the model tends not to be evaluated – leading to the assumption that all integration into the world system and exposure to international norms is productive toward compliance. Therefore, countries are not statically for or against LGBT rights but are constantly susceptible to these two countervailing forces trying to socialize countries to their interpretation of LGBT norms as these norms have yet to be fully institutionalized and broadly accepted.

[FIGURE 2 HERE]

There are two primary sets of hypotheses. First, following typical world society conventions, as support for global LGBT norms grows, this will be associated with more progressive LGBT policies. However, as this increased pressure facilitates the development of the FAIC network, their work muddies the legitimacy of LGBT norms and likely diminishes their influence over time. Therefore, I also propose that the effects of norms will be non-linear and wane over time. Secondly, global norms will be associated with all types of policy changes – including backlash.

Because there are two rival networks translating global LGBT norms down to the domestic space, Table 1 contains a 2x2 table outlining a typology of how domestic LGBT policies are hypothesized to change based on a country’s position within these two networks, along with ideal type country examples. Countries with low exposure to any normative pressures emanating from the global context, due to having low integration into both LGBT and FAIC networks, should maintain the status quo and not change policies in either direction (Ideal Type: Mongolia). Countries highly embedded with LGBT networks and lowly integrated in FAIC networks, however, should comply with global LGBT norms and expand LGBT policies since the dominant form of translation is occurring through sympathetic actors (Ideal Type: Denmark). Inversely, countries deeply embedded within FAIC networks and on the periphery of LGBT networks should be in active defiance of global norms and contract LGBT rights through backlash policies (Ideal Type:

Nigeria). Finally, countries that have high exposure through both types of networks should experience periods of contestation in which LGBT policies both constrict and expand as these two networks compete in shaping the domestic interpretation of LGBT norms. By being embedded within both networks, meaningful segments of domestic audiences are likely to be socialized into supporting both cultural interpretations and policies may therefore oscillate or be contradictory as a result (Ideal Type: United States).

[TABLE 1 HERE]

Data and Methods

Dependent Variable.

To measure a country’s LGBT policy landscape, I use two distinct measures. First, I score each country on an original LGBT policy index that I created annually from

1990-2018.8 The LGBT Policy Index captures the implementation of 18 different

LGBT policies. Following Ayoub (2015, 2016) and Weldon and Htun (2012, 2018), I use a range of policies to acknowledge the diversity of ways in which compliance with the underlying LGBT norm of non-discrimination may manifest. For example, decriminalizing sodomy laws, allowing LGB people to openly serve in the military, or marriage equality all stem from the same latent idea. If I were to only use a

8 See Appendix for more details on the construction of this measure. single indicator, though a typical strategy, any country that takes a different path to demonstrate compliance – or defiance – would be missed and may necessarily miss the exact dynamics this paper hopes to understand. Table 2 below outlines each policy used to construct the overall index along with each policy’s potential value. Policies included in the index are limited to those adopted across at least three countries or are explicitly advocated for by transnational activists (Velasco

2018).

[TABLE 2 HERE]

Rather than measuring each individual policy in a customary binary, adopted/not-adopted scheme (Frank and McEneaney 1999; Hughes et al. 2015), I follow Frank and colleagues (2010, 2017) in considering changes within policy scope and build on this work by factoring in a policy’s degree of implementation. I do this to acknowledge that variations in scope or implementation of the law, along with overall adoption, may also be a direct result of the transnational processes this study seeks to investigate. For example, before 2005, Cameroon had a near moratorium on implementing its law criminalizing same-sex acts but, after 2005,

Cameroon started to aggressively begin arresting people accused of engaging such behavior (Human Rights Watch 2010). Alternatively, while Japan does allow for legal gender change on government documents, in 2019 the Japanese Supreme

Court affirmed that requiring sterilization is constitutional (Associated Press 2019).

These burdensome requirements mean that, in practice, legal gender change is out of reach for most Japanese citizens. Relying on binary coding schemes necessarily misses these types of changes both within and between countries. [TABLE 3 HERE]

Table 3 outlines five different indicators used to determine the robustness of each policy and the individual scoring system for each indicator. The first is the proportion of the total population in 2010, as determined by the World Bank, living under the specific policy. This is to acknowledge important sub-national variations

(e.g., same-sex marriage laws in the U.S.). The second is the scope of genders subject to the law. For example, in several countries only criminalize same-sex acts between men (Carroll and Itaborahy 2015). In the early 2000s, Botswana and

Tanzania both expanded their criminalization of same-sex acts to include women as well (Carroll and Itaborahy 2015). Similarly, unequal age of consent laws are typically differentiated by gender. The third, which applies primarily to the regressive policies, considers the maximum punishment as explicitly stated within the law or penal code. For example, there is considerable variation in the punishment for engaging in same-sex acts: from less than three years in prison up to death by stoning (Carroll and Itaborahy 2015). The fourth indicator is ease of access to the benefits the law outlines. As mentioned, in order for Japanese citizens to legally change their gender sterilization is required – making this benefit nearly inaccessible despite its legality (Carroll and Itaborahy 2015). Finally, the last indicator is evidence of enforcement; in other words, is there evidence this law is actually being implemented? For example, prior to 2005, there was little evidence

Cameroon was arresting people based on engaging in same-sex acts, however, in

2005 and thereafter, there is significant evidence. Countries receive a score of 1 if there is at least one case of found of the law being implemented in the year under investigation or the year prior.

After assembling policy data for all country-year observations, factor scores were used to determine the level of full robustness and enforcement of each policy.

While all five indicators may not be relevant to each policy, each policy in question uses at least three different indicators. To create the factor scores, confirmatory factor analyses were used while holding the variance to 1 so that each policy’s scores ranged from 0 to 1. Therefore, a score of 1 corresponds to the most robust scope and implementation for that policy. This also means that changes on any indicators will influence each policy’s overall score.

To create the index, factor scores for each policy are summed together with progressive policies receiving a positive score and regressive policies receiving a negative. This results in an index with the possibility of ranging from -5 to +13.9

No country reaches these extremes, demonstrating that countries can get better and, unfortunately, worse in their policy environments. The Netherlands has had the highest score since 2014 at 11.1 and Nigeria has had the lowest since 2014 at -

3.66. The average over the entire time period, however, is 1.5. For context, 1.5 is the U.S.’s score in 2001. In 2018, it increased to 8.

The LGBT policy index represents the most robust and nuanced measure of

LGBT policy adoption and implementation to date and is itself a novel contribution to the literature. By incorporating both progressive and regressive LGBT policies

9 As a robustness, confirmatory factor analysis was used to determine if the underlying latent concept, LGBT equality, was properly captured by each of the policies. The model found all policies to be significantly associated with the underlying latent construct and each policy to be associated in the direction theorized (i.e., all regressive policies are negatively associated with the latent construct and all progressive policies are positively associated). Models using this latent variable approach yield similar results. Additional models were run that do not consider the five dimensions of each policy but instead use a binary adopted/not adopted scheme; results are substantively similar. and variation in implementation beyond a binary coding scheme, this measure is able to capture even fine-grained changes to the LGBT policy landscape and better assess the extent to which countries are or are not influenced by transnational processes.

The second measure seeks to understand policy change by placing countries into one of the four change categories presented earlier: STATUS QUO (no change),

COMPLIANCE (expansion of rights), DEFIANCE (contraction of rights), or

CONTESTATION (both expansion and contraction occur). Policy change categories are created by pooling three years of LGBT Policy Index scores and assessing in which directions the index moves.10 During the period, if the country only increases its scores, it is assigned to the compliance category. It only decreases its score; it is assigned to the compliance category. If there are changes in both directions during this period, then it is assigned to the contestation category. Lastly, if no changes occur, then it is categorized as status quo. For example, when pooling the changes from 1991-1993, this looks at the annual changes that occur from 1990 to

1991, 1991 to 1992, and 1992 to 1993. Therefore, the dependent variable occurs for each country in the sample nine times between 1990 to 2017. See Table A1 in the appendix for example countries in each category at different time points.

To find the necessary data to construct this index, multiple sources were consulted. The primary data source was the State Sponsored Homophobia Reports produced by ILGA. These reports, produced almost annually from 2006-2019, outline the adoption of a range of policies and some information on

10 Additional categories were created using more years within each pool to give greater opportunity for policy changes. Results are substantively similar and robust to various cut points, however, once categories encompass nine years of change, the statistical power diminishes. The three-year change categories are presented to maximize number of observations. implementation.11 For information on trans and intersex-specific policies and military information, other sources were used, including: Trans Legal Mapping

Report, also produced by ILGA, reports and documentation provided by

Transgender Europe, Movement Advancement Project, The Hauge Center for

Strategic Studies LGBT Military Index, and academic studies like Reynolds (2013)

(see Appendix A for more details on data sources). Furthermore, to get data on the evidence of enforcement – particularly arrests – multiple sources were used, including: an extensive newspaper search across each country using LexisNexis and Factiva and other external reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights

Watch, and the U.S. State Department (see Appendix A for newspaper collection procedures).

Independent Variables.

Global LGBT Context. Given that capturing a latent, intangible concept like norms with any one indicator is likely to be associated with significant measurement error, I follow Hughes and colleagues (2015) in using three distinct indicators to measure global LGBT norms (GLOBAL LGBT CONTEXT).12 The first indicator is the global count of LGBT INGOs using data from Yearbook of International

Organizations. INGOs are unique in that they both help to establish global culture and also work to diffuse it, therefore, a greater count of INGOs signifies greater interest in such issues and the resources to support more organizations (Boli and

Thomas 1999). The second indicator is the count of statements emanating from the

U.N. that pertain to sexual orientation and gender identity. The International

11 This source is widely used throughout cross-national LGBT research because the document explicitly cites the text of the laws. This makes manual validation possible – which the author did for some countries. 12 See Appendix A for the fit of this model. Commission of Jurists collects all statements (e.g., concluding observations, committee rulings, resolutions, etc.) relating to SOGI and makes this data publicly available. Given the U.N.’s role in as a “highly contested normative space”

(Finnemore and Sikkink 1998) and unique standing in the international system, it plays a leading role in establishing international norms. Finally, the last indicator looks at the role of public discourse. Using LexisNexis and Factiva, I get a global count of all English-language newspapers that mention any aspect of the LGBT community (see Appendix A for search terms). The cumulative count of each variable is used to create factor scores for each time period. This variable is then re-scaled so that in 1990, the first year of in the observation period, it has a value of zero. A squared term is also included in models to account for the possibility of a non-linear association.

LGBT Network Embeddedness. To measure embeddedness and exposure to the world society, I use country-level ties to the international community through

LGBT INGOs (Boli and Thomas 1999; Frank et al. 2010; Frank and McEneaney

1999; Meyer et al. 1997; Velasco 2018, 2019). Using the Yearbook of International

Organizations, I examine the aim of each organization as presented within the

Yearbook to find any reference to some aspect of LGBT communities. Total counts, or in-degrees, of LGBT INGOs ties are used to measure embeddedness. This measure is standardized according to its z-distribution to compare effect sizes with the FAIC measure.

FAIC Network Embeddedness. To measure embeddedness within FAIC networks, a similar approach is as above is taken, except I use the Yearbook and other resources to identify FAIC INGOs. Determining if an INGO holds anti-LGBT animus is more difficult than identifying pro-LGBT INGOs given that many anti- LGBT INGOs use language that masks this motivation. Consequently, to identify if an INGO should be properly considered to be part of the FAIC network, I first examine participation in conferences sponsored by the World Congress of Families.

Given this organization’s central role in transnational anti-LGBT organizing, participating in these conferences is a clear signal of organizational values. Using programs from each conference the World Congress of Families has held or sponsored, I first identify INGO that are both present within these programs and the Yearbook.13 Next, I examine each of these INGOs’ website to find reference to partner INGOs or partner INGOs as listed within the Yearbook and examine each partner organization for anti-LGBT animus. Lastly, using the indices of each

Yearbook, I examine all INGOs categorized as “Evangelical,” “Islamic,” “Family,”

“Children,” or otherwise religious to look for those that mimic the language of previously identified FAIC organizations. To determine if any of these organizations should be included, I search their aims/missions, websites, and promotional materials for key references. For example, using language like

“natural” or “traditional” families or marriage, “biblical sexuality,” or “biological man/woman/sexes” categorized organizations as anti-LGBT. These terms were determined after identifying typical phrases from World Congress of Families attendees’ websites and aims. Furthermore, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme

Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriages, Alliance Defending Freedom

International, another leading anti-LGBT INGO (Bob 2012), directed organizations to include a values statement on their website to justify LGBT-based discrimination

13 If an organization appears in a program at any point in time, it is counted a FAIC organization – it does not need to appear in a conference program within the specific year of analysis. Therefore, if a country attended a World Congress of Families event in 2006, for example, it is included in the count of FAIC INGOs at all timepoints. (Alliance Defending Freedom International 2015). If any organization included this values statement, or one similar, it was included.

Finally, after compiling a master list of FAIC INGOs, this list is broken down to only include non-governmental organizations (NGOs), church councils/networks, and parachurch organizations. Churches and educational institutions are excluded from this measure. While churches, and church leaders, are certainly part of anti-

LGBT backlash in several countries, their mission (along with universities) are inherently focused on the individual. The organizations included, therefore, are those that have a more public mission and also have the capacity to advocate and influence policy. For example, while churches do not typically lobby (and in some countries are explicitly barred from doing so), a church alliance or network itself is not a church. Therefore, the World Evangelical Alliance, which takes explicitly anti-

LGBT stances and has attended the World Congress of Families, is included within this measure but the Russian Orthodox Church, which also participates in the

World Congress of Families, is excluded. This measure is standardized according to its z-distribution.

Alternative Explanations.

Domestic LGBT Movement. Presently, no established longitudinal, cross-national measure of domestic LGBT movements exists. However, given that this is an important control measure to ensure that changes in visibility and valence are due to transnational processes, I developed an original measure to account for this. To measure domestic LGBIT movements, I use the cumulative count of all domestic

LGBT NGOs founded in each country. To create this dataset, a wide range of resources were consulted – over 200 in total. First, using the set of LGBT INGOs developed earlier from the Yearbook of

International Organizations, I retrieved membership rosters from annual reports and websites for as many years could be found. This produced a large number as

ILGA, the leading LGBT INGO, has over 1,000 members (ILGA 2020). Second, I used government databases of registered charities and searched the names and mission statements of organizations for keywords that associated them as being

LGBT-related based on the same set of keywords used to identify LGBT newspaper articles. Third, I then the Encyclopedia of Associations to find additional organization (Schofer and Longhofer 2010). Fourth, I used lists of domestic organizations produced by NGOs and the U.N. For example, ILGA has an online directory of thousands of LGBT organizations around the world, even if they are not members. Mama Cash, Arcus Foundation, and Astraea Foundation are three foundations that fund domestic LGBT organizations around the world, so I tracked their list of grantees each year using data from their websites and IRS Form 990 tax filings where they also report these data. Also, the U.N. Development

Programme Asia and the Pacific offices produced a number of country-specific reports on LGBT life in their, “Being LGBT in Asia and the Pacific” project, each one of these state reports include a list of domestic LGBT organizations in each country. Similarly, there are a number of NGO-sponsored resolutions at the U.N. that have domestic LGBT organizations as signatories. For example, two statements produced by ARC International in 2006 and 2014 were signed by a combined 1,123 organizations. Fifth, when present, I used membership rosters of domestic umbrella organizations, like the Consortium of LGBT Voluntary and

Community Organisations in the United Kingdom which has over 200 members. Sixth, I added to this list from academic books and articles on LGBT activism, like the Greenwood Encyclopedia of LGBT Issues Worldwide – especially those that took on historical perspectives. Seventh, using the volume of newspaper data produced previously, I then used text analysis techniques to scrape all proper nouns. After dropping names of individuals and geographic locations, I then manually inspected this list to find references to LGBT organizations – this was particularly helpful to find smaller organizations that may only make local news and those that were more active in earlier time periods. Eighth, since the aforementioned sources may pick up larger and/or more professionalized associations, I then searched each association’s website and social media for references to other groups – typically under a “Partner” or “Alliances” section.

Finally, I concluded by doing country-specific Google searches to find any other organizations.

To ultimately be included, each organization had to be verified as existing by at least two sources. If the organization could not be verified by two sources, it is dropped for the present analyses. Second, working on behalf of LGBT people had to be a primary aim of the organization.14 Third, the organization needed to be independent, therefore, an LGBT caucus or interest group of a broader union, political party, or workplace, for example, were not included. After compiling this

14 For example, some women’s groups were initially included due to being identified on one of the aforementioned sources but if, upon further inspection, they did not make working on behalf of lesbian or transgender women a meaningful dimension of their work, they were dropped. This is similarly true for HIV/AIDS organizations. However, given the restraints of explicitly working on behalf of LGBT populations in some countries, particularly Sub-Saharan Africa, an HIV/AIDS organization was included if another source connected it to LGBT populations (for example, Mama Cash Foundation or Astraea Foundation may have funded the organization to do LGBT-related work, and mentioned this on their website or tax forms, but the grantee organization does not explicitly mention LGBT populations on its website or promotional materials). If a reasonable determination could be made, it was included. Given the subjective nature of this, a robustness analysis was conducted in which this measure includes all organizations identified by one of the aforementioned sources – regardless of whether the author’s judgement as to whether it should be kept or not – results are substantively similar. list, over 11,000 organizations in total, I then determined the founding date of each organization. To do so, I prioritized the founding date as self-reported by the organization. If the founding date was not reported either by the organization or, if registered, by the government, I then used the first known record of the organization (such as first newspaper appearance, first reported membership in an

INGO, when it first developed an online presence such as website registration or social media account, etc.). Ultimately, 2,340 organizations were dropped from analyses because their founding date could not be reasonably determined. From here, cumulative counts of foundings over time were created for each country.

While this dataset is biased given its reliance on internet and digitally archived resources and that some LGBT organizations wish not to be identified, it nevertheless represents the most robust measure to date on the strength of domestic LGBT organizing over time. This measure is logged due to the skewed distribution.

Religiosity. To measure domestic religiosity, I use the Religious Characteristics of States Dataset produced by the Association of Religious Data Archives (Brown and James 2019). This dataset provides annual measures from 1900 to 2015 on the domestic population of a range of religious denominations for 220 states and territories. Specifically, I use the percent of the population who identifies as religious. Because the dataset ends in 2015, I take the percent change from 2014 to 2015 and multiply the 2015 values by this percent change in order to get 2016 levels of religiosity.15

LGBTQ MPs. Data on LGBTQ members of parliament (MPs) is compiled by the

LGBTQ Representation & Rights Initiative at the University of North Carolina at

15 For robustness, I also carry forward 2015 values into 2016. Results are substantively similar. Chapel Hill (Reynolds 2013). In addition to monitoring when LGBTQ individuals are elected to the lower house, it also outlines when MPs made public their identity if it was not known at the time of their election and the years of their service. Using this information, I count the total number of publicly LGBTQ- identified MPs in each country-year period. MPs are counted once they are publicly out, not year of first election (if the two are different). This variable accounts for whether changes in policy are due to changes in sympathetic policymakers.

Modernization. To account for Inglehart’s (1997) modernization thesis, I use gross domestic product per capita to measure economic development (GDP PER

CAPITA). I measure GDP per capita in constant 2015 U.S. dollars as provided by the

World Bank (2019). This variable is logged due to the skewed distribution.

Democracy. Encarnacion (2014) argues that democratization is an important condition to explain the expansion of LGBT rights, particularly within Latin

America. To account for this, I include Freedom House ratings of democratization

(LEVEL OF DEMOCRACY). These ratings are widely used throughout political research as a measure of democracy (Norris, Frank, and Martínez i Coma 2013) and are a good reflection of the definition of democracy (Bollen and Paxton 2000). Freedom

House rates countries from 1 to 7, with 1 being the most democratic. For this analysis, the scale is inverted with 7 becoming the most democratic.

Country “Porousness”. Several studies demonstrate that a country may be

“porous” to outside influences beyond exposure through transnational advocacy networks. To account for this “porousness,” two measures are used. Garretson

(2018) and Ayoub (2016) both contend that media and information transfers plays an important role in creating visibility and awareness of LGBT communities and, thus, improving social attitudes toward these communities. To account for this, I measure the percent of the population who are internet users (% INTERNET USERS).

Secondly, I use Hafner-Burton’s (2005, 2013) argument that trade as a percentage of GDP is also another important indicator of “porousness” and is associated with greater human rights protections. This variable (% TRADE) is calculated as the summed value of goods and services derived from exports/imports as a percentage of the overall country-level GDP. Data for both variables is gathered from the

World Bank (2019).

Population Density. Population density (POPULATION DENSITY) is used to account for the fact that as density increases, governments are more likely to decrease human rights in order to better control these populations (Cole 2012). This variable is measured as the mid-year population total per square kilometer and is logged (Cole 2012).

Sample Construction

To understand how exposure to global LGBT norms through LGBT and FAIC networks influences policy changes, this study assesses LGBT policies 1990-2018 for all countries with an average population of at least 500,000 across the 27-year period. For the change categories, the pooled nature of the dependent variable means that for the 152 countries included, most have nine observations – resulting in 1,327 country-year observations.

Modeling Strategy

Because of the different nature of the two dependent variables, two different modeling strategies are pursued. First, to asses a country’s position on the LGBT

Policy Index left as a continuous measure, I use pooled, cross-sectional time series with country fixed effects (Beck and Katz 1995). These fixed effects models account for time-invariant country-level attributes, like religious tradition. These models look at within-country variation for the independent variables to explain within- country variation in the dependent variable – a more conservative estimation better for causal inferences (Beck and Katz 1995). All predictor variables are lagged one year to account for temporal ordering.

Second, to predict a country’s position within the policy change categories, I use pooled, multinomial logistic regressions since the dependent variable is treated as non-ordered (Hilbe 2009). Because the data are pooled over time, models account for heteroskedasticity and the violation of the independence of error assumption through corrected standard errors (Beck and Katz 1995). Pooled multinomials are appropriate when there are no dependencies between categories over time – a country can jump between any categories at any point in time (Sarma and Simpson 2007). In these models, STATUS QUO serves as the reference category.

Finally, all predictor variables are lagged to one year prior to the first year of the three-year wave. Meaning that the policy change category capturing 2003, 2004, and 2005 are predicted using 2002’s values for each predictor to account for temporal ordering. See Appendix A for descriptive statistics.

Results

[TABLE 4 HERE] Results from the pooled, fixed effects models are presented in Table 4. Model 1 includes just the control variables to provide a baseline comparison. The control variables alone account for 52.5% of the within-country variation in LGBT POLICY

INDEX scores. Several of the controls operate as expected. Controls associated with higher scores on the LGBT POLICY INDEX are DOMESTIC LGBT MOVEMENT (b=.629, p<.001), GDP (b=.377, p<.050, % INTERNET USERS (b=.033, p<.001), and LGBTQ

MPS (b=.184, p<.001). Meanwhile, RELIGIOSITY (b=-.041, p<.05), and POPULATION

DENSITY (b=-2.256, p<.001) are associated with lower. Model 2 presents a straightforward evaluation of world society arguments by assessing the association between GLOBAL LGBT CONTEXT and LGBT POLICY INDEX. As suspected, there is a significant positive association (b=.029, p<.001). This affirms previous findings by

Velasco (2018). However, Model 3 includes a squared term to acknowledge that the association GLOBAL LGBT CONTEXT has may not be linear as typically theorized.

Indeed, the negative coefficient for the squared term supports the hypothesis that the effect of the normative environment is diminishing overtime (b= -.002, p<.001). This finding stands in firm contrast to typical world society scholarship that presents norms as on a perhaps on inevitable linear trendline. As the diminishing returns occurs, this raises important questions about the future potential of the global context alone in expanding progressive policies. This is discussed further below.

Finally, Model 4 includes the two network measures to test if different channels of exposure are indeed associated with higher or lower scores on the

LGBT POLICY INDEX. Beginning with LGBT NETWORKS, this supports conventional argues that greater exposure to the norm in question from sympathetic partners is associated with more compliance – in this case more progressive LGBT policies. A standard deviation increase in LGBT NETWORKS is associated with about a third of standard deviation increase, or 1 point, on the LGBT POLICY INDEX. FAIC

NETWORKS, however, are not associated with the overall level of the index as initially theorized.

While the models in Table 4 are helpful for evaluating the influence of our key variables on the dependent variable, the present modeling strategy doesn’t take into consideration policy change. For that, we turn to the results from the multinomial models in Table 5. Table 5 shows the coefficients for the logged odds predicting the three different types of LGBT policy changes from 1990-2017.

Starting with the GLOBAL LGBT CONTEXT, results again support the hypothesis advanced by neo-institutional scholars that as the normative environment becomes more supportive of LGBT rights, this will have a generalized effect of leading countries toward COMPLIANCE. The odds of compliance increase by 1.08 (exp(.084)) for each unit increase in the GLOBAL LGBT CONTEXT. Between 1990 and 2017, then, the probability of an average country only expanding LGBT policies increased by roughly 30% compared to the STATUS QUO, holding all other variables constant.

[TABLE 5 HERE]

By including other types of policy changes, however, new insights into neo- institutional theories are revealed. Besides increasing the odds of COMPLIANCE, increases in the GLOBAL LGBT CONTEXT are also associated with both DEFIANCE

(b=.109, p<.01) and CONTESTATION (b=.153, p<.01). In other words, as LGBT norms become more salient, countries become more likely to adjust their policies in response – not just in the direction of compliance, however. Furthermore, the squared term is negative for all three categories compared to STATUS QUO. The non-linear association confirms and expands the finding from Table 4 that the influence the global context is diminishing.

Next are the associations for the rival transnational advocacy networks working to make the broader normative environment resonate or antithetically resonate at the domestic level. Beginning with COMPLIANCE, LGBT NETWORKS are marginally significant (b=.257, p<.10). This suggests that once accounting for the work of domestic LGBT actors, transnational exposure is still influencing policy change. Meanwhile, FAIC NETWORKS are not associated with Compliance, as theorized.

Moving to DEFIANCE, we see the inverse as before. Greater integration into

LGBT NETWORKS is not significantly associated with policy backlashes, as theorized. Meanwhile, FAIC NETWORKS are associated with greater likelihood of backlash – the odds increase by 2.1 (exp(.75) holding all other variables constant.

Finally, in the CONTESTATION model, both network integrations are associated with greater odds. This follows the theorized association presented in the 2x2 table in Table 1. Countries that are simultaneously integrated into both networks are more likely to have policies expand and contract as the domestic space is being socialized into both cultural arguments. The coefficient for FAIC NETWORKS is marginally larger, however (b=.733 vs. b=.60).

Discussion and Conclusion

As the world society is increasingly populated by illiberal actors, is it possible the mechanisms once used to explain compliance with liberal normative standards are now influential in explaining defiance to them? In other words, is all exposure to global norms necessarily productive forward advancing rights-based policies? This study seeks to answer these questions and provide a more comprehensive evaluation into how LGBT rights are evolving in the present era. By evaluating exposure to global LGBT norms through both supportive and rival networks, this study finds that how norms are vernacularized and resonate within the domestic space, and by whom, will greatly influence the specific instantiations of normative claims – either by complying with the norm through policy expansions or enacting policy contractions in open defiance. Below, I outline the unique contributions this study makes to several areas of research before getting to the present limitations and how future research can advance the work presented here.

Contributions to World Society and World Culture

The primary intervention and literature this study contributes to is the study of global culture and neo-institutionalism. Presently, the bulk of research stemming from world society emphasizes the diffusion of progressive, liberal norms across the global landscape in a homogenizing process (Beckert 2010). For the most part, taking this approach is understandable considering the long, historic arch of liberal ideals like democracy, human rights, and individualization being promoted by the post-World War II international framework (Boli and Thomas 1999). A consequence of this approach, either explicitly or implicitly, is that the international and transnational space is framed as inherently productive toward pushing states toward these liberal standards and that this process is inevitable.

Indeed, across many studies, it seems that a solution to get states to comply with global standards is to increase exposure – especially through INGOs (for exception see Hughes et al. 2015). The primary intervention from this study, then, is to demonstrate that not all exposure to normative ideas and institutional models is productive. Not only is it unproductive, greater exposure may actively encourage divergence from these models (Terman 2019). Because norms need shared recognition to carry meaning and influence behaviors (Hechter and Opp 2001), these findings suggest that for controversial and contested issues like LGBT rights or gender equality, world society-based models of social change may be limited.

Indeed, looking back to Figure 3, this result suggests that there may indeed be a ceiling to how far the global context itself can advance LGBT equality – raising an important question about what the limits of norms are?

An interesting paradox this study demonstrates is how the international system, rooted in concepts like liberalism, rationality, and universalism (Boli and

Thomas 1999), is able to facilitate the diffusion of highly illiberal concepts. For example, anti-LGBT actors co-opt the language and form of the international space by taking on NGO structures, explicitly appealing to established international norms, and using secularized arguments to make their claims. Moreover, they simultaneously use the arenas of international organizations to subvert liberal values and to promote contradictory cultural values like the supremacy of the family and state over the individual or other traditional values. Indeed, regardless of how anti-LGBT actors frame LGBT norms as threats, in each instance these actors strategically use an established international norm, whether it be the

Universal Declaration, Rights of the Child, or resolutions, to validate their claims.

In doing so, domestic state actors can still claim to be adhering to international standards, thus be legitimate players, while simultaneously rejecting the new international standard of recognizing LGBT communities. From a measurement standpoint, this research demonstrates that more nuanced measures of INGOs and exposure to the global arena are needed as not all channels of exposure are the same (Velasco 2019). Across several world society studies; scholars use total INGO counts from the Yearbook of International

Organizations to predict some type of liberal policy change (Schofer and Longhofer

2011). By using such a large sample, however, this measure fails to recognize that some INGOs are actively working against the policy in question, making the true effect more difficult to disentangle. For example, Global Exodus Alliance is coded within the YIO as a gay organization, but it promotes the “ex-gay” movement and conversation therapies (Keating 2013). Or, some have used cross-national media and information transfers (Ayoub 2016, Velasco 2019), however, this too assumes there is a singular orientation to the transnational space. At the very least, when using total INGO counts or another macro-measure of exposure to the international system, scholars can be more careful in their language to mention that any positive effect is the net effect of liberal actors over illiberal ones.

For world society scholarship, generally, what this study demonstrates is that the content of the world society is changing. While exposure to the international system could reasonably be assumed to be exposure to liberal values, the international space is increasingly dominated by illiberalism, populism, and nationalism (Ayoub 2019; Korolczuk and Graff 2018). While this study cannot answer that explicitly answer why new cultural forms are entering the global arena, though preliminary evidence suggests that the 2008 global financial crash shook confidence in the old system and that the decline of U.S. hegemony declines allows new cultural models onto the world stage (Rovira Kaltwaser et al. 2017;

Komlosy 2016), it does provide some clarity that illiberal actors will use the tools the international system provides to dismantle it from within. If this destabilization occurs, it is possible, even likely, that once settled norms like democracy may be subject to re-litigation.

Contributions to Social Movement Studies

The primary contribution this scholarship makes to social movement studies is measurement. First, this study follows recent work demonstrating that to understand the effects of any movement, it is imperative to simultaneously consider countermovements as well (Ayoub and Chetaille 2017; Bob 2012; Fetner

2008). The unique contribution this study offers is to map out and measure the effects of two transnational networks simultaneously. Explicitly considering rival networks together is imperative as the global right continues to rise. However, because conservative movements are often trying to resist change, or in the case of FAIC actors, co-opt the dominant discourse, identifying these actors can be difficult (Plummer et al. 2019). Therefore, more research like this is needed to come up with better tools to identify who comprises these types of networks and to make more refined measures to study their subsequent impact. Second, though not the primary focus of this study, I also develop a novel measure of domestic LGBT movements in each country. By amassing hundreds of resources, this new domestic measure of LGBT organizing is able to explicitly isolate the effect of transnational networks – a limitation in previous world society scholarship. While such data collection efforts are onerous, it is a necessary measure to have confidence in understanding how transnational movements are influencing domestic processes. Contributions to Research on Public Policy and Policy Adoption

Studies of policy adoption especially cross-nationally, typically measure policies using a binary approach. However, this project tries to advance this area of research by contributing a novel policy index that incorporates five different indicators on the robustness and implementation of each policy. While adoption itself can help motivate movements or change public opinions and discourse

(Weldon and Htun 2012), important variation occurs right underneath this top- level measure.

Secondly, by using a nuanced policy indicator of both progressive and regressive policies, this study allows for countries to exist in contradiction – as is often the case. For example, as some states were adopting marriage equality in the

U.S., others were simultaneously also implementing constitutional bans on them

(Soule 2004). The LGBT Policy Index captures both these changes. Further, by recognizing that countries are embedded within both pro- and anti-LGBT networks, this is helpful for explaining and understanding how these contradictions are possible. For example, in 2015, the U.S. nationalized same-sex marriages. Three years later, Donald Trump announced a ban on transgender troops in the military.

How are both actions possible? These policy contradictions are understandable once realizing that the U.S. is highly embedded within both networks – meaning that both types of policies resonate within the domestic space. This contradictory dynamic is also evident in Italy and South Africa (Ammaturo 2019; Yarbrough

2019). If illiberal movements are to continue to grow, it is likely that such policy contradictions may become more likely as new actors begin challenging other issue areas. Therefore, it is important that policy researchers are equipped with the tools that can properly catch these dynamics. Limitations and Future Directions

While this research was able to provide novel insights, it is not without limitation.

First, a number of intensive data collection processes needed to occur in order to answer the present research question. Namely, in measuring the FAIC network, churches are not included within the measure. Although religious NGOs are included, excluding key church actors like the Russian Orthodox Church and the

Vatican may underrepresent the force of anti-LGBT actors in some national contexts (Hale 2019). Future research is certainly needed to help develop a novel measure of churches-as-political-actors to enhance the present measure of the

FAIC network. Secondly, while numerous resources were consulted to develop the

LGBT Policy Index and each of the sub-indicators, it is possible some data points, especially from smaller or more peripheral countries on the world stage, were missed. Although the results are robust to alternative modeling strategies, it is nevertheless still important to caveat that there is certainly some level of measurement error surrounding this measure.

This research takes a transnational perspective to help re-conceptualize backlash and resistance to LGBT rights as a global process not as just an isolated case resulting from unique domestic factors. However, in making this intervention, nuance is lost in the process about how different actors, especially FAIC actors, work to prevent and undo LGBT rights (Nuñez-Mietz and García Iommi 2017).

Therefore, while the three dimensions of the FAIC network may not be universal to all contexts, the aim is to generate an overall trend for cross-national, quantitative analysis. Qualitative and case study research can, however, illuminate more of the mechanisms by which the vernacularization process operates through different media outlets or political elites or by doing a content analysis on this text data to see if alternative frames emerge that should then be re-incorporated back up to the FAIC acronym.

To what extent does exposure and the (antithetical) vernacularization processes influence other movements? As Rahman (2014) argues, Western states have made LGBT rights the apex of human rights discourses. By being located at the top of the pyramid, and less institutionalized, this also suggests this is an early issue area to get contested as well. Consequently, is the backlash and rise of illiberal actors primarily a threat to this issue alone? Or, are LGBT rights a harbinger of what’s to come? Through the conceptual model employed, scholars can reexamine a multitude of other issues once legitimized on the international stage to understand how exposure via oppositional and rival network actors undermine their advancement. References

Ammaturo, Francesca Romana. 2019. "‘The more South you go, the more frankly you can speak’: Metronormativity, critical regionality and the LGBT movement in Salento, South-Eastern Italy." Current Sociology 67(1): 79-99.

Asal, Victor, Udi Sommer, and Paul G. Harwood. 2012. “Original Sin: A Cross- National Study of the Legality of Homosexual Acts.” Comparative Political Studies 46(3):320–51.

Asay, Sylvia M., and John Defrain. 2012. "The International Family Strengths Model." World Congress of Families.

Ayoub, Phillip M. 2013. “Cooperative Transnationalism in Contemporary Europe: Europeanization and Political Opportunities for LGBT Mobilization in the European Union.” European Political Science Review: 5(2):279–310.

Ayoub, Phillip M. 2014. “With Arms Wide Shut: Threat Perception, Norm Reception, and Mobilized Resistance to LGBT Rights.” Journal of Human Rights 13(3):337–62.

Ayoub, Phillip M. 2015. “Contested Norms in New-Adopter States: International Determinants of LGBT Rights Legislation.” European Journal of International Relations 21(2):293–322.

Ayoub, Phillip. 2016. When States Come Out. Cambridge University Press.

Ayoub, Phillip M. and Agnès Chetaille. 2017. “Movement/Countermovement Interaction and Instrumental Framing in a Multi-Level World: Rooting Polish Lesbian and Gay Activism.” Social Movement Studies 2837:1–17.

Ayoub, Phillip M. 2018. “Protean Power in Movement: Navigating Uncertainty in the LGBT Rights Revolution.” Pp. 79–99 in Protean Power: Exploring the Uncertain and Unexpected in World Politics, edited by P. J. Katzenstein and L. A. Seybert. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ayoub, Phillip M. 2018. “Intersectional and Transnational Coalitions during Times of Crisis: The European LGBT Movement.” Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 0(0):1–29.

Ayoub, Phillip M. 2019. “Tensions in Rights: Navigating Emerging Contradictions in the LGBT Rights Revolution.” Pp. 43–58 in Contesting Human Rights, edited by A. Brysk and M. Stohl. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Barclay, Scott, Mary Bernstein, and Anna-Maria Marshall, eds. 2009. Queer Mobilizations: LGBT Activists Confront the Law. NYU Press.

Beckert, Jens. 2010. “Institutional Isomorphism Revisited: Convergence and Divergence in Institutional Change.” Sociological Theory 28(2):150–66. Berger, Julia. 2003. “Religious Nongovernmental Organizations: An Exploratory Analysis.” Voluntas 14(1):15–40.

Bernstein, Mary, and Verta Taylor, eds. 2013. The marrying kind?: Debating same- sex marriage within the lesbian and gay movement. University of Minnesota Press.

Blee, Kathleen M. 2002. Inside organized racism: Women in the hate movement. Univ of California Press.

Bob, Clifford. 2012. The global right wing and the clash of world politics. Cambridge University Press.

Boesenecker, Aaron P., and Leslie Vinjamuri. 2011. "Lost in translation? Civil society, faith-based organizations and the negotiation of international norms." International Journal of Transitional Justice 5(3): 345-365.

Boli, John, and George M. Thomas. 1999. Constructing world culture: International nongovernmental organizations since 1875. Stanford University Press.

Bollen, Kenneth A. and Pamela Paxton. 2000. “Of Liberal Democracy.” Comparative Political Studies 33(1): 58–86.

Boyle, Elizabeth Heger, Shannon Golden, and Wenjie Liao. 2017. "The Catholic Church and International Law." Annual Review of Law and Social Science 13: 395-411.

Buss, D., and D. Herman. 2003. "Globalizing family values: The Christian right in International." Politics. Minneapolis/London: University of Minnesota Press.

Carroll, Aengus and Lucas Paoli Itaborahy. 2015. State Sponsored Homophobia2015: A World Survey of Laws: Criminalisation, Protection and Recognition of Same-Sex Love. Geneva, Switzerland: International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association.

Cole, Wade M. 2012. “Human Rights as Myth and Ceremony? Reevaluating the Effectiveness of Human Rights Treaties, 1981-2007.” American Journal of Sociology 117(4):1131–71.

Connell, R. W. 1990. "An iron man: The body and some contradictions of hegemonic masculinity." Sociological perspectives in sport: The games outside the games: 141-149.

Corrales, Javier. 2017. “Understanding the Uneven Spread of LGBT Rights in Latin America and the Caribbean, 1999-2013.” Journal of Research in Gender Studies 7(1):52–82. Corredor, Elizabeth S. 2019. "Unpacking “Gender Ideology” and the Global Right’s Antigender Countermovement." Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 44(3): 613-638.

Currier, Ashley. 2010. “Political Homophobia in Postcolonial Namibia.” Gender and Society 24(1):110–29.

Currier, Ashley. 2012. Out in Africa: LGBT Organizing in Namibia and South Africa. University of Minnesota Press.

Davies, Thomas. 2014. NGOs: A new history of transnational civil society. Oxford University Press.

De la Dehesa, Rafael. 2010. Queering the public sphere in Mexico and Brazil: Sexual rights movements in emerging democracies. Duke University Press.

DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. "The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields." American sociological review: 147-160.

Draude, Anke. 2017. "Translation in motion: a concept’s journey towards norm diffusion studies." Third World Thematics: A TWQ Journal 2(5): 588-605.

Edgell, Penny, and Danielle Docka. 2007. "Beyond the nuclear family? Familism and gender ideology in diverse religious communities." Sociological Forum 22(1):

Encarnación, Omar G. 2014. “Gay Rights: Why Democracy Matters.” Journal of Democracy 25(3):90–105.

Fernández, Juan J. and Mark Lutter. 2013. “Supranational Cultural Norms, Domestic Value Orientations and the Diffusion of Same-Sex Union Rights in Europe, 1988-2009.” International Sociology 28(1):102–20.

Fetner, Tina. 2008. How the religious right shaped lesbian and gay activism. U of Minnesota Press.

Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change.” International Organization 52 (4): 887–917.

Frank, David John and Elizabeth H. McEneaney. 1999. “The Individualization of Society and the Liberalization of State Policies on Same-Sex Sexual Relations, 1984-1995.” Social Forces 77(3):911–43.

Frank, David John and Dana M. Moss. 2017. “Cross-National and Longitudinal Variations in the Criminal Regulation of Sex, 1965 to 2005.” Social Forces 95(3):941–69. Frank, David John and Nolan Edward Phillips. 2013. “Sex Laws and Sexuality Rights in Comparative and Global Perspectives.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 9(1):249–67.

Frank, David John, Bayliss J. Camp, and Steven A. Boutcher. 2010. “Worldwide Trends in the Criminal Regulation of Sex, 1945 to 2005.” American Sociological Review 75(6):867–93.

Garretson, Jeremiah J. 2018. The Path to Gay Rights: How Activism and Coming Out Changed Public Opinion. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Gupta, Alok. 2008. This alien legacy: The origins of" sodomy" laws in British colonialism. Human Rights Watch.

Habermas, Jurgen. 1991. The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. MIT Press.

Hadler, Markus and Jonathan Symons. 2018. “World Society Divided: Divergent Trends in State Responses to Sexual Minorities and Their Reflection in Public Attitudes.” Social Forces 96(4):1721–56.

Hafner-Burton, Emilie M. 2005. “Trading Human Rights: How Preferential Trade Agreements Influence Government Repression.” International Organization 59(3):593–629.

Hafner-Burton, Emilie. 2013. Making human rights a reality. Princeton University Press.

Hale, Christopher W. 2019. "Catholic Church Advocacy in Latin America." Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics.

Han, Enze, and Joseph O'Mahoney. 2014. "British colonialism and the criminalization of homosexuality." Cambridge Review of International Affairs 27(2): 268-288.

Harrison, Brian F., and Melissa R. Michelson. 2017. Listen, we need to talk: How to change attitudes about LGBT rights. Oxford University Press.

Hechter, Michael, and Karl-Dieter Opp, eds. 2001. Social norms. Russell Sage Foundation.

Hughes, Melanie M., Mona Lena Krook, and Pamela Paxton. 2015. “Transnational Women’s Activism and the Global Diffusion of Gender Quotas.” International Studies Quarterly 59(2):357–72.

Inglehart, Ronald. 1997. Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton university press. Keck, Margaret E., and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Cornell University Press.

Kollman, Kelly. 2007. “Same-Sex Unions: The Globalization of an Idea.” International Studies Quarterly 51(2):329–57.

Kollman, Kelly. 2016. The same-sex unions revolution in western democracies. Manchester University Press.

Komlosy, Andrea. 2016. "Prospects of Decline and Hegemonic Shifts for the West." Journal of World-Systems Research 22(2): 463-483.

Korolczuk, Elzbieta and Agnieszka Graff. 2018. “Gender as ‘Ebola from Brussels’: The Anticolonial Frame and the Rise of Illiberal Populism.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 43(4):797–821.

Levitt, Peggy and Sally Engle Merry. 2009. “Vernacularization on the Ground: Local Uses of Global Women’s Rights in Peru, China, India and the United States.” Global Networks 9(4):441–61.

Limón, José. 2012. Américo Paredes: Culture and Critique. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Lindberg, Staffan I., Michael Coppedge, John Gerring, and Jan Teorell. 2014. "V- Dem: A new way to measure democracy." Journal of Democracy 25(3): 159- 169.

Longhofer, Wesley, Evan Schofer, Natasha Miric, and David John Frank. 2016. “NGOs, INGOs, and Environmental Policy Reform, 1970–2010.” Social Forces 94(4):1743–68.

Massad, Joseph A. 2008. Desiring Arabs. University of Chicago Press.

McEwen, Haley. 2017. "Nuclear power: The family in decolonial perspective and ‘pro-family’politics in Africa." Development Southern Africa 34(6): 738-751.

Mekler, Ariel G. 2018. "LGBTQ (in) visibility: A human security approach to SOGIESC." Routledge handbook of queer development studies. Routledge: 155-168.

Mertus, Julie. 2007. “The Rejection of Human Rights Framings: The Case of LGBT Advocacy in the US.” Human Rights Quarterly 29(4):1036–64.

Meyer, John W., and Brian Rowan. 1977. "Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony." American journal of sociology 83(2): 340- 363. Meyer, David S., and Suzanne Staggenborg. 1996. "Movements, countermovements, and the structure of political opportunity." American journal of sociology 101(6): 1628-1660.

Meyer, John W., John Boli, George M. Thomas, and Francisco O. Ramirez. 1997. “World Society and the National State.” American Journal of Sociology 103(1):144–81.

Munson, Ziad. "Mobilizing on Campus: Conservative Movements and Today’s College Students." Sociological Forum 25(4):

Norris, Pippa, Richard W. Frank, and Ferran Martinez i Coma. 2013."Assessing the quality of elections." Journal of Democracy 24(4): 124-135.

Nuñez-Mietz, Fernando G. and Lucrecia García Iommi. 2017. “Can Transnational Norm Advocacy Undermine Internalization? Explaining Immunization against LGBT Rights in Uganda.” International Studies Quarterly 61(1):196–209.

O'Dwyer, Conor. 2018. Coming Out of Communism: The Emergence of LGBT Activism in Eastern Europe. NYU Press.

Okoli, Al Chukwama, and Abdullali Snehn Halidu. 2014. "Betwixt Civil Liberty and National Sensibility: Implications of Nigeria’s Anti-Gay Law." International Affairs and Global Strategy 19: 17-24.

Paternotte, David. 2016. “The NGOization of LGBT Activism: ILGA-Europe and the Treaty of Amsterdam.” Social Movement Studies 15(4):388–402.

Paxton, Pamela, Melanie M. Hughes, and Jennifer L. Green. 2006. “The International Women’s Movement and Women’s Political Representation, 1893–2003.” American Sociological Review 71:898–920.

Persson, Emil. 2015. “Banning ‘Homosexual Propaganda’: Belonging and Visibility in Contemporary Russian Media.” Sexuality and Culture 19(2):256–74.

Picq, Manuela Lavinas and Markus Thiel, eds. 2015. Sexualities in World Politics: How LGBTQ Claims Shape International Relations. London: Routledge.

Plummer, Samantha, Melanie M. Hughes, and Jackie Smith. 2019. "The Challenges of Organizational Classification: A Research Note." Social Currents.

Rahman, Momin. 2014. “Queer Rights and the Triangulation of Western Exceptionalism.” Journal of Human Rights 13(3):274–89.

Reisman, W. Michael. 1990. "Sovereignty and human rights in contemporary international law." American Journal of International Law 84(4): 866-876.

Richardson, Diane. 2017. "Rethinking sexual citizenship." Sociology 51(2): 208- 224. Roberts, Louisa. 2018. “Changing Worldwide Attitudes toward Homosexuality: The Influence of Global and Region-Specific Cultures, 1981–2012.” Social Science Research:1–18.

Kaltwasser, Cristóbal Rovira, Paul A. Taggart, Paulina Ochoa Espejo, and Pierre Ostiguy, eds. 2017. The Oxford handbook of populism. Oxford University Press.

Ruggie, John Gerard. 1982. "International regimes, transactions, and change: embedded liberalism in the postwar economic order." International organization 36(2): 379-415.

Sarma, Sisira, and Wayne Simpson. 2007. "A panel multinomial logit analysis of elderly living arrangements: Evidence from aging in Manitoba longitudinal data, Canada." Social Science & Medicine 65(12): 2539-2552.

Schofer, Evan and Wesley Longhofer. 2011. “The Structural Sources of Association.” American Journal of Sociology 117(2):539–85.

Schofer, Evan and John W. Meyer. 2005. “The Worldwide Expansion of Higher Education in the Twentieth Century.” American Sociological Review 70(6):898–920.

Soule, Sarah A. 2004. "Going to the chapel? Same-sex marriage bans in the United States, 1973–2000." Social Problems 51(4): 453-477.

Stoeckl, Kristina and Kseniya Medvedeva. 2018. “Double Bind at the UN: Western Actors, Russia, and the Traditionalist Agenda.” Global Constitutionalism 7(3):383–421.

Symons, Jonathan, and Dennis Altman. 2015. "International norm polarization: sexuality as a subject of human rights protection." International Theory 7(1): 61-95.

Tilcsik, András. 2011. "Pride and prejudice: Employment discrimination against openly gay men in the United States." American Journal of Sociology 117(2): 586-626.

Trimble, Rita. 2013. "The Threat of ‘Demographic Winter’: A Transnational Politics of Motherhood and Endangered Populations in Pro-Family Documentaries." Feminist Formations: 30-54.

Velasco, Kristopher. 2018. “Human Rights INGOs, LGBT INGOs, and LGBT Policy Diffusion, 1991 – 2015.” Social Forces 97(1):377–404.

Velasco, Kristopher. 2019. “A Growing Queer Divide: The Divergence between Transnational Advocacy Networks and Foreign Aid in Diffusing LGBT Policies.” International Studies Quarterly 1–13. Weiss, Meredith L., and Michael J. Bosia, eds. 2013. Global homophobia: States, movements, and the politics of oppression. University of Illinois Press.

Htun, Mala and S. Laurel Weldon. 2012. “The Civic Origins of Progressive Policy Change: Combating Violence against Women in Global Perspective, 1975– 2005.” American Political Science Review 106(03):548–69.

Htun, Mala, and S. Laurel Weldon. 2018. The logics of gender justice: state action on women's rights around the world. Cambridge University Press.

Yarbrough, Michael W. 2019. "A New Twist on the 'un-African' Script: Representing Gay and Lesbian African Weddings in Democratic South Africa." 30

25 y r o g e t a

C 20

n i h t i w

s

e 15 i r t n u o C

f 10 o

t n e c r e 5 P

0 1991-1993 1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2006 2006-2008 2009-2011 2012-2014 2015-2017 Contestation Contraction Expansion

Figure 1. Percent of Countries within LGBT Policy Change Categories, 1990-2017 Global LGBT Norms

Anti-LGBT Pro-LGBT Networks Networks

Domestic Norm Resonance

State Policy Response

NormDefiance StatusQuo NormCompliance

Figure 2. Conceptual Model Predicting State Policy Response to Global Norms Table 1. Typology of State Responses to Global LGBT Norms Based on Rival Network Embeddedness with Ideal Types

LGBT Network

Low High

k r

o Status Quo Compliance Low w

t Mongolia Denmark e N

C I Defiance Contestation

A High F Nigeria United States

Table 2. Policies Comprising the LGBT Policy Index

Policy Max Score

Same-Sex Sexual Acts Legal 1 Equal Age of Consent 1 Employment Discrimination 1 Hate Crime Protections 1 Incitement to Hatred 1 Civil Unions 1 Marriage Equality 1 Joint Adoptions 1 Gender Marker Change 1 LGB Military 1 Transgender Military 1 Ban on Conversion Therapies 1 Ban on Gender Assignment Surgeries on Children 1

Death Penalty for Same-Sex Sexual Acts -1 Propaganda Laws -1 Same-Sex Sexual Acts Ilegal -1 Unequal Age of Consent -1 Ban on Marriage Equality -1 Table 3. Policy Scope and Implementation Indicators and Scoring Schemes Policy Indicator Scores

Proportion of Population Living Under Law* 0-1

Scope of Genders Subject to Law 1.0 = both men and women .50 = just men or women 0.0 = no law

Maximum Level of Punishment 1.0 = death penalty .80 = life in prison .60 = >15 years and 3 years and <15 years .20 = <3 years 0.0 = no law

Ease of Access 1.0 = No barriers .75 = Little to few barriers .50 = Moderate barriers .25 = Significant barriers 0.0 = No law

Evidence of Enforcement 1.0 = Evidence of enforcement 0.0 = No evidence of enforcement

*Limited to only federal and provincial/ regional/ state governments. Policies passed by lower level juristictions like muncipalities are not considered. Table 4. Pooled Time-Series Cross-Sections Predicting LGBT Policy Index with Country Fixed Effects, 1990-2018 Model 1 2 3 4

Global LGBT Context 0.029 *** 0.106 *** 0.096 *** (0.008) (0.018) (0.019)

Global LGBT Context Squared -0.002 *** -0.002 *** (0.000) (0.000)

LGBT Networks (standardized) 0.364 * (0.170)

FAIC Networks (standardized) 0.057 (0.286)

Domestic LGBT Movement (logged) 0.629 *** 0.499 ** 0.325 * 0.302 + (0.149) (0.152) (0.157) (0.159)

Religiosity -0.041 * -0.044 * -0.047 ** -0.041 * (0.017) (0.017) (0.017) (0.017)

GDP per Capita (logged) 0.377 * 0.175 -0.048 0.022 (0.177) (0.202) (0.226) (0.211)

% Internet Users 0.033 *** 0.026 *** 0.024 *** 0.021 *** (0.004) (0.004) (0.004) (0.004)

Population Density (logged) -2.256 *** -3.005 *** -3.673 *** -3.372 *** (0.318) (0.384) (0.460) (0.467)

Trade as % of GDP 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.000 (0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002)

Democracy -0.005 -0.006 -0.029 -0.035 (0.039) (0.038) (0.037) (0.036)

LGBTQ MPs 0.184 *** 0.196 *** 0.171 *** 0.136 *** (0.034) (0.034) (0.033) (0.035)

Constant 9.498 *** 14.38 *** 19.28 *** 17.17 *** (2.231) (2.773) (3.335) (3.291)

Observations 4,183 4,183 4,183 4,183 Within R-Squared 0.525 0.533 0.546 0.554 Number of Countries 153 153 153 153 Robust standard errors in parentheses. All models include country-level fixed effects. *** p<0.001, ** p<0.01, * p<0.05, + p<0.1 Table 5. Multinomial Logistic Regressions Predicting LGBT Policy Change, 1990-2017 Model 1

Compliance Defiance Contestation

Global LGBT Context 0.084 ** 0.109 ** 0.153 ** (0.031) (0.038) (0.048)

Global LGBT Context Squared -0.003 *** -0.003 * -0.006 *** (0.001) (0.001) (0.002)

LGBT Networks (standardized) 0.257 + -0.079 0.6 * (0.147) (0.223) (0.292)

FAIC Networks (standardized) -0.211 0.75 ** 0.733 * (0.166) (0.257) (0.294)

Domestic LGBT Movement (logged) 0.462 *** -0.281 + -0.253 (0.116) (0.166) (0.321)

Religiosity -0.002 0.007 0.023 (0.005) (0.011) (0.014)

GDP per Capita (logged) 0.138 0.087 0.127 (0.089) (0.144) (0.140)

% Internet Users 0.002 0.006 -0.002 (0.006) (0.009) (0.011)

Population Density (logged) -0.123 + -0.096 0.071 (0.069) (0.110) (0.142)

Trade as % of GDP -0.001 -0.003 -0.007 + (0.002) (0.003) (0.004)

Democracy 0.025 -0.215 *** -0.281 *** (0.035) (0.051) (0.061)

LGBTQ MPs -0.054 + -0.074 -0.451 * (0.031) (0.134) (0.210)

Constant -2.72 ** -2.194 -3.746 * (0.946) (1.512) (1.903)

Observations 1,337 1,337 1,337 Robust standard errors in parentheses. Status quo serves as reference category. *** p<0.001, ** p<0.01, * p<0.05, + p<0.1 Appendix

Constructing the LGBT Policy Index: To find reports of arrests for same-sex sexual acts, LexisNexis and Factiva were used to conduct country-specific searches for newspaper articles documenting these cases. In addition to the country name, the following search terms were used: “homosexuality,” “gay,” “lesbian,” “sodomy,” “same-sex,” or “vices against nature,” and “arrest,” “crime,” “jail,” “police,” “trial,” or “prison.” Of the newspaper articles that resulted, each article was read to determine the reason for arrest and which law it specifically applied to. If evidence of arrests were found but not for one of the policies outlined, these articles were dismissed for the purposes of this research project.

Table 1A. Data Sources for LGBTI Policies Policy Data Sources Same-Sex Acts ILGA State Sponsored Homophobia Report, 2006-2017

Age of Consent ILGA State Sponsored Homophobia Report, 2006-2017

Employment Discrimination ILGA State Sponsored Homophobia Report, 2006-2017

Hate Crime Protections ILGA State Sponsored Homophobia Report, 2006-2017

Incitement to Hatred ILGA State Sponsored Homophobia Report, 2006-2017

Propaganda Laws ILGA State Sponsored Homophobia Report, 2006-2017

Civil Unions ILGA State Sponsored Homophobia Report, 2006-2017

Marriage Equality ILGA State Sponsored Homophobia Report, 2006-2017

Joint Adoptions ILGA State Sponsored Homophobia Report, 2006-2017

Death Penalty ILGA State Sponsored Homophobia Report, 2006-2017

Gender Marker Change ILGA Trans Legal Mapping Report Transrespect vs. Transphobia Worldwide

LGB Military The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies LGBT Military Index Andrew Reynolds (2013)

Transgender Military The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies LGBT Military Index CBC News Report

Conversion Therapies Movement Advanement Project India Today News Report

Gender Assignment Surgeries Transgender Europe Table 2A. Select Example Countries in Each Policy Category, 1990-2017

Years Contraction Contestation Expansion 1991-1993 Cambodia Cameroon Canada Paraguay India Colombia Romania Lithuania Russia Zambia Uganda Swaziland

1997-1999 Botswana Gambia Brazil Canada Kenya Czech Republic Malaysia Poland Latvia Turkmenistan United States Sweden

2000-2002 Cameroon Burundi Azerbaijan Indonesia Iran China Kuwait Syria Ghana Nigeria Zimbabwe South Korea

2003-2005 Bhutan India Afghanistan Honduras Mexico Austria Rwanda Pap. New Guinea Ecuador Tanzania United States Mozambique

2012-2014 Indonesia Croatia Bangladesh Nicaragua Hungary Bolivia Nigeria Mauritania Georgia Russia Slovakia New Zealand

2015-2017 Armenia Algera Angola China Greece Ireland Paraguay Kyrgyzstan Trin. and Tobago Singapore Zimbabwe United States

Constructing the Global LGBT Context: Newspaper Search Terms for Global LGBT Context: To get the global count of English-language newspapers that mention aspects of the LGBT community, the following terms are searched across all newspapers for a given year: “lesbian,” “gay,” “bisexual,” “bisexuality,” “transgender,” “transsexual,” “transvestite,” “intersex,” “homosexual,” “homosexuality,” “sodomy,” “MSM,” “men who have sex with men,” “same-sex,” “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” “gender expression,” and “sex characteristics.” Figure 1A. Confirmatory Factor Model Determining Global LGBT Context