Although historically ignored or stigmatized by mainstream media, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) people have increasingly become visible. However, increased visibility does not necessarily translate to more inclusive reporting. Comparing framing of LGBTI in Germany and the Netherlands, I ask which frames are assimilative and which pose structural challenges to hegemonic heteronormative notions on gender and sexuality. I apply a combination of automated text analysis of over 15,000 Dutch and German newspaper articles from 2009 to 2019 with critical frame analysis to analyze how LGBTI people are included in public debate. Despite increased visibility, coverage of gender identity and sexuality continues to be depoliticized and assimilative. Comparing two European cases shows which frames are mainstream and which are marginalized.

Although international proclamations increasingly recognize legal sex beyond binary categories, domestic legislation is lagging behind. Germany and the Netherlands are the first countries in Western Europe where courts have ruled in favour of a third option. While the German constitution was amended to guarantee a third option, the Dutch government has refrained from implementing comparable legislation. What explains this difference? This article draws on parliamentary debates, newspapers and statements from activists to follow the trajectory of the third option. Building on literature on intersex rights legislation and the diffusion of LGBT rights norms, we find that an established progressive reputation can lead states like the Netherlands to take a back seat, while mobilization by activists was crucial in establishing the self-determination of legal sex on the German political agenda. Our study contributes to unravelling the complex ways in which new norms shapeor fail to shapedomestic political outcomes.

No abstract

No abstract