While the pride rainbow has been part of political and social intervention for decades, few have researched how lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer young people perceive and use the symbol. How do lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer youth who experience greater feelings of isolation and discrimination than heterosexual youth recognise and deploy the symbol? As part of a larger study on supportive lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer youth environments, we conducted 66 go-along interviews with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer youth people from Massachusetts, Minnesota and British Columbia. During interviews, young people identified visible symbols of support, including recognition and the use of the pride rainbow. A semiotic analysis reveals that young people use the rainbow to construct meanings related to affiliation and positive feelings about themselves, different communities and their futures. Constructed and shared meanings help make the symbol a useful tool for navigating social and physical surroundings. As part of this process, however, young people also recognize that there are limits to the symbolism; it is useful for navigation but its display does not always guarantee supportive places and people. Thus, the pride rainbow connotes safety and support, but using it as a tool for navigation is a learned activity that requires caution.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Building on conceptualizations of feminist and sexual citizenship, the term intimate citizenship describes changing intimacies and new forms of citizenship appearing in late capitalism. In this new social order, public discourses of private matters circulate. There are new reproductive technologies, more sexual choices, legal recognition of previously unrecognized sexual identities, a plurality of public voices and opinions, and autonomy for those who can be classified as intimate citizens. However, the concept of intimate citizenship reproduces a liberal “progress” narrative, which posits an evolving “West” against a backward “rest” of the world. Under this rubric, the concept of intimate citizenship creates categories and boundaries, including certain intimate actors while excluding others. Although technologies avail more choices to certain actors, access to these privileges and choices is unequal. Further, intimacies are implicated in a complex global context of neoliberal capitalism, empire, and racialized disciplinary power relations within and between nation‐states. Although some intimate actors experience expanding personal autonomy through homonormative legal recognition, incorporation, and protection, state and ideology also function together to control and limit the choices of others.