1.1 Researching and Understanding Pride Movements: Linguistic Landscape Approaches

Pride events stand as an enduring expression of the transnational LGBTQIA+ movement, providing opportunities for LGBTQIA+ people to gain visibility and legitimacy in their respective locales. Decades after the first Pride march in 1970, held in Christopher Street, New York, Pride and Pride-like movements have spread to urban and rural areas internationally, contributing to Pride’s status as a symbol of the global struggle for LGBTQIA+ recognition (Markwell and Waitt, Reference Markwell and Waitt2009; Ong, Lewis, and Vorobjovas-Pinta, Reference Ong, Lewis and Vorobjovas-Pinta2021; Pak and Hiramoto, Reference Pak and Hiramoto2021; Rowlett and Go, Reference Go2024). According to Outright International (2021), ninety-two countries celebrated Pride in 2016. This number grew in 2022 with 105 countries holding Pride in their respective locales (Outright International, 2022). The growing number, in part, represents the continued role of Pride marches as a predominant platform for reaching out, creating visibility, and political claim-staking for different LGBTQIA+ communities. By marching in Pride parades, LGBTQIA+ people and their allies can claim public space in heteronormative dominant societies and build a collective bond with other members of the community (Engel, Reference Engel2001).

While Pride marches within liberal and democratic domains of the Global North have largely taken on a celebratory tone, it is crucial to note that outside of these conducive environments, Pride assumes distinctive contours to manage social, political, and cultural norms and mores according to where such events take place. Adaptations of Pride in Asia, for example, which has sixteen member organizations affiliated with the international organization Interpride (2020), present a variety of opportunities for rethinking what Pride is and looks like in the countries of this region. In Singapore, for example, the annual Pink Dot event is held in a context where nearly all forms of public protest are outlawed. This means that the organizers have had to carefully strategize their rendering of Pride to align with governmental priorities regarding the traditional values that constitute good citizenship in Singapore. In practice, this involves the use of a nonconfrontational display of entertaining public engagement in place of Western-style protest marches (Phillips, Reference Phillips2013; Lazar, Reference Lazar2017; Rowlett and Go, Reference Go2024). Likewise, Pride in Phnom Penh highlights the carnivalesque in its Tuk Tuk Race, reflecting commercial and touristic forces that figure strongly in Cambodia’s state sanctioned national imaginary (Rowlett and Go, Reference Go2024). Meanwhile, Shanghai Pride consisted of different activities, such as art and film exhibitions and themed talks rather than a public gathering, before being shut down in a climate of increasing censorship in Mainland China in 2020 (Jiang, Reference Jiang2020).

It is in this sense therefore, that one understanding of Pride in Asia might be reached via a transregional approach that is sensitive to discursive constructions of what Chua (Reference Chua2012) has theorized as “pragmatic resistance” (see also Rowlett and Go, Reference Go2024). Such acts of pragmatic resistance might therefore be read into how the organizers of Pride events in illiberal contexts, such as those above, are compelled to repurpose both ideologies of Pride and nationalist-oriented ideologies of good citizenship, resulting in discursive entanglements that tread a fine line between stating their cause and complying with societal and/or governmental expectations of what is or isn’t permissible with respect to challenging the status quo. At the same time, however, and given the diverse sociocultural contexts we cover in this Element, we need to be wary of oversimplification in subscribing to dominant themes of commonality, recognizing that Pride, in the cases represented here, often intersects with broader, yet locally derived social movements and concerns.

In terms of researching Pride, it is understandable that these public-facing LGBTQIA+ events have provided rich sites for investigation in the field of language, gender, and sexuality, particularly from an LL perspective. Linguistic landscape is a field that draws from sociolinguistics and language policy to study how languages are visually displayed and hierarchized in multilingual societies. As Shohamy and Ben-Rafael (Reference Shohamy and Ben-Rafael2015, p. 1) define it, LL is research focused on “the presence, representation, meanings and interpretation of languages displayed in public spaces.” While this concern with the visibility of language in a given territory is the foundation of LL, such scholarship has also taken on a multimodal and multisemiotic orientation, reflecting a more holistic understanding of the relationship between language and other semiotic modes that constitute public space (Lazar, Reference Lazar, Angouri and Baxter2021). In this respect, LL analysis has extended to a consideration of, for example, the visual and corporeal, and the interplay between offline and online spaces (Maly and Blommaert, Reference Blommaert2019). Especially pertinent to the examination of Pride events is an analytical focus in LL studies on how “spaces are themselves performed semiotically i.e. spaces accrue particular social meanings through the process of semiosis” (Lazar, Reference Lazar, Angouri and Baxter2021, p. 488). That is, in what ways does the use of meaning-making resources (signs, bodies, actions) create spaces for visibility and representations of LGBTQIA+ people?

In recent years there have been a number of gender/sexuality-related LL studies that investigate how semiotic processes facilitate the spatialization of sexuality. A few important examples include research on the use of English signage in the LL of Tokyo’s gay district (Baudinette, Reference Baudinette2018), and in the adult entertainment areas of Bangkok (Santos and Saisuwan, Reference Santos and Saisuwan2023), as well as on homonormative signage used in middle-class residential areas of the US (Motschenbacher, Reference Motschenbacher2020b). On Pride events specifically, Milani (Reference Milani2015) used an LL approach to analyze the Johannesburg Pride Festival, arguing that Joburg Pride’s claims to urban space are based on “an alignment with state-sanctioned, rights-based discourses of lesbian and gay identities,” while counteractions in these urban spaces by the One in Nine Campaign (a queer activist group) can be seen as “spatial disruptions that problematise an overly optimistic reliance on sexual identities as catalysts for political action” (p. 436). In Singapore, Pak (Reference Pak2023) focuses on the offline/online nexus to investigate the circulability of Pink Dot counter discourse, through messages posted to a publicly accessible virtual map of the city. Meanwhile, Rowlett and Go’s (Reference Go2024) LL study of Phnom Penh Pride illustrates the ways in which queer visibility and issues in an illiberal context are strategically made in conjunction with other discourses. These are commercial discourses of consumption and tourism, and international LGBTQIA+ discourse, that are brought together with the Cambodian government’s discourse of national development and public health. At the same time, however, this strategy results, the authors suggest, in the privileging of certain LGBTQIA+ identities (e.g., gay and lesbian expatriates and tourists) over others (e.g., the urban poor).

In sum, all these studies illustrate the value of LL as a methodological/analytical approach in elucidating and interrogating the role of sexuality in the discursive configuration of spatial contexts. Furthermore, these studies highlight how the visibility of sexuality within these spaces is intricately enmeshed in wider sociopolitical and cultural contexts and regimes of power. For example, one consequence of these entanglements is that the empowerment frequently associated with visibility can unintentionally perpetuate and establish hierarchies within communities marginalized due to their sexual orientation (Milani and Levon, Reference Milani and Levon2016).

By building on many of these foundational insights, the research presented in this Element therefore aims to provide a transregional account, from an LL perspective, of more recent Pride events in Asian contexts. Methodologically speaking, our LL data encompasses, for the most part, the capture of audiovisual and textual data (signs, interactions, speeches, media reports) from each Pride event, which are analyzed qualitatively according to the semiotic processes (e.g., indexicality, stancetaking) that inform the linguistic/visual/discursive choices on display across both physical and online spaces. Additionally, our research operationalizes observational methods through on-site/online participation in the events (Pavadee, Christian, and Li-Chi) along with our perspectives as LGBTQIA+ community members with vested interests in the promotion and organization of local/international events (Ben). Our participatory orientations to the research are, in this way, aimed at harnessing the experiential qualities that go into the creation and formation of the LLs, where reflexive practices of “looking alongside” rather than “looking at” participants in the LL (Seals, Reference Seals2017) have allowed us to gain insights from multiple perspectives. In turn, these methodological practices have enabled us, in accordance with approaches from queer Asian studies, to provide a grounded analysis in our respective sections – one that is aware of historical and social developments in each context, alongside sensitivities with relation to locally specific ways of knowing and doing.

1.2 Preview of Sections

We begin with Pavadee Saisuwan’s study in the Thai context which investigates the LL of the first LGBTQIA+-led pro-democracy protest that took place in Bangkok in 2020. The analysis involves examining signage, speeches, and activities during the protest through the lens of the three semiotic processes of iconization, fractal recursivity, and erasure (Irvine and Gal, Reference Irvine, Gal and Kroskrity2000). The findings demonstrate the prominence of male femininity or kathoeyness in various linguistic resources, including lexical choice and intertextuality. While other LGBTQIA+ identities received less acknowledgment, there was a differentiation between LGBTQIA+ and non-LGBTQIA+ individuals, who united in an alliance for democracy against “dictatorship.” The LL of the protest highlights how kathoeyness was used as an icon representing and embracing Thai LGBTQIA+ people of diverse identities. It created an inclusive space within the protest and allowed Thai LGBTQIA+ communities to assert their identities not only as LGBTQIA+ individuals but also as Thai citizens.

In the following section, Christian Go investigates the ways in which the 2023 Metro Manila Pride march (MM Pride) is constructed as a space for intersectional LGBTQIA+ activism. Using photographic data he collected during the event, the section examines the deployment of discursive and semiotic resources and the concomitant stances that MM Pride participants take up in their representational tools (e.g., banners, placards, clothing). The stances exhibit adaptation and negotiation of discourses concerning sexual identity politics as well as socioeconomic and political issues. The agglomeration of these discourses in the LL reflects MM Pride’s evolution as a platform for intersectional advocacy and solidarity. This section therefore contributes to the understanding of how a Pride march in an Asian context offers an entry point into understanding how intersectional discourse motivates alternative imaginings of Pride and a collective push for visibility, inclusivity, and social change.

The next section details an LL analysis of Taiwan LGBT+ Pride from 2010 to 2020 by Li-Chi Chen. The analytical focus is on how heteronormativity is challenged and how Taiwanese localness (i.e., tai-ness) is reified in Pride slogans and fashion. The findings suggest that Taiwanese Pride marchers challenge heteronormativity through homonormative practices, the discursive construction of sexual desire, the struggle against traditional Confucianism, the redefinition of masculinity, and the marginalization of heterosexuality. On the other hand, they were found to reify tai-ness through the construction of dual identities, the application of local semiotics, the participation in issues of social justice, and the use of mockery as shared humor. These strategies were used by LGBTQIA+ Taiwanese to negotiate their local identities as multiethnic and humorous queer Taiwanese and their global identities as knowledgeable sexual moderns. The diachronic data also revealed the intersections between Pride and the social problems that Taiwan has faced over the past decade.

The final context of Pride covered in this Element departs somewhat from on-site LL research on Pride events to focus on the discursive construction of place vis-à-vis the Gay Games in Hong Kong. In this section, Ben Rowlett draws on the notion of “homotopia,” as used in sociolinguistic studies of sexuality and sexual citizenship in relation to space and place, to interpret a survey and critical discourse analysis of the (online) LL of the Gay Games, an international LGBTQIA+ mass-scale sporting and cultural event, which was held in Asia for the first time in November 2023. The analysis focuses on the tensions that emerge within this LL, particularly in relation to entanglements of socio- and geopolitical discourses of Pride, nationalism, security, and (sexual) citizenship.

After a short conclusion that brings together all sections, our Element wraps up with a commentary by Mie Hiramoto. In her commentary, Mie adds her own perspective to the findings of this research and the ongoing significance of sociolinguistic studies of LGBTQIA+ public-facing events in Asia and beyond.

2.1 Pro-Democracy Protests in Thailand in 2020

The year 2020 was an important time in Thai politics. A series of protests led by different groups of people took place across the country. This pro-democracy movement was built up from people’s dissatisfaction with the “undemocratic” election in 2019, which resulted in the pro-military government, originally the coup government of 2014. The series of protests began in earnest after the constitutional court’s decision to dissolve the Future Forward Party, one of the main opposition parties, and ban its leaders from politics for ten years. In addition, the outbreak of COVID-19 exacerbated dissatisfaction with the government’s ineffective management, leading to continuous protests. The anti-government protests not only expressed dissatisfaction with the government of the time, calling for its resignation, but also included demands for constitutional reform and monarchy reform.

University and high school students both played a leading role in the 2020 pro-democracy movement. The student activist group Bad Student started with demands based on the school context, such as school uniforms and hairstyles and the education system (see Kraijariyawet, Reference Kraijariyawet2021). Their movement also touched on values that have long been influential in Thai society, such as gratitude, patriarchy, and authoritarianism. The student-led protests later broadened to include issues beyond the school context, such as equality and freedom of expression. They are also part of the movement calling for reform of the monarchy. The protests, including those organized by Free Youth and the United Front of Thammasat and Demonstration (UFTD) in 2020, are believed to be the first time in Thai history that students have organized large-scale protests against the monarchy (Lertchoosakul, Reference Lertchoosakul2021).

The pro-democracy protests that took place in Thailand in 2020 took a different form from the pro-democracy protests of the past. The protests were organized as flash mobs, sometimes simultaneously in different places, both in Bangkok and other provinces, rather than as prolonged protests. They were also leaderless, which made the protests agile and effective without requiring long advanced planning (Sinpongsaporn, Reference Sinpongsaporn2020). The success of these flash mobs and leaderless protests was made possible by the use of social media, which was an important communication tool in the protests. The use of social media allowed people to share their ideas and join the movement wherever they were, so participation in the protests was not limited to those who were physically present (see Akkaravisitpol, Reference Akkaravisitpol2021; Intorn, Reference Intorn2021; Thanapornsangsuth and Anamwathana, Reference Thanapornsangsuth and Anamwathana2022).

One of the most influential social media platforms in the Thai 2020 pro-democracy protests was Twitter, now known as X. Sinpeng (Reference Sinpeng2021) sees the use of Twitter hashtags as hashtag activism, bringing together both activists and ordinary people in the movement. Sinpeng (Reference Sinpeng2021) claims that the main purpose of using Twitter was to construct shared stories, including dissatisfaction with the government, issues related to democracy and youth rights, and to spread information related to the movement, rather than to organize and promote offline protest actions.

One of the student-led protests that garnered significant attention both in physical spaces and on social media was Mob mai mungming tae tungting kha khun ratthaban “Not a cutesy mob but a flamboyant one, sir, Mr. Government,” which was a series of LGBTQIA+-led protests initiated by Free Gender TH, a group of Thai LGBTQIA+ activists. The protest under examination in this section is the first one that occurred on July 25, 2020. However, the series also includes two additional protests. The second one took place in November of the same year, also in Bangkok, while the third one was organized online in 2021 due to the spread of COVID-19.

This LGBTQIA+-led protest marks an important milestone in Thai political history as it is considered the first time that Thai LGBTQIA+ communities played a leading role in national politics. At the first protest, protest leaders issued a statement supporting the demands made earlier by Free Youth, which included a new constitution, the dissolution of parliament, and an end to the state’s intimidation of its people. The protest also touched on other LGBTQIA+-related issues, including the legalization of same-sex marriage, sex workers, and abortion. The protesters demonstrated that the demand for gender equality and acceptance of sexual diversity could not be achieved in an undemocratic society, highlighting the need for the pro-democracy movement and the LGBTQIA+ movement to work together in tandem.

Another noticeable feature of the protest was the Pride-like atmosphere, which set it apart from other typical political protests which are usually more solemn in nature. The protest incorporated queer culture and Pride symbols such as rainbow flags to create an enjoyable experience and to demonstrate that roles in politics are not exclusively for men (see Chuipracha, Reference Chuipracha2020). Elements of Thai pop culture often associated with the LGBTQIA+ community were used not only to create an entertaining experience but also to effectively communicate the issues and underscore the demands.

2.2 Citizenship and Linguistic Landscape

Political protest is seen as a form of performative citizenship. Performative citizenship (Isin, Reference Isin, Shachar, Bauböck, Bloemraad and Vink2017) refers to the ways in which individuals and social groups claim their rights and demonstrate their right to claim their rights. It involves social or political struggles of both citizens and noncitizens. Certain groups of people are more dominant than others, while certain groups are not fully accepted as citizens. Since the boundaries between these different statuses are not fixed, struggles for rights involve exercising rights, claiming one’s rights, and claiming for and against the rights of others.

Linguistic landscape studies have demonstrated the connection between space, citizenship, and sexuality. Milani (Reference Milani2015) introduces the concept of “sexual cityzenship” to emphasize the spatial aspect of sexuality. Based on his research conducted during Joburg Pride 2012, he illustrates how perspectives on sexual politics are tied to the national identity of being South African. The Pride event space allows for the expression of both pride and shame, indicating “an emotionally ambivalent act of citizenship” (Milani, Reference Milani2015, p. 447). Similarly, Milani et al. (Reference Milani, Levon, Gafter and Or2018) reveal that sexuality is utilized to contribute to national identity, both by supporting the state’s homonationalism and by condemning pinkwashing in Israel. Moreover, graffiti in Athens and Belgrade illustrates the association of homophobic ideas with nationalism and religion (Canakis and Kersten-Pejanić, Reference Canakis, Kersten-Pejanić, Goll, Mlinaric and Gold2016). These studies highlight diverse ways in which citizenship and sexuality intersect and are interconnected.

The Thai LGBTQIA+-led protest analyzed in this section exemplifies an act of citizenship undertaken by Thai LGBTQIA+ communities. The protesters not only advocated for LGBTQIA+-related issues but also demonstrated solidarity with other social groups by supporting their demands pertaining to national political matters. This affirms the position of LGBTQIA+ communities as Thai citizens and highlights the interconnection between LGBTQIA+ rights and democracy, thereby showcasing the intersectionality of gender, sexuality, and national identity, a recurrent theme which is also analyzed in the sections on Metro Manila and Taiwan Pride events (Section 3 and Section 4).

My research examines the use of diverse linguistic resources with the objective of revealing the underlying ideologies within the act of citizenship carried out during the protest. Since the protest was led by Thai LGBTQIA+ communities, I address the topics of gender and sexuality in LL studies, which have predominantly centered around multilingual signage in Thai academia. Furthermore, it aligns with prior LL studies that explore the connection between citizenship and national political movements within the broader scope of LL analysis.

2.3 Data Collection and Analytical Framework

The data I analyzed in this section were collected from Mob mai mungming tae tungting kha khun ratthaban “Not a cutesy mob but a flamboyant one, sir, Mr. Government,” a protest held at the Democracy Monument in Bangkok on July 25, 2020. In terms of the timeline, the protest commenced with a statement by Free Gender TH, the protest organizer, which supported the demands previously made by Free Youth and addressed LGBTQIA+-related issues such as the legalization of same-sex marriage. Following the statement, various activists delivered speeches covering diverse topics, including the legalization of sex work, rights of trans women and conscription, and the relationship between LGBTQIA+ rights and democracy. The final segment of the protest involved a role-play inspired by a popular Thai film, as well as recreational dancing. These activities were conducted as group activities with the active participation of the protesters.

In this research I adopt a broad interpretation of LL data, including not only signage but also speeches and activities that were integral to the protest. An approximately two-hour recording of the protest was made available on the YouTube channel of Prachatai, a Thai online newspaper. The recording captures the speeches and statements made at the beginning of the protest and the activities in which the protesters participated at the end of the protest. Images of the protest’s signage were taken from online news articles and the Twitter hashtag associated with the protest, which is the same as the name of the protest. The hashtag was joined by both official online news agency accounts and personal accounts. Images include those of physical signage used in the protest and online media posted on Twitter to promote the protest.

To uncover the underlying ideologies in the protest, I employ the three semiotic processes outlined by Irvine and Gal (Reference Irvine, Gal and Kroskrity2000). Iconization is the process by which a particular feature becomes associated with a specific social group. This association transforms the feature into an icon representing the social group, and it is perceived as inherent and essential. Fractal recursivity involves the repetition of binary oppositions across different levels of categorization. Erasure is a process whereby certain individuals or entities are deliberately disregarded or rendered invisible to enhance the intelligibility of the ideological perception. This framework is used to analyze how different groups of people were depicted in relation to one another within the LL of the protest, shedding light on the relationship between Thai LGBTQIA+ communities, citizenship, and their advocacy for democracy.

2.4 Analysis

In this analysis, I demonstrate the use of various linguistic resources in different segments of the protest to illustrate the prominence of male femininity or kathoeyness. While the protest involved a diverse range of participants aligning with LGBTQIA+ communities, linguistic elements associated with the kathoey identity were highly notable and served as significant tools during the protest.

One of the most intriguing aspects that sets this protest apart from others is its title, Mob mai mungming tae tungting kha khun ratthaban, usually translated in the news as “Not a cutesy mob but a flamboyant one, sir, Mr. Government.” Prior to this protest, there were other pro-democracy demonstrations led and attended by school students, which a government supporter referred to as mungming “cute, adorable,” implying a sense of childishness and lack of seriousness. In solidarity with those previous pro-democracy protests, this LGBTQIA+-led protest made it explicit in the title that they were not mungming. The protest’s identity was clarified through the use of the term tungting “effeminate,” which conveys flamboyance and is associated with male effeminacy and kathoeyness. Derived from kratung krating, the term is most commonly used to refer to effeminate men or kathoey (Jackson, Reference Jackson, Leap and Boellstorff2004). Additionally, the title incorporates the feminine polite final particle kha, emphasizing the feminine expression of the protests, and addresses the government with the polite term khun, which is gender-neutral in Thai. These polite elements are represented as “sir” and “Mr.” in the English translation. The protest title characterizes the individuals initiating the protests and brings visibility to the kathoey identity.

The kathoey identity was explicitly referenced in various parts of the protest. Figure 1 displays one of the messages written on a cloth that provided a space for protesters to express their thoughts during the protest. The message states, Mob si sotsai kathoey thai cha pen yai nai phaendin “Vibrant and shining, Thai kathoey will prevail across the land.” Figure 2 presents one of the promotional materials that was shared on Twitter by Raptor, one of the protest organizers. The text reads, I tu (tukkata) tolae! Tae kathoey chat mop ching mai tolae “Tu (the doll), you liar! But kathoey will really lead a protest, not liars here.” This was inspired by the film series Hor taew tak “Haunting me,” which was an important source of intertextuality in the protest.

Figure 1 “Vibrant and shining, Thai kathoey will prevail across the land”

(Rinna pa Pepsi thung, 2020).

Figure 2 “Tu (the doll), you liar! But kathoey will really lead a protest, not liars here”

(Raptor eng cha, 2020).

Hor taew tak is a popular Thai comedy film series that debuted on the screen in 2007. It prominently features kathoey characters and has become strongly associated with the kathoey community. Because of this association, the protesters drew inspiration from components in the film and incorporated them into the protest in a parodic manner. The protest organizers distributed scripts from two significant scenes in the film to the protesters, encouraging them to participate in the parodic activity.

One of the scenes used by the protesters was “the doll,” where two characters, Pancake and Taew, are engaged in a conversation. In the original scene, Pancake uses profanity directed at Taew, claiming that she was referring to her doll named Taew, not the person Taew. Excerpt 1 represents the modified script used in the protest. The name of the doll was changed from Taew to Tu, which was the nickname of the country’s prime minister at that time. During the protest, the organizers showcased a plastic model named Tu. Whenever they used profanity directed at Tu, they asserted that they were referring to the model or “the doll” and not the prime minister. The image in the background of the promotional material in Figure 2 was also taken from the scene.

Excerpt 1 serves as an example of parodied recontextualization (Hodges, Reference Hodges, Tannen, Hamilton and Schiffrin2015). The protesters drew inspiration from a conversation in the film and integrated it into the protest activity. The original version, which was not initially connected to politics, was adapted to fulfil political objectives in the protest. The parodied version effectively displayed the protesters’ lack of respect toward the prime minister at that time, who became the center of mockery within this recontextualized conversation.

Another example of intertextuality is the poem shown in Excerpt 2, another instance of kathoey-associated resources used in the protest. Originally, the poem served as part of a question in Miss ACDC, a pageant for male-to-female transgender individuals that parodies female beauty pageants. The question asked, “What are the three miracles that would make this poem come true?” The poem gained popularity and was repurposed for political contexts, including in this LGBTQIA+-led protest. Toward the end of the protest, one of the organizers recited this poem, stating that the three miracles to be sought include a new constitution, the dissolution of parliament, and an end to the state’s intimidation of its people, which were the three demands of the protesters. This demonstrates how the poem was recontextualized and reinterpreted in the context of the political protest. This instance highlights yet another use of resources associated with kathoeyness and further underscores the prominence of kathoey in the protest.

Feminine linguistic features were evident in the speech delivered during the protest. Excerpt 3 was taken from Raptor’s speech at the start of the protest, which demonstrates their use of feminine linguistic features (highlighted in bold). The feminine polite final particle kha was employed, mirroring the use in the protest’s title. Raptor also used the feminine pronoun dichan, which serves as a significant marker of femininity among kathoey speakers (Saisuwan, Reference Saisuwan, Levon and Mendes2016).

In addition to these linguistic elements, Raptor drew a connection between male femininity and national politics by expressing their belief in the potential for Thailand to improve. They envisioned a future where they can confidently walk in high-heeled shoes without stumbling on footpaths, which are notorious for their poor quality and represent the deficiencies in Thai politics, as asserted by the pro-democracy movement. Given that kathoeyness is ideologically linked to humor in Thai society, its use creates a stark contrast between the playful LGBTQIA+ characteristics and the conventional seriousness associated with the political domain. The use of kathoey-associated resources enables the protesters to convey their demands in a playful and sarcastic manner, ultimately amplifying their impact.

The diverse elements employed in the protest demonstrate the crucial role of male femininity within this LGBTQIA+-led movement. The kathoey identity, once heavily stigmatized and marginalized in Thai society, has become an emblem for Thai LGBTQIA+ communities. The use of resources associated with kathoeyness was not intended to exclude other genders or sexualities, despite initial perceptions. Rather, the kathoey identity serves as a powerful symbol representing LGBTQIA+ individuals of various identities. Positioned at the opposite end of the “Kathoey – Gay – Man” model (Jackson, Reference Jackson, Manderson and Jolly1997), kathoeyness emerges as the most prominent nonnormative identity among Thai LGBTQIA+ communities, standing in stark contrast to men who seemingly dominate mainstream Thai national politics. Such status facilitates the process of iconizing kathoeyness in the LL of the protest. The incorporation of kathoeyness in the protest holds significant meaning, effectively addressing both LGBTQIA+ issues and national politics, serving the protest’s objectives adeptly.

The iconization of kathoeyness inevitably contributes to the erasure of other LGBTQIA+ identities. The kathoey identity was highly visible in the protest, while other LGBTQIA+ identities were much less visible. This raised questions among the protesters. As shown in Excerpt 4, an event MC asked Raptor if it was true that only kathoey were participating in the protest. In their response, Raptor mentioned that the protest welcomed people of all genders, sexualities, and ages. This shows that the protest organizers were aware of the prominence of the kathoey identity in the protest and suggests that this did not imply exclusivity in terms of the identities of the protesters. Instances of the feminine polite final particle mentioned above have also been highlighted in bold.

As the protest was part of the broader pro-democracy movement, it involved the process of fractal recursivity, indicating the repetition of binary opposition across different levels. This includes the opposition between democracy and dictatorship, as well as the distinction between LGBTQIA+ individuals and non-LGBTQIA+ identities among those who identify with democracy.

The underlying opposition between democracy and dictatorship was evident. LGBTQIA+ communities were portrayed as standing in opposition to the “dictatorship,” referring to the ruling government led by the prime minister, who had originally come to power through a coup in 2014. The message on the sign in Figure 3, which reads klum queer mai lia phadetkan “We queer don’t lick dictatorship’s boots,” clearly indicates that the queer community positioned itself on the opposing side to the “dictatorship.” Similarly, the message “I love dicks, not dictators” on the T-shirt in Figure 4 shows the rejection of the “dictatorship.” The message cleverly plays with the shared pronunciation of the word “dicks” and the first syllable of the word “dictators.” Given that the T-shirt is held by an individual who is perceived as male, the message can be interpreted as representative of male homosexual individuals. Furthermore, the message presented in Figure 1 earlier also highlights this opposition, as the kathoey identity is juxtaposed against “Tu,” which was intended to reference the prime minister at that time. These examples showcase the alignment of LGBTQIA+ communities with democracy.

Figure 3 “We queer don’t lick dictatorship’s boots”

(Hawae, Reference Hawae2020).

Figure 4 “I love dicks, not dictators”

(Chuipracha, Reference Chuipracha2020).

Despite the prominence of kathoeyness and the potential overshadowing of other LGBTQIA+ identities, it is important to note that, as shown in Raptor’s confirmation in Excerpt 4, those who participated in the protest in support of democracy were not exclusively kathoey or LGBTQIA+ individuals. Figure 5 demonstrates a differentiation between kathoey and men or a non-LGBTQIA+ identity. It depicts a sign attached to drums, with Thai scripts written in the Lu language. The Lu language is a form of language play or secret language utilized among Thai kathoey speakers. The message on the sign reads, len pun lu phi lai chui la mu luai chui ka loei thui, which is derived from the Thai phrase pen phuchai ma chuai kathoey, meaning “I am a man who comes to assist kathoey.” It is possible that this message was conveyed by drummers, who identified as men. This highlights the usage of another linguistic tool associated with the kathoey identity. It emphasizes the prevalence of kathoeyness and showcases the involvement of a non-LGBTQIA+ identity playing a supporting role within the LGBTQIA+-led movement.

Figure 5 “I am a man who comes to assist kathoey”

(Mono News, 2020).

Apart from kathoeyness and a non-LGBTQIA+ identity, other LGBTQIA+ identities, including bisexuals, transgenders, queers, lesbians, and tom (Thai female-to-male transgender individuals), were also acknowledged in the protest. These identities were present on signs and mentioned by the protesters. This demonstrates the inclusivity of the protest, as emphasized by Raptor. In other words, although other LGBTQIA+ identities were much less visible, they were not completely erased in the LL of the protest.

Adopting the three semiotic processes of iconization, fractal recursivity, and erasure (Irvine and Gal, Reference Irvine, Gal and Kroskrity2000), my analysis has revealed how various linguistic resources were used in this Thai LGBTQIA+-led protest, reflecting underlying ideas concerning LGBTQIA+ communities and democracy in Thai society. Diverse linguistic elements associated with male femininity or kathoeyness, including the use of the term “kathoey,” were employed. Kathoeyness dominated the LL of the protest, serving as an icon for Thai LGBTQIA+ identities. The kathoey identity was presented in contrast to a non-LGBTQIA+ identity within the LL of the protest. Alongside other LGBTQIA+ identities, they demonstrated support for democracy and opposition to the “dictatorship” represented by the government in power. While the protest witnessed participation from people of various identities, the kathoey identity stood out as the most prominent, while other identities remained less visible. These other identities were occasionally mentioned during the protest but were largely erased from signage. In other words, this Thai LGBTQIA+-led protest illustrates the iconization of kathoeyness, the fractal recursivity between dictatorship and democracy, and between the kathoey identity and a non-LGBTQIA+ identity, as well as the erasure of other LGBTQIA+ identities.

2.5 Conclusion

In this section I investigated the LL of the first LGBTQIA+-led pro-democracy protest in Bangkok. Through the lens of the three semiotic processes (Irvine and Gal, Reference Irvine, Gal and Kroskrity2000), my analysis reveals the prominence of male femininity or kathoeyness alongside other LGBTQIA+ and non-LGBTQIA+ identities. It is argued that kathoeyness serves as a powerful resource to unite various LGBTQIA+ identities and foster inclusivity within the protest. The unique expression and presentation, typical among kathoey, represent Thai LGBTQIA+ communities and show a stark contrast with the typically patriarchal domain of Thai politics. As a Thai LGBTQIA+ identity, kathoeyness plays a significant role, becoming a shared and important tool among LGBTQIA+ individuals participating in the movement.

The use of kathoeyness provides an opportunity for Thai LGBTQIA+ individuals to assert their citizenship performatively (Isin, Reference Isin, Shachar, Bauböck, Bloemraad and Vink2017). The protesters embraced kathoeyness as a representation of their LGBTQIA+ identities and used it to convey their political standpoint as Thai LGBTQIA+ individuals. The movement plays a significant role in making Thai LGBTQIA+ people more visible in the realm of Thai national politics, which has previously been predominantly exclusive to heterosexual individuals, particularly heterosexual men. This demonstrates that LGBTQIA+-related issues are not marginal or disconnected from other national political matters but rather constitute meaningful contributions to the democratic aspirations of the Thai people.

In addition to asserting their citizenship through kathoeyness, this Pride-like pro-democracy protest also showcases how Thai LGBTQIA+ communities aligned with the global Pride movement in a broad sense while maintaining their distinct local identity to express their political stance. This particular approach holds significant meaning, in common with the other Pride events examined in this Element, as it demonstrates the intersectionality of gender, sexuality, and national identity, highlighting how Thai LGBTQIA+ communities were able to simultaneously engage on both national and international levels through the LL of the protest. It also emphasizes the significance of localness while simultaneously showing solidarity with the global LGBTQIA+ movement.

3.1 Stance

Du Bois (Reference Du Bois and Englebretson2007, p. 163) defines stance as “a public act by a social actor, achieved dialogically through overt communicative means … through which social actors simultaneously evaluate objects, position subjects (themselves and others), and align with other subjects, with respect to any salient dimension of the sociocultural field.” Simply put, stance is a multimodal construal that involves the combination of verbal and nonverbal resources (Pelclová, Reference Pelclová2023). Du Bois’ (Reference Du Bois and Englebretson2007, p. 139) model of stance identifies three dimensions: evaluation (to confer judgment upon the object of the stance), position (to orient oneself vis-à-vis the object being evaluated), and alignment (to fine-tune the alignment among those taking a stance). These dimensions underscore the role of stance in the management of social interactions, the production and reproduction of social meanings within a given society, and the construction and representation of identity (Bucholtz and Hall, Reference Bucholtz, Hall, Llamas and Watt2010; Kiesling, Reference Kiesling2022). Stance has been productively employed in understanding sexual identification. For instance, in Marino’s (Reference Marino2023) research on Two-Spirit identity construction on TikTok, the author highlights how users effectively employ both linguistic and nonlinguistic cues to adopt specific stances that disavow gender-binary norms, heteronormative ideals within Western LGBTQIA+ discourse, and the dominant practice of labeling, while asserting their Two-Spirit identity. Meanwhile, Su’s (Reference Su2023) research on the marriage equality discussions in Taiwan highlights how bloggers strategically adopt the identity of a mother to assert a stance, effectively leveraging this position to promote certain ideologies (such as emphasizing the role of mothers in shaping their children’s futures as opposed to relying solely on lawmakers) in favor of marriage equality. Such studies exemplify the growing focus within sociocultural linguistics on the evaluative, affective, and interpersonal aspects of stancetaking through the lens of sexuality. This section adopts a stance as a lens to analyze how signs in the LL represent stances that reproduce and negotiate discourses to articulate an alternative mode of LGBTQIA+ activism in intersectional terms.

This section analyzes the stances expressed through signs within MM Pride’s LL to illuminate how local and localized discourses on sexuality, class, etc. are materialized in and through microlevel practices. By examining these sign-based stances, I demonstrate how such representations intersect with broader socioeconomic and national identity formations vis-à-vis productions of space. As in the following sections in the Element on Taiwan Pride and the Hong Kong Gay Games, this approach nuances homonationalist critiques of Pride by highlighting the emergent and complex ways in which LGBTQIA+ identities are constructed and performed within democratically ambivalent and socially conservative contexts (Webb, Reference Webb2022). Ultimately, this analysis underscores the performative and political potential of stances and signs to create spaces for alternative discourses and practices that contrasts with Euro-American models of Pride (Jaffe, Reference Jaffe2009; Conway, Reference Conway2023; Go, Reference Go2024).

3.2 Methodological Considerations

The research methodology in this section follows an ethnographic approach to the LL (Gorter, Reference Gorter, Pütz and Mundt2019). Data was collected during the afternoon program of the 2023 MM Pride march, held on June 24, 2023, at the Circuit Grounds in North-West Makati City. From 12:00 pm to 5:00 pm, I assumed a dual role as both participant and observer, actively engaging with the event while simultaneously adopting an observer’s perspective. This approach allowed me to both share in the experiences of MM Pride participants and observe the spatialization processes as they unfolded during the event (Lou, Reference Lou2017). To facilitate data collection, I used a camera phone to capture a total of 482 photographs, documenting various signs in the LL. Photographs were taken at different segments of the venue and at multiple time points throughout the event. My aim was to understand how public signs and their distribution throughout MM Pride contribute to the creation of a space for LGBTQIA+ celebration and activism. My approach to MM Pride is influenced by my long-term ethnographic engagement with the event. My involvement, which includes a PhD project from 2017 to 2019 and consistent participation in MM Pride events – except during the years when the event moved online due to COVID-19 (2020–21) – has provided me with a sense of familiarity with the event’s dynamics. This sustained engagement, coupled with the insights gained through my academic research, has significantly shaped the way I orient to the LL of MM Pride 2023. A critical moment in my ethnographic journey occurred during my 2019 fieldwork, where I observed a pronounced division between issues central to LGBTQIA+ identity politics and broader non-LGBTQIA+ concerns, both of which were articulated through the signages in the LL. This observed distinction among discourses forms a crucial backdrop to my current analysis, guiding my interpretation of the visual and textual elements used in the signs. Specifically, I view them as tools for revealing complex and often contradictory narratives about identity, power, and belonging. The next section presents my analysis of the 2023 MM Pride’s LL. It examines how the visual and textual elements captured during the event reflect and contribute to the ongoing discourses surrounding LGBTQIA+ identity, activism, and broader social issues.

3.3 Analysis

This analysis of the signs in MM Pride’s LL is structured around three key themes. First, it examines how signs express diverse LGBTQIA+ identities. Second, it explores calls for social and political justice, with a focus on labor rights. Finally, it addresses intersectionality and highlights how LGBTQIA+ issues intersect with broader socioeconomic and national concerns. These themes illustrate how global and local discourses in MM Pride constitute an assemblage of diverse perspectives that represent different forms of marginalization within the country.

3.3.1 Visibility and Celebration of LGBTQIA+ Identity

Within the LL of MM Pride, alongside traditional symbols of Pride (e.g., rainbow flags, hearts), a notable prevalence of signs emerges – those which explicitly articulate expressions of sexual and gender identity. These “sexed signs,” adorned with imagery and words, serve as conduits for the participants’ agency in asserting and celebrating their sexual and gender identities (Milani, Reference Milani2014). One particular strategy used in the signs is the deployment of lexis that reflect local engagement with global LGBTQIA+ discourses of visibility, tolerance, and diversity.

The first image in Figure 6 (left) presents strategic deployment of textual and visual elements to convey a layer of stances concerning equality for LGBTQIA+ people. The sign featuring the text “fighting for equality” echoes the international LGBTQIA+ movement’s ardent pursuit of extending civil rights to all LGBTQIA+ people – this call is further reinforced by other signs within MM Pride that convey the message “LGBTQIA+ rights are human rights.” Appearing with this assertion, the concurrent message “Love has no gender” operates in tandem to disentangle the concept of love from heteronormativity. Through this statement, an alternative conceptualization of love is advanced, untethered from traditional gendered norms. Simultaneously, the use of the planetary symbols ♂ (Mars) and ♀ (Venus) that are stereotypically used to refer to men and women in conjunction with the message serves to further make explicit the stancetaker’s challenge to heteronormative notions of love. The combination of these modes creates a stance that envisions a broader, more inclusive spectrum of love that transcends conventional boundaries. The stance thus engages international discourse, advocating for equality, while reshaping conceptions of love within the local context. The second image (Figure 6, right) encapsulates “ready-to-wear sexual politics,” where the item of clothing serves as a canvas for a direct and unequivocal proclamation: “Love wins” (Milani and Kapa, Reference Milani and Kapa2015). This succinct yet potent message emblematizes the ethos of contemporary LGBTQIA+ movements, indexing affects of triumph, resilience, and optimism, and its placement on an article of clothing transforms it into a wearable form of activism, effectively transmitting its message and underlying stance.

Figure 6 Signs that represent global LGBTQIA+ discourses.

Beyond the deployment of discourses centered around notions of love and equality, MM Pride signs also represented explicit stances that convey sexual identifications. One such instance is observed in the first sign (Figure 7, left), bearing the message “This Barbie can’t think straight.” This sign deploys intertextuality as a tool to convey its message, referencing the online promotional campaign associated with the Barbie movie franchise (i.e., the phrase “This Barbie … ”) (Hodges, Reference Hodges, Tannen, Hamilton and Schiffrin2015). This intertextual linkage bridges the mainstream media with LGBTQIA+ representation, which aids in embedding LGBTQIA+ identities through recognizable forms of popular culture. Moreover, by invoking Barbie, a symbol of heteronormative feminine ideals and traditional gender roles and juxtaposing it with the evaluation “can’t think straight,” this sign disrupts the heterosexual expectations and assumptions. By adopting the name and typography of the Barbie logo, the sign aligns itself with dominant culture – specifically, a commodified notion of heterosexual femininity and womanhood – while simultaneously creating a paradox by acknowledging nonheterosexuality. This discursive move transforms the sign into a tool for disruption, celebrating the deviation from normative expectations.

Figure 7 Signs that represent sexual identities.

The second sign (Figure 7, right) enumerates various indigenous gender and sexual identities from Austronesia that transcend the gender binary. In addition to acknowledging and celebrating these indigenous, nonbinary identities, the sign also presents a reminder that these identities are not only rooted in history but an inherent part of the cultural matrix of their respective localities. By doing so, the sign endeavors to decolonize LGBTQIA+ activism, emphasizing the significance of acknowledging and honoring indigenous identities that have often been overshadowed by hegemonic sexual categorizations (Sarce, Reference Sarce2023). Paralleling the case of kathoeyness in the Thai protests in the previous section by Pavadee, by identifying these indigenous designations, the signs challenge the limitations of LGBTQIA+ categorization while emphasizing the enduring nature of indigenous categories (i.e., “Always have! Always been!”). Rather than isolating these local identities from LGBTQIA+ categories, the deliberate use of rainbow colors visually unifies and creates a sense of community, while preserving the specificities of these indigenous designations.

3.3.2 Representation of Local Issues

Integrating local issues is another recurrent thematic element within the LL. The additional focus of MM Pride signs on concerns relevant to the Philippines contributes to constructing MM Pride as a space to represent experiences specific to the local LGBTQIA+ community. These calls for justice are emplaced alongside discourses of sexuality, highlighting that MM Pride is also a platform for civic engagement that is aligned with the unique cultural, social, and political context of the Filipino LGBTQIA+ individuals. The signs at MM Pride engage in a dialectical tension, critiquing state and capitalist policies that marginalize local LGBTQIA+ communities while also reproducing their logics (Conway, Reference Conway2023).

The first image in Figure 8 (top-left) conveys a demand for a higher minimum wage. The sign presents an imperative in Taglish (i.e., English noun “now” and the Tagalog adverb “na” (trans. “already”). This translingual strategy not only is emphatic but also invokes a sense of urgency, underscoring the dire need for increased wages. This call resonates within the broader societal context, particularly in light of escalating inflation that adversely affects everyday citizens. Meanwhile, the second sign (Figure 8, top-right) conveys a demand for the creation of a magna carta for BPO (business process outsourcing) workers. The demand refers to House Bill No. 8189, or the proposed BPO Workers Welfare & Protection Bill, that aims to institutionalize fair labor practices and enhanced benefits for BPO employees in the country (Cruz, Reference Cruz2023). The call coincides with growing concerns surrounding the workers’ rights and exploitative working conditions in the BPO industry and so the call for a legal framework aims to secure the rights of BPO workers. Additionally, the use of a QR code in the sign functions as a bridge between the physical sign and digital spaces, offering viewers an interactive gateway to further information about the magna carta for BPO workers and leveraging the capacity of discourses to move between offline and online landscapes to gather public support (Blommaert, Reference Blommaert2019). Lastly, the text, “fuck u Marcos” etched onto a hand-painted cardboard sign encapsulates a potent and assertive stance against the president, Ferdinand Marcos Jr. (Figure 8, bottom). The deliberate use of the expletive “fuck” forcefully conveys a negative assessment of the political figure, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Functioning as a linguistic marker of frustration and dissent, it positions the message as a form of protest against Marcos and his administration. Moreover, the sign’s physical attributes also contribute to its impact. Its hand-painted quality suggests authenticity and personal investment, while the simple cardboard material aligns with the DIY ethos often associated with grassroots activism. This raw aesthetic emphasizes the unfiltered nature of the sentiment and underscores the accessibility of protest, demonstrating that powerful statements can be made with minimal resources.

Figure 8 Signs that present socioeconomic calls.

In addition to divergence in terms of subject matter, visually the signs are distinguished for not using colors and symbols that index the LGBTQIA+ community, thereby opting for a deliberate departure from the conventional aesthetic associated with Pride events. This visual departure serves as a strategic choice, highlighting participants’ intent to foreground social and political issues amidst other signs that focus on LGBTQIA+ representation. The absence of typical LGBTQIA+ symbols challenges participants within the LL to reframe their perception of Pride as a platform that not only advocates for sexual identities but also makes sociopolitical statements, ultimately underscoring the multifaceted nature of MM Pride.

3.3.3 Intersectional Calls

The incorporation of intersectional messages within MM Pride introduces a new dimension to the LL, showing explicit connections between matters of sexuality and urgent social and political challenges specific to the Philippines. While the signs discussed in the previous section can be interpreted as embodying intersectionality through the depicted issues, such as the well-being of BPO workers – where an increasing number of LGBTQIA+ individuals are employed despite the absence of official statistics (e.g., gay men in call centers; Salonga, Reference Salonga and Tupas2015) – and through their emplacement with LGBTQIA+-focused signs within the physical environment, the signs under this theme establish direct associations between LGBTQIA+ identities and wider societal concerns through both linguistic and visual strategies. This alignment reflects a conscious effort among participants to bridge the gap between LGBTQIA+ advocacy and other forms of injustices, unveiling how the LL becomes a dynamic canvas to foreground how different forms of oppression figure in experiences of marginalization of MM Pride participants.

The sign (Figure 9, top) displaying “Justice for Jennifer Laude” represents a poignant demand within MM Pride and epitomizes the intersections of gender discrimination, challenges faced by individuals from low socioeconomic backgrounds, and the broader implications of the long-standing US military presence in the Philippines. Jennifer Laude was a trans woman and sex worker who tragically fell victim to a hate crime committed by an American soldier who was participating in joint military exercises in the country. Laude’s case was historic as it was the first time a US soldier was convicted for committing harm against a Filipino (Valmores-Salinas, Reference Valmores-Salinas2020). However, the perpetrator was eventually pardoned by former president Rodrigo Duterte, resulting in his release. The visuality of the sign (i.e., colors of the trans flag), combined with an understanding of the intertextual context, highlights Jennifer’s gender identity as a trans woman and her positionality vis-à-vis various forms of oppression (for example, her status as a sex worker underscores the socioeconomic limitations faced by many trans women in the Philippines, and her tragic fate and the subsequent release of her perpetrator shed light on broader implications linked to the US military presence in the Philippines). The stancetaker’s demand for “justice” transcends individual accountability, extending to larger structures of power that foster an environment in which trans women are vulnerable to violence.

Figure 9 Signs that present intersectional calls.

The second image (Figure 9, bottom-left) showcases a sign bearing the message “Mindanaoan Deaf LGBTQIA+ Pride.” This visual statement significantly contributes to the LL by foregrounding often overlooked identities within the local LGBTQIA+ community. It explicitly asserts a dual identity: being both “Mindanaoan” and part of the LGBTQIA+ community. By doing so, the sign challenges the dominant narrative of LGBTQIA+ experiences centered in urban areas, giving visibility to regional identities. Moreover, the inclusion of “Deaf” expands the representation of marginalized groups within the LGBTQIA+ community. The third image (Figure 9, bottom-right) depicts a shirt displaying the text “safe spaces. higher wages. human rights,” utilizing rainbow colors and varying font sizes. This clothing item presupposes the interconnectedness of numerous forms of oppression that impact different marginalized groups, thereby constituting an intersectional call. Firstly, the message incorporates key phrases frequently found in LGBTQIA+ activism, such as “safe space” and “human rights,” which are combined with a demand for higher wages. The presence of these phrases, coupled with the use of rainbow colors, contributes to a multimodal alignment that indexes LGBTQIA+ individuals who face socioeconomic disadvantage. Notably, the varied text sizes establish visual hierarchies that potentially suggest the prioritization of material needs and rights over safe spaces, introducing a layer of ambiguity. In interweaving these diverse concerns, the shirt prominently showcases less privileged LGBTQIA+ community members, echoing the way the LL at MM Pride functions as a platform for advocating against multifaceted injustices. The distinct intersectional calls unveil the intricate network of sociopolitical dynamics that intersect with gender and sexual identity, underscoring the necessity for comprehensive changes in the government.

The signs that convey intersectional concerns play a pivotal role in strengthening the identity politics and sociopolitical calls within MM Pride, fostering a more comprehensive and inclusive platform for LGBTQIA+ advocacy. These signs that embrace intersectionality demonstrate the ongoing evolution of MM Pride. This evolution is marked by a widening scope that not only encompasses sexuality but also incorporates socioeconomic class, regional differences, and dis/abilities. Moreover, these types of signs counteract the possibilities of intersectional invisibility within MM Pride by acknowledging the diverse range of experiences within the community (Purdie-Vaughns and Eibach, Reference Purdie-Vaughns and Eibach2008). Equally as important, the convergence of identity politics and more local concerns may lead to forms of intersectional solidarity among LGBTQIA+ people within the immediate vicinity of MM Pride and beyond, creating awareness and distress over the oppression of those who are considered “other” even within LGBTQIA+ community itself (Einwohner et al., Reference Einwohner, Kelly-Thompson, Sinclair-Chapman, Tormos-Aponte, Weldon, Wright and Wu2021).

3.4 Discussion: MM Pride as a Space for Intersectional Activism

This section examined the LL of MM Pride, demonstrating how it functions as a space for both LGBTQIA+ identity expression and broader social activism. While influenced by transnational Pride movements, MM Pride’s signs diverge from Euro-American models by addressing local concerns. This intertwining of gender, sexuality, class, citizenship, and other social issues creates a complex “regime of truths.” On one hand, the LL of MM Pride affirms and privileges specific groups within the LGBTQIA+ community, yet on the other it obscures the social injustices and precarity faced by marginalized members of this community. At the same time, these signs critique societal structures and power relations, thereby illustrating an attempt to educate and foster solidarity with other marginalized groups. This approach positions Pride as a broader struggle that includes but is not limited to sexual identity.

Central to the politics of MM Pride is a kind of pragmatic approach that attempts to forge solidarities among different marginalized groups through a broader critique of social injustices. The signs emerging from the representational practices create a platform that makes sexual identities visible by reproducing and reworking international LGBTQIA+ discourses and local understandings of sexuality. Participants seek solidarity with the global LGBTQIA+ community by deploying “globally hypernormalized” LGBTQIA+ discourses while acknowledging indigenous sexual categories (Shirinian and Channell-Justice, Reference Shirinian, Channell-Justice and Channell-Justice2020, p. 7). In this way, MM Pride both reinforces and challenges prevailing representations of privileged LGBTQIA+ members in relation to notions of social progress. This dynamic reflects an attempt from the local community efforts to reclaim agency and foster a more expansive understanding of LGBTQIA+ experiences within the Philippines, while also managing the hegemony of the international LGBTQIA+ movement. Furthermore, other signs in the LL point to the broader socioeconomic and sociopolitical structures that compound and obscure experiences of inequality and marginalization for the local community. As such, the presence of these signs aids in facilitating an emergent form of intersectional LGBTQIA+ activism. MM Pride employs its signs to challenge systemic inequities, advocating for a just society where all LGBTQIA+ individuals, particularly those most marginalized, are protected and empowered. This resonates with the findings of Lai (Reference Lai2024) and Conway (Reference Conway2023), who note that Filipino migrants participating in Pride celebrations in Hong Kong viewed the fight for equal rights as part of a broader struggle for socioeconomic and political justice.

The assemblage of signs within MM Pride highlights tensions arising from the event’s dual nature as both a celebration and a protest. Circulating discourses in the LL emphasize the concerns of a diverse community united by their sexual identity, while also underscoring the importance of situating these identities within other “axes of dominance” (Roth Reference Roth2021, p. 10). This decentering of international Pride discourses, which largely hinge on sexual identity politics, disrupts the orderliness of categories such as “sexual identity” and “LGBTQIA+ community,” which are often understood within the parameters of Western conceptions of sexuality. The LL of MM Pride, instead, proffers a more locally situated and politicized perspective on LGBTQIA+ identity and foregrounds the experiences of individuals frequently excluded from mainstream conceptions of Pride. However, the signs’ placement within the stratified organization of Philippine society introduces a degree of ambivalence. For instance, critiques of the government or socioeconomic injustices often elicit negative reactions on social media from some presumably privileged MM Pride participants, who instead favor signs that celebrate LGBTQIA+ identity without engaging with broader social issues. While these tensions between the local and global, and between celebration and protest, remain unresolved, the LL of MM Pride illustrates the “transgressive possibilities” that emerge from the landscaping of intersectional discourses (Hunt and Holmes, Reference Hunt and Holmes2015, p. 156). MM Pride thus becomes a site where multiple influences converge, creating a space that, while drawing from international LGBTQIA+ discourse, remains attentive to local realities of inequality.

4.1 Linguistic Landscape Analysis

Slogans can be associated with sexual and gender ideologies, as evidenced by the digital dating profiles of Serbian gay men (Bogetić, Reference Bogetić2020). On the other hand, dress and appearance are used to maintain and display lesbian and gay identities (Holliday, Reference Holliday, Entwistle and Wilson2001), or as key signifiers of gender and sexuality (Skidmore, Reference Skidmore1999). Through an LL analysis of the Pride slogans and fashion over the past decade, I also discuss how Taiwanese Pride marchers construct their local and global identities in the Pride events.

4.2 Challenging Heteronormativity

Heteronormativity helps to explain how heterosexuality is privileged in society, marginalizing sexual minorities (Warner, Reference Warner1991). It is also linked to the concept of the nation, as those who are not heteronormative are unlikely to receive the same protection from the nation state (Motschenbacher, Reference Motschenbacher2023). However, five strategies are observed to challenge heteronormativity in Taiwan LGBT+ Pride: the practice of homonormativity, the discursive construction of sexual desire, the struggle against traditional Confucianism, the redefinition of masculinity, and the marginalization of heterosexuality.

4.2.1 The Practice of Homonormativity

The concept of homonormativity was originally defined as the “sexual politics of neoliberalism” (Duggan, Reference Duggan, Castronovo and Nelson2002, p. 176) and has been used to normalize or mainstream LGBTQIA+ people by adopting the preexisting heteronormative structure. In Wilton Manors, Florida, for example, same-sex sexualities are constructed as the local norm (Motschenbacher, Reference Motschenbacher2020b, Reference Motschenbacher2023). Homonormativity is also practiced in Taiwan LGBT+ Pride. Figures 10–12 illustrate how same-sex couples conform linguistically or visually to traditional gender roles.

Figure 10 Taiwan LGBT+ Pride 2012.

Translation

1. 我們想婚了

wǒmen xiǎng hūn le

“We are planning to get married.”

2. 在一起6年

zài yìqǐ 6 nián

“(We) have been in a relationship for six years.”

Figure 11 Taiwan LGBT+ Pride 2017.

Translation

1. 交往10th

jiāowǎng 10th

“The tenth year of our dating.”

2. 她很想娶我

tā hěn xiǎng qǔ wǒ

“She wants to marry me so bad.”

3. 我只好嫁她

wǒ zhǐhǎo jià tā

“I have no option but to marry her.”

4. 年底美國結婚

nián dǐ Měiguó jiéhūn

“(We) are getting married in America at the end of the year.”

Figure 12 Taiwan LGBTQIA+ Pride 2014.

In Figures 10 and 11, both the gay and lesbian couples are found to adopt the heteronormative structure of marriage, as manifested in the verbs hūn “to get married” (Figure 10, line 1), qǔ “to marry” (Figure 11, line 2), and jià “to marry” (Figure 11, line 3). In Figure 11, particularly, the two verbs qǔ and jià are gendered, further reflecting sexist attitudes (Moser, Reference Moser1997, pp. 18–19). As Moser further discusses, the verb qǔ takes the masculine subject and is semantically or functionally similar to verbs with connotations such as “to take,” “to get,” “to obtain,” “to buy,” “to win,” and so on. In other words, the subject of this verb, a man, is always the recipient of the action intended for him. On the other hand, the verb jià takes a woman as its subject and is frequently followed by a man marked in dative case. Although the third-person singular pronoun 她 tā “she” assumes a female referent (Figure 11, line 3), the lesbian couple still adopts the binary gender norm in their same-sex marriage. Similar findings are also seen in Li and Lu’s (Reference Li and Lu2020) study, according to which Taiwanese gay men and lesbian women who seek romance online are still influenced by heteronormative ideologies, as evidenced in the keywords containing many binary roles.

The binary view of gender roles in marriage is also visualized in Pride fashion, as shown in Figure 12.

A Pride parade exhibits how heterosexual space is “queered” and how the spatial aspect of the event is linked to the expression of particular emotions by those involved (Ammaturo, Reference Ammaturo2016). Therefore, two individuals of the same gender walking in the Pride parade as a married couple can be seen as creating an LGBTQIA+ space in public. Figure 12 illustrates two types of femininity: women with long hair and dressed in a gown and women with short hair wearing a suit or tuxedo. In the Western world, the establishment of gender guidelines can be traced back to the nineteenth century. In their literature review of the men’s suit in the nineteenth century, Alfredsson and Augustsson (Reference Alfredsson and Augustsson2017) point out that the so-called men’s suit emerged in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It was characterized by three pieces: an ensemble of a jacket, waistcoat, and pants made in the same or similar fabric for mass production. The three-piece ensemble can also be observed in modern suits and tuxedos worn by men. Conversely, women’s attire was crafted in a more elaborate style due to their comparatively lower societal influence relative to men’s in the nineteenth century. The opulence observed in women’s attire during the nineteenth century is also reflected in the gowns worn by women in contemporary societies. In light of the above, it can be posited that the two types of femininity depicted in Figure 12 exemplify the traditional gender binary of male and female.

4.2.2 The Discursive Construction of Sexual Desire

Sexual desires and practices can be discursively constructed, as seen in the slogans of Taiwan LGBT+ Pride. While these slogans are humorously presented in antithetical parallelism or contain words that rhyme, their aim is to normalize bodily autonomy and to fight against the stigmatization and discrimination of certain sexual fetishes.

In Figures 13–16, lexical items that are associated with sexual behavior, e.g., kāoqiāng “to jerk off” (Figure 13, line 1), dǎpào “to hook up” (Figure 13, line 2), gàn “to fuck” (Figure 14, line 1), and chōngzhuàng qiánlièxiàn “to bang the prostate” (Figure 15, line 1), sex products, e.g., rùnhuáyóu “lubricant” (Figure 14, line 2), or sexual kinks and fetishes, e.g., puppy play (Figure 16) highlight sexualization. Interestingly, Mowlabocus (Reference Mowlabocus2023) has observed that while chemsex, a type of sexual behavior, is antithetical to homonormativity because it is never associated with the “good gays” but with the “evil queer,” both chemsex and homonormativity are structured by a neoliberal morality of self-governance, personal responsibility, and individual sovereignty. In other words, sexual autonomy and agency are discursively normalized in Taiwan LGBT+ Pride as a form of active resistance to heteronormative norms about sexual desires.

Figure 13 Taiwan LGBT+ Pride 2012.

Translation

1. 尻槍不要放槍Footnote ²

kāoqiāng búyào fàngqiāng

“Jerk off, instead of discarding a tile from which another player calls mahjong.”

2. 愛打牌也愛打炮

ài dǎpái yě ài dǎpào

“(I am/We are) into mahjong and also into hooking up.”

Figure 14 Taiwan LGBT+ Pride 2014.

Translation

1. 同志怎麼幹, 不用你來管

tóngzhì zěnme gàn, búyòng nǐ lái guǎn

“How a queer fucks is none of your business.”

2. 給我潤滑油, 拒絕黑心油Footnote ³

gěi wǒ rùnhuáyóu, jùjué hēixīnyóu

“Give me lubricant, and reject using the tainted oil.”

Figure 15 Taiwan LGBT+ Pride 2015.

Translation

1. 衝撞前列腺

chōngzhuàng qiánlièxiàn

“Bang the prostate.”

2. 年齡不設限

niánlíng bú shèxiàn

“This should not have age restrictions.”

Figure 16 Taiwan LGBT+ Pride 2020.

Translation

1. 主人摸摸頭

zhǔrén mōmō tóu

“The owner gives a pat on the head (of the dog).”

2. 狗狗舔趾頭

gǒugǒu tiǎn zhǐtóu

“The dog licks its toes.”

4.2.3 The Struggle Against Traditional Confucianism

Confucianism is a Chinese moral philosophy that entrenches gender stratification. While it created a male-dominated patriarchal family structure and imposed conservative rules on women with the “three obediences” and “four virtues,” which led to further sexual discrimination and subjugation of Chinese women and girls (Moeller, Reference Moeller2003), it also placed heavy responsibilities on men. In Taiwan LGBT+ Pride, however, a struggle against traditional Confucian masculinity and the principle of reciprocity for gender duality is observed.

Figure 17 shows two contrasting words, xiàodào “filial piety” and chǎndào “birth canal,” which is a wordplay pair based on rhyme. It can be seen as a humorous rejoinder to the criticism that homosexuality prevents a man from producing a male heir to carry on his family name. Indeed, the pro-marriage and pro-fertility tradition is associated with Confucian masculinity, which holds that a man’s failure to find a wife could lead to social disruption (Yu and Nartey, Reference Yu and Nartey2021). As Liao (Reference Liao2020) observes, the Christian-led pro-family movement in Taiwan in 2013 used this rhetoric of Confucian apocalypse to wrap “procreation” with “filial piety,” which religious activists see as “the foundation of a harmonious social order” (p. 153).Footnote ⁴ In her research, Su (Reference Su2023) also notes that a mother blogger opposed Taiwan’s legalization of same-sex marriage. The blogger presented herself as a loving and sacrificing mother, while also asserting her right to make decisions for her children. This reflects a traditional view of parenthood influenced by Confucianism. Despite this, as Figure 17 shows, filial piety in traditional Confucian values is directly challenged in Taiwan LGBT+ Pride, but in a humorous way.

Figure 17 Taiwan LGBT+ Pride 2014.

Translation

1. 孝道不能生小孩

xiàodào bù néng shēng xiǎohái

“Filial piety cannot produce heirs.”

2. 產道才能

chǎndào cái néng

“But the birth canal can.”

Additionally, because Confucian societies have a hierarchy of masculinity over femininity, women or daughters are oppressed. This, however, is challenged in Taiwan LGBT+ Pride to promote gender equality.

In lines 1 and 2, nán “male” and nǚ “female” are used to refer to baby boys and baby girls or the fetal sex, and in lines 3 and 4, body parts are used for the same purpose. As we can see, the slogans in Figure 18 emphasize gender equality and are directed against those parents or grandparents who are desperate for a son or a grandson. Hajndrych and Wu (Reference Hajndrych and Wu2022) analyze Taiwanese folk songs published in the Taiwan New People’s Newspaper under Japanese rule and find that a daughter’s value to her birth family was less than a crowing rooster or a watchdog, because she would be married off and become part of another family. A son, on the other hand, could produce a male heir to carry on the family name. Although the situation for daughters is much improved in modern Taiwan, older generations influenced by Confucianism still value sons/grandsons more than daughters/granddaughters.

Figure 18 Taiwan LGBT+ Pride 2013.

Translation

1. 生女生男不重要

shēng nǚ shēng nán bú zhòngyào

“Giving birth to a girl or boy is not important.”

2. 是男是女鬼知道

shì nán shì nǚ guǐ zhīdào

“Who the fuck knows the fetal sex?”

3. 有奶有屌是瑰寶

yǒu nǎi yǒu diǎo shì guībǎo

“Boobs and dicks are treasures.”

4. 平胸陰道一樣好

píng xiōng yīndào yíyàng hǎo

“Flat chests and vaginas are equally good.”

Interestingly, Chua (Reference Chua2012) and Rowlett and Go (Reference Rowlett and Go2021) note that forms of “pragmatic resistance” are often adopted in LGBTQIA+ movements in illiberal Asian regions as strategies for LGBTQIA+ people to integrate themselves into the nation by both conforming to and reconfiguring the normative values favored by the government. Since Taiwan is comparatively more liberal and progressive among East Asian countries that are influenced by Confucianism, and since Confucian traditions are linked by Christian-led pro-family activists in Taiwan to their national identity as Chinese (Liao, Reference Liao2020), this perhaps further demonstrates the Taiwanese Pride marchers’ attempt to distinguish themselves from LGBTQIA+ Chinese people (Ning, Reference Ning2018; Chen-Dedman, Reference Chen-Dedman2023).

In fact, the struggle against Confucianism is frequently seen in lesbians’ slogans and the display of their bodies in Taiwan LGBT+ Pride.

Figure 19 emphasizes women’s sexual autonomy, and Figures 20 and 21 emphasize bodily autonomy. As we can see in Figure 19, the genitive form of the second-person singular pronoun nǐde “your” (line 3) is used to refer to a man’s sexual organ. As noted by Kuo (Reference 88Kuo2002), while this pronoun can be used to indicate rapport, it is often used for direct confrontation. Clearly, this pronoun is used to challenge men, suggesting that a woman’s sexual desire can be satisfied by another woman. Furthermore, in Figures 20 and 21, a woman’s bodily autonomy is discursively constructed through the vague use of the first-person singular pronoun wǒ “I” or its genitive form wǒde “my.” As Kitagawa and Lehrer (Reference Kitagawa and Lehrer1990) explain, the vague use of personal pronouns helps a speaker to refer to a specific group of people, and in our case, to refer to any woman who agrees with the slogans. Because the use of the first-person singular pronoun expresses the speaker’s “personal belief” (Wilson, Reference Wilson1990), and in our case the belief of the lesbian Pride marchers, this pronoun helps any woman who aligns herself with the slogan to assert her bodily autonomy. In other words, a woman no longer needs to dress and adorn herself to please a man, which is against the three obediences and four virtues in Confucianism.

Figure 19 Taiwan LGBT+ Pride 2015.

Translation

1. 女女雙雙

nǚnǚ shuāngshuāng

“Lesbians and bisexual (women).”

2. 跨過來

kuà guòlái

“Join us.”

3. 不哈你的屌

bù hā nǐde diǎo

“Not desiring your dick.”

4. 拉拉手正好

lālā shǒu zhènghǎo

“Lesbians can just join hands.”

Figure 20 Taiwan LGBT+ Pride 2010.

Translation

1. 我的平胸我決定

wǒde píng xiōng wǒ juédìng

“My flat chest, my decision.”

2. T的平胸真帥氣

T-de píng xiōng zhēn shuàiqì

“The flat chest of a tomboy is cool.”

3. 我的ㄋㄟㄋㄟ我決定

wǒde nēinēi wǒ juédìng

“My boobs, my decision.”

4. 我要我的平胸美學

wǒ yào wǒde píng xiōng měixué

“I want my own aesthetics of a flat chest.”

Figure 21 Taiwan LGBT+ Pride 2016.

Translation

我又肥又辣

wǒ yòu féi yòu là

“I am fat and hot.”

Note also that in Figure 20, two Mandarin phonetic symbols (zhùyīn fúhào), ㄋㄟ, are reduplicated to refer to the vernacular form of a woman’s breasts in Taiwanese Southern Min. In her analysis of Taiwanese attitudes toward the contextual use of “refined disposition,” Su (Reference Su2008) argues that poor qìzhí (disposition) signals a woman’s lack of femininity and her nonstandard use of language, and that social evaluation regulates women’s ways of speaking. Therefore, this slogan can further be seen as women overturning the way society as a whole expects them to speak.

4.2.4 The Redefinition of Masculinity

In heteronormative, Chinese-speaking societies, a man’s lack of masculinity can undermine his humanness, as manifested in many Chinese martial arts films (Hiramoto, Reference Hiramoto2017). As Puar (Reference Puar2007) argues, “individual agency is legible only as resistance to norms rather than complicity with them, thus equating resistance and agency” (p. 23). Not surprisingly, a new form of masculinity is created in Taiwan LGBT+ Pride to challenge toxic masculinity.

Figure 22 shows this new form of masculinity, i.e., feminine masculinity, as evidenced by the derogatory term, niángniángqiāng “sissy boy; sissy-gun” and the verb, bǎohù “to protect.” While 娘娘-槍 niángniáng-qiāng “sissy-gun” is the play on words of 娘娘-腔 niángniáng-qiāng “sissy-accent,” which is often used in Chinese to refer to an effeminate man in a negative manner, it is used for self-reference to reinforce the sarcasm triggered by the verb, bǎohù “to protect.” In other words, feminine masculinity is created to challenge toxic masculinity and femme-phobia, which can still be found in the gay community. As Eguchi (Reference Eguchi2009) observes, effeminate gay men are repulsive to some straight-acting gay men, which Bergling (Reference Bergling2001) refers to as “sissyphobia.” According to Sánchez and Vilain (Reference Sánchez and Vilain2012), gay men’s masculine consciousness and anti-effeminacy are associated with the negative feelings about their own sexuality. In other words, gay men’s “sissyphobia” is perhaps triggered by their “internalized homonegativity.”

Figure 22 Taiwan LGBT+ Pride 2011.

Translation

1. 男同志別害怕

nán tóngzhì bié hàipà

“Do not fear, gay men.”

2. SISSY BOY

3. 娘娘槍保護你

niángniángqiāng bǎohù nǐ

“The sissy boy will protect you.”

It is noteworthy that the English counterpart, sissy boy, is used in the same slogan (Figure 22, line 2). A transnational space is thus constructed through code-mixing. Indeed, gay men frequently use English to construct their global and modern identities. Gay Japanese men, for example, use English to construct a cosmopolitan identity (Baudinette, Reference Baudinette2018) or to demarcate spaces for those who conform to the ikanimo-kei “obviously gay type” lifestyle favored by gay media in Japan (Baudinette, Reference Baudinette2017). LGBTQIA+ youth in Delhi also use English to present themselves as knowledgeable sexual moderns (Hall, Reference Hall2019). This can be explained by the “prestige function” of English associated with its characterological association with globality and modernity (Haarmann, Reference Haarmann1989, p. 16).

4.2.5 The Marginalization of Heterosexuality

Although most public spaces, “presuppose (certain) heterosexual identities, relationships, desires and practices as the norm” (Motschenbacher, Reference Motschenbacher2020b, p. 41), Pride parades are nonheteronormative spaces where gay people collectively come out to support each other. In Taiwan, more and more straight allies are joining the celebrations, who are observed to marginalize heterosexuality.

Figure 23 displays a Taiwan Pride marcher holding a banner apologizing for being heterosexual, using the Mandarin apology expression bàoqiàn “to be apologetic” (line 2). According to Ruan and Du (Reference Ruan and Du2009), bàoqiàn is a verb related to mental activities; therefore, it can be modified by an adverb of degree (e.g., hěn “very”) to emphasize sincerity. Unlike other Mandarin apology expressions, bàoqiàn is used to express uneasiness while also conveying a sense of apology. As further noted by Ruan and Du, the use of this apology expression suggests that the offence is not significant. Therefore, the apology in Figure 23 allows straight allies to show their support in a sarcastic way by marginalizing heterosexuality. The target of the sarcasm is the heteronormative Taiwanese society, as many LGBTQIA+ Taiwanese face pressure in a patriarchal society where heterosexuals are the majority.

Figure 23 Taiwan LGBTQIA+ Pride 2016.

Translation

1. 身為異男

shēnwéi yì nán

“I am a heterosexual man.”

2. 我很抱歉

wǒ hěn bàoqiàn

“I am very apologetic (about being a heterosexual man).”

4.3 Reifying Tai-ness

The linguistic and discursive practices of localness are traditionally considered as deviating from globalization, as they seem to be associated with nonstandard language use (Su, Reference Su2011, Reference Su2018). Also due to globalization, certain local linguistic forms have become markers of correctness and can be used to index locality (Johnstone, Reference Johnstone and Coupland2010). Four strategies are observed to reify tai-ness: the constructing of dual identities, the application of local semiotics, the participation in issues of social justice, and the use of mockery as shared humor.

4.3.1 The Construction of Dual Identities

In the data, I observed that many LGBTQIA+ Taiwanese emphasize their dual identities as members of two minority groups. That is, they march at the intersection of both LGBTQIA+ and indigenous Taiwanese identities. This can be seen in their slogans and costumes.

In Figures 24 and 25, the dual identities of LGBTQIA+ and indigenous Taiwanese are discursively constructed. In Figure 24, the dual identities are manifested in two assertives, in which the copula shì “to be” connects the subject wǒ “I” and the two nominal predicates yuánzhùmín “indigenous people” and tóngzhì “queer.” In Figure 25, the dual identities are expressed in a humorous way by a nonindigenous Pride marcher, not only to show support for LGBTQIA+ Taiwanese indigenous people but also to reverse gender and ethnic stereotypes. In contrast, in Figure 26, the Taiwanese indigenous identity is demonstrated through traditional clothing (see also Section 3 for the discussion of indigenous identities and designations in the 2023 Metro Manila Pride march). To summarize, some Pride marchers reify tai-ness at the intersection of their ethnic and gender identities.

Figure 24 Taiwan LGBT+ Pride 2010.

Translation

1. 我是原住民

wǒ shì yuánzhùmín

“I am indigenous.”

2. 我是同志

wǒ shì tóngzhì

“I am queer.”

Figure 25 Taiwan LGBT+ Pride 2014.

Translation

1. 我跟原住民喝酒

wǒ gēn yuánzhùmín hē jiǔ

“I drink with indigenous people.”

2. 我跟原住民打炮

wǒ gēn yuánzhùmín dǎpào

“I hook up with indigenous people.”

3. 我跟原住民交往

wǒ gēn yuánzhùmín jiāowǎng

“I date indigenous people.”

4. 我覺得原住民超屌

wǒ juéde yuánzhùmín chāo diǎo

“I think indigenous people are wicked.”

5. 性別/族群不再刻板

xìngbié/zúqún bú zài kèbǎn

“No more gender and ethnic stereotypes.”

Figure 26 Taiwan LGBT+ Pride 2015.

4.3.2 The Application of Local Semiotics

Taiwanese Pride marchers also use local semiotics that can only be understood by the local people, as can be seen in the way the marchers present their slogans and the way they dress.

The tai-ness can be seen through humorous expressions of confrontational politics. In Figure 27, the humor of the slogans relies heavily on visual modalities. As we can see, the slogans are presented as Taoist paper talismans – strips of yellow paper on which words written in cinnabar have the power to drive away demons. In line 1, moreover, the Ministry of Justice, the Registered Partnership Act, and legislation based on discrimination are demonized. Because in 2016 the existing Taiwan Civil Code only recognized heterosexual marriage, there was debate about whether the new bill would only legalize same-sex civil partnerships, not marriage, and not opposite-sex civil partnerships, which is discriminatory. While the slogans, presented as Taoist paper talismans, may evoke a hearty laugh and a knowing smile among the in-group members of the Taiwanese society (Chen, Reference Chen2017), they are not intended for outsiders.

Figure 27 Taiwan LGBT+ Pride 2016.

Translation

1. 法務部、同性伴侶法、隔離立法退散

fǎwùbù, tóngxìng bànlǚ fǎ, gélí lìfǎ tuìsàn

“The Ministry of Justice, Same-Sex Partnership Act, and legislation based on discrimination, back off.”

2. 恐同歧視退散

kǒngtóng qíshì tuìsàn

“Homophobic discrimination, back off.”

As in many Pride parades, there were many festive elements, with some participants wearing very campy costumes – carnivalesque costumes that are very sexy, colorful, and extravagant. But there were also participants who dressed more casually. As Santino (Reference Santino2011) observes, Pride parades are “ludic, festive, or carnivalesque” events that aim to bring about “a change or transformation in society” (p. 67). Local semiotics can also be observed in the costumes which marchers wear to the festivities. In the data, I observe that many Pride marchers are dressed as ancient figures of Chinese folk religion to reify tai-ness.

In Figures 28 and 29, the marchers were dressed as ancient Chinese figures that are still popular in Taiwan. In Figure 28, for example, two marchers were dressed in white and black as two deities in Chinese folk religion responsible for guarding the spirits of the deceased in the underworld, known in Taiwan as Qiye Baye “Seventh and Eighth Masters,” or in China as Heibai Wuchang “Black and White Impermanence.” The marcher on the right was dressed in red as Zhong Kui, traditionally known as the vanquisher of ghosts and evil beings. Although the three figures are from China, they are worshiped in temples and shrines in Taiwan and have become local gods. In Figure 29, the marcher was also dressed as Prince Nezha, a protective deity in Chinese folk religion who is also known as the Marshal of the Central Altar or as the Third Prince in Taiwan. Interestingly, the marcher’s costume and the rainbow flag interact to signal the harmony between Taiwanese localism and global queerness. Although the Pride marchers were dressed as figures from Chinese folk religion, their costumes show that Taiwan is a melting pot of cultures. More specifically, Taiwan’s diversity, as reflected in its multilingual, multiethnic, and multicultural environment, is how tai-ness is embodied.

Figure 28 Taiwan LGBT+ Pride 2011.

Figure 29 Taiwan LGBT+ Pride 2017.

4.3.3 The Participation in Issues of Social Justice

In common with other research presented across this Element, I also observed that tai-ness is reified through the participation of Taiwanese Pride marchers in domestic or international social justice issues. However, this appears to be done to reinforce Taiwan’s democracy and also as a form of homonationalism to distinguish Taiwan from China.

Figures 30 and 31 are from Pride 2014, and around the same time the Umbrella Movement emerged during the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong. The yellow umbrellas in Figure 30 and the slogan in Figure 31 show the Pride marchers’ support for the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong. This Western-style homonationalism was used by the Pride marchers to differentiate themselves from LGBTQIA+ Chinese in order to reify the local value of Taiwan, as exemplified in Taiwan’s “tongzhi sovereignty,” which according to Chen-Dedman (Reference Chen-Dedman2023) links the legal rights and sexual citizenship of Taiwanese tongzhi (LGBTQIA+ Taiwanese) to the protection of Taiwan’s political sovereignty, in response to the “China factor” in Taiwanese society. With respect to the current political climate across the Chinese regions, the contrast with the forms of homonationalism discussed in Ben’s research on the Hong Kong Gay Games in Section 5 should be noted here.

Figure 30 Taiwan LGBT+ Pride 2014.

Figure 31 Taiwan LGBT+ Pride 2014.

Translation

1. 撐香港

chēng Xiānggǎng

“Supporting Hong Kong’s (Umbrella Movement).”

2. 挺同志

tǐng tóngzhì

“Supporting LGBTQIA+ people.”

Interestingly, Ning (Reference Ning2018) notes that during their ruling period, Taiwan’s DPP employed homonationalism to distinguish Taiwan from China, gained international recognition, and presented Taiwan as a civilized country by legalizing same-sex marriage. This is exemplified in Figure 32, which highlights homonationalism as a manifestation of the DPP’s support for diverse family formation. This slogan, however, sarcastically blames Chen Chu, the former mayor of Kaohsiung who represents the DPP, for urban evictions in the city. According to Holmes (Reference Holmes2021), there are members of the LGBTQIA+ community who do not support the presence of uniformed Vancouver Police Department officers at Pride parades because these police officers intend to pinkwash their identities. As the term “pinkwashing” refers to the act of showing support for LGBTQIA+ rights to distract from harmful actions against underprivileged groups, this slogan implies that the legalization of same-sex marriage by the former president of Taiwan,Tsai Ing-Wen, and her DPP government may be seen by some people as an act of pinkwashing the ruling DPP’s harm to some underprivileged groups. This echoes Kong’s (Reference Kong2023) observation that Taiwan’s incorporative homonationalism has its own limitations.

Figure 32 Taiwan LGBT+ Pride 2016.

Translation

1. 小英推成家

Xiǎoyīng tuī chéngjiā

“Little Tsai (Ing-Wen) is supporting diverse family formation.”

2. 大菊拆我家

Dàjú chāi wǒ jiā

“Big (Chen) Chu is pulling down my house.”

4.3.4 The Use of Mockery as Shared Humor

Chen (Reference Chen2022, Reference Chen-Dedman2023) observes that humor helps gay Taiwanese men to voice themselves and build in-group solidarity, and how they interact through humor and teasing reveals how they construct their queer identities. In Taiwan LGBT+ Pride, mockery is often used as shared humor.

As shown in Figure 33, humor is utilized as a means to criticize organizations (or individuals) in Taiwan who are unfriendly toward the LGBTQIA+ community. Specifically, the Family Guardian Coalition (Hùjiāméng), which is composed of various religious groups that oppose same-sex marriage legislation, is mocked in a humorous manner. While an “x” is perhaps used to protect the confidentiality of the Family Guardian Coalition, the LGBTQIA+ community in Taiwan is aware of the targeted group. The substitution of “x” for “hù” in order to maintain confidentiality (i.e., x-jiāméng) may serve to strengthen in-group solidarity, as this practice assumes that all members of the Taiwanese LGBTQIA+ community should be aware of who is making it difficult for individuals to come out in the country. Furthermore, the use of popular internet slang (e.g., fā fèiwén “shitposting”) to describe the Family Guardian Coalition’s opposition to the same-sex marriage bill on social media is concerning. By comparing “coming out” with “shitposting,” this slogan uses mockery as shared humor. This can only be appreciated by the Taiwanese LGBTQIA+ community, who are in a constant struggle for gender equality against the Family Guardian Coalition.

Figure 33 Taiwan LGBT+ Pride 2015.

Translation

希望有一天出櫃也能像x家盟發廢文一樣簡單

xīwàng yǒuyìtiān chūguì yě néng xiàng x-jiāméng fā fèiwén yíyàng jiǎndān

“Hoping that one day coming out would be as easy as shitposting by the Family Guardian Coalition.”

4.4 Conclusion

Ben-Rafael’s (Reference Ben-Rafael, Shohamy and Gorter2009) four structuration principles associated with linguistic landscapes are significant in the landscape of Taiwan LGBT+ Pride. As we can see, the Pride marchers sought to differentiate themselves from others, often by challenging the heteronormative norms of Taiwanese society. The values and preferences of the LGBTQIA+ community are embodied and reinforced in Taiwan LGBT+ Pride. Various linguistic and visual resources are used to challenge heteronormativity and reify Taiwan’s localness. The Pride marchers also attempt to reverse the asymmetrical power relations in heteronormative society.

Major events in Taiwan and around the world from 2010 to 2020 could be observed in the slogans and fashions of Taiwan LGBT+ Pride, such as the “gutter oil” scandal and the sit-in street protests in Hong Kong in 2014, the debate on whether to abolish Article 227 of the Criminal Law in 2015,Footnote ⁵ the urban evictions in Kaohsiung and the controversy over the Amendments to the Civil Code and the Same-Sex Partnership Act by the Taiwanese Ministry of Justice in 2016, the controversy over the promotion of gender equality education in schools in 2017, and the multi-question referendum (focusing on same-sex marriage rights and LGBTQIA+-inclusive education in schools) in 2018. In addition, there are always enemies to target, and the attack is presented in a multimodal and humorous way to attract attention (see also Section 3 for the discussion on incorporating intersectional messages into the 2023 Metro Manila Pride march).

In sum, Taiwan LGBT+ Pride can be viewed as a new way to encourage change in Taiwanese society, which also provides a venue for LGBTQIA+ Taiwanese to communicate with the heterosexual majority or their opponents and to celebrate Taiwan’s new human rights achievement. Additionally, the LL of Taiwan LGBT+ Pride I have analyzed in this section further highlights the particularities and peculiarities of Asian Pride movements, illustrating the significance of “localness” and the utilization of specific linguistic and visual resources to disseminate the message of LGBTQIA+ solidarity, equality, and legitimacy across the region.

5.1 Media Representations of the Hong Kong Gay Games

The analysis focuses on a survey of articles (n=47), including news stories and opinion pieces, published about the event by local English language news media. Most of these articles (44) are taken from the South China Morning Post (SCMP), a privately owned daily print and online newspaper that has one of the widest distributions and readerships of traditional news media in English in Hong Kong. Other articles (2) are from China Daily (a Chinese state-owned English language newspaper) and (1) the Hong Kong Free Press (an independent local English language online news service). Despite online searches for mainstream news media written in Chinese using relevant keywords, the relative scarcity of coverage at the time of this search revealed that the event was being reported on much more widely in the local mainstream English language press via not only news articles but also opinion pieces and letters to the editor. The limitations of this survey, restricted here to media coverage predominantly in one mainstream English newspaper, therefore need to be acknowledged. However, these limitations can also be regarded as instructive, implying in this way that the Gay Games, as an event, may only be pertinent to the local and international (i.e., cosmopolitan) English-speaking community. In addition, the almost exclusive use of English on the (ostensibly) multilingual Gay Games promotional website should also be noted. Each article was manually coded according to the identification of common themes across the data set:

• LGBTQIA+ rights in Hong Kong (and Asia)

• Championing diversity and inclusion

• Images of Hong Kong with relation to the games

• Economic benefits of the games

• Controversies (criticisms of the Gay Games, homophobia)

• Impacts of COVID restrictions on the games

Table 1 shows the number of articles published between 2017 and 2022, together with the number of articles corresponding to each theme in each year.

Broadly speaking, the occurrence (and recurrence) of each theme corresponds to incidents, or newsworthy events, related to the Gay Games that arose during the period in question. For example, all six articles published in 2017, soon after it was announced that Hong Kong had secured the winning bid to host the event, addressed the benefits that the Gay Games would potentially have on increasing LGBTQIA+ rights in Hong Kong. Two representative headlines from this news cycle thus read:

1. (a) “Calls for Hong Kong to better protect LGBT rights as city wins bid to host 2022 Gay Games.”

   (D. Lee, Reference Lee2017; emphasis added)

2. (b) “The Gay Games is Hong Kong’s moment to show the city’s inclusivity. Are we ready?”

   (Guy, Reference Guy2017; emphasis added)

The language used in these headlines points to desirable futures, where the “protection” of LGBTQIA+ rights and inclusivity are foregrounded as commensurate with the aims and spirit of the Gay Games, and LGBTQIA+ pride more generally. These headlines should also be read in the context of nascent victories gained by Hong Kong LGBTQIA+ activists in preceding years, where courts had ruled in favor of dependent visas and equal tax assessments for same-sex married couples, although it must be noted that these only apply to non-Chinese nationals as same-sex marriage for Chinese couples remains illegal in Hong Kong. It is important also to make clear that, despite these small victories in the final court of appeal, the Hong Kong Legislative Council (Legco) at the time was (and indeed remains) encumbered by pro-establishment politicians who sought to block any progressive laws related to issues of sexual rights (Kong, Reference Kong2019).

Although, as Kong (Reference Kong2019, p. 1916) points out, Hong Kong Pride has more generally been “based not on the triumph of political rights but on queer cultural achievement,” a prominent discourse emerges from these 2017 media reports centring on the opportunity the Gay Games presents for the city to increase its international standing vis-à-vis LGBTQIA+ rights legislation. As such, and specifically with relation to the discursive production of place, a thematic thread addressing the need to promote a progressive image of Hong Kong to a global audience features across the data set as a whole. For instance, the SCMP opinion piece associated with headline (b) states:

“Without government support that is open and enthusiastic, the antipathy, grudging and almost disapproving response will grow into a global public relations disaster for Hong Kong” (Guy, Reference Guy2017; emphasis added).

Referencing the reaction (“antipathy, grudging, and almost disapproving”) of the government to the news of the winning bid, with then chief executive Carrie Lam reported as merely “noting” the event (Guy, Reference Guy2017), the writer uses emotive terms such as “disaster” to frame the potentially missed opportunity for a global public relations coup. The economic benefits of the event are similarly foregrounded throughout the articles, with the above opinion piece citing the USD 52 million generated by the Gay Games held in 2014 in Cleveland, Ohio. After a lull in coverage over the ensuing two years (2018–20) as the story of the games coming to Hong Kong became subsumed by immediate and pressing events taking place in Hong Kong (the Anti-Extradition Law protests and subsequent introduction of the National Security Law (NSL), and the developing COVID-19 pandemic), there was a sudden increase in local English-language reporting on the games in 2021 with twenty-six articles published in that year alone. The main reason for this brief media storm relates to an incident in June 2021 when the organizing committee sought the assistance of a member of Legco to secure government venues for the event. On bringing this request to the council, the ensuing debate, as recorded in media reports, firmly established the level of resistance to the event from several pro-establishment members of Legco. Examples of such statements are:

1. (a) “It is your business what you do in your own room, but if you go out and do it in public, it’s disgraceful,” said Ho [Legco member Junius Ho]. “The point is simple, the officials should not get involved in this, it’s the civil society’s business if they want to do it, it’s wrong [for the government] to throw money into this, and I don’t want to earn this type of dirty money, it doesn’t matter if we earn the HK$1 billion.” (Ng, Reference K-c2021; emphasis added)

2. (b) “On the surface, it is about equal opportunities, it is about inclusion. But it does not take a genius to figure out it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” citing article 23 of the mainland’s NSL which states that the country should carry forward the traditional culture of the Chinese people and guard against and resist the impact of harmful culture.” (Ng, Reference K-c2021; emphasis added)

3. (c) “The government should not take it lightly. The organisers are not a well-organised body. No one can tell for sure what the participants will wear, what flags they will carry when they are in Hong Kong.” (Ng, Reference K-c2021; emphasis added)

The image of Hong Kong constructed here is very different from the image constructed back in 2017, when the games was seen as not only being a public relations opportunity for the city, together with the economic benefits it would bring, but also spearheading the ongoing march toward legislation that would better protect the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community in the city. In contrast to the hopes expressed then, the inflammatory rhetoric, characterized by homophobic language in (a) such as “it is your business what you do in your own room”; “it’s disgraceful”; and “I don’t want to earn this type of dirty money” buttresses a position where the fight for “equal opportunities” and “inclusion” is analogous to subterfuge – “a wolf in sheep’s clothing” – as stated in extract (b). In other words, the position taken in these statements equates the Gay Games with threats to national security. Moreover, national security, as represented in these statements, is interpreted as the need to resist “harmful culture”; a discursive production of place that foregrounds the preservation of traditional Chinese (heteronormative) culture and values in the face of “malign” outside influences (see also Ng and Li, Reference Ng and Li2022). Evidently, such a position is reliant on prevalent and current discourses of national security in the region, feeding off the establishment of an NSL in Hong Kong by the central government in response to violent mass pro-democracy protests in 2019. The Gay Games is therefore ascribed in these statements with an indexical potential that ranges from perversion – “it’s your business what you do in your own room” – to subversion – “the government should not take it lightly.” Its subversive potential is underscored in statement (c) where the participants in the event are positioned as likely transgressors who will wear prohibited symbols on their clothes or carry outlawed flags. While the clothing and flags are not specified, it can be understood that they may be representative of disputed territories in the region, as evidenced in the news that one of these territories will not be sending any participants to the games – “Taiwan won’t attend Hong Kong’s Gay Games fearing security law” (Wang and Taylor, Reference Wang and Taylor2021).

With this striking discursive shift in constructions and representations of the Hong Kong Gay Games, a febrile debate was sustained in the local English language press on this topic throughout Reference Wang and Taylor2021, typified by visceral reactions to the homophobic bluster of the lawmakers cited above, where twenty out of twenty-six articles debated the issue (Table 1). Representative headlines are:

1. (a) “Reject bigotry and get behind Hong Kong’s Gay Games.” (SCMP Editorial, 2021; emphasis added)

2. (b) “Hong Kong Gay Games: prejudice and hatred in Legco fall foul of Beijing’s desire for social harmony.” (Wu, Reference Wu2021; emphasis added)

3. (c) “Hong Kong supports Gay Games and LGBT rights, but Legco does not reflect that.” (Faulkner, Reference Faulkner2021; emphasis added)

With headlines calling for a rejection of bigotry (a) and pointing out the prejudice and hatred in Legco (b), the discursive (re)construction of Hong Kong as a place where the LGBTQIA+ rights are supported by the people (c) despite the position of Legco members intersects with this debate (as represented in twenty-one articles on the theme of Hong Kong’s image out of the twenty-six). The opinion piece associated with headline (b) even appears to engage in a form of “reverse discourse” (Foucault, Reference Foucault1990) by emphasizing the damage that homophobic and divisive attitudes from the government will have on social cohesion in the city, the implication being that social harmony, as desired by Beijing in its imposition of the NSL, will be impaired in the name of national security. With the chief executive at the time briefly stepping in to offer her support to the Gay Games and lightly admonishing the actions of members of her government (Lau and Cheng, Reference Lau and Cheng2021), it appeared that the storm surrounding the games was abating. However, it was also apparent that the discourse impacting the games had irrevocably changed. Any association with national security issues and foreign interference in Hong Kong affairs, if only at this stage insinuated by a few outspoken government representatives, had the potential to bring into question the motivations of the Gay Games organizing committee. Compounding this situation, the government’s strict COVID prevention policies during the period in question threatened the very survival of the games, with this issue discussed in four articles that year (Table 1). These policies resulted in a decision by the games umbrella body, the Federation of Gay Games, to move many of the sporting events to Guadalajara, Mexico as cohosts.

It is therefore within this turbulent LL of the Hong Kong Gay Games, seen in the various and often contrasting discursive constructions of place and sexuality in the media between 2017 and 2021, that a clear purpose to the linguistic strategies deployed by the organizing committee in their communications with the media and the public can be detected:

1. (a) “We understand that there will always be diverse views in Legco, and we respect our legislators’ right to share them.” (Mok, Reference Mok2021; emphasis added)

2. (b) “Some have posited that Hong Kong is not yet ready to recognise same-sex marriage. Let us be very clear here. Hosting the Gay Games does not amount to an endorsement of marriage equality.” (Wong, Reference Wong2021; emphasis added)

3. (c) “We are strictly non-partisan and non-political, and we ask all participants and visitors to respect and observe local laws and customs during their stay in Hong Kong.” (Wang and Taylor, Reference Wang and Taylor2021; emphasis added)

4. (d) “‘The Gay Games is not an activist event,’ he said. ‘There will be arts and culture events, but there will be no pride parade, and it is not a platform to advocate for any particular legislation.’” (Wang, Reference Wang2021; emphasis added)

The strategies represented in this selection of statements are rendered through a series of epistemic stances that seek to mitigate the effects of critical or hostile discourse. These range from assertions of “respect,” whether this is respecting the right of those with opposing views to share them (a) or asking participants to respect local sensitivities linked to such opposing views (“customs”) when participating in the games (c), to disavowals of intentions attributed to the organizing committee by their critics. For example, the strong epistemic stance represented in statement (b) – “Let us be very clear here” – is deployed to counter criticisms that the Gay Games endorses “marriage equality,” and therefore, by extension, any form of rights advocacy. This line of defense is sustained via statements in (c) and (d), where modality and negation are used to demarcate the event from previous knowledges and expressions of LGBTQIA+ pride; those which have long been understood as indexing progressive calls for social justice, both globally and regionally. Through this discursive work, the organizing committee therefore position themselves and the event as “strictly non-partisan and non-political,” and emphatically state what the Gay Games is not: “it is not an activist event”; “there will be no pride parade”; “it is not a platform to advocate for any particular legislation.” As a direct response to the accusations of political subversion from establishment members, such statements from the organizing committee are not entirely unexpected, especially when considering, as earlier in this section, that the very survival of the event, ascribed by some as a “threat” to national security, has been placed at stake. In this way, the shift in language strategies is mirrored via thematic developments across the data set, fashioning a regionally and politically sensitive LL of the games, where the prevalence of themes related to LGBTQIA+ rights (equal marriage etc.) and expressions of sexual identity, such as those which predominate in Christian’s research on Metro Manila Pride (Section 2), diminishes in favor of more generalist themes of diversity and inclusivity related to social harmony, and an image of Hong Kong that should nurture such harmonizing qualities.

5.2 Discussion: Asia’s World City as Homotopia?

In seeking to understand the linguistic and semiotic construction of place with relation to Asian Pride, through mediated representations of the Hong Kong Gay Games, it has become clear that we cannot treat the buildup to this Pride event as separate from both past and currently circulating discourses concerning Hong Kong and its citizens, and its entanglements in evolving regional and global sociopolitical tensions. On the one hand, the games is presented throughout the data in coherence with the government’s “Asia’s World City” branding: a place of social and cultural diversity and inclusion. Relatedly, the games is attributed political purpose as it has the capacity to enhance this brand, and thus the city’s international standing, by spearheading the progress of LGBTQIA+ rights in the region. On the other hand, such representations also mark the ambivalence of the Hong Kong government with respect to harnessing these potential opportunities, implying that the lack of government support for Pride events such as the Gay Games, hinders this progress. As such, discourse of this type may be said to engage with homonationalist (Puar, Reference Puar2007) inclinations, in that the mutually beneficial relationship between the state and (homo)sexualities is used to frame the discussion of social issues brought about by holding the Gay Games. However, the tensions produced through such representations appear to reaffirm what Kong (Reference Kong2023) has identified as a “weak” version of homonationalism. In other words, this is a version of homonationalism that does not represent a macro-discourse engineered by the state but instead comes from civil society (see also Lazar, Reference Lazar2017), an understanding demonstrated clearly in other sections of this Element, namely in Christian’s and Li-Chi’s analyzes of Pride Parades in Manila and Taipei. Further complicating top-down readings of homonationalism in this case, the teleological model of Pride, as represented by the Gay Games brand and established in earlier media reports in the data set, is, in fact, ruptured by accusations from establishment figures that attribute LGBTQIA+ movements with subversive potentials. As a result, the Gay Games, and by extension any LGBTQIA+ Pride event in the city, is constructed locally as a risk to national security – a recently circulating discourse impacting and shaping all levels of social life in the city. The ensuing response from the Gay Games organizing committee is therefore characterized by a strategic decoupling of rights-based discourse from the event, circling back to a reliance on the more generalist government-sanctioned brandings of Hong Kong as a safe, harmonious, cosmopolitan, and inclusive world city, despite narratives of recent years that counter such an image.

Mindful of criticisms that have been voiced about the application of homonationalist readings of LGBTQIA+ social movements in Asia and other non-Western contexts, as such applications may only succeed in replicating colonialist ontologies (Ng and Li, Reference Ng and Li2022), the analysis presented in this section does not seek to establish homonationalist discourse, as commonly understood from a Western perspective with respect to Pride events, as a defining feature of the Hong Kong Gay Games. At the same time however, and in line with Milani and Lazar (Reference Lazar2017), the analysis works with the notion of “dialogic entanglements” (p. 311) where theoretical concepts derived from Western contexts may be productively brought into dialogue with what is observable in other contexts. Particularly important in this respect is a focus on the actions of citizens (individuals, communities, organizations, etc.) themselves in their responses to and negotiations with the state, seen here in the tactics of the local Gay Games organizing committee that point to the use of homonationalist discourse from below (Lazar, Reference Lazar2017; Yue and Leung, Reference Yue and Leung2017). It is in this sense, therefore, and in the spirit of dialogic entanglement, where it can be suggested that the turbulent LL of the Hong Kong Gay Games may usefully be interpreted as a discursive construction of place with relation to Milani and Levon’s (Reference Milani and Levon2019) concept of “homotopia.” Milani and Levon offer this concept as a critical response to paradigmatic renderings and rejections of homonationalist theory; a concept that can be directed toward capturing the ambivalences generated by (dis)attachments to places (e.g., nation states) that are seen as being both utopian and dystopian. Their understanding of homotopia is achieved by scrutinizing the “push and pull” (p. 607) experienced by Palestinian men in their relationship(s) with the Israeli state, constructed both as a “gay haven” yet also as a place of oppression. Reworking the Foucauldian concept of heterotopia (Foucault, Reference Foucault1986) to encompass the spatial politics of sexuality, Milani and Levon argue that, like heterotopias, homotopian sites can engender “ambiguous juxtapositions of hegemony and anti-hegemony, normativity and antinormativity” (Milani and Levon, Reference Milani and Levon2019, p. 609). Conceptualizing the politics of sexuality (Pride) with relation to place and space in this way thus provides an analytical entry point toward understanding the often-ambivalent experiences of those who are compelled to operate within contradictory spatializing systems of freedom and repression.

As presented in this section, the discursive constructions of place that emerge from this survey of media reports on the Hong Kong Gay Games tend to appear in contradictory, and therefore ambiguous, ways. The metaphorical push and pull, as described by Milani and Levon, can be discerned in how this international mass-scale LGBTQIA+ event is sanctioned by the Hong Kong government yet is simultaneously marginalized owing to their indifference, seen, for example, in the lack of any state institutional support for the games. Still, the prevailing discourse of the majority of the SCMP opinion articles is characterized by the voicing of public support in Hong Kong for LGBTQIA+ communities and events, thus constructing an image of place that is liberal and inclusive (it should be noted that in a recent survey, 85 percent of Hong Kong citizens agree that same-sex couples should have equal rights to opposite-sex couples, and 60 percent support same-sex marriage [Lau, Loper, and Suen, Reference Lau, Loper and Suen2023]). However, this type of discourse is troubled by the amplified voices of a powerful minority who seek to equate any progressive politics (e.g., sexual minority rights) as a threat to national security, thus constructing an image of Hong Kong that aligns with Beijing government narratives of Chinese exceptionalism and moral superiority vis-à-vis what they see as Western hegemony. This study therefore reveals that the organizers of the Gay Games event are caught within this net of conflicting discourses: at once being compelled to advocate for progressive politics and advocate for the status quo.

With respect then to the titular question posed in this section on whether Hong Kong, Asia’s World City, can be considered as a homotopia, it is necessary in this case to address how homotopias may also generate what Milani and Levon (Reference Milani and Levon2019) call “vicious belonging” – “an identitarian project that we argue is characterized by inherent incongruity and irresolvable tensions,” (p. 625) as evidenced in the talk of the Palestinian men featured in their analysis. As such, this beginning survey of constructions of place via media reports on the Hong Kong Gay Games is necessarily rather limited, as the data do not foreground aspects of vicious belonging related to peoples’ actual lived experiences. However, it can also be said that the push and pull experienced by the event’s organizers, as demonstrated in their mediated responses to the hostile discourse levelled at the games, constitutes, in this way at least, a form of vicious belonging, as they navigate their position between and across conflicting discourses of national identity, security, Pride, and social justice. Moreover, as discussed in this section, it is crucial to see this Pride event in the context of past, present, and future discourses related to the “rise of China.” Kong’s (Reference Kong2023) recent transregional study of young gay men’s lived experiences across Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the mainland provides us with ample evidence that these young men may indeed experience forms of vicious belonging as they (de)construct their relationship to the state in their narratives – again, homonationalism from below. As such, Kong’s call for greater attention to “homo-transnationalism” (Bacchetta and Haritaworn, Reference Bacchetta, Haritaworn and Evans2011), as a way of capturing “the complexity of state-sexuality relationships on a transnational scale,” (p. 154) may find synergy with a recognition of homotopias as potentially transnational phenomena, as demonstrated in part by this study of Hong Kong’s Gay Games.

It remains to be seen, in my ongoing research on the Hong Kong Gay Games and in interviews with other volunteers, whether assumptions of vicious belonging generated by this reading of Hong Kong as homotopia may, in actuality, be manifested in the perspectives and experiences of those taking part (including other Asian participants). Nevertheless, in concluding this section, and in line with this Element’s aims in unravelling the complexities of Asian Pride events in locally sensitive and highly contextualized ways, I suggest that an engagement with, and reworking of established paradigms, such as homonationalism, via not only local but also transregional or transnational understandings may offer productive future avenues of research.