Centering Queer Experiences and Resisting Cis-Heteronormativity: Advancing Queer Research Amid Global Backlash

Abstract

Globally, LGBTQ+ rights have experienced both progress and setbacks in recent years. As queer1 issues gain greater visibility worldwide, many countries have expanded legal protections and institutional support for LGBTQ+ communities. Taiwan became the first in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage in 2019 and later granted adoption rights to same-sex couples in 2023 (Cheung 2023). Spain passed a law in 2023 allowing individuals over 16 to change their gender on official documents without medical supervision (Jones 2023). In January 2025, hundreds of same-sex couples celebrated their weddings across Thailand as the country became the first in Southeast Asia to recognize marriage equality (Olarn and Lau 2025). These instances of positive developments demonstrate a certain extent of disruption and challenge to entrenched institutional cis-heteronormativity. By cis-heteronormativity, we refer to the relations and practices that normalize, promote, and reinforce heterosexuality, the gender binary, and cisgender identity, while simultaneously stigmatizing and punishing nonnormative identities outside of heterosexuality and cisgender norms (Cui 2024b; Cui and Song 2024).

Despite these positive signs, recent developments have highlighted the challenges for LGBTQ+ rights on a global scale. In the United States, shortly after his inauguration for a second term, President Donald Trump issued executive orders that redefined the US government's stance on gender and diversity, recognizing only two sexes—male and female (Wendling and Epstein 2025). Similarly, the UK Supreme Court recently issued a ruling that defines the term “woman” in the Equality Act solely on the basis of biological sex, excluding transgender women (Carrell 2025). This rise of the “anti-gender ideology movement” in the West resonates with the broader, global resurgence of authoritarianism (Butler 2024). Georgia and Hungary have enacted laws granting authorities the legal power to prohibit Pride events, representing a significant intensification of governmental efforts to suppress gender and sexual minorities (Al Jazeera 2024; Kassam 2025). Russia has not only waged war on Ukraine but also targeted those it perceives as internal enemies, intensifying its persecution of LGBTQ individuals, organizations, and communities in recent years as the Kremlin seeks to uphold “traditional values” (Vorobyov 2025). In China, crackdowns on LGBTQ activism and organizations under Xi Jinping's rule—characterized by heightened censorship and suppression—have severely stifled the movement's ability to organize and take collective action (Song 2021; Longarino 2024).

Recent advancement in and backlash against LGBTQ+ rights underscores the complex nature of LGBTQ+ politics in an era marked by political polarization. More significantly, these dynamics highlight how struggles for LGBTQ+ rights have become a global challenge, shaped by and entangled with conservative political movements across diverse geosocial contexts. We argue that research centered on queer experiences within this shifting political landscape is essential for illuminating, interrogating, and contesting institutionalized cis-heteronormativity, thereby advocating for the inclusion of queer individuals. The six papers in this special issue unpack queer experiences across diverse geosocial contexts including the United States, Canada, China, and Singapore. In examining the inclusion of LGBTQ+ people in a range of institutional contexts—including higher education, public health, the workplace, transnational migration, and knowledge production—these papers elucidate the multifaceted threats and challenges confronting queer communities in a turbulent time of political volatility. Importantly, they also illuminate the emergent opportunities and strategic responses that such a crisis moment brings forth.

Thomas Tri and Ajwang' Warria's article, Exploring Experiences of Safety With LGBTQ+ Newcomers in Calgary, Alberta, seeks to understand how LGBTQ+ newcomers in Calgary navigate and perceive safety. It explores the multifaceted experiences of LGBTQ+ newcomers as they settle, capturing both the challenges of discrimination and prejudice, as well as the comfort of safety and belonging. In doing so, this paper not only challenges the “queer migration to libration nation” narrative, but also showcases the agency and joy that LGBTQ+ newcomers experience. The authors argue that the effect of safety is neither fixed nor inherent within different spaces. Rather, it requires complex negotiations with others and careful considerations of one's LGBTQ+ identity.

Jingjing Huang's article, Political Opportunity, Threats, Strategies of LGBT+ Student Movement in China, explores the strategies adopted by the LGBT+ student movement in China between 2012 and 2022 and examines how the sociopolitical context has influenced these strategies and shaped the movement. Drawing from interviews with student activists and NGO staff, this work examines the evolution of student group strategies over a decade, categorizing the period into three distinct phases, each defined by its unique approach. Jingjing argues that although the state and universities forced student activists to self-censor and emphasize community support over mobilization, student activists still demonstrate agency by integrating activism into community support and everyday resistance.

Three articles in this special issue employ quantitative analysis to examine issues related to mental health, educational support, and workplace inclusion. Hui Xie et al.'s study, Caregiver Burden and Depression among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Other Non-Heterosexual individuals in the United States: Analysis of BRFSS 2015-2018, explores the associations between depression, caregiving information, health behaviors, sex, and sexual orientation among an estimated population of 9,521,313 LGB+ caregivers. It reveals higher caregiving burden and depression among LGB+ caregivers in the United States, warranting targeted support to address their unique challenges and improve services to caregivers.

Wen Zhi Ng et al.'s study, Discrimination and Harassment in the Workplace: The Lived Experiences of Singaporean LGBTQ+ Individuals, investigates experiences of workplace discrimination and harassment among LGBTQ+ individuals in Singapore. Drawing on survey data from 409 participants, this study highlights the prevalence of workplace discrimination and harassment faced by LGBTQ+ individuals in Singapore. This study also confirms that vulnerability varies within the LGBTQ+ community. Transgender and gender-diverse participants face higher odds of discrimination and harassment compared to their cisgender counterparts. Additionally, racial minorities—specifically Indian and Malay participants—experience increased rates of workplace discrimination and harassment. These findings carry significant implications for policy discussions on extending protections to LGBTQ+ workers in Singapore.

Miriam Liss et al.'s study, Student Resources and Retention Among Transgender and Nonbinary College Students, draws on data from 154 participants to examine the experiences of transgender and nonbinary college students in the United States. It investigates the resources available on their campuses, their sense of safety, and their intentions regarding college retention or dropout. The study shows significant variability in the campus resources and policies available to transgender and nonbinary students. It also highlights that the availability and quality of these resources are linked to a heightened sense of safety, which, in turn, correlates with a reduced intention to drop out. The authors emphasize that prioritizing transgender and nonbinary inclusion policies and practices should be a key focus for higher education institutions.

Dominik Drabent and Maya Wenzel's review, Who Is Queer Enough for Queer Research?: The Issue of Absence Within Queer Research, critiques the influence of cis-heteronormativity and other power structures within queer research. Through case studies on asexuality and queer Muslims, the authors examine how multiple power structures contribute to the erasure and absence of certain identities within queer research. The authors argue that integrating intersectionality, transnational feminism, and queer of color critique into researchers' methodological approaches expands perspectives on queerness and fosters a more inclusive queer research landscape. This inclusivity seeks to acknowledge and uplift communities that have historically been erased, denied, or overlooked. In doing so, the authors encourage others to listen, share, reflect, and actively engage in creating spaces and conversations that acknowledge and validate diverse experiences and identities impacted by absence and erasure.

In the context of conducting queer research amid backlash, resilience and solidarity have emerged as central themes in the contributions to this special issue. A significant recent development in queer research is the heightened sense of risk and precarity experienced not only in authoritarian contexts such as China but also in traditionally democratic settings like the United States. Jingjing Huang's article offers a compelling illustration of authoritarianism's tight grip over academic freedom in Chinese higher education, revealing the broader chilling effect these restrictions impose on queer expression and activism. These restrictions are not just bureaucratic; they can translate to highly personal experiences. In a queerphobic climate, queer scholars conducting queer research often find themselves managing their sexuality, downplaying their research focus, keeping a low profile, and even practicing self-censorship in their research (Cui 2023, 2024a).

Such top-down pressure is not limited to authoritarian regimes like China. Recent political dynamics since Trump's second term have created significant challenges for queer scholars in the United States. Trump's war on “woke culture” and the so-called “gender ideology” has jeopardized research projects on LGBTQ+ health (Johnson 2025) and created fear and uncertainty among researchers (Wadman and Jacobs 2025). The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention mandated the withdrawal of all scientific manuscripts under journal review by its researchers, requiring the removal of specific language related to gender (Heidt 2025). In response to the call for US researchers to withdraw papers, The Journal of Sex Research, a leading international journal in the field, published a statement affirming the importance of sexuality and gender research (Graham et al. 2025). The editors asserted that “these efforts constitute clear examples of censorship of science and thus a political attempt to obstruct the discovery of knowledge” (Graham et al. 2025, 1).

Echoing this changing political climate, our special issue illustrates how, at a time when queer voices are increasingly silenced and erased by institutional power, the resilience of queer research plays a crucial role in interrogating social inequalities and giving voice to the marginalized. Queer scholars in this special issue have shown remarkable courage in navigating institutionalized risks and carrying on their work. Their scholarship cultivates new spaces of possibility, where queerness is affirmed as a site of resistance and knowledge production.

Another key theme that emerges in this special issue is the value of an intersectional approach that has allowed scholars in this collection to unpack how diversity and inclusion is confronted by complexly interlocking systems of oppression, while also recognizing the nuanced power dynamics that exist within the LGBTQ+ community itself. We believe that accounting for these intersectional experiences and differences not only deepens our understanding of queer lives but also fosters a more resilient and inclusive form of solidarity. We are living through a time when feminist and queer movements are confronting a global backlash, while internal fractures within these movements are also becoming increasingly pronounced. In this context, such solidarity is vital for how we should envision and approach our research. Centering queer experiences means acknowledging their irreducible diversity as powerful sites of knowledge and critique. We call on scholars, activists, and allies to continue interrogating power structures and advancing an academic landscape where queer research is not merely tolerated, but embraced as indispensable to the pursuit of justice.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.