Advertisement

Sexuality Research and Social Policy

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 501–512 | Cite as

Gender Fundamentalism and Heteronormativity in the Political Discussion About Lesbian and Gay Parenthood

  • Diego LasioEmail author
  • Nicola Congiargiu
  • Silvia De Simone
  • Francesco Serri
Article

Abstract

In 2016, the Italian Parliament passed a law that extended to same-sex couples most of the rights of married heterosexual couples. However, the possibility of a partner in a same-sex couple adopting the biological children of the other partner was so controversial that it had to be deleted in order for the law to pass, thus denying lesbian and gay parents the legal protection they need. In this article, we analyze the speeches of Parliamentarians who opposed the section of the bill concerning lesbian and gay parenthood. The empirical analysis shows different discursive strategies deployed by MPs to combat the challenges to the heteronormative family, whose common reference is the hegemonic model of gender which has characterized the resistance of the Catholic Church to the recognition of non-heterosexual reproduction and kinship. Findings highlight that the opposition to the recognition of gay and lesbian parents contributes to reiterating restrictive standards of motherhood and to maintaining the institutionalization of sexualities and reproduction within the patriarchal order. Implications of the research findings for public and social policies are discussed.

Keywords

Gender fundamentalism Heteronormativity, motherhood Patriarchal order Lesbian and gay parenthood Political discussion 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Amâncio, L., & Oliveira, J. M. (2006). Men as individuals, women as sexed category: Implications of symbolic asymmetry for feminist practice and feminist psychology. Feminism & Psychology, 16, 35–43.Google Scholar
  2. Bernini, S. (2008). Family politics: Political rhetoric and the transformation of family life in the Italian Second Republic. Journal of Modern Italian Studies, 13(3), 305–324.Google Scholar
  3. Bernstein, M., & Reiman, R. (2001). Queer families and the politics of visibility. In D. Berkowitz & R. Reiman (Eds.), Queer families, queer politics (pp. 1–17). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bertone, C. (2017). Good and healthy parents: Non-heterosexual parenting and tricky alliances. Italian Sociological Review, 7(3), 351–367.Google Scholar
  5. Bertone, C., & Franchi, M. (2014). Suffering as the path to acceptance: Parents of gay and lesbian young people negotiating Catholicism in Italy. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 10(1–2), 58–78.Google Scholar
  6. Bolzonar, F. (2016). A Christian democratization of politics? The new influence of Catholicism on Italian politics since the demise of the Democrazia Cristiana. Journal of Modern Italian Studies, 21(3), 445–463.Google Scholar
  7. Brandão, A. M., & Machado, T. C. (2012). How equal is equality? Discussions about same-sex marriage in Portugal. Sexualities, 15, 662–678.Google Scholar
  8. Buss, D., & Herman, D. (2003). Globalizing family values: The Christian right in international politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  9. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Butler, J. (1998). Merely cultural. New Left Review, 227, 33–44.Google Scholar
  11. Butler, J. (2002). Is kinship always already heterosexual? Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 13(1), 14–44.Google Scholar
  12. Butler, J. (2004) Undoing gender. New York. NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. CEI (2007). Nota del Consiglio Episcopale Permanente a riguardo della famiglia fondata sul matrimonio e di iniziative legislative in materia di unioni di fatto. Rome, 28 March 2007. Retrieved from http://banchedati.chiesacattolica.it/documenti/2007/03/00012553_nota_a_riguardo_della_famiglia_fondata_su.html.
  14. Clarke, V. (2001). “What about the children?” arguments against lesbian and gay parenting. Women’s Studies International Forum, 24(5), 555–570.Google Scholar
  15. Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender & power. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  16. Connell, R. W. (2002). Gender. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  17. Connell, R. W. (2009). Gender in world perspective. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  18. Cooper, M., & Waldby, C. (2014). Clinical labor: Tissue donors and research subjects in the global bioeconomy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Costa, P. A., Caldeira, S., Fernandes, I., Rita, C., Pereira, H., & Leal, I. (2014). Religious and political conservatism and beliefs about same-sex parenting in Portugal. Psychology, Community & Health, 3, 23–35.Google Scholar
  20. De Michele, C. (2010). Greece. In: Stewart, C. (ed.) The Greenwood Encyclopedia of LGBT Issues Worldwide, Vol. 2: Europe. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Press, pp. 203–218.Google Scholar
  21. Digoix, M., Franchi, M., Pichardo Galán, J. I., Selmi, G., de Stefano Barbero, M., Thibeaud, M., & Vela, J. A. M. (2016). Sexual orientation, family and kinship in France, Iceland, Italy and Spain. Families and Societies Working Papers Series, 54, 1–33.Google Scholar
  22. Fairclough, N. (2001). Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 121–138). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Fassin, E. (2010). Celibate priests, continent homosexuals: What the exclusion of gay (and gay-friendly) men from priesthood reveals about the political nature of the Roman Catholic Church. Borderlands, 9(3), 1–20.Google Scholar
  25. Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality. Vol. 1: An introduction. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  26. Fuwa, M. (2004). Macro-level gender inequality and the division of household labor in 22 countries. American Sociological Review, 69, 751–767.Google Scholar
  27. Garbagnoli, S. (2014). ‘L’ideologia del genere’: l’irresistibile ascesa di un’invenzione retorica vaticana contro la denaturalizzazione dell’ordine sessuale. About Gender, 3(6), 250–263.Google Scholar
  28. Garelli, F. (2007). The church and Catholicism in contemporary Italy. Journal of Modern Italian Studies, 12(1), 2–7.Google Scholar
  29. Gazzetta Ufficiale. (1985). Legge 25 marzo 1985, n. 121. Ratifica ed esecuzione dell’accordo con protocollo addizionale che apporta modifiche al Concordato. Gazzetta Ufficiale, n. 85, 10 April.Google Scholar
  30. Gazzetta Ufficiale. (2004). Legge 20 maggio 2004, n. 40. Norme in materia di procreazione medicalmente assistita. Gazzetta Ufficiale, n. 45, 24 February.Google Scholar
  31. Gazzetta Ufficiale. (2016). Legge 20 maggio 2016, n. 76. Regolamentazione delle unioni civili tra persone dello stesso sesso e disciplina delle convivenze. Gazzetta Ufficiale, n. 118, 21 May.Google Scholar
  32. Ginsborg, P. (2013). Famiglia Novecento. Vita Familiare, Rivoluzione e Dittature. 1900–1950. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
  33. Hays, S. (1996). The cultural contradictions of motherhood. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hicks, S. (2005). Is gay parenting bad for kids? Responding to the ‘very idea of difference’ in research on lesbian and gay parents. Sexualities, 8(2), 153–168.Google Scholar
  35. Hicks, S. (2013). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender parents and the question of gender. In A. E. Goldberg & K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent families: Innovations in research and implications for practice (pp. 149–162). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Holy See. (1995). Holy See’s final statement at women’s conference in Beijing. Retrieved from http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/women-cp/beijing3.html
  37. Kitzinger, C. (2005). Heteronormativity in action: Reproducing the heterosexual nuclear family in after-hours medical calls. Social Problems, 52(4), 477–498.Google Scholar
  38. Lasio, D. & Serri, F. (2017). The Italian public debate on same-sex civil unions and lesbian and gay parenting. Sexualities.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460717713386.Google Scholar
  39. Mamo, L., & Alston-Stepnitz, E. (2015). Queer intimacies and structural inequalities: New directions in stratified reproduction. Journal of Family Issues, 36(4), 519–540.Google Scholar
  40. Parolin, L. L., & Perrotta, M. (2012). On the fringes of parenthood: Othering and otherness in Italian assisted kinship. About Gender, 1(2), 100–131.Google Scholar
  41. Pereira, H., & Monteiro, S. (2017). The role of political and legislative changes in the everyday lives of LGB individuals: The case of Portugal. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 14(3), 300–309.Google Scholar
  42. Pistella, J., Tanzilli, A., Ioverno, S., Lingiardi, V., & Baiocco, R. (2018). Sexism and attitudes toward same-sex parenting in a sample of heterosexuals and sexual minorities: The mediation effect of sexual stigma. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 15(2), 139–150.Google Scholar
  43. Pope John Paul II. (1988). Mulieris dignitatem. London: Catholic Truth Society.Google Scholar
  44. Ratzinger, J. (2004). Letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church on the collaboration of men and women in the Church and in the world. Retrieved from http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040731_collaboration_en.html
  45. Rich, A. (1977). Of woman born: Motherhood as experience and institution. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  46. Rickett, B. (2016). Feminist psychology: Poststructuralism, class and maternal subjectivities: Where are we and where should we go next? Feminism and Psychology, 26(3), 320–326.Google Scholar
  47. Ridgeway, C. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Robcis, C. (2015). Catholics, the “theory of gender,” and the turn to the human in France: A new Dreyfus Affair? Journal of Modern History, 87, 892–923.Google Scholar
  49. Romans, P. (1992). Daring to pretend? Motherhood and lesbianism. In K. Plummer (Ed.), Modern homosexualities: Fragments of lesbian and gay experience (pp. 98–107). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Roseneil, S., Crowhurst, I., Hellesund, T., Hellesund, T., Santos, A. C., & Stoilova, M. (2013). Changing landscapes of heteronormativity: The regulation and normalization of same-sex sexualities in Europe. Social Politics, 20(2), 165–199.Google Scholar
  51. Rosky, C. (2013). Fear of the queer child. Buffalo Law Review, 61, 607–697.Google Scholar
  52. Rubin, G. (1975). The traffic in women: Notes on the “political economy” of sex. In R. R. Reiter (Ed.), Toward an anthropology of women (pp. 157–210). New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  53. Santos, C. (2013). Social movements and sexual citizenship in southern Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  54. Segal, L. (1999). Why feminism? Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  55. Segal, L. (2007). Slow motion: Changing masculinities. London: Palgrave Press.Google Scholar
  56. Seidman, S. (2002). Beyond the closet: The transformation of gay and lesbian life. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  57. Senato della Repubblica. (2007). Disegno di Legge n.1339 (Diritti e doveri delle persone stabilmente conviventi). XV Legislatura, 20 febbraio 2007.Google Scholar
  58. Senato della Repubblica. (2015). Disegno di Legge n.2081 (Regolamentazione delle unioni civili tra persone dello stesso sesso e disciplina delle convivenze). XVII Legislatura, 6 ottobre 2015.Google Scholar
  59. Shields, S. A. (1975). Functionalism, Darwinism, and the psychology of women: A study in social myth. American Psychologist, 30, 739–754.Google Scholar
  60. Staikou, E. (2014). Generative grafting. Reproductive technology and the dilemmas of surrogacy. Radical Philosophy, 183, 40–46.Google Scholar
  61. Warner, M. (1991). Introduction: Fear of a queer planet. Social Text, 29, 3–17.Google Scholar
  62. Weeks, J. (2007). The world we have won: The remaking of erotic and intimate life. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  63. Weston, K. (1991). Families we choose: Lesbians, gays, kinship. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Witt, C. (2005). Family resemblances: Adoption, personal identity, and genetic essentialism. In S. Haslanger & C. Witt (Eds.), Adoption matters: Philosophical and feminist essays (pp. 135–145). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Witt, C. (2014). A critique to the bionormative concept of the family. In F. Baylis & C. McLeod (Eds.), Familymaking.Contemporary ethical challenges (pp.49–63). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Zappino, F. (2016). Introduzione. In F. Zappino (Ed.), Il genere tra neoliberismo e neofondamentalismo (pp. 7–18). Verona: Ombre Corte.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Pedagogia, Psicologia, FilosofiaUniversità degli Studi di CagliariCagliariItaly
  2. 2.Centro de Investigação e Intervenção SocialInstituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL)LisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations