LGBTQ Policy and Fragmented Federalism in the U.S.

Abstract

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) Americans face a fragmented policy landscape across the country. Some states and localities have taken the lead and adopted policies to protect LGBTQ citizens, while others have sought to undermine LGBTQ equality. As such, the rights of LGBTQ citizens are very much dependent on the politics of states they reside in. In this article, we argue subnational innovation on LGBTQ inclusive policy is a result of national policy gridlock. We also examine the state-level political factors driving the adoption of policy protections for LGBTQ citizens. We conclude that LGBTQ policies are driven by local political context and illustrate the dynamic nature of fragmented federalism in America.

Sports, Transgender Rights and the Bodily Politics of Cisgender Supremacy

“…15 Notably, state non-discrimination laws also vary in their enumerated protections against gender identity discrimination in schools, and federal-level LGBTQ+ protections remain limited (MAP 2021a). 16 Thus, the policy and legal landscape across the states constitute what scholars refer to as "fragmented federalism" where the rights of transgender athletes (and LGBTQ+ students more generally) are contingent on the state where they live or the school where they are enrolled (Taylor et al 2021). By consequence, the inclusion of trans and gender non-conforming athletes remains contingent and uneven (Buzuvis 2021) even notwithstanding the 2020 and 2021 legislative activity aimed to enshrine their exclusion into law.…”

“…Nearly all of the eighty anti-trans sports bills were sponsored by Republican lawmakers. 39 Over the past decade as some state and local governments began passing laws that explicitly affirm gender identity-based rights (see Taylor et al 2018Taylor et al , 2021, conservative forces in American politics responded. Scholars note that emergence of "backlash" to civil rights victories is often related to the visibility of advocacy strategies (Gash 2015).…”

Minoritized graduate student identity, well-being, and mental health risks for suicidality.

“…It has been well-demonstrated that when schools provide safety for LGBTQIA2S+ students, it benefits the mental health of all students (Russell et al, 2021). Unfortunately, the civil rights of LGBTQIA2S+ persons are often dependent on state jurisdiction, which leaves them unprotected against discrimination in many states (Taylor et al, 2020). National survey data ( N = 70,599) collected from 24 states found that LGBTQIA2S+ adolescents were nearly 4 times as likely to have a past year suicide attempt; however, the odds of a past year suicide attempt were significantly reduced in states that had inclusive legislation (Aivadyan et al, 2023).…”

The policy feedback effects of preemption

“…The effect was a further deepening of existing inequalities. LGBTQ+ Americans face a fragmented policy landscape, and their rights are very much dependent on the state they live in Taylor et al (2020). Anti-discrimination ordinances seek to protect and expand civil rights for historically marginalized groups in ways that affect access to a wide range of resources.…”