1088129

research-article2022
DAS0010.1177/09579265221088129Discourse & SocietyMichos et al.

Article

Discourse & Society

Debating the legal recognition 2022, Vol. 33(4) 501­–518

© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
of gender identity in sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/09579265221088129
https://doi.org/10.1177/09579265221088129
parliamentary discourse: journals.sagepub.com/home/das

Human rights and queer

politics

Ioannis Michos, Lia Figgou

and Aphrodite Baka
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Abstract
This study documented the rhetorical constructions of ‘human rights’ in political discourse and the
potential implications of their invocation as a frame for LGBTQI+ claims. The minutes of the VI
Greek Parliamentary session on a bill related to the legal recognition of gender identity, conducted
in 2017, were analyzed. Analysis utilized the concepts of Rhetorical and Critical Discursive Social
Psychology, indicating that human rights are flexibly used in arguments oriented to the expansion,
the limitation, or the opposition to self-defined gender identity. Varied representations of
human rights’ content and boundaries and different constructions of agency concerning their
enactment are identified. Although representations of human rights as universal are oriented to
the inclusion of LGBTQI+ community, other liberal arguments obscure anti-LGBTQI+ social
actors’ accountability. Human rights are also depicted as threatening Westernizing tools. The
rhetorical functions of these constructions and their potential implications for queer claims and
politics are discussed.

Keywords
Critical discursive social psychology, gender identity, human rights, parliamentary discourse

Introduction
Human rights have historically constituted a rhetorical framework invoked in order to
promote various collective claims and have also attracted the interest of social science

Corresponding author:
Ioannis Michos, School of Psychology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki 54124, Greece.
Email: maioanni@psy.auth.gr
502 Discourse & Society 33(4)

research. Studies concerned with the implications of the Human Rights construct on the
empowerment of different groups have revealed a complex and sometimes contradictory
picture. According to Koenig (2008), a liberal human rights framework has been widely
used, for example, in an attempt to foster the establishment of a more inclusive concep-
tualization of citizenship, by transcending national boundaries (see also Le, 2002; Yazici,
2019). At the same time, though, the human rights construct has been used to reinforce
established socio-exclusive perceptions and state practices that oppress ethnic and racial
minority identity groups (Bradley, 2019). According to Bradley, the lack of a solid and
distinct definition of what constitutes ‘racism’ or ‘racial discrimination’ in international
human rights treaties, as well as the absence of efforts to involve oppressed groups in the
formation of relevant institutions, obscure the responsibility of privileged social groups/
countries that keep on committing discriminations based on race (e.g. against black com-
munities in America). Analyses of political discourse maintained that arguments drawing
on constructs such as humanitarianism and human rights may serve to support the legal
recognition and the institutional safeguarding of certain minority groups (e.g. asylum
seekers) and to attack rival racist ideologies (Van Dijk, 2000). However, other discourse
analytic studies revealed the ways in which humanitarian arguments may function as a
smokescreen in an effort to cover/deny social exclusionary practices (Augoustinos and
Every, 2010; Mehan, 1997).
Aiming at contributing to this debate in this paper we attempt a critical discursive
social psychological analysis of the ways in which the construct of human rights is mobi-
lized in the context of a political debate on gender and sexuality occasioned by the intro-
duction of a bill about the legal recognition of gender identity, which took place in 2017,
in Greece.

Human rights in debates over gender and sexuality

The articulation of women’s rights as human rights by feminist groups, activists, and
NGOs seems to have decisively contributed to the transfer of issues related to domestic
and other forms of violence into the public sphere, facilitating the institutional recogni-
tion and/or safeguarding of corresponding rights (Kelly, 2005). According to Kelly, the
approach of ‘gender issues’ through the lens of human rights in the 1990s, allowed the
convergence of different feminist groups and the establishment of common goals related
to women’s rights, building bridges of communication and exercising influence over
institutions such as the United Nations. However, the introduction of the construct
raised concerns and critical voices related to the universality of human rights, which can
potentially reproduce dangerous generalizations and neo-colonial aspirations. Critiques
maintained that articulating women’s rights as human rights may serve to ignore non-
Western contexts’ cultural and sociopolitical specificities, while transferring agency for
non-Western social change to Western women activists (Grewal, 1999, 2005). Therefore,
according to Grewal, other concepts, such as multifaceted and informed by each spe-
cific context claims for ‘justice’, could prove to be more suitable than the human rights
concept.
‘Human rights’ also gained ground within debates over LGBTQI+ claims in the
1990s. Linked to other fundamental democratic concepts as well as to international and
Michos et al. 503

domestic laws, institutions, treaties, and organizations, the Human rights concept was
considered to provide significant claiming power (Kitzinger and Wilkinson, 2004). This
so-called ‘human rights turn’ triggered new channels of communication with interna-
tional organizations and an increase in LGBTQI+ mobilization and queer legislations
(Kollman, 2007; Kollman and Waites, 2009; Swiebel, 2009). Kitzinger and Wilkinson
(2004), considering the first two articles of the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’,
which proclaim humans’ inherent freedom and equality without discriminations, main-
tained that LGBTQI+ claims acquire a strong momentum when placed in the context of
human rights. Relative legal developments are linked to the actions of LGBTQI+ organ-
izations – rather than broader human rights NGOs – that strategically framed LGBTQI+
rights as human rights (Velasco, 2018). Such developments include the increasing legal
recognition of same-sex relationships and the enactment of laws to combat racism and
violence against LGBTQI+ people (Voss, 2018).
According to Swiebel (2009), the LGBTQI+ ‘global’ movement – meaning mainly
Western – (e.g. International Lesbian and Gay Association emerging in 1978) exercised
a significant influence on the European Union, when it mobilized human rights dis-
courses in the 90s and beyond. Both the EU and the UN made important steps toward the
recognition of LGBTQI+ human rights in recent years, though not to the same extent.
The 2013 EU guidelines1 (aimed at safeguarding the equivalent enjoyment of human
rights by non-heterosexuals), the action of the eighth Secretary-General of the UN, Ban
Ki-moon, as well as the ‘Free & Equal’ campaign have been cited as paradigmatic exam-
ples (Wilkinson and Langlois, 2014).
Despite the widely recognized contribution of the human rights construct in LGBTQI+
struggles, critical voices have been also articulated. A first critical point concerns univer-
salism and the colonizing potential of human rights which is in line with the aforemen-
tioned feminist critique. Critics emphasized ways in which the universalized human
rights construct evolved – as a Western ‘product’ – and can be used in diverse cultural
contexts to reproduce power asymmetries, inequalities, and exclusions (see Woodiwiss,
2005). According to Butler (2000), universal constructions – like human rights – need to
be seen through their rhetorical and culturally-specific prisms/contexts, otherwise, they
are left open to accusations of pursuing imperialist/neocolonial politics. Meanwhile,
Waters’ (1996) critical analysis mentioned the importance of a historically and culturally
framed constructionist approach to human rights.
Studies like Ibrahim’s (2015) showcase how universalism/colonialism may function
toward the cultivation of anti-gay norms in non-Western contexts. Ibrahim argues that
colonialism pushed toward the cultivation of homophobia in Africa through Western
religious groups. In recent decades, though, various African states advocate a construct
of African culture in which LGBTQI+ identities and rights are portrayed as ‘foreign’
Western values. Despite that colonialism contributed to the spread of homophobia in
Africa, neo-colonial rhetoric presents the opposition to pro-LGBTQI+ policies as a
result of Africa’s endogenous homophobia, locating or attributing a Western construct
(namely, homophobia) in Africa. Importantly, Ibrahim notes that anti-gay or pro-gay
concepts and agendas, such as ‘homophobia’ and ‘LGBTQI+ human rights’, may
approach Western sexual and gender-related concepts as universal norms, failing to
capture different/non-Western conceptualizations of non-heterosexuality.
504 Discourse & Society 33(4)

Other critiques highlight the LGBTQI+ human rights’ potential to reproduce patriar-
chy and heteronormativity, indicating that official conceptions, formalities, and treaties,
which have been established to ensure human rights, are perpetuating patriarchal stand-
ards. Feminist accounts put forward that human rights rhetoric privileges cisgender men
and diminishes full access to sexual citizenship rights and/or the possibility of radical
potentials for LGBTQI+ community (e.g. Corrêa et al., 2008; Petchesky, 2000). Equal
access to marriage, for instance, constitutes a subject of controversy among scholars and
LGBTQI+ activists. Whilst arguments in favor of gay marriage stress the widening of
the access to human rights or the potential radical reconstruction of marriage (beyond its
patriarchal roots), radical LGBTQI+ groups draw attention to the heteronormative foun-
dations of such traditional institutions and the risk of assimilating/normalizing LGBTQI+
community (see Bernstein and Taylor, 2013). Therefore, it is possible to document
approaches which have a normalizing orientation, using heteronormative molds to shape
things, a fact that may be particularly burdensome for rather not so visible social groups
like transgender.
What seems challenging is that legal inclusion may presuppose or lead to the main-
streaming of queer identities. This ‘normalization’ of LGBTQI+ community or the
achievement of ‘equality’ within inequalities may form a pseudo-dilemma that perpetu-
ates heterosexist standards, suppressing radical potentials. The possible mainstreaming
of LGBTQI+ community through their assimilation to established institutions (Bernstein,
2015; Bernstein and Taylor, 2013; Richardson, 2004) can be also related to the alleged
shift to homo-nationalist discourses which involve the legal recognition of sexual rights
as proof of (Western) national and cultural superiority (Ammaturo, 2015). Particularly,
developments in LGBTQ+ human rights and related policy making are instrumentalized
by the ‘liberal’ state to support the observed hegemonic discourses on the comparative
superiority of the West (see Hall, 1992).
Other authors maintain that instead of pointing to the universalist and ‘normalizing’
assumptions that the human rights construct may bring to queer activism, we could
rearticulate/re-approach it. For instance, human rights may develop in ways that facili-
tate social change if mobilized by minority groups, focusing on the particularities of
different contexts and prioritizing the needs of those directly concerned (Chase, 2016).
Stammers (1999) describes (a) an ‘instrumental approach’ in social movements’ human
rights rhetoric and/or the possibility to perpetuate the existing status quo or introduce
alternative power relations and (b) a potential mobilization of socio-culturally and his-
torically informed human rights constructs that oppose entrenched expressions of power,
while claiming ‘radical’ reforms. According to Stammers, human rights can perform as
globalizing political instruments that go hand-in-hand with the prevalence of ideas such
as naturalness and universality of rights, removing sociο-historical components, while
ordering the global expansion of gay politics of the West in a neocolonial manner that
neglects cultural diversity. On the other hand, according to Stammers, human rights can
be approached as ideologies and actions that are actively constructed and performed dur-
ing everyday interactions, being informed by and linked to each micro- and macro-social
context. Stammers also noted that human rights claims can be mobilized to oppose sov-
ereign power structures and relations. However, in different socio-political settings
Michos et al. 505

human rights can be mobilized to establish new power forms or maintain (emerging)
power structures.
Other authors re-approach LGBTQI+ rights through recourse to the construct of sex-
ual citizenship. This concept can potentially highlight the role of the broader historical,
socio-political settings. Evans (1993) – in contrast to the assumption of universality that
characterizes human rights – introduced ‘sexual citizenship’, in order to indicate how the
‘greedy’ capitalist socio-political system allows room for the exploitation of sexualities
in a consumeristic/materialistic manner. Evans outlined the role of the state as the ‘main-
tainer’ of the existing economic and sociopolitical system and as the normative regulator
of sexual identities’ status. In this interplay, a decisive factor for the quasi-recognition of
queer rights is the purchasing power of certain (sexual and gender-related) identity
groups, bounded within consumerist/commercial spaces.
Moreover, Weeks emphasized the need to politicize ‘human rights’. According to
Weeks (1998), when the private arena of sexuality encounters citizenship, a space for
political claims can be created, tearing down the wall between these two spheres. This
sociopolitical ‘fracture’ allows for actual changes in everyday sexual and gendered rela-
tionships, enabling the enjoyment of the LGBTQI+ human rights; such changes can be
perceived by the shattering of traditional morals, the shift to mutual and equal commit-
ment, instead of obligation, and the free choice of lifestyles and ways of interpersonal
interaction. So, fighting for identity recognition is deemed to be linked to stories and
actions that point out social oppression and barbarism, making the negotiation of rights
and the inclusion in the sociopolitical and legal settings possible.
Concluding, human rights rhetoric facilitated an ideological shift toward friendlier
perceptions on LGBTQI+ community’s claims, while contributing to institutional devel-
opments on gender and sexual rights (see Kollman, 2007; Kollman and Waites, 2009).
However, in common with the implications identified in other contexts (such as feminist
critics and critical studies on racism, immigration, and ethnic group relations), the liber-
ating potential of the human rights rhetoric is often counterposed to its individualistic
and universalist connotations. Due to these connotations the construct often becomes the
vehicle of colonialist projects, maintaining the dominance of the privileged ones, while
(directly or indirectly) incorporating oppressive norms concerning race, gender, sexual-
ity, and ethnicity. Thus, the human rights concept poses challenges not only to queer
‘identities’ and ‘politics’, but also to identity politics in general. Other authors suggest a
re-approach to the human rights construct in an attempt to explore its potential ‘in prac-
tice’, in different political and social settings, instead of reifying it. This study aims to
contribute to the above debate by focusing on the use of human rights rhetoric in a spe-
cific context, in parliamentary discourse on a bill regarding the legal recognition of gen-
der identity in Greece. The focus is on (a) the detailed argumentative lines in which
constructions of human rights are nested, (b) the orientation of the human rights con-
structions to broader political/ideological stakes, and (c) their potential implications for
gender and sexual politics. Adopting a bottom-up perspective, this paper studies the
invocation of the human rights rhetoric by specific political actors in an actual context,
where decisions over a particular bill are taken. This context is described in the next
section.
506 Discourse & Society 33(4)

Method
Political context and material
The data were drawn from the parliamentary minutes of the VI Greek Parliament session
on the draft bill of the ‘Ministry of Justice, Transparency and Human Rights’ named
‘Legal recognition of Gender identity – National Mechanism for the Development,
Monitoring, and Evaluation of Action Plans on Children’s Rights and other provisions’.
The proposed legislation allowed people to change the registered gender in institutional
records, in order to be in accordance with their self-defined gender identity, without the
condition of prior medical/surgical intervention. Parliamentary minutes consist of 81
pages that are available on the website of the Hellenic parliament.2
At that time, the 300 Greek parliamentary seats were distributed to eight political
parties.3 Parliament Members (hereafter MPs) of all political parties participated in this
plenary session. One hundred and seventy-one MPs (SYRIZA, ANEL, Democratic
Coalition, The River, and one independent MP) voted in favor of the bill in principle, 114
MPs (New Democracy, Golden Dawn, KKE, Union of Centrists, and six independent
MPs) voted against it, while one independent MP declared ‘present’.

Analytic procedure
This paper deals with the analysis of political discourse, which can be seen as a contex-
tual form of political expression and policy-making with a variety of functions, involving
the realization of political actions (Van Dijk, 1997). According to Van Dijk (1997), politi-
cal discourse involves a primary orientation to the future, the aim to persuade an audi-
ence and efforts to praise and/or defend the in-group, while attacking or presenting the
out-group in a negative way (Van Dijk, 1997). Van Dijk’s emphasis on key features of
political discourse is in line with Billig’s (1987) rhetorical approach. According to Billig,
social actors actively construct their positions within a specific argumentative context
and the meaning of each argumentative stance/position can be captured and better under-
stood in the light of the assumptions that it aims to undermine.
In accordance with the authors mentioned above, this study’s interest lies in the
documentation of argumentative lines and their argumentative context. Therefore,
analysis is based on core principles of argumentative (Van Eemeren et al.,2015) and
discursive analysis, adopting a critical approach (Wetherell, 1998). Specifically, the
present study focuses on the examination of ways in which diverse arguments are
used and structured in a specific interactive-communicative context in order to
accomplish rhetoric goals, such as to convince a direct and an indirect audience.
Therefore, the organization, the hierarchy, and the potential functions of different
components of each argument are examined (e.g. ways accounting, conclusions).
Analysis also highlights the role of a number of discursive structures and strategies
(e.g. contrasts, modality, facticity). In this context, the focus is also on the identifica-
tion and the consequences of intertextual discursive practices/strategies, which are
expected to be observed in our set of data (e.g. drawing on common sense, expertise,
lived experience, media etc.).
Michos et al. 507

Specifically, the first stage of the analysis included the identification of thematic regu-
larities. One common place, that is a widespread theme surrounded by alternative and/or
opposing positions (Billig, 1987) was that of human rights. In the subsequent stage of the
analysis we proceeded to identify argumentative lines, a construct that concerns the con-
tent and structure of speakers’ positions (Wetherell, 1998), consisting a core tool/frame-
work for our analysis. Argumentative lines, in particular, involve widespread themes,
tropes, metaphors, dilemmas, and other social and historical resources, capturing the
ways in which such content units are mobilized and associated for the organization of
diverse accountings. Another analytic concept used is that of the ideological dilemmas
(Billig et al., 1988), which takes into account the sociocultural and political components
of each argumentative context, highlighting inconsistences and tensions that characterize
both ‘lived’ and ‘formal’ ideology. Overall, this analytic concept enables a comprehen-
sive study of how ideology is shaped, organized, and operates in the discourse of active
social actors that have to manage contradictions rooted in liberal ideology (Billig et al.,
1988). Thirdly, analysis examines positioning and positioning shifts that shape represen-
tations of social and political events (Harré and van Langenhove, 1999). Finally, rhetori-
cal devices (e.g. extreme case formulations, lists, examples etc.) oriented to manage
social accountability are also identified (Edwards and Potter, 1992).
Analysis indicated variability in the argumentative lines which were grounded on the
construct of human rights. The argumentative lines and the selection of relevant extracts
included in the analysis aimed to meet two essential criteria; the representation of argu-
mentative positions from all the political spectrum and the vote share of the various
political parties. Speeches from SYRIZA (the radical left ruling party), the Communist
Party of Greece, Democratic Coalition PASOK-DIMAR (a social-democratic party)
New Democracy (a Conservative party), and Golden Dawn (a neo-nazi far-right party)
were selected, since these parties occupy the most parliamentary seats and they represent
much of the political spectrum. Although differences between argumentative lines mobi-
lized by MPs of the same party are identified, in this paper we focus on between parties’
differences.

Analysis
Analysis includes five argumentative lines, exemplified by five extracts. The first sup-
ports the bill through recourse to universal human rights and comes from the speech of
an MP of the ruling party of SYRIZA, K. Douzinas, a law professor that specializes on
human rights.

Extract 1: The more rights, the more human

‘. . .Human rights, therefore, do not belong to humans because they are humans, but
someone becomes more or less human because they have more or less rights. This is the
situation with transgender and intersex people today. They are second-class humans, not
because their rights are not recognized, but because the main element of their identity is not
recognized.
508 Discourse & Society 33(4)

Let me put it in general terms, since these apply to everyone. Everyone’s identity is being
constructed in constant dialogue with, and struggle for recognition. Our identity emerges
through a conversation with others and with the “great other” as some say, namely the law
and the institutions, and the other people who identify certain characteristics, qualities, and
traits as “ours”, as “mine” and thus they help me to develop a sense of self.
The law is both a tool and a product of this dialectic, and this is the fundamental truth that
lies behind the logic of today’s bill. The law recognizes their identity, so that they can enter
into a dialogue and into a struggle for recognition with fellow humans.
Let me add that in a society that prides itself on the presence and the guarantee of formal
equality – certainly not (or not, of course,) of the essential one – of equity, the small excluded
part of that society, the “invisible part”, as some other colleagues said, is the representative
of the universal, of the whole, that is, the representative of all of us. Because, when these
people are excluded, the principle of equality, which we all in here uphold and honor, is
violated. . .’
(Konstantinos Douzinas, SYRIZA)

Reversing a structural liberal assumption (see Billig et al., 1988), Douzinas argues
that belonging to the human species does not automatically make human rights an a
priori legacy of humans. Rather, the more rights a human can enjoy, the more human they
become. Human nature is de-essentialized, while rights are depicted to construct human-
ness. The bill is represented as a move that broadly protects humanness.
This argument draws on repertoires related to the globalization of human rights, since
it extends to include every person through a generalization that involves procedures and
notions portrayed as universal. Claiming that each social actor’s identity emerges through
an endless, dynamic process, it involves both other people and institutions/the state. Law
and institutions occupy a prominent but intermediary role in this dialogue. Law is con-
structed both as a prerequisite and a product of the identity recognition process. It is the
result of social actors’ struggles for recognition and a weapon for the further promotion
of their rights. Institutionalization, however, does not signal the end of struggles, but a
solid basis for further claim making. LGBTQI+ people seem to be the agents of social
change through the ‘dialogue’ with fellow citizens.
The speaker then draws on the liberal principle of equality, describing the lack of
statutory rights for minority groups as a total breach of the principle of equality, reveal-
ing its essential non-existence. This argument exemplifies a central, according to other
authors (Billig et al., 1988), dilemma of liberalism.
Such issues are constructed as something that concerns all of his audience instead of
a little minority. There are specific rhetorical strategies through which the MP is trying
to defend and reinforce this argument. Extreme case formulations (. . .these apply to
everyone. . .) are oriented to reinforce the facticity of the argument and to construct
identity processes as universal (see Pomerantz, 1986). Similarly, the management of
footing (see Goffman, 1981) is oriented to constitute a wider inclusive category (‘us’)
and to enlist other MPs, constructing a wider parliamentary identity (see also Verkuyten
and Nooitgedagt, 2018). It is, therefore, indicated that the bill must be approved by
every MP, since their role demands to promote equality. Liberal and universal human
rights’ connotations are mobilized to defend both the specific bill and queer rights in
Michos et al. 509

general by the use of an argument that treats rights as essential without essentializing
categories.
The following extract also mobilizes a liberal construction of human rights.

Extract 2: The (universal?) right to difference

‘. . . Some are just homophobes. It is their right. Some are victims of misinformation. And
unfortunately, as far as this bill is concerned most (opponents) are victims of misinformation.
The bill regulates the specific rights of the people who exist, live next to us and usually live
within the confines of society, something for which the rest of us are responsible. It is our
duty to acknowledge their rights. However, some, unfortunately, are consciously in favor of
uniformity. Some dream of societies of identical members. You can put any single color you
want, red, gray, black, it doesn’t matter. Some dream societies, in which, as in the case of
grass, whatever stands out is cut off and removed. (. . .)
(. . .) Color homogeneity however, and the flattening of the different shades does not fit with
democracy. The right to autonomy and self-determination of the individual is at the core of
the perception of civil, western democracy, if you wish, and we have to go along with it.
(. . .)’
(Konstantinos Bargiotas, Democratic Coalition PASOK-DIMAR)

Bargiotas, the spokesman of ‘Democratic Coalition’, draws a distinction between

those opponents of the bill who are homophobic – represented as a small minority – and
those who are victims of misinformation, constituting the majority. This juxtaposition is
oriented to manage accountability concerns. Given the pejorative connotations of the
term and its link to irrationality, to accuse somebody of being homophobic can violate a
social norm (Augoustinos and Every, 2010). Besides, given the argumentative context,
the construction of opponents of the bill as misinformed may serve to draw a picture of
unanimity. This rhetorical construction has important implications in terms of agency,
constructing most of the opponents of LGBTQI+ claims and rights as devoid of any
responsibility.
The speaker attempts to manage the widely identified ideological contradiction
between equality and uniformity (Billig et al., 1988), using a descriptive image, which
provides vividness to the argument (Potter, 1996). Bargiotas speaks of individuals who
desire societies in which diversity is oppressed and excluded, just as one cuts or uproots
the grass that protrudes to preserve the uniformity of the lawn. Promoting, though, the
idea of a homogeneous society in which rights are only granted to those who are part of
a dominant group, is represented as incompatible with democracy. Rights related to
autonomy and self-determination are placed on the center of ‘civil, western democracy’.
This liberal argument is articulated from the footing/position of the Occidental observer
who focuses on rights that acquire their meaning only in a Western context, overlooking
‘the Rest’ (Hall, 1992). This westernization of rights obscures the special features of each
context (like the Greek one), ignoring different/alternative needs and meanings of
LGBTQI+ identities and rights. Moreover, the speaker constructs out-there-ness (Potter,
1996) by transferring agency to the naturalized notions of rights and democracy that are
intertwining into a solid, interdependent but self-contained ‘entity’. Unconditional
510 Discourse & Society 33(4)

agreement with such a righteous/progressive western democracy seems imperative.

According to Wetherell and Potter (1992), this way of accounting constitutes a self-
contained argument, since one does not have to account why democracy is good. Notably,
difference is essentialized being represented as integral part of liberal western democra-
cies. This leads to the assumption that every different point of view should be respected,
leaving open the possibility of homophobia being considered as a respectable stance.
After all, based on democratic principles the speaker represents homophobia as a right.
The next extract is from the discourse of Panagiotopoulos, who is the Spokesperson
of the main opposition party.

Extract 3: Conditions for the exercise and enjoyment of individual rights

‘. . . The bill under discussion is an attempt, incomplete and problematic, of the Government
to legislate in the sphere of human rights, and particularly, seeking to safeguard the right to
free development of personality and self-determination of transgender individuals.
By definition we are open to any such debate. After all, we have already started a discussion
with the stakeholders themselves in New Democracy.
By definition, every debate, every struggle, and every claim on human rights concerns
social minorities, not majorities. At all times, social minorities have been treated with
prejudice or even homophobia, something that resulted in their stigmatization, social
exclusion, and even to physical abuse against them.
By definition, therefore, the task of a law-abiding democratic state is to regulate in the best
way these social realities, so as to maintain the delicate balance between enjoying securing
individual rights and safeguarding public interest, exercising individual freedom, on the one
hand, and avoiding abusive behaviors due to unconditional freedom on the other.
How can all these be accomplished? Answer: When the law-abiding democratic state sets
specific terms, rules, and conditions for the exercise and enjoyment of individual rights in
the context of law and order and with the assistance, especially on complex, sensitive, and
demanding issues, such as the issue at hand, of substantiated scientific knowledge’.
(Nikolaos Panagiotopoulos. New Democracy)

Panagiotopoulos constructs this bill as an incomplete venture to secure human rights,

making clear that this party will vote against. The argumentation takes the form of a list
consisting of three parts, introduced by the phrase ‘by definition’ (Edwards and Potter,
1992). This, combined with extreme case formulations (Pomerantz, 1986) (every debate,
struggle, and claim) and categorical modality, is oriented to provide facticity to speaker’s
discourse.
Panagiotopoulos, using the third person plural (‘we’) argues that New Democracy
is ‘by definition’ willing to discuss and already in touch with those directly con-
cerned. Thus, the speaker constructs New Democracy as non-prejudiced, as not reject-
ing the legislation without sufficient warrant. Through this rhetorical construction the
speaker possibly attempts to get on his side the opponents of queer institutions with-
out at the same time alienating LGBTQI+ community. Thus, the government – and
Michos et al. 511

not the ideological positions of the party – becomes accountable for carelessness and
sloppiness.
In the second part of the list human rights are constructed as ‘by definition’ claims that
concern minorities. In contrast to extract 1, this argument does not recognize the univer-
sal nature of human rights. What is rhetorically presupposed is that their enjoyment
seems rather self-evident to those who belong to a majority; minorities, which usually
become recipients of racist treatment and violence, are those who have to struggle for the
recognition of the rights that are regarded as an a priori acquisition of the majority.
The third part of the argument involves an ideological dilemma concerning the
boundaries between individual rights and public interest. The state is depicted as entitled
to ensure that the exercise of rights does not violate the broader public interest. Based on
this self-evident truth, the speaker represents the bill as putting the public interest at risk
and accuses the government of hasty, incomplete political moves, while trying to display
sensitivity for the needs of LGBTQI+ community.
While attempting to manage these dilemmas, the rhetorical question of ‘How can all
these be accomplished?’ is raised. The answer that follows is oriented to a potential solu-
tion to the dilemma. In order to exercise individual rights without violating public inter-
est, ‘substantiated scientific knowledge’ should be sought. The contribution of expertize
and science – which is represented as more compelling for such ‘complex, sensitive and
demanding matters’ – is highlighted.
Science is also at the core of the following argument, which comes from an MP of The
Communist Party of Greece.

Extract 4: Science and social experience allow rights to be exercised

‘(. . .) So, the right of a person to resolve the incompatibility between their officially
registered gender and the gender they feel they belong to needs to be based on objective,
scientific criteria and the institutionalization of a scientifically substantiated opinion and
measures of social support and protection, not only do not restrict the individual right, but
they make its substantial exercise possible. (. . .)
(. . .) So, is it medicalization or stigma and isolation? Since there is no mention of the
conditions which need to be met before medical interventions. However, what does the bill
do? It moves in the opposite direction. It rejects the minimum social conditions needed,
juxtaposing them to the will and the self-determination right of the individual. So where
does it end up? Grounding the individual right to gender self-determination solely on one’s
subjective view of their gender. What does it achieve in this way? The individual lived
experience, the subjective experience becomes the absolute measure at the expense of social
experience as a source of knowledge. And where does this absoluteness lead? To the denial
of objective reality itself, since the exclusive criterion is only the lived experience of each
individual. So, the vulgar distortion of objective reality opens the way, so as even this notion
of the right to be distorted. (. . .)’
(Georgios Lamproulis, The Communist Party of Greece/KKE)

Lamproulis, the VI vice president of the Hellenic Parliament and MP of The

Communist Party, in common with the previous speaker constructs scientific knowledge
512 Discourse & Society 33(4)

as a safeguard for the effective exercise of rights. A series of rhetorical questions are
answered sequentially, in an attempt to disavow potential accusations of medicalizing
human rights and perpetuating stereotypes that enhance marginalization. Lamproulis
continues attacking rhetorically one of the alleged key arguments of the bill supporters,
namely emphasis on subjective experience. Using subjective experience as an absolute
criterion is deemed to lead to a distortion of ‘objective reality’ and to the subsequent
distortion of the concept of rights. Science and experts are portrayed as necessary in
order to avert the disastrous consequences of violating ‘objective norms’. What is con-
structed as ‘objective’, though, may possibly coincide with well-established heteronor-
mative assumptions (e.g. binary divisions on gender).
The human rights construct, although variously conceptualized, has not been in prin-
ciple questioned so far. In the following extract human rights are rejected and repre-
sented as a smokescreen that hides a political project aimed at the demolition of Greek
culture and values.

Extract 5: Your appeal to human rights plagues the Western world

‘(. . .) With the kind of the education of young Greeks, as your Government is promoting it,
there is a danger that sex change will become a trend. We all here know how sensitive and
especially vulnerable to new trends young people are. You still have time to withdraw this
bill. Think about it until it is voted on.
Το put it simply, we observe, according to the bill, that we are entering an unprecedented era
of basic moral values demolition. All this disgrace supposedly on the altar of human rights
defense.
This appeal to human rights has been turned to a buzzword by you, the so-called leftists. It
has been used for political speculation reasons, in order to become likeable to your peers
and it plagues societies and nations all over the western world. But you do not seem to show
the same eagerness, when Greek citizens’ human rights are daily violated due to burning
issues, such as insurance, health, and even living. (. . .)’
(Georgios Germenis, Golden Dawn)

Germenis, an MP of the extreme-right party of Golden Dawn, opposes the bill claim-
ing that ‘sex change’ may become a tendency for young people who are stereotypically
represented as ‘sensitive’ and prone to ‘new trends’. Criticizing how the ‘leaftists’ (mean-
ing the government and/or parties that support queer rights) may draw on human rights,
Germenis is trying to dispute nuclear values utilized in supporters’ arguments. This MP
is possibly seeking to damage supporters’ political status, while creating a rhetorical
basis to support Golden Dawn’s positions. LGBTQI+ claims are portrayed as destruc-
tive, de-essentializing, and representing them as cut off from humanness. A direct impli-
cation of this argumentative structure is that no one is entitled to frame LGBTQI+ claims
as human rights.
Τhen, Germenis argues that the bill signals the beginning of a new world order that
violates the moral values of Greek society using human rights as smokescreen. Such
arguments echo conspiracy theories (see Sapountzis and Condor, 2013), revealing a
Michos et al. 513

discursive pattern identified by other authors in the rhetoric of Golden Dawn (Figgou
et al., 2013) and other extreme right-wing parties (see Billig, 1991). The in-group is
constructed as a heroic force fighting an external enemy who threatens the traditional,
moral Greek society. This argument is also oriented to provide a rhetorical advantage to
Golden Dawn, by undermining the positions of the government and other parties (mainly
those characterized as ‘leftist’), while representing them as enemies of the nation.
According to the speaker, ‘leftists’ repeated reference to human rights aims at secur-
ing particular political benefits, while policy making based on human rights constitutes
a steady political tactic that ‘plagues’ the West. Therefore, the efforts to guarantee the
enjoyment of human rights are constructed as a hidden bomb on the foundations of west-
ern societies, including Greece.
What is also noticeable (and characteristic of far-right parties’ rhetoric) is that the
speaker strategically asserts a minority parliamentary identity, while claiming to repre-
sent a wide audience (see Verkuyten and Nooitgedagt, 2018), that of Greek people.
LGBTQI+ rights are juxtaposed to Greeks’ ‘urgent’ problems associated with the eco-
nomic crisis, constructing the two categories (LGBTQI+ community vs Greeks) as
mutually exclusive. The complete denial of self-defined gender identity is framed as a
heroic act of preventing/obstructing the undermining of Greeks’ rights and the disinte-
gration of their unique customs and culture. Therefore, the MP seeks to convince that this
party is both representative of the ordinary people and the one to save those who are
suffering from politicians.

Conclusions
This paper analyzed argumentative lines that draw on human rights in a parliamentary
debate about gender identity. Analysis revealed that liberal constructs, including human
rights, constitute the ground for arguments oriented to different proximal rhetorical goals
(including support or opposition to the bill) and more distant consequences regarding
LGBTQI+ rights and claims.
Firstly, politicians negotiate the content of human rights. Extracts by the left-wing and
social-democratic party draw on liberal values such as the universalism of ‘human rights’
and the equality they must ensure. For the first argumentative line humanness is a socially
constructed quality, interrelated to the possession and exercise of rights. Hence, the con-
struction of rights as universal and inalienable is not predicated on human nature. It
determines humanness. The second argumentative line recognizes difference as a main
characteristic of common human nature and grounds on it the universalism of rights.
Given the emphasis on difference, even the right to homophobia is unconditionally rec-
ognized. In other argumentative lines (which paradoxically bring together the conserva-
tive and the communist party) the recognition of gender identity rights should be
conditioned upon ‘objective’ criterions. For the Spokesperson of the communist party,
objectivity – represented as social knowledge and collectively produced science – is
counterposed to individual subjectivity; for the Spokesperson of the conservative party
objectivity is identical with scientific expertise.
For the first two speakers the essentialization of the right is represented as a buffer
against anyone who may question it. In the two next argumentative lines scientific
514 Discourse & Society 33(4)

knowledge and expertise – as reified and objectified categories – can potentially down-
grade individual claims and rights that are not approved. Golden Dawn, however, con-
structs human rights as a dangerous tool of a ‘leftist’ immoral political plan. Other
studies showcase that in specific European countries (including Greece and Latvia)
LGBTQI+ claims can be treated as a national threat imported from the West (Michos
and Figgou, 2019; Mole, 2011). Such arguments can be oriented to segregate/discon-
nect queer claims from any potential (e.g. claiming power) that the human rights frame
could provide.
Another major issue revolves around who can potentially fit under this human rights’
category. Arguments based on liberal principles support the extension of the universal
human rights to LGBTQI+ people, although on different grounds. In the first argumen-
tative line universalism is oriented against anyone who may question the right. The
second one incorporates the right to self-determination in the political discourse of
unanimity and reason. Universalism goes hand-in-hand with difference but it is mobi-
lized to protect those who claim their right and those who negate it (by recognizing the
right to homophobia). This liberal, universal conceptualization of human rights and its
connotations would only make sense in a western democratic context. By westernizing
human rights, political actors set occidental boundaries, since this matching between
‘universal’ and ‘western’ blocks the widening of the human rights construct, excluding
different contexts and potentials. Other arguments (e.g. Golden Dawn) prioritize Greeks’
human rights, portraying LGBTQI+ institutions as an external national threat covered
by the cloak of political correctness; as such, queer claims cannot fall under the category
of (human) rights.
A third issue concerns the agent of social change. In the first extract rights are essen-
tialized and claims are represented as the means through which identity is formed. A
direct consequence is that minorities have to continue the negotiation in everyday social
arena, becoming the agents of their potential social acceptance. This rhetoric signals a
transposition from state-centrism, but could also function toward the denial of any fur-
ther responsibility of the state. Institutionalizing queer rights, however, is presented as an
issue that concerns everyone, reflecting the broader social consolidation of significant
social values. Assuming that everyone needs rights in order to be equal and since both
humanness and equality are highly valued, the recognition of the right to gender identity
becomes a common duty. Other arguments (e.g. Democratic Coalition) construct an
excluded minority identity for LGBTQI+ people and represent queer rights as an issue
that concerns only this ‘small’ community. These arguments highlight the role of the
democratic state in the recognition of minorities’ rights, making it the agent of social
change.
In line with other studies, the human rights construct seems to have not only
empowering, but also disempowering potentials. First, arguments that interpret the
opposition to LGBTQI+ human rights in terms of political correctness (real homo-
phobes as a minority and homophobia as a right) can also support heteronormativity
(cf. Clarke, 2005; Kitzinger, 1987). Second, arguments that prioritize expertise may
ensure the perpetuation of the heteronormative social reality, preventing any chal-
lenge posed by queer legislations. This projected need to control queer rights could
cut queer issues off the socio-political agenda and transfer them to the realm of
Michos et al. 515

experts, facilitating the mainstreaming of queer policies and the removal of the queer
‘essence’ through normalizing criteria. Third, in clearly opposing arguments (e.g.
Golden Dawn’s), LGBTQI+ human rights and claims are not perceived as political
objects per se, but as veiled globalizing instruments in a wider immoral political pro-
ject. Therefore, anything that escapes heteronormativity is deprived of the possibility
to motivate claims.
Concluding, MPs invoke human rights rhetoric not only to expand, but also to set
limits in self-defined gender identity. Not only the different content but also dif-
ferentiated boundaries and agency makes human rights being oriented to contradic-
tory functions. Heteronormative assumptions following human rights do not
facilitate broader social change, since they can end up permitting the dispute of
these rights or the access to rights under ‘special’ conditions. This negotiation of
human rights’ boundaries and agency brings new boundaries to the fore. Even
though other frames could be proved more useful in order to claim LGBTQI+
rights in the context of the Greek parliament, the potential of any construct may
vary depending on the differentiated emphasis on boundaries and agency. Human
rights can be a useful construct in order to frame broader claims such as those at the
level of international organizations. Citizenship, on the other hand, can highlight
activism and agency, facilitating a more politicized approach, but it can be better
implemented and is rather bounded to a specific/limited ethnic community, obstruct-
ing broader interventions. What begs the question is whether such constructs could
complement each other, considering that their potential implications differ in rela-
tion to the context and the historical era.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article: The research work was supported by the Hellenic Foundation for
Research and Innovation (HFRI) under the HFRI PhD Fellowship grant (Fellowship Number: 516).

Notes
1. For the EU guidelines see https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/137584.pdf
2. For the bill and the parliamentary minutes see https://www.hellenicparliament.gr/Nomothetiko-
Ergo/Katatethenta-Nomosxedia?law_id=75d1ff53-879c-4dcb-bfff-a7f20108f665
3. The coalition Government of the radical left party of ‘SYRIZA’ (Coalition of the Radical
Left) elected with 145 seats along with the populist right-wing party of ‘ANEL’ (Independent
Greeks) elected with 10 seats; the major opposition right-wing party of ‘New Democracy’
(ND) elected with 75 seats; the far right-wing (neo-Nazi) party of ‘Golden Dawn’ elected with
18 seats; the social-democratic party of ‘Democratic Coalition PASOK–DIMAR’ elected with
17 seats; the ‘Communist Party of Greece’ (KKE) elected with 15 seats; and two parties self-
identified as belonging to the political center, ‘The River’ (To Potami) elected with 11 seats;
and the ‘Union of Centrists’ elected with nine seats.
516 Discourse & Society 33(4)

References
Ammaturo FR (2015) The ‘pink agenda’: Questioning and challenging European homonationalist
sexual citizenship. Sociology 49(6): 1151–1166.
Augoustinos M and Every D (2010) Accusations and denials of racism: Managing moral account-
ability in public discourse. Discourse & Society 21(3): 251–256.
Bernstein M (2015) Same-sex marriage and the future of the LGBT movement. Gender & Society
29(3): 321–337.
Bernstein M and Taylor V (2013) The Marrying Kind? Debating Same-Sex Marriage Within the
Lesbian and Gay Movement. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Billig M (1987) Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Billig M (1991) Ideology and Opinions: Studies in Rhetorical Psychology. London: SAGE.
Billig M, Condor S, Edwards D, et al. (1988) Ideological Dilemmas: A Social Psychology of
Everyday Thinking. London: SAGE.
Bradley AS (2019) Human rights racism. Harvard Human Rights Journal 32: 1–58.
Butler J (2000) Restaging the universal: Hegemony and the limits of formalism. In: Butler J,
Laclau E and Žižek S (eds) Contingency, Hegemony, Universality. London: Verso, pp.11–43
Chase A (2016) Human rights contestations: Sexual orientation and gender identity. The
International Journal of Human Rights 20(6):703–723.
Clarke V (2005) ‘We’re all very liberal in our views’: Students’ talk about lesbian and gay parent-
ing. Lesbian & Gay Psychology Review 6(1): 2–15.
Corrêa S, Petchesky R and Parker R (2008) Sexuality, Health and Human Rights. London:
Routledge.
Edwards D and Potter J (1992) Discursive Psychology. London: SAGE.
Evans DT (1993) Sexual Citizenship: The Material Construction of Sexualities. London: Routledge.
Figgou L, Mylopoulou I and Birmbili-Karaleka A (2013) Construction of ideological extrem-
ity and “minoritization” in the pre-electoral rhetoric of the far right party “Golden Dawn”.
Scientific Annals-School of Psychology AUTh 10: 499–527 (in Greek).
Goffman E (1981) Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Grewal I (1999) Women’s rights as human rights: Feminist practices, global feminism, and human
rights regimes in transnationality. Citizenship Studies 3(3): 337–354.
Grewal I (2005) Transnational America: Feminisms, Diasporas, Neoliberalisms. Durham: Duke
University Press.
Hall S (1992) The west and the rest: Discourse and power. In: Hall S and Geiben B (eds) Formations
of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity, pp.275–332.
Harré R and van Langenhove L (1999) Positioning Theory: Moral Contexts of International
Action. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Ibrahim AM (2015) LGBT rights in Africa and the discursive role of international human rights
law. African Human Rights Law Journal 15(2): 263–281.
Kelly L (2005) Mainstreaming violence against women into Human Rights Discourse and Practice.
International Feminist Journal of Politics 7(4): 471–95.
Kitzinger C (1987) The Social Construction of Lesbianism. London: SAGE.
Kitzinger C and Wilkinson S (2004) Social advocacy for equal marriage: The politics of “rights”
and the psychology of “mental health”. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 4(1):
173–194.
Koenig M (2008) Institutional change in the world polity: International human rights and the con-
struction of collective identities. International Sociology 23(1): 95–114.
Michos et al. 517

Kollman K (2007) Same-sex unions: The globalization of an idea. International Studies Quarterly
51(2): 329–357.
Kollman K and Waites M (2009) The global politics of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
human rights: An introduction. Contemporary Politics 15(1): 1–17.
Le E (2002) Human rights discourse and international relations: Le Monde’s editorials on Russia.
Discourse & Society 13(3): 373–408.
Mehan H (1997) The discourse of the illegal immigration debate: A case study in the politics of
representation. Discourse & Society 8(2): 249–270.
Michos I and Figgou L (2019) Intertwined and incompatible identities in the argumentation against
the institutionalization of same sex couples’ cohabitation agreement: “Greek-orthodoxy” and
homosexuality. Hellenic Journal of Psychology 16(1): 95–121 (in Greek).
Mole R (2011) Nationality and sexuality: Homophobic discourse and the ‘national threat’ in con-
temporary Latvia. Nations and Nationalism 17(3): 540–560.
Petchesky R (2000) Sexual rights: Inventing a concept, mapping an international practice. In:
Parker R, Barbosa RM and Aggleton P (eds) Framing the Sexual Subject: The Politics of
Gender, Sexuality, and Power. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp.81–103.
Pomerantz A (1986) Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies
9(2-3): 219–229.
Potter J (1996) Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction. London:
SAGE.
Richardson D (2004) Locating sexualities: From here to normality. Sexualities 7(4): 391–411.
Sapountzis A and Condor S (2013) Conspiracy accounts as intergroup theories: Challenging domi-
nant understandings of social power and political legitimacy. Political Psychology 34(5):
731–752.
Stammers N (1999) Social movements and the social construction of human rights. Human Rights
Quarterly 21(4): 980–1008.
Swiebel J (2009) Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender human rights: The search for an interna-
tional strategy. Contemporary Politics 15(1): 19–35.
Van Dijk TA (1997) What is political discourse analysis. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 11(1):
11–52.
Van Dijk TA (2000) Ideologies, racism, discourse: Debates on immigration and ethic issues. In:
Ter Wal J and Verkuyten M (eds) Comparative Perspectives on Racism. Aldershot: Ashgate,
pp.91–116.
Van Eemeren FH, Jackson S and Jacobs S (2015) Argumentation. In: Van Eemeren FH (ed.)
Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse. Amsterdam: Springer,
pp.3–25.
Velasco K (2018) Human rights INGOs, LGBT INGOs, and LGBT policy diffusion, 1991–2015.
Social Forces 97(1): 377–404.
Verkuyten M and Nooitgedagt W (2018) Parliamentary identity and the management of the
far-right: A discursive analysis of Dutch parliamentary debates. British Journal of Social
Psychology 58(3): 495–514.
Voss MJ (2018) Contesting sexual orientation and gender identity at the UN Human Rights
Council. Human Rights Review 19(1): 1–22.
Waters M (1996) Human rights and the universalisation of interests: Towards a social construc-
tionist approach. Sociology 30(3): 593–600.
Weeks J (1998) The sexual citizen. Theory, Culture & Society 15(3–4): 35–52.
Wetherell M (1998) Positioning and interpretative repertoires: Conversation analysis and post-
structuralism in dialogue. Discourse & Society 9(3): 387–412.
518 Discourse & Society 33(4)

Wetherell M and Potter J (1992) Mapping the Language of Racism: Discourse and the Legitimation
of Exploitation. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Wilkinson C and Langlois AJ (2014) Special issue: Not such an international human rights norm?
Local resistance to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights—Preliminary comments.
Journal of Human Rights 13(3): 249–255.
Woodiwiss A (2005) Human Rights. London: Routledge.
Yazici E (2019) Nationalism and human rights. Political Research Quarterly 72(1): 147–161.

Author biographies
Ioannis Michos is currently a PhD student, at the School of Psychology of the Aristotle University
of Thessaloniki. At the heart of his research interests is the study of the social constructions of
identities (with emphasis on sexuality and gender) and their socio-political implications. His
research employs the tools of Rhetorical and Critical Discursive Social Psychology.
Lia Figgou is Associate Professor of Social Psychology, at the School of Psychology of the Aristotle
University of Thessaloniki, Greece. Her research interests lie in the field of intergroup relations,
prejudice, and social exclusion. She is particularly interested in the way in which these topics are
discursively constructed and negotiated.
Aphrodite Baka is Assistant Professor of Social Psychology at the School of Psychology of the
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. Her research is focused on collective action and
political participation, social conflicts, and minority issues.