Whereas the LGBTQ2+ movement has made notable gains since its inception, these gains do not reflect the experiences or political priorities of the entire collective. In fact, within the movement there are varied understandings of who ‘we’ are, where ‘we’ should go, and where the sources of our struggles lie. It is this tension between collectivity and fragmentation that guides this dissertation, specifically, I ask, how do intersecting power relations shape the processes whereby we mobilize and strengthen collectivity, engage in consciousness-raising, and advocate for certain political priorities in our protest. Using popular drag and queer cabaret as a case study, my findings contribute to core movement concepts including collective identity, storytelling, ‘free spaces’ and infighting to better explain the tension between collectivity and fragmentation in the LGBTQ2+ movement in Ontario, Canada. Using a combination of field observation, semi-structured interviews, and cultural artifacts I find that intersecting power relations shape drag and queer cabaret in both shared and movement free spaces. Drag and queer cabaret are valuable means of mobilizing and sustaining collectivity as well as consciousness raising; however, failure to address how intersecting power relations shape these processes simultaneously undermines collectivity by introducing hierarches and subsequently fragmenting the movement. Groups that seek to challenge these hierarchies do so in two primary ways. In the case of ‘free spaces,’ queer cabaret groups build intersectional prefigurative politics into their performative protest to expand the narrative of who ‘we’ are. In ‘shared’ movement spaces like Pride—wherein LGBTQ2+ experiences and ideologies vary greatly—marginalized groups use drag and queer cabaret as a form of strategic resistance. Overall this dissertation attests to the need for greater attention to how ‘our’ LGBTQ2+ resistance is situated within larger relations of inequality. / Dissertation / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

On November 28, 2017, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau apologized to LGBTQ2+ persons within Canada for the oppression and criminalization of queer sexuality and diverse gender identities. Between the 1950s to early 1990s, thousands of Canadian civil servants and military personnel were systematically surveilled, interrogated, and ultimately “purged” because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The federal government’s heterosexism criminalized queer bodies and sex and it enforced heteronormativity and cisnormativity. These policies had disastrous effects on trans and queer persons and have contributed to ongoing systemic discrimination against LGBTQ2+ persons today. The 2017 apology and the associated process of redress have the potential to reconstitute the relationship between LGBTQ2+ communities and the government. Through an analysis of the apology’s affective and effective outcomes, this case study seeks to understand the origins, complexities, and implications of the apology for LGBTQ2+ equality and inclusion. It invokes Melissa Nobles’ membership theory to better understand the apology’s implications for LGBTQ2+ citizenship in Canada. Specifically, it is interested in better understanding the voices that were included in the pre-apology consultation process, and those that were not. Given the inherent diversity of LGBTQ2+ communities, such an effort had major implications for both the inclusivity of the apology and its ability to remedy past injustices. It finds that the consultations undertaken by the government were rushed, lacked transparency and openness, and consequently undermined the ameliorative potential of the apology. It then turns to an assessment of the apology’s “authenticity” through an invocation of political scientist Matt James’ criteria, and posits that the 2017 apology is best categorized as a robust quasi-apology. This thesis then considers the reactions of LGBTQ2+ persons to the apology itself and finds that the apology may serve as a rhetorical tool, which can be taken up by activists to demand additional reform. Further, to have lasting significance the apology must be substantiated by real action. To contextualize the apology’s equality effects, this thesis also engages in an analysis of the government’s substantive policy undertakings and failures in the post-apology period. This thesis asserts that while the government has moved forward with some significant reforms, its post-apology policy approach is characterized by profound shortcomings that have fallen short of the broad-based reforms demanded by LGBTQ2+ activists. These government failures evidence the continued predominance of what Miriam Smith terms “legal homophobia,” and the restrictive model of renegotiated citizenship proffered by the government. The citizenship lens invoked throughout this project leads to the theorization that there are two primary LGBTQ2+ factions with regard to the apology: one that seeks integration within the state and demands Canadian citizenship in spite of queerness and another that rejects the state’s homonationalist project and agitates for a Queered citizenship situated within an anti-oppressive, anti-racist framework. This thesis concludes by suggesting that the official apology can be used as a rhetorical tool to pursue the very Queered citizenship some activists desire. / Graduate