The Recurring Playbook of Queer Criminalization
written by Robyn Brown
Click here for a printable version of this article.
Introduction
In recent years, there has been a sharp rise in anti-queer rhetoric and legislation, particularly those targeting transgender people. From bathroom bans to restrictions on gender-affirming care, these policies are not just new forms of discrimination, they are echoes of long-standing patterns of control and criminalization. Queer criminology helps us name these patterns, and, as Kimberle Crenshaw (2016) highlights, “when there’s no name for a problem, you can’t see a problem” (07:58). It offers a lens to understand how queer people have historically been positioned as deviant or criminal due to society’s changing definitions of difference over time.
In this piece, I use queer as an inclusive term that refers to people whose sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression fall outside of cisgender and heterosexual norms. While the focus of this piece is on sexuality and gender, queerness can also encompass practices and relationships, such as polyamory, that challenge reigning norms of monogamy, family, and intimacy. This term has been reappropriated from the past to challenge these binaries and exclusionary understandings of identity. Overall, queer can be understood as a term that captures those rendered “other” by their difference, bringing together a diverse community united both by shared experiences of marginalization and the creation of belonging in defiance of it.
As Panfil (2018) describes, queer criminology highlights the experiences of queer individuals within the criminal justice system, be it when committing crimes, experiencing victimization, or being subjected to the broader messaging from these systems which constrains these individuals. Much of previous criminological examinations of queer individuals' experiences are one of two opposite designations, either of hyperawareness with creating stereotypes of criminalization or overlooking their experience entirely. With the latter, the experiences of queer individuals were left undiscussed, unaddressed, and unnamed, which is one such element that Ritchie (2017) strives to bring to light for queer women of color through her writings in Invisible No More. By naming these experiences, queer criminology offers a way to more clearly highlight how queer individuals uniquely experience becoming victims, offenders, or practitioners in the field.
By examining the past, through queer criminological lenses, we can recognize historical tactics being reused presently. Early criminological theories were built almost entirely from non-queer standpoints. As Wood (2015) highlights, these frameworks, when mentioning queer individuals at all, often assumed queer people were deviant by purely existing. As a society, we go to extreme measures to attempt to force individuals into normativity, as early as one’s birth into this world. Infants born intersex are often subjected to surgeries to force them into what is thought of as one of two sex categories; this is despite the clear mental and physical harm that has been documented as a result of these surgeries (Davis & Murphy 2013). As a result of deviant assumptions being ascribed to queer individuals, queerness, be it their sexuality or gender identity, was considered a physical issue or criminalized. For example, when queerness was described as a physical or social issue, it was said to be a mental illness or the result of poor parenting. Laws like anti-sodomy laws embodied these criminal assumptions, making queerness itself and the acts associated with it into a crime. Even when such laws are struck down at the federal level, as in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), they often remain on the books in many states, including North Carolina.
These outdated laws continue to have influence. North Carolina, as mentioned above, still has anti-sodomy laws on record and retains a 2012 constitutional amendment defining marriage solely between a man and a woman. Additionally, impersonation and cross-dressing laws, for instance, made it illegal simply to defy assumed ways of expressing one’s gender (Buist and Lenning 2022). Even when these laws, in some cases, are no longer actively enforced, their presence continues to legitimize the stigma queer individuals face by signaling that these identities remain outside of societal norms. The continued existence of even these laws reinforces the idea that queer individuals’ rights are conditional and subject to reversal. While these were popular in the nineteenth century, we are, again, seeing a resurgence of these laws or, at the very least, the goals in which these laws hoped to achieve by strictly defining what each gender, ascribed or true, should wear and be (News Desk 2015). Widespread bans and increased scrutiny, while already intense previously, has been placed on public, queer events. For instance, drag shows have been explicitly banned in several states with more banning “adult” shows. With the latter the reasoning is being fueled by a desire to protect children (Movement Advancement Project n.d.). To continue to carve out the areas in which queer expression is appropriate defines their general presence as inappropriate; likewise, the idea that children are to be protected by such laws continues to perpetuate ideas of queer individuals being predatory or spreading their “wrongness.” Overall, laws such as these are part of a broader legal and cultural push that has historically and currently sought to punish gender identity and expression that was not considered normative.
These ideas also play out in cultural narratives and rhetoric. As Mogul, Ritchie, and Whitlock (2011) discuss, queer people are often framed as predators. The renewed wave of bathroom bills leans heavily on this trope, with the idea that men might claim a queer identity to access women’s restrooms and harm them. North Carolina was once the focal point of this thought in 2016 with the HB2 bill, which mandated individuals use restrooms based on their birth certificate sex, not gender identity. Though this was eventually repealed after considerable backlash, this rhetoric is now being utilized through debates around women’s sports in addition to furthering bathroom bills (Prichep 2024). The fear of the predator is consistently projected onto queer people, even though research shows that they are far more likely to face violence, especially when forced to use facilities that do not match their gender identity (Murchison et al. 2019).
Another element to the current wave of criminalization and othering of queer individuals is the shift toward targeting not just queer individuals, but those who support them. Laws criminalizing gender-affirming care do not just deny trans or nonbinary people vital medical services, they also punish providers and, in many cases, parents. This harms queer individuals doubly, as it strips access to care and isolates queer individuals from individuals and networks willing to help and support them.
This parallels previous instances of queer individuals receiving aid. For instance, during the height of the HIV/AIDS crisis, there was a congressional push to audit all federal AIDS programs, subjecting these programs to increased surveillance (Padamsee 2017). Additionally, workshops dedicated to drawing attention to the HIV/AIDS crisis were considered "sexually provocative" and "evil" (Informant 12 as cited by Padamsee 2017:105). By aiding populations that society sought to other, individuals helping queer individuals were then painted as “wrong” themselves and faced the loss of security in their professions. These are not isolated legal battles or cases; they are part of a broader strategy of criminalization of queer individuals and separating them from those that seek to help.
As this piece is being written, the Supreme Court has an opportunity to overturn the ability for queer individuals to marry, when concerning same-sex couples (Dwyer 2025). An appeal has been filed with the argument that Kim Davis' first amendment protections regarding the free exercise of religion were violated. More so, it claims that the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which established marriage rights for same-sex couples, was "egregiously wrong" and an overreach (Dwyer 2025, para. 4). In tandem, the Southern Baptist convention resulted in a resolution to overturn same-sex marriage. In addition to same-sex relationships, their priorities are also evident in cementing a gender binary by calling for recognizing "the biological reality of male and female" and to oppose any law that addresses the fluidity of sex and gender (as cited by in Smith 2025, para. 10). Overall, be it through the lower courts or all the way to the Supreme Courts, there is a renewed push to redefine and constrain the actions of queer individuals in their own expressions and relationships.
Queer criminology helps us connect these dots. It challenges the idea that law and justice are neutral, showing instead how they have been and continue to be used to marginalize entire communities. Today’s waves of legislation are not just about bathrooms, sports, or healthcare. Overall, there is a stronger push to not merely limit but eradicate one’s ability to even speak about queer individuals.
As book bans and “don’t say gay” enter our classrooms, not only are queer educators becoming more limited in a way non-queer educators are not when discussing daily life, queer youth run the risk of being further isolated from support and queer individuals cannot speak about themselves (Totenberg and Ononye 2025). These are the very barriers that queer criminology sought to remedy, to heighten visibility in a space where it went unnamed or constrained. These are the very barriers that queer criminology can be employed to contradict these narratives and highlight the experiences of those who live it. When legislation and rhetoric seek to remove one's access from just legal systems and treatment to the point of extending these restrictions to the very ways of discussing one’s existence, it becomes about visibility itself, namely who can be seen, who can speak, and who is allowed to exist without fear..
References
Buist, Carrie and Emily Lenning. 2022. Queer Criminology: New Directions in Critical Criminology, 2 Ed. England: Routledge.
Davis, Georgiann, and Erin Murphy. 2013. “Intersex Bodies as States of Exception: An Empirical Explanation for Unnecessary Surgical Modification.” Feminist Formations 25(2):129-152.
Dwyer, Devin. 2025. “Supreme Court Formally Asked to Overturn Landmark Same-Sex Marriage Ruling.” Retreived Sept. 1, 2025 (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-formally-asked-overturn-landmark-same-sex/story?id=124465302).
Movement Advancement Project. n.d. “Restrictions on Drag Performances.” Retrieved Sept. 1, 2025 (https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/criminaljustice/drag_restrictions).
Murchison, Gabriel., Madina Agénor, Sari Resiner, and Ryan Watson. “School Restroom and Locker Room Restrictions and Sexual Assault Among Transgender Youth.” Pediatrics 143(6):1-12.
News Desk. (2015, May 31). “Arresting Dress: A Timeline of Anti-Cross-Dressing Laws in the Unites States.” Retreived Sept. 1, 2025 (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/arresting-dress-timeline-anti-cross-dressing-laws-u-s).
Padamsee, Talseem. 2017. “The Politics of Prevention: Lessons from the Neglected History Of US HIV/AIDS Policy.” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 42(1):73-122.
Panfil, Vanessa. 2018. “Young and Unafraid: Queer Criminology’s Unbounded Potential.” Palgrave Communications 4(1): 1-5.
Prichep, Deena. (2024, May 6). “Transgender Bathroom Bills Are Back, Gaining Traction After Past Boycotts.” Retreived Sept. 1, 2025 (https://www.npr.org/2024/05/06/1249406353/transgender-bathroom-bill-republican-states).
Ritchie, Andrea. 2017. Invisible No More: Police Violence Against Black Women and Women Of Color. Boston, Massachusets: Beacon Press.
Smith, Peter. (2025, June 11). “Southern Baptist Delegates Call for Reversal of Supreme Court Ruling on Same-Sex Marriage.” Retreived Sept. 1, 2025 (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/southern-baptist-delegates-call-for-reversal-of-supreme-court-ruling-on-same-sex-marriage).
Totenberg, Nina, and Anuli Ononye. (2025, June 27). “SCOTUS: Parents Can Opt Kids Out of Classes with LGBTQ Book Characters.” Retreived Sept. 1, 2025 (https://www.npr.org/2025/06/27/nx-s1-5430355/scotus-opt-out-schools).
Woods, Jordan Blair. 2015. “The Birth of Modern Criminology and Gendered Constructions of The Homosexual Criminal Identity.” Journal of Homosexuality 62:131–166.
Author Biography
Robyn Brown is a Lecturer of Criminology in the Department of Sociology and Criminology at the University of North Carolina Wilmington (UNCW). In addition to this role, she coordinates the Judicially Managed Accountability and Recovery Courts (JMARC) Strategic Plan, which is a statewide study on North Carolina's treatment courts. She has taught at both the community college and university levels, with her teaching interests focusing on the fundamentals of the discipline to further engagement. Her research examines the intersections of law, justice, and social well-being, including the use of law enforcement in schools and the ways in which substance use and mental health disorders shape legal system interactions. She also approaches her research through a queer criminologist lens, examining the ways sexuality and gender shape experiences through these systems. Robyn currently serves as the President-Elect of the North Carolina Sociological Association.