Gay români ieri și azi —

Contents:

• GAY LIFE ROMANIA
• THE BEST ROMANIA GAY CLUBS & BARSGAY CLUBS & BARS ROMANIA
• BETIFUL GAY ROMANIA: SIGHISOARA, CRAVA, BUCHART, BRASOV, BRAN & PEL STL, AND MUCH MORE

GAY LIFE ROMANIA

Roma of mory sexual and genr inti experience opprsn and stctural equaly both as Roma and as lbian, gay, bi, trans, tersex and queer-intified (LGBTIQ) due to the tersectnal lotn that they occupy society and the negative social valuatn of their non-normative ethnic/racial, sexual/genr and other inti (Fremlova, 2017). I argue that the lived experienc of LGBTIQ Roma pose a fundamental challenge to one-dimensnal, sentialisg and homogenisg nceptualisatns of Romani inti.

In this article, I e ‘queer’ to unpack LGBTIQ Roma’s experienc of how ‘marked’ sentialist inty tegori such as ‘Roma’, ‘woman’, ‘gay/lbian/bi’ or ‘trans’ put at a stctural disadvantage dividuals who self-intify (or are intified) as such, as opposed to ‘unmarked’ or ntral inty tegori such as ‘non-Roma/whe’, ‘man’, ‘straight/heteronormative’ or ‘cis’.

THE BEST ROMANIA GAY CLUBS & BARSGAY CLUBS & BARS ROMANIA

Between September 2015 and November 2016, I nducted 14 -pth semi-stctured terviews wh 15 participants: three Romani lbian women; one Romani bi woman; one Romani queer-intified, straight woman; two Romani trans men; one Romani tersex person; two Romani/Traveller bi men; one Romani queer-intified man; and four Romani gay men.

BETIFUL GAY ROMANIA: SIGHISOARA, CRAVA, BUCHART, BRASOV, BRAN & PEL STL, AND MUCH MORE

Tremlett (2009: 24) suggts the ncept of hybridy to acunt for the multifacetedns of Romani inti, ‘effectively mov[g] away om homogenisg terms’, and ‘super-diversy’ as the much-need shift ‘beyond ethnicy’ (Vertovec, 2007) whout losg sight of ethnicy, which has a ‘potential to engage more eply wh the diverse life experienc and stctural posngs of people’ (Tremlett, 2014: 831, 838). Queer theorisg tak norms ‘beyond the heterosexual/homosexual bary to a age of queer theory as an approach that criqu the class, race and genr specific dimensns … that do not simply scribe and reify the spac of sexual “others”’ (Osw, 2008: 96). However, as a Roma person, I have bee ed to not beg let to gay clubs, as well as to other exprsns of antigypsyism by non-Romani gays.

Romani lbian women’s existence be hidn and visible, rultg different treatment afford to Romani (lbian) women as opposed to some Romani (gay) men. Complementg Ana’s reference to stanc of forced marriage as a means of social ntrol employed to lim the lbian woman’s eedom is a siar narrative by a Romani gay man:.

His narrative shows that gay men n also be unrprivileged by virtue of their sex/genr and sexualy, th makg them vulnerable to forced/arranged marriage as a means of social ntrol. Here, theorisg the experienc of Ana and Anton through the prism of queer tersectnali enabl to terrogate the tersectnal workgs of heteronormativy and patriarchy that operate through social ntrol, as well as their impact on the queer intifitns ma over time by the Romani lbian woman and the Romani gay man. Fay, kship stctur and muny are key social safety s (San Román, 1975; Okely, 1975; Stewart, 1997; Gay y Blas, 1999; Mart and Gamella, 2005; Cahn, 2009; Tăr, 2012).

However, others may not abi by the social norms, or they may simply enable and validate the existence of LGBTIQ fay members: “In my fay, there are a uple of gays and I know of two lbians. I remember my mum had gay iends” (Jolana); “My mum had sexual ntact wh women; she has a tattoo of a woman on her lower back” (Gabriela).