AYLİME ASLI DEMİR
We typically think of censorship as an intervention against an expression, discourse, or action that has already occurred, something that has taken place. However, censorship has the power not only to prevent what has already been realized but also to suppress what is merely potential. In this context, censorship operates more than just an epistemological tool of oppression; it should also be regarded as an ontological intervention. Ontological censorship functions as a systematic, preventive force against the emergence or even the possibility of a particular mode of existence.
Beyond stifling authentic forms of expression, this power can effectively erase the very possibilities of existence and visibility.
For this reason, we should view the pressure on the existence of LGBTI+ not only as linguistic and cognitive manipulation, but also as a constraint on the “boundless” potential of the body. While it is clear that the LGBTI+ movement faces some of the most severe limitations on freedom of expression, we must also recognize this as an attack on the individual body, its potential for existence and its very reality. This form of censorship can also be defined as “anatomical censorship,” which “castrates” the inherent diversity and richness of the body, hindering its capacity for self- actualization.
Recognizing that the body’s boundless potential is circumscribed by heteronormative demands forcing it into a singular mode of expression through “anatomical censorship,” we can aptly name this phenomenon thus: Compulsory heterosexuality! In her 1980 article “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence,” Adrienne Rich contended that heterosexuality is far more than a mere sexual orientation; it is a normative framework underpinning patriarchal society, imposed and reinforced by social, cultural, and political mechanisms. In this sense, heterosexuality operates not merely as an imposed orientation but also as a censorship regime that shapes the very fabric of social structure. This regime manifests through the suppression of non-normative desires and by dictating which modes of existence are conceivable and which identities are granted visibility and representation. In this way, power shapes social structures, decides who may occupy public spaces, and determines which identities deserve recognition. This process first narrows the space for plurality, then, where possible, renders it invisible or eradicates it through a range of techniques.
The murder of gay imam Muhsin Hendricks [1] in South Africa, occurring while this article was in progress, underscores that addressing censorship demands a far more comprehensive approach than merely policing discourse and expression.
For example, “compulsory heterosexuality” emerges as LGBTI+ individuals internalize societal norms from an early age. In childhood, they are confronted with the presumed correctness and purported “normality” of a heteronormative future. This is a case of systematic violence, which begins with the simplest obstacles to communication (removal of content, denial of access, and so on), is reinforced by ideological tools in education, law, and the media, and expands to –and eventually surpasses– “compulsory heterosexuality.” From the outset, people’s capacity to define and express their identities is constrained, their very existence cast as “invalid” or “impossible.” A case in point is the Draft Proposal for Amendments to the Turkish Penal Code and Other Laws [2], which was made public while this article was being finalized. However, we know that, contrary to common claims, heterosexuality is not natural, universal, absolute, or inevitable. If it were, there would be no need for such intense ideological, political, and legal efforts to continuously reproduce it, enforce it as a norm, and impose it on everyone. The media, the family, the school, and other social institutions are all enlisted to suppress individuals’ potential to explore and express their own sexual and romantic desires. When individuals are denied the space to express their desires and live out their existence, they begin to develop reflexes of self-regulation and self-suppression. In this sense, self-censorship is not merely experienced as a restriction on one’s freedom of expression.
When it comes to the LGBTI+ community, self-censorship becomes a lifelong practice of individuals “precluding” potential forms of existence, beginning in childhood and extending into adulthood. This dimension of ontological censorship, reinforced by self-censorship and similar practices, ensures the continual reproduction of the heteronormative order and suppresses potential futures before they can even begin to take shape.
However, the existence of the LGBTI+ is rooted not merely in cultural or social constructs, but in a fundamental bodily reality. The “so-called normal that masquerades as natural” does not seek to suppress this bodily truth on any objective or subjective grounds, but rather through a normative stance shaped entirely by “feelings.”
For the authorities, the existence of the LGBTI+ is not merely a “moral threat;” it strikes at a fundamental pillar of the dominant order at a much deeper level. In this sense, “morality” functions mainly as a tool for framing this threat to the wider public. The real problem with the conceptual framework employed by the authorities –with notions like “attempts to desexualize society,” “deviant ideologies,” and “harmful movements”– is that the existence of the LGBTI+ reveals not only that the world can be different from what it is but holds the potential to become something “richer.” The issue at hand is preventing an existence constrained by stagnant madness from breaking free into a dynamic ontology.
Compulsory heterosexuality portrays the heteronormative order as natural, absolute, and inevitable. However, at its core lies systematic violence and “internalized coercion,” which serve to suppress individuals’ desires, bodies, and existence. The strength of the LGBTI+ struggle lies in its capacity to expose and deconstruct an order that is presented as rational, unveiling its foundation in coercion and violence.
However, violence should not prompt a simplistic view of the world as divided into “good people” and “bad people.” Perpetrators of violence are not limited to central authorities, such as the state with its institutions and laws.
Power functions as a network that permeates every aspect of the social body, shaping the daily lives of individuals and being constantly reproduced through these relationships. One might almost wish that the “real bad actor” were always so clearly identifiable, as in the case when the Governor’s Office of Ankara banned all screenings of Pembe Hayat Kuir Fest in February 2024 [3], or when the District Governor’s Office of Kadıköy prohibited the film Queer [4]. Or when the website of Kaos GL, the leading LGBTI+ association, was blocked under various pretexts such as “protecting family and child rights” and “safeguarding youth” [5], or when the March Against Homophobia and Transphobia in Ankara was banned on 17 March, or during the assault on trans activists participating in the press statement and march on 20 November, the Day of Remembrance for Trans Victims of Hate Crimes [6].
Just as an employer firing an employee due to their sexual orientation is not merely a reflection of the state’s homophobic policies but also a means by which those policies take root in social life, the removal of
artist Fahrettin Örenli’s work from the “Tek Yön” exhibition at the Beyoğlu Municipality’s İstiklal Art Gallery — following an “obscenity” complaint and citing “sensitivities” [7] — shows that even a municipality governed by the Republican People’s Party (CHP) can serve as fertile ground for the entrenchment and expansion of power.
For these reasons, we may say that the nature of censorship does not lie merely in bans or direct punishments issued by a clear authority. It is instead multi- layered and involves multiple actors. With this in mind, we can now turn to a discussion of the differences and commonalities. Censorship and suppression targeting the LGBTI+ community can be grouped into the following five categories, the first of which I have already discussed in detail above:
1. Censorship rooted in ontological violence, beginning with anatomical censorship that obstructs the realization of potential and extending to the denial of existence and visibility.
2. Official Obstructions: Direct state interventions through decisions by the Supreme Board of Radio and Television (RTÜK), judicial rulings, and bans or closures justified on grounds of “obscenity.”
3. Platform Policies: Content removal, age restrictions (+18 labelling), algorithmic suppression, account suspensions, and similar practices within digital spaces.
4. Societal Pressure and Attacks: Hate speech, targeting, physical or verbal assaults, event cancellations, and other forms of collective censorship.
5. Self-censorship.
According to the report “30 Years of Censorship: The Supreme Board of Radio and Television in its 30th Year” [8] published by the Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA), RTÜK imposed fines totaling 568,000 TL on broadcasts related to the LGBTI+ between January 2023 and June 2024. The penalty imposed on the program where journalist and anchor İrfan Değirmenci hosted Esmeray, a trans parliamentary candidate, illustrates that even at the level of representation, the existence of the LGBTI+ community is met with significant sanctions. RTÜK’s promotion of anti-LGBTI+ demonstrations through public announcements and the broadcasting of related videos demonstrates that the state has embraced overt political propaganda in enforcing compulsory heterosexuality.
Meanwhile, platform policies in the digital space serve as another form of censorship, restricting LGBTI+ representation. According to the MLSA report, in November 2023, RTÜK imposed administrative fines on six different platforms for hosting LGBTI+ content [9]. The Supreme Board justified these penalties by citing reasons such as the “fictionalization of an alternative ideal world based on gender,” the “failure to recognize gender boundaries,” and the “protection of family and general morality from the normalization of such content.” What sets digital censorship apart, however, is that instead of outright content removal, visibility is restricted through more subtle means, such as algorithms that limit access and deny exposure to certain content. The pressure RTÜK places on digital broadcasting platforms to restrict LGBTI+ representation forces media companies to internalize this pressure, leading them to adopt self-censorship. As a result, producers modify their projects to maintain state support, and employees in the sector engage in self-censorship to protect their livelihoods.
Additionally, the digital violence report “All of Suddenly: Research on digital violence against LGBTQI+ communities in Turkiye” [10] reveals that 90 per cent of LGBTI+ individuals have experienced online violence. The report also shows that social media platforms like Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), and YouTube have marked LGBTI+ related posts as “inappropriate,” thereby
diminishing visibility and restricting access. This form of censorship, coupled with the promotion of digital violence against the LGBTI+, further restricts their ability to share their own stories.
The targeting and attacks on events organized by LGBTI+ artists, academics, and associations, as well as the spaces they occupy, also serve as a form of censorship through societal pressure and aggression. The conservative government’s policies encouraging violence against the LGBTI+ community have been met with congruent reactions from certain individuals and institutions. A single “obscenity” complaint from a visitor led to the swift removal of a work of art by organizers at Beyoğlu Municipality; coordinated online harassment triggered the Eskişehir Directorate of Culture to initiate an investigation into the Odunpazarı Modern Museum, culminating in the
premature closure of an exhibition11 and attacks on the “Ortadan Başlamak” (“Starting from the Middle”) exhibition at Istanbul’s Feshane art venue, managed by the Metropolitan Municipality12, are just a few notable examples.
However, I believe that self-censorship goes beyond simply limiting oneself or yielding to heterosexual norms for the LGBTI+ community. Self-censorship can also be understood as a survival strategy, rooted in the need to preserve one’s existence while navigating and overcoming censorship mechanisms. In the process, it creates unpredictable spaces for resistance, at times through invisibility and at other times through strategic camouflage. As the LGBTI+ community and activists face increasing ostracism from mainstream media digital platforms, and heteronormative society, they continue to develop new, creative, and innovative ways to assert their presence.
The concept of the “rhizome,”13 borrowed by Deleuze and Guattari from botanical science, offers a compelling theoretical framework for understanding the strategies we have developed in response to censorship and oppression. According to Deleuze and Guattari, the rhizome is a structure without a central point, growing horizontally rather than branching out from a fixed root. It lacks a definitive beginning or end, perpetuating
its existence through ever-evolving networks. The heteronormative order persistently reinforces the narrative that there is a singular root, one that does not belong to this geographic region, restricting LGBTI+ existence to a centralized, fixed definition within a controllable boundary. In contrast, LGBTI+ resistance does not conform to a hierarchical, vertical, or fixed model of control, unlike the tree the government envisions, whose roots
could be contained and directed. Instead, this resistance spreads in multiple directions, like an unruly weed, untethered to any single root, continually evolving and expanding through ever-changing and multiplying forms.
While power may devise countless tactics to gather and control all stray growths around a central root, the LGBTI+ movement responds with equally numerous and diverse lines of resistance.
Although censorship mechanisms seek to erase LGBTI+ representation, the rhizomatic nature of the movement transforms this pressure into an opportunity for reshaping itself and forging new connections. When a
festival is banned, it can find life on alternative platforms; when a work of art is censored, it can persist by transforming into a new artistic practice; and when gathering is prohibited, dispersal itself can become an act of demonstration14. Therefore, self-censorship born of censorship may not mark the point where authorities have the “final say.” On the contrary, it can become an opportunity for the rhizome to regrow. In this context, self-
censorship does not signify absolute passivity or retreat; rather, it can serve as a strategy for remaining within the system and maneuvering along the edges of imposed pressure. The creation of the “Lubunca” language, the parades, festivals, and events we have organized in defiance of censorship, and the very existence of each and every lubunya –the term used within the community’s own jargon to refer to an LGBTI+ person– are all powerful examples of this
From this perspective, the lubunya can be seen not as someone who succumbs to fate, but as someone who challenges it — and in doing so, helps to transform the world. For this reason, rather than viewing LGBTI+ existence as mere victimization under censorship, oppression, and ostracization,
we must recognize that these individual lives possess an inherent transformative power. The LGBTI+ movement should be understood as a force that not only defends its own rights but also challenges societal norms and power relations, unveiling a radical potential for a different world.
In conclusion, while censorship seeks to render the LGBTI+ community invisible, the true strength of the movement lies in its resilience and ever- evolving presence, much like a rhizome or a resilient weed. Every obstacle reveals an alternative escape; every prohibition sparks a new form of expression. Thus, just as the ‘tragic hero’s journey lays bare the unavoidable, so the LGBTI+ movement heralds the promise of a richer, more diverse world.
1 “Eşcinsel imam Muhsin Hendricks öldürüldü”, KaosGL.org, https://kaosgl.org/haber/escinsel-imam- muhsinhendricks-olduruldu
2 Oğulcan Özgenç, “LGBTİ+’lar, Medeni Kanun ve Ceza Kanunu’nda yapılması öngörülen değişikliklerle hedefte”, KaosGL.org, https://kaosgl.org/haber/lgbti-lar-medeni-kanun-ve-ceza-kanunu-nda-yapilmasi- ongorulendegisikliklerle-hedefte
3 “Ankara Valiliği’nden OHAL’e dönüş: Kuirfest yasaklandı!”, KaosGL.org, https://kaosgl.org/haber/ankara- valiliginden-ohal-e-donus-kuirfest-yasaklandi
4 “Kadıköy Kaymakamlığı “Queer” filminin gösterimini yasakladı”, KaosGL, https://kaosgl.org/haber/ kadikoykaymakamligi-queer-filminin-gosterimini-yasakladi
5 “KaosGL.org’a sansürün gerekçesi Anayasaymış”, KaosGL.org, https://kaosgl.org/haber/kaosgl-org-a- sansurungerekcesi-anayasaymis
6 “Ankara’da Nefret Suçu Mağduru Transları Anma Günü yürüyüşüne polis saldırısı”, KaosGL.org, https://kaosgl. org/haber/ankara-da-nefret-sucu-magduru-translari-anma-gunu-yuruyusune-polis-saldirisi
7 “Fahrettin Örenli’s work censored due to “sensitivities”, https://susma24.com/en/index.php/fahrettin-orenlis- work-censored-due-to-sensitivities/
8 “30 Years of Censorship: A Report on the 30th Anniversary of the Radio and Television Supreme Council” https://www.mlsaturkey.com/images/RAPORLAR/RTUK%20REPORT%20ENGLISH%20Version.pdf
9 İbid.
10 “All of Suddenly: Research on digital violence against LGBTQI+ communities in Turkiye”, https://kaosgldernegi. org/images/library/all-of-a-sudden-0.pdf
11 “Eskişehir’deki ‘Yas ve Haz’ sergisine ‘LGBT propagandası’ iddiasıyla soruşturma”, Bianet.org, https://bianet.org/ haber/eskisehir-deki-yas-ve-haz-sergisine-lgbt-propagandasi-iddiasiyla-sorusturma-281780
12 “Feshane’ye Gerici Saldırılar”, Artdogistanbul.com, https://artdogistanbul.com/feshaneye-gerici-saldirilar/
13 Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F.. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (B. Massumi, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press, 1987
14 “LGBTİ’ler İstanbul’un her yerine ‘dağıldı’”, KaosGL.org, https://kaosgl.org/haber/lgbtirsquoler- istanbulrsquounher-yerine-lsquodagildirsquo