ABSTRACT
This chapter calls attention to a different kind of remains, one that centers on forms of discrimination hidden in ostensibly respectful emancipatory discourses. This reading underscores the danger of eclipsing the reciprocal masking of homophobia and transphobia when the state’s interest in setting them apart as mutually distinct political agendas rearticulates itself in powerful ways behind definitive court decisions. The opportunity for a watershed turning point came in 2002, when the European Court of Human Rights sat as a Grand Chamber in the landmark judgement of Goodwin v. UK. Christine Goodwin claimed a violation of Articles 8, 12, 13 and 14 of the Convention and applied for just satisfaction. Ironically, despite its troublesome agenda, the dissenting opinion of Justice Chan illustrates a potentially queerer intervention in comparison to the majority judgment.
