Abstract
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:p>Normative change carries a positive connotation, which is understandable, given that it is the goal of global normative governance mechanisms and their diverse participants. However, this positive attribution can also be biased. A change in normativity may cause harm to some of those affected, for example, via institutionalized exclusion or even the abjection of formerly prevailing normativities, normative meanings, and related policy practices. This chapter empirically examines this account of normative change using a grounded normative methodology, focusing on the case of Turkish religious conservative activists mainstreaming anti-gender/anti-SOGI normative positions and relatedly breaking the pro-gender/pro-SOGI normative agency’s access to and ownership in contestation through exclusionary all-or-none practices. The findings help to raise ethical dilemmas about the positive connotations of normative change and advance theoretical abstractions on how differential access to contestation and normative opportunity structures impact maintaining or resisting normative change and sustainability.</jats:p>