Lecture 10 - Sexual Identity Flashcards
Define Sexual ID
a sense of self as relates to sexual attractions, fantasies & behaviours, fitting in culturally negotiated categories
Define Sexual orientation
who we are sexually attracted to
Define sexual behaviour
outward manifestations of sexual activity
Define Sex (biological)
male, female or intersex
- Determined by genes, hormones, anatomy
- Can change sexual organs/ hormones
Define Gender ID
- mental self-concept of attitudes, beliefs and behaviours
- Man, women, trasgender, agender etc
- cisgender = you assume the gender that people assign to you
Define transexual
Transexual involves surgery to change it
- transgender is just changing gender
Define Transgender
Transsexual and Transgender
- Evolving definitions
- Transgender = Experience gender as different from apparent sex
Who found it was common to conflate (combine) gender & Sexual ID
Peel (2005)
What did Peel (2005) find?
That even after sex ed seminars, people still conflated gender and sexual ID
What does Butler (1990) suggest about gender?
suggests that being a man or a women is not an internal fact about us, but something we perform constantly
All of our behaviours consolidate an impression of ourselves as a gender
Not necessarily intentional
Gender specific instance of goffman
Who was the first to systematically study sexual ID? and why?
Kinsey - because hw was shocked at the lack of empircal evidence on sexual behaviour/ ID
Outline what Kiinsey did
- interviewed about 20,000 americans
- Found huge discrepancy between beliefs (no sex before marriage etc)about sexual behaviour & actual sexual behaviour
- At the time, it was very hard for his research as sex was a taboo topic
Outline Kinsey’s findings
Sexual behaviour in the Human Male (1948) … female (1953)
Found that homosexual experiences were common
- 50% men (who stayed unmarried longer), 28% women had had same sex experiences
- 38% men, 13% women had orgasm duing these experiences
Sexual orientation changed over life time
Sexual ID both fluid and complex - not just straight or gay
Argued that humans made up 2 categories and now force people into those “pigeon holes”
- concluded the kinsey scale
Outline some sexual ID categories
Heterosexual – opposite gender
Homosexual – same gender
Bisexual – opposite and same gender – tends to be 50/50
Pansexual – not limited to gender, just who you find attractive – pan is not 50/50, but anything along the scale
Asexual – no sexual attration, but romantic attraction is possible
Outline Cass (1979)’s model
Stage 1: Identity confusion
- Realise heterosexuality isnt fitting (doesn’t explain feelings)
- choose if you want to explore it
Stage 2: ID comparison
- Considering being LGB, tenative comment – start to tell people
- alienation (feel differnet to everyone)
- Behaviours done to reduce alienation, either by:
- trying to suppress it and stick with heterosexual
- radically accept it
Stage 3: ID tolerance
- Seeking out other LGB people
- Testing ID with other LGB - if its good experience, carry on, if bad – give up
- Key stage for continuing development
Stage 4: ID acceptance
- Increasing contact with LGB subculture
- sense of fitting in and belonging (alienation disappears)
Stage 5: ID pride
- Devaluing heterosexual values
- Engaging in activism – parades
- less time spent with straight people
- Us vs them mentality – trust
Stage 6: ID synthesis
- Increasing contact with allied heterosexual people
- Activism reduces
- Reduceing or removing divisions between sexual IDs – we’re al one and share sexual ID
Outline Weinberg (1994) Model
Stage 1: initial confusion – hetero and don’t fit
Stage 2: Finding and applying label – involves searching
Stage 3: Settling into ID- start to feel that you fit
Stage 4: Continued uncertainty – Contuned to experience personal debates over ID and unclear feedback from others
Who was weinbergs model for
bisexuality
how is bisexuality invisible>
Rarely acknowledges in media or homosexual communities, psychological resarch – seen as waverin/ temporay
Bisexuality overlooked as potential ID (Barker & Langdride, 2008)
Delegtimised:
- treated as temporary – not committed/ part of the group
- As indecision - just a phase, just testing this out
- As greediness
- As promisciousness
Define the Sexual ID norms in society
Monosexuality – attraction to only one gender
Mononormativity – assumed attraction to only one gender, dismissing dual (or more) attractinos
Heteronormativity – expected sexuality, all others in oppositino to it, assumed until counter-indicated
Mongamy – that open or flexible relationships are impossible
What are the problems with the stage models?
Assumes
- sexuality is innate (you’re going to find it)
- Involves discovering true ID (linear, staged path, cant reverse)
- Assumes linear development
- Assumes uniderectional development
- Negatively framed – it’s a fight/ challenge to acquire your sexual ID
- Self-reflection = means to development
- Requirement of experiences – don’t need to experience something to know you like someone/ a gender
How did Kitzinger (1987) criticise the stage models?
Stage models created ‘well-adjusted homosexual’ stereotype (once youre gay you should be okay with it) – this is not much better
Homosexual people who don’t fit model are just not developed enough?
- Problem still seen as arising from LGB people, not model
- LGB people have to be mature to be in final stage, and act like heterosexual people
- those who don’t accept heterosexual people arent finished
Liberal humanistic account
- liberal Humanism = encourage acceptance of individual variation as part of rich variety of humanity
What are sexual IDs based on?
They CAN Change over time, are NOT FIXED
Sexual ID is constructed, not fixed
- constructions are cultural, performative, normative
- based on cultural understandings + performing we conclude what we should behave
- relys on the group we generally interact with
How is sexual ID seen in everday life?
Construction of ’normal’
- What laws support ID expression? – e.g. equal rights, service…
- Uk only legalised same sex marriage in 2014
What options are available on standardised forms
- census, research surveys, accounts, signing up for things, social media – ’other’ is not very nice
- facebook only added extra gender options in 2014
Assumptions in public
- Assume you are heteroexual until told otherwise
- assume 1 male, 1 female parent until told otherwise
How are non-mainstream sexual IDs accountable?
Accountability of Sexual ID
- accountabile for LGB vs heterosexual – have to explain it
- Accounting for mainting fixed ID – if you change, you have to explain why
LGB may account for heterosexual behaviour – I was in denial, its just sex
Heterosexual may account for homosexual behaviour
- experiment/ just a phase
Construction of choice
- Sexual ID is often not treated as innate, just a choice/ lifestyle choie
- If people can choose, accountability is different than if forced
Who did the Bud sex example?
Silva (2015)
Outline Silva (2015)
- interviewees constructed traditional masculinity
- I wear jeans and boots, I like to drive trucks and shoot stuff – to them, homosexuals don’t do that
- They realise their ID was in question and they try to construct a masculine as possible ID
Prefered other masculine men when engaging in homosexual behaviour
- if I wanted a feminine one, id go to my wife at home
- Presumed they wouldn’t have negative feminine characteristcs
No romance
- p’s claimed it was a no strings atteched thing
- Just friendliness – coffee then sex
Maintaing primary heterosexual relationship
- most were married
- sex with other women would be cheating
What are becoming more vague in terms of sexual ID? and give an example
Labels
- Many people today reject the requirement for stable categories (Savin-Williams, 2005)
- many new labeles are puporsively flexible/ vague – e.g. pansexual
Decreasing use of labels at all
- theres more resitance to labells now, especially in young people
Move to ‘subject script’ (Hammoack et al., 2013)
- instead of seeing LGB as pathological/ biological requirement – see LGB as just a spectrum of individuals, variable
Which 2 did studies into sexual fluidity?
Diamond (2008)
Katz-Wise (2015)
Outline Diamond (2008)
- 10 year longitduinal study – 79 women, 18-25
- Non- heterosexual women
Results: - 67% chagned their IDs at least once (not voluntarily)
- Bisexual was a poor lable for their behaviour and experience
Outline Katz-wise (2015)
- survey of sexual behaviours and beliefs (199 p’s all sexual minority)
- 64% women reported sexual fluidity – 52% men
- Of those, women were more likely to use variety of sexual IDs
- Men more liley to ID as purely gay
