Non-heterosexual

Non-heterosexual is a word for a sexual orientation or sexual identity that is not heterosexual.[1][2] The term helps define the "concept of what is the norm and how a particular group is different from that norm".[3] Non-heterosexual is used in feminist and gender studies fields as well as general academic literature to help differentiate between sexual identities chosen, prescribed and simply assumed, with varying understanding of implications of those sexual identities.[4][5][6][7] The term is similar to queer, though less politically charged and more clinical; queer generally refers to being non-normative and non-heterosexual.[8][9][10] Some view the term as being contentious and pejorative as it "labels people against the perceived norm of heterosexuality, thus reinforcing heteronormativity".[11][12] Still, others say non-heterosexual is the only term useful to maintaining coherence in research and suggest it "highlights a shortcoming in our language around sexual identity"; for instance, its use can enable bisexual erasure.[13]

Sexual orientation
Sexual orientations
Related terms
Research
Animals
Related topics
  • Category
Part of a series on
LGBT topics
      
Sexual orientation and gender
History
General
Identities
Culture
Rights
Health
Social attitudes
Issues
Academic fields and discourse
LGBT portal

Background

Many gay, lesbian and bisexual people were born into different cultures and religions that stigmatized, repressed or negatively judged any sexuality that differed from a heterosexual identity and orientation.[14][15] Additionally the majority of heterosexuals still view non-heterosexual acts as taboo and non-conventional sexual desires are generally hidden entirely or masked in various ways.[6] Non-heterosexual is more fully inclusive of people who not only identify as other than heterosexual but also as other than gay, lesbian and bisexual.[16] Some common examples include same gender loving, men who have sex with men (MSM), women who have sex with women (WSW), bi-curious and questioning.[7][17][18] Non-heterosexual is considered a better general term than homosexual, lesbian and gay, LGBT or queer for being more neutral and without the baggage or gender discrimination that comes with many of the alternatives.[8] For instance, until 1973, the American Psychological Association listed homosexual as a mental illness, and it still has negative connotations.[19]

Usage

Non-heterosexual is found predominantly in research and scholarly environments possibly as a means to avoid terms deemed politically incorrect like lesbian, dyke, gay, bisexual, etc. that lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people use as self descriptors.[15][20][21] When used by those who do not identify as LGB or when used by LGB people disparagingly, the terms are generally considered pejorative, so non-heterosexual is a default and innocuous term unlikely to offend readers.[22] For example, the Kinsey scale can be divided between those exclusively heterosexual and everyone else.[23] The term has come into more prominence in the academic field starting in the 1980s and more prominently in the 1990s with major studies of identities of non-heterosexual youth and a smaller number of studies specifically looking at non-heterosexual college students.[24] Non-heterosexual is also used to encompass transgender and intersex people, because although these are gender identities rather than sexual identities, they are within the LGBT and queer umbrella communities.[15][25] Additionally, non-heterosexual encompasses a wide variety of terms used by different cultures whose own terms might never neatly translate to a homosexual or bisexual identity; for researching and extrapolating data it is a practical and accepted term.[26]

In a 2004 book that integrates "the academic disciplines of cinema studies, sociology, cultural and critical studies" regarding the Big Brother phenomena, non-heterosexual was used as a universal term to help compare information from over thirty countries.[6] In exploring and studying the emerging field of gay, lesbian and bisexual seniors, non-heterosexual is a default term to demonstrate that the "vast majority" of literature assumes that older people are heterosexual and makes "no effort" to explore the experiences and attitudes of those who are not.[27] In Welfare and the State the authors describe the perceived advantages of lesbians in the workplace as they, in theory, wouldn't have children so would be advantageous to the labor force.[28] The authors point out, however, that not only do many lesbians have children but they routinely identify as heterosexual through much of their lives or at least until their children are old enough that a non-heterosexual identity would not greatly impact their families negatively.[28]

Non-heterosexual is also used when studying lesbian and gay families and family structures.[25][29] It came into wider use in this context when the AIDS pandemic's impact on gay male communities was being explored as many gay men created families out of extended networks of friends and these became their support systems.[25]

Critique

The use of the term 'non-heterosexual' to refer to LGBTQ people as a blanket term could perpetuate heterosexuality as the norm.

Jonathan Ned Katz argues that historically, the term was used to force people into one of two distinct identities; the "normalization of a sex that was 'hetero' proclaimed a new heterosexual separatism — an erotic apartheid that forcefully segregated the sex normals from the sex perverts."[30] He argues that it enforces the idea of "compulsory heterosexuality" and that anyone who does not fit into that category is going against the norm.[30] He states that heterosexuality, as a categorization and as a term, was not created until the late nineteenth century, that prior to this relations between the sexes were not believed to be overtly sexual, and that in the Victorian era sex was seen as an act between "manly men and womanly women, [as] procreators, not specifically as erotic beings or heterosexuals."[30] He further argues that the division between the heterosexual and the non-heterosexual came in the 1860s after the "growth of the consumer economy also fostered a new pleasure ethic,"[30] and the erotic became a commodity to be bought and sold; at the same time the "rise in power and prestige of medical doctors allowed those upwardly mobile professionals to prescribe a healthy new sexuality."[30] He states that men and women were now meant to enjoy sex; relations between those of the 'opposite sexes' was seen as healthy and encouraged by medical professionals; and this creation and celebration of the 'Normal Sexual' ultimately resulted in its counterpart: the 'Sexual Pervert,' anyone who fell outside the heterosexual ideal. He states, "In its earliest version, the twentieth-century heterosexual imperative usually continued to associate heterosexuality with a supposed human 'need,' 'drive,' or 'instinct' for propagation, a procreant urge linked inexorably with carnal lust... giving praise to vent to heteroerotic emotions was thus praised as enhancing baby-making capacity, marital intimacy and family stability."[30] The basic oppositeness of the sexes was seen as the basis for normal, healthy sexual attraction. Katz concludes that the term heterosexuality was created as a way to subjugate and other anyone who did not confirm to mainstream ideals of sexuality. It was a term that created a sense of validation that heterosexuality was the normal, healthy version of human sexuality.[30]

Margaret Denike and Patrick Hopkins have argued that "heterosexism and homophobia are founded on and sustained by binary gender categories, specifically the assumption that there are distinct and proper masculine and feminine gender roles and identities against which deviation is measured."[31] According to Erika Feigenbaum, the use of the term non-heterosexual indicates a departure from what is acceptable in society while highlighting the juxtaposition between the ideal heterosexual and unideal non-heterosexual, stating, "Heterosexism is about dominance, and the practices that support it are often replicated, reinforced, and reflected by the attitudes, behaviors, and practices of even [the] best-intentioned allies."[32]

Although "non-heterosexuality" is considered a blanket term for all LGBTQ identities, it is often interpreted as another word for homosexual which contributes to the continuation of systematic bisexual erasure. Bisexuality has a long history of being overshadowed and ignored in favour of the belief in monosexuality, it "[represents] a blind spot in sex research."[33] The term non-heterosexual suggests a division between heterosexual and homosexual, the heterosexual-homosexual dichotomy, rather than the heterosexual-homosexual continuum, which accounts for identities that are not exclusively heterosexual or homosexual. By separating identities into either/or, bisexual identities are left in a place of ambiguity, "bisexuals transgress boundaries of sexually identified communities and thus are always both inside and outside a diversity of conflicting communities."[34] The implied homosexual-heterosexual dichotomy that the term puts in place negates its use as a truly inclusive term; "[the] categories are constructed in such a way as to allow everyone access to one and only one, and to insist that anyone who is not already neatly situated in one category or the other had best be on the way to one."[35] This focus on either/or logic, heterosexuality or non-heterosexuality, where non-heterosexuality is closely associated with homosexuality rather than general queerness, slights those that the term attempts to describe; "where bisexuality does rate a mention, it is almost always rendered an epistemological and incidental by-product, aftereffect, or definitional outcome of the opposition of hetero/homosexuality."[33]

Non-heterosexuality is often used to describe those in the LGBT+ community with non-cisgender identities. This is seen as problematic as sexual orientation and gender identity are different. However the distinction between the two is relatively modern. Historically "[transgender people] were classified as homosexuals by everyone, including the physicians who specialized in their treatment, and it is only in the past fifty years or so that transgender has been theorized as different in kind from homosexuality."[36] Many people still fail to understand or make the distinction between gender minorities and sexual minorities.[36]

Queer people "are often expected to account for [their] sexual identifications by either proving [their] normality (that is, [they] are inside the sphere of heteronormativity), or by accepting that [their] difference from the heterosexual norm constitutes some form of essence."[37] The term non-heterosexual is used to highlight the absolute difference between heterosexual and queer identities. The language needs to change to describe LGBTQ people as autonomous beings "rather than considering [them] solely as sexual beings constituted within a heterosexual logic of sameness or difference."[37] The implied binary that the term non-heterosexual perpetuates erases those whose identities fall in the spectrum between heterosexuality and homosexuality. The hetero/homosexual dichotomy continues the systematic erasure of bisexual identities by emphasizing an assumed oppositeness with nothing allowed in between.[36] It ignores those who identify as non-binary, as the term non-heterosexuality has been interpreted as categorizing those who are sexually attracted to people of the 'same sex' as opposed to those who are attracted to those of the 'opposite sex.'[36]

See also

References
  1. Dilley, Patrick (2002). Queer Man on Campus: A History of Non-Heterosexual College Men 1945-2000. Routledge. pp. 4–16. ISBN 978-0-415-93337-7. Retrieved 24 July 2008.
  2. Hinds, Hilary; Ann Phoenix; Jackie Stacey (1992). Working Out: New Directions For Women's Studies. Routledge. pp. 85–95. ISBN 978-0-7507-0043-6. Retrieved 24 July 2008.
  3. Stevens, Richard A Jr (May–June 2005). "Queer Man on Campus: A History of Non-Heterosexual College Men, 1945-2000". Journal of College Student Development. Archived from the original on 14 October 2008. Retrieved 24 July 2008.
  4. Jaggar, Alison M. (1994). Living with Contradictions: Controversies in Feminist Social Ethics. Westview Press. pp. 499–502. ISBN 978-0-8133-1776-2. Retrieved 24 July 2008.
  5. Munt, Sally (1998). Butch/femme: Inside Lesbian Gender. Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 93–100, 226, 228. ISBN 978-0-304-33959-4. Retrieved 24 July 2008.
  6. Mathijs, Ernest; Janet Jones (2004). Big Brother International: Format, Critics and Publics. Wallflower Press. pp. 1945–55. ISBN 978-1-904764-18-2. Retrieved 24 July 2008.
  7. Jewkes, Yvonne (2002). Dot.Cons: Crime, Deviance and Identity on the Internet. Willan Publishing. pp. 59–65. ISBN 978-1-84392-000-7. Retrieved 24 July 2008.
  8. Weeks, Jeffrey; Brian Heaphy; Catherine Donovan (2001). Same Sex Intimacies: Families of Choice and Other Life Experiments. Routledge. pp. viii. ISBN 978-0-415-25477-9. Retrieved 24 July 2008.
  9. Taylor, Victor E.; Charles E. Winquist (2001). Encyclopedia of Postmodernism. Taylor & Francis. p. 327. ISBN 978-0-415-15294-5. Retrieved 24 July 2008.
  10. Beasley, Chris; Charles E. Winquist (2005). Gender & Sexuality: Critical Theories, Critical Thinkers. Sage Publications Inc. p. 161. ISBN 978-0-7619-6979-2. Retrieved 24 July 2008.
  11. Yip, Andrew K.T. (2004). "Queering Religious Texts: An Exploration of British Non-heterosexual Christians' and Muslims' Strategy of Constructing Sexuality-affirming Hermeneutics" (PDF). Nottingham Trent University. Archived from the original on 13 May 2014. Retrieved 24 July 2008.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link); PDF version Archived 3 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine
  12. Browne, Kath (2003). "Negotiations and Fieldworkings: Friendship and Feminist Research" (PDF). University of Brighton. Archived from the original on 9 November 2005. Retrieved 24 July 2008.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link);
  13. Parker, Blaise Astra (May 2004). "Queer Theory Goes To College". Journal of Sex Research. Archived from the original on 14 October 2008. Retrieved 24 July 2008. "He includes interviews of some men who have a behaviorally bisexual pattern, but none of men who self-identify as bisexual. Therefore, the term non-heterosexual was inherently problematic to me, given that I am sensitive to issues of bisexual exclusion."
  14. Althaus-Reid, Marcella; Ann Phoenix; Jackie Stacey (2006). Liberation Theology and Sexuality. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. pp. 10–16. ISBN 978-0-7546-5080-5. Retrieved 24 July 2008.
  15. Gelder, Ken; Sarah Thornton (2005). The Subcultures Reader. Routledge. pp. 421–9. ISBN 978-0-415-34416-6. Retrieved 24 July 2008.
  16. Svensson, Travis K.; Charles E. Winquist (2004). A Bioethical Analysis of Sexual Reorientation Interventions: The Ethics of Conversion Therapy. Sage Publications Inc. p. 23. ISBN 978-1-58112-415-6. Retrieved 24 July 2008.
  17. Joseph, Sherry (2005). Social Work Practice and Men who Have Sex with Men. Sage Publications Inc. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-7619-3352-6. Retrieved 24 July 2008.
  18. Gullotta, Thomas P.; Martin Bloom (2003). Encyclopedia of Primary Prevention and Health Promotion. Springer. ISBN 978-0-306-47296-1. Retrieved 24 July 2008.
  19. Gaddy, Jim (3 February 2003). Spectrum trains members to educate students: Group to host sexual identity discussions. The Daily Reveille. ISBN 978-0-306-47296-1. Archived from the original on 6 August 2009. Retrieved 24 July 2008.
  20. Quam, Jean K.; Sarah Thornton (1997). Social Services for Senior Gay Men and Lesbians. Haworth Press. pp. 11–40, 93, 113. ISBN 978-1-56024-808-8. Retrieved 24 July 2008.
  21. Clarke, Karen; Tony Maltby; Patricia Kennett (2007). Social Policy Review 19: Analysis and Debate in Social Policy, 2007. The Policy Press. p. 145. ISBN 978-1-86134-941-5. Retrieved 24 July 2008.
  22. Klesse, Christian (2007). The Spectre of Promiscuity: Gay Male and Bisexual Non-Monogamies and Polyamories. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 978-0-7546-4906-9. Retrieved 24 July 2008.
  23. Brooks-Gordon, Belinda; Andrew Bainham; Loraine Gelsthorpe (2004). Sexuality Repositioned: Diversity and the Law. Hart Publishing. p. 164. ISBN 978-1-84113-489-5. Retrieved 24 July 2008.
  24. Dilley, Patrick (1 January 2005). "Which way out? A typology of non-heterosexual male collegiate identities". Journal of Higher Education. Retrieved 24 July 2008.
  25. Hines, Sally; Catherine Jones Finer; Bob Matthews (2007). Transforming Gender: Transgender Practices of Identity, Intimacy and Care. The Policy Press. pp. 32–41, 103–115. ISBN 978-1-86134-916-3. Retrieved 24 July 2008.
  26. Murray, David A. B. (2003). "Who Is Takatapui? Maori Language, Sexuality and Identity in Aotearoa/New Zealand". Anthropologica. 45 (2): 233–245. doi:10.2307/25606143. JSTOR 25606143. Retrieved 24 July 2008.
  27. Gott, Merryn (2005). Sexuality, Sexual Health and Ageing. McGraw-Hill International. pp. 30, 82–9, 134. ISBN 978-0-335-22554-5. Retrieved 24 July 2008.
  28. Deakin, Nicholas; Catherine Jones Finer; Bob Matthews (2003). Welfare and the State. Taylor & Francis. pp. 80–90. ISBN 978-0-415-32770-1. Retrieved 24 July 2008.
  29. Dunne, Gillian A. (1998). Living "difference": Lesbian Perspectives on Work and Family Life. Haworth Press. pp. 1–12, 69–83. ISBN 978-0-7890-0537-3. Retrieved 24 July 2008.
  30. Katz, Jonathan Ned (January–March 1990). "The Invention of Heterosexuality" (PDF). Socialist Review (20): 231–142. Retrieved 5 December 2016.
  31. Denike, Margaret (2007). "Religion, Rights, and Relationships: The Dream of Relational Equality". Hypatia. 22 (1): 71–91. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2007.tb01150.x. JSTOR 4640045. S2CID 145079826.
  32. Feigenbaum, Erika Faith (2007). "Heterosexual Privilege: The Political and the Personal". Hypatia. 22 (1): 1–9. doi:10.1353/hyp.2006.0063. JSTOR 4640040.
  33. Angelides, Steven (2001). A History of Bisexuality. The University of Chicago Press Chicago and London. pp. 1–19. ISBN 978-0-226-02089-1. Retrieved 5 December 2016.
  34. Daumer, Elisabeth D (1992). "Queer Ethics; Or, The Challenge of Bisexuality to Lesbian Ethics". Hypatia. 7 (4): 91–105. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.1992.tb00720.x. JSTOR 3810080. S2CID 144876898.
  35. Held, Lisa (1997). "In Praise of Unreliability". Hypatia. 12 (3): 174–182. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.1997.tb00011.x. JSTOR 3810228. S2CID 143484271.
  36. Weiss, Jillian Todd (2004). "GL vs. BT: The Archaeology of Biphobia and Transphobia Within the U.S. Gay and Lesbian Community". The Journal of Bisexuality. 3: 25–55. doi:10.1300/j159v03n03_02. S2CID 144642959. Retrieved 5 August 2018.
  37. Riggs, Damien W (2007). "Reassessing the Foster-Care System: Examining the Impact of Heterosexism on Lesbian and Gay Applicants". Hypatia. 22 (1): 132–148. doi:10.1353/hyp.2006.0073. JSTOR 4640048.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.