Sex as Class Construct Essay Example

cultural factors influence personal beliefs and experiences of sexuality. In the late 1800s, scientific investigations into sexuality played a significant role in shaping societal perceptions of homosexuality - it went from being viewed as forbidden under secular and religious law to being classified as a medical and psychiatric condition called "pervert" (Kaplan, 1997, p. 115).

The English and American vocabulary did not include the term homosexual until the 1950s. This term became known due to the Kinsey reports, a publication by Alfred Kinsey, a respected scientist known for his meticulous categorization of gall wasp into taxonomies. Kinsey’s study involved examining the sexual histories and behaviors of more than 10,000 Caucasian American men and women in the 1950s. Although outsiders criticized Kinsey’s methodology, he challenged the notion that people were either exclusively heterosexual or homosexual. Instead, he created a continuum model of sexuality that placed individuals along a spectrum based on their sexual behaviors. Sigmund Freud’s ideas about sexuality also influenced current perceptions of this topic.

While Freud connected psychological growth with sexuality, he didn't explore homosexuality in detail and regarded it as a stage towards conventional sexual conduct. Subsequently, psychoanalysts perceived homosexuality as a disorder akin to mental sickness. However, the American Psychiatric Association withdrew homosexuality from their catalog of mental disorders in 1973 but introduced novel forms of dysfunction that could promote conformity to gender standards.

Throughout history, opposition to same-sex eroticism has taken various forms such as condemnation, criminalization, medicalization, regulation, and reformation (Edwards, 1994). Despite this long-standing history of resistance to same-sex relationships and behaviors, homophobia and heterosexism remain prevalent today. Homophobia involves exhibiting irrational fear or hatred towards homosexuals that often leads to

discriminatory and violent actions (Adams et al., 2007), while heterosexism refers to a system of advantage or privilege given to heterosexual individuals through institutional practices and cultural norms that promote heterosexuality as the only natural form of sexual identity or expression (Adams et al.).

Inequality arises from institutional heterosexism, which denies privileges to those who identify as lesbian, gay, or queer that are enjoyed by heterosexuals. These privileges encompass spousal health insurance, marriage, adoption and hospital visitation. The idea of sexual identity classifications emerged in the late 1800s with homosexuality and heterosexuality being regarded as distinct categories. This binary concept reinforces the notion that heterosexuality is typical while homosexuality is an opposing category. As a result, individuals tend to define their sexual identities based on these classification systems (Altman, 1971).

Individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, or queer are faced with the challenge of establishing an identity that goes against the heterocentric norms of our society. The dominant culture privileges heterosexuality, making it difficult for them to develop their sense of self. Morrow and Messinger (2006, p.85) emphasize that this is a crucial task they must undertake. Adrienne Rich (1997) has coined the term compulsory heterosexuality to describe the negative consequences experienced by those who identify as non-normative in terms of sexual identity. Our society views being straight as correct, normal, and desirable which particularly affects the development of sexual identity for individuals outside this norm.

Conforming to the heterosexual norm can cause difficulties for gays and lesbians in accepting their same-sex desires. This can lead to a range of negative experiences, including isolation, low self-esteem, depression, and anger (Morrow & Messinger, 2006; Savin-Williams & Cohen, 1996;

Siker, 2007). These challenges can also hinder the lifelong process of sexual identity development. While Freud (1905/1953) suggested that homosexuality was a temporary stage in the development of normal heterosexual identity, other scientists apply a gay and lesbian affirmative approach. Different models have been put forward, but Vivian Cass’ (1979) model is the most widely used and accepted.

The formation of sexual identity has been proposed through a six-stage model developed by an individual who worked with lesbian and gay individuals. The model includes stages such as identity confusion, identity comparison, identity tolerance, identity acceptance, identity pride, and identity synthesis. The interpersonal congruence theory serves as the basis for Cass’ model, which suggests that stability and change in a person’s life are influenced by their interpersonal environment's congruence or incongruence (Hunter, Shannon, Knox, ; Martin, 1998, p. 58). Moving through these stages involves experiencing interactions between their sexual behaviors, sexual identity, and their environment's heterosexist and homophobic nature.

According to Johnson (2000, p. 258), identities are subject to change and can vary depending on the situation or time period. Sexual identity formation is strongly tied to coming out, which involves recognizing one's homosexuality. Rust (2003) defines coming out as acknowledging attraction towards individuals of the same gender, adopting a lesbian, gay or bisexual identity, and sharing this with others. Rust also notes that coming out is essential because heterosexuality is typically assumed in our culture unless stated otherwise.

227) The process of coming out comprises several stages, such as forming a sexual identity, disclosing one's sexual orientation to others, engaging in sexual expression and behavior, and connecting with the gay community (Morris, 1997). This progression involves recognizing

feeling different, exploring sexuality, accepting it, and integrating it with other aspects of identity (Savin-Williams, 1990). Despite being helpful to view coming out as a developmental process, it is an ongoing one that never reaches completion (Rust; Sedgwick, 1993b). To discuss contemporary ideas about sexual identity development and coming out, queer theory must be mentioned. In the early 1990s, AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT-UP), an AIDS activist group, began using the name Queer Nation (Blasius, 2001). This moment marked the start of reclaiming the term "queer," which had served as an insult towards LGBTQ+ people in the past (Epstein, 2005).

According to Talburt and Steinberg (2000), queer theory asserts that identity is a cultural construction and values non-normative sexual identities while rejecting conventional ideas of sexual binaries. The theory challenges essentialist notions of sexual identity and considers it to be fluid, paradoxical, multiple, and political (Lovaas & Jenkins, 2007). Queer theorists also argue that heterosexuality and homosexuality are not the only ways to understand sexual identity (Blasius; Jagose, 1996).

According to Rust (2003), Queer theory dissects sexual classifications and grants room for multiple nonconforming sexual and non-sexual identities. Halperin (2003) suggests that to fully utilize the theory, academics avoid providing a set definition of the term queer and instead recognize it as anything beyond normalcy. Kaplan (1997, p.) notes that the loose interpretation of the term holds an advantage in terms of politics.

Queer theory recognizes the existence of various identities, such as gender, religion, race, ethnicity, and sexuality. It also highlights how these identity categories may be used by oppressive structures to enforce regulations or as a tool for liberatory resistance against such oppression (Butler, 1993b,

p. 208).

In essence, queer politics challenge the concept of a singular or inherent gay or lesbian identity (Sedgwick, 1993b). This has the ability to disturb and contest cultural beliefs about the formation of identity, sexuality, and sexual identity (Edwards Brooks, 1999, p. 54). The Queer theory has predominantly been fashioned by academics, particularly feminist scholars in the humanities (Seidman, 1996, p. 13).

As per Talburt and Steinberg (2000), queer theory places value on atypical or non-conforming sexualities, considering identity to be a product of culture. This perspective is influenced by the ideas of several influential figures such as Foucault, Sedgwick, Butler, and Derrida who examine the cultural, historical and discursive dimensions of categories that include sexual identity. The works of Sedgwick's Epistemology of the Closet and Butler's Gender Trouble are particularly significant in queer studies; with Gender Trouble and Bodies That Matter, Butler delves into how gender is performative rather than inherent while simultaneously emphasizing heterosexuality privileges. Moreover, challenging conventional gender categories "creates valid positions for gay and lesbian subjects" (Jagose 1996: p.)

In her book Epistemology of the Closet, Sedgwick critiqued the binary division between heterosexual and homosexual and questioned the concept of the closet. She explained how modern culture has established a dichotomy between masculine and feminine, natural and artificial, same and different, majority and minority, and more. This study is shaped by queer theory, which provides a framework for distinguishing between sexual desire, behavior, and identity, as well as accommodating the contradictions that arise when examining different aspects of identity. For instance, some of the participants in this research challenge the notion that one cannot simultaneously be a Christian and identify as gay,

lesbian, or queer.

Participants in the concept of queer are essentially challenging normative identities in both faith and sexuality. Despite being propelled by academia, the term "queer" remains difficult to study due to its ambiguous nature (Jagose, 1996). Nevertheless, queer studies have gained popularity on many college campuses across the nation. Contemporary scholars frequently utilize queer theory as a lens to examine sexuality, literature, music, and society. Furthermore, queer theory does not pose a threat to established disciplines; instead, it can be integrated into them and applied to existing fields (Halperin, 2003, p. 342).

According to William Pinar (2003), a professor at Louisiana State University, queer theory has enabled him to understand that American society needs to radically restructure hegemonic white male subjectivity for democratization to occur (p. 357). Gamson (2000) stated that although there are relatively few empirical studies based solely on queer theory, it is commonly applied to reconceptualizing and deconstructing concepts like sexual identity. In this study examining the experiences of individuals with a Christian upbringing who identify as gay, lesbian, or queer, queer theory provided an additional lens for understanding sexual identity development. As more individuals identify as queer in our postmodern society, using queer theory was essential for comprehending the participants’ identities.

While queer theory aims to challenge norms, incorporating this concept into work with gays and lesbians can prove challenging for practitioners. Queer theory has faced critiques from within the LGBTQ+ community, including objections to the use of the term "queer" as a self-descriptor due to its past negative connotations (Jagose, 1996, p. 103). Some argue that the struggle for legitimacy of sexual identities undermines the value of these identities when

viewed through a queer theory lens (Jagose). Conversely, proponents of queer theory may contend that the popularization of the term "queer" risks diluting its subversive meaning, as it becomes increasingly mainstream (Jagose).

The extensive use of queer theory in academia also applies to this argument. According to Jagose (p. 126), it is still uncertain how much impact queer theory has on identity politics.