CHAPTER 6: I HAVE EXPERIENCED MORE HATE FROM MY FELLOW GAYS THAN
6.2 The “ideal” gay and lesbian typologies
6.2.1 In- and out-groups: A typological gay and lesbian identity membership “blueprint”
This sub-section integrates the in-depth theoretical and literature review offered in chapters 1 through 3 with the empirical data discussed in chapter 5. Four inductive sub-themes emerged from the present study’s empirical data about homonormative typologies. Firstly, gay and lesbian participants perceived homonormative stereotypes as only depicting a narrow representation of what it means to be gay or lesbian. Secondly, heteronormativity and homonormativity were viewed as being interrelated, overlapping and mutually reinforcing themes and processes.
Thirdly, the argument that assimilation into and conforming to homonormative typologies may influence the social placement of gay and lesbian individuals as part of an in- or out group.
Lastly, such homonormative typologies were perceived as socially constructed.
6.2.1.1 Pigeonholing gay and lesbian identification
Participants offered sentiments describing how homonormative stereotypes depict a narrow image of what it means to be “gay” or “lesbian”. They felt that such stereotypes were “limiting”
individuals by depicting a “cookie-cutter” or “one-dimensional” image of gay and lesbian identities, and that such stereotypes tend to mainly be reinforced by the media through shows like The L Word and Orange is the New Black – an argument that Clare (2013), Duggan (2002) and Mercer (2017) attest. In so doing, the campus context normalises the “stereotypical way to be homosexual” which increases the expectations to present this stereotypical image in order for a gay and lesbian student to receive validation (cf. Jagessar & Msibi, 2015a; Tshanduko &
Rothmann, 2019). Croce (2015) and Santos (2013) argued that the performance of such a social construction may influence whether students may receive validation from a seemingly heteronormative campus context. Examples of these stereotypical homonormative typologies established a clear-cut “gendered” demarcation between feminine traits (Blashill & Powlishta, 2009; Butler, 1990; Croce, 2015; Mills-Koonce et al., 2018; Ng et al., 2017; Rothmann, 2014; Seif, 2017) associated with gay men, whereas the “butch” stereotype (Blashill & Powlishta, 2009;
Butler, 1990; Cover, 2004; Eliason et al., 1993; Geiger et al., 2006; Yep & Elia, 2012; Seif, 2017) typified expectations that lesbian students were associated with. This finding echoes Mills-Koonce et al. (2018), Seif (2017) and Visser’s (2008) findings that contemporary media may reinforce a hetero- and/or homonormative image of lesbian characters as being overly masculine and gay characters as feminine. Participants did, however, critique these stereotypical depictions as being problematic. The gay stereotype was further emphasised as being dramatic (Boysen et al., 2011;
Cox & Devine, 2015), being over-sexed (Boysen et al., 2011), wanting to engage in intercourse with all heterosexual men (Golebiowska, 2001; Mishel, 2020), being promiscuous (Golebiowska,
2001; Mishel, 2020; Pinsof & Haselton, 2017), wanting to be women (Golebiowska, 2001), and being fickle and rude (Achilles, 1998). In addition, findings from the present study reflected previous research that perpetuated the gay male stereotype as “doing their gay” (cf. Dowsett, 1996) in an effeminate way (Golebiowska, 2001; Kachel et al., 2018; Mishel, 2020; Ng et al., 2017; Rothmann, 2014; Seif, 2017); having shrill voices (Cartei & Reby, 2012; Madon, 1997) and displaying sex characteristics (Butler, 1990; West & Zimmerman, 1987) and gendered performances that recall Connell’s (1987) reference to “emphasised femininity”, i.e., being more over-the-top, ditsy, physically weak, and/or shallow (Carmichael, 1992; Cox & Devine, 2015;
Gythfeldt, 2008; Moldes, 2011).
Conversely, lesbian stereotypes recalled images of dominant or orthodox masculine (Cover, 2004; Creed, 2013; Eliason et al., 1993) depictions of the patriarchal man, i.e., being unfaithful, promiscuous and rebellious. West and Zimmerman’s (1987) reference to the use of particular sex characteristics was also evident in how lesbian students sought to “do their gender” by wearing men’s clothing (flannel), having a short haircut, engaging in sports and being hypermasculine, aggressive, tomboyish or displaying anti-men behaviour (Cover, 2004; Creed, 2013; Eliason et al., 1993; Golebiowska, 2001). Ingraham (2002) and Westbrook and Schilt (2014) confirm how these ritualised gendered performances institutionalise homonormativity through these idealised heterosexual expectations, i.e., conforming to the cisgendered way of “being”. Based on South African women’s discourse on female (hetero)sexual pleasure, Smuts (2021) refers to this as so- called “straight expectations” – i.e., emphasising the significance we continue to ascribe to heterosexual rituals in our everyday sexual lives.
Scholars refer to the use of normalised visual characteristics and information (such as clothing and hair) to identify and categorise other individuals into normative sex and gender binaries – i.e., being either male or female, masculine or feminine, or heterosexual or homosexual. Kessler and McKenna (1978) call this process “gender attribution”. According to Reid (2013), this process of identifying a “real” gay or lesbian individual mainly relies on the hegemonic stereotypes, constructing the narrow homonormative depictions of gay and lesbian identities established from the context. This also relates to the theorisation of Keener and Strough (2017) and Twenge (1997), who argue that gender is multidimensional, and the identification and categorisation thereof is not only related to one’s identification as a man or a woman. Although participants in the present study confirmed the prominence of such narrow ideas associated with how homonormativity may construct and reinforce certain gay and lesbian identities, they were also acutely aware and critical of such stoic views. Examples included references to the fact that some heterosexual men might not necessarily enjoy sport, meeting shy lesbian individuals who present masculine traits, and confident lesbians who act in a masculine way, and not all gay and lesbian
individuals being promiscuous or shallow. This may indicate that the narrow image homonormativity constructs may exclude references to the inherently diverse experiences of the persons (Clare, 2013; Del Castillo, 2015:13). In addition, participants may have given such critiques to possibly disrupt the “heterosexual imaginary” (Ingraham, 1994) – thus, those heterosexual scripts that limit the experiences of gay and lesbian students on campus (Francis, 2017; Msibi, 2013; Ripley et al., 2012). Such critiques may aim to disrupt sexual orientation as primary organising belief for gender-related attributes (Blashill & Powlishta, 2009; Ingraham, 1994).
6.2.1.2 Two sides of the same normative coin: The convergence of hetero- and homonormativity
The convergence and conflation of sexuality and gender identities and performances speak to the interrelated, overlapping and mutually reinforcing relationship between heteronormativity and homonormativity. Referring to the heteronormative structure of heterosexual relationships – those relationships are mainly based on gender binaries (male versus female) (Gansen, 2017; Herz &
Johansson, 2017; Ng et al., 2017; Seif, 2017) – participants explained that lesbian relationships tend to be stereotypically characterised as consisting of one masculine and one feminine partner in order to “play the typical male and female roles”. Additionally, while noting the freedom to not identify with gender labels, lesbian participants said that they were prone to differentiate tasks and behaviours according to their strengths and preferences – which others may consider to be gendered, e.g., one “definitely kills the spider”, while the other tend to “cook every night”. This brings to mind Johnson’s (2009) reference to “using” one’s gender through negotiation and Adeagbo’s (2015) theorisation about “undoing gender” rather than passively conforming to cultural expectations associated with gender roles. The interrelated relationship between hetero- and homonormativity as well as the narrow identity categories homonormativity depict can also be seen in the identified gay and lesbian sub-typologies – i.e., twink, jock, bear, lipstick lesbian, and butch – among others.
Each of the identified sub-typologies – excluding futch, non-binary, and stem – were dependant on a singular or main gender presentation – i.e., masculinity or femininity as central to categorising individuals into such typologies. Supporting the link between sexual orientation with concomitant gender attributes, Blashill and Powlishta (2009) found that individuals who present atypical gender attributes (not conforming to heteronormative expectations) are more likely to be perceived as gay or lesbian than those presenting gender typical attributes. Homonormative typologies may accordingly be influenced by heteronormativity through the assumption that there are only two natural genders (Averett, 2016; Gansen, 2017; Schilt & Westbrook, 2009) and that gay and lesbian students are expected to present one central gender, positioning and reinforcing
these narrow typologies and sub-typologies as the homonormative ideals (Gansen, 2017; Herz &
Johansson, 2015; Jackson, 2006). It can be argued that such socially constructed homonormative typologies reflect beliefs related to heteronormativity by linking sexual orientation (gay or lesbian) statically to gender presentations (masculine or feminine) and the construct identity categories (jock versus twink/butch versus lipstick lesbian) and, in so doing, may reinforce and maintain the assumption that there are only two genders, which presupposes a natural and acceptable attraction between these opposite genders (Gansen, 2017; Jackson, 2006; Ng et al., 2017; Schilt
& Westbrook, 2009).