Skip to main content
Log in

Queerying Notions of “Difference” Among Two Generations of Australians Who Do Not Identify Heteronormatively

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Sexuality & Culture Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Non-normative genders and sexualities are often framed in research and popular discourse in terms of difference. This descriptor not only signals their departure from social norms, it also promotes the assumption that people who do not identify with traditional binary categories perceive themselves as different, and that their gender or sexuality is the core reason for this. This notion of difference seems particularly ripe for interrogation at a time when traditional categories of gender and sexuality are being disrupted by a burgeoning catalogue of non-binary and hyper-specific identity labels among young people on social network sites and elsewhere. What are we to make of difference in this emergent landscape? We explore this question, drawing on findings from a recent qualitative study of two social generations of Australians who do not identify heteronormatively. Our analysis suggests that the notion of sexuality and gender difference as a coherent basis for identity was far from straightforward in either generation, even though difference figured in notably divergent ways in the two groups. We consider what these tensions around difference might mean for the contemporary politics of gender and sexual identity categories.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albury, K. (2015). Identity plus? Bi-curiosity, sexual adventurism and the boundaries of “straight” sexual practices and identities. Sexualities,18(5/6), 649–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altman, D. (2013). The end of the homosexual?. Brisbane, QLD: University of Queensland Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, L. (2013). Trigger warnings: Sex, lies and social justice utopia on Tumblr. Networking Knowledge: Journal of the MeCCSA Postgraduate Network 6(1), 31–47. http://www.ojs.meccsa.org.uk/index.php/netknow/article/view/296. Accessed October 22, 2018.

  • Belous, C. K., & Bauman, M. L. (2017). What’s in a name: Exploring pansexuality online. Journal of Bisexuality,17(1), 58–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, M., Harvey, B., & Naples, N. A. (2018). Marriage, the final frontier? Same-sex marriage and the future of the lesbian and gay movement. Sociological Forum,33(1), 30–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Better, A. (2014). Redefining queer: Women’s relationships and identity in an age of sexual fluidity. Sexuality and Culture,18, 16–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Britt, L., & Heise, D. (2000). From shame to pride in identity politics. In S. Stryker, T. J. Owens, & R. W. White (Eds.), Self, identity, and social movements (pp. 252–268). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byron, P., Rasmussen, S., Wright Toussaint, D., Lobo, R., Robinson, K., & Paradise, B. (2016). “You learn from each other”: LGBTIQ young people’s mental health help-seeking and the RAD Australia online directory. Sydney: Western Sydney University Young and Well Cooperative Research Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callis, A. S. (2014). Bisexual, pansexual, queer: Non-binary identities and the sexual borderlands. Sexualities,17(1/2), 63–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, K., Cover, R., & Aggleton, P. (2018). Sex and ambivalence: LGBTQ youth negotiating sexual feelings, desires and attractions. Journal of LGBT Youth, 15(3), 227–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman-Fountain, E. (2017). Youthful stories of normality and difference. Sociology,51(4), 766–782.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cover, R. (2018a). Micro-minorities: The emergence of new sexual subjectivities, categories and labels among sexually-diverse youth online. In S. Talburt (Ed.), Youth sexualities: Public feelings and contemporary cultural politics (pp. 279–302). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cover, R. (2018b). Emergent identities: New sexualities, genders and relationships in a digital era. Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruikshank, M. (1992). The gay and lesbian liberation movement. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Visser, R., Badcock, P., Simpson, J., Grulich, A., Smith, A., Richters, J., et al. (2014). Attitudes toward sex and relationships: The second Australian study of health and relationships. Sexual Health,11, 397–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derrida, J. (1974[1967]). Of grammatology. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

  • Duggan, L. (2002). The new homonormativity: The sexual politics of neoliberalism. In R. Castronovo & D. D. Nelson (Eds.), Materializing democracy: Toward a revitalized cultural politics (pp. 175–194). Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elizabeth, A. (2013). Challenging the binary: Sexual identity that is not duality. Journal of Bisexuality,13(3), 329–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furlong, A., Woodman, D., & Wyn, J. (2011). Changing times, changing perspectives: Reconciling “transition” and “cultural” perspectives on youth and young adulthood. Journal of Sociology,47(4), 355–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galupo, M. P., Davis, K. S., Grynkiewicz, A. L., & Mitchell, R. C. (2014). Conceptualization of sexual orientation identity among sexual minorities: Patterns across sexual and gender identity. Journal of Bisexuality,14(3–4), 433–456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galupo, M. P., Ramirez, J. L., & Pulice-Farrow, L. (2017). “Regardless of their gender”: Descriptions of sexual identity among bisexual, pansexual, and queer identified individuals. Journal of Bisexuality,17(1), 108–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanckel, B., & Morris, A. (2014). Finding community and contesting heteronormativity: Queer young people’s engagement in an Australian online community. Journal of Youth Studies, 17(7), 872–886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hearn, J., & Louvrier, J. (2015). Theories of difference: Diversity, and intersectionality: What do they bring to diversity management? In R. Bendl, I. Bleijenbergh, E. Henttonen, & A. Mills (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of diversity in organizations (pp. 62–82). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. (1999). Heterosexuality in question. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jagose, A. (2013). Orgasmology. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorber, J. (2018). Paradoxes of gender redux: Multiple genders and the persistence of the binary. In J. W. Messerschmidt, M. A. Messner, R. Connell, & P. Y. Martin (Eds.), Gender reckonings: New social theory and research (pp. 297–313). New York: NYU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, D., Aggleton, P., Cover, R., & Rasmussen, M. L. (2019). Queer generations: Theorizing a concept. International Journal of Cultural Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367877918821262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, B. (2016). A computer-mediated escape from the closet: Exploring identity, community, and disinhibited discussion on an Internet coming out advice forum. Sexuality and Culture,20, 602–625.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, H., & Hunnicutt, G. (2019). Challenging accepted scripts of sexual “normality”: Asexual narratives of non-normative identity and experience. Sexuality & Culture, 23(2), 507–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakley, A. (2016). Disturbing hegemonic discourse: Nonbinary gender and sexual orientation labeling on Tumblr. Social Media + Society,2(3), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onishenko, D., & Caragata, L. (2010). A theoretically critical gaze on the Canadian equal marriage debate: Breaking the binaries. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Service,22(1–2), 91–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puar, J. (2006). Mapping U.S. homonormativities. Gender, Place, and Culture,13(1), 67–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renninger, B. J. (2015). “Where I can be myself … where I can speak my mind”: Networked counterpublics in a polymedia environment. New Media & Society,17(9), 1513–1529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, C., Bouman, W. P., Leighton Seal, L., Barker, M. J., Nieder, T. O., & T’Sjoen, G. (2016). Non-binary or genderqueer genders. International Review of Psychiatry,28(1), 95–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, D. (2004). Locating sexualities: From here to normality. Sexualities,7(4), 391–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, D. (2005). Desiring sameness? The rise of a neoliberal politics of normalisation. Antipode,37(3), 515–535.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robards, B., Churchill, B., Vivienne, S., Hanckel, B., & Byron, P. (2018). Twenty years of “cyberqueer”: The enduring significance of the internet for young LGBTIQ + people. In P. Aggleton, R. Cover, D. Leahy, D. Marshall, & M. L. Rasmussen (Eds.), Youth, sexuality and sexual citizenship (pp. 151–167). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roseneil, S., Crowhurst, I., Hellesund, T., Santos, A. C., & Stoilova, M. (2013). Changing landscapes of heteronormativity: The regulation and normalization of same-sex sexualities in Europe. Social Politics,20(1), 165–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, G. (1992). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In C. S. Vance (Ed.), Pleasure and danger: Exploring female sexuality (pp. 267–319). London: Pandora Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savin-Williams, R. (2016). Sexual orientation: Categories or continuum? Commentary on Bailey et al. (2016). Psychological Science in Public Interest,17(2), 37–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sedgwick, E. (1990). Epistemology of the closet. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sedgwick, E. (1993). Tendencies. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twenge, J., Sherman, R., & Wells, B. (2016). Changes in American adults’ reported same-sex sexual experiences and attitudes, 1973–2014. Archives of Sexual Behavior,45, 1713–1730.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waites, M. (2005). The fixity of sexual identities in the public sphere: Biomedical knowledge, liberalism and the heterosexual/homosexual binary in late modernity. Sexualities,8(5), 539–569.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, M., Lykins, A. D., & Bhullar, N. (2016). Beyond heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual: A diversity in sexual identity expression. Archives of Sexual Behavior,45, 1591–1597.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, J. (2015). Not gay: Sex between straight white men. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, M. (1993). Fear of a queer planet: Queer politics and social theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, M. (2000). The trouble with normal: Sexual politics and the ethics of queer life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiegman, R., & Wilson, E. A. (2015). Antinormativity’s queer conventions. Differences,26(1), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, A. R. (2009). The “neat concept” of sexual citizenship: A cautionary tale for human rights discourse. Contemporary Politics,15(1), 73–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyn, J., & Woodman, D. (2006). Generation, youth and social change in Australia. Journal of Youth Studies,9(5), 495–514.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to research participants, partners and funders. The Belonging and Sexual Citizenship Among Gender and Sexual Minority Youth study [also known as ‘Queer Generations’ project] received funding from the Australian Research Council as a Discovery Project 150101292 (2015–2019), led by Professor Peter Aggleton, Professor Mary Lou Rasmussen, Associate Professor Rob Cover and Dr. Daniel Marshall. The work described in this paper was also supported by the Centre for Social Research in Health, which receives funding from UNSW Arts and Social Sciences and the Australian Government Department of Health. Data collection for this paper was undertaken by the second author (CN), Toby Lea and Max Hopwood. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Australian Government or the Australian Research Council.

Funding

Funding was provided by Australian Research Council (Discovery Project 150101292).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Asha Persson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Persson, A., Newman, C.E., Rasmussen, M.L. et al. Queerying Notions of “Difference” Among Two Generations of Australians Who Do Not Identify Heteronormatively. Sexuality & Culture 24, 54–71 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-019-09625-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-019-09625-3

Keywords

Navigation