Doing Gender, Doing Heteronormativity

Abstract

This article brings together two case studies that examine how nontransgender people, "gender normals," interact with transgender people to highlight the connections between doing gender and heteronormativity. By contrasting public and private interactions that range from nonsexual to sexualized to sexual, the authors show how gender and sexuality are inextricably tied together. The authors demonstrate that the criteria for membership in a gender category are significantly different in social versus (hetero)sexual circumstances. While gender is presumed to reflect biological sex in all social interactions, the importance of doing gender in a way that represents the shape of one's genitals is heightened in sexual and sexualized situations. Responses to perceived failures to fulfill gender criteria in sexual and sexualized relationships are themselves gendered; men and women select different targets for and utilize gendered tactics to accomplish the policing of supposedly natural gender boundaries and to repair breaches to heteronormativity.

Gender differences in cisgender psychologists’ and trainees’ attitudes toward transgender people.

“…How cisgender people view and respond to transgender people is shaped by gender ideologies (Schilt & Westbrook, 2009). In this paper the term 'cisgender' is used to refer to people who are not transgender.…”

Expanding on the Experiences of Transgender Nonreligious People: An Exploratory Analysis

“…In recent years, the lives of transgender 1 people have gained unprecedented attention (Schilt and Westbrook 2009;Serano 2007;Spade 2011;Stryker 2008;. Thus far scholarship on transgender individuals has primarily focused on the experiences of transgender people in the workplace (Connell 2010;Schilt 2010), family (Pfeffer 2010), public space (Doan 2007), health (Miller and Grollman 2015), and, very recently, religion (Sumerau and Cragun 2015).…”

LGBTQ+ Young Adults on the Street and on Campus: Identity as a Product of Social Context

“…LGBTQ+ college students' experiences of support and acceptance within the institutional bounds of the college campus highlight unique environmental opportunities for the "undoing" of normative, exclusionary expectations of gender and sexuality (Risman, 2009). On the other hand, the classbased structural and interactional constraints imposed on homeless LGBTQ+ young adults prevented them from expressing and developing their identities, which worked to further stigmatize them and to reinforce heteronormativity (Schilt & Westbrook, 2009). The development of supportive networks, however, were key in promoting LGBTQ+ young adults' identities across social contexts and providing them with spaces conducive to self-expression.…”

“…This example of institutional inequality can potentially counteract LGBTQ+ young people's attempts to "undo" gender and sexuality by normalizing anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment and reinforcing heteronormativity (Schilt & Westbrook, 2009). These participants' experiences highlight the multifaceted nature of college campus contexts and how college students strategically navigate particular social groups and settings when they perceive the potential for prejudice or discrimination.…”

“…These categorizations of gender identity are intricately tied to expectations of sexual identity, where attraction to the opposite gender (sex) is assumed in the dominant heteronormative culture (Schilt & Westbrook, 2009). Butler (1990), however, argued that gender identity is not intrinsic to an individual but rather consists of perpetual performances of gender expressions that can vary across interactions and contexts.…”