Queerying Notions of “Difference” Among Two Generations of Australians Who Do Not Identify Heteronormatively
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.
KeywordsBinary categories Difference Gender and sexuality Generations Identity labels Normativity Queer Traces
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 was provided by Australian Research Council (Discovery Project 150101292).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- Cruikshank, M. (1992). The gay and lesbian liberation movement. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Derrida, J. (1974). Of grammatology. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Oakley, A. (2016). Disturbing hegemonic discourse: Nonbinary gender and sexual orientation labeling on Tumblr. Social Media + Society, 2(3), 1–12.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
- 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
- Sedgwick, E. (1990). Epistemology of the closet. Berkeley: University of California 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