Heteronormativity in the Lives of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Queer Young People

Abstract

Heteronormativity, as defined in queer theory, is the presumption and privileging of heterosexuality. Research on how young people make sense of and narrate heteronormativity in their own lives is needed to inform theories of heteronormativity. Using queer and intersectional frameworks, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 14 sexual and gender minority young people (ages 18 to 24), analyzed using thematic analysis, to examine how young adults make sense of heteronormativity. Participants discussed how gender expression informed both sexuality and sexual attraction. Participants prioritized biological parenthood over other family constructions but rarely discussed marriage. Gender, sexuality, and race contributed important contexts for how participants described heteronormativity in their lives and should be the focus of future research. Finally, binaries of gender, sexuality, and family intersected in participants’ lives and their narrative constructions.

Heteronormativity is defined as the presumption and privileging of gender conformity, heterosexuality, and nuclear families over all other “deviant” forms of gender expression, sexuality, and families (Oswald, Kuvalanka, Blume, & Berkowitz, 2009). These messages are internalized by all people living in a heteronormative society (Kitzinger, 2005) and youth are particularly susceptible to these social messages as they begin to imagine their future lives. Many youth expect their futures to be heteronormative (McDonald, Pini, Bailey, & Price, 2011; Patterson, Forbes, & Peace, 2009; Thomson & Holland, 2002) and learn to reinforce heteronormativity through social experiences (Martino, 2000; Pascoe, 2011; Tolman, Davis, & Bowman, 2015; Way, 2011). Less research has explored how sexual minority young adults, defined as youth ages 18–24 who endorse a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer identity, interact with their social environments to subvert or reproduce heteronormativity. Because some of the primary ways that heteronormativity operates within society are through meanings attached to sexual identities (Allen & Mendez, 2018; Hequembourg & Brallier, 2009), these unique experiences provide insight into nuances in how heteronormativity is produced and reinforced in society. By self-identifying as sexual minorities, sexual minority young adults undermine heteronormativity and must interact with societal heteronormative messages while reconciling these messages with their sexual identities (Oswald, Blume, & Marks, 2005). Further, all youth develop identities across multiple domains (Arnett, 2000) and sexual minority young adults must reconcile these multiple identities (e.g. gender and racial/ethnic identities) as they navigate heteronormative expectations. In the current study, we use the guiding frameworks of queer and intersectional theories to examine how lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer young adults discuss heteronormativity in their life history narratives to better understand how they describe, undermine, and/or reinforce heteronormativity.

Theoretical Frameworks

Queer Theory

Queer theorists focus on deconstructing binaries of gender expression and sexuality (Butler, 2004; Callis, 2009; Oswald et al., 2009). People privilege gender conformity and heterosexuality, and stigmatize gender nonconformity and nonheterosexuality, when they engage in discourse and attempt to embody ideas that “true” women and men are heterosexual, cisgender (gender identity aligned with assigned sex at birth), and ascribe to exaggerated feminized and masculinized gender presentations, respectively (Oswald et al., 2005). Expectations of heterosexuality require not only sexual attraction and desires toward a different sex, but also gender conformity and attraction to people of a different sex who are also gender conforming (Eisner, 2013; Warner, 1999). Further, because heteronormativity requires strict adherence to these norms to exist as a social construct, people who violate any of these norms are stigmatized and marginalized as violating all of them (Warner, 1999). Thus, gender nonconformity can be leveraged as a visual marker of an otherwise private or unseen sexual minority identity: i.e., women and men who are gender nonconforming are gay or lesbian (Blashill & Powlishta, 2009; Nielsen et al., 2000; Tolman et al., 2015). For example, this process occurs when youth assert social positions of masculinity and heterosexuality by engaging in homophobic sexual harassment of gender nonconforming youth, regardless of whether or not these youth actually identify as gay (Hequembourg & Brallier, 2009; Martino, 2000; Pascoe, 2011; Way, 2011).

Queer family theorists have broadened the use of queer frameworks to examine and critique how societal discourse creates, privileges, and stigmatizes particular family structures to further maintain the social positions of masculinity and heterosexuality (Allen & Mendez, 2018; Oswald et al., 2009). Specifically, until recently in the U.S., social discourse, laws, and institutions have privileged nuclear, intact families (i.e., one mother married to one father with children who are biologically related to both) over diverse families, such as same-sex-couple-headed households (Oswald et al., 2005). Family discourse that privileges heterosexuality can be quite subtle; for example, in a qualitative study by Hequembourg and Brallier (2009), one lesbian reported feeling marginalized by a co-worker who would ask about the families of heterosexual co-workers, but would never ask about her children. She stated, “And it makes me feel like my life, my relationship, my family is less valid because it doesn’t have the endorsed marriage license or whatever” (p. 283). Further, privileging nuclear, heterosexual families reinforces the status of masculinity through family gender role norms in which women are nonworking mothers and men are breadwinners (Collins, 1998).

Young people encounter messages that privilege heteronormative family formation early in the life course. Young adulthood represents a unique developmental period where many actively engage with, and choose to reinforce or reject, these messages. Most young adults expect to follow heteronormative pathways in adulthood that include marriage and parenthood (McDonald et al., 2011; Patterson et al., 2009; Thomson & Holland, 2002). Although young adults commonly delay marriage until the late 20s (Cherlin, 2010), most young adults expect to marry a romantic partner (Manning, Longmore, & Giordano, 2007) and will engage in behavior that prepares them for marriage (Willoughby & Carroll, 2015). Most young adults also want to become parents to few children after marrying a spouse (Patterson et al., 2009). Thus, examining how young adults discuss current and future plans for family formation provides an opportunity to further understand how people construct gender and sexuality binaries and adapt to heteronormative messages in their own lives (Oswald et al., 2005).

For heteronormative socialization to succeed, people within a society must feel pressure to maintain privileged and stigmatized social categories. However, in spite of, or perhaps because of, the strict requirement to adhere to multiple norms regarding heterosexuality, sexual minority people are more likely to queer multiple aspects of their lives, not just their sexual identities. For instance, gay men and lesbians are more likely to be gender nonconforming than heterosexual people (Li, Pollitt, & Russell, 2016), reject biological parenthood (Goldberg, 2012), and endorse adoption as a first choice for parenthood (Tyebjee, 2003). Yet sexual minorities are not immune to heteronormative processes. Queer embodiment of heteronormativity has created a politics of “homonormativity” that privileges same-gender attracted people who appear heteronormative, highlighting same-gender couples who are gender conforming, monogamous, and family-oriented (Allen & Mendez, 2018; Duggan, 2002). Sexual minority youth also value marriage (Savin-Williams, 2011) and expect to raise children (D’Augelli, Rendina, Grossman, & Sinclair, 2007), values consistent with homonormativity; however, whether sexual minority young adults can or want to meet these expectations can depend on other important identities. Examining discussions of heteronormativity among sexual minority young adults provides a unique opportunity to understand how these young adults construct, reinforce, and challenge gender, sexuality, and family norms and how these processes differ by their other important identities.

Intersectionality

How sexual minority young adults engage with heteronormative messages is likely conditional on the intersection of their gender identity, sexual identity, and racial/ethnic identity. People do not have one identity; instead, people have multiple identities through which they perceive and are perceived by broader society (Choo & Ferree, 2010). Because identity development occurs primarily in adolescence or young adulthood (Arnett, 2000), understanding how multiple identities interact with one another is especially salient for sexual minority young adults as their identities are developing and changing. Failure to acknowledge these intersecting identities minimizes the experiences of understudied groups; thus, focusing on the unique experiences of gender and racial minorities adds nuance to research and theory on how heteronormativity manifests in the lives of sexual minority young adults. Combining samples of lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults without examining distinctions between and within these groups ignores the important role that gender and heterosexuality norms play in the lives of people at the margins, namely people of color, transgender people, bisexual people, and cisgender women (Few-Demo, Humble, Curran, & Lloyd, 2016; hooks, 2000). Thus, we explore the ramifications of gender, sexual, and racial/ethnic identities on participants’ understandings of heteronormativity.

The Current Study

We conducted a secondary qualitative analysis on the life history narratives of a diverse, but primarily Latinx, sample of 14 sexual minority young adults to explore their discussions of heteronormativity. We did not prompt participants to discuss heteronormativity; rather, through their narratives we captured the ways that they interpret, challenge, and reproduce heteronormative messages. The current study was guided by the following research questions: (1) How do lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer young adults make sense of societal expectations around gender expression, sexual identity, and family? (2) How do gender identity, sexual identity, and race/ethnicity influence descriptions of societal expectations of heterosexuality?

Method

Participants

Participants were initially recruited for a quantitative longitudinal panel study examining the risk and protective factors for suicide among 1,061 sexual and gender minority youth (described in more detail in Baams, Grossman, & Russell, 2013). During the fourth wave of data collection in 2014, a subsample of participants was recruited from this quantitative study sample to take part in a life history narrative study conducted to examine feelings of perceived burden. To be eligible for the qualitative subsample, participants had to be located in the Southwestern site (where the interviewers were located), responded in the top quartile on the perceived burdensomeness subscale (5 items) of the Interpersonal Needs Questionnaire (see Van Orden, Witte, Gordon, Bender, & Joiner [2008] for more information on this measure) in the first wave, and completed all four waves of the initial quantitative study. Of 21 eligible participants, 14 participated in the interviews for a response rate of 66%; the other seven identified participants could not be contacted or declined to participate. For the current study, we conducted a secondary data analysis for discussions of heteronormativity in these life history narratives. Twelve of the fourteen participants discussed heteronormativity to some degree.

Participants ranged in age from 18 to 24 (Table 1). Four participants identified their gender identity as genderqueer or queer and 8 identified as cisgender. However, we indicate the sex assigned at birth for genderqueer and queer participants because this information provides a critical context for their experiences growing up as sexual and gender minorities in their families of origin. Of the cisgender women and those assigned female at birth in the sample (n = 7), five identified as bisexual or pansexual, and two identified as gay/lesbian. All cisgender men and young adults assigned male at birth identified as gay (n = 5). The majority of the sample (n = 8) identified as Latinx, Latinx White, or Latinx multiracial; two participants identified as non-Latinx White; one participant identified as Native American; and one participant identified as Black. We have given participants pseudonyms, but all sexual, gender, and racial identities are described in participants’ own words.

Table 1.

Demographic Information of Interview Participants

	Age	Assigned Sex at Birth	Gender	Sexual Identity	Race/Ethnicity
Virginia	24	Female	Woman	Bisexual	Black
Leonardo	21	Male	Genderqueer	Gay	Mexican
Sierra	21	Female	Woman	Bisexual	Chicana
Estrella	20	Female	Woman	Bisexual	Multiracial Latina
Kayla	18	Female	Woman	Pansexual	White
Daniel	23	Male	Man	Gay	Latino White Multiracial
Lucas	23	Male	Man	Queer/Gay	Latino Native American
Autumn	18	Female	Genderqueer	Pansexual	White
Graham	22	Male	Queer	Gay	Native American
Sofia	22	Female	Woman	Lesbian	Latina White
Aspen	19	Female	Queer	Gay	White Mexican
Mateo	23	Male	Male	Homosexual	Latino White

Note. Gender, sexual identity, and race/ethnicity labels are reported verbatim from participant responses to a demographic survey provided prior to interview.

Procedure

Interviews took place in quiet areas convenient to participants, including campus offices, public parks near their homes, and coffee shops. Participants completed the informed consent process and took a short survey that asked for current racial identity, sexual identity, gender identity, age, and socioeconomic status. Interviews took approximately 2–3 hours to complete and were conducted as semi-structured, in-depth life history interviews about experiences and relationships with family, friends, and people in their neighborhood, school, and work with broad prompts including, “Tell me what it was like to grow up as a child and adolescent in your family” and “describe your experiences in primary, middle, and high school.” Probes were used to elicit clarification about life experiences and relationships, such as when participants were asked, “Do you have any siblings?” The lead author and two other trained interviewers (one postdoctoral researcher and one graduate student) employed a conversational style of interviewing to build rapport and facilitate comfort of the participants. This conversational style included self-disclosure of shared experiences when appropriate and allowed participants to choose the direction of the interviews based on significant experiences. Thus, the life history narrative design of the study provided a unique opportunity to examine the data for unprompted discussions of heteronormativity. Indeed, discussions of heteronormativity arose naturally in the interviews due to the everyday, implicit nature of heteronormativity and its salience during discussions of sexuality and gender: “Heteronormativity is embodied in what people do rather than in their beliefs, values, ideologies, or faiths … [H]eteronormativity—like other social norms—is embodied and displayed endogenously, in the details of conduct, and may be studied empirically as such” (Kitzinger, 2005, p. 478). Undergraduate research assistants transcribed all audio with fidelity checks by the lead interviewer.

Data Analysis

We analyzed the data using a thematic analysis approach, establishing validity through investigator triangulation (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Suter, 2009) and determined themes through a consensus-building process that used iterative, open-ended coding in Dedoose version 6.2.21. This consensus process builds validity by reducing bias that may occur if only one researcher were to analyze the data (Braithwaite, Moore, & Abetz, 2014; Patton, 2002; Suter, 2009). This investigator triangulation process occurred as follows: Our research team independently read and coded transcripts for instances where participants discussed societal expectations around heterosexuality, family, and partnership, which included codes for gender roles, sexual identity and attractions, childbearing and childrearing, and marriage. In addition, we coded for intersectional elements related to heteronormativity including religion, gender, and race/ethnicity. When half of the transcripts were coded with this coding scheme, the research team again met to discuss whether codes were accurate to the data. Through this discussion, we developed a new coding scheme that was applied to all of the transcripts. We developed final themes from the coded data by rereading all excerpts within codes and grouping similar ideas until no additional themes emerged. Post-hoc coding revealed no explicit or implicit links between participant responses to probes about perceived burden and final themes.

Findings

Four major themes were identified: (1) challenging gender norms, (2) gender expression (in)validating sexual identity, (3) the role of gender expression in attraction and partnering, and (4) negotiating gendered family formation. We further describe how the intersection between gender identity, sexual identity, and race/ethnicity influenced particular themes. A description of each theme, example quotes, and the number of participants whose quotes contributed to each theme is in Table 2.

Table 2.

Frequencies, Descriptions, and Example Quotes for Each Theme by Gender Identity/Sex Assigned at Birth

Theme		Frequency of Theme	Description	Example Quotes
Challenging gender norms		11	Nonconformity in gender identity, expression, and roles was common
	Men and participants assigned male at birth	5	Recalled being gender nonconforming since early childhood and into young adulthood	I just wasn’t interested in the same things that most of the boys were interested in so I didn’t relate to them as well, I guess. … I thought it was fun what the girls were doing with their makeup and like, you know, dress up stuff. I remember me and my friends used to play like Spice Girls and stuff like that in elementary school. (Lucas)
	Women and participants assigned female at birth	6	Were gender conforming but also experimented with multiple expressions of gender	Yeah, so I’d wear like heels with capris and a spaghetti strapped shirt with glasses as a femme, and I’m like, “I look sexy like this.” And then, other days I would steal my brother’s underwear, his boxers, you know? So I could sag like a guy, and I wore big t-shirts—like, I would stuff it in my backpack and when I’d get to school I’d change into my gym shoes and stuff and I felt comfortable both ways! (Virginia)
Gender expression (in)validating sexual identity		8	Gender nonconformity signaled nonheterosexuality and gender conformity signaled heterosexuality
	Men and participants assigned male at birth	4	Femininity was such a clear signal of gay identity that many did not need to come out; but sometimes distanced themselves and their gender and sexual identities from femininity	I wasn’t a very masculine boy so no one said anything, no one told my mom anything, no one told my dad anything [about being gay]. So I was accepted. I don’t know, like I haven’t officially come out to like my grandmother but it’s not like she doesn’t know so like, I don’t think I’m not accepted. (Graham)
	Women and participants assigned female at birth	4	Gender conformity signaled heterosexuality; had difficulty figuring out how to be seen as sexual minority without dramatic changes in gender expression	I tried to fit in to be a regular girl, I’d date boys, or whatever. And then I tried really hard but I just was not comfortable at all. But I mean, I tried really hard to be until maybe sophomore year actually, I cut off my hair and that was the first step. (Aspen)
Desiring normative gender expression		11	Men and women should be attracted to feminine women and masculine men, respectively
	Men and participants assigned male at birth	5	Desired masculine men, particularly because they did not or could not embody masculinity	There was a point where I was super attracted to her friend, his name was Carlos, and to me he was just really attractive. Everything about him, like his Adam’s apple, his hairy toes. … I remember being young and being like, “I want to look like that. I just can’t wait until I look like that.” (Mateo)
	Women and participants assigned female at birth	6	Though confronted with or endorsing similar ideals about attraction to gender conforming partners, they were less concerned about others’ gender expression but were more likely to be open to relationships with men (even if identifying as lesbian)	No, I’ve only dated [my ex-girlfriend]. The other thing too is it’s very rarely that I meet guys who are not jerks or if there’s the whole, “are you a feminist or do you believe in like general human decency?” and that’s a little hard to come across I guess. If there ever is a guy then I’ll keep the door open, but I’m not really gonna hold my breath for it ‘cause there’s a lot more girls who seem to be okay with feminism and things like that. (Estrella)
Negotiating gendered family formation		6	Discussed family formation in traditional ways; few conversations about marriage
	Men and participants assigned male at birth	3	Fatherhood is unattainable for gay men; this would be the biggest disappointment for parents which made disclosure difficult	[My mom] was like, “I don’t know why you didn’t tell me sooner, I feel bad, what did I do that made you think that you couldn’t come to me sooner?” I told her you know that I thought that she would want grand kids, and she said, “Oh my god I didn’t even think about that.” She was like, “That thought didn’t even cross my mind, I just want you to be happy.” (Lucas)
	Women and participants assigned female at birth	3	Tension between desire for biological motherhood and societal assumptions that motherhood is unattainable for sexual minorities	Honestly, I mean no matter what, even though I’m gonna marry a woman, I still want that stuff. I still want to be a good wife, I still want to be a good mother. So that kind of [Catholic marriage ritual], you know, I’ll probably incorporate in my ceremony. (Sofia)

“I’m a Very Feminine Guy”: Challenging Gender Norms

Gender in many forms (e.g., expression, identity, appearance) was a salient part of participants’ narratives. A majority (n = 11; 91.67%) of participants described subverting gender norms, including identity, expression, and roles, to some degree. However, there were gender differences in how participants subverted gender norms.

All cisgender men and participants assigned male at birth in the sample reported nonconforming gender expression and behavior as young children, which included interest in feminine toys, activities, and clothing in early ages. Participants described this gender nonconformity as present nearly from birth; for example, Leonardo, who identified as Mexican, gay, and genderqueer, understood from an early age that, compared to his peers, his behaviors and appearance were gender nonconforming: “I know that I’ve known that I wasn’t like boys. I wasn’t masculine like boys, I wouldn’t like the same things boys would. I was very into dolls, into horses, into all the other things that boys weren’t.” Further, many continued to present in gender nonconforming ways, despite encountering messages from others, such as family or peers, that this behavior was inappropriate. Daniel, a Latino White multiracial gay man, described being punished for his gender nonconformity: “I would get scolded, I would get spanked. One day in particular I decided to paint my nails when I was like 6 years old and I was spanked and told that was wrong, that I was gonna go to hell.” None of these participants considered themselves to be gender conforming.

In comparison, a greater number of participants assigned female at birth, particularly cisgender women, currently presented as gender conforming (n = 6) than participants assigned male at birth (n = 0). However, five of these participants experimented with gender identity, expression, and roles rather than accepting gendered experiences as fixed. For example, Estrella, a Multiracial Latina bisexual woman, described how she was considering a nonbinary gender identity and, therefore, struggled with gender expression: “I don’t necessarily always adhere to identifying as female. I don’t know where I stand with that, so I’m trying to troubleshoot … my understanding of how I want to present [my gender].” Autumn, who identified as pansexual and genderqueer, similarly described how she and her female partner felt comfortable expressing gender in fluid ways: “[My partner] was a little more masculine but she was fluid, she didn’t really claim butch or femme. She was like me, she just kind of embraced both energies. I mean she dressed a little more masculine but she liked to be girly sometimes too and let me be the masculine one sometimes.”

“I Think She Knew that I Was Gay”: Gender Expression (In)Validating Sexual Identity

For many participants, it was impossible to separate or understand their gender expression, particularly expressions of femininity, from their sexual identities; further, participant descriptions of this overlap intersected with gender and sexual identities. Eight participants described their own beliefs or messages from others about how people are considered heterosexual until proven otherwise (through same-gender relationships and sexual behavior), unless someone is gender nonconforming. Messages from others that gender and sexuality overlap were often implicit, but striking, such as when Leonardo described learning to sew from his grandmother: “She would say, ‘don’t let anyone call you a faggot because you can do this. You are doing this for you, you don’t need someone else to do it for you, you can do it.’ So I learned how to cook, clean, sew, stitch, and all that.” Leonardo’s grandmother clearly indicated that these domestic behaviors are feminine and thus he, as a man, could be designated by others as gay for doing them.

Key gender differences emerged, however, in how participants experienced the intersection between gender expression and sexual identity. Cisgender men and participants assigned male at birth directly connected gender nonconforming behavior, particularly femininity, to gay or queer identities such that they did not feel they needed to disclose their sexual identity to family members because their femininity made their sexual identity clear. For example, Graham, who identified as Native American, gay, and queer, said:

Oh, I never really had to come out. … From a young age, my mom said she knew when I was little. I just wanted to be a ballerina and all this stuff and she just knew. I never really had to say ‘I’m gay!’ or anything like that.

However, cisgender men and participants assigned male at birth sometimes distinguished between gender expression and sexuality only to subsequently reinforce the connection between the two. When asked if he ever linked his femininity to his sexuality, Daniel said, “Um, well I guess I never really did draw a connection to them. I just knew as a little kid I didn’t like the rough and tumble stuff. But then when I was like 13 or 14 I just started to take notice of other guys versus other girls. I didn’t know like at the time if they were connected or anything like that, I just knew that they were just two aspects of who I was. I liked men and I was feminine.” Yet, later Daniel offers two reasons his parents know about his sexual identity despite never having disclosed to them—his gender nonconformity and a public display of affection with a boyfriend:

Interviewer: However, your sexuality has not been openly acknowledged in any way?

Daniel: No, they know I’m gay, it’s just they don’t want to talk about it.

Interviewer: How do you think they know? Why do you think they know? What are the signs?

Daniel: Well, I guess these days I present as an effeminate person. I still paint my nails, I do technically effeminate things. Also, so going back to the boy that I brought home … at one point he also had his arm around me. My parents came in the room unexpectedly and they saw and they said ‘hi’ … So I guess I kinda figured, “okay, that was my coming out.” I guess I just feel by just these little things that they know.

Thus, although Daniel might not have seen a direct link between his gender expression and sexuality identity, he suggests that others did; specifically, his femininity, (relatively subtle) same-sex romantic behavior, and lack of strong negative response from family members had the same meaning for him as explicit disclosure.

Similarly, when asked if he was gender nonconforming as a child, Mateo (who identified as a Latino White homosexual male) replied, “No, I was just very hyper and very flamboyant. And like, I don’t know, if I saw myself growing up I would be like, ‘that’s a little gay boy.’” Mateo thus explicitly denied being gender nonconforming but labeled his hyperactive and flamboyant behaviors—behaviors often associated with femininity—with a sexual identity. When later asked to define his gay identity, he did so in the context of his gender identity while also distancing himself from female or transgender identities: “[My gay identity] means to me is that I see myself as a man. As feminine as I am, I don’t feel female at all.” In his definition, Mateo kept what it means to “feel female” unexplained and how it differs from feminine gender expression in order to disconnect gender expression from his sexual identity. Leonardo described limiting his engagement in behaviors he considered feminine because of his male gender identity: “Like there’d be a lot of things I want to do, but can’t because it makes my mom uncomfortable, [like] make up, high heels, but like that’s about it. I’m a very feminine guy, I’m not transgender, like I don’t want to transition into a woman, so but there are certain things that I would like to do, but I can’t.” The underlying assumption is that some degree of gender nonconformity is socially acceptable if one identifies as a gay man, and that identifying as female or transgender would be too transgressive; thus, male identities are privileged even in the context of feminine gender expression.

Though cisgender men and participants assigned male at birth in the sample described how their gender nonconformity confirmed their sexual identity, gender conforming cisgender women, struggled to have others recognize their sexual identities. Sofia, a Latina White lesbian woman, described herself as, “I’m very, very feminine, I wear dresses and I wear makeup every day.” However, family members told her that she was not gay because she did not “look gay”, and she subsequently felt the need to change her appearance to coincide with what a “typical” lesbian should look like:

It was so difficult because they couldn’t understand it. I was like, okay, do you want me to chop my hair off and start dressing like a dyke? … I did kind of become a little bit less feminine for a while, partly, I think, so that they could understand this is for real.

Thus, although gender conformity and nonconformity signal heterosexual and gay identities, respectively, there were differences between women and men in the extent to which participants’ gender expression had to align with sexual identities. Specifically, feminine gender expression signaled nonheterosexuality in men and heterosexuality in women, even in small ways and in childhood.

Intersections with Race/Ethnicity

Close ties between gender and sexuality meant that many of the Latinx participants described how they feared expressing gender nonconformity because of hegemonic masculinity and homophobia in their communities. Daniel told us, “Growing up I guess I never felt safe expressing my sexuality, safe exploring gender identity, or anything like that simply because my dad, in particular, is very rooted in the whole Mexican machismo thing.” Daniel explained that machismo meant that, “I was always taught that I could not be emotional, I could not ever show any sort of femininity.” Similarly, Mateo specifically said he was afraid to identify as gay because of “the whole Mexican machismo thing; like, the way of demasculinzing men is you call them gay or all the other terms.” Latina women described the experience of machismo factoring into their gender expression as well; Sofia said, “I’m Hispanic. Like, the Hispanic culture is definitely very gender role—it’s definitely chauvinistic. And so that’s what I grew up around and that’s how I was dressed when I was little and so that’s how I became comfortable.” Thus, Latinx participants explicitly labeled heteronormative discourses, i.e., the ways in which people use masculinity and femininity norms to enforce heterosexuality and vice versa, as machismo. White participants, in contrast, did not have similar labels for heteronormativity despite clear commonalities in their narratives.

“It’s Not like You Want a Nelly-Boy Latino”: The Role of Gender Expression in Attraction and Partnering

Eleven participants generally described their own beliefs or receiving messages about how other people’s gender expression should inform whether or not they should be physically attracted to them. Of these 11 participants, 4 described beliefs that centered on the inherent “male-ness” or “female-ness” of men and women and how this gender expression should be attractive to women and men, respectively; i.e., people expect others to not only behave in gender conforming ways but also to be attracted to gender conforming members of “the opposite gender”. After Sierra came out, her mother was confused about how she could be attracted to women when men’s masculinity is so enticing: “It was basically like, ‘How can you—like a man is so, you know, masculine. And like, his cologne! Lips and everything.’ I’m just like, ‘Girls have lips too? They have perfumes.’ … It was just that kind of sense where they were confused a lot, like how could I like a girl.” Thus, although Sierra recognized that women and men are more alike than different, other people in her life exaggerated these differences to encourage different-gender attraction.

Three of these 4 participants were those assigned male at birth who, even when they described themselves as feminine and gender nonconforming, explicitly acknowledged a desire to date masculine men. Daniel grew up with a father who pressured him to be more masculine and acknowledged attraction toward masculine men: “I always just wished that I could be what my dad wanted me to be. But then I saw a lot of those traits in the boys in school who I changed with [in the locker room]. I don’t know why, but it kind of like made me like them even more. I was like, ‘You’re so butch.’ … They were just- they’re very rough, they’re very loud. They were into football and basketball and I don’t know why it turned me on.” Similarly, Mateo felt attraction towards masculine men while also wishing to embody a similar masculinity: “I was super attracted to [a man], his name was Carlos, and to me he was just really attractive. Everything about him, like his Adam’s apple, his hairy toes. … I remember being young and being like, ‘I want to look like that. I just can’t wait until I look like that.’”

Eight participants, primarily those assigned female at birth, discussed fluidity in their attraction to people and their gender expression and emphasized personality and relationship qualities rather than physical appearance or gender identity. For example, Kayla, a White pansexual woman, said, “I like who I like and it’s not gonna change because of your gender or anything. Just, I like you as a person and what you are on the outside doesn’t really define who you are in the inside, personality-wise.” Others described sexual fluidity as an almost reluctant openness to being with men. Sofia identified as lesbian and did not have interest in sexual relationships with men; however, she said,

I can see [that] men are attractive and I don’t want to be like, ‘I will never, ever, ever date a man again,’ because I feel like I identify as a lesbian now. But I don’t know what’s going to happen ten years from now. I feel like sexuality’s very fluid… But I don’t see that happening any time soon.

Similarly, Aspen, who identified as White, Mexican, gay and queer, described how gender played a role in their desires for romantic and sexual relationships (Aspen’s pronouns were they/them):

I love women and I only want to be in relationships with women, but … the only time I’m ever sexually satisfied is with a man. … People think I’m kidding and they’ll call me a lesbian and stuff and I’m like, dude, you don’t even know. If I wanted that dick, I could go get it.

Indeed, Aspen pushed back against others who might minimize their desire or ability to have sexual relationships with men simply because of a perceived lesbian identity. In doing so, Aspen forcefully reclaimed their gender and sexual fluidity, refused to conform to norms expected of someone gender nonconforming and assigned female at birth.

“I Still Want to be a Good Mother”: Negotiating Gendered Family Formation

In light of the ways in which participants challenged gender and sexual identity norms and embodied queer identities, they discussed family formation, namely marriage and parenthood, in traditional ways. Some participants understood that these beliefs stemmed from outside influences, including parents and religion. The messages that Virginia received were very explicit: “Well, my mom, she’s Baptist, and my dad was Catholic. They told me that it wasn’t right, that I wasn’t going to make it into heaven if I didn’t stop because God doesn’t like a woman to be with a woman or a man to be with a man. You’re supposed to be with the opposite sex when you’re married and have kids.”

Participants rarely discussed marriage despite frequent discussions about children: Only one participant (Sofia) described details of her ideal wedding, stating, “There’s one part in a Mexican Catholic mass were the bride goes to the Virgin Mary’s altar and gives the flowers, and it’s like she’s asking to be a good wife and to be a good mother and to bless her womb and all this stuff. So part of me is like, ‘Oh, that’s kind of super old school.’ And I don’t know how I feel about that, but honestly no matter what, even though I’m gonna marry a woman, I still want that stuff, I still want to be a good wife, I still want to be a good mother. So that kind of thing I’ll probably incorporate in my ceremony.”

Despite these expectations for marriage and parenthood, many participants viewed family formation, primarily parenthood, as unattainable due to their sexual minority identity. However, the ways in which participants viewed their future family formation as unattainable differed by gender. Cisgender men and participants assigned male at birth believed that parenthood in all forms was unattainable and the perceived loss of parenthood was a source of tension when disclosing their sexual minority status to family. Daniel felt afraid to disclose his sexual identity to his father because of the implied loss of fatherhood: “I just felt like I was letting him down, that I wasn’t going to carry on- I wasn’t going to have kids or something. Which today I recognize I was probably worried, like, oh, I’m not going to carry on the family name or something.” Lucas, a queer/gay Latino Native American man and an only child quite close to his supportive mother and grandmother, said, “The only thing that I was afraid of once I started realizing my sexuality was that [my mother] would be disappointed that I wouldn’t have kids. That she wouldn’t have grandkids.” For other cisgender male participants or participants assigned male at birth, the perceived inability to become a parent was rooted in cultural messages. Mateo stated that his family was supportive of his gay sexual identity because he had heterosexual brothers who could father children: “They [family in Mexico] were all really supportive and… They were just like ‘that’s really good.’ I always figured, eh, there’s two other boys that can have kids if that was the issue of carrying on the family name.” Thus, Mateo perceived that fatherhood was unattainable for him and attributed his family’s acceptance of his sexuality to having heterosexual brothers who could father children.

Cisgender women emphasized their desire for biological parenthood while implicitly acknowledging unspoken societal expectations that sexual minority people cannot marry or have children. When asked whether she would ever consider adopting, Virginia said, “… I’m adopted so I wouldn’t mind adopting. … I mean, I would be sad [about adopting] because I want to physically have my own.” Thus, even for a cisgender woman who explicitly acknowledged the importance of her adoption, she considered adoption to be a secondary, less favorable choice compared to biological motherhood. Other cisgender women were not that explicit in their discussions on parenthood, but their quotes demonstrated the tension between planning to have children and the perceived inability to do so. Multiple times in her interview, Sofia either overemphasized or corrected her language to be clear that family formation is in her future, saying, “I obviously won’t be getting married in a Catholic church unless I get married like 30 years from now. … So I feel like that would be awkward if that ever happened. When that happens,” and “I was saying [to my ex-girlfriend], ‘No, you don’t understand. When, when I get married and I have children, I will only speak Spanish to them because that’s important to me.’”

Discussion

Though heteronormativity has been theorized extensively, less empirical research exists on how sexual minority young adults navigate and describe heteronormative expectations in their own lives. In the current study, we found that participants both challenged and reinforced gender expression norms; that gender expression could not be separated from sexual identity; and that attraction to normative gender expression was preferred. We also found that traditional family formation was desirable to participants, yet perceived to be unattainable by many.

Our theme of gender expression (in)validating sexual identity was consistent with how Oswald and colleagues (2009) described how separate binaries of gender, sexuality, and family also intersect to reinforce each other. We found that gender and sexual identity were inextricably linked under heteronormativity in our sample such that gender nonconformity among men signified gay identities even from early childhood, and women, especially gender conforming women, often struggled to be visibly read as queer. These experiences of gender expression as a signal for sexual identity are consistent with what would be expected from a queer and intersectional theoretical perspective (Oswald et al., 2009). Gender nonconformity, especially for cisgender men, is considered a cultural signal for nonheterosexuality under hegemonic masculinity (i.e., the culturally ideal form of masculinity) and heteronormativity (Allen & Mendez, 2018). The connection between gender nonconformity and nonheterosexuality reinforces heteronormative expectations that a person who is heterosexual is also someone who is gender conforming (Blashill & Powlishta, 2009; Morgan & Davis-Delano, 2016), which maintains gender and sexuality binaries. That is, societal norms feminize gay men and masculinize lesbian women to ensure consistency in the dimensions of sex, gender, and sexuality (Eisner, 2013). Importantly, the current study adds to the literature by identifying gender differences in how femininity, in particular, is the indicator of someone’s sexuality. This finding from our sample expands on research that shows that gender nonconformity serves as a proxy for sexual identity for all genders, but small deviations from masculinity among men indicates nonheterosexuality whereas women must demonstrate much more dramatic gender nonconformity to be seen as nonheterosexual (Mize & Manago, 2018; Nielsen et al., 2000).

In our intersectional examination of this theme, we found that Latinx young adults often situated their narratives of heteronormativity in experiences of homophobia or machismo within their communities. However, their descriptions of machismo (i.e., a term used to describe hegemonic masculinity: practices that structure men’s place of dominance over women [Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005] in Latinx, specifically Mexican, cultures) bear resemblance to White norms of hegemonic masculinity and homophobia. This common belief that hegemonic masculinity and homophobia is more prevalent in communities of color than White communities is not supported by empirical evidence (Lewis, 2003), especially after accounting for religiosity, church attendance, and socioeconomic status (Negy & Eisenman, 2005). This stereotype that communities of color are more homophobic and are more likely to enforce hegemonic masculinity, combined with the invisibility of White colonialism’s direct role in enforcing these norms in these communities, may lead young adults of color to describe their racial and ethnic communities as sources of heteronormative expectations in ways that White young adults do not. At the same time, the naming of hegemonic masculinity and homophobia as machismo provides Latinx communities with a common set of terminologies and cultural experiences to talk about heterosexual norms that do not exist in the same way for non-Latinx populations. Although Latinx participants may internalize the idea that their communities are more homophobic and more likely to enforce hegemonic masculinity norms, our study suggests that discourses of machismo provide a framework to discuss and confront these norms in ways that other young adults (i.e., non-Latinx young adults) are not.

Heteronormative expectations structure not only people’s own gender expression and sexuality, but also their attractions to specific gender expressions of others; that is, people ought to be attracted to gender conforming partners (Warner, 1999). When people are unable or unwilling to conform to gender norms, normative gender expression of potential partners could become more attractive, particularly as a way to access or reinforce heteronormativity (Robinson, 2015, p. 327). We found gender differences in the theme of the role of gender expression in attraction and partnering that are consistent with the literature: Women are more likely than men to report incongruent sexual orientation, attraction, and behaviors (Korchmaros, Powell, & Stevens, 2013) as well as more likely to identify as bisexual (Copen et al., 2016). The current study adds to the literature by demonstrating that sexual minority women and men discuss their own (in)congruency in sexual attraction, behavior, and identity in ways that appear to reify norms about sexual identity differences between women and men. Queer theorists have argued that sexual fluidity and bisexuality are more common and tolerated in women than men because bisexuality is conflated with instability and confusion, traits associated with femininity (Eisner, 2013). In addition, when cisgender women and men experience sexual fluidity, people engage in heteronormative discourse that describes them as heterosexual and gay, respectively, to reinforce heterosexuality and gender conformity (specifically masculinity; Callis, 2009; Eisner, 2013). That is, sexuality should always be oriented towards cisgender men, which is reflected in how participants assigned male at birth in the current study focused on their attraction to masculine men while participants assigned female at birth, even those who identified as gay or lesbian, were often open to or engaged in relationships with men.

Under heteronormativity, “true” families are considered those that are tied by blood relations; specifically, children born from two biological parents (Oswald et al., 2009). This study is one of the first to document family formation desires (or lack thereof) among young adult sexual minority men and women in our theme of negotiating gendered family formation. The narratives of participants in the current study suggest that these sexual minority young adults have internalized the heteronormative assumption that biological parenthood is unattainable for them. The narratives of participants assigned male at birth in the current study are consistent with research showing that many gay men remain daunted by legal, social, and financial barriers in the path to parenthood despite changing norms and availability to create families (Berkowitz, 2007; Goldberg, 2012). Previous studies show that gay men believe that part of the coming out process is acknowledging that they will never be fathers (Berkowitz, 2007) even though they are aware of “revolutions in kinship arrangements” (Berkowitz, 2007, p. 173; Cherlin & Seltzer, 2014). The emphasis on biological parenthood among participants assigned female at birth, in comparison, demonstrates the tension between internalized assumptions that all women should want to be mothers and that sexual minority people cannot have biological children (Berkowitz, 2007). However, these aforementioned studies have consisted of samples of older sexual minority parents; the current study is important in showing that, even as society becomes more accepting of sexual minority people and queer families (Russell & Fish, 2016), sexual minority young adults continue to perceive substantial obstacles to family formation.

Finally, we note that participants emphasized parenthood rather than marriage in their discussions of family formation. Among primarily heterosexual couples (and especially those who are lower-income), marriage and parenthood are discussed separately (Cherlin & Seltzer, 2014), suggesting that participants’ focus on childbearing may be a reflection of how marriage is unnecessary or unattainable in this sample and among young adults more broadly. In addition, many of the participants reported experiencing poverty in childhood and at the time of interview were struggling to find or maintain work and accomplish financial stability. Marriage and parenthood discourses are raced and classed in addition to being heteronormative (Budnick, 2016). People with less education and low income are less likely to get married, even when they are partnered and have children, due to financial constraints and expectations of financial stability (Cherlin & Seltzer, 2014). Despite increases in the marriage rate among same-gender couples following the Obergefell v Hodges Supreme Court decision (Jones, 2016) marriage may remain inaccessible to young sexual minority people struggling with poverty.

Like all studies, the current one has limitations. First, the sample size is drawn from a purposeful sample of young adults based on a mixed-method, stratified sampling approach; it would be unrealistic to expect large sample sizes and saturation from this sampling strategy (Patton, 2002, p. 240). The purpose of qualitative research is rarely to generalize results to larger populations; instead, its purpose as a research method is to allow researchers to describe, explore, and examine specific phenomenon in depth (Patton, 2002). To this end, this exploratory study should be used to inform additional qualitative and quantitative studies with larger samples of sexual and gender minority participants. Second, and relatedly, the current study is a secondary analysis of interviews conducted with participants chosen based on their responses to a measure about perceived burden. Individual differences in perceived burden among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth has been shown to be associated with suicide and suicidal ideation (Baams et al., 2015; Silva et al., 2015); although we did not find links between perceived burden and heteronormativity in the interviews, there may be differences in the life history narratives of young adults who do not report high levels of perceived burden. Finally, we acknowledge that the majority of the literature, including that cited in this study, is from the perspective of cisgender people. Research on transgender and nonbinary gender identified people, especially in studies asking about romantic partnerships (Pfeffer, 2014; Platt & Bolland, 2017), would provide significant depth to the theoretical and empirical study of heteronormativity, particularly for young adults at intersections of transgender identities with other identities.

Conclusion

Findings from this study have important implications for theory. Queer theory from a family studies perspective focuses on deconstructing three primary binaries: gender, sexuality, and family (Oswald et al., 2009). The narratives of these participants provide empirical evidence for queer theorists’ arguments that these binaries interact with one another to structure how young adults understand heteronormativity and highlight the nuanced ways these binaries interact. Gender informed sexuality, and vice versa; both then informed (sometimes thwarted) desires for particular family constructions. Intersectionality provides an important framework for understanding how people perceive and are perceived by society through their multiple identities (Choo & Ferree, 2010). Indeed, we found that gender, sexuality, and race/ethnicity all contributed important contexts for how participants made sense of and were influenced by heteronormativity. Research framed through feminist or queer theories has become increasingly intersectional (Cole, 2009; Few Demo et al., 2016); we encourage scholars to continue approaching topics such as heteronormativity and gender with nuance and recognition of people’s multifaceted lived experiences.