2 Wahlig, Jeni L. What Does it Mean to be a Butch/Femme Couple? An Exploration of Identity Formation, Experience, and Couple Dynamics Abstract This study uses a qualitative methodology situated in grounded theory to explore what it means to identify as a Butch, a Femme, and as a Butch/Femme couple. In depth interviews were conducted with four Butch/Femme lesbian couples so that participants could describe their identities and experiences using their own words and voice. Findings indicated common experiences in being Butch, being Femme, the process of identification, the qualities that “make a Butch a Butch and a Femme a Femme,” and Butch/Femme relationship dynamics. Complexities and diversity within these experiences are also discussed, as are suggestions for therapists who work within the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, and Queer/Questioning community. Directions for future research are suggested. 3 Acknowledgements I can‟t imagine how this process and product could have been created without the help and support of several key players in my life. First and foremost, I would like to thank my partner, Stephanie, who took care of just about everything else in my life so that all I had to worry about was this and work. Thank you Steph for all of your support, for taking an interest in what I was doing, for encouraging me when I thought I would never be able to get it done, and for your unending generosity of love. Thanks also to my advisor, Terri. Your knowledge and guidance got me started strong and in all the right directions. Your praise and encouragement along the way gave me confidence and strength to keep moving forward, even when life threatened to get in the way. Finally, I would like to thank the women who participated in this research study. It takes courage to tell your story to a stranger, and it was an honor to be able to step into your lives for a short while. I want you to know that your stories have changed me and my relationship and have added an even deeper love and appreciation for the diversity of people and experiences in the LGBTQ community. Thank you. 4 Table of Contents …………………………………………………………………………………………………Page Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………2 Chapter I: Introduction……………………………………………………………………………6 Definitions…………………………………………………………………………….…10 A Brief History…………………………………………………………………………..12 Chapter II: Literature Review……………………………………………………………………15 Chapter III: Methodology……………………………………………………………………..…17 Qualitative Research…………………………………………………………………..…17 Grounded Theory………………………………………………………………………...19 Participant Selection…………………………………………………………………..…21 Data Collection Procedures………………………………………………………………22 Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………….23 Validity…………………………………………………………………………………..25 Strengths…………………………………………………………………………………33 Limitations……………………………………………………………………………….34 Ethical Considerations………………………………………………………………...…36 Chapter IV: Case Studies………………………………………………………………………...38 Jack and Mara……………………………………………………………………………38 Johna and Mia……………………………………………………………………………40 McKenzie and Lindsay…………………………………………………………………..43 Jordan and Vanessa………………………………………………………………………45 Chapter V: Findings……………………………………………………………………………...49 5 Identifying as Butch and Femme……………………………………………………...…49 What Makes a Butch a Butch and a Femme a Femme? .................................................. 51 The Butch Experience……………………………………………………………………54 The Femme Experience………………………………………………………………….58 Butch/Femme Relationship Dynamics………………………….…………………….…62 Chapter VI: Summary and Discussion……………………………………………………….......70 Advice to Therapists……………………………………………………………………..80 Revisiting Assumptions…………………………………………………………….……86 Suggestions for Future Research……………….………………………………………..87 References……………………………………………………………..…………………………91 Appendix A: Consent Form……………………………………………………………………...94 Appendix B: Interview Questions………………………………………………………………..96 6 Chapter I: Introduction Awareness of difference, often referred to as “diversity” or “cultural competence” within the field of Marriage and Family Therapy, has been a key point of learning during my work as graduate student. Yet compared to what we know about people who fit “the norm” (white, educated, heterosexual, middle class), our field has relatively little to teach about diversity. There just simply has not been as much research focused on populations of difference. As a member of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, and Queer community (LGBTQ) myself, I am keenly aware of the lack of information about same-sex couple relationships. Because the field of Marriage and Family Therapy (MFT) centers so much on relationships and families, it seems it would be intuitive to study LGBTQ individuals, their families, and their couple relationships. I was frustrated to find that my field simply does not know all that much about LGBTQ experiences or relationships. Nor does the field have much to say about how same-sex relationships may be similar to or different from heterosexual relationships. As a therapist, there is no good textbook focused on working with these couples, and there was not even a lecture focused specifically on same-sex couples during my Couples and Sex Therapy class. To me, this represents a significant gap of knowledge and cultural competency within the field of Marriage and Family Therapy. I knew fairly quickly upon deciding to do a thesis that I wanted to contribute to the production of knowledge and awareness about LGBTQ people, experiences, and relationships. The hard part was deciding which research question to ask. I owe the planting of this seed to an ex-partner of mine who identified as a Butch. She and I encountered some road blocks in our relationship because I did not identify as a Femme, and she really only dated women who did. In truth, I was not even aware that there were women who identified as a Butch or a Femme; to me, 7 the words “Butch” and “Femme” were simply adjectives, not identities. Yet to my partner at the time, there was a very important difference. How did she come to learn of this difference and align herself with it? What did the difference mean to her? And how did this difference affect who she was in relationships? I never got to learn all of the answers about her story, and my curiosity continued long after the relationship ended. Throughout my academic work as a master‟s student of MFT I geared many of my research paper assignments toward LGBTQ experiences and relationships. As I read the current literature on same-sex relationships, I became aware of the fact that most of the studies simply lumped LGBTQ data into one category to be compared with heterosexual data. Few studies drew distinctions between groups under the “homosexual” umbrella or compared data between groups (i.e. comparing results of lesbians to those of gay men). And I found only one researcher who acknowledged that some women who were attracted to women did not identify as “lesbian.” This researcher gave women the opportunity to identify as either “lesbian” or “gay woman.” Such was the extent of acknowledgment of diversity within the LGBTQ community. Worthington and Reynolds (2009) speak to this missing piece within research and call for a closer look at within-group differences in the LGBTQ community. They explain that most research compares heterosexuality and homosexuality as dichotomous opposites, and even research that looks into sexual orientation forces participants to limit themselves to particular categories of belonging such as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. However, “the broader trend in the literature on the nature of sexual orientations and identities suggests that there may be more sexual orientation subgroups than is commonly assumed” (Worthington and Reynolds, 2009, p. 45). Thus, by designing research studies that presume limited categories, researchers neglect to 8 explore the multifaceted and multidimensional aspects of sexual orientation and identity, which results in within-group differences being ignored. In their own attempt to study within-group difference, Worthington and Reynolds (2009) surveyed 2,372 self-identified Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Heterosexual individuals using the Sexual Orientation Identity Scale, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Knowledge and Attitudes Scale for Heterosexuals, and the Measure of Sexual Identity Exploration and Commitment. Through a cluster analysis of their results, Worthington and Reynolds identified 12 clusters of sexual orientation! Given that most research would likely categorize participants into only four categories, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Heterosexual, this tripled number of categories for sexual orientation experience truly speaks to the importance of recognizing within-group differences in our research on LGBTQ populations. Diamond (2005) echoes Worthington and Reynolds‟ sentiment almost exactly by arguing that it is important for researchers to explore alternative and new criteria for sexual categorization. Diamond, however, takes a different approach in researching these categories by exploring diversity in categorization over time. In the past, most theories assume that sexual identities are stable throughout life, but that may not actually be the case. "Ironically, just as society has become more accepting of a sexual taxonomy that includes gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, scientists studying sexual orientation have increasingly come to question the usefulness of these categories in light of the increasing evidence for non-exclusivity and plasticity in sexuality, especially among women" (Diamond,