Lesbians and Space: An Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis Dayna Prest Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts in Women’s Studies Institute of Feminist and Gender Studies Faculty of Social Sciences University of Ottawa © Dayna Prest, Ottawa, Canada, 2016 Abstract In a moment when visibility and representations of LGBTTQAI+ people are proliferating in North American society, it is important to think critically about how visibility and representations function and to interrogate their meanings and a/effects. This thesis uses data produced from five semi-structured interviews conducted with lesbian identified participants living in non-urban spaces in Ontario to demonstrate the importance of a continued lesbian specificity, to draw attention to heteronormativity and heterosexism in Ontarian society, to challenge femme invisibility and complicate the notion of femme privilege, and to move beyond the urban/rural binary as a way of making sense of sexuality. The methodological framework guiding this thesis draws on interpretive phenomenological analysis as well as feminist and queer methodologies, which facilitated a responsive and reflexive research process. This thesis is grounded in ongoing debates around identity politics and representation, drawing on literature from lesbian theories, lesbian-feminist histories, queer theories, heterosexism, heteronormativity and homonormativity, lesbian-feminist histories, white privilege studies, queer and feminist geography, and LGBTTQAI+ rural studies. ii Acknowledgements I am beyond grateful to my participants, without whom this work would not be possible and whose insightful thoughts serve as the backbone of this thesis. I extend my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Shoshana Magnet, for continuously teaching me to think in new ways and for cultivating the kindest atmosphere for our lab group. I also want to thank my committee members, Dr. Jennifer Blair and Dr. Dominique Bourque, who consistently offered brilliant insights. Thank you to all my lab group friends for listening to me talk endlessly about my project, for always having constructive suggestions, and for sharing your amazing work with me. A massive thanks to Jillaine, who was always there to believe in me, edit, or listen to me ramble at three in the morning- I’m forever grateful! And finally, thanks to my family who always unconditionally support me in whatever academic endeavours I choose. iii Table of Contents Abstract……………………………………………………………………………..…... ii Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………......… iii Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………. iv Introduction……………………………………………………………………………... 1 Research Questions and Thesis Objectives………………………………………. 4 Methodological Framework……………………………………………………… 6 Outline of Thesis………………………………………………………………... 25 Chapter 1: Theoretical Framework and Review of the Literature …………………27 Theories of Sexuality ……………………………………………………………………27 Lesbian Theories…………………………………………………………………28 (Lesbian/Queer) Identity Politics………………………………………………...38 Lesbian-feminism and the Sex Wars…………………………………………… 55 Lesbianism……………………………………………………………………… 59 Queer Theories………………………………………………………………….. 74 Heterosexism, Heteronormativity, Homonormativity………………………….. 77 White Privilege and White Homonormativity………………………………….. 82 Theories of Space……………………………………………………………………….. 86 Queer and Feminist Geography………………………………………………… 88 LGBTTQAI+ Rural Studies……………………………………………………. 90 Chapter 2: “Being” A Lesbian: Appearance and Behavioural Norms…………….. 97 “Being” a Lesbian………………………………………………………………. 97 Sexuality and Behavioural Norms of Lesbianism…………………………….. 105 Gender and Appearance Norms of Lesbianism……………………………...... 123 Chapter 3: Coming Out in Space…………………………………………..……….. 155 Urban Bias and Sexualities……………………………………………………. 155 Coming Out and Being Out…………………………………………………… 167 White Homonormativity………………………………………………………. 180 Conclusion…................................................................................................................. 196 Bibliography………………………………………………………………………….. 202 iv Introduction In North America, we are living in a moment where LGBTTQAI+ rights and visibility seem to be at the forefront of our social, cultural and political minds. With the recent move to legalize same-sex marriage on a national level in the United States, the American Military considering allowing transgender soldiers to join the army (Geidner, 2013), and the Liberal government in Ontario implementing a new sexual education curriculum that introduces the existence of and content on LGBTTQAI+ folks and their identities and experiences, we are regaled with narratives about the progression and progressiveness of (Western) society, and about tolerance and acceptance. Amongst LGBTTQAI+ communities, however, there is little consensus that these events are the victories they are presented as in popular media and discourses (Geidner, 2013; Boyd and Young, 2007; Halberstam, 2012; Duggan, 2002; Puar, 2007, 2013). The impulse to pursue LGBTTQAI+ rights primarily and often exclusively as liberal rights is definitively labeled and critiqued as an assimilationist strategy that alienates many of the most vulnerable folks in our communities (Geidner, 2013; Boyd and Young, 2007; Halberstam, 2012; Puar, 2007, 2013; Cohen, 1997). Discussions around identity politics and the tensions between various approaches to challenging and changing the unequal divisions of power and interlocking systems of oppression that characterize the world we live in are central to this thesis. I do not understand “assimilationist” and “liberatory” approaches to identity politics as existing in direct opposition and tension with one another; instead, I endeavour throughout this thesis to work with and be critical of both approaches. 1 Many of the discourses in Ontario around the new sexual education curriculum demonstrate not only the continuing presence of homophobia, but also the deep-seated heterosexism in Ontarian society. While much of the media coverage is dedicated to myth-busting around the curriculum and its content (Pickles, 2015; Brown, 2015) there is a significant amount of media online in opposition to the curriculum with several letters of opposition prominently circulating among various communities in Ontario, albeit much of it explicitly and unsurprisingly Conservative (Campaign for Life, 2015; Parents as First Educators, 2015; REAL Women of Canada, 2015). A letter that has been widely circulated across all of these sites as well as numerous others, claims: “Grade 3 (age 8): Homosexuality: normalizing of homosexual family structures and homosexual “marriage” in the minds of 8 year-olds, without regard for the religious/moral beliefs of families” (REAL Women of Canada, 2015). Such a sentiment reflects a prevalent theme among articles that criticize the LGBTTQAI+ positive content in the sexual education curriculum and that is the notion that the curriculum change is part of an agenda to normalize “homosexuality and transgenderism”. It is paramount to emphasize the way that these discourses are deeply grounded in heterosexism and cisgenderism. One of the four core objectives of this thesis is to challenge and draw attention to the way systems of heteronormativity and heterosexism function in Ontarian society. Thus, I want to emphasize the ways that the discourses about the sex-ed curriculum explicitly work to (re)inscribe heterosexual, cisgender subjectivities as natural and normal. By making claims about how the curriculum changes are promoting Premier Kathleen Wynne’s “lesbian agenda” and are trying to “normalize” “deviant ways of being”, the implication is that there is a natural (heterosexual) order that is being compromised by including 2 LGBTTQAI+ subjectivities as acceptable ways of being among the province’s youth. In response to such pervasive heterosexist, transphobic discourses, I want to interrogate heterosexism in this thesis by drawing on excerpts from my interviews with lesbian/gay/queer-identified participants who live in rural or non-urban places in Ontario. As I interpret and analyze the way that participants make sense of heterosexism and homophobia in Ontarian society, and in response to this outrage over the “homosexual agenda”, I am focused on a queer rage at the heterosexual agenda (which, unlike a queer agenda, I would argue, substantially exists and threatens our safety/choices/experiences on a daily basis). I have a clear and political interest in studying lesbianism, LGBTTQAI+ communities, people, and sexuality through a queer, feminist framework that is attentive to homonormativity, heterosexism, sexism, ableism, classism, racism, cisgenderism, (trans)misogyny, and myriad other marginalizing and oppressive systems. Even with a narrow focus on lesbianism and lesbian identification in my recruitment material, the participants in my study identify in various ways and our conversations produced data that reflects the experiences of lesbian, queer, gay and women who choose to not identify with any particular label. I would be very interested in conducting similar research on other identities and experiences in the future, and from the offset I want to recognize the limitations of a study that samples only the experiences of white, cisgender women, although I work throughout this thesis to integrate such limitations into my analysis. I chose to focus my research around lesbianism and space in particular because I noticed that