Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Identity Formation Michele J
1 Shifting Sands or Solid Foundation? Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Identity Formation Michele J. Eliason and Robert Schope 1 Introduction How do some individuals come to identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/or transgender? Is there a static, universal process of identity formation that crosses all lines of individual difference, such as sexual identities, sex/gender, class, race/ethnicity, and age? If so, can we describe that process in a series of linear stages or steps? Is identity based on a rock-solid foundation, stable and consistent over time? Or are there many identity formation processes that are specific to social and historical factors and/or individual differences, an ever- shifting landscape like a sand dune? The field of lesbian/gay/ bisexual/transgender (LGBT) studies is characterized by competing paradigms expressed in various ways: nature versus nurture, biology versus environment, and essentialism versus social constructionism (Eliason, 1996b). Although subtly different, all three debates share common features. Nature, biology, and essentialistic paradigms propose that sexual and gender identities are “real,” based in biology or very early life experiences and fixed and stable throughout the life span. These paradigms allow for the development of linear stages of development, or “coming out,” models. On the other hand, nurture, environment, and social constructionist paradigms point to sexual and gender identities as contingent on time and place, social circumstances, and historical period, thus suggesting that identities are flexible, vari- able, and mutable. “Queer theory” conceptualizations of gender and sexuality as fluid, “performative,” and based on social-historical con- texts do not allow for neat and tidy stage theories of identity develop- ment.
[Show full text]