Search

ABSTRACT LGBTIQ+ research acknowledges shared experiences of groups marginalized due to gender identities, sexualities, and sex characteristics. This universalist coalition approach has resulted in much affirmational research and progressive policy development. However, it risks homogenizing the unique experiences and needs of specific groups; a risk lessened by a particularist subgroup approach. In this theoretical paper, we reflect on the challenges of a coalition or subgroup approach by considering interdependencies and boundaries between sex, gender, and sexuality‐based identities. Through tracing the historical development of LGBTIQ+ research and activism and using examples from intersex studies, intersectionality, and political actions, we explore tensions between the collective identities that make up the LGBTIQ+ acronym. We further offer suggestions for reimagining LGBTIQ+ research, advocating for community‐driven approaches that respect the situated knowledge of LGBTIQ+ individuals, and use adaptable and inclusive research practices that bridge academia and activism that aim to improve the lives of the marginalized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research tests whether self-labelling with a derogatory or reclaimed label is perceived as an act of reclamation. A pilot study (N = 102) identified English terms used to label lesbian women and gay men. The main study (N = 276) used a between-groups vignette design in which participants read about a woman/man self-labelling with a descriptive (lesbian/gay), reclaimed (queer), or derogatory group (dyke/fag) label. We assessed perceptions of the speaker (control/influence, agency, and efficacy) and group power, label offensiveness, and the likelihood of using the label in the future. Descriptive labels were perceived as less offensive and more likely to be used compared to reclaimed and derogatory labels. For gay men, using a derogatory label compared to other labels decreased perceived agency, but did not influence control/influence and efficacy. For lesbian women, there were no differences in perceptions of power depending on the label used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on gender‐fair language aims to identify language inclusive to a multitude of individuals, for example, increasing the visibility of women by using paired pronouns (he/she) instead of generic masculine forms (he). However, binary presentations like he/she might come with unwanted side effects and evoke what we label as normative gender bias. A normative gender bias is defined as when words lead to stronger associations with individuals with normative gender expressions than with individuals with non‐normative gender expressions, thus contributing to making non‐normative individuals invisible. In three experiments, we compared the extent to which the paired pronoun he/she (Swedish and English), the neo‐pronouns hen (Swedish), ze (English), and the generic pronoun singular they (English) evoked a normative gender bias. Swedish‐ (N = 219 and 268) and English‐ (N = 837, from the UK) speaking participants read about individuals referred to with the paired pronoun he/she or with hen, ze, or they. In Experiment 1 (Swedish), there was no main effect of condition on a normative bias, but in Experiment 2 (Swedish), the paired pronouns he/she evoked normative gender bias while hen did not. In Experiment 3 (English), both ze and singular they evoked normative gender bias, although normative associations were lower in these conditions compared to he/she. Furthermore, the normative bias was lower among participants who had knowledge about the use of ze as a nonbinary pronoun. Finally, neither ze nor they evoked a normative gender bias when their use was explicitly stated to be nonbinary. A potential explanation for why singular they did not generally result in less normative associations, despite almost all participants knowing about it, may include its more common use as a generic pronoun. Taken together, our results suggest that neo‐pronouns, but not paired pronouns, have the potential to evoke less normative associations, but that they must be both (1) actively created new words and (2) well‐known to language users as nonbinary pronouns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current research addresses gender trouble (acts that question the naturalness of a binary gender system) in two parts of the recruitment situation: applicant attraction and evaluation. Experiment 1 (N = 1,147) investigated how different Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) statements in an organization description influenced organizational evaluations. The EEO statements emphasized gender as binary (women and men), gender as diverse (multi‐gender), or gender as irrelevant (de‐gender; compared with no EEO statement). Gender minority participants experienced decreased identity threat in response to the multi‐gendered and the de‐gendered EEO statements, which increased organizational attractivity. There was no significant effect of EEO statement for gender majority participants. Multi‐gendered and de‐gendered EEO statements increased perceived gender diversity within the organization. Experiment 2 (N = 214) investigated how applicants with a normative or non‐normative gender expression were evaluated by HR‐specialists. Applicants with a non‐normative gender expression were rated as more suitable for the position and recommended a higher starting salary than applicants with a normative gender expression. Women with a non‐normative gender expression were rated as more likely to be employed than men with a non‐normative gender expression, while women applicants regardless of gender expression were rated as the most likely to acquire the position. This research indicates that gender minorities can be explicitly included in EEO statements without negative impact on gender majority groups and with a positive impact on gender minority groups. Furthermore, a non‐normative gender expression was not found to be a cause for biased evaluations in an initial recruitment situation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]