LESBIAN GENDER IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT AND GENDER ROLES OF YOUNG
BLACK WOMEN
By
Maria Valenti

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Psychology
2011

ABSTRACT
LESBIAN GENDER IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT AND GENDER ROLES OF YOUNG
BLACK WOMEN
By
Maria Valenti
While there is a paucity of scientific research that explores the diversity of lesbian
existence, even less research focuses on young Black lesbian women and the way these lesbians
negotiate their lesbian community. A small body of research suggests that lesbians tend to divide
themselves into social groups based on gender identity and expression (e.g., butches and
femmes). The research behind this dissertation qualitatively explored lesbian gender identity
development, norms, and gender socialization among Black lesbian gender groups. Fourteen
interviews with Black young women of low socioeconomic status were conducted (5 ―femme,‖ 4
―stemme,‖ and 5 ―stud‖). Analyses followed modified analytic induction procedures. Three a
priori propositions that were based on past research literature and theory were modified to fit the
data. Another proposition originated from the data and subsequent analyses. Overall, analyses
revealed that the experiences of identity development, enactment of gender norms, and gender
socialization varied across gender. Enactments of stud and femme gender norms were often
extreme, with studs exemplifying heteronormative (hyper)masculinity, and femmes exemplifying
femininity. Stemmes, however, alternatively endorsed both masculine and feminine norms, but
enacted them to a lesser extreme than did studs and femmes. The gender expression of stemmes
changed based on context (e.g., mood state and relationships). Results indicated that the stud
participants constituted the only lesbian gender group to endorse being socialized by other
members of their own gender group. For most of the young women, socialization occurred
through a system of reward and punishment rather than overt mentoring. Analyses also revealed

an imperative for studs and femmes to adhere strictly to their respective gender. Acting outside
of those norms was often met with negative repercussions. By extension of this standard,
stemmes were often looked upon with disdain, especially by studs. Although all the participants
were embedded within a lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community, they were
still influenced to some extent by the gender norms of the broader society. Femmes and stemmes
reflected young Black female gender norms, and studs reflected young Black male gender
norms. Overall, results revealed the importance of lesbian gender identity for young sexual
minority Black women of low socioeconomic status. With regard to future research, the results
elucidated the importance of addressing lesbian gender identity as well as sexual orientation
identity, because experiences (e.g., identity development, gender role enactment, and
socialization) differed based on gender. In addition, future research may benefit from including
longitudinal designs with contextual measures, because lesbian gender may be fluid and
dependent on context. More dynamic theories allowing for variation and flux could also be
instrumental in understanding the complexity of lesbian gender.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many people have helped guide me through this dissertation process. First, I would like
to thank my committee members for pushing me intellectually – their insight and knowledge
were invaluable. I‘d like to thank especially my advisor and mentor, Robin Miller, whose
guidance and advice were instrumental in making this research project and dissertation a success.
I have learned so much from her not only academically, but about life. Thank you, Robin, for
being patient and believing in my ideas. Your encouragement was motivating. I would also like
to thank Nkiru and Sarah for being willing to critique and challenge my analyses, so I could add
more depth. To Sarah in particular who challenged me intellectually, but also was there to help
with childcare or anything else that I needed during the final haul. I am forever grateful.
I can‘t help but mention my parents and grandparents for instilling in me the value of
education as well as teaching me perseverance. This value and skill came in handy when I was
ready to tear up my paper and ―throw in the towel.‖ To Yale – only true ―mishpocha‖ would
dedicate their free time to reading my work and helping me refine my writing. To Tulin - thank
you for staying by my side and riding the rollercoaster of grad school with me. It hasn‘t always
been easy, but I appreciate you and everything you are. To Aiden and Levi – thank you for
reminding me not to take myself too seriously – sometimes your smiles and giggles are exactly
what I need.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... vi
CHAPTER 1 ...................................................................................................................................1
HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF BUTCH-FEMME ................................................................................... 2
Black Lesbian Community ...................................................................................................... 6
Butch/Stud ............................................................................................................................... 7
Femme ................................................................................................................................... 12
The Butch-Femme Dyad ....................................................................................................... 15
INTERSECTIONALITY THEORY .................................................................................................... 19
FUNCTION OF IDENTITY ............................................................................................................. 22
SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY (SIT) ............................................................................................... 24
SELF-CATEGORIZATION THEORY (SCT) .................................................................................... 26
IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES ........................................................................................ 28
Erikson‟s Stages of Psychosocial Development ................................................................... 28
GENDER ..................................................................................................................................... 31
Gender Identity Development ............................................................................................... 31
Gender Consistency vs. Inconsistency .................................................................................. 33
SEXUAL ORIENTATION IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................... 36
AGE: EMERGING ADULTHOOD ................................................................................................... 38
ETHNICITY AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION ..................................................................................... 41
GENDER AND RACE: BLACK WOMEN......................................................................................... 42
GENDER AND RACE: BLACK MEN .............................................................................................. 46
DIVERSITY: A KEY TENET OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY......................................................... 49
The Principle of Community Culture .................................................................................... 49
The Principle of Community Context .................................................................................... 50
The Principle of Self-in Community ...................................................................................... 51
CURRENT STUDY ....................................................................................................................... 52
A Priori Propositions ............................................................................................................ 53
CHAPTER 2 .................................................................................................................................57
METHOD .................................................................................................................................... 57
Participants ........................................................................................................................... 57
Procedures ............................................................................................................................ 58
Measure................................................................................................................................. 59
Data analysis: Modified Analytic Induction ......................................................................... 59
Data Management ................................................................................................................. 63
Verification of the Results ..................................................................................................... 64
CHAPTER 3 .................................................................................................................................66
RESULTS .................................................................................................................................... 66
Contextual Considerations.................................................................................................... 66
Identity Development ............................................................................................................ 71
Lesbian Gender Norms ......................................................................................................... 93
v

Lesbian Gender Socialization ............................................................................................. 125
CHAPTER 4 ...............................................................................................................................144
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................. 144
Lesbian Gender Identity Development................................................................................ 144
Gender Identity Development Theories .............................................................................. 145
Minority Stress Theory ........................................................................................................ 147
The Stemme Gender Identity ............................................................................................... 149
Social Identity Theory (SIT) & Self-Categorization Theory (SCT) .................................... 152
Intersectionality Theory ...................................................................................................... 154
Gender Rigidity & Paradoxes ............................................................................................. 156
Advantages & Disadvantages of Gender Rigidity .............................................................. 158
Diversity Principles in Practice .......................................................................................... 162
Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 172
Implications......................................................................................................................... 175
Future Directions ................................................................................................................ 176
APPENDIX A .............................................................................................................................179
APPENDIX B .............................................................................................................................180
APPENDIX C .............................................................................................................................183
APPENDIX D .............................................................................................................................187
APPENDIX E .............................................................................................................................191
APPENDIX F .............................................................................................................................200
REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................204

vi

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE I. Six Steps of Analytic Induction................................................................................. 61
TABLE II. A prior and Modified Propositions................................................................... 73 - 74
TABLE III. Ages of Gender and Sexual Orientation Self-Identification................................... 75

vii

CHAPTER 1
In sexual minority research, lesbians are often treated as a homogenous group and studied
in comparison to other sexual minority groups, such as in developmental trajectory research
(e.g., Savin-Williams & Diamond, 2000), sexual identity development research (e.g., Bradford,
Ryan, Honnold, & Rothblum, 2001), and mental health research (e.g., D'Augelli, Hershberger, &
Pilkington, 2001; Lewis, Derlega, Griffin, & Krowinski, 2003; Rutter & Soucar, 2002). Though
some empirical studies investigate only lesbians, such as in their identity development process
(e.g., Eliason, 1996; Kitzinger & Wilkinson, 1995; Levine, 1997; McCarn & Fassinger, 1996;
Parks, 1999; Rust, 1993; Whitman, Cormier, & Boyd, 2000), a paucity of research explores the
diversity of lesbian existence. Most research on lesbians includes a predominately White sample
(e.g., Diamond, 1998, 2000; Levitt, Gerrish, & Hiestand, 2003; Levitt & Hiestand, 2004), and
consequently results may not apply to lesbian women of other races.
Although lesbians are typically defined as constituting one social group, they functionally
further divide themselves into social groups based on gender identity and expression. Two
gender identities dominate lesbian culture: butch and femme. Each identity anchors a gender
continuum that runs from masculine (butch) to feminine (femme). Butches possess more
stereotypical ―masculine‖ qualities and femmes more ―feminine‖ qualities (Kennedy & Davis,
1993; Laporte, 1992; Weber, 1996; Wilson, 2005). These gender identifications form social
categories or groups that partition the lesbian population. Social categories bring order to social
environments and enable an individual to know how to act within given situations. Appropriate
intergroup behavior is socially determined in ways that allow each group to differentiate itself
from another (Tajfel & Turner, 1986).

1

This dissertation explores the experiences of young Black lesbian women of low
socioeconomic status in order to begin to understand how having multiple identities influence
their lesbian experience. More specifically, lesbian gender identity development and the
intergroup dynamics among lesbian gender groups of young Black women will be explored. This
research adds to what is already known about the diversity of lesbian women, and strives to
increase understanding of Black lesbian culture.
In this chapter, I survey the social-historical context of lesbian gender and describe in
depth what is known about the concepts of butch and femme. I then provide a general review of
the literature on identity, including its function and development, and then segue into a deeper
discussion about specific identities (i.e., gender, race, and sexual orientation). In addition, this
chapter introduces diversity as an integral component of community psychology work.
Historical Context of Butch-Femme
The butch-femme dyad emerged in the 1940s and 1950s in the United States. During this
period, appearance and sexual expression were primary indicators of butch and femme gender
identities (Laporte, 1992). The clothing and appearance of two social identities, butch and
femme, became important for establishing a social identity. The presence of a butch female or
the butch-femme couple announced lesbians to one another and the public. Lesbians were able to
recognize one another, which was essential for building a distinct culture and identity as well as
for fueling a culture of resistance. During this period, with lesbian women actively desiring other
women and not waiting for advances from a man, the butch-femme dyad began to challenge the
heterosexual culture‘s view of women as being passive. Two women visibly together represented
an alternative to the heterosexual norm of the male-female relationship in which the typical
outcome of heterosexual intercourse is the male‘s orgasm (Kennedy & Davis, 1993).

2

Before the 1970s, it was socially important for a lesbian to pick either a butch or femme
role in order to gain acceptance into the lesbian community. In addition, once a role was decided
upon, the femme generally coupled with a butch. Couplings of butch with butch or femme with
femme were rare and not socially accepted within the lesbian community. To be an accepted
member of the lesbian community, a woman needed to adhere to the butch-femme rules. Those
who did not conform were called ―ki-ki‖ or ―AC/DC,‖ which were pejorative labels. Ki-kis
switched roles based on their partner. If their partner was femme, they were butch; if their
partner was butch, they were femme. Ki-kis elicited negative comments and were the butt of
jokes because they disrupted the butch-femme social order (Kennedy & Davis, 1993).
The rise of the feminist women‘s movement in the 1970s led to changes within the
lesbian community. Women began to criticize the butch-femme dyad for replicating heterosexual
power norms. Women rejected the butch-femme dyad because of its imitation of patriarchy,
since in romantic relationships butches played the masculine or dominant role and femmes the
feminine or more submissive role. Butches threatened mainstream lesbian culture and feminism
because their gender expression was seen as regressive and politically problematic (Roof, 1998).
Butch-femme roles began to be seen as artificial, oppressive, and sexist during this period
(MacCowan, 1992). The popularity of the butch-femme dyad plummeted and established
gendered sex roles changed to those of mutual lovemaking (Kennedy & Davis, 1993; Roof,
1998). Butch-femme couples and their voices were silenced (Nestle, 1992b).
Lesbians began to identify as androgynous instead of butch or femme. Androgyny was
popular until about the mid-1980s. In order to be accepted within the feminist-lesbian
androgynous community, butches needed to give up their masculine ways because men were
seen as oppressors; femmes needed to give up some of their feminine characteristics, such as

3

using high heels and lipstick, since these were ―tools of patriarchy‖ and bound women to
excessive consumerism (Maltry & Tucker, 2002). An androgynous lesbian encompassed positive
male and female characteristics. She had a certain look consisting of short hair, jeans, hiking
boots, running shoes, Birkenstocks, t-shirts, flannel shirts, baseball jackets, down jackets, baggy
walking shorts, and athletic clothes. She avoided adornment, barrettes, jewelry, makeup, hose,
high heels, skirts, dresses, and scarves. Sex with men and any confusion or ambivalence about
lesbian identity was not tolerated. Many androgynous lesbians wore jewelry and clothing with
the image of women‘s symbols entwined on them, and listened only to women‘s music. It
became politically incorrect not to subscribe to the androgynous imperative (Loulan & Thomas,
1990).
In 1988, the butch-femme dyad revived (Roof, 1998) starting in San Francisco
(MacCowan, 1992), and since 1990 there has been the reinstitution of butch-femme (Smyth,
1998). Over the last two decades, a plethora of writing and websites (e.g., http://butchfemme.com, http://www.butch-femme.net, http://www.butchfemmesociety.com, and
http://www.butchfemmeworld.com) has emerged, perhaps indicating the growing popularity of
these identities (Hiestand & Levitt, 2005). Many younger lesbians have also started to identify
according to their gender expression rather than their sexual orientation identity (Savin-Williams,
2005).
This revival, instead of being seen as replicating heterosexuality, is now viewed as more
complex. Butch and femme help code identities and behaviors that are both connected to and
distinct from standard male and female societal roles (Rubin, 1992). According to Laporte
(1992), the major difference between butch-femme lesbian relationships and male-female
heterosexual relationships is that the butch-femme couples do not attach inferior-superior

4

significance to either role—more equality exists. This assumes, however, that individuals in
heterosexual relationships are inherently unequal. In addition, the idea that butches partner
exclusively with femmes and vice-versa is an outdated stereotype (Rubin, 1992). The neobutch/femme of the ‗90s is more flexible (Inness & Lloyd, 1996) and women are free to switch
roles and partners—femmes can go butch and butches can go femme, and butch-butch and
femme-femme couples are more accepted (Walker, 1998). Choosing butch or femme does not
hold the ―life and death‖ necessity it once had in the 1950s. In terms of power and control, the
lesbian gendered norms of the past may be less relevant. Recently, butch-femme has become
more of an ―enjoyable erotic statement and an escape from the boring ‗vanilla sex‘ that [was]
associated with lesbian-feminism‖ (Inness & Lloyd, 1996, p. 12). Kennedy and Davis (1993),
however, suggest that a debate still exists among lesbians regarding whether butch-femme
imitates heterosexuality.
Some lesbians believe that butch-femme erotic attraction never left during the
androgynous lesbian-feminist movement. A large segment of the lesbian population never liked
or fully subscribed to androgyny (Loulan & Thomas, 1990). As one butch noted during this time
period, ―Feminism tore apart my butch core‖ (Cordova, 1992, p. 283). During the androgyny
movement, she felt divided between what was socially accepted and what she felt inside,
suggesting that many androgynous lesbians just suppressed their innate gender tendencies.
Laporte (1992) asserts that lesbians who deny butch-femme attraction ―are simply those who
either have no experience of this attraction or who are denying it in their fear of being accused of
copying heterosexuals‖ (p. 212). The androgynous movement may have never reached the Black
lesbian community, since the feminist movement was seen as a White women‘s movement
(Moore, 2006).

5

Black Lesbian Community
Butch-femme distinctions seem to be especially prominent among lesbians of low
socioeconomic status (Crawley, 2001; Weber, 1996) and those lacking high levels of education
(Weber, 1996). Among low-income and Black lesbian women, the concept of butch-femme may
be culturally important. Wilson (2005) conducted a cultural analysis of Black lesbian sexual
culture, including the sexual beliefs and attitudes of Black lesbians. She instituted a multiple
methods intra-cultural study design using focus groups, individual interviews with community
leaders and professionals in sexual health who had worked with Black lesbians, and participant
observation of local events. She found that participants used the word ―stud‖ to reference
lesbians who dress and appear traditionally masculine and who are expected to take on a
traditional American male role in relationships, and the word ―femme‖ to label lesbian women
who dress and appear traditionally feminine and who are expected to adopt a traditional female
role within relationships. She also found variations on femme and stud, such as ―hard studs‖
(lesbians extremely masculine in dress and manner, who refuse to have any sexual act performed
on her), and ―pillow princesses‖ (ultra femmes; they prefer to receive sexual pleasure and acts
and are not expected or likely to reciprocate on their partner).
Various rules exist in the Black lesbian community on socially acceptable relationships.
Studs and femmes are supposed to date each other, and little tolerance exists for studs who date
one another. In Black lesbian bars, not adhering to gender norms led to consequences, such as
being bothered, not getting a date, or being beaten up. Even though participants in this study
mentioned that stud and femme gender dynamics structured lesbian relationships, Wilson (2005)
found that few participants within the focus groups said they adopted a lesbian gender label for
themselves. Participants stated that women who were less educated or working class were more

6

likely to express femme and stud identities, as well as more likely to partner within role
expectations. In general, participants reported rejecting a butch/femme label.
Wilson‘s (2005) results, indicating that some lesbian women reject the lesbian gender
label but still state that lesbian gender structures relationships, are interesting. This may mean
that although some women are not self-identifying as their lesbian gender, they still notice
lesbian gender dynamics in the community and for themselves. When lesbians interact with each
other in social environments, they may assign lesbian gender identities to others but not see how
the identity fits for them. This changes lesbian gender identity from one that is internalized to an
ascribed identity. In addition, upper socioeconomic status lesbians or those who have obtained a
high level of education may consider self-identifying as their lesbian gender as taboo. On the
other hand, the finding that less educated and working class lesbians were reported to use lesbian
gender labels still makes lesbian gender identity particularly relevant for young Black lesbian
women of low-socioeconomic status.
Butch/Stud
Appearance and sexual expression have been primary gender expression indicators. The
most visible gender identity is butch, because butch women challenge stereotypical female
gender norms. Butches are women who are more comfortable with masculine gender codes,
styles, and identities than with feminine ones. A broad range of masculine characteristics
encompass this lesbian gender identity (Rubin, 1992). Butches physically adopt a masculine style
of dress. In the 1940s and ‗50s, this style included wearing ties, heavily-starched shirts, jackets,
pants, and masculine-style shoes that were sensible and sturdy. They also cut their hair extremely
short (Kennedy & Davis, 1993). Weber (1996) targeted lesbian venues and administered to
predominately White lesbian women and their partners (n= 235) questionnaires that consisted of

7

both closed- and open-ended questions regarding their butch-femme self-identification. The
qualitative results indicated that, aesthetically, a butch is exempted from wearing feminine
clothes and makeup. Many butches stated that men‘s clothes are more comfortable. Anecdotally,
today butches tend to choose large tattoos that emphasize muscularity. Their piercings include
rings or bars through the septum, or a post underneath the bottom lip. They also tend to use
larger gauge jewelry in their piercings (Walker, 1998). In the Black lesbian community, butches
are referred to as studs (Kennedy & Davis, 1993; Wilson, 2005) and the Black lesbian dress code
is generally not radically different from that of White lesbians (Kennedy & Davis, 1993).
Butches and studs visibly express their masculinity through dress. They also act in a
distinctive manner. Butches have a masculine swagger, from the way they walk, sit, and hold a
drink to their tone of voice and other subtle nonverbal forms of communication (Kennedy &
Davis, 1993). Levitt and Hiestand (2004) qualitatively explored the meaning behind being butch.
They interviewed 12 butches (11 White, 1 Latina) between the ages of 23 and 62 about what it
meant to be butch. The results indicated that most participants strongly believed being butch was
an essential aspect of who they were, and that being butch was not located in one trait but
encompassed a certain energy or essence commonly associated with masculinity. The thought of
being feminine created discomfort for respondents and when pressured to appear feminine, they
felt embarrassed, weak, and vulnerable. They were able to enact deliberate gender performances
to suit their emotional state or interpersonal interaction. For example, some butches allowed
themselves to be more feminine with their partners, or when they wanted to be more spiritual or
emotionally vulnerable. They often acted more masculine when they felt more sexual, insecure,
or playful. Some identified more with men than women, and typically liked more masculine
activities, had traits associated with men, and adopted male gender roles. In general, although

8

they might have considered doing so in the past, butches stated that they were not trying to be
men, even if they often were mistaken for men in public (Levitt & Hiestand, 2004; Weber,
1996).
Regarding development, butches described a very early sense of being different from
other children and mentioned conflict with parents who encouraged their gender conformity to
societal norms (Levitt & Hiestand, 2004). Many described childhoods filled with confusion and
shame. Some believed they were meant to be boys and most described themselves as tomboys.
During puberty, menarche seemed like a betrayal. In their late teens or early twenties, most came
out to others as lesbian and butch. Coming out signifies the process of disclosing one‘s sexual
orientation to others (Bochenek & Brown, 2001). Coming out was important because it allowed
themselves to be more comfortable with being butch. They had to learn the social roles regarding
how to be butch in the lesbian community. They also realized they were sexually desirable and
attractive to many lesbians because they were butch. Coming out as butch was an important
turning point for some women. The participants mentioned experiencing expectations to be
tough, to be a leader, to take care of and protect others, to not cry, to not date other butches, to be
sexually dominant, and to take care of chores designated as men‘s responsibilities, all of which
they found hard to fulfill. It was a challenge for butches to find a masculine appearance that was
comfortable as well as one that they could manage in different social contexts. Ironically,
participants mentioned that in one sense butch lesbians do not need to come out because they are
visibly lesbian. Being butch made them feel more powerful and assertive, and they enjoyed
feelings of strength and confidence, feelings which they could not access if they tried to force
themselves into traditional gender roles. Becoming more butch was sometimes described as a
way to guard tender emotions from being hurt. Participants reported struggling to reconcile their

9

tough exterior with a more sensitive caring side. Butches needed to find a balance between being
social, sexual, physical, and emotional that felt comfortable and true to themselves across
contexts (Levitt & Hiestand, 2004).
Using the same data, Hiestand and Levitt (2005) qualitatively explored the theme
―growing up as a butch lesbian‖ and identified five subthemes. One subtheme, ―being a butch
child‖ involved early identity as a tomboy. As children, butches adopted male gender norms and
spent time with boys. Participants described that during this time they were confused, afraid, and
wondering why their gender seemed wrong, yet they reported that they were simultaneously glad
they were developing a self-assurance which many girls lack. Their parents often pressured them
to be feminine and forced them to wear feminine clothing, which made them feel as if they were
in drag.
A second subtheme involved ―specific school experiences.‖ The participants experienced
increased social pressure to conform to feminine norms at school. The participants stated that
they often felt alone or different from female peers. A few participants managed to find friends
who were also gender nonconforming; however, they were the exception. By the time they were
in high school, most participants realized they were lesbian but tried to appear heterosexual by
dressing femininely, feigning interest in boys, or dating. A few participants mentioned
experiencing pressure from boyfriends to be more feminine. Most participants remember other
students harassing them and calling them names, such as ―queer.‖ They were humiliated by the
name-calling because often they did not claim a lesbian identity and believed such to be
shameful. In addition, during this time, their bodies were changing due to menarche. It became
harder to remain faithful to the masculine parts of themselves because the physical differences
between themselves and male peers became more pronounced.

10

A third subtheme involved the participants ―coming out as lesbian to themselves and then
to other people.‖ Most participants believed they were butch their whole lives. A fourth
subtheme involved ―learning about butch-femme by meeting other butches.‖ They began to
realize that being butch was actually sexually desirable, which was important because in the past
they were ashamed of and minimized their masculinity. Participants described finding a butch
role model who explained butch-femme rules of interaction. The final subtheme was ―becoming
comfortable being butch.‖ The participants described integrating their gender presentation with
their female body, which helped them feel more sexually attractive and experience greater selfacceptance. The meta-theme encompassing all the categories was ―striving to be authentic.‖
Butches struggled with an internal sense of gender while negotiating developmental experiences
that forced them to present their gender in an incongruous manner.
From these data, Hiestand and Levitt (2005) also proposed a model of butch identity
development. They suggested the first stage of butch identity development involves butches
feeling conflicted about their gender, and isolated from other children. The second stage involves
the intersection between gender conformity and sexual orientation. Butch lesbians feel pressure
from their peers, teachers, and their parents to be more feminine. Because they do not conform,
they are often called lesbians or ostracized from peers. Most butch women know of their own
lesbianism by the time of puberty. The third stage, gender awareness and the distinguishing of
differences, occurs as butch women begin to seek out other lesbians and embrace their own
sexual orientation while not really exploring their gender differences. The fourth stage,
acceptance of lesbian identity leading to gender exploration, occurs when butch lesbians begin to
actively explore their gender after adopting their lesbian identity. The fifth stage, gender
internalization and pride in sexual orientation, happens when the women adopt their butch

11

identity and appear to become more comfortable as their butch gender expression aligns with
their internal sense of gender. The sixth stage, gender affirmation and pride, occurs when
participants begin to have pride about their gender instead of shame. Butch women begin to
become open about their gender and increasingly comfortable with their butch identity across
different contexts. The final stage, integration of sexual orientation and gender difference,
happens when both identities, butch and lesbian, become fully integrated into the butch woman‘s
sense of self. By this stage, the women appear to have developed the self-knowledge, livedexperience, social support, and politicized perspective to continue to negotiate their gender
development.
It is of interest to note that one research study suggests a certain privilege associated with
being butch. Walters (2005) defined butch privilege as ―the unearned and unacknowledged
privilege experienced by a butch lesbian (perceived or self-identified) due to her occupation of
masculinity‖ (p. 1). Walters surveyed undergraduate students who were shown two pictures of
lesbian women displayed side by side (one femme; one butch), and were asked to compare them
based on certain characteristics. Results indicated that butch women were seen by the surveyed
students as male, having male characteristics and traits, and ultimately as able to obtain more
privilege than femme women. These results were especially true for Black female participants.
Femme
Less is known about femmes and how they act as a group. Femme women are
characteristically feminine and generally wear what fashionable women wear, including makeup,
high heels, and earrings (Laporte, 1992). Femmes, in general, are physically indistinguishable
from heterosexual women. Levitt, Gerrish, and Hiestand (2003) qualitatively explored what it
meant to be femme from a White adult femme perspective. The results indicated that femmes

12

have certain aesthetic characteristics, such as using makeup, wearing feminine clothing, and
dressing provocatively. Femmes in general enjoy being admired physically. Anecdotal evidence
indicates that femmes tend to have fewer ―masculine‖ tattoos, and the tattoos they have
emphasize feminine aspects of their body, such as hips, ankles, and breasts. Femmes often
describe tattoos as jewelry, and choose nipple, naval, dainty nose studs, and clitoral hood
piercings (Walker, 1998). While they adhere to the feminine expressions of gender, femmes
possess traits of strength, openness, and honesty that are not necessarily associations with
heterosexual femininity. In Weber‘s (1996) study, previously described, the author reported that
femme women were adamant that being femme does not mean being submissive or passive.
Through a grounded theory analysis of interviews with 12 White femmes between the
ages of 21 and 53, Levitt et al. (2003) describe the femme developmental process. They
identified four main developmental aspects of femme identity. The first stage included childhood
memories that included being a tomboy but then becoming feminine as a teenager, having samesex feelings or experiences despite dating men, and being athletic but feminine in high school.
The second stage involved the process of coming out as lesbian, which was complicated by their
femme gender. Being femme conflicted with both butch stereotypes of lesbians and the feminine
image of female beauty. Some respondents described struggling to understand their attraction to
other women. The third stage involved experiencing a need to come out as lesbian. The
respondents received reactions from others ranging from surprise (because their femininity
conflicted with lesbian stereotypes) to discomfort. The respondents seemed to exhibit a need for
honesty, which was promoted by a strong sense of personal sincerity and integrity. The final
stage included coming out as femme. The femmes needed to negotiate acceptance in
communities characterized by androgynous and butch identities. Identifying as femme helped the

13

participants resist the pressure to adopt the socially-dominant gender presentations and accept
themselves as both lesbian and feminine.
It is not simple to define a femme appearance and being femme. Femmes are often
perceived within the lesbian community as crossing over into ―enemy territories‖ and seen as
traitors because they blend in with heterosexual women. Femmes are often not recognizable to
other lesbians (Esterberg, 1996; Maltry & Tucker, 2002; Nestle, 1992a; VanNewkirk, 2006). In
lesbian communities, femmes are often stripped of power because they are assumed to be
bisexual or just dabbling with women—not ―true‖ lesbians (Levitt et al., 2003; Maltry & Tucker,
2002). In Levitt et al.‘s (2003)‘s research, femme participants discussed having to come out
continually because most people would not suspect them to be lesbian. In addition, they often
struggled to claim space in lesbian circles where butches are said to have higher value (Loulan &
Thomas, 1990; Maltry & Tucker, 2002), which affirms Walters‘ (2005) finding that butch
lesbians hold privilege.
Femmes often have a past history of heterosexual relationships and male sexual
experiences (Kennedy & Davis, 1993). One recent quantitative study found that femmes reported
more lifetime male partners and encounters than butches did (Rosario, Schrimshaw, Hunter, &
Levy-Warren, 2009). In this research study, researchers longitudinally examined butch/femme
differences in sexual identity formation and integration among an ethnically diverse sample of 76
self-identified lesbian and bisexual young women (ages 14 to 21 years). Femmes, in comparison
to butches, were less comfortable with others knowing about their homosexuality, were less
likely to self-identify as lesbian than bisexual, less comfortable with their sexual identity, and
less involved in gay-related activities (Rosario et al., 2009).

14

The Butch-Femme Dyad
Many people assume and some research supports (e.g., Levitt et al., 2003; Levitt &
Hiestand, 2004) that butches and femmes are sexually attracted to one another and engage in
romantic relationships with one another. There are certain roles that butches and femmes play in
their romantic relationships. According to the qualitative research of Levitt et al. (2003), in a
femme-butch dyad, the femme provides emotional care while the butch provides protection and
assistance. Sexually, the femmes recognize that their butch partner has vulnerabilities, so they
heighten their femme qualities, focus on caressing body parts common to both men and women
(e.g., shoulders, arms), or use fantasy or sado-masochism to make touch more comfortable for
the butch. The femmes reported that sexuality can be a difficult negotiation process because they
do not know how to please their partners sexually without making them feel too feminine, and
thus negating their butch identity. Many femmes consciously allow their butch partners to claim
symbols of power that affirm the butches‘ marginalized gender identity.
Loulan and Thomas (1990) conducted an early research study looking at differences in
sexual behavior across lesbian genders. Using a mixed method questionnaire, they surveyed 589
lesbians who were mainly White, middle class, Protestant, college graduates, and between the
ages of 30 to 39 years old. All lesbian gender groups provided extremely similar answers about
sex, including how often they initiated sex, how often they responded to their lover initiating sex,
entered their lover‘s vagina and anus, used a dildo, had orgasms, had lovers who experienced
orgasm, and gave and received oral sex. The study indicated, however, that femmes were more
likely to have started consensual sex with girls and women earlier in their lives (before the age of
10), and that they were also more likely to enter their lover‘s vagina during sex than were
members of the other gender groups. In addition, androgynous women, when asked about their

15

understanding of the butch/femme concept, saw butch/femme as ―male/female role-playing,‖
while self-identified femmes and butches both saw butch/femme as being ―sexual energy
differences.‖ This suggests that those lesbians who do not self-identify as femme or butch see
gender expression as a deliberate action, while self-identified butches and femmes view gender
as innate. In addition, it also suggests that perhaps the sexual divisions between butches and
femmes are not as distinct as stereotypes suggest; butches and femmes may engage in very
similar sexual behavior.
Levitt and Hiestand (2005) qualitatively explored the dynamics of butch-femme
relationships and discovered an interaction between lesbian sexuality and gender in physical
attraction, flirtation, and sexual activity. The first theme in this interaction was attracting others
and attraction was described as an energy exchange. Femmes described using feminine beauty
and strength to get the attention of butches and command sexual admiration. Butches enjoyed the
power of demonstrating their desire to femmes and having their desire coveted (e.g., a woman
wanting to give herself to them).
The second theme involved the risks entailed in gender performance. Femmes risked
exposing their feminine beauty, but not getting noticed or not being desired by a butch. A femme
also risked not being recognized as lesbian. In addition, butches risked being rejected by a
femme as well as having their gender misread as male.
The third theme, agency, involved the act of flirtation where attractiveness is
acknowledged and power is exchanged to maintain tension. The femme can choose to accept or
reject the butch‘s desire. The femme also demonstrates her ability to command desire, as well as
her ability to accept or reject desire (often by teasing). As for the butch, she can choose to desire
or not desire the femme. She demonstrates that her desire is coveted, often by teasing not to offer

16

desire, or by not showing her desire for a femme. For both femme and butch, the foundation of
attraction is in the expression of sexual confidence.
The fourth theme, sexual performance, involved the femme affirming the butch gender by
heightening gender differences. The butch may strap on a dildo and the femme may wear
lingerie. The strap-on enhances a butch‘s sexual self-image and sense of gender. Some butches
wear strap-ons on a daily basis under their clothes. The femme tends to be sensitive to butch
vulnerabilities in sexuality and careful not to touch a butch where she does not want to be
touched. Conversely, the butch tends to be oriented toward pleasing her femme partner and sees
some sexual activity as potentially threatening to her gender (e.g., having her breasts touched).
The earlier research of Levitt et al. (2003) found that participants were critical of butchfemme relationships, stating that butch-femme dynamics often constrained social interactions.
These participants reported that they were more likely to have friends and deep connections with
other femmes and androgynous women while seeing butch friendships as complicated.
In general, currently available research concerning lesbian gender identity describes the
butch and femme characteristics with most research focusing on butch lesbians. Only nine
empirical articles, one master‘s thesis, and one dissertation were found that specifically explore
lesbian genders. Of these nine articles, four analyzed the data from the same qualitative study.
The majority of studies include a predominantly White lesbian sample (e.g., Hiestand & Levitt,
2005; Levitt & Horne, 2002; Levitt et al., 2003; Levitt & Hiestand, 2004, 2005; Loulan &
Thomas, 1990), which was not the case with Rosario et al. (2009), Wilson (2005, 2009), and
Walters (2005). Rosario et al. (2009) was also the only study found to specifically explore
coming out experiences of young lesbian women denoting the differences and similarities across
lesbian genders while utilizing quantitative methods. Rosario et al. was also the only study using

17

young women as participants instead of asking older lesbians to recount retrospectively their
coming out experiences. The one dissertation I found (Wilson, 2005) that explored lesbian
gender among Black lesbians, however, did not specifically include young adult or low
socioeconomic status lesbians. Based on this limited body of research, butch-femme is
particularly relevant for Black (Wilson, 2005) and lower socio-economic status lesbians
(Crawley, 2001; Weber, 1996). Even though as described previously current knowledge holds
that the butch-femme dyadic is relevant, there is still much to be understood about Black young
women‘s definition and expression of butch-femme roles and behavior because of the lack of
research on this particular population.
In addition, there is lack of research on lesbians who do not self-identify with the main
gender expression identities (butch, femme, androgynous). For example, as described previously,
historical literature describes ―ki-kis‖ or ―AC/DCs.‖ Yet, no known studies explore this gender
or alternatives to butch, femme, and androgynous. Qualities of femininity and masculinity are
distributed in varying proportions in all lesbians (Laporte, 1992), implying other possible gender
identities. In addition, most lesbian gender identity research includes only adult lesbian women
as participants. In such research exploring gender identity development, participants are asked to
retrospectively reflect on their coming out experiences. Since adolescence is often considered a
time of self-definition (Kroger, 2000), young women may need to internalize both a sexual
minority identity and a gender identity. Therefore, an adolescent who is figuring out and
understanding her gender expression may differ from an adult woman who has already
committed to a role identity. There is also a lack of empirical analyses regarding how gender
identities structure relationships among lesbians (Moore, 2006).

18

Intersectionality Theory
According to intersectionality theory (Crenshaw, 1993), each identity informs another.
Joint social positions (e.g., Black lesbian women) create a specific reality that can be
distinguished from the realities of people identifying with other group membership combinations
(Cole, 2009; Mahalingam, 2007; Settles, 2006; Settles, Pratt-Hyatt, & Buchanan, 2008; West &
Fenstermaker, 1996). Therefore, the reality experienced by young Black lesbians of low
socioeconomic status is unique and differs from the reality of other, albeit similar, populations,
such as older Black lesbians, young White lesbians, young Black heterosexual women, and
young Black lesbians of higher socioeconomic status. For this reason, it would be inappropriate
to generalize findings about these other groups to young Black lesbians of low socioeconomic
status without specifically studying this group.
Hancock (2007) outlines key assumptions defining intersectionality as a body of
normative theory and empirical research. One assumption is that more than one category of
difference (e.g., race, gender, class) plays a role in complex social issues such as persistent
poverty, civil war, and human rights abuses. Each different social category occupies a particular
location in a socially stratified political system, and with that comes more or less power. For
example, in United States society, people who are gay or lesbian have fewer legal rights in
contrast to people who are heterosexual. Gay and lesbian people have lacked the power to obtain
a federally recognized marriage in the United States, and in some states cannot obtain health
insurance benefits for their same-sex partner.
Another assumption of Hancock‘s is that various identity roles should be equally attended
to in research; however, categorical intersections are more than the sum of their parts. Each
identity or category may not play an equal role or may vary with context (Hancock, 2007).

19

Although all social categories that define a person are important, they may not all have the same
impact on the person. One category may be more important or salient to an individual based on
their environment. For example, in a White lesbian-only environment, sexual orientation may be
less salient than race for a Black lesbian because sexual orientation as a minority identity is
shared. Since she is a racial minority in that context, her racial identity may be more salient and
noticeable to her than her gender identity. In her family context, however, her race may be less
salient to her than sexual orientation, since her racial social category is shared. In her family
context, she may feel as if she is discriminated against based on her sexual orientation.
Categories of difference are conceptualized and produced dynamically across ecological
levels (Hancock, 2007). Categories of difference, such as race, gender, and sexual orientation,
are meaningful across all ecological levels. Categories are also produced as social constructs at
each level, and each level affects how categories are (re)produced at the other levels. For
example, race as a category of difference exists at the macro level through unfair governmental
policies discriminating against racial minorities, which impacts how organizations provide
services, which impacts in turn how racial minority families utilize services, which impacts in
turn each individual in a family. The macro level encompasses the mechanism (unfair
governmental policies) that creates change trickling down to the other levels.
Each category of difference has within-group diversity (Hancock, 2007). For example, all
Black lesbians are not the same, but vary based on socioeconomic status, country of origin, age,
education, and in other ways. Therefore, the reality for middle-class, educated Black lesbians
may be very different from that of Black lesbians who are homeless or illiterate. While their race
and sexual orientation are the same for all Black lesbians in the United States, the ways in which
they differ can create significant effects on their day-to-day experience.

20

Intersectionality research should examine categories at multiple levels of analyses — not
simply add together mutually-exclusive analyses of the individual and institutional levels, but
integrate analysis of the interaction between individual and institutional levels (Hancock, 2007).
Analyzing across levels creates a more holistic view of the impact of the category of difference.
Analysis should not be additive, whereby each category of difference is looked at independently.
When investigating categories of difference using an intersectional framework, the categories
should be seen as dependent upon each other and intertwined, making it impractical and not
useful to tease apart categorical differences from one another.
Intersectionality as an empirical paradigm requires attention to both empirical and
theoretical aspects of the research question; therefore multiple methods of inquiry may be
necessary (Hancock, 2007). Since intersection research is more complex than is looking at each
category of difference individually, it may be helpful to employ various research methods and
theories in order to view the unique category from various angles and perspectives, and thus
more holistically. Using multiple theories to explain the phenomena may be helpful. For
example, when investigating the young Black lesbian experience, it would be helpful to look at
theories pertaining to the various categorical differences, such as adolescent development, sexual
orientation, gender, and racial theories, as well as looking at the data during analysis through
these categorical lenses.
Intersectional research requires looking at research questions from various angles;
therefore, research and theory from the categorical differences held by young Black lesbian
women (e.g., age, race, gender, and sexual orientation) will be reviewed. To begin to understand
intersecting identities, however, it becomes imperative to understand why identity is important
and how it functions.

21

Function of Identity
Adams and Marshall (1996) describe common functions of identity achievement. Identity
provides structure for self-understanding by providing a framework that a person uses to
organize how s/he sees her/himself. When a person understands who s/he is, then s/he has the
grounding to achieve optimal development (Adams, Abraham, & Markstrom, 1987; O'Connor,
1995; Serafini & Adams, 2002). For example, an adolescent determines she is sexually attracted
to other women, and begins to identify as lesbian. She may then use lesbian identity to
understand her sexual desire and come to terms with how she differs from heterosexual peers.
Through identity, she gains clarity, which grounds her future exploration and allows personal
growth.
Identity provides meaning and direction through commitments, values, and goals. People
who have achieved identity tend to be goal focused, organized, and have higher levels of stability
(Blustein & Palladino, 1991; Serafini & Adams, 2002). Therefore, identity focuses behavior and
directs actions (Serafini & Adams, 2002). For example, a woman who self-identifies as stud
lesbian behaves in certain ways and holds certain values. She may exhibit masculine qualities,
such as financially providing for her family, dressing in typical male clothing, and pursuing
femme women. Her identity provides meaning and guides her behavior and values.
Identity provides a sense of personal control and free will. Adolescents who have
achieved identity show increased internal locus of control, which suggests they have greater
personal control over their lives (Abraham, 1983; Serafini & Adams, 2002). While identity
provides structure behind behavior and values, it also provides a means of self-expression.
Identity provides the strength for a person to take ownership over her/his life and express
her/himself in a way s/he chooses. For example, once a lesbian self-identifies, she then

22

independently constructs how she wants to express her lesbianism and what that identification
means to her. She may exercise her personal control and choose to custom fit the lesbian identity
to her own sense of self.
Identity helps provide consistency, coherence, and harmony among values, beliefs, and
commitments, which decreases anxiety (Serafini & Adams, 2002). For example, once a lesbian
self-identifies, she may begin to understand why she felt different from peers growing up, and
may see patterns from past same-sex relationships. She may also begin to understand and
solidify various aspects of herself, such as gender expression, sexual attraction, and sexual
behavior, which may guide future behavior and values.
Identity enables recognizing potential through a sense of future, possibilities, and
alternative choices (Serafini & Adams, 2002). Identity helps provide future visioning. An
adolescent lesbian may envision a future for herself, for example, perhaps having a long-term
committed romantic relationship with another woman. She may see this as a valid alternative to
normative heterosexual marriage. Therefore, identity opens up avenues of possibilities and
assists in justifying new or alternative ways of living.
Identity achievement will eventually assist adolescents in anchoring to social institutions
and networks that will provide grounding for future developmental processes (Gecas &
Mortimer, 1987). For example, a young woman who identifies herself as lesbian may seek other
lesbians or LGBT community centers, and begin to explore that aspect of her identity. By
meeting other lesbians, she can perhaps create a supportive network when confronting
heterosexism or homophobia. She may also begin to understand what being lesbian means
through these networks and institutions, which can then lead to increased self-understanding and
grounding for future development.

23

While identity can provide grounding for personal healthy development, it also brings
order to social environments and enables people to know how to act when encountering people
with the same identity or other identities. Social Identity Theory (SIT) and Self-Categorization
Theory (SCT) explain how identity can structure intergroup interaction.
Social Identity Theory (SIT)
Intergroup behavior is the behavior displayed by one or more people toward others of
different social categories based on their self-identification (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Social
Identity Theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) attempts to explain how intergroup behavior
functions. An in-group is the social group to which an individual feels loyalty, respect, and
membership, while the out-group is the social group toward which an individual feels contempt,
opposition, or competition.
According to Tajfel and Turner (1986), three processes influence social group formation.
In one process, each individual internalizes her/his group membership and integrates it into
her/his self-concept. In the second, social situations must allow for comparisons between social
groups where evaluation of relevant relational characteristics occur. In the third process, the ingroup members do not compare themselves with every cognitively available out-group, but with
a perceived relevant group.
Relevance implies that the in-group and out-group must be perceived as similar enough
to provide a useful comparison, but not too similar as to threaten each other‘s social identity
(Brewer, 2001; Tesser, 1988). For example butches may develop animosity towards ―ki-kis‖
because ki-kis display both butch and femme appearance and behavior depending on the gender
of their partner. If a ―ki-ki‖ dates a femme, she becomes more butch. ―Kikis‖ and butches then
both compete for attention from femmes. ―Ki-ki‖ identity threatens butch identity therefore

24

hostility could develop toward ―ki-kis‖ by butches. In addition, if the out-group‘s difference is
evaluated negatively, perhaps as a challenge or threat to the in-group, the out-group becomes
viewed more negatively and is discriminated against by the in-group. Butches may view the idea
of ―kikis‖ switching gender expression as a negative characteristic. Therefore, in a social
situation ―kikis‖ may be discriminated against such as being ostracized in a lesbian friendly
space. When the out-group difference is evaluated positively, however, then the out-group is
treated positively by the in-group. The out-group may be evaluated differently, however,
depending on the specific context (Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999).
Social Identity Theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) has been empirically tested and used
to explain intergroup behavior. The research supports the relevant conclusion that people do look
favorably on their in-group in comparison to their out-group (Ferguson & Kelley, 1964), even
when minimal conditions exist in creating groups (see Doise et al., 1972; Ferguson & Kelley,
1964; Gaertner & Insko, 2000; Otten & Moskowitz, 2000; Otten & Wentura, 1999; Rabbie &
Horwitz, 1969; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Minimal conditions occur when even arbitrary
conditions, such as random assignment, are used to divide research participants into two groups.
Even when minimal conditions exist, the two groups divide themselves into an in-group and outgroup where the in-group looks upon its members favorably and with disdain on the out-group.
Research strongly supports the main tenets of Social Identity Theory (SIT; Tajfel &
Turner, 1986). In-group bias, however, does not always coincide with out-group discrimination
(Brewer, 1979, 1999; Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989; Otten & Moskowitz, 2000). SelfCategorization Theory (SCT), also known as Social Identity Theory of the Group, was developed
to begin to fill in holes that the SIT research elicited (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, &
Wetherell, 1987) and attempts to explain how groups form initially.

25

Self-Categorization Theory (SCT)
Social Identity Theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and Self-Categorization Theory
(SCT; Turner et al., 1987) are process theories that complement each other, and are commonly
used conjointly when explaining intergroup dynamics (Turner, 1999; Turner & Reynolds, 2004).
SCT (SCT; Turner et al., 1987) elaborates on the role of group identification by specifying how
salience of a person‘s personal or social identity may guide various social perceptions and
behaviors. SCT is concerned with psychological group membership where a person
depersonalizes and moves from defining her/himself as an individual to defining her/himself as
part of a social identity group. When this transition happens, collective group behavior emerges
and, psychologically, individuals perceive themselves as more similar to each other, thus
developing a ―shared cognitive representation of a collective entity which exists reflexively in
the minds of individual group members and is structured by the realities of group life in a
particular social system‖ (Turner & Reynolds, 2004, p. 261). The individual no longer sees
her/himself psychologically as ―me‖, but as ―we.‖ When social identity is enacted, it can be more
powerful than individual identity (Hogg & McGarty, 1990).
Group membership causes people to think, feel, behave, and self-define in terms of group
norms rather than idiosyncratically (Terry & Hogg, 1996). People are motivated toward group
norms ―by a need to reduce subjective uncertainty about one's perceptions, attitudes, feelings,
and behaviors and, ultimately, one's self-concept and place within the social world‖ ( Hogg &
Terry, 2000, p. 124). The term, ―uncertainty reduction hypothesis‖ (Hogg, 2000), occurs when
the certainty gained from adhering to group norms creates confidence in how to behave and what
to expect from the environment (Hogg & Terry, 2000). Past experimental research does support
this hypothesis (e.g., Grieve & Hogg, 1999; Hogg & Grieve, 1999; Mullin & Hogg, 1999).

26

Specifically, Self-Categorization Theory (SCT; Turner et al., 1987) predicts that people
are more inclined to behave in terms of their group membership than idiosyncratically because
their common identity as group members is salient. Generally, a person belongs to many social
categories, and a person will access a specific social identity as a function of that identity‘s
salience in a particular social context. Salience is determined by the importance or centrality of a
group and its emotional significance to that particular person (Deaux & Major, 1987; Oakes,
1987). Research does demonstrate that people will behave in accordance with the group if the
category is salient for self-definition (Brewer & Kramer, 1986; Haslam, Turner, Oakes,
McGarty, & Reynolds, 1997; Hogg, Turner, & Davidson, 1990; Terry, Hogg, & White, 1999).
Salience refers to the degree to which identification with another category is at a higher or lower
level. Therefore, depending on the context, a person will choose which category to subscribe to
based on a comparison to what fits best in the social context (Ros, Huici, & Gomez, 2000).
Research suggests when members of a subgroup claim their superordinate identity as
being more salient than the subgroup identity, they likely view their out-group more positively,
and therefore in-group bias does not occur or is diminished. This phenomenon is termed the
Common In-group Identity Model (CIIM; Dovidio, Gaertner, & Validzic, 1998; Dovidio et al.,
1997; Gaertner & Insko, 2000; Gaertner et al., 1999; Gaertner, Mann, Murrell, & Dovidio, 1989;
González & Brown, 2003; Stone & Crisp, 2007).
Social Identity Theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and Self-Categorization Theory
(SCT; Turner et al., 1987) are often conflated even though they are different. SIT posits a more
hierarchical view of social groups in which some social groups hold more value than do others.
SCT posits that people are motivated toward membership in social groups to reduce ambiguity.
Instead of being contradictory, SCT extends SIT in theory and research, and together these

27

theories create an explanation of group and intergroup dynamics and behavior (Hogg & Terry,
2000). The research supporting these theories, however, generally occurs in laboratory settings
using experimental designs (Smith & Long, 2006; Turner, 1999). Turner (1999), in a review of
the SIT and SCT literature, suggests that future research should occur in context with real world
situations because self-categorization is always determined by an interaction between
characteristics of the person and situation.
SIT and SCT may provide structure for understanding intergroup dynamics of young
Black lesbian women of varying lesbian gender identities. Studs, femmes, and stemmes may
respectively create separate groups in which each group establishes ways of behaving and
distinct cultural norms. In addition, SCT helps explain the link from the individual to group level
by explaining the collective internalization of group membership. SCT also seems particularly
relevant for people identifying with more than one social category, because it acknowledges
multiple identities. SCT specifies how salience of a particular identity in a context may guide
various social perceptions and behaviors. For example, young Black lesbian women are at the
intersection of identities (e.g., race, sexual orientation, and lesbian gender), and in settings where
all identities are shared except lesbian gender identity, that identity may become the one most
salient and thus used to guide behavior. One aspect that SIT and SCT does not explain, however,
is the process of identity development, and how young women develop their lesbian gender
identity.
Identity Development Processes
Erikson’s Stages of Psychosocial Development.
Identity development becomes important when trying to understand lesbian gender
dynamics because identity internalization is a key process in social group formation (Tajfel &

28

Turner, 1986). Obtaining a sense of identity involves a developmental process. Erikson (1950;
1968) theorized that throughout life, people encounter intrapersonal conflict, and how a person
handles conflict determines future identity growth. He determined eight major conflicts that
occur during various life stages. The most relevant stage to this dissertation research is identity
versus role confusion conflict (stage five), because people theoretically encounter this conflict
during adolescence and its resolution implies identity integration or disintegration. It is also the
only stage in which identity development is the focus. When encountering this conflict, an
adolescent tries to find resolution through the identity formation process, which involves ego
synthesizing (integrating important earlier identifications into more unique ones). For example, a
heterosexual young woman may become romantically attracted to another woman, thereby
challenging her heterosexual identity. She is in conflict if she sees this attraction as a challenge.
Before moving onto healthy adulthood she needs to resolve this conflict by integrating her
alternative sexuality into her identity and commit to an identity (e.g., lesbian or bisexual), or
continue to identify as heterosexual.
Marcia (1966) categorized four different types of identity resolution: identity
achievement, foreclosure, moratorium, and diffusion. Identity achievement occurs when an
individual encounters identity crisis, questions and explores options and eventually commits to
an identity. For example, a heterosexual woman attracted to a woman may begin to question her
own heterosexuality, explore alternate lifestyles such as bisexuality or lesbianism, and eventually
commit to a lesbian identity.
Foreclosure occurs when an individual commits to an identity, along with the values, and
beliefs of her/his childhood without exploring possible alternatives. S/he carries out family
obligations and leads the life expected of her/him instead of making her/his own decisions. For

29

example, a heterosexual woman with same-sex attractions may deny her attractions and commit
to a heterosexual identity because her family taught her that homosexuality was immoral. In
foreclosure, she does not explore her same-sex attractions or a lesbian or bisexual identity.
An individual in moratorium is in the midst of exploration and has not yet committed to
an identity. For example, a heterosexual woman may be in process of exploring alternate
identities (e.g., lesbian or bisexual) without yet making a decision or committing to any sexual
orientation identity.
Identity diffusion occurs when a person has neither experienced identity crisis nor
commitment. S/he has not explored alternate identities and is not concerned about identity. S/he
experiences life day-to-day. For example, a young woman may not identify sexually. She may
have other priorities, such that identity issues are not explored. If a young woman is worried
about physical safety or hunger, identity development may be halted, and she would therefore be
considered to be in a state of identity diffusion.
Marcia‘s (1966) identity resolutions are not considered developmental stages, but rather
categories between which people can cycle. This suggests that identity achievement may not be
considered a stable state at the end of a defined process, but one state in an on-going process. An
identity-achieved person may cycle through the categories again when s/he experiences
incongruity between the self-as-known (real self) and the self that could be (ideal self), which
creates stress. To reduce stress, an individual will strive for congruity and stability, which may
mean identity reconfiguration (Adams & Marshall, 1996). For example, later in life a person may
self-identify as sexual minority. They may have committed to a heterosexual identity earlier in
life, but experienced an event or situation that challenged their heterosexual identity, which
started them in the process of identity formation again.

30

Gender
Gender is a standard element of human identity. In general, gender identity refers to a
person‘s sense of maleness or femaleness, by which psychological acceptance of gender
generally coincides with biological sex (Green, 1974; Katz, 1986; Money & Ehrhardt, 1972;
Spence, 1984).
Society dictates what the concepts of masculinity and femininity mean. In the United
States, society determines a specific understanding of what social gender roles and expressions
belong with masculinity and femininity, respectively. Definitions of masculinity and femininity,
and gender identity, become important because they often guide recreational, academic,
occupational, and relationship expectations (Stets & Burke, 2000). They also provide an
organizational framework for coping with life transitions (Jackson & Warin, 2000). When
confronting uncertainty, people theoretically may adhere to their stereotypic gendered traits and
use them for stability. For example, a young stud lesbian may adhere more strictly to her
masculine ways when confronting adversity (e.g., violence, unemployment) or uncertainty (e.g.,
a lack of stable housing) in her environment.
Gender Identity Development
Two theories relevant to gender identity development are learning theory (e.g., direct
reinforcement and modeling; Mischel, 1966; Weitzman, 1979) and gender schema theory (Bem,
1981). In learning theory, social contexts shape gender identity. For example, a parent or teacher
teaches a child about culturally appropriate femininity and masculinity by directly giving out
rewards and punishments, or indirectly modeling gendered behavior, which the child imitates.
Direct rewards, punishments, and modeling may include clothing (girls in dresses; boys in
pants), object choice, such as toy preferences (dolls for girls; trucks for boys), and behavior

31

(passivity and dependence in girls; aggressiveness and independence in boys). For example, a
mother may compliment a girl for wearing a dress and being soft-spoken while criticizing her for
getting dirty or raising her voice. Through rewards and punishments, children learn culturally
appropriate ways to look and behave based on their gender (Weitzman, 1979). Indirect learning
of gender identity comes from imitating same-sex parents, teachers, peers, or famous people. A
child imitates a same-sex person‘s thoughts, feelings, or behavior because s/he anticipates that
s/he will receive the same rewards if s/he acts similarly (Mischel, 1966).
Gender schema theory differs from other gender identity theories because it deals less
with content and more with the process of learning about what the differences of male/female
and masculine/feminine. In this developmental context, a child, while learning about gender,
cognitively creates a heterogeneous network of gender-related associations to organize and guide
future perceptions. For example, s/he may learn that boys play sports, are competitive and
aggressive while girls play with dolls, are soft-spoken, and friendly. S/he learns to associate
those attributes with a certain gender (male or female). As a result, s/he applies a label of male or
female when confronting a person with those characteristics. While organizing incoming
perceptions from the environment, s/he also begins to internalize gender and characterize her/his
own attributes; thus, self-concept becomes assimilated into the gender schema. While learning
what is male or female, masculine or feminine, s/he also learns which gendered characteristics
should be linked to oneself. S/he internalizes gender and becomes motivated to regulate behavior
to align and conform to cultural definitions of femaleness and maleness, as appropriate (Bem,
1981).
All lesbians are women; yet it is unknown how learning theory and gender schema theory
apply to lesbian gender identity. According to gender identity theories, there should be little

32

variation among different women‘s expression of gender because it is presumed that they have
all experienced society in similar ways. These theories do not acknowledge variability and
diversity of gender identity expression within each sex.
Gender Consistency vs. Inconsistency
Typically, people are assumed to express from birth predominately masculine (male), or
feminine (female) characteristics based on their biological sex. It was once thought that gender
was innate and that biological sex determined gender expression. Contemporary thinking,
however, views gender as socially constructed. An individual receives cultural messages
originating from interactions with his/her family and with larger institutions, such as religious
groups and schools, on how s/he should express their gender. Societies tend to assign some
classes of social roles to "male" individuals, and some classes of social roles to "female"
individuals (as society perceives sexes). Individuals, however, vary in how they express and
interpret gender. A person could label herself as female, but see herself as stereotypically
masculine. An individual could place oneself along a feminine-masculine dimension of meaning;
and this meaning is their gender identity, which guides their behavior (Stets & Burke, 2000).
According to Spence (1984), people subconsciously create consistency across their
gender. She theorizes that when incongruence exists between someone‘s gender and their
behavior, a person subconsciously weighs their masculine and feminine qualities against each
other to make sure their subscribed gender is most salient and ―weighs more.‖ She also proposes
that what people pick as gender-congruent and -incongruent characteristics varies from person to
person and shifts based on age, role responsibilities, and other life circumstances. According to
Spence‘s theory, a person‘s perception of gender shifts across the lifespan.

33

Spence (1984) also theorizes that in most cases people are secure about their gender
identity except when encountering new developmental tasks, events that challenge their gender,
or unfortunate life events (e.g., loss of a spouse, or infertility). She considers adolescence an
insecure time of life. According to this theory, when people become gender insecure, they may
try to reduce feelings of inadequacy by participating in compensatory activity. For example,
unemployed men may abuse their wives to reinstate their masculinity. When unemployed, a man
finds that his masculinity is threatened because he is not able to provide monetarily for his
family; therefore, a man may demonstrate aggression to reinstate their masculinity. In sum,
people tend to protect their sense of masculinity or femininity at a sub-conscious level in order to
stay secure in their gender identity (Spence, 1984).
While some theories may imply consistency within gender, research demonstrates that
people only modestly exhibit consistency in displaying male-typical or female-typical behavior
across domains (e.g., personality traits, activity preferences, relationship partner preferences,
academic pursuits, and occupational preferences). Males may demonstrate typical feminine
characteristics in some contexts and vice-versa (Aube, Norcliffe, & Koestner, 1995; Egan &
Perry, 2001; Spence, 1984, 1993; Spence & Hall, 1996).
Gender inconsistency may be problematic for extremely gender-atypical people, such as
people with gender identity disorder. Gender identity disorder exists when a person wishes to be
the other sex and experiences distress when s/he is expected to behave similar to same-sex others
or is banned from cross-sex activities (Zucker, 1992). Some research suggests that cross-sextyped children experience negative mental health and behavior outcomes (see Bailey & Zucker,
1995; Cohen-Kettenis, Owen, Kaijser, Bradley, & Zucker, 2003).

34

Girls who are tomboys (gender atypical females) do not necessarily view themselves as
male, but display ―masculine‖ characteristics such as preferring to play with boys and preferring
boys‘ activities and toys. Research with tomboys suggests they may not experience the negative
outcomes that people with gender identity disorder experience. For example, Bailey, Bechtold,
and Berenbaum (2002) found that parents of tomboys tended not to report utilizing mental health
services, nor were parents reporting concern about their daughters‘ ―tomboy‖ status.
Tomboyism, however, may not be a stable identity. Carr (2007) found that heterosexual women
were more likely to describe growing out of tomboyism, whereas lesbian women were more
likely to describe having grown into their tomboy self. The tomboy label also was not seen as
pejorative. The most negative association to tomboyism was lesbianism.
Gender identity, however, may be multidimensional (Aube et al., 1995; Egan & Perry,
2001; Spence, 1984, 1993; Spence & Hall, 1996), and when separated into different parts, gender
identity may begin to explain some variations in experience. For example, Egan and Perry (2001)
viewed gender identity as encompassing four dimensions: (1) knowledge of membership in a
gender category, (2) perceived similarity to others of the same gender (gender typicality), (3)
pressure felt to conform to gender stereotypes from parents, peers, and the self (gender
conformity), and (4) attitudes toward gender groups. They found that perceptions of gender
typicality contributed positively and directly to a healthy sense of self, while pressure to conform
to gender norms contributed negatively. The negative effects of felt pressure on adjustment were
more evident for girls than for boys. They also found an interaction where the degree to which
gender contentedness predicts self-esteem is a direct function of the degree to which children feel
pressure for gender conformity. In essence, children who wish they were the other sex or who
desire to engage in cross-sex activities are at risk for problematic development (e.g., low self-

35

esteem) because they perceive their social environment as telling them they are wrong because
they behave in gender atypical ways.
Corby et al. (2007) replicated Egan and Perry‘s (2001) study with Hispanic and with
Black children. They found that gender atypical behavior did not cause problematic
development, but pressure to conform did. Black children who felt satisfied with their gender
(not if they felt gender typical) reported high self-esteem. Very few associations between gender
identity and adjustment for Black children were found, though gender contentedness was
strongly linked to self-esteem. In addition, Black and Hispanic children reported more pressure
for gender conformity than did White children (Corby, Hodges, & Perry, 2007).
Gender is a social construction; therefore a female can embody very masculine
characteristics, but still see herself as female (e.g., butch lesbians). No research explores how
gender atypical women perceive the congruence or incongruence between their biological sex
and their gender.
Sexual Orientation Identity Development
Most sexual orientation identity development research focuses on gay males. Cass (1979)
and Troiden (1988; 1989) conceptualize the sexual minority identity development of both males
and females using sequential stage models in which successful completion of each consecutive
stage leads to an increase in secure identity development. Research on lesbians, however, finds
these models do not fit their identity development process (e.g., Degges-White, Rice, & Myers,
2000; Kahn, 1991) Sexual orientation identity development of sexual minority women may be
more circular than linear, with no specified end point. Variability in sexual identity development
among lesbians is now considered normative rather than exceptional (Parks, Hughes, &
Matthews, 2004). Diamond (1998; 2000) conducted a longitudinal study on the sexual minority

36

identities of non-heterosexual young women. She interviewed women between the ages of 16
and 23, asking them about their sexual identities, attractions, and behaviors. On interviewing
them again 2 years later, Diamond discovered that in the interim half of the participants had
changed their sexual-minority identity more than once. Changes in attractions were minimal, and
most participants pursued sexual behavior consistent with their attractions. It is noteworthy that
25% of lesbians had sexual contact with men between the two interviews. The majority of
participants (85%) were White, and therefore the results may not be applicable to women of
other races.
Parks, Hughes, and Matthews (2004) demonstrated that lesbians of Color reached some
sexual orientation identity development milestones earlier (1 to 3 years younger) than did White
lesbians. Women between the ages of 18 to 83 were asked to recount identity milestones (e.g.,
first wondering, deciding, and disclosure). Lesbians of Color generally were younger than were
the White lesbians when they began to question their sexual orientation; however, they took
more time to decide that they were lesbian. Once decided, they disclosed (told someone) of their
sexual identity more quickly than did White lesbians. This study also found that older Women of
Color were more likely than younger Women of Color to be out to their families, whereas the
opposite was true for White lesbians. Younger Women of Color may exercise greater restraint in
disclosures to family in an effort to avoid conflicts.
Since lesbians often do not follow a stage-sequenced model of sexual orientation identity
development, and since historically most research on lesbians has been with White women or
with older Black lesbians, these past theories and results may not apply to young Black lesbians.
To address this potential void, the research in this dissertation provides an opportunity for
gaining further insight into the sexual orientation development of young Black lesbians.

37

Age: Emerging Adulthood
Adolescence is a time of self-definition when young people begin to internalize role
identities; however, research demonstrates that in our society identity achievement has rarely
been reached by the end of high school. Identity development actually continues throughout the
late teens, 20s, and sometimes into adulthood (Arnett, 2000; Luyckx, Soenens, & Goossens,
2006; Valde, 1996; Whitbourne & Tesch, 1985). The developmental period after adolescence but
before adulthood has been called emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2000; Rindfuss, 1991).
Emerging adulthood (ages 18 to 25 years) distinguishes itself from adolescence and
adulthood. People experiencing emerging adulthood do not see themselves as either adolescents
or adults. They are in a transition period that typically is filled with frequent change and
exploration. During this time, a person experiences new independence—legally and socially.
With this new independence comes the ability to explore new social roles, occupations, love
interests, and worldviews. One goal of identity explorations in emerging adulthood is to obtain a
variety of life experiences before taking on adult responsibilities. Life experiences, however, can
facilitate either healthy or unhealthy development. For example, unhealthy development includes
the findings that emerging adults often engage in high-risk behavior, including unprotected sex,
most types of substance use, risky driving behaviors such as driving at high speeds or while
intoxicated, and criminal recidivism (Arnett, 2000; Nelson & Barry, 2005; Piquero, Brame,
Mazerolle, & Haapanen, 2002; Schulenberg & Maggs, 2002). One potentially healthy life
experience, however, includes engaging in a romantic relationship, which can facilitate identity
development.
One distinguishing feature of emerging adulthood is experiencing romantic relationships.
For adolescents, dating provides companionship, first experiences of romantic love, and sexual

38

experimentation, but typically these relationships last only a few weeks or months. During
emerging adulthood, however, romantic relationships become more intimate and serious with a
focus on exploring the potential for emotional and physical intimacy. In emerging adulthood,
romantic relationships last longer than in adolescence, are more likely to include sexual
intercourse, and may include cohabitation (Arnett, 2000; Michael, Gagnon, Laumann, & Kolata,
1995). Romantic relationships may also influence both current functioning and later psychosocial
development, since interactions with romantic partners are more frequent than were interactions
with parents, siblings, or friends during earlier development (Feiring, 1999; Smetana, CampioneBarr, & Metzger, 2006). Therefore, it is necessary to understand romantic relationships in order
to understand how to gauge their possible influence on identity and psychosocial development.
In the past in United States. society, marriage dictated the beginning of adulthood. In our
current society, since many people refrain from marrying until they are older (age 25 or older)
and some decide not to marry or may not legally marry (e.g., people who are gay), marriage
becomes an insufficient marker. The most important criteria for adulthood include accepting
responsibility for one‘s self, making independent decisions, and becoming financially
independent (Arnett, 1998). In addition, becoming a parent is often sufficient to mark a
subjective sense of adult status. People who have had a child tend to view becoming a parent as
the most important marker of becoming an adult (Arnett, 1998, 2000).
Research on the development, features, and significance of adolescents‘ romantic
relationships has largely focused on middle-class, White, heterosexual youth (Bouchey &
Furman, 2005). Very few research studies focus on the characteristics of emerging adult lesbian
romantic relationships regardless of race (Diamond & Savin-Williams, 2005). One study (Elze,
2002) investigated the characteristics of young White lesbian and bisexual women‘s dating

39

relationships, as well as dating stress, presence of verbal and physical abuse, and psychosocial
factors associated with dating. Results of that study indicated that the women engaged in typical
adolescent dating activities (e.g., going to the movies, ―hanging out‖ with each other or with
friends, and going out to eat). Many participants reported involvement in serious same-sex
relationships, and were satisfied with them even though one-third reported verbal or physical
abuse. Most participants reported being sexually active, and had experienced a relationship
breakup that exerted a negative impact on their lives. Research on romantic relationships of
Black, lesbian, and low-income emerging adults, however, is lacking. The research conducted
for this dissertation provides an opportunity to learn more about the relationships of Black
lesbian adults of low-income status, especially with regard to romantic relationships, which are
important for psychosocial and identity development.
Social settings and context can influence the identity development process (Adams &
Marshall, 1996; Beyers, 2008; Kroger, 2000; Smetana et al., 2006; Solomontos-Kountouri &
Hurry, 2008; Yoder, 2000). Contexts facilitate or create barriers to identity achievement.
Multiple socio-cultural and economic boundaries exist that influence ego identity formation,
such as geographic isolation, childhood socioeconomic status, parental domination, educational
opportunity, physical limitation, political restriction, ethnicity, gender, age, and religion (Yoder,
2000). For example, low socioeconomic status, and poor educational opportunities are barriers to
the identity development process (Beyers, 2008). Communities experiencing conflict and
poverty, where family, school, and societal institutions do not offer to children and adolescents
consistent expectations, tend to cause youth to engage in unconventional behaviors, role
confusion, distrust, and identity diffusion (Ianni, 1989).

40

The social expectations and context surrounding the identity development of young Black
lesbians are virtually unknown, since most past identity formation research only includes White,
middle- to upper-class adolescents (Kroger, 2000). Hypothetically, young Black lesbians may
experience either environmental barriers that stifle identity development or facilitators that
enhance development.
Ethnicity and Sexual Orientation
In theory, Black lesbian women face triple discrimination - androcentric, heterocentric,
and ethnocentric biases. Black women often view family as the primary social unit and as a
major source of emotional and material support, and a buffer against racism (Greene, 1994b).
Therefore, Black lesbians may not jeopardize their connections to their families and communities
by forming alliances with the broader lesbian community or even by revealing that they are
lesbian. If Black lesbians do disclose their sexual orientation to family, tolerance about a family
member being lesbian is usually expressed as silence ("don't ask, don't tell" policy; Bennett &
Battle, 2001; Bridges, Selvidge, & Matthews, 2003; Greene, 1994b; Hall & Greene, 2002; Miller
& Parker, 2009). Serious conflicts between family members may erupt if a family member
openly discloses, labels herself, or discusses being lesbian (Greene, 1994b), which could explain
Parks, Hughes and Matthews‘ (2004) finding that young lesbian Women of Color are less likely
than White lesbians to be out to their families.
In addition, many gay and lesbian Black, Latino, and Asian Americans experience
rejection from the White-dominated gay and lesbian communities, which leaves them with
limited social support, few resources, and a lack of role models to assist them in negotiating the
complex process of identity development. This adjustment process may even be more difficult
for lesbians than for gay males, as these women find themselves at the bottom of the gender

41

hierarchy (Akerlund & Cheung, 2000). In addition, due to ―gay racism‖ (Luna, 1989), rarely may
Black lesbians feel completely accepted by predominately White lesbian communities (Bridges
et al., 2003; Mays, Cochran, & Rhue, 1993).
Gender and Race: Black Women
Black lesbians may not feel completely accepted by their White counterparts because of
the unique sociopolitical context of the United States. As stated previously, context can facilitate
or create barriers to identity development. Therefore, it becomes important to understand the
sociopolitical context behind growing up as a Black woman in the United States.
Since the introduction of slavery in the United States, Black women have been subjected
to images and stereotypes projected by society that were designed to make racism, sexism, and
poverty appear normal. These images convey messages about proper female sexuality, fertility,
and Black women‘s roles in the political economy (Collins, 2000; Jewell, 1992). Even though
slavery has been abolished, such images continue as part of an oppressive system to impact the
psychological functioning of Black women (Dugger, 1988; West, 1995). Efforts to combat these
negative images with positive ones have been incomplete, impermanent, limited, and not
uniform (Jewell, 1992).
Three of the most prominent historical images of Black women are the Mammy,
Sapphire, and Jezebel. The Mammy is the image of the overweight, asexual, faithful, obedient
domestic servant who is highly maternal, family-oriented, and self-sacrificing. Culturally, the
Mammy image reinforces the stereotype that Black women happily seek multiple roles, rather
than perform them out of necessity. It reinforces that Black women are caretakers, and selflessly
work to meet the needs of others, such as family, friends, and community (Jewell, 1992; West,
1995). The Mammy image aims to shape Black women‘s behavior as mothers. Black women

42

teach their children the deferent behavior needed to survive within White power structures
(Collins, 2000). If Black women internalize this Mammy image, they may suffer increased
depression, stress, and hypertension due to increased role strain (West, 1995).
The Sapphire image (also known as the matriarch, ―the bad black mother‖) is the
antithesis of the Mammy. She is hostile with a primary purpose of emasculating Black men with
loud, animated verbal assaults. Sapphires are working mothers who spend too much time away
from their home, do not supervise their children, are overly aggressive, and unfeminine (Jewell,
1992). Black women have reasons to be angry, but this image implies how that anger is
managed. For women who exemplify this image, displaying outrage often in this manner
becomes problematic when it masks a real vulnerability or when it represents the only way to
express dissatisfaction. Also, relationships are negatively impacted when anger is misdirected
toward family members and friends instead of to the problem source. Consequently, when Black
women internalize this Sapphire image, they may assume responsibility for the discomfort and
fear of others or modify their behavior to appear nonthreatening (West, 1995).
The Jezebel is the seductive, hypersexual woman who uses sexuality to exploit and
manipulate men. Jezebels are said to be promiscuous, engage in early sexual activity, become
sexually aroused with little foreplay, and see their sexuality as a prized asset (Jewell, 1992).
Women who internalize this image may see their sexuality as a manipulative tool rather than an
expression of pleasure and caring. Conversely, a woman may also repress her sexuality due to
shame and wanting to distance herself from the Jezebel image. She may also inadvertently
develop sexual performance anxiety; feel inadequate, and become sexually dysfunctional (West,
1995).

43

Collins (2005) described contemporary images generated by mass media that focus only
on working class Black women. The ―bitch‖ seems to be a combination of the Sapphire and
Jezebel. She is aggressive, loud, rude, and pushy and manipulates her own sexuality for her own
gain by using her body as a weapon. Consequently, the sexualized bitch leads to another
representation of working-class Black femininity, images of poor and working class Black
women as bad mothers. Poor/Working class Black women are depicted as being bitchy women
who are less attractive to men because they are not feminine; therefore to compensate, these
women who are classified as less attractive use their sexuality to ―catch‖ men and, they hope,
become pregnant so that the men will marry them. The men, in these images described by
Collins, see through this game and leave these women as single mothers who often have little
option but to try to ―catch‖ another man or ―hustle‖ the government. These representations create
a ―natural‖ Black femininity central to an ―authentic‖ Black culture. Within African-American
communities, women who fail to negotiate the slippery line distinguishing an independent Black
woman from a controlling Black bitch can find themselves ridiculed, isolated, abandoned, and
often in physical danger (Collins, 2005).
The Mammy, Sapphire, Jezebel, and Black bitch images were created as a result of
racism and oppression. While White women are considered to have a minority status in our
country, they do not have the historical background and context of racism and oppression.
Therefore, while White and Black women hold gender as a uniting identity, their experiences
may be different based on how society has historically treated them due to the color of their skin.
White women do not have the same sociopolitical context as do Women of Color, and have not
been bombarded with the same negative societal images that Black women may have

44

internalized. Therefore, Black women‘s current expression of gender, and their gender roles, may
differ from White women‘s.
Despite differences in race, Black and White women hold similar ideas on
conceptualizations of femininity, but express femininity differently. Cole and Zucker (2007)
surveyed 1130 women (326 Black; 804 White) regarding feminine appearance, feminine traits or
demeanor, and traditional gender role ideology. Results indicated that Black women were more
interested than White women in traditionally feminine behaviors (e.g., wearing attractive
clothing, decorating their homes), and were more likely to describe themselves as feminists than
were White women.
Black and White women also differ on gender role expression. Binion (1990) explored
sex role attitudes and the relationship between psychological masculinity and femininity with
both Black and White women. In general, she found that Black women were more likely to
identify themselves as androgynous (endorsing both high masculine and high feminine traits).
Many androgynous women in the study, however, still held traditional beliefs about the female
role in the family, and this was especially true for the Black androgynous women. White women
were more liberal about the female role in the family than Black women. Black women were also
all heavily invested in mothering. The author suggested that Black women, in order to succeed in
the work world, endorse androgynous or masculine traits, but conversely need to maintain
traditional female role beliefs to sustain meaningful relationships, especially among men.
Settles, Pratt-Hyatt, and Buchanan (2008) examined similarities and differences in
perceptions of womanhood for Black and White women. Using focus groups, they identified five
primary themes relevant to both Black and White women; however one theme, strength, only
emerged from Black women. Black women learned to be strong from their mothers and other

45

Black women. Strength included having courage to stand up for oneself, persevering, and
refusing to be taken advantage of by others (e.g., men and White people). They saw strength as
necessary when living in a racist society. They also mentioned an emotional toll of having to be
strong all the time. In addition, Black women more than White women described difficulties and
challenges with caretaking, such as the stress of multiple roles—such as needing to work outside
the home as well as taking care of those in the home.
While theoretical and historical images portray Black women as sexual, feminine, and
subjugated, research demonstrates that Black women endorse androgyny often, and see
themselves as strong women. The societal view of them and the reality do not necessarily
coincide. Therefore, a young Black woman or adolescent attempting to decide who she is may
receive conflicting messages, which could make identity development increasingly complex.
This may be especially true for young Black lesbian women, who not only have to negotiate their
racial gender identity development, but also their sexual minority identity development. They
need to figure out who they are within a tangled web, with the broader society projecting
sexuality and femininity, the Black female community projecting strength and androgyny, and
their inner sexual orientation identity going against the heterosexual norm.
Gender and Race: Black Men
Since butch lesbians express masculine characteristics it therefore becomes important to
understand Black male gender norms and expressions as a relevant influence on Black lesbian
gender identity. According to Collins (2005), chronic miseducation and unemployment of young
Black men created a society in which some young Black men demonstrate masculinity by being
aggressive, tough, and street smart. Sexual prowess also has become an important marker of
Black masculinity. Black men may be perceived as not being ―Black‖ enough if they do not

46

demonstrate sexual competence (Collins, 2005; Wallace, 2007). The ability to conquer women
sexually may make up for the lack of control and power Black men experience in the larger
society (Wallace, 2007). If a Black male lacks resources to maintain his position as head of his
family, he may seek authority by using physical force and violent language. He may become
involved in a rigid prescription for toughness, sexual promiscuity, manipulation, and thrillseeking, and be willing to use violence to resolve interpersonal conflict (Majors & Billson,
1993).
In addition to being aggressive and sexually dominant, some young Black men in the
United States are socialized to believe that showing emotions equals weakness or femininity. In a
male/female dichotomy, for a male to be feminine is to be less than respectable. Men may be
called ―wimps,‖ ―sissies,‖ and ―girlymen‖ for displaying feminine behavior. When young Black
men show emotion, their masculinity becomes questioned; therefore, they refrain from showing
emotion. Some Black men and women have internalized this idea of manhood and masculinity,
thus Black men are not expected to have or want to share their feelings, and as a result, are not
taught how to do so (Wallace, 2007).
To survive in a society that marginalizes Black males and punishes them for displaying
weakness (e.g., showing emotion), some young inner city Black males in the United States have
adopted cool masculinity (―cool pose‖). Cool pose involves the ability to be poised under
pressure and maintain detachment even during intense situations. Cool pose is a ritualized form
of masculinity that includes behaviors, scripts, physical posturing, impression management, and
carefully constructed performances. A man demonstrating ―cool pose‖ is mysterious,
charismatic, suave, and entertaining while at the same time restrained (e.g., emotionless and
stoic). Expressing cool pose suggests competence, high self-esteem, and inner strength while at

47

the same time masking self-doubt, insecurity, and inner turmoil. Most Black men who adopt cool
pose learn it from a young age and learn it for survival. Coolness is a valued trait among some
adolescents and often necessary for acceptance (Iwamoto, 2003; Lazur & Majors, 1995; Majors
& Billson, 1993).
In general, ―cool pose‖ creates a mask. ―Masking‖ originated during periods of slavery
and violent race relations to keep White people puzzled about Black men‘s true feelings. Some
Black males have become so accustomed to racism and social oppression that they act cool most
of the time regardless if they are undergoing a direct threat. In this manner, coolness has become
a ―conditioned strength.‖ Sometimes, males who do not conform to standards of coolness are
rejected, which enforces the value of coolness. Conversely, coolness can have negative
ramifications in relationships when masking true feelings interferes with forming strong bonds
with family and friends (Majors & Billson, 1993).
Young Black stud-identified lesbians may model male roles and adopt cool pose or other
behavioral patterns that are empirically or stereotypically associated with Black men. They may
use the cool pose strategically as a defense against the racism, sexism, and homophobia that they
encounter in broader society. It may be that those young Black lesbians who have experienced a
high level of stress from their environment endorse cool pose masculinity and adopt high
masculine characteristics more frequently than do women who have not experienced such
stressful events.
Young Black lesbians embody multiple identities (e.g., age, race, gender, and sexual
orientation) and are located in a unique social position where their identities are interdependent.
Understanding these lesbian gender categories may provide insight into Black lesbian culture.
Applying theories may aid in the understanding of Black lesbian identity development and how

48

lesbian gender categories create roles for structuring relationships among lesbians. This
dissertation explores young Black lesbian identity development, as well as how lesbian gender
provides structure for the ways by which young Black lesbians interact in their social
environment.
Diversity: A Key Tenet of Community Psychology
Diversity is a main tenet of community psychology, and community psychologists should
―promote respect and appreciation for diverse social positions and unique oppressions‖
(Prilleltensky, 2001, p. 754). Through respect for and appreciation of diversity, personal and
collective wellness are promoted (Prilleltensky, 2001); therefore, understanding diversity may be
an important step towards the community psychologist‘s goal of immediately or ultimately
improving community life (Trickett, 2011). Young Black lesbian women of low socioeconomic
status occupy a distinctive social position, embody multiple identities, and face unique
oppressions (e.g., racism, sexism, classism, and heterosexism). This dissertation studies their
experience through qualitative methods that ―position the researcher quite close to the raw words
and real life through which issues of diversity are most directly manifest‖ (Brodsky & Faryal,
2006, p. 313).
Harrell and Bond (2006) created diversity guidelines derived from narratives of
psychologists who were immersed in community research with diverse groups. The guidelines
encompass three diversity principles: community culture, community context, and self-incommunity. All three principles highlight the overarching concept of ―connected disruption‖, the
tension between having compassion for the community yet being information-seeking and
analytical, which is a critical tension that a community psychologist needs to manage.
(1) The Principle of Community Culture

49

The principle of community culture stems from the assumption that ―every community
has multilayered cultural characteristics and diversity dynamics‖ (Harrell & Bond, 2006, p. 366).
Applying this principle involves three focus areas: (1) description with a purpose of coming to
the understanding of who constitutes the community, (2) developing an understanding of what
daily life is like, and (3) developing an understanding of intergroup and intragroup dynamics.
This principle attempts to answer the question: ―How do dimensions of diversity and their
intersections currently affect this community?‖ (p. 367) With regard to the community
psychologist, this principle requires approaching and working with the community from a
position of respect and openness (stance of ―informed compassion‖; Harrell & Bond, 2006).
Upon entering a community, a community psychologist needs to be cognizant of how s/he is
being perceived by the community, because oppressed communities may be wary and worried
about being either exploited or pitied by researchers. A community psychologist needs to be
open and willing to put his/her ego aside (Harrell & Bond, 2006).
(2) The Principle of Community Context
The principle of community context assumes that diversity and community dynamics are
influenced by outside forces. One focal area therefore is the need to examine historical context.
Another focal area is the sociopolitical climate and the local setting which involves identifying
the characteristics specific to the local setting. The third focal area for Principle Two involves
institutional structures (e.g., schools, and businesses) and looking at these structures to see the
available resources and opportunities for the community. This principle goes beyond description
into contextual analysis to understand how context affects community dynamics. The core
question is: ―What past and present contextual forces affect diversity dynamics in this
community?‖ (p. 367) Applying this principle requires the community psychologist to examine

50

diversity issues at multiple levels for a more ―contextualized understanding,‖ which is its
orienting stance (Harrell & Bond, 2006).
(3) The Principle of Self-in-Community
Principle three assumes that the values, culture, and identity statuses held by a person
(e.g., a community psychologist) influences how that person works with diverse individuals,
groups, and communities. It is impossible to separate oneself from the work. Applying this
principle requires self-reflection. Diversity work is enhanced when the community psychologist
is self-aware and conscious of how her/his identity, values, and perceptions relate to those of the
community. There are three domains to this third principle of diversity. The first domain
involves having the community psychologist explore ways that s/he is similar to or different
from the target community. The second domain, dynamics of power and privilege, involves
having the community psychologist reflect on his/her privilege in a given setting. The third
domain, regarding ―biases, alliances, and –isms,‖ involves the community psychologist
uncovering his/her stereotypes, and prejudices. Community psychologists need to question
alliances that they may build in the community, as well as the assumptions that they have
developed about the community. The core question for the community psychologist is: ―How do
my multiple social locations and the dynamics of power and privilege affect my work with this
community?‖ (p. 367) Addressing this issue requires an ―empowered humility‖ (the orienting
stance), which can create positive community engagement based on deep respect for the
community (Harrell & Bond, 2006).
The three diversity principles as outlined by Harrell and Bond (2006) can be realized in a
community psychologist‘s work in various ways. The present dissertation study used the first
principle as an orienting perspective on the inquiry purpose. The second principle guided the

51

approach to the literature and to gaining community entrée and engagement. The third principle
was employed by utilizing qualitative methods that required constant self-reflection. In the last
chapter of this dissertation, I will discuss application of these principles in further detail.
Current Study
The current study seeks to fill the gap in the research literature on the diversity of lesbian
existence by exploring key normative processes that shape the meaning and function of lesbian
gender identity in a sample of young Black sexual minority women of low socioeconomic status.
Specifically, the current work seeks to clarify how butches (studs), femmes, and ki-kis (stemmes)
develop and internalize their lesbian gender identity and come to view themselves as part of a
social group. I investigate the ways in which young women learn what it means to enact a stud,
femme, or stemme identity. Given how little research has focused on alternatives to butch and
femme, the study highlights characteristics associated with the stemme lesbian gender identity.
In light of past research and relevant theory, this dissertation strives to answer these
research questions:
(1) What are the developmental pathways for progressing to a stud/femme/stemme
identity? How do the pathways differ (or converge) across genders?
(2) What is a stemme identity? How is the stemme gender identity expression enacted?
What is the community response to the stemme identity?
(3) What are the relevant comparison group(s) for studs/stemmes/ femmes? How are they
used for comparison?
(4) How do studs, femmes, and stemmes learn about lesbian gender norms and rules for
interaction?

52

To address the proposed research questions, individual interviews with young Black
sexual minority women of low socioeconomic status were conducted. To analyze the qualitative
data, modified Analytic Induction was employed which required created of propositions based
relevant theory and. on past research literature.
A Priori Propositions
While numerous propositions could be proposed, this study focused on propositions that
dealt with lesbian gender identity development and enactment of gender roles. Three out of the
five propositions were based on past research literature and theory and two originated from the
data and subsequent analyses. The three propositions emanating from literature and theory were
as follows:
(1) Social Identity Theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) postulates three processes that
influence group formation. In the first process, each individual internalizes her group
membership as an aspect of her self-concept. Lesbian women must self-define as femme, butch,
or ki-ki and internalize this gender into their own self-concept. This developmental process
involves integrating one‘s lesbian gender identification into their sense of identity. It also
suggests that an individual cannot claim identity for another person. Therefore, someone can
claim that another woman is femme, however if that other woman does not sees herself as a
femme and consequently does not internalize that gender, she will not identify as a member of
the femme group.
Current research suggests that butch lesbians acknowledge their gender difference earlier
in life then do femme lesbians. Butches also seem to recognize their gender difference first and
then their sexual orientation difference. Butch women claim that they were tomboys at a young
age, and feel that their female gender does not fit their sense of self. They continue to adopt

53

masculine characteristics as they develop into adult women. Femme lesbians acknowledge their
sexual orientation first and then their lesbian gender. While femme women may endorse that
they were tomboys growing up, they eventually align with traditional feminine norms as they
develop into adults. This suggests distinctly different developmental pathways for progressing to
a butch and femme identity. The research alluding to these differences has sampled
predominately White, middle-aged, and mid- to high socioeconomic status women. This
dissertation research extended understanding of the developmental process of internalizing
gender identity by including Black adolescent and young adult women as participants.
Proposition: Black adolescent lesbians internalize their gender identity through distinct
developmental experiences; however, the experiences differ across gender. Butches develop
awareness of gender differences first, then sexual orientation. Femmes develop awareness of
sexual orientation differences first and then lesbian gender awareness.
I also explored the identity development experiences associated with ki-kis (stemmes)
and examined how they are like or unlike butches and femmes in their gender and sexual
orientation identity development process.
(2) As described in the literature review, femmes and butches have distinct group
characteristics, such as in physical appearance and behavior in romantic relationships. According
to Social Identity Theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 1986), a social group (in-group) evaluates and
compares itself to another group (out-group). When the groups evaluate each other, they must
use certain characteristics for evaluation.
An important process in Social Identity Theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) provides
that the in-group members do not compare themselves with every cognitively available outgroup, but with a group perceived as relevant. Relevance implies that the in-group and out-group

54

must be perceived as similar in some sense in order for there to be a useful comparison. When
the out-group becomes too similar, however, social competition can erupt due to the threat to the
group‘s social identity (Tesser, 1988). When investigating lesbian gender, there are three
prominent lesbian gender groups to consider: femmes, ki-kis (stemmes), and butches (studs).
Each group may use a different group for relevant comparison.
Proposition: Specific features and behaviors are used by women to evaluate lesbian gender
groups. In general, biological and traditionally-gendered “real” males and females serve as
relevant comparison groups for femmes, ki-kis (stemmes), and butches. Femmes, butches, and kikis (stemmes), however, each refer to different specific gender groups for relevant comparison in
romantic situations. In romantic situations, femmes use butches, studs use femmes, and ki-ki
(stemmes) use their partner‟s gender for relevant comparison.
(3) Direct reinforcement and modeling (learning theory; Mischel, 1966; Weitzman, 1979)
may occur when young women are integrating lesbian gender identity. While learning, a woman
cognitively creates a network of lesbian gender related associations to organize and guide future
perceptions (gender schema theory; Bem, 1981). For example, butch lesbians in Hiestand and
Levitt‘s (2005) study described finding a butch role model who explained butch-femme rules of
interaction. They learned what characteristics and gender roles are appropriate for a stud and
integrated them into who they are and how they act. They then use these groups of characteristics
and behaviors to classify other lesbian women based on this grouping.
Proposition: Studs, femmes, and stemmes learn about lesbian gender norms from others who
identity with that respective gender. They model how studs, femmes, and stemmes typically act.
Studs, femmes, and stemmes learn which characteristics are associated with each gender, and
begin to classify other lesbian women based on those classifications. Studs, femmes, and

55

stemmes are directly and indirectly reinforced for adhering to their respective gender
characteristics, and chastised or penalized socially for going against lesbian gender norms.

56

CHAPTER 2
Method
This dissertation analyzed individual interview data collected for the purpose of adapting
an evidence-based HIV prevention curriculum for a population of high-risk adolescent girls. The
qualitative interview questions were designed to document information regarding gender
identity, messages received about sex and sexuality, past and current male and female
relationships, past sexual behavior with males and females, HIV/STI knowledge, and pregnancy.
For the purpose of this study, however, lesbian gender identity focused the analysis and
discussion. Specific questions regarding gender identity were explored, as well as development
and meaning of gender and its intersection with other identifies that surfaced throughout the
whole interview.
Participants
Participants were recruited through the Ruth Ellis Center (REC), an organization
providing short- and long-term residential safe space and support services for runaway,
homeless, and at-risk lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth, most
of whom are Black. To participate in the individual interviews, participants needed to be between
the ages of 15 and 24, biologically female, not in foster care, and Black, and must have had
consensual sexual contact with both males and females. The women also had to self-identify as
1

femme, stemme (ki-ki), or stud (butch). In total, 14 interviews were completed (5 femmes, 4

1

The target number of participants was 15 (5 femmes; 5 stemmes; 5 studs); however, despite

consistent recruitment efforts, we were unable to recruit a fifth stemme. We also started one
interview with a femme who decided to withdraw from the study in the middle of the interview.
57

stemmes, 5 studs). The age range of participants completing the individual interviews was 16 to
24 years old. Four women were under the age of 18 (2 femmes, 1 stemme, 1 stud). The longest
interview was 1 hour and 55 minutes and the shortest was 60 minutes. The average length was 1
hour and 26 minutes. Each participant received $20 for participation.
Procedures
Participants learned about the study by reading recruitment flyers posted at the REC
drop-in center (see Appendix A). The flyer listed a phone number that women who were
interested in the study could call. In addition, researchers introduced the study at weekly
scheduled women‘s meetings at the REC. After these meetings, researchers completed a prescreening form (see Appendix B) with interested women to see if they were eligible to
participate in the longer individual interview. Snowball sampling was also employed. The people
attending the women‘s meeting were asked to talk to their friends about the study and to
encourage them to participate.
Once a woman was determined to be eligible, she was scheduled for an interview within
the following two weeks. Each participant under the age of 18 completed an assent form (see
Appendix C), using a loco parentis who was present during the assent process to ensure that the
participant understood her rights before agreeing to participate. An adult working at the REC
fulfilled this role and was present while the research assistant read the assent form to the
participant. For participants 18 and older, researchers read a consent form (see Appendix D) to
participants explaining their rights, and then participants were asked to sign the form agreeing to
participate. In addition, each participant was asked to provide permission to allow the interview
We were able to recruit one more femme, resulting in six recruited and five completed femme
interviews.
58

to be audiotaped. Each participant was given a blank consent/assent form to take with them in
case they had future questions regarding the research study.
Measure
A semi-structured interview protocol (see Appendix E) was created to elicit information
regarding gender identity, messages received about sex and sexuality, past and current male and
female relationships, past sexual behavior with males and females, HIV/STI knowledge, and
pregnancy. The specific questions regarding gender included: ―When did you first consider
yourself to be a [insert gender identification]? Did you do anything different once you started
considering yourself a [insert gender identification]? Do you think of yourself as a typical [insert
gender identification]? Why? Why not? How would I know that you are a [insert gender
identification]? What makes you a [insert gender identification]?‖ Discussion of gender roles
occurred throughout the interview as well, even if the question did not specifically ask for that
information. Since the protocol was semi-structured, probing of responses occurred for
clarification and further description.
Data Analysis: Modified Analytic Induction
Data were analyzed using modified analytic induction. Modified analytic induction stems
from classical analytic induction (AI). While classical analytic induction emphasizes universality
and causality, modified AI focuses on developing descriptive hypotheses that identify behavioral
patterns, interactions, and perceptions. Hypotheses stem from previous research and theory or
predetermined hunches or assumptions. Hypotheses are revised to fit emerging interpretations
during analysis (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Gilgun, 1992).
Gilgun (1995), for example, used modified analytic induction to analyze life history
interviews with incest perpetrators. Prior to analysis, she created an analytic framework of justice

59

and care, and formulated hypotheses, which guided the entire analysis. For example, her
hypotheses a priori were ―(a) Incest perpetrators have special regard for themselves and do not
have regard for the impact of incest on their victims, and (b) incest perpetrators are not morally
integrated, and, if they have a moral focus, it will be on justice‖ (p. 268). As a result of her
analysis, she reformulated hypotheses and created new ones. After reformulation, her hypotheses
were: ―(a) Perpetrators have special regard for the deep pleasure they find in incest, (b) concepts
of romantic love and mutuality are prominent in many but not all incestuous relationships, (c)
many perpetrators interpret their behaviors as promoting children's welfare and not hurting them,
and (d) the sense of love and caring that many perpetrators express for the children are
contradicted by behaviors which are sometimes unresponsive and cruel‖ (p. 270). These
hypotheses are descriptive and not relational because they do not posit clear and causal
relationships between concepts (Gilgun, 1995). This dissertation research followed a modified
analytic induction similar to Gilgun‘s (1995).
The main goal of this dissertation analysis was to test propositions which derived from
identity, identity development, and lesbian gender literature. These hypotheses were then
modified to fit the subjective experiences of young Black lesbian women. Concepts and theories
from the literature grounded and sensitized analysis to concrete indicators and processes. The
concepts and propositions not previously accounted for in the initial propositions were added,
thus some propositions emerged from the data directly.
Data analysis proceeded using Cressey‘s (1950) detailed six specific steps to classical
analytic induction (See Table 1.; Adler, 1990; Hicks, 1994; Jones, 2004; Robinson, 1951).
Table I.
Six Steps of Classical Analytic Induction

60

1. Formulate rough definition of phenomenon

2. Formulate hypothetical explanation (proposition/assertion)

3. Study one case and ask whether data fits the propositions

4. If proposition does not fit, reformulate proposition or redefine phenomenon so that
the case is excluded. Move on to next case. If case fits, move on to next case.

5. Continue Steps 3 and 4. Practical certainty is attained after a small number of cases
examined, but discovery of a single negative case requires reformulation of
propositions/assertions.

6. Steps 3 through 5 continue until a universal relationship is established and all
negative cases accounted for.

To begin modified Analytic Induction, the first step involved a rough definition of the
phenomenon to be explained. This involved doing a literature review of what is known about
lesbian gender and theories relating to the development and expression of multiple identities. It
also involved looking at the interview data.
Second, a hypothetical explanation of the phenomenon was formulated, in the form of
propositions (Miles & Huberman, 1994) or assertions (Erickson, 1986). For the current study,
initial propositions were created based on theory and the research on lesbian gender, as well as
what was learned from the interview data. For example, Social Identity Theory asserts that
identity must be internalized. Past qualitative research with White butch and femme lesbians

61

indicates that identity development experiences differ across lesbian gender. Therefore, these
two ideas were combined to create proposition one: Black adolescent lesbians internalize their
gender identity through distinct developmental experiences; however, the experiences differ
across gender. Butches develop awareness of gender differences first then sexual orientation.
Femmes develop awareness of sexual orientation differences first and then lesbian gender
awareness
Step three of analysis was to study one case and ask whether the data fits the proposition.
To test whether a proposition fit or not, I systematically searched for disconfirming and
confirming evidence. Evidence included statements from participants describing their thoughts
on lesbian gender, as well as their statements describing events that took place between lesbians
in the setting, and the significance of these events on broader aspects of meaning and beliefs. I
looked for descriptive evidence, such as interview quotes, that supported a proposition, while at
the same time I looked for evidence that was inconsistent with the proposition. I started looking
at one interview (case), and looked within it for evidence confirming or disconfirming the
propositions. Discrepant evidence (Erickson, 1986) was noted.
Step four involved reformulating the propositions to fit the data. Discrepant evidence was
useful in illuminating local distinctive subtleties. I went back to the discrepancies for further
analysis and asked myself, ―What else might explain this?‖ I looked for key linkages among the
discrepant data by looking for patterns, and tried connecting similar data to the same construct
(Erickson, 1986). For example, studs and femmes tended to self-identify as lesbian or gay at the
same time they self-identified as their lesbian gender, while stemmes identified as their sexual
orientation first and then their gender. Therefore, the first proposition did not accurately fit and
needed to be changed. The final modified proposition was:

62

Black femme and stud adolescent women self-identify as their gender identity and their sexual
orientation at the same time. Black stemme adolescent women self-identify as their sexual
orientation identity before their gender identity. Stud and stemme women begin to express
increased masculine traits right after self-identifying, but do not physically want to become men.
Femmes express the same level of femininity after self-identifying. Lesbian gender and sexual
orientation identities, however, can change over time. Women who have not integrated a gender
or sexual orientation identity into their self concept may be exploring identities or resisting a
gender or sexual orientation minority identity due to internalized homophobia or biphobia.
Steps five and six involved repeating the last two analytical steps until all negative cases
were accounted for and universal solution established. Since analysis was modified Analytic
Induction however, descriptive hypotheses were revised until behavioral patterns, interactions,
and perceptions were identified. The strongest propositions were the ones that had the most
evidence supporting them from the interviews. If the discrepant cases outnumbered those that fit
a hypothesis, the proposition was determined to not fit the data, and was eliminated (Erickson,
1986). A new proposition was generated through induction when the data explaining identity
development or intergroup behavior was not included in the already established hypotheses.
These new propositions were examined against each case. Thus, the analytic process proceeded
iteratively until the data pertaining to lesbian gender roles and development were adequately
explained. Ideally, the most frequently occurring events and ideas were understood within the
framework (Erickson, 1986).

Data Management

63

All one-on-one interviews were transcribed verbatim in Microsoft Word. The transcripts
were then imported into Nvivo 8 and managed using this software. Data analysis proceeded
through the methods stated above.
Verification of the Results
Hypothetically, the evidence (i.e., interview transcripts) may not have provided adequate
support for propositions in four ways. The first way, inadequate amount of evidence, means that
the data collected did not cover the content needed to support the hypotheses. The second way,
faulty interpretative status of evidence, occurs when the data were explained incorrectly due to
participants lying or stretching the truth because of distrusting the researcher. The third way,
inadequate disconfirming evidence, occurs when the data collected do not sufficiently cover the
content to disconfirm or bound a proposition. The fourth way, inadequate discrepant case
analysis, occurs when none of the cases challenges a key proposition (Erickson, 1986, p. 140). If
any of these four inadequacies were encountered during analysis, it was noted.
According to Harrell and Bond‘s (2006) diversity principles, Principle Three (―The
Principle of Self-in-Community‖) requires self-reflection because my values, culture and identity
can influence my work. I clarified my assumptions regarding lesbian gender before analysis,
because my assumptions and biases might have influenced the analysis. I wrote a memo to
myself describing past experiences and assumptions about lesbian gender and identity (see
Appendix F). My doing this had the potential advantage of bringing my biases to a conscious
level, thereby enabling me to more easily identify if my assumptions were infiltrating the
analysis. In addition, allowing readers to know of my assumptions provides them with the
opportunity to understand the role of my perceptions in the study, and draw their own
conclusions regarding the results.

64

A second technique involved using ―rich, thick description‖ when writing, which entailed
descriptions of supporting or contradictory evidence for the propositions using the informant‘s
words verbatim. This allowed readers to make their own decisions regarding the conclusions
drawn. In addition, this richness was combined with an interpretive perspective, which helps
make the account valid (Erickson, 1986).
Peer review provided an external check of the process, which helped bring about
contradictory perspectives and alternative explanations for the data during analysis. I asked
colleagues to comment on my coding and evaluate whether the codes were consistent or not
consistent with the stated proposition. I also asked if the quotes selected reflect the code
meaning. There were also meetings with my dissertation chair to discuss coding procedures.
Writing memos helped to interpret the phenomena. While analyzing data, I tracked
personal experiences, as well as key phrases, and statements that spoke directly to the young
women‘s experiences. Creating memos helped to interpret meanings, thus helping to reveal
essential features of the phenomenon being analyzed (Patton, 2002). Writing memos (or
―memoing‖) also allowed linkage of different data into recognizable clusters. These clusters
helped illustrate instances of a concept. I found that this memoing helped me move from the
empirical data to a more conceptual level (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

65

CHAPTER 3
Results
In this chapter, the principal aspects of lesbian gender identity formation and meaning are
presented in four conceptual sections: contextual considerations, identity development, lesbian
gender norms, and lesbian gender socialization. These sections delineate key normative
processes that shape the meaning and function of lesbian gender identity as found in a sample of
young Black sexual minority women.
Contextual Considerations
Environment can impact the development and enactment of gender. Principle Two (―The
Principle of Community Context‖) of Harrell and Bond‘s (2006) diversity principles assumes
that community dynamics are influenced by outside forces, thus context becomes increasingly
imperative to understand and to consider when attempting to understand the identity
development and gender enactment of these young women. Gender identity can provide an
organizing framework for coping with life transitions (Jackson & Warin, 2000). When
confronting uncertainty, people may adhere to their stereotypic gendered traits and use them for
stability. For example, experiencing poverty and violence, combined with a lack of role models,
influences adherence to culturally defined notions of what it means to be a man. Barker (2005)
found through his qualitative work with low-income young men that sustained exposure to
poverty and violence increased the perceived need to have multiple sexual partners.
Unstable microsystem. Because the environment can have an impact on the enactment of
gender norms, it becomes imperative to investigate the context in which the participants act. For
all of the participants in this study, their microsystem had and has elements of instability. Some
of the uncertainty emanated from unreliable relationships with family members and romantic

66

2

partners. Five participants described being worried about or having relationship problems with
family members. One stud described a contemptuous relationship with her parents because they
sell drugs and always ask her for money.
My dad he‟s on drugs and stuff. You know it‟s hard for me to cooperate with that. And my
mom asking me for money already and she‟s supposed to be a drug dealer. You supposed
to have money (Stud, Age 16).
St2‘s mom lives in Africa and St2 and her siblings have not heard from her for some
time; nobody knows where she is.
My mom lives in Africa, and I haven‟t heard from her in a while. ... I would just like to
hear from her, make sure she‟s okay... (St2; Stemme, Age 20).
F2 is worried about her brothers, who might retaliate against a neighbor who murdered
their cousin.
My little cousin got killed. He was like a brother to me. ...The guy who killed him is
actually a neighborhood guy ... My brother is trying to get retaliation. And it worries me
because I don‟t want nothing to happen to my brother... (F2; Femme, Age 20)
F3 discussed being depressed because her daughter was taken by Child Protective
Services and she wants to regain custody. She also described having problems with her mother,
who offered to help raise F3‘s daughter while F3 finished her education, but then reneged. F3
then had to drop out of high school.
2

All participants were assigned identifiers to help ensure confidentiality and to denote lesbian

gender. Femme-identified participants‘ are identified by the letter ―F‖ and then a number (F#).
Stemmes are assigned the letters ―St‖ and then a number (St#). Studs are assigned the letter ―S‖
and then a number (S#).
67

Somebody told the child services my momma wasn‟t takin‟ care of me and my daughter.
And me not being 18, I can‟t get no financial aid and stuff, to take care of my daughter.
So, I had to give her-- I gave my daughter up to somebody I knew who could take care of
her. ... My momma said she was going to help me with the baby. She was going to watch
the baby while I go to school, but then she changed her mind after I had the baby. So I
had to drop out of school to take care of my daughter. So now it‟s hard for me to get back
in school (F3; Femme, Age 17).
In addition, St1 (mentioned a contemptuous relationship with her biological father who is serving
time in jail. She said, ―My dad not being in my life for so long ... my biological dad didn‟t care...
he in jail now‖ (Stemme, Age 18).
Regarding romantic partners, participants expressed worries about their romantic partner
being unfaithful (S2 and S3) or not being emotionally supportive (St1). One participant (St4)
mentioned that she has an unstable relationship status with her girlfriend. She stated,
She is actually my ex-girlfriend, we do live together, and we still have sex every now and
then. So, we‟re in the future supposed to get together when we get done with school and
get everything situated. So I guess I have a girlfriend, and then I don‟t (Stemme, Age 17).
While these two young women plan to be a couple in the future, at the present time St4‘s
relationship is unstable. In the case of F1, while she stated that she wanted to settle down with
her boyfriend, she thinks that ―he‟s tryin‟ to get [her] pregnant‖ and ―he been tryin‟ real hard
not to use [condoms]...‖ F5 also ―had to get a restraining order” against her ex-boyfriend for
being threatening. These contemptuous and unreliable relationships may obviously create or
contribute to feelings of instability for these participants.

68

Poverty. Looking outside the microsystem into the participants‘ community and macro
system, more factors of instability exist. The participants live in a city devastated by the recent
economic downturn, where the unemployment rate exceeded 30% at the end of 2009 (Michigan
Senate Democrats, 2009). Therefore, finding a job is difficult for most people and even more
difficult for people who are young and gender nonconforming. All participants described
symptoms of living in poverty (see Reed, 2010). Participants described precarious living
situations, such as living in transitional housing (S4), shelters (St2), condemned housing (St4), or
by couch surfing (S1). Many participants mentioned having general money problems (F2, S2,
S3, and F5). Two participants in particular discussed illicit methods of obtaining money. For
example, one participant while pregnant, ―hustled‖ and sold drugs to save money to use to care
for her baby because she was too young to work legally. She also mentioned having sex with a
neighbor so he would buy her food and diapers.
It kind of made me feel kind of funny cuz I had to have sex with somebody just to get
somethin‟. [It] kind a made me feel like one of these little prostitutes. But then I knew I
wasn‟t. I was just tryin‟ to-- that‟s how life is if you need somethin‟ and that‟s the only
way you can get it. You have to do it just to live. And I needed the stuff so I did it. But it
kinda made me feel uncomfortable cuz it made me feel like I'm a prostitute trickin‟ for
money. But I‟m not. [I‟m] just doin‟ somethin‟ to help my daughter and get stuff I need.
And people couldn‟t help me get it so I had to do somethin‟ to get it. I couldn‟t work cuz I
was too young so I had to do somethin‟ (Femme, Age 17).
In addition, another participant‘s parents were drug dealers. The lack of available licit
employment, money, and shelter makes it difficult to meet basic needs. This uncertainty of

69

meeting basic needs may then create an impetus to gravitate towards stability, which for
participants may have included adhering to strict gender rules.
Violence and safety. Almost all participants stated they experienced violence perpetrated
against them or against people they love. Two participants mentioned robbery. S2‘s ―mom got
robbed‖ and F3‘s house was broken into and she was afraid to be in the house by herself. Despite
being asked to only recall consensual sexual experiences, five participants disclosed
experiencing rape, with one recounting parental incest that resulted in pregnancy and abortion,
and another recounting a violent gang rape resulting in a sexually transmitted infection. It is
possible that even more participants may have experienced rape or incest but may have chosen
not to disclose, especially since they were not asked to.
In addition to rape, participants experienced physical violence. One stud (S5) was
physically threatened and assaulted for looking like a man. Two participants disclosed being
effected by gun violence. One femme‘s (F3) partner was shot and killed in her home while F3
was pregnant with their child.
[My girlfriend] ... and best friend they was goin‟ out of town to go to a club, a gay club
they heard about and her friend got into [a fight] with somebo-, with some man ... So as
they drivin‟ back after she got into it with the man ...So the next day my girl had just
called me, ...“Babe I‟m about to come over.” And like not even twenty, thirty minutes
later her momma called, cryin‟ and stuff, talkin‟ about “my baby gone.” I‟m thinkin‟
she‟s talkin‟ about our baby went somewhere left and stuff. She like “No, my baby dead.”
So that just shocked me cuz I was like five, six months pregnant with the baby, so it just,
shocked me so. Come to find out, her, the guy...found her ID. They came back and shot up

70

her house. And her best friend didn‟t get shot. My girl got shot in the heart and died
instantly (Femme, Age 17).
Another femme‘s (F2; Femme, Age 20) cousin was murdered. Such experiences related
to poverty and violence compound the experience of living in a heterosexist, homophobic, and
racist society. For example, all participants experienced heterocentric or more overtly
homophobic remarks and attitudes (see Reed, 2010) in addition to the situational violence. In
addition to being on the receiving end of violence, studs in particular may at times be the
perpetrators. Two studs specifically mentioned having served time in juvenile detention centers.
An unstable environment of profound poverty coupled with raw violence may impact
enactment of lesbian gender. Participants were young adults (16 to 24 years old) grappling with
very ―adult‖ problems in a context unsuitable for positive youth development. Problems that
accompany violence and poverty combined with the transitions common for emerging adults
create instability. Adherence to rigid gender norms may be one way that these young women
gain stability.
Identity Development
Social Identity Theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) postulates processes that influence
group formation. In one process, each individual internalizes her group membership into her selfconcept. It therefore follows that lesbian women must self-define as being members of their
lesbian gender (e.g., stud, femme, or stemme) in order to internalize the group membership as
part of their self-concept. Once a woman‘s gender has been internalized, she will begin to enact
the behavioral expectations associated with her lesbian gender group. In general, people are more
inclined to behave consistent with the norms of their group because their common identity as
group members is salient (Deaux & Major, 1987; Oakes, 1987).

71

I initially proposed that Black adolescent lesbians would internalize their gender identity
through distinct developmental experiences, which would differ among these lesbians across
gender. I suggested that butches or studs would first develop awareness of their gender and then
develop awareness of their sexual orientation. I proposed that femmes would develop awareness
of their sexual orientation first and then develop lesbian gender awareness. I found that these
propositions were not entirely consistent with the data and therefore required modification (see
Table II).

72

Table II.
A priori and Modified Propositions

1

2

A PRIORI PROPOSITION
Black adolescent lesbians internalize
their gender identity through distinct
developmental experiences; however,
the experiences differ across gender.
Studs develop awareness of gender
differences first, then sexual
orientation. Femmes develop
awareness of sexual orientation
differences first, and then lesbian
gender awareness.

MODIFIED PROPOSITION
Black adolescent femmes and studs selfidentify as their respective gender identity and
their sexual orientation at the same time.
Black adolescent stemmes self-identify as
their sexual orientation identity before their
gender identity. Studs and stemmes begin to
express increased masculine traits right after
self-identifying, but do not physically become
males. Femmes express the same level of
femininity before and after self-identifying. In
general, lesbian gender and sexual orientation
identities are fluid and do change over time.
The women who do not integrate a gender or
sexual orientation identity into their concept of
self continue to explore identities and resist a
gender and/or sexual orientation minority
identity.
Biological and traditionally-gendered Studs use males as a reference group for
―real‖ males and females serve as
comparison on how they would like to be, and
relevant comparison groups for
use females for how they would not like to
femmes, ki-kis (stemmes), and
appear and behave. Stemmes use males and
butches (or studs). Femmes, butches, females for comparison; however, their frame
and ki-kis (stemmes), however, each
of reference changes based on context (e.g.,
refer to different specific gender
mood state and relationships). In romantic
groups for relevant comparison in
relationships, stemmes use the lesbian gender
romantic situations. In romantic
of their partner for relevant comparison and
situations, femmes use studs, studs
adopt the opposing gender (i.e., femme with
use femmes, and ki-kis (stemmes) use stud; stud with femme). They also do not enact
their partner‘s gender for relevant
extreme feminine and masculine appearance
comparison.
and behavior. In contrast, femmes use females
as a reference group for comparison on how to
appear and use studs for how not to appear.
Studs, femmes, and stemmes do not follow
biological and heteronormative male and
female gender standards for sexual pleasure.

73

Table II. (cont‘d)
3

Studs, femmes, and stemmes learn
about lesbian gender norms from
others who identity with that gender.
Other studs, femmes, and stemmes
model for new incoming women on
how they typically act. Studs,
femmes, and stemmes therefore learn
which characteristics are associated
with each gender and begin to
classify other lesbian women
consistent with those classifications.
Studs, femmes, and stemmes are
directly and indirectly reinforced for
adhering to their respective gender
characteristics and chastised or
penalized socially for going against
lesbian gender norms.

Studs are socialized by other studs in how to
enact their gender. Studs learn how to be a
stud through interacting with others in their
community. The older studs teach the younger
studs how they should behave sexually. Studs
also learn their role through interacting with
older and more experienced femme sexual
partners. Femmes do not learn to be femme or
act feminine from other femmes. Stemmes are
not taught how to be stemme from other
stemmes. In general, studs, femmes, and
stemmes learn which characteristics are
associated with each gender and begin to
classify other lesbian women consistent with
those classifications. They are directly and
indirectly reinforced for adhering to their
respective gender characteristics and chastised
or penalized socially for going against lesbian
gender norms.
Proposition from data & subsequent analyses
4 Young Black lesbian women reflect the gender norms of their heterosexual
counterparts. Femmes and stemmes reflect young Black female gender norms, and
studs reflect young Black male gender norms.
I found that becoming aware of being lesbian or gay and stud or femme seemed to happen
simultaneously for nearly all participants. Femmes and studs either equated their lesbian gender
with their sexual identity or came out as both at the same time (see Table III).

74

Table III.
Ages of Gender and Sexual Orientation Self-Identification
ID
F1
F2
F3
F5
F6
St1
St2
St3
St4
S1
S2
S3

Gender ID
Femme
Femme
Femme
Femme
Femme
Stemme
Stemme
Stemme
Stemme
Stud
Stud
Stud

Age
21
20
17
24
16
19
20
22
17
18
19
24

Sexual Orientation ID
None
Lesbian
Gay
Gay/Lesbian
Lesbian
Lesbian
Lesbian
Lesbian
Lesbian
Trans/Lesbian
Gay
Lesbian

*

Age of GI
14
15
9
15
14
17
14
17
15
14
14
18

Age of SO
N/A
15
9
15
14
16
5
Missing
11
14
14
18

**

14
S4
Stud
16
Gay/Lesbian
12
S5
Stud
20
Gay
12
12
*
**
Age of Gender Identity (GI) self-identification; Age of Sexual Orientation
(SO) self-identification;

S4 switched from femme, stemme, and then stud

Thus, Black adolescent femme and stud women self-identified as their gender identity and their
sexual orientation at the same time. Savin-Williams (2005) posits that many younger lesbians
start to identify according to their gender expression rather than their sexual orientation identity;
for these young women, the two labels may be synonymous. Therefore, calling oneself either
stud or femme implies lesbianism, sexual minority status, or engaging in same-sex sexual
behavior. For example, when I asked participants about their lesbian gender experience, some
participants (F2, F3, and F5) replied with reference to their sexuality, suggesting that part of
what defines gender identity is being attracted to women. For example, F2 was asked about her
experience coming out as a femme, but talked about discovering her love of women.
I: And what happened to make you come out as a femme- …

75

F2: ...So, um it began in choir class I had in high school and it was one of my friends
named Brittany. She identified herself as a stud. Ya know we talked and we hung out and
we got to hangin‟ out every day and all this and I was just like “Wow, like I‟m so
comfortable, ya know, bein‟ here.” So she introduced me to the [name of the Center] and
I got to comin‟ and I‟m like “Okay ya know I can be myself.” And I tell my momma like,
“Ya know, Ma, I think I might like girls....” (Femme, Age 20).
Although the interviewer specifically inquired about her gender identity, F2 immediately began
explaining the context surrounding when she started thinking of herself as a woman who likes
women.
Just as some femmes conflated their gender identity and sexual identity, when S2 was
asked about first considering herself to be stud, she described her behavior as starting to have sex
with females. For example, S2 stated that not only did she start dressing like a male, she also
started having sex with females:
I: When did you first consider yourself to be a stud?
S2: [phone rings and is turned off by interviewee] Umm, 9th grade. I think I was like 14.
I: Okay. And after that time, did you do anything differently?
S2: Um. Yes.
I: What did you do?
S2: I really started dressin‟ like a male. Um, started having sex with females... (Stud, Age
19).
For S2, being attracted to and having sex with women constituted considering herself a stud.
Although they did not respond to questions regarding gender in terms of sexuality, three
participants (F6, S3, and S5), stated that they came out as their gender and as a sexual minority at

76

the same time. S3 was asked specifically what she meant by ―coming out‖ and stated that she
came out concurrently as a stud and as a person who likes to have sex with women.
S3: ...Like when I started really becoming a stud-stud, when I came out, like I started to
be more aggressive, then I started dating a lot of females and that‟s basically it.
I: Yeah. When did you come out?
S3: Um… I would say when I was 18.
I: When you were 18. And--coming out for you meant coming out as a person who wants
to have sex with women or coming out as a stud?
S3: Coming out as a person who likes to have sex with women and a stud (Stud, Age 24).
Both S4 and St4 came out as lesbian and their lesbian gender at the same time; however,
each changed their gender identity over time. S4 and St4 self-identified as different gender
identities before committing to stud and stemme identities, respectively. From a developmental
perspective, Erikson (1950; 1968) would assert that they encountered the identity versus role
confusion conflict of development, which involves finding resolution through ego synthesizing
(integrating important earlier identifications into unique ones). They could have achieved an
identity (e.g., femme), but began to realize that there was incongruity between the self-as-known
(real self) and the self that could be (ideal self). To reduce the stress, they switched identities to
strive for congruity and stability, thus reconfiguring their identity (Adams & Marshall, 1996).
For example, S4 self-identified first as a femme, then a stemme, and then settled into a stud
identity. She described this experience:
I was just going through a change and I was kind of confused at the age 13 and 12. So I
started, like I found myself looking at girls, ya know what I mean? So when I turned 13, I
started datin‟ girls and boys. And somethin‟ happened in, in my past, and then I just went

77

straight girls when I turned 14. I was a femme at first. Then I was a femme and a stud. So
I‟ll dress like a boy. I was a stemme or so they call it. Again when I turned 14, I was like,
“Forget it, I might as well dress like a boy and put „this is me.‟” Ya know, I always been
boyish all my life, so I was like, “I‟m a man” [Laughs]. So that‟s about it (Stud, Age 16).
3

S4 stated that an event (―somethin‟ happened in, in my past ”) triggered her to become only
interested in girls. This event could have spurred an identity crisis. She then stated that she first
identified as femme then made a stepwise transition toward a more masculine identity. She
seemed to experience incongruence between her femme and stemme identities, since she had
―always been boyish.‖ Her boyish ways may not have been congruent with a femme or stemme
identity, which implies appearing and acting feminine all or part of the time. Therefore, she
switched to stud in order to find congruence between her boyishness and her gender identity.
St4 switched from a femme identity to a stemme identity. She stated,
St4: Um, when I first came out and told my mom I was gay, then that‟s when I considered
myself to be a femme.
I: Okay, and did you do anything different when you started calling yourself a femme?
St4: Not really. I had more so um tomboy qualities than female qualities. Because my
mom worked a lot, so my big brother raised me. So I would dress as he did, and ya know,
be up under him a lot. So that‟s probably why I was only a femme for a couple years.
I: Mhm. And then what happened to start calling yourself a stemme?
St4: Um, I got into wearing boy clothes more so than girl clothes.
I: So it‟s about the clothes?

3

The ―something in her past‖ she is referencing may be a sexual assault involving a gang rape.
78

St4: Yea, and one would say is it‟s almost always about the clothes. Because I feel more
comfortable as a stemme with the clothing. But as far as relationship-wise, I more so
meet femmes than I do studs. So when I meet the femmes I have the dominant role, so
there be more so the boy side than the girl side (Stemme, Age 17).
St4 thought that she felt more comfortable as stemme because of the masculine clothes that
stemmes are permitted to wear socially. A femme identity would not permit the expression of
masculine qualities that the stemme identity allows; therefore there was incongruence between
her masculine qualities and her femme identity. She stated, ―I had more tomboy qualities than
female qualities... so that‟s probably why I was only a femme for a couple years.‖ She switched
her gender identity to stemme to align her identity with her ―real‖ self (masculine).
Though S4 and St4 each changed their gender identity over time, they both stated that
they chose a gender identity at the same time that they came out as a sexual minority. They still
equated their gender identity with their sexual minority status, even though it took them a while
to settle on the specific gender expressions that fit. For example, S4 stated, ―I found myself
looking at girls” and St4 stated, ―when I first came out and told my mom I was gay, then that‟s
when I considered myself to be a femme.‖
Because femme and stud women generally came out as their lesbian gender and sexual
orientation identity at the same time, it was impossible to separate ‗coming out‘ experiences to
examine them independently. Studs and femmes, however, each noted different experiences
associated with coming out as their gender.
Femmes kept the same level of femininity after self-identifying. All femmes stated that
they were feminine before identifying as femmes. When they started identifying as femme, they
did not change anything about themselves to conform to the femme norm. To be femme,

79

according to participants, is to be female. As one femme participant mentioned, ―femme means
female (F5; Femme, Age 24).‖ Therefore, since femmes were born female and expressed
feminine traits consistent with their biological gender, they may not have needed to change to fit
within the confines of a femme gender label. As one femme asserted, ―Actually I been a femme
all my life‖ (F2; Femme, Age 20). Femmes already possessed feminine characteristics consistent
with the larger society‘s expectations of females. They already adhered to conventional female
aesthetics, such as getting their ―hair done,‖ ―nails done,‖ ―eyebrows arched,‖ (F2; Femme, Age,
20), as well as wearing ―skirts,‖ and ―tight t-shirts‖ (F1; Femme, Age 21). They also behaved
within traditional female norms (as will be described in more detail later).
Studs began to express increased masculine traits right after self-identifying. Stud
participants said they had masculine tendencies from a young age, often describing themselves as
―tomboys‖ before identifying as stud (S2, S3, S4, and S5). Tomboys (gender atypical females)
display ―masculine‖ characteristics, such as preferring to play with boys and to favor boys‘
activities and toys (Hall, 2008). As one stud (S3) mentioned:
I always was a tomboy in my younger childhood days. So I never really was girly-girl.
But we played football in the back with the boys, basketball. Whatever boys did, I wanted
to do... (Stud, Age 24).
Stud participants, by describing themselves as childhood tomboys, integrated masculine traits
into their self-concept before coming to think of themselves as studs. They ―grew into‖ (S3;
Stud, Age 24) their stud identity as they aged. Carr (2007) found that heterosexual women were
more likely to describe growing out of tomboyism, whereas lesbian women were more likely to
describe growing into a tomboy self. Perhaps not all lesbians (e.g., femmes) grow into lesbianism
from being a childhood tomboy, although stud-identified lesbians may tend to do so.

80

All studs described accentuating their masculine traits once they identified as stud, in
order to create a male persona. Three out of the five studs described making physical expression
changes (e.g., clothing or ―swagger‖), while one stud described a notable personality change.
I: Okay, and once you started considering yourself to be a stud, what did you do?
S4: ... My whole wardrobe changed. I threw all my girl clothes away. I started to act like
a boy. I changed my. Like. I didn‟t change my voice but my voice got a little deeper as I
talked and stuff. Like I really used to have a really girly voice. And I didn‟t care for it too
much and it was too sweet. So I don‟t know so like I changed my whole swagger. My
whole wardrobe, everything was changed.
I: Okay, and did you act differently or behave differently?
S4: Yeah, I act like a boy, everything was boy, I spitted. [Laughs] I used to hang around
a lot of boys, lot of females that was like that, was like gay or lesbian or bi.
I: So your behavior changed too.
S4: Uh huh. [Yes] (Stud, Age 16).
The one stud (S3) who did not mention changing her physical expression described becoming
―more aggressive‖ and ―started dating a lot of females.‖ Aggressiveness is a stereotypically
masculine trait.
Stud participants mentioned that once they self-identified as such, they transitioned to
more masculine appearance and attitude than before self-identifying, which contrasts with the
femme‘s experience of not making any overt changes. Exploring masculinity may be an integral
component of stud or butch identity development. Hiestand and Levitt (2005) explored ―growing
up as a butch lesbian‖ by analyzing qualitative interviews with 12 butches (11 White, 1 Latina)
between the ages of 23 and 62. They found that acceptance of lesbian identity led to active

81

gender exploration. The butch lesbians began to see that their masculinity was sexually desirable
instead of being something to be ashamed of and minimized. Although stud participants in this
present dissertation study did not mention being ashamed of their masculinity, we cannot rule out
that they might have tempered their masculinity to fit within female norms before identifying as
stud. Once self-identified as stud, in essence, they were given permission to display more
masculine traits, especially because, as Hiestand and Levitt found, being masculine meant being
sexually desirable. The young stud participants in this dissertation study, however, did not
mention a link between their masculinity and being sexually attractive.
Stemmes self-identified as their sexual orientation identity before their gender identity.
Stemme participants recounted different self-identification experiences than those of studs and
femmes. Stemmes tended to self-identify first as lesbian or gay, and then as stemme (see Table
III). St1 recognized she was gay at age 16 and at 17 years old was leaning toward a stemme
identity. St2 knew she was gay since she was in kindergarten (around age 5) and adopted a
stemme identity at age 14. It is unknown at what age St3 came out as gay, but she came out as
stemme at 17 years old. St4 recognized she was gay at age 11 and came out as stemme at age 15.
In general, stemmes‘ realization of their sexual minority identity predated their gender identity.
The stemme identity is a relatively unknown and invisible identity within the broader
community and within the lesbian community itself. For example, four out of five of the femme
participants and three out of the five studs claimed they did not know a stemme. Additionally, no
participant said they ever have dated a stemme. The invisibility of stemmes may be due to the
nature of how stemmes present their gender. They present as either femme or stud depending on
how they feel that day or in response to the gender of their romantic partner. For example, St1
described how stemmes can dress as either femme or stud:

82

I: Okay, so say I were to just see you walking down the street, how would I identify you?
St1: I think now you‟d probably identify me as a stud, cuz of my loose fitting pants, and
my loose fitting shirt....Usually I got my femme wear on. [laughing]
I: How is your femme wear different than your stud wear?
St1: I would wear my casual shoes, my tight pants, my tight shirts, and earrings, or some
lip gloss or something like that.
I: So how do you decide which way to dress when you get up in the morning?
St1: The way I‟m feelin‟. Today I wasn‟t feelin‟ like all that…tight clothes stuff like that,
just wanted to…relax (Stemme, Age 18).
St1 described how she has ―femme wear‖ and ―stud wear‖ and she dresses as either based on the
way she feels. She also stated that she would probably be identified as a stud by others based on
appearance. Stemmes, however, do not change their identity label to match their outward
appearance. For example, St1 is a stemme in her ―stud wear.‖ Her gender expression changes,
but not her gender identity.
Regarding development, stemmes did not describe being ―stemme‖ all their lives;
however, they did indicate that being stemme was just being themselves. Being stemme does not
seem contrived, but natural. For example, when St3 was asked to compare herself to other
stemmes she stated, ―I‟m myself,‖ and when St2 was asked about her behavior once she
considered herself stemme, she stated, ―I had always been that way ... I still dress the same, I still
talk the same, act the same, walk the same.‖
Similar to studs, three out of the four stemmes described expressing more masculine traits
after self-identifying as stemme. They described expressing their masculinity to less of an
extreme than did studs. For instance, they did not take on the male persona per se, only the outer

83

expression of masculinity through their choice of clothing. Their masculine changes were surface
changes. For example, St1 described outerwear changes, but no change in behavior. When she
was asked if she did anything different once self-identifying as stemme, she stated:
Probably the way I dressed.... Usually I‟m like wear the girly clothes, tight shirt, tight
pants, stuff like that. Then I started wearing my loose-fitted shirts, and my baggy pants,
or my tight shirt, or my baggy pants, or something like that.
I: Did you change anything about the way you acted?
St1: No (Stemme, Age 18).
The one stemme (St2) who did not mention increasing masculine expression did state that
she had tomboy tendencies as a child. She also mentioned that she did not consider herself a
typical stemme. She mentioned that she does not express masculinity to the extent of a typical
stud through the way she dresses.
I: And are you a typical stemme?
St2: Yea. But I don‟t think most people would think so, because of how I dress. Like I
said, my shirts be tight, and a stud would probably never wear a tight shirt unless it‟s like
a polo. And my shirts be like baby-tees, and jeans (Stemme, Age 19).
St2 recognized that she does not dress completely like a stud because she wears tight shirts that
bring attention to a female aspect of her body, her breasts. Wearing tight shirts, however, is not
enough to justify calling herself femme. When she dresses as a femme, she does not dress as
femininely as a femme would dress because she dresses ―more conservatively.‖ She ―wouldn‟t
wear dresses. [She] wouldn‟t wear heels, [or] booty shorts.‖ Even though St2 stated that she
does not dress masculine enough to be ―stud‖ or feminine enough to be ―femme,‖ she still

84

considers herself a stemme. She switches frequently enough between the two genders to
consummate a stemme identity.
Fluidity and uncertainty. While the majority of participants (n = 11) seemed committed
to their sexual orientation and gender identity, three participants (F1, S1, and St1) provided
evidence that they were not completely certain of their sexual orientation or lesbian gender
identity at the time of the interview. One might assume that those at younger ages would be less
certain of their identity; however, that was not the case. The three participants who were
uncertain were all 18 years old or older (F1 = 21 years old; S1 = 18 years old; St1 = 19 years
old). They also were not new to being sexual minority. F1, while it is unknown when she first
self-identified as sexual minority, began to self-identify as femme 7years before she participated
in the interview. In addition, S1 self-identified as lesbian or gay 4 years before the interview, and
St1 had self-identified as lesbian 3 years prior to the interview. Therefore, as a person ages, their
identity does not necessarily become more stable. Sexual orientation identity may fluctuate at
any age. In addition, one might assume that if a person has self-identified as gay or lesbian for
many years that they are fairly solidified in their sexual orientation identity; however that may
not be true in all cases, because the participants uncertain in their identity had years pass since
first self-identifying. Theoretically, a person could have self-identified as gay or lesbian for years
and be immersed in the sexual minority community and still question their sexual orientation.
One femme participant (F1) did not self-identify as a sexual minority woman. She stated
that she identified as a femme, but did not self-identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, even though
when we initially interviewed her during the pre-screening recruitment process she stated that
she did identify as gay or lesbian. F1 was the only participant to state that she was currently in
romantic relationships with both a male and a female.

85

I: Okay, and some people in addition to calling themselves a femme, a stud, a stemme,
versatile, also may use words like gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, whatever. Do you use
any other terms?
F1: No because the way I think, I wouldn‟t call myself bisexual, so I don‟t really say it
and I wouldn‟t call myself a lesbian either (Femme, Age 21).
4

F1 was also integrated into a gay family . During the interview, she said that she would
talk to her gay dad about sexuality. She hinted that she might be exploring heterosexuality. She
looked to her gay dad for acceptance regarding her choice to live as heterosexual. She stated,
[My gay family] accepted me for who I was. And we all been a family for like 5 years, so
I listen to them. They just tell me, like my gay father, he told me because I thought he
would be mad, because I made a decision that I would be straight for a while. And he, I
thought he was going to be mad at me, so I asked him. And he was like, “No, I love you,
no matter what. You still my baby. I love you no matter what. You decide to be straight.
You decide to be gay, but whatever it is, I still love you” (Femme, Age 21).

4

Historically, Black women have defined family broadly to include extended family, fictive kin,

―othermothers,‖ and communities of care (Collins, 1991). In addition, ―families of choice‖ often
exist in gay and lesbian communities because some biological families fail to nurture their gay
and lesbian members (Dahlheimer & Feigal, 1994). ―Chosen families‖ are used for support
otherwise lacking. Using familial language indicates the importance placed on gay and lesbian
peers, situates people in the gay world, connotes to others their position in the community, and
individuates them on the basis of their gender identity and role within their family (Reed &
Valenti, under review).

86

In addition, when asked about her future, F1 stated that she wanted to become pregnant by her
boyfriend and stop having sexual relationships with females, hinting that she may be still
exploring her sexual orientation. She saw herself as ―pregnant.... and still with [her] boyfriend
and not messin‟ with females.‖ F1 seemed uncertain of her sexual orientation identity. She first
identified herself as femme and lesbian during the pre-screening process, then during the
interview she claimed she did not identify as lesbian, hinted toward exploring heterosexuality,
and stated that she saw herself as settling down with a man. In addition, F1 has two lesbian
5

sisters (1 stud; 1 femme), and a mother who ―likes females .‖ Her family‘s openness and
acceptance may have created a climate in which she felt comfortable with exploring her
attraction to males and females.
Regarding the participants such as F1 who described changing their gender identity over
time, Erikson (1950; 1968) would assert that F1 is probably encountering the identity versus role
confusion conflict of development. Specifically, F1‘s relationship with her boyfriend and the
idea that she wants to become pregnant and settle down with a male challenge a sexual minority
identity. According to Erikson, before moving onto healthy adulthood, F1 needs to resolve this
conflict by integrating her sexuality into her identity and committing to an identity (e.g., lesbian,
bisexual, or heterosexual).
Marcia (1966) categorized four different types of identity resolution: identity
achievement, foreclosure, diffusion, and moratorium. Identity achievement occurs when an
individual encounters identity crisis, questions and explores options and eventually commits to
an identity. Foreclosure occurs when an individual commits to an identity, along with the values,
and beliefs of her/his childhood without exploring possible alternatives. Identity diffusion occurs

5

F1‘s mother‘s sexual orientation and gender identity are unknown.
87

when a person has neither experienced identity crisis nor commitment. An individual
experiencing moratorium is in the midst of exploration and has not yet committed to an identity.
F1 may be in moratorium. She is still figuring out where she belongs in accordance to her sexual
orientation identity. She had sexual relationships with males and females, was dating both a male
and a female at the time of the interview, but saw her future as being with a male. She perhaps
was still making sense of her experiences before she commits (if she commits) to a sexual
orientation identity.
Alternatively, Diamond (1998; 2000) demonstrated that sexual orientation identity
development of young, predominately White sexual minority women may be more circular than
linear, with no specified end point. Although the same may be true for young Black sexual
minority women, the majority of participants in the present study did, however, seem committed
to their sexual orientation and gender identity at the time of the interview.
Additionally, F1 may actively not want a bisexual identity because of the way bisexuals
6

are treated in her community. According to Reed (2010) , bisexually active women were
pejoratively called, ―dick dykes.‖ The name-calling is symptomatic of biphobia, which is similar
to homophobia except it describes the negativity, prejudice, or discrimination against bisexual
people (Eliason, 1997). According to Social Identity Theory (SIT), social identities are
evaluative and have self-evaluative consequences. SIT also assumes that people have a need to
see themselves in a positive light (Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995). F1 may have rejected the
bisexual identity to avoid negativity attached to that identity label. In addition, according to selfcategorization theory, people cognitively represent social groups in terms of prototypes. A
prototype represents the beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of a social category. People can assess

6

Reed (2010) used the same data for completing her master‘s thesis.
88

how similar they are to the group prototype (Hogg et al., 1995). Because F1 is sexually attracted
to females and dates females, she may not see herself as the prototype of a heterosexual woman.
She may see herself as more dissimilar to heterosexual women than similar and thus reject a
heterosexual identity.
Another participant (S1) initially identified as stud during pre-screening, but during the
full interview disclosed that she considered herself transgender (female-to-male; FTM). She
stated that ―the community would consider [her] as a stud.‖ She, however, did not seem to fully
accept it and felt as if she could not contest it. She said, ―I don‟t have no choice but to identify as
one [be]cause, that‟s what they gonna call me, no matter how I feel or not.” She identified more
as a gay male than as a stud lesbian woman. She discussed with the interviewer wanting to have
reconstructive surgery in the future in which she would have her breasts removed. She also
alluded to wanting genital reconstructive surgery.
I: Okay, what [changed] when you considered yourself to be trans[gender]?
S1: … I feel more of the fact that I need operations… So the only thing that changed is
the fact that like I started like, puttin‟ on duct tape, so my breasts would be smaller. And
just trying to change my sex completelyI: Now when you talk about needing an operation, what do you mean by that?
S1: Breast reduction....And I‟m still thinking of the process of having, sex change. Down
there (Stud, Age 18).
S1 did not choose a stud identity for herself. She saw herself as transgender, rejecting her
biological female sex and wanting to become a man physically by undergoing surgery. Being
transgender implies gender dysphasia (discontent with biological sex), which is considered a
psychiatric classification of gender identity disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 2000).

89

The other studs, while emulating males, did not want to become male physically. The pathway to
integrating a transgender (FTM) identity may be different from the way a woman integrates a
sexual minority identity, because becoming transgendered implies rejecting biological gender.
Similar to S4, who transitioned from femme to stemme and then to stud (as described
above), St1‘s experience also displayed fluidity and instability of gender identity. St1 stated
during the pre-screening interview that she identified as stemme, but during the full-interview
disclosed that she considered herself femme. She also rejected the stemme label and referred to
stemmes as ―versatiles.‖
St1: Cuz I don‟t really like… define myself as a versatile or whatever. But as everybody
see me --they say I‟m versatile because of the way I dress. I don‟t-- I just dress the way I
feel. …It‟s not an everyday thing.
I: Okay, so you don‟t identify as versatile. What do you identify as?
St1: Femme (Stemme, Age 18).
While St1 rejected the stemme identity label in the beginning of the interview, further into the
interview she stated:
Sometimes, I don‟t wanna wear the the baggy clothes. I wanna wear something tight
[laughs]. Kinda think I‟m a femme. I‟m like I‟m not a femme. I‟m a versatile. And that
can like pain me sometimes. Sometimes I feel like I have the best of both worlds. I date
both femmes and studs (Stemme, Age 18).
She seemed to be conflicted with her gender because she said that it ―pains‖ her sometimes. She
thinks of herself as a femme, and would prefer that identity; however, others have labeled her as
―stemme.‖ Despite any negativity, however, it seems as if she accepts herself as a stemme or
versatile because she ―has the best of both worlds.‖

90

Identity conflict and resistance. Three participants (F3, S5, andSt4) demonstrated
evidence of internalizing their sexual orientation and lesbian gender identity through selfidentification, but also mentioned that they contemplated becoming straight or hoped to
―become‖ heterosexual in the future. They seemed to reconsider their sexual minority status not
because it did not ―fit them,‖ but in response to internalizing negative messages about lesbians.
Internalized homophobia involves manifesting self-hate based on negative social attitudes and
messages received (Malyon, 1982). It also involves an intrapsychic conflict between what people
think they should be (i.e., heterosexual) and how they actually experience their sexuality (i.e., as
homosexual or bisexual; Herek, 2004). F3 discussed negative messages she heard from her
mother and her response thereto.
Last time I had sex with a male was last year and that was just to make my momma happy
cuz she was, like, she was complainin‟ about me bein‟ gay. She was kinda happy. She was
like “You can‟t get pregnant and this and this.” She was kinda happy, but then she was
like “Why don‟t you just be with a man?” So it just kept making me upset and I didn‟t
wanna be gay no more or whatever even though I still like the females. I just wanted to
make her happy. I didn‟t want to be gay, so I slept with my friend that stayed down the
street… (Femme, Age 17).
F3‘s mother complained to her about being gay. One reason her mother did not approve of her
sexual orientation was because she ―can‟t get pregnant.‖ F3 seemed to have internalized the
negative messages she heard because she became upset and began to not want to be gay
anymore, even though she still liked women. She was conflicted between what she ―should be‖
(i.e., heterosexual) and how she experienced her sexuality (i.e., still liking women). In response
to this conflict, F3 had sex with a male to make her mother happy and to not be gay anymore.

91

S5 also gave evidence of being in internal conflict regarding her sexuality. She stated,
It‟s like something in my mind is telling me that I should change because of the fact that
it‟s hard for me to get a job. Because of you know, it‟s like, fifty-fifty. And the other half
of me, it was like sixty-forty. The other half of me, the sixty percent, is sayin‟, it has to
stay like this because I‟m not comfortable wearin‟ female clothing. I‟m comfortable
wearin‟ these clothes. And, I‟m comfortable, you know bein‟ who I am. Like, I feel like
this is who I am, but at the same time, I feel like I need to make a change, so I can live a
better life. Seem, seem more normal….Be the way that I‟m supposed to be. See, people
say that females are supposed to be with a man… (Stud, Age 20).
S5 wanted to change to become heterosexual because that would make for a ―better‖ life and she
would be more ―normal‖ and ―be the way that I‟m supposed to be.‖ She seemed to have
internalized the message that being gay is being abnormal (―people say that females are
supposed to be with a man‖) and not living to her full potential. She expressed conflict between
these negative thoughts and being true to herself (―I feel like this is who I am‖).
St4 seemed to view being gay as not a viable lifestyle. She stated:
… Well I made the decision I‟ll be a straight lesbian for now... I‟ll get myself together,
and then I‟ll try it again [relationship with a man] maybe, because I do want to have kids
so. That‟s pretty much where I‟m at right now…. I‟m more so attracted to females than I
am males, so I would like, try both (Stemme, Age 17).
Even though St4 is more attracted to females than to males, she wanted to be in a relationship
with a male in order to raise a family. She perhaps did not see that it was possible to be gay and
raise children. She also seemed to hint that she saw being gay as not being ―together,‖ implying
that there is something irresponsible or immature about being gay. She is conflicted about her

92

sexual attraction (attracted to women primarily) and the way she would be living a ―together‖
life (heterosexual). These three participants aside, the other interviewed participants did not
provide evidence of their wanting to change their sexual orientation identity status because of
internalized homophobia.
Achieving identity. The data suggest modification of the original proposition that
proposed that Black adolescent lesbians would internalize their gender identity through distinct
developmental experiences, which would differ among these lesbians across gender. I suggested
that butches or studs would first develop awareness of their gender and then develop awareness
of their sexual orientation. I proposed that femmes would develop awareness of their sexual
orientation first and then develop lesbian gender awareness. Analysis revealed that among the
women who had achieved a gender and sexual identity self-concept, Black adolescent femmes
and studs self-identified as their respective gender identity and their sexual orientation at the
same time. In addition, Black adolescent stemmes self-identified as their sexual orientation
identity before their gender identity. Studs and stemmes began to express increased masculine
traits right after self-identifying, but did not physically become males. Femmes expressed the
same level of femininity before and after self-identifying; however, lesbian gender and sexual
orientation identities were fluid and did change over time. The women who had not integrated a
gender or sexual orientation identity into their concept of self continued to explore identities and
resist a gender and/or sexual orientation minority identity.
Lesbian Gender Norms
According to SIT, a social group (in-group) evaluates and compares itself to another
group (out-group) in order to make its own group appear favorable. When the groups evaluate
each other, they must use certain characteristics as the basis for evaluation. An important aspect

93

of this comparison process is that the in-group members do not compare themselves with every
cognitively available out-group, but only with a group or groups perceived as relevant.
I proposed initially that specific features and behaviors are used by women to evaluate
lesbian gender groups. In general, biological and traditionally gendered ―real‖ males and females
would serve as relevant comparison groups for femmes, stemmes, and studs. In reality, however,
femmes, studs, and stemmes each refer to different specific gender groups for relevant
comparison in romantic situations. In romantic situations, however, femmes compare themselves
to studs; studs compare themselves to femmes; and stemmes use their partner‘s gender for
relevant comparison. Therefore, my initial notions were partially supported by the data (see
Table II).
7

Studs. Biological, heteronormative males and females serve as studs‘ point of reference.
Stud participants, although they still consider themselves women, described becoming more
stereotypically masculine once self-identifying. When studs described themselves, biological and
heteronormative males were described as a relevant comparison group.
Rejecting a female persona. Studs rejected stereotypically feminine attire and
mannerisms. Dressing as stereotypical females went against the stud aesthetic and persona. Studs
used biological and heteronormative females as a relevant comparison group in terms of what
traits and characteristics they should not possess.
[Studs] shouldn‟t put on girl clothes. I feel like even when you going for a job interview,
you ain‟t gotta girly up and dress all feminine and stuff. I just think it‟s like going against
7

Heteronormative stems from queer theory and refers to the alignment of biological sex, gender

identity and gender roles (Warner, 1991). Therefore, in this case it refers to biological males and
females who adhere to a heterosexual sexual orientation and follow conventional gender norms.
94

what they talk about. That‟s they own self. You goin‟ against your own word. It don‟t
make no sense (S1; Stud, Age 18).
Another stud (S4) changed the timbre of her voice because she thought it sounded too
feminine. She rejected a characteristic that would align her with biological females:
I really used to have a really girly voice. And I didn‟t care for it too much and it was too
sweet. So I don‟t know so like I changed my whole swagger. (Stud, Age 16).
Changing her voice because it was ―too sweet‖ also speaks to the personality of a stud. A stud
with a ―sweet‖ voice would be incongruent with the masculine persona that a stud portrays. A
―sweet‖ voice would not imply or express the masculinity that studs wish to emulate.
One stud recalled never being ―girly-girl‖ as a child. She ―kinda grew into‖ her stud
identity. She did not see being a ―girl‖ as applicable to her and rejected that image.
I always was a tomboy in my younger childhood days. So I never really was girly-girl.
But when I just got older, it just kinda grew on to me. I kinda grew into it…I mean, hair
and I always wore braids, even when I was young. … I never liked skirts and dresses and
makeup or nothin‟. I never liked that. I was a tomboy (S3; Stud, Age 24).
Another stud stated, ―I‟m not comfortable wearin‟ female clothing‖ (S5; Stud, Age 20). The
stereotypic feminine, female clothing and aesthetic did not seem to reflect who they were on the
inside. Therefore, they rejected that image of themselves.
Stud participants also mentioned rejecting obvious markers of femininity, such as their
breasts. All the stud participants mentioned that they did not allow their sexual partners to touch
their breasts for sexual arousal while having sexual intercourse. For example, S2 said, ―I don‟t
like my breasts to be touched. None of that‖ (Stud, Age 19). To touch and stimulate their breasts
would associate them with biological females.

95

Studs also rejected their feminine-sounding legal names. Participants did not directly
mention that studs use nicknames or male names instead of their legal female names, however,
when studs were interviewed, they referred to themselves using a nickname, or just their initials.
They also referred to their stud friends using nicknames. S5 described how her friend refers to
herself using a male‘s name because she is a stud. ―...My friend. She‟s a female. Her name is
Sean cuz she‟s a stud‖ (S5; Stud, Age 20). A stud could also have the legal feminine-sounding
name of Alisha Joan, but refer to herself by her initials A.J., which does not have a female
connotation. Studs could also pick a name not related at all to their given name in order to
communicate a sense of toughness, such as ―Stone‖ or ―Crash.‖ They may do this because their
given names do not correspond with their outward appearance and inward masculine identity.
Choosing a nickname may be an historical trend among Black lesbians. According to Thorpe
(1996), it was common in Detroit for African-American lesbians, especially studs, during the bar
culture of the 1940s to ‗70s to chose nicknames. They did so in part to protect their real identity,
because lesbian bars were often a dangerous place to visit due to the illegal activities occurring
there, and the risk of their lesbianism being discovered. Nicknames reinforced stud-femme roles
because the names chosen by studs were associated with toughness and masculinity. This
dissertation finds that the use of nicknames has remained as an important indicator of adherence
to stud-femme roles among young stud-identified women.
Embracing a male persona. Studs projected the stereotypic image of a biological,
heteronormative male. According to one stud participant, ―[studs] really portray the image of
being the guy‖ (S3; Stud, Age 24). Studs compared themselves to men and saw themselves as
similar. ―Studs don‟t act different than men. Well, it‟s like we don‟t act different than men
because we act like men…‖ (S5; Stud, Age 20). Another stud, who first came out as stud at the

96

age of 14, said about herself at that time period, ―I was like forget it, I might as well dress like a
boy and put „this is me.‟ Ya know I always been boyish all my life, so I was like, „I‟m a man‟
[Laughs]‖ (S4; Stud, Age 16).
Studs stated that they dress as males and compare their appearance to men, such as by
wearing stereotypical male clothes. One stud stated, ―We all dress like guys, that‟s pretty much
it. We all dress like guys‖ (S5; Stud, Age 20). Dressing like men includes wearing clothing such
as sport shorts, big t-shirts, big baggy pants, sneakers, and sports bras to flatten their breasts.
Studs also wore their hair short. Stud participants stated that they lowered their voice to appear
more masculine. Studs maintained the masculine persona for job interviews and other important
events that might otherwise require acknowledgement of being biologically female (e.g., using
their legal feminine sounding name instead of their stud nickname).
Two studs described being mistaken for men in public. As one stud stated:
„Cause normally, on a normal day, it is very rare that people realize that I am a female. I
get mistaken for a man all the time. You know what I‟m sayin‟? Just, um, the bass of my
voice to the way I walk. So, if you just saw me walkin‟, you couldn‟t tell I‟m a girl…Just
like every time I get on the bus. They be like, “„cuse me, sir” (S2; Stud, Age 19).
Another stud mentioned that straight women sometimes approach her because they think
that she is a man and a dating prospect. She does not try to pass as a man, so she informs the
women that she is a biological female, so as not to be deceptive:
…I‟ll just wait for a female to come up to me and talk to me. And that way, and then I tell
her that I‟m a girl cuz I don‟t like to deceive people. And then…straight women approach
me too, but once I tell them that I‟m not a guy they back off (S5; Stud, Age 20).

97

Participants S2 and S5 physically resembled biological men; therefore, some people have
difficulty recognizing they are women. Each of these women‘s appearance diverges so much
from their female biological gender and they enact masculine tendencies to such an extreme that
they blend in with and appear to be biological males.
Studs use biological heteronormative males as a comparison group in more ways than
just in their physical presentation. Stud participants stated that they took on the male persona by
using male pronouns (i.e., he, him) and nouns (e.g., guys, brother, and son) to describe
themselves and other studs. As one stud said, ―I talk [to other studs] like…‟you know, what‟s up?
Let‟s have guys‟ night out.‟ Like I call my stud friends, I call „em guys‖ (S3; Stud, Age 24).
Other people, besides studs, use male pronouns when referring to studs. For example, two studs
mentioned that their mothers consider them sons and not daughters. As one stud stated:
Even my mamma‟s friends, she‟ll introduce me to someone new and they‟ll be like, “hey,
this your son?” …My mamma calls me her son‟s brother. ... She‟s a girl; she lives her
life as a boy (S2; Stud, Age 19).
If their biological family accepts their gender identity, their family may also see them as male
and consider them to be brothers or sons. Their masculine demeanor does not have the limiting
boundaries of the sexual minority community. Studs express their masculinity and male
appearance in most (if not all) aspects of their life.
“The baby daddy.” Studs often said they wanted to have children to establish a family
with their partner. Instead of the studs becoming pregnant themselves, however, their femme
partners would become pregnant and give birth. If a stud were to become pregnant, she would be
violating stud standards because biological males cannot become pregnant. To remain consistent
with the male standard, a stud would consider herself a father to her partner‘s child. This

98

conflicts to what can be found in research literature about lesbian parenting. In the literature,
terms such as ―non-biological mother,‖ ―non-birth mother,‖ ―non-biological parent,‖ ―non-birth
parent,‖ ―co-parent,‖ ―co-mother,‖ ―other mother,‖ ―stepmother,‖ and ―stepparent‖ have been
used (Brown & Perlesz, 2008). There is no mention of the non-biological parent being called
―daddy‖ in relation to a lesbian co-parenting. Studs tend to call themselves ―daddy‖ and others
refer to them as such, which is another way studs use biological, heteronormative males as
standards of comparison.
… [Studs] know that they want to have a child but they don‟t want to produce a child. So
they ask their feminine female who they‟ve been with for a minute, who they know they
gonna be with, to have a baby for „em. ...They just like a man. They don‟t wanna be
walkin‟ around just a man and pregnant (F3; Femme, Age 17).
Since becoming pregnant would be antithetical to their masculine identity, studs often decide not
to become pregnant even if they want to parent.
Instead of becoming pregnant, the stud may request her femme partner to become
pregnant in order to keep the stud‘s masculinity intact (Reed, 2010).
My [stud] friends ...make they girlfriends get pregnant for them to have a family. I mean
they think of theyself as a daddy. ...So it is kind of like a daddy-mother thing. They just
care for the child just like the daddy will (S3; Stud, Age 24).
Studs want babies ―just to, fill out the rest of the blanks in our fantasies and our dreams and our
mentalities of bein‟ a man. We got a little kid sayin‟ „daddy this, daddy that‟” (S2; Stud, Age
19). Becoming a ―daddy‖ allows a stud to further consummate a male identity. The studs extend
their masculine role from their relationship with their romantic partner to the child(ren) they raise
together.

99

Baby‘s daddies were also perceived as fulfilling a father‘s role. F2 described how her
stud partner ―plays the daddy in [her] daughter‟s life.‖ She said:
Everything a daddy do, [name of participant‟s girlfriend] do… The whole little daddy
thing, like takin‟ her out. You know they had a daddy/daughter day where they go out to
the movies. They might go out to the carnival... They go to the movies. They go out to eat.
Like whatever goin‟ on. ... They go to the zoo. It‟s just [name of participant‟s girlfriend]
and the baby. They go out and they spend the day together. ... That‟s daddy in our house.
She come home. She pay the bills. She bring the money home, that‟s daddy. She take care
of both of us. Like, we do 50/50, but she in the long run, she still take care of me and the
baby. It‟s just daddy. Everything a man would do for his daughter, [name of participant‟s
girlfriend] do for [name of participant‟s child]… (Femme, Age 20).
While both parents are women, the mother and ―daddy‖ have differing roles. The ―daddy‖ takes
care of her partner and the child financially. What seems absent from F2‘s description of the stud
daddy role is the participation in daily care-giving activities. The ―daddy‖ seems to take on the
traditional masculine father role as provider and not the more nurturing role descriptive of
traditional mothering (Parke & Sawin, 1976).
Embracing hypermasculinity. Studs express hypermasculine characteristics.
Hypermasculinity involves excessive identification with and endorsement of the traditional male
role (Mosher, 1991 as cited in Parrott & Zeichner, 2008). The traditional male role is based on
hegemonic masculinity that includes being socially dominant, subordinating femininities, and
representing power and authority (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Courtenay, 2000). In
traditional committed heterosexual relationships, men are afforded more power than women. The

100

men are the breadwinners and decision-makers (Shearer, Hosterman, Gillen, & Lefkowitz,
2005).
“The aggressor.” Stud participants described fulfilling traditional male gender roles in
romantic relationships. As one stud said, ―Cause we have the swag of the male. We the man in
the relationship‖ (S2; Stud Age 19). A stud is seen as being the provider of the family, and in
charge of making money and decisions. Studs often take the initiative in pursuing a romantic
partner. They also viewed being the male as being the aggressor and the dominant figure: ―The
stud is the one that‟s dominant in the relationship and the femme is the other side‖ (S5; Stud,
Age 20).
One stud (S3) compared her aggressive behavior with how a boyfriend would treat his
girlfriend. She stated:
I‟m the aggressor in the relationship. Like, I want it my way. I don‟t want it her way, you
know what I‟m sayin‟? ... I really, I really check my mate, you know? I‟m sayin‟ like a
guy would do his girlfriend. Far as more as “Where have you been?” Or “What „chu
done? Or “Why you doin‟ that?” You know. Just real hard on „em (Stud, Age 24).
S3, by being the aggressor and demanding that she know her girlfriend‘s every move,
demonstrates that a stud often plays the authoritative figure with power in the relationship. Her
partner checks in, with S3 considering her whereabouts as a boss would check up on a
subordinate.
Studs are perceived as being physically aggressive with their partners. For example, one
stemme (St2) described how a typical stud might react if her girlfriend were irritating her:
… A stud would be like, say their girlfriend‟s is getting on their nerves, maybe they„d
grab her up, and say “I said stop playin‟ with me” or something like that. Choke „em

101

maybe, or just grab them by their arm, and just try to be in control of the relationship.
And they‟ll be the one to start the argument, or they‟ll be the one to play rough (Stemme,
Age 20).
To get what they want from their partners, studs may use their physical strength to intimidate
their partners. Through physical dominance, a stud gains power and control over their partner.
“The player.” Stud participants demonstrated the ―player‖ mentality. They often
described seducing women as a game and demonstrated their power over female romantic
partners by manipulating them to believe the studs were monogamous when they were not. Three
studs (S1, S2, and S3) reported sexual partner concurrency in dating relationships, even though
monogamy was discussed as a relationship rule. In general, the stud participants described not
being worried or concerned about their partners finding out about one another and the
ramifications of breaking the monogamy rule. For example, when S2 was asked about her
girlfriend, she joked that she currently has one, but considers herself single.
I‟m her girlfriend. I let her think that...Yeah, but I‟m single to me. And the rest of the
girls [giggles] (Stud, Age 19).
S2 manipulates her girlfriend and lets her girlfriend think they are monogamous. Perhaps she
does not seem to take the relationship seriously, since she giggles after she claims that she is
single. By lying or hiding the truth of her other sexual relations, S2 seems to remain in control,
which may give her a sense of power over the relationship with her girlfriend.
Studs were ―players‖ in that they viewed women as sexual conquests. They saw women
as easy to manipulate and ―win over‖ in order to have sex. S3 described how her friends socially
compete for a greater number of sexual partners:

102

Well my friends, they just like, [say] “I like did it to this person, did it to that person.” …
They just more worried about how many girls they have sex with... It‟s always a
competition. Sometimes it‟s a competition. I mean why I ain‟t gonna lie, when I was 18
and 19-20-21, it was a competition for me too…More is better [laughing] (Stud, Age 24).
For studs, femmes are viewed as a commodity, and dating is a competitive game in which the
stud with the most sexual partners wins. This demonstrates that studs imitate a ―player‖ male
stereotype in which power and coolness are symbolized by conquests.
8

Stud participants described filling the male role during sex. Studs wear the strap during
sex (if the strap is used) to penetrate their partner‘s vagina. To be penetrated would mean
penetration of the vagina and if a stud were penetrated in her vagina, she would then be as a
biological female. Being penetrated makes her femininity salient. In addition, if she were
penetrated in the anus, she would be emasculated because, among Black males in particular, the
receptive partner during anal sex reflects the emasculated position, typically associated with the
woman‘s role, while the male insertive partner reflects the masculine and dominant role
(Malebranche, Fields, Bryant, & Harper, 2009). Therefore, to keep her masculinity intact, the
stud must be the insertive partner. S2 reported:
Another thing is, I don‟t do, is studs getting, I don‟t know how to clean it up, but fucked
by a strap, basically. Having, you know, what I‟m sayin‟, getting sex with a strap. That‟s
8

“Strap” is the term used by participants to refer to the dildo and harness a woman uses for

penetrative sex. While the dildo and harness could be used many ways, the participants used the
term to mean that the harness is worn by the partner who is doing the penetrating to keep the
dildo in place over her pubic bone or mons pubis, generally where a penis would be on a man
(Lotney, 2000).
103

not in a stud‟s demeanor because in that case, what, how, what is your role? You feel
me? You, you supposed to be doing all the humpin‟ and all that. You feel me? I don‟t do
that. … that‟s how I feel a stud should be.
I: Okay. So, it seems you think studs should not necessarily be fingered or have a strapon used on them?
S2: Any kind of penetration (Stud, Age 19).
A femme wearing a strap and penetrating her stud partner would violate stud mores because to
be in the receptive position would require relinquishing an aspect of control in a sexual situation.
According to S2, the stud is “supposed to be doing all the humpin‟.‖ Being in the receptive
position requires a sense of vulnerability that would be anti-masculine.
“The identity police.” One characteristic of a hypermasculine man is that when exposed
to male gender role violations, he becomes angry (Parrott & Zeichner, 2008). Hypermasculinity
was seen in studs‘ aggression and animosity toward studs who had vaginal sex with men, or
became pregnant. Studs who have had vaginal sex with men were looked upon with disdain to
the point of being harassed and possibly physically assaulted. As S1 stated:
Because, look at a stud. Like studs feel they hard body, like a male. And just to have sex
with a male, and then that is very like low tolerant in this community. And if you sit up
here and you go have sex with a man, you gonna get talked about. You gonna get hurt. …
You gonna get talked about. You gonna get popped (Stud, Age 18).
To have sex with a man would imply vaginal penetration and highlight that a stud has female
genitalia, which would undermine a stud‘s masculinity. A stud engaging in ―feminizing‖
behavior creates discomfort in a hypermasculine stud to the point of possibly inciting violence.
This discomfort occurs because a stud engaging in ―feminine‖ behavior creates an inconsistent

104

stud image. This inconsistency brings the stud identity into question, which is especially
problematic for studs who hold rigid gender beliefs. To question a stud‘s masculinity is to deny a
stud‘s dominance. A stud‘s position of dominance is maintained by adhering to masculine ideals.
To maintain the dominant position, a hypermasculine stud needs to disparage or strongly oppose
behavior that questions a stud‘s position of power.
Whereas a stud having sexual relations with a man would elicit a negative reaction,
becoming pregnant because of the sexual act would be looked upon even more negatively
―„Cause they [studs], swag a male mentality and just to picture them layin‟ down with a man to
make a baby, feel me, is awful” (S2; Stud, Age 19). She also described confronting a stud who
had just had a baby:
… I was just like “uggg, you out here tryin‟ to play tough or play hard like you a man.
And you got. You just had a baby.” Flat out, know what I‟m sayin‟? So, there was all
some beef and stuff, like gettin‟ feisty. Don‟t come on me like you a nigga, you tough,
when you just laid down with a man… (Stud, Age 19).
She equated having a baby to not being ―tough.‖ Having a baby would require not only
9

recognition of having had penile-vaginal intercourse, but also recognition of having a uterus and
desiring a mother role, which would align that person with being female. Being pregnant and
having a baby equates a stud to being a ―woman‖ or ―feminine,‖ which is not a valued trait to
studs who value masculinity. It automatically lowers a stud‘s level of ―toughness‖ and negates
any masculine authority that is associated with being a stud in the community.

9

Due to economic restraints, these lesbians become pregnant via sexual intercourse with males

instead of purchasing donor sperm and/or using doctor-assisted fertilization techniques.
105

One stud (S2) mentioned that gay men are not ―real men,‖ which reflects an anti-gay
attitude stereotypic of hypermasculine men. She had sex with a gay man using a strap, but when
talking about the incident, she pejoratively called the man a ―fag.‖
Now, but I done had sex with a man in another way, as far as me doin‟ him with a strap.
It wasn‟t a real man. It was a fag. ...A boy. A gay boy (Stud, Age 19).
This stud enacted a hypermasculine attitude typical of a homophobic male. She saw a gay male
as less than a man and used pejorative language. She aligned so much with a heteronormative
male, she distanced herself from her sexual minority ―brother.‖ No other participant claimed that
gay men were less than men.
Because studs express masculine characteristics and think of themselves as possessing
male traits, they consequently could be influenced by Black male gender norms and endorse
them. In general, males may be socialized to be controlling and dominating and these traits may
be intensified at the intersections of race and class. Theoretically, according to Collins (2005),
chronic miseducation and unemployment of young, poor Black men has created a society in
which some young Black men demonstrate masculinity by being aggressive, tough, and street
smart. Sexual prowess also has become an important marker of Black masculinity (Collins,
2005; Wallace, 2007). The ability to conquer women sexually may to some degree compensate
for the control and power that poor, Black men lack in the larger society (Wallace, 2007). If a
Black male lacks resources to maintain his position as head of his family, he may seek authority
by using physical force and violent language. He may conform to a rigid prescription for
toughness, sexual promiscuity, manipulation, and thrill-seeking, and be willing to use violence to
resolve interpersonal conflict (Majors & Billson, 1993).

106

“Quadruple” oppression. In addition to the oppression that Black males face, stud
lesbians face discrimination based on their gender and sexual orientation non-conformity, which
could further compound their oppression. This layering of oppression could contribute to their
desire to display power and authority in their relationships. Black studs may face discrimination
due to their gender nonconformity, which may create a ―quadruple oppression.‖ For example,
some studs worry about and have faced discrimination in finding jobs. S3 and S5 both worried
about being judged negatively during job interviews because of their masculine look. ―The
problem with the job is, I put female and they think that I‟m a male‖ (S5; Stud, Age 20). S3 in
particular worried that her masculine appearance would be perceived as her being gay and
consequently she would not be hired. She stated,
There is this job that I am trying to get at this day care center. And I went in for the
interview. And I was scared to go in because I did not want them to look at me like “Oh
she look gay, or I don‟t want to hire her because she—” But they actually gave me a lot
of good responses. And they are supposed to call me in a week but it is already been a
week and two days. So I am still waiting for that phone call. So I am really nervous.... I
am really trying to get a job (Stud, Age 24).
S3 stated a possibility of being discriminated against, which could compound her feelings of
oppression.
S5 discussed a situation at a party, in which she was physically threatened because of her
masculine look. She said:
…This girl tried to talk to me at this party and I told her that I was a female. And her
brother called her to the stairs cuz he wanted to tell her that I was a girl. And she lied
and told her brother that I didn‟t tell her. And he hit me in the jaw ... I almost got beat up

107

by a guy but, luckily somebody had my back and he, grabbed him and broke it up (Stud,
Age 20).
S5 was confused for being male. She was physically attacked because of her gender
nonconformity and the misperception that she was trying to pass as male.
To further compound society‘s strictures, studs face discrimination from within the
lesbian community because they are bound by lesbian gender norms and would face a negative
response if they were to act in opposition to them. Three studs declared they have future hopes of
becoming pregnant (S1, S2, and S4) despite perceiving that they would be treated negatively and
despite expressing overt negative opinions about other studs who had become pregnant. For
example, S1 identified as stud and transgender (FTM) and wants to have a baby, even though to
do so conflicts with her masculine identities and intent to pursue gender reassignment surgery.
She acknowledged that her pregnancy would elicit a negative reaction.
I: So do you feel like you might try to have a baby again?
S1: Yeah.
I: And how do you think the girls here will treat you if you do?
S1: Uh, the studs will be all talking on that, and talking about me, but, the femmes they be
all “Wow you pregnant” and they‟d be all excited.
I: And, what about the studs?
S1: They‟re not gonna like it, they‟re gonna talk down on me (Stud, Age 18).
S1 perceived that the stud community would have a negative reaction to her pregnancy. This
may be in addition to any negative reaction she might receive from the larger society due to her
sexual minority status and gender non-conformity.

108

As originally proposed, studs use biological and traditionally-gendered ―real‖ males and
females for comparison. As described above, the data provide strong evidence that studs use
―males‖ as a reference group for how they should appear and behave socially in ubiquitous
situations. In contrast, studs use ―females‖ for reference regarding how not to appear and behave.
Studs strive to align with ―males‖ and masculinity while they simultaneously avoid enacting
―female‖ or feminine traits.
Femmes. Biological, heteronormative females and studs serve as femmes‘ point of
reference. As stated previously, ―Femme means female‖ (F5; Femme, Age 24). Femme
participants referred to women and girls to describe how they present themselves, endorsing the
image of a very feminine female as normative; they are ―really girly‖ and ―don‟t like to get
dirty‖ (F6; Femme, Age 16).
Embracing a female persona. Being ―girly,‖ as described by femme participants,
involved engaging in stereotypic feminine beauty practices (F2 and F3). As F3 (Femme, Age 17)
mentioned, ―I‟m girly. I like to get my nails done, hair done. I always like to wear lip gloss, and
all that. That‟s why I call myself femme....‖ Being girly also involved dressing like girls and
stereotypical biological women (F1, F5, and F6), such as by wearing ―skirts, jeans, tight t-shirts,
tight jeans, stuff like that‖ (F1; Femme, Age 21).
Rejecting a stud persona. Femme participants reject the boyish, masculine characteristics
that characterize studs. They use the masculine presentation of the stud as a basis of comparison
to determine how not to dress. As F2 discussed her appearance, she described how she differed
from a stud and noted her discomfort with dressing like a stud.
… What‟s different from me and a stud is because I like me being me....Okay, when I
wear panties I feel secure like okay, boom. But if I was to put on some boxers I would feel

109

like I‟m just loose like I‟m missin‟ something.‟... I‟m not more the masculine kind of
person. I don‟t want to wear big clothes and all that extra stuff, nah [no].. To [studs] it
might be comfortable. To me, it‟s the dress that uncomfortable, like uh-nuh [no]. I can‟t
dress like that... (Femme, Age 20).
Being femme means aligning oneself with feminine females through appearance, and rejecting
masculine characteristics typical for studs. Femmes in essence use studs as a relevant comparison
group to describe what is not characteristic of their gender.
Femme invisibility. The appearance of femmes is indistinguishable from that of
heterosexual women who are feminine in style and demeanor. Two femmes (F2 and F3)
mentioned blending in with heterosexual women and one said:
… You can look at me and tell that I‟m a femme. Just as I can look at you and say, “You
feminine.” But, you wouldn‟t know that I was a heterosexual or homosexual or lesbian,
or whatever. Just „cuz like I don‟t wear all the rainbow head to toe or the “I‟m gay”
[signs]. I don‟t gotta wear all that „cuz I know what I am. So you can look at me and tell
I‟m feminine. I‟m a feminine female, but you wouldn‟t look at me and say, “She a
lesbian” (Femme, Age 20).
In addition to presenting themselves as stereotypical feminine women, femmes described
possessing stereotypical feminine personality traits. ―Femmes are emotional... and don‟t think
straight. They think like girls ... Most of them are sensitive, emotional, and all that other stuff‖
(F1; Femme, Age 21). Femmes described themselves, and were described by others, as passive
for deferring to their stud partners in decision-making. As F2 (Femme, Age 20) stated, ―That‟s
really more of the stud role, the decision-maker. I come with all these ideas and she say „well yea
that sound like a good one.‟‖

110

In addition to allowing her stud to make decisions, during sex the femme enacts a role of
allowing her stud partner to take the lead in sex. Studs were reported to initiate sex. An example
is the conversation with F6:
I: In general, who initiates sex?
F6: You talkin‟ about like who initiates between a stud and the femme?
I: M-hm. [Yes]
F6: The stud (Femme, Age 16).
By deferring to the stud partner for decision-making and for initiating sex, femmes relinquish
power. Femmes express what Connell (1987) called ―emphasized femininity,‖ which includes
practices in which women comply with men's power (or in these cases, studs‘ power).
“The wife.” Femmes were perceived as fulfilling the role of the stereotypical wife.
Femmes take dominion over the home. They take charge of rearing the children, and providing
domestically for the immediate family. The stereotypical wife role was especially apparent in
F2‘s interview. She was the only participant who had been in a long-term relationship with her
partner for many years. They were raising a child together. She described her role in the family:
I gotta walk around and cook and clean and make sure everything together. And make
sure even though you bring the money home, I‟m still payin‟ the bills. I‟m still takin‟ care
of everything business-wise. Ya know I couldn‟t just go to work, come home. I feel like
it‟s my job. Just like I feel like it‟s my job getting‟ myself together, gettin‟ my daughter
together, my family together… (Femme, Age 20).
A stud may expect the femme to fill a traditional role and to cater to the stud. For
example, S2 stated:

111

I watch how my mamma treat her men and I feel like, know what I‟m sayin‟? Like
sometimes, that‟s why I think like I really got the mentality of a man. Because most men
want a woman just like their mamma and that‟s what I want -- a woman that will cater to
a man. Woo woo woo. There‟s stuff I can‟t get [my girlfriend] to do. Like, you lay up in
my bed for a whole week straight with me and why? I‟m the man in the relationship. Why
I gotta get up and make my own bed? Why I gotta ask you constantly to make me
somethin‟ to eat? Constantly. This you should already automatically do. You feel me? It‟s
just she not fallin‟ in place of a wife (Stud, Age 19).
S2 expects that her girlfriend will fulfill tasks associated with a traditional wife role, such as
completing domestic chores, making the bed, cooking for her, and catering to her needs.
I originally proposed that femmes use biological and traditionally-gendered ―real‖ males
and females as comparison groups. Data suggest that femmes use feminine females as a
reference group for comparison regarding how they should appear, and studs for how they
should not appear. Femmes also enact stereotypic feminine personality characteristics (e.g.,
being ―emotional‖) and fulfill traditional female gender roles. Femmes align with ―females‖ and
stereotypical feminine traits while simultaneously diverting away from studs and masculine
traits.
Stemmes. Biological, heteronormative males and females serve as stemmes‘ point of
reference. In romantic relationships, stemmes use the lesbian gender of their partner for relevant
comparison. As is the case for studs, stemmes use biological, heteronormative males and females
for comparison; however, their frame of reference changes based on context, such as their mood
state and their attractions or relationships.

112

Embracing male-female and stud-femme. In dress, participants who were stemme
switch between dressing as a stud and as a femme. On certain days they present themselves in
typical stud clothing, and on other days they present themselves in typical femme clothing. As
one participant said, ―I dress as both. Sometimes I dress as a girl. Sometimes I dress as a boy‖
(St4; Stemme, Age 17). How stemmes choose to dress is based on their personal preference for
that particular day. On a femme day, as one stemme mentioned, she would wear “tight shirts,
tight pants, flip-flops or heels” (St3; Stemme, Age 24), while on a stud day she would wear
―baggy pants, big shirts, hair braided. Things like that. Hats‖ (St3: Stemme, Age 24). She
switches between masculine and feminine physical expression.
Stemmes date either studs or femmes and switch roles based on their partner. If stemmes
date femmes, they act as studs, and if they date studs, they act as femmes in the relationship. As
one stemme said, ―As a stud, you have a certain mentality or role to play … as a male. So I do
that as well as much as I do the female role, so. That‟s why I consider myself to be a stemme‖
(St4; Stemme, Age 17). Another stemme stated, ―I act more feminine when I‟m with a stud.
When I‟m with a femme, I act more aggressive‖ (St3; Stemme, Age 24). Stemmes‘ behavior is as
fluid as their choice of expression. Stemmes enact stud or femme qualities when such are needed
or desirable in relationships.
One stemme (St2) used biological boys and girls as standards of reference to describe
herself. She described how she is different from a stud and from a femme. She has stud and
femme qualities, but does not adhere to the feminine or masculine extremes. She said:
Okay, to me a stud is when you are always dressed like a boy, and you want to be a
boy...You would rather be a boy than a girl, and you consider yourself as a boy. Like
femmes say, “Oh, that‟s my brother.” I wouldn‟t consider myself to be anybody‟s

113

brother...I‟m not a boy. I‟m a girl. And I still have girly ways about me like; I talk like a
girl sometimes. Um I [exhales] I, can‟t really explain. Like, I‟m just me. I still have
feminine ways about me. But at the same time I‟m a tomboy. That‟s how I can explain it
to the best of my ability (Stemme, Age 19).
While studs tended to identify strongly with boys or men on an everyday basis, stemmes, such as
St2, maintain some alliance with their biological gender. St2 used the term ―tomboy‖ to describe
herself when presenting as stud. The term connotes identification with her biological gender
while displaying masculine characteristics.
Because stemmes switch between stud and femme, they do not adhere to a complete male
persona, and do not apply male pronouns (e.g., ―he‖) to themselves or use male labels (e.g.,
―brother‖). When they present as studs, stemmes resemble what participants described as ―soft
stud.‖ They are ―soft‖ because there are feminine aspects about them which differ from the
image of a hard, masculine stud. Three participants (St2, St4, and S3) specifically mentioned
stemme reflecting soft stud. As one participant said, ―...A soft stud is somewhat the same thing as
a stemme. … It‟s just two different terms‖ (St4; Stemme, Age 17).
One stemme (St2), who mentioned that stemmes could be identified as ―soft studs,‖
described the flexibility of roles that stemmes have during sex. Stemmes, since they are not
―full‖ studs when they play the stud role, let themselves receive sexual stimulation. It is within
their gender roles to allow their sexual partner to touch them sexually as well as to penetrate or
be penetrated using a strap.
… A stemme is identified as soft stud also. Because, they‟re-- they don‟t really mind
being touched. Most stemmes don‟t mind being touched, because they still have feminine
things about them. Like they would prefer to be touched --they can play either role. They

114

can play the stud role, or they did play the femme role. Like they can be the ones to strap
up, or they can be strapped. Or they can be fingered, or they can be the fingerer. They
can perform oral sex. It‟s like both. They play both roles to me. Sometimes, depends on
who the person is. … Sometimes they will feel like being a femme this day with their
femme, or sometimes they would like to be a stud with their studs. Stud with their femme;
femme with their stud. (Stemme, Age 19)
Because of the flexibility of their gender expression, stemmes allow themselves to have more
options regarding their sexual behavior than do studs or femmes.
Stemmes agreed that stemmes can play ―both roles‖ during sex. They can play the femme
role and receive sexual stimulation or the stud role and give sexual stimulation.
…if [stemmes] wanted to act like a femme that day they could get pleasured [sexually]. If
they wanted to act like a stud that day, they can pleasure. They-- got the best of both
worlds actually. To me, that‟s how I see it. (Stemme, Age 18)
St1 described herself as having the ―best of both worlds‖ due to the socially acceptable sexual
behavior options she is offered because of her stemme identification.
No participant in the study, including stemmes, stated that they had ever dated a stemme.
It could be, however, that participants have dated stemmes, but they thought of them as soft studs
or aggressive femmes. Only one stemme (St1) mentioned talking to her partner about being
stemme.
…I let all my girlfriends know I‟m versatile. I date both studs and femmes. And I say “if
it‟s okay with you, I‟m sayin if the relationship goin‟ any further... You not gonna catch
me with no tight clothes all the time, I wear it if you want me to if we goin out, but other
than that I don‟t do it.‖ (Stemme, Age 18)

115

In general, the stemme participants (besides St1) did not describe revealing their gender identity
to their partner. This seems odd, given that stemmes present themselves in varied ways over
time. It could be that stemmes‘ gender may become more static when they are involved in steady
romantic relationships. It could also mean that while femme and stud roles entail strict guidelines
for acceptable sexual behavior, these guidelines may not actually be followed in reality. A
disconnect may exist between what femmes and studs say they do versus what actually happens
during sex. Future research could further explore these nuances.
Since stemmes oscillate between femme and stud gender presentations, they do not fit
within the strict categories of stud and femme. To be stud means to always present as masculine.
To be femme means to always present as feminine. Stemmes present both femme and stud
qualities in varying degrees at different times. Because stemmes may not feel tied to being either
stud or femme, they may not automatically claim stud or femme identity labels. Stemmes still fit
within the framework of femme-stud culture because they date both studs and femmes and adopt
the norms of the gender expression opposite their sexual and romantic partner. Perhaps to be true
to themselves (wanting to express both femme and stud traits), but yet conforming to the social
norms of stud-femme relations, stemmes switch between the two gender presentations.
Although stemme women oscillate between stud and femme expressions, they do not
oscillate in their identity.

10

When they present as stud, they do not identify as stud, but as

stemme. When they present as femme, they do not identify as femme. It is a stable, but dynamic

10

As described previously, one stemme did oscillate between femme and stemme, but that was

due to being uncertain of her gender identity, not because the stemme identity is unstable. She
was still exploring her gender.
116

gender identity in which gender expression fluctuates. Therefore, the stemme identity could be
considered a third lesbian gender that code-switches based on context.
Code-switching is a term often used in linguistics to describe how individuals switch
dialect or language depending on their conversation partner (Heller, 1988). What stemmes may
do, however, is reminiscent of ―cross-cultural code-switching,‖ which occurs when people
purposefully modify behavior to accommodate different cultural norms for appropriate behavior
(Molinsky, 2007). Therefore, rather than choosing one group over another, as SIT posits, the
stemme identity is an identity in and of itself that encompasses two opposing gender expressions.
A stemme woman switches from masculine and feminine gender expressions based on the
situation in which she is involved. She may feel comfortable enough playing either the stud or
femme role so that she can enact more masculine or feminine traits as needed in a situation. She
is ―versatile‖ (St1; Stemme, Age 18).
Conversely, if a woman has both masculine and feminine traits, she may present more
androgynously and not be switching between femme and stud. Androgyny was popular among
predominately White lesbians during the feminist women‘s movement and after (Moore, 2006).
An androgynous lesbian encompassed positive male and female characteristics including
physical expression (e.g., having short hair; wearing jeans, hiking boots, Birkenstocks, flannel
shirts, baggy walking shorts, or athletic clothes; and avoiding makeup, hose, high heels, skirts,
and dresses). Androgyny was also a political statement against patriarchy (Maltry & Tucker,
2002). Women criticized the butch-femme (or stud-femme) dyad for replicating heterosexual
power norms, and rejected butch-femme because of its imitation of patriarchy since butches
played the masculine or dominate role and femmes the feminine or more submissive role in
romantic relationships (MacCowan, 1992; Roof, 1998).

117

Historically, a large segment of the lesbian population never respected or fully subscribed
to androgyny (Loulan & Thomas, 1990). The androgynous movement may have never reached
the Black lesbian community, since the feminist movement was seen as a White women‘s
movement (Moore, 2006; Taylor & Rupp, 1993). Therefore, the Black lesbian community may
adhere to gender norms that predate the feminist movement. According to Kennedy and Davis
(1993) in their description of the lesbian community before the feminist movement, there existed
a third gender, called ―ki-kis‖ or ―AC/DCs,‖ in addition to stud and femme. ―Ki-kis‖ did not
conform to butch-femme, but switched roles based on their partner. If their partner were femme,
they were butch; if their partner were butch, they were femme. Consequently, the community
looked upon ―ki-kis‖ with disdain and the label was used pejoratively (Kennedy & Davis, 1993).
The stemmes reflect the ―ki-ki‖ gender presentation because they alternate between soft stud and
femme. As was true for ―ki-kis,‖ stemmes are viewed negatively within the participants‘
community.
Stemme negativity. Any lesbian gender identity that is not either stud or femme, or a
subtle variation of the two (e.g., aggressive femmes) is not socially accepted or understood.
Seven participants (F1, F3, St3, St4, S2, S3, and S5) claimed that stemmes are perceived
negatively. Among those who did not mention this perception, F5 and F6 stated that they did not
know any stemmes or anything about the gender, so they did not discuss stemmes. F2, S1, and
S4 discussed how stemmes present themselves and act, but did not mention how stemmes were
perceived in the community. St1, when asked whether she experienced any bad treatment
because she was stemme, stated that she had not. She had no awareness of negative perceptions
of stemmes. St2 did not mention anything negative, but did mention that her friends call her a
―fag.‖ She said, ―[Friends] kinda tell me that I‟m a fag... because I dress like a boy, but I still act

118

like a girl‖ (St2; Stemme, Age 19). While she did not mention negative associations with the
term, the term ―fag‖ has pejorative connotations (Pascoe, 2005; Smith, 1998).
One common negative perception mentioned by participants was that the stemme identity
was not a ―true‖ gender; people who claim the stemme identity are ―confused‖ (F1, F3, St3, St4,
S2, and S3). ―[Stemmes] need to make up they minds to be a stud or a femme‖ (S2; Stud, Age
19). Three participants (F1, S2, and S3) believed stemmes‘ confusion to be true. The other
participants stated that their friends thought stemmes were confused, but did not claim to believe
it themselves.
Just as ―ki-ki‖ was a pejorative label, being called a stemme is an insult, especially to
studs. F3 stated that some of her stud friends do not like stemmes and would become angry if
someone called them a stemme. She mentioned:
...Some of [my stud friends] think that‟s like an insult to them. So if somebody like-was to
call them a stemme, they would get mad...They argue with you, say “I‟m not a stemme,
I‟m a stud.” They‟ll get mad, real upset, like wanna argue -- wanna fight with you
(Femme, Age 17).
When F3 was then questioned as to why she thought her stud friends did not like stemmes, she
replied,
I guess because they don‟t wanna be caught up. Cuz some stemmes, they do they switch
up. Cuz like, my one friend, she was going with this girl, trying to find out, she dress like
a boy too. And that studs don‟t wanna go with a female that‟s like that. Studs wanna go
with a femme. There‟s some studs that like studs. But it‟s studs don‟t like stemmes
because they get confused. Because if you dress like a girl, they try talk to you, and then

119

next day they see you dress like a boy, they might get upset, cuz they feel like that‟s
another man, they talkin‟ to (Femme, Age 17).
Studs and femmes may be threatened by the stemme identity. According to Tajfel and
Turner (1986), an in-group does not compare itself with every cognitively available out-group,
but with a perceived relevant group. Relevance implies the in-group and out-group must be
perceived as similar enough to provide a useful comparison, but not so similar as to threaten each
other‘s social identity (Brewer, 2001; Tesser, 1988). For instance, if a group shares too many
characteristics with another group, animosity can be exacerbated. Regarding studs and femmes,
they may have developed animosity towards stemmes because stemmes display both stud and
femme appearance and behavior. If a stemme dates a femme, the stemme becomes more ―studlike,‖ and if she dates a stud, then the stemme becomes more ―femme-like.‖ The stemme identity
threatens the studs‘ and femmes‘ sense of self. Studs and femmes perceive their gender identity
as stable and the divisions between the groups clear. Studs and femmes seem dependent on the
absolutism of their respective gender category. Stemmes challenge the category boundaries,
giving the impression that that stud and femme boundaries are false and permeable. Hostility
develops against stemmes because some people question the validity of having both a femme and
stud identity expression. If a stud identity boundary is seen as more permeable and allows for
femininity, her power associated with her masculinity is questioned. She may no longer hold the
authority that her masculine persona permits.
In addition, according to SIT (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), if the out-group‘s difference is
evaluated negatively, perhaps as a challenge or threat to the in-group, the out-group becomes
viewed more negatively and is discriminated against by the in-group. Studs and femmes may
view the idea of stemmes switching gender expressions as a negative characteristic. Therefore, in

120

social situations stemmes may be discriminated against, such as by being made fun of in a
lesbian friendly space (Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999).
Stemmes are harassed by others because of their gender identity. The harassment that the
participants discussed included being called ―fag‖ (as described above), and ―being made fun of‖
(S5; Stud, Age 20). One stud (S2) in particular showed aggression when discussing stemmes.
She described her reaction when a femme approached her,
I had a stemme come on me before, but my reaction was out of control. Like, you don‟t
know what you wanna be. You wanna wear drawers like me, but then, you wanna wear
tight shirts like a girl. You feel me? Now, I don‟t know what they should be like...Just, all
the, „cause I don‟t know what to identify you as. I like females and I don‟t like males. So,
me talkin‟ to you and not, you know what I‟m sayin‟? I would look at you and you half
way dressed like a boy. You wanna act like a boy with a girl‟s shirt on or somethin‟ like
that. I feel like, you know what I‟m sayin‟? You silly, you actin‟ like a nigger to me. You
actin‟ like me and I don‟t want the same thing as me... [Agitated sounding voice] I‟m the
dominant one. I‟m the one in control. I don‟t want somebody else to be in control (Stud,
Age 19).
S2, while threatened by the stemme identity, may also be showing aggression because she is a
hypermasculine person (as described previously) and becomes angry when exposed to male
gender violations (Parrott & Zeichner, 2008). If a stemme is perceived as a stud, but allows
herself then to express her feminine side and ―become femme,‖ she violates the stud role. She, in
essence, threatens the power structure that ―naturally‖ endows studs with authority through its
replication of heteronormative relationships. Therefore, a hypermasculine stud may become

121

angry because the stemme was perceived as stud and then violated the perceived role and
deceived the studs.
Though all three groups rely on heteronormative, biological males and females as a
standard, their standards shift for sexual pleasure. Studs, femmes, and stemmes do NOT use
biological, heteronormative females or males as relevant comparisons regarding sexual pleasure.
Studs do use males as their relevant comparison group for determining what they will and will
not do, such as they are not to be penetrated vaginally, may not have their breasts touched, and it
is they who wear the strap with the dildo to mimic a penis. They also take sexual initiative,
which is seen as a heterosexual male norm (Bowleg, Lucas, & Tschann, 2004). The femme-stud
sexual dichotomy, however, views femme women as sexual beings who are to be touched and
sexually pleasured. During sex, the stud touches and sexually arouses her female partner while
receiving limited touch and arousal. While all the studs in this research project stated that they
receive oral sex, it was often not their main focus during sex. All stud participants stated that
they like to ―give head‖ (perform oral sex). S2 stated, ―I just like [oral sex]. I get a thrill out of it.
Like, and [my girlfriend] asked me all the time like, ‟Do you ever get tired of givin‟ head?‟ No. I
don‟t. I get a thrill out of it.‖ (S2; Stud, Age 19) Studs liked giving oral sex and mentioned that
giving pleasure to their partner was important. By pleasuring their partner, a stud gets pleasure.
As S3 mentioned, ―I think a stud should, far as please they women ...What makes it pleasurable
for me is, the um, the noise she make. The noise, it, it makes it pleasurable...‖ (S3; Stud, Age 24).
The sound of a sexual partner becoming sexually aroused provided her with sexual pleasure.
While studs use heteronormative males as their relevant standard for upholding some masculine
standards, they differ from stereotypical heteronormative males in that their main role during sex
is to give sexual pleasure to their partner, not receive it. This counters traditional male scripted

122

norms regarding male-female sexual relations. According to heterosexual sexual scripts, male
sexual activity is goal-directed with the focus on receiving pleasure with little attention to their
partner (Gagnon & Parker, 1995; Wiederman, 2005).
In femme-stud sexual relations, femmes receive the physical attention. They are the
sexual receivers ―…who receive everything like the penetration, the fingers in them, like the oral
sex, the everything, the kissin‟ over the body‖ (F2; Femme, Age 20). Two femmes mentioned
currently being in relationships with ―don‘t touch me‖ studs where the rule was that they were
not to touch their stud partner or try to pleasure their stud partner. As F5 stated, ―[During sex] I
didn‟t do anything to her, she did something to me. It was oral sex and that was it‖ (F5; Femme,
Age 24). F6 also described the sexual relationship with her ―don‘t touch me‖ stud.
I: Okay, so, a stud will do all, will do, um, all the things to you?
F6: Yes
I: Okay and you won‟t do anything to them?
F6: [Shakes head no]
I: No? Is that, is that typical for femmes and studs?
F6: Yes, some.
I: Okay and when the stud does things to you, what do, what do they do?
F6: To me, they finger, on me, and she gives me oral sex.
I: Okay and when you say finger, where do you mean finger?
F6: Like put her fingers inside of me.
I: Inside your vagina?
F6: M-hm. [yes]...
I: No? Does she do anything else? [Pause] Do you give oral sex to her?

123

F6: Uh-uh [no]. No
I: No, just to you? And um, is that how it goes typical for you?
F6: Yeah.
I: Okay. And so, a femme should let the stud please them?
F6: [nods yes] (Femme, Age 16).
Wilson (2009) made a similar observation in her research with African-American lesbian
adult women, noting ―masculine identified stud women prioritized the feminine partner‘s
orgasm‖ (p. 310). The current dissertation study highlights that this phenomenon occurs among
young lesbian women as well. Studs receive oral sex from their partners, but in a controlled
manner whereby the femme cannot touch or penetrate the stud‘s vagina. This sexual behavior
contradicts the heteronormative stereotype of a male as focusing on his own sexual climax while
putting his female sexual partner‘s pleasure as secondary or as not important (Maines, 1999).
Overall, results suggest that studs and stemmes use both biological and heteronormative
males and females as relevant comparison groups. Studs use males as a reference group for
comparison on how they would like to be, and use females for how they would not like to be in
terms of appearance and behavior. Stemmes, as with studs, use males and females for
comparison; however, their frame of reference changes based on context (e.g., mood state and
relationships). In romantic relationships, stemmes use the lesbian gender of their partner for
relevant comparison and adopt the opposing gender (i.e., femme with stud; stud with femme).
They also do not enact extreme feminine and masculine appearance and behavior. In contrast,
femmes use females as a reference group for comparison on how to appear and use studs for how
not to appear. Studs, femmes, and stemmes do not follow biological and heteronormative male
and female gender standards for sexual pleasure. Studs oppose traditional ―male‖ standards by

124

prioritizing their sexual partner‘s sexual pleasure over their own; femmes are perceived by studs
as being sexual beings and are primary recipients of sexual pleasure.
Lesbian Gender Socialization
Though studs, femmes, and stemmes may project images of males and females, the
feminine/female traits that a femme expresses, and the masculine/male traits that a stud or
stemme expresses may be specific traits valued in the young Black lesbian community. I
originally proposed that studs, femmes, and stemmes learn about lesbian gender norms from
others who identity with that gender. Other studs, femmes, and stemmes would model for new
incoming women how they should act. Studs, femmes, and stemmes would learn which
characteristics are associated with each gender, and would begin to classify other lesbian women
consistent with those classifications. Studs, femmes, and stemmes would be directly and
indirectly reinforced for adhering to their gender characteristics, and chastised or penalized
socially for going against lesbian gender norms. These notions were partially supported by the
data (see Table II).
Learning to be “stud.” In general, stud participants learned how to be a stud through
interacting with others in their community. One stud (S4; Stud, Age 16) stated that after selfidentifying as stud, she started ―to hang around a lot of boys, lot of females that was ... like gay
or lesbian or bi,‖ and another stud (S1; Stud, Age 18) stated, ―all my friends are gay.‖According
to learning theories, social contexts shape gender identity. Therefore, S4, who interacted with
LGBT peers, may have learned to associate specific behavior and physical expression with stud
gender through interacting with and watching those studs. According to gender schema theory
(Bem, 1981), while learning about gender, a person cognitively creates a heterogeneous network
of gender-related associations to organize and guide future perceptions. For example, S1 and S4

125

may have learned that studs only dress in boy clothes, and display a certain ―swagger.‖ They
then could have learned to associate those attributes with being a stud. Therefore, they organized
incoming perceptions from the environment (watching and interacting with studs), began to
internalize their own stud gender, characterized their own attributes, and assimilated their selfconcept into the gender schema ―stud.‖ While learning what is ―stud,‖ they learned which
gendered characteristics should be linked to them. They then became motivated to regulate
behavior to align and conform to cultural definitions of stud.
Older stud role models. Two stud participants (S2 and S3) reported being mentored by
older studs. The older studs taught the younger studs how they should behave sexually. For
example, S2 stated that her best friend taught her about being a stud:
S2: Ummm, sex, we just talk about stuff we do. Sexuality, I think my best friend helped me
like with that a little bit. She helped me identify what a stud was and showed me the
difference. And just helped me be comfortable.
I: And is she a stud?
S2: Yeah.
I: Is she older than you?
S2: Yeah (Stud, Age 19).
S2‘s best friend provided guidance in how to have sex as a stud. Her best friend was passing
information onto S2 which helped her become comfortable in her knowledge of how to be a stud.
Having a stud mentor was also observed in Hiestand and Levitt‘s (2005) qualitative research
which explored the meta-theme ―growing up as a butch lesbian,‖ and in which one finding
included ―learning about butch-femme by meeting other butches.‖ Their participants described

126

getting a butch role model who explained butch-femme rules of interaction. This may be true
among young Black lesbian women as well.
Older femme sexual teachers. In addition to stud mentors, studs learned their role
through interacting with older and more experienced femme sexual partners (S2 and S3). The
femmes they learned from were generally their first or one of their first sexual partners. One stud
(S2) described her first sexual experience:
...We was talkin‟ for a little while then I finally went over, spent the night. We had sex
and after that we was all right. She moved me in. I dropped out of school, [and] lived
with her. She was an older woman. .. At the time I was 15. She was 21. ...She taught me
everything [giggles]. ...Oral sex, how to finger, how to play with myself [giggles].
...Everything. How to use a strap on her for the first time...I was a baby [giggles] (Stud,
Age 19).
A stud may learn how a stud acts sexually through her femme partner‘s instruction.
One stud, S5, did not mention specifically how she learned to become a stud. She also
seemed less confident in her sexual orientation identity than were the other stud participants. She
contemplated becoming heterosexual in the future. She had internalized the message that being
lesbian was a phase. She internalized the message that being homosexual is abnormal and
associated having ―a better life‖ with heterosexuality (as described previously). Internalized
homophobia can affect the quality of LGBT individuals‘ relationships with family, friends, and
others. Szymanski and Chung (2001) found a link between a higher level of internalized
homophobia and loneliness. Such internalized homophobia is also associated with less social
support in general, and less support specifically from other LGBT people (as a proportion of all
support received; Shidlo, 1994). These findings suggest that S5 may not have perceived

127

receiving support from other LGBT people, and therefore not have had other studs in her life to
serve as models and guides.
Learning to be “femme.” Femme participants did not describe being formally taught
how to be a femme or act feminine from other femmes. In general, the femme participants did
not specifically mention having femme friends or acquaintances that they confided in or went to
for advice about being femme. Only one femme mentioned receiving advice about engaging in
socially appropriate sexual behavior as a femme, and F1‘s mother, who also ―likes females,‖

11

taught F1 that ―real studs don‟t get oral sex from femmes.‖ When F1 was asked why she does not
like to give oral sex to studs, she ―kinda still do stick by‖ what her mother taught her. She also
mentioned that she talks to her mother when she confronts issues related to sex and sexuality.
Femmes did discuss learning how to act sexually from interacting with their stud sexual
partners. Femmes were taught to receive sexual pleasure from their sexual partner and to allow
studs to initiate the sexual activity. Learning theory suggests that behavior is shaped by
reinforcement and punishment (Mischel, 1966; Weitzman, 1979). Femmes described reinforcing
and punishing experiences in their sexual encounters, experiences which shaped their
understanding of acceptable sexual behavior.
Femme punishment. Femmes experience negative reactions if they act inappropriately
during sex, such as by touching their stud sexual partner. For example, F3 stated that she is afraid
to ask or suggest sexual behavior and described the precautions she takes during sex with a stud.
... I‟m like the person to be scared to say stuff because I don‟t know what they‟ll think or
what they‟ll say or they might disagree with it or somethin‟. So I just somehow like find a
way to rub on them, like touch, rub on they back. Touch where I know that it make them

11

F1‘s mother‘s sexual orientation and gender identity are unknown.
128

want to do something, so...Like, there are some studs that don‟t like to be touched. So a
femme gotta be to theyself. Touch theyself, be still, and all that. Can‟t touch on them, rub
on they chest and stuff like that. Make „em mad, then you just be over with (Femme, Age
17).
Each stud‘s comfort level with touch is unique. Some studs will receive oral sex and others will
not. Therefore, the femmes take a gamble if they venture to sexually arouse their stud partner by
touching them. Femmes learn to take a passive role during sex in order to avoid anger from their
stud partner and prevent the relationship from ending.
Two studs (S1 and S5) specifically mentioned ending a relationship with their girlfriends
because their girlfriends touched them too much or in places they were told not to touch during
sex. S1 said:
It was horrible, and she was too touchy-feely, I didn‟t like her touchin‟ me...She just kept
touching me, period. Touching my arms, trying to put her arm around me, trying to kiss
me, and I don‟t like that. I don‟t like when people touch me...I dumped her though ...After
she keep touching me. (Stud, Age 18)
S5 described a similar situation except S5 warned her girlfriend about not touching her before
engaging in the sexual acts. S5 mentioned:
...When this girl tried to finger me. Then she tried to insert her fingers, tried to penetrate
me, and I told her that I wasn‟t cool with that...Previously, before we had got started.
And, she tried to do it anyway and I told her to stop, and we ended up breakin‟ up. Cuz
she didn‟t want to be in my comfort zone (Stud, Age 20).
Femme reinforcement. Femmes covertly reinforce positive sexual interaction with their
stud partners. If a femme does not like what the stud has done to her, she will simply stop

129

reacting to it. Femmes might not state aloud what they like sexually, but they may physically
respond to a sexual touch in a certain way to discourage their partner from continuing or move
their body in a way to encourage their partner to touch them in a certain area. F2 described how
instead of telling her sexual partner what she likes, she will show her partner through
―movements.‖ She stated:
If we was like kissing, [and] I wanted her to like touch my vagina, I‟ll like slide, like
easily just take her hand, slide it down there and move it and then she‟ll continue with.
Basically, I‟ll do it. ... I don‟t say anything. I like movements. That‟s how I tell „em
(Femme, Age 20).
Femmes take sexual initiative and may communicate their sexual desires through more subtle
ways and through ways that are socially acceptable by stud-femme sexual norms.
Femme participants may be reticent about talking about sexual desires as a result of their
age as well as their gender. Research suggests that young people often avoid talking openly to
partners about sex and rely on deliberate miscommunication and ambiguity (Lear, 1995; Marston
& King, 2006). Young women in particular may refrain from mentioning sex or admitting sexual
desires (Lear, 1995; Tolman, 2002).
F2 and F6 mentioned that a femme can control sexual encounters by not reacting to a
partner‘s touch. F2 described stud-femme sexual interaction as
The stud would initiate [sex], but if the femme don‟t follow it, then you know there‟s
something wrong. So it‟s like 9 times out of 10, you already know what the femme gonna
follow and do, so [a stud‟s] not going to do the total opposite (Femme, Age 20).
F6 described through her own experience how even though the stud partner would initiate sex,
the femme can control whether or not sex happens.

130

I: And what does the femme do [during sex]?
F6: Um, I guess they follow along. They just roll with the flow....If she wants to have sex,
but if not, then no.
I: What do you mean no?
F6: It‟s not gonna happen. It‟s not goin‟ no further than us making out (Femme, Age 16).
F2 and F6 seemed to describe femmes as fitting the stereotype of females as ―sexual
gatekeepers‖ (Lott, 1987) who follow traditional sexual scripts. Studs take on the traditional
assertive male role while the femmes take on the traditional submissive female role. The women
respond to male sexual advance by guarding their sexuality. The femmes respond by receiving or
rejecting the sexual action rather than taking the active role (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1995; Kiefer
& Sanchez, 2007).
“Aggressive femmes.” Two femmes (F1 and F5) were more forthright with their sexual
needs than were other femmes. They went against the femme norm of being passive recipients of
sex and needing to be covert in getting their sexual desires met. F1 described how she discussed
sex with her girlfriend.
...I mean normally like when me and her first started talking about sex, we got to the
understanding that I don‟t give head or oral sex. I don‟t do it. And she basically was like,
“You don‟t have to. I don‟t need you to.” So I mean it‟s pretty much it comes down to,
everyone pretty much knows what‟s gonna happen. So.
I: So you talk about it beforehand?
F1: Yeah. Yeah. (Femme, Age 21)
F5 also takes a proactive approach by telling her sexual partners what she enjoys sexually before
having sex.

131

I: Okay, when are you comfortable telling women what you enjoy sexually?
F5: Either during sex, after sex, before sex. When we on the phone just talking, I tell
them… Before, before we have sex. Not like when we about to do it, but when we start
getting together and stuff like that, I ask questions about [what] you like. Or they ask me
what I like.
I: And when are you comfortable telling women what you‟re uncomfortable with during
sex?
F5: The same time. When I‟m telling what I like and don‟t like. I tell them. (Femme, Age
24)
Both F1 and F5, who take a proactive approach, also stated that they date both femmes
and studs which was different from the other femmes. In this study, most femmes dated only
studs. F1 described ―think[ing] more like a stud, but... act[ing] like a femme‖ (F1; Femme, Age
21). F1 and F5 each described themselves as being different from a typical femme, F1 stated:
I‟m different because I don‟t think like the normal femme...Femmes are emotional...And
they don‟t think straight. They think like girls...most of them are sensitive, emotional, and
all that other stuff. I‟m not like that. I‟m not an emotional crying type person. I‟m not
saying that I‟m not a soft person, but I‟m just not the normal femme. (Femme, Age 21)
F5 also stated that she does not act ―wishy washy‖ similar to a typical femme, and considers
herself to be more emotionally ―stable.‖ While F1 and F5 stated that they do not adhere to
typical femme norms, they both consider themselves to be femme because they both ―dress like a
girl‖ (F1; Femme, Age 21).
According to participants, it is socially acceptable for F5 and F1 to deviate from strict
femme norms because they fit the socially accepted description of ―aggressive femmes.‖

132

Aggressive femmes physically present as femme, such that ―an aggressive femme always dresses
like a girl‖ (St2; Stemme, age 19), however, has personality traits and behavior aligned with
typical stud demeanor. An aggressive femme is ―...kinda like a stud, but not. She like to do stuff
too. She like to give and receive. And she like sometimes play the role of the man of the
relationship, and sometimes want to be the female. That‟s the aggressive femme…Like acting
kinda tough, like she a man, but she not. But she act girly too sometimes. She act like a boy.
Sometimes, she‟ll wanna be mean and rough, and all that, and wanna play. Then she wanna be
all girly, „Don‟t touch me, I just got my hair done,‟ that‟s an aggressive femme‖ (F3; Femme,
Age 17).
One would think that because F1 and F5 self-identify as femme, but express stud
qualities in addition to femme, that they would be stemme. Though stemmes and aggressive
femmes are similar, there are some notable differences. For one, aggressive femmes do not
change their physical self-presentation; they always present as a feminine female no matter the
gender of their partner or the context. Aggressive femmes also do not change their behavior
based on their partners‘ gender identity. F5‘s behavior and physical expression remain consistent
regardless of the gender of her partner, which is different from that of stemmes, who oscillate
between stud and femme expressions. F1 did admit, however, that when she dates studs, she will
not give them oral sex (―I‟m okay with giving oral sex to a femme, but not to a stud‖). That was
the only difference she mentioned in her behavior when dating a stud or a femme.
Learning to be “stemme.” Stemmes did not describe being taught formally how to be a
stemme from other stemmes. None of the stemmes specifically mentioned interacting with other
stemmes. St1 did not identify as stemme, but was called a stemme by ―other women‖ and then
internalized the identity as she began to see how the identity fit. It is unknown who St1 is

133

referring to when she says ―other women,‖ and whether these women taught her how to be
stemme. Similarly, St2 was called a stemme by ―people‖ when she ―first came out.‖ She had
―always been that way [and]...didn‟t know that there was a title with it.‖ St3 did not mention any
socialization at all regarding her stemme identity. St4 ―thought [stemme] was something that
[she] thought of [her]self.‖ She did mention that when she ―first started comin‟ to [name of
LGBT Center] then [she] kinda got a more understanding of it, that there‟s other people that are
stemmes.‖ Stemmes‘ socialization into the stemme role may be related to their introduction to the
local sexual minority community, because people ascribed to them the label once they came out.
Once a person is ascribed a stemme label by others, she may find other people interact with her
given stemme expectations, thus reinforcing stemme-like behavior (Hogg & Reid, 2006).
Therefore, a stemme might learn stemme appropriate roles implicitly through interaction with
others. In addition, the stemme identity is inherently complex because a stemme could present as
femme or stud and be ascribed that identity instead of stemme. Other people thus could interact
with a stemme as she presents (if she could pass as ―true‖ stud or femme) without realizing that
she is a stemme, especially if the stemme does not disclose her identity. Future research could
explore stemme identity development and socialization in more depth.
Stemme participants described talking with their partner about sexual expectations before
having sex, so the partners learn from each other. Since according to stemme norms, stemmes
can play either a femme or stud role during sex, they negotiate their sexual role. Similar to F1
and F5, who typify ―aggressive femmes,‖ St1, St3, and St4 described having conversations with
their sexual partners about what they like and do not like during sex. St1 stated, ―I tell them
straightforward. I‟m not going to wait until they come down....I let everybody know. All my
girlfriends know what...I like and what I dislike‖ (Stemme, Age 18).

134

St4 described how she likes to be dominant during sex, but will let her girlfriend take
control when her girlfriend desires it. She stated,
Normally I‟m the dominant one, because I‟m the stemme, and she‟s the femme, [but] I let
her take control.. I let her use the strap...it‟s still um we both decide on what we gonna
do, but...We both agree on it before we act on it (Stemme, Age 17).
St4, while she would be more aggressive during sex because she is having sex with a femme,
would be willing to let her femme partner ―take control‖ and ―use the strap‖ on her.
St2, in contrast to the rest of the stemme participants, seemed to take more of the ―stud‖
role during sex. She stated that she tended to initiate sex with her partners and liked being ―the
aggressor‖ and liked when her partners ―just let [her] take charge.‖ She also did not mention
having conversations with her partners before having sex. She stated,
I‟m probably more the one to initiate it. But I can tell that they want me to initiate it... By
they body language, and by how they touch me, how they look at me, how they kiss me...
(Stemme, Age, 19)
She also stated that she would never ―receive intercourse with a strap.‖ Taking initiative, being
the aggressor in a relationship, and not liking to be penetrated are characteristics common for
studs. She did mention at the time of the interview that she was currently in a relationship, but
when asked more detailed questions regarding the relationship, she opted not to answer them. It
could be that she had dated femmes and was currently dating femmes; therefore, she was taking
on more of the stud role during sex, and had learned from her partners the expectations regarding
sexual behavior.
My original proposition regarding learning of lesbian gender norms needed to be
modified to fit the data. In general, only studs were socialized by other studs in how to enact

135

their gender. Analysis revealed that studs learned how to be a stud through interacting with
others in their community. The older studs taught the younger studs how they should behave
sexually. Studs also learned their role through interacting with older and more experienced
femme sexual partners. Femme participants did not describe being taught how to be a femme or
act feminine from other femmes. In addition, stemmes did not mention being taught how to be
stemme from other stemmes. Instead of directly learning how to enact their gender, participants
may pair what society deems as feminine/female with the femme role, and masculine/male with
stud role. They may have learned this outside of the gay community. The specific behavior that
stud participants learned from the lesbian community had to deal with gender in terms of
negotiating sex with a woman, and not necessarily how to enact gender outside of sex (see Table
II).
In addition to learning from other studs, studs may have learned about what masculinity
entails from males in their life. Only one stud (S2; Stud, Age 19), directly mentioned learning
how to be masculine from boys. She stated, ―My cousins, I would say they taught me a lot about
boys-- Boys‟ things.‖ She did not mention exactly what she was taught, however. Two studs (S3
and S5) mentioned interacting with boys. During childhood, S3 ―played football in the back with
the boys...‖ S5 stated that she prefers male company. She also said,
―I play basketball with guys. I play cards with guys. I gamble with „em. I talk to „em. I
hang out with „em. It‟s like since I do a lot of things that a guy does, it‟s easy for me to
get along with them” (Stud, Age 20).
Another stud (S4) did not mention preferring males to ―hang out with,‖ but did state that she
“really don‟t have that much female friends,‖ which could imply that her friends were
predominately male or other studs whom she does not consider female. One stud participant (S1)

136

did not mention interacting with males, but she was also the participant who desired having
genital reconstruction surgery, yet wanted to become pregnant in the future. She may not have
been certain of her stud identity.
Even though most stud participants did not discuss being taught how to be ―boys,‖ they
interacted with males and through this interaction may have learned to associate certain attributes
with being masculine. According to gender schema theory (Bem, 1981), stud participants could
apply what they associate with masculinity to themselves because studs possess masculine
characteristics. Studs then become motivated to regulate their behavior to align and conform to
cultural definitions of masculinity. This process mirrors how studs learn from watching other
studs (as previously described).
In general, stemmes did not mention anything that would imply how they learned about
what characteristics were feminine or masculine. Only one stemme (St4) attributed learning her
masculine and tomboy qualities from her older brother. She stated:
I had more tomboy qualities than female qualities because my mom worked a lot so my
big brother raised me. So I would dress as he did. And be up under him a lot (Stemme,
Age 17).
In contrast, femme participants did not mention interacting with more females or
specifically learning to be feminine. While this shortage of information may be due to a lack of
probing by the interviewer, it could also be data in itself. ―Silences have meaning, too. ... Absent
sounds may, at times, reflect active signals—of meanings, boundaries, and rules‖ (Devault, 1990
as cited in Charmaz, 2002, p. 303). In general, women may not be cognizant of how they were
socialized to be ―feminine.‖ From infancy, individuals are socialized into their gender roles
through interaction with their parents and the media (Ruble, Martin, & Berenbaum, 2006).

137

Femme women possess stereotypical feminine qualities and their biological sex aligns with their
gender. People see them as female and interact with them as if they were female. Their everyday
interactions reinforce their femme gender; therefore, there is less need to actively learn about
femininity. They are implicitly learning it. Their gender is not as challenged as that of studs
because their biological sex matches their gender expression which matches their socialization.
Stemmes also were not taught formally by other stemmes how to be stemme. As analysis
revealed, stemmes enact both masculine and feminine characteristics and can play both stud and
femme roles. Therefore, stemmes at some level needed to learn about how to be feminine and
masculine. Past research on Black young women suggests gender roles may be less limiting and
restrictive than for White young women (Ashcraft & Belgrave, 2005; Collins, 2009) due to
consequences created by racism and discrimination (Dade & Sloan, 2000). Research also
suggests that young Black women tend to endorse highly masculine and feminine characteristics
(Buckley & Carter, 2005). The stemme participants in this study may have endorsed both high
level masculine and feminine characteristics on a gender scale. Stemmes may embody a more
prototypical expression of Black female gender than do those who favor gender extreme
expression. Their stemme gender expression may be only one way that some lesbian young
Black women enact their masculine and feminine characteristics. Future research could
investigate this further.
In general, studs and femmes learned gender norms regarding sexual behavior from
inside the lesbian and gay community. Their community, however, is embedded within a larger
society. Participants could also have learned gender norms from outside the gay community and
applied them to their lesbian gender.

138

Intersectionality posits that identities influence one another and that they work in
conjunction. That is to say that participants‘ lesbian gender identity and expression may be
impacted by their racial identity and socioeconomic status. Their lesbian gender identity cannot
be explained in isolation without taking into consideration the influences from other identities. It
is noteworthy that when participants were asked directly about the messages they received from
the Black community regarding sexuality issues, most participants could not articulate how this
occurred. They deferred or did not respond to the question. The impact of their race and
socioeconomic status may influence their lesbian gender expression, but in ways that these
participants could not articualte. Participants are embedded within a community that is
predominately Black and poor. Therefore, how their racial identity and socioeconomic status
impacts their sexuality and lesbian gender expression may not be obvious to them. Everyone
around them is like them, so there is not necessarily a diversity of immediately available groups
to compare their experiences against in order to bring about reflection on how their race and
socioeconomic status affects their gender expression.
Femmes, as previously discussed, adhere to traditional feminine roles in relationships by
appearing physically feminine (e.g., long hair, nails manicured, etc.), birthing and nurturing
children, and taking on the role of ―wife.‖ These enacted characteristics may be influenced by
their racial identity and socioeconomic status. Femmes may reflect femininity similar to others of
their same racial and socioeconomic status. Therefore, it becomes important to examine how
femme characteristics are similar or different from their heterosexual Black peers.
The femme participants seemed to enact a relationship script similar to that of young
adult Black women. Bowleg, Lucas and Tschann (2004) conducted semi-structured qualitative
interviews with young adult, heterosexual, African-American women of lower to middle income,

139

concerning sex, health, and relationship issues in African-American communities. They found
that the women endorsed three dominant interpersonal relationship scripts. The first script, ―men
control relationships,‖ included traditional heterosexual relationship norms in which men must
be the dominant household figure and have authority over finances, major decisions, social
activities, and most aspects of relationships. The male partner controlled the relationship in terms
of monitoring women‘s whereabouts, granting or denying permission to socialize with others,
regulating access to spending money, and restricting women‘s decision-making about household
affairs. The second script, ―women sustain relationships,‖ included the women being tolerant of
having emotionally distant partners, workaholic partners, emotionally or verbally abusive
partners, and partners who have sex with other women. These women privilege their partners‘
need to have sex above their own, and deescalate conflict through self-silencing or acceding to
partners‘ demands. The third script, ―infidelity is normative,‖ involved a permissive attitude
about infidelity in general. Bowleg and colleagues also reported one dominant sexual script,
―men control sexual activity,‖ which meant that the male partners were more likely to initiate or
control sexual activities (e.g., initiating sex, deciding sexual positions, and deciding sexual
frequency).
The three relationship scripts and the one sexual script as described by Bowleg et al.
(2004) were reflected in the femme-stud relationship dynamic norm. For example, studs
exemplify the first script, ―men control relationships.‖ Studs have authority over finances, major
decisions, and most aspects of relationships. ―The stud is the one that‟s dominant in the
relationship...” (S5; Stud, Age 20). They also control the relationship in terms of monitoring
women‘s whereabouts (―I really check my mate, you know?...„Where have you been?‟” [S3;
Stud, Age 24]). Studs make decisions regarding household affairs. ―The stud role [is] the

140

decision maker. I come with all these ideas and she say „well yea that sound like a good one‟...”
(F2; Femme, Age 20).
Femmes fulfill the second script, ―women sustain relationships.‖ Femmes are seen as
―emotional,‖ while studs seem to be devoid of emotions and emotionally distant.
“You give sympathy if the other person needs it, that‟s pretty much what a femme does...
Like, sympathy? Like [if studs] want to talk, they have multiple problems, the femme is
there to help.‖ (St4; Stemme, Age 17)
In addition, participants (especially studs) seemed nonchalant about having concurrent
sexual partners typifying the script, ―infidelity is normative.‖ For example, S2 stated,“...I‟m her
girlfriend. I let her think that...Yeah, but I‟m single to me. And the rest of the girls [giggles]‖
(Stud, Age 19)
Studs also initiate and control the sexual activity when having sex with femmes, fulfilling
the one dominant sexual script that Bowleg and colleagues (2004) revealed, ―men control sexual
activity.‖ The stud is “supposed to be doing all the humpin‟‖ (S2; Stud, Age 19). Therefore,
stud-femme relationship dynamics seem to mirror the dynamics of male-female heterosexual
relationships of young adult women of a similar socioeconomic status. Even though sexual
minority women date other women, they are not immune from the societal effects that
accompany being Black and young. Thus, they are taught their gender role implicitly through
interacting with peers.
Studs, in contrast, seem particularly influenced by Black male heterosexual gender norms
and expressions. According to Collins (2005), young Black men demonstrate masculinity by
being aggressive, tough, and street smart. Sexual prowess also has become an important marker
of Black masculinity. In addition to being aggressive and sexually dominant, some young Black

141

men in the United States are socialized to believe that showing emotions equals weakness or
femininity. When young Black men show emotion, their masculinity becomes questioned;
therefore, they refrain from showing emotion. Some Black men have internalized this idea of
manhood and masculinity, thus Black men are not expected to have or want to share their
feelings (Wallace, 2007). This also may be true for studs, as demonstrated through their ―player‖
mentality and hypermasculine attitude and behavior.
Three a priori propositions were modified through the analysis process, and one
originated from data and subsequent analyses. Results revealed that regarding lesbian gender
identity development, Black adolescent femmes and studs self-identify as their respective gender
identity and their sexual orientation at the same time. Black adolescent stemmes self-identify as
their sexual orientation identity before their gender identity. Studs and stemmes begin to express
increased masculine traits right after self-identifying, but do not physically become males.
Femmes express the same level of femininity before and after self-identifying; however, lesbian
gender and sexual orientation identities are fluid and do change over time. The women who do
not integrate a gender or sexual orientation identity into their concept of self continue to explore
identities and resist a gender and/or sexual orientation minority identity. In addition, results
revealed that each lesbian gender identity group uses other relevant groups for comparison. Studs
use males as a reference group for comparison on how they would like to be in terms of
appearance and behavior, and use females for how they would not like to be. Stemmes use males
and females for comparison; however, their frame of reference changes based on context (e.g.,
mood state and relationships). In romantic relationships, stemmes use the lesbian gender of their
partner for relevant comparison and adopt the opposing gender (i.e., femme with stud; stud with
femme). They also do not enact extreme feminine and masculine appearance and behavior. In

142

contrast, femmes use females as a reference group for comparison on how to appear, and use
studs for how not to appear. Studs, femmes, and stemmes do not follow biological and
heteronormative male and female gender standards for sexual pleasure. Studs oppose traditional
―male‖ standards by prioritizing their sexual partner‘s sexual pleasure over their own; femmes
are perceived by studs as being sexual beings and are primary recipients of sexual pleasure. The
results also discussed how each group learns (or does not learn) how to enact their gender. A stud
learns how to be a stud through interacting with others in their community. The older studs teach
the younger studs how they should behave sexually. Studs also learn their role through
interacting with older and more experienced femme sexual partners. Femmes do not learn to be
femme or act feminine from other femmes. Stemmes are not taught how to be stemme from other
stemmes. Looking outside the lesbian community, young Black lesbian women reflect the gender
norms of their heterosexual counterparts. Femmes and stemmes reflect young Black female
gender norms, and studs reflect young Black male gender norms.

143

CHAPTER 4
Discussion
This study investigated lesbian gender identity development and norms among young
Black sexual minority women of low socioeconomic status. Through modified Analytic
Induction I examined lesbian gender development, lesbian gender roles, and how these structure
romantic and sexual relationships. I then explored the community context in which these young
women develop their identity and enact their roles. This is the first known study to explore the
lesbian gender of this population of women as well as to identify and empirically describe the
stemme gender.
Lesbian Gender Identity Development
Identity internalization is a key process in social group formation (Tajfel & Turner,
1986); therefore, understanding how studs, femmes, and stemmes develop and internalize their
lesbian gender identity provides insight into how these women come to view themselves as part
of a social group. The sexual orientation and gender identity development trajectories varied
among the women; stud and femme participants tended to self-identity as their sexual orientation
and gender synchronously. Among these women, lesbian gender identity often implied being
sexual minority or engaging in same-sex sexual behavior, meaning that gender was often the
means by which lesbian or gay identity was labeled and expressed. Synchronous gender and
sexual orientation identity may reflect these young women‘s generational status within the larger
LGBTQ community. Other studies suggest that older cohorts of lesbians often formed these
identities asynchronously (e.g., Hiestand & Levitt, 2005 and Levitt, Gerrish, & Hiestand, (2003).
The upcoming cohort of young sexual minority women may use a gender identity instead of a
sexual orientation identity to connote their same-sex attraction and behavior. Lesbian gender
144

identity may play an increasingly important role in understanding the experience of young sexual
minority women.
Diamond (1998; 2000) suggests that lesbian identity is fluid. Consistent with her
assertion, though the majority of participants seemed certain of their sexual minority and gender
identity at the time of the interview, a few participants reported having had different identities at
various points in their lives. The switching principally related to gender and not to sexual
minority identification. A minority of women reported moving from one gender identity to
another at various points in time, typically progressing from a feminine identity toward a more
masculine identity. Because a sexual minority identity is more permissive of masculinity in
women, opportunities for gender exploration were opened to these women once they had selfidentified as stud. In addition, while participants often equated their lesbian gender identity with
sexual minority identity, they may not be entirely merged. For the participants who switched
genders, their sexual minority identity remained constant. Future research could look at the
intersection of these two identities more in depth to see how they impact each other. For
example, if a woman switches from lesbian to bisexual identity, does her gender remain
constant? Are there patterns to the gender and sexual orientation variability?
Gender Development Theories
Theoretically, all participants should be similar in gender expression because all were
biologically female and should have internalized characteristics associated with ―women‖ as they
matured. Femmes and stemmes (when enacting femme) seemed to have internalized a female
―feminine‖ identity, but the studs did not. They internalized characteristics associated with
masculinity and ―men.‖ Gender development theories also seem to assume a gender constancy
which (as described above) was not the experience of some of the participants because their

145

gender identity changed over time. Furthermore, traditional theories assume a gender expression
that does not change based on context; therefore, they do not account for the stemme experience
adequately.
Learning theory (e.g., direct reinforcement and modeling; Mischel, 1966; Weitzman,
1979) was useful in understanding how studs and femmes learned their role once they selfidentified. Studs described receiving direct mentorship from other studs and older femme sexual
partners. All participants described learning appropriate gender roles through less direct and less
formal methods such as through punishment and reinforcement. With a stud being mentored by
both another stud and an older femme, the stud directly learns socially appropriate gender norms.
Through this interaction, studs learn what it means to be stud, but also what it means to be
femme, and how to sexually engage with a femme partner. It is noteworthy that, through
learning from the femme partner, the femme gender role may also be reinforced. By teaching the
stud, the femme not only directly teaches the stud how to be stud, but also implicitly teaches the
stud the appropriate role behavior for a femme. Therefore, the stud learning from the older
femme not only takes what she learns about being stud, but also takes what it means to be
femme, and transfers this knowledge to her future sexual relationships. Thus, such a stud, when
subsequently engaging sexually with a femme partner, will reinforce femme appropriate
behavior and punish inappropriate acts. Therefore, femmes learn appropriate femme behavior
through punishment and reinforcement by their stud partner, but once learned may also reinforce
their role through mentoring younger studs. Additionally, data suggested that in general, studs,
femmes, and stemmes learn appropriate gender mores through identity policing. The community
reacts disparagingly toward women of ambiguous identities (e.g., bisexuals and stemmes).
Bisexuals and stemmes were received with animosity making it known throughout the

146

community that those identities were not valued or acceptable. Participants also described how
acting outside of the rigid gender norms was unacceptable, such as when a stud becomes
pregnant. A pregnant stud‘s physical safety in the community could be threatened. These
interactions create dynamic systems of learning – directly and indirectly.
Minority Stress Theory
Context can facilitate or create barriers to identity achievement (Adams & Marshall,
1996; Beyers, 2008; Kroger, 2000; Smetana et al., 2006; Solomontos-Kountouri & Hurry, 2008;
Yoder, 2000). For minorities, an important aspect of context that bears on identity is the degree
to which they encounter minority stressors in their environment. Minority stress is the
psychosocial stress based on being a member of a minority group that is stigmatized and
marginalized (Meyer, 2003). Black lesbian young women are at risk for homophobic or
heterosexist, racist, and sexist societal messages, which are all forms of minority stress. Research
suggests that higher levels of internalized homophobia are more pronounced early in the comingout process, and lead to less self-disclosure of sexual orientation to others, and more difficulties
with various aspects of the coming-out process. Internalized homophobia also is associated with
negative health outcomes, such as lower self esteem, psychosocial distress (e.g. demoralization,
loneliness and guilt), depression, and lower social support (Szymanski, Kashubeck-West, &
Meyer, 2008). Young people struggling with internalized homophobia are at risk for negative
mental health outcomes. Internalized homophobia and its negative outcomes may make it
increasingly difficult to develop into a healthy adult. Meyer, Schwartz, and Frost (2008) found
that Black and Latino sexual minority people experience greater stressors, but have less support
and resources than White LGB and heterosexual people. In this dissertation study, all
participants endorsed experiencing heterocentric or more overt homophobic remarks and

147

attitudes (Reed, 2010), and three gave evidence of having these messages impact their identity
development negatively. This is consistent with the understanding of minority stress on identity;
however, the majority of participants did not mention it as a significant factor in their sexual
minority or gender identity development processes. It could be that they endure other negative
ramifications of minority stress, but did not mention it in the interview, or it could be that they
have resilience factors protecting them from minority stresses‘ negative impact.
Greene (1994a) theorized that ethnic minority lesbians harbor resources and resiliencies
honed from a lifetime of racism and sexism which allow them to cope better than White lesbians
with sexual minority oppression. Bowleg, Huang, Brooks, Black, and Burkholder (2003)
conducted qualitative interviews with educated Black women between 26 and 68 years old and
found that while participants discussed significant stressors as a result of their minority statuses,
they also endorsed six predictors of resilience. Additionally, resilience may be one reason that
LGB people of color do not have more mental disorders than LGB Whites (Meyer, 2010). Thus,
the participants in this dissertation study may have the ability to ward off potential negative
outcomes from a homophobic environment. Therefore, it is possible that the participants whose
sexual minority identity development did not seem affected by homophobic or heterocentric
messages may have had resiliencies buffering the impact of the negative messages. Indeed,
research does support that the participants enacted strategies that assisted in buffering against the
negative repercussions of receiving heterosexist messages.
Reed and Valenti (in press) specifically explored the resilient factors apparent in these
young women‘s lives. They found that participants cognitively reconstruct the heterosexist
messages as well as engage behavioral management strategies (e.g., femmes passing as
heterosexual) as mechanisms of self-preservation. Self-selected families within the gay

148

community also provided social support for some of these women. In addition, participants
mentioned having verbally and physically defended themselves in the face of isolated instances
of sexual prejudice. Therefore, even though these women face various forms of oppression, they
have protective elements in their lives that help shield them from suffering the negative effects of
sexual minority stress.
The Stemme Gender Identity
Currently, research suggests that other lesbian gender identities do exist beyond
stud/butch and femme (e.g., androgyny, Loulan & Thomas, 1990); however, these identities are
not apt descriptions of stemmes. One similar lesbian gender to stemmes was what Moore (2006)
described as ―gender-blenders.‖ Gender-blenders combine specific aspects of men and women‘s
clothing such as baggy men‘s pants and tight women‘s shirts, and date feminine-looking women.
Like stemmes, gender-blenders are outside the stud-femme dichotomy and incorporate both men
and women‘s aesthetics. Unlike stemmes, the gender-bender‘s gender presentation does not
change. Stemmes, by contrast, vary their gender presentation with the context, but their identity
remains stable. That their gender expression changes, but their identity remains constant makes
stemmes unique among the lesbian identities examined in prior research. This suggests that other
lesbian genders besides stud (or butch) and femme exist. It also suggests that lesbian gender (and
perhaps gender in general) is more fluid than previously conceptualized.
One may question why stemmes do not present as androgynous instead of switching back
and forth between femme and stud, especially because they are comfortable with expressing both
masculine and feminine gender characteristics. If stemmes were androgynous, they would be
able to integrate their masculinity and femininity into one gender expression. Two possible
explanations for why androgyny is not valued in this community are related to the historical and

149

physical context. For one, all participants identified as Black and live in a location where the
majority of people are Black (over 90%; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). This area of the country
also was said to experience ―White flight‖ during the 1970s (Farley, Steeh, Krysan, Jackson, &
Reeves, 1994) -- the same time period of the feminist movement that instigated the androgyny
movement within the feminist lesbian community. Therefore, perhaps racial tensions made it
such that the feminist movement did not reach this community. As Moore (2006) suggests, the
androgynous movement among lesbians was fueled by the feminist movement, which was seen
as a White women‘s movement. In addition, predating the feminist movement was the existence
of the ―ki-ki‖ gender among lesbians. The ―kiki‖ gender expression is similar to stemmes‘
gender expression. Because this community may not have experienced the feminist movement,
the ―ki-ki‖ gender might not have disappeared from this community. It just might have been
renamed. Second, participants live in an unsafe environment where violent acts such as murder
and robbery occur. Perhaps switching between femme and stud is protective. If a person is
femme, they can blend in as a heterosexual woman; if they present as a stud they may be able to
pass as a man or a tough woman on the streets. They may attract less attention to themselves than
if they enacted an ambiguous gender expression. Additionally, as the study results elucidated,
stemmes are received negatively within the lesbian community; therefore, presenting as stud or
femme makes them able to hide their stemme identity and thus shields them from unwanted
negativity.
The stemme (or ―ki-ki‖) identity undermines the stud-femme dynamic. The stemme
identity may even be more threatening than gender-blenders or other genders outside the studfemme dyad. Gender- blenders have their own look, their own style, and date primarily feminine
women. In theory, they would be particularly threatening to studs because of their competing

150

interest in feminine women. Stemmes, on the other hand, trespass into stud and femme
―territories.‖ They enact roles and presentations particular to stud and femme. Through stemmes
being able to successfully enact a femme or stud role at different times, it brings those two
disparate identities into a superficial level – into role-playing. Role-playing seems artificial, fake,
or pretend. Given the essentialist way in which this community considers gender, stemmes, in
essence, strip the validity from a stud or femme identity.
Participants (especially studs) perceived stemmes as being ―confused‖ and that stemmes
needed to choose either a stud or femme identity. One may question the stability of a stemme
identity because stemmes‘ gender expression is fluid. The stemme identity may be seen as a
stepping stone to either femme or stud identity. If this were true however, the majority of
femmes and studs would have mentioned cycling through a stemme identity before committing
to stud or femme identity. This was not the case for the majority of participants.
The stereotype of stemme as not being a stable identity is reminiscent of the stereotype of
bisexuals. Bisexual women are open to having relationships with men or women and do not
exclude people as prospective partners based on gender (Berenson, 2002; Rust, 1993).
Historically bisexuals have been rejected from the greater lesbian community as well as the
general public (Ochs, 1996). Bisexuals are seen as a ―personal, social, and political threat‖ to
lesbians (Rust, 1992, p. 368). They also are sometimes accused of being ―fence sitters‖ or
perceived by others to be ―confused‖ (Ross, Dobinson, & Eady, 2010). Bisexuality is also
perceived as an unstable or transitional identity where bisexuals supposedly need to eventually
choose between a heterosexual or lesbian identity (Chapman & Brannock, 1987). This is similar
to how stemmes are perceived among the participants. Whereas bisexuals may experience

151

biphobia (Eliason, 1996), stemmes may be experiencing something similar (―stemme-phobia‖
perhaps).
The stemme identity challenges the essentialist notion of femme and stud. Stemmes
enactment of both stud and femme traits suggest that boundaries between stud and femme groups
are permeable. It is this awareness of permeability that is the primary basis for the view of
stemmes as an identity threat. Stemmes threaten the basic stud-femme power dynamic. If gender
boundaries are permeable, the power studs attain through their gender is also permeable. If studs
could truly be more ―feminine,‖ and femmes more ―masculine‖ and each still be studs and
femmes, then studs can no longer claim power rests on their exclusive claim to masculinity. The
studs‘ exclusive authority in a relationship and in the community no longer has a basis.
Stemmes not only challenge stud and femme identity, but also hierarchical Western
binary thinking and logic (Ochs, 1996). Historically and culturally, any group that resides outside
of oppositional categories is subject to boundary policing. For example, parents of a child born
with a penis and vagina (intersexed) are often persuaded by doctors to chose a gender for their
child (Nagle, 1995). Biracial people breaking the black-white binary were (and still are) often
called racial slurs or told that they are not ―Black‖ enough or ―White‖ enough (Myers &
Williamson, 2001). Therefore, stemmes because they do not fit within the categories of stud or
femme are perceived negatively, and consequently met with suspicion and hostility. They do not
fit within the imperative stud-femme binary.
Social Identity Theory (SIT) and Self-Categorization Theory (SCT)
SIT (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and SCT (Turner et al., 1987) provide a reasonably cogent
explanation of how the lesbian gender identities emerge and become a collective group identity;
however, these theories are less successful in explaining the intricacies of a stemme identity.

152

Through identity development, femmes and studs integrated their lesbian gender into their selfconcept. Studs incorporate heteronormative biological male characteristics and renounce female
traits. Femmes assimilate traditional female traits and reject stereotypical stud characteristics.
SCT (Turner et al., 1987) posits that people depersonalize (move from defining oneself as an
individual to defining her/himself as part of a social identity group) and collective group
behavior emerges. A femme, for example, begins to think, feel, behave, and self-define in terms
of femme norms rather than idiosyncratically. She then becomes femme psychologically and is
motivated to enact femme group norms. The process for studs is the same.
Stemmes integrate both male and female characteristics; but, enact corresponding traits
determined by context and desire. Stemme, in essence, is an identity of resistance largely at the
individual level to the rigid dichotomy of stud-femme. For stemmes, both studs and femmes are
considered the ―outgroup‖ at all times in term of identity labels. Yet simultaneously, femme or
stud may be the ―outgroup‖ or ―ingroup‖ when it comes to momentary gender expression. This
also implies that stemmes do not have a relevant ‗in-group‘ because no one is visibly
recognizable (at any given time) as a stemme. They cannot mobilize or learn codes of behaviors
from one another when this is the case. SIT functions well when there are two opposing
identities, but once a third is introduced it falters. According to SIT, stemmes would need to
switch identities where their gender expression and identity align. SIT may need to be expanded
to allow for context dependent identities (Molinsky, 2007).
SIT provides an overly simplistic view of the notion of relevant comparison. Paradoxes
were elucidated in the findings. For example, the femme role is one in which the stud leads;
however, stud participants mentioned being taught how to please women sexually and being
taken care of by older femmes. This violates socially acceptable norms according to participants.

153

A stud should be sexually dominant and in control. The community has a way of policing
transgressions to maintain categorical boundaries (Walker, 1993). The degree of transgression
may be important, however. Some ―transgressions‖ were more socially acceptable than others.
For example, ―aggressive femmes‖ would be socially accepted whereas a pregnant stud would
not. These ―exceptions to the rules‖ are socially negotiated suggesting that categorical
boundaries may not be as rigid as assumed. The boundaries may be negotiated, defined, and
(re)produced through social interaction inside the community (Nagel, 1994). It is acceptable for a
young stud to go outside stud norms by allowing a femme to teach her about sex because of the
stud‘s young age. It is unacceptable for a grown stud to become pregnant because she breaks too
many stud rules in doing so (Reed, Miller, Timm, & Valenti, in press). These rules are
continually negotiated within the community. Each community rule may be different; thus, what
―exceptions‖ are allowed in the participant‘s community may be different than what are allowed
in similar communities. These nuanced identity rules and norms are not considered or explained
using SIT.
Intersectionality Theory
Intersectionality theory posits that each identity informs another (Crenshaw, 1993); from
this it follows that the specific reality of young Black lesbian women of low socioeconomic
status is distinguished from the realities of albeit similar populations (e.g., older Black lesbians,
young White lesbians, young Black heterosexual women). Analyses suggested areas of
convergence and divergence of experience with similar populations. As was the case with White
butches (Hiestand & Levitt, 2005), stud participants in our study mentioned having a stud mentor
who taught them how to be stud. Unlike White butches however, the stud participants endorsed
hypermasculine tendencies. Moreover, the femme participants, who stated that they looked like

154

heterosexual women, which is consistent to what was already known about White femme women
(Levitt et al., 2003), often conformed to a very traditional female role. In addition, femme
participants enacted femininity similar to their heterosexual female peers, whereas stud
participants enacted masculinity similar to their male peers. Unlike their heterosexual peers,
however, the participants were attracted to, dated, and engaged in sex with same-sex partners,
and personally experienced homonegativity. Intersectionality theory is relevant, salient, and
applicable to this study because otherwise, to try to simply infer participants‘ experiences from
somewhat similar populations would prove inadequate and pertinent information would be lost.
For example, information regarding the stemme identity of young Black lesbians of low
socioeconomic status would be lacking if researchers only focused on a White lesbian
population. The hypermasculine nature of young Black lesbian studs of low socioeconomic
status might have been lost if the research only studied lesbians of a high socio-economic status.
The impact of experiencing homonegativity would be unfathomed if research addressed only
young Black heterosexual women of a low socioeconomic status. The experiences of young
Black lesbian women of low socioeconomic status are unique, and intersectionality theory is a
useful and relevant tool for studying this population.
Since intersectionality theory holds that each identity informs another, this means that
each participant experiences and makes sense of her lesbian gender identity through the lens of
her respective other social identities. One‘s lesbian gender identity is tied to and influenced by
one‘s other identities. In this way, each participant‘s gender expression would be influenced by
her race and socioeconomic status. Femme participants reflected some norms similar to young
Black heterosexual women of low socioeconomic status (e.g., traditional role in relationships,
and being permissive of partner transgressions), whereas stud participants reflected some norms

155

enacted by young Black heterosexual men of low socioeconomic status (e.g., ―cool pose‖
masculinity, and ―player‖ mentality). In such ways did participants‘ other identities influence
their lesbian gender identity expression.
One may wonder why these young Black lesbian women of low socioeconomic status
chose their lesbian gender identity to distinguish themselves, instead of their other identities. As
stated previously, participants are embedded within a fairly homogenous community where race
and socioeconomic status are the similar for all. In general, people belong to many social
categories, and a person will access a specific social identity as a function of that identity‘s
salience in a particular social context (Deaux & Major, 1987; Oakes, 1987). Depending on the
context, a person will choose what category to subscribe to based on a comparison of which
category fits best in that social context (Ros, Huici, & Gomez, 2000). Participants were recruited
from an LGBT community-based organization where their sexual orientation identity was
accepted and almost all people utilizing their services, as well as the staff, are LGBT. Therefore,
in this context, a participant‘s lesbian gender identity would have been particularly salient.
Gender Rigidity & Paradoxes
In these data, a pattern of strict gender roles and role enforcement was clearly evident.
Participants really felt themselves to be masculine (―stud‖) and feminine (―femme‖). The rigidity
and policing of their identities, however, hints that this is not always the case. The strict gender
rules and their enactment at times were not always aligned. It may be that at some level the
femmes really are ―feminine‖ and the studs, ―masculine,‖ but the genders are pulled to the
extreme.
Studs. Studs seemed to have internalized some stereotypically conventional Black
masculine attributes. Hypermasculinity is one strategy that Black male youth use to negotiate

156

race-related stress and other perceived stress (Cassidy & Stevenson, 2005; Swanson,
Cunningham, & Spencer, 2003). Black males learn from a young age that having a tough exterior
makes it easier to avoid threats or attacks. The intensified masculine behavior may also be an
attempt to create the impression of toughness or noncompliance; using hypermasculinity as a
mask for hiding true feelings. Often hypermasculine reactions are attempts to preserve self-worth
and self-respect (Cassidy & Stevenson, 2005). This is similar to Black men‘s use of ―cool pose‖
(Majors & Billson, 1993). ―Coolness‖ is also a valued trait among some adolescents (Iwamoto,
2003). Therefore, it could be that studs‘ hypermasculinity is used to give the impression of
―toughness.‖ They might be able to ward off any threatening situations or attacks by appearing
―strong.‖ Theoretically, studs have society related stress through their sexual minority status,
their gender non-conformity, and their racial minority status. Studs may use hypermasculinity to
counteract and protect themselves against these stresses.
On the outside, studs appear impenetrable, but on the inside they can be vulnerable. Studs
can (as results revealed) let an older femme partner take the lead during sex. In Levitt and
Hiestand‘s (2004) research with older White butches, they found that some butches allowed
themselves to be more feminine with their partners. They were able to enact deliberate gender
performances to suit interpersonal interactions. Butches also reported struggling to reconcile
their tough exterior with a more sensitive caring side - finding a balance between being social,
sexual, physical, and emotional that felt comfortable. It could be that due to the young age of the
studs‘ in this dissertation research, the studs are still finding that ―balance.‖ They are still
figuring out how to enact different aspects of their gender. They enact extreme masculinity
because they are still figuring out how to integrate masculinity into their sense of self. As they

157

get older, they may endorse less extreme (but still masculine) characteristics once a ―balance‖ is
reached.
Femmes. Additionally, femmes enacted traditional feminine characteristics. The femmes
may heighten their femininity to contrast the stud‘s masculinity. According to Levitt et al.
(2003), older White femme women heighten their femme qualities during sex. They may caress
body parts common to both men and women (e.g., shoulders, arms) to make touch more
comfortable for the butch. They also reported not knowing always how to please their partners
sexually without making them feel too feminine. Many femmes consciously allowed their butch
partners to claim symbols of power that affirmed the butches‘ marginalized gender identity.
These past research findings suggest it could be that the femme participants in this dissertation
study were heightening their femme qualities to counterbalance the studs‘ masculinity.
Moreover, femme‘s enactment of traditional gender roles may be influenced by their
socioeconomic status. Hill (2002) discovered that Black mothers from a low socioeconomic
status espoused traditional gender roles in the family while continuing to encourage less
traditional career aspirations. Femme participants could have been socialized by their mothers to
maintain a traditional role in the family. Another study with minority, economically
disadvantaged girls found that rejection sensitivity was related to willingness to do things they
would not normally do in order to maintain a relationship (Purdie & Downey, 2000). Therefore,
femmes in this study may have been ―rejection sensitive‖ and may have enhanced their feminine
qualities in order to keep a relationship and abide by stud-femme sanctions.
Advantages & Disadvantages of Gender Rigidity
Lesbian gender identity provides structure. Strict gender guidelines may provide stability
and predictability in a potentially dangerous environment. The results hinted that participants‘

158

context influenced gender enactment. These gender enactments serve a function. There are pros
and cons of emerging into adulthood in the context of strict gendered rules however.
Advantages. Studs looking, acting, and being mistaken for men may protect them from
assaults due to their gender non-conformity or sexuality. If people interpret them as men on the
streets, they may be able to blend in to the environment instead of standing out for being a
―manly‖ woman. They attract less attention and are able to avoid possible harassment that might
accompany having their gender not align with their biological sex. In addition, because
participants were sometimes homeless or involved in unsafe conditions, being seen as a man
might be advantageous. It might be better to be seen as a man walking alone in a dangerous
neighborhood instead of a woman. Perhaps people would be less likely to harass or take
advantage of a ―man.‖
In contrast, femmes may be able to maintain their relationships with stud partners
because of heightening their femininity. They could make their stud partner feel more masculine
and powerful. If femmes are able to maintain stud relationships, they may receive the benefits of
protection given by the stud, as well as financial benefits if the stud has a job and can help
provide for the family. According to Wingood and DiClemente (2000), unemployment or
underemployment may force some women to surrender to the wishes of their partner in order to
avoid financial instability. Therefore, they may enact a more feminine traditional role in a
relationship with a stud because it may make the stud feel more powerful and validated in the
masculine role. In addition, looking traditionally masculine and feminine as a couple may be
advantageous. If stud-femme couples are seen on the street, they may be mistaken for
heterosexual couples which could therefore limit harassment and other negativity that
accompany living in a heterosexist and homophobic society. Historically, this was especially true

159

during bar raids that occurred pre-Stonewall. It served couples well to look like heterosexual
couples because they avoided discrimination and being arrested by police (Kennedy & Davis,
1993).
To claim that femmes are simply the stud‘s other half or that they attain their identity
through enactment with stud devalues their experience and seems too simplistic. A femme
identity can exist on its own and is authentic. Femme participants are not immune from
homonegativity. Similar to the women who identified as other genders, all femmes described
experiencing negative messages regarding their sexuality. Whereas looking traditionally
feminine or heterosexual allows femmes to ―blend in‖ and perhaps avoid discrimination, being
perceived as heterosexual can be problematic. Femme women are sometimes thought as traitors
in the gay community and historically have struggled for legitimacy in lesbian circles (Loulan &
Thomas, 1990; Maltry & Tucker, 2002). They are also invisible and as such, femme women need
to continually ―come out‖ as gay or lesbian (Levitt et al., 2003) which may become tiresome.
According to the research of Levitt et al. (2003) with femme women, femmes often struggle to
understand their attraction to other women because being femme conflicted with both butch
stereotypes of lesbians and the feminine image of female beauty. The femme identity is also an
identity of resistance. As with a stud, a femme lesbian also gives an ―outlawed performance,‖ but
it is her desire that is outlawed rather than her gender performance. As Haller (2009) stated, ―[A
femme] gender is read as „natural‟ because of her feminine performance. Her desire, however
...should be located ... on a biologically male body. When it is not, the categories of woman and
man become destabilized and not-natural based on outlawed gender performances and outlawed
desire‖ (p. 3). A femme like a stud breaks heteronormativity, thus she is an integral component
in defying societal sexuality norms.

160

Disadvantages. Though there are benefits to adhering to strict stud-femme gender roles,
there are some disadvantages. Rigid gender norms may negatively impact a youth‘s development
because they can limit opportunities and chances for growth. Although there is no available
research on female enactment of hypermasculinity, there has been research conducted with male
youth. Because results revealed that studs use male heterosexuals as their comparison group,
they may be at similar risk. Black male youth exhibiting hypermasculinity are at increased risk
for academic maladjustment (Thomas, Coard, Stevenson, Bentley, & Zamel, 2009), limited
quality of friendships (Pleck, Sonenstein, & Ku, 1993), increased incidence of sexually
transmitted infections (Duck, 2009; Pleck et al., 1993), antisocial behavior, substance abuse, and
a positive attitude toward violence and risk-taking (Kavanaugh, 2010). By enacting
hypermasculine attitudes and behavior, studs may be at risk for negative outcomes similar to
their male peers. It is noteworthy that two stud participants were in juvenile detention centers,
while others had tested positive for sexually transmitted diseases or had been in a physical
altercation. Conversely, research supports the notion that a majority of Black young women tend
toward androgyny; however, Black girls who endorse a stereotypical feminine gender role also
endorse conformity to societal rules and have difficulty in managing anxiety (Buckley & Carter,
2005). In addition, hyperfeminine women, such as femmes, may be more at risk than other
lesbian-gendered peers of acquiring HIV/STIs, because their dating/romantic partners are more
liable to have concurrent partners (Kerrigan et al., 2007) and inconsistent condom use (Wingood
& DiClemente, 1998). Therefore, femmes may be taking greater sexual risks than their other
lesbian-gendered peers, but unknowingly.
Furthermore, adhering to strict stud-femme sanctions allows little room for gender
expression variability. A lesbian gender identity outside of stud or femme, such as stemme,

161

would not be socially accepted by this community. Stemmes face discrimination within this
community, and the concomitant negativity does not create a welcoming and safe environment.
In such circumstances, a young woman coming to terms with her sexual minority identity may
turn to the local lesbian community to find acceptance, only to then ironically, or perhaps
paradoxically, face discrimination because of her gender identity. Learning to come to terms
with being a lesbian can be difficult, but then to be unaccepted by the lesbian community
because of gender conflict may be increasingly hurtful.
Diversity Principles in Practice
With diversity understood as a key tenet of community psychology (Prilleltensky, 2001),
Harrell and Bond (2006), as discussed in Chapter 1, created three core principles of diversity:
community culture, community context, and self-in community. These principles were
demonstrated to various extents in this research project.
(1) The Principle of Community Culture
Principle one, ―Principle of Community Culture,‖ involves coming to understand
community composition, characteristics, functioning, and interactions. This principle requires a
stance of ―informed compassion‖ by the community psychologist. Due to my race, university
affiliation, and age, I thought I would be perceived as an outsider to the target community and
that they would not trust me. I knew that the youth would need to get used to me being at the
Center, get to know me, and trust me to an extent before agreeing to be a part of this research
project. Before the research began, I ―hung out‖ at the Center. I played cards with the youths,
helped out in the kitchen, and tried to be as useful as possible to the staff and youth. I wanted to
be perceived as someone who cares (because I do) and not just as someone who is there to
extract data from them and leave. Some of the youths who attended the Center were extremely

162

good at playing cards, and card-playing was an everyday occurrence. I did not know card games
and so I often had to ask questions about why certain cards were played. In essence, they taught
me how to play cards. The mainstream society‘s roles were reversed. They were ―in charge‖ and
I took a back seat to learn from them. Because I was an outsider, when I interacted with the
youth and staff I was often peppered with questions regarding my sexuality and gender. Some of
them were very personal, but I answered them as openly and honestly as I could. In addition, I
created a memo making my social position explicit (see Appendix F), so I could become
cognizant of my stance toward this community. I know that while the youth and I have our
sexual orientation in common, we differ in our social history, our race, and our privilege or lack
thereof. By illuminating where I stood, I was able to see my biases and learn where I needed to
be more open. I realized how my feminist stance could interfere with acknowledging the studfemme dynamic. I discuss this more in an upcoming journal article (Reed, Nnawulezi, Miller, &
Valenti, in press).
Harrell and Bond‘s Principle One involves understanding the diversity within the
community. This principle also requires giving attention to those marginalized and isolated
within the community. Within the broader United States, young Black lesbian women of low
socioeconomic status are marginalized and oppressed in various ways. They are marginalized in
regard to their age, because people under the age of 18 in this country are not granted legal
rights, such as being able to vote, sign contracts, or join the military. With regard to gender, the
participants are women and still live in a society where gender-based discrimination occurs
(Alksnis, Desmarais, & Curtis, 2008; Cikara, Lee, Fiske, & Glick, 2009). Due to the participants‘
race, they are marginalized because we live in a racist society where the color of a person‘s skin
still makes a difference. Black people are discriminated against and oppressed (Collins, 2009).

163

Being sexual minority also marginalizes the participants, because they experience specific sexual
minority stressors (Meyer, Schwartz, & Frost, 2008). In addition, the participants occupy a low
socioeconomic status, which marginalizes them even further because they have to struggle to pay
for basic living necessities, such as food and shelter. Given demographic nature of the
participants, this dissertation study has addressed Principle One by focusing attention on a
population that is marginalized even among the marginalized. Moreover, I paid particular
attention to the most marginalized identity group in this community: stemmes.
After I entered what would eventually become the target community for this study, the
importance of lesbian gender became apparent to me (and the research team), which sparked the
idea for this dissertation study. Gender seemed to be an important distinguishing marker for this
population of women, as it functioned as a way for these women to define, divide, and make
sense of themselves. In addition, once entering the community, I (and the research team) learned
about the stemme gender identity. Women with this identity tended to be discriminated against;
therefore, it became important for this researcher to gain their perspective. They were added into
the sampling frame to make sure that their experience was elucidated in order to gain a more
comprehensive view of this community.
Additionally, Principle One involves exploring how the community functions and
operates (e.g., customs, norms, and cultural expressions). This dissertation study in general
highlights their community customs, norms, and expressions as exemplified through gender. This
research explored how the participants come to identify as their gender, the norms associated
with their gender, and how their gender is expressed. It showcases the diversity of lesbian gender
identities and subsequent expressions, which seems to be an identity that helps guide their
behavior and interaction with one another. In addition, another important aspect of Principle One

164

is to understand the intergroup dynamics underlying the community. Lesbian gender identity
intergroup dynamics were discussed in this research study. I explained how studs and femmes
have certain roles that they play during sex and in romantic relationships with one another, which
helps to explain and describe intergroup behavior. This research is limited, though, because it
focuses predominately on sexual behavior interaction and romantic relationships. Future research
could focus on aspects of gender identity negotiation outside of sex, as well as how the different
lesbian gender identity norms impact interaction with groups other than lesbian women (e.g.,
with gay men or with heterosexual people).
(2) The Principle of Community Context
Principle Two stresses the importance of looking outside the individual level into the
other ecological levels (e.g., microsystem, exosystem, and macrosystem) to see how these other
levels impact the community. Human behavior is influenced by context; therefore, the
community psychologist needs to reflect on how the community‘s context influences community
norms (e.g., regarding gender). The first focus area of this principle involves an examination of
the historical context. Historical context was not analyzed directly although it was highlighted in
the discussion of the stemme identity and how the ―ki-ki‖ gender (most similar to the stemme
identity) was an identity prior to the feminist movement. I suggest that the feminist movement
may not have reached the participants‘ community to the extent it did with the White lesbian
community. The historical economic downturn of this community was also discussed as
impacting the stud‘s ability to financially provide for her family, thus influencing studs‘
masculine expression. The history of this community was not a focal point of this research study;
however, history was included in the discussion of why certain cultural characteristics and
dynamics may exist.

165

The sociopolitical climate and the local setting form the second focal area of Principle
Two. This involves identifying unique forces within the local setting. In the first section of the
Results section, I provide a backdrop of the conditions that existed for participants. This allows
the reader to understand various outside forces acting upon the participants and which could
influence their gender. I highlight microsystem conflicts of participants, elements of violence,
and poverty issues that shape available resources. The issue of diversity may have been better
illuminated if contextual factors were included more specifically in the research protocol, which
might have resulted in data being available so that contextual factors could be analyzed more in
depth.
The third focal area for Principle Two involves institutional structures (e.g., schools, and
businesses). It involves looking at these structures to see the available resources and
opportunities for the community. This dissertation study did not specifically investigate
institutional structures; however, the Center where participants were recruited is an institutional
structure which serves as a meeting place for sexual minority individuals to interact together,
access resources, and form social support. Additionally, participants made mention of frustrating
experiences in the context of settings such as schools, workplaces, health care settings, and
church. In addition, the institutional review board of the participating university did acknowledge
the danger of attaining parental permission for this population. Attaining parental permission
would have required the participants to disclose their sexual minority status to their parent(s),
which could have put them at risk for a negative reaction if the parent(s) did not know of or
accept their sexual orientation. This aspect of research was highlighted in Harrell and Bond‘s
(2006) article as an element of overcoming obstacles in this focal area. Analyzing institutional
structures may be especially important for creating interventions, because investigating existing

166

community resources may highlight community strengths and deficiencies, which could
illuminate where intervention is needed. While this dissertation study was associated with an
intervention research project, it did not directly analyze the community‘s institutional structures.
(3) The Principle of Self-in-Community
Principle Three, self-in-community, involves having the community psychologist
personally explore their social location, culture, identity, and privilege in relation to those of the
target community. I revealed these aspects of myself in the memo included in this dissertation, as
well as in the upcoming journal article described previously.
In order to realize this principle, the community psychologist needs to have ―empowered
humility,‖ which involves being willing to experience feelings of vulnerability and tolerate
ambiguity. This permits the psychologist to gain greater awareness, insight, and understanding.
While I had limited past knowledge of the lesbian gender identities from butch-femme members
of the White lesbian community, I was unaware of how these genders were enacted in the young
Black lesbian community. While interviewing participants, I consciously attempted to put aside
what I knew from White butch-femme culture and to truly listen to how participants were
describing gender. I did my best to ask probing questions to ensure that my assumptions were not
clouding their perspective. I asked clarifying questions, so I could learn as much as their
perspective as possible.
There are three domains to this third principle of diversity. The first domain involves
having the community psychologist explore ways that s/he is similar to or different from the
target community. In my personal reflection memo (Appendix F), I discuss how I was socialized
into a predominately White and androgynous lesbian community and discuss my reaction to
butch-femme gender dynamics and expression. The second domain, dynamics of power and

167

privilege, involves having the community psychologist reflect on his/her privilege in a given
setting. I, as the community psychologist, held various privileges in regard to my White race,
educational attainment, and socioeconomic status. I do not have to deal with the oppressions that
the participants experienced, such as being a racial minority and experiencing racism. I do not
need to worry about being discriminated against due to my skin color. I am afforded the privilege
of having an opportunity to work towards a doctoral degree, whereas participants in this study
described struggling to gain the opportunity to earn their GED. I also am afforded the luxury of
knowing that I am going to be able to sleep in a safe place, have food to eat, and have my basic
needs met. I can try to visualize how it would be to not have these privileges, but I cannot truly
experience it personally because I cannot manipulate my skin color and personal history. What I
can attempt to do is to acknowledge my power that comes with my skin color and be sensitive to
that as well as acknowledge how my education and money allow me opportunities that other
people are not privileged to access. I can also remind myself to notice how my power can
influence others and be wary of the control that my position affords. Throughout this dissertation
research study I attempted to be conscious of these issues and reign in those influences based on
my social position, but I was essentially limited by my own ability. The third domain, regarding
―biases, alliances, and –isms,‖ involves the community psychologist uncovering his/her
stereotypes, triggers, hot buttons, and prejudices. Community psychologists need to question
alliances that they may build in the community, as well as the assumptions that they have
developed about the community. To personally self-reflect, I did not think I felt an alliance
toward any one gender group. I did, however, feel more empathy toward the stemme group
because of their marginalization in the community and my propensity to advocate for those
oppressed. I needed to keep my biases against the strict gender sanctions to myself during the

168

interviews. I knew that my personal viewpoint was to be put aside. I did that consciously. I
decided not to share with anyone in the community besides close colleagues my personal biases
against strict stud-femme power and control dynamics, biases that were due to my feminist
perspective. As the study progressed, I found myself becoming more open to the concept of
lesbian gender and began to understand it and tried to appreciate it as expressed in each
respective participant‘s community.
Harrell and Bond (2006) also described five strategies that people use when encountering
difference. One strategy, denial, occurs when a person focuses on how the target community is
the same as her/his own community while at the same time minimizing the differences.
Defensiveness occurs when a person externalizes any negative action or feeling to maintain
her/his sense of self as an ally. Devaluing is when a person does not recognize the value of the
target community‘s experience; thus allowing the power dynamics to maintain the status quo.
Distancing occurs when a person separates (physically, intellectually, or emotionally) her/his
experience from the experience of the target community. The final strategy, discovery, involves
embracing diversity challenges and using them for growth. While it would probably put me in a
favorable light to say that I always used discovery as a strategy, such was not always the case. I
think that the strategy I used most was distancing. Having participants describe such strict gender
sanctions was difficult to hear at times. Studs, in particular, showed hostility towards pregnant
studs, and stemmes. Some studs also were appalled by femmes who wanted to physically touch
them. The level of anger, as well as the rigidity participants described living by, made me angry
and disappointed in them. In a way, I separated myself from them emotionally and intellectually.
I almost had to in order to keep interacting with this population while I worked through my
emotional responses to this community dynamic. I think that these five strategies (similar to

169

identity development, perhaps) are dynamic, and community psychologists may use more than
one strategy at different points of a project. Arriving at the end of this dissertation process, I see
myself as having entered the discovery strategy, but as I continue to work with the data, I leave
myself open to perhaps utilize other strategies.
Reflecting overall on the diversity principles outlined by Harrell and Bond (2006), I think
it would be difficult for any one project to follow them all completely through the formal
research process. These principles would need to be enacted before the research began and
would have to be adhered to throughout the project. Additionally, transparency is a necessity in
order to see how diversity principles occur in a setting. My personal experience has been that
when reading journal articles and books about community psychologists‘ projects, few authors
discuss the process of self-reflection by the community psychologist. Yet, self-reflection is held
to be an integral component of how these principles are realized. If self-reflection is not written
about in our work, the readers will not know whether diversity of the community was really
appreciated. In some cases, self-reflection by the community psychologist may occur, but not be
discussed. If it is not discussed, then the reader still may not know if diversity was truly
appreciated. Writing honestly about self-reflection requires being vulnerable and community
psychologists may be uncomfortable with letting the readers (including colleagues) know about
their personal biases and prejudices. If we do not do this, however, the diversity principles as
outlined by Harrell and Bond may not be achievable. All three principles highlight the
overarching concept of ―connected disruption‖ (the tension between having compassionate for
the community, yet being information-seeking and analytical). The tension is not noticeable to
the reader if only the information-seeking and analytical role of a community psychologist is

170

highlighted in the research study presented, which highlights another reason for documenting the
self-reflection process.
In addition, in community psychology training programs, most class work focuses
attention on learning research methods, statistics, and theory. There is comparatively little
attention on learning how to be ―compassionate with the community.‖ This may be a necessary
component to community psychology programs in order for community psychologists to learn
how to balance the tension associated with ―connected disruption.‖ For me, the self-reflection
process seemed developmental and the more I started to self-reflect, the better I became aware of
how my own position and biases could infiltrate the research process. Harrell and Bond (2006)
also described a similar process when working with authors in their special issue on diversity. In
turn, I became better able to put into words the emotional and intellectual reactions I had to my
own research, and how I needed to appropriately deal with those reactions. It may be useful for
the process of self-reflection to be practiced in training programs in order to help community
psychologist‘s access within themselves the self-awareness that is needed to better appreciate
and understand diversity.
Although in my dissertation project I was able to fulfill the three principles to some
extent, I was not able to fulfill all of them as theoretically intended. For example, due to data
limitations, I did not highlight institutional structures as an element of diversity. A major strength
of my project was in the use of qualitative methods to fulfill the diversity guidelines. Qualitative
methods (such as the one employed in this study) are inherently conducive to fulfilling the
diversity guidelines because of their use of reflexivity as a strategy for enhancing rigor (Creswell
& Miller, 2000; Mays & Hope, 2000). By using a qualitative method, I was able to be descriptive
with analysis, which allowed me to describe the community context and dynamic interaction to a

171

greater degree than perhaps would have been possible had I employed a traditional quantitative
closed-ended survey method.
Limitations
The findings from this study must be considered in light of key limitations. The scope of
the analysis was limited by the available data. Because these data were collected with the
intention of creating a safer sex program for young sexual minority Black women, the interview
focus was not exclusively on gender. The data provide insight into how lesbian women enact
their gender, but more could have been learned about their gendered development. Given that
lesbian gender norms seemed to reflect heterosexual male and female norms, more detailed
questions to participants could have been asked to elicit additional information regarding the
participants‘ exposure to those gender norms during their childhood. For example, for studs,
questions could have been asked about parents or family members encouraging or supporting
gender discordant behavior.
Additionally, data analysis occurred after the interview data were collected. It would have
been helpful to analyze the data as collection occurred, which might have allowed the
researchers to fill in gaps during data collection and analysis. In addition, because the
participants were at an age typically filled with frequent change and exploration, it would have
been helpful to conduct more than one interview per participant, in order to gain further insight
into the fluidity of their gender. In essence, this research provides a snapshot of participants‘
lives, while a rolling documentary might have produced other or even more relevant information.
Future research could be longitudinal, so that possible fluidity (or stability) of lesbian gender
could be seen over time. Diamond (1998, 2000) elucidated sexual orientation identity changes
through longitudinal work. Researching lesbian gender identity in such a way may be necessary

172

to answer questions such as: Does the sexual orientation or lesbian gender change for these
young women? What happens as adulthood is ―achieved?‖ Do the norms of stud, femme, and
stemme change over time?
In addition, it was difficult to find stemme-identified women to interview. A separate
study could be conducted focusing on just these women in order to gain a better understanding of
this not well-known gender. While this study provides an overview of this gender, future
research could explore the stemme gender more in depth. For example, research could explore
questions such as: How do stemmes negotiate their gender in a stemme-phobic community?
What does the stemme gender look like over a lifetime? Does the stemme gender or other similar
genders exist in other locations?
The rigidity that participants described may have been enhanced due to the participants‘
perceptions of the interviewers. The two main interviewers were White and one was biracial. We
were all older than the participants, from a university, and did not identify as femme, stemme, or
stud. We might not have looked as femme, stemme, or stud (although some participants probably
categorized us as stemme, femme, or stud anyway). The fact that we appeared White and were
older may have been threatening, especially to studs who held power in the community. In
reaction to us, the studs may have heightened their masculinity and talk of power. Participants in
general may have described very rigid and clear distinctions between the lesbian gender
categories in order for us outsiders to better understand the roles and rules. Although the
interviewers all had sexual minority statuses in common with the participants, we still may have
appeared as outsiders, thereby creating a need for impression management on the part of the
interviewees.

173

In addition, participants may not have readily discussed how their race or socioeconomic
status identities impacted their lesbian gender because of the interviewer-participant interaction.
Two of the main interviewers were White and from a higher socioeconomic status than were the
participants. Participants thus might have felt uncomfortable discussing race and poverty with
the interviewers, thereby giving the impression that those identities were not as salient as they
actually were.
One criterion for participation in this study required having had past sexual contact with
both biological males and females. One may assume that this would lead to a non-normative
sample of young lesbian women, due to incongruence between sexual orientation identity and
sexual behavior. It is often assumed that identity is aligned with sexual behavior such that a
woman with a lesbian identity only engages in same-sex sexual behavior. Research suggests,
however, this is not the case. Sexual orientation identity and sexual behavior do not always
coincide. Self-identified lesbian women often have a history of sexual contact with males or
sometimes engage in sexual contact with males for a variety of reasons (Diamond, 1998, 2000;
Rosario et al., 1996). For example, compared to their heterosexual counterparts, lesbian selfidentified adolescents are more likely to become pregnant (Forrest & Saewyc, 2004; Saewyc,
Pettingell, & Skay, 2004). In addition, young sexual minority females are also at greater sexual
risk than are their heterosexual peers because they have a tendency to engage in sexual
intercourse with high-risk partners, such as males with concurrent sexual partners or who are
themselves gay or bisexual, or who are injection drug users (Bevier, Chiasson, Heffeman, &
Castro, 1995; Fethers, Marks, Mindel, & Estcourt, 2000; Lemp et al., 1995; Maguen &
Armistead, 2000; Rosario, Meyer-Bahlburg, Hunter, & Gwadz, 1999).

174

As with all such work, data analysis was filtered through a subjective lens. My social
position unconsciously may have influenced the execution of this study. To minimize
interpretative biases, I wrote memos describing my perspective on lesbian gender, as well as
insights into the data while I was analyzing. I consciously questioned myself regarding what I
was finding by asking myself, ―What else could explain this finding?‖ In addition, I tried to
utilize participants‘ words and terminology as much as possible. I also checked my analysis with
people of different social positions to gain their insights into the data. Additionally, throughout
the analysis process I tried to connect what the data elucidated with what is known through past
historical, theoretical, and empirical literature.
Implications
This research provides insight into a population about which little is known. The findings
elucidated the importance of lesbian gender and how each gender has distinct characteristics.
Therefore, in future LGBT research with this population, it may be necessary to ask participants
their lesbian gender in addition to sexual orientation because experiences differed based on
gender. To categorize lesbians as one monolithic group could confound results. In addition,
results revealed that lesbian gender is a complex construct that may be fluid and contextdependent. For example, the stemme gender changes expression based on mood changes and
romantic partner. Therefore, longitudinal studies and measures incorporating context may be
useful to see changes over time.
Gender theories may also need to be expanded to account for possible gender fluctuations
and contextual variations. Most gender theories depict identity development as a person
developing into a man or woman, with the man internalizing masculine characteristics and the
woman internalizing feminine ones. There is, however, great variability within each gender

175

category. To assume all women develop their gender identity in the same way may be overly
simplistic. Gender theories also generally assume gender constancy. A more dynamic gender
theory could be more useful in understanding gender variation and flux, as was exemplified by
the young women in this dissertation study.
The results from this research could be used to create programs or interventions with this
community. For example, results indicated that in stereotypical stud-femme relationships the
power resides with the stud, with studs seen as aggressive and femmes as appeasing their stud
partners. This stud aggressiveness could hint toward intimate partner violence. Such findings,
which help explain relationship and sexual dynamics, may be particularly relevant for safer sex
programming or intimate partner violence prevention, programs. For example, in group settings
established for programming purposes, it may not be safe to have studs, femmes, and stemmes
together to discuss intimate partner issues.
This research also elucidates the importance of context and its influence on identity
development. Homophobia and biphobia infiltrate our predominately heterosexist society. People
internalize these messages which impact their sense of self and who they strive to be. If the
broader society was more gender flexible and valued diversity of sexual orientation, perhaps less
animosity would be generated towards those who did not fit within the confines of gender and
sexual orientation categories. Additionally, an environment of poverty, violence, and instability
not only influences getting basic needs met, but also may impact the attainment of a sense of
identity by which youths could feel validated and nurtured. Otherwise, these outside forces may
impact youths in negative ways. When working with youths, interventions may need to address
contextual concerns in addition to or before tackling personal identity issues.
Future directions

176

A dearth of research exists on the experiences of Black young lesbian women of low
socioeconomic status, and quality empirical work is needed to fill that gap. In particular, future
research could explore more in depth the microsystem of such youths to see its impact on young
Black lesbians‘ gender expression and identity. How does biological and/or gay family impact
gender identity or expression? Future research could also study the stud-femme and child-family
relationships more in depth to help understand the gender dynamics at work in a family setting.
How do the children perceive their lesbian-gendered parents? Additionally, future research could
explore similarities and differences between lesbian stud-femme gendered families and families
in androgynous or non-gendered identified families. Because gender is fluid, it also may be
important to follow participants over time to really understand what may spark gender flux or
changes in gender expression and identity. Furthermore, it may be beneficial to extend research
into multiple levels of social ecology, to be able to understand the intersection of the various
identities that young, Black, lesbian-gendered women hold. As intersectionality theory posits,
categories of difference are (re)produced dynamically across ecological levels (Hancock, 2007).
Through multi-level analyses, a more complete picture could be created to help elucidate the
lived experience of a young, Black, lesbian-gendered woman.

177

APPENDICES

178

APPENDIX A

T
H
E
F
U
T

What is the project about?
The goal of this research project is to learn more about the sexuality and sexual
health of African American/Black young women, aged 15-24, who have sex with
both men and women.
Why we want to talk to you?
Your stories are important. Only you can help us understand your lives and help
your friends and yourself stay healthy. Help make sure the future is yours!
What you will be asked to do?

U

If you are able to participate, you will be asked to take part in a confidential, 2

R

to sex and sexuality. You will be given $20 for taking part in the interview. Your

E

hour, face-to-face interview about how you think and feel about issues related
participation will in no way impact your relationship with the Ruth Ellis Center.
How to sign up?

I
S

Please call Maria Valenti at 517-353-9217 at Michigan State University to see if
you are eligible to participate. If no one answers, please press 2 and leave a
message for the Ruth Ellis Center Future Is Ours project. Maria will return your
call as soon as possible. We will then arrange for the interview to occur in a
private room at the Ruth Ellis Center at a time that works for you.

O
U
R
S
179

APPENDIX B
Prescreening Form
Hi. Ruth Ellis Center and Michigan State University have put together a research project to learn
more about the sexuality and sexual health of young women who attend the Center. Part of this
project includes a face-to-face interview with a research assistant from Michigan State
University.
Can I ask you a few questions to see if you are eligible to participate in the interview? I won‘t
ask your name and all your responses will be kept completely confidential.
_____ Yes
_____ No
If yes, proceed to next question
If no, ―Unfortunately, I am unable to determine your eligibility without asking more questions.
Thank you for your time.‖
1) How old are you?
_____
2) How would you describe your racial background? You can choose more than one category.
_____ American Indian or Alaska Native
_____ Asian
_____ Black or African American
_____ Latina or Hispanic
_____ Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
_____ White
_____ Declined to answer

3) Are you currently in a foster home?
_____ Yes
_____ No
_____ Declined to answer
Now I need to ask you a few questions related to your sexual behavior. I won‘t ask your name
and all your responses will be kept completely confidential. Is it all right if we continue?
_____ Yes
_____ No
If yes, proceed to next question
If no, ―Unfortunately, I am unable to determine your eligibility without asking more questions.
Thank you for your time.‖
4) Have you ever had sexual contact with anyone? By sexual contact, I mean vaginal,
180

oral, or anal sex, or any other physical contact with another person.
_____ Yes
_____ No
_____ Declined to answer
5) Has this sexual contact been with men, women, or both?
_____ Men
_____ Women
_____ Both
_____ Declined to answer
6) Lastly, how would you best describe yourself?
_____ Stud
_____ Femme
_____ Stemme
_____ Transgender
_____ Other? Please describe
_____ Declined to answer
Interviewer: Is this person eligible to participate?
_____ Yes
_____ No
_____ Unable to determine due to missing information
For INELIGIBLE (and unable to determine) participants, say:
―Participants for this research project are selected based on the questions you were just asked.
Based on your answers, it turns out you‘re not eligible to participate in the interview. Thank you
for taking the time to speak with me.‖
For ELIGIBLE participants, say:
―Thank you very much for the information you provided. Based on your answers to these
questions, you are eligible to participate in the interview. Are you interested in setting up a time
to meet?‖
If yes, set up an interview within the next two weeks.
If no, ―Thank you for your time. If you change your mind, please feel free to call back again.‖

181

Name: ________________________________________________________________
Phone #:_______________________________________________________________
Email:_______________________
Date of interview: _____________________
Time of interview: _____________________
Interviewer assigned: ___________________
Parent advocate arranged, if required? Yes

No

182

APPENDIX C
Assent Form for Participation of Human Subjects in Research
For participants 15 to 17 years of age
Michigan State University
Project Title: Adapting FIO to Youth at Risk of HIV
Primary Investigator: Dr. Robin Lin Miller
Associate Professor
Department of Psychology
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
What is this Project About?
You are being asked to participate in a research study. The purpose of this research is to learn
more about how young African American women who have had sex with both men and women
think about their sexuality and sexual health. We are interested in hearing about your sexual
experiences and how you think of them. We would like to learn about the role that sex plays in
your life and the lives of your peers. We are interested in interviewing you to learn more about
these issues. A second purpose of this interview is that we plan to use the information to create a
sexual health promotion and HIV prevention project especially designed for sexual minority
young women. This research is being performed by researchers at Michigan State University
(MSU) in collaboration with the Ruth Ellis Center. We will be interviewing 15 women from the
Ruth Ellis Center.
What is Involved in Participating in this Project?
If you volunteer for this research study, you will be asked to participate in one interview. It will
take approximately 2 hours to complete. During the interview I will ask you questions about your
sexual history and what you think about sex and pregnancy. I will also ask questions about your
knowledge of HIV and sexually transmitted disease, as well as how you and your peers think of
sexual orientation and gender identity.
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. In other words, it is up to you if you
want to participate. If you do want to participate, you can decide not to answer any question and
you are free to stop the interview at any time with no penalty or negative consequences. Your
participation will not affect your relationship with the Ruth Ellis Center.
At the end of the interview, I will give you $20 to compensate you for your time. You will still
receive the $20 if you refuse to answer some of the questions or if you decide to stop the
interview and end it early.
Also, if it is ok with you, I would like to tape record the interview. We would like to tape record
the interview because we will not be able to write down everything you say. The only people
183

who will listen to the tape are the members of the research staff. To keep the information you tell
us private, during the project we will keep the tape in a locked file cabinet in a locked room. You
can also have me turn off the tape recorder at any time.
What Are the Potential Risks and Benefits of Participating?
The topic of sex is very sensitive and it may be upsetting for you to talk about your experiences.
All of the interviewers in this project have been trained on how to be respectful of individuals‘
sexual experiences. You may experience some loss of privacy and discomfort in answering
questions. A counselor will be available to talk to you after the interview if you would like.
Remember, if there are any questions that you do not want to answer, you do not have to; you
can stop the interview at any time or you can request that we do not use some of your answers to
certain questions. If you would like to take a break from the interview, you can. You can ask that
the tape recorder be turned off at any time. There will not be any negative consequences for these
requests. There are no physical or financial risks to you in participating in this study. Choosing
not to participate or refusing to answer any questions will not make any difference in the quality
of services you receive from the Ruth Ellis Center.
A potential benefit is having the opportunity to share your experiences and opinions. Some
people have told us that they appreciate our interest and concern in these issues. Additionally, the
valuable information that you share may help us learn about ways in which we may be able to
promote the sexual health of sexually active African American young women.
How Will Confidentiality Be Protected?
All information that you give us will be kept strictly confidential and private. Your name or any
information that could identify you will not be used. Instead, we will assign you a number that
will be used to mark your interview and the interview tape. Your interview will be kept in a
locked file cabinet in a locked office. Your identity will not be revealed in any reports of what
participants in the interview said; instead, all of your information will be combined with the rest
of the participants‘ information and reported as a group. No one at the Ruth Ellis Center will
know what you personally said. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable
by law.
After the interview, a research assistant will type up a copy of the interview. Until this paper
copy is made, the tape will be kept in a locked filing cabinet in a locked room. Once this paper
copy is made, the tape will be destroyed. On this paper copy of the interview, you will be given
an identification number so that your real name appears nowhere in print other than on this form.
In any written reports of the interview data, data from all interviews will be combined and
anywhere we use quotes you will be referred to by your identification number. The identities of
all research participants will remain anonymous. The data will be kept for 5 years in order to
allow time for analysis and report writing. After this time, all records will be destroyed. Only the
research staff and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) will have access to the data.

184

If at any time you indicate to us that you have been a victim of physical or sexual abuse,
maltreatment, mental injury and/or neglect by an adult known to you, then we must file a
complaint with Child Protective Services. We will only use your name in such a report if you
give us permission to do so. Child Protective Services may then investigate the report further.
Who Can Be Contacted With Questions?
If you have any questions as we proceed through the interview, please ask me. If you have
concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of it, or to
report an injury, please contact Dr. Robin Lin Miller, Department of Psychology, 134A
Psychology Building, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1118. Email:
mill1493@msu.edu. Phone: (517) 432-3267.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are
dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact – anonymously if you
wish – the Director of MSU‘s Human Research Protection Programs, Dr. Peter Vasilenko, at
517-355-2180, FAX 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu, or regular mail at: 202 Olds Hall,
MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824

185

You will receive a copy of this assent form to keep for your records.

Permission to Participate:
I verify that the minor has not been coerced or pressured and understands the assent
process and their rights as a human participant.
_______________________________________
Counselor signature

________________
Date

Assent to Participate:
I voluntarily agree to participate in this study.
_______________________________________
Participant signature

________________
Date

I voluntarily agree to be tape recorded.
_______________________________________
Participant signature

186

________________
Date

APPENDIX D
Consent Form for Participation of Human Subjects in Research
For participants 18 years of age or older
Michigan State University
Project Title: Adapting FIO to Youth at Risk of HIV
Primary Investigator: Dr. Robin Lin Miller
Associate Professor
Department of Psychology
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
What is this Project About?
You are being asked to participate in a research study. The purpose of this research is to learn
more about how young African American women who have had sex with both men and women
think about their sexuality and sexual health. We are interested in hearing about your sexual
experiences and how you think of them. We would like to learn about the role that sex plays in
your life and the lives of your peers. We are interested in interviewing you to learn more about
these issues. A second purpose of this interview is that we plan to use the information to create a
sexual health promotion and HIV prevention project especially designed for sexual minority
young women. This research is being performed by researchers at Michigan State University
(MSU) in collaboration with the Ruth Ellis Center. We will be interviewing 15 women from the
Ruth Ellis Center.
What is Involved in Participating in this Project?
If you volunteer for this research study, you will be asked to participate in one interview. It will
take approximately 2 hours to complete. During the interview I will ask you questions about your
sexual history and what you think about sex and pregnancy. I will also ask questions about your
knowledge of HIV and sexually transmitted disease, as well as how you and your peers think of
sexual orientation and gender identity.
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. In other words, it is up to you if you
want to participate. If you do want to participate, you can decide not to answer any question and
you are free to stop the interview at any time with no penalty or negative consequences. Your
participation will not affect your relationship with the Ruth Ellis Center.
At the end of the interview, I will give you $20 to compensate you for your time. You will still
receive the $20 if you refuse to answer some of the questions or if you decide to stop the
interview and end it early.
Also, if it is ok with you, I would like to tape record the interview. We would like to tape record
the interview because we will not be able to write down everything you say. The only people
187

who will listen to the tape are the members of the research staff. To keep the information you tell
us private, during the project we will keep the tape in a locked file cabinet in a locked room. You
can also have me turn off the tape recorder at any time.
What Are the Potential Risks and Benefits of Participating?
The topic of sex is very sensitive and it may be upsetting for you to talk about your experiences.
All of the interviewers in this project have been trained on how to be respectful of individuals‘
sexual experiences. You may experience some loss of privacy and discomfort in answering
questions. A counselor will be available to talk to you after the interview if you would like.
Remember, if there are any questions that you do not want to answer, you do not have to; you
can stop the interview at any time or you can request that we do not use some of your answers to
certain questions. If you would like to take a break from the interview, you can. You can ask that
the tape recorder be turned off at any time. There will not be any negative consequences for these
requests. There are no physical or financial risks to you in participating in this study. Choosing
not to participate or refusing to answer any questions will not make any difference in the quality
of services you receive from the Ruth Ellis Center.
A potential benefit is having the opportunity to share your experiences and opinions. Some
people have told us that they appreciate our interest and concern in these issues. Additionally, the
valuable information that you share may help us learn about ways in which we may be able to
promote the sexual health of sexually active African American young women.
How Will Confidentiality Be Protected?
All information that you give us will be kept strictly confidential and private. Your name or any
information that could identify you will not be used. Instead, we will assign you a number that
will be used to mark your interview and the interview tape. Your interview will be kept in a
locked file cabinet in a locked office. Your identity will not be revealed in any reports of what
participants in the interview said; instead, all of your information will be combined with the rest
of the participants‘ information and reported as a group. No one at the Ruth Ellis Center will
know what you personally said. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable
by law.
After the interview, a research assistant will type up a copy of the interview. Until this paper
copy is made, the tape will be kept in a locked filing cabinet in a locked room. Once this paper
copy is made, the tape will be destroyed. On this paper copy of the interview, you will be given
an identification number so that your real name appears nowhere in print other than on this form.
In any written reports of the interview data, data from all interviews will be combined and
anywhere we use quotes you will be referred to by your identification number. The identities of
all research participants will remain anonymous. The data will be kept for 5 years in order to
allow time for analysis and report writing. After this time, all records will be destroyed. Only the
research staff and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) will have access to the data.
Who Can Be Contacted With Questions?
188

If you have any questions as we proceed through the interview, please ask me. If you have
concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of it, or to
report an injury, please contact Dr. Robin Lin Miller, Department of Psychology, 134A
Psychology Building, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1118. Email:
mill1493@msu.edu. Phone: (517) 432-3267.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are
dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact – anonymously if you
wish – the Director of MSU‘s Human Research Protection Programs, Dr. Peter Vasilenko, at
517-355-2180, FAX 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu, or regular mail at: 202 Olds Hall,
MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824

You will receive a copy of this consent form to keep for your records.

189

Permission to Participate:

I voluntarily agree to participate in this study.
_______________________________________
Participant signature

________________
Date

I voluntarily agree to be tape recorded.
_______________________________________
Participant signature

190

________________
Date

APPENDIX E
Interview Protocol
Date:
Interviewer:
Interviewee ID:
Gender Identity:
I will now begin asking you questions. Please ask me at any time if a question is not clear.
Remember that you can skip any question that you may be uncomfortable answering. I will first
ask you about your sexual involvement with women only and then we will focus on your sexual
involvement with men. For the purposes of this interview, sex means any oral, vaginal, anal or
any other physical contact with another person.
SECTION 1: NORMS___________________________________________________
To begin, I have some questions about what you and your friends think is okay and not okay to
talk about or do.

1. Who do you talk to about issues related to sex and sexuality?
2. What about your sexual history would you not tell your female friends?
[Probe:] Why would you be uncomfortable telling them about this?
3. How do you think a stud should act sexually?
[Probe:] What kinds of things should studs not do sexually?
4. How do you think femmes should act sexually?
[Probe:] What kinds of things should femmes not do sexually?
5. How do you think stemmes should act sexually?
[Probe:] What kinds of things should stemmes not do sexually?
6. When we talked to you about getting interviewed, you mentioned that you consider yourself to
be a [insert gender id]. Is that right?
7. When did you first consider yourself to be a [insert gender id]?
8. Did you do anything different once you started considering yourself a [insert gender id]?
If yes: What did you do?
If no: Why not?
9. Do you think of yourself as a typical [insert gender id]? Why? Why not?

191

10. How would I know that you are a [insert gender id]? What makes you a [insert gender id]?
Many times the various messages we receive from the people around us affect how we behave or
think. I would now like to ask you about the messages you have received throughout life about
sex and sexuality.
11. What messages have you gotten from your family about sex and sexuality?
12. What messages have you gotten from religious sources about sex and sexuality?
13. What messages have you gotten from members of the Black community about sex and
sexuality?
14. What messages have you gotten from the Ruth Ellis Center about sex and sexuality?
15. What messages have you gotten from your friends about sex and sexuality?
16. What do your friends think about women at Ruth Ellis Center who are pregnant or who have
babies?
SECTION 2: WOMEN____________________________________________________
I want to talk about your relationships with women more specifically now. I want you to think
only about your sexual experiences with women and only consider those experiences with women
when answering the next set of questions.
17. When you think of ―sex‖ between two females, what do you consider sex to include?
18. At what age was your first sexual experience with a woman?
a. Tell me about this experience.
b. Where did you meet her?
c. How did you know her?
19. Now, tell me about your most recent sexual encounter with another female.
a. Where did you meet her?
b. How did you know her?
c. Tell me about your experience with her.
d. Is this kind of experience typical for you?
If yes: what was typical about it?
If no: what was different from usual about it?
20. Do you have a girlfriend?
If yes: What sort of rules do you and she have about sex?
Is it okay to have sex with other people?

192

21. In the average week, how many times do you have sex with women?
22. When you are interested in having sex with a woman, how do you find her?
23. When you‘ve had sex with women, how was the activity, meaning oral, anal, vaginal, or
some other type of activity decided upon?
24. When having sex with a woman and you grow uncomfortable for some reason, what do you
expect will happen?
25. When are you comfortable telling women what you enjoy sexually?
26. What makes having sex with a woman pleasurable?
[Probe:] When is sex with a woman more pleasurable for you than at other

times?

27. Have you and any of your female sexual partners ever discussed HIV or sexually transmitted
infections?
If yes: Tell me about a time you discussed these things with a female sex partner.
Was this discussion before or after you had sex?
If no: How likely do you think your female sex partners would be to tell you if they had a
sexually transmitted infection?
28. How likely do you think it is that your female sex partners could have a sexually transmitted
infection or HIV?
29. Are you aware of ever having sex with a female who has HIV or a sexually transmitted
infection?
If yes: How did you find out about her status?
30. Tell me how you know when a woman is safe to have sex with?
There are certain types of sexual activities that people do not do for many reasons. For example,
they may not enjoy it or they may be embarrassed to admit that they enjoy it.
31. What sexual activities would you not be comfortable doing with another female?
[Probe:] Why would you not be comfortable doing this?
I am now going to give you a few hypothetical situations. I want you think about how you would
react to them before answering.
32. You know that your female sex partner has a sexually transmitted infection and she wants to
have sex. What do you do in this situation?

193

33. You are about to go down on a woman and you notice she has a strong smelling and strange
colored discharge.
34. Your friend comes to you and tells you she is worried that you might get HIV.
35. You know that your female partner gets paid to have sex.
I would now like to talk to you about your safe sex practices with women and your knowledge
about safer sex practices. By safer sex, I mean sexual practices that reduce the risk of HIV and
sexually transmitted infections during sexual activity.
36. Have you ever been tested for HIV?
If yes: When were you tested?
Why did you decide to get tested?
Where did you get tested?
If no: Why have you not been tested?
Where can you be tested for HIV?
37. Have you ever been tested for other sexually transmitted infections?
If yes: Which sexually transmitted infections were you tested for?
When were you tested?
Why did you decide to get tested?
Where did you go to get tested?
What about being tested at this place made you feel comfortable?
What made you feel uncomfortable?
If no: Why have you not been tested?
Where can you get tested for sexually transmitted infections?
Would you be comfortable going there?
What would make you more comfortable going there?
38. How can sexually transmitted infections be passed from one woman to another?
39. How worried are you that your female friends might get sexually transmitted infections or
HIV?
40. When having sex with females, have you ever used any protective barriers in order to reduce
the risk of sexually transmitted infections?
If yes: Tell me about the method you used.
Why did you decide on this method?
Where did you learn about this safe sex practice?
Where did you get this barrier?
If no: Do you know of any method that can be used to reduce the risk of sexually
194

transmitted infections when having sex with women?
41. Tell me what you know about preventing sexually transmitted infections from women.

SECTION 3: MEN_______________________________________________________
Now, I want to talk about your relationships with men. I want you to think only about your sexual
experiences with men and only consider those experiences with men when answering the next
questions.
42. When you think of ―sex‖ between a male and a female, what do you consider sex to include?
43. At what age was your first sexual experience with a male?
a. Tell me about this experience.
b. Where did you meet him?
c. How did you know him?
44. Now tell me about your most recent sexual encounter with a male.
Is this kind of experience typical for you?
If yes: what was typical about it?
If no: what was different from usual about it?
45. How do your female friends feel about you having sex with men?
46. Do you have a boyfriend?
If yes: What sort of rules do you and he have about sex?
Is it okay to have sex with other people?
How do your female friends feel about you dating a male?
47. In the average week, how many times do you have sex with men?
48. When you are interested in having sex with a man, how do you find him?
49. When you‘ve had sex with men, how was the activity, meaning oral, anal, vaginal, or some
other type of activity decided upon?
50. When having sex with a man and you grow uncomfortable for some reason, what do you
expect will happen?
51. When are you comfortable telling men what you enjoy sexually?
52. What makes having sex with a man pleasurable?
[Probe:] When is sex with a man more pleasurable for you than at other times?

195

53. Have you and any of your male sexual partners ever discussed HIV or sexually transmitted
diseases?
If yes: Tell me about a time you discussed these things with a male sex
partner.
Was this discussion before or after you had sex?
If no: How likely do you think your male sex partners would be to tell you if
had a sexually transmitted infection?

they

54. Are you aware of ever having sex with a male who has HIV or a sexually transmitted
infection?
If yes: How did you find out about his status?
If no: How likely do you think it is that your male sex partners could have a
sexually transmitted infection or HIV?
55. Tell me how you know when a man is safe to have sex with?
56. What sexual activities would you not be comfortable doing with a male?
[Probe:] Why would you not be comfortable doing this?
I am now going to give you a few hypothetical situations. I want you think about how you would
react to them before answering.
57. A man approaches you and offers to pay you to have anal sex with him. The same man
insists on not using a condom and promises to pay you double.
58. A man you know to have sex with both men and women wants to penetrate you vaginally
without a condom and promises to pull out before ejaculating.
59. You are really turned on and want to have sex with a guy, but neither of you have a condom.
60. For whatever reason, you decide that you would like to have a baby. How would you find a
male partner?

I would now like to talk to you about your safe sex practices with men and your knowledge about
safer sex practices. By safer sex, I mean sexual practices that reduce the risk of HIV and sexually
transmitted infections during sexual activity.
61. How can HIV be passed from a man to a woman?
62. How can HIV be passed from a woman to a man?
63. How can HIV be passed from a man to a man?
64. How worried are you that your male friends might get HIV?
196

65. When having sex with males, have you ever used any protective barriers in order to reduce
the risk of HIV or STIs?
If yes: Tell me about the method you used.
Why did you decide on this method?
Where did you learn about this safe sex practice?
Where did you get this barrier?
If no: Do you know of any method that can be used to reduce the risk of HIV
having sex with men?

when

66. Tell me what you know about preventing sexually transmitted infections from men.
67. When do you use condoms?
[Probe:] Which sexual acts do you not use condoms to perform?

SECTION 4: MEN AND WOMEN_________________________________________
These next questions pertain to your experiences with either males or females.
68. Have you ever received money, shelter, clothing, food, drugs, or alcohol in exchange for sex?
If yes: How often do you receive those things in exchange for sex?
Tell me a little about the most recent experience.
How do these sexual experiences differ from those that you do solely for
pleasure, fun, or love?
How do these sexual experiences make you feel?
What sorts of situations have you been in that have made you
uncomfortable getting paid to have sex?
If no: What concerns do you have for your female friends who have sex in
exchange for goods?
69. Have you ever refused to have sex with anyone?
If yes: Why did you refuse?
How did you tell the person that you did not want to have sex with
him/her?
70. Have you ever used sex toys such as dildos, vibrators, anal beads, butt plugs or anything else
when having sex?
If yes: What have you used?
With whom did you use them?
Have you ever used condoms on these toys?
What do you do with these toys when you are done using them?
How were they cleaned?
197

How many people would you say have used these toys?
If no: Why have you not used them?
SECTION 5: PREGNANCY INTENT_____________________________________
71. Have you ever been pregnant?
If yes: How many times?
At what age(s)?
What was the result of the pregnancy?
Did you tell your parents/guardians that you were pregnant?
Were you planning on getting pregnant?
If yes: Why did you want to be pregnant?
What did you do to get pregnant?
How did you decide which male would impregnate you?
How did you feel about the pregnancy?
How did your friends feel about it?
How was your life different while pregnant?
If no: How did you feel about the pregnancy?
How did your friends feel about it?
How was your life different while pregnant?
If no: Have you ever wanted to become pregnant?
If yes: What did you do to try to become pregnant?
Why did you want to be pregnant?
If no: Do you have friends who have been pregnant?
If yes: Were they planning on getting pregnant?
How did they feel about the pregnancy?
How did you act when you found out she was pregnant?
72. If one of your female friends wanted to have a baby, what kinds of things would she consider
when finding a male partner?
73. How difficult would it be to find a male willing to get a girl pregnant?
74. Thinking about the girls that you know who have children, what sort of roles do fathers play
in the baby‘s life?
75. What roles do the mothers‘ girlfriends play in the baby‘s life?
76. What are the reasons that your female friends want to have babies?
77. How are girls at the Center treated that are pregnant?
78. Where do girls from the Center go for pregnancy care?

198

79. What difficulties would you anticipate facing if you were to have a baby?
SECTION 7: CONCLUSION_____________________________________________
Now, we‟re about to begin the last part of the interview. So far, we‟ve discussed issues around
gender, sexual experiences, HIV/STIs, and pregnancy. However, there may be other issues or
concerns that you have right now in your life that are important to you. I‟d like to learn more
about these issues and concerns.
80. I‘d like you to think about this past week, meaning today and the prior 6 days. Tell me about
the things in your life that have occurred during this time that have caused you to worry.
81. If you imagine your life one year from today, meaning (today‘s date) in the year 2009, where
do you see yourself?
a. What will you be doing?
b. Who will be there with you?
c. How does this future make you feel?
82. If the Ruth Ellis Center offered an HIV prevention program for females, how likely would
you be to go?
a. What would make you more likely to go?
b. What would make you less likely to go?
c. What do you think would be important to address in an HIV prevention program?
83. Thinking about this interview, is there anything else that you‘d like to tell me or add before
we finish?
Thank you for participating!

199

APPENDIX F
4/17/2009
MEMO 1
I came out as ‗not heterosexual‘ in the mid 1990s. Although most people would classify
me as lesbian, I was just not comfortable then nor am I completely comfortable with that label
presently. It is, however, easier to claim a lesbian label because it makes sense to most people
even though it sometimes seems odd to label that for myself. I guess I‘m lesbian by default since
I have been in a committed relationship with a woman for about the last 9 years. I tend to shy
away from labels because I feel like they are too limiting and the lesbian label tends to discount
any genuine romantic feelings towards men. Maybe it‘s my own definition of lesbian that needs
to change. But I find that hard to explain to other people – how can a lesbian ever have been
attracted to men? I also do not consider myself bisexual because I don‘t feel the same attraction
towards men as I do towards women. Perhaps it‘s my definition of bisexuality that is erroneous.
But my thought is, who cares? It used to be important to me to figure this out, but I don‘t have
the need anymore. I feel as I become older, I have a less need to adhere to labels. I love who I
love and I don‘t really care what label people want to place on me. I feel at home in the lesbian
women‘s community and feel accepted, so there really isn‘t a need to re-evaluate my selfidentity. Perhaps this is a younger lesbian thing (not necessarily in age). Perhaps for women who
first come out, they feel more of an internal pull to self-identify. I understand and respect that it
can be disconcerting for a woman to not know how to label herself. A label can provide
grounding for discovering who someone truly is, and give a sense of stability in a world of
uncertainty. I may have other ways of grounding myself to make me feel at home internally, such
as a loving committed partner who I am creating a family with. I also know that if I had to

200

comment on the need to self-identify a few years ago, my response would be different. Perhaps
in times of uncertainty or instable environments, people grasp their self-identified labels as a
means to connect to others. I know that when I came out as lesbian, I immediately had a crowd
of ‗lesbian‘ sisters who accepted me basically on my declaration of a non-heterosexual sexual
orientation.
When I first came out I never heard of butch-femme. I came out to a community that
valued androgyny where any replication of heterosexist norms and values was devalued, and
resisted. The aim was to rebel and reject traditional feminine ways – no makeup, definitely no
high heels, no low cut shirts, and when (and if) men hit on you; you were to reprimand them for
thinking they had the right to in the first place. Even though butch-femme dichotomy wasn‘t in
the forefront, masculine women still existed, but they were the pillars of the community. They
were the ones that helped when furniture needed to be moved or something tough needed to get
done. Instead of perceiving them as having manly qualities, they were seen as tough women who
on the outside didn‘t take shit from anyone, but on the inside were cuddly and affectionate with
their partners. They wouldn‘t hurt a fly, nor attempt to control anyone – especially another
woman (or so I thought). Equality in romantic relationships was a value where each partner did
not act out particular designated roles. Each partner seemed to give and take in relationships in
regard to decision making and power. Perhaps it was my naiveté about lesbian relationships
when I first came out. Maybe butch-femme power relations existed beneath the kumbaya of
androgynous relationships. The relationships I had during the time right after coming out weren‘t
serious and did not progress to the level of having to negotiate these aspects. I adhered to the
androgyny appearance (which didn‘t take much change from how I was). I stopped shaving,
bought Birkenstocks, and thought less about being feminine. If someone was going to like me,

201

they were going to like me for my internal characteristics instead of socially constructed
feminine markers of beauty.
It happened however that my most serious relationships with women were women who
did not subscribe to butch-femme. We didn‘t know we were subscribing to androgyny either. It
wasn‘t discussed. Currently, my partner and I don‘t really think of ourselves as lesbian-gendered
– we‘re just two women in a relationship. I didn‘t even think of lesbian relationships as being
gendered until we moved to Michigan. In NYS, where we came from, most of our friends were
androgynous, thus we were all of the same lesbian gender. However, it became clear from our
first invitation to a lesbian gathering in MI that butch-femme or something of that nature exists.
Our first MI lesbian gathering involved an invitation to play a game of Pictionary. The host
decided that it was best that couples weren‘t on the same team because couples may be able to
give unfair hints to one another. To divide the couples, she said, ‗girls‘ one team and ‗boi‘s‘ the
other. My partner and I just looked at each other wondering what we should do. The host asked
us how we were going to split. My partner asked the host, ‗which one of us is the boi?‖ We
didn‘t know. However, it ended with me joining the ‗boi‘ team. After this night, I was frustrated
with the MI lesbian community. I immediately thought about how archaic it was to mimic
heterosexual relationships. I had read Stone Butch Blues and thought that butch-femme or
gendered lesbian relationships were in the past. Didn‘t we (―lesbians‖) reject gender division?
Aren‘t we more evolved (picture: nose in the air)? After coming down from my high horse, I
slowly began to become more open to lesbian gender and understand it a little bit more. After
befriending a butch-femme couple and engaging in discussion around gender, my initial reactive
thoughts slowly began to dissipate. Butch-femme is more complex than just mimicry of male and
female relationship patterns. There are women who feel more comfortable with a masculine

202

presentation than a traditionally feminine one, who prefer to be in romantic relationships with
women who adhere to traditional feminine norms. There are also lesbians who embrace
traditional femininity and enjoy wearing makeup, high heels, dresses and other adornments, who
are internally content. Some androgynous women frown on the idea of consumer driven
femininity, but I don‘t see the difference between buying high heels and buying Birkenstocks
(which can be more expensive) to express gender. There shouldn‘t be a hierarchy. Also, why
should I judge? Their reality is just as valid as mine. We are all women who love women, but
simply have different ways of expressing our gender.
Since I tend to reject labels for myself, and was indoctrinated into the androgynous
lesbian community, it has been an interesting experience to study women who adhere to gender
labels. The discomfort that butch-femme creates in me can be used to my advantage in analysis.
Although it‘s impossible to get rid of my bias entirely, I will need to keep the research questions
in mind as well as question my coding by asking myself, ‗what else could this mean?‘ and try to
think of alternate perspectives. I am going to have to think outside myself. If I lived a butchfemme existence, I may not have had the ability to distance myself from the phenomena enough
to study it adequately (going ―native‖).
In addition, while some people become repelled by difference, I feel drawn to try to
understand it. What does it mean for women to be butch/femme/stemme/ androgynous? How
does gender create their reality? I also try to accept people for who they are and what place they
are in life. Everyone has a perspective based on their past experience and their environment.
Although society and researchers tend to homogenize the lesbian population, my life experience
and the life experience of the young women interviewed provide anecdotal evidence that there is
a diversity of lesbian existence.

203

REFERENCES

204

References
Abraham, K. G. (1983). The relation between identity status and locus of control among high
school students. Journal of Early Adolescence, 3, 257-264.
Adams, G. R., Abraham, K. G., & Markstrom, C. A. (1987). The relationship between identity
development and self-consciousness during middle and late adolescence. Developmental
Psychology, 19, 292-297.
Adams, G. R., & Marshall, S. K. (1996). A developmental social psychology of identity:
Understanding the person-in-context. Journal of Adolescence, 19, 429-442.
Adler, P. (1990). Requirements for inductive analysis. In E. Y. Lambert (Ed.), The collection and
interpretation of data from hidden populations (pp. 44-58). Rockville, MD: National
Institute on Drug Abuse.
Akerlund, M., & Cheung, M. (2000). Teaching beyond the deficit model: Gay and lesbian issues
among African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans. Journal of Social Work
Education, 36(2), 279-292.
Alksnis, C., Desmarais, S., & Curtis, J. (2008). Workforce segregation and the gender wage gap:
Is "women's" work valued as highly as "men's"? Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
38(6), 1416-1441.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(4th ed., text revision ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Arnett, J. J. (1998). Learning to stand alone: The contemporary American transition to adulthood
in cultural and historical context. Human Development, 41(5/6), 295-315.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through
the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469-480.
Ashcraft, A. M., & Belgrave, F. Z. (2005). Gender identity development in urban African
American girls. In J. W. Lee (Ed.), Gender roles (pp. 1-31). New York: Nova Biomedical
Books.
Aube, J., Norcliffe, H., & Koestner, R. (1995). Physical characteristics and the multifactorial
approach to gender characteristics. Social Behavior and Personality, 23, 69-82.
Bailey, J. M., Bechtold, K. T., & Berenbaum, S. A. (2002). Who are tomboys and why should
we study them? Archives of sexual behavior, 31(4), 333-342.
Bailey, J. M., & Zucker, K. J. (1995). Childhood sex-typed behavior and sexual orientation: A
conceptual analysis and quantitative review. Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 43-55.
Barker, G. (2005). Dying to be Men: Youth, masculinity and social exclusion. New York:
Routledge.
205

Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological
Review, 88(4), 354-364.
Bennett, M., & Battle, J. (2001). "We can see them, but we can't hear them": LGBT members of
African American families. In M. Bernstein & R. Reimann (Eds.), Queer families, queer
politics: Challenging culture and the state (pp. 53-67). New York: Columbia University
Press.
Berenson, C. (2002). What's in a name? Bisexual women define their terms. Journal of
Bisexuality, 2(2), 9-21.
Bevier, P. J., Chiasson, M. A., Heffeman, R. T., & Castro, K. G. (1995). Women at a sexual
transmitted disease clinic who reported same-sex contact: Their HIV seroprevalence and
risk behaviors. American Journal of Public Health, 85, 1366-1371.
Beyers, W. (2008). Adolescent self and identity development in context. Journal of Adolescence,
31(2), 147-150.
Binion, V. J. (1990). Psychological androgyny: A Black female perspective. Sex Roles, 22(7/8),
487-507.
Blustein, D. L., & Palladino, D. E. (1991). Self and identity in late adolescence: A theoretical
and empirical integration. Journal of Adolescent Research, 6, 437-453.
Bochenek, M., & Brown, A. W. (2001). Hatred in the hallways: Violence and discrimination
against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students in U.S. schools. New York:
Human Rights Watch.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Bouchey, H. A., & Furman, W. (2005). Dating and romantic experience during adolescence. In
G. R. Adams & M. D. Berzonsky (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of adolescence (pp. 313329). Oxford: Blackwell.
Bowleg, L., Huang, J., Brooks, K., Black, A., & Burkholder, G. (2003). Triple jeopardy and
beyond: Multiple minority stress and resilience among Black lesbians. Journal of Lesbian
Studies, 7, 87-108.
Bowleg, L., Lucas, K. J., & Tschann, J. M. (2004). ―The ball was always in his court‖: An
exploratory analysis of relationship scripts, sexual scripts, and condom use among
African American women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28(1), 70-82.
Bradford, J., Ryan, C., Honnold, J., & Rothblum, E. (2001). Expanding the research
infrastructure for lesbian health. American Journal of Public Health, 91(7), 1029-1032.
Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitivemotivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 307-324.
206

Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate? Journal of
Social Issues, 55(3), 429-444.
Brewer, M. B. (2001). Ingroup identification and intergroup conflict. In R. D. Ashmore, L.
Jussim & D. Wilder (Eds.), Social identity, intergroup conflict, and conflict reduction
(Vol. 3, pp. 17-41). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, R. M. (1986). Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects of social
identity, group size, and decision framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
50(3), 543-549.
Bridges, S. K., Selvidge, M. M. D., & Matthews, C. R. (2003). Lesbian women of color:
Therapeutic issues and challenges. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and
Development, 31(2), 113-130.
Brodsky, A. E. & Faryal, T. (2006). No matter how hard you try, your feet still get wet: Insider
and outsider perspectives on bridging diversities. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 37 (3/4), 311-320.
Brown, R., & Perlesz, A. (2008). In search of a name for lesbians who mother their nonbiological children. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 4(4), 453-467.
Buckley, T. R., & Carter, R. T. (2005). Black adolescent girls: Do gender role and racial identity
impact their self-esteem? Sex Roles, 53(9/10), 647-661.
Carr, C. L. (2007). Where have all the tomboys gone? Women's accounts of gender in
adolescence. Sex Roles, 56, 439-448.
Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of
Homosexuality, 4(3), 219-235.
Cassidy, E. F., & Stevenson, H. C. (2005). The wear the mask: Hypervulnerability and
hypermasculine aggression among African American males in an urban remedial
disciplinary school. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 11(1), 53-74.
Chapman, B. E., & Brannock, J. C. (1987). Proposed model of lesbian identity development: An
empirical examination. Journal of Homosexuality, 14(3/4), 69-80.
Charmaz, K. (2002). Stories and silences: Disclosures and self in chronic illness. Qualitative
Inquiry, 8(3), 302-328.
Cikara, M., Lee, T. L., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2009). Ambivalent sexism at home and at work:
How attitudes toward women in relationships foster exclusion in nether public sphere. In
J. T. Jost, A. C. Kay, & H. Thorisdottir (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of
ideology and system justification (pp. 444-462). New York: Oxford University Press.
Cohen-Kettenis, P. T., Owen, A., Kaijser, V. G., Bradley, S. J., & Zucker, K. J. (2003).
Demographic characteristics, social competence, and behavior problems in children with
207

gender identity disorder: A cross-national, cross-clinic comparative analysis. Journal of
Abnormal and Child Psychology, 31(1), 41-54.
Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64(3),
170-180.
Cole, E. R., & Zucker, A. N. (2007). Black and white women's perspectives on femininity.
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13(1), 1-9.
Collins, P. H. (1991). The meaning of motherhood in Black culture and Black mother-daughter
relationships. In P. Bell-Scott (Ed.), Double stitch: Black women write about mothers and
daughters (pp. 42-60). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of
empowerment. New York, NY: Routledge.
Collins, P. H. (2005). Black sexual politics: African Americans, gender, and the new racism.
New York: Routledge.
Collins, P. H. (2009). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of
empowerment. New York, NY: Routledge.
Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Sydney:
Allen & Unwin.
Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the
concept. Gender and Society, 19(6), 829-859.
Corby, B. C., Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D. G. (2007). Gender identity and adjustment in Black,
Hispanic, and White preadolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43(1), 261-266.
Cordova, J. (1992). Butches, lies and feminism. In The persistent desire: A femme-butch reader
(pp. 272-292). Boston: Alyson.
Courtenay, W. H. (2000). Constructions of masculinity and their influence on men's well-being:
A theory of gender and health. Social Science & Medicine, 50(10), 1385-1401.
Crawley, S. L. (2001). Are butch and fem working-class and antifeminist? Gender Society,
15(2), 175-196.
Crenshaw, K. (1993). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique
of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. In D. K. Weisbert
(Ed.), Feminist legal theory: Foundations (pp. 383-395). Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Cressey, D. R. (1950). The criminal violation of financial trust. American Sociological Review,
15(6), 738-743.

208

Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into
Practice, 39(3), 124-130.
D'Augelli, A. R., Hershberger, S. L., & Pilkington, N. W. (2001). Suicidality patterns and sexual
orientation-related factors among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. Suicide & Life Threatening Behavior, 31(3), 250.
Dade, L. R., & Sloan, L. R. (2000). An investigation of sex-role stereotypes in African
Americans. Journal of Black Studies, 30(5), 676-690.
Dahlheimer, D., & Feigal, J. (1994). Community as family: The multiple-family contexts of gay
and lesbian clients. In C. H. Huber (Ed.), Transitioning from individual to family
counseling (pp. 63–74). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.
Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of genderrelated behavior. Psychological Review, 94(3), 369-389.
Degges-White, S., Rice, B., & Myers, J. E. (2000). Revisiting Cass' theory of sexual identity
formation: A study of lesbian development. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 22(4),
318-333.
Diamond, L. M. (1998). Development of sexual orientation among adolescent and young adult
women. Developmental Psychology, 34(5), 1085-1095.
Diamond, L. M. (2000). Sexual identity, attractions, and behavior among young sexual-minority
women over a 2 year period. Developmental Psychology, 36(2), 241-250.
Diamond, L. M., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2005). The intimate relationships of sexual-minority
youths. from
http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/tocnode?id=g9781405133029_chunk_g97
8140513302921.
Doise, W., G. Csepeli Budapest, H. D. Dann Konstanz, C. Gouge Bristol, K. Larsen Oregon, &
Stirling, A. O. (1972). An experimental investigation into the formation of intergroup
representations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2(2), 202-204.
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Validzic, A. (1998). Intergroup bias: Status, differentiation, and
a common in-group identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 109120.
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Validzic, A., Matoka, K., Johnson, B., & Frazier, S. (1997).
Extending the benefits of recategorization: Evaluations, self-disclosure, and helping.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33(4), 401-420.
Duck, W. (2009). Black male sexual politics: Avoidance of HIV/AIDS testing as a masculine
health practice. Journal of African American Studies, 13(3), 283-306.

209

Dugger, K. (1988). Social location and gender-role attitudes: A comparison of Black and White
women. Gender and Society, 2(4), 425-448.
Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (2001). Gender identity: A multidimensional analysis with
implications for psychological adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 37(4), 451-463.
Eliason, M. J. (1996). Identity formation for lesbian, bisexual, and gay persons: Beyond a
"minoritizing" view. Journal of Homosexuality, 30(3), 31-58.
Eliason, M. J. (1997). The prevalence and nature of biphobia in heterosexual undergraduate
students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26(3), 317-326.
Elze, D. E. (2002). Against all odds: The dating experiences of adolescent lesbian and bisexual
women. In S. M. Rose (Ed.), Lesbian love and relationships (pp. 17-29). New York:
Harrington Park Press.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 119-161). New York: MacMillan Publishing
Company.
Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
Esterberg, K. G. (1996). ―A certain swagger when I walk‖: Performing lesbian identity. In S.
Seidman (Ed.), Queer theory/sociology (pp. 259-279). Oxford: Black Well Publishers
Ltd.
Farley, R., Steeh, C., Krysan, M., Jackson, T., & Reeves, K. (1994). Stereotypes and segregation:
Neighborhoods in the Detroit area. The American Journal of Sociology, 100(3), 750-780).
Feiring, C. (1999). Gender identity and the development of romantic relationships in
adolescence. In W. Furman, B. B. Brown & C. Feiring (Eds.), The development of
romantic relationships in adolescence (pp. 211-234). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Ferguson, C. K., & Kelley, H. H. (1964). Significant factors in overevaluation of own-group's
product. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69(2), 223-228.
Fethers, K., Marks, C., Mindel, A., & Estcourt, C. S. (2000). Sexually transmitted infections and
risk behaviors in women who have sex with women. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 76,
345-349.
Forrest, R., & Saewyc, E. (2004). Sexual minority teen parents: Demographics of an unexpected
population. Journal of Adolescent Health, 34(2), 122.

210

Gaertner, L., & Insko, C. A. (2000). Intergroup discrimination in the minimal group paradigm:
Categorization, reciprocation, or fear? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
79(1), 77-94.
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Rust, M. C., Nier, J. A., Banker, B. S., Ward, C. M., et al. (1999).
Reducing intergroup bias: Elements of intergroup cooperation. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 76(3), 388-402.
Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J., Murrell, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (1989). Reducing intergroup bias: The
benefits of recategorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27(2), 239249.
Gagnon, J. H., & Parker, R. G. (1995). Conceiving sexuality. In R. G. Parker & J. H. Gagnon
(Eds.), Conceiving sexuality: Approaches to sex research in a postmodern world (pp. 3–
18). London: Routledge.
Gecas, V., & Mortimer, J. T. (1987). Stability and change in the self-concept from adolescence
to adulthood. In T. Honess & K. Yardley (Eds.), Self and identity: Perspectives across
the lifespan (pp. 265-286). New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Gilgun, J. F. (1992). Definitions, methods, and methodologies in qualitative family research. In
J. F. Gilgun, K. Daly & G. Handel (Eds.), Qualitative methods in family research (pp. 2240). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Gilgun, J. F. (1995). We shared something special: The moral discourse of incest perpetrators.
Journal of Marriage & Family, 57(2), 265-281.
González, R., & Brown, R. (2003). Generalization of positive attitude as a function of subgroup
and superordinate group identifications in intergroup contact. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 33(2), 195-214.
Green, R. (1974). Sexual identity conflict in children and adults. New York: Basic Books.
Greene, B. (1994a). Ethnic-minority lesbians and gay men: Mental health and treatment issues.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(2), 243-251.
Greene, B. (1994b). Lesbian Women of Color: Triple jeopardy. In L. Comas-Diaz & B. Greene
(Eds.), Women of Color: Integrating ethnic and gender identities in psychotherapy (pp.
389-427). New York: The Guilford Press.
Grieve, P. G., & Hogg, M. A. (1999). Subjective uncertainty and intergroup discrimination in the
minimal group situation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(8), 926-940.
Hall, J. M. (2008). Tomboys: Meanings, marginalization, and misunderstandings. Issues in
Mental Health Nursing, 29(6), 555-565.
Hall, R. L., & Greene, B. (2002). Not any one thing: The complex legacy of social class on
African American lesbian relationships. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6, 65-74.
211

Haller, M. (2009). Queer femme representation: Disrupting 'woman'. Retrieved February 13,
2011, from http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/37697316
Hancock, A.-M. (2007). Intersectionality as a normative and empirical paradigm. Politics &
Gender, 3(2), 248-254.
Harper, G. W., & Schneider, M. (2003). Oppression and discrimination among lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgendered people and communities: A challenge for community
psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31(3/4), 243-252.
Harrell, S., & Bond, M. (2006). Listening to diversity stories: Principles for practice in
community research and action. American Journal of Community Psychology, 37(3),
365-376.
Haslam, S. A., Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., McGarty, C., & Reynolds, K. J. (1997). The group as a
basis for emergent stereotype consensus. European Review of Social Psychology, 8(1),
203-239.
Heller, M. (1988). Code-switching. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1995). Gender differences and similarities in sex and love.
Personal Relationships, 2(1), 55-65.
Herek, G. M. (2004). Beyond "homophobia": Thinking about sexual stigma and prejudice in the
twenty-first century. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 1(2), 6-24.
Hicks, A. (1994). Qualitative comparative analysis and analytical induction: The case of the
emergence of the social security state. Sociological Methods Research, 23(1), 86-113.
Hiestand, K. R., & Levitt, H. M. (2005). Butch identity development: The formation of an
authentic gender. Feminism & Psychology, 15(1), 61-85.
Hill-Collins, P. (2005). Black sexual politics: African Americans, gender, and the new racism.
New York: Routledge.
Hill, S. A. (2002). Teaching and doing gender in African American families. Sex Roles,
47(11/12), 493-506.
Hogg, M. A. (2000). Uncertainty reduction through self-categorization: A motivational theory of
social identity processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 11, 223-255.
Hogg, M. A., & Grieve, P. (1999). Social identity theory and the crisis of confidence in social
psychology: A commentary, and some research on uncertainty reduction. Asian Journal
of Social Psychology, 2(1), 79-93.
Hogg, M. A., & McGarty, C. (1990). Self-categorization and social identity. In D. Abrams & M.
Hoggs (Eds.), Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances (pp. 10-27).
Hertfordshire, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
212

Hogg, M. A., & Reid, S. A. (2006). Social identity, self-categorization, and the communication
of group norms. Communication Theory, 16(1), 7-30.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in
organizational contexts. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121-140.
Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. (1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison
of identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(4), 255269.
Hogg, M. A., Turner, J. C., & Davidson, B. (1990). Polarized norms and social frames of
reference: A test of the self-categorization theory of group polarization. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 11(1), 77 - 100.
Ianni, F. A. J. (1989). The search for structure: A report on American youth today. New York:
Free Press.
Inness, S. A., & Lloyd, M. E. (1996). G.I. Joes in barbie land: Recontextualizing butch in
twentieth century lesbian culture. In B. Beemyn & M. Eliason (Eds.), Queer studies: A
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender anthology (pp. 9-34). New York, NY: New York
University Press.
Iwamoto, D. (2003). Tupac Shakur: Understanding the identity formation of hyper-masculinity.
The Black Scholar, 33(2), 44-49.
Jackson, C., & Warin, J. (2000). The importance of gender as an aspect of identity at key
transition points in compulsory education. British Educational Research Journal, 26(3),
375-391.
Jewell, K. S. (1992). From mammy to Miss America and beyond: Cultural images and the
shaping of US social policy. London & New York: Routledge.
Jones, K. (2004). Mission drift in qualitative research, or moving toward a systematic review of
qualitative studies, moving back to a more systematic narrative review. The Qualitative
Report, 9(1), 95-112.
Kahn, M. J. (1991). Factors affecting the coming out process for lesbians. Journal of
Homosexuality, 21(3), 47-70.
Katz, P. A. (1986). Gender identity: Development and consequences. In R. D. Ashmore & F. K.
D. Boca (Eds.), The social psychology of female-male relations: A critical analysis of
central concepts (pp. 21-67). Orlando, FL: Academic Press, Inc.
Kavanaugh, P. R. (2010). Storylines of physical and sexual assault in urban nightlife: The impact
of individual disposition and social context (No. 230408): U.S. Department of Justice.
Kennedy, E. L., & Davis, M. D. (1993). Boots of leather, slippers of gold: The history of a
lesbian community. New York, NY: Routledge.
213

Kerrigan, D., Andrinopoulos, K., Johnson, R., Parham, P., Thomas, T., & Ellen, J. M. (2007).
Staying strong: Gender ideologies among African-American adolescents and the
implications for HIV/STI prevention. Journal of Sex Research, 44(2), 172 - 180.
Kiefer, A. K., & Sanchez, D. T. (2007). Scripting sexual passivity: A gender role perspective.
Personal Relationships, 14(2), 269-290.
Kitzinger, C., & Wilkinson, S. (1995). Transitions from heterosexuality to lesbianism: The
discursive production of lesbian identities. Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 95-104.
Kosterman, R., & Feshbach, S. (1989). Toward a measure of patriotic and nationalistic attitudes.
Political Psychology, 10(2), 257-274.
Kroger, J. (2000). Ego identity status research in the new millennium. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 24(2), 145-148.
Laporte, R. (1992). The butch-femme question. In J. Nestle (Ed.), The persistent desire: A
femme-butch reader (pp. 208-219). Boston, MA: Alyson Books.
Lazur, R. F., & Majors, R. (1995). Men of color: Ethnocultural variations of male gender role
strain. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 337-358).
New York: Basic.
Lear, D. (1995). Sexual communication in the age of AIDS: The construction of risk and trust
among young adults. Social Science and Medicine, 41(9), 1311-1323.
Lemp, G. F., Jones, M., Kellogg, T. A., Nieri, G. N., Anderson, L., Withum, D., et al. (1995).
HIV seroprevalence and risk behaviors among lesbians and bisexual women in San
Francisco and Berkeley, California. American Journal of Public Health, 85(11), 15491552.
Levine, H. (1997). A further exploration of the lesbian identity development process and its
measurement. Journal of Homosexuality, 34(2), 67-78.
Levitt, H., & Horne, S. G. (2002). Explorations of lesbian-queer genders: Butch, femme,
androgynous or "other". Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6(2), 25-39.
Levitt, H. M., Gerrish, E. A., & Hiestand, K. R. (2003). The misunderstood gender: A model of
modern femme identity. Sex Roles, 48(3/4), 99-113.
Levitt, H. M., & Hiestand, K. R. (2004). A quest for authenticity: Contemporary butch gender.
Sex Roles, 50(9/10), 605-621.
Levitt, H. M., & Hiestand, K. R. (2005). Gender within lesbian sexuality: Butch and femme
perspectives. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 18, 39-51.

214

Lewis, R. J., Derlega, V. J., Griffin, J. L., & Krowinski, A. C. (2003). Stressors for gay men and
lesbians: Life stress, gay-related stress, stigma consciousness and depressive symptoms.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 22(6), 716-729.
Lotney, K. (2000). The ultimate guide to strap-on sex: A complete resource for women and men.
San Francisco, CA: Cleis Press.
Lott, B. (1987). Women's lives: Themes and variations in gender learning. Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Loulan, J., & Thomas, S. (1990). The lesbian erotic dance: Butch, femme, androgyny and other
rhythms. San Francisco, CA: Spinsters Book Co.
Luna, A. (1989). Gay racism. In Men's lives (pp. 440-447). New York: Macmillan.
Luyckx, K., Soenens, B., & Goossens, L. (2006). The personality-identity interplay in emerging
adult women: Convergent findings from complementary analyses. European Journal of
Personality, 20(3), 195-215.
MacCowan, L. (1992). Re-collecting history, renaming lives: Femme stigma and the feminist
seventies and eighties. In J. Nestle (Ed.), The persistent desire: A femme-butch reader
(pp. 299-328). Boston, MA: Alyson.
Maguen, S., & Armistead, L. (2000). Prevalence of unprotected sex and HIV-antibody testing
among gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth. Journal of Sex Research, 37, 169-174.
Mahalingam, R. (2007). Culture, power and psychology of marginality. In A. Fuligni (Ed.),
Contesting stereotypes and creating identities: Social categories, social identities, and
educational participation (pp. 42-65). New York: Sage.
Maines, R. (1999). The technology of orgasm: "Hysteria," the vibrator, and women's sexual
satisfaction. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Majors, R., & Billson, J. M. (1993). Cool pose: The dilemmas of Black manhood in America.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Malebranche, D. J., Fields, E. L., Bryant, L. O., & Harper, S. R. (2009). Masculine socialization
and sexual risk behaviors among Black Men Who Have Sex with Men. Men and
Masculinities, 12(1), 90-112.
Maltry, M., & Tucker, K. (2002). Female fem(me)initities: New articulations in queer gender
identities and subversion. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6(2), 89-102.
Malyon, A. (1982). Psychotherapeutic implications of internalized homophobia. In J. C.
Gonsiorek (Ed.), Homosexuality and psychotherapy: A handbook of affirmative models
(pp. 59-69). New York: Haworth.

215

Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 3(5), 551-558.
Marston, C., & King, E. (2006). Factors that shape young people's sexual behaviour: a
systematic review. The Lancet, 368(9547), 1581-1586.
Mays, V. M., Cochran, S. D., & Rhue, S. (1993). The impact of perceived discriminitation on the
intimate relationships of Black lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 25(4), 1 - 14.
Mays, N., & Hope, C. (2000). Assessing quality in qualitative research. British Medical Journal,
320(7226), 50-52.
McCarn, S. R., & Fassinger, R. E. (1996). Revisioning sexual minority identity formation: A
new model of lesbian identity and its implications for counseling and research. The
Counseling Psychologist, 24(3), 508-534.
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual
populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5),
674-697.
Meyer, I. H. (2010). Identity, stress, and resilience in lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals of color.
The Counseling Psychologist, 38(3), 442-454.
Meyer, I. H., Schwartz, S., & Frost, D. M. (2008). Social patterning of stress and coping: Does
disadvantaged social statuses confer more stress and fewer coping resources? Social
Science and Medicine, 67(3), 368-379.
Michael, R. T., Gagnon, J. H., Laumann, E. O., & Kolata, G. (1995). Sex in America: A definitive
survey. New York: Warner Books.
Michigan Senate Democrats. (2009). Senator Scott protests closing of Highland Park Secretary
of State office. Retrieved December 8, 2010, from
http://www.senate.michigan.gov/dem/pr.php?id=1506
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative Data Analysis
(Second ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Miller, S. J., & Parker, B. A. (2009). Reframing the power of lesbian daughters' relationships
with mothers through Black feminist thought. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services,
21(2), 206-218.
Mischel, W. (1966). A social-learning view of sex differences in behavior. In E. E. Caccoby
(Ed.), The development of sex differences (pp. 56-81). Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Molinsky, A. (2007). Cross-cultural code-switching: The psychological challenges of adapting
behavior in foreign cultural interactions. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 622640.
216

Money, J., & Ehrhardt, A. E. (1972). Man and woman, boy and girl. Baltimore: John Hopkins
University Press.
Moore, M. R. (2006). Lipsticks or timberlands? Meanings of gender presentation in Black
lesbian communities. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 32(1), 113-139.
Mullin, B. A., & Hogg, M. A. (1999). Motivations for group membership: The role of subjective
importance and uncertainty reduction. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 21(2), 91-102.
Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup
relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
3(2), 158-174.
Myers, K. A., & Williamson, P. (2001). Race talk: The perpetuation of racism through private
discourse. Race & Society, 4(1), 3-26.
Nagel, J. (1994). Constructing ethnicity: Creating and recreating ethnic identity and culture.
Social Problems, 41(1), 152-176.
Nagle, J. (1995). Framing radical bisexuality: Towards a greater agenda. In N. Tucker, L.
Highleyman & R. Kaplan (Eds.), Bisexual politics: Theories, queries, and visions (pp.
305-314). NY: The Haworth Press.
Nelson, L. J., & Barry, C. M. (2005). Distinguishing features of emerging adulthood: The role of
self-classification as an adult. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20(2), 242-262.
Nestle, J. (1992a). The femme question. In J. Nestle (Ed.), The persistent desire: A femme-butch
reader (pp. 138-146). Boston, MA: Alyson Publications, Inc.
Nestle, J. (1992b). The persistent desire: A butch-femme reader. Boston, MA: Alyson books.
O'Connor, B. P. (1995). Identity development and perceived parental behavior as sources of
adolescent egocentrism. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 205-227.
Oakes, P. (1987). The salience of social categories. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S.
D. Reicher & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A selfcategorization theory (pp. 117-141). Oxford: Blackwell.
Ochs, R. (1996). Biphobia: It goes more than two ways. In B. A. Firestein (Ed.), Bisexuality: The
psychology and politics of an invisible minority (pp. 217-239). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Otten, S., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Evidence for implicit evaluative in-group bias: Affectbiased spontaneous trait inference in a minimal group paradigm. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 36(1), 77-89.

217

Otten, S., & Wentura, D. (1999). About the impact of automaticity in the minimal group
paradigm: Evidence from affective priming tasks. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 29(8), 1049-1071.
Parke, R. D., & Sawin, D. B. (1976). The father's role in infancy: A re-evaluation. The Family
Coordinator, 25(4), 365-371.
Parks, C. A. (1999). Lesbian identity development: An examination of difference across
generations. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 69(3), 347-361.
Parks, C. A., Hughes, T. L., & Matthews, A. K. (2004). Race/Ethnicity and sexual orientation:
Intersection identities. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 10(3), 241-254.
Parrott, D., & Zeichner, A. (2008). Determinants of anger and physical aggression based on
sexual orientation: An experimental examination of hypermasculinity and exposure to
male gender role violations. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37(6), 891-901.
Pascoe, C. J. (2005). "Dude, you're a fag": Adolescent masculinity and the fag discourse.
Sexualities, 8(3), 329-346.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (Third ed.). Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Piquero, A. R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P., & Haapanen, R. (2002). Crime in emerging adulthood.
Criminology, 40(1), 137-170.
Pleck, J. H., Sonenstein, F. L., & Ku, L. C. (1993). Masculinity ideology: Its impact on
adolescent males' heterosexual relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 49(3), 11-29.
Prilleltensky, I. (2001). Value-based praxis in community psychology: Moving toward social
justice and social action. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(5), 747-778.
Purdie, V., & Downey, G. (2000). Rejection sensitivity and adolescent girls' vulnerability to
relationship-centered difficulties. Child Maltreatment: Journal of the American
Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, 5, 338-349.
Rabbie, J. M., & Horwitz, M. (1969). Arousal of ingroup-outgroup bias by chance win or loss.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13(3), 269-277.
Reed, S., Miller, R. L., Timm, T., & Valenti, M. T. (in press). Babies' daddies and good gay
females: Black lesbian community norms and the acceptibility of pregnancy. Culture,
Health, & Sexuality.
Reed, S., Nnawulezi, N., Miller, R., & Valenti, M. (in press). Erecting closets and outing
ourselves: Uncomfortable reflexivity and community-based research. Journal of
Community Psychology

218

Reed, S., & Valenti, M. (in press). ―It ain‘t all as bad as it may seem‖: Young Black lesbians'
responses to sexual prejudice. Journal of Homosexuality.
Reed, S., & Valenti, M. (under review). Young Black lesbians' responses to sexual prejudice.
Journal of Homosexuality.
Reed, S. J. (2010). The pregnancy experiences and motivations of young, Black women who have
sex with women. Unpublished M. A. dissertation, Michigan State University.
Rindfuss, R. R. (1991). The young adult years: Diversity, structural change, and fertility.
Demography, 28(4), 493-512.
Robinson, W. S. (1951). The logical structure of analytic induction. American Sociological
Review, 16(6), 812-818.
Roof, J. (1998). 1970s lesbian feminism meets 1990s butch-femme. In S. R. Munt (Ed.),
Butch/Femme inside lesbian gender (pp. 27-35). London: Cassell Wellington House.
Ros, M., Huici, C., & Gomez, A. (2000). Comparative identity, category salience and intergroup
relations. In D. Capozza & R. Brown (Eds.), Social identity processes: Trends in theory
and research (pp. 81-95). London: SAGE Publications.
Rosario, M., Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F., Hunter, J., & Gwadz, M. (1999). Sexual risk behaviors of
gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths in New York City: Prevalence and correlates. AIDS
Educ Prev, 11, 476-496.
Rosario, M., Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. L., Hunter, J., Exner, T. M., Gwadz, M., & Keller, A. M.
(1996). The psychosexual development of urban lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. The
Journal of Sex Research, 33(2), 113-126.
Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., Hunter, J., & Levy-Warren, A. (2009). The coming-out process
of young lesbian and bisexual women: Are there butch/femme differences in sexual
identity development. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(1), 34-49.
Ross, L. E., Dobinson, C., & Eady, A. (2010). Perceived determinants of mental health for
bisexual people: A qualitative examination. American Journal of Public Health, 100(3),
496-502.
Rubin, G. (1992). Of catamites and kings: Reflections on butch, gender, and boundaries. In J.
Nestle (Ed.), The persistent desire: A femme-butch reader. Boston, MA: Alyson.
Ruble, D. N., Martin, C. L., & Berenbaum, S. A. (2006). Gender development. In N. Eisenberg
(Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology (6th ed., Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality
development, pp. 858-932). New York, NY: Wiley.
Rust, P. (1992). The politics of sexual identity: Sexual attraction and behavior among lesbian and
bisexual women. Social Problems, 39(4), 366-386.

219

Rust, P. C. (1993). "Coming out" in the age of social constructionism: Sexual identity formation
among lesbian and bisexual women. Gender and Society, 7(1), 50-77.
Rutter, P. A., & Soucar, E. (2002). Youth suicide risk and sexual orientation. Adolescence,
37(146), 289.
Saewyc, E., Pettingell, S., & Skay, C. (2004). Teen pregnancy among sexual minority youth
during the 1990s: Countertrends in a population at risk. Journal of Adolescent Health,
34(2), 125-126.
Savin-Williams, R. C. (2005). The new gay teenager (Vol. 3). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Savin-Williams, R. C., & Diamond, L. M. (2000). Sexual identity trajectories among sexualminority youths: Gender comparisons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29(6), 607.
Schulenberg, J. E., & Maggs, J. L. (2002). A developmental perspective on alcohol use and
heavy drinking during adolescence and the transition to young adulthood. Journal of
Studies on Alcohol, Supp 14, 54-70.
Serafini, T. E., & Adams, G. R. (2002). Functions of identity: Scale construction and validation.
Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 2(4), 363-391.
Settles, I. H. (2006). Use of an intersectional framework to understand women's racial and
gender identities. Sex Roles, 54(9/10), 589-601.
Settles, I. H., Pratt-Hyatt, J. S., & Buchanan, N. T. (2008). Through the lens of race: Black and
White women's perceptions of womanhood. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(4), 454468.
Shearer, C. L., Hosterman, S. J., Gillen, M. M., & Lefkowitz, E. S. (2005). Are traditional gender
role attitudes associated with risky sexual behavior and condom-related beliefs? Sex
Roles, 52(5), 311-324.
Shidlo, A. (1994). Internalized homophobia: Conceptual and empirical issues in measurement. In
G. M. Herek (Ed.), Lesbian and gay psychology: Theory, research and clinical
applications (pp. 176-205). Thousand Islands, CA: Sage.
Smetana, J. G., Campione-Barr, N., & Metzger, A. (2006). Adolescent development in
interpersonal and societal contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 255-284.
Smith, G. W. (1998). The ideology of "fag": The school experience of gay students. The
Sociological Quarterly, 39(2), 309-335.
Smith, P. B., & Long, K. M. (2006). Social identity theory in cross-cultural perspective. In R.
Brown & D. Capozza (Eds.), Social identities: Motivational, emotional and cultural
influences (pp. 153-169). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

220

Smyth, C. (1998). How do we look? Imaging butch/femme. In S. R. Munt (Ed.), Butch/Femme
inside lesbian gender (pp. 82-89). London: Cassell Wellington House.
Solomontos-Kountouri, O., & Hurry, J. (2008). Political, religious and occupational identities in
context: Placing identity status paradigm in context. Journal of Adolescence, 31(2), 241258.
Spence, J. T. (1984). Gender identity and its implications for the concepts of masculinity and
femininity. Nebraska Symposium on motivation, 32, 59-95.
Spence, J. T. (1993). Gender-related traits and gender ideology: Evidence for a multifactorial
theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 624-635.
Spence, J. T., & Hall, S. K. (1996). Children's gender-related self-perceptions, activity
preferences, and occupational stereotypes: A test of three models of gender constructs.
Sex Roles, 35(11/12), 659-691.
Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Femininity/Masculinity. In E. F. Borgatta & R. J. V.
Montgomery (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Sociology, Revised Edition (pp. 997-1005). New
York: Macmillanq.
Stone, C. H., & Crisp, R. J. (2007). Superordinate and subgroup identification as predictors of
intergroup evaluation in common ingroup contexts. Group Processes Intergroup
Relations, 10(4), 493-513.
Swanson, D. P., Cunningham, M., & Spencer, M. B. (2003). Black males' structural conditions,
achievement patterns, normative needs, and "opportunities". Urban Education, 38(5),
608-633.
Szymanski, D. M., & Chung, Y. B. (2001). The Lesbian Internalized Homophobia Scale -- A
rational/theoretical approach. Journal of Homosexuality, 41(2), 37 - 52.
Szymanski, D. M., Kashubeck-West, S., & Meyer, J. (2008). Internalized heterosexism. The
Counseling Psychologist, 36(4), 525-574.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.
Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago:
Nelson-Hall Publishers.
Taylor, V., & Rupp, L. J. (1993). Women's culture and lesbian feminist activism: A
reconsideration of cultural feminism. Signs, 19(1), 32-61.
Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1996). Group norms and the attitude-behavior relationship: A role
for group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(8), 776-793.
Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., & White, K. M. (1999). The theory of planned behaviour: Selfidentity, social identity and group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 225244.
221

Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. In L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 181-227). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Thomas, D. E., Coard, S. I., Stevenson, H. C., Bentley, K., & Zamel, P. (2009). Racial and
emotional factors predicting teachers' perceptions of classroom behavioral maladjustment
for urban African American male youth. Psychology in the Schools, 46(2), 184-196.
Thorpe, R. (1996). "A house where queers go": African-American lesbian nightlife in Detroit,
1940-1975. In E. Lewin (Ed.), Inventing lesbian cultures in America (pp. 40-61). Boston,
MA: Beacon Press.
Tolman, D. L. (2002). Dilemmas of desire: Teenage girls talk about sexuality. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Trickett, E. (2011). From ―water boiling in a Peruvian town‖ to ―letting them die‖: Culture,
community intervention, and the metabolic balance between patience and zeal. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 47(1), 58-68.
Trickett, E. J. (1996). A future for community psychology: The contexts of diversity and the
diversity of contexts. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24(2), 209-233.
Troiden, R. (1988). Homosexual identity development. Journal of Adolescent Health Care, 9,
105-113.
Troiden, R. R. (1989). The formation of homosexual identities. Journal of Homosexuality,
17(1/2), 43-73.
Turner, J. C. (1999). Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorization
theories. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context,
commitment, content (pp. 6-34). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987).
Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Ltd.
Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2004). The social identity perspective in intergroup relations:
Theories, themes, and controversies. In Self and social identity (pp. 259-277). Malden,
MA: Blackwell Publishers.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). American FactFinder Race Table: Total population. Generated
April 21, 2011from
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_
10_PL_P1&prodType=table
Valde, G. A. (1996). Identity closure: A fifth identity status. The Journal of Genetic Psychology,
157(3), 245-255.

222

VanNewkirk, R. (2006). "Gee, I didn't get that vibe from you": Articulating my own version of a
femme lesbian existence. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 10(1/2), 73-85.
Walker, L. (1998). Embodying desire: Piercing and the fashioning of 'neo-butch/femme'
identities. In S. R. Munt (Ed.), Butch/Femme: Inside lesbian gender (pp. 123-132).
London: Wellington House.
Walker, L. M. (1993). How to recognize a lesbian: The cultural politics of looking like what you
are. Signs, 18(4), 866-890.
Wallace, D. M. (2007). "It's a M-A-N Thang": Black male gender role socialization and the
performance of masculinity in love relationships. The Journal of Pan African Studies,
1(7), 11-22.
Walters, M. L. (2005). "Excuse me ma'am? That's sir to you!": Perception of butch privilege in
contemporary society. Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA.
Warner, M. (1991). Fear of a queer planet. Social Text, 29, 3-17.
Weber, J. C. (1996). Social class as a correlate of gender identity among lesbian women. Sex
Roles: A Journal of Research, 35(5-6), 271-281.
Weitzman, L. J. (1979). Sex role socialization. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.
West, C., & Fenstermaker, S. (1996). Doing difference. In E. N. Chow, D. Wilkinson & M. B.
Zinn (Eds.), Race, class, & gender: Common bonds, different voices (pp. 357-384).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
West, C. M. (1995). Mammy, sapphire, and jezebel: Historical images of Black women and their
implications for psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 32(3), 458-466.
Whitbourne, S. K., & Tesch, S. A. (1985). A comparison of identity and intimacy statuses in
college students and alumni. Developmental Psychology, 21(6), 1039-1044.
Whitman, J. S., Cormier, S., & Boyd, C. J. (2000). Lesbian identity management at various
stages of the coming out process: A qualitative study. International Journal of Sexuality
and Gender Studies, 5(1), 3-18.
Wiederman, M. W. (2005). The gendered nature of sexual scripts. The Family Journal, 13(4),
496-502.
Wilson, B. D. M. (2005). African American lesbian sexual culture: Exploring components and
contradictions. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Wilson, B. D. M. (2009). Black lesbian gender and sexual culture: Celebration and resistance.
Culture, health & sexuality, 11(3), 297-313.

223

Wingood, G. M., & DiClemente, R. J. (1998). Partner influences and gender-related factors
associated with non condom use among young adult African American women. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 29-51.
Wingood, G. M., & DiClemente, R. J. (2000). Application of the theory of gender and power to
examine HIV-related exposures, risk factors, and effective interventions for women.
Health Education & Behavior, 27, 539-565.
Yoder, A. E. (2000). Barriers to ego identity status formation: A contextual qualification of
Marcia's identity status paradigm. Journal of Adolescence, 23(1), 95-106.
Zucker, K. J. (1992). Gender identity disorder. In Child psychopathology: Diagnostic criteria
and clinical assessment (pp. 305-342). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

224