To end conversion therapy, we must understand what it actually means

By Travis Salway

On Monday, Calgary City Council voted, nearly unanimously, to pass a municipal ban of advertising around conversion therapy, which the city defined as “practice, treatment, or service designed to change, repress, or discourage a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour.” In doing so, Calgary joined cities such as Vancouver, Edmonton and Fort McMurray, along with provinces including Ontario and, recently, Prince Edward Island, in passing legislation banning conversion therapies.

The discourse at the publicly-broadcast citizen debate before the council vote was polarizing, however, with hundreds of speakers passionately arguing on either side of the issue over two days. Those opposed to the ban argued that they do not want to see their fellow citizens subjected to torture – referencing electroshock and other physically severe forms of conversion therapy – but the proposed law unfairly criminalizes practitioners who are merely offering advice to people who are struggling with “unwanted” same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria.

Opponents of the ban claimed that these well-meaning conversations should not be conflated with “true forms” of conversion therapy. They defended this argument by noting that practitioners targeted by the ban do not try to “convert” anyone but, rather, aim to help people live cisgender, heterosexual lives that are compatible with religious doctrine.

This debate had a cardinal flaw: It didn’t centre on a single definition. As with many contentious social issues, language and meanings matter. By clarifying the intent of conversion therapy practices – their defining feature – we will be better prepared to evaluate legislative action at multiple levels of government, as efforts to end this practice continue.

Conversion therapy is a misnomer: Survivors of conversion therapy are not “converted”, and it is not therapeutic. All forms of conversion therapy – whether practiced in a licensed health care clinic, spiritual support group, pastor’s office or other setting – share a common premise, as described by Canadian legal scholar Florence Ashley: They begin with an assumption that some gender identities, gender expressions and sexual orientations are more desirable than others. More specifically, these practices seek to deny and suppress the identities of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and two-spirit (LGBTQ2) people.

The practices themselves rely upon a variety of methods, including coaching, counseling, therapy, prayer and conversation. Individuals who undergo it are often left with feelings of self-doubt, anxiety and hopelessness, losing years of their lives that would otherwise be spent achieving a positive sense of self.

From national surveys conducted last year, we know that tens of thousands of LGBTQ2 Canadians have experienced conversion therapy. With the support of conversion-therapy survivors, I and other public-health researchers have been interviewing these Canadians. They frequently describe exactly the kind of “talk therapy” that opponents of the ban seek to protect, where a provider attempts to compel an individual to manage and resist expressions of gender or sexuality that differ from mainstream expectations. And these forms of conversion therapy induce psychological distress just as other more obviously traumatic forms of conversion therapy do.

To effectively prevent conversion therapy, legislative bans must adjust their definitions to clearly state that the defining feature of conversion therapy is not an attempt to “convert” or “change” intrinsic feelings of gender identity or expression or sexual orientation. Rather, the defining feature is the goal of avoiding acceptance and acknowledgement of LGBTQ2 lives as compatible with being healthy and happy. This healthy sense of self is something that all Canadians deserve, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. That sense of self is what is fundamentally at stake in the debates over conversion therapy.

We must also acknowledge that no ban can eradicate all forms of conversion therapy. We need bans at all levels of government – municipal, provincial and federal – and for these legislative bans to share language, so they are all effectively complementary. And bans must be coupled with broader educational efforts.

In Canada, we must promote the affirmation of LGBTQ2 people, particularly to parents and caregivers who may otherwise consider conversion therapy for their children when they are struggling. Continuing legislative debates offer an opportunity for us as Canadians to clarify our position that LGBTQ2 people should be celebrated. Canadians who share these views should make their majority view known – particularly as our politicians continue to consider opportunities to safeguard the well-being of LGBTQ2 citizens.

Calgary’s new bylaw is just one example of an upsurge of proposed and enacted Canadian legislation to prevent conversion therapy. Bill C-8, an amendment to the federal Criminal Code, was tabled by federal government on March 9. While our country has gradually affirmed LGBTQ2 lives through legal and social changes in recent decades – including the addition of sexual orientation in 1995 and gender identity and expression in 2017, as statuses protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms – the public debate in Calgary served as a stark reminder: Stigma, fear and hatred of LGBTQ2 people are alive and well. The only way to resist these social biases is by speaking the same language.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

May 22, 2020May 21, 2020

From Top to Bottom: Heteronormativity & Queer Relationships

By Raymond Matthews

Back in my day as a bright-eyed, bushy-tailed freshman, one fateful night the Universe (and a generous helping of Kirkland Vodka) guided my friends and I to a party on DP which we were assured would “pop off” any minute. We awkwardly stood in a circle, red Solo cups in hand, swaying to “Sicko Mode,” when we noticed a stray bro wandering toward us.

To set the stage, he was five Natty Lites in, and he’d adopted a Scottish accent while wearing a Texas University shirt and American flag shorts (a multicultural icon). After staring at me for a solid minute, off-brand Shrek asked me a question: “Are ye gay mate??”

I laughed it off and said yes, thinking that was that, but no, discount Braveheart wanted me to give him a deep dive into the gay lifestyle, the likes of which I hadn’t seen since my high school musical theater days.

“Are you a top or a bottom? Like, if you’re with another dude are you more like the girl or the guy?” he asked.

This may sound outlandish and I’ll admit I haven’t run into any drunk wannabe Scotsmen before or since, but the “top or bottom/girl or guy” question is one queer people hear quite often. Most queer people (myself included) find this question insulting because when straight people ask it, they’re asking you to validate yourself by mimicking straight romance and sexuality.

I’ll admit that for some, it can be comforting and familiar to understand yourself in terms of an unambiguous masculine/feminine framework, but the beauty of queerness is in its ambiguity. It offers the freedom to explore gender and sexuality without imitating straightness, because by definition queerness is a rejection of straight traditions.

This is to say that queerness is not an oddball parody of heterosexuality, but its own set of gender and sexual identities, making it impossible to “straighten out” in order to emulate heterosexuality.

It’s worth noting that this mindset is not exclusive to straight people; many queer people impose these dynamics on themselves because of pressure to perform gender, sexuality, and romance in palatable, familiar ways.

Many modern depictions of sex and romance are told from straight perspectives, which can cause queer people to internalize implicit messages that the only romantic and sexual experiences worth having must include a sharp masculine and feminine contrast. While there’s nothing wrong with enjoying masculine and feminine dynamics in your relationships, it’s important to remember that there are other — equally fulfilling — ways to enjoy sex and romance.

Feminine people often have feminine partners, masculine people have masculine partners, genderfluid people have genderfluid partners, and so on and so forth. These relationships are just as fulfilling as the more traditional masculine/feminine paradigm, and allowing yourself to choose which dynamic works for you rather than blindly following “normal” gender dynamics will likely make your relationships more authentic and enjoyable.

On the surface, most queer people hate the “top or bottom” question because it’s rude and creepy for someone to ask intimate questions about your sexual preferences out of the blue.

But on a deeper level, this question is insulting because using someone’s gender expression to determine their sexual role (or vice versa) is laughable. There are feminine tops, masculine bottoms, and everything in between. This can even go beyond queer relationships, as it would be laughable to assume that all straight couples act the exact same way in bed together based solely on their gender.

The main issue with all this is that romance and sexuality — whether queer or straight — is not a black-and-white Etch A Sketch. It’s a messy, multi-colored Picasso painting; you can try to make logical sense of it but it’s best to appreciate it for its disjointed, avant-garde beauty.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

May 19, 2020May 18, 2020

Stuck in the middle

Growing into my identity

By Tatum Lindquist

As an empathic perfectionist, conflicts stung me. I used to perceive any conflict as a reflection of my flawed character. It took years of inner wrestling to understand that conflicts were opportunities to grow, not threatening, but nurturing in their tumult.

All too often, humans keep to their comfortable spaces, unwilling to engage in a conflict with those who differ. I do not have that luxury, nor do I want it. I open myself up to you today to push the conversation of sexual identity and religion, not as a destabilizing conflict, but rather a nurturing discussion that extends a welcome to all beliefs and identities.

I felt alienated in religious settings where my questions about the Bible and its origins were dismissed as irrelevant or spiritually weak, and as I learned more in school about the uses of the Bible to validate atrocities throughout history, I lost trust in my religious communities because the Bible wasn’t considered in its historical context or its imperfect translations. Specifically, I remember staying up one night at Christian camp reading Genesis 3, and as I read verse 16 in its NIV translation, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” I cried without really knowing why.

Until, that is, I read Wilda Gafney’s womanist interpretation. In “Womanist Midrash,” the pain of that passage healed as she explored how the Spirit of God uses she/her pronouns in the Biblical Hebrew; how it describes an androgynous being, not Adam but rather the adam, referring to humankind that is then split in two; how “over” translated to “in” and “with” more often, reading instead “he shall rule with you.”

When I stopped living in fear and started letting go and opening myself up to conversations around religion, I found space to wrestle with my identity, my God, and their Scripture, leading me to where I stand today as a bisexual, Christian, cisgender woman.

I may have known my identity for awhile now, but only until recently have I found a sense of representation and visibility through my studies of queer and feminist biblical scholarship. With help from the class “Gender, Sex, and Religion,” I was exposed to multiple approaches to the Bible beyond just traditional biblical studies.

“I think [including more perspectives] just makes for more accurate, more representative, more interesting scholarship,” Mika Ahuvia, an assistant professor at the Jackson School of International Studies, said.] “The more [people] are looking at a text, the more nuances they notice.”

It turns out that biblical authors had no language for sexual orientation and gender identity, but rather viewed sex and gender within patriarchal constructs motivated over the years by different political, religous, and socioeconomic influences.

When the topic of “homosexuality” did arise in the religious circles at youth groups or summer camp, I was told that the Holiness Code of Leviticus in Scripture not only addresses it, but condemns it. Never, however, was I told during these conversations of its historical context, where it fails to mention how these laws merely condemned sodomy — non-procreational sexual acts — not homesexuality itself, nor did anyone explain the cultural beliefs that influenced these laws.

In biblical Israel, there was a cultural necessity to understand the religious and social significance of their bodies and so, procreation was viewed synonymously to achieving immortality and wasting semen was thought to be impure and harmful because it was believed to hold the most crucial role in reproduction.

By exposing myself in a variety of knowledgeable, heavily researched interpretations, queer and feminist biblical scholarship specifically equipped me with a platform and the language to heal. Whether it’s the deconstruction of gender and patriarchy through reinterpreted creation stories in Genesis or the contextualized and researched approach to the Holiness Code of Leviticus, biblical scholarship redefined my relationship with the Bible and deepened my understanding of its authors and how interpretations changed with time, and how they were shaped by and influenced societal constructs of gender and sex.

Regardless, the search for community as a queer Christian continues. Whether it was my faith in secular communities or my sexuality in religious ones, I still don’t know where I belong, a feeling all too familiar in my experience between straight and LGBTQIA+ communities.

While we may be the “B” in LGBTQIA+, the bisexual community still faces health disparities and stereotypes from straight and queer communities for a variety of reasons.

“Our research has found that bisexual people do experience many health disparities, both in Washington state as well as nationally,” Karen Fredriksen Goldsen, a professor in the School of Social Work, said. “For example, we found that bisexual women compared to lesbians have higher rates of disability and are more likely to experience disability at earlier ages

Fredriksen Goldsen especially noted the community’s lack of visibility, where an “increase in visibility could create opportunities to further build and expand communities” as well as reduce stigmas.

“As we recognize bisexual lives, we can begin to understand their distinct experiences,” Fredriksen Goldsen said. “Our research has documented many disparities as well as strengths in this community, as bi people are resilient.”

At the intersection of religious, secular, straight, and LGBTQIA+ communities, if I’ve learned one thing, it’s that the majority of these communities and the unique individuals within them don’t know how to interact with each other. As someone on the receiving end, the lack of dialogue between these diverse communities lends its hand to miseducation, stigmatization, and polarization.

When Ahuvia started teaching “Gender, Sex, and Religion,” she noted that the biggest gap she felt like she had to overcome was between the secular and religious students. Now, four years later, it’s shifted.

Silence and invisibility serve no one, so I will never refuse the challenge to uproot what I hold true, wrestle with it, learn, and grow.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

May 6, 2020May 5, 2020

The Queer Lingo Dictionary

By Quinn Mathys

While some of the terms used in this edition may be known throughout parts of the queer community, not everyone — not even all queer people — may know their definitions. To help further the conversation, we have created this section so that you may reference it as needed as you read through the pieces. Words have power, and it’s important to understand what they communicate — all of their messages, the emotions with them, as well as their direct definitions.

AGAB — (acronym) stands for “assigned gender at birth,” a term trans* people may use to identify who were born in male (AMAB) or female (AFAB) bodies

Aromantic — (adj.) a person who doesn’t experience romantic attraction but may still experience sexual attraction. To read more about this, check out our piece on the Split Attraction Model (SAM).

Cisgender (sometimes shortened to “cis”) — (adj.) someone who identifies with the gender they were assigned at birth

Cishet — (adj.) a cisgender heterosexual person

Cisexism — (noun) prejudice or discrimination against trans* people

Closeted — (adj.) used to describe someone who is not open about their queer sexuality or non-cis gender identity

Coming out — (verbal phrase) the act of a person revealing their queer sexuality or non-cis gender identity

Cross-dressing — (noun) the act of wearing clothes and presenting as another gender, not to be confused with identifying as that gender

Equal protection — (noun) a clause included in the 14th amendment that keeps any governing body from denying its citizens equal protection

Femme — (adj.) presenting or acting in a way that is traditionally feminine, regardless of the person’s gender identity

Gay — (adj.) a person who is romantically or sexually attracted to others of the same gender, sometimes used as an informal umbrella term to refer to members of the entire LGBTQ+ community

Gender (as opposed to sex) — (noun) a social construct relating to expectations of behavior, characteristics and thoughts; commonly confused with “sex,” which is usually assigned by doctors at birth based on a person’s genitalia or their chromosomes

Gender expression —(noun) the way that a person chooses to present their gender identity

Gender-nonconforming — (adj.) a term used to describe someone who does not follow the traditional gender norms of the gender they were assigned at birth

Heteronormative — (adj.) an action or belief that pushes heterosexuality as the normal or preferred sexual orientation

Heterosexism — (noun) prejudice or discrimination against people who are not heterosexual

Homosexual — (noun) someone who is sexually attracted to people of the same gender; however, this label carries a negative connotation, as it has been used as a clinical term to discriminate against gay people.

Intersectionality — (noun) the different aspects of identity (race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, etc.) as they apply to an individual or a group of people; these social categories overlap in interdependent systems of discrimination

Masc — (adj.) presenting or acting in a way that is traditionally masculine, regardless of the person’s gender identity

Orientation — (noun) the determination of how one person relates to someone else (i.e., romantic orientation or sexual orientation). Gender identity is not an orientation.

Outing — (verb) the act of revealing a closeted person’s queer sexuality or non-cis gender identity, which should only be done with the permission of said person. Outing someone without their permission is a violation of their trust and is highly frowned on.

Phobia (as in homophobia/biphobia/transphobia/aphobia/etc.) — (noun) dislike or prejudice against gay/bisexual/trans*/asexual individuals, more obvious or direct than heterosexism or cissexism

Queer — (adj.) a person who is a part of the LGBTQ+ community

Spectrum — (noun) a range between two opposite points (i.e., the gender spectrum), but it is more commonly used in reference to autism spectrum disorder (ASD)

They/them/their — (pronouns) the most common singular gender neutral pronouns in the English language, which have been used since the 14th century

Trans* — (adj.) people who do not identify with the gender they were assigned at birth. The asterisk acknowledges there are people who may not feel like the term “trans” or “transgender” accurately applies to them, and its placement shows that those other identities are being included in the discussion.

Trans panic — (noun) an excuse that can be used by the accused to get a lighter sentence in a court of law if the accused has murdered a trans* person.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

May 4, 2020May 4, 2020

What Heteroflexible Means

& How To Know If It Applies To You

By Kim Wong-Shing

Up to 15% of the U.S. population may identify as heteroflexible, according to a 2020 study. That’s more than the number of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people combined. But to many people, this identity is still a mystery. Here’s what it truly means to be heteroflexible and how to figure out whether this label applies to you.

In a nutshell, heteroflexible means “mostly straight.” The term refers to people who are mostly attracted to the “opposite” gender but are also open to same-gender experiences. Because heteroflexible people are not entirely straight, they fall onto the LGBTQIA+ spectrum of sexual and romantic identity. (On the queer-women-focused dating app Her, for example, “heteroflexible” is one of the sexual identities that users can choose from.) Both women and men can identify as heteroflexible or mostly straight.

“Heteroflexible is still a very new term and can refer to a wide range of behaviors, thoughts, and feelings,” Jor-El Caraballo, LMHC, therapist and co-founder of Viva Wellness in New York City, tells mbg. People who identify as heteroflexible may experience a range of same-gender desires or behaviors, including sex, flirting, kissing, crushes, or fantasies—all while being mostly attracted to the other gender. That said, the meaning of heteroflexibility is subjective; there’s not just one way to be heteroflexible.

Heteroflexible vs. bisexual.

“Bisexual” refers to someone who is attracted to people of their own gender as well as other genders. If you think that sounds somewhat similar to being heteroflexible, you’re not wrong. The terms “heteroflexible” and “bisexual” can describe similar experiences, and some people even identify as both. Like all sexual identities, both of these words are subjective. Their meanings are nuanced and often have more to do with evolving popular usage than strict dictionary definitions.

Bisexual and heteroflexible are separate, coexisting identities. Many people do feel drawn to one label over the other, and which identity is more “accurate” for a particular person is ultimately up to that individual. “For each person it will be different,” psychotherapist Todd Baratz, LMHC, tells mbg. “Ultimately, this is a subjective experience. Some don’t want to commit to one label or feel more comfort and congruence with another.”

Linguistically speaking, heteroflexible and bisexual are very different-sounding words. The word heteroflexible has the term “hetero” front and center, which may appeal to people who feel tied to their straight or mostly straight identity. By contrast, the word bisexual doesn’t contain “hetero” at all. This may appeal to those for whom same-gender attraction is a more central part of their identities.

In the end, “we have to become more curious” about why people pick specific labels rather than trying to prescribe them, Baratz says. Caraballo agrees, adding, “It’s really important to listen to not only what terms people use to label themselves but also what it means for them.”

How to know if you’re heteroflexible.

In some ways, it’s great that identities like heteroflexible don’t have strict definitions—it means that the term is expansive enough to fit a range of people’s experiences. But also, this can make life confusing for not-straight folks. If there’s not a strict definition of heteroflexible, then how do you know whether you’re heteroflexible or not?

“There isn’t usually a ‘how to do sexual orientation,'” Baratz explains. “People explore and experiment.” Only you can decide whether you identify with this word.

Here are some clues that you may fall into the heteroflexible category:

You’re mostly into the opposite gender, but you’ve been attracted to the same gender once or twice in the past.
You only seriously date people of the opposite gender, but you sometimes like to “have fun” with the same gender.
You’re happy being straight, but you’re curious about experimenting sexually or romantically with people of the same gender.
You’re happy being straight, but you’ve tried being with someone of the same gender and enjoyed it.
You don’t completely rule out being with someone who shares your gender, but you’d only do so in special circumstances.
The idea of never being with the same gender makes you feel like you’d be missing out on an important experience.
Or, conversely, being with the same gender is something you could take or leave—a recreational activity, not a necessity.
Terms like “bisexual” or “queer” don’t feel like they fully capture who you are.

The history of heteroflexibility.

The term “heteroflexible” first appeared in slang used by college students in the early 2000s, according to Merriam-Webster. The term derives from “heterosexual,” which originated in the 19th century alongside its counterpart “homosexual.” (The term “homoflexible” also exists for those who identify as mostly gay.)

While the term “heteroflexible” is new, being mostly straight is definitely not a recent phenomenon. “This kind of flexibility has existed as long as sexuality has, so it’s not really a new idea per se,” Caraballo says. The labels “gay” and “straight” have never been enough to fully capture the wide range of human sexual experience. In 1948, Alfred Kinsey developed the Kinsey scale to more accurately reflect this range. The scale goes from 0 for “exclusively heterosexual” to 6 for “exclusively homosexual.” That leaves numbers 2 through 5 to represent everyone who’s somewhere in between, which, it turns out, is many people. Years of research, dating all the way back to Kinsey’s original studies, have found that many people who self-identify as straight also report same-sex romantic or sexual behaviors. This is true for both men and women.

In more recent years, being heteroflexible or mostly straight has evolved into its own identity, with many personal essays and books on the topic. A 2015 report found that half of people between 18 and 24 years old say they’re “not 100% straight.” Moreover, this trend seems to be on the rise in younger generations. A 2016 survey found that only 48% of Generation Z identifies as completely straight, compared to 65% of millennials.

Debates and controversy over the term heteroflexible.

Given that sexual fluidity has existed for such a long time, the rise of the word “heteroflexible” to accurately describe this fluidity has proved useful to many folks, particularly those who identify with the label. But not everyone is supportive of this new identity. “I think that any time someone finds new, uncommon language, there is a pushback,” Caraballo says.

One popular criticism holds that identifying as heteroflexible is biphobic. Biphobia often comes in the form of erasure, wherein bisexual people get excluded, invalidated, or made invisible. This is a major problem even within the LGBTQIA+ community. For example, many people mistakenly believe that bisexuality isn’t a “real” sexual orientation. Bisexual women are often presumed to be straight, while bisexual men are often presumed to be gay.

Some people believe that identifying as heteroflexible rather than bisexual is just another way to avoid validating bisexuality as a real experience. However, just because these two terms have some overlap in meaning doesn’t mean that they’re exactly the same. There are other words that people who fall into the dictionary definition of “bisexual” choose to use instead, including pansexual, queer, fluid, and polysexual. Each of these words comes with its own distinct, nuanced meaning, and people who identify with these words often do so because they feel like home, not necessarily because they have anything against being bi.

“I think that largely people use language ultimately that is both comfortable and familiar to them,” Caraballo says. Baratz agrees, adding, “Oftentimes people don’t feel as if they fit into any category, and the label becomes the default language they use to communicate to others.”

Sexual fluidity isn’t going anywhere—so the more words we can use for our experiences, the better. As heteroflexible identity becomes more popular, it also becomes more widely embraced, by both straight and queer people alike. “While there are folks in the queer community who don’t accept all of their LGBTQIA+ family, the majority do,” Baratz says. “Over time it is likely that people will be given more and more permission to self-define and/or identify as they please.”

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

February 29, 2020February 29, 2020

Bridging the research gap on the sexual health of men in the LGBTQ+ community

Findings could inform health policy, but professor warns against jumping to conclusions

By Sarah Kronenfeld

Health-policy makers often make decisions that drastically impact people all across the country, but before they can do that, they need to understand what the population truly needs. That can be difficult, though, when policies affect specific groups with even more specific health needs — such as men who have sex with men.

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (gbMSM) can be uniquely affected by sexual health-related policies, but it’s historically been very difficult to get information that truly represents their needs as a diverse population.

A survey to bridge the gap

A major initiative to gather information has been the European Men-Who-Have-Sex-With-Men Internet Survey (EMIS), which asks questions about the mental and sexual health practices of gbMSM all over Europe — and, in the 2017 version, also those of men in Canada. “This is really meant to be kind of a public health report,” said Dr. David Brennan, a professor and assistant dean, research at U of T’s Faculty of Social Work, who was instrumental in implementing the survey in Canada.

This was the first study in a long time to gather health information about the sexual health of gbMSM on a national scale. It contains results from both transgender and cisgender respondents from a variety of backgrounds all across the country. The survey’s questions were informed by health experts from across Canada, and cover topics like safe sex practices, drug use, depression, anxiety, and homophobia.

Some of these trends have been investigated by more specific studies in the past, and the new study is consistent with past results. For example, rates of anxiety and depression in gbMSM were higher than rates in the general population, according to Brennan. There’s still, however, a wealth of new information to be found from the study, as it measured some things that have, frankly, not been measured before.

Reducing the risks associated with sex between men

Today, gbMSM in Canada can find plenty of information online about safe sexual practices. In fact, Brennan recounted that his research lab, CRUISElab, discovered that most gbMSM turn to Google for sexual education.

However, over the last few years, there have been a few very important developments for HIV-related sexual health, and it’s unclear how far this information has travelled. One of the goals of this survey was to measure the prevalence of knowledge and usage of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), a drug that can be used to prevent infection in HIV-negative people who are at risk of contracting HIV.

PrEP’s a fairly recent development that has only become widespread since the last EMIS in 2010, and it is not covered by provincial health insurance in most parts of Canada, including Ontario.

This may pose a significant barrier to men interested in using the drug, as evidenced by the numbers in the study — while only about 8.4 per cent of Canadian respondents had ever used PrEP, over 50 per cent said they’d be likely to use it if it were both available and affordable. More respondents had used PrEP in Québec and in British Columbia — where the drug is covered by the province — than in Ontario.

Another important area the study illuminated is ‘party-and-play’ sex, or ‘chemsex,’ in which participants use drugs to enhance their sexual experience. When injectable drugs are introduced in sexual situations, there can be a much higher risk of participants contracting certain sexually transmitted infections.

Conclusions do not indicate a lack of concern with safe practices

That being said, Brennan recommended that readers be wary about assuming chemsex participants are automatically less concerned with sexual safety. Some researchers have found that in gatherings where participation incurs a greater risk of sexually-transmitted infections, participants build up a community of sorts to take care of each other’s sexual health.

Not only should the general public avoid leaping to conclusions, but researchers should as well. It’s easy to draw conclusions that might be unconsciously influenced by our prior biases, especially when reading research on gbMSM. In Canada, the survey reached out to a lot of participants through dating apps, which could affect the study’s results, as these participants may be more likely to have more or more frequent sexual partners.

This doesn’t, however, mean that they’re necessarily being less safe than the general population.

“I’ve had many calls from reporters wanting me to tell them that people using these apps are actually having more unsafe sex. And, no, there’s really not much evidence to show that,” said Brennan. “It’s less about the venue or the location and more about… preferred behaviour.”

The survey is, of course, limited in its sampling methods — it can only collect data from participants who were willing to reach out in response to ads on dating apps, or at sexual health centres that the study has paired with across the country.

But that doesn’t mean the data is any less useful. This data could be instrumental in drafting a health policy that accounts for the realities of being a Canadian man in the LGBTQ+ community.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

February 23, 2020February 23, 2020

Da Vinci’s sex life reveals a complex understanding of male love

Leonardo da Vinci ‘loved penises,’ but remained celibate argues historian Elizabeth Abbott

Historian Elizabeth Abbott argues that understanding Leonardo da Vinci’s sex life, or lackthereof, provides a rare glimpse into how sexuality and male love was understood and practised in Renaissance Italy.

By Elizabeth Abbott

Leonardo da Vinci is known as a brilliant artist and scientist — a genius who dreamed up flying machines 400 years before the first airplane ever took flight.

He’s also known for his exquisite art, and the ways he captured the complexity and nuance of female beauty. In his life, his relationships with women were positive, supportive and kind.

But he was repulsed by female sexuality.

“He had an almost clinical perception of heterosexual intercourse,” said historian Elizabeth Abbott in a lecture she delivered at Carleton University in Ottawa.

“He said, quote: ‘the sexual act of coitus and the body parts employed for it are so repulsive, that were it not for the beauty of the faces and the adornment of the actors and the pent-up impulse, nature would lose the human species.'”

She points to a sketch da Vinci drafted of heterosexual intercourse as a prime example of his revulsion.

“The woman is only represented by her cavities — there is no face, or head, or torso,” Abbott observed in conversation with IDEAS host, Nahlah Ayed.

“He referred to [sexual intercourse] as repellent. And certainly this would be a good illustration of that point of view.”

Meanwhile, he drew countless beautiful sketches of the phallus and anus.

“He loved penises,” said Abbott, who is a senior research associate at Trinity College at the University of Toronto.

“In fact, he wrote: ‘The penis sometimes displays an intellect of its own. When a man may desire it to be stimulated it remains obstinate and goes its own way, sometimes moving on its own without the permission of its owner. Whether he is awake or sleeping, it does what it desires. Often when the man wishes to use it, it desires otherwise. And often it wishes to be used and the man forbids it. Therefore, it appears that this creature possesses a life and intelligence separate from the men.'”

Humiliated into celibacy

Abbott describes da Vinci as homosexual — a term that would not have been understood in Renaissance Italy, where male love was accepted and celebrated.

“His sort of male sexuality was understood and accepted,” said Abbott. “He preferred the company of and the beauty of men…But what was despised [in Renaissance Italy] was sodomy. Why? It was probably because it was considered by the Church to be unnatural. Sex was supposed to be for procreation only.”

In 1476, Leonardo da Vinci was arrested by the Office of the Night under the accusation of sodomy. The Office of the Night was the moral policing unit in Florence. While eventually acquitted, the experience was so humiliating for him that Abbott argues da Vinci vowed himself to live a life of celibacy.

“Celibacy is defined in many different ways. For him it was not a privation,” she argues. “I think it’s a kind of celibacy that was very satisfying for him.”

She points out that he continued to surround himself with beautiful young men, and developed a deep relationship with a young man named Salai, who lived with Leonardo for more than 30 years as his muse and artistic inspiration — despite da Vinci’s own observations about how rude and untrustworthy Salai could be.

“Some claimed that [Salai] was his lover,” said Abbott. “But I prefer to describe him as the keeper of Leonardo’s erotic fantasies. I don’t think that … he actually had sex with him. He dressed him lavishly like a doll often in pink and dandyfied clothes and extravagant stockings and 24 pairs of shoes! It was an awful lot of shoes back in the Renaissance.”

She says that the way da Vinci directed his sexuality helps us recognize the fluidity of sexual identity today.

“We are so intent on understanding and defining ourselves,” Abbott said. “I think it’s fascinating to realize that the concept of homosexuality as we know it didn’t even exist then.”

And of course, Leonardo’s distaste for women’s sexuality did not influence his skill and passion for painting them, so long as they were fully clothed.

Leonardo da Vinci’s Ginevra de’ Benci beside his most famous painting, the Mona Lisa.

“He was very pro-women and he had good relations with many of them,” said Abbott, pointing out the care and artistry he displays in his painting of the Mona Lisa, and the lesser-known portrait of a young Ginevra.

She argues the beauty and sensitivity of da Vinci’s portraits of women would not have been possible if he did not develop a respect and connection with them.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

February 2, 2020February 2, 2020

Homosexuality may have evolved for social, not sexual reasons

We propose same-sex attraction evolved to allow greater social integration and stronger same-sex social bonds.

By Andrew Barron

How did homosexuality in humans evolve?

Typically, this question is posed as a paradox.

The argument is this: gay sex alone can’t produce children, and for traits to evolve, they have to be passed onto children, who get some form of competitive advantage from them.

From this perspective, some argue homosexuality should not have evolved.

In a paper published yesterday by myself and Duke University professor Brian Hare, we propose human sexuality (including homosexuality) evolved as an outcome of the evolution of increased sociability in humans.

We argue many of the evolutionary forces that shaped human sexuality were social, rather than based on reproductive ability.

This is our “sociosexual hypothesis” for the evolution of gay sex and attraction.

Sex for bonding

For humans, and many other animals, sex is not just about reproduction.

In our closest primate relative, the bonobo, straight and gay sex have vital roles in play, social transactions, barter of food, same-sex social bonding and bonding between mating pairs.

We shouldn’t limit our thinking about the evolution of sex to its reproductive functions. We must also consider its social functions.

Based on the social behaviour of primates (and other social mammals), we argue our species’ recent cognitive and behavioural evolution was driven by natural selection favouring traits that allowed better social integration. This is called prosociality.

Early humans that could quickly and easily access the benefits of group living had a strong selective advantage. We believe this led to the evolution of a whole range of traits including reduced aggression, increased communication, understanding, social play and affiliation.

Species such as the bonobo, that evolved for high prosociality, evolved to use sexual behaviour in many social contexts. This results in an increase of sex in general, greater diversity in the contexts of sex, and an increase in gay sex.

We believe something similar happened in recent human evolution. Gay sex and attraction may have evolved because individuals with a degree of same-sex attraction benefited from greater social mobility, integration and stronger same-sex social bonds.

This may sound counterintuitive, given gay people are socially marginalised, ostracised and even criminalised in many societies.

However, our argument addresses the early evolution of human sexuality, not how relatively recent phenomena like religion and religion-based legal structures have responded to sexual minorities.

Supporting facts

Many studies since the pioneering research of Alfred Kinsey and colleagues have emphasised that sexual minorities occur across all cultures, and the levels of gay and bisexual people in populations have been quite stable over time.

Our hypothesis predicts that bisexuality and people who identify as “mostly straight” should be more common than people who identify as exclusively gay, and this is the case.

Recent genetic analyses confirm hundreds of genes influence sexuality in complex ways.

We quite randomly inherit half our genes from each parent. Each person’s genetic makeup is unique, so it would be highly unlikely to find two people with exactly the same set of genes influencing their sexuality.

Thus, variation is expected, and individuals fall along a spectrum ranging from a majority who are straight, to a minority who identify as gay.

Our hypothesis for the evolution of homosexuality would predict this kind of variation in human sexuality, and can help explain why it is generally stable across cultures.

We believe sexuality is a highly complex trait, interwoven with sociality. Attraction, sexual behaviour, social bonds and desire all contribute to its complexity.

Asking the right questions

Height is another feature influenced by hundreds of genes, many of which interact with our external environments in complex ways.

We see a continuous variation in human height – some very tall and very short people exist.

We might draw on nutritional ecology to explore the evolution of human height, but would not feel the need to introduce special evolutionary arguments to explain the existence of tall or short people.

No special explanation is necessary. They are simply exhibiting natural, genetically influenced variations in height.

Similarly, we think asking how gay sex and attraction evolved is the wrong question.

A more useful question to ask is: how did human sexuality evolve in all its forms?

In doing do, we acknowledge homosexuality does not present a paradox needing a special explanation. It is simply a result of our species’ recent sociosexual evolution.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

February 1, 2020January 31, 2020

There’s a new sexual orientation category called heteroflexible.

And it brings health issues that need to be addressed.

By Darcel Rockett

Labels, categorization, boxes. There are some, if not many, who don’t want any part of identifying themselves by others’ characterizations.

But, according to Nicole Legate, an assistant professor of psychology at the Illinois Institute of Technology, some categorization is vital when it comes to addressing health disparities in sexual minority groups (groups other than heterosexuals), including higher levels of distress, lower levels of self-esteem, and unprotected sex.

It was while looking for those health disparities between heterosexuals and sexual minorities that Legate, with co-author Ronald Rogge of the University of Rochester, found a new sexual orientation category that they believe should be considered alongside heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals. That category is heteroflexibles — men and women who identify as heterosexual but who are strongly attracted to or engage in sex with people of the same sex. Legate said this group does not identify as bisexual, which is why these individuals should be in their own unique category.

Heteroflexibles are much less out about their orientation, according to Legate, so they don’t talk about it to other people nearly as much as bisexuals or gay and lesbian individuals. And not offering that bit of information to a health provider could prevent a physician, for instance, from recommending getting tested or talking about PrEP, pre-exposure prophylaxis, to prevent against HIV since same-sex partners (regardless of how one identifies) tend to have greater risk for sexually transmitted infections.

Legate and Rogge discussed heteroflexibles in a 2016 study where they created an algorithm that looks at survey participants’ identity, behavior and attraction to produce a more data-driven look at sexual orientation. The study included over 3,000 people in the U.S. and took about two years to complete. In the study, 56% of bisexuals said they had had a same sex partner in the previous year, and for heteroflexibles, it was 42%, Legate said. She estimates that up to 15% of the general population may identify as heteroflexible but that a larger representative sample is needed for more research.

“Against heterosexuals, they (heteroflexibles) showed higher rates of different kinds of risks and worse psychological functioning,” Legate said. “The risk behaviors they showed in our study were things like problematic drinking, condom-less sex — so greater levels of sexually transmitted infections. There are so few studies out there about this group, and we have not yet uncovered the reasons why they might show this higher level of risk.”

Next steps, Legate said, include nailing down why heteroflexibles might engage in same-sex activity versus opposite sex activity, how many heteroflexibles there are and why this group shows certain health disparities.

The more accurate estimates are of sexual minorities in the population, the better prepared researchers and health care providers interested in studying health, epidemiological and psychology issues related to sexual orientation can be when addressing their needs.

“When you go to the doctor’s office, they don’t ask you for your sexual orientation,” Legate said. “I think educating providers about the fact that it’s OK to ask and that it is relevant in many cases just like knowing race and age — these are standard demographic questions that can give us a little extra health information or help us understand what groups may be at elevated risks for different things.”

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

December 20, 2019December 20, 2019

7 myths about queer sex you should stop believing now

By Canela López

While sex in general has been misrepresented in popular media and porn, LGBTQ sex, in particular, tends to be exaggerated.
Less than 6% of teens reported that they received sex education with any mention of LGBTQ-related topics, making it easy to believe some of the most popular myths.
Here are 7 things you may have gotten wrong about queer sex.

While almost teens in the US get some form of sex education, fewer than 6% had sex education classes included LGBTQ-related topics as of 2015, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

This lack of formal education paired with the overall misrepresentation of LGBTQ sex in mainstream media and porn makes it easy for myths about queer sex to circulate.

Here are 8 things you may have gotten wrong about LGBTQ sex, from scissoring to STIs.

Myth: “Scissoring” is real.

“Scissoring” is not a thing. At least, not in the way that most porn portrays it.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, “scissoring” is when two people with vaginas touch clitorises in order to stimulate each other. It is one of the most common ways queer people with vaginas — typically cisgender lesbians — are shown having sex.

While a realistic version of scissoring called “tribbing” is actually used, the way porn portrays it is typically wrong, with a lot of forceful slamming of genitals and awkward positions that can’t be comfortable for anyone.

Myth: Penetration happens with no preparation.

Porn portraying queer men often fails to show the preparation involved in anal sex, such as cleaning the area, using lube, and foreplay.

According to Dr. Joseph Terlizzi, a colon and rectal surgeon, people who are bottoming — or being penetrated during anal sex — oftentimes need to prepare their bodies before sex to make sure they don’t get hurt.

“If your anus is too tightly contracted when you are first penetrated, you’ll run the risk of tearing skin or damaging your sphincter,” Terlizzi told Lighthouse: LGBTQ+ affirming care. “That’s why it’s important to relax your anus before penetration using various foreplay techniques and to keep your anus relaxed and well-lubricated while bottoming.”

In real life, not preparing adequately can lead to an uncomfortable and painful experience for those bottoming.

Myth: Bisexual people are just going through a phase.

The idea that bisexual people are just going through a phrase is one of the most common misconceptions around bisexuality, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

This kind of statement implies that you don’t believe their sexuality exists. Experts acknowledge that sexuality is a spectrum, just like gender, and people can be attracted to people of all genders, one gender, or no gender at all.

Myth: Women having sex with women must use a strap-on.

Porn, television, and movies that show queer women having sex often focus heavily on penetration, specifically with a strap-on — or a sex toy that attaches a dildo to a harness so that people can engage in hands-free penetration.

But the idea that strap-ons are a part of sex every single time is inaccurate, and frames queer sex in a heteronormative way.

In reality, sex can look lots of different ways for queer people with vaginas, and not all of them revolve around penetration. Oral sex, clitoral stimulation, dry humping, nipple play, and tribbing are just a few of the ways that queer people can get it on without penetration.

Myth: People with vaginas can’t give each other STIs.

While the use of dental dams — or latex sheets designed to be put on the vagina during oral sex — is sometimes seen as a joke among queer people, the idea that two people with vaginas can’t transmit STIs to each other is far from true.

Queer people with vaginas are at risk for the same types of STIs as cisgender or straight people and sex should still be approached with caution. STIs can be transmitted from skin to skin contact, oral-genital stimulation, and contaminated toys, so safe sex practices are important.

Myth: You can guess who’s a top and who’s a bottom.

A consistent theme in media featuring queer people is the masc-femme, top-bottom dichotomy. Think Shane Mccutcheon on the original “The L Word” being the ultimate top heartbreaker while sporting her iconic androgynous rocker aesthetic.

Essentially, feminine-presenting people are framed as being the “bottom,” or the person the sex is done to, and masculine-presenting people are framed as being the “top,” or the person being assertive during sex.

In reality, people can be tops, bottoms, or switches — or people who are versatile in their sexual preferences — regardless of gender presentation.

Myth: Having preferences that exclude people based on whether they are cisgender or a certain racial group isn’t problematic.

Queer men often list “preferences” on dating apps like “no blacks, no femmes, no fatties.” Sometimes, these preferences really just act as thinly veiled guises for racism, transphobia, and fatphobia.

Research released earlier this year on sexual racism illustrated the negative impacts this kind of dating exclusion can have on queer men of color.

In addition to racial preferences, a significant number of dating app users exclude transgender people from their dating pool.

These kinds of identity-based preferences lead to feelings of low self-esteem and marginalization among those excluded, and can contribute to disproportionately high rates of poor mental health and even suicide among these groups.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

December 18, 2019December 18, 2019

Why are people homophobic?

Prejudice unpacked

December 5, 2019December 5, 2019

Is Same-Sex Behavior Hardwired in Animals from the Beginning?

Same-sex sexual behavior might have started out on an equal footing with different-sex sex.

Evolutionary scientists have been thinking about same-sex sexual behavior all wrong.

That’s the implication of a new study on same-sex behavior in animals. Instead of asking why animals engage in same-sex behavior (SSB), researchers should be asking, “Why not?” the authors said.

If they’re right, same-sex sex may not have evolved independently in different animals for adpative reasons. Instead, same-sex sex may have emerged very early in time and could persist simply because engaging in it doesn’t cost animals much, evolutionarily speaking.

“Usually, when evolutionary biologists see a trait that’s really widespread across evolutionary lineages, we at least consider the idea that the trait is ancestral and was preserved in all those lineages,” said Julia Monk, a doctoral candidate at Yale University, who co-authored the new research. “So why hadn’t people considered that hypothesis for SSB?”

In evolutionary science, same-sex sexual behavior has long been viewed as a conundrum: Why would animals spend time and energy doing something sexual that won’t pass along their genes to the next generation? And yet, same-sex sexual behavior has been observed in at least 1,500 species, ranging from lowly squash bugs to humans.

(To avoid anthropomorphizing, the researchers don’t use the terms “homosexual,” “heterosexual,” “gay” or “straight” to refer to animal behavior.)

“We can’t assign sexuality to animals — we’re trying our best to learn about them by observing their behaviors,” Monk told Live Science. “And those behaviors shouldn’t be mapped onto human cultural and societal contexts.”

The assumption that there must be an evolutionary reason for all this same-sex sex has led researchers to search for possible benefits to same-sex behavior. For example, in humans, researchers have found that having a gay son or brother seems to be associated with a woman having more offspring in total. Other studies have posited that same-sex sexual behavior is a side effect of other genes that have reproductive benefits.

In evolutionary biology, the ability of an animal to reproduce given its environment is called fitness. It’s entirely possible that in some species, same-sex sex could have fitness benefits, Monk and her colleagues wrote in their paper, published Nov. 18 in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution. But these evolutionary benefits may not be required for same-sex sexual behavior to exist.

Imagine, instead, that the earliest sexually reproducing animals simply tried to mate with any and all members of their species — regardless of sex. This might have been a logical pathway for evolution, because all the bells and whistles that distinguish males from females are energetically costly to evolve. So any effort expended on mating with the same sex would be compensated for by not spending energy evolving and maintaining distinctive secondary sex characteristics, like differing colors, scents and behaviors. Those sex-distinguishing traits may have all come later in the evolutionary chain, the authors argued.

In this formulation, same-sex and different-sex sexual behavior would have started out on an equal footing, early in animal evolution. This could explain why same-sex sex is so common throughout the animal kingdom: It didn’t evolve multiple times independently, but was instead part of the fabric of animal evolution from the start.

Same-sex penguin couples keep adopting eggs, and the Berlin Zoo is celebrating

The new hypothesis undercuts old assumptions about same-sex behaviors, said Caitlin McDonough, a doctoral candidate at Syracuse University and a study co-author. Much of the research done on these sexual behaviors assumes that same-sex sex is costly for animals and that different-sex sex is not costly, she said.

“You really need to go through those assumptions and test the costs and benefits of both behaviors in a system,” McDonough said.

If same-sex behaviors go back to the roots of animal evolution, the fact that these behaviors are so common today makes sense, Monk said.

“If you assume a trait like SSB is a new development and has high costs, it’s going to be really hard to understand how it could become more and more common from those low initial frequencies,” she said. “It would have to have really large fitness benefits, or be otherwise impervious to natural selection, for that outcome to be probable.

“On the other hand, if you assume a trait is ancestral and was originally common, and it has low costs, it’s much more likely that it would remain widespread to this day, even if it doesn’t seem to contribute much to fitness.”

One piece of evidence supporting this hypothesis is that some echinoderms, including sea stars and sea urchins, engage in same-sex sexual behavior. Echinoderms evolved early in the history of life, likely in the Precambrian period more than 541 million years ago.

But other evidence is slim, largely because scientists haven’t systematically studied same-sex sexual behavior in animals. Most observations have been accidental, and biologists have often viewed sex between two animals of the same sex as irrelevant or improper to note, Monk said. Sometimes, researchers automatically assume that same-sex behavior isn’t really about sex but instead is about dominance or bonding. And often, if two animals are observed having sex, they’re assumed to be male and female without any confirmatory evidence, McDonough said.

“The science that we do is really informed and influenced by cultural biases,” she said.

Thinking of same-sex sexual behavior as a standard part of the animal repertoire would change how researchers approach the study of the evolution of these behaviors. The next step, Monk said, would be to gather more data on the prevalence of same-sex behavior in animals. Then, researchers could compare species from across the tree of life to determine if all linages show same-sex behavior. If so, it would strengthen the argument that same-sex sexuality was part of life for the ancestors of all of today’s sexually reproducing animals.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

November 17, 2019November 17, 2019

Survey sheds light on fluid teen sexual orientation

At least one in five teenagers reports some change in sexual orientation during adolescence, according to new research.

by Matt Shipman

“This work highlights the fluidity that many adolescents experience in terms of how they label their sexuality and who they feel sexually attracted to,” says lead author J. Stewart, a PhD student at North Carolina State University.

For this study, researchers looked at data from 744 students from rural high schools in the southeastern United States; 54% of the students were girls, 46% were boys. Students filled out surveys each year for three years, spanning either their freshman through junior years or their sophomore through senior years. Researchers collected the data between 2014 and 2016.

The researchers found that at some point during the three-year period, 19% of students reported at least one change in their self-labeled sexual identity—for example, classifying themselves as heterosexual in year one and as bisexual in year two. Some students reported multiple changes, such as switching from heterosexual to bisexual between years one and two, and then back to heterosexual in year three.

There were also notable differences between male and female students, with 26% of girls reporting some change in sexual identity over the three-year study period, compared to 11% of boys.

In addition to how teens labeled their sexualities, researchers looked at the extent to which teens reported being romantically attracted to boys and/or girls. The study found that 21% of students reported changes in who they were attracted to over the course of the study. As with sexual identity, some students reported changes in romantic attraction between years one and two, and again between years two and three.

Again, there were notable differences between boys and girls, with 31% of girls reporting changes in romantic attraction, compared to 10% of boys.

“Some adolescents shifted between sexual minority identities and/or attractions—gay or lesbian, bisexual, etc. as well as varying degrees of same-sex attractions—across all three years,” Stewart says. “Others fluctuated between heterosexual and sexual minority groups. And when we looked at the extent to which sexual identity, attraction, and sexual behavior aligned, we saw some interesting trends.”

The researchers found that the majority of people who identified as sexual minorities also reported some degree of same-sex attraction—and most had engaged in some form of sexual behavior with a person of the same sex.

However, there was more variability among students who identified themselves as heterosexual—particularly for girls.

For example, 9% of all female students labeled themselves as both heterosexual and having at least some attraction to girls. And 12% of girls who reported being both heterosexual and having no sexual attraction toward girls also reported engaging in same-sex sexual behavior.

“The results for boys mirrored those for girls, albeit to a lesser degree,” Stewart says.

“Adolescence is a time of identity exploration, and sexual orientation is one aspect of that. One takeaway here is that the process of sexual identity development is quite nuanced for a lot of teens. And based on research with young adults, we expect these patterns will continue for many people into their late 20s and even beyond.

“To be clear, we’re talking about internally driven changes in sexual orientation,” Stewart says. “This research does not suggest these changes can be imposed on an individual and does not support the idea of conversion therapy. There’s ample evidence that conversion therapy is harmful and does not influence anyone’s sexual orientation.”

The researchers are already considering future directions for the work.

“The data in this study comes from kids growing up in the rural South,” Stewart says. “It would be interesting to see if these numbers vary across different sociopolitical environments. Additionally, we weren’t able to identify how these patterns looked among trans and other gender minority adolescents. That would be an important direction for future work.”

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

October 22, 2019October 22, 2019

Think Your Child Might Be Questioning Their Gender Identity?

Get them willing to talk with these 5 tips

You suspect your child is questioning their gender. You’re starting to pick up some clues, but what’s the next step? Should you approach your teen? Wait for them to come to you?

Gender-questioning conversations can be difficult for caregivers. Pediatric endocrinologist Julia Cartaya, MD, discusses gender identity and offers five conversation-starting tips to support and guide teens.

What is gender questioning?

When someone isn’t sure where they are on the spectrum of gender identity, they may be gender-questioning.

“A teen may feel like their body was formed in a way that doesn’t fit who they are,” says Dr. Cartaya. “They may be exploring whether they’re fully one gender or another, or if they’re somewhere in between genders.”

Many kids have known for a while that there is something different about them, she explains. They have done a lot of research and investigation to get a better sense of what they are feeling. “When they’re ready, most of them will come out to their caregiver if they feel comfortable and know they are supported,” she says.

While some parents and caregivers say they’ve suspected for a while that their child doesn’t conform to their birth-assigned gender, others are blindsided. “Others may realize, in hindsight, that there were clues along the way,” Dr. Cartaya says.

Brush up on the terms

Terminology matters to gender-questioning teens — and that goes beyond pronouns and names. “It’s important to get the vernacular correct,” Dr. Cartaya says.

It’s also important to understand the difference between gender identity and sexual orientation, and to recognize that everyone has a sexual orientation that is separate from their gender identity. Dr. Cartaya explains it this way: Sexual orientation is who you go to bed with, but gender identity is who you go to bed as.

Gender identity terms

These terms help describe the scale of feminine to masculine:

Gender identity: A person’s deeply held internal sense of being male or female or somewhere else on the gender spectrum.
Sex assigned at birth: The classification people are given at birth regarding sex and, typically, gender, usually based on genitalia.
Transgender: A person whose gender identity is different, and often fully opposite, from their sex assigned at birth.
Cisgender: A person whose gender identity is the same as their sex assigned at birth.
Gender nonbinary: A person who identifies as both male and female, or somewhere in between male and female.
Gender fluid: Your sense of where you are on the spectrum of male to female can change over time, even from day to day.

Sexual identity terms

When talking to your child about what gender interests them sexually, these terms are appropriate:

Lesbian: A woman who wants to be in a relationship with another woman.
Gay: A man who wants to be in a relationship with another man (though sometimes lesbians also use this term).
Bisexual: Someone who is sexually attracted to both men and women.
Pansexual: Someone who is interested in having relationships with all genders.

How do you create an environment where teens feel comfortable talking?

Subtleties, like using the right terminology, help your teen know you’re in their court. So avoid the temptation to ask the child outright, Dr. Cartaya advises.

Instead, create space for your child to bring it up when they are ready.

Here are some do’s for helping a teen have conversations about gender identity:

DO talk in generalities about gender and sexuality. “I often suggest using TV, film or news articles to initiate conversations,” Dr. Cartaya says. “You might say, ‘I think it’s great that different types of people are represented on the big screen,’ or ‘I just saw that so-and-so came out. If you or your sister ever questioned your gender or sexuality, I hope you would feel comfortable talking to me about it.’”

By talking positively about gender identity, your child will hear that you are supportive. They may be more inclined to speak to you when they are ready.

DO use trusted adults or friends to help you talk with your teen. Some kids may not come out to a caregiver if they are concerned they won’t be loved and supported. But they may come out to a friend or a trusted adult, like a teacher.

“If you hear from a teacher that your child is gender-questioning, let the teacher know you are open to having conversations with your child. Hopefully, they will encourage your child to talk to you,” says Dr. Cartaya. “A discreet approach to communicating with your child is acceptable and often effective.”

DO talk with a healthcare provider ahead of time. If your child’s behaviors concern you, consider talking with their provider before a scheduled appointment. Let the doctor know your child may be gender-questioning and that you’re willing and open to talking with your teen.

“This is also an effective strategy if you’re concerned your teen is experiencing depression or anxiety,” says Dr. Cartaya. “The provider can bring up the subject carefully and make a referral to a counselor if need be.”

Other clues your child may benefit from a doctor visit include:

Struggling in school.
Socially isolating themselves.
Drastic behavior changes.

DO use the right names and pronouns when your child comes out. When your teen confides in you, observe how they refer to themselves, and try to use that same language. They may prefer a different pronoun or an entirely different name. Using those terms demonstrates your support.

But, before using your child’s preferred name and pronouns with others, make sure your child is comfortable with it. You do not want to be responsible for outing your child to someone they are not comfortable being out to.

DO write your child a love note. Dr. Cartaya advises not mentioning anything about gender identity in the letter. Letting your child know you love them unconditionally gives them the green light to approach you when they are ready.

After all, who doesn’t enjoy a good love letter? “I highly recommend sending your child a note listing all their wonderful attributes and telling them you’ll love them forever, no matter what,” she says.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!