ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Some nonheterosexual individuals are eschewing lesbian/gay and bisexual identities for queer and pansexual identities. The present study aimed to examine the sexual and demographic characteristics of nonheterosexual individuals who adopt these labels. A convenience sample of 2,220 nonheterosexual (1,459 lesbian/gay, 413 bisexual, 168 queer, 146 pansexual, and 34 other “write-in”) individuals were recruited for a cross-sectional online survey. In support of our hypotheses, those adopting pansexual identities were younger than those adopting lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities, and those adopting queer and pansexual identities were more likely to be noncisgender than cisgender, and more likely to be cisgender women than men. The majority of pansexual individuals demonstrated sexual orientation indices within the bisexual range, and showed equivalent patterns of sexual attraction, romantic attraction, sexual behavior, and partner gender as bisexual-identified men and women. In contrast, three-quarters of queer men, and more than half of queer women, reported sexual attraction in the homosexual range. This study found that rather than a general movement toward nontraditional sexual identities, queer and pansexual identities appear most appealing to nonheterosexual women and noncisgender individuals. These findings contribute important information regarding who adopts queer and pansexual identities in contemporary sexual minority populations.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
Download by: [University of Sydney Library] Date: 02 December 2016, At: 19:34
The Journal of Sex Research
ISSN: 0022-4499 (Print) 1559-8519 (Online) Journal homepage:
Who Adopts Queer and Pansexual Sexual
James S. Morandini, Alexander Blaszczynski & Ilan Dar-Nimrod
To cite this article: James S. Morandini, Alexander Blaszczynski & Ilan Dar-Nimrod (2016):
Who Adopts Queer and Pansexual Sexual Identities?, The Journal of Sex Research, DOI:
To link to this article:
Published online: 02 Dec 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Who Adopts Queer and Pansexual Sexual Identities?
James S. Morandini, Alexander Blaszczynski , and Ilan Dar-Nimrod
School of Psychology, The University of Sydney
Some nonheterosexual individuals are eschewing lesbian/gay and bisexual identities for queer
and pansexual identities. The present study aimed to examine the sexual and demographic
characteristics of nonheterosexual individuals who adopt these labels. A convenience sample of
2,220 nonheterosexual (1,459 lesbian/gay, 413 bisexual, 168 queer, 146 pansexual, and 34 other
write-in) individuals were recruited for a cross-sectional online survey. In support of our
hypotheses, those adopting pansexual identities were younger than those adopting lesbian, gay,
and bisexual identities, and those adopting queer and pansexual identities were more likely to be
noncisgender than cisgender, and more likely to be cisgender women than men. The majority of
pansexual individuals demonstrated sexual orientation indices within the bisexual range, and
showed equivalent patterns of sexual attraction, romantic attraction, sexual behavior, and
partner gender as bisexual-identied men and women. In contrast, three-quarters of queer
men, and more than half of queer women, reported sexual attraction in the homosexual
range. This study found that rather than a general movement toward nontraditional sexual
identities, queer and pansexual identities appear most appealing to nonheterosexual women and
noncisgender individuals. These ndings contribute important information regarding who
adopts queer and pansexual identities in contemporary sexual minority populations.
Increasingly, nonheterosexual individuals are reporting sex-
ual identities other than lesbian, gay, bisexual, or straight
(Horner, 2007; Savin-Williams, 2009). While various non-
traditional sexual identities exist, two of the more frequently
adopted are queer and pansexual (Kuper, Nussbaum, &
Mustanski, 2012; Russell, Clarke, & Clary, 2009; Rust,
2000). These emerging ways of conceptualizing and label-
ing sexual identity are particularly visible in sexual minority
politics, with campus pride collectives and advocacy groups
adopting extended acronyms (such as LGBTIQQPA)
which are inclusive of queer (Q) and pansexual (P).
Moreover, recently, a number of high-prole gures have
embraced nontraditional sexual identities, including pop
celebrity Miley Cyrus, who revealed in a recent interview
Im pansexual(Sieczkowski, 2015), and Rep. Mary
Gonzalez, the rst openly pansexual elected U.S. ofcial
(Signorile, 2015). Perhaps unsurprisingly, nontraditional
sexual identities have generated considerable popular inter-
est, with an explosion of articles from mainstream media
outlets examining how queer and pansexual differ from
lesbian, gay, and bisexual.
Pansexual is often conceptualized as a label that denotes
sexual or romantic attraction to people regardless of their
gender expression (masculinity or femininity), gender iden-
tity, or biological sex (Rice, 2015). It is frequently distin-
guished from bisexual identity on the basis that it explicitly
rejects attractions based on binary notions of sex (male versus
female) and gender (man versus woman). Reecting a differ-
ent evolution, queer was historically a pejorative term for
homosexual and gender-nonconforming (i.e., effeminate)
men (Chauncey, 1994; Levy & Johnson, 2011). Most
recently, it has been reclaimed by LGBT scholars and acti-
vists, and now often serves as an umbrella term for diverse
nonheterosexual identities (Callis, 2013; Levy & Johnson,
2011). As a distinct sexual identity, queer identity may be
favored because it dees normative categories of homosexual
versus bisexual versus heterosexual, which may be perceived
as narrow, limiting, or oppressive (Horner, 2007). For
instance, those who have experienced shifts in facets of
their sexual orientation over time (i.e., sexual uidity) may
nd that a queer label is best able to capture their particular
type of sexuality. A queer sexual identity may also be pre-
ferred because it is inclusive of attractions that transcend
binary conceptualizations of gender.
Some sexuality scholars and social commentators have
argued that the emergence of these nontraditional identities
signal a postgayera, in which younger nonheterosexuals
are increasingly rejecting rigid categories of lesbian/gay
versus bisexual versus straight (Savin-Williams, 2005).
However, at present, empirical data with which to evaluate
these claims are scarce. An alternative possibility is that
Correspondence should be addressed to James S. Morandini, Brennan
MacCallum Building, A18, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006,
Australia. E-mail:
Copyright © The Society for the Scientic Study of Sexuality
ISSN: 0022-4499 print/1559-8519 online
DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2016.1249332
rather than a universal movement toward nontraditional
labels, this shift is occurring predominantly in particular
subgroups of nonheterosexuals. The present study aimed
to examine the sexual orientation and demographic charac-
teristics of nonheterosexual individuals who adopt queer
and pansexual identities, allowing for further evaluation of
the latter possibility.
What Do We Know About Queer and Pansexual
There are limited data on the prevalence of queer and
pansexual identities; indeed, until recently, few surveys
included Queer or Pansexual response options when asses-
sing sexual identity. A brief review of relevant studies found
that the proportion of nonheterosexuals that adopted the
label queer differed considerably from sample to sample.
In mixed-gender samples of predominantly cisgender indi-
viduals, queer identication appears relatively low. In a
convenience sample of nonheterosexual Californian second-
ary school students, Russell et al. (2009) found that only
5.2% identied as queer, while a large national convenience
sample of nonheterosexual Australian adults (average age
37.7 years) put this gure at 7.1% (Leonard et al., 2012).
Two North American college samples of predominantly
cisgender nonheterosexuals registered a higher proportion
of queer identication, with Gray and Desmarais (2014)
nding 16% of men and women (average age 21 years)
and Friedman and Leaper (2010)nding 25% of nonheter-
osexual women (average age 20 years) identifying as queer.
A smaller number of studies have assessed queer and pan-
sexual identities concurrently. In a recent community sam-
ple of 285 nonheterosexuals (average age 26.5 years) from
across the United States, Galupo, Davis, Grynkiewicz, and
Mitchell (2014) reported that 16.8% identied as pansexual
and 19.6% as queer. Similar proportions of pansexual
(15.6%) and queer (15.6%) participants were found in a
subsequent survey of 448 U.S. residing nonheterosexuals
(average age 26.4 years) by the same research group
(Galupo, Mitchell, & Davis, 2015). It should be noted that
both studies included a relatively high proportion of non-
cisgender participants (30% and 25%, respectively), perhaps
explaining the high prevalence of queer and pansexual
identication observed in these community samples.
Queer and pansexual labels may be preferred by those who
are noncisgender (i.e., those whose gender identity does not
align with their sex assigned at birth, or whose gender identity
does not conform to normative categories of man versus
woman) given that they are gender-neutral terms which do
not require individuals to dene their own gender in relation to
their object choice, or categorize their attractions based on
binary notions of gender. Two recent studies were identied
that assessed nontraditional sexual identity labels specically
among noncisgender samples. In a convenience sample of
primarily North American individuals (average age 28 years)
who self-identied as transgender or as gender nonconforming,
Kuper et al. (2012) found that queer and pansexual identities
were the most frequently endorsed sexual identity labels,
accounting for 17.1% and 20.6% of participants, respectively.
These proportions, however, are similar to those observed
among cisgender college-aged samples, and mixed cisgender
versus noncisgender community samples as described pre-
viously (e.g., Galupo et al., 2015). More striking evidence of
a relationship between nontraditional sexual identities and
noncisgender identities comes from Katz-Wise, Reisner,
Hughto, and Keo-Meier (2015), who reported that over 43%
of a community sample of transgender or gender-nonconform-
ing adults residing in Massachusetts (average age 32 years)
identied as queer and 19% as another nontraditional sexual
identity. Given the disagreement in these rates of adoption,
further research is required to conrm the strength of the links
between queer and pansexual identities and noncisgender
At present, no published studies provide a breakdown of
queer and pansexual identities by sex or gender identity
which would allow us to assess the uniformity of the adop-
tion of these labels based on important facets such as sex
and cisgender versus noncisgender status.
What are the Sexual Orientations of Those Who Identify
as Queer or Pansexual?
One basic yet unanswered question relates to the sexual
orientation of nonheterosexuals who gravitate toward pansexual
or queer labels. That is, are these individuals predominantly
monosexual (i.e., attracted to one gender) or nonmonosexual
(i.e., attracted to more than one gender), or do substantial
proportions of both monosexual and nonmonosexual indivi-
duals adopt these labels? To address this question, we rst
need to distinguish what is meant by sexual identity versus
sexual orientation. Sexual identity refers to a label adopted by
an individual to communicate the most salient aspect of his or
her sexuality (Savin-Williams, 2011). Traditionally this relates
to sexual orientation and conforms to the social categories of
lesbian/gay, bisexual, or straight. As discussed, there is evidence
that individuals are increasingly adopting sexual identities
which not only reference sexual orientations but also encompass
other aspects of their sexuality, including attraction to personal
characteristics regardless of gender (e.g., sapiosexual), sexual
attraction only in the context of a romantic bond (e.g., demisex-
ual or graysexual), preference for particular sexual activities or
relationship types (e.g., kink or polyamorist) (Savin-Williams,
2011), as well as queer and pansexual (as dened previously).
Sexual orientation typically refers to an individuals ten-
dency to experience sexual attraction, arousal, desire, and
fantasy toward men, women, or both, to varying degrees
(Bailey, 2009). There is a general consensus that male sex-
ual orientation is relatively stable across the life course
that it is category specic; typically, men experience sexual
desire toward either women or men, with bisexual sexual
desires comparatively rare (Bailey, 2009; Chivers, Rieger,
Latty, & Bailey, 2004; Rieger, Chivers, & Bailey, 2005;
Rosenthal, Sylva, Safron, & Bailey, 2012). In contrast,
female sexual orientation appears more uid, meaning that
the target of womens sexual desires or romantic infatua-
tions may change over time (Diamond, 2008b). Moreover,
women tend to report less exclusivity in facets of their
sexual orientation; for instance, compared with men,
women are more likely to report bisexual sexual desires
than they are to report exclusive same-sex desires
(Kanazawa, 2016).
It is typically thought that sexual orientation determines
not only the gender we sexually desire but also the gender
with whom we fall in love. Evidence suggests, however,
that while sexual and romantic attractions align for most
people, they may function somewhat independently for
others (Savin-Williams, 2014). These experiences t with
emerging theoretical perspectives on the distinction between
sexual desire and love, which propose that while sexual
desire is inherently oriented to a particular sex, romantic
love is not (Diamond, 2003). In fact, there is evidence that
some sexual minority individuals distinguish between their
sexual versus romantic orientations, even integrating these
distinctions into their sexual identities, with distinct labels
for sexual versus romantic dispositions (e.g., homosexual
panromantic) (Galupo et al., 2014; Galupo et al., 2015).
Accordingly, recent studies emphasize the importance of
measuring sexual and romantic attraction when assessing
sexual orientation in contemporary samples of nonhetero-
sexuals, given that both sexual and romantic attractions may
inuence how individuals conceptualize their sexual
Distinct from these constructs is sexual behavior pattern,
which relates to with whom (e.g., same sex, other sex, or
both) one has sex. In addition to ones sexual orientation
(who one sexually desires), sexual behavior pattern may be
inuenced by factors such as availability of potential part-
ners and the presence of negative societal attitudes (and
even legal prohibitions) toward same-sex sexuality. Indeed,
in some instances, bisexual or lesbian/gay individuals may
forgo same-sex relationships and/or sexual encounters to
avoid stigma.
Keeping these distinctions in mind, what types of non-
heterosexual individuals adopt queer or pansexual sexual
identities? It stands to reason that queer and pansexual
labels are most frequently adopted by those who experi-
ence sexual attraction to more than one gender (i.e. non-
monosexuals) (Galupo et al., 2015;Horner,2007). In this
case, queer and pansexual populations would be similar in
sexual/romantic attraction and sexual behavior to those
who are bisexual identied, with their differences having
more to do with their sexual politics than their sexual
orientation per se. Moreover, some nonmonosexual indi-
viduals may adopt queer and pansexual labels to avoid
stigma associated with a bisexual identity (Callis, 2013).
However, if queer and pansexual labels reect elements
beyond just a renaming of the stigmatized label bisexual,
an investigation of the distinguishing characteristics of the
individuals who adopt these labels is warranted. For instance, it
is plausible, that some queer-identied individuals are homo-
sexual (sexual orientation) and publicly identify as queer for
political reasons, such as a commitment to progressive notions
of gender and sexuality. A further question is whether the
likelihood of adopting queer and pansexual identities differs
by sex and gender identity. As bisexual attraction is more
common than exclusive same-sex attraction in women (and
given that the reverse is true for men), queer and pansexual
identities are therefore expected to be more prevalent in women
than men. In addition, as conceptualizing and labeling ones
sexual identity may be more complex for noncisgender indivi-
duals (e.g., traditional sexual identities may come with
unwanted assumptions about ones gender), noncisgender indi-
viduals may also be more likely to adopt queer and pansexual
identities than cisgender individuals, as suggested by previous
research (Katz-Wise et al., 2015). Empirical data are therefore
required to shed light on the sexual orientations and gender
identities of those who adopt queer and pansexual identities in
contemporary sexual minority populations.
The Present Study
The present study, conducted among an almost exclu-
sively Australian-residing sample, aimed to compare queer
and pansexual populations to each other, and also to les-
bian, gay, and bisexual populations, to explore (a) what
demographics predict the adoption of queer and pansexual
sexual identities and (b) what are the sexual attractions,
romantic attractions, and sexual behavior patterns of non-
heterosexuals who self-label as queer and pansexual. The
following hypotheses were advanced regarding demo-
graphic predictors:
H1: Consistent with some previous research (e.g., Katz-Wise
et al., 2015), those identifying as noncisgender would be
more likely to endorse nontraditional sexual identities (i.e.,
queer and pansexual) than those who are cisgender.
H2: As bisexual attractions are more common in women than
men (Bailey, 2009;Baumeister,2000;Diamond,2008a),
we expected that those cisgender individuals identifying
as queer or pansexual will be predominantly women.
H3: Given that queer and pansexual are more recently emerging
sexual identity labels (Belous & Bauman, 2016; Callis,
2014; Savin-Williams, 2005), they will be disproportio-
nately adopted by those in younger compared to older
Regarding psychosocial facets, an additional hypothesis
was set forth:
H4: Given that queer and pansexual can be conceptualized as
nonmonosexual identities (Mitchell, Davis, & Galupo,
2014) those adopting these labels will be more likely to
report sexual orientation indices in the bisexual range
than either the heterosexual or homosexual range, and
will demonstrate similar patterns of (a) sexual, (b) roman-
tic attraction, (c) sexual behavior, and (d) partner gender
as bisexual-identied individuals.
Participants were drawn from a larger online survey inves-
tigating sexual orientation beliefs and minority stress among
sexual minority Australians. To be eligible for participation,
respondents were required to identify as nonheterosexual
(or having experienced nonheterosexual attractions), and be
18 years or older. From 2,445 who accessed the survey,
2,220 attempted all demographic questions of interest (includ-
ing gender, sexual identity, sexual orientation indicators). Of
these, n= 129 (5.8%) identied as noncisgender, with the
majority of these individuals endorsing the label genderqueer
or genderuid (see Table 1). A total of 34 (1.5%) participants
wrote in a sexual identity other than queer, pansexual, bisexual
or lesbian/gay, including Othernot specied (n=13),
Demisexual (n=6),Biromantic asexual (n=5),Bicurious/
questioning/unsure (n=7),andUnlabeled (n=3).
Participants ranged in age from 18 to 77 years
(M= 29.30, SD = 11.01). There were broadly equal propor-
tions of cisgender men (47.6%) and women (46.6%). The
most frequently endorsed sexual identity was lesbian or gay
(65.7%), followed by bisexual (18.6%), queer (7.6%) and
pansexual (6.6%) (see Table 2). In all, 85% of respondents
identied as Caucasian (White), 5.7% East or Southeast
Asian, 1% Middle Eastern, 1% Aboriginal/Torres Strait
Islander, 0.9% South Asian, and 6% mixed ethnicity. Most
participants were nonreligious (77.1%), with a minority of
Christian (15%), Buddhist (3%), Jewish (0.6%), and
Muslim (0.5%) religions represented. The vast majority of
participants resided in Australia (95.3%), with 47.2% living
in an inner metropolitan area, 36.3% in an outer metropoli-
tan area, and 16.4% in a regional or rural area. Around 45%
reported their highest level of education as high school, 36%
as an undergraduate degree, and 19% as a postgraduate
degree. The relationship statuses reported in the sample
were single (51.4%), monogamously coupled (39.1%), and
open/polyamorous relationship (8.8%). Of those cisgender
participants currently in a relationship (n= 1,319), 79.6%
reported a same-sex partner, 15.4% an opposite-sex partner,
4.0% current same-sex and opposite-sex partners, and 1% a
noncisgender partner.
The survey could be accessed via a website from
February 2013 to September 2015. We employed targeted
and snowball sampling in recruiting our sample. There was
no incentive for participation. Participants accessed the sur-
vey via an advertisement (with an embedded link to the
survey website) posted in a number of LGB-themed
Facebook groups, including Marriage Equality Australia,
Pansexual Pride,and AIDS Council of NSW,and
reposted on Facebook and Twitter by several local LGB
organizations. E-mail invitations were also sent to mailing
lists of LGB organizations and 20 university pride collec-
tives across Australia. A paid advertisement was placed on a
popular national LGB news website. The University of
Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee approved the
Table 1. Percentages of Lesbian/Gay, Bisexual, Queer, Pansexual, and Write-In Sexual Identities Within Noncisgender Subgroups
Noncisgender Group
Gay/Lesbian Bisexual Queer Pansexual Other Write-In
Women (MTF) 50 (9) 11.1 (2) 16.7 (3) 22.2 (4) 0 (0)
Men (FTM) 26.7 (4) 13.3 (2) 26.7 (4) 26.7 (4) 6.7 (1)
Nonbinary 15.9 (13)
4.9 (4)
45.1 (37)
26.8 (22)
7.3 (6)
Other write-in 21.4 (3) 7.1 (1) 21.4 (3) 21.4 (3) 28.7 (4)
Note. The nonbinary group was composed of individuals who selected a genderqueeror genderuidgender identity. The other write-in group comprised
agender(n= 5), neither(n= 2), demi-girl(n= 3), and not sure/questioning(n= 4). Chi-square tests were undertaken on each noncisgender subgroup
to examine whether column proportions differed for that row. The chi-square test was signicant for the nonbinary group (χ
[4] = 44.46, p< .001), but not for
women (MTF), men (FTM) or the other (write-in) groups, p> .05. Follow-up multiple comparisons with Bonferroni corrections were undertaken to identify
which sexual identities were most frequently endorsed by nonbinary participants. Sexual identity labels in a row that share the same letters do not differ
signicantly at p< .05.
Table 2. Percentage of Lesbian/Gay, Bisexual, Queer, Pansexual,
and Write-In Sexual Identities
(n= 1,056)
(n= 1,036)
(n= 129)
Sexual Identity % N%N%N
Gay/lesbian 85.8 (904)
50.9 (527)
22.5 (29)
Bisexual 9.7 (102)
29.2 (302)
7.0 (9)
Queer 2.7 (29)
8.9 (92)
36.4 (47)
Pansexual 1.7 (18)
9.2 (95)
25.6 (33)
Other write-in 0.3 (3)
1.9 (20)
8.5 (11)
Gender × Sexual identity χ
(8) = 601.07, p< .05
Note. Sexual identity labels in a row that share the same letters do not differ
signicantly at p< .05. Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons
were undertaken when comparing column proportions in each row.
No comparisons undertaken as cell size < 5.
Respondents followed the URL address to a participant
information statement and consent form. Those who were
eligible for participation then completed a 30-minute ques-
tionnaire assessing demographics, sexual orientation indica-
tors and beliefs, minority stress, and well-being (results
relevant to these other outcomes are reported elsewhere;
Morandini, Blaszczynski, Dar-Nimrod, and Ross, 2015;
and Morandini, Blaszczynski, Ross, Costa, and Dar-
Nimrod, 2015).
Demographics assessed age, religion/religiosity, ethni-
city, education, and income. To assess sexual identity,
we asked What identity label do you use to describe
your sexual orientation?,with options including Gay/
lesbian, Bisexual, Queer, Pansexual,
and Other (write
in) (in which participants were asked to specify their
sexual identity). To assess gender we asked participants,
What best describes your gender identity?Options for
response were Man, Woman,andOther (write in).
Participants were also asked Are you transgender?If
yes, they were asked What best describes your
present gender identity?Options for response were
Man (FTM), Woman (MTF), Genderqueer/uid,or
Other (write in). Relationship status was assessed as
Single, Single with casual partners, Monogamously
coupled, In an open/polyamorous relationship,and
Other (write in). Those endorsing having casual partners
or being in a relationship were additionally asked
whether their partner was Same sex, Other sex,whether
they were seeing Both same- and other-sex partners or
Other (write in).
Sexual Orientation. Three sexual orientation
indicators were adapted from the Klein grid (Klein,
Sepekoff, & Wolf, 1985). Participants were instructed to
respond to these items with reference to their present
sexuality (To whom are you sexually attracted?;To
whom are you emotionally or romantically attracted?;
With whom have you had sex?). Responses to all three
items were rated on a 7-point continuum: Exclusively
opposite sex (1), Opposite sex mostly (2), Opposite sex
somewhat more (3), Equally divided between same and
opposite sex (4), Same sex somewhat more (5), Same sex
mostly (6), and Exclusively same sex (7).
Sexual attraction, romantic attraction, and sexual beha-
vior were then coded into three range categories: 12=
heterosexual range; 35 = bisexual range; and 67=
homosexual range, as done in previous studies (Pillard &
Wei n r i ch, 1986; Rieger, Savin-Williams, Chivers, &
Bailey, 2016; Rosenthal et al., 2012). This coding was
undertaken to allow us to quantitatively compare the pro-
portion of queer, pansexual, bisexual, gay, and lesbian
participants who fell within the heterosexual, bisexual,
and homosexual range on the three measured sexual orien-
tation indices.
Data Analytic Plan
We undertook missing data analysis on all attempted mea-
sures (due to skipped or misseditems) and found < 1% missing
data for any particular item. To estimate missing data we
employed estimation maximization (EM) in SPSS, Version
21, as recommended by Schlomer, Bauman, and Card (2010).
Differences between gender (male versus female) and sex-
ual identity (lesbian/gay, bisexual, queer and pansexual) were
compared for relevant measures using either parametric tests
(analysis of variance [ANOVA]) or nonparametric tests (chi-
square tests, binomial tests, and planned cell comparisons) in
SPSS, Version 21. Specically, two-way (gender × sexual
identity) ANOVAs were used to examine group differences
in education level, income, and age (see hypothesis 3) with
Bonferroni corrections applied for multiple comparisons.
When testing hypotheses 1 and 2 (i.e., the proportion of men,
women, and noncisgender individuals adopting lesbian, gay,
bisexual, queer, pansexual, and other labels) and hypothesis 4
(d) (i.e., the proportion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, and
pansexual individuals with same-sex, opposite-sex, same- and
opposite-sex, and noncisgender partners), chi-square tests
were used. When signicant, we examined which column
proportions differed signicantly in each row of the chi-square
contingency table using the ztest with the Bonferroni
p-adjusted option in SPSS.
We undertook a series of binomial tests to determine
whether queer and pansexual men and women were more
likely to report sexual attraction, romantic attraction, and
sexual behavior in the bisexual range than either the hetero-
sexual or homosexual range, per hypotheses 4(a), 4(b), and
4(c). Bonferroni-type adjustments were made to correct α
for multiple comparisons (as six comparisons were made for
each group, αwas set at .05/6 = .008 for this analysis).
Finally, we conducted planned comparisons (as outlined
by Sharpe, 2015) to examine whether the proportion of queer
and pansexual men and women reporting sexual orientation
indices in the bisexual range were equivalent to the propor-
tion of bisexual-identied men and women reporting sexual
orientation indices in the bisexual range, per hypotheses 4(a),
4(b), and 4(c). This involved calculating a ztest [z=(Ψ0)/
], where Ψwas the contrast of interest and SE
was the
standard error of the contrast. To illustrate, to compare the
proportion of queer men (QM) versus bisexual men (BM)
reporting sexual attraction in the bisexual range, the follow-
ing contrast would be undertaken: Ψ
QM vs. BM
(with p
being the proportion of queer men in the bisexual
range relative to the column marginal, and p
being the
proportion of bisexual men in the bisexual range relative to its
column marginal). The resulting contrast value was then
divided by SE
, generating a zvalue that was compared
against the square root of the chi-square critical value for
the entire contingency table at the 0.05 level. In this case, the
zvalue was compared against the square root of the chi-
square critical value for 6 degrees of freedom, or ±3.54.
Determining the chi-square critical value from the entire
contingency table is a conservative approach to adjusting α
when undertaking contrasts based on cell proportions within
a contingency table (Sharpe, 2015).
Given the heterogeneity of our noncisgender participants,
and the very small number of participants who selected an Other
(write in) sexual identity (i.e., a sexual identity other than
lesbian/gay, bisexual, queer, and pansexual), meaningful
group-based comparisons for these groups of participants were
not possible. As such, noncisgender participants and partici-
pants who selected an Other (write in) sexual identity were
excluded from analyses when examining hypotheses 4(a)
through 4(d).
Prior to our formal analyses, we examined whether queer
and pansexual individuals differed from lesbian/gay, bisexual,
and other (write in) participants with regard to ethnicity, reli-
gion, education, and income. Chi-square tests were undertaken
examining participant ethnicity and religion across sexual iden-
tity group (lesbian/gay, bisexual, pansexual, queer, other/write
in) separated by gender. No differences in ethnicity were
observed across sexual identity groups in men, women, or
noncisgender participants (ps > .05). With regard to religion,
the chi-square test was signicant in women, χ
(32) = 56.761,
p= .005, but not in men or noncisgender participants (ps > .05).
Bonferroni-corrected bivariate comparisons revealed that queer
womenweremorelikelytoreportno religionthan were
lesbian, bisexual, or pansexual women, but were no more likely
to indicate no religionthan those reporting other/write in
identities. Two-way (gender × sexual identity) ANOVAs were
run to examine group differences in education and income
level, and where signicant, follow-up analyses were done. A
main effect of sexual identity was observed for education level,
F(4, 2205) = 12.01, p< .001, with follow-up analyses reveal-
ing that pansexual individuals demonstrated lower educational
attainment than those identifying with all other groups (ps<
.05). Reecting a similar pattern, a main effect of sexual identity
was evident for income, F(4, 2205) = 82.78, p< .001, with
follow-up analyses indicating that lesbian and gay participants
reported the highest incomes, followed by bisexual and queer
participants, and pansexual and other/write in groups the lowest
(ps < .05).
Queer and Pansexual Identities in Cisgender versus
Noncisgender Participants
Our rst hypothesis was that queer and pansexual identities
would be more common among those who were noncisgender
than among those who were cisgender. A signicant overall
gender difference in sexual identity labeling was found, χ
(8) = 601.07, p< .001 (see Table 2). In line with hypothesis 1,
Bonferroni-corrected bivariate comparisons revealed that non-
cisgender participants were more likely to report a queer (ps<
.05) or pansexual (ps < .05) identity, or to write in an alternate
sexual identity (ps < .05), than were cisgender men or women.
As Tab le 2 indicates, among noncisgender individuals, queer
identity was the most frequently endorsed sexual identity, fol-
lowed by pansexual, lesbian/gay, bisexual, and other/write in.
However, as can be seen in Tabl e 1, it was only among a
subgroup of noncisgender participantsthose who reported a
nonbinary gender identity (genderqueeror genderuid)
that queer and pansexual sexual identity labels predominated.
Within this group Bonferroni-corrected bivariate comparisons
revealed that queer identity was more common than all other
sexual identities (45.1%) except pansexual identity (26.8%), and
pansexual identity was more common than all remaining sexual
identities with the exception of gay or lesbian (15.9%) (ps<.05).
Queer and Pansexual Identities in Cisgender Men versus
Our second hypothesis was that more women than men
would adopt queer and pansexual sexual identities. In line
with this hypothesis, Bonferroni-corrected bivariate compar-
isons revealed that women were more likely than men to
endorse a pansexual or queer sexual identity (ps < .05)
Queer and Pansexual Identities and Age
To test our third hypothesis, that those who were younger
would be more likely to adopt a queer or pansexual identity, a
two-way ANOVA (gender × sexual identity) was undertaken
on age. A main effect of sexual identity, F(4, 2201) = 5.53,
p< .001, was observed, with follow-up analyses revealing
lesbian and gay individuals were older than bisexual, queer,
and pansexual individuals (ps < .001), and that in turn bisex-
ual individuals were older than pansexual-identied indivi-
duals (ps < .05). No differences in age were observed among
bisexual and queer individuals (p= .81) or between queer and
pansexual individuals (p= .12). This pattern of results pro-
vides partial support for our hypothesis.
Sexual Attraction, Romantic Attraction, and Sexual
Hypotheses 4(a) through 4(c) were that queer and pansexual
participants would most commonly report sexual attraction,
romantic attraction, and sexual behavior in the bisexual range
and would be indistinguishable from bisexual-identied indivi-
duals on these three indices. As can be seen in Tab le 3, in line
with our hypothesis, binomial tests indicated that pansexual
men and women were more likely to report sexual attraction
and romantic attraction in the bisexual range than in either the
heterosexual or homosexual ranges (ps < .001). In relation to
sexual behavior patterns, pansexual women were more likely to
report patterns of sexual behavior in the bisexual range than the
homosexual range (p=.001), although this difference did not
reach signicance in men (p=.02). Pansexual men and women
were no more likely to report sexual behavior in the bisexual
range than the heterosexual range (p=.21andp= .09,
Planned cell comparisons found that there were no dif-
ferences in the proportion of pansexual versus bisexual men
and women rating their sexual attraction (men: z= 2.08,
p> .05; women: z= 1.83, p> .05) and sexual behavior
(men: z= 0.88, p> .05; women: z= 1.31, p> .05) in the
bisexual range. Likewise, an equivalent proportion of pan-
sexual men reported their romantic attractions in the bisex-
ual range as bisexual men (z= 3.28, p> .05), although
pansexual women were actually more likely to report
romantic attractions in the bisexual range than bisexual
women (z= 3.81, p< .05).
In contrast, queer-identied men and women most fre-
quently rated their sexual/romantic attraction and sexual
behavior in the homosexual range. At odds with our hypoth-
eses, binomial tests found that queer men were more likely
to report patterns of sexual attraction (p= .006) and beha-
vior (p= .003) in the homosexual range than in the bisexual
range, although no difference was observed for romantic
attraction (p= .23). Among queer women, there was no
difference between the proportion rating their sexual and
romantic attraction in the bisexual versus homosexual range
(p= .39 and p= .28, respectively); however, contrary to
predictions (but similar to queer men), queer women were
most likely to report sexual behavior in the homosexual
range (p= .01), although this trend did not reach
Planned comparisons also found that queer individuals
were less likely to report sexual attraction (men: z= 5.95,
p> .05; women: z= 6.88, p> .05) in the bisexual range than
were bisexual-identied individuals, and that queer women
(but not queer men) were less likely to report romantic
attraction in the bisexual range than bisexual women
(men: z= 2.91, p> .05; women: z= 3.94, p< .05). In
addition, although queer men were less likely to report
sexual behavior in the bisexual range than bisexual men
(z= 4.47, p< .05), this difference in queer versus bisexual
women did not reach signicance (z= 3.40, p> .05).
Finally, pansexual men and women were more likely to
report sexual attraction (men: z= 6.46, p< .05; women:
z= 7.73, p< .05), romantic attraction (men: z=5.10,
p< .05; women: z= 5.89, p< .05) and sexual behavior
(men: z= 3.59, p< .05; women: z= 3.82, p< .05) in the
bisexual range than were queer men and women.
Given that individuals who identify with nontraditional
identities may conceivably fall at any point on the sexual
orientation continuum, coding sexual orientation indices into
heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual ranges may mask
important patterns of attraction. As such, in addition to the
reported analyses, we report the frequency with which those
of each sexual identity group endorsed each point on the sexual
orientation continuum (see Table 4 ). With regard to sexual
attraction, men and women identifying as gay or lesbian were
most likely to indicate exclusive same-sex attraction, while
bisexual individuals were most likely to report their attractions
as equally divided between same and opposite sex. In support
of hypothesis 4, pansexual individuals responded similarly to
bisexual individuals, most commonly endorsing equal same-
and opposite-sex attraction. Among queer-identied men and
women, however, Mostly same sex was the most frequently
endorsed point on the sexual continuum. The same pattern of
attractions held for romantic attraction, although among queer
men, Mostly and Exclusively attracted to same-sex partners
were endorsed in equal proportions.
Sexual behavior demonstrated a similar pattern to other
sexual orientation indicators. The majority of lesbian/gay
men and women reported Exclusively same-sex behavior,
while the most frequent response among bisexual men and
women was Equally divided among same and opposite sex.
Contrary to hypothesis 4, among queer-identied men and
women the most frequent response was similar to lesbian/
gay individuals (i.e., Exclusively same sex). Finally, among
pansexual men, Opposite sex somewhat more was the most
frequent response, while pansexual women were most likely
to report their sexual behavior as being Equally divided
between same- and opposite-sex partners.
Sexual/Romantic Relationships
Current partner gender was found to differ by sexual
identity, χ
(9) = 753.78, p< .001. As Tab le 5 shows, queer
individuals were more likely than bisexual and pansexual
individuals (ps < .05), but less likely than lesbian and gay
individuals (p< .05), to have a same-sex partner. Likewise,
queer individuals were more likely than lesbian/gay indi-
viduals (p< .05), but less likely than bisexual and pansex-
ual individuals (ps < .05), to have an opposite-sex partner.
Table 3. Proportion of Lesbian/Gay, Bisexual, Queer, and
Pansexual Participants Reporting Sexual Orientation Indices in
the Heterosexual, Bisexual, or Homosexual Range
Sexual attraction
Gay/lesbian .4 3.6 2.3 8.9 97.2 83.9
Bisexual 6.9 6.3 70.6 81.4 22.5 12.6
Queer 6.9 5.4 20.7
72.4 52.2
Pansexual 11.1 3.2 88.9 88.4 0 1.4
Romantic attraction
Gay/lesbian .7 4 7.4 9.4 91.9 78.7
Bisexual 22.8 12.6 60.4 64.2 16.8 23.2
Queer 13.8 5.4 31
55.2 53.3
Pansexual 11.1 5.3 88.9 80 0.0 14.7
Sexual behavior
Gay/lesbian 0.6 1.9 2.2 6.1 97.2 92
Bisexual 23.5 36.8 50 47 26.5 16.2
Queer 20.7 19.6 13.8
65.5 52.2
Pansexual 27.8 36.8 61.1 54.7 11.1 8.4
Note. Bolded gures represent the most frequent pattern of sexual/romantic
attraction or behavior in pansexual and queer men and women as estab-
lished by binomial tests at p< .05 (with Bonferroni-type corrections for
multiple comparisons).
*p< .05.
Bisexual, queer, and pansexual individuals were all more
likely than gay and lesbian individuals to have concurrent
male and female partners (ps < .05). Finally, queer and
pansexual individuals reported a higher proportion of
transgender/noncisgender partners than lesbian/gay or
bisexual individuals; however, formal analyses of these
differences were not possible due to insufcient cell size.
The present study sought to identify who adopts the emer-
ging sexual identity labels of queer and pansexual. To our
knowledge, ours is the rst quantitative study to examine the
sexual orientation indices, gender, and demographics of non-
heterosexual individuals embracing pansexual or queer identi-
ties. In line with the notion that pansexuality is a more recently
emerging sexual identity label (Belous & Bauman, 2016;Callis,
2014; Savin-Williams, 2005), pansexual men and women in our
sample were on average younger than those adopting lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and queer identities. Queer labels, on the other
hand, were no more common among younger age cohorts. It is
possible that the apparent increase in queer identication
observed in contemporary sexual minority samples may be an
artifact of shifts in measurement (i.e., studies are increasingly
providing a Queer response option). Also as predicted, queer
and pansexual labels were more frequently adopted by cisgen-
der women than by cisgender men. In fact, in our sample, only
4.4% of men identied as queer or pansexual compared with
18.1% of women. Given that our study found that pansexual
and, to a lesser extent, queer labels reect nonmonosexual
patterns of attraction, as these attractions are more commonly
reported in women than men, it makes sense that queer and
pansexual labels would hold greater appeal for women. Exactly
why nonmonosexual attractions and identities are more
Table 4. Frequency of Sexual Orientation Indicators for Each Point on the Sexual Orientation Continuum for Lesbian/Gay, Bisexual,
Queer, and Pansexual Men and Women
Opposite Sex
Opposite Sex
Opposite Sex
Somewhat More
Equally Divided
Between Same
and Opposite Sex
Same Sex
Somewhat More
Sex (%)
Sex (%)
Gay/lesbian (N=904)
Sexual attraction 0 .1 .1 .7 1.5 24.1 73.5
Romantic attraction 0 .4 0 2.8 4.6 20.7 71.5
Sexual behavior 0 .1 0 .9 .8 9.4 88.8
Bisexual (N=102)
Sexual attraction 0 6.9 16.7 29.4 24.5 22.5 0
Romantic attraction 9.8 12.7 9.8 30.4 19.6 12.7 4.9
Sexual behavior 9.8 13.7 12.7 21.6 15.7 15.7 10.8
Queer (N=29)
Sexual attraction 0 6.9 3.4 10.3 6.9 41.4 31
Romantic attraction 3.4 10.3 6.9 6.9 17.2 27.6 27.6
Sexual behavior 17.2 3.4 0 3.4 6.9 13.8 55.2
Pansexual (N=18)
Sexual attraction 0 11.1 22.2 50 11.1 5.6 0
Romantic attraction 0 11.1 16.7 66.7 5.6 0 0
Sexual behavior 11.1 16.7 22.2 16.7 22.2 0 11.1
Gay/lesbian (N= 526)
Sexual attraction 0 0 0 2.3 4.8 42 51
Romantic attraction 0 0 0.4 2.5 3.2 19.8 74.1
Sexual behavior 0 0 0.6 4 1.7 17.1 76.6
Bisexual (N= 302)
Sexual attraction 0 6.3 19.2 42.7 19.5 11.3 1
Romantic attraction 4.6 7.9 11.6 36.4 16.2 18.2 5
Sexual behavior 18.5 19.2 16.6 22.5 7.3 5 10.9
Queer (N= 92)
Sexual attraction 1.1 4.3 6.5 14.1 21.7 39.1 13
Romantic attraction 0 5.4 7.6 22.8 10.9 34.8 18.5
Sexual behavior 10.9 8.7 6.5 15.2 6.5 23.9 28.3
Pansexual (N= 95)
Sexual attraction 1.1 2.1 7.4 57.9 23.2 8.4 0
Romantic attraction 2.1 3.2 11.6 53.7 14.7 12.6 2.1
Sexual behavior 15.8 20 16.8 32.6 6.3 7.4 1.1
Note. Percentages represent the proportion of those within each sexual identity group (gay/lesbian, bisexual, queer, pansexual), separated by gender (male,
female) who reported Exclusive opposite sex, Mostly opposite sex, Opposite sex somewhat more, Equally divided between same and opposite sex, Same sex
somewhat more, Mostly same sex, Exclusively same sex sexual attraction, romantic attraction, and sexual behavior.
frequently reported by women than men is a matter of ongoing
debate. Some argue that less societal acceptance of male than
female same-sex sexuality renders nonmonosexual men less
willing to acknowledge or disclose their same-sex sexual attrac-
tions, behavior, and/or identity than their female counterparts.
Moreover, as male bisexuality is often viewed as an illegitimate
orientation adopted by gay men who are in denial (Yost &
Thomas, 2012), nonmonosexual men may anticipate that dis-
closure of their sexuality will be met with skepticism, ridicule,
and rejection (including from sexual/romantic partners)
(Schrimshaw, Downing, & Cohn, 2016;Yost&Thomas,
2012). These social factors may partly explain the poor repre-
sentation of nonmonosexual men in studies like our own; how-
ever, there is reason to suspect that womens sexual orientation,
which is less category specicandmoreuidthenmens, may
be inherently more suited to the development of nonmonosexual
identities (Baumeister, 2000;Chiversetal.,2004;Kinnish,
Strassberg, & Turner, 2005; Rieger et al., 2005).
In the present sample, queer and pansexual identities
were adopted by almost two-thirds of noncisgender partici-
pants, extending observations of Katz-Wise et al. (2015)to
the Australian context. As mentioned previously, queer and
pansexual labels may be preferred by noncisgender indivi-
duals for practical and political reasons. For those whose
gender identity is nonbinary (e.g., genderuid), lesbian and
gay identities are problematic in that they assume identica-
tion as a man or a woman, whereas queer and pansexual
labels do not require individuals to dene their own gender
in relation to their object choice. In line with this assertion,
it should be noted that queer and pansexual identities pre-
dominated only among a subgroup of noncisgender partici-
pants, namely those reporting the nonbinary gender
identities of genderqueer or genderuid. Queer and pansex-
ual identities were somewhat less common among FTM and
MTF transgender men and women, presumably because in
identifying as men and women, these individuals t more
neatly into traditional sexual identity categories (i.e., les-
bian, gay, straight).
As predicted, pansexual individuals overwhelmingly
represented their sexual/romantic attractions as falling
within the bisexual range of the sexual continuum
(Opposite sex somewhat more to Same sex somewhat
more) and displayed the same pattern of sexual attraction,
romantic attraction, sexual behavior, and partner gender as
individuals who self-identied as bisexual. In contrast,
queer identity appeared to be adopted by substantial propor-
tions of both monosexual and nonmonosexual individuals.
About three-quarters of queer men displayed homosexual
patterns of sexual attraction, behavior, and partner gender,
with a minority (~20%) reporting sexual attraction and sex-
ual behavior in the bisexual range. Among women, a slight
majority reported sexual attraction in the homosexual range
(52%); however, more so than in men, a substantial number
of queer women (42%) demonstrated sexual attraction in the
bisexual range. These ndings align with Horners(2007)
claims that individuals may arrive at a queer identity for a
number of distinct reasons. A queer identity may represent
an alternative to a bisexual identity for a nonmonosexual
individual who wishes to signal openness to individuals of
any gender or sex or who wishes to avoid the stigma that is
attached to a bisexual label. A queer identity may also
represent an alternative to a gay or lesbian identity among
individuals who are predominantly or exclusively homosex-
ual in erotic disposition but who wish to communicate
attraction to noncisgender individuals, or ideological resis-
tance to binary notions of sexual orientation. For example,
queer mens and womens preference for describing their
sexual attractions as mostly rather than exclusively same sex
may stem from their opposition to sexual orientation and
gender binaries.
Limitations and Future Directions
The present data were obtained through the sampling
of sexual minority individuals recruited from LGB orga-
nizations, university pride groups, and social media.
Samples such as these are more likely to be biased
toward those who are younger, more highly educated,
and more connected to the gay community than the
LGB population at large (Ross, Månsson, Daneback,
Cooper, & Tikkanen, 2005). This recruitment method
may have inated the proportion of queer- and pansex-
ual-identied individuals in our sample, although the
Table 5. Proportion of Same-Sex, Opposite-Sex, Same- and
Opposite-Sex, and Noncisgender Partners Across Sexual Identity
in Cisgender Men and Women
Gay/Lesbian Bisexual Queer Pansexual
Same-sex partner
Men 99.4 (536) 40 (26) 68.8 (11) 37.5 (3)
Women 97.9 (369) 28.6 (56) 60.3 (35) 23.3 (14)
Across gender 98.8 (905)
31.4 (82)
62.2 (46)
25 (17)
Men 0.6 (3) 38.5 (25) 25 (4) 62.5 (5)
Women 0.8 (3) 57.1 (112) 27.6 (16) 58.3 (35)
Across gender 0.7 (6)
40.2 (137)
27 (20)
58.8 (40)
Same & opposite-
sex partners
Men 0 (0) 21.5 (14) 6.3 (1) 0 (0)
Women 0.8 (3) 12.8 (25) 6.9 (4) 10 (6)
Across gender 0.3 (3)
14.9 (39)
6.8 (6)
8.8 (5)
Men 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Women 0.5 (2) 1.5 (3) 5.2 (3) 8.3 (5)
Across gender
0.2 (2) 1.1 (3) 4.1 (3) 7.4 (5)
Sexual identity × Partner gender, χ
(9) = 753.78, p< .001.
Note. Comparisons of sexual identity labels were collapsed across gender
due to insufcient cell size for separate analyses by gender. Sexual identity
labels in a row which share the same letters do not differ signicantly at
p< .05. Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons were undertaken
when comparing column proportions in each row.
No comparisons undertaken as cell size < 5.
observed proportions are broadly equivalent to those
reported in other online convenience samples of sexual
minorities (Katz-Wise, 2014; Leonard et al., 2012). Our
recruitment was also targeted toward nonheterosexuals
who adopt queer and pansexual identities. Some scho-
lars, however, have documented the phenomenon of
queer heterosexuals(Thomas, Aimone, &
MacGillivray, 2000). These are individuals with predo-
minantly heterosexual erotic preferences who adopt a
queer label as a political statement in opposition to
traditional categories of sexuality (straight versus gay)
and gender (men versus women). While examining
queer heterosexuals was beyond the scope of the present
study, future studies may examine personal motivations
for embracing queer identities, as well as sexual interests
and behaviors among this subgroup of heterosexuals.
Finally, our sample was almost exclusively Australian
residing, and as such the generalizability of the present
ndings to sexual minority populations in other Western
(as well as non-Western) cultures is unclear.
One major limitation of the present study was the small
proportion of queer and pansexual men in our sample. This
may have resulted in insufcient power to detect differences
in sexual orientation indices in these samples of men, parti-
cularly among pansexual men (i.e., increased Type II error
rate). It should be noted, however, that our sample of
pansexual men was still larger than that observed in the
previous studies we reviewed. Replications with larger sam-
ples of queer- and pansexual-identied men would add
condence to the veracity of the ndings presented here.
These ndings also suggest that nontraditional identities
may be less relevant to sexual minority men at present,
which may be expected given that nonmonosexual attrac-
tions in men are relatively rare (Rieger et al., 2005;
Rosenthal et al., 2012).
The measurement of sexual orientation in the present
study was limited in a number of respects. First, to embed
the present ndings in the rich existing literature on sexual
orientation, we adapted a well-used dimensional measure of
sexual and romantic attraction (Klein et al., 1985), with
exclusively same-sex attraction at one pole and exclusively
other-sex attraction at the other. However, as identied by
Galupo et al. (2014), this may lead to a biased assessment of
attractions, given that person-based or uid attractions,
which are commonly reported by nonmonosexuals, cannot
be accurately represented as an intermediate point between
same- and opposite-gender poles. In addition, using
response anchors on the Klein scale, which specied sex
rather than gender,may have caused confusion among
those attracted to transgender or gender-nonconforming
individuals. Future studies may assess person-based attrac-
tions by measuring sexual attraction to men and women on
separate items (see Galupo, Lomash, and Mitchell (2016)),
whereby genderless attractions can be inferred from rela-
tively low attraction to either gender. Fluid attractions may
be assessed via shifts in sexual identity, attraction, or beha-
vior occurring over time (Katz-Wise, 2014).
Finally, the present ndings may inform how researchers
assess sexual identity in contemporary sexual and gender
minority samples. First, providing a full range of sexual
identity labels, including the nontraditional labels pansexual
and queer and/or a write-in response, will enable researchers
to accurately capture the diversity of sexual identities within
these populations. This is particularly important among
noncisgender populations for whom nontraditional labels
appear to predominate. Second, as secondary or compound
sexual identities are not uncommon among those adopting
nontraditional labels (Galupo et al., 2015; Rust, 2000),
assessing multiple identities may prove useful in determin-
ing whether a participant is monosexual or nonmonosexual
(e.g., queer bisexualversus queer lesbian/gay).
Alternatively, such information can be garnered by deploy-
ing a continuous measure of sexual orientation (exclusively
straight to exclusively lesbian/gay) separate from the assess-
ment of sexual identity. Finally, researchers should be mind-
ful to phrase items assessing sexual identity outcomes and
minority stress (e.g., internalized stigma, outness) in a man-
ner that is inclusive of pansexual and queer individuals (i.e.,
including pansexual/queer alongside lesbian, gay, and bisex-
ual labels in relevant items) to avoid the possibility of
differential item functioning among queer and pansexual
Although there is much popular and scholarly interest in
queer and pansexual identities (Russell et al., 2009; Savin-
Williams, 2005), there has been an absence of quantitative
studies examining who adopts these labels in contemporary
sexual minority populations. The present study has provided
preliminary insights into this question. This information may
assist counselors, LGBT advocates, and sex researchers in
understanding who is queer and pansexual, contributing to
more informed service provision, advocacy, and research
among those endorsing these nontraditional sexual identities.
1. Some recent studies have reported that men are as likely (or even more
likely) to experience sexual uidity as women (Katz-Wise & Hyde,
2015; Ott, Corliss, Wypij, Rosario, & Austin, 2011; Rosario,
Schrimshaw, Hunter, & Braun, 2006). However, in these studies,
uidity is conceptualized as any shift in sexual attraction or identity
irrespective of direction. Closer inspection of these shifts nds they are
typically from straight gay, bisexual gay, or straight bisexual
gay; shifts which can be explained as representing normative
sexual identity development and/or transitional bisexuality (in other-
wise homosexual men). To show that there exists comparable uidity
in men as in women requires evidence from retrospective or long-
itudinal studies that some gay/bisexual/straight men experience sexual
identity trajectories similar to those documented in Diamonds long-
itudinal research into female sexuality (i.e., gay bisexual; gay
straight; gay > bisexual > unlabeled); that is, transitions which cannot
be explained as merely the movement from a presumed heterosexual
identity to a gay identity (via a transitional bisexual identity).
Evidence of these types of trajectories, to our knowledge, are absent
from existing quantitative or qualitative research in men.
2. The inclusion of pansexualas a sexual identity option occurred after
recruitment had commenced in response to participants frequently
specifying pansexualin the Other (write in) option. This may have
inuenced the overall proportion of participants registering a pansex-
ual identity; however, this would not have foreseeably inuenced the
proportion of men, women, and transgender individuals within the
pansexual group (nor sexual orientation ratings), which was the pri-
mary focus of the present study.
Alexander Blaszczynski
Bailey, J. M. (2009). What is sexual orientation and do women have one?
In D. A. Hope (Ed.), Contemporary perspectives on lesbian, gay, and
bisexual identities (pp. 4363). New York, NY: Springer.
Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity: The female
sex drive as socially exible and responsive. Psychological Bulletin,
126, 347374. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.347
Belous, C. K., & Bauman, M. L. (2016). Whats in a name? Exploring
pansexuality online. Journal of Bisexuality. Advance online publica-
tion. doi:10.1080/15299716.2016.1224212
Callis, A. S. (2013). The black sheep of the pink ock: Labels, stigma, and
bisexual identity. Journal of Bisexuality,13,82105. doi:10.1080/
Callis, A. S. (2014). Bisexual, pansexual, queer: Non-binary identities and
the sexual borderlands. Sexualities,17,6380. doi:10.1177/
Chauncey, G. (1994). Gay New York: Gender, urban culture, and the making
of the gay male world, 18901940. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Chivers, M. L., Rieger, G., Latty, E., & Bailey, J. M. (2004). A sex
difference in the specicity of sexual arousal. Psychological Science,
15, 736744. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00750
Diamond, L. M. (2003). What does sexual orientation orient? A biobehavioral
model distinguishing romantic love and sexual desire. Psychological
Review,11 0,173192. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.1.173
Diamond, L. M. (2008a). Female bisexuality from adolescence to adult-
hood: Results from a 10-year longitudinal study. Developmental
Psychology,44,514. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.5
Diamond, L. M. (2008b). Sexual uidity: Understanding womens love and
desire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Friedman, C., & Leaper, C. (2010). Sexualminority college womens
experiences with discrimination: Relations with identity and collective
action. Psychology of Women Quarterly,34,152164. doi:10.1111/
Galupo, M. P., Davis, K. S., Grynkiewicz, A. L., & Mitchell, R. C. (2014).
Conceptualization of sexual orientation identity among sexual mino-
rities: Patterns across sexual and gender identity. Journal of
Bisexuality,14, 433456. doi:10.1080/15299716.2014.933466
Galupo, M. P., Lomash, E., & Mitchell, R. C. (2016). All of my lovers t
into this scale: Sexual minority individualsresponses to two novel
measures of sexual orientation. Journal of Homosexuality. Advance
online publication. doi:10.1080/00918369.2016.1174027
Galupo, M. P., Mitchell, R. C., & Davis, K. S. (2015). Sexual minority self--
identication: Multiple identities and complexity. Psychology of Sexual
Orientation and Gender Diversity,2, 355364. doi:10.1037/sgd0000131
Gray, A., & Desmarais, S. (2014). Not all one and the same: Sexual
identity, activism, and collective self-esteem. Canadian Journal of
Human Sexuality,23,116122. doi:10.3138/cjhs.2400
Horner, E. (2007). Queer identities and bisexual identities: Whats the
difference? In B. A. Firestein (Ed.), Becoming visible: Counseling
bisexuals across the lifespan (pp. 287296). New York, NY:
Columbia University Press.
Kanazawa, S. (2016). Possible evolutionary origins of human female sexual
uidity. Biological Reviews. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/
Katz-Wise, S. L. (2014). Sexual uidity in young adult women and men:
Associations with sexual orientation and sexual identity develo-
pment. Psychology and Sexuality,6, 189208. doi:10.1080/
Katz-Wise, S. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2015). Sexual uidity and related attitudes
and beliefs among young adults with a same-gender orientation.
Archives of Sexual Behavior,44, 14591470. doi:10.1007/s10508-
Katz-Wise, S. L., Reis ner, S. L., Hughto, J. W., & Keo-Meier, C. L.
(2015). Differences in sexual orientation diversity and sexual uidity
in attractions among gender minority adults in Massachusetts.
Journal of Sex Research,53,111. do i:10.1080/00224499.2014.
Kinnish, K., Strassberg, D., & Turner, C. (2005). Sex differences in the
exibility of sexual orientation: A multidimensional retrospective
assessment. Archives of Sexual Behavior,34, 173183. doi:10.1007/
Klein, F., Sepekoff, B., & Wolf, T. J. (1985). Sexual orientation: A multi-
variable dynamic process. Journal of Homosexuality,11,3549.
Kuper, L. E., Nussbaum, R., & Mustanski, B. (2012). Exploring the
diversity of gender and sexual orientation identities in an online
sample of transgender individuals. Journal of Sex Research,49,
244254. doi:10.1080/00224499.2011.596954
Leonard, W., Pitts, M., Mitchell, A., Lyons, A., Smith, A., Patel, S.,
Barrett, A. (2012). Private Lives 2: The second national survey of the
health and wellbeing of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT)
Australians (Monograph Series Number 86). Melbourne: Australian
Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University.
Levy, D. L., & Johnson, C. W. (2011). What does the Q mean? Including
queer voices in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work,11,
130140. doi:10.1177/1473325011400485
Mitchell, R. C., Davis, K. S., & Galupo, M. P. (2014). Comparing per-
ceived experiences of prejudice among self-identied plurisexual indi-
viduals. Psychology and Sexuality,6,113. doi:10.1080/
Morandini, J. S., Blaszczynski, A., Dar-Nimrod, I., & Ross, M. W. (2015).
Minority stress and community connectedness among gay, lesbian,
and bisexual Australians: A comparison of rural and metropolitan
localities. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health,39,
260266. doi:10.1111/1753-6405.12364
Morandini, J. S., Blaszczynski, A., Ross, M. W., Costa, D. S., & Dar-
Nimrod, I. (2015). Essentialist beliefs, sexual identity uncertainty,
internalized homonegativity, and psychological wellbeing in gay
men. Journal of Counseling Psychology,62, 413424. doi:10.1037/
Ott, M. Q., Corliss, H. L., Wypij, D., Rosario, M., & Austin, S. B. (2011).
Stability and change in self-reported sexual orientation identity in
young people: Application of mobility metrics. Archives of Sexual
Behavior,40, 519532. doi:10.1007/s10508-010-9691-3
Pillard, R. C., & Weinrich, J. D. (1986). Evidence of familial nature of male
homosexuality. Archives of General Psychiatry,43, 808812.
Rice, K. (2015). Pansexuality. In P. Whelehan & A. Bolin (Eds.), The
International Encyclopedia of Human Sexuality, 8611042.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Rieger, G., Chivers, M. L., & Bailey, J. M. (2005). Sexual arousal patterns
of bisexual men. Psychological Science,16, 579584. doi:10.1111/
arousal and masculinity-femininity of women. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,111, 265283. doi:10.1037/pspp0000077
Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., Hunter, J., & Braun, L. (2006). Sexual
identity development among gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths:
Consistency and change over time. Journal of Sex Research,43,46
58. doi:10.1080/00224490609552298
Rosenthal, A. M., Sylva, D., Safron, A., & Bailey, J. M. (2012). The male
bisexuality debate revisited: Some bisexual men have bisexual arousal
patterns. Archives of Sexual Behavior,41,135147. doi:10.1007/s10508-
Ross, M. W., Månsson, S.-A., Daneback, K., Cooper, A., & Tikkanen, R.
(2005). Biases in Internet sexual health samples: Comparison of an
Internet sexuality survey and a national sexual health survey in
Sweden. Social Science and Medicine,61, 245252. doi:10.1016/j.
Russell, S. T., Clarke, T. J., & Clary, J. (2009). Are teens post-gay?
Contemporary adolescentssexual identity labels. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence,38, 884890. doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9388-2
Rust, P. C. (2000). Two many and not enough: The meanings of bisexual
identities. Journal of Bisexuality,1,3168. doi:10.1300/
Savin-Williams, R. C. (2005). The new gay teen: Shunning labels. The Gay
and Lesbian Review Worldwide,12,1619.
Savin-Williams, R. C. (2009). The new gay teenager. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Savin-Williams, R. C. (2011). Identity development among sexual-min-
ority youth. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.),
Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 671689). New York,
NY: Springer.
Savin-Williams, R. C. (2014). An exploratory study of the categorical
versus spectrum nature of sexual orientation. The Journal of Sex
Schlomer, G. L., Bauman, S., & Card, N. A. (2010). Best practices for
missing data management in counseling psychology. Journal of
Counseling Psychology,57,110. doi:10.1037/a0018082
Schrimshaw, E. W., Downing, M. J., & Cohn, D. J. (2016). Reasons for
non-disclosure of sexual orientation among behaviorally bisexual men:
Non-disclosure as stigma management. Archives of Sexual Behavior.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s10508-016-0762-y
Sharpe, D. (2015). Your chi-square test is statistically signicant: Now
what? Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation,20,110.
Sieczkowski, C. (2015, August 28). Miley Cyrus comes out as pansexual.
Hufngton Post. Retrieved from
Signorile, M. (2015, June 28). Mary Gonzalez, rst openly pansexual
legislator, explains how she is changing minds in Texas. Hufngton
Post. Retrieved from
Thomas, C. J., Aimone, J. O., & MacGillivray, C. A. (2000). Straight with
a twist: Queer theory and the subject of heterosexuality. Champaign:
University of Illinois Press.
Yost, M. R., & Thomas, G. D. (2012). Gender and binegativity: Mens and
womens attitudes toward male and female bisexuals. Archives of
Sexual Behavior,41, 691702. doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9767-8
... queer liberation; the rejection of (cis)heteronormativity) and a queer gender/sexual identity. For instance, 'queer' may be used as an umbrella term outside of traditional conceptualisations concerning romanticism and sexual attraction and/or behaviour (Morandini, Blaszczynski and Dar-Nimrod 2016). If participants view their queer identity in a broader sense as encompassing politics or an extension of queer theory, it may make sense that they struggle with thoughts about gender and/or weight, as these concerns are historically rooted in a binary gender framework that runs counter to queer theory (Callis 2014). ...
This exploratory study aimed to describe the lived experiences of queer women affected by eating and weight-related concerns. Qualitative data from young queer women (n = 105; Age = 23.6 ± 3.4 years) with eating and weight-related concerns in response to open-ended questions related to the influence of gender identity and sexual orientation on weight concern, behaviours, and perception were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Nine themes were created to describe participants’ experiences: (1) compensation for other internalised stigma, (2) to suppress body parts that can be gendered or sexualised, (3) comparisons to romantic partners’ bodies, (4) media representations, (5) queer signalling, (6) queerness as protective, (7) gender expression and dysphoria, (8) societal expectations of women’s bodies, and (9) internalisation of body/beauty ideals. Seven sub-themes were created to represent beauty ideals for specific subcultural communities (e.g. femme, butch). Findings suggest that queer women attribute individual, interpersonal and social factors to weight concerns, behaviours and perceptions. Findings highlight how complex tensions between the beauty/body ideals experienced in cisheteronormative and queer spaces influence eating and weight concerns among queer women. Gender, sexual orientation and subcultural ideals intersect in important ways, and may be useful to consider when screening, treating and preventing eating and weight concerns among queer women.
... The study revealed that the term "queer" seems to be the commonly preferred term for the LGBTQI+ community in that it is a non-binary term, and it is diverse and acknowledged by many because it does not limit an individual to a specific term or grouping [24,27]. The findings of this study are similar to earlier research which found that the word "queer" gained favour from many activists as it attempts to encourage the acceptance of an umbrella term that includes as many sexuality and gender continuums as possible [28], thus promoting the spirit of inclusivity and togetherness where people are not confined into boxes or shells. ...
Full-text available
Introduction: The evolution of the abbreviation LGBTQI+ comes on the backdrop of numerous studies that were conducted as a form of advocacy to promote the inclusion of LGBTQI+ individuals into society. Objective: This study sought to explore the terms that LGBTQI+ individuals prefer to be called and those they hate to be called by. Methods: The study adopted a qualitative approach underpinned by Husserl's descriptive phenomenological research design. Data was collected through WhatsApp-based semi-structured individual interviews from a 19 participants who were sampled using purposive and snowballing sampling methods. Data analysis was done using Collaizzi's phenomenological analysis method, and all ethical considerations to safeguard participants were adhered to. Results: The analysis yielded two main themes as preferred terminologies and terms that are hated by the LGBTQI+ persons. The findings show an evolution in the terminologies used in relation to the LGBTQI+ identifying persons. Terms such as Queer, LGBTQI+ community, terms confirming gender identity, SOGI neutral, and preferred pronouns emerged as terms that LGBTQI+ people preferred to be called or addressed by. On the other side of the coin, the findings revealed terms that the LBGTQI + people hated as these were perceived to be discriminatory and derogatory, such as terms like "moffie" and "stabane". Conclusion: LGBTQI+ terms are forever evolving and there is a need to raise community awareness and conscientisation towards moving away from the use of derogatory and hateful terms. The hated terms continue to perpetuate verbal abuse, stigmatisation and discrimination of the LGBTQI+ community. Therefore, a nuanced approach to develop and adopt inclusive language policies to promote diversity in public and private spheres.
... Given that bisexual and other plurisexual identities (e.g., pansexual, fluid) are especially common among transgender and nonbinary individuals (Galupo et al., 2017;Grant et al., 2011;Morandini et al., 2017;Movement Advancement Project, 2017), it will also be important for future studies to examine gender differences in attitudes toward bisexual people from a variety of gender/sex groups. Preliminary evidence suggests that gender differences in attitudes toward bisexual people depend on the bisexual person's gender identity (woman or man) and gender modality (transgender or cisgender). ...
Full-text available
Previous meta-analyses have examined gender differences in people's attitudes toward lesbian/gay sexualities, finding that, overall, men hold more homonegative attitudes than women. Bisexuality scholars have suggested a similar gender difference in attitudes toward bisexuality. This study is the first meta-analysis to provide a comprehensive quantitative synthesis of gender differences in attitudes toward bisexual people and bisexuality. We synthesized findings from 61 studies (including 10 unpublished papers) from 1999 to 2022 that reported on 77 samples of 32,010 participants (14,359 men and 17,651 women). Overall, men held more binegative attitudes than women, g = 0.19, 95% CI [0.14, 0.25]. This effect was moderated by target gender: men were more binegative than women when considering male bisexuality, g = 0.27 [0.20, 0.35]; the effect was substantially smaller when considering female bisexuality, g = 0.10 [0.03, 0.16]. In addition, heterosexual men were more binegative than heterosexual women, g = 0.26 [0.19, 0.33], while gay men's and lesbian women's attitudes toward bisexuality were similar, g = 0.04 [−0.09, 0.16]. Overall, these meta-analytic findings indicate that men, particularly heterosexual men, hold more binegative attitudes than women, especially toward male bisexuality. Given the pervasiveness of binegativity, interventions are needed to improve attitudes toward bisexuality, particularly men's attitudes toward bisexuality.
Full-text available
Coming out, or the disclosure of a minority identity, features prominently across disciplines, including several subfields of sociological research. In the context of sexuality, theoretical arguments offer competing predictions. Some studies propose that coming out is increasingly an unremarkable life transition as the stigma associated with non-heterosexualities attenuates, while others posit entrenched discrimination. Rather than testing these theories or providing incremental evidence in support of one position, we use 52 in-depth interviews with recently-out individuals to explain how identity disclosures in the present moment can validate plural possibilities. Our findings show that ambivalence is the core narrative which animates the contemporary coming out process. Respondents identify three interpretive frameworks that structure their experience of sexuality as at once incidental and central: generational differences, identity misrecognitions, and interfacing with institutions. We also detail a fourth theme, intersectionality, which shows the analytic limits of ambivalence in the coming out process. These patterns suggest more broadly that sexuality, like ethnicity, may provide symbolic resources—“distinguishing but not defining”—in the service of crafting a modern sexual self.
Purpose: To refine estimates of the U.S. sexual minority population, we sought to characterize trends in the odds of respondents selecting "something else" or "don't know" when asked about sexual orientation on the National Health Interview Survey and to reclassify those respondents likely to be sexual minority adults. Methods: Logistic regression was conducted to test whether the odds of selecting "something else" or "don't know" increased over time. A previously established analytic approach was used to identify sexual minority adults among these respondents. Results: Between 2013 and 2018, the percentage of respondents selecting "something else" or "don't know" increased 2.7-fold, from 0.54% to 1.44%. Reclassifying respondents with >50% predicted probabilities of being sexual minorities increased sexual minority population estimates by as much as 20.2%. Conclusion: A growing proportion of adults are selecting "something else" or "don't know." Properly classifying these responses yields more accurate sexual minority population estimates.
Full-text available
The twenty-first century has been a time of considerable change in cultural attitudes, social policies, and scientific understandings of sexuality and gender. This article introduces the special issue on sexual and gender diversity in this century, situating the endeavor in a new documentary paradigm for the social sciences which pushes us away from a concern with “causes” or “origins” of diverse forms of sexual and gender expression and toward a concern with documenting the lived experience of diversity. We highlight six broad themes contributors cover in the issue: (1) the need for new theories and paradigms to meet the scientific needs of a new century; (2) expansion beyond binary, categorical thinking of twentieth century paradigms and inclusivity of diverse intimate forms beyond the historic focus on homosexuality; (3) recognition of the politics of diversity and the endurance of ideologies of stigma and exclusion; (4) psychological vulnerability associated with increased visibility; (5) intersectionality; and (6) opportunities and challenges associated with social technologies unique to this century.
Full-text available
Lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people are likely to be at risk of distress because of social exclusion, including the feelings of resentment, resistance, and rejection they might experience from society. Nevertheless, the conditions for social exclusion leading to changes in distress are empirically unclear, especially in Chinese LGB people. To examine these conditions, this study surveyed 303 Chinese LGB people in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and various places in Mainland China. For comparability with other LGB studies, the study did not explicitly identify asexual, demisexual, or pansexual people in the LGB group. Results show that the retrospective reporting of social exclusion in 2016 did not significantly and unconditionally predict levels of distress in 2017. However, the reporting of exclusion significantly predicted current distress when the retrospective report of distress in 2016 was high. These results from the stress–vulnerability model indicate that prior distress is a vulnerability condition that allows social exclusion to exert its stressful effect. This study implies the need to prevent the social exclusion of highly distressed LGB people.
Adolescents who identify as asexual (i.e., do not experience sexual attraction) remain understudied despite a recent increase in studies carried out among asexual adults. The present study provides data on the frequency of asexual identities among adolescents with attention to diversity across the asexuality spectrum, including a focus on demisexual adolescents. We utilized a national sample of 17,112 LGBQA + adolescents aged 13–17—of which 773 (4.5%) identified as asexual and 105 (0.6%) identified as demisexual. We compared those identifying as asexual and those identifying as demisexual on outness and social–emotional adjustment. In addition, we tested differences between asexual adolescents and allosexual sexual minority youth (SMY) on their sexual identity outness and social–emotional adjustment, and whether the associations differed by sexual identity. We found that asexual adolescents were out to significantly fewer people and experienced fewer depressive symptoms than demisexual adolescents. Asexual adolescents reported lower outness, greater depressive symptoms, and lower self-esteem compared to allosexual SMY. Greater outness was associated with higher self-esteem across asexual and allosexual SMY. These findings suggest increasing identification as asexual among youth compared to previous generations and point to greater social–emotional adjustment challenges for asexual compared with allosexual SMY.
Relationship interventions, including healthy relationship education, couple therapy, and dyadic approaches to treating mental and physical health issues, hold promise for promoting relationship and individual health among sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations. Because SGM couples live within a context of societal stigma against their minority identities and relationships, they are likely to be best served by targeted, culturally sensitive relationship interventions that are affirming, free of hetero- and cis-normativity, and address the unique stigma-based challenges that they face. Therefore, a key goal for the field today is to conduct research evaluating and refining newly developed relationship interventions designed specifically for SGM couples. In this paper, we offer recommendations for effectively recruiting and retaining large, diverse samples of SGM couples for clinical trials of tailored relationship interventions, grounded in guidelines for psychological practice and conducting research with SGM populations. Throughout, we offer examples and lessons learned from our experiences conducting clinical trials of tailored SGM relationship education programs. We encourage the use of recruitment and retention strategies that involve members of the target SGM community from the outset, are informed by knowledge about SGM individuals and relationships, use currently preferred language for individual identities and relationships, attend to issues of confidentiality regarding sexual/gender identity or relationship involvement, and adhere to the norms of the particular community and recruitment venue.
Full-text available
Although bisexual men are known to be less likely to disclose their sexual orientation to others than gay men, the reasons why bisexual men choose or feel unable to disclose have received minimal research attention. To examine the reasons behaviorally bisexual men offer for not disclosing to their friends, family, and female partners, in-depth interviews were conducted with an ethnically diverse sample of 203 men who had not disclosed their same-sex behavior to their female sexual partners in New York City. Men were recruited from multiple venues and online sources using a targeted sampling approach. Transcripts were thematically analyzed using Atlas.ti software. Contrary to the theory that non-disclosure is due to uncertainty about one’s sexual identity, the reasons offered for non-disclosure revealed that it was largely a method to avoid stigmatizing reactions from others. Men reported a number of specific reasons for non-disclosure, including (1) anticipation of negative emotional reactions; (2) anticipation of negative changes in relationships; (3) belief that others held stigmatizing attitudes toward homosexuality; (4) prior experience with negative reactions to disclosure; (5) wanting to maintain others’ perceptions of him; (6) fear that those told would disclose to additional people; and (7) fear of rejection due to culture or religion. These findings provide insights into the reasons why many behaviorally bisexual men choose not to disclose, potential reasons why bisexual and gay men differ in the extent to which they disclose, and potential reasons why some bisexual men report greater emotional distress than gay men. Further, they suggest that greater attention needs to be placed on addressing the stigmatizing contexts that confront bisexual men and providing them with strategies to manage stigma.
Full-text available
Previous qualitative research on traditional measures of sexual orientation raise concerns regarding how well these scales capture sexual minority individuals' experience of sexuality. The present research focused on the critique of two novel scales developed to better capture the way sexual and gender minority individuals conceptualize sexuality. Participants were 179 sexual minority (i.e. gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, queer, asexual) individuals who identified as cisgender (n = 122) and transgender (n = 57). Participants first completed the new scales, then provided qualitative responses regarding how well each scale captured their sexuality. The Sexual-Romantic Scale enabled the measurement of sexual and romantic attraction to each sex independently (same-sex and other-sex). Participants resonated with the way the Sexual-Romantic scale disaggregated sexual and romantic attraction. Although cisgender monosexual (lesbian/gay) individuals positively responded to the separation of same- and other-sex attraction, individuals with either plurisexual (bisexual, pansexual, or fluid) or transgender identities found the binary conceptualization of sex/gender problematic. The Gender-Inclusive Scale incorporated same- and other-sex attraction as well as dimensions of attraction beyond those based on sex (attraction to masculine, feminine, androgynous, and gender non-conforming individuals). The incorporation of dimensions of sexual attraction outside of sex in the Gender-Inclusive Scale was positively regarded by participants of all identities. Findings indicate that the Sexual-Romantic and Gender-Inclusive scales appear to address some of the concerns raised in previous research regarding the measurement of sexual orientation among sexual minority individuals.
Full-text available
Studies with volunteers in sexual arousal experiments suggest that women are, on average, physiologically sexually aroused to both male and female sexual stimuli. Lesbians are the exception because they tend to be more aroused to their preferred sex than the other sex, a pattern typically seen in men. A separate research line suggests that lesbians are, on average, more masculine than straight women in their nonsexual behaviors and characteristics. Hence, a common influence could affect the expression of male-typical sexual and nonsexual traits in some women. By integrating these research programs, we tested the hypothesis that male-typical sexual arousal of lesbians relates to their nonsexual masculinity. Moreover, the most masculine-behaving lesbians, in particular, could show the most male-typical sexual responses. Across combined data, Study 1 examined these patterns in women's genital arousal and self-reports of masculine and feminine behaviors. Study 2 examined these patterns with another measure of sexual arousal, pupil dilation to sexual stimuli, and with observer-rated masculinity-femininity in addition to self-reported masculinity-femininity. Although both studies confirmed that lesbians were more male-typical in their sexual arousal and nonsexual characteristics, on average, there were no indications that these 2 patterns were in any way connected. Thus, women's sexual responses and nonsexual traits might be masculinized by independent factors. (PsycINFO Database Record
Full-text available
The present research explores the range and complexity of sexual minority self-identification. Using a feminist intersectional approach, patterns of self-identification are considered across both sexual identity and gender identity. Participants represent an online convenience sample and included 448 sexual minority individuals. Participants endorsed monosexual (lesbian, gay) and plurisexual (bisexual, pansexual, queer, fluid) sexual identity labels and included both cisgender and transgender individuals. Participants answered a series of open- and closed-ended questions regarding their primary and secondary sexual identities. Monosexual participants were less likely to provide a definition for their primary sexual identity than were plurisexual individuals; and when they did provide a definition they used fewer words. Likewise, monosexual participants were less likely to report secondary sexual identities; and when they did, they provided fewer secondary identities than plurisexual individuals. Transgender individuals were more likely than cisgender individuals to provide a definition for their primary sexual identity and to indicate a secondary sexual identity. These findings suggest that individuals with non-normative identities (plurisexual and transgender) were less likely to endorse single identity labels, and more likely to provide additional context for their identity labels than were individuals with normative identities (monosexual and cisgender). The present findings support the notion that with regard to sexual identity normative identities go unexamined, and that both sexual identity and gender identity contribute to the normative conceptualization of sexuality. This is consistent with our finding that sexual orientation rumination is explained, in part, by primary sexual orientation identity and sexual orientation complexity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved)
Full-text available
This study characterized sexual orientation identities and sexual fluidity in attractions in a community-based sample of self-identified transgender and gender-nonconforming adults in Massachusetts. Participants were recruited in 2013 using bimodel methods (online and in person) to complete a one-time, Web-based quantitative survey that included questions about sexual orientation identity and sexual fluidity. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated adjusted risk ratios (aRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) to examine the correlates of self-reported changes in attractions ever in lifetime among the whole sample (n = 452) and after transition among those who reported social gender transition (n = 205). The sample endorsed diverse sexual orientation identities: 42.7% queer, 19.0% other nonbinary, 15.7% bisexual, 12.2% straight, and 10.4% gay/lesbian. Overall, 58.2% reported having experienced changes in sexual attractions in their lifetime. In adjusted models, trans masculine indivi
Full-text available
The present study examined essentialist beliefs about sexual orientation and their implications for sexual identity uncertainty, internalized homonegativity and psychological wellbeing in a sample of gay men. A combination of targeted sampling and snowball strategies were used to recruit 639 gay identifying men for a cross-sectional online survey. Participants completed a questionnaire assessing sexual orientation beliefs, sexual identity uncertainty, internalized homonegativity, and psychological wellbeing outcomes. Structural equation modeling was used to test whether essentialist beliefs were associated with psychological wellbeing indirectly via their effect on sexual identity uncertainty and internalized homonegativity. A unique pattern of direct and indirect effects was observed in which facets of essentialism predicted sexual identity uncertainty, internalized homonegativity and psychological wellbeing. Of note, viewing sexual orientation as immutable/biologically based and as existing in discrete categories, were associated with less sexual identity uncertainty. On the other hand, these beliefs had divergent relationships with internalized homonegativity, with immutability/biological beliefs associated with lower, and discreteness beliefs associated with greater internalized homonegativity. Of interest, although sexual identity uncertainty was associated with poorer psychological wellbeing via its contribution to internalized homophobia, there was no direct relationship between identity uncertainty and psychological wellbeing. Findings indicate that essentializing sexual orientation has mixed implications for sexual identity uncertainty and internalized homonegativity and wellbeing in gay men. Those undertaking educational and clinical interventions with gay men should be aware of the benefits and of caveats of essentialist theories of homosexuality for this population.
Pansexuality is a growing sexual identity that has become immensely popular in U.S. culture within the previous decade. Currently, little is known about the distinct difference between pansexuality and other sexual orientations/identities; most of what is known comes from popular press and statements by celebrities that have publicly identified as pansexual. As a method of distinguishing and privileging pansexuality as a distinct sexuality, a document and content analysis related to pansexuality was conducted on public blogs and posts from the Internet. Several themes were analyzed, including definition, comparison to bisexuality, identity development, celebrities/media, normalization, and panerasure. Through analysis of 55 unique online posts related to the topic, a proposal consensus statement is offered that attempts to give voice to the pansexual identity as distinctive. In addition, a discussion is offered related to the development and media influence of the pansexual identity—including the emerging concept of panerasure.
I propose an evolutionary theory of human female sexual fluidity and argue that women may have been evolutionarily designed to be sexually fluid in order to allow them to have sex with their cowives in polygynous marriage and thus reduce conflict and tension inherent in such marriage. In addition to providing an extensive definition and operationalization of the concept of sexual fluidity and specifying its ultimate function for women, the proposed theory can potentially solve several theoretical and empirical puzzles in evolutionary psychology and sex research. Analyses of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) confirm the theory's predictions that: (i) women (but not men) who experience increased levels of sexual fluidity have a larger number of children (suggesting that female sexual fluidity, if heritable, may be evolutionarily selected); (ii) women (but not men) who experience marriage or parenthood early in adult life subsequently experience increased levels of sexual fluidity; and (iii) sexual fluidity is significantly positively correlated with known markers of unrestricted sexual orientation among women whereas it is significantly negatively correlated with such markers among men.
Applied researchers have employed chi-square tests for more than one hundred years. This paper addresses the question of how one should follow a statistically significant chi-square test result in order to determine the source of that result. Four approaches were evaluated: calculating residuals, comparing cells, ransacking, and partitioning. Data from two recent journal articles were used to illustrate these approaches. A call is made for greater consideration of foundational techniques such as the chi-square tests.