Content uploaded by James Morandini
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by James Morandini on Oct 10, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hjsr20
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: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjsr20
Who Adopts Queer and Pansexual Sexual
Identities?
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:
10.1080/00224499.2016.1249332
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1249332
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-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.
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-profile figures have
embraced nontraditional sexual identities, including pop
celebrity Miley Cyrus, who revealed in a recent interview
“I’m pansexual”(Sieczkowski, 2015), and Rep. Mary
Gonzalez, the first openly pansexual elected U.S. official
(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). Reflecting 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 defies 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 fluidity) may
find 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 “postgay”era, 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: jmor7223@uni.sydney.edu.au
THE JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH,00(00), 1–12, 2016
Copyright © The Society for the Scientific 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
Populations?
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 identification appears relatively low. In a
convenience sample of nonheterosexual Californian second-
ary school students, Russell et al. (2009) found that only
5.2% identified as queer, while a large national convenience
sample of nonheterosexual Australian adults (average age
37.7 years) put this figure at 7.1% (Leonard et al., 2012).
Two North American college samples of predominantly
cisgender nonheterosexuals registered a higher proportion
of queer identification, with Gray and Desmarais (2014)
finding 16% of men and women (average age 21 years)
and Friedman and Leaper (2010)finding 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% identified 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
identification 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 define their own gender in relation to
their object choice, or categorize their attractions based on
binary notions of gender. Two recent studies were identified
that assessed nontraditional sexual identity labels specifically
among noncisgender samples. In a convenience sample of
primarily North American individuals (average age 28 years)
who self-identified 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)
identified as queer and 19% as another nontraditional sexual
identity. Given the disagreement in these rates of adoption,
further research is required to confirm the strength of the links
between queer and pansexual identities and noncisgender
status.
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 first
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 defined previously).
Sexual orientation typically refers to an individual’s 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
1
and
that it is category specific; 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;
MORANDINI, BLASZCZYNSKI, AND DAR-NIMROD
2
Rosenthal, Sylva, Safron, & Bailey, 2012). In contrast,
female sexual orientation appears more fluid, meaning that
the target of women’s 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 fit 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
influence how individuals conceptualize their sexual
identity.
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 one’s sexual orientation
(who one sexually desires), sexual behavior pattern may be
influenced 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 identified, 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 reflect 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-identified 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 one’s
sexual identity may be more complex for noncisgender indivi-
duals (e.g., traditional sexual identities may come with
unwanted assumptions about one’s 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
cohorts.
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
WHO ADOPTS QUEER AND PANSEXUAL SEXUAL IDENTITIES?
3
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-identified individuals.
Method
Participants
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%) identified as noncisgender, with the
majority of these individuals endorsing the label genderqueer
or genderfluid (see Table 1). A total of 34 (1.5%) participants
wrote in a sexual identity other than queer, pansexual, bisexual
or lesbian/gay, including “Other”not specified (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
identified 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.
Procedure
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
study.
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
%N%N%N%N%N
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)
a,c
4.9 (4)
a
45.1 (37)
b
26.8 (22)
b,c
7.3 (6)
a
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 “genderqueer”or “genderfluid”gender 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 significant for the nonbinary group (χ
2
[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
significantly at p< .05.
Table 2. Percentage of Lesbian/Gay, Bisexual, Queer, Pansexual,
and Write-In Sexual Identities
Men
(n= 1,056)
Women
(n= 1,036)
Noncisgender
(n= 129)
Sexual Identity % N%N%N
Gay/lesbian 85.8 (904)
a
50.9 (527)
b
22.5 (29)
c
Bisexual 9.7 (102)
a
29.2 (302)
b
7.0 (9)
a
Queer 2.7 (29)
a
8.9 (92)
b
36.4 (47)
c
Pansexual 1.7 (18)
a
9.2 (95)
b
25.6 (33)
c
Other write-in 0.3 (3)
†
1.9 (20)
a
8.5 (11)
b
Gender × Sexual identity χ
2
(8) = 601.07, p< .05
Note. Sexual identity labels in a row that share the same letters do not differ
significantly at p< .05. Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons
were undertaken when comparing column proportions in each row.
†No comparisons undertaken as cell size < 5.
MORANDINI, BLASZCZYNSKI, AND DAR-NIMROD
4
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).
Measures
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,
2
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/fluid,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: 1–2=
heterosexual range; 3–5 = bisexual range; and 6–7=
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. Specifically, 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 significant, we examined which column
proportions differed significantly 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-identified 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=(Ψ−0)/
SE
Ψ
], where Ψwas the contrast of interest and SE
Ψ
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
=p
QM
−p
BM
(with p
QM
being the proportion of queer men in the bisexual
range relative to the column marginal, and p
BM
being the
proportion of bisexual men in the bisexual range relative to its
column marginal). The resulting contrast value was then
divided by SE
Ψ
, 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
WHO ADOPTS QUEER AND PANSEXUAL SEXUAL IDENTITIES?
5
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).
Results
Demographics
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 significant in women, χ
2
(32) = 56.761,
p= .005, but not in men or noncisgender participants (ps > .05).
Bonferroni-corrected bivariate comparisons revealed that queer
womenweremorelikelytoreport“no religion”than were
lesbian, bisexual, or pansexual women, but were no more likely
to indicate “no religion”than 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 significant, 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). Reflecting 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 first hypothesis was that queer and pansexual identities
would be more common among those who were noncisgender
than among those who were cisgender. A significant overall
gender difference in sexual identity labeling was found, χ
2
(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 participants—those who reported a
nonbinary gender identity (“genderqueer”or “genderfluid”)—
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
Women
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-identified 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
Behavior
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-identified 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 significance 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,
respectively).
MORANDINI, BLASZCZYNSKI, AND DAR-NIMROD
6
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-identified 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
significance.
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-identified 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 significance (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-identified 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-identified 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
2
(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
Heterosexual
(1–2)
Bisexual
(3–5)
Homosexual
(6–7)
Men
(%)
Women
(%)
Men
(%)
Women
(%)
Men
(%)
Women
(%)
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
*
*
42.4
*
*
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
*
*
41.3
*
**
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
*
*
28.3
*
65.5 52.2
Pansexual 27.8 36.8 61.1 54.7 11.1 8.4
Note. Bolded figures 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.
WHO ADOPTS QUEER AND PANSEXUAL SEXUAL IDENTITIES?
7
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 insufficient cell size.
Discussion
The present study sought to identify who adopts the emer-
ging sexual identity labels of queer and pansexual. To our
knowledge, ours is the first 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 identification
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 identified as queer or pansexual compared with
18.1% of women. Given that our study found that pansexual
and, to a lesser extent, queer labels reflect 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
Label
Exclusively
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 (%)
Men
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
Women
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.
MORANDINI, BLASZCZYNSKI, AND DAR-NIMROD
8
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 women’s sexual orientation,
which is less category specificandmorefluidthenmen’s, 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., genderfluid), lesbian and
gay identities are problematic in that they assume identifica-
tion as a man or a woman, whereas queer and pansexual
labels do not require individuals to define 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 genderfluid. 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 fit 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-identified 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 findings align with Horner’s(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 men’s and women’s 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 inflated the proportion of queer- and pansex-
ual-identified 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)
a
31.4 (82)
b
62.2 (46)
c
25 (17)
b
Opposite-sex
partner
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)
a
40.2 (137)
b
27 (20)
c
58.8 (40)
b
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)
a
6.8 (6)
a
8.8 (5)
a
Non-cisgender
partner
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
2
(9) = 753.78, p< .001.
Note. Comparisons of sexual identity labels were collapsed across gender
due to insufficient cell size for separate analyses by gender. Sexual identity
labels in a row which share the same letters do not differ significantly at
p< .05. Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons were undertaken
when comparing column proportions in each row.
†No comparisons undertaken as cell size < 5.
WHO ADOPTS QUEER AND PANSEXUAL SEXUAL IDENTITIES?
9
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
findings 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 insufficient 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-identified men would add
confidence to the veracity of the findings presented here.
These findings 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 findings 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 identified by
Galupo et al. (2014), this may lead to a biased assessment of
attractions, given that person-based or fluid 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 specified “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 findings 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 bisexual”versus “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
respondents.
Conclusion
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.
Notes
1. Some recent studies have reported that men are as likely (or even more
likely) to experience sexual fluidity as women (Katz-Wise & Hyde,
2015; Ott, Corliss, Wypij, Rosario, & Austin, 2011; Rosario,
Schrimshaw, Hunter, & Braun, 2006). However, in these studies,
fluidity is conceptualized as any shift in sexual attraction or identity
irrespective of direction. Closer inspection of these shifts finds 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 fluidity
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 Diamond’s 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.
MORANDINI, BLASZCZYNSKI, AND DAR-NIMROD
10
2. The inclusion of “pansexual”as a sexual identity option occurred after
recruitment had commenced in response to participants frequently
specifying “pansexual”in the Other (write in) option. This may have
influenced the overall proportion of participants registering a pansex-
ual identity; however, this would not have foreseeably influenced 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.
ORCID
Alexander Blaszczynski http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1476-
0791
References
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. 43–63). New York, NY: Springer.
Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity: The female
sex drive as socially flexible and responsive. Psychological Bulletin,
126, 347–374. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.347
Belous, C. K., & Bauman, M. L. (2016). What’s 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 flock: Labels, stigma, and
bisexual identity. Journal of Bisexuality,13,82–105. doi:10.1080/
15299716.2013.755730
Callis, A. S. (2014). Bisexual, pansexual, queer: Non-binary identities and
the sexual borderlands. Sexualities,17,63–80. doi:10.1177/
1363460713511094
Chauncey, G. (1994). Gay New York: Gender, urban culture, and the making
of the gay male world, 1890–1940. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Chivers, M. L., Rieger, G., Latty, E., & Bailey, J. M. (2004). A sex
difference in the specificity of sexual arousal. Psychological Science,
15, 736–744. 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 0,173–192. 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,44,5–14. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.5
Diamond, L. M. (2008b). Sexual fluidity: Understanding women’s love and
desire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Friedman, C., & Leaper, C. (2010). Sexual‐minority college women’s
experiences with discrimination: Relations with identity and collective
action. Psychology of Women Quarterly,34,152–164. doi:10.1111/
j.1471-6402.2010.01558
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, 433–456. doi:10.1080/15299716.2014.933466
Galupo, M. P., Lomash, E., & Mitchell, R. C. (2016). “All of my lovers fit
into this scale”: Sexual minority individuals’responses 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--
identification: Multiple identities and complexity. Psychology of Sexual
Orientation and Gender Diversity,2, 355–364. 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,23,116–122. doi:10.3138/cjhs.2400
Horner, E. (2007). Queer identities and bisexual identities: What’s the
difference? In B. A. Firestein (Ed.), Becoming visible: Counseling
bisexuals across the lifespan (pp. 287–296). New York, NY:
Columbia University Press.
Kanazawa, S. (2016). Possible evolutionary origins of human female sexual
fluidity. Biological Reviews. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/
brv.12278
Katz-Wise, S. L. (2014). Sexual fluidity in young adult women and men:
Associations with sexual orientation and sexual identity develo-
pment. Psychology and Sexuality,6, 189–208. doi:10.1080/
19419899.2013.876445
Katz-Wise, S. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2015). Sexual fluidity and related attitudes
and beliefs among young adults with a same-gender orientation.
Archives of Sexual Behavior,44, 1459–1470. doi:10.1007/s10508-
014-0420-1
Katz-Wise, S. L., Reis ner, S. L., Hughto, J. W., & Keo-Meier, C. L.
(2015). Differences in sexual orientation diversity and sexual fluidity
in attractions among gender minority adults in Massachusetts.
Journal of Sex Research,53,1–11. do i:10.1080/00224499.2014.
1003028
Kinnish, K., Strassberg, D., & Turner, C. (2005). Sex differences in the
flexibility of sexual orientation: A multidimensional retrospective
assessment. Archives of Sexual Behavior,34, 173–183. doi:10.1007/
s10508-005-1795-9
Klein, F., Sepekoff, B., & Wolf, T. J. (1985). Sexual orientation: A multi-
variable dynamic process. Journal of Homosexuality,11,35–49.
doi:10.1300/J082v11n01_04
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,
244–254. 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,
130–140. doi:10.1177/1473325011400485
Mitchell, R. C., Davis, K. S., & Galupo, M. P. (2014). Comparing per-
ceived experiences of prejudice among self-identified plurisexual indi-
viduals. Psychology and Sexuality,6,1–13. doi:10.1080/
19419899.2014.940372
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,
260–266. 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, 413–424. doi:10.1037/
cou0000072
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, 519–532. 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, 808–812.
doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1986.01800080094012
Rice, K. (2015). Pansexuality. In P. Whelehan & A. Bolin (Eds.), The
International Encyclopedia of Human Sexuality, 861–1042.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Rieger, G., Chivers, M. L., & Bailey, J. M. (2005). Sexual arousal patterns
of bisexual men. Psychological Science,16, 579–584. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-9280.2005.01578
WHO ADOPTS QUEER AND PANSEXUAL SEXUAL IDENTITIES?
11
Rieger,G.,Savin-Williams,R.C.,Chivers,M.L.,&Bailey,J.M.(2016).Sexual
arousal and masculinity-femininity of women. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,111, 265–283. 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,41,135–147. doi:10.1007/s10508-
011-9881-7
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, 245–252. doi:10.1016/j.
socscimed.2005.01.019
Russell, S. T., Clarke, T. J., & Clary, J. (2009). Are teens “post-gay”?
Contemporary adolescents’sexual identity labels. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence,38, 884–890. doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9388-2
Rust, P. C. (2000). Two many and not enough: The meanings of bisexual
identities. Journal of Bisexuality,1,31–68. doi:10.1300/
J159v01n01_04
Savin-Williams, R. C. (2005). The new gay teen: Shunning labels. The Gay
and Lesbian Review Worldwide,12,16–19.
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. 671–689). 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
Research,51,446–453).
Schlomer, G. L., Bauman, S., & Card, N. A. (2010). Best practices for
missing data management in counseling psychology. Journal of
Counseling Psychology,57,1–10. 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 significant: Now
what? Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation,20,1–10.
Sieczkowski, C. (2015, August 28). Miley Cyrus comes out as pansexual.
Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/
entry/miley-cyrus-comes-out-pansexual_us_55e05c7be4
b0aec9f352d9f4
Signorile, M. (2015, June 28). Mary Gonzalez, first openly pansexual
legislator, explains how she is changing minds in Texas. Huffington
Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/mary-
gonzalez-pansexual_n_7433432
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: Men’s and
women’s attitudes toward male and female bisexuals. Archives of
Sexual Behavior,41, 691–702. doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9767-8
MORANDINI, BLASZCZYNSKI, AND DAR-NIMROD
12
