3.9 Article

Hetero-cis-normativity and the gendering of transphobia

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRANSGENDERISM
卷 17, 期 1, 页码 31-57

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/15532739.2016.1149538

关键词

Attitudes; cisnormativity; gender; heterosexism; prejudice; transphobia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A persistent finding in past research reifies a gendered cisnormative bias whereby heterosexual men (compared to heterosexual women) have been found to be overwhelmingly less supportive of transgender individuals in quantitative studies conducted in the United States and in Canada, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Poland, Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, and the United Kingdom. I suggest that this finding reflects a synergistic relationship between transphobia and homophobia or, put another way, an overarching presence of hetero-cis-normativity whereby it is normal to be both heterosexual and cisgender and it is not normal (and therefore acceptable to be prejudiced toward) nonheterosexual and noncisgender individuals. Using this hetero-cisnormative framework in the current study, I utilize quantitative survey data from college-age students (N = 775; average age, 22;78% White) at a university in the southern United States to investigate attitudes toward transgender individuals in three ways. First, I explore how hetero-cisnormative assumptions lead to gender differences in attitudes toward male-to-female and female-to-male transgender individuals. Next, I examine perspectives in opposition to hetero-cisnormativity-namely feminist identity and supportive attitudes toward lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals-to explain why men (compared to women) have more negative attitudes toward transgender individuals. Finally, I explore how nonheterosexuals' attitudes may further elucidate the relationship between gender and attitudes toward transgender individuals. Overall results provide support for using a hetero-cis-normative framework to understand transphobia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据