My biography and critical reflection indicated a personal experience of discrimination, exclusion, and marginalization as a queer person of color in a gay dating mobile application called Grindr. Particularly, I was faced with the issue of toxic gay masculinity and subordination at the intersection of gender, race, ethnicity, and sexuality. This experience of ‘othering’ reflects the dominant gendered stereotypes and social practices within the gay community wherein ‘racism’ and ‘whiteness’ are persistent features. I contend that this experience of difference relates to a wider social issue of sexual racism against gay men and queer people of color within the LGBTIQ+ community, transecting differences of class and race. I argue that the discourse concerning “personal preference” within online gay dating spaces like Grindr, stems from, and is a form of sexual racism and prejudice within the LGBTIQ+ community that harms queer people from minority classes and racial/ethnic groups. This racialized stigmatization and social exclusion further exacerbate their pre-existing position of difference.
In unveiling this social issue, I will explore the underlying concepts behind these inequalities by scrutinizing the prevailing cultural norms and practices concerning gender and sexuality in Australia. This includes engaging in discussions about normative systems of gender (heteronormativity and hegemonic masculinity) and body image (‘Whiteness’ in queerness and body stereotypes), as well as marginalization (sexual preferences as sexual racism). In explaining the components of sexual racism, I will primarily draw ideas from Crenshaw’s (1990) theory of intersectionality to investigate the various systems that intersect with gender and how they legitimate inequalities across class, race/ethnicity, and sexuality. Additionally, I will also draw on some concepts from post-structural feminism (Butler, 1990) and queer (Warner, 2000) theories to further elucidate what and how difference is constituted in this social issue.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Heteronormativity and the Issue of Gender Inequality
Gender equality has been a persistent and well-discussed issue in sociological studies. Underlying the construction of these inequities are cultural schemes that represent a ‘binary’ gender system where only two genders are deemed ‘natural’ based on biological sex (genitalia and genetics) – male or female (Esposito, 2009; West & Zimmerman, 1987). These cultural representations shape and are shaped by the existing ‘gender order’ – the structures of power that interconnect men and women and constitute norms for masculinity (manly) and femininity (womanly) by regulating what is gender-appropriate in the aspects of gender expression, social roles, and occupation (Echabe, 2010). This gender order is hierarchical and places more value on masculinity over femininity (Connell, 2000; Schippers, 2007).
Ethnomethodological studies on gender (Adriaens & De Block, 2006; Connell, 2002; West & Zimmerman, 1987) contend that social interactions create and maintain the mechanisms of the binary gender system as they highlight and reiterate the dominant discourses that perpetuate gender inequalities (Butler, 1990; Connell, 2002). These studies examined a term called ‘doing gender’, which is defined as “the interactional process of crafting gender identities that are then presumed to reflect and naturally derive from biology” (Schilt & Westbrook, 2009, p. 442). ‘Doing gender’ assumes that the meanings and expectations about being a man and a woman vary across history and interactional circumstances as masculinity and femininity are not inherent properties of male and female bodies. Normative expectations for men and women push them to perform acts suited to the constraints of masculinity (‘dominance’) and femininity (‘submission’) which preserves gender inequality (Budgeon, 2014; Butler, 1990; Connell, 2000; West & Zimmerman, 1987). These gender norms and expectations about ‘natural’ differences between men and women produce stringent inequalities that replicate the binary gender system.
Moreover, these differences can be explored more thoroughly by analyzing the relationship between patriarchy and enforced heterosexuality. Schilt and Westbrook (2009) indicated that heterosexuality, characterized by masculinity and femininity, “is taken for granted as a natural occurrence derived from biological sex” (p. 443). The normalization of heterosexuality is entrenched in social institutions to preserve power, privilege, and class status for some people over others (Lanser, 2012). As the gender binary system privileges masculinity, it also encourages heterosexuality. Culture dictates the ways of being ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ and this, in turn, builds intangible, hierarchical gender differences and further supports patriarchy and male dominance (Connell, 1995). Heterosexuality is espoused through cultural norms that devalue femininity and homosexuality. At the societal level, this is evident in the high rates of gendered violence-related crimes, mostly perpetrated by men, against gays, lesbians, and transgenders who are all culturally stereotyped to be exhibiting femininity (Haritaworn, 2010; Kay & Jeffries, 2010; Tomsen & Mason, 2001).
As Berlant and Warner (1998) debated, the “project of normalization that has made heterosexuality hegemonic” (p. 548) dates back to the 18th century wherein such hegemony has disputably produced the intellectual framework of heteronormativity. This taken-for-granted notion about heterosexuality and gender identity following biological sexes as ‘natural’ and ‘normal’, constitutes ‘heteronormativity’. This is exemplified in dominant discourses about gender types and social relations between men and women. People often hold the presumption that an individual’s biological sex and gender presentations are coherent, although one’s gendered appearance does not necessarily reflect one’s biological sex for some people (West & Zimmerman, 1987). As Lanser (2012) suggested, most non-heteronormative experiences of men and women are most likely “to be lived out within, rather than beyond, heteronormative structures and spaces” (p. 277) where any deviation is considered to be a ‘queer’ aspect of the mainstream, which still operates under the same normative system.
Scrutinizing and understanding how people respond to deviances from the normalized spaces and systems of gender might help clarify the processes underlying the social practices of ‘doing gender’ as well as heteronormativity. In extension, this normalization of ‘doing gender’ from a heteronormative framework may explain the exclusionary social practices towards gay men of color in the gay digital space, similar to my personal experience of sexual racism and subordination in Grindr.
The Intersection of Gender Hegemony and Sexual Racism
A crucial concept to analyze this development is Connell’s (1987) model of ‘hegemonic masculinity’. Broadly, hegemonic masculinity is defined as “a dominant form of masculinity that embodies, organizes, and legitimates men’s domination in the world gender order as a whole” (Connell, 2000, p. 46). The term is most significant in recognizing diversity and multiplicities within masculinities, that all masculinities are not the same or equal. This invokes that hegemonic masculinity is framed in a way that it holds a certain degree of power, a privileged positioning, over other types of masculinities in both historical and social contexts (Beasley, 2008; Willis, 2012). Connell (2000) postulates that hegemonic masculinity is central in gender relations between men and women and that the effects of ‘masculinity’ expand into three components in a person’s life: social (pertains to an interactional location), symbolistic (a set of practices that produce meaning and value), and embodied (affects personality, culture, and bodily experience). This signifies that hegemonic masculinity operates not only to subordinate ‘femininity’ but also to subordinate and marginalize ‘other’ forms of masculinities. This is one of the most essential aspects of hegemonic masculinity, the subordination of gay men and non-heterosexual individuals by heterosexual men for embodying ‘subordinate masculinities’, which are considered as the inferior ‘other’ against the ideal hegemonic masculinity and often associated with femininity (Connell, 2000).
Whilst complicity, subordination, and hegemony are apparent features of the gender order, Connell (2000) argues that ‘marginalization’ characterizes the social relations among men as a result of the intersection of gender with class and race. Moreover, marginalized masculinities are assumed to be those of gay men from a minority class, race, or ethnicity. This connection involves marginalization and dominance as hegemonic masculinity is inseparably tied to ‘whiteness’ (heterosexual, middle-class, white man) and holds more power in comparison to marginalized masculinities (Connell, 2000). Schippers (2007) highlighted that as gender intertwines with other systems of inequality, it tends to embolden race and class hegemony. Racist and class-based ideologies emphasize differences in ‘value’ or ‘worth’ among men and women who come from different races and classes.
In the Western discourse, gender identity is valued as an ontological matter of human difference. Butler (1990) suggests that practices of marginalization against subordinate racial/ethnic classes as ‘deviant’ from the ‘real’ or ‘ideal’ men and women or gays and lesbians offer a justification for their social, economic, and political subordination. Hence, minority racial/ethnic and working-class groups are socially constructed and reduced to being non-standard or ‘problematic', the undeserving ‘others' because of their distinctive gender practices (Hodge, 2015; Schippers, 2007). This is evidenced by dominant stereotypical discourse and gendered exclusionary practices in society (Pyke & Johnson, 2003). Recent research by Lim and Hewitt (2018) studied the prevalence of racial discrimination through the narratives of queer people of color. The study revealed that ethno-racial gay identities were constituted as 'less acceptable’ and ‘divergent’ from the hegemonic queer ‘White’ identities within the LGBTIQ+ community. Furthermore, queer people of color also expressed that racism due to their ethno-racial identities was the primary reason for discrimination from fellow LGBTIQ+ members. Male ‘femininities’ – specific characteristics and practices culturally embodied by women – threaten the traditional gender hegemony of masculinity and femininity as they both stigmatize and feminize the men who exemplify them (Schippers, 2007). Looking into masculinity and femininity constructions within the homosexual identity helps us further understand the intersecting issue of gender hegemony and sexual racism. According to empirical research (Connell, 1992; Hodge, 2015; Rowen & Malcolm, 2003; Schippers, 2007), gay men consistently attempt to validate their status as a “real man” or a “straight gay” by embodying a gay identity which depicts symbolic masculine characteristics of a “cisgender man” about the inferior “effeminate” gay man which embodies femininity.
Grindr, Gay Digital Culture, and Intersectionality
The concept of intersectionality has acknowledged the marginalization of ‘repressed’ groups. Ascending from black feminist critiques of patriarchy, intersectionality stresses that discrimination can happen concomitantly, on multiple social dimensions (e.g. race, sex, class). Individuals do not simply experience the compounding effects of discrimination (racism, sexism) rather, they feel further oppressed as these systems of power operate in diverse contexts (Crenshaw, 1990). Drawing from this theory, I revert to my argument that online gay dating spaces like Grindr exacerbate the discrimination and social differentiation experienced by queer people of color on race/ethnicity, gender, and body norm intersections. I also turn to my argument that the notion of ‘personal preference’ is a form of ‘sexual racism’.
While there is no customary process, Grindr is an online gay application that uses geo-locative technology which enables communication between two strangers in proximate locations via public profiles and private messages; the end goal being physical interaction. Grindr users primarily interact by accepting or rejecting each other based on profile photos, short self-descriptions, or filtering categories such as gender, body type, position, ethnicity, tribe, etc. Users can either ‘tap’ profiles, send private messages, swap face or nude photos, and easily ‘block’ others if needed. This subculture of online gay dating is said to be an extension of the ‘gay male digital culture’ cultivated in websites and online chat rooms since the 1990s (Mowlabocus, 2010, p. 4). With a unique culture comprising diverse desires and shared sexual interests, Grindr has become a ‘socio-sexual’ networking platform wherein “interpersonal communication” transpires among individuals who are “open to forming erotic, platonic, and practical connections, sometimes simultaneously” (Shield, 2018, p. 151). Simultaneously, it could also be a space where queer people of color face intersecting experiences of sexism, racism, and marginalization. Grindr as socio-sexual is crucial in uncovering the distinct communicative ‘culture’ in which individuals understand social codes, patterns, and behaviors (Deuze, 2006). In the context of online gay dating culture, an individual’s body is at the core of actions that produce ‘new’ online gender ‘performances’ and sexualities (Gadelha, 2016, p. 61), which are not detached from their offline, local contexts of origin. Gadelha (2016) argues that the digital culture of gender and sexuality is marked by “visual schemes of perception” (p. 62) where gender, race, ethnicity, and sexuality intersect in the construction of virtual bodies – actors ‘perform’ in ways that perceive ‘otherness’ while seduction and negotiating dating practices. About this, Grindr’s interface hyper-valuates ‘visualization’ or ‘self-presentation’ particularly when the “user’s body provides visible cues about a racial or cultural minority position, gender non-conformity, or disability” (p. 150), which then structures how users socialize on the platform (Shield, 2018).
Empirical studies (Gadelha, 2016; Lloyd & Finn, 2017; Shield, 2018) have investigated the ‘Grindr culture’ and revealed that a user’s gay/queer disposition intersects with other social identities which impacts one’s user experiences. These identities and differences are reinforced through Grindr’s interface such as drop-down menus, the dominant discourses in profile descriptions, and the user-to-user private exchanges.
At the intersection of race, many queer people of color and immigrants experience exclusion through racial-sexual preferences, fetishes/sexual objectification, and recurrent insults involving religion, race, or nationality (Race, 2015; Robinson, 2015; Teunis, 2007). Grindr’s category for ‘ethnicity’ encourages labeling one’s racial/ethnic background. In this case, racialization has become a digital process (Nakamura, 2008). This feature directly eliminates users of certain ethnicities which limits their interactional opportunities, as well as, contributes to the racist discourse of ‘preference’ in profile descriptions e.g. “No Asians; No Blacks” (Shield, 2018; Lloyd & Finn, 2017). Racist statements like these are usually ‘downplayed’ and disregarded wherein aggressors justify their prejudice as ‘personal preference’, or their ‘hate speech’ as an expression of one’s opinion, which is a form of ‘entitlement racism’ (Essed, 2013). This social division and exclusion of queer people of color as ‘undesirable’ is normalized through the neoliberal discourse of ‘personal preference’ which values whiteness as the ‘hegemonic’ beauty standard (Robinson, 2015, p. 326). Through the internet, this ‘new’ racism is endorsed, without any social consequences, as it is assumed to be ‘normal’ in online dating.
Intersecting with gender/sexuality, Grindr’s dropdown options accentuate sex/gender differences and promote preconceived notions that support gender stereotypes e.g. the sexual-economic opportunism of trans-women and Asian immigrants (Shield, 2018). Moreover, sexist prejudices also affect ‘cisgender’ male users who are perceived as ‘feminine’ which is demonstrated in the prevailing discourse of preferences on ‘masculine’ looking or ‘straight-acting’ gay men. These statements reveal dominant gender ideologies derived from ‘hegemonic masculinity’ and ‘heteronormativity’, where masculinity is treated as ‘natural’, rather than socially-constructed, rejecting gay men displaying ‘femininities’ and subordinate masculinities (Clarkson, 2007; Connell, 2000; Robinson, 2015). This explanation and perception of femininity relate to queer theories of ‘gender’ as intersectional and performative (Butler, 1990; Crenshaw, 1990).
Intersecting with body norms, Grindr’s filtering system promotes (dis)ableism and body shaming as users are encouraged to describe their ‘body types’. In addition to height/weight labels, this category specifies comparative differences in how a user’s body looks like, representing ‘slim’ against ‘average’, ‘toned’ against ‘muscular’, or ‘stocky’ against ‘large’. This normalization of the body is rooted in ‘hegemonic masculinity’ where the ‘embodiment’ of a gay male identity is based on characteristics symbolically viewed as ‘masculine’ (manly) which also represents ‘whiteness’ as the norm for beauty (Robinson, 2015; Schippers, 2007). Further, ableism is also evident through the option, ‘HIV status’ and ‘Last tested date’, which stigmatize and devalue HIV-positive individuals as those who are already oppressed by the larger society (Shield, 2018).
Conclusion
This study has shown ‘why’ and ‘how’ sexual racism has been digitalized and normalized in online gay dating spaces such as Grindr. It has been argued that ‘personal preferences’ represent a ‘new’ form of sexual racism that exacerbates the existing position of difference between queer people of color. Sexual racism is so ingrained within the society’s everyday practices on these platforms, yet the wider social issues of discrimination and marginalization at the intersections of class, race, gender, and sexuality within the LGBTIQ+ community have been unheeded, reifying the hegemonic social structures that produce persistent inequalities in society (Plummer & Simoni, 2007; Robinson, 2015). By unpacking the underlying assumptions behind the discourse of ‘personal preference’ in the context of gay digital culture, I have attempted to reveal how social structures, cultural practices, and social norms impact the construction of the ‘gay male identity’, within a hegemonic heteronormative sex/gender system. The continued racialized sexualization in online gay dating spaces like Grindr, as well as the interface of the application, must be fundamentally contested to advocate for the improved visibility and recognition of queer people of color as individuals and prospective partners in online gay dating spaces – challenging power structures of white supremacy and heteronormativity.
Stuck on your essay?
