The two major categories for gender and sexuality labeling that are recurrently used within contemporary society are related either to (a) specific actions or (b) particular identities. For the queer community, the situation is different because it does not adhere to any existing categories such as sodomite (action-based labeling) or trans (identity-based labeling), for example. For the most part, queer and questioning youth may be considered a marginalized population that has to experience marginalization, with the biggest problem being the inability to recognize the consequences of sexual activity (Blackman and Scotti).
Therefore, individuals who choose to be queer are also exposed to double standards and name-calling that destroy the willingness to take on any gender identities. For modern society, this is directly linked to stereotypes, local culture, and how individuals perceive it and its overall value. The essence of queer culture, therefore, is to expect to be judged by the community and then reach out to all the individuals who have been judged in a similar way.
This collective response stands at the forefront of the modern approach to queer and questioning beliefs. The youth gets a chance to evade the issue of inclusivity and get directly to evaluating specific qualification criteria that are overlooked by the majority of ordinary society. As per the information presented in Seidman et al.’s book, sexuality is one of the biggest fears for trans people due to the strong association with gender-based violence (39).
This might be a sign of the fact that societal beliefs stand at the forefront of why contemporary youth steps away from sexual labeling and chooses to be as neutral as possible (Emin). The feeling of fear is the strongest in individuals who are much more confident of their identity and gender. This gets queer and questioning youth exposed to the problem of being unable to protect their sexual life from the dangers of HIV and other concomitant problems (Kutner). However, there are several additional reasons for the youth to ignore sexual labeling and proceed to queer and questioning sexualities in the context of modern society.
Primarily, the transition to queer occurs due to the fact that any sexual orientation is, in fact, a social construct that has developed over the years of exposure to different sexualities and genders (Bridges). From the history, it is known that some cultures did not even have the concept of sexual orientation, which made their existence less arbitrary. This does not necessarily mean that the youth moves on to queer and questioning to refuse labeling or biological identities.
Instead, they promote the value of being able to measure one’s determinate features objectively. Mollborn and Sennott also paid close attention to how social norms are working in real life, making sure that adolescents and preadolescents would be able to share their opinion tangibly (1285). This allows the queer youth to decline the force of cultural convention while approving of the biological reality.
On the other hand, sexual orientation labels are often not established clearly, which allows the youth to step away from any definite concepts and identify themselves as queer to avoid unwanted, uninformed opinions regarding their sexuality (Clark-Flory). Previous experiences could also have an impact on the youth, as interactions with non-binary individuals would also push them toward identifying as either queer or questioning (especially given the prevalence of homophobic behaviors among binary individuals). The ability to choose how to label themselves appeals to the youth the most, allowing them to merge with those who share similar values and outlooks, without the need to explain anything to the society.
This may get especially helpful in the case of inappropriate societal responses, as in Hoffman’s article where the latter identifies sexual labeling as one of the issues that she battled against the most. On the other hand, when an individual cannot identify themselves straightforwardly, it means that they cannot label themselves, and, consequently, will choose to be no one else but either queer or questioning. The concepts of gender and sexual orientation merely do not resonate with the youth anymore, making them go beyond the mere male/female classification.
Ultimately, it all comes down to the idea that a non-binary exemplification is much more logical to the youth representatives who evade labels and do not view sexuality as a two-dimensional subject (Guttmacher, Sex and HIV Education). Given the fear and marginalization that the modern queer and questioning youth are feeling, it may be safe to question the value of identifying a person’s sexual orientation solely based on genitals that one possesses. For the queer youth, as it is specified in a fact sheet published on Guttmacher website, modern sex education and the social control of sexuality do not reflect their values.
Therefore, the “same” and “opposite” genders do not exist for the queer and questioning youth, and it makes their experiences less intensive when they interact with the society (Tallon). The modern youth tends to identify as queer because binary concepts do not give them enough freedom, forcing them to comply with the limiting definitions that are becoming obsolete at a rather high pace. To sum it up, the youth does not get into sexual labeling activities and chooses to remain either queer or questioning.
As the data from GLSEN suggests, the LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum significantly influences the youth. The LGBTQ-inclusive sex education yet has to be altered to be in line with the beliefs and interests of adolescents (or even preadolescents). Either way, queer and questioning youth try to evade misconceptions and simplify the concepts of sexuality and gender while also having to deal with discrimination and subjective societal outlooks that do not reflect the inherent value of genders and sexuality.
Works Cited
Blackman, Kate, and Samantha Scotti. “State Policies on Sex Education in Schools.” National Conference of State Legislatures. 2019. Web.
Bridges, Emily. “Sexuality Education.” Advocates for Youth, 2014. Web.
Clark-Flory, Tracy. “Forget about Rainbow Parties, Sex Bracelets and Sexting: Today’s Kids Have Not Gone Wild.” Salon. 2014. Web.
Emin, Olivia. “My Class Speech About Slut-Shaming (And What Happened When I Gave It).” HuffPost. 2015. Web.
GLSEN. “School Climate Survey.” GLSEN. Web.
Guttmacher. “American Adolescents’ Sources of Sexual Health Information.” Guttmacher Institute. 2019. Web.
“Sex and HIV Education.” Guttmacher Institute. 2020. Web.
Hoffman, Claire. “From the Archives: Joe Francis: ‘Baby, Give Me a Kiss’.” Los Angeles Times. 2006. Web.
Kutner, Jenny. “Virginity Pledges Don’t Work – Unless You’re Super Religious.” Salon, 2014. Web.
Mollborn, Stefanie, and Christie Sennott. “Bundles of Norms about Teen Sex and Pregnancy.” Qualitative Health Research, vol. 25, no. 9, 2015, pp. 1283-1299.
Seidman, Steven, et al. Introducing the New Sexuality Studies. Routledge, 2016.
Tallon, Monique. “Slut Shaming Is Still a Thing: How Women Are Shifting the Conversation Through the Arts.” HuffPost. 2017. Web.