The Correlations Between Sexual Orientation and Gender Performance

Sexual Orientation and Gender Performance 1

The Correlations Between Sexual Orientation and Gender Performance

Grant Gordin

Sociology 489H

Nancy Martin, Ph.D and Oliver Wang, Ph.D

April 30, 2012


Abstract

In our current society, we believe that men and women must behave in a certain

manner and adhere to social expectations of masculinity and femininity. If an individual

does not properly perform his or her gender—male masculinity and female femininity—he

or she sacrifices his or her status as a heterosexual, regardless of his or her actual sexual

orientation. This phenomenon, known as the conflation of gender and sexual orientation,

refers to the infusing of one’s gender performance—that which is masculine or feminine—

with sexual orientation. By equating gender and sexuality, we can draw conclusions about

an individual’s behavior based on whether he or she is homosexual or heterosexual; on the

other hand, we also believe that we can judge and evaluate an individual’s current or

eventual sexual orientation based upon his or her behavior.

This study investigates whether or not gay individuals engage in cross-‐sex-‐typed

behavior at a higher rate than straight individuals and determines if sexual orientation

correlates with gender performance. Two hundred respondents completed a written

survey examining the gender of a list of forty-‐one behaviors, and another two hundred

respondents completed a second written questionnaire investigating how often different

groups engage in the same forty-‐one behaviors. After relating men and women’s sexual

orientations with frequency of behavior, this study found that there was no significant

relationship between an individual’s sexual orientation and his or her performance of

gender in seventy-‐two out of eighty-‐two of the cases examined. Of the remaining ten cases,

only three cases demonstrated a moderate or strong relationship between sexuality and

behavior. The data confirms that sexuality and behavior are largely independent from one

another.


A Boy Caught Between Expectations

At some point in my childhood, I started to realize that people had very clear

expectations of me. My parents, my friends, and my teachers—they all had this idea in

their head that I was supposed to act a certain way, as if there was a right and wrong way

to act in elementary school. I’m pretty sure that my teachers held parent-‐teacher

conferences with my mom and dad on more than one occasion to discuss my “behavior” in

class and on the playground. You’d probably think I was some rowdy kid, getting myself

into trouble with the other kids, bullying, getting into fights, calling people names, or

something. Something that might potentially stand out as problematic and worth a

telephone call home.

Well, you’d be wrong—not because I didn’t make a really dumb decision once in

awhile, because I most surely did, but because I didn’t act like a boy. At least, that’s what

they told me. In retrospect, I’m pretty sure that I acted like a boy the majority of the time.

After all, my favorite activities during recess were basketball and handball, and I enjoyed

roughhousing with the other kids. I watched Dragonball Z religiously, I thought about

video games about ninety percent of the time, and boy-‐oh-‐boy, did I like girls. But, I also

put my hands on my hips a lot, wore turtlenecks, wrote love notes, listened to the

Backstreet Boys and Britney Spears, and identified a lot more with the girls in my

classrooms. Somehow, my teachers—and, eventually, my parents—worried that my

behavior was indicative of a “feminine” boy on the path toward homosexuality.

Ironically, not much has exactly changed today. During high school, my father sat

me down and asked me if I was “having thoughts about my masculinity.” And, all

throughout college, my mother told me that I dressed and “looked” gay. When I broke up


with one of my ex-‐girlfriends during college, her friends allegedly asked her if it was

because I had finally come out of the closet. Even now, my closest friends make fun little

jokes about me being “gay” all the time based on how I act and the activities in which I’m

involved, and newly met strangers mistake me for being gay on a semi-‐regular basis when

I’m without my significant other.

The truth is, I’ve always known that I had plenty of feminine tendencies and

characteristics just as I have a whole assortment of masculine ones. But, I never truly

realized how strongly people felt that I was in the closet based on my everyday behavior.

And, ultimately, this just doesn’t really make any sense to me. Activities, appearance, and

habits—these things don’t really have anything to do with what genitalia and sex I prefer.

Does my singing in choir or wearing pink clothing somehow lead others to predict that I’m

homosexual? Can you tell me if someone is gay or straight simply based on how they act?

There’s no way that I’m the only kid who grew up wondering these same things. For

all of the girls who grew up playing sports and punching their teachers in the gut and for all

of the boys who spent their childhood in their sister’s room applying makeup and dancing

to the Spice Girls, I dedicate this research to you.

Exploring Sexual Orientation and Gender Performance—the Research Question

Does an individual’s sexual orientation correlate with his or her gender

performance? After all, society’s beliefs and attitudes toward sexual orientation extend far

beyond sexual attraction and desire. At the most basic level, sexual orientation is nothing

more than a means to categorize sexual attraction based upon the biological sex of the

desirer and the desired. We label opposite-‐sex attraction—that is, male-‐toward-‐female and

female-‐toward-‐male attraction—as heterosexuality, while simultaneously categorizing


same-‐sex attraction as homosexuality. Finally, the term bisexuality serves to categorize

those who desire both the same and the opposite sex of themselves.

Beyond these fundamental definitions, however, we associate sexual orientation

with a long and extensive list of other characteristics—things like one’s personal

appearance, preferred activities, favorite colors, likes and dislikes, and hobbies. Society

teaches us that there are behaviors that we can expect to observe within each group when

paired with biological sex. A heterosexual man, for example, should behave quite

differently than a homosexual man, just as a heterosexual woman should conduct herself

differently than a homosexual woman. What, then, are the behaviors that we associate

with straight and gay men and women, and how do we examine how individual people

conduct themselves based on the dichotomy of gender? These are the questions that I wish

to examine in the existing literature on the subject of sexuality and gender, as well as in my

own research and study.

Defining Gender Performance

Before we can analyze one’s behavior as a separate notion from sexual orientation

or biological sex, we need a way to determine how groups of people behave and conduct

themselves differently. Common among both the sociological and psychological schools of

thought, the term “gender performance,” sometimes called “gender role,” refers to “all

those things that a person says or does to disclose himself or herself as having the status of

boy or man, girl or woman, respectively” (Zucker 32). In other words, an individual’s

gender performance is essentially his or her series of behaviors that imply his or her

gender. Certain behaviors suggest the status of a man, while other actions and manners

demonstrate the status of a woman.


In “Reflections On the Relation Between Sex-‐Typed Behavior in Childhood and

Sexual Orientation in Adulthood,” Kenneth J. Zucker indicates that “the term gender role has

been used extensively by developmental psychologists to refer to behaviors, attitudes, and

personality traits that a society, in a given culture and historical period, designates as

masculine or feminine” (Zucker 33). Gender performance or role, consequently, is not an

implication of biological sex—male or female—but rather an analysis of the social meaning

of acting like a male or female. To act as a man is to perform masculinity; conversely, to act

as a woman is to perform femininity. Therefore, as a result, a male can perform a “female”

gender by engaging in activities and behaviors that his given society deems as feminine, or

vice versa. Sheila Koenig identifies the ability to perform one’s gender in “Walk Like a Man:

Enactments and Embodiments of Masculinity and the Potential for Multiple Genders,”

where she explains that “… all gender is a performance, designed to reinforce the categories

of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ as dictated by heteronormative, patriarchal culture” (Koenig 193).

So, according to Koenig, if the implications of what it means to be a man or a woman are

subject to the fluid notion of culture, then gender cannot be absolute. Such is the findings

of lesbian writers Esther Newton and Shirley Walton, who declared that “gender categories

are learned by all, and are ‘natural’ to none” in the article “The Misunderstanding: Toward a

More Precise Sexual Vocabulary” (Newton & Walton 170). The concepts of masculinity and

femininity are not determined by biology; instead, they exist within our social structure,

susceptible to eternal change and redefinition as society evolves over time. What is

masculine for one generation might be feminine in the next. If this is true, as Koenig,

Newton, and Walton believe, then gender performance does not accurately predict

biological sex, much less sexual orientation.


What is Masculine? What is Feminine?

As previously stated, there is no absolute masculine activity or feminine behavior.

That’s not, of course, to say that we don’t have a current sociological expectation of what it

means to be masculine or feminine.

At the very general level, Tomas Almaguer indentifies a vital component of

masculinity and femininity as it pertains to sexuality. In his article “Chicano Men: A

Cartography of Homosexual Identity and Behavior,” Almaguer states, “’To give’ is to be

masculine, [and] ‘to receive’ is to be feminine” (Almaguer 476). In the context of his study,

he was referring to the dynamic between two males during an act of anal sex. The

penetrator, or “giver,” in this instance, exuded masculinity, while the penetrated individual

in the scene, or “receiver,” displayed femininity. His analysis of the implications of

penetrating or being penetrated, however, extends to the heterosexual scene, as well. After

all, the idea of “fucking” demonstrates power and masculinity; simultaneously, “being

fucked”—or, “receiving,” as Almaguer articulates, demonstrates femininity. In their article,

Esther Newton and Shirley Walton affirm this binary, adding that “masculinity equals

sexual power, [while] femininity equals sexual powerlessness” (Newton & Walton 172).

Consequently, when it comes to sexual intercourse of any kind, to penetrate is to be

powerful and masculine.

C. J. Pascoe employs another strategy in determining gender performance by

examining that which is not masculine: “being stupid or incompetent, dancing, caring too

much about clothing, being too emotional, or expressing interest (sexual or platonic) in

other guys” (Pascoe 432). Pascoe’s book Dude, You’re a Fag: Masculinity and Sexuality in

High School identifies these behaviors based on the difference between masculine and


“unmasculine,” highlighting a uniquely important component of gender. To evaluate

gender based upon that which is or isn’t masculine (rather than to examine what is

masculine and what is feminine) groups gender into categories of what I will call “in-‐the-‐

bubble” or “outside-‐the-‐bubble.” In the case of examining masculinity and femininity as

two ends of a spectrum—or even as a binary of categorization absent of any middle

ground—each group is “in-‐the-‐bubble.” There are merely two separate bubbles that serve

to classify masculinity and femininity, respectively. Conversely, when grouped as that

which is masculine and unmasculine, Pascoe exhibits how we effectively privilege

masculinity over femininity and suggest that we should all aspire to act like men. Those

who fail to act like men fall “outside-‐the-‐bubble,” where their gender is failed masculinity

rather than femininity.

Additionally, the realm of sports and athletics is a key breeding ground for the

reproduction of both masculinity and femininity. As for masculinity, in the article “Openly

Gay Athletes: Contesting Hegemonic Masculinity in a Homophobic Environment,” Eric

Anderson remarks, “Sports (particularly contact sports) have been described as a place in

which hegemonic masculinity is reproduced and defined, as an athlete represents the ideal

of what it means to be a man” (Anderson 860). He goes on to explain that “sport [serves] as

a test of masculinity in Western societies … [and] athletes are often the unofficial rule

enforcers of hegemonic masculinity,” furthering the idea that sports serve as a place where

men can properly learn how to act like men (Anderson 862, 869). Through Anderson’s

definitions, to play a sport, especially contact sports like football, hockey, basketball, and so

forth, is to engage in a masculine identity. Susan Cahn adds that “in the early decades of the

twentieth century … sport functioned as a male preserve … [where men] demonstrated and


affirmed their manhood” in her work “From the ‘Muscle Moll’ to the ‘Butch’ Ballplayer:

Mannishness, Lesbianism, and Homophobia in U.S. Women’s Sports.” Both authors point to

sport as a performance, where the field or court literally operates as a stage for the players

to display their masculinity (Cahn 335). Now, as sport is a contest, the game often becomes

less a game of football or basketball and more a competition of “who is the most masculine

on the field?” So, what behavior on the field, then, is truly masculine? To answer, Cahn

labels “aggression, physicality, competitive spirit, and athletic skill as masculine attributes

necessary for true manliness” (Cahn 335).

On the flip side, Susan Cahn also comments on women in the field of athletics and

sports based on early twentieth century critical view of female athleticism, which stated

that “woman athletes would become manlike, adopting masculine dress, talk, and

mannerisms … [collapsing] into an all-‐encompassing concept of ‘mannishness,’ a term

signifying female masculinity” (Cahn 335). On one hand, the existence of mannish women

aids the idea that biological sex and gender performance are uniquely separate from one

another. However, critics of female athletics in the 1930s argued that mannishness, this

concept of a woman adopting a masculine identity, was unbecoming of a woman. An

American Mercury medical reporter, for instance, claimed that women who enter sport “act

like men, talk like men, and think like men … [and surrender] their sex” (Cahn 337, 339).

The notion of surrender one’s sex is vital to Cahn’s critique—after all, a woman acting,

talking, and thinking “like a man” only speaks of her gender performance as masculine, not

of her biological sex as a woman. But, the idea that a woman surrenders being a woman by

engaging in athletics and sports suggests a link between our actions and our biological sex

that Cahn believes does not exist.


Moreover, gender performance does not simply refer to an individual’s activities

and behaviors, but his or her appearance, as well—especially choice of clothing. In her

book, C. J. Pascoe found that “according to boys at River [High School], fags cared about the

style of their clothes, wore tighter clothes, and cared about cleanliness … similarly, nonfags

were not supposed to care about dirtying their clothes” (Pascoe 434). Pascoe’s research

suggests that even caring about your appearance or clothing—something that isn’t a

behavior or action, but simply a manner of thought—lends itself to femininity. After all,

“’real’ guys [don’t] care about their appearance” (Pascoe 435). Perhaps the singularly most

ironic facet of any of the reviewed literature, however, is the explanation that “to not care

about one’s clothes, or to make fun of those who care about their clothes, ironically, is to

also care about one’s appearance … in this sense, masculinity [is] the carefully crafted

appearance of not caring about appearance” (Pascoe 435). In other words, an individual is

masculine as long as he doesn’t seem to care about his appearance. However, should he

spend too long gazing into the mirror, applying make-‐up, trying on clothes, cleaning oil

stains, and so forth, he ceases to be a “real guy” and becomes something less than a man,

embracing something “beneath” masculinity.

By making sense of what behaviors we perceive to be masculine or feminine, this

study can better understand the individual components that make up the social roles of

male and female—and, as an extension, the expectations of a heteronormative society.

Defining the Conflation of Gender and Sexual Orientation

The conflation of gender and sexual orientation refers to the infusing of one’s

gender performance—that which is masculine or feminine—with sexual orientation. By

equating gender and sexuality, we can draw conclusions about one side of the coin by


analyzing the other. For instance, in modern society, we believe that we can somehow

predict an individual’s behavior if we know whether he or she is homosexual or

heterosexual; on the other hand, we also believe that we can judge and evaluate an

individual’s current or eventual sexual orientation based upon his or her behavior. If these

relationships exist, gender performance and sexual orientation are as interconnected as

they possible could be. However, if these relationships and supposed connections prove to

be false, our unique behaviors and actions as individuals should be free of sexual

connotation, just as our sexual orientations should be free of assumed gender.

One important study that examines the potential link between sexual orientation

and gender is Kenneth Zucker’s Reflections On the Relation Between Sex-Typed Behavior in

Childhood and Sexual Orientation in Adulthood, which found that “childhood gender

nonconformity [is] the strongest predictor of [adult homosexuality] in men and the second

strongest predictor of [adult homosexuality] in women, … surpassed only be homosexual

involvements in adolescence” (Zucker 36). In his study, Zucker deduced that children who

engaged in cross-‐sex-‐typed behavior—that is, determined masculine behavior in girls or

determined feminine behavior in boys—were far more likely to be homosexual in

adulthood. His findings suggest that adolescent behavior (when analyzed through

gendered lenses) does, indeed, serve to predict eventual sexual orientation.

Popular assumption and opinion in the United States certainly appears to agree with

Zucker’s findings. In his article, Eric Anderson states that “the mandates of masculinity …

stand in contrast to homosexuality,” indicating that there is an absolute perceived

association between gender and sexuality (Anderson 863). Furthermore, C. J. Pascoe

affirms, “to be a fag [is], by definition, the opposite of masculine, whether the word [is]


deployed with sexualized or nonsexualized meaning” (Pascoe 433). According to both

Anderson and Pascoe, society views masculinity and homosexuality in men as constructs

that cannot coexist based on the inherent definitions of the words, alone. Consequently, a

man who is not masculine must be homosexual. Esther Newton and Shirley Walton extend

these assumptions to the realm of women, indicating that “a heterosexual woman [who

perceives] her erotic identity as being somehow ‘unfeminine,’ for example, domineering,

clumsy, or fat, … [is] almost by cultural definition, supposed to be a lesbian” (Newton &

Walton 169-‐170). In a similar way, the constructs of femininity and homosexuality in

women cannot coexist, either. A woman is either feminine and straight or masculine and

lesbian—there is little room in society for a third alternative.

Once again, the realm of sports and athletics plays a vital role in the understanding

of the conflation of gender and sexual orientation. Eric Anderson finds that “women’s

athleticism in itself is a contradiction to femininity, so female athletes are frequently

assumed to be lesbians,” and he goes on to establish that “in the narrow field of sport,

where heterosexuality is compulsory and homosexuality is taboo, effeminacy and gayness

are essentially considered the same” (Anderson 866, 873). Once again, society creates a

paradigm where an individual’s behavior is culturally defined by his or her biological sex

and sexual orientation. We do not perceive his or her gender performance as a third

category, but rather as an extension for understanding and determining his or her sexual

orientation. Straight women should be feminine—if they aren’t, they must be gay. The

same assumptions go for every combination. Straight men should be masculine, gay men

should be feminine, and gay women should be masculine. Essentially, we assume one’s

“inversion” of sexual orientation in a heteronormative society to imply his or her


“inversion” of gender performance, as well. So, if a man is involved in a contact sport, a

breeding ground for masculinity, he must be straight. Likewise, if a woman is involved in

athletics, she must be gay. As Susan Cahn puts it, “The image of women athletes as

mannish, failed heterosexuals represents a thinly veiled reference to lesbianism in sport”

(Cahn 334).

Problematic Implications of the Conflation of Gender and Sexual Orientation

So, the underlying question—so what? So what if we assume somebody is

homosexual based on his or her behavior? It’s actually a good question worth review, as

there are plenty of unexplored conflicts that arise from associating behavior with sexual

orientation.

For one thing, an individual’s fear of being labeled as homosexual causes both

straight and closeted gay men and women, alike, to overcompensate for their “correct”

gender. C. J. Pascoe, as an example, found that “boys reminded themselves and each other

that at any moment they could become fags if they were not sufficiently masculine” (Pascoe

434). Pascoe’s study, as previously mentioned, took place at a high school, a place where

individuals transition from children to adults and begin to truly form their identities as

human beings. When children must pay closer attention to how they properly “fit in” to a

system of gender expectation than to the genuine relationships that they form with their

peers, how can we expect men and women to learn intimacy at all? Men, in particular,

cannot bond with one another out of fear of the homosexual label that surrounds them.

Any sign of “weakness”—ironically usually likened to femininity—and a man abandons his

manhood.


Secondly, women who wish to break out of heterosexual and feminine social norms

must do so at the risk of their sexual orientation and eligibility as true women. Susan Cahn

expands on the lesbian stereotype in athletics and how it “[exerts] pressure on athletes to

demonstrate their femininity and heterosexuality, viewed as one and the same” (Cahn 340).

Ultimately, though, Cahn’s research has implications that extend far beyond the scope of

athletics—it demonstrates that a woman’s desire to step “outside of her place” and to do

anything unbecoming of a feminine woman is social and romantic suicide.

Furthermore, the conflation of gender and sexual orientation actually discourages

individuals from coming out of the closet. Before a man or woman comes out as

homosexual (or bisexual), he or she is a whole human being, complete with characteristics,

quirks, flaws, strengths, and weaknesses. After the coming out process, he or she is simply

“gay.” The out individual loses almost all of the other components of his or her identity and

degrades into a one-‐dimensional shell of a human being in the eyes of society. And, why?

Simply because we as a society believe that we know everything about a person and can

predict everything else there is to know about him or her simply based on his or her sexual

orientation. Why get to know somebody if you can supposedly predict how he or she

behaves, what he or she likes and dislikes, and how he or she thinks? In society’s eyes,

homosexuality replaces one’s personality rather than adding to it.

Sex I Desire vs. Sexual Orientation

For the purposes of my research in “The Correlations of Sexual Orientation and

Gender Performance,” it was vital that I collected data based upon what biological sex an

individual sexually desired rather than his or her “sexual orientation.” There are numerous

reasons as to why individuals are more likely to report their desired sex than to report


their sexual orientation, reasons grounded in culture, self-‐awareness, and fear. I will refer

to this phenomenon as the “Sex I Desire vs. Sexual Orientation” paradox for the purposes of

my research.

Firstly, an individual’s culture plays a significant role in his or her formation or

disclosure of identity—especially in regards to sexual orientation. In Tomas Almaguer’s

study of Chicano men, he found that “only a segment of homosexually active Chicano men

identify as ‘gay,’ … [and that] none of the active inserter participants in homosexual

encounters [in his study] ever [considered] himself a ‘homosexual’ or to be ‘gay’”

(Almaguer 473, 477). For many Chicano men, homosexuality is based upon the role one

plays in a homosexual act, not based upon actual sexual attraction at all. The male

penetrator preserves his heterosexuality and status as a “normal … male,” even while

engaging in anal sex with another man (Almaguer 475). However, the penetrated man

loses his manhood and male status—and, subsequently, his heterosexuality. As such,

“inserter” men such as these would not actively identify as homosexual, but could still

identify sexual desire toward other men. Moreover, John D’Emilio’s “Capitalism and Gay

Identity” states that “in the seventeenth century … there was, quite simply, no ‘social space’

in the colonial system of production that allowed men and women to be gay … there were

certain homosexual acts—sodomy among men, ‘lewdness’ among women—in which

individuals engaged, but family was so pervasive that colonial society lacked even the

category of homosexual or lesbian to describe a person” (D’Emilio 470). For cultures

where there is no social space to identify as homosexual—but still plenty of same-‐sex

desire—asking about sexual desire, itself, is much more effective than asking about sexual

identity or sexual orientation.


Another component of the “Sex I Desire vs. Sexual Orientation” paradox is the

concept of self-‐awareness—an individual’s mere knowledge of his or her sexual

orientation, in the first place. In her article “In the Trenches: LGBT Students Struggle With

School and Sexual Identity,” author Melinda Miceli explains that “the literature on

developmental models suggests that individuals became consciously aware of their

homosexual identities at an average age range of 19-‐21 for males and 21-‐23 for females …

[and] more current research on gay and lesbian youth suggests … [that] the range is now

15-‐18 for males and 17-‐20 for females” (Miceli 186). In many cases, especially around

collegiate age of late teens and early twenties (where I will be conducting my research),

individuals may not even be fully aware of their sexual orientation. However, they may be

somewhat aware of sexual desire that they have had for individuals of the opposite or the

same sex as themselves. Once again, my research will account for this possibility.

Finally, the last and perhaps most important component of the “Sex I Desire vs.

Sexual Orientation” paradox is the fear of labels that we have developed as a backlash

against modern social desire to label just about everything it can. It’s a very logical

reservation to have, after all—why would you define as something that comes with a

negative connotation or stigma? Miceli elaborates on this fear of labeling, stating that

“same-‐sex feelings [make you] a specific type of person, which socially [marks] you as

someone who would be the target of ostracism” (Miceli 187). My research certainly does

not wish to force individuals to identify at the risk of social status, and so it strays away

from the term “sexual orientation” in the surveys, altogether. Additionally, for those who

would define as bisexual, Beverly Yuen Thompson describes her own experience claiming a

bisexual identity in “Fence Sitters, Switch Hitters, and Bi-‐Bi Girls: An Exploration of Hapa


and Bisexual Identities”: “… Others would analyze me through their monosexual template

of understanding … [and demand] to know, ‘Which do you really like better, boys or girls?’”

(Thompson 174). Once again, I do not wish to alienate any population of people by

requiring a self-‐reported sexual identity. I only wish to ask about and measure sexual

attraction—a fleeting idea, a thing removed from identity or formation of character—

rather than about orientation—an intrinsic quality perhaps a bit too close to home.

The Research Design and Hypothesis

This research ultimately investigates if an individual’s sexual orientation is related

to his or her overall performance of gender. In order to conduct such a study, however, one

must establish the kinds of behaviors that individuals associated with heterosexuality and

homosexuality. Rather than assume that all Americans share a common idea of what it

means to “act” gay or straight, this study further investigated the link between gender

performance and sexual orientation—straight male masculinity, straight female femininity,

gay male femininity, and gay female masculinity. While most prior research has shown that

biological sex, gender, and sexual orientation are all uniquely separate attributes that do

not individually predict or determine one another, this study will examine how most

Americans still perceive an inherent relationship between straight males and masculinity,

straight females and femininity, gay males and femininity, and gay females and masculinity.

Additionally, I hypothesized that there would be no relationship between an

individual’s sexual orientation and the way in which he or she performed his or her gender.

I expected that behaviors that respondents labeled as feminine would be just as prominent

among straight men as they were among gay men, and I expected that behaviors


respondents labeled as masculine would be just as commonly observed among straight

women as they were among gay women.

Overview and Justification for the Design

My research consisted of two separate surveys. The first survey’s purpose was to

establish how people view different sorts of behaviors and actions through the lenses of

gender. From this initial survey, I was able to sufficiently divide and categorize certain

behaviors as either more masculine or more feminine based on the average response

rather than solely based on existing literature or popular stereotype. Subsequently, the

second survey consisted of the same list of behaviors—instead, however, it asked the

respondent if he or she individually engaged in the behaviors rather than simply how he or

she viewed them. Most importantly, both surveys asked that respondents self-‐report

sexual orientation and gender. For sexual orientation, respondents used a seven-‐point

Kinsey Scale absent of the term “sexual orientation,” at all, which offered him or her a much

wider range of sexual identity than merely the ternary of heterosexuality, bisexuality, and

homosexuality. Meanwhile, respondents self-‐reported gender on a five-‐point scale that

paralleled the scale they used to identify the gender of a certain behavior on the first

survey. By analyzing the results of both surveys, I could determine if there was any

substantial variation between the kinds of behaviors that gays and straights exhibit—as

well as the perceived “gender” of the behaviors, themselves.

Additionally, the first survey allowed me to eliminate the obstacle of “choosing” the

gender for individual behaviors, as it had the respondents determine the masculinity or

femininity of the behaviors for me. This way, my research could easily justify what it


deemed to be masculine or feminine—and, at the same time, build a strong foundation for

its second survey.

This study investigated college students across the California State University, Long

Beach (CSULB) campus by distributing the two surveys in large classrooms, campus

restaurants and cafeterias, the campus library, and other study and lounge areas outside

various departments and disciplines. No one person completed both surveys, however—

this way, the first survey did not influence the respondents’ answers on the second survey

or vice versa.

Subjects and Population of Study

The unit of analysis for “The Correlations of Sexual Orientation and Gender

Performance” was people, and my population of interest was all college students. I used a

convenience sample by distributing both surveys to all sorts of classrooms at the

university—large classes of all division levels and departments. Just as no one individual

completed both surveys, no one classroom completed the same survey. As I administered

the two surveys, I alternated between them so that every other person completed a

different survey. I strived for a combined sample size of about four hundred, with two

hundred of the respondents completed each survey, and I received a total of 386 usable

surveys in all.

The Methodology

As previously indicated, my research used the survey method to collect data. Both

of the unique surveys were written, and I administered and collected them anonymously.

In addition to general demographics, the first survey listed a series of behaviors and

asked respondents to label each one as either more masculine or more feminine based on a


five-‐point scale. A “1” represented an answer of “very masculine,” while a “5” indicated a

response of “very feminine.” A “3” designated the middle of the spectrum, indicating a

response of “neutral,” leaving a “2” and a “4” to signify “slightly more masculine” and

“slightly more feminine,” respectfully. Each respondent circled one of the numbers to

indicate how masculine or feminine he or she individually perceived the behavior to be—

not to indicate how masculine or feminine he or she thought society perceived the behavior

to be. The survey made this distinction exceedingly clear.

The following is an example of a behavior from the first survey:

Playing basketball— 1 2 3 4 5 Very Masculine Slightly More Neutral Slightly More Very Feminine Masculine Feminine

Meanwhile, the second survey listed the same series of demographics and

behaviors. However, instead of asking respondents to interpret the gender of the

behaviors, the survey asked if the respondent individually engaged in them. The second

survey did not allude to nor inquire about the perceived masculinity or femininity of each

behavior. There were four possible responses for the second survey: “often,” “sometimes,”

“rarely,” and “never.”

The following is a corresponding example of a behavior from the second survey:

Do you play basketball? Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Both surveys also inquired about the respondent’s sexual orientation using a

modified seven-‐point Kinsey Scale rather than asking him or her to identify him or herself

as strictly heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual. Furthermore, instead of using the self-‐

identifying terms “heterosexual,” “bisexual,” and “homosexual” to describe the possible


answers, I merely asked respondents to indicate the biological sex to which they were

sexually attracted. For example, a response of “0” represented “only the opposite sex,” and

an answer of “6” signified “only the same sex.” The rest of the numbers signified as follows:

a “1” equaled “mostly the opposite sex,” a “2” equaled “slightly more the opposite sex,” a “3”

equaled “both sexes equally,” a “4” equaled “slightly more the same sex,” and a “5” equaled

“mostly the same sex.” Each respondent circled the most appropriate number. By asking

about sexual desire rather sexual orientation, explicitly, I hoped to avoid the “Sex I Desire

vs. Sexual Orientation” paradox and the stigmas attached to sexual orientation.

The following is an example from the surveys:

What sex do you sexually desire (circle the most appropriate number)?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Only the Mostly the Slightly more Both sexes Slightly more Mostly the Only the opposite sex opposite sex the opposite sex equally the same sex same sex same sex

Finally, both surveys also required that the respondents self-‐reported gender on a

five-‐point scale that mimicked the scale that they used to analyze the gender of individual

behaviors on the first survey. Once again, a “1” represented an answer of “very masculine,”

while a “5” indicated a response of “very feminine.” A “3” designated the middle of the

spectrum, indicating a response of “neutral,” leaving a “2” and a “4” to signify “slightly more

masculine” and “slightly more feminine,” respectfully. By utilizing the same scale to

analyze both the gender of any given behavior and the gender of individual people, my

research lent itself to efficient analysis.

Techniques of Analysis and Groupings of Behaviors

To adequately analyze the extensive list of behaviors in the surveys, I grouped

certain behaviors based upon a shared theme. There were a total of forty-‐one behaviors


outlined in the surveys, grouped into eight separate categories. By organizing behaviors

into groups, I was able to analyze how masculine or feminine individuals perceive types of

behaviors to be rather than just individual unrelated actions. Additionally, if sexual

orientation and gender performance proved to correlate with another, I expected to see

higher correlations among certain categories than in others. Each category contained both

stereotypically masculine and stereotypically feminine behaviors—and, in most cases, for

every assumed masculine action, there was a closely related assumed feminine action.

The following chart represents the eight forms of categorization and the behaviors

that belong to each group:

Categorization of Behaviors Category Name Category Description Behaviors Appearance Looks, clothing, and

appearance Wearing pink clothing Wearing blue clothing Wearing tight clothing Wearing baggy clothing Wearing makeup Styling your hair

Arts Participation in visual or performing arts

Singing in choir Singing in a band Dancing ballet Dancing hip-‐hop

Athletics Sports and other athletic activities

Playing basketball Playing football Playing tennis Playing softball Playing hockey Working out

Communication Communicative habits in dialogue and social interactions

Speaking quickly Speaking slowly Talking with your hands

Domestics Activities in the home Cooking food Managing finances Cleaning the house

Food and Drink Types of things that people consume

Drinking beer Drinking tequila Drinking whiskey Eating salad Eating steak


Media Preference of media outlets Watching action films Watching romantic films Listening to pop music Listening to rock music Playing video games

Sex and Romance Sexual habits and dating habits

Penetrating during sex Being penetrated during sex Performing oral sex Receiving oral sex Inflicting pain for sexual pleasure Receiving pain for sexual pleasure Writing love letters Using online dating websites Paying for dates

Ethical Concerns

The only ethical concern for my research was the potential emotional harm to

participants that issues of sexual orientation and sexuality could have created. However,

since I conducted this study through written surveys, participants could simply cease

completing the survey questions at any time if the subject matter disturbed them.

Otherwise, the surveys were fairly uncontroversial and primarily dealt with everyday

behaviors and actions. I obtained informed consent by indicating that a respondent’s

participation and completion of the survey was completely voluntary. Finally, all of the

data that I collected was entirely anonymous, as there was no identifying information on

the surveys nor any order or method to my collection of them.

Potential Benefits and Risks of the Methodology

My research intended to investigate whether or not one’s sexual orientation and

gender performance were related by conducting two entirely separate surveys—one

focused on the underlying “gender” of behaviors, and the second concentrated on how

often individuals of different sexual orientations engage in said behaviors. By splitting data


collection into two separate surveys, I opened myself to a wide range of potential strengths

and weaknesses in my design.

As for the benefits, by having individuals only complete one of the two surveys, I

effectively halved the time it took for somebody to finish one, drastically increasing the

probability that students would agree to both attempt and complete one. Each survey was

only one double-‐sided page in length, so it was easily accessible and far from visually

intimidating. Additionally, individuals should have felt less pressure when identifying how

masculine or feminine something was, as I refrained from asking them if they personally

engaged in the behavior. A man, for instance, would theoretically be more likely to label

what he does as masculine if he was asked to indicate how often he does it, just as a woman

would be more likely to label something as feminine if she had to admit to doing it, as well.

By eliminating one’s need to admit to what he or she personally did, I should have received

more honest results. On the flip side, for those who completed the second survey,

respondents should have been far more likely to accurately judge how often they engaged

in behaviors since they were not required to examine the masculine or feminine

implications behind them. As a whole, splitting my study into two surveys made for a far

more honest and less invasive experience for my participants.

Conversely, there were a few drawbacks, as well. By having different people

complete different information without the use of a truly random sample, I could have

potentially had very different groups of people taking each survey and ended up with

skewed information. To try to minimize this potential weakness, I made sure to have at

least one hundred and fifty respondents complete each survey—the more cases, the more

valid my results. Moreover, I succeeded in alternating handing out each survey in


classrooms to reduce the probability of a single class skewing my findings. As a whole, the

strengths of my design far outweighed its weaknesses.

Overview of the Results

Initially, my research ultimately sought to investigate the relationship between

sexual orientation and gender performance. However, after compiling data from all 386

surveys, my study observed several other potential relationships between five major

categories: sex—the sex of the respondent, sexual orientation—the sexual orientation of the

respondent, frequency of behavior—how often the respondent engages in different

behaviors, perception of behavior—how masculine or feminine the respondent perceives

different behaviors to be, and self-reported gender—how masculine or feminine the

respondent perceives himself or herself to be. The following results contributed toward a

greater understanding of these five groups and the associations among them.

Perception of Behaviors

From the first survey, my research could determine how respondents perceived

behaviors on a five-‐point scale of gender, where a value of “1” represented extreme

masculinity, a value of “5” signified extreme femininity, and a value of “3” corresponded to

gender neutrality. The average value of each behavior represented how masculine or

feminine respondents perceived it to be, as illustrated on the following chart. As a value

decreases from “3,” the gender becomes more masculine. Conversely, as a value increases

from “3,” the gender becomes more feminine. The chart lists the behaviors from most

masculine to most feminine within each of the eight categories:

Perception of Behaviors Category Name Behaviors Mean Value Gender Appearance Wearing baggy clothing 2.17


Wearing blue clothing 2.87 Masculine Styling your hair 3.34 Wearing tight clothing 3.71 Wearing pink clothing 4.12

Wearing makeup 4.67

Feminine

Singing in a band 2.76 Dancing hip-‐hop 2.89

Masculine

Singing in choir 3.29

Arts

Dancing ballet 4.21 Feminine

Playing football 1.61 Playing hockey 1.75 Playing basketball 2.27 Working out 2.78

Masculine

Playing tennis 3.11

Athletics

Playing softball 3.57 Feminine

Speaking slowly 2.94 Masculine Speaking quickly 3.30

Communication

Talking with your hands 3.31 Feminine

Managing finances 2.95 Masculine Cooking food 3.26

Domestics

Cleaning the house 3.61 Feminine

Drinking whiskey 2.19 Drinking beer 2.43 Eating steak 2.69 Drinking tequila 2.93

Masculine Food and Drink

Eating salad 3.47 Feminine Playing video games 2.18 Watching action films 2.50 Listening to rock music 2.66

Masculine

Listening to pop music 3.35

Media

Watching romantic films 3.96 Feminine

Penetrating during sex 1.94 Paying for dates 2.07 Inflicting pain for sexual pleasure 2.73 Receiving oral sex 2.74

Masculine

Using online dating websites 3.13 Receiving pain for sexual pleasure 3.15 Performing oral sex 3.22 Writing love letters 3.63

Sex and Romance

Being penetrated during sex 4.13

Feminine

Out of all eight categories of behaviors, “Appearance” and “Sex and Romance” had

the greatest range of masculine and feminine behaviors, while “Athletics” was the most


concentrated toward one side or the other. Finally, the “Communication” category had the

narrowest range of masculine and feminine behaviors.

Distribution of Sexual Orientation

In inquiring about sexual desire on a modified seven-‐point Kinsey Scale absent of

the labels of heterosexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality, this study observed a much

greater range of “sexual orientations” than most previous research. About three-‐quarters

(76.7%) of respondents identified as sexually desiring only the opposite sex, leaving over

23% of the data as indicative of something other than strict heterosexuality. The following

table represents the percentage distribution of responses:

Distribution of Sexual Orientation Sex the Respondent Sexually Desires Percentage of Respondents Only the opposite sex 76.7% Mostly the opposite sex 14.2% Slightly more the opposite sex 2.1% Both sexes equally 1.9% Slightly more the same sex 0.3% Mostly the same sex 2.1% Only the same sex 2.7%

Distribution of Self-Reported Gender

Both surveys asked that the respondent evaluate his or her own gender on the same

five-‐point scale used to analyze the gender of behaviors. Once again, a “1” corresponded

with “very masculine,” while a “5” signified “very feminine.” A “3” specified gender

neutrality, indicative of neither masculinity nor femininity. The average value for gender

among all respondents was a 3.08, leaning slightly feminine. The following table

represents the distribution of self-‐reported gender for all respondents:

Distribution of Self-‐Reported Gender Self-‐Reported Gender of the Respondent Percentage of Respondents Very masculine 10.0%


Slightly more masculine 26.4% Neutral 23.7% Slightly more feminine 25.5% Very feminine 14.3%

In general, the distribution suggests that individuals are more likely to perceive

themselves as “slightly” more masculine or feminine rather than as “very” masculine or

feminine. Additionally, it demonstrates that almost one fourth of all respondents reported

gender-‐neutrality, refusing to assume a masculine or feminine identity. However, when

moderated by the sex of the respondent—male and female—the percentage distribution

looks quite different:

Distribution of Self-‐Reported Gender (moderated by sex) Sex of the Respondent Self-‐Reported Gender of the

Respondent Percentage of Respondents

Very masculine 21.8% Slightly more masculine 54.9% Neutral 17.6% Slightly more feminine 3.5%

Male

Very feminine 2.1% Very masculine 0.5% Slightly more masculine 4.9% Neutral 28.3% Slightly more feminine 42.4%

Female

Very feminine 23.9% A cross tabulation reveals a statistically significant relationship between self-‐

reported gender and sex (p < .001). The distribution of self-‐reported gender differs among

men and women, specifically for gender-‐neutrality. Over 28% of women reported a neutral

gender, while only 17.6% of men identified as gender-‐neutral. Meanwhile, 76.7% of men

identified with their socially expected gender of masculinity, while only 66.3% of women

reported a feminine gender identity. The data suggests that women are less likely to

actively engage in a feminine identity than men are to actively engage in a masculine one.


However, men and women reported about the same rate of gender inversion—where men

identify as more feminine or women identify as more masculine. About 5.6% of males

reported a feminine gender, and a similar 5.4% of females reported a masculine gender.

Distribution of Demographics

Each survey asked about seven major demographics in addition to gender

performance and sexual orientation. These seven categories were age, class standing,

college major, occupation, race, religion, and sex.

Age: Out of the 386 participants in the study, the average age was 21.99 years old.

Class Standing: The “average” class standing value in the study was a 3.47, where a

“1” represented a “freshman,” a “2” indicated a “sophomore,” a “3” signified a “junior,” a “4”

denoted the status of a “senior,” a “5” signified a “super senior,” and a “6” indicated a

“graduate student.” The average value of 3.47, then, represents the class standing of

between a junior and senior, and the following table outlines the percentage distribution of

all respondents:

Distribution of Class Standing Class Standing of the Respondent Percentage of Respondents Freshman 5.7% Sophomore 16.4% Junior 32.1% Senior 24.8% Super Senior 13.2% Graduate Student 7.8%

College Major: After participants listed their college majors on the surveys, I

grouped and coded majors by college department with the intent of synthesizing the

information and representing as many schools of study as possible. A table describing the

entire distribution of college majors and departments is located in the appendix section


(Table #1). Overall, the data was comprised of fifty-‐three different disciplines at CSULB,

with the three most common departments being Music, Family and Consumer Sciences, and

Management and Human Resources Management.

Occupation: Participants had the option of listing their occupation if they were

employed outside of school. With well over one hundred different responses, my research

attempted to group the occupations into nineteen major categories, as illustrated on the

percentage distribution table located in the appendix section (Table #2). Only 148 out of

386 participants listed an occupation—38.3%—so the remaining 61.7% of the respondents

were simply listed as “missing.” The two most common occupations among all respondents

were in the “retail / sales” and “food service / restaurant / lodging” categories.

Race: The following table outlines the percentage distribution of race among all

respondents. The most common reported race was non-‐Hispanic white, with Hispanic

white and Asian making up the bulk of the rest. A surprising 10.5% of all respondents

chose to identify with an unlisted race, so it is very possible that multiracial individuals did

not realize that they could check more than one race and, instead, selected “Other.”

Distribution of Race Race of the Respondent Percentage of Respondents Non-‐Hispanic White 32.3% Hispanic White 23.1% Black 4.3% Native American 1.3% Asian 22.6% Other 10.5% Multiracial 5.9%

Religion: The following table represents the percentage distribution of religion

among all respondents. Almost all of the respondents identified as either Christian (43%)


or non-‐religious (32.4%). 16.8% of individuals chose not to identify with any of the given

religions.

Distribution of Religion Religion of the Respondent Percentage of Respondents Christianity 43.0% Islam 0.8% Judaism 1.1% Buddhism 5.4% Hinduism 0.5% Non-‐Religious 32.4% Other 16.8%

Sex: The surveys offered five different responses for the category of sex, including

male, female, intersexed, transgendered, and other. However, no respondents chose to

identify as intersexed or transgendered, and only two identified as “other.” Consequently,

this study cannot effectively analyze a third category for sex and will, instead, focus on the

binary of male and female. The subsequent table illustrates the percentage distribution of

biological sex among all respondents:

Distribution of Sex Sex of the Respondent Percentage of Respondents Male 42.6% Female 56.9% Other 0.5%

Relating Sexual Orientation and Frequency of Behavior—the Research Question

Following the collection of data, my research ultimately sought to determine if an

individual’s sexual orientation correlated with his or her gender performance in any way.

In order to investigate the existence of a relationship between sexuality and behavior, I

utilized the Pearson R correlation. Since participants reported both frequency of behavior

and sexual orientation on a numeric scale, I could effectively translate these numbers into

values and deduce their meanings. A positive value for Pearson’s R signified a positive


relationship between sexual orientation and frequency of behavior, expressed as “as

‘gayness’ goes up, frequency of behavior goes up.” Conversely, a negative value for

Pearson’s R represented a negative relationship between sexual orientation and frequency

of behavior, expressed as “as ‘gayness’ goes up, frequency of behavior goes down.” Due to

the structure of the modified seven-‐point Kinsey Scale, where a “0” referred to sexual

desire of “only the opposite sex” and a “6” signified sexual desire of “only the same sex,”

higher values were indicative of what this research refers to as “gayness.” Similarly, I

coded frequency of behavior on a four-‐point scale, where a “3” meant “often,” a “2” denoted

“sometimes,” a “1” symbolized “rarely,” and a “0” meant “never.” In other words, the higher

the value, the more often individuals engaged in the behavior.

However, my research required that the correlations between sexuality and

frequency of behavior accounted for the sex of the respondents. After all, since the sexual

orientation and gender conflation is based upon sex-‐specific inversion, what is indicative of

“gayness” for men will be entirely different than what is indicative of “gayness” for women.

Consequently, this study ran Pearson R correlations between sexual orientation and

behavior for each of the forty-‐one behaviors when moderated by sex (male / female),

resulting in a total of eighty-‐two total investigated categories.

Out of all eighty-‐two categories, there were ten occurrences of statistically

significant correlations between sexual orientation and gender performance. In other

words, there was no conclusive evidence to show that sexual orientation and behavior

were related 87.8% of the time. Additionally, no single behavior correlated with sexual

orientation for both men and women, and only two behaviors were strongly related to

sexual orientation. The following chart outlines each behavior’s relationship with sexual


orientation and the statistics behind it. If the probability value is greater than .05 (p > .05),

the result is not significant and is therefore inconclusive. If the probability value is less

than .05 (p < .05), the result is significant and is therefore conclusive. An asterisk denotes

instances where the result is statistically significant and the behavior is related to sexual

orientation. In such cases, the greater the Pearson’s R value is (closer to a value of 1), the

stronger the positive relationship (as “gayness” goes up, frequency of engaging in the

behavior goes up). Conversely, the lesser the Pearson’s R value is (closer to a value of -‐1),

the stronger the negative relationship (as “gayness” goes up, frequency of engaging in the

behavior goes down). For both positive and negative relationships, the closer the value is

to 0, the weaker the relationship.

Relationship Between Sexual Orientation and Frequency of Behavior (moderated by sex) Pearson’s R & Sig. (*) Category Name Behaviors Male Female

Meaning of Relationship for Cases of Statistical Significance

Wearing baggy clothing R = -‐.142 R = .113 N/A Wearing blue clothing R = -‐.124 R = -‐.036 N/A Styling your hair R = .072 R = .032 N/A Wearing tight clothing R = .147 R = .085 N/A Wearing pink clothing R = .265* R = -‐.211 As men’s gayness increases,

frequency of behavior increases

Appearance

Wearing makeup R = .099 R = .071 N/A Singing in a band R = .051 R = .096 N/A Dancing hip-‐hop R = .056 R = .059 N/A Singing in choir R = .316* R = -‐.045 As men’s gayness increases,

frequency of behavior increases

Arts

Dancing ballet R = .216* R = -‐.043 As men’s gayness increases, frequency of behavior increases

Playing football R = -‐.106 R = .003 N/A Playing hockey R = -‐.142 R = -‐.056 N/A Playing basketball R = -‐.127 R = .133 N/A Working out R = -‐.159 R = -‐.008 N/A Playing tennis R = .132 R = -‐.136 N/A

Athletics

Playing softball R = -‐.090 R = -‐.046 N/A Speaking slowly R = .101 R = .182 N/A Communication Speaking quickly R = .153 R = -‐.423* As women’s gayness increases,

frequency of behavior decreases


Talking with your hands R = .028 R = .107 N/A Managing finances R = -‐.176 R = -‐.038 N/A Cooking food R = .072 R = .043 N/A

Domestics

Cleaning the house R = .152 R = .064 N/A Drinking whiskey R = .031 R = .121 N/A Drinking beer R = .160 R = .160 N/A Eating steak R = .079 R = .036 N/A Drinking tequila R = .200 R = -‐.062 N/A

Food and Drink

Eating salad R = .222* R = .091 As men’s gayness increases, frequency of behavior increases

Playing video games R = .056 R = .003 N/A Watching action films R = -‐.169 R = -‐.115 N/A Listening to rock music R = .080 R = .154 N/A Listening to pop music R = .141 R = .022 N/A

Media

Watching romantic films R = .272* R = .039 As men’s gayness increases, frequency of behavior increases

Penetrating during sex R = -‐.044 R = .264* As women’s gayness increases, frequency of behavior increases

Paying for dates R = -‐.104 R = .206 N/A Inflicting pain for sexual pleasure

R = .066 R = .206 N/A

Receiving oral sex R = .177 R = .177 N/A Using online dating websites R = .124 R = .046 N/A Receiving pain for sexual pleasure

R = .284* R = .204 As men’s gayness increases, frequency of behavior increases

Performing oral sex R = .216* R = .120 As men’s gayness increases, frequency of behavior increases

Writing love letters R = .118 R = .051 N/A

Sex and Romance

Being penetrated during sex R = .888* R = .038 As men’s gayness increases, frequency of behavior increases

Relating Sexual Orientation and Perception of Behavior

Upon investigating the data, my research seemed to stumble across a phenomenon

where an individual’s sexual orientation was related to his or her perception of behavior

when moderated by sex. In other words, just by looking at the data, it appeared as if

respondents viewed behaviors as more masculine or feminine based on their own sexual

orientation. For instance, for men, the data seemed to suggest that as an individual “got

gayer”—as “gayness” went up—he was more likely to label “playing hockey” as more


feminine. After running Pearson R correlations on all eighty-‐two categories (forty-‐one

behaviors for both men and women), eleven cases exhibited statistically significant

relationships between sexual orientation and perception of behavior. Out of these eleven

cases, nine referred to males. Much like the relationships between sexual orientation and

frequency of behavior, a very small 13.4% of the observed cases were statistically

significant, so this study cannot effectively claim that an individual’s sexual orientation

correlates with how he or she perceives behaviors when moderated by sex. However, since

this study found little previous research on the subject, the topic likely warrants further

investigation.

The following table represents only the eleven cases where sexual orientation and

perception of behavior were related. All other cases had a probability value of more than

.05 (p > .05) and were inconclusive. A positive relationship signified that as “gayness”

increased, the gender value of a behavior increased, meaning that the behavior was

increasing in femininity (since a “5” indicated very feminine). Meanwhile, a negative

relationship indicated that as “gayness” increased, the gender value of a behavior

decreased, meaning that the behavior was increasing in masculinity (since a “1”

represented very masculine). The closer the Pearson’s R value is to 1, the stronger the

positive relationship, while the closer the Pearson’s R value is to -‐1, the stronger the

negative relationship.

Relationship Between Sexual Orientation and Perception of Behavior (moderated by sex) Category Name Behaviors Sex of the

Respondent Pearson’s R & Sig. (*)

Meaning of Relationship

Wearing pink clothing Male R = -‐.314* As men’s gayness increases, behavior’s masculinity increases

Appearance

Wearing makeup Male R = -‐.356* As men’s gayness increases, behavior’s masculinity increases


Female R = -‐.244* As women’s gayness increases, behavior’s masculinity increases

Singing in a band Male R = .293* As men’s gayness increases, behavior’s femininity increases

Arts

Dancing ballet Male R = -‐.279* As men’s gayness increases, behavior’s masculinity increases

Athletics Playing hockey Male R = .381* As men’s gayness increases, behavior’s femininity increases

Domestics Managing finances Male R = .272* As men’s gayness increases, behavior’s femininity increases

Food and Drink Drinking tequila Female R = .215* As women’s gayness increases, behavior’s femininity increases

Media Watching action films Male R = .275* As men’s gayness increases, behavior’s femininity increases

Paying for dates Male R = .269* As men’s gayness increases, behavior’s femininity increases

Sex and Romance

Being penetrated during sex

Male R = -‐.380* As men’s gayness increases, behavior’s masculinity increases

Relating Self-Reported Gender and Perception of Behavior

In addition to sexual orientation, the data also suggested that an individual’s self-‐

reported gender and his or her perception of behaviors were occasionally related. By

running a one-‐way ANOVA statistical test, my research compared the gender of the

respondents to the average assigned gender of each behavior and found thirteen cases of

statistical significance. However, since my study could analyze self-‐reported gender

independent from sex, the total possible cases added to only forty-‐one instead of the usual

eighty-‐two. In other words, almost 32% of the cases yielded statistical significance, a much

higher percentage than any other previous category of investigation.

The following graphs represent only the thirteen cases where self-‐reported gender

and the gender of behaviors were related with statistical significance. Once again, a

gender-‐value closer to “5” represents femininity, while a gender-‐value closer to “1”

indicates masculinity.


Playing basketball: sig. = .000* (p < .05)

Playing football: sig. = .016*, (p < .05)

Penetrating during sex: sig. = .045*, (p < .05)


Watching action films: sig. = .001*, (p < .05)

Receiving pain for sexual pleasure: sig. = .005*, (p < .05)

Drinking Beer: sig. = .040*, (p < .05)


Being penetrated during sex: sig. = .000*, (p < .05)

Working out: sig. = .001*, (p < .05)

Dancing ballet: sig. = .046*, (p < .05)


Wearing baggy clothing: sig. = .029*, (p < .05)

Talking with your hands: sig. = .013*, (p < .05)

Watching romantic films: sig. = .033*, (p < .05)


Listening to Rock Music: sig. = .016*, (p < .05)

In general, there are two kinds of distributions throughout the thirteen statistically

significant cases. The first kind of distribution is a direct linear relationship—as

individuals identify as more masculine or feminine, they perceive a behavior to be more

masculine or feminine. For instance, for “playing basketball,” the more feminine the

individual, the more feminine and less masculine he or she perceived the behavior.

“Working out” follows a similar pattern, where the more feminine the individual, the more

feminine and less masculine he or she perceived the behavior. In most cases, the linear

relationships progress toward gender neutrality from masculinity or femininity rather than

crossing over from masculinity to femininity or vice versa. In these kinds of distributions,

those who identify as very masculine and those who identify as very feminine are in

disagreement about the gender of the behaviors.

The second most common distribution, as seen in “listening to rock music,” “playing

football,” and “dancing ballet,” is a sort of curve, where both very masculine and very

feminine individuals agree about the masculinity or femininity of a behavior. However,

those closer to gender-‐neutrality perceive the behaviors, themselves, as closer to gender-‐


neutral. In these cases, the extremes on both sides of the gender spectrum are in

agreement about the behavior, while the gender-‐neutral maintain a perception of the

behavior more closely related to how they view themselves.

Relating Sexual Orientation and Self-Reported Gender

As one might expect, sexual orientation correlated with self-‐reported gender,

though the relationship was fairly weak. The following table represents the Pearson R

correlations statistical test between sexuality and gender when moderated by sex. A

positive relationship signifies that as an individual’s “gayness” increases, his or her self-‐

reported gender increases in value—or, where a higher value is indicative of femininity,

femininity increases. Conversely, a negative relationship demonstrates that as a

respondent’s “gayness” increases, he or she identifies as more masculine.

Relationship Between Sexual Orientation and Self-‐Reported Gender (moderated by sex) Sex of the Respondent Pearson’s R & Sig. (*) Meaning of Relationship Male R = .227* As men’s gayness increases, self-‐

reported femininity increases Female R = -‐.193* As women’s gayness increases, self-‐

reported masculinity increases

Relating Sexual Orientation and Age

In discussing the “Sex I Desire vs. Sexual Orientation” paradox in the literature

review, I hypothesized that individuals would be more likely to simply report sexual desire

toward the same sex than to fully identify with the construct of homosexuality, as college

students might not yet be cognitively aware of their sexual orientations. For the purposes

of confirming my reasoning for asking about sexual desire without the labels of sexual

orientation, I conducted another Pearson R correlation statistical test between sexuality

and age. As expected, an individual’s sexual orientation was related to his or her age,


though the relationship was surprisingly weak—the older the respondent, the more likely

he or she identified same-‐sex sexual attraction. Pearson’s R was a value of .123 with a

significance of .017, indicating a very weak positive relationship between sexuality and age.

The result was statistically significant (p < .05).

Relating Sex and Frequency of Behavior—Do Sex and Gender “Line Up”?

While this study was largely concerned with the perceived associations between

sexual orientation and gender performance, it also sought to investigate the definitions of

masculinity and femininity, themselves. In particular, according to the investigated

literature, gender performance refers to all things that a person says or does to project the

status of male or female—masculinity denotes the status of a male, while femininity

denotes the status of a female. Consequently, if a behavior occurred more often among

men than women, the behavior, itself, should have been indicative of masculinity. Likewise,

if women engaged in the behavior more often than men, the individual behavior should

have held the status of femininity. In cases where the frequency of behavior and

perception of behavior did not align—such as when men engaged in a feminine behavior

more often than women—sex and gender remained independent from one another.

In order to explore the connections between frequency of behavior and perception

of behavior, my research found the average value for frequency of behavior when

moderated by sex. By coding frequency of behavior on a four-‐point scale, where a higher

value of “3” indicated “often” and a lower value of “0” represented “never,” a higher average

value demonstrated a higher average frequency of behavior. My research then used an

independent t-‐test to determine if the average frequency of a given behavior for men was

different than for women at a statistically significant level. In doing so, it revealed which


sex engaged in behaviors more often. Only those relationships with statistical significance

(p < .05) were conclusive.

Finally, this study compared the results of the independent t-‐test with the “mean”

assigned gender of each behavior in order to determine if sex and gender “lined up”—

males and masculinity or females and femininity. If men engaged in a behavior more often

than women, sex and gender would “line up” if respondents perceived the behavior to be

more masculine. Meanwhile, if women engaged in a behavior more often than men, sex and

gender would only “line up” if respondents perceived the behavior to be more feminine.

Once again, a gender value closer to “1” indicated masculinity, while a gender value closer

to “5” suggested femininity. In the following table, an asterisk denotes that the difference

of the mean frequency of behavior between males and females is statistically significant.

Relationship Between Sex, Frequency of Behavior, and Perception of Behavior Mean Frequency of Behaviors

Category Name Behaviors Mean Gender of Behaviors

Male Female

Sig. (*) Meaning of Relationship for Cases of Statistical Significance

Wearing baggy clothing 2.17 1.12 1.17 .638 N/A Wearing blue clothing 2.87 2.33 2.24 .325 N/A Styling your hair 3.34 1.89 2.29 .004* Sex & gender line up Wearing tight clothing 3.71 1.38 2.11 .000* Sex & gender line up Wearing pink clothing 4.12 0.46 1.54 .000* Sex & gender line up

Appearance

Wearing makeup 4.67 0.07 2.48 .000* Sex & gender line up Singing in a band 2.76 0.47 0.30 .165 N/A Dancing hip-‐hop 2.89 1.13 1.45 .037* Sex & gender do not line up Singing in choir 3.29 0.57 0.64 .648 N/A

Arts

Dancing ballet 4.21 0.15 0.44 .005* Sex & gender line up Playing football 1.61 1.05 0.32 .000* Sex & gender line up Playing hockey 1.75 0.26 0.11 .043* Sex & gender line up Playing basketball 2.27 1.40 0.73 .000* Sex & gender line up Working out 2.78 2.24 2.03 .087 N/A Playing tennis 3.11 0.72 0.53 .125 N/A

Athletics

Playing softball 3.57 0.41 0.26 .103 N/A Speaking slowly 2.94 1.68 1.46 .038* Sex & gender line up Speaking quickly 3.30 1.92 2.21 .005* Sex & gender line up

Communication

Talking with your hands 3.31 1.96 2.33 .003* Sex & gender line up


Managing finances 2.95 2.24 2.21 .806 N/A Cooking food 3.26 2.11 2.15 .698 N/A

Domestics

Cleaning the house 3.61 1.08 2.38 .011* Sex & gender line up Drinking whiskey 2.19 1.40 0.80 .000* Sex & gender line up Drinking beer 2.43 1.93 1.38 .001* Sex & gender line up Eating steak 2.69 2.21 1.70 .004* Sex & gender line up Drinking tequila 2.93 1.32 1.17 .344 N/A

Food and Drink

Eating salad 3.47 2.03 2.12 .437 N/A Playing video games 2.18 2.07 1.11 .000* Sex & gender line up Watching action films 2.50 2.55 2.31 .008* Sex & gender line up Listening to rock music 2.66 2.13 2.01 .424 N/A Listening to pop music 3.35 1.71 2.04 .008* Sex & gender line up

Media

Watching romantic films 3.96 1.71 2.31 .000* Sex & gender line up Penetrating during sex 1.94 2.37 0.30 .000* Sex & gender line up Paying for dates 2.07 2.24 1.19 .000* Sex & gender line up Inflicting pain for sexual pleasure

2.73 0.58 0.32 .030* Sex & gender line up

Receiving oral sex 2.74 1.71 1.33 .021* Sex & gender line up Using online dating websites

3.13 0.20 0.05 .020* Sex & gender do not line up

Receiving pain for sexual pleasure

3.15 0.44 0.39 .655 N/A

Performing oral sex 3.22 1.42 1.41 .932 N/A Writing love letters 3.63 0.96 0.84 .295 N/A

Sex and Romance

Being penetrated during sex

4.13 0.13 1.87 .000* Sex & gender line up

According to the data, the sex of the respondent was related to frequency of

behavior in twenty-‐six out of forty-‐one behaviors, or about 63.4% of the time. Out of those

twenty-‐six behaviors, twenty-‐four demonstrated a link between sex and gender—men

engaged in masculine behaviors more often than women, and women engaged in feminine

behaviors more often than men. However, in the cases of “dancing hip-‐hop” and “using

online dating websites,” sex and gender did not align with social expectations. For “dancing

hip-‐hop,” even though respondents labeled it as more masculine, women engaged in the

behavior more often than men. Similarly, men used online dating websites more frequently

than women even though respondents perceived the behavior as more feminine. In other


words, the social constructs of male masculinity and female femininity did not apply in a

total of seventeen out of forty-‐one cases, or 41.5% of the time. The results suggest that

while sex and gender performance are more often related than sexual orientation and

gender performance, they may still remain independent from one another.

Making Sense of the Data—An Analysis of Sex, Sexuality, and Gender

At its most fundamental form, an analysis of the data demonstrates that the

constructs of biological sex, sexual orientation, and gender performance are largely

separate attributes that do not normally individually affect or rely on one another. In

regards to the original research question, an individual’s sexual orientation does not

necessarily correlate with much of his or her gender performance, and this study cannot

effectively reject the null hypothesis. The majority of the time, there is no relationship

between an individual’s object of sexual desire and everyday behavior.

In the following sections, this study will use its results and findings to further

analyze the three main topics of sex, sexuality, and gender and their role in the social

world.

Sex—Being a Male or Female in the Social World

An individual’s biological sex—male and female—plays a vital role in his or her

perception and understanding of the world. While my research allowed room for multiple

sexes, respondents overwhelming chose to identify with the binary of male and female.

With the exception of self-‐reported gender, nearly every technique of analysis relied on

first moderating the data with biological sex. After all, there is no conclusive gay or straight

way to behave—wearing pink clothing, for instance, has an entirely different meaning for a


woman than it does for a man. Through the lenses of sex, we can develop a better

understanding of how sex affects the numerous other investigated relationships in the data.

Biological sex proved to affect the existence of relationships among gender

performance and sexual orientation; however, it did not, itself, necessarily correlate with

gender performance or sexual orientation. Men were not more or less likely to identify as

gay than women, nor were they necessarily more or less likely to engage in many of the

different behaviors. Instead, biological sex served as a moderating force in making sense of

the rest of the data.

That said, there was some evidence of a relationship between sex and behavior for

certain behaviors. The following chart represents the categorical breakdown of the

twenty-‐six associated behaviors:

Categorical Distribution of Behaviors Related to Sex Category Name Percentage of Behaviors Appearance 66.7% Arts 50.0% Athletics 50.0% Communication 100.0% Domestics 33.3% Food and Drink 60.0% Media 80.0% Sex and Romance 66.7%

By analyzing the kinds of behaviors that were linked to the sex of the respondent,

my research can form a clearer understanding of the data. The results suggest that an

individual’s communication habits in dialogue and social interactions are strongly related

to his or her biological sex. Additionally, an individual’s preference of media outlets is

overwhelmingly subject to his or her status as a male or female. Thus, while sex usually

serves as a moderating force independent of gender and sexuality, it does seem to share a


relationship with all those behaviors that pertain to communication habits and preference

of media.

The subsequent question, then, seems obvious—why do males and females engage

in communicative and media-‐related behaviors at such different rates? One possible

explanation refers to biology. Perhaps an individual’s rate of speech, for example, is

grounded in biology rather than in environmental and social learning. Or, perhaps a

person’s inclination to watch romantic films is based on a sex-‐based biological

predisposition toward romance. However, the biological explanation seems to fail when

moderated by sexual orientation—gay women engaged in the behavior of “speaking

quickly” far less frequently than straight women, and gay men watched romantic films

more frequently than straight men. If the biological argument proved correct, it would

necessitate that sexual orientation affect behavior.

Another more likely explanation refers to the size of the media and communication

categories, both of which included a smaller overall number of behaviors than some of the

other categories. Communication, in particular, contained only three behaviors—as a

result, the relationship between communicative behaviors and biological sex could be

attributed to chance.

However, due to the existence of such a strong relationship between certain

categories of behaviors and sex, this study recommends that the social sciences conduct

further research on sex-‐based communicative styles and preference of media that makes

room for the moderating force of sexual orientation.


Sexuality—Sexual Desire Removed from Sexual Orientation

In addition to the investigated correlations between sexual orientation and gender,

this study also shed light on the notion of “sexual orientation,” itself. By inquiring about the

direction and object of sexual desire rather than about homosexuality or heterosexuality,

my research uncovered that over 23% of all respondents reported some sort of sexual

desire toward the same sex. This figure is significantly higher than the generally accepted

belief that around 10% of the population is “gay.” Of course, definitions for what

constitutes “gayness” likely do not include those who identify as still desiring “mostly” the

opposite sex. However, by grouping “mostly the opposite sex” and “only the opposite sex”

as the “straight” category and grouping “slightly more the opposite sex,” “both sexes

equally,” “slightly more the same sex,” “mostly the same sex,” and “only the same sex” as

the gay category, about 9.1% of the respondents still fell under the gay category. This

figure is comparable to the “one-‐in-‐ten” generally accepted belief.

Categorical Distribution of Sexual Orientation Category for Sexual Orientation Percentage of Respondents “Straight” Group 90.1% “Gay” Group 9.1%

Arguably the most interesting result of the entire study is the percentage of

respondents who reported sexual desire of “mostly the opposite sex”—about 14.2% in all.

Just over one out of every seven people indicated predominate sexual desire toward the

opposite sex in addition to occurrences of same-‐sex desire. It is important to note that the

survey did not inquire about physical attraction—instead, it asked respondents to indicate

the sex they sexually desired. These results contribute significantly toward queer theory

and the belief that every individual engages in his or her own unique sexual orientation,


removed from the ternary of heterosexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality in society. If

individual degrees of sexual orientation do not exist, then all those respondents who

reported mixed sexual desire—20.6% in total—would simply belong to the “bisexual”

group. In other words, without room for individual sexualities, more than one out of every

five individuals would be labeled as bisexual.

As for the correlations between sexual orientation and gender, behavior was only

associated with sexual orientation about 12.2% of the time. Over 87% of the time, an

individual’s actions and behavior were not indicative of his or her sexual orientation.

These results stand somewhat oppositional to Kenneth J. Zucker’s determination that

masculine behavior in girls and feminine behavior in boys was a predictor of eventual

homosexuality. With the exception of only ten out of eighty-‐two total combinations of

behaviors, how a person acts and what sex the person desires were not associated with one

another.

To better understand the ten behaviors that did correlate with sexual orientation,

the following chart groups certain kinds of behaviors in the same way as in the analysis of

biological sex:

Categorical Distribution of Behaviors Related to Sexual Orientation Category Name Percentage of Behaviors Appearance 16.7% Arts 50.0% Athletics 0.0% Communication 33.3% Domestics 0.0% Food and Drink 20.0% Media 20.0% Sex and Romance 44.4%


The data demonstrates that behaviors pertaining to the performing arts and to

sexual and dating habits were more often correlated with sexual orientation than any other

kinds of behaviors. As for the association between “sex and romance” and sexual

orientation, the most likely explanation refers to the differing nature of sexual intercourse

and customs between gay and straight individuals. For example, in a sexual interaction

between two homosexual men, “being penetrated during sex” probably occurs more

frequently due to the higher rate of anal sex among gay men than straight men.

Additionally, for many straight men, as seen in Tomas Almaguer’s study of Chicano men,

“being penetrated during sex” is analogous to emasculation and sexual humiliation. In the

homosexual community, such a stigma toward “receiving” sexual penetration does not

exist. In general, as sexual orientation actually implies sexual habits, a higher rate of

association among the “sex and romance” category is largely unsurprising. However, even

still, only 44.4% of those behaviors within the category proved to correlate with sexual

orientation—over half of the time, sexual and dating habits were not indicative of sexuality.

For the performing arts, however, analysis is somewhat more complicated. With

50% of the behaviors in the category relating to sexual orientation, it is entirely probable

that singing and dancing, in particular, operate as a sort of social obligation for gay men in

the same way that sports and athletics operate as a social obligation for straight men.

Much like the pressure straight men feel to behave a certain way and engage in certain

masculine behaviors, gay men might also feel pressured to assimilate into a “feminine”

archetype due to the influence of society.


Gender—Perceptions of Masculinity and Femininity

Rather than rely on stereotypes to determine the gender of behaviors, this study had

participants determine the masculinity or femininity of different actions, themselves. In

doing so, my research could analyze perception of behavior as a unique category unto itself

and compare it to sexual orientation. In other words, this study sought to determine if

there was a relationship between sexual orientation and how individuals interpreted

behaviors. In the end, only eleven out of eighty-‐two cases demonstrated a statistically

significant relationship between the two, only one more valid case than in the relationship

between sexual orientation and frequency of behavior.

Perhaps the strongest reason for why sexual orientation and perception of behavior

were related in these eleven cases refers to the concept of validation. Through validation,

an individual reaffirms his or her own actions as “in sync” with that which is expected of his

or her sex. For instance, in the case of “wearing makeup” for men, as a respondent’s

“gayness” increases, he perceives “wearing makeup” to be more masculine. Since

respondents perceived “wearing makeup” to be very feminine, gay men who wear makeup

might validate their behavior by labeling it as more masculine than other men who do not

wear makeup. The same kind of reasoning could apply to “dancing ballet” for men, where

an increase in “gayness” correlated with a behavior’s masculinity. Once again, since

respondents labeled “dancing ballet” as a very feminine behavior, gay men who engage in

the behavior might perceive it to be more masculine than other men who choose not to

engage in the behavior.

On the other hand, validation might also act to reaffirm what an individual chooses

not to do. For example, in regards to “watching action films” for men—the gayer the


individual, the more likely he labeled the behavior as feminine. In this scenario, it is as if

the gay respondent is aware that most people perceive “watching action films” to be

masculine; consequently, since he does not engage in the behavior, he validates his not

watching action films by separating the behavior from masculinity.

Conclusions to the Report

At the end of the day, I truly hoped that sexual orientation and gender performance

had nothing to do with one another. Because, if my research found there to be a significant

relationship between sexuality and behavior—if gay men, gay women, straight men, and

straight women were all supposed to act a certain way—then what becomes of those who

do not conform? Ultimately, the null hypothesis—that there is no relationship between

sexual orientation and gender performance—was correct 87.8% of the time, and no single

behavior correlated with sexual orientation for both men and women.

If for nothing else, there are two main topics worth a home in your memory as a

reader. The first refers to the “Sex I Desire vs. Sexual Orientation” paradox discussed

throughout the report. In modern social science, we as researchers attempt to make room

for multiple categories among subjects once perceived as binaries. We make allowance for

both a third biological sex called intersex, once thought of as male or female, and for the

fluidity of gender, once seen as purely masculine or feminine. We attempted to do

something similar with the Kinsey Scale, allowing for varying degrees of heterosexuality

and homosexuality. However, as 20.6% of the respondents in this study demonstrate,

degrees of sexual orientation and the notion of bisexuality cannot serve to label the dozens

upon dozens of sexualities. The construct of sexual orientation, alone, alienates those who

identify as anything other than purely heterosexual and discourages sexual exploration.


What we should instead seek to investigate is object and direction of sexual desire, itself—

the actual sex a person sexually desires. Through the “Sex I Desire” approach, we as

researchers can avoid alienating different cultures with equally different ideas than our

own of what it means to “be” gay or straight.

Secondly, the overwhelming lack of relationships between sexual orientation and

gender performance—87.8% of all cases observed in this study—establishes sexuality and

gender’s recurrent independence from one another. In most cases, an individual’s choice of

behavior should not in any way be indicative of his or her sexual orientation. Conversely,

we as a society must take measures to break the stereotypes that allow us to assume one’s

sexuality based on what he or she does. At the end of the day, sexual orientation refers to

what sex somebody sexually desires. Almost 88% of the time, there exist no implications

beyond sexual desire. In other words, sexual orientation is about how you think, not about

how you act. As a result, we cannot effectively observe sexual orientation—people must

present it to us.


Bibliography

Almaguer, T. (1993). Chicano men: A cartography of homosexual identity and behavior In

H. Abelove & M. A. Barale (Eds.), The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader (pp. 473-‐486).

New York, NY: Routledge.

Anderson, E. (2002). Openly gay athletes: Contesting hegemonic masculinity in a

homophobic environment. Gender & Society, 16(6), 860-‐877.

Cahn, S. K. (1993). From the "muscle moll" to the "butch" ballplayer: Mannishness,

lesbianism, and homophobia in u.s. women's sports. Feminist Studies, 19(2), 334-‐343.

D’Emilio, J. (1993). Capitalism and gay identity. In H. Abelove & M. A. Barale (Eds.), The

Lesbian and gay studies reader (pp. 467-‐476). New York, NY: Routledge.

Koenig, S. (2002). Walk like a man: Enactments and embodiments of masculinity and the

potential for multiple genders. Journal of Homosexuality, 43(3-‐4), 193-‐200.

Miceli, M. (2003). In the trenches: Lgbt students struggle with school and sexual identity. In

M. Stombler, D. M. Baunach, E. O. Burgess, D. Donnelly & W. Simonds (Eds.), Sex

Matters: The Sexuality and Society Reader (pp. 185-‐193). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Newton, E., & Walton, S. (2000). The misunderstanding: Toward a more precise sexual

vocabulary. In M. A. Barale, J. Goldberg, M. Moon & E. K. Sedgwick (Eds.), Margaret

Mead Made Me Gay: Personal Essays, Public Ideas (pp. 167-‐175). Durham, NC: Duke

University Press.

Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Dude, you're a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school. (pp. 430-‐

443). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Thompson, B. Y. (2000). Fence sitters, switch hitters, and bi-‐bi girls: An exploration of hapa

and bisexual identities. Frontiers, 21(1/2), 171-‐180.


Zucker, K. J. (2008). Reflections on the relation between sex-‐typed behavior in childhood

and sexual orientation in adulthood. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 12(1-‐2),

29-‐59.


Appendix

Table #1—

Distribution of College Major by Department College Department of the Respondent Percentage of Respondents Accountancy 2.1% Advanced Studies in Education and Counseling 2.9% Anthropology 0.5% Art 3.7% Asian and Asian-‐American Studies 0.3% Astronomy and Physics 0.5% Biological Sciences 2.4% Biomedical and Clinical Engineering 0.5% Business Administration 0.3% Chemical Engineering 0.3% Chemistry and Biochemistry 1.3% Civil Engineering and Construction Engineering Management 0.8% Communication Studies 4.3% Communicative Disorders 2.1% Computer Engineering and Computer Science 1.6% Criminal Justice 2.1% Dance 0.3% Design 0.5% Economics 0.5% Electrical Engineering 0.8% Engineering Technology 0.3% English 4.3% Environmental Science and Policy 1.3% Family and Consumer Sciences 8.5% Film and Electronic Arts 2.9% Finance 1.3% Geography 0.3% Geological Sciences 0.5% Health Care Administration 1.6% Health Science 3.7% History 1.6% Human Development 1.6% Information Systems 0.5% International Business 0.3% Journalism and Mass Communication 0.5% Kinesiology 3.7% Liberal Studies 1.1% Linguistics 0.5%


Management and Human Resources Management 5.1% Marketing 1.1% Mathematics and Statistics 0.5% Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering 1.9% Music 13.3% Nursing 1.9% Political Science 0.8% Psychology 4.3% Recreation and Leisure Studies 0.8% Religious Studies 0.3% Romance, German, Russian Languages and Literatures 0.5% Social Work 0.5% Sociology 3.2% Theatre Arts 0.5% Women’s Gender and Sexuality Studies 0.3% More than one major 1.9% Undecided 0.8%

Table #2—

Distribution of Occupation Occupation of the Respondent Percentage of Respondents Accountancy / Finance / Stocks 1.0% Customer Service / Human Relations 1.6% Education / Counseling / Childcare 5.7% Entertainment / Performing Arts 2.1% Fashion / Design 1.0% Food Service / Restaurant / Lodging 8.0% Health Care / Medicine 0.3% Law Enforcement / Security 1.0% Management / Ownership 1.3% Manual Labor 0.8% Military 0.5% Office Work / Clerical Work 1.8% Real Estate / Leasing 0.5% Retail / Sales 8.3% Technology / Engineering 0.3% Transportation 0.5% Volunteering / Internship / Assistant 2.6% Writing / Editing / Media 0.3% More than one job 0.8% Missing 61.7%

Survey A

For the following list of behaviors, please indicate how masculine or feminine that you personally feel each behavior is. There is no right or wrong answer, and you are not in any way obligated to complete this survey. You may skip a question should you feel uncomfortable providing an answer to it. Circle a number between 1 and 5 based on the following spectrum:

1 2 3 4 5 Very Masculine Slightly More Neutral Slightly More Very Feminine Masculine Feminine

Playing basketball— 1 2 3 4 5 Wearing pink clothing— 1 2 3 4 5 Singing in choir— 1 2 3 4 5 Wearing tight clothing— 1 2 3 4 5 Playing football— 1 2 3 4 5 Penetrating during sex— 1 2 3 4 5 Watching action films— 1 2 3 4 5 Writing love letters— 1 2 3 4 5 Speaking slowly— 1 2 3 4 5 Using online dating websites— 1 2 3 4 5 Playing tennis— 1 2 3 4 5 Listening to pop music— 1 2 3 4 5 Receiving pain for sexual pleasure— 1 2 3 4 5 Wearing blue clothing— 1 2 3 4 5 Drinking beer— 1 2 3 4 5 Cooking food— 1 2 3 4 5 Being penetrated during sex— 1 2 3 4 5 Working out— 1 2 3 4 5 Playing video games— 1 2 3 4 5 Dancing ballet— 1 2 3 4 5 Receiving oral sex— 1 2 3 4 5 Playing softball— 1 2 3 4 5 Drinking tequila— 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 Very Masculine Slightly More Neutral Slightly More Very Feminine Masculine Feminine

Inflicting pain for sexual pleasure— 1 2 3 4 5 Wearing baggy clothing— 1 2 3 4 5 Talking with your hands— 1 2 3 4 5 Managing finances— 1 2 3 4 5 Watching romantic films— 1 2 3 4 5 Eating salad— 1 2 3 4 5 Dancing hip-‐hop— 1 2 3 4 5 Performing oral sex— 1 2 3 4 5 Playing hockey— 1 2 3 4 5 Listening to rock music— 1 2 3 4 5 Paying for dates— 1 2 3 4 5 Singing in a band— 1 2 3 4 5 Speaking quickly— 1 2 3 4 5 Drinking whiskey— 1 2 3 4 5 Cleaning the house— 1 2 3 4 5 Wearing makeup— 1 2 3 4 5 Eating steak— 1 2 3 4 5 Styling your hair— 1 2 3 4 5 In your own opinion, how masculine or feminine do you think you are (based on the same scale)? 1 2 3 4 5 Demographics:

Age: ___________________ College Major: __________________________ Occupation (if applicable): __________________

Class Standing: Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Super Senior Graduate Student

Race: Non-‐Hispanic White Hispanic White Black Native American Asian Other

Religion: Christianity Islam Judaism Buddhism Hinduism Non-‐Religious Other

Sex: Male Female Transgendered Intersexed Other



Survey B

For the following list of behaviors, please indicate how often that you personally engage in each behavior. There is no right or wrong answer, and you are not in any way obligated to complete this survey. You may skip a question should you feel uncomfortable providing an answer to it. Check the most appropriate box based on the following four responses:

Often Sometimes Rarely Never Do you play basketball?

Often Sometimes Rarely Never Do you wear pink clothing?

Often Sometimes Rarely Never Do you sing in choir?

Often Sometimes Rarely Never Do you wear tight clothing?

Often Sometimes Rarely Never Do you play football?

Often Sometimes Rarely Never Do you penetrate during sex?

Often Sometimes Rarely Never Do you watch action films?

Often Sometimes Rarely Never Do you write love letters?

Often Sometimes Rarely Never Do you speak slowly?

Often Sometimes Rarely Never Do you use online dating websites?

Often Sometimes Rarely Never Do you play tennis?

Often Sometimes Rarely Never Do you listen to pop music?

Often Sometimes Rarely Never Do you receive pain for sexual pleasure?

Often Sometimes Rarely Never Do you wear blue clothing?

Often Sometimes Rarely Never Do you drink beer?

Often Sometimes Rarely Never Do you cook food?

Often Sometimes Rarely Never Do you get penetrated during sex?

Often Sometimes Rarely Never Do you work out?

Often Sometimes Rarely Never Do you play video games?

Often Sometimes Rarely Never Do you dance ballet?

Often Sometimes Rarely Never Do you receive oral sex?

Often Sometimes Rarely Never Do you play softball?

Often Sometimes Rarely Never Do you drink tequila?

Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Do you inflict pain for sexual pleasure? Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Do you wear baggy clothing? Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Do you talk with your hands? Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Do you manage your finances? Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Do you watch romantic films? Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Do you eat salad? Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Do you dance hip-‐hop? Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Do you perform oral sex? Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Do you play hockey? Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Do you listen to rock music? Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Do you pay for dates? Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Do you sing in a band? Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Do you speak quickly? Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Do you drink whiskey? Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Do you clean the house? Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Do you wear makeup? Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Do you eat steak? Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Do you style your hair? Often Sometimes Rarely Never

In your own opinion, how masculine or feminine do you think you are?

1 2 3 4 5 Very Masculine Slightly More Neutral Slightly More Very Feminine Masculine Feminine Demographics:

Age: ___________________ College Major: __________________________ Occupation (if applicable): __________________

Class Standing: Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Super Senior Graduate Student

Race: Non-‐Hispanic White Hispanic White Black Native American Asian Other

Religion: Christianity Islam Judaism Buddhism Hinduism Non-‐Religious Other

Sex: Male Female Transgendered Intersexed Other



The Correlations Between Sexual Orientation and Gender Performance

Documents