See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/14459671

Identity formation for lesbian, bisexual, and gay persons: Beyond a"
minoritizing" view

Article  in  Journal of Homosexuality · February 1996

DOI: 10.1300/J082v30n03_03 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
166 6,435

1 author:

Michele J Eliason
San Francisco State University
156 PUBLICATIONS   5,547 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Lyon-Martin Community Research Collaboration View project

Stress and Resilience in healthcare professionals View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michele J Eliason on 22 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Identity Formation for Lesbian, Bisexual,
and Gay Persons:
Beyond a ‘‘Minoritizing’’ View
Michele J. Eliason, PhD
University of Iowa

ABSTRACT. There is considerable controversy regarding the means

by which lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons achieve a sense of sexu-
al identity. In this paper, the concepts of identity and sexual identity
are reviewed, and the literature on lesbian and gay ‘‘coming out’’
processes are critiqued. Major limitations of these studies include
their narrow samples, their narrow focus on sexuality, their linear
nature, and their lack of attention to the larger sociohistorical con-
text. They tend to ‘‘minoritize’’ sexual identities. A more compre-
hensive cyclical model of identity development would put sexual
identity into a context that includes other important facets of identity
such as gender, race, and class--a more universalizing approach.
[Article copies available from The Haworth Document Delivery Service:
1-800-342-9678.]

Since the term ‘‘homosexual’’ first entered the language in the

late nineteenth century (predating the term ‘‘heterosexual’’ accord-
ing to Jonathan Ned Katz, 1983), the burning question has been:
Why? What causes homosexuality: nature or nurture, biology or
environment? The debate continues, one hundred years later, albeit
in different, perhaps more sophisticated terms. The controversy is
now termed the essentialist-social constructionist debate, or the

Michele J. Eliason is Assistant Professor at The University of Iowa.

Correspondence may be addressed: 372 NB, College of Nursing, The Univer-
sity of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242.
Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 30(3) 1996
E 1996 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 31
32 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY

minoritizing-universalizing debate (Sedgwick, 1990). In the social

sciences, the question was often reframed as ‘‘Why do some people
identify themselves as lesbian, gay, or bisexual in the presence of
negative societal attitudes?’’ This question allows the possibility of
human agency and choice, and broadens the scope of the research
on sexual identity formation. Yet the very existence of agency and
stable identities has recently been challenged.
Many lesbian and gay persons claim an identity based on a self-
perception of a stable self that is attracted to the same gender (and
has been for as long as they can remember), or, for bisexuals, a self
that is attracted to particular human characteristics rather than a
gender. But why is the sexual identity of gay, lesbian, and bisexual
people so much more central to their lives than the sexual identity
of a heterosexual? Most heterosexuals define themselves in terms of
their gender, their age, their education, occupation, marital status,
but rarely do they mention their sexual identity. In fact, when a
group of feminists was invited to comment on how their heterosex-
uality influenced their politics/feminist scholarship, many replied in
anger at the imposition of the label and denied ever thinking of
themselves as heterosexual in spite of their outwardly appearing
traditional marriages and daily lives (Kitzinger, Wilkinson, & Per-
kins, 1992).
Two academic/social movements, poststructuralism and the cul-
tural diversity movement, have profoundly challenged current theo-
rizing, altering the way that research questions are addressed. The
poststructuralist movement has challenged most of the basic as-
sumptions of western philosophy and science (see, for example,
Weedon, 1987; Hare-Mustin & Maracek, 1990). Medical, legal, and
theological discourses tend to assume that sexual orientation is
innate: an ‘‘essential’’ aspect of an individual fixed at birth or in
early childhood and stable throughout the life span. It has become
politically incorrect in academics to make a claim that might be
construed as essentialistic. In spite of some of the negative effects
(for example, the time and energy spent defending oneself against
charges of essentialism), poststructuralism has encouraged re-
searchers to examine more carefully the historical and social con-
texts in which any human behavior occurs. According to the post-
structuralists, there can be no ‘‘true’’ history of homosexuality, but
 Michele J. Eliason 33

many histories; no true homosexual identity, but fluid, dynamic

identities.
The poststructural movement has posed some serious dilemmas
for liberation/social action movements or psychological theories
based on the idea of a common identity: e.g., gay, lesbian, bisexual
organizations, feminist groups, theories based on race or ethnicity.
By claiming a common, stable identity, the liberation movements
were able to make substantial gains in social recognition and in-
creased civil rights. If homosexual identity is deconstructed into a
specific sociohistorical context over which individuals have some
element of choice, and we emphasize differences instead of similar-
ities, what will happen to gay/lesbian/bisexual politics or psycholo-
gies (see, for example, Cohen, 1992; Fuss, 1989)?
Within academic communities, there has been an increase at least
in the rhetoric of cultural diversity, and some small gains have been
made in diversification of the college student body, faculty, and
curriculum. The cultural diversity movement has arisen in response
to changing demographics of the nation and the world, and to con-
flicts that many people have articulated about their social and politi-
cal affiliations. For example, Audre Lorde (in Zami, 1982, as well
as other works) expressed her feelings of marginality as an African-
American lesbian woman. What social/political group best suited
her needs: civil rights, feminism, gay rights? None of these groups
acknowledged her multifaceted identity. Lorde related the negative
effects of fragmenting one’s sense of identity by addressing only
issues of color in organizations based on race, or only issues of
womanhood in organizations based on gender, and so on. Lesbian,
gay, and bisexual people belong to every other form of diversity--
race, ethnicity, religion, age, gender, socioeconomic status, health
status, family of origin, and others, but lesbigay organizations his-
torically have not been very good at recognizing or celebrating this
diversity (D’Emilio, 1992). Scholarship addressing multicultural
issues and poststructural theory is often at odds with people’s com-
monsense notions of identity and their political commitments. One
positive outcome of these movements is that authors of scholarly
papers and leaders of political movements are likely to situate them-
selves within the social context. For example, I bring to this paper
34 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY

my experiences as a white, midwestern, middle-class, middle-aged,

lesbian psychologist.

DEFINING IDENTITY
In the past 100 years, there has been a veritable obsession with
defining sexualities. In the first half of this century, the focus was
on identifying the causes of ‘‘deviant’’ sexualities. Although this
work continues today in many forms, there is a much greater em-
phasis on defining ‘‘identities,’’ or describing how and why an
individual adopts a ‘‘deviant’’ sexual identity, as well as defining
the personal ramifications of adopting such an identity. The focus of
this section is on the sociological and psychological models of
identity as they have developed since Stonewall (1969), the point in
time often considered the birth of the gay liberation movement. For
readers interested in earlier histories of sexuality, see Foucault (1978),
D’Emilio (1983), D’Emilio and Freedman (1988), or Irvine (1990).

Language and Definition of Terms

Within most western science, language is seen as a tool by which

we communicate our needs. Language describes reality, and words
have relatively fixed meanings. Thus, the speaker expects the listen-
er to comprehend the meaning of the words in the same way as the
speaker. Speakers are assumed to have agency and choose words to
describe their reality. In spite of these assumptions, confusions arise
about words all of the time. Sexual orientation, sexual preference,
affectional preference, and sexual identity are terms that have been
used almost interchangeably, but that actually have slightly differ-
ent theoretical connotations. Sexual orientation usually refers to an
inborn, innate predisposition for gender of sexual or affectional
partners whereas sexual preference is often described as choosing
between genders for sexual or affectional activities. Some have
dismissed the idea of preference because it denies the complexity of
the choice. Affectional preference puts the emphasis on emotional
intimacy rather than sexuality. This term comes primarily from
lesbian feminist writers such as Adrienne Rich (1980), who de-
scribed a lesbian continuum that puts woman-identifiedness at its
 Michele J. Eliason 35

core. Predictably, the term affectional preference has been criticized

for its erasure of sexuality.
Diana Fuss (1989) asks, ‘‘Is identity a personal, natural, political,
or linguistic category?’’ For a woman to call herself a lesbian might
mean that she is a certain kind of person, like others with the same
label; that she engages in a certain set of sexual behaviors; that she
adopts a certain set of specific gender-anomalous behaviors; that
she will have a particular political orientation; that she has a certain
physical appearance or style of dress; that she has been and always
will be a lesbian; and/or that her behavior is consistent with her
identity. Which is the ‘‘true’’ meaning of identity? Johnston (1973)
defined identity as ‘‘what you can say you are according to what
they say you can be’’ (p. 58). Thus, her definition of identity has
two components: a self-evaluation and a socially determined range
of choices or categories. Until a word gains wide usage in the
culture, the category or type of person does not exist.
Cass (1984b) proposed that identity is a cognitive construct, an
organized set of self-perceptions and accompanying feelings that an
individual has about her/himself with regard to some social catego-
ry (race, gender, occupation, sexuality, etc.). Cass believed that for
any aspect of identity to become integrated into the self, there must
be direct communication with others about the identity, and the
person must perceive that there is some degree of consistency be-
tween the identity and his/her actual behavior. The sense of consis-
tency allows for at least the illusion of a stable identity. In actuality,
identity is constantly in flux as people process information about
their own behavior and receive feedback from others. Identities can
change within individuals across situations and time. In Cass’s
scheme, sexual identity is only one aspect of the personal identity.
The sexual identity consists of self-images about sexual behaviors,
attitudes, and feelings about sexuality.

‘‘COMING OUT’’ MODELS

In the next section, I have selected some of the ‘‘coming out’’ or
identity models found in the social science literature. This is not
meant to be an exhaustive review, but I have tried to select theories/
models that are widely cited, or that present various positions. Some
36 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY

authors present stage theories that consider sexual identities to be

constructed by social and psychic means. The fact that universal
stages of identity development are presented puts these theories into
the ‘‘essentialist’’ category. I will try to address both the benefits
and costs of various theories of gay and lesbian identity develop-
ment.

Dennis Altman (1971)

Altman’s The Homosexual: Oppression and Liberation was one

of the first post-Stonewall texts. From the onset, Altman describes
homosexuality as socially constructed: ‘‘The very concept of homo-
sexuality is a social one, and one cannot understand the homosexual
experience without recognizing the extent to which we have devel-
oped a certain identity and behavior derived from social norms’’
(p. 14). Altman, who identifies himself as a gay man, described the
acquisition of a homosexual identity as a very long process that
usually begins in adolescence. He describes how societal attitudes
impede developmental progress toward identity achievement. Alt-
man’s focus and knowledge base appear to be centered on gay male
experience. This is not an empirical study, but was an important
break from the texts in the pre-Stonewall era which were predomi-
nantly written by heterosexual men of ‘‘science’’ about the ‘‘de-
viance’’ of homosexuality. Altman’s work encouraged other schol-
ars to study lesbigay issues, and he has consistently contributed to
the body of knowledge about lesbigay theory/experiences since this
first book in 1971.

Kenneth Plummer (1975)

Plummer, writing from a social interactionist viewpoint, de-

scribed some key properties in ‘‘becoming’’ homosexual. He noted
that isolation, due to feeling or acting differently from peers, leads
to identity confusion. Plummer believed that once achieved, a ho-
mosexual identity becomes a primary defining characteristic of the
self, one that is implicated in all situations and all interpersonal
interactions. A belief in the irreversibility of a homosexual identity
is a comforting fact and provides a sense of personal security.
Plummer identified four stages of the coming out process:
 Michele J. Eliason 37

1. Sensitization begins with the first conscious moment of con-

sidering the possibility of being homosexual. Social situations
and social interactions play an important role in movement to
the next stage.
2. Signification and Disorientation. Feelings of being different
and anxiety and confusion over the meanings of the difference
lead to internal scrutiny. A greater awareness of one’s own
feelings and of societal attitudes results.
3. Coming Out involves self-recognition as homosexual and the
exploration of the gay community. Contacts with community
and specific others are important in consolidating a homo-
sexual identity.
4. Stabilizing Homosexuality. If the experiences of coming out
are positive, a commitment to a homosexual lifestyle may be
made.
Plummer noted that there are probably other stages associated with
middle age and older adulthood, but there was a lack of information
on which to form stages at the time (this is still true).
Although Plummer articulates a social constructionist view
throughout his book, he does posit an ‘‘ideal’’ sequence of stages of
becoming homosexual, implying that there is one best way to
achieve a homosexual identity. His theory is based on his experi-
ences as a gay man and may not apply to lesbians, or bisexuals of
either gender. No empirical support is offered for his theory, al-
though other researchers have used Plummer’s model as a base.

Alice E. Moses (1978)

Moses used labeling theory to explain how a lesbian identity is

managed, not how it is achieved in the first place. She clearly
subscribes to a social construction view of lesbian identity and
delineated two factors in the application of a label. The first was the
visibility of the ‘‘deviance’’; the more visible, the more likely the
label would be applied. The second factor was the importance of the
‘‘deviance’’ for the individual and for others. Moses administered
questionnaires to 81 lesbians ranging in age from 20 to 54, from a
wide range of educational backgrounds. Interestingly, Moses’s re-
spondents, all of whom called themselves lesbians, utilized every
38 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY

point on the Kinsey scale to describe their sexual orientation (11%

from 0-2, 4% at 3, and 82% as 4-6); only 12% rated themselves as
exclusively homosexual. Information about racial/ethnic and other
demographic variables was not available. When asked about the
causes of lesbianism, 56% indicated it was a choice and 44% be-
lieved it was due to circumstances beyond their control. Moses was
primarily interested in the issue of ‘‘passing’’ or how these lesbians
presented themselves to the heterosexual world. Although Moses (a
self-identified lesbian) does not present a full identity model, her
research shows the fluidity of sexual identities and the strong ele-
ment of choice expressed by many lesbians.
Barbara Ponse (1978)
Ponse used a social constructionist framework to explore how
women come to a lesbian identity, defined as ‘‘one’s social and/or
personal identity in terms of preference for sexual activity with a
particular gender’’ (p. 27). She noted that the close relationship
between sex, gender, and sexual identity is unique to the western
world, but has become one of the major underlying assumptions of
western philosophy. According to Ponse (and others), when the
world is organized according to this rigid sex-gender-sexual identi-
ty constancy, the only possible explanation for homosexuality is
inversion; a role reversal of these key elements. The inversion mod-
el is a direct result of heterosexism, the inability to conceive of any
other model but heterosexuality. According to the inversion model,
if a woman desires another woman sexually, she must have mascu-
line qualities. Ponse noted ‘‘by accepting the principle [of consis-
tency] as a given, theories attempting to explain variations obscure
rather than illuminate the understanding of those who do not con-
form to its expectations’’ (p. 28). Thus, ‘‘feminine’’ women cannot
be lesbians according to inversion theory.
Ponse interviewed 75 lesbians, age 16 to 76, who were involved
in support groups or political action groups at a ‘‘gay’’ organization
in a large southern city. Ninety-six percent were white. Ponse iden-
tified a ‘‘gay trajectory’’ that consisted of five elements which taken
together or in various combinations could lead to a lesbian identity:
(1) a subjective feeling of being different from heterosexual women
due to emotional or sexual desires for women, (2) an understanding
 Michele J. Eliason 39

that those feelings could be labelled as ‘‘lesbian,’’ (3) assuming a

lesbian identity, (4) seeking the company of lesbians, and (5) engag-
ing in a lesbian relationship, emotional or sexual.
Rather than constituting a linear step/stage model, Ponse’s trajec-
tory is more fluid. Women may start with any of these elements or
experience them more or less simultaneously. Ponse noted that an
‘‘identity lag’’ occurred for many women between the time they
recognized same-sex attractions and self-identifying as lesbian.
This lag is called ‘‘coming out’’ by many respondents. Ponse also
noted that the end of coming out was marked by acceptance of a
lesbian identity. This acceptance often led to a reinterpretation of
the woman’s past to make it more congruent with the ‘‘gay trajecto-
ry’’ and the lesbian identity.
For many of the women in her sample, lesbianism was something
they felt they ‘‘discovered’’ or recognized, an essential part of their
being that had been repressed or ignored in the past, but that was
‘‘always already’’ there. Many of them reported that lesbianism was
a total way of life for which sexuality was one small part. By these
standards, heterosexuality was seen as excessively narrow and rig-
id. Many respondents felt that women could be lesbians without
recognizing it, but once acknowledged, a lesbian was always a
lesbian. Ponse problematized the essentialism found in many of the
respondents’ accounts of their lesbianism. She found that some
respondents reinterpreted previous (or current) attractions to men as
a misguided product of their socialization, or due to ‘‘not knowing
any better.’’ There were many contradictions to the notion of a
stable lesbian identity. Ponse was able to identify four distinct pat-
terns among her respondents:
1. Lesbian Identity and Lesbian Activity.
2. Lesbian Identity with Bisexual, Heterosexual, or Celibate Ac-
tivity.
3. Bisexual Identity with Lesbian Activity.
4. Heterosexual Identity with Lesbian Activity.
Ponse is one of the few researchers discussed in this paper who is
heterosexual. She explained at length her own difficulties in acces-
sing the lesbian community as a heterosexual researcher. She was
often labelled as a ‘‘repressed lesbian’’ during the time that she
40 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY

attended lesbian organizations and conducted her interviews. Ponse’s

study is one of the most comprehensive of the studies reported here.
One of its strengths is the careful description of her method and the
sample.
Vivienne Cass (1979)
Based on her observations as a clinical psychologist, Cass, a
self-identified lesbian, proposed a six-stage linear coming out mod-
el. The crisis underlying identity formation for Cass is one of striv-
ing for congruence between the person’s perceptions of his/her own
behavior, the perceptions of other people’s attitudes, and self-identi-
ty. Her six stages are as follows:
1. Identity Confusion. An individual has experiences or feelings
that might be labelled as homosexual. These feelings disrupt
the self-identity as heterosexual and cause confusion. The
confusion may be resolved by rejecting the possibility of ho-
mosexuality, thus foreclosing further development. Converse-
ly, a decision to explore options might occur, and lead to the
next stage.
2. Identity Comparison. The person examines her/his own be-
havior compared to the feedback given by others, or the iden-
tity of ‘‘homosexual’’ in general. If the self-perceptions as ho-
mosexual are too negative, the person may decide to curtail
any further exploration of that identity. Alternatively, she/he
may decide to make contact with a homosexual person or
community.
3. Identity Tolerance. The person tentatively tries out the label of
‘‘homosexual’’ and makes contact with other homosexuals.
The quality of the initial contacts is very important. During
this stage, disclosure of identity to heterosexual others is very
limited, and the person may lead two separate lives.
4. Identity Acceptance. If the initial contact with homosexual in-
dividuals or cultures/communities is positive, the person may
move rather rapidly to a state of acceptance of the self-iden-
tity. Selective disclosure to friends and family begins.
5. Identity Pride. In order to achieve congruence, the person may
dichotomize the world into homosexuals and heterosexuals. If
 Michele J. Eliason 41

the heterosexual world is considered to be too negative about

homosexuality, the person may reject them as inferior to ho-
mosexuals. A sense of loyalty and pride of homosexuality de-
velops.
6. Identity Synthesis. Congruence has been achieved and the
identity fully accepted. Now it becomes integrated into the to-
tal self-identity. Homosexuality becomes merely one aspect of
this integrated total identity, and the private and public images
are merged. This generally results in a sense of peace and in-
ner harmony.

Cass (1984a) conducted a validity study of this six-stage model,

based on questionnaire data from 109 male and 69 female respon-
dents. All respondents were given descriptions of the six stages (plus
a Pre-Stage 1 category that stated: You believe you are a heterosexu-
al and never question this). Twelve respondents were not able to
place themselves in only one stage (six male and six female) and
were dropped from the study. The remainder of the questionnaire
contained items that assessed factors that Cass thought made up
identity: commitment, disclosure, generality, identity evaluation,
group identification, social interaction, alienation, sexual orientation
activity, acculturation, deference to others, dichotomization, personal
control, strategies, personal satisfaction, and professional contact.
Cass found a high degree of consistency between the respon-
dents’ self-defined stage of identity and their responses on the fac-
tors that make up identity. A discriminant analysis indicated that six
groups could be distinguished, and 97% of the cases could be cor-
rectly classified. There were no clear gender differences on the six
stages. Cass did find considerable overlap between stages 1 and 2
and stages 5 and 6, leading her to suggest that a four-stage model
might be possible. However, since the data did not clearly show any
advantage to a four-stage model, she concluded that the sensitivity
of her scoring system might be the problem. Cass did not discuss
the possibility that by forcing respondents to select only one stage,
she might have unknowingly included a number of respondents
who were in transition between stages. Additionally, because of the
cross-sectional design of the study, it is impossible to know whether
the sequence of the stages is valid for all respondents.
42 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY

Kahn (1991) tested Cass’s model with 81 lesbians (94% white,

age 20-59, and primarily well educated) and found that many of the
women could relate to some or all of Cass’s stages. However, many
skipped stages or passed through the stages in a different order than
Cass specified. Kahn was able to identify five different patterns of
progression through the coming out process.
Cass believed that identity synthesis, or putting sexuality into a
context within a larger self-identity, is the ultimate endpoint, where-
as some of the other theorists end with acceptance of a homosexual
identity. Would Cass view the identity process of the committed gay
activist as incomplete? Must homosexual identity become only a
small part of the self-identity? Kitzinger (1987) criticized Cass’s
model (as well as several other psychological models) for its ‘‘liber-
al humanism,’’ which in Kitzinger’s words negates the possibility
of any social system change. If the definition of well-adjusted for
lesbians means considering her lesbianism as only a small part of
her individual identity, she is unlikely to engage in political work or
consider the identity as a political statement.
In spite of its problems, Cass’s model has both theoretical and
empirical validity and is the most extensively studied model of
homosexual identity development in the psychological literature.

Betsy Ettorre (1980)

Ettorre, a self-identified lesbian, collected questionnaires from

200 lesbians in London and completed interviews with 60, most of
whom were white and middle class. Ettorre calls her book ‘‘practi-
cal’’ rather than theoretical or empirical, and she has a strong social
constructionist statement in the first chapter: ‘‘Lesbianism is a com-
plex and changing social fact. As a social construction, lesbianism
implies a variety of interactions for a woman in society’’ (p. 25).
Ettorre believes that societal oppression allows lesbians to develop
a ‘‘unique lesbian consciousness.’’ Although she denounces an es-
sentialistic image of the lesbian, she does note that many individual
lesbians do believe in an essential lesbian nature, creating contra-
dictions in the personal as well as the political realm. From her
questionnaire data, she formulated two kinds of lesbians:
 Michele J. Eliason 43

1. ‘‘Sick, but not sorry.’’ About 100 of the respondents felt that
they were born lesbians, and they accepted dominant societal
images and stereotypes about lesbians, with no regrets. Les-
bians in this group were rarely ‘‘political.’’
2. ‘‘Sorry, but not sick.’’ The other half subscribed to a view that
lesbianism was a total way of life, not just sexuality, and de-
fined lesbianism as an identity contrary to that expected of all
women. They were more likely to consider lesbianism as a
choice, to see the interlinking of oppressions, and to be active
in political movements.
Under the heading ‘‘Lesbian Practice’’ Ettorre lists four subtypes of
lesbians:
1. ‘‘Straight’’ lesbians looked to heterosexual role models for
their relationships. They were often closeted, felt that they
were born lesbians, and were nonpolitical (they usually fit the
‘‘sick, but not sorry’’ group above).
2. Status quo lesbians were conformists. They were usually clos-
eted and apolitical, but they did reject emulating heterosexual
roles. This group was evenly split among those who thought
they were born lesbian and those who chose their lesbianism.
3. Reformist lesbians were usually politically active and chal-
lenged societal norms, but worked within the system.
4. Fringe lesbians included three subgroups:
a. bisexuals,
b. celibate lesbians,
c. lesbian mothers.
It is not really clear why Ettorre proposed two different classifi-
cation systems for lesbians. The last category, ‘‘fringe lesbians,’’
seems to include very different kinds of people and has no apparent
validity. Ettorre was not interested in how lesbians initially achieve
a sense of identity and she did not explain the procedure by which
she classified her respondents.
Henry Minton and Gary McDonald (1984)
These authors used a symbolic interactionism framework for the
study of gay male identity formation (although they hypothesized
44 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY

that the same processes could apply to lesbian development). Their

model gives the individual agency within a particular social context
to select and ascribe meanings to particular events or feelings. They
used Habermas’s model of ego development as a framework. Hab-
ermas proposed that the first year of life is the symbiotic phase,
when infants are dependent on the environment for all of their
needs. The egocentric stage is when the young child learns to distin-
guish between self and others, but remains very self-centered. In the
sociocentric phase, the child learns the social norms and roles of the
culture, and finally, in the universalistic phase, the adolescent can
critically evaluate social norms and develops a strong sense of
personal identity.
Minton and McDonald adapted the theory to describe gay male
identity development as follows:
1. Symbiotic: lack of awareness of identity.
2. Egocentric: first awareness of identity. The young man has
experiences or feelings which can serve as the basis for later
self-labeling as homosexual; these experiences can include
fantasies, dreams, sexual encounters, gender-coded behaviors,
etc. They contribute to a feeling of being ‘‘different.’’
3. Sociocentric: learning of sexual norms. Heightened awareness
of homosexual persons and communities can provide relief
for some individuals and anxiety for others. At this point,
there may be a discrepancy between the individual’s behavior
and sexual identity. If this discrepancy creates confusion, the
person may seek out information or contacts in the homosexu-
al world.
4. Universalistic: critical evaluation of dominant sexual norms.
The person accepts himself as homosexual and makes a com-
mitment to that identity. The authors identify three phases of
the universalistic stage: identity acceptance, commitment to
homosexual identity, and identity integration. Thus, the uni-
versalistic stage is the ‘‘coming out’’ period.
Like Cass, these authors feel that integration of sexual identity into
a more holistic concept of self is the ultimate goal of development.
Minton and McDonald offer no empirical evidence, although they do
cite other coming out models in support of their stages. My greatest
 Michele J. Eliason 45

criticism of this work is its reliance on Habermas’s theory, which was

developed for childhood and adolescent development. Adults have
very different cognitive abilities than young children, making it diffi-
cult to impose a childhood developmental stage theory on an adult.
The authors do not indicate their own sexual identities.
JoAnn Chapman and Beata Brannock (1987)
These authors assumed the most essentializing viewpoint of any
of the theorists discussed in this paper, and they limited their discus-
sion to lesbian identity. They suggested that lesbian identity exists
in women prior to their recognition of it, but that some incongru-
ence is required to bring the lesbian identity to the forefront. They
surveyed 197 women, age 19 to 61 (mean age of 34 years) from
lesbian organizations in Los Angeles. Ninety-six percent of the
sample indicated that they were lesbians, and 90% were white.
Nearly 40% had college degrees. The authors proposed five stages
in achieving a lesbian identity:
1. Same-Sex Orientation (but with no self-labelling). A woman
feels connected to other women, but does not attach any par-
ticular label to the feelings.
2. Incongruence. The woman recognizes that her feelings for
other women differ from most of her friends and she begins to
feel isolated. She may also become more aware of a lack of
desire to date men.
3. Self-Questioning/Exploration. The woman first thinks that she
might be a lesbian and begins to explore the possibility
through contacts in the lesbian community, the gay communi-
ties at large, or through discussions with supportive people.
4. Self-Identification. If the process of self-exploration is posi-
tive, the woman may affirm a self-identity as lesbian.
5. Choice of Lifestyle. Finally, a woman can decide whether to
seek women for relationships or consider other options, such
as celibacy.
Celia Kitzinger (1987)
Kitzinger presented a scathing attack on social science research
methodology and essentializing theories. She described different
46 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY

accounts by lesbians about their own identities using a statistical

procedure called Q-sort. This form of factor analysis categorizes
people rather than test scores. Forty-one lesbians sorted 61 state-
ments along a scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Unfor-
tunately, the demographic characteristics of the respondents were
not well described, but they appeared to be primarily white, middle
class, and well educated. From the Q-sort, Kitzinger found five
types of lesbians:

1. Lesbianism as personal fulfillment. All of the women in this

group had been married and they stressed the satisfaction and
freedom associated with rejecting heterosexuality. They were
confident that they would never return to heterosexuality, and
none were ashamed of their lesbianism. They often gave ac-
counts of ‘‘discovering their true selves’’ and becoming
‘‘whole’’ when coming out as lesbians.
2. In love with a person, not a gender. These women did not like
to label themselves and stated that they ‘‘happened’’ to fall in
love with a woman. They had favorable attitudes about men
and none of them ruled out the possibility of future sexual
relationships with men. Some preferred the label bisexual.
3. Sex is only a small part of identity. These women were apoliti-
cal and did not have a strong sense of identity as lesbians.
However, they did feel that they were born lesbians, though
they preferred not to label themselves as lesbians. Many of
them reconstructed their past experiences to be in line with an
essentialistic view of lesbianism.
4. Political lesbians. These were women who stated they were
not born lesbian, but were made that way by early experiences
or by feminism. They talked about compulsory heterosexuali-
ty and their active choice not to participate in it. Lesbianism
was the core of their identity, and they felt no solidarity with
gay men and often an active distaste for heterosexual men.
5. Lesbianism as a ‘‘cross to bear.’’ These women were closeted
and apolitical. They felt that they did not choose their lesbian-
ism; it was forced on them and they were unable to change.
They had some component of the sin and sickness models in
their beliefs.
 Michele J. Eliason 47

Although Kitzinger is an avid rejector of essentialism, she does

attempt to categorize lesbians, and labelled as lesbian even women
who themselves rejected the label. The sample size was very small
and not very diverse. The strength of her book was in her review of
the literature on social science methodology and lesbigay identity
development research.

Richard Troiden (1988)

Troiden, a gay man, begins his book as follows: ‘‘People are not
born with perceptions of themselves as homosexual, ambisexual, or
heterosexual’’ (p. 1). He notes that before self-labelling can occur,
one must know that a category exists to describe same-sex attrac-
tions, discover other people who occupy these categories, and see
themselves as similar to those people in some way. He sees coming
out as ‘‘a form of adult resocialization’’ or adopting an identity that
is a radical departure from the person’s previous socialization. The
framework for Troiden’s work is symbolic interactionism. Troiden
described three assumptions on which he bases his work:
1. People are born into a state of polymorphous perversity, a ca-
pacity for bodily pleasures that is fluid and diffuse.
2. Sexual preferences develop according to culturally specific
sexual scripts.
3. Sexual scripts are a set of norms, values, and sanctions regard-
ing sexuality. These scripts are culture specific and are learned
in childhood and adolescence along with other cultural norms.
These scripts specify which behaviors are sexual, what kinds
of partners are acceptable, and when, where, and how sexual
acts are appropriate.
Self-image and self-concept refer to what people think they are
like and self-esteem is the value judgment placed on the self-con-
cept. Within the larger self-concept, identity is a cognitive construct
representing organized sets of characteristics that people use to
describe themselves. The identity is tied to specific social settings
and relates to known social categories. Troiden defines a homo-
sexual identity as a perception of the self as homosexual in relation
to social settings defined as romantic or sexual. This homosexual
48 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY

identity can exist on three levels: (1) at the self-concept level, also
referred to as self-identity; (2) at the perceived level, or what a
person thinks other people think about her/his identity; and (3) at
the presented level, or the ways in which the person announces or
displays her/his identity in social settings.
Troiden feels that homosexual identities are most fully realized
when the three levels coincide. Homosexual roles are the patterns of
behavior associated with the status of homosexual and include the
outsider view (stereotypes) and the insider view (personal experi-
ences). When societal oppression and sexual stigma are high, ho-
mosexuality may become a ‘‘master status,’’ the self-identity that
has the greatest salience to the individual.
Troiden reviewed the existing literature on coming out models
and proposed one of his own that he claims to represent both lesbian
and gay development. He does not propose that the stages are linear,
but that they are spiral (individuals can move up and down, back
and forth through the stages). The four stages are as follows:

1. Sensitization. This stage generally begins before puberty

when the individual considers her/himself as heterosexual, but
has some social experiences that lead to feeling different or
marginal. Usually these social experiences are gender-related.
Most gay men (72%) and lesbians (72%) reported feeling dif-
ferent from others as early as elementary school. However,
only a few saw themselves as sexually different (20%). In
most cases, gender-atypical behaviors or feelings provided the
initial basis of feelings of difference and for later interpreta-
tion of the behaviors/feelings as gay or lesbian. In fact, those
with gender-atypical behavior were likely to ‘‘recognize’’
their homosexual identities at an earlier age than those with
more gender-typical behavior.
2. Confusion. The possibility of being homosexual is considered.
A ‘‘probable’’ homosexual identity was formed in gay men at
an average age of 17 and lesbians at age 18. Depending on ac-
cess to information, social stigma, and personal experiences,
this identity may or may not be experienced as ‘‘sexual.’’ By
the age of 19, 74% of lesbians and 84% of gay men knew that
they were sexually different (data from Bell, Weinberg, &
 Michele J. Eliason 49

Hammersmith, 1981). Same-sex sexual experiences may oc-

cur during adolescence. The first awareness of same-sex at-
tractions occurred for gay men at an average age of 13 and for
lesbians at 14 to 16 (Bell et al., 1981). Same-sex sexual expe-
riences generally followed two to four years later. However,
social stigma and lack of information available to adolescents
usually prevented the individual from discussing the feelings
or sexual experiences with anyone, leaving the individual in
confusion. Strategies to reduce the uncomfortable confusion
might include denial, avoidance of the topic, assumption of an
anti-homosexual position in public, heterosexual immersion,
alcohol/drug abuse, adoption of a temporary identity (a
phase), or acceptance of a homosexual identity (which implies
movement into the next stage).
3. Identity Assumption. For most homosexuals, late adolescence
or early adulthood signals the shift into an actual ‘‘coming out’’
process. The assumption stage involves disclosure to others,
gay or lesbian, friends, family, etc. In this stage there was a dif-
ference between lesbians and gay men. Lesbians were more
likely to assume a lesbian identity in the context of an emotion-
al relationship whereas gay men were more likely to achieve
identity in social or sexual situations. The average age of self-
definition as lesbian was 21 to 23 and as gay, 19 to 21. Assum-
ing a gay or lesbian identity is affected by the degree of social
stigma and the amount and kind of information available to the
person. Some ways that people managed their identity included
avoiding homosexual experiences or people, acting out stereo-
types of gays and lesbians, passing as heterosexual, aligning
themselves with the gay/lesbian communities, developing a
‘‘normalizing’’ identity devoid of stereotypes, and considering
homosexual life as superior to heterosexual life.
4. Commitment. The final stage involves an obligation to live a
homosexual way of life. Sometimes this meant entering a
committed relationship, but always it involved a degree of
comfort with the homosexual identity and roles. Many people
describe this process as an integration of sexuality and emo-
tional intimacy into a significant whole: an integrated, essen-
tial homosexual self-identity. Ways of managing identity at
50 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY

this level include covering (admit homosexuality, but keep it

hidden), blending (consider sexual identity as irrelevant or
only a small part of the self and do not disclose to others), or
conversion (a change in the world view to gay pride and gay
activism).
In conclusion, Troiden notes that identity is always ‘‘emergent’’
and is never fully determined in any fixed or absolute fashion.
Coming out is a process that spans a lifetime. Although Troiden is
very careful to avoid any essentializing moves in his discussion of
lesbian and gay identity, the very fact that he describes ‘‘universal’’
stages and assigns average ages to them is somewhat essentializing.
By using averages, he obscures the variety of ways that people
arrive at an identity, and he focuses his attention on the adolescent
and young adult. He also proposes that people are only ‘‘homosexu-
al’’ in a romantic or sexual social context, which contradicts other
research indicating that homosexuality is a way of life for some
people.

Paula Rust (1992, 1993)

Paula Rust has written thoughtful articles on the construction of

lesbian and bisexual women’s identities. Her definition of identity
is ‘‘a reflection of sociopolitical organization rather than a reflection
of essential organization, and coming out is the process of describ-
ing oneself in terms of social constructs rather than a process of
discovering one’s essence’’ (1993, p. 63). In this model, self-identi-
ty is not a real thing, but a description of one’s social location.
Rust noted that lesbians often view bisexual women as a ‘‘per-
sonal, social, and political threat’’ and sometimes question whether
bisexuals even exist. The myths about bisexuals being sexual op-
portunists, fickle, traitors to the lesbian nation, cowards afraid to
come out, or fence sitters have led to the creation of separate bi-
sexual communities. This division between lesbians and bisexual
women has been facilitated by the ‘‘scientific’’ discourse on sexual-
ity that is dominated by the dichotomous model. In the dichotomy,
heterosexuality is the ‘‘default’’ category. When any kind of attrac-
tion or same-sex experience occurs, the heterosexual assumption is
dropped and the homosexual category assigned. However, Rust’s
 Michele J. Eliason 51

data suggest that sexuality is not so neatly categorized, as 50 to 85%

of self-identified lesbians report some sexual contact with men.
Rust used mail-in surveys distributed at lesbian and bisexual
women’s social and political events, at women’s bookstores, and
through friendship networks. Her target population was all women
who have ever questioned or rejected a heterosexual identity. Of the
total sample, 76% (n = 323) identified as lesbian, dyke, gay, or
homosexual, 10% (n = 42) as bisexual, and 14% as not fitting any
category. The latter group was dropped from the analyses.
The sample was primarily white (94%), from the midwest,
young, and well educated. Rust found few differences between the
lesbians and bisexual women in relation to the seriousness of their
relationships. Bisexual women had ‘‘come out’’ at a slightly older
age than lesbians (had their first sexual attraction to a woman at an
average age of 18 compared to 15 for lesbians, and adopted their
current sexual identity at age 25 compared to 22 for lesbians). Rust
does not stop at providing average ages, but instead critiques the
idea that coming out is linear. She found that many women moved
between sexual identities with frequent periods of doubt and ques-
tioning. Variations were the rule.
The boundaries between the categories of lesbian and bisexual
were extremely fluid. Of the currently identified lesbians, 41% had
identified as bisexual at one time. Of current bisexuals, 76% had
once identified as lesbian. In spite of the apparent overlap, many
lesbians defined themselves fairly narrowly as having attractions to
women. If there were attractions to men, they were not acted on.
Bisexual women acknowledged attractions to both women and
men. The attractions did not need to be simultaneous and, in fact,
rarely were in this sample. Thus, the main differences between
lesbian and bisexual women in this study were not in actual behav-
iors or even attractions, but in the conceptual framework by which
experience was interpreted. Rust noted that historically lesbian
identity was viewed as a challenge to the patriarchy and to hetero-
sexism. Adopting a broader definition of sexual identity would
undermine the current lesbian community and threaten personal
identity and social networks. Thus, Rust argues that preserving the
essentialistic dichotomous construction of sexuality is crucial to the
maintenance of current lesbian politics (I would argue that this is
52 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY

true of 1970s’ and 1980s’ lesbian politics, but perhaps not as true of
1990s’ politics). Liberation movements have historically relied on a
clear distinction between oppressor and oppressed.
From the bisexual woman’s standpoint, radical separatist lesbian
politics denies the legitimacy of bisexuality. Bisexual theorists seek
a more holistic definition of sexuality that does not force them into
being half heterosexual and half homosexual, but fully sexual be-
ings. The theoretical models of sexual identity formation that as-
sume that achievement of a lesbian or gay identity is a sign of
maturity and good mental health imply that bisexuals are not mature
and are unstable. Rust suggests, however, that social construction
models would promote a view of change as social maturity. As the
social context changes, a person needs to adapt to the changes.
Sometimes this represents adopting a new self-identity.
Rust provides compelling evidence of the fluidity of sexual iden-
tities and the theoretical challenge that bisexual identities provide to
older, linear models of identity. The main limitation of her work is
the lack of diversity in her sample, a problem endemic to sexuality
studies at this point. It would be very useful to know whether the
conceptual definitions that separate bisexual women from lesbians
might also apply to bisexual men and gay men.

CRITIQUE OF COMING OUT MODELS

Although the theories discussed above offer some valuable in-
sights into lesbian, gay, and bisexual lives, they are limited in a
number of ways. First, they do not consider other aspects of identity
and the ways by which race, ethnicity, gender, class, age, and other
important components of living may intersect with sexuality. Some
of the theories deal with gender, but do not show much sophistica-
tion. Some findings indicate that for gay men, sexual identity has
been primarily associated with sexual activity, whereas for lesbians,
there is a much stronger political and emotional component.
Adrienne Rich’s lesbian continuum and the influence of the
women’s movement have contributed to the idea of a ‘‘political’’
lesbian, a concept found often in the empirical studies presented
above, but rarely accounted for in stage theories. A theory that
focused only on individual, intrapsychic variables could not ac-
 Michele J. Eliason 53

count for such a concept; only a perspective rich with the sociopo-
litical context of feminism could explain such a phenomenon. Rich,
of course, has been widely criticized for essentializing female
bonds, for presenting women as perpetual sufferers of male oppres-
sion, and for downplaying the sexuality and eroticism experienced
by many lesbians. However, her contribution to our thinking about
lesbian identities has been immeasurable. To my knowledge, the
concept of a ‘‘political gay man’’ does not exist, although it is
certainly theoretically possible (like the feminist man category that
has emerged in recent years).
The vast majority of research on lesbian, gay, and bisexual
people has been on white, middle-class, well-educated samples.
Nearly every study on sexual identity has reported difficulty in
recruiting people of color, people of the working class, or people
with other diverse identities to participate. As one of Kitzinger’s
potential interviewees put it: ‘‘Torn between the homophobia of the
black community and the racism of the white lesbian community, I
need, as a black lesbian, to speak for myself and in my own voice,
which is not the voice of the white world. I do not want my black
experience filtered through your white academic language, the rage
and passion edited out, explained away. I do not doubt your good
intentions; I do doubt your ability to comprehend or accurately
represent my lesbianism, which cannot be taken out of the context
of my blackness’’ (p. 88). Our theories of sexual identity formation
must be put into a context whereby other identities are seen as
interactions or influences.
A second problem with the research is that the stages were usual-
ly developed by a researcher after reviewing her/his original data,
but not validated after the fact (Cass and Troiden are exceptions to
this problem). People may have been forced into stages, rather than
stages made to fit people’s situations. Theories that rely on mean
ages of experiencing difficult events obscure the rich variety of
ways to achieve sexual identity. Also, reliance on age of coming out
as the variable of interest does not account for the actual cognitive,
social, and interpersonal strategies used to arrive at an identity.
Third, few of the theories can account for bisexual identity
formation. Rust (1992, 1993) is the only researcher reviewed in this
paper who addresses issues of bisexuality. It is likely that more
54 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY

extensive study of bisexuality will present further challenges to

notions of linear, stable stages of identity formation. Rust’s data
provide further evidence that sexual identities are social rather than
essential facts.
Fourth, the stages are generally thought to be linear with a well-
defined beginning and ending point. Linear models may be much
too simplistic to account for complex and contradictory concepts
such as sexual identity. Once identity is achieved does it remain
constant and unchanging for the rest of the life span? Couldn’t other
developmental transitions, such as midlife and older adulthood,
interact with sexuality to produce changes in self-identification?
Possibly the most important criticism is the apolitical, ahistorical
orientation of many of these models. Kitzinger (1987) labelled most
of them as ‘‘liberal humanism’’ which in her words ‘‘merely substi-
tutes one depoliticized construction of the lesbian (the pathologiz-
ing model) with another (the gay affirmative model) while continu-
ing to undermine radical feminist theories of lesbianism’’ (Preface).
Radical feminists view the institution of compulsory heterosexuali-
ty as the weapon by which patriarchy controls and oppresses
women. Others have found theory too elitist, too narrow-minded,
and too apolitical (e.g., Barbara Christian, 1990). A theory that
accounted for political and social conditions would be better able to
explain identities such as the ‘‘political lesbian.’’ It would also be
more attuned to gender and race differences.
Can poststructuralist theories of identity correct some of these
problems? Stein (1992) suggested that there are two types of post-
structuralists: those who base their methodology on Hegel, as artic-
ulated by Foucault, who views the homosexual as a ‘‘species’’ with
its origin in the late nineteenth century; and the empty-category
theorists, with their roots in symbolic interactionism, who believe
that no one fits the categories that were created for them. The latter
would not be very useful to psychology, in that no generalizations
about groups of people would ever be possible. Most identity
formation theorists could fit into the ‘‘species’’ category.
Weeks (1991), a Foucauldian constructionist, noted that to an-
nounce ‘‘I am gay (lesbian, sado-masochist, pedophile, etc.)’’ is to
state a belonging to some group in relation to the dominant sexual
codes, and it privileges the sexual identity over other kinds of
 Michele J. Eliason 55

identities. Identity assumption, according to Weeks, is a paradox;

we are always trying to fix or stabilize an identity that is constantly
in flux and change, a product of our language and culture. Elizabeth
Wilson (1983) put it this way: ‘‘We create boundaries and identities
for ourselves to contain what might otherwise threaten to engulf or
dissolve into formlessness.’’ This idea of formlessness or lack
comes from the psychodynamic theories of identity. Fuss (1991)
noted: ‘‘To protect against the recognition of lack within the self,
the self erects and defends its borders against an other which is
made to represent or to become that selfsame lack. But borders are
notoriously unstable, and sexual identities rarely secure. Heterosex-
uality can never fully ignore the close psychical proximity of its
terrifying (homo)sexual other, any more than homosexuality can
entirely escape the equally insistent social pressures of (het-
ero)sexual conformity’’ (p. 3). Fuss describes sexual identities as
more of a performance than a knowledge, a perpetual reinvention
rather than a self-discovery. A full description of the contribution of
psychoanalysis to theorizing about identities is beyond the scope of
this paper, although future theories of identity may need to incorpo-
rate concepts from psychoanalysis.
Fuss (1989) resolved some of the impasse created by the essen-
tialism-poststructuralism debate by suggesting that we could con-
sciously deploy essentialism as a strategy in our theorizing. Jane
Gallop (1982) commented that ‘‘identity must be continually as-
sumed and immediately called into question.’’ We can assume that
people will have identities, but that the meanings of these identities
are constantly changing and vary from one person to another, from
one time to another, from one culture to another. One method of
assuming an identity for theoretical purposes might be to utilize a
standpoint epistemology.
If we consider lesbian, gay, and bisexual not as autonomous,
stable persons, but as subject positions from which to speak, we
may gain some insight into the formation and maintenance of an
identity. For example, Jenness (1992) studied lesbian identities
from this standpoint view and noted there is a theoretical and an
empirical difference between ‘‘doing behaviors associated with les-
bianism and being a lesbian . . . in short, a ‘doing’ is not a ‘being’’’
(p. 65). Rather than offering stages of identity development, Jen-
56 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY

ness offers a process she calls ‘‘detypification.’’ By this process, the

social category labelled as ‘‘lesbian’’ is enriched with details so that
it becomes more concrete and precise in meaning, imbued with a
positive rather than a negative connotation, and considered a possi-
bility for the self. Jenness noted that lesbian identities are always
simultaneously products of and resources for social categories. So-
cial categories are not static, but constantly evolving, and as lesbian
affirmative models become more visible in society, the process of
detypification becomes easier to accomplish.
Some current theorists (De Cecco & Shively, 1984; Weeks, 1991)
have suggested that we should focus on relationships since sexual
identities only have meaning in the context of social or sexual
relationships. This ‘‘relationship paradigm’’ displaces identities to
the complex networks through which individuals express their
sexualities, over time and across situations. This relationship focus
would allow for the exploration of sexual ethics and questions of
consent, power inequities, conflicts of desires, etc. One could not do
away entirely with the individual, because an individual sense of
identity is a necessary condition for a relationship to develop and a
sexual identity can exist without a relationship. However, potential-
ly richer information could be gained by studying how people ‘‘act
out’’ (or ‘‘perform,’’ Butler, 1990) their identities in relationships.
Unless the sociopolitical and historical contexts in which relation-
ships exist is examined, the relationship paradigm will suffer the
same limitations as the individual identities models. As of yet, we
have not developed categories or theories that explore sexual or
affectional relationships separate from biological sex and gender
issues. We do not have terms to describe same-sex partners, wheth-
er short-term or long-term, monogamous or not.
In conclusion, the concept of sexual identity has been reviewed.
The major limitations of sociological and psychological theories of
sexual identity formation have been in their narrow focus on sexual-
ity and their ahistorical, apolitical stance. With the current post-
structuralist and multicultural movements, we have identified the
need for more fluid and comprehensive models of development that
examine the interrelatedness of various aspects of the individual
identity and the role of the sociopolitical/historical context in which
the individual negotiates her/his identity. In future theory building,
 Michele J. Eliason 57

it will be important to develop more interdisciplinary models that

draw on personal experiences and personal accounts of identity, as
well as more theoretical work. For an identity formation theory to
‘‘work,’’ it must make sense to the people whose identities are at
issue.

REFERENCES

Altman, D. (1971). The homosexual: Oppression and liberation. New York: Out-
erbridge and Dienstfrey.
Bell, A., Weinberg, M., & Hammersmith, S. (1981). Sexual preference: Its devel-
opment in men and women. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New
York: Routledge.
Cass, V. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of
Homosexuality, 4, 219-235.
Cass, V. (1984a). Homosexual identity formation: Testing a theoretical model.
Journal of Sex Research, 20, 143-167.
Cass, V. (1984b). Homosexual identity: A concept in need of definition. Journal
of Homosexuality, 9(2/3), 105-125.
Chapman, B., & Brannock, J. (1987). Proposed model of lesbian identity develop-
ment: An empirical examination. Journal of Homosexuality, 14(3/4), 69-80.
Christian, B. (1990). The race for theory. In G. Anzaldua (Ed.), Making face,
making soul: Creative and critical perspectives by women of color. San Fran-
cisco: Aunt Lute.
Cohen, E. (1992). Who are ‘‘we’’? Gay identity as political (e) motion. In D. Fuss
(Ed.), Inside/out: Lesbian theories, gay theories. New York: Routledge.
D’Emilio, J. (1983). Sexual politics, sexual communities. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
D’Emilio, J. (1992). Making trouble. New York: Routledge.
D’Emilio, J., & Freedman, E. (1988). Intimate matters: A history of sexuality in
America. New York: Harper and Row.
De Cecco, J. P., & Shively, M. G. (1984). From sexual identity to sexual relation-
ships: A contextual shift. Journal of Homosexuality, 9(2/3), 1-26.
Ettorre, E. (1980). Lesbians, women, and society. London: Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1978). History of sexuality, Vol. 1. New York: Random House.
Fuss, D. (1989). Essentially speaking: Feminism, nature, and difference. New
York: Routledge.
Fuss, D (1991). Inside/out: Lesbian theories, gay theories. New York: Routledge.
Gallop, J. (1982). Feminism and psychoanalysis: The daughters seduction. Lon-
don: Macmillan.
Hare-Mustin, R., & Marecek, J. (1990). Making a difference: Psychology and the
construction of gender. New Haven: Yale University Press.
 58 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY

Irvine, J. (1990). Disorders of desire: Sex and gender in modern American sexolo-
gy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Jenness, V. (1992). Coming out: Lesbian identities and the categorization prob-
lem. In K. Plummer (Ed.), Modern homosexualities. London: Routledge.
Johnston, J. (1973). Lesbian nation. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kahn, M. J. (1991). Factors affecting the coming out process for lesbians. Journal
of Homosexuality, 21(3), 47-70.
Katz, J. N. (1983). Gay/lesbian almanac. New York: Harper and Row.
Kitzinger, C. (1987). The social construction of lesbianism. London: SAGE.
Kitzinger, C., Wilkinson, S., & Perkins, R. (1992). Theorizing heterosexuality.
Feminism and Psychology, 2, 293-324.
Lorde, A. (1982). Zami: A new spelling of my name. Freedom, CA: Crossing
Press.
Minton, H., & McDonald, G. (1984). Homosexual identity formation as a devel-
opment process. Journal of Homosexuality, 9(2/3), 91-104.
Moses, A. E. (1978). Identities management in lesbian women. New York: Praeger.
Plummer, K. (1975). Sexual stigma: An interactionist account. London: Rout-
ledge.
Ponse, B. (1978). Identities in the lesbian world: The social construction of self.
London: Greenwood Press.
Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs, 5,
631-660.
Rust, P. C. (1992). The politics of sexual identity: Sexual attraction and behavior
among lesbian and bisexual women. Social Problems, 39, 366-386.
Rust, P. C. (1993). ‘‘Coming out’’ in the age of social constructionism. Gender
and Society, 7, 50-77.
Sedgwick, E. (1990). The epistemology of the closet. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Stein, E. (1992). Forms of desire: Sexual orientation and the social construction-
ist controversy. New York: Routledge.
Troiden, R. (1988). Gay and lesbian identity. New York: General Hall.
Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Weeks, J. (1991). Against nature: Essays on history, sexuality, and identity. Lon-
don: Rivers Oram Press.
Wilson, E. (1983). I’ll climb the stairway to heaven: Lesbianism in the seventies.
In S. Cartledge & J. Ryan (Eds.), Sex and love: New thoughts on old contradic-
tions. London: Women’s Press.

View publication stats