Internalized Binegativity, LGBQ+ Community Involvement, and Definitions of Bisexuality.

IF 1.8 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Journal of Bisexuality Pub Date : 2021-01-01 Epub Date: 2021-10-06 DOI:10.1080/15299716.2021.1984363
Amanda M Pollitt, Tangela S Roberts
{"title":"Internalized Binegativity, LGBQ+ Community Involvement, and Definitions of Bisexuality.","authors":"Amanda M Pollitt, Tangela S Roberts","doi":"10.1080/15299716.2021.1984363","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Bisexual people can internalize stigma from both heterosexual and gay/lesbian communities, which often occurs in the form of monosexism, the belief that people should only be attracted to one gender. Although community involvement is protective for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer+ (LGBQ+) people, bisexual people may benefit more from bisexual-specific communities than LGBQ+ communities because of monosexism. Further, how bisexual people define their identity may be related to internalized binegativity, especially given the historical invisibility of bisexuality in mainstream media and recent debates about the definition of bisexuality within LGBQ+ communities. We examined LGBQ+ and bisexual-specific community involvement, definitions of bisexuality, and internalized binegativity among an online sample of 816 bisexual adults. Multivariate regression analyses showed that those with spectrum definitions, which acknowledged the nuanced understanding of sex, gender, and sexuality, reported lower internalized binegativity than those with binary definitions, which described sexuality as consistent with mainstream norms. Involvement in LGBQ+ communities, but not bisexual communities, was associated with lower internalized binegativity. There was no interaction between the type of definition and type of community involvement. Our results suggest that broad community involvement may be protective for internalized binegativity, but findings should be considered in light of a lack of well-funded, local bisexual communities. The current study adds to a growing literature on sexual minority stressors among bisexual people, a population that continues to be understudied.</p>","PeriodicalId":46888,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bisexuality","volume":"21 3","pages":"357-379"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8856634/pdf/nihms-1766842.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bisexuality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2021.1984363","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/10/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Bisexual people can internalize stigma from both heterosexual and gay/lesbian communities, which often occurs in the form of monosexism, the belief that people should only be attracted to one gender. Although community involvement is protective for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer+ (LGBQ+) people, bisexual people may benefit more from bisexual-specific communities than LGBQ+ communities because of monosexism. Further, how bisexual people define their identity may be related to internalized binegativity, especially given the historical invisibility of bisexuality in mainstream media and recent debates about the definition of bisexuality within LGBQ+ communities. We examined LGBQ+ and bisexual-specific community involvement, definitions of bisexuality, and internalized binegativity among an online sample of 816 bisexual adults. Multivariate regression analyses showed that those with spectrum definitions, which acknowledged the nuanced understanding of sex, gender, and sexuality, reported lower internalized binegativity than those with binary definitions, which described sexuality as consistent with mainstream norms. Involvement in LGBQ+ communities, but not bisexual communities, was associated with lower internalized binegativity. There was no interaction between the type of definition and type of community involvement. Our results suggest that broad community involvement may be protective for internalized binegativity, but findings should be considered in light of a lack of well-funded, local bisexual communities. The current study adds to a growing literature on sexual minority stressors among bisexual people, a population that continues to be understudied.

内化的双重性、LGBQ+ 社区参与度和双性恋定义。
双性恋者会将异性恋社区和男同性恋/女同性恋社区的污名化,这种污名化通常表现为单性恋主义,即认为人们只应该被一种性别所吸引。尽管社区参与对女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋和同性恋者+(LGBQ+)具有保护作用,但由于单性歧视,双性恋者可能会从双性恋社区而非 LGBQ+ 社区中获益更多。此外,双性恋者如何定义自己的身份可能与内化的二元对立有关,尤其是考虑到主流媒体历来对双性恋的忽视,以及最近 LGBQ+ 社区对双性恋定义的争论。我们研究了 816 名双性恋成人在线样本中 LGBQ+ 和双性恋特定社区的参与情况、双性恋的定义以及内化的二元性。多变量回归分析表明,与二元定义(将性行为描述为符合主流规范)的双性恋成人相比,采用频谱定义(承认对性、性别和性行为的细微理解)的双性恋成人报告的内化二元性较低。参与 LGBQ+ 社区(而非双性恋社区)与较低的内化二元性相关。定义类型与社区参与类型之间没有交互作用。我们的研究结果表明,广泛的社区参与可能对内化的二元对立具有保护作用,但在考虑研究结果时应考虑到当地缺乏资金充足的双性恋社区。目前,有关双性恋人群中性少数群体压力的文献越来越多,但对双性恋人群的研究仍然不足。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Bisexuality
Journal of Bisexuality SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
17.60%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: The Washington Quarterly (TWQ) is a journal of global affairs that analyzes strategic security challenges, changes, and their public policy implications. TWQ is published out of one of the world"s preeminent international policy institutions, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and addresses topics such as: •The U.S. role in the world •Emerging great powers: Europe, China, Russia, India, and Japan •Regional issues and flashpoints, particularly in the Middle East and Asia •Weapons of mass destruction proliferation and missile defenses •Global perspectives to reduce terrorism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信