Queer genograms workshop - poly conf


Published on

Published in: Education
  • @KiraManser No Problem Kira. All the best.
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • @SpectraWorkshops I am not sure how to check my messages- but I will keep looking! Thanks for the follow-up. I will look forward to the articles- I think it's really exciting! In the meantime will make sure that folks reference you- and this presentation. Thanks!
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Hi Kira, good to hear from you. I sent a message but I am not sure it went through. Please let me know if it had.
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Hi Kira, thanks for checking in with me and looking at my presentation and sharing it. Aswell as asking about referencing me. I guess the best way is to reference me as anyother source that is used in curriculum. Not sure if that helps. If you are wanting something more specific, let me know.

    Also, i will let you know that I am also using this model that I created in my thesis. There have been some slight modifications since the original presentation went out. Hopefully by the end of the year it will be finnished and after that their will be some journal articles in reference to that research.

    Feel free to ask me anything else, I am quite open. All the best to you.
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Hi Corey- I just shared this on FB, and IMMEDIATELY got a ton of excited responses. Social workers from Widener University would love to teach this in their classes. Besides this slideshare- what would be the best way to credit you and this work?
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Queer genograms workshop - poly conf

  1. 1. A Tool to Transcend Hetero-, Cis-, and Mono- Normativity in PracticePresenter:Corey Keith, BSW M ‘03 Dating ‘07 ORFebruary, 2013
  2. 2.  Introductions The Queer Genogram Story So what is a Genogram and Ecomap? Initial Research The Queer Model Interviews Summary Next steps
  3. 3. Corey b.1978Virginia Satir 1916 - 1988
  4. 4. (Banmen, J., & Maki-Banmen, K., 2002, p.29)
  5. 5. (Thomlison, B., 2002, p.64)
  6. 6. “ ‘Queer’ works to expose theinherent instability of all sexual identities, including the heterosexual, and it works toconstruct categories of thought that allow for greater fluidity, multiplicity, and change”(Schneider & Roncolato, 2012).
  7. 7.  Basic Stats (Swainson & Tasker, 2006.)  Family stress increase when youth comes out  >1/3 of GLB youth verbally abused  10% physically assaulted
  8. 8.  Family of Choice “From Network of emotional support, practical and financial” (Swainson & Tasker , 2006, p.90.)“Therapists, like others outside the familydynamic may presume the biological motheris the primary caregiver and reinforce feelingsof illegitimacy”(Swainson & Tasker, 2006, p. 91)
  9. 9. Family Dynamics (Israel, G. E., 2006. & Buxton, A.P. 2006)Many trans people split in hetero relationshipOther stay together for kids  Open relationship  Have deeper bond (Swainson & Tasker, 2006)LGBT Child disownedLGBT parents Possible bullying for child(ren) M ‘03 Dating ‘07 OR OR = Open Relationship
  10. 10. 43 out of 238 societies in the world are monogamous (Rubin, 2001)60% men, 50 % women have had sex besides their spouse (Brandon, 2011)26% gay males exclusive (Adam, 2006)  Yet want more intimacy & less anonymity
  11. 11.  Polyamory & Gay Men (Bettinger, M., 2006.)  Myth – Gay mens dating rel. = hetero rel.  Monogamy assumes gender duality  Truth many complex scenarios (Bettinger, 2006, p.170)
  12. 12.  Evolving family system Often Non-Monogamy used as a way to discredit Queer relationships  Often poly identity invisible Give rise to understanding how families adapt (Sheff, 2011)“Public policies should facilitate the lives of those who live in a society, not hinder families’ ability to cope with crisis” (Sheff, 2011, p.511)
  13. 13. Present Model Heterocentric Cis- Centric Monocentric Family = Bio Family, adopted/ foster family members Ie. Nuclear family (McGoldrick & Gerson,1985; Satir, et al., 1991)
  14. 14. Queer/Poly Comunities Multiple Identities Coming out / transition dates *Chosen Family *Open/ closed & mono/poly relationships *Diversity in how family’s are created *This is also true for the Hetero community as well.
  15. 15.  Goals  An easy to use tool  Inclusive of Queer diversity  Represents Queer’s communities complexities and depth  Coming out/ transition dates  Mono/poly relationships  Chosen Family  Flexibility  Relevant for hetero/ Queer persons  Relevant for Mono/poly relationships
  16. 16. The Basic Identity Labels Intersexed Trans-sexual Male Female Androgynous Male Female Identity Identity Identity MTF FTM Assigned sex Trans-Gender Intersexed, Male Female Androgynous Heterosexual female identity, Identity Identity Identity Male Female heterosexual
  17. 17. The Basic Identity Labels Con’t Bi Gay Male Lesbian Lesbian, Bi Male Bi Trans Female person MTF Trans, male Two-Spirit Pansexual Pansexual identity, bio Male Female female pansexual ∞ ∞ ∞ Two-spirited, Two-Spirited, Two-spirited Lesbian Bi trans, male Androgynous
  18. 18. The Basic Identity Labels Con’t Spirit, self, ‘I am that I am’ Pet Coming Out/ Transition Dates OD: Sept. 1994 TS: October 1996 TF: Dec. 1999
  19. 19. The Frame Work LT 04 LT 93 s 97 bt 06 M ‘95 d ‘02 M ‘06 BT = Back together Divorced/ separated and remarried or new relationship M 98 Lt 95 M 89 d92 m 85 d 95 Lt 95 CU 94 d 02 SR = ‘02 LT ‘06 Polyamorous Relationship Living in same house M ‘03 hold, Indicated by OR dotted line. Dating ‘07 Bold lines between people indicate primary relationships. Regular font, indicates secondary or only relationship. OR = Open Relationship Dotted lines around family members indicate primary family. Those outside the dotted line are the secondary family members
  20. 20. The Frame Work Sperm Artificial Insemination Donor Egg Natural Sperm Donor Gestation Donor (NG) Gestation Carrier (GC) Or Surrogate Mother (SM) Represent the Medical Institution Sperm Donor GIT IVF = In Vitro Fertilization Genetic Blending Stem Cell GIT = Gamete Intrafallopian Transfer
  21. 21.  Purpose  Receive Feed back on model  Explore validity of this model Limitations  International Identities  BDSM/ Kink  Basic Poly/ open descriptions  Co-parenting  Alcoholism/ addiction
  22. 22. Process 1. Confidentiality/ use of materials forms 2. Explained model 3. Developed participants genogram 4. Survey 
  23. 23.  44 participants/ 5 incomplete 36 in person 6 in person, then finished on own 2 worked on their own 4 categories  22 Single participants  4 were in a relationship (ie. 2 rel.)  13 Health Care professionals  1 other - no description
  24. 24. Sexual OrientationOther: Queer X7, queer Identified Lesbian, Sapiosexual,Kinky, fluid, Pansexual questioning, queer male Bisexual Gay5% 21% 22% Hetero 16% 22% Lesbian Pansexual Two-Spirit 7% 7% Other
  25. 25. Gender and Sex Compared 60 40 20 Gender% SexnpPacrti 0 M M M m T F e a e a T F F l l p -S r t i O h e r t d n e x s r t I A o u d n g y s r G u d n e F r i l w o T Q G u d n e u n e T a r x s d n e r T a g s l rOther Sex: queer maleOther Gender: fem leaning G.Q., trans masc., trans guy/ queer, soft butch
  26. 26. Demographics Ethnicity Participants Ages 100 Age % 50 ≤ 25 years 26 n P e c r t 26 – 39 48 0 years 40 - 59 24 A n a s i A n a c r f i H n p a c s years i C o n u a A o n b c s a g r i d n E a l i s t I i ≥ 60 years 2 M n d e E a s r t l i Other: Mixed Ethnicity X8, Jewish
  27. 27. Demographics % n p c i t r a P 10 15 20 0 5 e m x a e S -s e t i s o p O -s x e d x e I / s n a r T h t i W i f e d n U o N p h s a l e R n i t d e s o l C n e p O y l o P n o M Relationship Type r e h t O n r e w s a oOther: queer, same-sex, exes, platonic, gender queer
  28. 28. Examples of Genograms Poly Relationships A. ∞ ∞ Poly Relationships B. ∞ E C. . LT. A. ∞ B. K. SR. D . Bone Marrow Donator
  29. 29. Examples of Genograms A. B. C. D. (Pada) (Prescious) CL ’72 S ? M ‘08 CL ‘97 M.? D. ‘88 E. F. D. ‘96 G. T. N. H I . . O. J. ? Room Mates P Party . S. U. V. K Q. L. M. . CL. R . W.
  30. 30. Examples of Genograms K. b.’83 Bach. of Arts Support Worker Music Cooking Dating/ Sex Activism/ organizing Performing Arts Athiest Transsexual Smoking Drinking OD-Q: ’98 OD-T: ‘06 OD-K: ‘03 OD-P: ‘08
  31. 31. Part 2: The ExperienceQuestion 3: What was your general impression of this experience as you were creating your genogram & ecomap? Overwhelming/complex/ time consuming A lot of symbols Caused inspiration to do more research Reflection X9 Saw spiritual parallels Questions about family & spirituality Lack of connection in family “Interesting, informative, insightful, thought provoking.” – From Participant
  32. 32. Part 2: The Experience Exciting/ neat Validation Useful tool “I have looked at all my key relationships and observed them, it has made me see how many great people I have in my life and how important it is to make an effort to reconnect with them (life is to0 short!)” – From Participant
  33. 33. Part 2: The ExperienceMajority Used combination of Genogram & Ecomap Felt that it did represent their/ family member identities Either shifted in gaining a larger view of what family was or already had a much larger view Over all participants liked:  Inclusivity/ diversity shown  Captured depth and nuances  Chosen family  Well designed/ allows for creativity
  34. 34. Quotes from participants:“didn’t really think about my chosen family until now”“I now have a more fluid sense of my established family,with people moving in and out of it”“I was glad to see the addition of a number of expressions forgender and an allowance for the expression of polyamorousrelationships”“Nice to see inclusive of Queer/Poly linking nature ofrelationships”
  35. 35. Part 2: The ExperienceFeed Back  Clearer differences of emotional connections  More ways to describe the platonic relationship  Include a legend  Not comfortable with Labeling or guessing identities  Sometimes difficult to narrow down  Missing: queer, gender queer, gender variant, different kinds of friendships, previous relationships, cis- sexed/gendered, hetero flexible, gender expression (nelly, butch, andro, ect), queer-femme  Better representation of some parent-child dynamics
  36. 36. Conclusions Overall:  It is inclusive  Honors individual Queer experience & complexities  Creates space for non-monogamous relationships Building on the model  Include Queer, Gender Queer & a few other identities  Include more platonic relationship types  Build more models for non-monogamous relationships
  37. 37. 1. Build on Model2. Masters Thesis  Recreate & build on previous research  Write Journal Articles1. Training Workshops2. Write Book
  38. 38. To contact for questions or services:Spectra Corey Keith, BSW Phone: 250-299-6250 Spectra.Consulting.Counseling@gmail.comWellness Coaching & Consulting Sexuality, Gender & Beyond Spectra.webstarts.com www.facebook.com/SpectraCounseling Spectravoice.wordpress.com
  39. 39. Adam, B.D. Relationship Innovation in Male Couples. Sexualities. Doi: 10.1177/13634607060685Banmen, J., & Maki-Banmen, K. (2002). Unknown.Bettinger, M. (2006). Polyamory and Gay Men: A Family Systems Approach. In Bigner, J.J.(Ed.), An introduction to GLBT Family Studies (pp.161-181). New York: The Hawarth Press.Buxton, A.P. (2006). A Family Matter: When a Spouse Comes Out As Gay, lesbian, or Bisexual. In Bigner, J.J.(Ed.), An introduction to GLBT Family Studies (pp.67- 87). New York: The Hawarth Press.Connolly, C.M. (2006). A process of change: The intersection of the GLBT Individual and his or her Family of Origin. In Bigner, J.J.(Ed.), An introduction to GLBT Family Studies (pp.5-21). New York: The Hawarth Press.Isreal, G.E. (2006). Translove: Transgender persons and their Families. In Bigner, J.J.(Ed.), An introduction to GLBT Family Studies (pp.51-65). New York: The Hawarth Press.McGoldrick, M. & Gerson, R. (1981). Constructing Genograms. Genograms in the Family Assessments: . Norton & Co.
  40. 40. Rubin, R.H. (2001). Alternative family lifestyles revisited, or what ever happened to swingers, group marriage and communies? Journal of Family Issues, 7(6), 281-287.Satir, V., Banmen, J., Gerber, J. & Gomori, M. (1991). The Satir Model: Family Therapy & Beyond. USA: Science and Behavior Books.Sheff, E. (2011). Polyamorous Families, Same-Sex Marriage & the Slippery Slope. Journal of contemporary Ethnography. Doi: 10.1177/0891241614135Schneider, L.C., & Roncolato, C. (2012). Queer Theologies. Religion Compass, 6(1), 1- 13. Doi: 10.1111/j.1749-8749-8171.2011.00315.xSwainson, M. & Tasker, F. (2006). Genograms Redrawn: Lesbian Couples Define their Families. In Bigner, J.J.(Ed.), An introduction to GLBT Family Studies (pp.89-115). New York: The Howarth Press.Thomlison, B.(2002). Family Assessment handbook: An Introductory Practice Guide to Family Assessment and Intervention. Pacific Grove, CA: Books/Cole.
  41. 41. www.multiculturalfamily.org/genograms/genogram_symbol.htmlwww.strongbonds.jss.org.av/workers/families/genograms.htmwww.bristol-cyps.org.uk/socialcare/procedures/ casework/genograms-ecomaps.html