“ ‘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).
Basic Stats (Swainson & Tasker, 2006.) Family stress increase when youth comes out >1/3 of GLB youth verbally abused 10% physically assaulted
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)
Family Dynamics (Israel, G. E., 2006. & Buxton, A.P. 2006)Many trans people split in hetero relationshipOther stay together for kids Open relationship Have deeper bond (Swainson & Tasker, 2006)LGBT Child disownedLGBT parents Possible bullying for child(ren) M ‘03 Dating ‘07 OR OR = Open Relationship
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
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)
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)
Present Model Heterocentric Cis- Centric Monocentric Family = Bio Family, adopted/ foster family members Ie. Nuclear family (McGoldrick & Gerson,1985; Satir, et al., 1991)
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
Purpose Receive Feed back on model Explore validity of this model Limitations International Identities BDSM/ Kink Basic Poly/ open descriptions Co-parenting Alcoholism/ addiction
Process 1. Confidentiality/ use of materials forms 2. Explained model 3. Developed participants genogram 4. Survey
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
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
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
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
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
Examples of Genograms Poly Relationships A. ∞ ∞ Poly Relationships B. ∞ E C. . LT. A. ∞ B. K. SR. D . Bone Marrow Donator
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.
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
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
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
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
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”
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
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
1. Build on Model2. Masters Thesis Recreate & build on previous research Write Journal Articles1. Training Workshops2. Write Book
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
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.
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.