After completing the content and your reading for the week, write a reflection (at least 500 words) on the course material covered this week addressing the following three questions:
What did you find surprising or interesting in the material this week?
What parts of the material were challenging for you?
What questions do you have about the material covered this week?
Include the answer to the question and your feelings, thoughts, or ideas about why the particular information or concept was included in your reflection.
For example: I was challenged by the concept of privilege. I guess it’s something I had never given much thought to. Now that I understand privilege, I feel challenged because I am unsure how to work with this information and help me act with more awareness in society).
Do not simply answer the questions with “I was surprised by the concept of intersectionality. I was challenged by the concept of privilege. I still have questions about why these matter.” These types of answers will result in a deduction of points.
Reflection Grading and Rubric
Reflections will not be graded for content because this is an opportunity to engage your thoughts and feelings through writing. Still, reflections will be graded for clarity of writing (e.g., sentence structure, grammar, style) and completion (at least 500 words per submission and thoughtful answering each of the three questions). the conten for this week will be in the screeshots i send and here to Here are some prominent models that explain the process of developing a minority sexual identity and their associated limitations.
Cass Model of Gay & Lesbian Identity Formation
Kort, Joe. (n.d.). Cass Model of Gay & Lesbian Identity Formation.
Image Description
Model of Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual Development
Adapted from: Cass, Vivienne. Homosexual Identity Formation: A Theoretical Model. Journal of Homosexuality, 4 (3), 1979.
Image Description
Fassinger’s Model
Awareness
Individual awareness of feeling or being different
Gay: ” I wonder if there is something strange about me?”
Lesbian: “I feel pulled toward women in ways that I don’t understand.”
Group awareness of different sexual orientations in people
Gay: “I had no idea how many gay people there are out there!”
Lesbian: “I had no idea there were lesbian/gay people out there.”
Exploration
Individual Exploration of strong, erotic feelings for people of the same sex (or a particular person of the same sex)
Gay: “I want to be closer to men (or a certain man).”
Lesbian: “The way I feel makes me think I’d like to be sexual with a woman.”
Group Exploration of one’s position regarding lesbians/gays as a group (both attitudes and membership)
Gay: “I think a lot about fitting in as a gay man and developing my own gay style.”
Lesbian: “Getting to know lesbian/gay people is scary but exciting.”
Deepening/Commitment
Individual commitment to self-knowledge, self-fulfillment, and crystallization of choices about sexuality.
Gay: “I might be willing to live with a male lover.”
Lesbian: “ I clearly feel more intimate sexually and emotionally with women than with men.”
Group commitment to personal involvement with referenced groups, with awareness of oppression and consequences of choices.
Gay: “I get angry at the way heterosexuals talk about and treat lesbians and gays.”
Lesbian: “Sometimes I have been mistreated because of my lesbianism.”
Internalization/Synthesis
Individual synthesis of love for women or men, sexual choices, into overall identity
Gay: “I feel deep commitment about my love for other men.”
Lesbian: “I am deeply fulfilled by my relationships with women.”
Group synthesis of identity as a member of a minority group across contexts
Gay: “I rely on my gay/lesbian friends for support, but I have some good heterosexual friends as well.”
Lesbian: “I feel comfortable with my lesbianism no matter where I am or who I am with.”
Limitations
In 1979, Cass was the happening guy when it came to defining the sexual minority identity development. Since then, many models have used similar terminology and stages (D’Augelli, 1994; Fassinger, 1998), but there are a few significant issues with the current state of sexual minority development models.
Most of these studies used very small samples, meaning it’s very difficult to generalize to larger populations.
Additionally, these studies were primarily completed with gay males and then generalized to both genders for the coming out process (similar to how prescription medications get tested). There is no separation in these studies for the coming out process for men and women (and certainly not transgender).
An issue with all processes (think back to the racial/ethnic identity development model) is that these processes imply linearity, or they imply that one stage happens after the next, even though this is a very simplistic view of complex processes.
The proposed models suggest that sexuality is binary (meaning someone is completely gay or completely straight), which is certainly not the case. Sexuality exists on a continuum, but no model has accounted for this fact as of yet. Additionally, the models suggest that bisexuality is a “stopping point” on the way to becoming “gay” or “lesbian,” meaning that bisexuality is not accepted by the models.
Most of these models (save Fassinger, 1998) do not account for the intersectionality of multiple minority statuses in development and look at sexuality as unaffected by cultural influences.
To summarize, these models are weak, but they’re the best we got. Maybe one of you will create a better model for the sexual minority development process! (Please?)
References:
D’Augelli, A. R. (1994). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual development: A synthesis of theory and research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Fassinger, R. E. (1998). Sexual orientation and identity development: A lifespan approach. In R. M. K. Coleman (Ed.), The handbook of adolescence (pp. 291-310). New York, NY: Wiley. As we pointed out earlier, previous models of sexual identity development have assumed that sexual identity development is both binary and generalizable to both traditionally recognized genders.
However, for a considerable time, models failed to explain how the coming out process and identity development occurred for persons who identify differently. Furthermore, most models failed to adequately account for cultural and/or environmental influences on identity development.
While several models of transgender identity development exist, Bilodeau (2005) provides a framework for understanding the developmental process for transgender persons.
Phase 1: Exiting a Traditionally Gendered Identity
During this phase, the individual acknowledges that they are gender variant and attaches significance to this identity. The person may choose to come out to carefully selected others at this time (may not include parents or other family members).
Phase 2: Developing a Personal Transgender Identity
In this phase, the individual is challenged to create a stable transgender identity. This is often achieved by confronting internalized transphobia and understanding oneself in relation to other transgender individuals.
Phase 3: Developing a Transgender Social Identity
In this phase, transgender individuals will seek out and develop a network of others who are aware of their gender identity and are affirming.
Phase 4: Becoming a Transgender Offspring
During this phase, the person comes out to family members. Given this disclosure, individuals during this phase may question and need to re-examine familial relationships that may have been impacted by their self-disclosure.
Phase 5: Developing a Transgender Intimacy Status
In this phase, Bilodeau theorizes that the individual works to nurture close emotional and physical relationships.
Final Phase: Entering a Transgender Community
In the last phase, the person commits to sociopolitical activism to address widespread transphobia.
References:
Bilodeau, B. (2005). Constructions of masculinity and transgender identity: Bringing queer theory into the mix.Journal of Lesbian Studies, 9(3-4), 37-52. To this point, we have discussed racial identity development models that are largely monoracial; for many people, however, their identities are comprised of multiple racial and ethnic origins. In recent years, the number of individuals who self-identify with two or more races has increased significantly.
One of the explanations for this growth in the number of multiracial individuals is the increasing number of interracial marriages and relationships. The rise in the number of individuals who self-identify with more than one racial or ethnic group is a relatively recent designation. Interracial marriage was not decriminalized until 1967 (Loving v. Virginia), and it was not until the 2000 Census that persons were “allowed” to identify with more than one category. This emerging population is challenged with the social pressure to identify in a singular way along with the possibility of double rejection. Several models of biracial identity have explored the unique issues and challenges that multiracial persons face. Let’s look at two of them: Poston’s model and Root’s model.
Poston’s Model of Biracial Identity Development
Root’s Biracial/Multiracial Identity Model.
