Everyday heterosexism.

KDII

I was reading a thread over in The Ladies Lounge about everyday sexism and thought a discussion on heterosexism might be appropriate for here. Link to TLL thread.

Heterosexism:

noun
[mass noun]
discrimination or prejudice against homosexuals on the assumption that heterosexuality is the normal sexual orientation:
issues of sexism and heterosexism

Myself, I notice it a lot. One example I can think of is from work. As a member of the nursing staff, it's often my job to admit patients and do their initial assessment paperwork. The forms we use allow no option for "partner" or whatever. It's either husband/wife or single/divorced. It irks me no end. The process allows no way for a patient disclose your sexuality if they so wanted to. Apart from the obvious next of kin issues, it's annoying because it research proves that LGBTQ individuals actually have different health/illness trajectories over their lifetime. By not finding out this (pretty important) information, countless opportunities for health promotion are missed, putting people at needless risk.

Even the thread today about same-sex Valentines cards. It seems ridiculous that given a fairly significant proportion of a population would be gay, we need to go out of our way to find a card that isn't emblazoned with a straight couple on the front.

Has anyone else noticed this? I'm not saying there is anything malicious in it, rather that it's a phenomenon which is perpetually enforced by society. Any instances noted by you guys?

Annasopra

I think there is a difference between heterosexism and heteronornmativity.

The examples you gave above to me are more examples of heteronormativity than heterosexism

noun
[mass noun]
discrimination or prejudice against homosexuals on the assumption that heterosexuality is the normal sexual orientation:
issues of sexism and heterosexism

Definition of heteronormative
adjective
denoting or relating to a world view that promotes heterosexuality as the normal or preferred sexual orientation:

Hilly Bill

KDII wrote: »

I was reading a thread over in The Ladies Lounge about everyday sexism and thought a discussion on heterosexism might be appropriate for here. Link to TLL thread.

Heterosexism:


Myself, I notice it a lot. One example I can think of is from work. As a member of the nursing staff, it's often my job to admit patients and do their initial assessment paperwork. The forms we use allow no option for "partner" or whatever. It's either husband/wife or single/divorced. It irks me no end. The process allows no way for a patient disclose your sexuality if they so wanted to. Apart from the obvious next of kin issues, it's annoying because it research proves that LGBTQ individuals actually have different health/illness trajectories over their lifetime. By not finding out this (pretty important) information, countless opportunities for health promotion are missed, putting people at needless risk.

Even the thread today about same-sex Valentines cards. It seems ridiculous that given a fairly significant proportion of a population would be gay, we need to go out of our way to find a card that isn't emblazoned with a straight couple on the front.

Has anyone else noticed this? I'm not saying there is anything malicious in it, rather that it's a phenomenon which is perpetually enforced by society. Any instances noted by you guys?

Its up to the patient as to what boxes you tick. If a gay man or woman wants you to tick husband or wife then thats what you do. It doesnt have to be broken down to the basics. If by partner you mean just a boyfriend or girlfriend then a straight couple doesnt have that option either so your discrimination theory has gone out the window and . So what you want is the options Married/unmarried, single/ in a relationship? When you are being admitted to hospital, what difference is it if you are gay or not ? If you are married/civil partnership etc then you can tick married, if you are not married then you can tick single. When it comes to the next of kin then you put down whoever you want as it just means its the person they can contact for you.
Personally i think you are making something out of nothing.

KDII

mango salsa wrote: »

I think there is a difference between heterosexism and heteronornmativity.

The examples you gave above to me are more examples of heteronormativity than heterosexism

Ah OK, that is actually more accurate. May I ask, when do you believe that heteronormative becomes heterosexist? Do you think they tend to be linked to one another? I think that heterosexism is often a result of heteronormativity, would you agree or disagree?

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Its up to the patient as to what boxes you tick. If a gay man or woman wants you to tick husband or wife then thats what you do.

I absolutely agree with you. I used this as an example because it's quite well documented in health science literature that not providing more neutral language can obstruct a thorough assessment. While I personally would be mindful of the wide ranging orientations that my patients may identify as, a lot of others wouldn't, and the way the majority of this kind of documentation is laid out does not promote disclosure whatsoever.

I amn't just making this up for the sake of a "discrimination theory" as you suggest either. I have had gay patients take me aside and ask me, legally, can my partner be my next of kin? Even just making sure they know I will call their OH when they get out of surgery etc., which they feel may be taken less seriously if I perceived the person as just a friend of whatever. I have also had people thank me for allowing them to facilitate the inclusion of their partner in their care. It seems an awful lot of people have experienced homophobia or have felt their relationship is somewhat invalidated by virtue of them not being heterosexual in the past. I understand this is purely anecdotal, but I'm sharing it with you to assure you that I'm not trying to make something out of nothing.

Hilly Bill

KDII wrote: »

Ah OK, that is actually more accurate. May I ask, when do you believe that heteronormative becomes heterosexist? Do you think they tend to be linked to one another? I think that heterosexism is often a result of heteronormativity, would you agree or disagree?



I absolutely agree with you. I used this as an example because it's quite well documented in health science literature that not providing more neutral language can obstruct a thorough assessment. While I personally would be mindful of the wide ranging orientations that my patients may identify as, a lot of others wouldn't, and the way the majority of this kind of documentation is laid out does not promote disclosure whatsoever.

I amn't just making this up for the sake of a "discrimination theory" as you suggest either. I have had gay patients take me aside and ask me, legally, can my partner be my next of kin? Even just making sure they know I will call their OH when they get out of surgery etc., which they feel may be taken less seriously if I perceived the person as just a friend of whatever. I have also had people thank me for allowing them to facilitate the inclusion of their partner in their care. It seems an awful lot of people have experienced homophobia or have felt their relationship is somewhat invalidated by virtue of them not being heterosexual in the past. I understand this is purely anecdotal, but I'm sharing it with you to assure you that I'm not trying to make something out of nothing.

What difference is it as to what your sexual orientation is? Is there a difference in what you are saying and a straight chap wanting his girlfriend put down as his next of kin? Why wouldnt you facilitate anyones partner gay or straight in their care it doesnt matter what their orientation is. If i was admitted to hospital, its nobodies business as to who that person thats with me is be it wife, friend, son, daughter, boyfriend , girlfiend . That fact if im gay or not shouldnt be a factor and im sure that i would get the same care regardless and that my wife, partner, son, brother or whoever i chose to be the next of kin will be treated with respect and allowed to be included in any discussions with the medical staff that i want them to be.

Annasopra

Hilly Bill wrote: »

What difference is it as to what your sexual orientation is? Is there a difference in what you are saying and a straight chap wanting his girlfriend put down as his next of kin? Why wouldnt you facilitate anyones partner gay or straight in their care it doesnt matter what their orientation is. If i was admitted to hospital, its nobodies business as to who that person thats with me is be it wife, friend, son, daughter, boyfriend , girlfiend . That fact if im gay or not shouldnt be a factor and im sure that i would get the same care regardless and that my wife, partner, son, brother or whoever i chose to be the next of kin will be treated with respect and allowed to be included in any discussions with the medical staff that i want them to be.

Well - up to recently it made a big difference because the same sex partner was completely ignored - could have been potentially refused visiting access by the family to the hospital or refused any acknowledgment at all in terms of healthcare decisions. Up until the Civil Partnership Bill a same sex partner could not be put down as a next of kin.

I also heard of a couple who were married in Canada. They asked before the CP legislation "what do we do if one of us goes into hospital and we need to prove we are next of kin" - a woman in the HSE said - "carry your marriage licence in your handbag all the time"

Vojera

I think a lot of it is just that straight people form about 90% of the population more than any attempt to be discriminatory.

When I added my girlfriend to my car insurance for the first time she got the partner discount, but when the certificate came out in the post it had her gender down as male. I rang them to double check (I didn't want them having the excuse of saying I gave them false information in the event of a claim) and the guy on the phone laughed and said their computer system hadn't been updated so the only permutation it would accept for partner discounts was male+female.

A few months ago my girlfriend and called into a florist to organise flowers for our upcoming cp, and when we said that "we" were getting married the girl assumed we were having a joint wedding with our fellas rather than us (technically not) marrying each other, which I thought was gas.

Hilly Bill

mango salsa wrote: »

Well - up to recently it made a big difference because the same sex partner was completely ignored - could have been potentially refused visiting access by the family to the hospital or refused any acknowledgment at all in terms of healthcare decisions. Up until the Civil Partnership Bill a same sex partner could not be put down as a next of kin.

I also heard of a couple who were married in Canada. They asked before the CP legislation "what do we do if one of us goes into hospital and we need to prove we are next of kin" - a woman in the HSE said - "carry your marriage licence in your handbag all the time"

If a family refuses your partner access to visit you then you tell them that you dont want them there either. In an event of a patient being in a coma or in a non responsive state then surely common sense prevails and the hospital allows visiting to the partner. If its at this stage then you would have ticked the married box when asked on admission even if its a civil partnership . Its not different to a partner of a straight person.

Annasopra

Hilly Bill wrote: »

If a family refuses your partner access to visit you then you tell them that you dont want them there either. In an event of a patient being in a coma or in a non responsive state then surely common sense prevails and the hospital allows visiting to the partner. If its at this stage then you would have ticked the married box when asked on admission even if its a civil partnership . Its not different to a partner of a straight person.

I'm explaining that up until the CP Bill came into law Same sex partners could not have their partners as next of kin

Vojera

Hilly Bill wrote: »

If a family refuses your partner access to visit you then you tell them that you dont want them there either. In an event of a patient being in a coma or in a non responsive state then surely common sense prevails and the hospital allows visiting to the partner. If its at this stage then you would have ticked the married box when asked on admission even if its a civil partnership . Its not different to a partner of a straight person.

NOW it isn't different, but before cp legislation came in it was.

Unmarried straight couples could still be legally recognised as couples under the cohabitation laws in this country. Until the recent law change, gay couples could not.

So in that coma situation, the non-hospitalised partner of a straight couple who'd been together 5 years could demand hospital access if the family refused. The partner of a gay couple together any length of time, be it 5 or 50 years, could not.

Hilly Bill

mango salsa wrote: »

I'm explaining that up until the CP Bill came into law Same sex partners could not have their partners as next of kin

Are they allowed now? If so then whats the issue here with the OP? you just tick married in the box then dont you?
Do you really need a box to tick just to say that you are gay but not married/partnership etc? A gay couple would have the same rights as a straight couple if they are not married in this instance wouldnt they as the next of kin issue wouldnt be relevant.

eviltwin

My daughter goes to a mixed school. They are having sex ed at the moment and its focusing on things like feelings, consent etc. They have split the class into a boys group and a girls group and they are having the classes separately. What is annoying her, and me, is that all the talk in her group is from a heterosexual point of view, granted every other girl is straight but they won't even mention gay relationships. And that really annoys me. There are so many things they discuss in school about all aspects of teen life and don't get me wrong I think its great, but the whole issue of sexual identity is a huge one for teens and its not part of the curriculum. Why the fcuk not!!!!

KDII

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Are they allowed now? If so then whats the issue here with the OP? you just tick married in the box then dont you?
Do you really need a box to tick just to say that you are gay but not married/partnership etc? A gay couple would have the same rights as a straight couple if they are not married in this instance wouldnt they as the next of kin issue wouldnt be relevant.

OK, the example I gave of the hospital may not have been the best one. I'll try another.

As a woman, I am invited for a smear test. All of the questions posed to me assume that I am straight. I have to go out of my way to refute the fact that I am not straight, I'm gay, and I only have sex with women (.. well, one woman). The assumption that I'm heterosexual means that majority of the health promotional materials aimed at women my age are less relevant/irrelevant to me. Research also states that lesbian women are less likely to attend smear testing because of this. There's an ambiguity about it. I have a friend who is undertaking research in this ATM and the facts are kind of scary.

As eviltwin has pointed out, her daughter is experiencing something similar.

Annasopra

KDII wrote: »

OK, the example I gave of the hospital may not have been the best one. I'll try another.

As a woman, I am invited for a smear test. All of the questions posed to me assume that I am straight. I have to go out of my way to refute the fact that I am not straight, I'm gay, and I only have sex with women (.. well, one woman). The assumption that I'm heterosexual means that majority of the health promotional materials aimed at women my age are less relevant/irrelevant to me. Research also states that lesbian women are less likely to attend smear testing because of this. There's an ambiguity about it. I have a friend who is undertaking research in this ATM and the facts are kind of scary.

As eviltwin has pointed out, her daughter is experiencing something similar.

I have heard of GPs saying - oh you don't need a smear test you are a lesbian

eviltwin

mango salsa wrote: »

I have heard of GPs saying - oh you don't need a smear test you are a lesbian

:eek:

eviltwin

I think the consistant banning of gay men being blood donors is a classic example of what the OP describes.

Annasopra

Vojera wrote: »

I think a lot of it is just that straight people form about 90% of the population more than any attempt to be discriminatory.

Agreed

I think most of what we are discussing is not intentional discrimination but is more that because society and most state services assumes that everyone is heterosexual we can often get ignored, written out and sidelined.

The example above about schools is a good one in terms of where heteronormativity becomes heterosexism. I have heard of several schools outright refusing to take belong to stand up campaign material and also of teachers treating pupils really badly when they discussed lgbt issues in the classroom.

Hilly Bill

regarding the school, the kids have enough to deal with without throwing gay issues into the mix and confuse them altogether. If a pupil asks a question about gay issues then the teacher should answer it as straightforward and honest as possible.

Hilly Bill

eviltwin wrote: »

I think the consistant banning of gay men being blood donors is a classic example of what the OP describes.

there is a way round that. Just dont tell them that you are gay .

Peregrinus

Hilly Bill wrote: »

there is a way round that. Just dont tell them that you are gay .

They don't ask if you're gay, but they do ask if you've had male-male sexual contact, or something along those lines. (So, strictly speaking, it's not gay men who are barred, but men who've had male-male sexual contact - an overlapping but not identical group.)

So, unless you're a gay man who's never had gay sex, the "way round" is to lie. Which gives rise to two observations.

1. Not everyone's happy to lie.

2. It's, at least arguably, not ethically justified. Nobody has a right to give blood, and since having had male/male sexual contact is, statistically, a risk factor for certain fairly serious blood-borne contagious diseases, it seems to be defensible, and arguably morally obligatory, to take that into account when selecting blood donors.

And I think that suggests we need to distinguish between three things:

(a) Heterosexism (or homophobia); people treating you differently (and negatively) because of a distaste for your sexual orientation.

(b) Heteronormativity; being disadvantaged by the assumption that, because most people are straight, you are too. All minorities suffer from some variation of this problem, not just sexual minorities, but I suggest that for gay people the problem has been intensified by heterosexism. (Heterosexism leads people to live closeted lives, therefore gay people are less visible, therefore heteronormativity is reinforced.)

(c) Treatment which you experience as adverse, but which is not based on a distaste for your orientation, or an assumption that you're straight. Asking people about same-sex experiences is not heteronormative; it's the oppposite of heteronormative. And if it's done to identify a legitimate medical issue or medical risk, it's not heterosexist. Earlier on in the thread KDII pointed out that hospitals should know if patients are gay, because that has statistically signficant medical implications. Exactly the same argument applies to blood transfusion services, surely?

Annasopra

Hilly Bill wrote: »

regarding the school, the kids have enough to deal with without throwing gay issues into the mix and confuse them altogether.

Not entirely sure what that means?

Annasopra

Hilly Bill wrote: »

there is a way round that. Just dont tell them that you are gay .

So basically lie to the IBTS?

Hilly Bill

ye if you are clean and want to give blood.

Peregrinus

Does everybody get the right to decide unilaterally whether their blood is acceptably safe, and the right to lie to others to prevent them forming their own judgments on this question, or is it just gay people?

Vojera

mango salsa wrote: »

I have heard of GPs saying - oh you don't need a smear test you are a lesbian

This! I've been told this by a nurse. When I went for my first smear I ws really nervous so I made an appointment with the nurse to talk it over the week before and have the whole process explained to me. During that appointment I explained that I was a lesbian and had never had sex with a man, but added that the Cervical Check website indicated that I still needed the smear. The following week I had the smear which was (not going into too much detail) not nice at all, and the nurse, who had hurt me a LOT, said afterwards "Well, you shouldn't have been getting a smear anyway, you've no need of one". :eek:
I'll still be going for my next one next month because I know it's important, but thankfully I've found a nurse who's a bit nicer than that!

mango salsa wrote: »

Agreed

I think most of what we are discussing is not intentional discrimination but is more that because society and most state services assumes that everyone is heterosexual we can often get ignored, written out and sidelined.

The example above about schools is a good one in terms of where heteronormativity becomes heterosexism. I have heard of several schools outright refusing to take belong to stand up campaign material and also of teachers treating pupils really badly when they discussed lgbt issues in the classroom.

I'm not surprised at all. I remember when I was doing biology for the LC (so about 11-12 years ago; maybe things have changed?) the section on human reproduction was prefaced by "This is a Catholic school so I have to remind you that sexual intercourse must only take place between a married man and woman", and that was biology so you can imagine what sex ed was like in that school!

I think that schools' lack of engagement on lbgt issues is partly to blame that there are a shocking number of lesbians and bisexual women out there who don't know that it's even possible to practise safe sex, and who think think there's no risk of catching STIs from having sex with women :mad:

eviltwin

Hilly Bill wrote: »

there is a way round that. Just dont tell them that you are gay .

That's not really the point though is it Bill?

Annasopra

Vojera wrote: »

I think that schools' lack of engagement on lbgt issues is partly to blame that there are a shocking number of lesbians and bisexual women out there who don't know that it's even possible to practise safe sex, and who think think there's no risk of catching STIs from having sex with women :mad:

To be fair - things have radically changed in 10 years. GLEN and Belong To have done massive massive work in changing attitudes in schools. They have had backing also from the Dept of Education, Teachers Unions and the Equality Authority and many other stakeholders

Hilly Bill

eviltwin wrote: »

That's not really the point though is it Bill?

What is the point? Does a gay man get refused just because he is gay even if he claims not to have sex with another man?

jaffacakesyum

Hilly Bill wrote: »

What is the point? Does a gay man get refused just because he is gay even if he claims not to have sex with another man?

Possibly.

But the point is men regardless of orientation shouldn't be refused from donating blood if they have sex with men. It doesn't matter who they have sex with. All it matters is if their blood is clean and if it will be of use to someone.

Annasopra

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Possibly.

But the point is men regardless of orientation shouldn't be refused from donating blood if they have sex with men. It doesn't matter who they have sex with. All it matters is if their blood is clean and if it will be of use to someone.

Perhaps the way in which it is categorised should be changed. Instead of categorising people into risk groups why not categorise them into risk behaviours?

Peregrinus

mango salsa wrote: »

Perhaps the way in which it is categorised should be changed. Instead of categorising people into risk groups why not categorise them into risk behaviours?

At least formally, that's already the case. The IBTS "permanent deferral" is not for gay men, or men who identify as gay, but for men who have had sex with men - an overlapping group, obviously, but it focusses attention on the behaviour which creates the increased risk with which the IBTS is - legitimately - concerned.

The risk may be small, and an individual man affected by the permanent development may in good faith beleive that in his particular case the risk is extremely small. Nevertheless the responsibility for deciding to run with the risk or not lies with the IBTS, not the volunteer donor, and I am ethically troubled - to put it no higher - by a donor who would lie or mislead in order to cause the IBTS to expose to the blood supply to a risk to which the IBTS does not wish to expose it. The size of the risk is not the issue here; rather it's the assumption by the individual that, having creating a risk by his own behaviour, he has the right to impose that risk on others against their will or without their knowledge.

wonderfulname

Which is a higher risk, a person who has protected sex with one long term partner and has recently enough received the all clear on an std test, or a person who has frequent sexual contact with strangers, may or may not use protection, and never had an std test?

Do genders really matter here?

The_Minister

wonderfulname wrote: »

Which is a higher risk, a person who has protected sex with one long term partner and has recently enough received the all clear on an std test, or a person who has frequent sexual contact with strangers, may or may not use protection, and never had an std test?

Do genders really matter here?

About 45% (from memory) of new AIDS cases each year are gay males, who only make up around 5% of the population.

So there does seem, controlling for no other factors, a higher risk in gay men of having AIDS.

wonderfulname

The_Minister wrote: »

About 45% (from memory) of new AIDS cases each year are gay males, who only make up around 5% of the population.

So there does seem, controlling for no other factors, a higher risk in gay men of having AIDS.

I don't recall the figures but you are right here, however this doesn't translate to an insanely high rate in MSM, just a higher one, and doesn't explain why a man who has a proven clean bill of health, or simply a tendancy to negate risk through safe sex practices, would be automatically disqualified from giving blood for the fact he has slept with men, where a man who has exposed himself to more risk, just not with men, is fine.

Peregrinus

“Are you a man who's had sex with men?” is not the only thing that prospective donors get asked . You’ll also be asked about tattoos and body piercings, whether you’ve previously had a blood transfusion yourself (and if so where and when), how much time you spent in the UK between 1980 and 1986, what countries you have travelled to in the past month, whether you’ve been in the tropics in the past twelve months, whether you’re on certain medications, whether you have ever spend more than a month in South/Central America, whether your mother was born there, whether you’ve ever injected (or been injected with) non-prescribed drugs, whether you’ve ever had sex in return for drugs or money, whether you, your partner or members of your household have HIV/AIDS, Hep B or Hep C, whether you’ve had sex with anyone who has HIV/AIDS, with anyone who has ever given money or drugs for sex, with anyone who’s ever had sex in Africa, South-East Asia or other places where HIV/AIDS is common, with an intravenous drug user, with a haemophiliac, with a man who’s had sex with men, whether you’ve ever been in prison, whether you’ve ever snorted cocaine. And a lot more besides.

So, there’s no truth to the suggestiont that gay men (or men likely to be gay) are being singled out here. The IBTS is exhaustive in its enquiries about possible risk factors.

The question of blood safety is not a simply binary; we cannot categorise all prospective donors as either certainly safe or certainly unsafe; risk is a continuum.

It’s expensive to collect, store and process blood, and the obvious strategy is to collect, process and store enough blood to cope with foreseeable demand, plus a bit more, rather than to collect all the blood that’s offered. And, in selecting the blood to collect, it makes sense to select the blood with the lowest risk factor. Even if the risk factor associated with blood from a man who’s had sex with men is low, if someone else’s blood has a lower risk factor, I should take that other blood first. If there is enough blood from donors with lower risk factors than men who have sex with men, then there is no reason to collect blood from men who have sex with men (or from other donors with similar or higher risk factors).

Lyaiera

eviltwin wrote: »

My daughter goes to a mixed school. They are having sex ed at the moment and its focusing on things like feelings, consent etc. They have split the class into a boys group and a girls group and they are having the classes separately. What is annoying her, and me, is that all the talk in her group is from a heterosexual point of view, granted every other girl is straight but they won't even mention gay relationships. And that really annoys me. There are so many things they discuss in school about all aspects of teen life and don't get me wrong I think its great, but the whole issue of sexual identity is a huge one for teens and its not part of the curriculum. Why the fcuk not!!!!

I still remember my sex ed classes which would have been 15 years ago in a Catholic school. We had multiple classes in second year, taken by the science teacher and with other classes deferred. It went through a broad range of sexuality: straight, L, G, B and T. I doubt Q would have been on the radar then, and this was already a whole broader level of education than I imagine is going on in some Irish schools today. I was actually thinking the other night about that teacher and how I'd like to give him credit for what he said even if I wasn't capable of taking it on board at the time. I'm still a little stunned that the trans aspect was mentioned even if it was only briefly.