Volume 4 Issue 3

By Samuel Burland, University of Cambridge

Citation

Burland, S. 2025. Reflections in Queer Geography: What Queer Heterosexuality Means for the Queer and Now? Routes, 4(3): 169-177.

Abstract

Since the 1990s, the emergence of ‘queer heterosexuality’ within scholarly debates has necessitated much reflection. Suggesting that queerness applies to more than just queer individuals is a contested but crucial idea which could transform queer geography if incorporated into research. Here, I propose that incorporating queer heterosexuality into queer geography scholarship would necessitate three transformative reflections: (1) how reconceptualising queerness in this way alters who the subjects of future research can or should be; (2) what new questions arise (by considering queer heterosexuality) about the intersection of space and queerness and (3) what opportunities this concept offers to queer activism and social movements. Should queer geographers fully embrace queer heterosexuality and its founding principles, the full extent that stifling categorisations oppress individuals (queer or not) can be explored. Exploring this ‘commonality-in-difference’ between heterosexual and queer individuals has tremendous emancipatory potential in both theory and practice going forward.

1. Queer heterosexuality

Queer heterosexuality encapsulates the expression of heterosexual identity in ways that challenge hegemonic presumptions implied by traditional understandings of heterosexuality (Schlichter, 2004; Heasley, 2005). This concept emerged from radical feminist critiques of heterosexuality. While heterosexuality conventionally refers to romantic involvement with someone of the opposite gender (Kitzinger and Wilkinson, 1994), scholars are increasingly recognising that heterosexuality is imbued with restrictive ideas about the ways one should express their gender and sexuality.

Judith Butler’s (1990) seminal work highlights that these stereotypes prescribing how heterosexual men and women ‘should’ behave are not naturally occurring, but socially constructed performances shaped by cultural norms over time. Likewise, de Beauvoir (1953) unpacks how women are encouraged to stay in a state of ‘immanence’ and repeat domestic tasks which limits personal growth. Women confining themselves to domestic roles (as housewives and mothers) in heterosexual relationships was deemed the pinnacle of female achievement (Friedan, 2010). Restrictive ideas like these underpin heteronormativity. By privileging individuals who conform to traditional categories of heterosexuality and reproduce these cultural norms, this renders alternative expressions of heterosexuality as nonsensical (Berlant and Warner, 1998). A reclaimed slur, ‘queerness’ signifies a rejection of stifling categorisations such as these. For instance, in the 1990s, US activists mobilised under the banner of ‘Queer Nation’ which advocated for fluid queer activism and rejection essentialist views promoting rigid labels. Scholarship increasingly highlights that, just as queer people reject heteronormativity, heterosexual individuals are increasingly rejecting this oppression under restrictive categorisation (Davidson, 2005; Dean, 2014; Cohen, 2018). Contemporary examples include non-traditional displays of masculinity (Heasley, 2005), gender nonconforming fashion (Gallant, 2023), subverting gender roles within relationships (Hill, 2007) and representations of metrosexuality and appearance-obsessed men in the media (Hall and Gough, 2011).

Many challenging restrictive norms have begun to identify as queer heterosexuals. In his autobiographical piece, Smith (1997) traces his journey towards embracing this label. Smith describes his involvement in the (predominantly queer) men’s dance company ‘The High-Risk Group’ and experiences in queer San Francisco’s bar scene. This exposure made him realise that he did not identify with the restrictive norms associated with heterosexual masculinity. Instead, he resonated with the subversion of norms apparent in queer spaces. Smith was further inspired by Hennessy’s (1992) ideas which reframed ‘queer’ as a rejection of binaries like gender and sexuality. Smith eventually identified as a ‘queer heterosexual’, a label that he felt sufficiently represented both his ‘kinship’ with queer communities and his discomfort with conventional heterosexual norms.

Contemporary inquiries into queer heterosexuality including the fluidity of sexual identity (Heasley, 2005; Ward, 2015) and the evolving definition of queerness (Smith, 1997). However, literature is largely isolated from adjacent queer fields such as queer geography because there have been several critiques resulting in a tentative uptake of this concept. Brook (2018) and Mortimer (2016) posit that engaging with queer heterosexuality within broader queer scholarship may render queerness vulnerable to misappropriation. Because the term ‘queer’ encapsulates the historic struggles and identities of LGBTQIA+ communities, it may be inappropriate for heterosexual and cisgender people to adopt this label without personal experience. Mortimer (2016) also speculates that including heterosexuals within queer studies risks diluting the weight of the term ‘queer’, a pivotal tool used by activists to challenge binaries and normativity within slogans like ‘we’re here, we’re queer, get used to it’ (Brown, 2016).

Queer geography emerged at the intersection of queer theory and geography predicated upon an exploration of how identities and sexualities shape and are shaped by space and place. It challenges normative binaries and categories to examine how heteronormativity influences lived experienced and behaviour (Binnie, 1997). Seminal texts like Browne et al. (2007) highlight the diverse ways that queer identities manifest in different types of space, whether they be urban, rural or digital. By introducing the concept of ‘more-than-queer’, Maliepaard (2015) argued for a diversification of the scope of queer geography to better represent diverse sexual identities, such as bisexuality, that defy binary and fixed categories. More contemporary scholarship aims to cultivate an intersectional approach which accounts for the complex interactions of factors like gender, race and class with sexuality (Kinkaid, 2024). To summarise, queer geographers develop a fluid understanding of space unshackled by heteronormativity and advocate for an inclusive approach to sexuality. Given the disruptive nature of ‘queer heterosexuality’ as a concept, introducing it into considerations of queer geography could have transformative potential.

Queer geography is one of many fields which has not yet put queer heterosexuality into conversation within the field, presumably on the grounds of critiques outlined above. However, this essay argues that these critiques represent a hypocritical exclusion of heterosexuals which will divide rather than unite. Scholars are missing an opportunity to explore the full extent of oppression caused by categorisations like homosexuality and heterosexuality. It also overlooks a chance to reframe discussions of queerness in a more inclusive manner. Brook (2018) highlights that terms like ‘same-sex marriage’ have become commonplace, despite initial criticism for merging homosexuality and the traditionally heterosexual construction of marriage (Bernstein and Taylor, 2013). This essay makes the case for a similar legitimisation of queer heterosexuality within queer geography scholarship (Lee and Mutz, 2019) and it ponders what an inclusion of queer heterosexuality could mean for queer geography.

2. Contributions to Queer Geography

2.1. Blurring Boundaries

Queer geography revolves around a discussion of queerness, queer identities and queer spaces (Binnie, 1997; Browne et al., 2007). The very notion of queer heterosexuality challenges rigid, binary ways of conceptualising identity and moving beyond simple categorisations like ‘queer’ and ‘heterosexual’ going forward (Smith, 1997). Therefore, by introducing a consideration of queer heterosexuality, this would have significant ramifications for research thereafter. First and foremost, queer heterosexuality as a concept calls for a reframing of ‘queerness’ more broadly. Drawing upon insights from radical feminism and postmodernist though, this term embraces a framework of queerness as the experience of resisting oppression, not exclusively limited to LGBTQIA+ individuals. For queer geographers, this necessitates much-needed reflection about the identity categories used as commonplace tools of analysis. This will invite a more nuanced discussion surrounding the ways that societal norms enforce conformity and silence individuals and their experiences that do not fit neatly into established categorisations. In practice, this calls for a rethinking of who is the focus of research in queer geography going forward. For instance, the conventional focus upon LGBTQIA+ individuals may require expansion to truly unpack how restrictive identity norms affect more than just queer individuals. Thereafter, intersectionality becomes essential to highlight how various aspects of identity intersect and contribute to experiences of oppression. To fully address inequities and injustices caused by oppressive categorisation, a cornerstone of queer geography, queer heterosexuality will serve as a tool for adopting a broader and more inclusive approach which extends who the focus of research can and should be.

2.2. Space and Heterosexuality

The geographical discipline distinguishes itself through a focus upon space as it is created, perceived and utilised (Fenneman, 1919; Lefebvre, 1991). From its inception, the spatial element was a primary focus of queer geography and its intersections with questions of identity, expression and experience (Valentine, 1993; Bell and Valentine, 1995). After recognising the interconnectedness of power and sexuality in the 1980s, early research took a largely spatial approach. The decision to integrate discussions of ‘queer heterosexuality’ within scholarship would open-up productive lines of enquiry about the intersection of queerness and space. For instance, Smith (1997) credits spaces like San Francisco, which he calls a ‘life laboratory,’ for helping him recognise his queer heterosexuality, allowing for unrestricted expression. This relationship between heterosexual individuals and ‘queer’ space warrants focus in future research. Scholars may investigate questions such as how the identity and behaviour of queer heterosexuals varies spatially or whether patterns of free expression of queer heterosexuality correlate with patterns of free queer expression similarly. Given the rising focus upon digital space within geography in the digital age (Massey, 2005; Castells, 2009), they may also take this opportunity to explore the expression of queer heterosexuality within digital spaces. Research could examine whether these spaces act as a ‘life laboratory’ in the same way as physical spaces for disrupting boundaries and categorisations. Clearly, an integration of queer heterosexuality within queer geography would necessitate a deeper analysis of the intersection of queerness, heterosexuality and space going forward. These may invite more productive and insightful discussions of the creation and subversion of rigid categories more broadly and how that plays out in space.

2.3. Queer Activism and Heterosexuality

Queer geography analyses the lived experience of queer people, the presence of heteronormativity in everyday life and the intersection of queerness with questions of power, space and time. Practically, the theories, results and conclusions produced significantly aid social movements which aim to make visible LGBTQIA+ individuals and advocate for their equal rights. As previously discussed, introducing a focus upon queer heterosexuality into queer geography will likely put into question who the subjects of research should be going forward to generate comprehensive results. Although complicated, this step could be an opportunity to unite demographics. Kinkaid et al. (2021) state that there is a “commonality-in-difference” to be found in sharing individual experiences which can foster solidarity amongst those oppressed. Despite critics aiming to avoid diluting the weight of the term queer (Brown, 2016; Mortimer, 2016), if heterosexual individuals and their overlapping experiences of queerness were fully explored by queer geographers, it could be transformative. By highlighting commonalities between queer and heterosexual individuals, social movements could potentially gain a broader support network and foster more solidarity across diverse groups.

Social movements challenging issues facing LGBTQIA+ communities have evolved tremendously. In the early 20^th century, the first recorded advocacy groups like the Scientific-Humanitarian Committee in Germany tended to operate in small, secret and isolated groups (Steakley, 1975). Over the last century, social movements have skyrocketed in their visibility, scale and frequency (Burton-Hughes, 2020). However, notably, only those movements which act collectively, in solidarity and with a shared purpose are the ones that advance and achieve (Nardini et al., 2021). Future scholarship and social movements should therefore reflect that hegemonic, restrictive categorisations oppress more than just queer people. Miller and Ratner (1998) also demonstrate that, although slightly overestimated at times, feeling personally affected by a social issue makes an individual far more likely to engage with retaliatory activism. By highlighting the relevance of queer issues in the lives of heterosexual individuals, this will maximise support in dismantling restrictive categorisations. The progress for areas such as education, workplace culture and urban planning achieved by organisations like GATE (n.d.) and Outright International (n.d.) could be unprecedented thereafter.

3. Conclusion

A consideration of queer heterosexuality within queer geography could be transformative for challenging rigid categorisation and fostering a more inclusive framework. Reframing queerness as a rejection of oppressive norms not limited to LGBTQIA+ communities opens up several productive discussions of how rigid categorisation impacts all individuals. First, it puts into question who scholars are or should be making the subject of research. Scholars must consider who is represented and what the study of individuals who do not recognise themselves as conventionally queer may look like. Secondly, as a field rooted in the analysis of queerness and space, queer geography can explore the intersection of space and queer heterosexuality and profound spatial patterns. Finally, queer heterosexuality offers an exciting opportunity to dissolve the heterosexual-queer disconnect. By demonstrating the relevance of queer heterosexuality to queer geography, scholars can not only enrich academic discourse, but also dismantle restrictive categories of identity in theory and practice. This could accelerate social justice movements, thereby fostering solidarity between queer and heterosexual individuals and cultivating a society free from stifling categorisations. Realising the implications of oppressive categories could better inform policymakers in promoting diversity, equality and inclusion for areas such as education, workplace culture and urban planning. This essential reframing of queerness ‘should create a kind of community, one that can never be settled, whose membership is always shifting … a community in which many straights should be able to find a place’ (Bersani, 1995, p. 9, as cited in Smith, 1997).

References

Allen-Young, M., 2019. #queer: Community, Communication, and Identity in the Digital Age. Capstone Project, California State University, Monterey Bay. Masters Theses.

Anderson, A.R. and Knee, E., 2021. Queer isolation or queering isolation? Reflecting upon the ramifications of COVID-19 on the future of queer leisure spaces. Leisure Sciences, 43, pp.118–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2020.1773992.

Bell, D. and Valentine, G., 1995. Mapping Desire: Geographies of Sexualities. London: Routledge.

Berlant, L. and Warner, M., 1998. Sex in public. Critical Inquiry, 24(2), pp.547-566. https://doi.org/10.1086/448884.

Bernstein, M. and Taylor, V., 2013. The Marrying Kind?: Debating Same-Sex Marriage within the Lesbian and Gay Movement. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Bersani, L., 1995. Homos. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brook, H., 2018. Re-orientation: Marriage, heteronormativity and heterodox paths. Feminist Theory, 19, pp.345–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700118754675.

Brown, G., 2016. Queer movement. In: D. Paternotte and M. Tremblay, eds., The Ashgate Research Companion to Lesbian and Gay Activism. London: Routledge, pp.73–86.

Butler, J., 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London: Routledge.

Cohen, R.C.S. and Silver-Winter, K.M., 2018. Mostly straight, most of the time. The Good Men Project. Available at: https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/mostly-straight/ [Accessed 8 August 2024].

Davidson, G., 2005. “Contagious relations”: Simulation, paranoia, and the postmodern condition in William Friedkin’s Cruising and Felice Picano’s The Lure. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 11(1), pp.23–64.

de Beauvoir, S., 1953. The Second Sex. London: Jonathan Cape.

Dean, J.J., 2014. Straights: Heterosexuality in Post-Closeted Culture. New York: NYU Press.

Fenneman, N.M., 1919. The circumference of geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 9, pp.3–11. https://doi.org/10.2307/2569571.

Friedan, B., 2010. The Feminine Mystique. London: Penguin Books.

Gallant, S., 2023. Ungendered: The Future of Fashion. British Columbia: Pressbooks.

GATE, n.d. Global Action for Trans Equality. Available at: https://gate.ngo/ [Accessed 13 August 2024].

Hall, M. and Gough, B., 2011. Magazine and reader constructions of ‘metrosexuality’ and masculinity: A membership categorisation analysis. Journal of Gender Studies, 20, pp.67–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2011.542023.

Hanhardt, C.B., 2013. Safe Space: Gay Neighborhood History and the Politics of Violence. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780822378860.

Heasley, R., 2005. Queer masculinities of straight men: A typology. Men and Masculinities, 7, pp.310–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X04272118.

Hennessy, K. and Beckman, J.J., 1992. Addressing the Queer Man’s Role in the New World Anarchy and the Future of the Men’s Movements in the Dis/United States: A Letter to the Media-identified Men’s Movement. Abundant F**k Publications.

Hill, D.B., 2007. “Feminine” heterosexual men: Subverting heteropatriarchal sexual scripts? Journal of Men’s Studies, 14, pp.145–159. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.1402.145.

Kinkaid, E., Parikh, A. and Ranjbar, A.M., 2021. Coming of age in a straight white man’s geography: Reflections on positionality and relationality as feminist anti-oppressive praxis. Gender, Place & Culture, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2021.2020733.

Kitzinger, C. and Wilkinson, S., 1994. Virgins and queers: Rehabilitating heterosexuality? Gender & Society, 8, pp.444–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124394008003009.

Lee, H.-Y. and Mutz, D.C., 2019. Changing attitudes toward same-sex marriage: A three-wave panel study. Political Behavior, 41, pp.701–722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9463-7.

Lefebvre, H., 1991. The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Miller, D.T. and Ratner, R.K., 1998. The disparity between the actual and assumed power of self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, pp.53–62. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.53.

Mortimer, D., 2016. Can straight people be queer? VICE. Available at: https://www.vice.com/en/article/can-straight-people-be-queer-435/ [Accessed 8 August 2024].

Nardini, G., Rank-Christman, T., Bublitz, M.G., Cross, S.N.N. and Peracchio, L.A., 2021. Together we rise: How social movements succeed. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31(1), pp.112-145. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1201 [Accessed 15 Aug. 2024].

Outright International, n.d. Home | Outright International. Available at: https://outrightinternational.org/ [Accessed 13 August 2024].

Powers, A., 1993. Queer in the streets, straight in the sheets. Village Voice, 29, pp.30–32.

Schlichter, A., 2004. Queer at last? Straight intellectuals and the desire for transgression. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 10, pp.543–564.

Smith, C., 1997. How I Became a Queer Heterosexual. Cultural Research, Clyde F. Smith. Available at: https://culturalresearch.org/qhet/ [Accessed 8 August 2024].

Valentine, G., 1993. Negotiating and managing multiple sexual identities: Lesbian time-space strategies. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 18, pp.237–248. https://doi.org/10.2307/622365.

Ward, J., 2015. Not Gay: Sex Between Straight White Men. New York: NYU Press.

Related articles