This article outlines a generic process in the reproduction of inequality we name cisgendering reality. Based on 114 responses from transgender Mormons and systematic reviews of religious, transgender, and inequalities scholarship, we demonstrate how contemporary American religions cisgender reality by (1) erasing, (2) marking, and (3) punishing transgender experience in ways that reproduce conceptions of reality predicated on cisnormativity. In conclusion, we argue that examining processes of cisgendering reality may provide insight into (1) transgender religious experience, (2) transgender secular experience, and (3) cisnormativity embedded within many contemporary religions.

Prior research has reported that many Americans hold prejudicial attitudes toward sexual and gender minorities. Most of this research analyzed attitudes toward target categories in isolation and not in relation to attitudes toward heterosexuals. In addition, most previous research has not examined attitudes of members of sexual and gender minority categories toward other categories. While some research has examined the influence of religiosity on attitudes toward sexual and gender minorities, none of these studies has examined religiosity while also examining the influence of spirituality. In this article we drew on insights from queer theory to examine attitudes toward heterosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals, as well as individuals who practice polygamy, among college students. Three samples gathered over a four-year period (2009, 2011, 2013) at a private, nonsectarian, midsized urban university in the Southeastern United States were used. We found that heterosexuals had the most positive rating, followed in order of rating by gay/lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals, and then those who practice polygamy. Regression analyses revealed gender and race were significant predictors of attitudes toward various sexual and gender categories. Holding a literalistic view of the Bible and self-identifying as more religious were related to more negative views toward sexual minorities, while self-identifying as more spiritual was related to more positive views.

This article addresses limitations of homonormativity in the pursuit of sexual and gender equality. Based on 20 interviews with cisgender, heterosexual Christian women, we demonstrate how even people who support same-sex marriage and some recognition of cisgender lesbian and gay people as potentially moral individuals may continue marginalization of transgender and bisexual people in their interpretations of gender, sexualities, and religion. We outline two generic processes in the reproduction of inequality which we name (1) deleting and (2) denigrating whereby people may socially construct transgender and bisexual existence as unnatural and unwelcome despite gains for cisgender lesbian and gay people. We argue that examining the social construction of bisexual and transgender people may provide insight into (1) limitations of homonormativity in the pursuit of sexual and/or gender liberation, (2) transgender and bisexual experience, and (3) the relative absence of bisexual and transgender focused analyses in sociology to date.

In this article, we examine how leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon) collaborated with some Mormon women to construct gendered background expectations. Based on LDS archival materials, we analyze how LDS leaders and their representatives embedded specific notions of what it means to be a woman into the institutional and theological structure of the religion by (1) defining womanhood and (2) teaching femininity in ways that sanctified gender inequality. In doing so, LDS leaders and Mormon women, regardless of their intentions, reproduced gender beliefs that facilitate the subordination of women while anchoring these beliefs within existing Mormon doctrine. In conclusion, we draw out implications for understanding (1) the role of gendered background expectations in the structure of conservative religions, (2) the importance of deconstructing sanctified gender beliefs, and (3) potential opportunities for making sense of apparent contradictions within religious notions of gender.

This article outlines a generic process in the reproduction of inequality that we name “conditional acceptance.” Based on 20 in‐depth interviews with cisgender, heterosexual Christian women who support same‐sex marriage legalization, supplemented with reviews of LGBT, religious, and inequalities scholarship, we demonstrate how members of dominant groups may maintain boundaries that facilitate the persistence of social inequality by conditionally accepting members of marginalized groups. Specifically, our findings suggest that respondents both created the appearance of tolerance and maintained the devaluation of LGBT people by (1) supporting equality with a few caveats, (2) suggesting acceptance of those who cannot help being abnormal, (3) arguing that social change was not their responsibility, (4) defining sexual and gender difference as a personal choice, and (5) asserting that they could hate the sin while loving the sinner. In conclusion, we argue that examining processes of conditional acceptance may provide insight into (1) the persistence of social inequality despite social movement victories, and (2) the importance of integrating existing scholarship focused on sexual, gendered, and religious boundary maintenance.

No abstract

In this article, we examine how leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS or LDS Church) responded to the emergence of homosexuality as a prominent social issue by engaging in "oppressive othering" (Schwalbe et al. 2000), which refers to the process whereby elites classify members of other groups as morally inferior. On the basis of LDS archival materials, we analyze how LDS elites accomplished "oppressive othering" by constructing sexual classification schemes defining homosexuality as the result of (1) familial, (2) gendered, and (3) sexual dysfunctions. In conclusion, we draw out implications for understanding (1) how elites, religious, or otherwise, construct sexual classification schemes that facilitate the ongoing subordination of sexual minorities, (2) the importance of taking an intersectional approach to oppressive othering, and (3) the ways elites revise institutional doctrines in response to shifting societal issues and concerns.The establishment and maintenance of mutually exclusive classifications are central to organized religion (see e.g., Berger 1967; Weber 1922). Religious institutions have rich histories of establishing and enforcing divinely inspired distinctions between, for example, acceptable and unacceptable practices, sacred and secular worlds, earthly and eternal desires, and moral and immoral people. Religious leaders seem to understand the importance of categorizing all aspects of social life for their followers. Since people act toward things based on the meanings those things have for them (see

We assess prior research identifying potential causal links between social disadvantage and chronic inflammation, using Fundamental Social Causes (see Link and Phelan 1995) and gender theory.We use ordinary least-squares regression to investigate how social structure and relationship factors predict C-reactive protein serolevels among participants in the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project (Waite et al. 2007).Gender predicts chronic inflammation status more strongly and reliably than any other social factor; female participants show significantly higher CRP levels. Other reliable predictors include race, education, and marriage. Black race predicts significantly higher CRP; college education and marriage predict significantly lower CRP. Income predicts CRP inconsistently. Social support and communication variables do not significantly predict CRP in our models.Gender inequalities and pressures may place women at heightened risk for chronic inflammation. Political advocacy and policy action approaches may thus prove more effective than medical interventions for inflammation prevention.