Organizing Sexuality: Silencing and the Push-Pull Process of Co-sexuality in the Workplace

Abstract

How human beings think about, talk about, and organize around sexuality is changing. Growing social legitimization for sexual minority relationships and a more fluid social understanding of sexual identities has shifted how we bound "normal" sexuality. In the workplace, these shifting norms affect employees of all sexual identities who must make sense of new policies and complex daily practices. This paper introduces the concept of co-sexuality, the push-and-pull process of communicatively organizing around sexuality. Using this concept, we take a grounded theory approach to exploring how employees of various sexualities and in different occupations understand "normal" sexuality and subsequently organize around it. Ultimately, participants described being silenced or silencing another to maintain sexual "norms" at work.

There’s No Such Thing as a Gay Bar: Co-Sexuality and the Neoliberal Branding of Queer Spaces

“…Co-sexuality (Compton, 2019; Compton & Dougherty, 2017) first developed as a way to explore linguistic inequalities that exist for individuals doing sexual identity work who may not identify with traditional, “normative” identity categories. Over time, language associated with gender and sexual identities has become complex in both structure and content.…”

“…Additionally, a number of new identity categories have emerged as identities have become more situated on a continuum (Killerman, 2019). In practice, co-sexuality reflects the communicative and embodied push-and-pull (e.g., Compton & Dougherty, 2017) people do as they identify and organize around perceived sexual “norms.”…”

“…We explore the branding of gay bars through the lens of co-sexuality or the process of organizing around sexuality (Compton & Dougherty, 2017). This framework, coupled with branding scholarship (e.g., Ashcraft, 2017; Mumby, 2015), provides a communicative lens to expose the practices and tensions hidden within constructed “norms” of gay bars, as well as how actors push-and-pull around these “norms.” Quotation marks around “norms” acknowledges that perceived norms are unfixed and contextual.…”

Contextual Prejudice: How Occupational Context and Stereotypes Shape Bias against Gay and Lesbian Employees

“…Others have focused on how the following factors influence bias against gay and lesbian employees: antidiscrimination laws and policies (e.g., Colgan et al 2008; Baumle and Poston 2011; Mishel 2016; Tilcsik 2011); geographic location (e.g., Connell 2015; Mishel 2016; Tilcsik 2011); race (e.g., Pedulla 2014); family arrangements, such as being married or having children (e.g. Baumle and Poston 2011; Mize 2016); presence of same-sex partnerships in the locale (e.g., Baumle and Poston 2011); and cultural and interactional factors within the gay employee’s work environment (e.g., Compton and Dougherty 2017; Denissen and Saguy 2014; Wright 2011). One mechanism that, I argue, plays a vital role in shaping bias against gay and lesbian employees but that has received less attention, is occupational context, and the stereotypes about gay people that occupational contexts may evoke.…”

“…Some studies have tried to ascertain how certain factors shape discrimination, in attempts to identify potential mechanisms of bias against gay and lesbian employees. For example, researchers have looked at how antidiscrimination laws, race, geographic location, family arrangements, and cultural and interactional factors, influence labor market discrimination against gay men and lesbians (e.g., Baumle and Poston 2011; Compton and Dougherty 2017; Denissen and Saguy 2014; Pedulla 2014; Tilcsik 2011; Mize 2016). One mechanism that, I argue, plays a vital role in shaping bias against gay and lesbian employees but that has received less attention is occupational context , and specifically, the stereotypes about gay people that certain occupational contexts may evoke.…”