Lgbtq Identity Formation

Because language represents such a ubiquitous and vital function of daily life, analyzing the unique slang or jargon used by a community offers valuable insight into certain features of its culture; shared values, the language of self-identification, and underlying communicative mores emerge when evaluating a subpopulation. To this end, inspecting the function of language as it correlates to the formation of LGBTQ identity proves invaluable to the study of queer theory. As a result, to understand better the varied facets of queer identity as it relates to language, this paper concentrates on a few distinct aspects of identity formation in the LGBTQ community, with a particular focus on the identities of gay men. It examines whether
Firstly, to divine the prevalence and importance of accurate identifying labels in the development of sexuality, Stephen T. Russell, Thomas J. Clark, and Justin Clary surveyed the self-reported orientations of high school sophomores, juniors, and seniors in their article “Are Teens ‘Post-Gay’? Contemporary Adolescents’ Sexual Identity Labels.” Their stated goal in administering the survey was to test whether high school students tended to err more on the side of ambiguous or indefinite orientations, a hypothesis gathered from the observable increase in sexual fluidity amongst young people. Their findings suggested that in spite of a more open society and the growing prevalence of alternative sexualities, the desire for sexual minorities to assign themselves a label remains primarily consistent with stage models of sexual identity; that is, that the classification of one’s sexuality proves enduringly relevant in the formation of one’s character (Russell, Clark, and Clary 885). Although the study is somewhat dated, having been conducted in 2008, its findings nonetheless serve as an indicator of the role labels play in establishing one’s relationship with oneself.
Discussing his experiences, one participant, Graham, reported, “Back home, I’m one of [my friends’] only gay friends and so everything I do is, ‘oh my god, that’s so gay’...That’s not homophobic because we’re having a laugh, and it’s with that group, in that context,” implying that the acceptability of homosexually themed language is heavily dependent on the situation in which it is uttered (McCormack, Wignall, and Morris 759). Although his friends are using the phrase directly as a result of Graham’s sexuality, the friendly nature of their banter lends the term a sense of affirmation rather than of derivation; it serves as a recognition of identity rather than a belittlement thereof. Further highlighting this point, participant John also discussed the importance of the intent and context, saying, “If someone on the street, a friend, was like ‘Oi, gay’, that’s fine, fantastic. If some random guy across the street shouted