It's finally available! If you found the information in my sexuality blog posts interesting and informative, you'll love having access to all the important and relevant sexuality research and information contained in my textbook!

Here's the link that will show you how to get a free preview of our textbook. You can also order a copy for yourself, or adopt it for a class you teach:

This is how Cognella describes our book:

 

Sexuality Concepts for Social Workers is a research-informed, reader-friendly guide that helps practitioners address sexuality-related issues with a variety of target patient groups.

Topics covered include the role of values in sexuality, sexual health and reproduction, relationships, sexual orientation, gender and gender identity, sexuality and the lifespan, sex work and sex workers, sexuality in the ill or disabled, and being a sexually healthy adult.

Several features of the book enhance learning, reflection, and critical thinking. Chapters feature discussion questions, implications and applications for real-world practice, case examples, and opinion pieces from each of the authors.

Sexuality Concepts for Social Workers fills a void in the literature of the social work field by giving practitioners a greater degree of sexuality literacy.

The book is a practical tool for those who haven't had the benefit of formal training in human sexuality. It can be used in upper-level undergraduate and foundation year graduate courses on human behavior, sexuality diversity, and human sexuality for social workers.

 

Travis Ingersoll is a researcher, therapist, and social work professor at West Chester University. He has worked in various areas of social work practice including gerontology, chemical addiction, mental health, domestic abuse, and sexual trauma. Dr. Ingersoll’s current policy work focuses on the development and implementation of sexual expression and protection from harm policies for retirement and assisted living facilities.

 

Brent Satterly is a licensed clinical social worker and holds a Ph.D. in education, specializing in human sexuality and strengths-based social work practice. He is an associate professor at the Center for Social Work Education at Widener University, and the director of the Bachelor's in Social Work program. In 2012, he received the university's Clarence R. Moll Professor of the Year Award.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(*This is from an upcoming chapter I am writing in a Nursing textbook due to be released in Australia in 2016. The chapter focusses on Intimacy in Older Adulthood)

 

 

 

 

 

A: What we know about trans-related (i.e., transgender, transsexual, intersex) topics has grown significantly over recent years. However, individuals who identify as being neither “male” nor “female” or of being something entirely different, a third gender if you will, is a human reality depicted in our earliest writings and artworks. Before getting to the answer, I feel it’s necessary to provide a brief historical background of indigenous American Two-Spirit people.

 

Throughout North and South America, many of the native population’s creation myths

appear to have led to the establishment of egalitarian gender roles within their societies.

Where western ideologies, based primarily on Christianity, emphasized a singular male

god, most indigenous North and South American cultures emphasized the importance of both male and female deities. Under the moral authority of western religion, women were considered inferior, whereas with most Native American cultures women were viewed as equals to men (Bonvillain, 1989; Picchi, 2003; Tannahil, 1982).

 

In Eskimo culture the most powerful deity was called Sedna. She was responsible for

ensuring the survival of the Eskimo people through the yearly creation of the sea-life on which they depended. Navajo people stressed the importance of women’s fertility, and of the spiritual bond between mother and child. Many Navajo mythical stories involve

mother figures, such as the “Changing Woman,” who came when early humans lost their

ability to reproduce. She mated with the Sun, producing twins, who eventually gave birth

to all Navajo clans. Among the Iroquois, symbolism of female fertility and power was

also expressed through their creation myths. According to Iroquois legend the female

figure, “Aataensic,” was responsible for creating all life and is honored for being the

caretaker of human souls (Bonvillain, 1989).

 

Although some Native American religions talk of great female deities responsible for

giving and sustaining life, many stress that the great spiritual beings were neither male

nor female, but a combination of both (Powers, 2000; Williams, 1983).  This way of thinking about gender has been documented in over 155 American Indian tribes that revered the Two-Spirits. Within the two-spirited person, the creators are said to have instilled the spirit of both man and woman, creating a third gender, who act as intermediaries between the polarities of male and female. The Two-Spirits were said to have been created for the purpose of improving society through their creative ingenuity, their spiritual power, and their ability to act as go-betweens for addressing relationship issues between men and women (Williams, 1983). 

 

There were many tales of women engaged in tribal warfare and who married other women, as there were men who married other men.  Such individuals were often viewed as a third and fourth gender, and in almost all cultures they were honored and revered. Two-spirit people were often the healers, the visionaries, the medicine people, the care-givers and the nannies of orphans. They were respected as fundamental components of their cultures and societies (Roscoe, 1988).

 

Around the 16th century, the egalitarianism of most Native American peoples would

come under attack with the arrival of foreigners upon their shores. The European

emphasis on Christianity and male dominance would permanently alter the lives of most

indigenous Americans. When the Spanish explorers arrived in South America they

quickly began to push their agenda of male supremacy and sexual oppression, which had

a disastrous effect on the status of South American women (Picchi, 2003; Powers, 2000;

Tannahil, 1982).

 

Under the Spanish colonial regime, women would become stripped of their autonomy,

and the gender-parallelism that governed the Inca society would be left in ruins. The

Spanish, being a patriarchal war-like society, was built upon a foundation of Christian

evangelicalism. The Spanish soldiers and missionaries would not tolerate women

holding power economically, politically and/or religiously. As a result, women began to

lose their status on all levels. Their matrilineal access to resources was obliterated, being

replaced by male-centered organizations. Although women did put up resistance, and

used whatever means were at their disposal, over time the Inca men would come to internalize the male-centered ideologies of their conquerors, which led to a pervasive

atmosphere of male-superiority (Powers, 2000).

 

On the continents of North and South America, the constant stream of incoming colonizers would also significantly alter the gender roles of the indigenous populations. Christian missionaries, like those in South America, preached of strict gender roles and the

subjugation of women. Within this atmosphere of sexual suppression there was no place

for the Two-Spirits, who through western eyes were nothing more than sinful sodomites

(Williams, 1986).  Two-spirited people were viewed as an abomination, which was just the kind of justification the colonizers used when ordering the torture and killing of two-spirited people.  In fact, all expressions of gender variance were oppressively

squelched.

 

Just as with the invasion of South America, the patriarchal ideologies of North

American colonizers persistently eroded the status of Native American women. Male

dominance was preached and even forced upon the indigenous peoples through

government-funded re-education programs. This pressured assimilation eventually

resulted in Native American rejection of cross-gender roles (i.e. a third gender/two-spirited), and the adoption of the male-centered ideologies of the colonists. Over time, as western colonization spread, the traditional gender-allocated system of reciprocal labor would be replaced by a market in which the demand for male-labor dominated. So not only was the spiritual role of women depreciated through the emphasis of a supreme male God, but women’s means of contributing equally to their people’s livelihood was also stripped away (Bonvillain, 1989; Williams, 1986).

 

Now that you know a little about the history of Native American two-spirited people, let’s examine the definition of transgender.  The word “transgender” means different things depending on whom you ask.  At its most basic level, “transgender” is a word that applies to anyone who doesn’t fit within society’s standards of how a man or a woman is expected to look or act.  The term “transgender” may be used to describe an individual assigned the sex of female at birth, but later in life realizes that label doesn’t exactly reflect who they feel they are inside.  Such an individual may now live their life as a man, or they may feel that their gender identity cannot be accurately summed up by either of the two strictly defined gender options available (male or female).  They may feel like they’re in between those two options (both male and female), or that they’re outside of the dichotomous two-gender system.  In other words, they may neither feel male nor female, but something completely different.

 

So, back to the question. Is being transgender and being two-spirited the same thing?  I’d have to say yes, being two-spirited is one form of being transgender.  Transgender people have been with us from the beginning, and will be until the end, regardless of the mechanisms of social oppression aimed at enforcing the dichotomized, heterosexist, homophobic and sexist gender ideologies pushed upon us through educational, political, and religious institutions. Now you know:)

 

Bonvillain, N. (1989). Gender relations in native North America. American Indian

     Culture and Research Journal, 13:2, 1-28.

Picchi, D. (2003). Unlikely Amazons: Brazilian indigenous gender constructs in a

     modern context. History and Anthropology, 14:1, 23-39.  

Powers, K. V. (2000). Andeans and Spaniards in the contact zone. American Indian

     Quarterly, 24, 511-536.

Roscoe, W. [Editor] (1988).  Living the spirit: A gay American Indian anthology. St.   

     Martin: St. Martin’s Press.

Tannahill, R. (1982) Sex in history. Briarcliff Manor, New York: Stein and Day

     Publishers.

Williams, W. (1986). The spirit and the flesh: Sexual diversity in American Indian

     culture. Boston: Beacon Press.

Question:            

 

Why many girls call their female friends “my wife”, ”Honey”, etc, but boys think it’s sick.

What make girls do that? Does it mean they changed their sexual orientation?

 

Answer:

What makes girls do that? Doesn’t it mean they changed their sexual orientation? I find these to be interesting questions.  All stereotypical “male” and “female” behavior has to do with socially-constructed gender roles and gender-based ideologies. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with a female calling her female friends “my wife” or “honey”.  Just as there is nothing wrong with males calling their male friends a “man crush” or saying that they love each other.  However, we live in a very sexist, homophobic world where people automatically assign a sexual orientation label to people depending on how much they conform to the dictated rules and roles assigned to their gender.

 

When the term “homophobia” was first coined in the 1970s, it was described as a mental disorder, a condition relating to the irrational fear of homosexuality or homosexual people. Over the decades, this definition of homophobia has evolved to include all of the negative feelings and attitudes that people have about being gay or bisexual.  Although common among both sexes, men and women have been found to experience homophobia for slightly different reasons.  According to Basow and Johnson (2008), women who scored high on homophobia tended to disagree with sex role egalitarianism, held authoritarian attitudes, and perceived stereotypical feminine attributes as being of great importance to their personal sense of femininity.  Homophobia among men, on the other hand, is mostly related to the cultural expectations of masculinity. Homophobia plays a significant role in maintaining patriarchal power structures.

 

In U.S. culture (and in cultures throughout the world including China), the social construction of masculinity and femininity has been formulated and promulgated in a way that highly values “masculine traits,” while devaluing “feminine traits.”  To be masculine is often seen as being strong, powerful, dominating, unemotional and violent, whereas being feminine is often viewed as being sensitive, maternal, submissive, passive, and weak.  American males are pushed to separate themselves from all that is feminine in order to prove their “manliness”.  This societal pressure often manifests into violence against women, gay-bashing and homophobia. In fact, being homophobic and participating in gay-bashing is often viewed as a rite of passage into “manhood” by many young males. Because male homosexuality is often erroneously associated with femininity, it violates the strict gender norms of traditional masculinity.  Homophobic bullying destroys lives.  Avoiding discussions of homophobia, homosexuality, and sexist gender ideologies can help foster a culture of intolerance and non-acceptance, thereby allowing violence against non-heterosexuals and women to flourish.

 

So, NO, females calling females “my wife” or “sweetie” or saying “I love you” doesn’t necessarily have any connection to sexual orientation.  I mean it could have, but just as likely may not have. And NO, people don’t change their sexual orientation; their decision to hide or show their sexual orientation is often based on how safe they feel they are in doing so.  Heterosexual females often express such “terms of endearment” to other heterosexual females, but so do homosexual and bisexual females.  In both Chinese and North American societies, same sex affection is often something tolerated among women, however, same sex affection among men, regardless of their sexual orientation is rarely tolerated, and is often attacked. 

 

It’s sad to me that people, especially men, are forced into tiny, oppressive, and extremely limited gender boxes.  In my opinion, it robs men of their freedom to be who they truly are.  Women are imprisoned by their gender boxes as well, however, they are often given more freedom to be affectionate with other women, or even to be sexual with other women.  But of course, that’s often for the sole benefit of a man's sexual fantasies.

 

Basow, S. A., & Johnson, K. (2000).  Predictors of homophobia in female college

     students. Sex Roles, 42(5/6), 391-404.

Claassen, C. (2000).  Homophobia and women archaeologists. World Archaeology, 32(2),

     173-179.

Finlay, B. & Walther, C. S. (2003).  The relation of religious affiliation, service

     attendance, and other factors to homophobic attitudes among university students.

    Review of Religious Research, 44(4), 370-393.

Kimmel, M. (1996). Manhood in America: A cultural history. New York: Free Press.

Mills, M. (1996).  ‘Homophobia kills’: A disruptive moment in the educational politics of

     legitimation. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 17(3), 315-326.

O’Neil, J. M. (1981).  Patterns of role conflict and strain: Sexism and fear of femininity

     in men’s lives. Personnel & Guidance Journal, 60(4), 203-210.

Szymanski, D. M., & Carr, E. R. (2008).  The roles of gender role conflict and

     internalized heterosexism in gay and bisexual men’s psychological distress: Testing

     two mediation models. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 1, 40-54.

Van Der Meer, T., & Herdt, G. (2003).  Homophobia and anti-gay violence:

     Contemporary perspectives (editorial introduction). Culture, Health & Sexuality, 5(2),

     99-101.

Wickberg, D. (2000).  Homophobia: On the cultural history of an idea. Critical Inquiry,   

    27(1), 42-57.