Jacobson, B. & Donatone, B. (2009). Homoflexibles, Omnisexuals, and Genderqueers: Group Work with Queer Youth in Cyberspace and Face-to-Face. Group, 33, 223-234.

Queer youth identify themselves in myriad ways. Jacobson and Donatone, who come from the fields of medicine and psychotherapy/psychoanalysis, respectively, aim to discover and describe how exactly these youth are different and how clinicians might better reach these youth through digital means. Groups offer LGB youth a chance to see that others face similar challenges, but as the ability to connect with other LGB youth has grown recently, they are more focused on their own identities and how to become fulfilled individuals. Groups also offer LGB youth a chance to reflect on the developmental lags brought on by the norm of heterosexism, but such “delayed adolescence” has decreased in recent years; clinicians might rather address issues of gender identity, sexual practice (monogamy vs. polyandry), and the desire to have children. Of course, developmental lags can still be influenced by religion, nationality, and ethnicity. LGB youth are beginning to challenge the gender binary, too.

In order to reach the LGB youth in their groups, group therapists need to be sensitive – be diverse but also specific to achieve certain goals, to address certain needs and issues. Therapists should also look into virtual media as a means of meeting clients (where they are), such as chat rooms, which provides a safe space for students questioning gender and sexuality to discuss these issues with therapists. Of course, therapists should stay abreast of in-person communication, too. While therapists might be reluctant to enter this space, it could very well help them reach their clients in a new way.

Mills, R. (2006). Queer is Here? Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Histories and Public Culture. History Workshop Journal, 62, 253-263.

While British laws have made being openly LGBT easier, Britain has made efforts to incorporate LGBT history into its public discourse (remembrances, etc.). Still, academic historians should engage in a critical dialogue with such frameworks to give them a sense of purpose, “to have a role in shaping and transforming them” (255). Mills, a lecturer whose focus is positively medieval and was working on a study of medieval devotion’s same-sex intimacy at the time of publication, looks at how “queer” discourse has made its way into the public (and “straight”) sphere. LGBT public cultures often adopt coming-out narratives and, similarly, the repressive hypothesis – which suggests that Western homophobia suddenly began to unravel in the 1960s – but J. Howard resists such simplistic notions of queer discourse. To address the aforementioned issues, Mills looks specifically at “Queer is Here,” a small display in the Museum of London that addresses LGBT progress in Britain. The display expresses the repressive hypothesis, which hinders its ability to address “multiple temporalities of sex and gender within a single moment” (256). It also comes as no surprise that “queer” discourse often marginalizes transgender narratives – and transgender people, in general. A. Sinfield proposes historical identities that make clear distinctions “between gender identity (desire to be) and sexual orientation (desire for)” (257). Queer discourse can also marginalize intersections with race and class. According to Mills, possible solution is to direct attention to actual sexual practices of queer people. Another solution might be to challenge the linearity of the traditional museum-display model. We might also solve the problem by focusing on identity as a strategy.