The Social Science Journal

ISSN: 0362-3319 (Print) 1873-5355 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ussj20

Queer socialization: A case study of lesbian, gay,

and queer (LGQ) parent families

Shawn N. Mendez

To cite this article: Shawn N. Mendez (2020): Queer socialization: A case study
of lesbian, gay, and queer (LGQ) parent families, The Social Science Journal, DOI:
10.1080/03623319.2020.1727240

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03623319.2020.1727240

Published online: 06 Mar 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 14

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ussj20
THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL
https://doi.org/10.1080/03623319.2020.1727240

Queer socialization: A case study of lesbian, gay, and queer (LGQ)

parent families
Shawn N. Mendez
Department of Sociology & Anthropology, University of North Carolina Asheville, Asheville, NC, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper uses case study data from 4 lesbian, gay, and queer (LGQ) parent Received 17 May 2019
families with children between the ages of 14–18 years old to describe Revised 22 December 2019
queer socialization, or the process of by which children learn about queer Accepted 26 December 2019
culture. The author draws on the racial socialization literature, and extends KEYWORDS
the limited research on socialization in lesbian and gay (LG) parent families, Socialization; lesbian; gay;
by describing the content, form, and rationale for queer socialization. queer; socialization;
Results indicate that queer socialization takes the form of direct, indirect, multiracial; black families
and time management strategies aimed at teaching children about queer
culture, discrimination toward LGBTQ people, wariness in relationships with
heterosexual or socially conservative individuals, or heteronormativity.
Queer socialization occurred in these families because of concerns for
children’s wellbeing, and environmental, parental, and child characteristics.
Understanding the what, how, and why of queer socialization is the first
step to fully understanding the process and utilizing it to improve the lives
of LGBTQ parent families.

Approximately six million children and adults in the United States have at least one lesbian, gay,
bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) parent (Gates, 2013). Research has shown that lesbian and gay (LG)
parent families do at least as well as heterosexual comparisons across various psychological outcomes
for both parents and children (Goldberg, Gartrell, & Gates, 2014). However, some have argued that
this “no differences” research implies that LG parent families are only acceptable and deserving of
legal and social recognition if they are comparable to a (White) heterosexual gold standard (Fish &
Russell, 2018; Riggs & Augoustinos, 2008). Additionally, scholars have noted that although the
children of LG parents do appear to show some differences compared to children of heterosexual
parents, differences do not always mean deficits (Prendergast & MacPhee, 2018; Stacey & Biblarz,
2001). This study seeks to extend our understanding of these families by filling two of the current
gaps in the literature on LG parents.
The first gap is the limited scope of research: literature on LG parent families has historically
focused on outcomes rather than parenting as a process. While the research on heterosexual parents
has investigated multiple processes and domains of parenting, the LG parenting literature has had
a much smaller scope. For example, rather than analyzing how LG parents teach their children about
gender, studies have investigated whether parents’ sexual orientation has a significant effect on
children’s gender identity (Anderssen, Amlie, & Ytterøy, 2002). Importantly, information about
parenting as a process can be gleaned from existing outcomes-focused literature, which I review
briefly below, and recent literature has been increasingly process-oriented (Goldberg, 2010).
The second gap is limited representation: the LG parenting literature has not adequately included
racial and class diversity. Most studies have used highly educated, White, middle- and upper-class
samples (e.g., Ackbar, 2011; Berkowitz, 2011; Breshears, 2011; Gartrell et al., 1996; Goldberg & Allen,

CONTACT Shawn N. Mendez smendez@unca.edu University of North Carolina Asheville, 219 Zageir Hall, CPO #1930, 1
University Heights, Asheville, NC 28804
© 2020 Western Social Science Association
2 S. N. MENDEZ

2007; Goldberg, Kashy, & Smith, 2012). However, we know that LG parent families are ethnically
and racially diverse. In fact, in the United States, same-sex couples are more likely than heterosexual
couples to be interracial, and to raise children of color (Gates, 2013; Jepsen & Jepsen, 2002). Black
and Latino same-sex couples are also more likely than White same-sex couples to be raising children,
and single LG adults and same-sex couples who parent foster children are particularly likely to be
parents of color (Movement Advancement Project, 2012).
To address these issues, the current study is focused on the practice of parental socialization
(Grusec & Hastings, 2007; Hughes et al., 2006) within a predominantly Black sample of lesbian, gay,
and queer (LGQ) parent families. Specifically, this study addresses the following research questions:
What is the content of parental messages about queer culture? Why do LGQ parents socialize their
children about queer culture? How do LGQ parents socialize their children about queer culture?
First, I introduce the two theoretical frameworks that guide this study: hegemonic heteronormativity
(Allen & Mendez, 2018) and parental socialization (Grusec & Hastings, 2007; Hughes et al., 2006).

Theoretical framework
Hegemonic heteronormativity
Allen and Mendez (2018) posit that heteronormativity is hegemonic: it is a dynamic ideological
complex that normalizes and privileges cisnormativity, homonormativity, and mononormativity.
Specifically, hegemonic heteronormativity is defined as “a vast and pervasive system of privileging
composed of three overlapping binary composites: gender ideology, sexual ideology, and family
ideology” (Allen & Mendez, 2018, p. 73). The gender binary addresses cisnormativity, or the belief
that there are only two sexes/genders and bodies define our gender, by distinguishing normative
genders (e.g., “cisgender men, cisgender women, and trans individuals with binary, socially recog-
nizable gender identities,” p. 75) from deviant genders (e.g., nonbinary, genderqueer, agender). The
sexuality binary attends to mononormativity, or the privileging of monogamy, by contrasting
normative sexualities (monogamous heterosexuals, gay men, and lesbian women) against deviant
sexualities (e.g., polyamorous, pansexual, asexual). The family binary incorporates homonormativity,
or the assimilation of gay men and lesbian women into heteronormative culture, by contrasting
normative families (married heterosexuals, gay men, and lesbian women raising children) with
deviant families (e.g., polyamorous and unmarried parenting). Further, the authors contend that
these systems change over time and are inseparable from the contexts in which they are embedded
(e.g., race, ethnicity, class, nationality, ability). Thus, the hegemonic heteronormativity model
acknowledges the ability of heteronormativity to adapt relative to social and political change, as
well as the ways that heteronormativity varies across and within cultures. The model allows for
theorizing of both oppressed and privileged groups (p. 77), as well as behaviors that uphold and
challenge existing power structures.

Parental socialization
Socialization can be broadly defined as “a process in which an individual’s standards, skills, motives,
attitudes, and behaviors change to conform to those regarded as desirable and appropriate for [their]
present and future role in society” (Parke & Buriel, 2008, p. 95). The study of socialization is
immense, and many models exist. This study focuses specifically on parental socialization and
utilizes Parke, Burks, Carson, Neville, and Boyum (1994) tripartite model, which was originally
formulated to describe the relationship between the family and children’s peer groups. This model
describes parents as having three roles in the socialization of their children: parents as interactors,
parents as direct instructors, and parents as providers of opportunity. First, parents indirectly teach
their children about what is desirable and appropriate in society by means of their interactions with
them. Second, parents socialize children directly by explicitly educating them about appropriate ways
 THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL 3

of interacting with others in their culture and society. Third, parents socialize their children by
managing children’s social lives and interactions with individuals outside the family system.

Racial socialization
Racial socialization has been studied extensively and is common within families of color (Hughes
et al., 2006). It has been defined as “a set of behaviors, communications, and interactions between
parents and children … concerning the nature of one’s racial status as it relates to personal and
group identity, intergroup and individual relationships, and one’s position in the social hierarchy”
(Brown, 2008, p. 33). In their review of racial socialization literature, Hughes et al. (2006) defined
four content areas of racial socialization that have been identified by research on families of color.
First is cultural socialization, which involves teaching children about their racial heritage or
history, promoting cultural customs and traditions, and encouraging racial pride. Preparation for
bias is the second content area, and refers to parenting practices that promote children’s awareness
of racial discrimination and prepare them to cope with it. Third is promotion of mistrust, which
describes parenting practices that emphasize the need for wariness and distrust in interracial
interactions. Promotion of mistrust is distinguished from preparation for bias in that the promotion
of mistrust does not involve advice for coping with discrimination. Finally, mainstream socialization
(Boykin & Toms, 1985), refers to parenting practices that avoid discussions of race with children, or
encourage children to value individual qualities such as achievement and hard work over racial
group membership.

Queer socialization
I propose the term queer socialization to describe the ways in which parents are transmitting
heteronormativity and/or queerness to their children (specifically, in regard to gender, sexuality,
and family ideology; Allen & Mendez, 2018). Further, I situate queer socialization as analogous to
racial socialization in rationale and content. One rationale for racial socialization is that parents
teach children about race and racism as a way to deal with issues of race in the United States (e.g.,
discrimination). In the same way that racial socialization can be described as negotiating the tension
between racism and racial pride, queer socialization means negotiating the tension between hetero-
normativity and queering. Thus, in families with LGQ members, we may see a process of queer
socialization, by which children learn about queer culture and its place in society as a way to deal
with hegemonic heteronormativity.
I define queer culture as the patterns of thinking, believing, and behaving, produced mainly by
and for LGBTQ individuals (Ferguson, Tran, Mendez, & van de Vijver, 2018). Queer culture aims to
disrupt and/or challenge the normative, and encompasses the undervalued, unprivileged, “deviant”
aspects of the hegemonic heteronormativity model (gender, sexuality, and family as they relate to
race, class, nationality, ability, ethnicity and time; Allen & Mendez, 2018). Queer culture has evolved
over time through the social and political efforts of LGBTQ people to change popular assumptions
about sexuality, gender, and family, and to create accepting communities for themselves (Irvine,
1994). Queer culture has also been changed and commodified by an increasingly globalized world
that allows sexual and gender minorities to experience culture remotely (Ferguson et al., 2018).
Importantly, LGBTQ people of different races and classes have interacted with and been influ-
enced by queer culture in distinct ways. For example, there is a queer cultural tradition among drag
performers to group themselves into family houses in which performers use the same last name.
These families have their roots in 19th century queer masquerade balls, but modern variations were
born out of queer communities of color in early 1970s New York City who were ostracized from
drag balls dominated by White standards of beauty (Lawrence, 2011). Although there is significant
variability within and across queer communities, evidence of queer culture (broadly defined) can be
seen in art (e.g. fashion, literature, movies), language (i.e. queer slang), media such as television and
4 S. N. MENDEZ

movies, institutions that serve queer individuals (e.g., LGBTQ community centers), queer gener-
ativity rituals (Oswald & Masciadrelli, 2008), and geographic patterns (e.g. the existence of “gaybor-
hoods” in urban centers such as Chicago and San Francisco; Irvine, 1994).
Queer socialization is the process by which people learn about queer culture, and it may resemble
racial socialization not just in rationale, but also in terms of content (recall that racial socialization is
composed of four components: cultural socialization, preparation for bias, promotion of mistrust,
and mainstream socialization). There is evidence in the literature on LG parent families that queer
socialization may take similar forms (though the research reviewed below did not intentionally
investigate socialization practices). Hughes et al. (2006) provide examples of racial cultural socializa-
tion: “exposing children to culturally relevant books, artifacts, music, and stories; celebrating cultural
holidays” (p.749). These types of queer cultural socialization are found in LG parent families. LG
parents report actively participating in the queer community (e.g., pride parades; Bos, Gartrell,
Peyser, & van Balen, 2008a), and exposing their children to other LG parent families through social
networks and in storybooks, even when they have to make a concerted effort to do so. For example,
LG parents in Ackbar’s (2011) study reported altering the pronouns of characters (e.g. using
feminine pronouns for both parents in the Berenstain Bears to make them a lesbian couple, p. 64)
when reading to their children. Some gay fathers who conceived their children with surrogates
celebrate their children’s conception day in addition to their birthday (i.e. celebrating cultural
holidays; Mitchell & Green, 2007). Through these examples, we see LG parents encouraging their
children to resist hegemonic heteronormativity, and internalize queer understandings of sexuality,
gender, and families.
LG parents discuss the existence of discrimination toward LG individuals with their children (i.e.
preparation for bias; Bos & Gartrell, 2010) in order to prepare their children for lives in a hegemonic
heteronormative society. For example, lesbian mothers report roleplaying positive responses to
homophobia with their children (Gartrell et al., 1999). LG parents engage in mainstream queer
socialization when they teach their children that their family is ‘the same’ as any other family (e.g.,
Breshears, 2011). Promotion of mistrust appears to be the least frequent form of racial socialization
(Hughes et al., 2006), and the literature on LG parents does not appear to reflect it; possibly because
this form of socialization has not been directly addressed in LG parent families. However, LG parents
may promote mistrust of organizations that have historically discriminated against gender and
sexual minorities such as conservative political and/or religious groups. These examples further
demonstrate the ways that LG parents may support or resist hegemonic understandings of sexuality,
gender, and family.

The current study

This study seeks to integrate the sexual and racial minority literatures by applying the hegemonic
heteronormativity framework to a study of parental socialization practices. It is deductive in nature,
and examines the applicability of well-known concepts from an established body of literature (racial
socialization) to a new phenomenon (queer socialization). The overarching goal of this study is to
inform future research by establishing queer socialization as a process that is unfolding in LGQ
parent families. Data come from a larger embedded multiple case study project investigating
parenting processes in LGQ parent families. Significantly, this paper is limited to an examination
of queer socialization practices (for a review of racial socialization practices within these same
families see Mendez, in press).
Case study methodology is recommended (over experiments, archival analysis, etc.) when
researchers pose “how” and “why” research questions about contemporary events that cannot be
manipulated (Yin, 2013, p. 8–13), and seek to investigate phenomena that is not clearly delineated
from its context (Yin, 2013, p. 18). In this paper, the “case” is the process of queer socialization,
which is analyzed within the context of neighborhoods through the lens of the participating families
(i.e., the embedded units of analysis). Case study methods are particularly well suited to the goals of
 THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL 5

this project because they allow exploration of queer socialization in context, through a variety of data
sources. The goal of this case study is not to produce statistically generalizable results, but rather to
expand theory and provide a detailed description of the lives of an understudied population.
Propositions are a key element of case study research design, and are used to: place limits on the
scope of a project; increase the feasibility of project completion; demonstrate the use of theory
throughout the study design; and provide a theoretical orientation to the analysis (Yin, 2013).
Propositions are similar to hypotheses in experimental studies and may be based on the personal
or professional experiences of researchers, existing theoretical literature, and/or empirical evidence.
This study also uses propositions as a way of queering traditionally binary understandings of
qualitative vs. quantitative methodologies (Fish & Russell, 2018). The current analysis is guided by
three propositions that are based on the existing literature and the author’s experience in LGBTQ
community. First, the content of queer socialization will be related to culture, preparation for bias,
promotion of mistrust, and/or egalitarianism (Hughes et al., 2006). Second, queer socialization will
be used because it buffers the negative effects of discrimination and heterosexism for parents and
children. Finally, queer socialization will occur directly, indirectly, and through the management of
children’s time and environment (Parke et al., 1994).

Method
Sample
Parents were recruited using purposive theoretical sampling strategies that took advantage of the
author’s personal networks, as well as online advertising, listservs, social media, and word of mouth.
The inclusion criteria were families composed of single or coupled sexual minority parents with
children between the ages of 14–18, living in Illinois, in which at least one parent and/or the target
child is a person of color. Adolescents are the focus of this study because it is more likely that they
(compared to younger children) have experienced queer socialization in their families at some point
in their lives (Hughes et al., 2006). Furthermore, adolescents are better able to verbally report and
reflect on their own experiences than younger children and the perspective of children is largely
missing from the literature on LG parenting. At least one parent of each target child agreed to
participate for a family to be included in this study. Data collection ended after 4 families due to data
saturation, as well as time and resource limitations. Sample demographics are summarized in
Table 1.
Families were assigned their letters in the order they were recruited (Family A was first, then
Family B, etc.). Recruitment began in College Town, a non-metropolitan area, and later expanded to

Table 1. Summary of sample demographics.

Family A (n = 4) Family B (n = 2) Family C (n = 2) Family D (n = 2)
Location Non-metropolitan Non-metropolitan Metropolitan Metropolitan
Parent name Allison, Janet & Sandra Kurt Tanesha Violet
Parent gender 3 cisgender women 1 cisgender man 1 cisgender woman 1 cisgender woman
Parent race White Black Black White
Parent age 47, 48, 69 51 42 55
Parent sexual orientation Lesbian Gay Lesbian Queer
Parent education Janet: Undergraduate Some college, no degree Graduate degree Graduate degree
Allison: Graduate degree
Sandra: Graduate degree
Annual household income Janet & Sandra: $90-100K $40-50K $40-50K $80-90K
Allison: $50-60K
Child name Aden Nolan Siyanda Kennedy
Child sexual orientation Heterosexual Heterosexual Bisexual Queer
Child gender Cisgender boy Cisgender boy Cisgender girl Transgender boy
Child race Black Black Black Black
Child age 14 18 16 16
6 S. N. MENDEZ

Metropolis, a large city about 2 hours away. All names of people and places are pseudonyms.
Informants from Family A are two divorced White lesbian mothers, Janet and Allison, their adopted
Black son, Aden, and Janet’s current wife, Sandra. Janet and Allison were out as lesbians when they
adopted Aden from birth, divorced when Aden was 4 years old, and currently have split custody.
Informants from Family B are a gay Black father, Kurt, who came out as gay a year before data
collection began, and his biological son, Nolan, from a previous heterosexual marriage. Kurt had
shared custody of Nolan with his ex-wife at the beginning of the study, but Nolan decided to live
with Kurt full time before the end of the data collection period. Informants in Family C are Tanesha,
a Black lesbian, and her biological daughter, Siyanda. Tanesha has been out as a lesbian for 4 years
and shares custody with her ex-husband, Siyanda’s other biological parent. Informants in Family
D are Violet, a divorced White queer woman, and her adopted Black transgender son, Kennedy.
Violet was out as a lesbian when she adopted Kennedy from birth, and was in the process of
divorcing her transgender ex-husband during data collection. Aden and Nolan are the only children
in their families, and Tanesha and Violet’s other children were not within the age range of this study.

Procedure
Data were collected primarily through a series of semi-structured, in depth interviews with parents and
their children, separately. All interviews were conducted face-to-face and one-on-one with the author
(i.e., co-parents or former co-parents were not interviewed together) in a location of the interviewees
choosing. Data were also collected using questionnaires, participant observation of each family during
mealtime, and neighborhood observations. Before the first and second interviews, informants completed
questionnaires to collect demographic and other quantitative data that matched the topics covered in the
corresponding interview. Each family member was interviewed 2–4 times, with no fewer than 2 weeks
between interviews. Interviews lasted between 1–3 hours each. All data were collected by the author, and
memos were recorded after each interview or observation with each participant.
In addition to the direct observations during each qualitative interview with informants, the author
toured each family’s home, observed each family at least once as a unit during mealtime, and did drive-
through observations of each family’s residential neighborhood. For in home observations, the target
child and parent(s) were always present, but other family members were often present as well. For
family A, two independent mealtime observations took place because the child’s parents are divorced,
making a total of 5 mealtime observations in this study. Mealtime observations took place after all
interviews were completed with the parent(s) and the target child. After the meal, informants gave
a guided tour of their home to allow for the observation of cultural artifacts (e.g., artwork, photographs,
flags). Having multiple data sources enhances trustworthiness of the findings through triangulation and
the development of converging lines of inquiry (Yin, 2013, p. 115). In this study, data from multiple
interviews and questionnaires with at least two sources in each family, combined with direct and
participant observation ensures that multiple facets of queer socialization are analyzed.

Measures
Demographics
Informants provided demographic information on questionnaire one, and were then asked open
ended questions about their identities in their initial interview(s). For example, after choosing from
the census categories for race/ethnicity on the questionnaire, they were asked “How did those
options do at describing your race and ethnicity? Is there any other way you describe yourself?”
Informants were also probed to explain the reasoning behind their questionnaire choices (“What
made you choose that answer?”).

Queer socialization
To examine how queer socialization may be comparable to racial socialization, I adapted various
items designed to address racial socialization (Hughes & Chen, 1997; Stevenson, 1994) to create
 THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL 7

questionnaire and interview questions about queer socialization, addressing the four areas of
socialization suggested by the racial socialization literature: cultural socialization, mainstream socia-
lization, preparation for bias, and promotion of mistrust. For example, a questionnaire item relating
to queer preparation for bias is: “Parents should explain to children that people may try to limit them
because of their parents’ sexual orientation.” Informants rated their level of agreement with each
statement on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Interviews began with open
ended questions, such as: “How have you talked to your children about your sexual orientation?” and
then moved on to more focused questions to address any of the four strategies that were not
spontaneously mentioned. For example, if a teen did not mention queer preparation for bias, they
were asked “How have your parent(s) taught you to deal with discrimination related to having LGQ
parent(s)?”

Analysis
The overall analytic strategy (Yin, 2013) was founded upon the propositions discussed above, with
the goal of “queer[ing] historically singular methods” (i.e., only quantitative or qualitative)” (Fish &
Russell, 2018, p. 17). Using propositions as theoretical orientation is a preferred strategy for case
study analysis (Yin, 2013, p. 130). As is often the case with qualitative analyses, various strategies and
techniques were used in this study. The analytical process was not linear, but rather involved
“playing” with the data (Yin, 2013, p. 129) by reading and re-reading transcripts and other textual
data, creating data displays, typologies, and profiles (Taylor & Bogdan, 1998), and comparing
different types (e.g., quantitative or qualitative) and sources (e.g., interview, questionnaire, observa-
tion) of data. For clarity, the analytical process is presented in order of proposition here.
Transcripts were first coded into large segments, or chunks, to highlight any portion of data
related to queer socialization. This served as a way to take the large quantity of data and separate it
into coding categories (Taylor & Bogdan, 1998). Within those larger segments, transcripts were
then coded line-by-line (Charmaz, 2014) using a priori codes based on terminology from the racial
socialization literature for each of the four queer socialization content areas (e.g., preparation for
bias, mainstream socialization) and an additional “other queer socialization” code for anything that
did not fit into the pre-defined categories. Later in the analytical process, segments coded as
“other” were reexamined. The majority of these segments were coded as “other” because they fit
into the four content areas established in the racial socialization literature but were described as
originating from a non-parental source such as a religious leader or the media (parental socializa-
tion is the focus of this study). Thus, these segments were recoded as “non-parental socialization”
as they did not significantly depart from established conceptualizations of socialization processes.
This portion of the analysis was based on proposition 1, which deals with the content of queer
socialization.
Next, transcripts were read and coded for parents’ reasoning behind the queer socialization
reported and the form of each example (direct, indirect, or time management). This portion of
the analysis was based on propositions 2 and 3, which deal with the “why” and “how” of queer
socialization. Creating visual analytical tools is a preferred way to uncover patterns in qualitative
data analysis (Taylor & Bogdan, 1998). MAXMaps, a visual analysis tool within MAXQDA, were
used to organize all segments coded as a rationale for queer socialization into four themes and then
group the themes with their corresponding content area. To discover the relationship between the
content, form, and rationales, I organized the three forms, four content areas, and four rationales
into tables that contained direct quotes in each cell.
To establish intercoder reliability, a random subsample of 8 interview transcripts (40% of the
sample) were independently coded by two research assistants. Each student followed the same
coding process described above using the same codebook (i.e., chunk coding, then a priori coding
within those chunks). For each transcript, MAXQDA calculated intercoder reliability and discordant
segments were discussed until each transcript had at least 95% intercoder agreement.
8 S. N. MENDEZ

Quantitative data from paper and pencil questionnaires was entered into SPSS by research
assistants. After negatively worded items were reverse scored, average scores for queer socialization
beliefs were calculated by participant within each of the four content area subscales and then
averaged for the sample as a whole. For example, the 5 items on the “mainstream queer socializa-
tion” subscale were averaged to report the overall level of endorsement of mainstream queer
socialization in the sample as a whole.

Results
What do LGQ parents teach their children about queer culture?
Consistent with proposition one, the content of queer socialization messages was related to the four
strategies defined in the racial socialization literature: cultural socialization, preparation for bias,
promotion of mistrust, and mainstream socialization. Results also suggest that children learn about
queer culture from non-parental sources. Consistent with previous racial socialization literature,
cultural socialization was the most frequent form of queer socialization, followed by mainstream
socialization, promotion of mistrust, and preparation for bias.
The quantitative results differ slightly from the content areas of queer socialization that families
reported during interviews. Specifically, although participants reported preparation for bias least
frequently during interviews, it was the most strongly endorsed content area on questionnaires.
Recall that on questionnaires, parents and children rated their support for each content area on
a scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). Each strategy is discussed below in order of
the frequency reported during interviews.

Queer cultural socialization

Queer cultural socialization involves teaching children about queer culture, and promoting diverse
notions of gender, sexuality, and family. Participants in this study were neutral about whether parents
should engage in queer cultural socialization (M = 3.92). Despite their overall neutrality, parents did
provide examples of queer cultural socialization including exposure to queer culture through pride
parades, movies, and museums, coming out to children, discussing diverse notions of sexuality, gender,
and family structure with children, and spending time with LGBTQ friends and family.
Allison (White lesbian) taught her son about the diversity of family structures by talking openly
and positively with her son about his adoption:
[W]e have long told him, its family lore. How we drove up to Metropolis and picked him up from the hospital
when he was 24 hours old … and we’ve told him about how we found the Family Center as a place that was
willing to deal with us as a couple of women who were adopting together and not playing any silly games about
who we really are. We wanted an open adoption just cause that’s, frankly, mentally better for everybody … and
he doesn’t have big, “Oh my God am I ever gonna know this strange person?” questions. It’s like “oh yeah, it’s
Desirae [his birth mother]. We can find her if we need to.”

These kinds of “family lore,” in addition to their current blended family constellation, make it clear
that nuclear families and heterosexual reproduction are not the only way to create family.
Sexual and gender fluidity were also commonly reported topics in this study. Tanesha (Black
lesbian) recalled one conversation with her daughter:
I remember one day us having a conversation about the spectrum of sexuality, and she was kind of, like, saying
where she felt she was on that spectrum, and I was kind of saying where I felt I was, and I was telling her, like,
it’s not a solid thing. It can change and flow and, just be different at any time in your life.

Janet (White lesbian) reported teaching Aden about gender diversity by asking him to think critically
about his own gender identity and transgender people from a young age:
He was probably in fourth or fifth grade. Well, yea, tennish. [I asked him] “Are you a boy even without your
penis? Do you feel like you’re a boy on the inside? What makes you feel like a boy, and can you imagine feeling
 THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL 9

like a girl? If you know you feel like a boy now … What would that be like … to have that same knowledge …
about who you are, but not have it match your body?”

Taking pride in one’s sexuality and gender identity, and accepting others’ identities was also part of
queer cultural socialization, as Nolan described: “Me and my dad talked … that being gay is … about
how it’s a part of who they are and that it’s not a bad thing and no one should be made fun of
because of their sexual orientation.” Similarly, Aden said:
They just said that I should be respectful towards people who might be transgender … instead of … I guess
I can use the technical term but like, cisgendered … is what I’ve always been. They’ve always been but like they
said I should always be respectful and courteous toward those who aren’t.

Queer mainstream socialization

Mainstream queer socialization refers to practices that avoid discussions of queer culture with
children, encourage children to value individual qualities over queer community membership, or
encourage heteronormative understandings of gender, sexuality, and family such as: there are only
two genders, our bodies define our gender identity, sexuality is biologically based and fixed,
individuals are either heterosexual or homosexual, and families are composed of genetically and
legally related individuals only. Participants in this study did not believe that parents should engage
in mainstream socialization (M = 2.26). Despite their disagreement, mainstream socialization was
described in interviews through heteronormative socialization, or ignoring/denying their children’s
heteronormative behaviors and beliefs.
For example, during the time I spent with Kurt (Black gay man), he frequently misgendered
transgender individuals he saw in the media, and shared these images and misunderstandings with
his son, Nolan. He described one such instance with a transgender man in a news article:
My son would walk in here and I said, “What do you think about this guy right here?” He said, “What am
I supposed to think? I mean, it’s a guy.” I said, “No, that’s not. Son, that’s a woman.” But I’ve shared those
photos with my son and he’s like “Wow.”

Parents also participate in mainstream queer socialization when they avoid talking about gender and
sexuality with their children. When asked how they have talked about gender and sexuality in their
family, “we haven’t really talked about that” or “it’s not really brought up” were common responses,
particularly from teens. For example, when Nolan was asked if he and his dad had talked about the
then recent news stories about “bathroom bills” and “religious freedom laws,” he said “I never heard
anything about that until you brought it up.”
Mainstream socialization messages were communicated when parents ignored heteronormative
behaviors in their children. For example, Janet (White lesbian) described a situation in which her son
lied about his family structure at school:
As a little kid he would always, ya know, beginning of school, ‘write about your family’ or whatever, and he’d
always write about his mom and dad and his two brothers, because he has two biological brothers. One of
whom is being raised by his birth mother who we don’t really have contact with at this point, and one who is
being raised by another lesbian couple … and I don’t think anyone has ever made a big deal about … “Aden, ya
don’t have a mom and a dad and … your family doesn’t look like what you’ve drawn”

Rather than discuss the situation with Aden, and perhaps offer him the language to discuss his actual
family configuration, Janet ignored the event and did not address the heteronormative family Aden
invented for himself at school.

Queer promotion of mistrust

Queer promotion of mistrust refers to socialization related to instilling suspicion toward hetero-
sexual or cisgender individuals, and/or groups that have discriminated against sexual and gender
minorities without offering advice for managing or coping with discrimination. Participants did not
believe parents should engage in promotion of mistrust (M = 2.25), but still reported promotion of
10 S. N. MENDEZ

mistrust in interviews. For example, Violet (White queer woman) made sure her 16-year-old
transgender son was aware of discrimination against transgender people through their interactions
on social media:
I will just take a post and I’ll just send it through messenger as a message to him. And there was one the
other day about a twelve to fourteen year old trans boy who was in the hospital being supposedly supported in
a gender transition. But the hospital staff kept calling him ‘she.’ And he ended up killing himself, you know.
And, “Oh you’re too pretty to be a boy.” You know, this kind of stuff. So I sent that to Kennedy and Kennedy
sent back a little emoji of a heart that’s been broken, severed down the middle and stuff.

While these types of interactions on social media may heighten Kennedy’s awareness of discrimina-
tion, but they do not provide him with strategies for avoiding or coping with discrimination as
a trans teenager. Similarly, when I asked Allison (White lesbian) how she discussed marriage equality
with her son, she said:
Just how it was basically unfair to be like, “No, these people can’t get married.” And [we] talked about, ya know,
how do you think it actually hurts anybody else? … and just talked about, how all the arguments against it are
based in some really … just, hateful ideas and not at all reasonable or respectful.

Allison sent a positive message about queer people by letting her son know that same-sex marriage
bans were unfair, and people who supported them were unreasonable, but did not teach Aden how
to interact with or respond to such individuals and sentiments.

Queer preparation for bias

Queer preparation for bias involves teaching children about discrimination against the LGBTQ
community and providing guidance for how to respond to it. Participants in this study agreed that
parents should engage in preparation for bias (M = 4.14). Despite their agreement, queer preparation
for bias was the least frequent content area reported in interviews. The most common advice parents
gave children was to avoid or ignore those who might treat them poorly because of their parents (or
their own) sexual orientation. For example, Nolan described the advice Kurt (Black gay man) gave
him about dealing with queer-related discrimination “[Dad] basically said ‘just don’t listen to ‘em,
ignore what they say … just because we’re different doesn’t mean that we should abide to anyone’s
rules, just to gain acceptance’ and stuff like that.” Notably, this was the only time preparation for bias
was reported in Family B. Parents also taught children how to respond to discrimination by
modeling acceptable behavior. For example, Janet and Sandra (White lesbians) prepared their 14-
year-old son for queer-related bias by making sure he saw how they responded to discrimination, as
Janet described:
[Our pride flag has] been stolen a couple times, and one of the things that I’ve made sure Aden was aware of
was that when it was stolen, that we called the police, the police came, they took the statement … I tried to
make sure that Aden saw a part of that so that Aden could see the police having a good interaction with us, but
also so he had a sense that there’s some things that just aren’t right and that’s one of them.

Parents also prepared their children for bias preemptively. For example, when Allison (White
lesbian) feared she and Aden might experience prejudice during a trip to visit her conservative,
religious mother, she proactively prepared him for bias by explaining the situation and describing
how they would respond should any discriminatory treatment occur:
He and I have talked about it, how I haven’t been close with my mom and don’t feel like she’s respectful of me
and my family. I’ve said to him, last couple of times we were going over there, “if we feel like we’re just being
disrespected there, we’re just gonna pack up and go. We’ll just get back in the car and if it’s late in the evening
we’ll go to a hotel. I don’t care. And we’ll just come home. We’re not gonna sit around and let people treat us
crappy.

Parents in Families C and D, whose children were also sexual minorities, preparation for bias was
reported relative to children’s identities. For example, Siyanda learned from her mother to avoid
people who might not be supportive of her sexuality:
 THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL 11

I feel like my mom feels like … if they don’t accept you then they’re not really your real people to hang out
with. So if you find that they’re doing something that is not right then you just leave them alone. But like don’t
like hold your guard up against them just like … try to be cool with everyone. And then if they’re like showing
you a side that’s not right then just like leave them alone.

The only time preparation for bias was reported in Family D was when Violet (White queer woman)
discussed how she handles discriminatory situations after they occur: “[I]n terms of teaching
Kennedy to protect himself … if I were with him, and somebody said something, then I would …
afterwards ask Kennedy, ‘Did that bother you? What would you want me to do in that situation?’”

Non-parental queer socialization

Queer socialization also occurred independently of the parent-child relationship, including cultural
socialization, preparation for bias, mainstream socialization, and promotion of mistrust. All four
teens reported learning about queer culture from non-parental sources, including their high school
teachers and peers. For example, Siyanda’s teachers discuss and ask for gender pronouns on the
first day of class, and Aden learned about transgender issues in health class. Preparation for bias was
also commonly discussed. Nolan talked frequently about LGBTQ identified or LGBTQ positive
YouTubers that he loved and watched frequently: “A song I know from YouTube … really piqued
my interest because it has a good beat but it teaches a lesson about being gay and how people in the
gay community are being treated.” Teens also had exposure to mainstream (heteronormative) queer
socialization within their schools, churches, and other members of their families. For example,
Siyanda’s father is not supportive of her or Tanesha as sexual minorities, and she reported that he
often makes anti-LGBTQ statements around her:
I was with my dad downtown, and this man he had on a rainbow shirt. And then [Dad] was like, ‘damn that’s
messed up … That’s the symbol for like gay people … now nobody can wear that if they’re not gay … that’s
messed up. That’s the first thing you think when you think of the rainbow.’

Similarly, Nolan described the anti-LGBTQ sentiments of the church in which he was raised,
Jehovah’s Witnesses. Promotion of mistrust was infrequently reported in this sample, however,
two out of four teens reported receiving messages from teachers and peers at school to be wary of
socially conservative individuals.

Why do LGQ parents socialize their children about queer culture?

Consistent with proposition two, results indicate that parents engage in queer socialization because
of concerns for their children’s wellbeing, but also suggest three additional reasons why LGQ parents
engage in queer socialization: parental characteristics, environmental characteristics, and child
characteristics. Each rationale is presented below in order of frequency reported in this sample.

Parental characteristics
Parental characteristics were the most frequently cited reason why parents engaged in queer
socialization, and influenced queer socialization practices in all four families. Parental characteristics
include parents’ experiences, identity, beliefs, perceptions of relevance to their child, and perception
of responsibility for teaching their child about queer culture. For example, Nolan explained that
conversations about queer culture were sometimes due to his father’s experiences with sexuality
related discrimination: “[Dad] did talk to me about it a few times … ‘there will be people who will
criticize you’ and stuff like that, because of what he’s been through.” Tanesha (Black lesbian)
reported that queer socialization took place with her children because gender equality is one of
her deeply held beliefs about the world:
I just never prescribed to that ‘boys can do things, girls can’t.’ And I always told [my children] that … certain
things I know I’ve had to evolve on, but that’s one thing that I’ve always believed since I was a little girl.
12 S. N. MENDEZ

Decisions about whether to engage in queer socialization were also related to parents’ perceptions of
queer culture’s relevance to their children. When parents felt that it was relevant, they were
purposive about doing it. For example, parents whose children also identified as LGBTQ felt that
queer socialization was relevant to their children’s lives. Violet (White queer woman) explains: “I
told [my children] I guess because I didn’t necessarily have a reason not to tell them. And I thought
that maybe it would be useful information for Kennedy especially.” However, parents with hetero-
sexual children discussed how other activities that were more relevant to their children kept them
from engaging in queer socialization. Allison (White lesbian) said:
Honestly I’m always much more worried about how he’s doing in school and whether this [parent-teacher]
conference is going to go okay than any of the rest of it. You know, I kind of file it in the back of my head.

Parents’ perception of whether or not it was their responsibility to teach children about queer culture
also influenced their decision making about queer socialization. Parents often believed that their
children would learn about queer culture purely by virtue of having an LGQ parent, and no further
discussion was required. Kurt (Black gay man) learned from his indoctrination as a Jehovah’s
Witness that children absorb things from their environment like sponges:
[T]hat’s what a child is doing from a very early age and nothing has to be said … things don’t have to be said
necessarily at all. That’s how much they’re just picking up through their senses and they’re processing it as an
intelligent being … When my son is standing in the living room and … there’re goodnight kisses, he’s seeing
me and Dan go to the bed. Do you understand? He’s seeing me and Dan kiss and things like that … what the
children are observing is sexuality that’s different from what’s considered norm.

Parental characteristics were also a reason why mainstream (heteronormative) queer socialization
took place in LGQ parent families. For example, Janet (White lesbian) reported avoiding discussing
queer topics because her identity as a lesbian is not as important to her as other aspects of her life:
[Being a lesbian is] a part of what I am but it’s not really the defining part of what I am … I mean, I’ve got so
many more things in common with people than … a life, I wanna say a lifestyle but ya know … who we love
I mean. I’d rather hang out with someone who likes cooking.

Heteronormative socialization also occurred when parents had essentialist beliefs about gender and
sexuality (parental characteristic), which Kurt exemplifies:
When you see anatomically how a man is made and how a woman is made, it’s very obvious how they’re made
and how those parts, whether it’s Adam and Eve or its evolution. It’s CLEAR how the parts are made and
they’re meant to work together … physiologically it does not seem like two men were meant to be together …
So even my own son understands anatomically the way he’s made … it fits perfectly with a female. Do you
understand? And so he knows how the parts work.

Concern for children’s wellbeing

LGQ parents in all four families in this study engaged in queer socialization due to concerns for their
children’s psychological well being. Specifically, parents were concerned with ensuring that their
children felt “normal” and that children would not be discriminated against because of their parents’
sexual orientation. For example, Violet (White queer woman) explained that it was important for her
to expose her children to other LGQ parent families so that they would feel that their family was
normal: “And when the kids were like toddlers, we started getting together [with other LGQ parent
families] so that they would not feel that their family was as unique.”
Parents were concerned that others would treat their children poorly because of their parent’s
sexual orientation. For Kurt (Black gay man), the Jehovah’s Witnesses, including his ex-wife, were
a particular concern because he feared they would use Nolan to manipulate him:
Now you have to understand, if my son chooses to become a Jehovah’s Witness, there will be an incredible
amount of pressure for him never to see me again. They will want him to and they will keep telling him this is
the only way to get your dad back [in the church].
 THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL 13

Parents also expressed concern about children’s LGBTQ identities. For example, after Kennedy came
out as transgender, Violet (White queer woman) discovered that he had been experiencing depres-
sion and suicidal thoughts. Kennedy reported that she made an effort to express her support for him
and his transition: “She always says she’ll support me with whatever. So it’s just she’ll support me no
matter what. Like, it doesn’t matter what I do and what I like or whatever.”
Concern for children’s wellbeing as a rationale for queer socialization is framed within a larger
Western belief system of child-centered parenting, which meant that children were often granted
independence and control even when the result was negative for parents or children. For example,
Allison (White lesbian) is aware that her son lies about his family structure at school by telling his
friends that Janet (White lesbian) is his adoptive mother, Sandra (White lesbian) is his aunt, and
Allison is his adoptive grandmother. Although Allison described feeling hurt by Aden’s refusal to
acknowledge her as a parent, she allows him to continue the charade: “Cause I figure he’s figuring his
own way to handle this.” Janet also reported going along with Aden’s fictional family structure
“cause that’s what he’s needed to do to feel like he … fits in.” Thus, parental concerns about their
child feeling normal relative to their peers were often a reason why queer socialization did (or did
not) take place.
Only one parent, Tanesha (Black lesbian), reported concern for a child’s physical safety as
a rationale for queer socialization. After one of Siyanda’s girlfriends came out to her father, the
father requested a meeting with Siyanda. Tanesha expressed concern over Siyanda meeting with the
girl’s father because she feared he might harm Siyanda.

Child characteristics
Children’s characteristics also influenced what children learned about queer culture in all four
families. Child characteristics include children’s personalities, preferences, and identities. For exam-
ple, 18-year-old Nolan has little interest in learning about queer culture, as his father, Kurt (Black
gay man), describes: “If my son knows in advance [the movie] Milk is about the gay agenda, he’s not
gonna wanna see it just because it’s a gay agenda. I know my son.” Violet (White queer woman)
reported that it is difficult to discuss issues of sexuality with her 16-year-old transgender son because
he is still negotiating his identity:
I do have an easier time talking about sexuality with [my older son] than with Kennedy because he’s pretty
open about it and he’ll tell me what’s going on in his life in that regard. But Kennedy is not comfortable with it
and is not comfortable really with his own body. So it’s um … so it’s not something that we would talk about.

Some parents engaged in queer socialization because queerness is a shared identity between
themselves and their child, as Siyanda reported: “[My mom and I] were talking about the Orlando
shooting, and like we were just talking about how sad it was and stuff, and like how that could be
us.” Conversely, mainstream queer socialization was more likely to take place when queerness was
not a shared identity between parents and children, as Aden described: “It doesn’t really apply that
much to my life, I guess. So, we don’t talk about it that much … I mean, I’m not gay.” However,
mainstream queer socialization also occurred when parents believed their children were already
aware of queer culture. For example, Violet (White queer woman) reported that she did not have to
teach her son about discrimination toward LGBTQ people because he was already aware it: “[With]
all the attention in schools about bullying and stuff like that … I think that they just know. And then
Kennedy is always on social media and so he always follows things … particularly trans women of
color being murdered.”

Environmental characteristics
Characteristics of the environment also served as an impetus for queer socialization for the four
families in this study. The local, residential environment, as well as the broader societal environment
influenced whether parents engaged in queer socialization. Three out of four families discussed the
14 S. N. MENDEZ

fact that their local environment did not have much of an identifiable queer community in which to
socialize their children. Those that did have access to queer communities reported that they either
excluded parents or were focused on LGBTQ parents of young children. Violet (White queer
woman) explained: “More of the conversations that I’ve had about like parenting have been with
straight people. Because there just aren’t as many parents in the queer community, particularly at
similar ages as my kids and stuff.” Tanesha (Black lesbian) also reported that Siyanda was “too old”
for local events for LGBT parent families, which focused primarily on families with young children.
Thus, although these parents reported a desire to engage in queer socialization by exposing their
children to the local queer community, they often refrained from doing so because they perceived
the queer community as a space in which parents and/or teenagers were unwelcome.
Broader cultural factors like religion and politics were a second environmental characteristic that
influenced queer socialization. For example, Kurt and Nolan’s awareness of various faith traditions’
positions on LGBTQ individuals and their “past existence” as Jehovah’s Witnesses influenced the
discussions they had about queer culture, as Kurt (Black gay man) reported: “Religion certainly has
influenced me in that … there’s a record that still says this is wrong. That plays in the back of my
head … But my son he … I have to still reprogram him every weekend.”
Parents also engaged in queer socialization in response to heteronormative situations in their
children’s environments. For example, Allison (White lesbian) described discussing gender stereo-
types because of the environment in Aden’s school:
It would mostly be because … even after we’d said, “you can wear any color you want” he would get the
feedback from his social circles, “no you can’t. That’s a girl color” and he’d come home and be like, “I can’t
wear this. It’s a girl color.” And we’d be like, ‘How do colors have sex? How’s a color a girl? How’s a color
a boy?’”

How do LGQ parents socialize their children about queer culture?

Results support proposition three; parents socialize their children about queer culture both directly
and indirectly through interaction, instruction, and the management of children’s time and envir-
onment (Parke et al., 1994). Indirect socialization was the most frequent form of queer socialization,
then direct queer socialization, and queer time management. Examples of each strategy are provided
below, followed by a discussion of the relationship between the form, content, and rationales of
queer socialization described above.

Indirect queer socialization

Indirect queer socialization occurs when children learn about queer culture through time spent
interacting with parents. In these cases, children are learning about queer culture, even though this
knowledge transfer is not the parents’ explicit goal in the interaction. Indirect queer socialization was
used most often with cultural and mainstream socialization, and infrequently with preparation for
bias and promotion of mistrust. For example, in Violet’s family, queer cultural socialization happens
indirectly through her interactions with Kennedy on social media “[Queer culture is] just part of our
ongoing conversation now … like I can ask him questions. He can bring things up. You know he’ll
send me something that he saw on Facebook, I’ll send him something.”
Indirect queer socialization occurred for all four reasons cited above. For example, Kurt (Black
gay man) indirectly promoted mistrust because of his negative past experiences (parental
characteristic):
[My son] knows I have some concerns … that third issue, not only are you Black in America, but you’re a Black
man, and now you’re a gay Black man. That’s a triple threat to the planet. So at that point and then I added
being a Jehovah’s Witness, so there was no way I was ever gonna win. I can’t win.

Janet (White lesbian) participated in indirect mainstream queer socialization because she felt it was
better for her son (concern for wellbeing):
 THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL 15

I think about what’s it’s like to be 14 and how you’re trying to create who you are and show the world who
you are and you try on lots of different things. And you know, if Aden isn’t at a point where he wants to share
with the world that he has two White moms and a couple of stepmoms or a stepmom and a partner … that’s
okay.

Rather than confront him about not being out about his parents at school, Janet avoids the
conversation entirely because she feels it is best for her son’s developing sense of self.

Direct queer socialization

Direct queer socialization takes place when parents teach their children about queer culture through
explicit verbal communication. Direct queer socialization was used for all four reasons described
above to communicate all four content areas, although primarily cultural socialization and prepara-
tion for bias. For example, for the parents who came out later in life, telling their children about their
own sexuality (i.e., “coming out”) was a form of direct cultural socialization. Tanesha (Black lesbian)
came out to Siyanda 4 years ago by describing sexual identity as something fluid that changes over
time rather than a static trait:
I just told her I was no longer attracted to men and that since I was eighteen I was interested in having
a relationship with a woman. And I was like, “the feeling never went away.” And … I just felt like, now my
attraction to women was just more what I was feeling.

Direct mainstream socialization and promotion of mistrust were rare. Kurt (Black gay man) was the
only parent to engage in direct mainstream (heteronormative) queer socialization (e.g., calling
transgender men “women” and teaching Nolan that men and women are inherently different
because of biology). When parents did engage in direct promotion of mistrust, it was because of
concern for children’s wellbeing or in response to an environmental trigger (but not because of
parental or child characteristics). For example, Violet (White queer woman) directly promoted
mistrust with her son after he asked her about anti-LGBTQ signs in public (environmental
characteristic):
I haven’t preemptively prepared them in any way, but they have seen it because we go to the pride parade
and there’d be like a big banner of “God hates fags” and you know. Kennedy would be all like ‘why do they
have that?’ and then I would kind of explain then what some people’s perceptions of the Bible say and
things.

Instead of “preemptively preparing” her son by giving him advice for how to handle this experience
before it occurred (i.e., preparation for bias, see above), Violet only addressed religious discrimina-
tion when her family encountered it in their environment, and offered no advice to her son for how
to deal with this or future encounters with religious hostility.

Queer time management

Parents also taught their children about queer culture as managers of children’s social worlds (i.e.,
controlling what children do, and where and with whom children spend time). Queer time manage-
ment strategies were used for cultural and mainstream socialization only (not preparation for bias or
promotion of mistrust). For example,
Tanesha (Black lesbian) described bringing Siyanda to events related to queer culture:
I forgot this lady’s name … [but] she wrote a book about being a child of a lesbian mom … [the queer
parenting group] invited her to meet with us. She talked about her book. Yeah, so Siyanda went … Siyanda got
to hear her experiences and what she went through.

Parents also use time management to teach children about queer culture when they purposefully
avoid situations in which children may hear negative messages about LGBTQ people. For example,
Allison discussed how she and Janet (White lesbians) were selective about their son’s early childhood
activities: “We wouldn’t put him the boy scouts because the boy scouts refuse to acknowledge that
we were a family.”
16 S. N. MENDEZ

Queer time management strategies were reported for all four rationales described above, but most
frequently because of parental characteristics such as the extent to which parents wanted to be
involved in the queer community. For example, Allison rarely used queer time management because
she did not want to be involved in the queer community:
I’m almost not at all [involved in the LGBTQ community] … I don’t generally even go to pride or things like
that … I haven’t for a really long time … for me personally, I don’t really seek out other gay people to hang out
with or anything like that.

Discussion
This case study investigated the ways that Black and White LGQ parents teach Black teenagers about
queer culture. Queer socialization within these families took the form of direct, indirect, and time
management strategies aimed at teaching children about queer culture, discrimination toward
LGBTQ people, wariness in relationships with heterosexual or socially conservative individuals,
and/or heteronormativity. Queer socialization occurred in these families because of concerns for
children’s wellbeing, and environmental, parental, and child characteristics. The form, content, and
rationale for queer socialization are connected.
Findings support and extend the limited research on socialization in LG parent families. In terms
of queer socialization content, only cultural socialization and preparation for bias have been
addressed in the existing literature. Oakley, Farr, and Sherer (2016) and Goldberg, Sweeney, Black,
and Moyer (2016) found similar results in those two content areas, although this study is the first to
name these practices queer socialization (Oakley, et al. use the term “same-sex parent socialization”
and Goldberg, et al. use “socialization to children’s minority statuses”). Adoptive LG parents in both
of these studies taught their children about queer culture and prepared them to encounter queer
specific bias (although Goldberg and colleagues do not use the language of racial socialization in
their content analysis).
The current study extends this exploratory work in three important ways. First, neither of these
works measure queer promotion of mistrust or mainstream queer socialization, even though Oakley,
et al. also use the racial socialization literature and terminology to inform their exploratory factor
analysis. In this study, mainstream queer socialization was the second most frequently reported
content area, which suggests that future work on queer socialization processes should include all four
content areas suggested by the racial socialization literature. Further, although parents and teenagers
reported preparation for bias least frequently during interviews, it was the most strongly endorsed
content area on questionnaires. Questionnaire items asked participants how much they agreed that
parents “should” engage in each content area of socialization, while interview questions asked what
they had actually done relative to each content area. Thus, parents may agree that it is important to
teach children about LGBTQ related discrimination without actually engaging in that behavior in
their own lives. One strength of this study is that having multiple data sources allowed me to
uncover this discrepancy, and future research should further investigate the factors that keep parents
from engaging in behaviors that they believe to be important. Participants completed questionnaires
before interviews, and it is possible that questionnaire items influenced interview responses,
although the results do not appear to be due to social desirability bias (if that were the case, parents
would have reported more engagement in behaviors they endorsed on questionnaires, rather than
less). Second, both of these studies focused solely on adopted children who were 5–8 years old on
average. Including a sample of both biologically related and adopted children in their teens is
another strength of the current study. Finally, this project extends these studies by explicitly
investigating the form and rationale for queer socialization in addition to the content.
Although the primary aim of this study was not necessarily to challenge or expand existing
theory, results suggest important implications for theory. First, this study extends the literature on
LGQ parenting by focusing on processes and the content of parental socialization, from the
perspective of both parents and their adolescent children. Further, this study applies a new
 THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL 17

theoretical lens to the literature on LGQ parenting by using processes from the literature on racial
socialization, including all 4 suggested content areas of socialization. This study established that
queer socialization is occurring in LGQ parent families, and that it fits well within the rubric
provided by the racial socialization literature (at least within this sample). Finally, this study provides
empirical evidence for Allen and Mendez’s (2018) hegemonic heteronormativity framework (e.g.,
mainstream queer socialization reproduces hegemonic heteronormativity because parents want their
children to be “normal”). This paper introduces queer socialization as a process of negotiating the
tensions produced by each binary in the model and supports the argument that the hegemonic
heteronormativity model can be applied to individuals and families with relatively greater and fewer
marginalized statuses.
This study is important because it helps address the relative dearth of research on Black and
multiracial LGQ parent families. However, this is a study of a particular group of people (White and
Black LGQ parents of Black teenagers) living in a particular place (Illinois), and results should be
interpreted in light of the study’s limitations. Case study methods have been critiqued for their lack
of rigor, compared to other methods (e.g., randomized control group experiments). The current
study followed systematic procedures, as outlined above, to avoid this pitfall. Case studies have also
been criticized for their lack of generalizability. However, as Yin (2013) notes, “case studies, like
experiments, are generalizable to theoretical propositions, and not to populations or universes … the
goal [is] to expand and generalize theories (analytic generalization), and not to enumerate frequen-
cies (statistical generalization)” (p. 15). Thus, this study sought to advance our understanding of the
process of queer socialization, not to make generalized claims about all LGQ parent families. Further,
this study could have benefitted from more extensive observations with each family and a larger
sample, although not necessary for case study methodology, could have provided more insight into
queer socialization processes.
Finally, while this paper accomplished its goal of establishing queer socialization as a process in
some LGQ parent families, it is very limited in scope. I was unable to fully address the connections
between racial and queer socialization, or the differences in socialization process across monoracial
and multiracial families. Previous research suggests that LG parents may be engaging in racial
socialization differently than heterosexual parents (Goldberg et al., 2016), and future research should
address this, as well as the possibility that heterosexual parents may be engaging in queer socializa-
tion (in potentially distinct ways).
Replications of these findings, and similar case studies with demographically distinct informants,
are desirable. Research on gay fathers (Patterson, 2004) and other queer identified (e.g., queer,
pansexual, bisexual) parents are needed, as the literature on LGBTQ parent families has relied
primarily on research with lesbian mothers (Ross & Dobinson, 2013). Families with transgender
members may be the least prevalent and most under-theorized population today; future research
should address the ways that these families socialize children about queer culture, as well as the ways
they negotiate heteronormativity in their lives (Pfeffer, 2017). In order to fully investigate queer
socialization, it is important to directly interrogate whether and how queer socialization practices are
related to racial socialization practices. This study found relatively more queer socialization in
families in which both the parent(s) and teenagers identified as LGBTQ (i.e., 2nd generation families;
Kuvalanka & Goldberg, 2009) but more information is needed to fully understand the relationship
between shared identity and queer socialization practices. Finally, this study did not clearly distin-
guish the gender, sexuality, and family axes of the hegemonic heteronormativity model as they relate
to queer socialization or explicitly connect this process with the contextual spheres. More evidence is
needed to unpack whether and how parents and children experience each site of tension differently.
In order to best serve the needs of LGQ parent families and make their work more effective,
service providers need to better understand their lives, including both their strengths and challenges.
Racial socialization has been linked to various positive outcomes for children, and results suggest
that queer socialization is similar to racial socialization in some ways. Thus, queer socialization may
have a similarly positive effect on children in LGBTQ parent families. Understanding the what, how,
18 S. N. MENDEZ

and why of queer socialization is the first step to fully understanding the process and utilizing it to
improve the lives of LGBTQ parent families.

Highlights
● Presents research on 4 Black and multiracial families with LGQ parents and teenagers
● Queer socialization is a process by which children learn about queer culture
● Queer socialization may be direct, indirect, or involve time management
● The content of queer socialization varies
● Queer socialization occurs due to family characteristics and concern for wellbeing

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my mentor, colleague, and friend Ramona Faith Oswald for her support and guidance
throughout this project from its inception to this publication. Data collection and analysis would not have been
possible without my undergraduate research assistants, Daniel Salazar and Ariel Watts, and the generous support of
the Jesse Bernard Outstanding Research Proposal Award from a Feminist Perspective through the Feminism & Family
Studies Section of the National Council on Family Relations.

ReferencesReferences
Ackbar, S. (2011). Constructions and socialization of gender and sexuality in lesbian-/gay headed families (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada. Retrieved from PsycINFO.
Allen, S. H., & Mendez, S. N. (2018). Hegemonic heteronormativity: Toward a new era of queer family theory. Journal
of Family Theory & Review, 10(1), 70–86. doi:10.1111/jftr.12241
Anderssen, N., Amlie, C., & Ytterøy, E. A. (2002). Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents. A review of
studies from 1978 to 2000. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43(4), 335–351. doi:10.1111/sjop.2002.43.issue-4
Berkowitz, D. (2011). ‘It was the Cadillac of adoption agencies’: Intersections of social class, race, and sexuality in gay
men’s adoption narratives. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 7(1/2), 109–131. doi:10.1080/1550428X.2011.537227
Bos, H. M. W., & Gartrell, N. (2010). Adolescents of the USA national longitudinal lesbian family study: Can family
characteristics counteract the negative effects of stigmatization? Family Process, 49, 559–572. doi:10.1111/j.1545-
5300.2010.01340.x
Bos, H. M. W., Gartrell, N., Peyser, H., & van Balen, F. (2008a). The USA national longitudinal lesbian family study:
Homophobia, psychological adjustment, and protective factors. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 12(4), 455–471.
doi:10.1080/10894160802278630
Boykin, A. W., & Toms, F. D. (1985). Black child socialization: A conceptual framework. In H. McAdoo & J. McAdoo
(Eds.), Black children (pp. 33–51). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Breshears, D. (2011). Understanding communication between lesbian parents and their children regarding outsider
discourse about family identity. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 7(3), 264–284. doi:10.1080/1550428X.2011.564946
Brown, D. L. (2008). African American resiliency: Examining racial socialization and social support as protective
factors. Journal of Black Psychology, 34(1), 32–48. doi:10.1177/0095798407310538
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Ferguson, G. M., Tran, S., Mendez, S. N., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2018). Remote acculturation: Conceptualization,
measurement, and implications for health outcomes. In S. J. Schwartz & J. B. Unger (Eds.), Oxford handbook of
acculturation and health (pp. 157–173). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Fish, J. N., & Russell, S. T. (2018). Queering methodologies to understand queer families. Family Relations, 67(1),
12–25. doi:10.1111/fare.12297
Gartrell, N., Banks, A., Hamilton, J., Reed, N., Bishop, H., & Rodas, C. (1999). The national lesbian family study: 2.
Interviews with mothers of toddlers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 69, 362–369. doi:10.1037/h0080410
Gartrell, N., Hamilton, J., Banks, A., Mosbacher, D., Reed, N., Sparks, C. H., & Bishop, H. (1996). The national lesbian
family study: 1. Interviews with prospective mothers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 66, 272–281.
doi:10.1037/h0080178
Gates, G. J. (2013). LGBT parenting in the United States. Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute, UCLA School of
Law. Retrieved from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/lgbt-parenting
-in-the-united-states/
Goldberg, A. E. (2010). Lesbian and gay parents and their children: Research on the family life cycle. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
 THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL 19

Goldberg, A. E., & Allen, K. R. (2007). Imagining men: Lesbian mothers’ perceptions of male involvement during the
transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage & Family, 69, 352–365. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00370.x
Goldberg, A. E., Gartrell, N. K., & Gates, G. (2014). Research report on LGB-parent families. Los Angeles, CA: The
Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. Retrieved from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/
lgb-parent-families-july-2014.pdf
Goldberg, A. E., Kashy, D. A., & Smith, J. Z. (2012). Gender-typed play behavior in early childhood: Adopted children
with lesbian, gay, and heterosexual parents. Sex Roles, 67(9–10), 503–515. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0198-3
Goldberg, A. E., Sweeney, K., Black, K., & Moyer, A. (2016). Lesbian, gay, and heterosexual adoptive parents’
socialization approaches to children’s minority statuses. The Counseling Psychologist, 44(2), 267–299. doi:10.1177/
0011000015628055
Grusec, J. E., & Hastings. (2007). Handbook of socialization. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hughes, D., & Chen, L. (1997). When and what parents tell children about race: An examination of race-related
socialization among African American families. Applied Developmental Science, 1, 200–214. doi:10.1207/
s1532480xads0104_4
Hughes, D., Rodriguez, J., Smith, E. P., Johnson, D. J., Stevenson, H. C., & Spicer, P. (2006). Parents’ ethnic-racial
socialization practices: A review of research and directions for future study. Developmental Psychology, 42(5),
747–770. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.747
Irvine, J. (1994). A place in the rainbow: Theorizing lesbian and gay culture. Sociological Theory, 12(2), 232–248.
doi:10.2307/201867
Jepsen, L. K., & Jepsen, C. A. (2002). An empirical analysis of the matching patterns of same-sex and opposite-sex
couples. Demography, 39(2), 435–453. doi:10.1353/dem.2002.0027
Kuvalanka, K. A., & Goldberg, A. E. (2009). “Second generation” voices: Queer youth with lesbian/bisexual mothers.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(7), 904–919. doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9327-2
Lawrence, T. (2011). ‘Listen, and you will hear all the houses that walked there before’: A history of drag balls, houses
and the culture of voguing. Londen, UK: Soul Jazz.
Mendez, S. N. (in press). Racial socialization in black and mixed-race lesbian, gay, and queer (LGQ) parent families. In
A. James (Ed.), Black families: A systems approach. San Diego, CA: Cognella Academic Press.
Mitchell, V., & Green, R. J. (2007). Different storks for different folks: Gay and lesbian parents’ experiences with
alternative insemination and surrogacy. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 3, 81–104. doi:10.1300/J461v03n02_04
Movement Advancement Project (2012). LGBT families of color: At a glance. Retrieved from: https://www.lgbtmap.org/
file/lgbt-families-of-color-facts-at-a-glance.pdf
Oakley, M., Farr, R. H., & Sherer, D. G. (2016). Same-sex parent socialization: Understanding gay and lesbian
parenting practices as cultural socialization. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 13(1), 56–75. doi:10.1080/
1550428X.2016.1158685
Oswald, R. F., & Masciadrelli, B. P. (2008). Generative ritual among nonmetropolitan lesbians and gay men: Promoting
social inclusion. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(4), 1060–1073. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00546.x
Parke, R. D., & Buriel, R. (2008). Socialization and the family: Ethnic and ecological perspectives. In W. Damon &
R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Child and adolescent development: An advanced course (pp. 95–138). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
Parke, R. D., Burks, V. M., Carson, J. L., Neville, B., & Boyum, L. A. (1994). Family-peer relationships: A tripartite
model. In R. D. Parke & S. G. Kellam (Eds.), Exploring family relationships with other social contexts(p. 115–145).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Patterson, C. J. (2004). Gay fathers. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp. 397–416).
Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Pfeffer, C. A. (2017). Queering families: The postmodern partnerships of cisgender women and transgender men. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Prendergast, S., & MacPhee, D. (2018). Family resilience amid stigma and discrimination: A conceptual model for
families headed by same-sex parents. Family Relations, 67(1), 26–40. doi:10.1111/fare.12296
Riggs, D. W., & Augoustinos, M. (2008). Learning difference: Representations of diversity in storybooks for children of
gay and lesbian parents. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 3(2–3), 133–156. doi:10.1300/J461v03n02_06
Ross, L. E., & Dobinson, C. (2013). Where is the “B” in LGBT parenting? A call for research on bisexual parenting. In
A. E. Goldberg & K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent families: Innovations in research and implications for practice (pp.
87–103). New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.
Stacey, J., & Biblarz, T. J. (2001). (How) does the sexual orientation of parents matter? American Sociological Review,
66(2), 159–183. doi:10.2307/2657413
Stevenson Jr., H. C. (1994). Validation of the scale of racial socialization for African American adolescents: Steps
toward multidimensionality. Journal of Black Psychology, 20(4), 445–468. doi:10.1177/00957984940204005
Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1998). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A guidebook and resource. New York,
NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.