﻿ From Drag Queens to Leathermen : language, gender, and gay male subcultures | BARRETT, RUSTY | download
メイン From Drag Queens to Leathermen : language, gender, and gay male subcultures


This book examines gendered language use in six gay male subcultures: drag queens, radical faeries, bears, circuit boys, barebackers, and leathermen. Within each subculture, unique patterns of language use challenge normative assumptions about gender and sexual identity. Rusty Barrett's analyses of these subcultures emphasize the ways in which gay male constructions of gender are intimately linked to other forms of social difference.
In From Drag Queens to Leathermen, Barrett presents an extension of his earlier work among African American drag queens in the 1990s, emphasizing the intersections of race and class in the construction of gender. An analysis of sacred music among radical faeries considers the ways in which expressions of gender are embedded in a broader neo-pagan religious identity. The formation of bear as an identity category (for heavyset and hairy men) in the late 1980s involves the appropriation of linguistic stereotypes of rural Southern masculinity. Among regular attendees of circuit parties, language serves to differentiate gay and straight forms of masculinity. In the early 2000s, barebackers (gay men who eschew condoms) used language to position themselves as rational risk takers with an innate desire for semen. For participants in the International Mr. Leather contest, a disciplined, militaristic masculinity links expressions of patriotism with BDSM sexual practice.
In all of these groups, the construction of gendered identity involves combining linguistic forms that would usually not co-occur. These unexpected combinations serve as the foundation for the emergence of unique subcultural expressions of gay male identity, explicated at length in this book.
発行年: 2017
エディション: 1
言語: english
ページ数: 274 / 273
ISBN 10: 0195390180
ISBN 13: 9780195390186
Series: Studies in Language Gender and Sexuality
File: PDF, 3.41 MB
ダウンロード (pdf, 3.41 MB)

From Drag Queens to Leathermen



Mary Bucholtz, General Editor
Advisory Board
Penelope Eckert, Stanford University
Kira Hall, University of Colorado
Janet Holmes, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
Miyako Inoue, Stanford University
Sally McConnell-​Ginet, Cornell University
Marcyliena Morgan, Stanford University
Deborah Tannen, Georgetown University
Ana Celia Zentella, University of California, San Diego
Reinventing Identities: The Gendered Self in Discourse
Edited by Mary Bucholtz, A. C. Liang, and Laurel A. Sutton
Pronoun Envy: Literary Uses of Linguistic Gender
Anna Livia
Japanese Language, Gender, and Ideology: Cultural Models and Real People
Edited by Shigeko Okamoto and Janet S. Shibamoto Smith
Language and Women’s Place: Text and Commentaries
Revised and Expanded Edition
By Robin Tolmach Lakoff
Edited by Mary Bucholtz
From the Kitchen to the Parlor: Language and Becoming in African American
Women’s Hair Care
Lanita Jacobs-​Huey
Gender, Sexuality, and Meaning: Linguistic Practice and Politics
Sally McConnell-​Ginet
Queer Excursions: Retheorizing Binaries in Language, Gender, and Sexuality
Edited by Lal Zimman, Jenny Davis, and Joshua Raclaw
From Drag Queens to Leathermen: Language, Gender, and Gay Male
Rusty Barrett


From Drag Queens to Leathermen
Rusty Barrett



the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
Press in the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
© Oxford University Press 2017
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Barrett, Rusty, author.
Title: From Drag Queens to Leathermen : language, gender, and gay male
subcultures / Rusty Barrett.
Description: New York, NY : Oxford University Press, [2017] |
Series: Studies in language, gender and sexuality |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016043552 (print) | LCCN 2017014911 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780199874965 (Updf) | ISBN 9780195390179 (alk. paper) |
ISBN 9780195390186 (alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Gay men—Language. | Gay men—Identity. | Gay culture. | Subculture.
Classification: LCC PE3727.G39 (ebook) | LCC PE3727.G39 B37 2017 (print) |
DDC 306.76/62014—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016043552
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Paperback printed by WebCom, Inc., Canada
Hardback printed by Bridgeport National Bindery, Inc., United States of America


For Albert Zapata
nadie puede amarme como tú…c/​s



List of Tables ix
List of Figures xi
Series Foreword xiii
Editor’s Preface xv
Author’s Preface xvii
Transcription Conventions


1. From Drag Queens to Leathermen


2. Fierce Fish Who Pee: Indexicality and Identity Among African American
Drag Queens 33
3. “The Faggot God is Here!”—​Indexing Space and Time in Radical Faerie
Sacred Music 55
4. The Class Menagerie: Working-​Class Appropriations and Bear Identity 83
5. Down the K-​Hole: Circuit Boy Language Ideology and Linguistic
Differentiation 117
6. Viral Loads: Barebacker Identity and Interactional Stances Toward Ideologies
of Safe Sex 147
7. Red and Yellow Coming Together: Interdiscursivity and Sexual Citizenship
at International Mr. Leather 181
8. Conclusion: Language, Gender, and Gay Male Subcultures
Index 247






Hanky code as used in New York in the 1970s (Levine 1998)


“Cum Score” from gaysexcapades (2008) 173





2.1.	Flier advertising “Funky Divas” drag show in Houston, TX 1993.
Private collection of Keith Heywood 37
3.1.	Harry Hay at a Radical Faeries Campout, Anza-​Borrego Desert State
Park, 1996. Photo by Faerichiee. https://​commons.wikimedia.org/​
wiki/​File:HarryHayApril1996AnzaBoregoDesert.jpg 57
3.2.	Radical Faeries parade at London Pride, Trafalgar Square. Photo by
Fae. https://​commons.wikimedia.org/​wiki/​File:Radical_​Faeries_​
2010_​London_​Pride.jpg 62
3.3.	Sister Innocenta (Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence) (Paris, 2007).
jpg 71
4.1.	Orsi Italiani at Bologna Pride, photo by Giovanni Dall’Orto. https://​
2012_​-​_​Foto_​Giovanni_​Dall%27Orto,_​9_​giugno_​2012.jpg 84
4.2.	International Bear Brotherhood Flag. https://​commons.wikimedia.
org/​wiki/​File:Bear_​Brotherhood_​flag.svg 88
6.1.	Biohazard tattoo. Photo by the author


6.2.	Still from Treasure Island Media’s Drunk on Cum 3


7.1.	Leather/​fetish titleholders at Cologne Pride, 2014. © CEphoto,
Uwe Aranas. https://​commons.wikimedia.org/​wiki/​File:Cologne_​
Germany_​Cologne-​Gay-​Pride-​2014_​Parade-​02a.jpg 188
7.2.	Leather Pride Flag. https://​commons.wikimedia.org/​wiki/​
File:Leather,_​Latex,_​and_​BDSM_​pride_​-​_​Light.svg 189



Oxford’s series Studies in Language, Gender, and Sexuality provides a broad-​
based interdisciplinary forum for the best new scholarship on language, gender, and sexuality. The mandate of the series is to encourage innovative work
in the field, a goal that may be achieved through the revisitation of familiar
topics from fresh vantage points, through the introduction of new avenues
of research, or through new theoretical or methodological frameworks. The
series is interdisciplinary in its scope: volumes may be authored by scholars
in such disciplines as anthropology, communication, education, feminist and
gender studies, linguistics, literary studies, psychology, queer studies, race and
ethnic studies, and sociology, and other fields.




The study of gender is necessarily also the study of sexuality. Yet for many
years the intimate connection between gender and sexuality, which was evident at least as subtext in a wealth of studies conducted within language and
gender studies, remained largely unacknowledged and unexplored. With the
advent of feminist poststructuralism, the profound influence of Judith Butler’s
work reverberated throughout the social sciences and humanities, yet beyond
a relatively small group of scholars—​Rusty Barrett key among them—​gender
and sexuality have often continued to be investigated separately.
In From Drag Queens to Leathermen: Language, Gender, and Gay Male
Subcultures, Rusty Barrett convincingly demonstrates not simply the analytic
benefit but the theoretical necessity of approaching gender and sexuality as
deeply interlinked phenomena. Barrett’s work represents a critical shift in the
field by placing gender and sexuality on equal footing. In examining precisely
how gay men within different subcultures simultaneously participate in semiotic systems of gender and of sexuality—​and, just as important, in systems
of race, class, and other sociopolitical structures—​he shows the impossibility
of bracketing any part of social identity to focus exclusively on sexuality or
The resulting book is an astonishingly rich and nuanced examination of
the complex relationship among language, gender, and sexuality that underlies
the many different ways of being gay in the United States. Barrett’s extraordinarily broad and deep investigation, the culmination of nearly two decades of
fieldwork and scholarly research, makes an essential contribution to both linguistic and nonlinguistic studies of sexuality by calling attention to the diversity of gay men’s ideologies and practices as well as the crucial role of language
in indexing specific subcultural identities. Challenging conventional accounts
that too often treat “gay identity” as unproblematically monolithic, Barrett
reveals how cultural signs of masculinity and, at times, femininity are enlisted
to semiotically produce a wide range of gay male subjectivities. In so doing,
he clearly and compellingly lays out the theoretical and political implications
of this enlarged understanding of gay identities as plural rather than singular.
Throughout the volume, Barrett shows how the wide variety of subcultures
that he discusses—​drag queens, radical faeries, bears, circuit boys, barebackers, and leathermen—​are sometimes in alignment and sometimes in opposition in their understandings of what it means to be a gay man.



Editor’s Preface

First and foremost, From Drag Queens to Leathermen is a deeply insightful and finely observed ethnography of gay male subcultures that have been
variously sensationalized, vilified, misunderstood, misrepresented, dismissed,
and ignored by heteronormative society. But it is also a major theoretical statement by a leading scholar of language, gender, and sexuality. Barrett’s brilliant
reworking of Butler’s concept of performativity and the linguistic concept of
indexicality helps move the field in exciting and productive new directions by
providing a sophisticated theoretical understanding of the semiotics of language, embodiment, and materiality in constituting social selves and others.
As those readers familiar with his work already know, Barrett is not only
a formidable scholar but also a skilled storyteller, and the story he tells about
language, gender, and sexuality in the following pages is engrossing, often startling, and always illuminating. In crafting his argument, he seamlessly blends
queer theory and linguistics, ethnography and semiotic analysis, the embodied reality of sexuality and the theoretical and political projects for which it has
been pressed into service. A timely and necessary contribution to the study of
language, gender, and sexuality, From Drag Queens to Leathermen is both a
remarkable scholarly achievement and a generous and deeply human account
of the diversity and complexity of gay men’s social and sexual lives.
Mary Bucholtz
Series Editor


This book would not have been possible without support from numerous
individuals and institutions. Preliminary research for this book was supported
by a Mellon Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship in the Humanities and
Humanistic Social Sciences in the Department of Linguistics at the University
of Chicago. Additional support came from the College of Arts and Sciences
and the English Department at the University of Kentucky.
I would like to thank those who blazed the trail I follow: James Darsey,
Joseph J. Hayes, Joseph P. Goodwin, Laud Humphreys, Gershon Legman,
Esther Newton, Dorothy Painter, Julia Penelope, Bruce Rodgers, and (especially) Martin Levine. Special thanks to William Leap, for not only for opening
doors, but also making sure doors stay open for those following behind him.
Bill’s encouragement of younger scholars should be a model for others. For
helping or inspiring me in various ways throughout this research, I would like
to thank Kate Black, Mike Boyd, Gregory Clay, Nikky Finney, DaMaris Hill,
Chamara Kwakye, Checkers LaDue, Katherine Lahti, Andrew Lewis, Miss
Nicole, Grainger Saunders, Kathryn Semolic, Katka Showers-​Curtis, Brad
Sunday, Cammy Towe, and Simone Wadds.
I have benefited from discussions of the issues related to this work with
numerous friends and colleagues, particularly Susan Guion Anderson, Dwight
Billings, Michal Brody, Elaine Chun, Jenny L. Davis, Kira Hall, Jonathan Loftin,
Monica Macaulay, Norma Mendoza-​Denton, Robin Queen, Ellen Rosenman,
Haley Smith, Lucy Thomason, Karen Tice, and Sara Trechter. I am especially
thankful to Erin Debenport for her emotional and intellectual support. I am
blessed to have Erin in my life. I am also grateful to my brother “Sweet Joe”
Barrett, Elizabeth Krauss Boren, and Ben Boren for long discussions during
the planning of this book. They helped me tremendously in thinking about
these issues.
I have been blessed to work with the best librarian on earth, Brad
“Krystal” Carrington of the University of Kentucky libraries. I can’t count
the number of times the “book fairy” left a surprise source in my mailbox.
Usually, I was unaware of the existence of the sources Brad found for me
and they have proven to be invaluable. I am also grateful to Carla Cantagallo
of the University of Kentucky libraries and Jakob Van Lammeren of the
Leather Archives & Museum in Chicago. Thanks to Hallie Stebbins at Oxford
University Press for her continued patience and support and to Hannah Doyle,



Author’s Preface

Prabhu Chinnasamy, and Victoria Danahy for their help in the production of
this book.
I am deeply indebted to Keith Walters for being an amazing mentor and
teacher. Keith first inspired me to become a sociolinguist and his insights,
encouragement, and inspiration continue to shape the way I understand questions of language and culture. His influence permeates this work. This book
would not exist were it not for Mary Bucholtz. From her original suggestion
that I write a book to her careful editing of the manuscript, Mary has been
integral to this project. I could never thank her enough. My deepest appreciation goes to my partner, Albert Zapata, for his emotional support, intellectual
feedback, and continued patience. This book is dedicated to him.


End of intonation unit, falling intonation
End of intonation unit, rising intonation
Rising intonation
High-​pitch accent
Low-​pitch accent
<[]> Phonetic transcription
Pause of 0.5 seconds or less
(n.n) Measured pause greater than 0.5 seconds
Obscured speech or speech removed for reasons of anonymity
gestures or other extralinguistic information




From Drag Queens to Leathermen

Although it was once common to refer to gay subculture in the singular, the
assumption of a single, uniform, gay subculture is now rare in academic writing.1 Indeed, as early as 1979, Laud Humphreys, known for his groundbreaking sociological studies of male homosexual behavior, argued against using
the term subculture to refer to gay male communities. His reasoning included
issues with the then-​current theoretical working definition and connotations
of subculture, which was used primarily in studies of “violent offenders, delinquent gangs, and other criminal or ‘deviant’ groups” (Humphreys 1979: 139).
He also felt that the term gay subculture failed to account for the existence of a
variety of distinct subcultures within the gay community:
[T]‌here are a number of well-​defined subcultures operating within the
gay world: a diverse array that includes lesbian feminists, gay academics,
suburban couples, street hustlers, drag queens and gay bikers. (1979: 140;
original emphasis)
Humphreys proposed the term satellite culture (which he borrowed from T. S.
Eliot 1949) to refer to an intermediary type of culture that is distinct from
hegemonic dominant culture but also contains its own subcultures. However,
gay subcultures may also have their own sub-​subcultures. Drag queen subculture, for example, includes a number of distinct (sub-​)subcultures, such
as glam queens (who project a sophisticated, upper-​class image), trash queens
or clown queens (who perform comic routines and dress in outrageous, exaggerated costumes), and street queens (who work primarily in prostitution and
dress accordingly).
Categories of social identity are hierarchical (see Abrams 1999; Tajfel
1981); for example, gay men are a subcategory of men, drag queens are a



From Drag Queens to Leathermen

subcategory of gay men, glam queens are a subcategory of drag queens, and
so on. The focus of From Drag Queens to Leathermen is on groups that can be
seen as subcategories of gay men. Of course, there are also subcategories of
gay men that arise through the intersection of sexual identity and other social
groups unrelated to sexual orientation (such as Asian American gay men, gay
male professional athletes, or gay male Catholics). The subcultures in this
book, however, do not involve such intersections; in the discussion that follows, subcultural identity entails identification as a gay man. Thus the notion
of a “straight circuit boy,” for example, is an oxymoron as being a circuit boy
entails being gay.
The contemporary study of subcultures emerges from work in urban ethnography and the study of “social deviance” conducted by social scientists at
the University of Chicago in the 1950s and 1960s. Although this research considered a variety of forms of “deviance,” especially criminality, the Chicago
school also produced a number of important detailed ethnographic studies
of sexual subcultures (see Rubin 2002). In the 1970s, the Birmingham school
of subcultural studies emerged, focusing less on deviance and more on the
relationships between social class and adolescence. The Birmingham school
challenged the emphasis on morality and deviance in the work of the Chicago
school and focused on the ways in which subcultures may serve as a form
of youth resistance, particularly among boys (see Gelder 2007; Halberstam
2005). The Birmingham school emphasized the political implications of style
(see Hebdige 1979), a theme that is also important in this book. However,
the emphasis on youth in research on subcultures limits the applicability of
theories of subculture for adult gay men, whose experience with dominant
culture is quite different from that of heterosexual adolescents. In fact, Jack
Halberstam (2005) sees the study of queer subcultures as a way of challenging
dominant understandings of youth and adolescence. Because lesbians and gay
men may participate in subcultures well into adulthood, Halberstam argues
against a view in which “youth cultures” represent a stage or phase in the process of reaching adulthood.
In addition to being subsets of larger dominant communities, subcultures are generally seen as being in opposition to hegemonic culture.
Subcultures are thus associated with counterpublic discourses (see Warner
2002) that interact with dominant public discourses. The oppositional relationship between counterpublics and publics is not static, however, and the
relationships between subcultures and dominant cultures are regularly contested and altered. The subcultures examined in this book are positioned not
only in opposition to dominant heteronormative culture, but also in opposition to dominant understandings of gay male culture. They can therefore
be seen as “counter-​counterpublics” that challenge the normative ideologies
that dominate gay male counterpublics. A subculture like bears (discussed in
Chapter 4), for example, challenges heteronormative assumptions of class and


gender while also challenging gay male norms concerning physical attractiveness and sexual desirability. Similarly, barebackers (discussed in Chapter 6)
challenge gay male ideologies of sexual responsibility as well as heteronormative ideologies about morality and sexual behavior. Thus, in addition to being
subgroups within an imagined gay community, the subcultures considered
in the following chapters are socially positioned in opposition to both heteronormative culture and hegemonic forms of gay male culture. At the same
time, these subcultures may also reproduce some aspects of larger ideological
systems. Moreover, as I argue throughout this book, gay male subcultures are
crucially constituted through language.
From Drag Queens to Leathermen focuses on six specific gay male subcultures: drag queens, radical faeries, bears, circuit boys, barebackers, and
leathermen. Drag queen subculture, the focus of Chapter 2, involves nonnormative gender presentation, including cross-​dressing and the adoption
of a feminine style and demeanor. Although drag queens may public present themselves as “women,” they typically identify as gay men, although the
boundaries between these categories are not always clear-​cut (see Valentine
2007). Chapter 3 considers the radical faeries, a subculture grounded
in Neopagan and New Age religious movements. Radical faerie identity
involves, in part, language that positions faeries in opposition to Christianity.
Like many New Age movements, radical faeries appropriate widely from
other cultures and religious traditions. Radical faerie identity emerges from
the network of relationships among various forms of appropriation. In particular, the appropriation of Native American understandings of gender serve
to position radical faeries as being outside of hegemonic gay male culture,
which they feel encourages gay men to imitate forms of heterosexual masculinity. Bear subculture, examined in Chapter 4, is founded on a gay male
identity that celebrates being heavyset and hairy and is thus in opposition
to the ideals of the body in gay male culture. Chapter 5 examines language
ideology among circuit boys, a subculture revolving around gay dance parties
similar to raves. Chapter 6 examines barebackers, a more recently established
subculture built around a refusal to use condoms during anal intercourse;
in this way, barebacker identity challenges hegemonic ideologies in the area
of public health. Leatherman subculture (discussed in Chapter 7) is built on
alternative sexual practices, including clothing fetishes, sadomasochism, and
bondage–​domination. These subcultures by no means represent the full spectrum of various gay male subcultures, but have been chosen so as to provide
a representative set of case studies to examine the ways in which language
serves to variously support and challenge dominant understandings of gender and gay male identity.2
The focus of this work is primarily on manifestations of gay male subcultures in North American contexts, although all of the subcultures I analyze
are international to some extent. Moreover, with the exception of drag queens,



From Drag Queens to Leathermen

the subcultures examined here are generally dominated by white, middle-​class
gay men. Although Chapter 2 focuses on African American drag queens, the
case studies in other chapters focus primarily on white gay men. However, race
and ethnicity are also important in understanding normative identity within
white-​dominated subcultures, where the social construction of whiteness
may unintentionally restrict participation from gay men of color (see Bérubé
2001). The appropriation of white, Southern working-​class symbols among
bears, for example, may make bear subculture seem less inviting to many gay
men who are not themselves white. Finally, the subcultures discussed in the
following chapters are for the most part gender exclusive, so that participation
by women is rare or entirely absent. For drag queens, bears, and barebackers,
subcultural identity entails male gender identity. Women are not consciously
excluded from participation in circuit parties but circuit subculture is so dominated by gay male masculinity that few women participate. Leather subculture
is certainly not exclusively male: Lesbians, bisexual, and heterosexual women
are involved in leather culture. However, the discussion of leatherman subculture presented in Chapter 7 focuses on the International Mr. Leather contest, a
context in which women’s participation is quite rare. As with issues of race and
ethnicity, however, gender plays a central role in gay male subcultures, even in
exclusively male social contexts.
This chapter outlines the theoretical background that serves as a basis for
the case studies that follow. After outlining the approach to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) taken in much of sociocultural linguistics, the
chapter introduces the concepts of performativity and indexicality, which are
basic to the analyses that follow, and discusses their implications for understanding gender ideology, social normativity, the social construction of community and ideologies concerning language use. I then discuss my research
methods and my own position as a gay male researcher. Finally, the chapter
provides an overview of the subcultures under examination and outlines the
remainder of the volume.

Language and Gender in Gay Male Communities
Early studies of gay male and lesbian language emphasized “secret” language
or argot and tended to focus on the existence of slang terms within gay and
lesbian communities (for reviews, see Barrett 2006; Jacobs 1996; Kulick
2000; Livia and Hall 1997; Queen 2007). Such studies examined what M. A.
K. Halliday called anti-​languages, or “special forms of language generated by
some kind of anti-​society” (Halliday 1976: 570). He notes that anti-​languages
are learned only through resocialization into such “anti-​societies”:
An anti-​language, however, is nobody’s “mother tongue”; it exists solely
in the context of resocialization, and the reality it creates is inherently an


alternate reality, one that is constructed precisely in order to function in
alternation. It is the language of an anti-​society. (1976: 575)
The potential for language to create an alternative understanding of reality is important for understanding LGBT forms of language. However, the
concept of an anti-​society fails to capture the complexity of the relationship
between LGBT counterpublics and dominant forms of heteronormativity.
Anti-​languages allow for “secret” communication regarding subcultural social
practices associated with nonnormative forms of behavior, most often criminal behavior. However, forms of secrecy serve multiple social functions (see
Debenport 2009) that extend well beyond the clandestine activities of anti-​
societies. After the gay rights movement emerged following the Stonewall
riots in New York City in 1969, approaches to LGBT language began to shift.
Although the argot model of gay and lesbian language continued into the
1980s (e.g., Hayes 1981; Painter 1981), most studies in the post-​Stonewall era
tend to focus on other social functions of LGBT forms of language, such as
the social construction of community and the expression of sexual identity or
sexual desires.
The structure of gay male language in English-​speaking contexts varies
widely. Polari, a British variety that has largely fallen out of use (Baker 2002,
2004), differs enough from other varieties of English that it is sometimes considered a separate language (e.g., Grimes et al. 1996). The grammar of Polari
is primarily English, but Polari differs from other varieties of English in the
syntax of negative constructions (Baker 2002). Its vocabulary is drawn from a
number of sources, including Lingua Franca (spoken by merchant marines),
Romani, and Cockney rhyming slang. The lexicon of Polari extends beyond
subcultural domains to include substitutions for everyday vocabulary like “to
see” [varda], “to wash” [dhobie], or “bad” [cod]. Compared with the differences
between Polari and standard British English, the differences between standard
varieties of American English and gay male slang in the United States seem
almost negligible. Somewhere between Polari and U.S. slang is Gayle, a variety
of gay male English in spoken in South Africa with syntax that does not differ
from that of standard English but with a larger range of lexical substitution
than that found in the United States. The vocabulary of Gayle includes a number of items from Polari, borrowings from various South African languages
other than English, and substitutions involving female proper names, such as
Dora to mean “drink” (Cage 2003).
Although these three gay male English languages vary widely in their degree
of difference from other English varieties, there is no correlation between linguistic divergence and the social pressure for secrecy. In other words, there is no
reason to assume that the distinctiveness of Polari implies any major difference
in the degree of homophobia in British culture compared with that of the United
States or South Africa. Similarly, the decline of Polari in the post-​Stonewall era
should not be seen as resulting from a reduction in the need for maintaining



From Drag Queens to Leathermen

secrecy. Paul Baker (2002) provides a number of factors involved in the decline
of Polari, ranging from media overexposure to political backlash against expressions of gay male effeminacy, so that the decline of Polari is not a direct result of
a decline in the need for secrecy during the post-​Stonewall era.
Another commonly raised issue in studies of language and sexuality has
been the question of “authenticity.” Debates over whether there is a distinctive
“authentic” form of gay male language have surfaced repeatedly in research
on gay male language (e.g., Darsey 1981; Hayes 1981; Kulick 2000;Leap 1996;
Stanley 1970). Gay male and lesbian language use largely involves the appropriation of language associated with other groups, and the way in which appropriated forms are combined can enlighten local LGBT ideologies of gender
and sexuality. Thus, rather than assume that “authenticity” is an inherent or
essential cultural trait, the approach I take in this book assumes that authenticity is regularly contested, through what Bucholtz and Hall (2004, 2005) call
denaturalization. That is, authenticity does not exist independently from the
discourse that validates or questions the (presumably essentialized) relationship between cultural expression and social identity.
Since the mid-​1990s research on gay male language use has shifted away
from questions of secrecy or authenticity. The field of queer linguistics (Barrett
1997, 2001; Bucholtz and Hall 2004, 2005; Hall 2003; Livia 2001; Livia and
Hall 1997; Queen 2001) draws on feminist theory, queer theory, and sociolinguistic theory to examine the ways in which language is used to both reinforce
hegemonic heteronormativity and to negotiate nonnormative sexualities. As
Mary Bucholtz and Kira Hall (2004) argue, this approach allows for a unified
examination of interactions among sexual ideologies, linguistic practices, and
sexual identities.

Forms of Discourse
The argot model reinforces stereotypes about the “secret” pre-​Stonewall homosexual culture, such as the idea that there was virtually no public discourse
involving homosexuality in that era. The stereotype of an earlier “closeted” culture has played an important role in gay political movements in which being
“public” about one’s sexual identity is seen as central to achieving social acceptance for homosexuality. Perhaps because of its political utility, this stereotype
is often reinforced in academic writing about homosexuality. For example, in
her groundbreaking analysis of the role of the closet in twentieth-​century culture, Eve Kosofsky S​ edgwick argued that the idea of the closet was founded in
post-​Stonewall politics:
Yet even the phrase “the closet” as a publicly intelligible signifier for gay-​
related epistemological issues is made available, obviously, only by the


difference made by the post-​Stonewall gay politics oriented around coming out of the closet. (1990: 14; original emphasis)
In fact, however, the term coming out existed long before Stonewall (Legman
lists it in his 1941 glossary, for example), and there were certainly highly public
discussions of homosexuality in the media before Stonewall (see Bronski 2003;
Chauncey 1994; Loughery 1998). Thus, despite broad social prohibitions on
homosexuality, discussions about and among men and women who identified
as homosexuals were common. Because of such differences between dominant ideologies and individual behaviors, it is important to distinguish the
language of everyday interactions from the language associated with broader
social ideologies.
Sociocultural linguists generally distinguish between discourse, referring
to linguistic structure within texts or interactions between individuals, and
societal discourse, meaning broad expressions of hegemonic ideologies that
dominate public life or discourse in the sense of Michel Foucault 1990 [1976],
1994 [1970]). Because personal interactions occur within contexts that are
influenced by societal discourse, the forms of language used in interactions
regularly involve associations with ideologies that circulate through society
as individuals use language to position themselves with respect to tropes (or
recurrent rhetorical figures) from societal discourse. A trope such as “gay
men are naturally effeminate” allows an individual either to reference forms
of femininity to convey gay identity or to avoid the use of markers of femininity in order to challenge the prevailing stereotype (see Goffman 1963). In
both cases, however, societal discourse offers a set of citations or cultural references that inform individual expressions of identity. Because of the close connection between (interactional) discourse and societal discourse, research in
sociocultural linguistics (including the research presented in this book) often
attempts to examine the ways in which individuals use language to construct
themselves as social actors within a given cultural context. As the forms of language that may convey specific types of individual identity emerge in culturally specific contexts, ethnographic knowledge, or an insider understanding
of the local culture gained through fieldwork, is a prerequisite for attempting
to understand the relationship between the language use and social meaning.
Examining the ways in which individuals assert identities through language
sheds light both on questions of how cultural tropes influence the social construction of identity and on the ways in which language is used to convey
social meaning.
Although it is generally recognized that expressions of identity are neither static nor monolithic, there is a tendency to segregate research on individual patterns of behavior (or studies at the “micro” level) from studies of
broad issues related to societal discourse (or “macro” level studies). Work in
sociocultural linguistics attempts to bridge this gap by relating interactional



From Drag Queens to Leathermen

discourse with societal discourse through the concepts of performativity and
indexicality, which play a crucial role in contemporary research.

The concept of performativity comes from J. L. Austin’s (1962) work in the
philosophy of language. Although most utterances are descriptive, in that they
report events or states, some utterances are able to bring about change with
“real-​world” consequences. Sentences like “I now pronounce you married
under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,” “I think we should
see other people,” or “I’m gay” perform actions that change social relationships, making them quite distinct from descriptive sentences like “It’s snowing.” Austin called these types of utterances performative. Unlike statements,
performative utterances are not evaluated in terms of being “true” or “false,”
but rather in terms of whether they succeed in causing some real-​world
change. In Austin’s terminology, a performative is considered felicitous (or
happy) if it succeeds and infelicitous (unhappy) if it fails. For a performative
to be felicitous, it must be a citation: that is, the repetition of a prior context
in which the performative was also felicitous. A set of felicity conditions determines whether a performative will end up being an unhappy utterance. These
conditions demand that the performative utterance fit the normative expectations associated with previous citations:

¤ The form of the utterance must match prior citations (e.g., I now

pronounce you man and goat is infelicitous).
social setting or context in which the utterance occurs must
match that of prior citations (e.g., a marriage pronouncement
in which the participants were all drunk could be subject to
¤ The participants must have sufficient authority to performatively enact change (e.g., the speaker must be licensed to perform
¤ The participants may need to match specific social identities associated with the performative being uttered (e.g., in some countries, the
gender identities of participants in a marriage may not be the same).
The concept of performativity has played an important role in studies of gender and sexuality, beginning with Judith Butler’s (1990, 1991) assertion that
the social behaviors associated with gender are performative in that they enact
rather than simply reflect gendered identities. Gender is conveyed through
a series of citations involving repetitions of signs, or culturally meaningful
behaviors, which are recognized as markers of gender. Butler argues that forms


of gender parody (such as drag) demonstrate that performative gender citations have no original source (1990: 138).
Rather than reflecting an essential or natural gendered identity, gender
displays may be understood as reflecting normative ideological assumptions
about how gender is conveyed, so that gender performances reference other
gender performances, none of which results from any original source. Thus
gender display is not innate, but individuals are perceived as “feminine” or
“masculine” through repetitions of signs or behaviors that are normatively
associated with femininity or masculinity.
Butler’s extension of performativity to gender studies has resulted in
increased attention to nonnormative gender performances. However, even in
studies challenging normative gender, concepts like femininity and masculinity are often treated as clear-​cut binary categories. Discussions of gender
among lesbians and gay men often assign labels of feminine/​masculine based
on rather simplistic understandings of external appearance without full consideration of the range of signs potentially associated with gender. For example drag kings (the lesbian equivalent of drag queens) are sometimes seen as
displaying “female masculinity” (e.g., Halberstam 1998), maintaining binary
gender distinctions even as they challenge normative assumptions about
the relationship between gender performance and anatomical sex. In everyday practice, however, the expression of gender is much more complex that
a simple continuum between “feminine” and “masculine” would suggest. All
individuals (regardless of their gender or sexual identity) employ a vast combination of forms that might be associated with gender in addition to forms
that mark other aspects of identity or social context. Thus individuals are not
statically positioned at a given point in a linear progression from feminine to
masculine, but rather continually move between points that would be noncontiguous on any imagined gender continuum. Once one begins to examine the
full range of potentially gendered signs that co-​occur in any given interaction,
it becomes clear that whole-​cloth categorizations of gender as simply “feminine” or “masculine” do not capture the complexity of the situation.
To examine how combinations of signs collaborate to convey aspects of
identity (such as gender), it is useful to examine the way in which performativity operates through indexicality. The model of indexicality presented here
builds on a wide range of work in sociocultural linguistics (e.g., Agha 2007;
Bucholtz and Hall 2004, 2005; Eckert 2008; Gal and Irvine 2000; Ochs 1993,
1996; Silverstein 1976, 1998, 2003). Although indexicality has been given relatively little attention in LGBT studies or queer theory, the indexical property of
language plays a central role in LGBT interaction and discourse. Indexicality is
critical to understanding forms of camp (subsequently discussed) and is central to monitoring questions of sexual identity such as “gaydar” (the presumed
ability of lesbians and gay men to recognize other lesbians and gay men).



From Drag Queens to Leathermen

Within sociocultural linguistics, the concept of indexicality, taken from the
work of philosopher Charles S. Peirce, refers to the relationship between forms
of language and the contexts in which they occur. Elinor Ochs defines index
as follows:
A linguistic index is usually a structure (e.g. sentential voice, emphatic
stress, diminutive affix) that is used variably from one situation to another
and becomes conventionally associated with particular situational dimensions such that when the structure is used, the form invokes those situational dimensions. (1996:411)
Because of this conventional association between linguistic structures and
social contexts, all utterances carry information related to the social setting in
which they occur.
Indexical meanings are social in nature, in contrast to referential (or
denotative) meanings that are primarily descriptive (rather than performative). Any given referential meaning may be conveyed in a variety of forms
that differ widely in indexical meaning. For example, she doesn’t, she don’t,
and she does not all assert the same proposition but create very different social
understandings of the speaker in each case. Considering all of the possible
details of articulation, emphasis, and intonation that could be employed to
evoke social contexts, any utterance contains many more indexical meanings
than a simple referential meaning might suggest. Compare a man remarking
“That dress looks real good on you” with a man commenting “Girlfriend, that
dress makes you look fabulous!” The two utterances have the same basic referential meaning (“You look good in that dress”), but differ in their indexical meanings. The second utterance potentially indexes gay male identity and
conveys higher emotional involvement compared with the first utterance. This
does not mean that the form of the utterance tells us the sexual orientation of
the speaker, but rather that sexual identities are evoked according to normative expectations about indexical associations between language forms and the
contexts in which those forms are used.
Indexical meaning is conveyed not only through the form of an utterance
(the manner in which it is said), but also through its content (what is actually said) (see Eckert 2008). Social identity involves not simply “demographic”
aspects of identity like gender, but specific roles in an interaction as well as
rank and relationship to other participants. (Ochs 1996: 410) Austin’s original concept of felicity conditions follow naturally from these various indexical
meanings. The content, form, context, and authority of participants all depend
on each speaker’s ability to indexically entail (or reproduce) the citation of
prior (felicitous) uses. Both the indexical meanings involved and the degree


to which they serve to evoke prior contexts are constantly negotiated through
individual interactions.
Because language involves many different indexical meanings, expressions of identity are always context specific. Identity involves not simply
indexing categories associated with gender, ethnicity, religion, region, and
class, but conveying identity as a specific type of person behaving in a particular way in a specific context. Gender is indexed simultaneously with a variety
of other indexical meanings, including the relationship between the speaker
and the context, the speaker’s assumptions about their role in an interaction,
the speaker’s emotional relationship to the context, and knowledge about the
participants and the topic under discussion.
Indexical meanings are acquired through direct language socialization (in
which linguistic behaviors associated with particular types of interactions may
be taught explicitly) and through individual experiences of various interactions involving specific forms of indexicality. When we experience any form of
social interaction, we remember not only what was actually said, but the identity and demeanor of speakers and the context in which the interaction took
place. Through repetitions of particular types of interactions, we come to associate specific ways of speaking with various attributes associated with different
contexts of interaction. Memories of prior interactional contexts come to serve
as exemplars for evaluating contexts as they occur and establishing expectations for the behavior of participants in a given situation. Specific forms come
to be associated with specific cultural contexts (what Asif Agha [2007] calls
enregisterment). Indexical meanings will vary to a certain degree across individuals, because of individual differences in experiencing interactions that
serve as citations for interpreting indexicality. However, because recognition
of indexical meaning is a necessary precondition for interpreting interactions
in context, indexicality serves as the basis for behavioral norms, and there are
default assumptions about how particular interactions are expected to proceed.
Indexicality is inherently performative in that indexical meanings may be
used to either produce or reproduce specific contexts (Silverstein 1992). In
other words, indexical meanings may acknowledge a context that is already
assumed or they may create a new and different context. For example, using in-​
group gay male slang to a stranger in a gay bar would index a context already
in place. In a context where gay male identity cannot be assumed, such as a
parent–​teacher conference at school, the same slang could be used to create a
new context in which the participants’ identities as gay men become relevant.
Once presumptions about a given context are asserted (or assumed), participants in an interaction may use indexicality to position themselves in relation
to the presupposed context.
Indexical meanings determine the ways in which individuals are able
to performatively assert their identities as particular types of participants in



From Drag Queens to Leathermen

specific social contexts. The performative nature of gender is thus entirely
dependent on the ability of various signs to index a gender identity. Whether
performative assertions of identity are felicitous depends on the observers in
an interaction recognizing the indexical meanings that link identities and contexts. Because the success of performatives depends on shared understandings
of the possible indexical meanings in an interaction, performativity is inherently normative.

The Inherent Polyphony of Performative Identity
Within sociocultural linguistics, identity is viewed both as an individual style
of self presentation (e.g. Agha 2003; Eckert 2008) and as a relational construct in which individuals position themselves with respect to one another
(see Bucholtz and Hall 2004, 2005). In either view, the construction of identity involves the combination of various indexical signs, or bricolage (Hebdige
1979). The indices involved in the construction of identity operate at different
indexical orders (Silverstein 2003), levels of indexical meaning operating at
different levels of awareness (see also Johnstone et al. 2006). Indexical meanings also range from those related to a given interactional moment (angry,
concerned, surprised, etc.) to broad levels of identity like “speaker of English.”
It is not the case that various linguistic forms are necessarily associated with
a single potential indexical meaning, because every indexical sign is open to
interpretation at various orders (Eckert 2008). Thus an index of individual
stance within an interaction might be interpreted as marking membership in
some social category (rather than as the property of an individual). Indexical
signs may thus convey both membership in identity categories and the attributes that serve as the basis for categorization of individuals into identity
categories (in addition to personal attributes associated with an individual’s
self-​presentation within a given interaction).
Within social identity theory (e.g., Tajfel 1981; Turner et al. 1987), identity categories are built on a set of social attributes associated with prototypical members of a category. The attributes associated with a given category
may serve as categories themselves (e.g., hard-​
working people, educated
people, etc.). This interplay between categories and attributes also plays an
important role in indexicality. Because signs may evoke a range of indexical
orders, their meaning is highly dependent on context, including the listener’s
assumptions regarding the interpretation of the indexical meaning involved.
Indexical meanings may be associated with a vast array of linguistic forms,
including details of articulation, patterns of pausing and amplitude, intonation, word choice, syntactic structure, and referential content. Every utterance
contains multiple forms of indexicality operating at different levels of language
structure. Given that each indexical sign may evoke multiple associations at


different indexical orders, the amount of indexical meaning within any given
utterance is rather astounding.
The linguistic construction of identity involves indexing much more
than identity categories. Indices of permanent traits may themselves be ideologically associated with identity categories as potential attributes associated
with a category (e.g., the trope “gay men are prissy”). Language also serves to
index stance, or the ways in which individuals position themselves when they
are participating in a given interaction. This may include the ways in which
speakers convey forms of knowledge and emotional states. As with attributes,
context-​specific stances may be ideologically associated with identity categories (e.g., “straight men tend to get angry in these sorts of interactions”).
Identity is thus inherently polyphonous in the sense given by Mikhail
Bakhtin (1981, 1984); it involves a multiplicity of “voices” that combine to
convey a specific identity within a given context. Given the complexity of
identity conveyed through indexicality, the view of gender as performative,
without specifying precisely how this performativity is accomplished, is rather
limited in its ability to capture the level of intricacy involved in the social construction of identity.
In addition to the construction of identity, indexical signs may be associated with aspects of context. In particular, indexical signs may be associated
with the place and time in which an interaction (or narrative) occurs. The
spatial and temporal envelopes that contain particular narratives or interactions are called chronotopes, a literary term referring to the spatiotemporal
dimensions in which a narrative takes place (Bakhtin 1981; Silverstein 2003).
Chronotopes (chrono-​for “time,” top-​for “space”) provide the basic contextual
background on which narratives are interpreted and understood. Chronotopes
may refer to the present moment of interaction, specific historical periods,
or to broad imaginary contexts closely tied to social ideologies, like “modern
society” (see Dick 2010) or “primitive peoples” (see Stasch 2011).
The interpretation of indexical signs is dependent on the listener’s recognition of the prior contexts evoked through indexicality, including the chronotopes and aspects of participant identity involved. Indexical interpretation
is thus inherently normative because it depends on shared assumptions about
the possible contexts of interaction that might occur and the forms of language
that are indexically associated with them.

Indexicality and Gender Ideology
Individuals never employ the full range of signs that potentially index a single gender; instead they use signs associated with various indexical orders to
assert an identity that is much more nuanced than terms like feminine and
masculine suggest. However, expectations for individual gender expression



From Drag Queens to Leathermen

are often embedded within heteronormative assumptions about both gender
and sexuality, in which “excessive” gender displays are proscribed. In cases in
which individual behavior moves toward indexing gender beyond heteronormative expectations, the individual is likely to be marked as “hypergendered.”
Thus leathermen are represented as “hypermasculine” because they use more
markers of masculine identity than those normatively expected for heterosexual men, whereas drag queens are portrayed as “hyperfeminine” because
they exceed the normative threshold for the expression of femininity among
heterosexual women. The very idea of hypergender presumes heteronormativity as the basis for assessing nonheterosexual expressions of gender. However,
the research presented in this book suggests that the languages of drag queens
and leathermen both regularly involve forms that index both femininity and
masculinity. Thus even among those outside the endpoints of an imagined
gender continuum, expressions of identity involve a combination of gendered
There are certainly numerous forms of language that directly index gender
identity, such as gendered pronouns (she/​her/​hers and he/​him/​his). However,
gender is most often conveyed at indexical orders through the association of
gendered social categories with specific permanent traits, interactional stances,
or participation in specific acts (see Ochs 1996; Eckert 2008). It is the combination of various traits and stances (e.g., tough, submissive, angry, natural)
that produces a gendered persona. The normative assumptions about which
traits and stances are associated with gender (and how they are indexed) can
be seen as a form of gender ideology (that is, a set of beliefs about how gender
is communicated and understood).
The traits stereotypically associated with gendered social categories are
also context specific, so that a gendered persona will be interpreted according to normative expectations concerning the interactional stances associated
with a specific context. This includes expectations concerning the expected
affective and epistemic stances associated with specific gendered participant
roles. These norms are typically used as the basis for inferences concerning
speaker intentions and personal character. Given the power of such inferences, failure to meet normative expectations of the stance–​context relationship may have serious consequences (e.g., “Jane wasn’t acting like a woman
whose husband was just killed” could be used to imply that she might have
murdered him).
Gender ideologies vary across gay male subcultures, so that the traits
associated with femininity or masculinity are not uniform across the different social groups examined in this book. Although bears (Chapter 4) and
circuit boys (Chapter 5) both emphasize masculinity as central to gay male
identity, the two subcultures associate masculinity with very different personal
traits. For bears, masculinity is associated with being natural, highly sociable,
and unconcerned about one’s physical appearance. In contrast, circuit boy


masculinity is associated with being physically intimidating, socially distant, and a high degree of self-​discipline (particularly with regard to personal
grooming). Because gender emerges through a combination of permanent
traits, individual traits are open to association with either gender. Thus seemingly conflicting traits may be associated with the same gender in different
cultural contexts, so that “toughness” (for example) is critical to masculinity
among leathermen and circuit boys whereas displays of emotion that might
be considered “softness” (such as rampant hugging) are an important part of
bear masculinity.
Gender ideologies of masculinity may include traits that might be seen
as contrary to the normative construction of masculinity, because they co-​
occur with (and are “overridden” by) other masculine traits, allowing for an
overall masculine gender persona. The circuit boy focus on physical appearance and self-​grooming, for example, would likely index femininity in isolation. But combined with bodybuilding, wearing sportswear, and competition
for sexual conquests, the focus on looks becomes associated with the discipline of athletics and a desire to gain advantage in the sexual marketplace. The
focus on looks is thus framed (Goffman 1974, 1981) in terms of masculinity,
allowing the feminine trait to fit into a broader gender ideology emphasizing

Stereotypes, Appropriation, and Indexical Disjuncture
Because signs evoke meaning at multiple indexical orders, expressions of identity include forms that could be associated with a variety of identity categories.
Thus speakers will inevitably index traits and stances associated with social
groups in which the speaker might not claim membership. Stereotypes emerge
through the ideological process of erasure (Gal and Irvine 2000), in which the
differences between social groups is minimized. Through erasure, signs indexing personal traits or interactional stances that are not directly associated with
an identity category are often ignored. Stereotypes circulating within societal
discourse provide a background for the construction of identity in everyday
interactions. Because indexical signs succeed only if they are recognized as
citations, the construction of individual personae involves positioning the self
in relation to stereotyped assumptions regarding contextualized identities.
Of course, no individual fulfills all of the stereotypes associated with a given
social category. The construction of a gendered individual involves variation
across indexical orders so that the permanent traits indexed do not entirely
align with stereotyped assumptions about the attributes defining a given identity category. Individuals may also bring to the foreground particular traits or
stances through frequency of usage or levels of emphasis (see Eckert 2008).
The mix of traits and stances thereby indexed positions an individual not just



From Drag Queens to Leathermen

as belonging to some identity category, but as a specific type of individual
within that category.
Shifts across different indexical orders may result in shifts in indexical signs associated with identity categories. Susan Gal and Judith Irvine
(2000) refer to this process as fractal recursivity, in which a sign associated
with one category (e.g., gender) may come to index some other category
(e.g., class). Through fractal recursivity indexical signs may come to be associated with new categories, so that in certain contexts gender may come to
be expressed through class, sexuality may be expressed through race, or race
may be expressed through class. African American drag queens (discussed in
Chapter 2) use a form of language they refer to as “white woman.” Although
the form is obviously associated with race and gender, in actual use it often
indexes social class. Among bears (discussed in Chapter 4), signs associated
with white southern, working-​class identity are used to index gender identity.
In such situations, an analysis of gender or sexuality necessitates consideration
of other categories of identity.
Normative associations among indices of identity (stance, traits, and
social groups) and indices of contexts (setting, participant roles, etc.) maintain
power structures at all levels of interactions, including both macro (e.g., which
social groups may fulfill the participant role of spouse) and micro (e.g., who
controls the floor in a conversation). Indeed, these relationships between indices of social identity and contextual indices are often controlled by law, and
struggles for civil rights often involve struggles over the relationships between
social group and contexts (e.g., who may fulfill the participant roles in a marriage ceremony or who may use a particular restroom) or the relationships
between different social groups (e.g., which social groups are allowed to overlap with the social group of military personnel).
Despite such public debates, most challenges to normative associations
between indexical fields occur in everyday interactions in which an individual
uses indexicality in ways that may be unexpected. This may include indexing a specific social identity in proscribed contexts or claiming membership
in social groups that are normatively opposed to one another. Participants in
the International Mr. Leather contest (discussed in Chapter 7) regularly index
traits and stances associated with an identity as “good citizens” while overtly
expressing pride in their “outlaw” leatherman identity. Leatherman displays of
patriotism challenge normative assumptions in which leatherman identity is
marginalized and pathologized as a form of deviance that is at odds with the
respect and reserve normatively associated with displays of citizenship.
The construction of the self as a social actor through indexicality is
perhaps the most fundamental form of human agency, in that it is through
indexicality that individuals assert their position within and across interactional contexts. Challenging norms for indexical interpretation can be seen
as forms of indexical disjuncture in which a sign (or set of signs) indexes an


interactional component that is not normatively associated with the context
involved. Indexical disjuncture involves the use of indexical signs that are
marked, that is, they are counter to normative expectations of the relationship
between form and context (see Barrett 1998a; Myers-​Scotton 1993).
Indexical disjuncture occurs commonly across all interactional contexts,
but they are particularly relevant for understanding LGBT forms of language
use. Among the subcultures discussed in this book, indexical disjuncture
is a common way of marking (sub)cultural distinctiveness. Thus African
American drag queens use forms that index white, middle-​class women;
white, middle-​class bears use forms that index white working-​class southerners; and leathermen who celebrate their marginalized “outlaw” status use
forms that index patriotism and citizenship. In addition, forms involving
indexical disjuncture are highly valued within the language ideology of camp
(subsequently discussed). The centrality of indexical disjuncture to LGBT
culture can be interpreted as a rejection of the heteronormative gender ideology that marginalizes LGBT individuals. Because interactions are evaluated
on the basis of normative assumptions regarding the links between identity
with social groups and contexts of interactions, most interactions occur under
an ideological assumption or expectation of heterosexuality. This compulsory
heterosexuality (Rich 1980) leads to the marginalization of LGBT individuals.
Indexical disjuncture may produce temporary rifts in the marginalizing heteronormative network of indexical signs through which this marginalization
is achieved.
Indexical disjuncture is inherently involved in cases of appropriation. In
appropriation, indices of an identity category are borrowed by outsiders in an
attempt to draw associations with the permanent characteristics (or personality traits) associated with a social group that a speaker does not claim as her or
his own. Appropriation operates as a form of indexical analogy across indexical orders and involves only a subset of signs that are normatively associated a
particular identity category. Forms of appropriation always involve indexical
disjuncture and may simply reinforce hegemonic forms of domination, as in
forms of mockery or parody.
Although indexical disjunctures associated with appropriation may serve
to support forms of domination, indexical disjuncture can also serve as a form
of resistance through challenging normative understandings concerning the
authority of individuals to assert particular social identities or interactional
stances. However, indexical associations are context specific, so that the political implications of language use vary across different systems of domination
(see Gal 1995). Thus, forms of resistance to one system of domination may
reinforce some domination within another system. Although the use of the
“white-​woman” style among African American drag queens challenges hegemonic understandings of gender identity, race, and class, drag queen performances may simultaneously involve forms of misogyny. Similarly, bear



From Drag Queens to Leathermen

discourse challenges hegemonic assumptions about physical attractiveness
and masculinity while reinforcing stereotyped assumptions about class and
regional identity.
Gender ideologies can be seen as a set of normative assumptions about
the organization of gendered indexical signs within and across indexical fields.
Because the performative success of indexicality generally depends on recognition by an observer/​listener, the personal construction of identity as a gendered
individual is always framed within normative assumptions about relationships
within and between various indexical orders. Forms that challenge these normative assumptions may themselves become norms within subpopulations,
resulting in an alternative counterpublic normativity. Alternative normativities may emerge among successively smaller social groups, allowing for forms
of counter-​counterpublic discourse. It is through these alternative (but locally
normative) ideologies of indexicality that forms of subculture emerge. Local
indexical norms may provide the basis for understanding the social and political implications of particular forms of discourse, serving as a means for interpreting “hidden transcripts” involved in resistance (Scott 1990). Specific forms
of indexical disjuncture may also become normative within (counter-​)counterpublic discourse. The use of markers of female gender, for example, has
been normativized in some gay male communities, such as those of the drag
queens discussed in Chapter 2.
Although norms for indexing sexual identity often involve challenging
heternormative assumptions about gender, there is no reason to assume an a
priori relationship between gender and sexuality (see Sedgewick 1990). The
subcultures examined here demonstrate that sexual identity often involves
nonnormative use of indexical meanings primarily associated with social categorizations other than gender. Individuals may index nonheteronormative
sexual identities through alternative expressions of class, race and ethnicity,
religious affiliation, or political stance, or through positioning the self with
respect to dominant public and counterpublic discourses. However, these various nongendered ways of challenging normativity often interact with heteronormative gender ideology. Barebacker identity, for example, as discussed in
Chapter 6, is primarily conveyed by indexing a stance in opposition to normative assumptions about public health within gay male counterpublic discourse.
However, this oppositional stance may also index permanent traits ideologically associated with masculinity such as an absence of fear, willingness to take
unnecessary risks, and rebellion against authority.
Although LGBT language often involves challenging heteronormative
gender ideologies, these challenges are not random, but reflect an alternative
normative ideology of indexical meanings. These norms allow for indexical
polysemy, or the ability of a single form of language to have multiple indexical
meanings associated with different normative ideologies. Thus an utterance
may have distinct interpretations within dominant heteronormative and LGBT


counterpublic gender ideologies. The existence of an alternative ideology of
indexical interpretation makes LGBT communities imaginable and allows for
the negotiation of community membership in everyday interactions.

Camp as Language Ideology
Within sociocultural linguistics, the term language ideology is used to refer to
the set of beliefs concerning the indexical associations of particular linguistic
forms. (see Schieffelin et al. 1998; Silverstein 1998) This includes beliefs about
the appropriateness of “fit” between an utterance and its context (that is, the
set of indexical meanings at play in a given interaction) as well as beliefs about
the symbolic value (Bourdieu 1993) of particular forms of language. Thus, language ideologies serve as the basis for prejudice toward speakers of specific
varieties (e.g., “speakers with strong southern accents are uneducated”) and
the evaluations of specific interactions, such as interpreting stance in specific
contexts as polite, rude, aggressive, and so on. In terms of the symbolic value
of specific linguistic forms, language ideologies include ideas about what types
of language indexically mark positive or negative personal traits (e.g., articulate, educated, witty).
Language ideologies regulate and reproduce normative expectations for
interactions within a given community. Within counterpublics where nonnormative forms of language use have become normativized, alternative language
ideologies may emerge. Because language ideologies are crucial in the interpretation of everyday interactions, speakers exposed to alternative language
ideologies may arrive at multiple interpretations of a single interaction.
Language ideologies play an important role in the social construction of
gay male subcultures. Although many beliefs about language are specific to a
given subculture, the language of the subcultures in this study often involves
more generalized gay male language ideologies. In particular, camp forms of
discourse occur regularly in the language of most of the subcultures in this
work. Camp can be seen as a language ideology in which particular forms of
language are given high symbolic values on the basis of both their linguistic
and rhetorical structure and their ability to index interactional contexts associated with gay culture.
Camp is notoriously difficult to define, with some scholars focusing on
characteristics associated with camp (exaggeration, affect, effeminacy) and
other scholars focusing on how to categorize camp itself (as an aesthetic or
political statement). Cleto describes the difficulty in defining camp as follows:
… the slipperiness of camp has constantly eluded critical definitions
and has proceeded in concert with discursive existence of camp itself.
Tentatively approached as sensibility, taste, or style, reconceptualised as



From Drag Queens to Leathermen

aesthetic or cultural economy, and later asserted/​reclaimed as (queer) discourse, camp hasn’t lost its relentless power to frustrate all efforts to pinpoint it down to stability, and all the “old” questions remain to some extent
unsettled. … (1999: 2)
One problem with many theories of camp is that they attempt to define it as
a sensibility or aesthetic that is independent of the context in which it occurs.
This approach fails to capture the role of camp in actual interactions. Critics
within queer theory or LGBT studies have long criticized straight interpretations of camp (e.g., Sontag 1964) for separating camp from LGBT cultures.
Rather than view camp as a matter of taste, Mark Booth argues for a view of
camp as a form of self-​expression:
Camp is primarily a matter of self-​presentation rather than of sensibility.
If you are alone and bored at home, and in desperation you try to amuse
yourself by watching an awful old film, you are not being camp. You only
become so if you subsequently proclaim to others that you thought Victor
Mature was divine in Samson and Delilah. China ducks on the wall are
a serious matter to “straights”, but the individual who displays them in
a house of otherwise modernist and modish furniture is being camp.”
Booth’s approach recognizes that camp plays a role in the performative assertion of identity. However, it does not fully account for the role of a listener/​
observer in interpreting a given object or interaction as camp. As with any
performative, the interpretation of camp depends on whether the listener/​
observer has some prior experience of camp that provides a citation linking
the situation in question with camp. Camp is thus as much about interpretation as it is about self-​presentation, and theorists may disagree about whether
an utterance or object can be considered an example of camp. Within theories of camp, there is often tension between the idea of a “gay sensibility”
that exists independently of individual understandings of camp and the idea
that the meaning of camp depends on individual interpretations. Britton
describes this tension as a “dilemma” inherent in all research on camp:
All analysts of camp arrive eventually at the same dilemma. On the one
hand, camp “describes those elements in a person, situation or activity
which express, or are created by, a gay sensibility” (Babuscio 1977: 40). On
the other hand, “camp resides largely in the eye of the beholder.” (Babuscio
1977: 41) (Britton 1999 [1978]: 140)
A view of camp as language ideology escapes this dilemma. Because interpretations depend on the ways in which prior experiences lead to individual
assumptions about what “counts” as camp, camp depends on the individual
“eye of the beholder.” However, these individual assumptions evolve through


language socialization, including interactions in which gay sensibility plays
a central role. Because no two individuals have exactly the same life experiences, assumptions about categorizing contexts as forms of camp vary across
individuals. On the other hand, individual assumptions about camp are based
on repetitions of camp citations that reproduce normative assumptions about
what gay sensibility might mean. Thus, although understandings of camp
are unique to individuals, these individual interpretations are dependent on
(alternative LGBT) norms for interpreting indexical signs.
Another issue important in theories of camp is the relationship between
camp and LGBT cultures. The view of camp as independent of LGBT culture,
raised in Sontag’s (1964) highly influential “Notes on ‘Camp,’ ” allows for the
possibility of straight producers of camp style. Although there is no a priori
reason to assume that heterosexuals cannot produce forms of camp style, this
approach ignores the importance of gay language socialization in the interpretation of camp. Thus heterosexuals familiar with citations of camp within
LGBT communities are certainly capable of both producing and recognizing
camp. Similarly, heterosexuals unfamiliar with camp normativity may unintentionally produce forms that are interpreted as camp by LGBT observers/​listeners. Thus, although camp is not exclusively controlled by LGBT individuals,
interpretations of camp are highly dependent on the normative set of citations
that circulate within and across LGBT communities.
Related to the “cultural uniqueness” issue is the question of whether
camp necessarily involves gay male effeminacy. Halberstam (1998), for
example, claims that drag kings (the lesbian equivalent of drag queens) do
not seem to produce forms of camp, possibly because camp is exclusively
focused on femininity. Of course, the categorization of drag king performances as “not camp” is an individual aesthetic judgment. Indeed, having
seen performances by the drag kings Halberstam analyzes, I personally
found them to be extremely camp. The difference in perspective obviously
results from evaluations of potential forms of camp being based on different
sets of camp citations. Although numerous forms of camp involve gay male
expressions of effeminacy, there is no reason to assume that these are the
only examples of camp. Among the subcultures in this work, camp tropes are
regularly used in the construction of masculinity. Within the language ideology of circuit subculture, for example, camp utterances have high symbolic
value that is detached from other stereotypical forms of gay male effeminacy. Circuit interactions involving camp citations serve to distinguish gay
and straight forms of masculinity rather than reproducing stereotypes of gay
male effeminacy.
Because of the importance of camp in gay male culture, language
socialization in gay male communities often involves the development
of a set of (individual) aesthetic judgments for the evaluation of camp.



From Drag Queens to Leathermen

Camp thus serves as a type of “folk wisdom” (White 1988, cited in Harvey
2000:254) involving the alternative language ideologies within gay communities. Successful forms of camp typically involve indexical polysemy
in that they are open to both a dominant heteronormative interpretation
(for example, as “bad taste” or “outrageous behavior”) and an alternative
LGBT interpretation (as forms of camp or ways of expressing sexual identity). The alternative interpretation indexes forms of gay sensibility, particularly in cases that question heteronormative assumptions concerning
style and taste. In many cases, evocations of indexical polysemy can be
quite subtle, involving small rifts in heteronormative ideologies of indexicality. In gay male forms of camp, this subtlety often conveys assumptions
about gay male superiority in areas of taste, style, or self-​presentation.
Booth’s example of China ducks in a room filled with otherwise modernist furniture, for example, incorporates a single mocking reference to
“straight style” taken out of context. This produces an indexical disjuncture in which the ducks themselves index the inferior (even laughable)
character of heterosexual approaches to fashion, interior design, and self-​
presentation. The political potential for camp (which some theorist laud
and others deny altogether) emerges from such indexical disjunctures
that create rifts in heteronormative cognitive associations between signs
and contexts and challenge hegemonic assumptions concerning style and
The actual form of camp utterances typically involves a specific set of
linguistic tropes that may be indexically associated with camp style. Harvey
(1998, 2000, 2002) describes the set of interactional styles typically associated with camp. These tropes are not specific linguistic forms, but rather
represent “orientations to language use that allow speakers to manipulate
the potential of language systems and discourse contexts” (Harvey 2000: 5).
Harvey (2000) categorizes camp talk into four broad categories: paradox
(incongruities in register, combinations of “high” culture and “low” experiences), inversion (of gender markers or expected rhetorical routines),
ludicrism (puns or double-​entendres), and parody (of gender norms or
aristocratic mannerisms). These tropes are certainly not exclusive to camp,
but represent the types of language use that are most valued within camp
language ideology.
The ideology of camp language use plays an important role in the social
construction of subcultural identity. The set of camp tropes outlined by
Harvey are often used to produce indexical disjunctures specific to the dominant language ideology within a given subculture. The forms of camp found
in the discourse of different subcultures vary, although they are all orientated
in opposition to heteronormative assumptions about the interpretation of
indexical signs.


The Hanky Code and Gay Male Sexual Scripts
Specific contexts for sexual interaction following specific narrative progressions tied to normative understandings of how sex should proceed as a form of
social interaction. These normative narratives of sexual interaction are called
sexual scripts (Gagnon 2004; Gagnon and Simon 1973; Simon 1974). Sexual
scripts (such as one-​night stand) govern individual expectations for the display
of specific identities during sexual interactions. The normative character of
sexual scripts can be seen in the “hanky code” among gay clones in the 1970s
in which individual expressions of sexual identity do not seem to directly coincide with the actual sexual behavior of individuals, but rather produce a locally
normative set of culturally salient sexual contexts that individuals may index
to assert their identity as sexual individuals. Clone culture (discussed further
in Chapter 5) emerged in urban gay neighborhoods in the 1970s and involved
a highly masculine aesthetic (mustaches and denim) and the practice of crusing gay neighborhoods for sexual partners (Levine 1998).
In clone culture, gay men began carrying bandanas in their back pockets
to index specific participant roles in sexual scripts. The bandanas were those
traditionally carried or worn by ranch hands, construction workers, or members of youth gangs, providing an unquestionably masculine accessory that
coded sexual identity. The practice of wearing bandanas among clones was
appropriated from earlier development of the hanky code among leathermen
(see Chapter 7). Although leathermen largely abandoned the hanky code after
it became ubiquitous among clones, it is still an important marker of identity
in some subgroups within leatherman subculture. Today the hanky code is
largely seen as a humorous and playful “joke” about sexual practices, but it
played an important role in normativizing the range of gay male sexual scripts
in the early post-​Stonewall period. Because the hanky code is important for
the construction of several of the subcultural identities in this book, it merits
special attention.
The bandanas, as well as sets of keys, served as semiotic codes to mark one’s
preference for specific sexual acts (see Levine 1998: 65–​67). Keys were a part
of the clone “uniform” and were hung on the belt loops of one’s Levi’s jeans.
Hanging one’s keys on the right meant that an individual was a bottom (the
receptive partner in anal or oral sex), whereas keys hung on the left meant that
an individual was a top (the insertive partner in anal or oral sex). Bandanas
(or “hankies”) were folded into a rectangle and worn in one’s back pocket, with
the left or right pocket corresponding to top or bottom, respectively. Different
colors of hankies corresponded to specific sexual acts. Throughout the 1970s
and into the 1980s, various forms of the hanky code were circulated in gay bars
and publications throughout North America and Western Europe. Although
the list provided by Levine (1998) is typical, the codes in various publications



From Drag Queens to Leathermen

did not always correspond exactly in terms of which sex acts were included
in the code and what colors were used (Forbes 1978, Guenther 2004). Levine
(1998: 66, Table 3.3) gives the hanky code used in 1970s New York, shown here
in Table 1.1.
The earliest known version of the hanky code was published in 1969
(Guenther 2004: 3), a few months before the Stonewall riots that symbolically
mark the historical beginning of the gay rights movement. Although the first
code was published in New York, it reported the hanky code as a West Coast
phenomenon (Guenther 2004). In terms of the categorization of sexual identities, the hanky code emerged at a crucial point in the shift in social discourse
from a view in which homosexuality was largely understood in terms of gender identity (i.e., gay men are “like women”) to understanding sexuality in
terms of the gender of one’s sexual partner independently of one’s own gender
performance. In the pre-​Stonewall era, the predominant means of conveying
homosexual identity was through fairy identity, which involved highly effeminate behavior. Fairies were assumed to be bottoms sexually, with the role of
top being indexically associated with queers, openly homosexual men who did
not identify as fairies, or trade, men who identified as heterosexual but had
sex with other men (see Chauncey 1994, Loughery 1998). The indexical signs
associated with identities in the emergent masculinity-​based post-​Stonewall
view of gay male identity erased the prior use of gender display as the primary means of indexing one’s status as a top or bottom in sexual interactions.


Hanky code as used among 1970s clones
The Erotic Proclivities Signified by Clone Bandanas (Levine 1998: 66)

Left-​Hand Side

Right-​Hand Side

Blue, light

Heavy S & M, top
Wants blow job

Heavy S & M, bottom
Expert cocksucker

Blue, drak



Blue, robin’s egg


Anything but 69


Spreads scat

Receives scat


Hustler, selling

Trick, buying


Has eight inches or more

Wants big one

Olive drab

Military uniforms

Likes military


Dildo giver

Dildo received





Fist fucker

Fist fuckee


Jack off, self

I’ll do us both


Water sports, top

Water sports, bottom

Light brown

Likes to be rimmed

Likes to rim


The hanky code allowed individuals to index aspects of sexual identity that
were otherwise absent in the traditional clone uniform. The use of the right-​
hand side to indicate “top” undermines the normative indexical relationship
between “right” and dominance.3
By delimiting a set of sexual practices that one might index through
wearing a specific bandana, the hanky code is highly normative. Although the
list of sex acts in the hanky code is fairly broad, it is certainly not exhaustive.
It proscribes certain forms of sexual interaction that do not easily fit with the
masculinist gender ideology of clone culture. For example, forms of sexual
interaction associated with emotional intimacy (such as kissing or cuddling)
are excluded from the codes, possibly because of their potential indexical
association between emotional display and femininity. However, wearing a
particular bandana did not necessarily mean that an individual would only
perform the sexual act marked by his bandana. The system marked preferences within a normative set of possibilities, but did not actually dictate sexual behavior.
Similarly, the early hanky codes are binary systems that do not allow individuals to index a versatile identity. Although later versatiles (men who are
open to being either a top or a bottom) began hanging keys from the middle
belt loop in the back of their Levi’s, this option does not occur in the early
hanky codes and is not mentioned in Levine’s description. It may be that the
centrality of the top/​bottom distinction was residue from the indexical associations in the earlier gender-​based system of sexual categorization.
Although the hanky code required individuals to mark themselves as
either a top or bottom for most sexual practices, this does not correspond to
Levine’s description of actual clone sexual practices. Although Levine states
that identity as a top or bottom was primarily one of individual preference,
versatile clones were common. Barring an individual preference for being
top or bottom, the roles in sexual intercourse were typically determined by
physical attributes and personal demeanor. Levine (1998: 97) notes that, for
versatiles, the man who assumed the role as top was typically the one with a
larger penis, more physical prowess (taller or more muscular), or more masculine behavior. These same attributes were associated with men who identified
as tops (with bottoms assumed to have smaller penises or more effeminate
behavior). However, Levine notes that these norms were regularly broken and
that there were both effeminate tops with small penises and masculine, well-​
endowed bottoms. Identifying as a top or bottom does not necessarily dictate sexual behaviors, as a self-​identified “top” might take the “passive” role
in some sexual interactions (see Hart et al. 2005; Murray 1996). The assumptions about the relationship between physical and personality traits of tops
and bottoms maintains the indexical relationships between gender and sexual
role found in the gender-​based categorization associated with fairy culture.
Thus the semiotic relationships between signs that index gender and signs that



From Drag Queens to Leathermen

index sexual roles were marginally maintained despite the regular disregard
for these indexical meanings in actual practice.
The hanky codes emerged at a historical moment when the categorization
of men identifying as gay had shifted radically and the hegemonic ideology
in which gay male femininity was being abandoned because of its association
with a pathological view of homosexuality. Because the code specifies a limited
range of options for identification, it establishes normative expectations for
gay male sexual behavior. The association between sexual acts and individual
identity also delimits a specific range of sexual possibilities, providing individuals with ways of positioning themselves within an emergent sexual market.
In this sense, sexual scripts serve as a set of normative potential interactional
contexts that individuals may index in the construction of identity.

Studying Sexual Subcultures
Halberstam (2005) argues that queer subcultural studies challenge traditional
assumptions about the relationship between researcher and subcultural participation because members of specific subcultures are often directly involved
in the scholarly examination and theoretical implications of participation
in a given subculture. Indeed, many of the prior theoretical and descriptive
accounts of the subcultures examined in this book are produced by members
of the subcultures under consideration. However, I do not personally identify
as a member of any of the subcultures considered here. As a gay man, I am personally sympathetic with the experiences of marginalization felt by members
of various subcultures, both within larger gay communities and within heteronormative society. Although this book is certainly not intended as “native
ethnography,” my perspective is not entirely that of an outsider either.
My analysis of gay male subcultures is based in ethnographic approaches
to discourse analysis within sociocultural linguistics. As such, it is inherently qualitative and interpretive. This approach combines close ethnographic
analysis of the indexical associations relevant within specific subcultures with
interactional and textual analysis that examines the ways in which local indexical associations serve to convey subcultural identity by linking specific permanent social traits and interactional stances with social groups (both within
and outside of imagined subcultural communities).
Although I take an ethnographic approach to each of the subcultures,
the methods involved varied for different subcultures. The research on drag
queens, circuit boys, and leathermen all involved participant observation
in actual communities. Research on all of the subcultures included online
research including participant observation in virtual communities. My own
observations are, of course, supplemented by prior ethnographic research
concerning gay male subcultures. Although the research methods on cultural


background varied across subcultures, I approach the analysis of all forms of
subcultural discourse from an ethnographic perspective. An analysis linking
ethnographic insight to specific uses of language sheds light on both the ways
in which language reflects subcultural norms and the ways in which individual
forms of language serve in the construction of subcultural identity.
Of course, individual perceptions of identity vary widely, and there is no
one-​to-​one relationship between self-​labeling as a member of some subculture and actual use of any particular forms of language associated with that
subculture. Self-​identification may vary even for individuals within the same
context (see Valentine 2007), so that normative categorizations of identity are
always in flux. The analyses here represent norms within subcultures that (like
all forms of normative behavior) may be openly challenged or negotiated by
individuals in specific contexts.
The subcultural case studies in the following chapters consider a wide
range of different types of discourse, ranging from forms of naturally occurring interactional discourse to written texts that are consciously planned and
edited. Although the examples represent widely divergent forms of language
use, they all involve language that is public in some way. This includes public
performances (in the chapters on drag queens and leathermen), Internet texts
(in the analyses of bears and barebackers), and media publications such as
books and magazines (in the analyses of radical faeries and circuit boys). In
cases involving Internet discourse, only sources that are available to the general public are used (i.e., sites that do not require some form of membership
or registration). The decision to use only public forms of language is meant to
emphasize the highly public nature of gay subcultures in order to challenge
traditional views of gay male language as involving only secret codes or covert
forms of communication.

Language, Gender, and Gay Male Subcultures
The first case study (Chapter 2) examines the language used in performances
by African American drag queens (AADQs), based on research I conducted
at gay bars in the Texas cities of Houston and Austin in the 1990s. Historically,
drag queens are by far the oldest subculture included in this study. By associating expressions of effeminacy with gay male identity, drag queens reflect
pre-​Stonewall understandings of homosexuality as conveyed through nonnormative gender expression. In the post-​Stonewall masculinist ideology, drag
queens have been further marginalized within gay male communities in which
effeminate behavior is interpreted as reinforcing outdated stereotypes of gay
male effeminacy. Following the release of the documentary Paris is Burning
(Livingston 1990), which examined African American and Latino drag culture
in New York, academic writing on AADQs tended to focus on the importance



From Drag Queens to Leathermen

of whiteness in the construction of AADQ identity (see hooks 1992). The
analysis of AADQ performances presented in Chapter 2 challenges the view
that AADQs are somehow trying to “act like white women.” Although the
AADQs studied here use a language style that they refer to as white woman, it
is often used to contest stereotypes of whiteness by performatively asserting a
class identity. The analysis also challenges the idea that drag queens want to be
women. In their performances, AADQs regularly produce indexical disjunctures in which the white-​woman style is interrupted with forms from African
American English that are indexically associated with working-​class masculinity. Conversely, AADQ performances additionally challenge some feminists’ view of drag as inherently politically liberating (see Butler 1990, 1993),
as the performances may involve forms of sexism and misogyny.
The third chapter examines language use by radical faeries, focusing on
the analysis of Ye Faerie Hymnal, a collection of songs used at radical faerie
gatherings. The radical faerie movement is a Neopagan/​New Age subculture
of gay men. Radical faeries appropriate widely from across different cultural
and religious traditions. Indeed, faerie understandings of gender are largely
appropriated from Native American cultures. The chapter examines the ways
in which chronotopes intersect in the music associated with radical faerie
gatherings and ritual practice. The chapter looks at the ways in which radical
faerie identity emerges from intersections between indexical signs associated
with different times and places associated with various religions and cultures.
Chapter 4 considers the emergence of bear identity on the Bears’ Mailing
List (BML), an Internet mailing list that began in the late 1980s as a space for
gay men who felt marginalized within gay communities because they were
overweight or had large amounts of body hair. As with AADQs, the social
construction of bear identity is closely tied to indices of social class, employing
signs typically associated with the rural working class in the South. In postings to the BML, some middle-​class urban bears regularly use nonstandard
orthography; this language use typically involves indexical disjunctures in
which these ideologically southern working-​class signs are joined with forms
of language associated with camp displays of sophistication, such as the use
of French. These indexical disjunctures allow bears to draw on rural southern
identities in order to index masculinity without actually asserting an identity
as working class or southern.
In Chapter 5, the language ideology of circuit subculture is examined, focusing on the symbolic value given to particular forms of language
in Circuit Noize, the primary magazine promoting circuit parties. Circuit
subculture emerged in the late 1980s as a “circuit” of large dance parties
began to be held to raise funds for charities involved with AIDS/​HIV care
and research. The parties have been widely criticized for their emphasis on
the use of club drugs and anonymous sexual encounters. Although circuit
parties are typically viewed as a “cult of masculinity” (Signorile 1997), the


language ideology in Circuit Noize places high value on forms of camp that
are traditionally associated with gay male effeminacy. The use of camp in
circuit subculture serves to highlight cultural distinctions between gay and
straight forms of masculinity, with circuit forms of camp indexing traits of
intelligence and wit, thus reinforcing circuit gender ideologies in which circuit boys are seen as superior exemplars of masculine behavior compared
with heterosexual men.
Chapter 6 examines the barebacker subculture that emerged in the late
1990s. Barebacker identity was typically pathologized in both media and academic writing that focused on a small subset of barebackers who claimed to
desire to spread or contract HIV (known as “bugchasers” and “gift givers”).
However, the overwhelming majority of barebackers did not abandon the
idea of “safe sex” entirely and attempted to practice serosorting, in which men
have sex only with other men who share their HIV status (i.e., HIV-​positive
men have sex only with other HIV-​positive men). The analysis examines
“sex blogs,” a type of public sex diary, in which barebackers posted narrative
descriptions of their sexual experiences. Chapter 6 focuses on the ways in
which barebacker identity is constructed through the use of stance. By avoiding direct expressions of moral stance and highlighting other interactional
stances, barebackers are able to position themselves as rational actors in sexual interactions without overtly addressing the question of morality associated with intentional unprotected sex. In addition, the use of stance serves to
establish norms for positioning barebacker identity with respect to both condoms and semen. Of course, all forms of normativity are regularly challenged,
and the authors of barebacker sex blogs regularly report attempts at making
informed decisions concerning safe sex, including knowing the medical history of their partners, using condoms in certain contexts, and attempting to
discern a potential partner’s HIV status based on his physical appearance or
personal demeanor.
After drag queens, leathermen (discussed in Chapter 7) are the oldest
subculture included in this book. In the United States, leatherman subculture
emerged in the 1950s among veterans of the Second World War who found the
prevailing fairy culture antagonistic to their masculine identity. Early leatherman culture was closely tied to the motorcycle gang culture of the 1950s and
eventually became a safe space for men interested in alternative forms of
sexuality such as sadomasochism and bondage and domination. The analysis
examines ways of indexing citizenship in public speeches by contestants at the
International Mr. Leather (IML) contest, an annual pageant-​like contest among
leathermen. IML contestants regularly use indexical disjunctures involving
explicit references to alternative sexuality combined with traditionally conservative forms of political discourse associated with citizenship. By juxtaposing “outlaw” sexuality with expressions of patriotism and civic responsibility,
the IML contestants challenge their marginalized position within both gay



From Drag Queens to Leathermen

communities and society at large without assimilating to hegemonic norms
of sexual morality.

From Drag Queens to Leathermen argues that gay male identities involve forms
of diversity that extend beyond traditional categories of gender, race, and class.
Although these social categorizations are central to understanding forms of
gay male identity, they have distinct meanings across various subcultures. For
example, drag queens and circuit boys are oriented toward middle-​and upper-​
class identities, whereas bears are oriented toward working-​class identity.
Similarly, the indexical meanings that index specific aspects of sexual identity may vary across subcultures. For example, the act of shaving body hair
is indexically associated with femininity among bears and with masculinity
among circuit boys.
It is often assumed that sexuality is universally conveyed through expressions of gender. Although gender is key to understanding the semiotics of
sexual identity within the various subcultures examined in this book, other
social categorizations play an equally important role. The gay men involved
in these subcultures all assert identities that are positioned in opposition to
hegemonic understandings of sexuality, but the indexical means of expressing social difference involves much more than challenging heteronormative
understandings of gender.
From Drag Queens to Leathermen demonstrates that understandings of
language use are critical to the study of gay male subcultures (as well as LGBT
communities more generally). In addition to considering different subcultures, each of the case studies in this