Reactions from family members

The reactions the participants’ have met in relation to their coming out-process have both similarities and differences within and across the phenotypical categorizations. It is therefore chosen to divide the experiences in the similarities these represent rather than to categorize these according to the phenotypical differences among the participants. This is done to avoid repeating patterns in this representation of the experiences discussed. The experiences will be explained according to the degree of negativity or positivity represented in them.

The first type of reaction that is explained is the lack of acceptance in different ways. Starting off with direct lack of acceptance as reactions to them informing about their orientation to their closest family is the reactions participant C had; her mother tried to forbid her to have a lesbian orientation all together. Participant G chose to not tell her father about her orientation originally because she knew he wouldn’t accept it; however this did not remain covert.

“I did not tell him, but then he started hearing a rumour in the town, and then he asked me about it, and demanded details regarding when I had sex with a girl for the first time, and completely out of line and extremely unjustified attitude...” – Participant G

Participant A’s mother didn’t believe her at first, and then proceeded to tell the participant that her youngest sister would be bullied if this was true, before retreating and said that it was ok when the participant was heartbroken about her reaction. Participant B’s mother and stepfather told her she had the most visible “look” in accordance to being lesbian in the family, and was later reluctant to her showing physical affection towards her partner(s) when around them, but this is gradually changing for the better. Belonging to this story is that participant B used to have a more masculine gender performance than she displays today – this was part of her coming out-process where she realized she didn’t have to be masculine to have a lesbian orientation. Walker et al. (2012: p 91) explains that most of the societal

labelling comes from presentations of masculinity and femininity in the case of women having a lesbian orientation. Thus, one can see that the masculinity displayed by participant B at the time of her revealing her orientation to her family, was a type of “hint” that made it be

not that surprising for the family members that she indeed had the orientation that “follows”

the masculinity, the MLL-phenotype, through the heteronormative image of women and their appearance. The phenotype in interaction with coming out to one’s family will be further explained later on in this chapter together with a figure explaining how family as a micro-system may interact with a goal of stability in its structure.

Participant D’s experiences are that her mother has some issues with her having a lesbian orientation, while her father does not. This is mostly evident in her mother being not very accepting of her showing physical affection towards her partner(s) when being in the same room as her mom, much like participant B’s experiences with her mother.

“What was a pity was that it would be no grandchildren […] that was probably what was the worst I think” – Participant B

For the sake of an example, if one views how the change for the system is important in the maintenance of the system; one of the goals of the family can thus be identified as the heirs’

ability to birth the next generation. The expectation of women providing grandchildren is something that is given already at birth through our social norms and culture (Burkitt 2009: p.

111). The queer family and the possibilities of women in a relationship having children together are relatively new in the Norwegian law system. The queer family is alone in challenging the heteronormative family as the ideal and that a family needs to be

heterosexually founded (Stiklestad 2012: p. 12). Thus, through the heteronormative image, one needs to be heterosexual to have children – and if one has a lesbian orientation, having children is impossible. This is of course not the case in modern Norway. The expectance for grandchildren shifts to not expecting this anymore and for participant B this has resulted, combined with her mother’s reluctance to her showing physical affection towards her girlfriend, in lesser contact with her mother. The system has in other words partly stagnated because of this.

Another example will be that many parents goals for their children is that they are happy, thus a fear for them experiencing negative things because of their orientation and them wanting to shield the participants from these negative experiences can be viewed as the

family-component, namely the mother, trying to maintain the goal with their children being happy in the future, regardless of orientation.

Worrying is not a lack of acceptance, but rather a fear of lacking acceptance from other people. Participant E and H both have mothers which are worried about their future, because they have heard about LGBT-persons meeting consequences of their orientation in different ways, both to not getting a job because they are open, and more extreme experiences with physical and psychological violence from homophobic people. Grønningsæter & Lescher-Nuland (2010: p. 58) states in their study that even though the overall image of attitudes towards LGBT-employees is positive, there is a minority of individuals with large prejudice against this population group lurking under the surface. These individuals may be part of the reason for the mothers worrying about their children in these cases.

In the case of parents for the participants with MLL-phenotypes, the pattern was relatively similar for several of the participants. Participant E’s and G’s mother was not surprised and are fully accepting them and their orientation, which may be partly explained by their MLL-phenotype. Both the father and the mother of participant H were prepared and fully accepting, as the participant brought up this topic already as a small child.

The father of participant E was surprised but is fully accepting of her. This indicates that even though he had a more negative view of LGBT-people before he knew about her orientation, he chose to change his perception in order to keep the good relationship with his daughter – which may be viewed as a way of keeping the system of the family stable, and to keep the family fully functioning through maintaining this stability.

Participant F is reluctant to tell her family, but they show acceptance of her possible orientation without her actually telling them. The indication of this is that this participant’s family has seen signs of her having a lesbian orientation, maybe partly through her MLL-phenotypical appearance, and thus have changed their perceptions of her orientation, and then came to turns with it.

Even though one can see that the participants’ with a MLL-phenotype seems overall more accepted within their family, this does not mean that all the participants’ with

MLL-phenotypes are fully accepted; as in the example of participant G’s father. For participant D, with the NNL-phenotype, she is not fully accepted by her mother, but by her father.

Participant A has a FSL-phenotype and is still fully accepted by the ones that know about her orientation. In other words, the patterns not only go within the phenotypes, but also across them, which may be explained by for e.g. family structure and other variables.

Another interesting fact regarding the acceptance level is that all the participants feel fully accepted by their siblings; several of the participants even have experiences with their siblings thinking that it is “cool” that they have a lesbian orientation. Regarding siblings, only one participant has not told all her siblings. Participant A’s choice to not tell her youngest sister, can be linked to her mother’s reaction when she came out. The knowledge about homosexual relationships today is incorporated in the school system and there seems to be an openness surrounding homosexual relationships in general. That all the participants feel accepted by their siblings is an indication towards younger generations being more accepting of alternative lifestyles to the heterosexual one. This is partly in accordance with research conducted in Norway by Anderssen & Slåtten (2008: p. 50) that states that the younger women are, the more positive they are towards LGBT-persons. Thus, statistically if one has a sister, she will be likely to be more accepting than one’s grandmother, as an example in chapter 5.3.4 will show.

5.3.3 Differences in experiences based on phenotypes explained by “the figure of