Heteronormativity in Criminology: Call for Inclusive Measurement of Sexuality

• Published date: 01 September 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/07340168221138572
• Author: Hannah Gateley,Courtney A. Crittenden,Christina N. Policastro,Karen McGuffee
• Date: 01 September 2024

Heteronormativity in

Criminology: Call for Inclusive

Measurement of Sexuality

Hannah Gateley

1

, Courtney A. Crittenden

1

,

Christina N. Policastro

1

, and Karen McGuffee

1

Abstract

In recent years, scholars’calls for progress in the field have noted mainstream criminology’s histor-

ical reluctance to include certain social constructs, particularly sexuality. The current study

employed a content analysis to examine articles published between 2015–2019 in Criminology and

Journal of Interpersonal Violence (JIV) to determine inclusion of sexuality both withinthe body of

the article and as a variable. Findings indicate while the inclusion of sexuality was limited in both

journals, JIV, which has a stated diversity-focused orientation, included sexuality at a higher rate

than the mainstream criminological journal, Criminology. Importantly, in both journals, conceptuali-

zations and operationalizations of sexuality, when it was measured as a variable, rarely fell outside of

a binary measure. This suggests that the measurement and inclusion of sexuality is still lacking, and

the call for inclusivity has not been fully heeded. Unless sexuality is included as a characteristic in

research, its impact cannot be definitively determined and, therefore, cannot contribute to the for-

mation of effective policy and practice.

Keywords

sexuality, sexual orientation, criminological research, victimization research

Criminologists have historically overlooked the influence of sexuality and sexual orientation, which

has contributed to the oppression of sexual minorities across time (McDonald, 2017). For much of

the history of criminology as an academic field of study, certain acts of sexuality were criminalized,

particularly non-heterosexual acts. Additionally, criminological theories tended to characterize

sexual minorities as deviants (e.g., de River, 1949; Humphreys, 1970; Lombroso, 1876;

Sutherland, 1950). In the nineteenth century, sexuality was medicalized, and men who engaged in

same-sex acts were seen as psychologically and medically defective (Ball, 2016; McDonald,

2017; Woods, 2014). Similar stigma was present officially in the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical

1

University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Chattanooga, USA

Corresponding Author:

Courtney Crittenden, Department of Social, Cultural, and Justice Studies, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, 615

McCallie Street, Chattanooga, TN 37403

Email: courtney-crittenden@utc.edu

Article

Criminal Justice Review

2024, Vol. 49(3) 293-309

© 2022 Georgia State University

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/07340168221138572

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjr

Manual until 1974, when homosexuality was removed from the manual (McDonald, 2017). Until

fairly recently, individuals who engaged in “sodomy

1

”, even with an opposite-gender partner,

were subject to criminal sanction for such behavior (Ball, 2016; McDonald, 2017; Woods, 2014).

After laws criminalizing same-sex acts, specifically sodomy, were declared unconstitutional by

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) in the U.S., the image of sexual minorities as deviants

remained, and sexual minorities still face oppression in many facets of life and in society at large

(Ball, 2016; McDonald, 2017; Woods, 2014).

Further, sexuality has traditionally been limited to a binary conceptualization of either homosex-

ual or heterosexual (Callis, 2014). Even Kinsey et al.’s (1948) early studies of sexuality, which were

progressive, maintained this binary and reiterated society’s broader tendency to view non-binary sex-

ualities as falling short of either true heterosexuality or homosexuality, rather than distinct sexualities

in their own right (Callis, 2014; Drucker, 2012). Following that perspective, bisexual and pansexual

individuals, for example, would fall into such a variant category (McDonald, 2017).

Non-heteronormative--particularly non-binary—individuals have and continue to experience back-

lash due to their sexual orientation (Callis, 2014; Kane, 2003; Woods, 2014). Due to the hegemonic

nature of society’s binary conceptualization of sexuality, ascribing to these more recently recognized

sexualities can place non-binary individuals lower in the social hierarchy, and while some research

has been conducted examining the impacts of non-binary status on delinquency, research also sug-

gests that further studies are needed to fully understand both the delinquency and victimization of

various non-heterosexual individuals (Brown & Herman, 2015; Dennis, 2019).

While queer criminology introduced and expanded the study of sexuality within the field, calls

influenced by queer criminology have noted that inclusive conceptualizations of sexuality are

limited in the literature (Belknap, 2015; Woods, 2014). In Belknap’s (2015) American Society of

Criminology’s Presidential Address, she noted that while some progress has been made, criminolo-

gists need to increase their research focus on inclusivity and highlight how social identities like sex-

uality impact criminality, victimization patterns, and experiences within the criminal justice system.

To examine if criminologists have begun to heed these calls for progress, the present study evaluated

recent publications to determine the inclusion of sexuality in criminological research and potential

variation of inclusion by presumed author sex.

Review of the Literature

History of Sexuality Within Criminology

In the latter part of the twentieth century, sexual non-conforming behaviors became more public with

the growth of industrialization, urbanization, and overall diversity (Dennis, 2014; Woods, 2014).

Because the government could not directly intervene into the sexual lives of citizens to mandate puri-

tanical standards, society turned to medical fields to resolve what were primarily moral issues

(Woods, 2014). Conflicting theories arose—some medical experts believed homosexuality was bio-

logically ingrained in certain individuals, some believed homosexual tendencies were natural for all

people, and some thought heterosexuality was the standard from which any deviation would classify

an individual as a “biological degenerate”(Drucker, 2012; McDonald, 2017; Woods, 2014). These

biological perspectives of sexuality coincided with Cesare Lombroso’s formulation of biological the-

ories of crime, which classified various types of criminals based on biological traits. Lombroso

attached stigma to non-heterosexual men whom he classified as a type of “insane criminal”

(Lombroso, 1876).

Lombroso’s classification of non-heterosexual men as criminal served as the foundation for

widely-held stigmatization of gender and sexual nonconforming behaviors within criminology and

allowed others to follow with their own classifications of sexualities other than heterosexual being

294 Criminal Justice Review 49(3)