Cognitive Dimensions of Queer Space:

The Implications of Gender Dissonance for

Wayfinding in Gay and Lesbian Neighborhoods

Petra Doan
Associate Professor
Department of Urban and Regional Planning
Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL 32306-2280
pdoan@garnet.acns.fsu.edu

Harrison Higgins
Planner in Residence
Department of Urban and Regional Planning
Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL 32306-2280
hhiggins@garnet.acns.fsu.edu

FSU Department of Urban and Regional Planning

Working Paper Series, WPS# 06-02

August 2006

Please Do Not Cite without Author Permission

 Cognitive Dimensions of Queer Space:
The Implications of Gender Dissonance for Wayfinding in Gay and Lesbian Neighborhoods

Doan & Higgins

The preponderance of research continues to indicate male-female differences in cognitive

processing for mathematical, verbal, fine motor, and spatial tasks (Maccoby and Jacklin, 1974).

Some scholars suggest that males perform better on mathematical and spatial tasks, whereas

females perform better on verbal and fine motor tasks (Halpern, 2000). However, these results

have been questioned by others particularly in the area of spatial ability. For instance, Caplan et

al, (1985) review numerous studies and argue that the actual differences between sexes in spatial

ability are small and are confounded by a lack of clarity in the definition of spatial ability.

Kitchin (1996) finds only minor differences by sex in geographic knowledge and ability. Self

and Golledge (2000) suggest that there is a great deal of controversy around the issue of sex

differences in cognitive mapping abilities, and suggest a focus on gender rather than sex.

Sanders, et al (2002) argue that within sex differences in cognitive abilities may be as great as

the between sex differences such that sub groups of males and females may exhibit cognitive

characteristics associated with the opposite sex due to variations in prenatal hormone exposure.

One persistent area of sex related spatial ability differences appears to be in navigational

tasks related to wayfinding. Several studies argue that there are important sex linked differences

between the way that women and men process and store spatial data. Lawton suggests that

differences in the cognitive abilities of men and women influence the spatial strategies they use

to navigate in space. Men tend to employ a spatial survey or overview approach, whereas women

tend to utilize specific route based landmarks and directions (Lawton, 2001). Another piece of

the explanation of gendered differences is related to the influence of anxiety with regard to

1
wayfinding (Schmitz, 1999). Lawton and Kallai (2002) report that some women have higher

levels of anxiety about finding their way in unknown or uncertain areas and this concern

influences the way that they attempt to navigate, i.e. their wayfinding strategies. The authors

attribute this anxiety at least in part to differences in upbringing where young girls are often

more closely monitored and given less freedom to explore than boys at an equivalent age.

Recent research indicates that sexual orientation is also associated with differences in

navigational strategies, such that gay men are associated in some tests with wayfinding strategies

more typical of women than men (Rahman et al, 2005). Little has been written about how these

differences might influence residential and travel behaviors based on differential wayfinding

strategies. This research will use a cognitive framework to assess neighborhood location

decisions of a particular subset of the urban population, the sexual minority known as LGBT or

queer. There appear to be large differences in the kinds of neighborhoods and commercial areas

frequented by gay men versus lesbians. The premise of this paper is that a cognitive framework

provides a useful lens through which to analyze the process of place-making for the queer

population.

Gay and lesbian neighborhoods

Over the past several decades LGBT people have become increasingly visible and

recognized as active participants in urban place making within cities. Numerous authors have

provided useful contextual studies of the ways that gays and lesbians have created spaces for

habitation and socializing within cities (Bell and Valentine, 1995; Ingram et al, 1997; Valentine,

2000). Because society at large has been generally repressive of sexual minorities, an important

element of such places has been the establishment of safe spaces in which marginalized

2
individuals can live their lives without immediate fear of retribution. Accordingly, most research

on this topic has examined the evolution of such places through the perspective of a single

community, usually either gay men or lesbians. Castells (1983) examines the evolution of a San

Francisco neighborhood of gay men called the Castro, and finds that gay men are concerned with

controlling territory and dominating space. He argues that this tendency explains spatial

development in the Castro whereas lesbians in the area are more concerned with networks, with

changing basic values and creating linked social systems, not with territoriality. Others concur

that predominantly gay enclaves are quite visible with clearly delineated boundaries, whereas

lesbian neighborhoods areas are less visible and thus appear less clearly defined (Wolfe, 1997).

Adler and Brenner (1993) argue that lesbians may be concerned with spatial issues, but

several factors influence their location decisions. On average women’s incomes are lower than

men’s, so they often can’t afford to buy houses as investments in the manner men do. In some

cases lesbians do own and manage establishments in the wider business community (Forsyth,

1997), but their presence is quite limited. Women are also more likely to have custody of

children, which changes the parameters of their residential location away from inner city

neighborhoods to areas with more attractive schools and other neighborhood amenities friendly

to children. Finally women are more vulnerable in urban areas and therefore less able to stake

out a claim for urban space.

Other scholars highlight the important roles played by gay men in the neighborhood

renovation and gentrification process (Lauria and Knopp, 1985), however much of the historic

preservation literature has ignored their presence with occasional exceptions (Dubrow, 1998).

Often the so-called queer spaces in cities like Chicago are little more than the commodification

of space by the patriarchal institutions that remain in control of post-industrial society (Nast

3
2002). Such highly commodified gay spaces leave little space for women (Valentine, 2001),

resulting in lesbian areas that are not distinct, but are blended into otherwise bohemian

neighborhoods which can be called “spaces of difference” (Podmore 2001). Planning in these

areas has often functioned as a “heterosexist project” (Frisch 2002) that reinforces this separation

through land use regulation and policy (Forsyth, 2001). However there is little understanding of

the way that these neighborhoods actually develop, whether they actually serve as safe zones for

queer residents, and what steps planners might take to nurture their development.

All of this work makes the implicit assumption that sex and gender are synonymous. This

is clearly not the case within gay and lesbian populations or the urban population as a whole, but

there is little discussion of gender variation in these studies. Prior to the 1969 Stonewall

revolution flouting gender norms was one method of signifying queerness. Within the gay

community female impersonators have long been a highly visible expression of queerness and

drag shows were popular events in gay bars. At the same time patrons of lesbian bars were

frequently divided into the “butches” and the “femmes”. However, Faderman (1991) suggests

that during the 1970s gender variant women, especially the most overtly butch and femme

women, were pressured to adopt gender attributes more acceptable to society. As a result many

lesbians adopted a standard attire of jeans and a flannel shirt, that is neither terribly butch or

femme. There is still tension within the lesbian community over the highly gendered subject

positions of butches and femmes, with the latter being seen by some people as lipstick lesbians

and often not “real” lesbians (Harris and Crocker, 1997). Within the gay community gender

non-conformity also is even more tightly suppressed, and overtly effeminate men were often

marginalized (Taywaditep, 2001). Many gay men have adopted a more uniformly “masculine”

persona (short hair, developed muscles, and tight clothes).

4
 Much of this denial of gender diversity is replicated in the studies of queer urban spaces

that develop when queer people recognize that because of the hetero-normative nature of most

urban areas, overt action is required to create a safe place for themselves (Bell, Binnie, Cream,

and Valentine, 1994). An essential premise of queer theory is the recognition of much more fluid

subject positions with a consequent need for a more radical and more inclusive vision of “queer

space” (Bell and Valentine, 1995). However even this promising new conceptualization has

proved unable to accommodate alternative subject positions such as bisexuality (Hemmings,

2002) and non-traditional gender presentations within these communities, leaving these

individuals vulnerable and invisible in public spaces (Namaste, 1993; Namaste, 2000; Doan,

2001; Doan 2006; Doan, forthcoming).

One possible explanation of the differences in spatial behaviors of gay men and lesbians

may be found in the literature on gender dimensions of spatial cognition. Sex linked cognitive

differences might influence decisions to locate in certain areas or neighborhoods. A spatial

survey approach with a focus on areal delineation appears to underlie Castells’ contention that

men are more territorial. However, there has been little equivalent work on what women’s ways

of knowing and processing such as a landmark based cognition system would mean for the

development of women’s neighborhoods. There has been more focus on the fact that women

have higher levels of anxiety about finding their way in unknown or uncertain areas and that

state may influence the way that they attempt to navigate, i.e. their wayfinding strategies

(Schmitz, 1999; Lawton and Kallai, 2002). Indeed the literature on women’s perceptions of

danger in urban spaces suggests that women’s fear of violence in urban areas is a powerful

influence on their overall comfort level in urban spaces (Valentine, 1990; Pain, 1991; Goodey,

1995; Harris and Miller, 2000; Hollander, 2001). Bondi (1992) argues that the urban landscape

5
is filled with symbols that are strongly associated with men. It is possible that such symbols

contribute to a greater anxiety on the part of women. Mason (2002) adds that fear of violence is

often linked to previous experiences of violence.

Possible implications of a landmarking strategy for understanding women’s spaces would

be a greater focus on a central gathering location as a landmark or focal point, such as a

community center or a women’s bookstore. Information about community events is disseminated

through networks based in these locations reducing the need for spatial contiguity. How is such

information coded and conveyed in urban areas. If women tend to follow procedural and

landmark based cognitive patterns, are there certain types of areas which constitute negative

landmarks?

Furthermore many of the cognitive studies assume that perceptions of spaces (and

associated cognitive processes) are linked to sex and not gender. This paper asks a further

question whether such differences may be related to one’s embodied gender (as self identified) as

opposed to one’s sex. If embodied gender is linked to cognitive processes then variations within

sex which do not also consider gender may be missing key variables which would explain the

inconsistency in results.

Research Objectives

The goal of this research is to examine the ways in which embodied gender influences

wayfinding strategies in urban areas. In addition, the paper considers the connection between

gender and perceptions of the relative safety of the neighborhoods in which men and women live

and work. A critical factor in understanding the effects of gender is the extent to which men and
6
women embody a gender which is consonant with societal expectations. In particular our

research seeks to connect cognition of queer space to the creation of safer, more livable

communities through planning and design. We seek to achieve these ends specifically by

furthering the understanding of the effect of various built environment factors, including

“landmarking” and spatial bounding (two of today’s most common queer space notational

strategies), on perceptions of safety. We accept the premise (posited by Jane Jacobs, 1961 and

Oscar Newman, 1972) that the built environment has an important effect on public safety and the

perception of personal safety as well as crime and fear of crime.

The research seeks to better understand “queer space” in terms of spatial practices by a

variety of queer people. Rather than focusing narrowly on single neighborhood enclaves or on

the navigational and locational strategies of either gay men or women, the research seeks to

understand a wider variety of queer relationships to the physical or social environment of an

entire, complex urban area. Thus it seeks to understand the functionality of queer space and its

value to GBLT beyond its susceptibility to commodification.

Given that queer people are more often subject to crime and the fear of crime and given

the likelihood that the variety of GBLT navigational and spatial strategies echoes the variety of

the queer community itself, the research seeks to understand the particular urban planning and

design needs of GBLT people given public safety challenges they face. Thus far, planning and

design have paid more attention to the “microscale” phenomena (e.g., the notorious “broken

window”) that effect residents fear of crime than they have to “macroscale” contributions to

crime opportunity, including territorialization, adjacency, and vulnerability as a result of

minority identity. This research attempts to advance the understanding of macroscale factors

7
effecting perceptions of safety and vulnerability in order to increase the precision of microscale

planning solutions to the needs of GBLT people.

Methodology

This research examines the interactions of various community members and the urban

spaces they inhabit using a technique known as cognitive mapping to specify the dimensions of

queer spaces. This technique captures the frequency and patterns of use of key landmarks,

boundaries, and safe zones within those areas by a variety of queer people (gay, lesbian, bisexual

and transgendered). Cognitive mapping is a well known tool for capturing information about

individual’s perceptions of spatial environments. First popularized by Kevin Lynch in his study

of Boston (Lynch 1960), .this technique was subsequently used to map perceptions of urban

areas such as New York and Atlanta (Milgram et al, 1972; Reitzes 1981). In more recent years

researchers have studied the reliability of sketch maps (Blades, 1990), the ability of cognitive

maps to reflect the social structure of urban areas (Lloyd and Hooper, 1991), the distribution of

fear in an urban area (Matei, Ball-Rokeach, and Qiu, 2001), as well to assess differences in male

and female spatial abilities (Ward et al, 1986; Schmitz, 1999, Lawton and Kallai, 2002).

To further this aim the researchers developed an interview and mapping protocol that

asked members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered population (GLBT) in a south

eastern city to perform simple mapping tasks as well as describe their neighborhoods and

connections to the local “queer areas.” The survey was distributed using a snowball approach,

considered an effective means of reaching a socially marginalized group. The snowball began

with 450 questionnaires distributed to the mailing list of the local GLBT community center. In

addition approximately 100 copies were distributed at meetings of the Metropolitan Community
8
Church, the local Prime-Timers group (over 40 gay men’s group), the LGBT Student Union at

the local university, and the local transgender support group. Additional copies were made

available to other prospective respondents via word of mouth. In total 127 questionnaires were

returned using this method.

Each respondent was asked a range of standard questions about their personal situation

(age, race, sex, type of work, range of income, neighborhood type, length of time in Tallahassee,

etc.). Each person was also asked to rate their degree of gender embodiment based on either a

butch-femme scale for women or an equivalent scale for men ranging from macho man to a real

queen. In addition to basic demographic information informants were asked about their

perceptions of safety in both their neighborhoods and in the downtown area and their experiences

of harassment and discrimination within the area. Finally participants were asked to undertake

two mapping tasks. First they were asked to prepare a simple sketch map of the route from

downtown to the airport. Second they were asked to provide written directions from the largest

shopping mall in town to the local public library. The resulting spatial data was analyzed for

differences by sexual orientation and by gender orientation.

Results

A total of 127 surveys were returned. Of these 19% were from members of the Family

Tree, the local LGBT community center. While the mailing list of the Family Tree comprises

more than 450 names, a much smaller percentage of these are actually paid up members of the

Tree. In addition another 14% were affiliated with the Metropolitan Community Church., and

22% were from other LGBT groups. The remainder did not indicate an affiliation.

9
 Because of the snowball nature of this survey the demographic composition of the sample

is not as balanced as we might have hoped. The sex ratio was split 60:40 female to male. Of

these there were only a handful of people who identified as bisexual and there were only four

people who identify as transgendered individuals, three M2F and one F2M. The average age of

the population was 45 which is high especially in a college town. Finally the racial composition

of this survey is quite limited, reflecting at last in part the rather white composition of the

institutions used in the snowball survey. The survey responses indicated the following racial

breakdown: 95% white, 2 % Black, 1% Hispanic, 2% two or more races.

Figure One describes the self attribution of gender by men and women. The survey asked

respondents to rate themselves on a nine part butch – femme scale if they identified as women

and ona similar nine part Macho man to “real queen” scale if they identified as men. The authors

are quite aware of the problematic nature of this stereotyped characterization of gender. Clearly

this is only picking up one dimension of a vastly more complicated concept. However, it is their

collective experience that in Tallahassee these words are often used to describe members of these

populations. The women positioned themselves fairly evenly across the spectrum of gender

possibilities with the exception of the ultra butch category. While many men were unwilling to

locate themselves near the real queen extreme, the overall distribution is similar to the women’s,

except that the range of responses is fore-shortened by men’s apparent unwillingness to self

describe themselves as anything approaching effeminacy. Still a large number clumped just to

the right or right at the median point which we interpret as being as “the least macho” group of

men.

Figure One – about here

10
 In order to preserve the privacy of individuals we did not ask for addresses and we were

not permitted by the Family Tree to see the addresses used in the mail out. We did ask

respondents for three pieces of spatial information, their zip code, the name of their

neighborhood, and the nearest major intersection to their residence. Figure Two shows a map of

survey respondents by zip code. These findings confirm the researchers informal understanding

that there is no clearly defined gay or lesbian enclave in this region. The listing of respondents by

neighborhood showed the largest concentration (10 respondents) in one southside neighborhood

called Indian Head Acres and the neighboring Myers Park area. This neighborhood has been

described by a gay realtor as a “granola neighborhood” with a high proportion of GLBT people

surrounded by other socially conscious (neighbors, but this area is by no means an enclave. The

rest of the respondents were distributed fairly evenly throughout the metropolitan area, though

this population tends to be more urban than rural.

Figure Two about here

Figure Three illustrates the income levels of respondents. Incomes of respondents in the

sample appear to be solidly middle income which is probably due to the snowball sampling

strategy which significantly underrepresented both students and minorities, both of whom are a

significant component of this community. Median income in the Tallahassee metro area is

around $36,441 which is very close to the middle of our distribution. Fifteen percent of the

sample report incomes of less than $20,000 and just under ten percent report incomes of more

than $80,000.

11
 Figure Three about here

The education levels of our respondents as seen below in Figure Four were somewhat

higher than expected even in a community with two major universities and a large community

college. According to the 2000 Census approximately 21% of the population of the metro area

had a bachelor’s degree and 9.75% had a master’s degree and 5.74% had a doctorate or other

terminal professional (JD/MD) degree. In our sample 33.1% have a bachelor’s degree, 28.3 have

a master’s degree, and 17.3% have a doctorate or other terminal professional degree. Thus our

population appears to be considerably better educated than the population at large.

Figure Four about here

The community in which the survey was done is bounded on the south by national forest

land which constrains housing options on the southern fringe of the city. In contrast the northern

and eastern edges of the city were once dominated by plantation style agriculture. From the

1970s onward, these large parcels have been slowly converted to extensive suburban

developments with only limited spaces for moderate income housing. The surrounding ex-urban

area is sparsely settled, providing numerous opportunities for small rural farmsteads and other

longer distance commuter residences. Figure Five illustrates the types of neighborhoods in which

respondents are living. Not surprisingly most respondents live either in-town or in traditional

suburbs. Although some research argues that rural areas are indeed receptive to gays and

lesbians, 44.1% of our survey respondents lived in urban in-town neighborhoods and 31.5% live

in traditional suburban developments. Fewer (13.4%) live in peripheral or fringe areas, and even

12
fewer (9.4%) live out in the woods. It is therefore not surprising that the respondents to this

survey are reasonably concentrated closer to the traditional downtown with over half the sample

in neighborhoods classified as traditional urban neighborhoods.

Figure Five about here

Bivariate Analysis (cross-tabs)

The bivariate analysis of these data reveals some interesting patterns in the ways that gay

men and lesbians experience safety in this urban environment. The first cut divides the sample

into women and then men to analyze experiences with harassment, hostility, and discrimination.

Table One indicates that among all women, gender dissonant women are more likely to have

experienced harassment (including verbal abuse or extended staring) than other women

respondents. Perhaps this is not surprising since highly butch women are often quite visible,

especially those with very short hair and more masculine attire. These women challenge cultural

norms for gender expression and thus are more exposed to harassing looks and comments.

However gender dissonant women were not significantly more likely to experience outright

hostility or blatant discrimination.

Tables Two and Three address the experiences of gender dissonant men as compared to

other men with respect to hostility and discrimination. Table Two shows that gender dissonant

men are more likely to experience outright hostility than other gay men. There appears to be

good reason why gay men seek to project a more macho front to the world. In similar fashion

Table Three indicates that among all men, highly gender dissonant men are more likely to have

13
experienced discrimination in employment or in housing. Once again this is not surprising since

it is perhaps the gender dissonance of these men that marks them as different and makes them

more vulnerable to discrimination.

Table Four uses another cross-tabulation to examine perceptions of neighborhood safety

with proximity to one’s nearest LGBT neighbors. These data indicate that LGBT individuals

who live in closer proximity to other LGBT people are significantly more likely to perceive that

their neighborhood is a safe environment for them. Because this community does not have an

identifiable queer space, this does not necessarily imply a high concentration of queer people,

just proximate neighbors. This finding also suggests that in the absence of visible queer spaces,

some LGBT people may make residential location decisions based on where others have found

reasonably safe neighborhoods. Anecdotal evidence for the

Multivariate Analysis

Table Five below illustrates the results of the first regression analysis of the total number

of landmarks used in both cognitive mapping exercises. While the overall adjusted R squared is

modest at best (0.126), this level of explanatory power is not uncommon in exploratory research

of this type. In this case we expected that people using a way finding strategy dominated by

landmarks would make greater use of such landmarks. The two variables which were most

significant in the analysis were the length of time that an individual has lived in their current

residence and the degree of men’s gender dissonance. The first variable reflects the degree of

knowledge of the community acquired by an individual who has lived in this community for a

long time and might have transferred to the map. The second variable, the degree of men’s

gender dissonance, is particularly interesting. Less macho men are significantly more likely to

14
follow a landmark based navigating strategy than both other men and women. This finding

suggests that while there are important differences in wayfinding strategy they significantly

related to gender differences, or more precisely the degree to which an individual self perceives

that they embody gender characteristics, not sex differences.

We also tested other variables related to previous experiences with mapping software and

orienteering exercises in the outdoors. None of these variables representing previous experiences

with map-making and outdoor way-finding helped to explain the survey vs. landmark approach.

These results suggest that in this population gender differences are more important than

experience in explaining the type of wayfinding strategy that LGBT are likely to use.

In a similar vein Table Six below uses logistic regression to test whether the respondents

were more likely to use appropriate cardinal directions on the mapping tasks. We expected that

correct cardinal orientation would be a key indicator of the survey wayfinding approach which

the literature indicates is more common among men. We used a logistic regression model

because correct use of a cardinal orientation is either right or wrong. The two most significant

predictors of correct cardinal orientation are the estimated travel distance in minutes that an

individual live from the center of town (which is the starting point for one of the mapping

exercises). Once again this appears to be an indication of the degree to which an individual is

familiar with geographic features of the study metropolitan area. The second variable is in this

equation is the inverse of the previous regression, this time measuring the degree of women’s

gender dissonance. In this case highly gender dissonant women (butch women) were

significantly more likely to use a correct cardinal orientation in their mapping exercises than

other women and than men. This finding suggests strongly that once again it is the degree of

gender dissonance that seems to predict wayfinding strategy not sex.

15
Conclusions

The results of the analyses discussed above indicate quite strongly that gender is an

important influence on cognitive processes as they influence perceptions of urban space.

Although much of the literature uses sex differences to analyze both perceptions of safety and

fear in urban areas as well as wayfinding strategies, this paper has argued that gender differences

are more important than sex differences.

In addition, it appears that perceptions of safety are linked to individual’s experiences

with harassment, hostility, and discrimination over their lifetimes and in a particular spatial

context. Our results indicate that these experiences vary significantly with the degree to which an

individual’s self ascribed gender is dissonant with societal expectations of gender for a person

perceived as male or female. In particular individuals who are highly gender dissonant are much

more likely to experience incidents of harassment (for women in particular) and either outright

hostility (for men in particular) or overt discrimination (for men in particular).

Although our current study area does not have a clearly defined “gay enclave” the results

do indicate that for many respondents having one or more GLBT neighbors in close proximity

makes them feel safer. These results do not vary by neighborhood type suggesting that it less

important where GLBT people live than that they live in areas in which there are supportive

neighbors. This residential level support system appears to be part of “defensive” strategy for

people who may feel quite marginalized by social institutions. Because the study area does not

contain an enclave we were unable to test whether even higher concentrations of GLBT people

created stronger feelings of safety.

Wayfinding strategies are also strongly influenced not by sex, but by the ways in which

16
gender is embodied. Gender dissonant men are more likely to use a landmark approach and

gender dissonant women are more likely to use cardinal directions correctly which is more

closely associated with a survey approach to wayfinding. These preliminary findings suggest

strongly that Castells’ argument that men are more territorial and therefore interested in carving

out enclaves in space is unlikely to be true. More macho men may be more territorial in a survey

style approach, but less macho men appear to be less territorial. Furthermore, the results suggest

that since butch-identified women should also be territorial, there should be more enclaves of

butch women, which does not seem to be the case.

Acknowledgements: This research has been partially funded by the Gays and Lesbians in
Planning Division of the American Planning Association (GALIP) as part of an ongoing project
to examine the cognitive dimensions of queer space. We are grateful to GALIP for their support.
In the near future we plan to expand the pilot study to a more larger Atlanta Metropolitan
Region which will enable us to examine both enclave and non-enclave situations. In addition a
large metropolitan area will provide both a larger sample size and greater ethnic diversity. The
next phase of the study will also place greater emphasis on actual sketch mapping of the
neighborhoods in which LGBT people live.

17
 Figure One Men’s and Women’s Gender Type

Gender Type of Men and Women

Men's
Gender type

Women's
gender type

F emm
e to B utch
Scale

18
Figure Two: Concentration of Respondents to total population levels by zip code

19
Figure Three Respondent Incomes

Level of Income

40

30

y
c
n
e
u20
q
e
r
F

10

0
< $19,999 $40K-$59,999 $80K-$99,999
$20K-$39,999 $60K-$79,999 >$100K
Level of Income

Level of Income

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent
< $19,999 19 15.0 15.0
$20K-$39,999 39 30.7 45.7
$40K-$59,999 40 31.5 77.2
$60K-$79,999 17 13.4 90.6
$80K-$99,999 6 4.7 95.3
>$100K 5 3.9 99.2
no response 1 .8 100.0
Total 127 100.0

20
Figure Four Respondent Education Levels

Highest Education Level

50

40

y
c30
n
e
u
q
e
r
F
20

10

0
high school AA degree bachelor's master's degree PhD, JD, MD,
diploma degree etc.
Highest Education Level
Highest Education Level

Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

high school diploma 15 11.8 11.8
AA degree 12 9.4 21.3
bachelor's degree 42 33.1 54.3
master's degree 36 28.3 82.7
PhD, JD, MD, etc. 22 17.3 100.0
Total 127 100.0

21
Figure Five Neighborhood Types

Description of Neighborhood

60

50

40
y
c
n
e
u
q30
re
F
20

10

0
in town traditional suburban rural fringe rural or out in the
neighborhood development settlement woods
Description of Neighborhood

Description of Neighborhood

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent
in town neighborhood 56 44.1 44.1
traditional suburban
development 40 31.5 75.6
rural fringe settlement 17 13.4 89.0
rural or out in the woods 12 9.4 98.4
two or more responses 1 .8 99.2
no response 1 .8 100.0
Total 127 100.0

22
Table One Dissonant women & harassment

Women only

Femme Butch
<5 >= 5 Total
Has respondent no Count 47 16 63
ever experienced
physical Expected
harassment Count 43.9 19.1 63.0

yes Count 6 7 13
Expected
Count 9.1 3.9 13.0

Total Count 53 23 76

Pearson Chi Square = 4.133 signif. = 0.042

23
Table Two Dissonant Men and Hostility

Males only

More Less
macho Macho Total
Has no Count 24 8 32
respondent
ever Expected
experienced Count 21.3 10.7 32.0
hostility in
TLH yes Count 10 9 19
Expected
Count 12.7 6.3 19.0

Total Count 34 17 51

Pearson Chi Square = 3.980 signif. = 0.046

Table Three Dissonant Men and Discrimination

Males Only

More Macho Less Macho Total

Has respondent no Count 30 11 41
ever experienced
discrimination in Expected
TLH? Count 27.3 13.7 41.0

yes Count 4 6 10
Expected
Count 6.7 3.3 10.0

Total Count 34 17 51

Pearson Chi Square = 4.945 signif. = 0.026

24
Table Four Proximity of LGBT Neighbors

New neighborhood safety * How close is nearest known LGBT Neighbor Crosstabulation

How close is nearest known LGBT

Neighbor
In the Not in my
Next door Neighbor neighborhood
or nearby hood or don't know Total
New neighborhood Barely Tolerable Count 8 3 13 24
safety Expected Count 12.7 2.5 8.8 24.0
Fair Count 34 7 28 69
Expected Count 36.5 7.3 25.2 69.0
Excellent Count 23 3 4 30
Expected Count 15.9 3.2 11.0 30.0
Total Count 65 13 45 123
Expected Count 65.0 13.0 45.0 123.0

Pearson Chi Square = 11.9804 signif. = 0.017

25
Table Five Predicting the number of landmarks used

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 2.522 .565 4.466 .000
Minutes to Apalachee /
-.019 .019 -.097 -.993 .323
Monroe
highest income category -.419 .586 -.069 -.714 .477
gender ID of respondent -.268 .412 -.072 -.651 .517
respondent has a
.421 .349 .115 1.204 .232
graduate degree
Years lived in current
.066 .025 .248 2.614 .010
residence
Managerial and
-.602 .378 -.154 -1.594 .114
Professional
Mens gender dissonance 1.332 .610 .237 2.184 .032
a. Dependent Variable: Number of landmarks in map

Adj. R 2 = .126
ANOVAb

Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 62.499 7 8.928 3.037 .006a
Residual 270.461 92 2.940
Total 332.960 99
a. Predictors: (Constant), Mens gender dissonance, Managerial and Professional,
Years lived in current residence, highest income category, respondent has a
graduate degree, Minutes to Apalachee / Monroe, gender ID of respondent
b. Dependent Variable: Number of landmarks in map

26
Table Six Predicting Correct Cardinal Direction Orientation

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Step
a
butch 1.416 .669 4.477 1 .034 4.120
1 mins .044 .026 2.991 1 .084 1.045
resyrs .050 .032 2.474 1 .116 1.051
tlfdiscrm -.538 .611 .776 1 .378 .584
lowincome .400 .630 .402 1 .526 1.491
Constant -2.070 .555 13.921 1 .000 .126
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: butch, mins, resyrs, tlfdiscrm, lowincome.

Model Summary

-2 Log Cox & Snell Nagelkerke

Step likelihood R Square R Square
1 115.455a .103 .146
a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 4 because
parameter estimates changed by less than .001.

27
References
Adler, Sy and Johanna Brenner. 1993. “Gender and space: lesbians and gay men in the city,”
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 16, 24-34.

Bell, David & Gill Valentine (Eds.). 1995. Mapping Desire: Geographies of Sexualities. New
York: Routledge.

Blades, Mark. 1990. “The Reliability of Data Collected from Sketch Maps,” Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 10: 327-339.

Bondi, Liz.. 1992. “Gender Symbols and Urban Landscapes” Progress In Human Geography 16,
2 : 157-170.

Caplan, P.J., G.M. MacPherson, and P. Tobin. 1985. “Do Sex-related differences in spatial
abilities exist?” American Psychologist, 40: 786-799.

Castells, Manuel. 1983. The City and the Grassroots. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Comstock, Gary David. 1991. Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men. New York: Colombia
University Press.

Doan, Petra. 2001. “Are the Transgendered the Mine Shaft Canaries of Urban Areas?”
Progressive Planning: Special Issue on Queers and Planning. Planners Network: March/April.
Available at: http://www.plannersnetwork.org/publications/2001 146/Doan.html

Doan, Petra. 2006. “Violence and Transgendered People,” Progressive Planning: Special Issue
on Gender and Violence. Planners Network: Spring. Available at:
http://www.plannersnetwork.org/publications/mag 2006 2 spring.html

Doan, Petra. Forthcoming. “Queers in the American City: Transgendered Perceptions of Urban
Spaces” Gender, Place, and Culture

Dubrow, Gail. 1998. "Blazing Trails with Pink Triangles and Rainbow Flags: New Directions in
the Preservation and Interpretation of Gay and Lesbian Heritage," Historic Preservation Forum
12:3 (Spring 1998): 31-44.

Forsyth, Ann.1997. NoHo: “Upscaling Main Street on the Metropolitan Edge,” Urban
Geography. Vol. 18, No. 7: 622-652.

Forsyth, Ann. 2001. “Sexuality and Space: Nonconformist Populations and Planning Practice,”
Journal of Planning Literature, 15: 339-358.

Frisch, Michael. 2002. “Planning as a Heterosexist Project,” Journal of Planning Education and
Research 21: 254-266.

28
Goodey, Jo. 1995. “Fear of Crime: Children and Gendered Socialization” pp. 295-312 in R.
Emerson Dobash, Russell P. Dobash, and Lesley Noaks (eds.) Gender and Crime. Cardiff:
University of Wales Press.

Halpern, D.F. 2002. Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities (2nd Ed.) Hillsdale, HJ: Erlbaum.

Hemmings, Clare (2002) Bisexual Spaces: A Geography of Sexuality and Gender. New York,
Routledge.

Hollander, Jocelyn. 2001. “Vulnerability and dangerousness: the Construction of Gender through
Conversation about Violence” Gender and Society, 15, 1: 83-109.

Ingram, Gordon, Anne-Marie Bouthillette, & Yolanda Ritter (Eds.) (1997) Queers in Space:
Communities, Public Places, and Sites of Resistance. Seattle: Bay Press

Jane Jacobs. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.

Kenney, Moira. 2001. Mapping Gay LA: The Intersection of Place and Politics.

Kitchin, Robert. 1996. “Are there sex differences in geographic knowledge and behavior?” The
Geographical Journal, 162, 3: 273-286.

Lauria, M. and L. Knopp. 1985. “Toward an analysis of the role of gay communities in the urban
renaissance,” Urban Geography, 6: 152-150.

Lawton, Carol and Janos Kallai. 2002. “Gender Differences in Wayfinding Strategies and
Anxiety about Wayfinding: A Cross-cultural Comparison,” Sex Roles. 47, 9/10: 389-401.

Lloyd, Robert and Hartwell Hooper. 1990. “Urban cognitive Maps: Computation and Structure,”
The Professional Geographer. 43, 1: 15-28.

Lynch, Kevin. 1960. The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Maccoby, E. and C. Jacklin. 1874. The Psychology of Sex Differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.

Mason, Gail. 2002. The Spectacle of Violence: Homophobia, Gender, and Knowledge. New
York: Routledge.

Milgram, Stanley, Judith Greenwald, Suzanne Kessler, Wendy McKenna, and Judith Wates.
1972. “A Psychological Map of New York City,” American Scientist., 60: 194-200.

29
Montello, Daniel R., Kristin L. Lovelace, Reginald G. Golledge, Carole M. Self. 1999. “Sex-
Related Differences and Similarities in Geographic and Environmental Spatial Abilities,” Annals
of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 89, No. 3. (Sep., 1999), pp. 515-534.

Namaste, Ki. 1996. Gender bashing: sexuality, gender, and the regulation of public space.
Environment and Planning D. Vol. 14: 221-240.

Namaste, Viviane K. 2000. Invisible Lives: The Erasure of Transsexual and Transgendered
People. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Newman, Oscar. 1972. Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Design. New York:
MacMillan.

Pain, Rachel. 1991. “Space, violence, and social control: integrating geographical and feminist
analyses of women’s fear of crime,” Progress in Human Geography, 15: 415-31.

Peake, Linda. 1993. Race and Sexuality: challenging the patriarchal structuring of urban social
space, Environment and Planning D: Society and Self, 11, pp.415-432

Podmore, Julie. 2001. “Lesbians in the Crowd: gender, sexuality, and visibility along Montreal’s
Boulevard St-Laurent,” Gender, Place, and Culture, 8, 4: 333-355.

Rahman, Qazi, Davinia Andersson, and Ernest Grovier. 2005. Behavioral Neuroscience, 119, 1:
311-316.

Raitz, K. and R. Ulack. 1981. “Cognitive Maps of Appalachia,” Geographical Review. 71: 201-
213.

Reed, Christopher. 2003. “We’re from Oz: Making Ethnic and Sexual Identity in Chicago,”
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 21: 425-440.

Reitzes, Donald. “Urban Images: A Social Psychological Approach,” Sociological Inquiry. 53:
314-332.

Rothenburg, T. 1995. “And she told two friends, Lesbians creating urban social space.” Pp. 16-
181 in D. Bell and G. Valentine (eds.) Mapping Desire. London: Routledge.

Sanders, Geoff, Marie Sjodin, Marianne Chastelaine. (2002). “On the Elusive Nature of Sex
Differences in Cognition: Hormonal Influences Contributing to Within-Sex Variation” Archives
of Sexual Behavior 31, 1: 145-152.

Schmitz, S. 1999. “Gender Differences in Acquisition of Environmental Knowledge Related to

Wayfinding Behavior, Spatial Anxiety, and Self-Estimated Environmental Competencies,” Sex
Roles, 41, 71-93.

30
Self, Carole and Reginald Golledge. 2000. “Sex, gender, and cognitive mapping,” pp. 197-220 in
Rob Kitchin and Scott Freundschuh (Eds.). Cognitive Mapping: Past, Present and Future.
London: Routledge.

Taywaditep, KJ. 2001. “Marginalization among the marginalized: Gay men’s anti-effeminacy
attitudes,” Journal of Homosexuality, 42, 1, pp. 1-28.

Taylor, Affrica. 1998. “Lesbian Space: More Than One Imagined Territory,” pp. 129- 141 in
Rosa Ainley (Ed.) New Frontiers of Space, Bodies, and Gender. London: Routledge.

Valentine, Gill. 1990. “Women’s fear and the design of public space,” Built Environment, 16:
279-87.

Valentine, Gill. 1993. “Heterosexing space: lesbian perceptions and experiences of everyday
space,” Environment and Planning D, Society and Self. 11: 395-413

Valentine, Gill. 1995. “Out and about: geographies of lesbian landscapes,” International Journal
of Urban and Regional Research. 19:96-111.

Valentine, Gill. 1996. “(Re)negotiating the ‘Heterosexual street”: Lesbian Productions of Space”,
pp. 146-155 in Nancy Duncan (ed.), Body Space: destabilizing geographies of gender and
sexuality. New York: Routledge.

Valentine, Gill. 2000. From Nowhere to Everywhere: Lesbian Geographies. New York:
Harrington Park Press.

Ward, Shawn, Nora Newcombe, and Willis Overton. 1986. “Turn Left at the Church, or Three
Miles North: A Study of Direction Giving and Sex Differences,” Environment and Behavior. 18,
2: 192-213.

Wolfe, Maxine. 1997. “Invisible Women in Invisible Places: The Production of Social Space in
Lesbian Bars, pp. 301-323 in Ingram, Gordon, Anne-Marie Bouthillette, and Yolanda Ritter
(eds.). Queers in Space: Communities, Public Places, and Sites of Resistance. Seattle: Bay Press.

31