"Girl, Bi, Bakla, Tomboy": The Intersectionality of Sexuality, Gender, and Class in Urban Poor Contexts

Full text

“Girl, Bi, Bakla, Tomboy”: The
Intersectionality of Sexuality, Gender,
and Class in Urban Poor Contexts
Arjohn M. Ceperiano
Emmanuel C. Santos Jr.
Danielle Celine P. Alonzo
Mira Alexis P. Ofreneo
Ateneo de Manila University
Copyright @ 2016 psyChologiCal assoCiation of the philippines
Intersectionality as a theoretical framework argues for the need
to account for people’s multiple and intersecting social identities
in understanding experiences of discrimination. We looked at the
intersection of sexuality, gender, and class in shaping the particularity
of Filipino urban poor lesbian women’s and gay men’s experiences of
discrimination. Using four case narratives, we examined the experiences
of a bisexual (masculine gay man), bakla (feminine gay man), tomboy
(masculine lesbian woman), and girl (feminine lesbian woman) in
urban poor contexts. Unique themes include: how gender, sexuality,
and class identities intersect and fuse in the bakla and tomboy identities
to create a distinct form of social inequality that constructs these
identities as forms of moral degradation; how non-normative gender
expressions trigger overt discrimination; how lesbian and gay identities
and relationships are invisibilized; and how providing for the family
can facilitate acceptance given the strong adherence to heteronormative
gender roles embedded in the context of urban poverty.
Keywords: intersectionality, discrimination, class, gender, sexuality
philippine Journal of psyChology, 2016, 49(2), 5-34
Correspondence concerning this article can be addressed to Arjohn M. Ceperiano, Department of Psychology, Ateneo
de Manila University, Katipunan Avenue, Quezon City 1108. E-mail: arjohn.ceperiano@gmail.com
Discrimination towards lesbian women and gay men, also referred
to as sexual prejudice or heterosexism, continue to persist globally
(UN, 2012). Though discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
has been often treated as a homogenous experience, studies have

IntersectIonalIty of sexualIty, Gender, and class
6
increasingly unpacked the unique experience of discrimination among
multiply marginalized groups of lesbian women and gay men (Parent,
DeBlaere, & Moradi, 2013). In particular, studies in North American
contexts have shown how sexual orientation intersects with gender
and race to create compounded layers of discrimination (Bowleg,
2008; Bowleg, 2013). Little research however has been done in Asian
contexts where the meaning of sexuality and gender may vary given that
social identities are constructed in their specic cultural and historical
contexts (Bowleg, 2013). Furthermore, there is scant research on how
sexual orientation intersects with socioeconomic class, which may
be more salient in contexts where poverty is widespread (McGarrity,
2014). Hence, this study contributes to understanding discrimination
towards urban poor lesbian women and gay men by exploring the
intersection of sexuality, gender, and class. Using an intersectionality
framework, we explored experiences of discrimination from four case
narratives of a bisexual, bakla, tomboy, and girl from urban poor
contexts in the Philippines.
Discrimination Towards Lesbian Women and Gay Men
Despite shifts towards greater acceptance, lesbian women and gay
men in the US continue to be widely stigmatized (Herek & McLemore,
2013). A review of the literature from North American contexts showed
that experiences of prejudice toward lesbian women and gay men
are likely to endure despite changes in public policies towards legal
recognition of same-sex relations and equality for sexual minorities
(Herek & McLemore, 2013). In the Philippines, the situation is made
complex by the co-existence of policies that promote and policies that
deny lesbian and gay rights (UNDP & USAID, 2014). While cultural
and social attitudes reect increasing acceptance, Filipino lesbian
women and gay men continue to experience discrimination and
violence (UNDP & USAID, 2014).
While race or ethnic identity may be salient in North American
contexts, researchers have argued for the need to study Asian
contexts given the salience and meaning of identities are context-
specic (Bowleg, 2013; Herek & McLemore, 2013). Researchers
have highlighted the need to address the intersection of lesbian, gay,

Ceperiano, SantoS, alonzo, & ofreneo 7
bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) identities with socioeconomic status
(Gamarel, et al., 2012; McGarrity, 2014). One study on the intersection
of race and class found that socioeconomic position was primary in
the experience of discrimination of gay and bisexual men (Gamarel, et
al., 2012). A review of past studies highlighted how LGB people from
lower socioeconomic status (SES) experience greater vulnerability
and distress (McGarrity, 2014). This review identied the uniqueness
of the experience of vulnerability from the intersection of sexuality
and class such as the consequence of gender role nonconformity and
disclosure. Passing as a heterosexual masculine man can be an act of
survival for working class GB men while coming out can lead to more
harm for LGB individuals in the context of poverty.
In the Philippines, socioeconomic status or class is made salient
by the widespread prevalence of poverty, with 25.8% of Filipinos in
poverty and 10.5% in extreme or subsistence poverty (PSA, 2015). A
large percentage of poor Filipinos live in Metro Manila in urban poor
settlements or informal settler communities (Racelis & Aguirre, 2005).
Attempts have been made to argue for the interconnection of poverty
and sexuality (Jolly, 2010). For instance, economic systems are said
to be heteronormative with people of non-conforming gender and
sexuality (e.g., butch lesbian women) deemed unt to work. Poverty
also intersects with sexuality when LGBT individuals face greater risk
of rejection from family members when they are unable to earn income.
A Philippine study supports this assertion as social protection policies
were found to be heteronormative, preventing access to resources to
LBT-headed households (GALANG, 2013).
A seminal study of queer people in the context of poverty in urban
Philippines by Thoreson (2011) showed how sexuality and gender
expression shape the experience of material poverty and employment.
Following a capabilities approach, this study showed how queerness
intersected with poverty to shape not only material poverty but a
range of capabilities such as agency, security, dignity, and meaning
in life. In terms of employment, low-income LGBT people faced
discrimination in jobs deemed inappropriate for them or sought low-
paying jobs that are typecasted for them. Low-income LGBT people
struggled to provide not only for themselves but for their families, with
the ability to earn functioning as a currency to gain family acceptance.

IntersectIonalIty of sexualIty, Gender, and class
8
In addition, low-income LGBT people felt that they contributed to
their households not only with their income but also through chores
and other non-monetary means. In terms of safety and security,
low-income LGBT people reported experiencing harassment in the
streets while a number experienced graver forms of assault including
rape and attempted murder. Despite experiencing discrimination
and violence, they felt safe in their own communities where people
knew them. Thoreson further noted that queer populations in the
Philippines are particularly vulnerable to harassment because of their
visible “transgressive gender expression” (p. 503).
The present study seeks to contribute an intersectional framework
to understand experiences of discrimination of Filipino lesbian women
and gay men in urban poor contexts. In particular, we look at the
intersection of sexuality, gender, and class in four case narratives of a
bisexual, bakla, tomboy, and girl identity. We explore their subjective
experiences in-depth to derive insights as to the intersecting structures
of social inequalities or oppression that shape these experiences.
Philippine Cultural Context
Unlike Western social constructions that separate the categories
of gender (e.g., masculinity, femininity) and sexual orientation
(homosexuality, bisexuality, heterosexuality) the local social
construction of gender and sexuality is fused or conated (Tan, 1995,
1998; Ofreneo, 2000, 2003). Tan (1998) argued that Philippine
culture has no term for sexuality, which he contends is a largely
western construct. There are no local terms for the categories of sexual
orientation (Tan, 1995). Rather, the construction of sexuality is merged
with or embedded in the language of gender (Ofreneo, 2000, 2003).
The local term most widely used to refer to a gay man is bakla,
the contraction of the words babae (female/woman) and lalaki (male/
man), implying that homosexuality is tied to femininity (Tan, 1995).
Tan (1995) has explained how the concept of eeminacy dominates
Philippine public discourse on homosexuality. The term bakla lumps
together gay men and transgender women. On the other hand, the term
most commonly used to refer to a lesbian woman is tomboy (Josef,
1997, 1999). Similar to the word bakla, tomboy fuses sexuality and

Ceperiano, SantoS, alonzo, & ofreneo 9
gender as it refers primarily to the expression of masculinity. Tomboy
lumps together lesbian women and transgendered or transsexual men.
With the accommodation of western knowledge, local terms such as
bakla and tomboy co-exist with the western words lesbian, gay, and
transgender in Philippine public discourse.
Class further complicates the unique construction of gender and
sexuality in the Philippines. According to Tan (1995a), bakla historically
represented low-income eeminate gay men, or the stereotypical
parlorista (gay men who work in beauty parlors). Gay men from
middle- and high-income groups traditionally remained “discreet,” that
is, masculine in gender expression (Tan, 1995b). While parlorista gay
men (parlor gay) identied as “bakla”, discreet or straight-acting gay
men identied as “bisexual” even if they only engaged in sex with men
(HAIN, 2013). As such, the spectrum of bakla/gay identities as part of
the umbrella term “men who have sex with men” or MSM cut across
a range of masculinities or gender role expressions (HAIN, 2013). On
the other hand, the tomboy represented low-income masculine lesbian
women, or the butch lesbian who stereotypically worked as a security
guard (Josef, 1997, 1999). Tomboys were regarded as dierent from
lesbian women who are feminine in gender expression (Josef, 1997,
1999). The local term that is sometimes used to refer to the feminine
lesbian woman is girl, signifying that she is stereotypically feminine.
There is no clear delineation in the usage of the local terms bakla,
tomboy, bisexual, and girl vis-à-vis the western terms lesbian, gay,
and transgender. These local and western constructions co-exist in
shaping the subjectivities of Filipinos who identify as lesbian, gay,
bakla, tomboy, girl, and bisexual. A recent study on Filipino gay and
transgender identities showed how bakla refer to parlor-based gay men
as well as transgender women (Canoy, 2015). Looking at cultural and
classed discourses of intimacy, this same study found how the bakla
needed to pay for intimacy with men, making same-sex relationships
transactional. Working-class bakla culture was separate and distant
from the culture of middle-class gay men.
Problem
In this study, we ask, “How do the intersections of sexuality,

IntersectIonalIty of sexualIty, Gender, and class
10
gender, and class shape the experiences of discrimination of urban
poor Filipino lesbian women and gay men?” We use intersectionality
as a framework to explore four case narratives of bakla (feminine
gay man), bisexual (masculine gay man), tomboy (masculine lesbian
woman), and girl (feminine lesbian woman) identities in a Filipino
urban poor context.
Intersectionality as Framework
Studies on discrimination towards lesbian women and gay men
have predominantly treated sexual orientation as a singular and unitary
identity (Parent et al., 2013). This is based on the conceptualization of
social identity as independent and unidimensional, rather than multiple
and intersectional (Bowleg, 2008). Although not intersectional in
their framework, there have been empirical studies that have looked at
the experience of discrimination of multiply marginalized groups, e.g.,
Black lesbian women and Black gay and bisexual men (Bowleg, 2008;
Bowleg, 2013).
Intersectionality as an alternative framework to understand
discrimination originated from the work of black feminists in the US.
Crenshaw (1989) argued for the need to go beyond a single-axis or a
single-issue understanding of oppression, i.e., patriarchy or racism, and
account for the intersecting axes of oppression as experienced by black
women. She highlighted the need to acknowledge the compounded
experience of multiple marginalization for people disadvantaged on
the basis of race, sex, class, sexual orientation, age, or disability. Collins
(1990) further contended that experiences of discrimination are not
additive, rather, distinct experiences of discrimination are created by
interlocking systems of oppression, e.g., sexism, racism, heterosexism,
and classism, thereby forming a matrix of domination that structures
power and inequality.
To understand the experience of discrimination of an urban poor
lesbian woman, for example, would mean understanding how her social
identities of being a woman (gender), of being a lesbian (sexuality),
and being urban poor (class) intersect to create a qualitatively distinct
experience. A person’s social location based on one’s intersecting
social identities becomes the center of attention in research (Shields,

Ceperiano, SantoS, alonzo, & ofreneo 11
2008). These social identities are said to “interact to form qualitatively
dierent meanings and experiences” (Warner, 2008, p. 454). The goal
of research then is to capture the ways by which these intersecting
identities shape experiences, a goal that is most compatible with
qualitative research methodologies (Bowleg, 2013; Shields, 2008;
Warner, 2008).
Intersectionality approaches have increasingly been used to
conceptualize and analyze sexuality (e.g., lesbian, gay, or bisexual),
gender (e.g. man, woman), and race/ ethnicity (e.g. African-American,
Asian-American) (Parent et al., 2013). For instance, a qualitative study
on intersectional microaggressions found unique themes such as social
constructions unique to specic groups (e.g., women of color as exotic,
men of color as criminal) and gender-based stereotypes of lesbian
women and gay men (e.g., lesbian women as masculine, gay men as
feminine) (Nadal et al., 2015). A study on Black gay and bisexual men
revealed the primacy of race in their daily experience of discrimination
and that acting masculine allowed them to avoid discrimination
(Bowleg, 2013). A study on Asian-American lesbian and bisexual
women found that living as lesbian or bisexual in an Asian-American
cultural context meant experiencing pressure to conform to traditional
gender roles, intolerance for sexual minority status, diculty with
disclosure, and conict with parents and families (Sung, Szymanski,
& Henrichs-Beck, 2015).
Intersectionality asserts that the multiple and interdependent
identities experienced at an individual level reect systems of inequality
at the structural level (Bowleg, 2013; Collins, 1990; Crenshaw,
1989). This implies that an urban poor lesbian woman’s personal
experience of discrimination is not only a subjective experience but a
representation of a system of inequality at the societal level. As such,
“intersectionality theory emphasizes the importance of understanding
identity within a social structural context. That is, rather than being a
collection of personality traits or individualized experiences, identity is
informed by institutional, political, and societal structures” (Warner,
2008, p. 459). Personal experiences of discrimination are understood
from the particular social meanings of identities in a given historical
and cultural context and from the specic social processes that create
inequalities in this context.

IntersectIonalIty of sexualIty, Gender, and class
12
METHOD
Intersectional studies vary in methodology, with some arguing
for and utilizing a quantitative design (Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016), a
qualitative design (Bowleg et al., 2015), and a mixed method design
(Canoy, 2015; Bowleg & Bauer, 2016). For this study, we employed
a qualitative research design using in-depth interviews with four
participants. In particular, we utilized a case study approach in order
to explore the particularity in meaning of each individual narrative.
Qualitative research methodologies allow for the sensitive investigation
of the nuanced meaning and experience of discrimination for ordinary
people who live the intersections of structural inequalities (Bowleg,
2013; Shields, 2008; Warner, 2008). Warner (2008) further asserts
the value of case studies in understanding identity as a process that
emerges in social interactions in specic spaces and moments. By
giving special attention to moment-by-moment experiences, we sought
to explore how intersectionality is qualitatively manifested in specic
instances of discrimination as lived and embodied by each individual
case. While intersectional studies do not necessarily warrant a large
sample, we acknowledge the limitations of a case study approach
which is discussed further in the discussion.
Participants
The participants met the following criteria for inclusion: (1) they
came from a community that belonged to the lower socioeconomic
classes D and E based on the ABCDE classication of class, which
characterize such communities with dilapidated and makeshift houses
cramped in slum areas (Racelis, 2005); (2) they identied as male
or female, following their assigned sex at birth; (3) they engaged in
gay or lesbian relationships; and (4) they disclosed experiences of
discrimination. Participants were purposively selected to represent
the intersection of gender (i.e., masculine, feminine) and sexuality
(i.e., gay, lesbian) in an urban poor setting.
This study utilized the label that the participants used to self-
identify, an identity further elaborated in their narratives. Kulet
self-identies as bisexual. He is masculine in gender expression and

Ceperiano, SantoS, alonzo, & ofreneo 13
gay in sexual orientation. His use of bisexual is similar to how some
Filipino men who have sex with men or MSM use the label bisexual to
set themselves apart from the feminine gay or bakla. In his context, a
gay identity is equivalent to being bakla. Kulet has had relationships
with both men and women but reports only being attracted to men.
His relationship with a woman was a way to hide his sexuality from
his family. DD self-identies as bakla. She is feminine in gender
expression and gay in sexual orientation. She only has relationships
with men. Julie self-identies as tomboy. She is masculine in gender
expression and lesbian in sexual orientation. She only has relationships
with women. Khaye self-identies as girl, which is commonly used to
refer to the feminine partner of a tomboy. She is feminine in gender
expression and lesbian in sexual orientation. While she has had
relationships with both men and women, she reports only wanting to
be with butch lesbian women. Her relationship with a man was borne
out of the social pressure to marry.
Instrument
The interview guide focused on eliciting the intersection of
identities of the participants, their experiences of discrimination, and
how they understood these experiences in light of their intersecting
identities. It included questions about their sexuality, relationships,
gender roles and expectations; life in an urban poor community and
their interactions with people; and experiences of discrimination and
how they coped with these.
Procedure
The participants were recruited through the gatekeepers of each
urban poor community or the barangay ocials. The interview was
conducted in the most conducive area or establishment near the
participant’s place of residence. We rst presented the consent form
and briefed each participant about the study. After the participant
gave informed consent, we proceeded with the interview proper. The
interviews lasted approximately an hour and a half.

IntersectIonalIty of sexualIty, Gender, and class
14
Data Analysis
Audio recordings of the interview were transcribed verbatim.
Transcripts were read several times to derive an overall sense of the
data before analysis. Lines pertinent to establishing a participant’s
identities and intersection of identities and lines recounting
experiences of discrimination were extracted from the raw data.
The forms of discrimination were analyzed in terms of how the
participants understood and experienced the unique intersection of
gender, sexuality, and class. Following Warner (2008) and Shields
(2008), we interpreted the data in terms of how the social construction
of intersecting identities shaped the participants’ experiences, with
particular attention to references made to social structures. Checking
for validity involved constantly referring back to the transcript to
ensure consistency with the participants’ narratives, sensitivity to their
unique contexts, and resonance of the data with the interpretation.
RESULTS
To illustrate how the intersection of social identities shapes the
experience of discrimination among urban poor Filipino lesbian women
and gay men, we present four case narratives: Kulet, the masculine
gay man or bisexual; DD, the feminine gay man or bakla; Julie, the
masculine lesbian woman or tomboy; and Khaye, the feminine lesbian
woman or girl. From their personal narratives, we drew out how
interlocking systems of oppression experienced as identities create
their distinct experiences of discrimination. We then derived the social
constructions of gender, sexuality, and class uniquely embedded in a
Filipino cultural context.
Kulet, the Masculine Gay Man or Bisexual
At the time of the interview, Kulet was a 38-year old call center
agent living alone in a boarding house in San Andres, Malate, Manila.
Being the eldest capable son among his ve siblings, Kulet assumed
the breadwinner role early in life. Kulet, a native of Zamboanga City,
would send a part of his monthly wage to his mother and siblings back

Ceperiano, SantoS, alonzo, & ofreneo 15
home. His gender appearance was masculine. He spoke with a soft
voice, kept his hair short, and preferred wearing t-shirts with shorts
or pants.
He has had several relationships with men. Some he met in bars,
thrift shops, and in his neighborhood. These relationships with men
were mostly short-lived, although he had a long-term relationship
with a man for ve years. He has also had relationships with women to
hide his sexuality from his family. He said:
Actually, masasabi ko siyang forced relationship. Kasi hindi ko
siya ginusto. Kasi gusto ng father ko nga maging ganap akong
tunay na lalake. Na talagang ayoko. Ang gusto ko kung ano
ako, yun ako. (Actually, I can call it forced relationship. Because
I never really liked her. Because my father really wanted me to be
a real man. Which I really did not want to be. I want to be who I
really am.)
He engaged in relationships with women in order to please his
father’s wish for him to be a straight man. He referred to himself
as “bisexual” to mean that he was a masculine man who liked men.
Having relationships with women combined with his masculine gender
expression projected an identity of a heterosexual Kulet. The women
he had relationships with were not aware of his sexual orientation but
would later realize that he was gay.
Kulet, with his masculine and heteronormative gender
performance, was able to pass as a heterosexual man, fullling the
expectations of his parents. For Kulet, doing this protected his family’s
dignity and reputation in the community. As Kulet narrated:
...parang kahihiyan sa part ng papa ko tsaka ng mama ko. Kasi
nga parang nakakababa ng pagkatao nila na may anak silang
ganun so tinatago ko na lang yun. (...it’s a source of shame for
my father and my mother. It’s like lowering their dignity to have
a son who is like that [gay] so I just hide it.)
In the above quote, Kulet referred to himself as “like that” (gay),
reecting how he could not express his gay identity to his family. To
be gay was a cause of shame (kahihiyan) not only to himself but to his
family. By successfully hiding his sexuality, Kulet was able to protect

IntersectIonalIty of sexualIty, Gender, and class
16
himself and his family from discrimination from neighbors or people
in his community. However, he would experience discrimination
from both his family and friends who knew of his sexual orientation.
To reduce the discrimination he felt at home, Kulet used his earning
potential to gain acceptance. He explained this in the quote below:
Kaya kong patunayan na kahit ganito ako, katanggap-tanggap
ako. May pakinabang ako. Pwede niyo ‘kong tanggapin kung
ano ako, dahil may pakinabang ako sa pamilya. (I can prove that
I am worthy of acceptance. I have a purpose. You can accept me
for who I am because I contribute to my family.)
Knowing that his parents could not accept his sexuality, Kulet
compensated through his capacity to provide. Because his family could
depend on him for nancial support, his gay identity became less of
a concern to them. In the context of poverty, Kulet’s ability to earn
for the family made a signicant impact to relieving their economic
hardship.
As such, Kulet was very careful to maintain his ability to provide.
Not only did earning lead to acceptance, it also alleviated his family’s
condition. This was why he would get distressed when teased about
being gay or bakla at work as he feared losing his job. He recalled how
concerned he would get when his female friends would tease him for
being gay. As he explained:
Ayoko yung binibiro ako kasi naapektuhan yung trabaho ko.
Kasi may binubuhay ako… wala ka rin masasandalan. (I don’t
like being teased because it aects my work. I have people to
support... I have no one to lean on.)
Because his friends knew he liked men, they often insinuated that
he was also feminine or bakla. His friends would often mock the bakla
manner which he found oensive as he felt it lowered his dignity as a
masculine gay man and could aect his reputation at work. The threat
of losing his work compounded to Kulet’s distress as a gay son trying to
prove his worth by providing for his family. Kulet recalled a time when
his father threatened to remove his support for his schooling if he did
not change his sexual orientation:
So sabi kasi ng papa ko, hindi niya ako pag-aaralin, hindi niya

Ceperiano, SantoS, alonzo, & ofreneo 17
ako ipapasok sa college kung hindi ko babaguhin ang sarili ko.
(So my father said he won’t support my schooling or send me to
college if I don’t change myself.)
With his father’s threat, Kulet hid his same-sex orientation.
By engaging in relationships with women, he was able to present a
heterosexual identity. To be gay meant losing support for his education,
which would push him further into poverty.
Tanggap ka bilang kaibigan...Pero hindi lang yung [buong]
pagkatao. (You are accepted as a friend but not really your [whole]
identity as a person.)
This quote was how Kulet summed up his unique experience of
discrimination as a masculine gay man or bisexual. With his masculine
and heterosexual gender performance, he was able to pass as a
heterosexual man. As such, he did not experience overt discrimination
from people in his community. He hid his true sexual identity and
maintained his masculinity to avoid discrimination. But with people
who knew that he was gay, Kulet would experience rejection and
ridicule. Fullling the breadwinner role as the gay son was his way of
gaining acceptance from his family while being masculine was his way
of demanding respect from peers.
DD, the Feminine Gay Man or Bakla
DD, at the time of the interview, was 34 years old. Sporting a
long ponytail and lipstick, he wore a white shirt, jeans, and ip-ops.
He lived in an informal settler community in Quezon City where
makeshift houses are built wall-to-wall using materials ranging from
light plywood to hard concrete. The community is near a creek that
often caused oods and posed a threat to the residents’ health.
DD has worked as a hairdresser and a street vendor, selling snacks
on sidewalks. He made sure to always save all his earnings to feed his
siblings who will not eat if he did not earn enough. DD shared that he
experienced discomfort with his physical appearance, especially with
his male anatomical features, in his childhood. He self-identied as
lalaki and as bakla. He has had several relationships with men, mostly

IntersectIonalIty of sexualIty, Gender, and class
18
lasting for a couple of months, the longest for two years.
DD recounted experiencing discrimination from both his family
and people in his community. These experiences of discrimination
emerged from the unique intersection of being feminine and being gay
fused in the bakla identity, a local construction of gender and sexuality
common in communities belonging to the low socioeconomic class.
People from DD’s community expected him, as male, to be
masculine. He recounted instances of experiencing public ridicule for
being feminine:
Nandyan ‘yung tatawagin kang bakla kasi ‘di daw nila
maintindihan kung babae o lalaki…Sisigawan kang bakla,
parang bastos. (They would call me ‘bakla’ because they said they
don’t understand if I’m a woman or a man…People would shout
‘bakla’ at me, it’s rude.)
DD acknowledged his femininity, as he kept his hair long and his
lips colored. He also spoke in a soft, high-pitched voice. The dissonance
between traditional gender expectations and DD’s gender expression
would trigger public ridicule. Men would often shout “bakla” at him.
In this context, bakla took on a derogatory form.
DD recognized that in his urban poor community, being bakla
was perceived as abnormal and lewd. As bakla, people would demean
him and characterize him as indecent as shown in the quote below:
Kasi ano para sa kanila, hindi kami normal. ‘Yung tingin nila,
‘pag nakipagrelasyon ka sa lalaki, nandun ‘yung bintang mayron
ka na raw kababuyan na ginagawa. Bastos. (Because for them,
we’re not normal. They think, if I engage in a relationship with a
man, there’s the accusation that I am engaging in indecent acts.
Lewdness.)
The use of the word “kababuyan” which directly translates to
“being like a pig” graphically represents the level of depravity accorded
to being bakla. Not only was the bakla perceived as abnormal and
perverted, people from DD’s community also believed that the bakla
could not experience true love. They would say that men who have
relationships with the bakla were only after their money as DD
explained:

Ceperiano, SantoS, alonzo, & ofreneo 19
Bakit nakikipagrelasyon ka sa lalaki? Peperahan ka lang. Isa
lang naman kailangan sa’yo n’yan - pera. Sinasabi nila hindi
ka naman daw mamahalin n’yan. (Some would say, ‘Why do you
engage in relationships with men? They’re only after your money.
They only want one thing - your money.’ They tell me no man will
truly love me.)
From the quote above, the bakla was socially constructed as only
able to experience love and sex in exchange for money. This sentiment
from DD’s neighbors is their expressed invalidation of his capacity to
be in a genuine relationship. In the context of poverty, money would
be an even greater concern. As the breadwinner, DD was expected
to provide for his family’s basic needs such as food and his siblings’
schooling. DD’s family would warn him about spending money on men
as shown in this excerpt:
‘Yung sa pamilya ko ‘yung kadalasan sinasabi nila: ‘wag
kang makipagrelasyon sa lalaki dahil lolokohin ka lang n’yan,
gagamitin ka lang. (With my family, what they would often say
is: ‘don’t engage in relationships with men because they will only
deceive you, use you.’)
DD faced pressure from his family to keep his income for their
needs rather than letting money go to men he had relations with. In
an urban poor context where there was limited spatial and nancial
mobility, DD often experienced this pressure from his family along
with judgment by people in his community.
Repeated exposure to blatant discrimination necessitated that
DD adapt by ignoring what people say. This was also his means to to
prevent discrimination from escalating to violence. As DD narrated:
‘Di ko na sila pinapansin kasi ito nga ay ito nga ako, ‘di ba? Kaya
‘di ko na lang pinapansin para walang gulo. (I don’t mind them
because I am who I am, right? So I just ignore them so there will
be no commotion.)
To further mitigate discrimination, DD would tone down his
femininity, seeing that the bakla’s gender expression is what triggered
public ridicule. DD explained:

IntersectIonalIty of sexualIty, Gender, and class
20
‘Yung kailangan hindi mo pakita yung pagkatao mo. Wala
kang gagawing masama na makita nila. Kailangan hindi mo
sosobrahan yung pagkabading mo. (You need to conceal your
identity. You cannot do anything improper that they might see.
You need to tone down your femininity.)
DD referred to minimizing his “pagkabading” (or being bakla) to
avoid discrimination. His mother also advised to avoid interacting with
people who could never understand a bakla like him. DD recounted:
Sinasabi lang ng mama ko na ayusin ang sarili mo. ‘Wag ka
nang makikiharap sa mga alam mong ‘di ka maiintindihan dahil
nga sa pagkatao mo… sa bahay ka na lang. (My mother told me
to x myself [act decently]. Don’t interact with those you know
won’t understand who you are because of your identity [bakla]...
just stay in the house.)
In DD’s experience, a person with a bakla identity was often the
object of ridicule. Unlike the bisexual or masculine gay man, the bakla’s
feminine gender expression perceived as gender non-conforming in an
urban poor setting made DD the object of discrimination. The perverse
social construction of the bakla as abnormal, indecent, and lewd made
DD fear violence. To prevent discrimination from escalating into
violence, DD would minimize his femininity.
Julie, the Masculine Lesbian Woman or Tomboy
Julie was 25 years old during the time of the interview. She lives
in the same informal settler community as DD. Julie narrated that she
often just stayed at home to avoid dressing up as her mother made
her wear blouses and tted shirts. She insisted on wearing loose-
tting tops and shorts. Eventually, her family became used to her
masculine gender expression. She said she started having crushes on
girls in kindergarten. She had her rst lesbian relationship during her
freshman year in high school and through the years, her relationships
with girls totalled to 15. These relationships often lasted for a few
months, with her most serious relationship lasting two years. Julie
self-identied as tomboy.

Ceperiano, SantoS, alonzo, & ofreneo 21
She previously worked as a lady guard in a private school in Pasay
City. She left after a month because students consistently insulted
her when they tried to leave school before dismissal time. She also
worked at a call center but could not stay long as she found it dicult
to breathe in an oce lled with rubber-based furniture. At the time of
the interview, Julie was unemployed and looking for a job.
As a tomboy in an urban poor community, Julie experienced
discrimination from both her family and community. Julie narrated
how her parents physically hurt her when they learned about her
relationship with a girl:
Dati nung rst year ako, nagka-girlfriend ako, noon niya
nalaman. Nalaman ng nanay ko saka ng tatay ko. Binugbog...
Pinaghampas-hampas ako ng walis tambo. (I had a girlfriend
when I was in rst year [high school], it was then when my parents
found out. My mother found out and then my father. I was beaten
up…I was hit several times with a broomstick.)
Her parents resorted to physically hurting her in the hopes of
reverting her same-sex orientation. She further explained that her
parents expected her, being the only daughter among ve siblings, to
nd a husband who can provide for her and her parents. As a family
that was barely able to meet their basic needs, Julie’s parents saw it
crucial that their only daughter nd a husband who can help alleviate
their economic condition. For Julie’s parents, having a lesbian
daughter meant staying poor.
Seeing that their daughter was masculine made them expect their
daughter would now have to fulll the role of a man and provide for
her partner and her family: “…nagka-girlfriend ako…galit na galit
sila. Nag-iisang babae ako, sabay parang naging lalake ako.” (When
I had a girlfriend, they were furious. I was their only girl and I ended
up becoming a guy.) In light of their poverty, Julie’s parents could not
accept that they instead will have to provide for Julie’s future partner.
Given the strong heteronormative expectation to marry a man who can
provide, Julie’s sexuality was equated to losing a potential provider for
her family.
In her community, Julie would experience overt discrimination for
being tomboy. Her visibly masculine appearance made her the target

IntersectIonalIty of sexualIty, Gender, and class
22
of public ridicule. Julie reported that she was vulnerable to verbal
harassment when walking around their neighborhood, especially
if with her girlfriend. Julie narrated how people would derogatorily
shout at her:
Ah, meron akong naririnig na… kapag nakalagpas ka na,
sisigawan kang, ‘Tomboy, tomboy!’. Kapag dumadayo ako sa
isang lugar… Pero hindi naman po talaga maiiwasan iyon. (I
would hear them… when I have passed them, they would shout at
me, ‘Tomboy, tomboy!’ When I go to a place… But that can’t really
be helped.)
As shown in the quote above, Julie has learned to accept that
she could not prevent public ridicule similar to what DD as bakla
experienced. Julie knew that the dissonance between traditional gender
expectations and her gender expression triggered discrimination. She
felt she needed to conceal her masculinity to avoid being picked on.
She made sense of this in the following quote:
Parang kung wala ka naman, kumbaga, yun nga tomboy ka,
kung gusto mo respetuhin ka ng kapwa mo tao… kumbaga
umayos ka. Kasi, ‘yung iba, ‘yung ibang tomboy na pasiga-siga,
na hanggang sa mapagti-tripan. (If you’re a tomboy and you
want to be respected, you have to act properly. Other tomboys
who act tough end up being picked on by others.)
While experiencing public ridicule for being tomboy, Julie also
experienced sexual harassment for being female. The distinct meaning
of sexual harassment in Julie’s case was to make her feel that she was
still a woman despite being tomboy. Like heterosexual women, men
treated her as a sexual object. Men would tell her, “Ang sexy mo pala.
Ganda naman pala e.” (You’re sexy. And pretty after all.) They would
ask her, “Ba’t ka nagpakalalaki? Ganda-ganda mo.” (Why are you
acting like a man? You’re so pretty.) Some men would even hit on her
or court her despite knowing she had a girlfriend. This reected how
people in her community dismissed her masculinity and same-sex
orientation and asserted that as a woman, she should be feminine and
heterosexual. The message for Julie was that her identity as tomboy
was not being recognized.

Ceperiano, SantoS, alonzo, & ofreneo 23
In light of the blatant forms of discrimination she experienced
from her family and her community, she has learned to accept the
heteronormative duty imposed upon her, to marry a man and have a
family. She said:
Kung may makilala man ako na matino-tino na… karapat-dapat
talaga sa’kin. Bakit hindi, ‘di ba? Nasa sa’kin naman talaga
kung gugustuhin ko na talagang magbago e. (If I meet someone
suitable…rightful for me. Why not, right? It depends on me really
if I really want to change.)
Being unemployed and knowing the insecurity she has experienced
at work, Julie was willing to deny her sexuality to improve her and her
family’s economic condition. To avoid public ridicule, Julie chose to
minimize her masculinity. To avoid parental rejection, she chose to
deny her sexuality. To be in a relationship with a man, despite being
tomboy, would mean changing the reality of being poor.
Khaye, the Feminine Lesbian Woman or Girl
Khaye, 21 years old at the time of the interview, is a feminine
lesbian woman living in an urban poor community along the coast
of Laguna de Bay in Muntinlupa City. Khaye previously worked in a
factory of a clothing label but eventually had to quit to take care of
her stepmother’s youngest child. At the time of the interview, she was
unemployed.
She had her rst relationship with a girl at twelve. She has had
relationships with women and with men. At the time of the interview,
her partner was a tomboy or butch lesbian woman. She referred to
herself as a girl. She was still open to having a heterosexual relationship
because of the social pressure to marry which is similar to what Julie
experienced. Khaye recounted the attempts of her family to push her to
engage in a relationship with other men but Khaye repeatedly refused:
“Gusto nila sakin lalaki talaga. Ayoko din talaga.” (They really want
a man for me. But I really don’t.) She has found her relationships with
butch lesbian women fullling. She said she only experiences respect,
joy, and care in her relationships with butch lesbian women.
Khaye’s experiences of discrimination were mostly based on

IntersectIonalIty of sexualIty, Gender, and class
24
gossip about her lesbian relationships and the social construction
attached to being a girl in a relationship with a tomboy. She recounted
several instances when her male suitors were discouraged by their
parents and siblings from being in a relationship with her. Because
she has had relationships with tomboys, she was perceived negatively.
She narrated:
‘Yung iba rin maano magsalita: ‘Dami-daming lalaki d’yan,
tomboy pa aanuhin mo.’ Noon siyempre, nasasaktan ka kasi mas
marunong pa sila sa’yo... Kasi ‘yung ibang lalaki d’yan tanggap
ka nga, hindi ka naman tanggap ng magulang... Sa tomboy,
kahit ano, tanggap ka lang. Paglalaban ka pa n’yan minsan e.
E ‘yung lalaki, sunod-sunuran sa magulang. (Some have a lot to
say: ‘There are so many guys out there, yet you chose a tomboy.’
Before, of course, I would feel hurt because they think they know
better... Because some of the guys may accept you, but the parents
won’t... With a tomboy, whatever you may be, you are accepted.
They will ght for you even. But the guys, they succumb to their
parents.)
Families of her male suitors expressed disapproval of a relationship
they saw was primarily for Khaye and her family’s nancial gain. In
the context of urban poverty, marriage was a tool towards upward
social and nancial mobility, as was also seen in Julie’s case. Khaye
recounted such an experience below:
Eh matapobre kasi ‘yung nanay. Tapos ‘yung mga kapatid sabi,
‘Hindi ko naman ‘yan gusto... Hiwalayan mo na ‘yan; peperahan
ka lang niyan.’ Siyempre masasakit ‘yung sinasabi nila.
Hihiwalayan mo na kaysa makarinig ka pa ng masasakit na
salita. (The mother looks down on poor people. And the siblings
said that I don’t really like their brother… They told him to leave
me because I will only milk him of his money. Of course what they
said were hurtful. So I would rather leave the relationship than
hear those hurtful words.)
In the above extract, Khaye shared her experience of prejudice.
As a woman from the low socioeconomic class, she was perceived
as entertaining male suitors only for their money. Being poor and

Ceperiano, SantoS, alonzo, & ofreneo 25
being a woman, she was seen as dependent nancially on men. These
identities would further intersect with her sexuality as a girl who has
relationships with tomboys. The unique intersection of class, gender,
and sexuality in the experience of Khaye is vividly illustrated in the
quote below:
Eh ‘yung ibang mayayaman. Minsan sasabihin nila sa’yo:
“Iskwater ka na nga, imbis na ‘yung maykaya na ang patulan
mo, ganyan pa pinatulan mo. (Some of those who are rich,
sometimes they will tell you: ‘You’re a squatter already, instead
of nding someone who has means, you chose to be with that [a
tomboy].)
The use of “ganyan pa” (someone less), not naming the person as
if a tomboy was an object, implied scorn towards a person of inferior
status. The use of “ganyan pa pinatulan mo” (you chose to be with
someone less) meant that Khaye had degraded herself by being with
someone of even lower status than her. The line “iskwater ka na
nga… ganyan pa pinatulan mo” would translate to “you’re already in
the slums… and yet you chose to lower yourself further by having a
relationship with a tomboy”.
Khaye’s distinct experience of prejudice as a poor feminine
lesbian woman in a relationship with a tomboy is further described
graphically below:
Ay, minsan naririnig din namin. ‘Iskwater na nga, tomboy
pa’… kasi iniisip nila na ‘pag tomboy karelasyon mo, nagalaw
ka na, binaboy ka na. Kaya pagka, may nanliligaw sayong
lalaki, sinisiraan ka na. (Sometimes we hear, she’s not only with
‘a squatter,’she’s with ‘a tomboy too’... because they think that if
you’re in a relationship with a tomboy, you’re no longer a virgin,
you’re already deled. So if a man courts you, they badmouth you
already.)
The use of the line “binaboy ka na” which literally translates to
“you have been made dirty like a pig” referred to how people in Khaye’s
community perceived sexual relations with a tomboy as a form of
debasement. This made Khaye no longer desirable to a heterosexual
man. She further explained the meaning of this prejudice:

IntersectIonalIty of sexualIty, Gender, and class
26
Parang pagkatapos nilang lubusin ‘yung kabanguhan mo. O,
iiwanan ka na nila... Akala nila kasi ‘yung mga tomboy, porke’t
tomboy, e ganun na ‘yung mga ugali, ganon. ‘Kala rin nila
mga siga, mga manyak. E hindi rin naman. (It’s like after they
[tomboys] enjoy your freshness, they will leave you… They think
tomboys, because they’re tomboys, have such bad character. They
also think tomboys are like bullies, are perverts, but they’re not.)
The excerpt above shows how girls like Khaye who have sexual
relations with tomboys were perceived as disgraced women.
Amidst all these prejudice, Khaye would experience sexual
harassment from men who would taunt her to be with them instead.
As she narrated:
Sasabihin n’yan, ‘Ako na lang. Mas masarap naman ako d’yan e.
Ano ba’ng nagustuhan mo d’yan? Wala namang ano [ari] ‘yan
e.’ (Men would tell me: ‘Be with me instead. I am better than that
[tomboy]. What do you like about her anyway? She doesn’t even
have a penis.’)
Men saw Khaye as a woman who should rightfully be with a man,
and not with a tomboy. This reected a social construction that sexual
relations between two women cannot possibly be satisfying.
In her own family, Khaye also experienced prejudice towards
having a tomboy partner. But the capacity of Khaye’s partner to fulll
the expected masculine role of providing for the family enabled them
to gain acceptance:
Kasi dati ‘di siya tanggap ng nanay ko, pero nung naano niya
na masipag naman, syempre nakakatulong naman, mauutusan,
naano rin niya, na mapapakinabangan din naman. ‘Di naman
porket tomboy wala nang pakinabang, hindi magtatrabaho.
Kasi ‘yung iba diyan: ‘tomboy, walang mahahanap na trabaho
‘yan, kasi tomboy ‘yan. (Before, my mother could not accept her,
but when she saw that my partner is hardworking, helpful, and
cooperative, she realized, that she can be useful. Just because
she’s a tomboy doesn’t mean she’s useless, or that she will not
work. Because some people here say: ‘a tomboy will not be able to
get a job, because she’s a tomboy.’)

Ceperiano, SantoS, alonzo, & ofreneo 27
Given her family’s nancial situation, Khaye’s mother was
especially critical of her relationship with a tomboy. She, like other
community members, considered tomboys less capable of getting a
stable job compared to heterosexual men. But as the excerpt illustrates,
Khaye’s relationship with a tomboy was accepted after her tomboy
partner demonstrated her capacity to help.
Khaye’s narrative shows the distinctiveness of the experience of
discrimination for an urban poor feminine lesbian woman who has a
relationship with a tomboy. From being negatively perceived as a poor
woman who only relates with men for money, to an informal settler who
chooses to lower her social status by having relations with a tomboy,
to being a disgrace and debasement for having sexual relations with a
tomboy, Khaye would experience blatant discrimination in the form
of public humiliation and sexual harassment. She would experience
scorn from others and the lack of acceptance from her own family.
Khaye’s story shows the complexity of the local construction of gender
and sexuality in an urban poor context and how this creates social
inequality and the personal experience of prejudice.
DISCUSSION
The narratives of Kulet, DD, Julie, and Khaye present the unique
dynamics of heterosexism in the Philippines as viewed from a gendered
and heteronormative lens. The bakla and tomboy emerge as unique
social identities that fuse gender, sexuality, and class making the
meaning and experience of discrimination distinct from the prejudice
directed to lesbian and gay identities. The debasement, degradation,
and disgrace invoked in the tomboy and bakla make these identities
perverted. But there is no word to construct such an “-ism”. These
classed, gendered, and sexual identities experienced as a singular
identity are judged as morally oensive and equated to debauchery.
For the masculine gay man or bisexual, passing as heterosexual
through his masculine gender performance becomes a way to avoid
discrimination in the community. The ability to earn and consequently
to provide becomes a way to gain acceptance from family. For the
feminine lesbian woman or girl, having a relationship with a tomboy

IntersectIonalIty of sexualIty, Gender, and class
28
makes her status even lower, as she is seen as degrading herself
further. We also saw in these case narratives the strong adherence to
heteronormative gender expectations, the valuing of the provider role,
and the pressure to marry a man who will provide. These points, along
with the limitations of the study, are discussed below.
The Provider, Heteronormativity, and Acceptance
In an urban poor context, a gay man’s or lesbian woman’s sexual
orientation is accepted or tolerated by the family if they are able to
support the family’s nancial needs. This support not only comes in
the form of money, as with the case of DD and Kulet, but may also
be through being useful in the home, as with the case of Khaye’s
tomboy partner. The opposite is true when one is unable to contribute
nancially, as in the case of Julie. This nding supports past studies
that have shown how the nancial support Filipino urban poor
LGBT individuals give their families acts as a type of ‘currency to buy
acceptance’ (Thoreson, 2011).
The importance of the provider role in an urban poor context is
made evident in the strong heteronormative expectation to marry.
Lesbian and gay relationships are understood from heteronormative
standards with the male/masculine to act as provider and the female/
feminine to marry a man who will act as provider. In the context of
poverty, marriage becomes a means for social and economic mobility.
Julie’s case is most complex as she is expected to marry as female but
also expected to provide as tomboy. The strong pressure to marry for
upward mobility has even pushed Julie to deny her sexuality.
Bakla and Tomboy as Unique Isms
The tomboy and bakla are unique to the Philippine cultural
context as these identities do not refer to a single social identity. The
tomboy is a low-income masculine lesbian woman while the bakla
is a low-income feminine gay man. Gender, sexuality, and class are
fused as a single identity. Hence, the experience of discrimination is
also unitary as their non-normative gender expression also signies
their non-normative sexuality in the context of the urban poor. The

Ceperiano, SantoS, alonzo, & ofreneo 29
heterosexism of the West does not correspond with the gendered and
classed construction of heterosexism in this context.
The unique local construction of the bakla and tomboy make the
experiences of discrimination blatant for DD and Julie. They constantly
experience name-calling, gossip, and public ridicule triggered by their
non-normative gender expression. Their gender performance makes
the bakla and tomboy visible; hence, they are unable to escape the
negative evaluation and discrimination from others. Similar to past
studies, non-normative gender expression is central to the social
construction of bakla and tomboy (Josef, 1997, 1999; Tan, 1995, 1998)
which makes them particularly vulnerable to violence (Thoreson,
2011). This signies how the bakla and tomboy identities cannot be
equated with the lesbian and gay identities of the West. This also
implies that lesbian and gay identities in a middle-class or upper-class
context will be constructed dierently.
Not only is the social construction of the bakla and tomboy
negative, it is degrading and demeaning. To be bakla or tomboy is to
be indecent and immoral. The reference to “baboy” (dirty like a pig)
reects the gravity of the oense equated to being tomboy and bakla.
At the minimum, a relationship with a bakla or tomboy is not taken
seriously. Similar to Canoy (2015), having relations with a bakla is
seen as a monetary transaction, with the bakla paying for intimacy.
A relationship with a tomboy, on the other hand, is seen as a form of
degradation.
Invisibilized Identities
The bakla and tomboy are the dominant constructions of
LGBT identities in the Philippines (Tan, 1995). Experiences of
discrimination arise from the societal view that people must conform
to the heteronormative standard of being lalaki and babae, else
they be labeled as non-normative (i.e., bakla or tomboy). The lalaki
is a heterosexual masculine man while the babae is a heterosexual
feminine woman. This gender system can obscure the identity and
the discrimination experienced by lesbian women and gay men who
are not bakla or tomboy. Kulet as bisexual passes as heterosexual and
consequently avoids discrimination. At the same time, his masculine

IntersectIonalIty of sexualIty, Gender, and class
30
gender performance is perceived as inauthentic as a gay man must
be bakla. Khaye as girl experiences sexual harassment directed to
heterosexual women. Her identity label girl signies the invisibility of
the feminine lesbian woman in the context of the urban poor. Lesbian
and gay relationships are likewise invisibilized as heteronormative
norms are imposed on same-sex relationships. Relationships between
two men and two women are rendered invisible (and unreal). And
those that are visible must be enacted according to gender roles. This
highlights the need to understand the construction of Filipino lesbian
and gay relationships in the context of urban poverty.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
The study has clear limitations in terms of design and methodology.
The nature of case narratives allowed for an illustrative look of the
participants’ experiences of discrimination in the context of poverty.
However, the limited number of participants does not fully reect nor
represent the complex experience of discrimination among Filipino
urban poor LGB. We also recognize that the exploratory nature of the
study also limits the conclusions that can be drawn from the narratives.
There are several suggested means to address these concerns in
future research. First, engaging a broader number of participants can
help create a clearer picture for each identied intersection. Future
research can also include LGBT persons from other socioeconomic
strata, looking at how their social status shapes their experience and
capacity to address forms of discrimination. Lastly, including other
markers of dierence such as religion and location (e.g. urban and
rural) can be considered to further enrich the analysis. Future research
inquiry can also focus in unpacking gender labels, particularly those
who do not identify as bakla or tomboy.
Summary
This study has illustrated how the intersection of gender, sexuality,
and class shapes the experiences of discrimination of the bakla, tomboy,
bisexual, and girl. It highlights unique themes such as providing for
the family to gain acceptance, heteronormativity as tied to social and

Ceperiano, SantoS, alonzo, & ofreneo 31
economic mobility; the bakla and tomboy as simultaneously classed,
gendered, and sexualized identities, as taking on a unique “-ism”
that equates these identities as forms of moral degradation; and the
invisibilized identities of lesbian women and gay men who conform to
normative gender expressions. Intersectionality as a lens has shown
the complexity of the experience and the distinctiveness of the realities
of urban poor Filipino lesbian women and gay men.
REFERENCES
Bowleg, L. (2008). When Black + lesbian + woman ≠ Black lesbian
woman: The methodological challenges of qualitative and
quantitative intersectionality research. Sex Roles, 59, 312-325.
Bowleg, L. (2013). Once you’ve blended the cake, you can’t take the
parts back to the main ingredients: Black gay and bisexual men’s
descriptions and experiences of intersectionality. Sex Roles, 68,
754-767.
Bowleg, L., & Bauer, G. (2016). Invited reection: Quantifying
intersectionality. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(3), 337-
341.
Bowleg, L., Heckert, A. L., Brown, T. L., & Massie, J. S. (2015).
Responsible men, blameworthy women: Black heterosexual men’s
discursive constructions of safer sex and masculinity. Health
Psychology, 34, 314-327.
Canoy, N. A. (2015). ‘Intimacy is not free of charge: The cultural
and classed discourses of intimacy among gay and transgender
identities. Sexualities, 18, 921-940.
Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, power, and
the politics of empowerment. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex:
A black feminist critique of anti-discrimination doctrine, feminist
theory, and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal
Forum, 139, 139-167.
Else-Quest, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (2016). Intersectionality in quantitative
psychological research: II. Methods and techniques. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 40, 319–336.

IntersectIonalIty of sexualIty, Gender, and class
32
GALANG. (2013). Policy audit: Social protection policies and urban
poor LBTs in the Philippines (IDS Evidence Report No.21). UK:
Institute of Development Studies.
Gamarel, K. I., Reisner, S. L., Parsons, J. T., & Golub, S. T. (2012).
Association between socioeconomic position discrimination and
psychological distress: Findings from a community-based sample
of gay and bisexual men in New York City. American Journal of
Public Health, 102(11), 2094-2101.
Health Action Information Network. (2013). Usapang bakla:
Assessing the risks and vulnerabilites of Filipino MSM and TG.
Quezon City: Author.
Herek, G. M., & McLemore, K. A. (2013). Sexual prejudice. Annual
Review of Psychology, 64, 309-333.
Jolly, S. (2010). Poverty and sexuality: What are the connections?
Overview and literature review [IDS Report]. SIDA.
Josef, J. C. (1997). Sexual identities and self-images of woman-loving
women: An exploratory study on the realities of woman-loving
women in the Philippine context (Unpublished master’s thesis).
University of the Philippines Diliman.
Josef, J. C. (1999). Sexual identities and self-images of women-loving
women. In S.H. Guerrero (Ed.), Selected readings on health and
feminist research: A sourcebook (pp. 341-346). Quezon City:
University of the Philippines Center for Women’s Studies.
McGarrity, L. A. (2014). Socioeconomic status as context for minority
stress and health disparities among lesbian, gay, and bisexual
individuals. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender
Diversity, 1(4), 383-397.
Nadal, K.L., Davido, K.C., Davis, L.S., Wong, Y., Marshall, D., &
McKenzie, V. (2015). A qualitative approach to intersectional
microaggressions: Understanding inuences of race, ethnicity,
gender, sexuality, and religion. Qualitative Psychology, 2(2), 147-
163.
Ofreneo, M. A. P. (2000). From awareness to acceptance: The Filipino
female homosexual’s identity development process (Unpublished
master’s thesis). Ateneo de Manila University.
Ofreneo, M. A. P. (2003). Tomboys and lesbians: The Filipino female
homosexual and her identity development process. Philippine

Ceperiano, SantoS, alonzo, & ofreneo 33
Journal of Psychology, 36(1), 26-52.
Parent, M. C., DeBlaere, C., & Moradi, B. (2013). Approaches to
research on intersectionality: Perspectives on gender, LGBT, and
racial/ethnic identities. Sex Roles, 68, 639-645.
PSA. (2015). Poverty incidence among Filipinos registered at 25.8%
as of rst semester of 2014 – PSA [Data le]. Retrieved from
http://www.nscb.gov.ph/pressreleases/2015/PSA-20150306-
SS2-01_poverty.asp
Racelis, M. (2005). Civil Society, Populist Politics and the State
– Philippine Democracy Today. Retrieved from http://
www.die-gdi.de/fileadmin/_migrated/content_uploads/
Racelis_26_04_2005_Volltext_Civil_Society__Populist_
Politics_and_the_State_-_Philippine_Democracy_Today.pdf
Racelis, M., & Aguirre, A. M. (2005). Making Philippine cities child
friendly: Voices of children in poor communities. Quezon City:
Institute of Philippine Culture.
Shields, S. A. (2008). Gender: An intersectionality perspective. Sex
Roles, 59, 301-311.
Sung, M. R., Szymanski, D. M., & Henrichs-Beck, C. (2015). Challenges,
coping, and benets of being an Asian-American lesbian or
bisexual woman. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender
Diversity, 2(1), 52-64.
Tan, M.L. (1995a). From bakla to gay: Shifting gender identities and
sexual behaviors in the Philippines. In R.G. Parker & J.H. Gagnon
(Eds.), Conceiving sexuality: Approaches to sx research in a
postmodern world. New York: Routledge.
Tan, M. L. (1995b). Tita Aida and emerging communities of gay men:
Two case studies from Metro Manila, the Philippines. In G.
Sullivan & L.W. Leong (Eds.), Gays and lesbians in Asia and the
Pacic: Social and human services. New York: Harrington Park
Press.
Tan, M. L. (1998). Sex and sexuality (Policy Research Briefs Series
1998-2). Quezon City: University of the Philippines Center for
Women’s Studies.
Thoreson, R. (2011). Capably queer: Exploring the intersections
of queerness and poverty in the urban Philippines. Journal of
Human Development and Capabilities, 12(4), 493-510.

IntersectIonalIty of sexualIty, Gender, and class
34
UN. (2012). Born free and equal: Sexual orientation and gender
identity in international human rights law [UNHR Report].
Geneva: UN.
UNDP & USAID. (2014). Being LGBT in Asia: The Philippine country
report [UNDP Report]. Bangkok: UNDP.
Warner, L. R. (2008). A best practices guide to intersectional
approaches in psychological research. Sex Roles, 59, 454-463.