72 Who Are Our Friends?
nothing “intrinsically natural” about separating friendships into the categories of
same- sex friendships and opposite- sex friendships because that false dichotomy is
also based on one physical attribute and ignores a large body of research establishing
that biological sex and gender are not binary concepts (Harper, 2007; Herdt, 1996).
Research conducted by friendship scholars has been constrained by an overreliance
on binary conceptualizations of gender and biological sex, resulting in the arbitrary
breakdown of friendships into those two categories (Monsour & Rawlins, 2014).
I also examined difficulties inherent in defining friendships and how those dif-
ficulties are exacerbated when the adjectives “same- sex” and “opposite- sex” are
included. I additionally made a number of broad descriptive generalizations about
the respective literatures. I noted that there are a respectable number of excellent
academic books on friendship. However, all of those books employ the now out-
dated same- sex and opposite- sex friendship typology. There is a pressing need for a
text on the friendships of individuals who fall outside of binary boundaries. A future
direction for the study of friendships is to move beyond these rigid and static binary
conceptions of gender and friendships and explore the lived realities of friends who
do not so neatly fit into those biological boxes.
I also identified a few additional broad generalizations about the same- sex and
opposite- sex friendship literatures. Each of those generalizations can be linked to
my concerns about the limited nature of the same- sex/ opposite- sex friendship
typology. Perhaps most obvious is the heteronormative bias permeating other- sex
friendship studies. That bias has its origins in ignoring a marginalized part of our
population, gays and lesbians. Similarly, the current binary sex- based friendship
typology ignores the rather large and growing population of transgendered people,
which includes transsexuals, transvestites, transgenderists, androgynes, intersex
individuals, genderqueer people, and persons identifying as third sex (Monsour &
Rawlins, 2014).
One of my tasks in writing this chapter, as reasonably requested by the editors,
was to make sure that my chapter covered the current knowledge on same and
opposite- sex differences and similarities in friendship. Since I am contending that the
categories of same- sex and opposite- sex are themselves flawed, identification of dif-
ferences and similarities in those categories might be of questionable validity and
significance. That typology is based on the assumption that the gender binary is an
accurate, comprehensive, and inclusive way of categorizing human beings. It is not.
Based on Lofland and Lofland’s dictim about “starting from where I am at,” this
chapter was written from the dual and complementary perspectives of an individual
who has conducted friendship and gender research and been engaged in same- sex
and other- sex friendships. I also had the honor and opportunity to be involved
in a relationship that made me deeply doubt the validity of the two- sex typology.
A paradigm shift needs to occur in the way friendship and gender scholars view
gender and biological sex and the connected constructs of “same” and “opposite”
sex friendships.