skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

"Acting Out" Queer Identity: The Embodied Visibility in Social Virtual Reality

Published:11 November 2022Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This paper focuses on embodied visibility emerging in social Virtual Reality (VR) as a new lens to explore how queer users build and experience visibility in nuanced ways. Drawing on 29 queer social VR users' experiences across various countries and cultures, we identify three main strategies for building and experiencing embodied visibility in social VR, limitations of each strategy, and impacts of such visibility on queer users' identity practices online and offline. We broaden current studies on queer visibility online and expand the traditional lens of selective visibility by highlighting how embodiment both supports and challenges the multidimensional online presentations of queer identity. We also propose potential design considerations to further support diverse queer users' visibility in social VR and inform future directions for creating inclusive online social experiences.

References

  1. Dane Acena and Guo Freeman. 2021. "In My Safe Space": Social Support for LGBTQ Users in Social Virtual Reality. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Shaowen Bardzell and Jeffrey Bardzell. 2011. Towards a feminist HCI methodology: social science, feminism, and HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 675--684.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Lauren Berlant and Michael Warner. 1998. Sex in Public. Critical Inquiry 24, 2 (1998), 547--566. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1344178Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Jeremy Birnholtz, Colin Fitzpatrick, Mark Handel, and Jed R Brubaker. 2014. Identity, identification and identifiability: The language of self-presentation on a location-based mobile dating app. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Human-computer interaction with mobile devices & services. 3--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Rena Bivens and Oliver L. Haimson. 2016. Baking Gender Into Social Media Design: How Platforms Shape Categories for Users and Advertisers. Social Media Society 2, 4 (2016), 2056305116672486. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116672486 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116672486Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Lindsay Blackwell, Nicole Ellison, Natasha Elliott-Deflo, and Raz Schwartz. 2019. Harassment in Social Virtual Reality: Challenges for Platform Governance. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 100.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Lindsay Blackwell, Jean Hardy, Tawfiq Ammari, Tiffany Veinot, Cliff Lampe, and Sarita Schoenebeck. 2016. LGBT Parents and Social Media: Advocacy, Privacy, and Disclosure during Shifting Social Movements. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI '16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 610--622. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858342Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Ann Bonner and Gerda Tolhurst. 2002. Insider-outsider perspectives of participant observation. Nurse researcher 9 (02 2002), 7--19. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2002.07.9.4.7.c6194Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Human Rights Campaign. 2021. Glossary of terms. https://www.hrc.org/resources/glossary-of-termsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. John Edward Campbell. 2004. Getting It on Online: Cyberspace, Gay Male Sexuality, and Embodied Identity. Haworth Press, Inc., USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Matthew Carrasco and Andruid Kerne. 2018. Queer Visibility: Supporting LGBT Selective Visibility on Social Media. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI '18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173824Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Kathy Charmaz. 2006. Constructing grounded theory : a practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage Publications, London; Thousand Oaks, Calif. http://www.amazon.com/Constructing-Grounded-Theory-Qualitative-Introducing/dp/0761973532Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Michael Ann DeVito, Jeremy Birnholtz, and Jeffery T Hancock. 2017. Platforms, people, and perception: Using affordances to understand self-presentation on social media. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing. 740--754.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Michael Ann DeVito, Ashley Marie Walker, and Jeremy Birnholtz. 2018. 'Too Gay for Facebook': Presenting LGBTQ Identity Throughout the Personal Social Media Ecosystem. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2, CSCW, Article 44 (Nov. 2018), 23 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274313Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Michael Ann Devito, Ashley Marie Walker, Jeremy Birnholtz, Kathryn Ringland, Kathryn Macapagal, Ashley Kraus, Sean Munson, Calvin Liang, and Herman Saksono. 2019. Social Technologies for Digital Wellbeing Among Marginalized Communities. In Conference Companion Publication of the 2019 on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (Austin, TX, USA) (CSCW '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 449--454. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311957.3359442Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Michael Ann DeVito, Ashley Marie Walker, Caitlin Lustig, Amy J Ko, Katta Spiel, Alex A Ahmed, Kimberley Allison, Morgan Scheuerman, Briana Dym, Jed R Brubaker, et al . 2020. Queer in HCI: Supporting LGBTQIA Researchers and Research Across Domains. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Joan Morris DiMicco and David R Millen. 2007. Identity management: Multiple presentations of self in Facebook. In Proceedings of the 2007 international ACM conference on Supporting group work. 383--386.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Lisa Duggan. 2002. The new homonormativity: The sexual politics of neoliberalism. In Materializing democracy. Duke University Press, 175--194.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Stefanie Duguay. 2016. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and Queer Visibility Through Selfies: Comparing Platform Mediators Across Ruby Rose's Instagram and Vine Presence. Social Media Society 2, 2 (2016), 2056305116641975. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116641975 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116641975Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Stefanie Duguay, Jean Burgess, and Nicolas Suzor. 2020. Queer women's experiences of patchwork platform governance on Tinder, Instagram, and Vine. Convergence 26, 2 (2020), 237--252.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Brianna Dym, Jed R. Brubaker, Casey Fiesler, and Bryan Semaan. 2019. "Coming Out Okay": Community Narratives for LGBTQ Identity Recovery Work. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, CSCW, Article 154 (Nov. 2019), 28 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359256Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Stina Ericsson. 2018. The language of cisnormativity: children and parents in interaction with a multimodal app. Gender & Language 12, 2 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Mia Fischer, Oliver L. Haimson, Carmen Rios, Adrienne Shaw, Mitali Thakor, Jen Jack Gieseking, and Daniel Cockayne. 2018. A conversation: Queer digital media resources and research. First Monday 23, 7 (Jul. 2018). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v23i7.9255Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Guo Freeman and Divine Maloney. 2021. Body, Avatar, and Me: The Presentation and Perception of Self in Social Virtual Reality. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW3 (2021), 1--27.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Guo Freeman and Donghee Yvette Wohn. 2020. Streaming your Identity: Navigating the Presentation of Gender and Sexuality through Live Streaming. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 29, 6 (12 2020), 795--825. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-020-09386-wGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Guo Freeman, Samaneh Zamanifard, Divine Maloney, and Alexandra Adkins. 2020. My Body, My Avatar: How People Perceive Their Avatars in Social Virtual Reality. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI EA '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3382923Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Janine Fron, Tracy Fullerton, Jacquelyn Ford Morie, and Celia Pearce. 2007. Playing dress-up: Costumes, roleplay and imagination. Philosophy of computer games (2007), 24--27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Erving Goffman et al. 1978. The presentation of self in everyday life. Vol. 21. Harmondsworth London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Mary L. Gray. 2009. Negotiating Identities/Queering Desires: Coming out Online and the Remediation of the Coming-out Story. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14, 4 (07 2009), 1162--1189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083--6101.2009.01485.x arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article-pdf/14/4/1162/22318288/jjcmcom1162.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Oliver Haimson. 2018. Social Media as Social Transition Machinery. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2, CSCW, Article 63 (Nov. 2018), 21 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274332Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Oliver L. Haimson, Anne E. Bowser, Edward F. Melcer, and Elizabeth F. Churchill. 2015. Online Inspiration and Exploration for Identity Reinvention. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (CHI '15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3809--3818. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702270Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Oliver L. Haimson, Jed R. Brubaker, Lynn Dombrowski, and Gillian R. Hayes. 2015. Disclosure, Stress, and Support During Gender Transition on Facebook. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (CSCW '15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1176--1190. https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675152Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Oliver L. Haimson, Jed R. Brubaker, Lynn Dombrowski, and Gillian R. Hayes. 2016. Digital Footprints and Changing Networks During Online Identity Transitions. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI '16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2895--2907. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858136Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. David M Halperin. 1997. Saint Foucault: Towards a gay hagiography. Oxford Paperbacks.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Jean Hardy and Silvia Lindtner. 2017. Constructing a desiring user: Discourse, rurality, and design in location-based social networks. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 13--25.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Ellie Harmon, Matthias Korn, Ann Light, and Amy Voida. 2016. Designing against the status quo. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems. 65--68.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Rosemary Hennessy. 1994. Queer Visibility in Commodity Culture. Cultural Critique 29 (1994), 31--76. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1354421Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Searle Huh and Dmitri Williams. 2010. Dude looks like a lady: Gender swapping in an online game. Springer, London, 161--174. https://doi.org/10.1007/978--1--84882--825--4_13Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Annamarie Jagose and Corinna Genschel. 1996. Queer theory. Melbourne University Press Melbourne.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Konstantina Kilteni, Raphaela Groten, and Mel Slater. 2012. The Sense of Embodiment in Virtual Reality. Presence: Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 21, 4 (Dec. 2012), 373--387. https://doi.org/10.1162/PRES_a_00124Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Vanessa Kitzie. 2018. "I pretended to be a boy on the Internet": Navigating affordances and constraints of social networking sites and search engines for LGBTQ identity work. First Monday 23, 7 (Jul. 2018). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v23i7.9264Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Vanessa Kitzie. 2019. "That looks like me or something i can do": Affordances and constraints in the online identity work of US LGBTQ millennials. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 70, 12 (2019), 1340--1351.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Alex Leavitt. 2015. " This is a Throwaway Account" Temporary Technical Identities and Perceptions of Anonymity in a Massive Online Community. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing. 317--327.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Calvin A Liang, Sean A Munson, and Julie A Kientz. 2021. Embracing Four Tensions in Human-Computer Interaction Research with Marginalized People. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 28, 2 (2021), 1--47.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Ann Light. 2011. HCI as heterodoxy: Technologies of identity and the queering of interaction with computers. Interacting with Computers 23, 5 (2011), 430--438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2011.02.002 Feminism and HCI: New Perspectives.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Eden Litt. 2012. Knock, knock. Who's there" The imagined audience. Journal of broadcasting & electronic media 56, 3 (2012), 330--345.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Eden Litt and Eszter Hargittai. 2016. The imagined audience on social network sites. Social Media Society 2, 1 (2016), 2056305116633482.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Annemaree Lloyd. 2010. Corporeality and practice theory: exploring emerging research agendas for information literacy. Information Research 15, 3 (2010), 15--3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Christopher Lopez, Pär Halje, and Olaf Blanke. 2008. Body ownership and embodiment: vestibular and multisensory mechanisms. Neurophysiologie Clinique/Clinical Neurophysiology 38, 3 (2008), 149--161.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Jean-Luc Lugrin, Maximilian Ertl, Philipp Krop, Richard Klupfel, Sebastian Stierstorfer, Bianka Weisz, Maximilian Ruck, Johann Schmitt, Nina Schmidt, and Marc Latoschik. 2018. Any "Body" There? Avatar Visibility Effects in a Virtual Reality Game. In 2018 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). IEEE, Tuebingen/Reutlingen, Germany, 17--24. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2018.8446229Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Divine Maloney, Guo Freeman, and Donghee Yvette Wohn. 2020. "Talking without a Voice": Understanding Non-Verbal Communication in Social Virtual Reality. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 4, CSCW2, Article 175 (Oct. 2020), 25 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415246Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Elizabeth McConnell, Bálint Néray, Bernie Hogan, Aaron Korpak, Antonia Clifford, and Michelle Birkett. 2018. "Everybody Puts Their Whole Life on Facebook": Identity Management and the Online Social Networks of LGBTQ Youth. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15, 6 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15061078Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Nora McDonald, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Andrea Forte. 2019. Reliability and Inter-rater Reliability in Qualitative Research: Norms and Guidelines for CSCW and HCI Practice. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1--23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Katelyn YA McKenna and John A Bargh. 1998. Coming out in the age of the Internet: Identity" demarginalization" through virtual group participation. Journal of personality and social psychology 75, 3 (1998), 681.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Joshua McVeigh-Schultz, Anya Kolesnichenko, and Katherine Isbister. 2019. Shaping Pro-Social Interaction in VR: An Emerging Design Framework. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300794Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Craig D. Murray and Judith Sixsmith. 1999. The Corporeal Body in Virtual Reality. Ethos 27, 3 (1999), 315--343. http://www.jstor.org/stable/640592Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. Kathleen Musante and Billie R DeWalt. 2010. Participant observation: A guide for fieldworkers. Rowman Altamira.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Lisa Nakamura. 2013. Cybertypes: Race, ethnicity, and identity on the Internet. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. Nathie. 2018. AMAZING SOCIAL EXPERIENCE IN VIRTUAL REALITY! | Oculus Rooms VR (Oculus Go Gameplay). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8Kt7Fj-AzEGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Abigail Oakley. 2016. Disturbing hegemonic discourse: Nonbinary gender and sexual orientation labeling on Tumblr. Social Media Society 2, 3 (2016), 2056305116664217.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. J Outlaw and B Duckles. 2017. Why Woman Don't Like Social Virtual Reality.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Elliot T Panek, Yioryos Nardis, and Sara Konrath. 2013. Mirror or Megaphone?: How relationships between narcissism and social networking site use differ on Facebook and Twitter. Computers in Human Behavior 29, 5 (2013), 2004--2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. Jasbir Puar. 2013. Rethinking homonationalism. International Journal of Middle East Studies 45, 2 (2013), 336--339.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. Alexis Pulos. 2013. Confronting Heteronormativity in Online Games: A Critical Discourse Analysis of LGBTQ Sexuality in World of Warcraft. Games and Culture 8, 2 (2013), 77--97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412013478688 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412013478688Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. Bonnie Ruberg and Adrienne Shaw. 2017. Queer game studies. U of Minnesota Press, Minnesota.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Koustuv Saha, Sang Chan Kim, Manikanta D. Reddy, Albert J. Carter, Eva Sharma, Oliver L. Haimson, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2019. The Language of LGBTQ Minority Stress Experiences on Social Media. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, CSCW, Article 89 (Nov. 2019), 22 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3361108Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Ari Schlesinger, W. Keith Edwards, and Rebecca E. Grinter. 2017. Intersectional HCI: Engaging Identity through Gender, Race, and Class. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, USA) (CHI '17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 5412--5427. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025766Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. David F. Shaw. 1997. Gay Men and Computer Communication: A Discourse of Sex and Identity in Cyberspace. Sage Publications, Inc., USA, 133--145.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Ellen Simpson and Bryan Semaan. 2021. For You, or For" You"? Everyday LGBTQ Encounters with TikTok. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW3 (2021), 1--34.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Mel Slater, Daniel Pérez Marcos, Henrik Ehrsson, and Maria V Sanchez-Vives. 2009. Inducing illusory ownership of a virtual body. Frontiers in neuroscience 3 (2009), 29.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Cherry Smith. 1996. What is this thing called queer. The material queer: A LesBiGay cultural studies reader (1996), 277--285.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Katta Spiel, Os Keyes, Ashley Marie Walker, Michael Ann DeVito, Jeremy Birnholtz, Emeline Brulé, Ann Light, Pinar Barlas, Jean Hardy, Alex Ahmed, et al. 2019. Queer (ing) HCI: Moving forward in theory and practice. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. Nikki Sullivan. 2003. A critical introduction to queer theory. NYU Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. Greg Wadley, Marcus Carter, and Martin Gibbs. 2015. Voice in virtual worlds: The design, use, and influence of voice chat in online play. Human--Computer Interaction 30, 3--4 (2015), 336--365.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  75. Nina Wakeford. 2000. Cyberqueer. Routledge, 403--415.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. Ashley Marie Walker and Michael Ann DeVito. 2020. "'More Gay' Fits in Better": Intracommunity Power Dynamics and Harms in Online LGBTQ Spaces. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376497Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  77. Dmitri Williams, Scott Caplan, and Li Xiong. 2007. Can you hear me now? The impact of voice in an online gaming community. Human communication research 33, 4 (2007), 427--449.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. Nelson Wong, Anthony Tang, Ian Livingston, Carl Gutwin, and Regan Mandryk. 2009. Character sharing in World of Warcraft. In ECSCW 2009. Springer, 343--362.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  79. Meredith GF Worthen. 2016. Hetero-cis--normativity and the gendering of transphobia. International Journal of Transgenderism 17, 1 (2016), 31--57.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  80. Nick Yee, Nicolas Ducheneaut, Mike Yao, and Les Nelson. 2011. Do Men Heal More When in Drag? Conflicting Identity Cues between User and Avatar. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (CHI '11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 773--776. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979054Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. "Acting Out" Queer Identity: The Embodied Visibility in Social Virtual Reality

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
      Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction  Volume 6, Issue CSCW2
      CSCW
      November 2022
      8205 pages
      EISSN:2573-0142
      DOI:10.1145/3571154
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2022 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 11 November 2022
      Published in pacmhci Volume 6, Issue CSCW2

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader