Beyond the Castro: The Role of Demographics in the Selection of Gay and Lesbian Enclaves

Abstract

Although some qualitative research has noted differences in gay and lesbian enclaves based on characteristics such as race and sex, in this article, we draw upon quantitative data from the U.S. Census to demonstrate the manner in which enclave formation is affected by the interaction of sexual orientation and other demographic characteristics (such as sex, race, age, and income). We focus our attention on enclaves located in three counties in the San Francisco Bay Area: San Francisco County, Alameda County, and Sonoma County as one example. Even though these spaces fall within close proximity to one another and share similar geographic appeal, our analyses indicate that these enclaves are far from homogenous in terms of the demographic composition of their inhabitants. These quantitative analyses provide further support to past qualitative findings, as well as highlight additional distinctions in the manner in which demographics affect enclave selection. We supplement our demographic analyses with supporting field research and interviews, further highlighting both the variation and the commonalities of these enclaves. Overall, our findings promote an expansion of the understanding how intersecting demographic characteristics affect selection of a particular enclave and what may constitute a gay enclave.

Keywords:

• gay enclaves
• lesbian enclaves
• demography of sexuality
• gay and lesbian geography

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Dudley Poston, Professor of Sociology; The Melbern G. Glasscock Center for Humanities Research at Texas A&M University for their academic and financial support of this research; and Dr. Warren Waren, University of Central Florida, for generating the GIS maps used for this article.

The authors made equal contributions to this article.

Notes

1. We refer to respondents to the census and in our interviews as either same-sex partners or “gay men” and “lesbians” (see, e.g., Baumle et al., 2009). We select this particular terminology at a time when they are both common and accepted labels in the gay and lesbian community, as well as in the academic literature. Nonetheless, we remain cognizant that for some individuals, the terms “gay” or “lesbian” do not capture their sexual identities. For some, lesbian suggests a politicized identity (Zita, 1992) and for others, identity differs based on class and race distinctions (Valocchi, 1999). When referring to census data, however, we do not have information on preferred sexual identity, and we chose not to identify our interview respondents by varying identities for both consistency and confidentiality purposes. Finally, we note that many have argued against the use of the term “homosexual” as a noun, suggesting that this phrase carries negative connotations reflecting issues and dimensions of psychological abnormality (Boswell, 1980; Foucault, 1978; Risman & Schwartz, 1988). Consequently, we have avoided using homosexual or gay as nouns, due to this possible interpretation; instead, homosexual and gay are used only as adjectives (Boswell, 1980; Risman & Schwartz, 1988).

2. It is unclear as to whether Castells (1983) considered lesbian bars and social gathering places in his mapping of gay bars and social gathering places, or whether voter registration data comparisons with female households were employed for his study.

3. The U.S. Census captures data on same-sex couples through a category in which individuals have identified as “unmarried partners.” This category was added to the census in 1990 in response to studies indicating rising numbers of cohabiting individuals in the United States (Black et al., 2000). The new category permits individuals with a close personal relationship to identify themselves as unmarried partners. Individuals can choose this relationship category whether they are in relationships with individuals of the same sex or opposite sex.

4. Given the structure of the census unmarried partner data, we are only able to depict concentrations of same-sex partners; single gay men or lesbians are not captured by the data.

5. In selecting a prevalence rate, we considered various populations for the denominator that would be understood to be at risk, statistically speaking, of being a partnered gay man or lesbian. For instance, we could have used all persons over 18 who had ever married, persons over 18 who never married, or all persons of age 18 and over as the rate's denominator. We selected all persons never married and over 18, however, due to the Census Bureau's definitions and coding procedures, which set forth that married persons must be of the opposite sex. Consequently, these persons are, according to these procedures, heterosexual, and not at risk of being a partnered gay man or lesbian. Baumle et al. (2009) have analyzed same-sex partner rates using both never married and married persons in the denominator; all of these rates were highly correlated with the rate based solely on persons never married.

The authors thank Dr. Warren Waren, University of Central Florida, for generating the GIS maps used for this article.

6. Although some of our Oakland subjects appreciated the city's attempt to create a gay space, others expressed concern that the district would result in the unfair displacement of low-income, minority individuals from the proposed district.

7. For example, most consider the Mission District to include the area west of Potrero Avenue to Dolores Street and south of 14th Street to Cesar Chavez. However, according to one respondent, “the Mission proper is mostly Hispanic with a mix of artists and lesbians. ‘Lesbian Mission’ begins at 16th Street down to 24th Street and between Mission Street and Valencia Street—this is the most highly visible lesbian area and also has a high prevalence of arts. Once you go west of Valencia it becomes higher-end boutiques and restaurants … and is unaffordable to live, eventually turning into the Castro. South of 24th Street is more industrial workers and day laborers, until you reach the Bernal Heights area which becomes more lesbian again and residential. The Mission is more a retail and restaurant enclave now where women spend time but may or may not actually live.” The Mission District also shares boundaries with the Castro. From Valencia Street west to Dolores Street, it overlaps the Castro. It is hard to clarify where the Mission stops and the Castro begins, but most seem to agree that it is around the Dolores Park area. The Castro is largely considered to be the area east of Diamond Heights (generally beginning a block or two before Castro Street to Dolores Street and from Duboce Avenue South to around 20th Street). One respondent asserted that the Duboce Triangle (an area in between Duboce Street, Castro Street, and Market Street) was one of the more recent additions to be swallowed by the Castro and included the “gay Safeway supermarket.” Data from the 2000 U.S. Census further support these descriptions of the Castro and Mission Districts with regard to same-sex unmarried partners.

8. Snowball sampling methods are best-suited for situations in which the population under study has unique characteristics and is difficult to locate in order to conduct a random sample (Babbie, 2006; Kalton, 1983).

9. Prior to participating in the interviews, all participants completed a consent form that informed them of the purpose and nature of the study, as well as assured them of the confidentiality of their responses. The consent form provided that neither participants' names nor any identifying characteristics would be used in the article; instead, we used information such as age, gender, race, and geographic location.

10. We allowed the research participants to choose the location of the interviews; some invited us to their homes, whereas others selected neutral places of business or restaurants. These in-person interviews ranged in length from a little over an hour to two and a half hours, with the average interview being about an hour and a half long. Interview respondents were not tape recorded due to privacy concerns. Instead, both authors took interview notes and comparisons of the notes were then made following the interview to assure accuracy. We also conducted approximately 10% of our interviews via telephone, when interview respondents were unavailable during our visit but still wished to participate in the study. The interviews followed the same format, but tended to be shorter in length, ranging from 45 minutes to an hour. Finally, approximately 20% of our participants opted to be interviewed via e-mail, rather than in person or over the phone. We emailed participants questions and exchanged comments and feedback with the participants regarding their responses. This method allowed participants the greatest degree of flexibility in working the interview around their personal schedules; further, it allowed us to continue to interview individuals on a more cost-effective basis after we had returned from our field research.

11. There is, however, a lesbian-owned bar near Santa Rosa that hosts gay and lesbian events, but the interview respondents were either unaware of the presence of this bar, or felt that it was only a lesbian bar one night a week; none had visited the bar. Field research supported the notion that this bar was patronized by both heterosexual locals, as well as lesbians from throughout the county. Events on some nights resulted in a stronger draw for the lesbian community, whereas on other nights the bar took on the appearance of a men's biker bar.