an identity with one of twopossibilities: masculinity (being primary) or femininity (being secondary). The extent to which the "abnormal" is integral to the existence of "normal" isanother important tool in evaluating categories of sexuality and gender identity. Distinguishing between good and bad, normal and abnormal is a human construct and onethat is applied to nearly every facet of our human existence. "Normal" needs to becontinuously reaffirmed in order that we may redefine what is "abnormal." We callthings "wrong," "unnatural," "bad," "perverse," "strange," "odd," "queer," "abnormal,""immoral," and "deviant" to remind and reinforce that what these words describe is notacceptable behavior. We enforce the boundaries of "normal versus "abnormal" incountless ways. Just walking down the street, we automatically assign a social role tocertain types of people based on "what" and "who" we perceive them to be. And the rulescan change. These boundaries must continually be reestablished based on the currentphilosophy of what is acceptable at the time. "The process of change through whichcertain deviations become labeled as normal or abnormal remains difficult to discern,becoming clear only when historical or social conditions permit…" (Bayer, p. 189). Aswe shall see, people in positions of power, have the ability to influence "what societypermits" and sometimes we construct negative perceptions in our crusade to influence therest of society. The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality is a flagshipamong organizations in constructing particular interpretations that serve their particulargroup. The title on their brochure, "Taking A Stand: For Those Seeking Freedom FromHomosexuality," wouldn't be implying that homosexuality is negative, would it? Bypromoting negative interpretations of homosexuals, for example, groups like NARTH canhelp to influence and enforce what is considered deviant. ...
