Suchergebnisse

This article seeks to reconcile the support status of cyber power in the United States military with the seriousness of the cyber threat confronting the nation. It rejects the argument that cyber weapons are not useful and are not traditional "weapons" by drawing parallels between cyber power and military force in the physical domains, as well as revealing how some of the most prominent issues in cybersecurity are political and not technological in nature. The article proposes strategic culture as an alternative explanation for U.S. cyber power's current status. By studying the case studies of American air and space power, the analysis arrives at four factors that characterize the U.S. military's integration of new technologies: 1) the initial use of new technologies to provide support to the services, 2) the importance of public interest in driving or constraining integration, 3) the effect a national crisis can have on helping the military overcome constraints against integration, and 4) the influence of external conflict on the military's integration of new technologies. These findings together constitute a model which attributes the current status of cyber power to a history of dependence, public ignorance and lack of concern, and the absence of a "Cyber Pearl Harbor." Acknowledging this, a cyber attack or cyber war against the United States has the best chance of changing the current status of American cyber power.

This article investigates moments in social interaction where tacit processes of gender attribution become visible because they are temporarily disrupted and exposed through misgendering. Our data consist of publicly available audio and video-recorded cases of misgendering, mostly from UK and US contexts. Practices of misgendering embody assumptions that map people's current gender onto their self-presentations and gender histories. Organisational features of social interaction facilitate the reproduction of these assumptions as taken-for-granted criteria for gender attribution. In the current climate of 'gender panics', the rise of a norm whereby people's self-defined gender should be respected clashes against enduring assumptions that uphold a gender order grounded in cisgenderism. The exposure of gender assumptions in moments of misgendering presents a potential for social change, but this potential is also limited by practices that reproduce (rather than challenge) the dominant gender order.

Misgendering – moments where someone refers to, describes, or addresses a person as a gender different to the one they identify with – is a challenge that trans people can face in social interaction. Misgendering is an interactional phenomenon but has yet to be examined for how it unfolds in conversation. Utilizing conversation analysis, we focus on what we term designedly intentional misgendering. We show how speakers utilize turn-design features and sequential placement to mark a misgendering as intentional. We also document how such misgendering is mobilized for different actions in social interaction. Speakers can utilize designedly intentional misgendering to display negative interactional positions towards trans people and related matters. Trans people can respond to such misgendering by negatively characterizing another speaker and their conduct. Our work advances existing discussions around the intentionality of misgendering and trans people's interactional agency.

Work on structural stigma shows how public policy affects health outcomes for members of devalued groups, including sexual minorities. In the current research, structural stigma is proposed as a moderating variable that strengthens deleterious associations between perceived discrimination and social relationship functioning. Hypotheses were tested in two cross‐sectional studies, including both online (N = 214; Study 1) and community (N = 94; Study 2) samples of sexual minority men and women residing throughout the United States. Structural stigma was coded from policy related to sexual minority rights within each state. Confirming hypotheses, support for the moderating role of structural stigma was found via multilevel models across studies. Specifically, associations between perceived discrimination and friendship strain, loneliness (Study 1) and familial strain (Study 2) were increased for those who resided in states with greater levels of structural stigma and attenuated for those who resided in states with lesser levels. In Study 1, these results were robust to state‐level covariates (conservatism and religiosity), but conservatism emerged as a significant moderator in lieu of structural stigma in Study 2. Results are discussed in the context of the shifting landscape of public policy related to sexual minority rights within the United States.