In the decades since the 1969 Stonewall rebellion provided a symbolic turning point in the critical and community consciousness of LGBTQ+ people, a great many things have changed: a number of states have passed antidiscrimination and hate-crime legislation, openly LGBTQ+ people have been elected to public office, and marriage equality has become law in the United States and in many countries around the world. Representations of LGBTQ+ people have expanded because of community organizing, including activism in response to the AIDS epidemic, increasing popular interest in LGBTQ+ lives, the proliferation and widespread use of the internet and social media, and the emergence of an LGBTQ+ consumer market. National rights organizations focused on LGBTQ+ lives have become more visible and have piqued the interest of social scientists and educators.
However, these years have also witnessed ongoing anti-LGBTQ+ prejudice, discrimination, and violence. According to findings from the survey “Discrimination in America: Experiences and Views of LGBTQ Americans,” a majority of LGBTQ+ people have at some point been the target of homophobic slurs and negative comments about their sexuality and gender identity, and most have been threatened or harassed or have experienced violence at some point because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.[1] This chapter is an overview of the prevalence and trends of anti-LGBTQ+ prejudice in the United States and the attempts to define and measure it. The chapter describes what is known about the nature, origins, and consequences of this prejudice and reviews the variables that have been found to increase or reduce its impact on the lives of LGBTQ+ people. The chapter discusses the resistance and resilience shown by the LGBTQ+ community in response to anti-LGBTQ+ prejudice and discrimination.
Prejudice and Discrimination
In his book The Nature of Prejudice (1954), the psychologist Gordon Allport describes prejudice as “antipathy based on faulty and inflexible generalization. It may be felt or expressed. It may be directed toward a group or an individual of that group.”[2] Put simply, prejudice is felt when someone holds a negative view of a person without having any reason or experience that justifies that negative view. Discrimination occurs when someone acts on prejudice by harming or disadvantaging a person or group or when someone favors their own group at the expense of the other group.[3] Prejudice toward LGBTQ+ people has been found to result in discrimination, including anti-LGBTQ+ violence, bullying and harassment in schools, employment discrimination against LGBTQ+ people, and limited access to health care and other social goods.
Violence against LGBTQ+ People
In 1998, Gwendolyn Ann Smith (figure 6.1) established November 20 as Trans Day of Remembrance as a time to speak the names of all the transgender individuals who were killed in antitrans violence over the previous year. In 2016, according to the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, 1,036 incidents of LGBTQ+ hate violence were reported by survivors. Of those targeted by this violence, 47 percent identified as gay, 17 percent as lesbian, 14 percent as heterosexual, 8 percent as queer, and 8 percent as bisexual. Over half those targeted in these incidents identified as transgender, and 61 percent identified as a person of color. That same year, 77 hate-violence-related homicides against LGBTQ+ and HIV-affected people were reported. Of these homicides, 49 occurred during the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Florida. Even without considering the Pulse shootings, 2016 saw a 17 percent increase in anti-LGBTQ+ homicides from 2015. Of these homicides, 79 percent of the victims were people of color, and 68 percent were transgender or gender nonconforming.[4]
Figure 6.1. Gwendolyn Ann Smith. (CC-BY-SA Levesc12.)
This violence isn’t isolated to a particular part of the county. The Anti-Defamation League has tracked the incidence of hate crimes across the country and provides an interactive map showing hate crimes involving both sexual orientation and gender identity. A quick glance at the map shows hate crimes against LGBTQ+ folks happen everywhere, in all fifty states.[5] Unfortunately, these statistics are likely an underrepresentation of the crimes that actually occur. Many victims of hate crimes are hesitant to come forward—because of fear of retaliation if they do; fear of being outed to family, friends, and coworkers; or the belief that coming forward won’t result in positive change.[6]
Bullying, Teasing, and Harassment
Anti-LGBT prejudice also affects LGBTQ+ youth in schools and online. The harassment, bullying, and victimization they experience contributes to lower self-esteem, poorer academic performance, and increased truancy among LGBTQ+ youth. In addition, it leads to feeling less connected to school and having lower achievement goals, and it correlates with higher levels of depression, more suicidal thoughts and attempts, increased substance use, and more sexual risk-taking.[7]
Some states have passed laws to protect LGBTQ+ students from this harassment, bullying, and violence in their schools. One example is New York State’s Dignity for All Students Act of 2012. The goal was to provide students with school environments that are free from discrimination and harassment based on gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity.[8] The legislation provides guidelines for students, teachers, and schools, and it institutes a zero-tolerance policy regarding bullying in schools (see chapter 9). Unfortunately, many schools have failed to implement key components of the act, lack staff with adequate knowledge about its requirements, or have failed to adequately track and report incidents of harassment and bullying that fall within the guidelines.[9]
Another resource for LGBTQ+ youth is the It Gets Better Project, founded in 2010 by Dan Savage and his partner, Terry Miller. This nonprofit organization attempts to “uplift, empower, and connect lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer . . . youth around the globe” by educating about the negative effects of bullying and harassment and working to build self-esteem for LGBTQ+ youth.[10]
Employment Discrimination
Anti-LGBTQ+ prejudice can also lead to employment discrimination. According to the “Discrimination in America” survey of LGBTQ+ Americans, 20 percent of respondents reported experiencing employment discrimination when applying for a job and in terms of compensation and promotions.[11] These results are even worse for LGBTQ+ people of color. Starting in the 1980s and continuing into the twenty-first century, some states passed employment nondiscrimination laws that offered some protections for LGBTQ+ people, although many of these laws applied only to sexual orientation, leaving out protections for gender expression and identity.
Legislative efforts at the federal level to provide protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and expression were largely unsuccessful. The Employment Non-discrimination Act, a bill that would protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people from employment discrimination, was introduced in Congress every year from 1994 to 2013. The bill came close to passing on at least one occasion, but the inclusion of transgender rights created divisions among both supporters and opponents. Moreover, as support for the bill increased, so too did the claims that these protections would violate the religious freedom of those who see homosexuality as a sin, resulting in the addition of religious-exemption language in versions of the bill. These exemptions concern many longtime advocates for LGBTQ+ rights, who argue that they effectively allow religious organizations to discriminate against LGBTQ+ individuals. Some groups, like Lambda Legal, have even pulled their support for the legislation for this reason.
From 2015 on, LGBTQ+ rights advocates moved to support the Equality Act, a bill with a range of broader protections than the proposed Employment Non-discrimination Act, including protections related to gender identity. The Equality Act would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity not only in employment but also in housing, public accommodations, public education, federal funding, credit, and jury service. However, this bill was referred to committee and never passed. In the absence of federal legislation, LGBTQ+ activists continued to press for justice through the courts. In June of 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued the Bostock v. Clayton County ruling, which determined that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity was a form of sex discrimination and was a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[12] The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in employment based on sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. According to the legal advocacy group Lambda Legal, this ruling “swept away all the contrary precedent and protected all LGBT workers nationwide.”[13] It remains to be seen whether this decision will survive scrutiny of future, possibly more conservative, courts.
Access to Health Care
Prejudice can also have a negative impact on the quality of and access to health care for LGBTQ+ people. This can happen in several ways. The first way relates to access to employment, because a frequent benefit of employment is access to health insurance. Some states have passed laws that protect LGBTQ+ people from health insurance discrimination, which can result in denial of certain services or coverage altogether. According to the Movement Advancement Project, as of 2021 sixteen states offer protections for both sexual orientation and gender identity; twenty-four states prohibit transgender exclusions in health insurance coverage; six states offer health insurance protections for only gender identity, and twenty-eight states offer no protections for LGBTQ+ health insurance.[14]
Explore
The Movement Advancement Project has a map of laws and policies related to LGBTQ+ equality (https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-map...s_and_policies). Choose a state or territory, yours or another you are familiar with or interested in. Review first the state’s equality profile, including the quick facts about the state’s LGBTQ+ population, and then the range of issues identified on the website and the corresponding laws.
What key issues lack supportive policies and laws or have negative laws?
What key issues are covered by supportive policies and laws in this state?
Are any local laws relevant to these issues?
How does this state compare with the country as a whole or to other states?
Have you had a personal experience in relation to one of these issues or laws?
Beyond access to health care, prejudice can also affect the quality of health care a person receives. For example, in a 2017 survey conducted by the Center for American Progress, 8 percent of gay, lesbian, and bisexual respondents reported being denied service by a doctor or health care provider; 7 percent reported that doctors had refused to recognize their family, such as a child or same-sex partner; 9 percent reported that providers had used abusive language; and 7 percent experienced unwanted physical contact by a doctor or health care provider. A significantly larger percentage of transgender respondents reported being denied service (29 percent), had doctors refuse to provide care related to gender transition (12 percent), were intentionally misgendered by a doctor (23 percent), experienced abusive language (21 percent), or had unwanted physical contact (29 percent).[15]
Efforts to reform the views and practices of the psychological and medical communities have a long history and are an ongoing project (see chapters 4 and 7). For example, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses documented in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in 1973, and the American Psychological Association has taken a affirmative stance toward LGBTQ+ people since 1975. Additionally, the American Academy of Pediatricians published a statement in 2013 saying that LGB adolescents need health care that is “teen-friendly and welcoming to sexual minority youth.”[16] Nevertheless some mental and physical health practitioners still believe that homosexuality is a disorder, as do some members of the general public.[17]
Public Opinion Polls
According to U.S. public opinion polls from the last few decades, attitudes toward gay men and lesbians have become progressively more favorable. Although attitudes toward transgender individuals have not been surveyed for the same amount of time, results from the 2017 Global Attitudes toward Transgender People survey suggest that a majority of Americans hold positive opinions toward transgender people. Questions that reflect egalitarianism tend to reveal more dramatic pro-LGBTQ+ shifts and suggest that the majority of U.S. residents see gay men and lesbians as deserving of equal and fair (egalitarian) treatment and are generally opposed to discrimination in employment, education, and housing. For example, in 1976, when Gallup asked respondents how they felt about protecting “homosexuals” against employment discrimination in general, only a small majority (56 percent) supported protections, but when they asked again in 2008, the percentage supporting protections increased to 89 percent. Similarly, when Gallup asked respondents in 1979 if they thought homosexual relations between consenting adults should or should not be legal, only 43 percent said they should be legal. When a similar question was asked in 2018, 75 percent said yes, these relations should be legal, and only 23 percent said no. And when asked in 1973 if “it was wrong for same-sex adults to have sexual relationships,” 70 percent said it was always wrong. However, in 2018 that number dropped to 31 percent.[18]
Although the overall pro-LGBTQ+ direction of these public opinion polls since the 1970s is undeniable, they should still be viewed with some caution. Public opinion is not entirely stable from year to year, shifting in an affirming direction for one or two years, then falling back, reflecting shifts in the cultural and political landscapes. In addition, the variety of factors that shape public opinion can result in inconsistent or ambivalent viewpoints. Although egalitarianism continues to have a favorable influence on heterosexuals’ overall evaluations of LGBTQ+ people, many anti-LGBTQ+ values, negative stereotypes, and ego-defensive reactions continue to exert a negative influence. For example, participants’ responses to questions about their comfort in “employing homosexuals” can vary significantly depending on whether the question focuses on the fair treatment of LGBTQ+ people or the moral acceptance of homosexuality.[19] Similarly, attitudes can vary on the basis of the job’s potential for influencing beliefs and the social values of others (e.g., clergy are defenders of morality, elementary school teachers shape the development of children, and service members may symbolize U.S. strength). Finally, the duties associated with the job may trigger antigay stereotypes (e.g., the belief that gay men are all pedophiles and therefore shouldn’t be around children).
The first graph depicts the historical trend for answers to a question about same-sex marriage. What does it tell us about public opinion in the U.S. over the years?
Two different questions focus on whether lesbian and gay sexual relations should be legal, and whether lesbian and gay sexual relations are morally acceptable or morally wrong. Compare the two charts; why might the results be different?
Did anything in answers to the poll over the years surprise you? What was the topic, and why were you surprised?
Check Your Knowledge
Contributed by Has Arakelyan, Rio Hondo College
Multiple-Choice Questions
1. What are some negative outcomes for LGBTQ+ youth who experience bullying and harassment in schools?
A) Higher self-esteem and better academic performance
B) Increased truancy and higher levels of depression
C) Greater connection to school and higher achievement goals
D) Decreased substance use and fewer suicidal thoughts
2. What was the main goal of New York State’s Dignity for All Students Act of 2012?
A) To provide free lunches to all students
B) To ensure school environments free from discrimination and harassment
C) To increase standardized testing
D) To promote religious education in schools
3. Which of the following is a reason why the Dignity for All Students Act has not been fully effective in some schools?
A) Lack of funding for sports programs
B) Failure to implement key components and lack of staff knowledge
C) Too many extracurricular activities
D) Overcrowded classrooms
4. What is the purpose of the It Gets Better Project?
A) To provide scholarships for LGBTQ+ students
B) To uplift, empower, and connect LGBTQ+ youth and educate about bullying
C) To organize sports tournaments
D) To promote standardized testing
5. According to public opinion polls, how have attitudes toward gay men and lesbians changed since the 1970s?
A) They have become less favorable.
B) They have remained the same.
C) They have become progressively more favorable.
D) There are no data on this topic.
Discussion Questions
Why do you think bullying and harassment have such a strong impact on the mental health and academic performance of LGBTQ+ youth?
What are some ways schools can better implement anti-bullying laws and policies to protect LGBTQ+ students?
How might public opinion about LGBTQ+ rights influence the experiences of LGBTQ+ youth in schools?
Why do you think there is sometimes a gap between support for fair treatment of LGBTQ+ people and moral acceptance of homosexuality?
In what ways can organizations like the It Gets Better Project help change the school environment for LGBTQ+ students?
Multiple-Choice Questions - Answers
1. B) Increased truancy and higher levels of depression
2. B) To ensure school environments free from discrimination and harassment
3. B) Failure to implement key components and lack of staff knowledge
4. B) To uplift, empower, and connect LGBTQ+ youth and educate about bullyin
5. C) They have become progressively more favorable.
