6.2: Measuring Anti-LGBTQ+ Prejudice

Homophobia

The clinical psychologist George Weinberg is credited with coining the term homophobia.^[20] He defined homophobia as the “dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals” and suggested that it was a consequence of several factors, including religion, fear of being homosexual, repressed envy of the freedom from tradition that gay people seem to have, a threat to values, and fear of death.^[21] According to Weinberg, some heterosexuals seek symbolic immortality through their children. Their belief that gay people don’t want or can’t have children, and are thereby rejecting this route to immortality, leads to existential anxiety or fear of death. In his highly influential book Society and the Healthy Homosexual (published in 1972), as well as in later interviews, he acknowledged the influence of the gay liberation movement on his thinking.^[22] Essays that eventually became chapters of Society and the Healthy Homosexual were published in Gay, a gay liberationist magazine edited by the gay liberation pioneers Jack Nichols and Lige Clarke. Positioning himself solidly within gay liberationist philosophy, Weinberg suggested that he “would never consider a patient healthy unless he had overcome his prejudice of homosexuality.”^[23] The psychoanalyst Wainwright Churchill was also influential to scholarly thinking about sexual prejudice at the time. In his book Homosexual Behavior among Males (1967), he describes “homoerotophobia,” a concept similar to homophobia, as the psychological consequence of living in an “erotophobic” society, or one that is afraid of the erotic.^[24]

After Weinberg introduced a word for homophobia, research into the study of attitudes toward LGBTQ+ people expanded considerably. Kenneth Smith conducted the first-ever study attempting to measure heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men. His work questioned the nature of the homophobic individual. Smith’s homophobia scale, or H scale, was an attempt to measure heterosexuals’ “negative or fearful responding to homosexuality.” Smith found that homophobic people were more “status conscious, authoritarian, and sexually rigid” than nonhomophobic people and concluded that homophobic people may not see homosexuals as belonging to a legitimate minority group that is deserving of rights.^[25] Most of the items in the H scale were ego-defensive in nature, assessing participants’ levels of discomfort with being near a homosexual. Items like “It would be upsetting for me to find out I was alone with a homosexual,” “I find the thought of homosexual acts disgusting,” and “If a homosexual sat next to me on a bus I would get nervous” all imply an aversive and affective response possibly due to repressed fear.^[26]

Heterosexism and Heteronormativity

According to the lesbian feminist writer and theorist Adrienne Rich (figure 6.3), compulsory heterosexuality—the assumption that everyone is heterosexual and that heterosexuality is natural for men and women—is maintained and reinforced by the patriarchy.^[27] This social and political system of male dominance is reinforced by heterosexism, which Gregory Herek describes as “an ideological system that denies and stigmatizes any non-heterosexual form of behavior, identity, relationship, or community.”^[28] What results is heteronormativity, an attitude and practice that centers the world around heterosexuality, privileging only that which conforms to the norms, practices, and institutions of heterosexuality.^[29] Queer theory expands on the implications of heteronormativity. Combined, heterosexism and heteronormativity shape the world in which LGBTQ+ people live, creating an everyday environment where they are ignored, invalidated, and sometimes punished for not living up to the standards of heterosexuality.

Figure 6.3. Audre Lorde (left), Meridel Le Sueur (center), and Adrienne Rich (right). (CC-BY K. Kendall.)

Many of the traditional milestones of everyday life are influenced by heterosexism and heteronormativity. Think about gender roles and their corresponding attitudes and behaviors, body image, gendered attire and comportment, as well as developmental milestones such as dating, marriage, career, and parenthood. All these norms and events are influenced by heterosexism and a corresponding set of heteronormative sexual scripts. These scripts are mental constructions, shaped by culture, that guide individual understanding of relationships and sexual situations.^[30] As LGBTQ+ people attempt to navigate these standards and expectations, they frequently encounter challenges to their well-being. It is also important to point out that, although the challenges are intense, many are able to meet these challenges successfully.

Heterosexism and heteronormativity have cast LGBTQ+ individuals as morally vacuous, criminal threats, and mentally ill. Social sanctions existed in most institutions, denying LGBTQ+ people access to faith communities, education institutions, and even families. Discrimination in employment was the norm, resulting in the need for LGBTQ+ people to deny or dissemble in places of employment, when seeking housing, or in public. And although the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that LGBTQ+ people cannot be discriminated against in employment, efforts are underway to limit the scope of this ruling through the pursuit of religious exemptions. Same-sex marriages were not recognized in the United States until 2015, and that change occurred through the courts and not through legislation. In addition, marriage equality continues to be challenged, with legislative and judicial efforts to limit the extent to which same-sex unions must be recognized as valid. The rights of LGBTQ+ people to become or remain parents to children has also seen progress but remains under siege. For example, in 2018, Oklahoma governor Mary Fallin signed a bill that allows private adoption agencies to discriminate against LGBTQ+ couples, allowing them to refuse to place children in LGBTQ+ families if it “would violate the agency’s written religious or moral convictions or policies.”^[31]

Microaggressions

Not all acts of discrimination are overt and easily identified, either by the person who is targeted or by witnesses. The mental health of people who are marginalized because of race, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality can also be affected by microaggressions—”brief, daily assaults on minority individuals, which can be social or environmental, verbal or nonverbal, as well as intentional or unintentional.”^[32] Because microaggressions are slight, somewhat indirect, and sometimes dismissible, they can be pernicious and difficult to address directly.

Microaggressions have been found to negatively affect mental health, likelihood of accessing health care, and satisfaction with a workplace or educational setting. There are different kinds of microaggressions. Microassaults occur when someone makes a joke or makes a stereotypical generalization about a person based on their group membership. Microinsults refer to rude and insensitive words and behavior that devalue or demean someone’s group. Finally, microinvalidations take place when someone is excluded because of their group or because their experience as the member of a group is invalidated.^[33]

LGBTQ+ Minority Stress

Although most people deal effectively with the stress of everyday life, sometimes negative life events can be so severe (what psychologists call major life stressors) or continue for so long (chronic stressors) that they can negatively affect mental and physical health. Members of racial, sexual, and other minority groups who experience stressors as a result of prejudice and discrimination experience what psychologists call minority stress.^[34]

LGBTQ+ minority stress extends beyond the regular stress of everyday life or the stress that comes from unexpected life events. It is particularly related to the external experiences that LGBTQ+ people encounter going through life in a heterosexist world, such as discrimination, anti-LGBTQ+ violence, and microaggressions. Research on minority stress also explores the implication of those stressors on LGBTQ+ peoples’ sense of self and psychological well-being, such as self-esteem, depression, and guilt. Research documents how anti-LGBTQ+ prejudice produces negative stressors such as isolation, lack of family acceptance, ostracization by peers, lack of resources and opportunities in schools, less attention from teachers, and less validation of LGBTQ+ peoples’ lives.^[35] These stressors add up and negatively affect the mental and physical health of LGBTQ+ people.

Internalized Homophobia and Heterosexism

Because most LGBTQ+ people grow up in environments that are to some degree heterosexist, most are also likely to internalize some of the anti-LGBTQ+ messages they encounter along the way. This internalized homophobia can have mental health consequences, and addressing it is considered an important step in the coming out process. Variables such as community connectedness have been found to help in addressing internalized homophobia. A survey of 1,093 transgender individuals found that stigma relating to participants’ gender identity and expression contributed to their psychological distress, and that trans community and social support helped moderate the distress. A survey of 484 LGB adults found that parental support of a child’s authentic self was associated with lower internalized homophobia and shame as well as better overall psychological health in adults.^[36]

Modern and Aversive Prejudice

New conceptualizations and approaches in the measurement of racism (e.g., symbolic prejudice, modern prejudice, and aversive prejudice) and attitudes toward women (e.g., ambivalent sexism) were introduced in the 1980s and 1990s. These approaches explained that, as it became more socially unacceptable to express prejudice, those old-fashioned forms didn’t disappear entirely but went underground and were replaced by more subtle or indirect forms of prejudice. Similarly, in the face of growing social acceptance of LGBTQ+ people, anti-LGBTQ+ prejudice is also often expressed subtly, indirectly, and in ways that avoid direct social condemnation. For example, a study of attitudes toward LGBTQ+ parenting found that people who score high on a measure of modern anti-LGBTQ+ prejudice will evaluate the parenting of same-sex and opposite-sex parents similarly when both sets of parents are engaged in the same positive parenting behaviors. However, when both sets of parents engage in the same negative parenting behaviors (e.g., losing their temper, slapping their child’s hand, and yelling), those same participants will evaluate the parenting of the same-sex couple more negatively than the opposite-sex parents, suggesting that condemnation of the parents’ negative conduct provides a subtle and socially acceptable way to express existing anti-LGBTQ+ prejudice.^[37]

Predicting Anti-LGBTQ+ Prejudice

Anti-LGBTQ+ prejudice has been found to highly correlate with other variables, including age, education, location, religiosity, political party and ideology, and sexual conservatism. Personality has also been found to correlate with anti-LGBTQ+ prejudice. People who score higher on measures of right-wing authoritarianism tend to be more deferential to authority figures, see the world in moral absolutes, and be punitive toward those who transgress social norms. These people also tend to hold more negative attitudes toward LGBTQ+ people. In addition, gender and gender-role beliefs have been found to predict attitudes toward LGBTQ+ people. People who support more traditional gender roles and traditional values concerning sexual behavior and family structure tend to express more anti-LGBTQ+ prejudice. Similar correlates have been tied to antitrans attitudes.^[38]

Similarly, a national probability sample of heterosexual adults found that more negative attitudes toward transgender people were associated with authoritarianism, political conservatism, religiosity (only for women), rigid views about gender, and lack of contact with transgender people. They also noted that participants’ attitudes toward transgender people were more negative than their attitudes toward LGBTQ+ people.^[39]

The contact hypothesis is the idea that contact between groups can improve group relations and reduce prejudice; it was introduced by Allport in 1954. Allport argued that this contact needed to take place in particular situational contexts in which the groups have equal status, that the groups share a set of common goals, are working cooperatively, and have the opportunity to develop emotional connections and empathy.^[40] Allport also suggested that there should be support for cooperation and acceptance from authorities or powers that be; the contact must counter the negative beliefs about the group with information that is frequent, consistent, and can be generalized; and the contact should discourage rationalizing the new information as being a special case or subtype of the group.^[41] Although prejudice and the threat of discrimination can reduce the possibility of contact between heterosexuals and members of the LGBTQ+ community, heterosexuals with more contact with LGBTQ+ people have been found to hold more favorable attitudes.^[42]

Figure 6.4. Cologne, Germany, Pride Parade, 2014. (CC-BY-SA Cephoto.)

The Benefits and Risks of Coming Out

The gay liberation movement of the 1970s advocated for coming out as an LGB person as an important strategy of political change and personal fulfillment. This concept is illustrated in this now famous 1978 quote by the late San Francisco supervisor, and hero of the LGBTQ+ rights movement, Harvey Milk (figure 6.5). Every gay person must come out. As difficult as it is, you must tell your immediate family. You must tell your relatives. You must tell your friends if indeed they are your friends. You must tell your neighbors. You must tell the people you work with. You must tell the people in the stores you shop in. Once they realize that we are indeed their children, that we are indeed everywhere, every myth, every lie, every innuendo will be destroyed once and all. And once you do, you will feel so much better.^[43]

The benefit and buffering effects of coming out have been well established in the literature. Ilan Meyer’s LGBTQ+ minority stress model connects minority identification with positive outcomes in terms of coping and having access to the social support resources necessary to address minority stress. The model also highlights how minority identification is related to minority stressors within the individual such as expectations of rejection, concealment, and internalized homophobia. In addition, identification and community connectedness can increase visibility, which may increase vulnerability to things like employment discrimination, harassment, and violence.^[44]

Figure 6.5. Harvey Milk at Gay Pride San Jose, 1978. (CC-BY-SA Ted Sahl, Kat Fitzgerald, Patrick Phonsakwa, Lawrence McCrorey, Darryl Pelletier.)

Historians and other social scientists have also suggested that the increased visibility of LGBTQ+ people was a critical element in the formation of LGBTQ+ communities and the progress of the LGBTQ+ rights movements. The contact hypothesis, Harvey Milk’s rallying cry of “Come on out!” and research that highlights the importance of role models and positive representatives in various forms of media all suggest that coming out and increasing the visibility of LGBTQ+ people is an important and often positive strategy for improving social attitudes. As we stated earlier in this chapter, increased visibility does come with risks. However, positive contact between heterosexuals and LGBTQ+ people has been found to result not only in positive attitude change but also in the possibility of increasing the dominant group’s identification with the marginalized group, creating the possibility of allyship—the mobilization of heterosexuals to work toward change benefiting the LGBTQ+ community. As intergroup and interpersonal contact, as well as subsequent social networks, continues to expand into the virtual world through online communities, social networking, and hookup and dating apps, these forms of social interaction will likely continue to shape beliefs about and attitudes toward LGBTQ+ people, create new contexts for minority stress, and expand possibilities for social support and the resources available to LGBTQ+ people.^[45]

Harvey Milk's Radical Vision of Equality

A TED-Ed lesson, by Lillian Faderman, “Harvey Milk’s Radical Vision of Equality,” introduces Milk and his life (https://www.ted.com/talks/lillian_fa...on_of_equality).

Visit the SFO Museum’s virtual exhibition about Harvey Milk (https://www.sfomuseum.org/exhibition...messenger-hope).

• What was the historical context within which Harvey Milk advocated coming out to family, friends, neighbors, and others?
• What are the hallmarks of Milk’s political philosophy?
• How does the research discussed in this chapter help us understand why Milk was right in believing that coming out was important for gay rights?

Conclusion

Although progress in LGBTQ+ rights has been made and attitudes toward LGBTQ+ people have changed in the last few decades, the implications of anti-LGBTQ+ prejudice and discrimination remain serious. It is critical that efforts to change these attitudes continue and that LGBTQ+ affirmative social scientists, educators, and practitioners continue to develop a robust knowledge base to guide these efforts. In addition, a related literature highlights the strength and resilience found in the LGBTQ+ community, even in the face of this adversity.

LGBTQ+ historians and anthropologists like George Chauncey, John D’Emilio, Elizabeth Lapovsky Kennedy and Madeline Davis, and Susan Stryker have helped make visible the courage and perseverance of LGBTQ+ individuals and communities who faced legal risks, social stigma, overt discrimination, and violence across the twentieth century.^[46] These are the voices and struggles of a resilient community: the Mattachine Society and Daughters of Bilitis, which organized and built networks of LGBTQ+ people in the shadow of McCarthyism and anti-homosexual witch hunts; the transwomen and transmen, drag queens, queer youth of color, street hustlers, butch dykes, and gay men who took a stand at the Stonewall Inn; the LGBTQ+ people who, amid unimaginable death and sadness brought about by the AIDS epidemic, built organizations, took care of each other, acted up, and fought back against government disdain and neglect; and the people with AIDS, many in the midst of the ravages of the disease, who still found meaning in helping others. These stories of resilience aren’t meant to minimize the dangers or potential for harm. In the words of Harvey Milk, they are simply stories of hope: “Hope for a better world, hope for a better tomorrow, hope for a better place to come to if the pressures at home are too great. Hope that all will be alright . . . and you and you and you, you have to give people hope.”^[47]

Check Your Knowledge

Contributed by Has Arakelyan, Rio Hondo College

Multiple-Choice Questions

1. According to Harvey Milk, what is the main reason every gay person should come out?
A) To increase their income
B) To destroy myths and lies about LGBTQ+ people
C) To avoid discrimination
D) To become famous

2. What is one personal benefit of coming out, as supported by research?
A) Increased risk of discrimination
B) Higher self-esteem and better mental health
C) Decreased access to social support
D) Lower academic achievement

3. What is the contact hypothesis?
A) The idea that positive contact between groups reduces prejudice.
B) The idea that only LGBTQ+ people can change attitudes.
C) The belief that coming out is always safe.
D) The theory that online communities are harmful.

4. What is a potential risk of increased LGBTQ+ visibility?
A) Decreased community support
B) Fewer allies
C) Lower self-esteem
D) Increased vulnerability to discrimination and harassment

5. How can coming out contribute to political and social change?
A) By making LGBTQ+ people less visible
B) By encouraging secrecy
C) By humanizing LGBTQ+ people and inspiring allyship
D) By reducing social networks

Discussion Questions

1. Why do you think Harvey Milk believed coming out was so important for both individuals and the LGBTQ+ community as a whole?
2. What are some ways that coming out can both help and potentially harm an LGBTQ+ person?
3. How does the contact hypothesis help explain changes in public attitudes toward LGBTQ+ people?
4. In what ways has the internet and social media changed the experience of coming out and building LGBTQ+ community?
5. What can allies do to support LGBTQ+ people who are considering coming out or who have recently come out?

Multiple-Choice Questions - Answers

1. B) To destroy myths and lies about LGBTQ+ people
2. B) Higher self-esteem and better mental health
3. A) The idea that positive contact between groups reduces prejudice.
4. D) Increased vulnerability to discrimination and harassment
5. C) By humanizing LGBTQ+ people and inspiring allyship