Queer Associations: The Illusory Correlation

An illusory correlation is an overestimation of the strength of a relationship between two variables. In illusory correlation, two phenomena become linked whether or not they have any real connection. For instance, if a person is terribly mistreated by a woman police officer, that person may conclude that all women police officers are abusive. Illusory correlation is particularly important in research on prejudice and discrimination. Social psychologists have confirmed through experiments what marginalized groups have always known: individual minority group members are required to stand in as representatives of their entire group. When an individual’s behavior is regarded as unacceptable in whatever way, that behavior stands out as both less acceptable and more typical in the minds of non-minority observers. Illusory correlation is part of the explanation for this tendency.

A classic experiment by David Hamilton and Robert Gifford demonstrates how illusory correlations are created in people’s minds.¹⁰ Participants in their study read a series of statements describing desirable and undesirable behaviors of members of two groups: Group A and Group B. There were twice as many statements about Group A (the majority group) as Group B (the minority group). Of each group’s statements, two-thirds described desirable behavior (“John, a member of Group A, visited a sick friend in the hospital”), and one-third undesirable behavior (“Bob, a member of Group A, always talks about himself”). Even though there were more statements about Group A than about Group B, the ratio of desirable to undesirable behaviors was the same. Therefore, an accurate evaluation of the two groups would be that they engage in the same amount of good and bad behavior. However, Hamilton and Gifford found a bias: Group A (the majority) was perceived more favorably than Group B (the minority) because of the inclination to pay more attention to the distinctive behaviors in the statements – in this case the undesirable behaviors of Group B (there were fewer of these numerically). An illusory correlation is produced when the co-occurrence of the distinctive group and the undesirable behavior can lead to the perception that the group has a natural tendency toward the undesirable behavior. The more we notice undesirable behavior in Group B, the more accessible in memory the imagined link between bad behavior and Group B becomes. Hence this imagined link influences one’s subsequent judgments of the target group. In some cases, the witnessing of just one uncommon or rare event by a minority group member is enough to develop a stereotype about the particular event and the minority group. This is known as a one-shot illusory correlation.¹¹

Consider representations of members of the queer community in mass media. One argument might contend that heterosexual and cisgender people are presented in both positive and negative ways in the media, and numerically there may be actually more negative portrayals of non-queer people simply as a function of numerically more representations of them overall. If this is the case, is there a reason for the LGBTQ+ community to be concerned about negative media representations of queer people? What could be objectionable about negative representations of queer people if there actually are more negative representations of cisgender and heterosexual people? Research on illusory correlation demonstrates the significant impact of the phenomenon of fewer representations of minorities overall. The concern comes from the fact that negative portrayals of a less represented group are perceived as more salient, more memorable, and have potentially more real-life impact than any negative representations of a majority group, in this case, cisgender and heterosexual people. According to the predictions of illusory correlation, negative and stereotypical portrayals will be more salient and memorable to the viewer than negative portrayals of heterosexuals and are likely to influence one’s schemas about queer people. Since the 1990s, the frequency of positive depictions of lesbian and gay characters has increased significantly. However, there are still relatively few transgender characters on television, streaming services, and in films.¹² This fact may, in part, contribute to the slow societal acceptance of trans people relative to lesbian and gay people.¹³

The illusory correlation has strong explanatory value for us understanding stereotyped judgments of LGBTQ+ people. Recall our discussion of schemas in Chapter 2. A schema is a mental framework that helps us organize information and knowledge – like a file folder for our stereotypes. We often attend to information that is consistent with our schemas and ignore or discount information that is inconsistent with our schemas. An experiment that taps people’s schemas for gay and straight men is illustrative. German respondents read a job description that required both agentic (e.g., ambitious) and communal (e.g., empathic) traits.¹⁴ They then read profiles of a candidate that was either a gay or straight man, and both candidates were described with the same traits. In other words, the only difference in each candidate was their sexual orientation. Respondents rated the gay man (with an otherwise identical profile) as less masculine and more communal than the heterosexual man. In a second experiment, respondents read about a candidate fit for traditionally masculine (e.g., roofer) and traditionally feminine (e.g., nurse) jobs. Again, the candidates were either gay or straight men and the information provided about the candidates was otherwise identical. The heterosexual applicant appeared better suited for traditionally masculine jobs than the gay applicant, whereas the gay applicant appeared better suited for traditionally feminine jobs than the heterosexual applicant.¹⁵ These experiments reflect one’s tendency to zero in on information that is consistent with our schemas and disregard or fail to detect information that is not consistent with our schemas.

Vividness: Queerness Standing Out

Social psychologists use the term vividness effect to describe the tendency to pay attention to only certain distinctive characteristics about a person or group. In this case, certain examples of LGBTQ+ people are more salient to outside observers if they are compatible with our already-existing stereotypes about the group. Studies on consumer behavior have been conducted on the nature and effectiveness of vivid appeals – those messages that, while perhaps containing inaccurate information compared to more ordinary messages, create a striking and lasting, if mistaken, impression on the individual.¹⁶ Vivid appeals distort one’s ability to fairly appraise information. Think about the most memorable advertisements: maybe a duck selling car insurance, a celebrity selling athletic shoes, or toads selling beer. These ads do not give you much information about the products they are selling but they do create vivid, memorable images. Vividness works for several reasons. First, vivid images and events attract attention: a drag queen is probably more noticeable than an accountant. Second, vivid information appears to be more concrete and personal. If a coworker wonders, “Why do lesbians want to be men?” hearing the question may confirm the belief in your own similar stereotype. Third, vivid information acts to frame an issue, and it has the effect of focusing the audience’s attention on issues and claims that the communicator feels are most important. For instance, if someone is preoccupied with the erroneous belief that LGBTQ+ people are groomers and flaunt their sexuality, that is what becomes the focus of their concern – not for instance, how heterosexuals flaunt their sexuality and most sexual abusers are heterosexual men. Finally, vivid images are memorable. They come to mind easily and are recalled readily.

So, imagine watching a news clip. Your local network affiliate reports on your city’s annual LGBTQ+ Pride parade. What images does the news show? Which clips are shared on social media? Masculine women on motorcycles, drag queens in large, fuchsia-colored wigs, young men in leather bikinis, men holding hands with other men, your reaction is, “Why can’t those people just act normal?” or “Why do I have to see this stuff on TV?” The news report does not show LGBTQ+ individuals who look quite ordinary and inconspicuous, suburban, corporate, academic, working class, or otherwise not remarkable. Such news reports do not show footage of families who come to the parade with diaper bags and strollers. In fact, if the news simply showed the spectators at the pride parade, viewers would see quite a range of people – the usual variety of parade-goers. But spectators would not make for very interesting, vivid, news. Portraying LGBTQ+ people as oddities, or out of the mainstream, is much more interesting news and, therefore, the stereotype that queer people are deviant is perpetuated. If the occasional glimpse of a pride parade in a 30-second news clip is a person’s only exposure to queer people, it is not surprising that this person attends to these vivid images and makes the illusory correlation between mannishness and lesbianism, and flamboyancy and gay men. Some people then begin to view lesbians and gay men (or those they assume are lesbian or gay) through a lens that only sees masculine women and feminine men. Once one has the information that a person is LGBTQ+, that single characteristic assumes great significance and they tend to be understood through a lens of stereotypes perpetuated by our culture.

You Can Spot One

Many people think LGBTQ+ people are identifiable by the way they look, talk, or walk.¹⁷ People think they can spot them. Of course, there is a simple logical error in this self-reinforcing assumption. For those who believe, “I know one when I see one,” they give themselves a perfect score in identifying the group they think they can spot based on stereotypes. An important feature of these identities that contribute to people’s confidence in “spotting one” is that sexual orientation and transgender identity are concealable identities. Social scientists use the term concealable identity or concealed stigma to refer to an identity that can be hidden from others. For example, religion, one’s history of mental illness, some disabilities, gender identity, and sexual orientation are concealable identities. In contrast, one’s race or ethnicity is considered a conspicuous stigma because it is often identifiable, although there are certainly instances of people of color identifying as multiracial rather than occupying a strictly bounded category or people of color “passing” as white. That queerness is a concealable identity facilitates the tendency for people to see, for example, a masculine woman, assume she is a lesbian and thus feel reinforced in the belief that lesbians are mannish. Never mind all the lesbians and gay men who do not fit the stereotype; such individuals never appear on one’s “gaydar” screen. There are feminine-looking lesbians and masculine-looking gay men. There are transgender people who are read as cisgender. Because not all LGBTQ+ people are absolutely identifiable, those who do not fit one’s schema are not coded as LGBTQ+ and thus the viewer gets locked into a pretty simplistic idea of what LGBTQ+ people look like or act like. So, queer people are out and about living their lives whether or not people “see” them as such. There are particular cultural stereotypes that lead to people inaccurately coding people as LGBTQ+. For example, Italian respondents in one study assumed black and white men were heterosexual and had masculine traits compared to Asian men.¹⁸ Another study found that gayness “deracializes” Asians, Latine, black, and white men.¹⁹ That is, when people get information that a man is gay, his ethnicity/race becomes less salient if he is white and, for men of color, they are perceived as “whiter.”

The idea of who is perceived as gay and who is not goes beyond simple perceptual biases. Assumptions about flaunting directly relate to hostility toward members of the queer community. For example, people who perceive LGBTQ+ people to be intentionally communicating their sexual orientation are viewed negatively compared to LGBTQ+ people who are not perceived to be “flaunting” their identity. A study by David Lick and colleagues found that the gender atypical characteristics associated with lesbians and gay men were perceived to be deliberate and that belief led to negative evaluations of them.²⁰ For instance, if a man walked in a way that “looked gay,” the walk was viewed as a deliberate attempt to advertise his sexuality and that belief angered research respondents. From these data, Lick surmised that perceivers dislike when concealable stigmas are (believed to be) advertised. Perhaps perceivers expect that concealable stigmas will remain concealed, and when they are faced with information that defies this expectation – for example, visible cues that are perceived to “flaunt” a concealable identity – respondents think that those who are queer should feel shame and that shame should be reflected in hiding their identity. This combination of stereotyped images of lesbians and gay men and the fact that they are typically not distinguishable from heterosexuals has serious implications for the treatment of not only lesbians, gay men, and transgender individuals, but also heterosexuals and cisgender people who might not conform to heteronormative gender rules. After all, Lick found that gender-atypical individuals, regardless of their actual sexual orientation, were perceived to be lesbian or gay. Lick’s study exposes the tyranny of rigid gender rules that weight down all of us because anyone who does not conform to gender stereotypes is suspect.

Stereotypes are “social constructions that perform central functions in maintaining society’s conception of itself,” according to Richard Mohr.²¹ In 1988, Mohr outlined the content and function of what he termed “antigay stereotypes.” He argued that stereotypes are not simply false generalizations, but rather beliefs that are rooted in a culture’s ideology, “the general system of beliefs by which it lives.”²² Mohr writes

The stereotype that lesbians and gay men do not conform to traditional gender roles functions to keep everyone, gay and straight, from deviating from gender prescriptions. Because, as Mohr implies, if people can take on the characteristic of another gender, or opt out of a gender, then the whole system of men’s patriarchal power crumbles. That is, patriarchy stays in place because of the fiction that men are natural leaders and women are natural helpmates to men. Thus, homophobic stereotypes function well beyond the lives of queer people. They keep everyone in their place. In middle schools and high schools, gay-baiting and homophobic bullying can target boys whether or not they are actually gay. Boys and men learn early in their social lives that femininity is toxic and, in order to be respected as men, they must shun femininity and gayness. They also learn early that an effective way to patrol the boundaries of gender is to use misogynistic and homophobic slurs with their male peers.

Mohr’s analysis is especially insightful because it reveals the link between anti-queer stereotypes (directed at both women and men) and misogyny. And more recent research exposes the link between not only anti-queer beliefs and sexism, but also anti-trans beliefs and sexism. For example, people with stronger implicit preferences for cisgender (over transgender) people reported higher rates of hostile and benevolent sexism (discussed in Chapter 4), consistent with a pattern of ambivalent sexism in which subjectively positive (but stereotyped and restrictive) feelings toward women coexist with sexist antipathy or prejudice.²⁴ Furthermore, there is a correlation between anti-transgender attitudes and gender essentialism; that is, those individuals who believe that gender is a binary category that is biologically determined have more negative attitudes toward transgender individuals compared to those who do not believe in the gender binary and its rootedness in biology. In addition, gender essentialism and sexism are both strong predictors of transgender prejudice, with higher endorsement of these variables relating to more transgender prejudice.²⁵

Because there is no definitive way of telling whether someone is gay or straight, and because there is a stigma associated with homosexuality, women are pressured to appear and behave sufficiently feminine and men are pressured to appear and behave sufficiently masculine. All of us, regardless of sexual orientation, should desire to disrupt gender myths and the rigidity of gender roles. Again, negative views about homosexuality function to keep everyone in their place. In April 2023, the Texas agriculture commissioner introduced a new dress code for the state agency. Was the dress code closed-toed shoes and hardhats in work areas? No. The new dress code was tied not to safety but to biological gender: “Employees are expected to comply with this dress code in a manner consistent with their biological gender.”²⁶ That archaic and draconian dress codes are being put in place during a virulent anti-LGBTQ+ backlash in the United States reveals the complex relationship between power, privilege, gender identity, sexual orientation, and sexism. People who are hostile to queer people are also hostile to non-queer women and men who do not conform to gender rules.

Flaunting It on the Job: Work and Politics

Again, when a group is not the norm, their existence can be viewed as a political agenda. If LGBTQ+ identities are not normal, they are not natural, and if they are not natural, they are political. Because heterosexuality and cisgender identities are constructed as normal and natural, they are viewed as apolitical, as mentioned earlier in the description of Don’t Say Gay laws. Student exposure to heterosexuality and cisgender identities is viewed as neutral and unremarkable, but noting the mere existence of LGBTQ+ people is interpreted by some as indoctrination and grooming. According to this view, it’s one thing to be gay, but it’s quite another to bring it into professional spaces. As an example, lesbian and gay professors are viewed as having a political agenda, whereas straight professors who teach the same material are not. An experiment illustrates this double standard.³⁴ US college students (mostly Latine and black) read a syllabus for a class called Psychology of Human Sexuality. The syllabus contained information about the course and a brief biography of the professor that mentions the professor’s partner’s name. After reviewing the syllabus, students responded to questions about the course and the instructor. The content of the course, everything except for the gender and the sexual orientation of the professor, was identical. On several items, lesbian/gay and straight professors were indistinguishable. However, students evaluated the lesbian and gay professor as having a “political agenda” relative to the heterosexual women or men professors. So, lesbian/gay professors who taught a course with the exact same syllabus as heterosexual professors were viewed as coming to the course with a political agenda, with personal biases, and with the aim of forcing their views of sexuality on students (to paraphrase the wording from some of the statements that measured political bias).³⁵

To some, honesty about one’s identity can be construed as a political statement, rather than mere honesty. But being LGBTQ+ is part of a person’s identity and cannot be separated from its political message. Consider the dilemma faced by an employee, in this case a university professor, invited to a dinner party with colleagues:

If this person declines the invitation altogether because of the hassle it brings, then they risk appearing anti-social, and collegiality could be a factor in judging the professor’s promotion and tenure. Collegiality often includes informal discussions about family relationships, spouses, and other aspects of one’s personal life. If your personal life is kept private, you seem unfriendly. But if you are open about your private life (the way your colleagues are), you may be viewed as flaunting your sexuality. The lesbian or gay professional’s sexual orientation is a source of possible controversy in a manner that the heterosexual’s is not. That one could face discrimination in the hiring or promotion process because of the gender of one’s dinner-party date is a fear that few heterosexuals face.

There is a double standard used when judging the sexualized behavior of heterosexuals versus lesbian and gay people. When heterosexual and gay firefighters in the UK were interviewed, a common sentiment emerged about the openness of gay firefighters about their sexuality: being gay is okay, but talking about it is not.³⁷ Fire stations, like police departments and the military, are highly masculinized environments where heterosexuality is surely flaunted in terms of men discussing sexual relations with women, pictures of women are posted in breakrooms, and so on. But for a gay or lesbian firefighter, merely disclosing one’s sexuality amounts to too much information. Keeping one’s sexuality a secret requires people not to talk about their partners, friends, family, or what they do socially. In her landmark analysis of homophobia, Suzanne Pharr argues that by making sexual orientation a bedroom issue, people feel free to argue that sex should be kept private, behind closed doors.³⁸ Therefore, by a woman merely disclosing she has a wife, for example, she appears to be flaunting it. Heterosexuals never have to disclose their sexual orientation because heterosexuality is assumed.

The High Stakes of Parental Rights and Custody

Who is the better parent, a convicted killer or a lesbian? In 1996, Mary Ward found out the answer when she lost custody of her daughter Cassey to her ex-husband, John Ward, because she was a lesbian.³⁹ Cassey, 12, had lived with her mother all of her life. In his decision, the judge explained that he granted custody to the father because he believed Cassey “should be given the opportunity to live in a nonlesbian world.” Cassey should have the “full opportunity to know that she can [l]ive another lifestyle if she wants and not be led into this lifestyle just by virtue of the fact of her living accommodations.” John Ward’s fourth marriage of two years was cited as evidence of stability. Apparently John Ward’s perceived stability hadn’t been compromised by the eight years in prison he served for the second-degree murder conviction for shooting and killing his first wife. Mary Ward died of a heart attack in 1997 before she could appeal the decision.

Stereotypes about queer people involve high stakes with dire consequences in the arena of parental rights. The circumstances in which members of the queer community may face a judge is typically in child custody disputes or adoption cases. Here you can see where merely existing as an LGBTQ+ person is akin to flaunting one’s “lifestyle.” Families have been torn apart and traumatized all because a judge could not see past a parent’s sexual orientation and their own distorted stereotypes about LGBTQ+ people. It is not surprising then, in this political atmosphere that assumes merely existing as a queer person constitutes “flaunting” one’s sexuality, that judges in family law cases erroneously presume that queer parents will perform, demonstrate, and otherwise flaunt sexual behavior and that heterosexual parents will not.⁴⁰ Arbitrary and sometimes contradictory rules are applied to queer people in the legal system – rules not applied to straight people. For example, sometimes being in a relationship if a parent is LGBTQ+ is grounds for losing custody of a child. Kimberly Richman analyzed the language of all US appellate court decisions over a period of 50 years in which there was a custody dispute involving a lesbian, gay, or bisexual parent, covering 235 cases in all.⁴¹ In 47% of the cases, the court criticized the parent for associating with others who were openly gay. For instance, sometimes in order for mothers to get custody of their children, they were barred from living with a woman partner. What underlies these decisions is judges’ views that queer relationships are bad for children. Judges have described lesbian and gay relationships as “unusual,” “irregular,” and “abnormal.”⁴² As Richman discovered, the implication here is that parents should be able to separate their behavior from their sexual identity and not “act on” their homosexuality. This sentiment is the same as a common refrain among some religious bigots: “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” Imagine a heterosexual parent being ordered to not act on their heterosexuality? They can raise their child as long as they avoid any romantic relationships and do not associate with other heterosexuals.

There is the sometimes tacit, sometimes explicit, expectation that it is a queer parent’s duty to shield children from the evidence of their sexuality. In one case, a gay father was accused of “choosing his own sexual gratification” over his child merely because he openly affirmed his gay identity. Another analysis of child custody cases found judges making peculiar comparisons of parents’ behavior.⁴³ For instance, during one proceeding a judge stated, “Mrs. K’s homosexuality is … no more of a bar to her obtaining custody than is the fact of Mr. K’s drug use.” Mrs. K was eventually granted custody of her child because the judge concluded: “[T]heir relationship will be discreet and will not be flaunted to the children or to the community at large.”⁴⁴ In another case, the court criticized a lesbian mother and removed her child from her custody because the mother allegedly “felt her individual rights [to live with a companion] were as important as her child’s.”⁴⁵ Imagine a heterosexual parent being chastised in this way. On the other hand, a gay father was called untrustworthy by a judge for hiding his homosexuality from family members. Queer parents are subjected to double standards and hypocrisy as courts try to wiggle out of recognizing their rights as parents.

The lesson from these cases seems to be this: It’s theoretically okay to be gay as long as you’re not actually gay. It is relatively rare that heterosexuals have to prove that their relationships would not negatively affect their children – in fact, heterosexual relationships are generally perceived as a sign of stability, whereas queer relationships are constructed as a sign of flaunting and grooming. Again, the arbitrary and contradictory rules applied to queer families reflect the ignorance and discomfort around LGBTQ+ families by some judges. Judges must uphold a veneer of fairness and objectivity and so they can’t simply declare that queer families are an abomination (although some judges have done just that). Instead, they use a kind of pop-psychology “logic” through which they launder their anti-queer attitudes.

As we saw earlier, some judges claim that a parent who acknowledges their minority sexual orientation will harm their children. How does openness about parental sexuality actually impact queer parents and their children? In a review of the research, Charlotte Patterson found that lesbian mothers’ psychological well-being was related to the extent to which they were open about their sexual orientation with employers, ex-husbands, and their children.⁴⁶ A mother who felt comfortable disclosing her identity was also more likely to express a greater sense of well-being. In light of the child development research finding that children’s adjustment in heterosexual families is often related to maternal mental health, we could expect factors that enhance mental health among lesbian mothers may also benefit their children. There is also some evidence that children whose fathers rejected the mother’s lesbian identity tended to report lower self-esteem than those whose fathers who were neutral or positive. Finally, the age at which children learn of a parent’s lesbian, gay, or bisexual identity can impact how the child responds. Basically, the earlier a child learns of parent’s queer sexual orientation, the better the child will feel about it and the more adjusted the child will be. In stark contrast to some judicial rulings, by all available accounts, it’s best for children with a queer parent to learn early of their parent’s sexuality, to have a parent who is open about their sexuality and is in a stable romantic relationship, and to be in an environment where others are affirming or at least accepting of the parent’s sexuality.

Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are no more pathological than heterosexual relationships despite what we might hear from opportunistic politicians. In a study conducted before the legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States, Kimberly Balsam and colleagues compared same-sex couples in civil unions, same-sex couples not in civil unions, and heterosexual married couples on a variety of issues such as conflict, intimacy, and relationship quality.⁴⁷ Balsam found that compared with heterosexual married participants, both types of same-sex couples reported greater relationship quality, compatibility, and intimacy, and lower levels of conflict. Same-sex couples not in civil unions were more likely to have ended their relationships than same-sex civil union or heterosexual married couples. Another study compared the relationships between same-sex couples with three categories of heterosexual couples: dating, engaged, and married. Results indicated that individuals in committed same-sex relationships were generally not distinguishable from their committed heterosexual counterparts, with one exception: in laboratory observations, lesbian couples were more effective at working together than the other groups.⁴⁸

Children of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Parents

All this discussion regarding judicial concerns about queer parents’ flaunting (i.e., acknowledging their sexuality and living their life) their sexuality brings up an important question. What impact does having a lesbian, gay, or bisexual parent have on a child? When judges express concern for the development of children of queer parents, they identify four areas concern: mental health, social/school relationships, gender-stereotyped behavior, and gender/sexual identity. Let’s begin with mental health. Charlotte Patterson reviewed all available studies on the effects a queer parent’s sexuality has on their child.⁴⁹ Not only are children not harmed in questions of, for example, psychological adjustment or self-esteem, but research shows that children raised by open lesbian, gay, or bisexual parents do just as well as children of heterosexuals. For example, the self-esteem among daughters of lesbian mothers whose partners lived with them was higher than the self-esteem of daughters whose lesbian mothers did not live with a partner (there were no comparable patterns with sons). The relationship between daughters’ self-esteem and mothers with live-in partners is only correlational, meaning we cannot necessarily conclude that lesbians living with partners causes the daughters of lesbians to have high self-esteem. Perhaps mothers with high self-esteem themselves are more likely to be involved in a romantic relationship and to have daughters who also have high self-esteem. Regardless of how it is interpreted, there is no evidence to suggest that a live-in partner of a lesbian negatively impacts their children.⁵⁰

Nanette Gartrell and colleagues have tracked children of lesbian parents in a longitudinal study over a 30-year period.⁵¹ The families are mostly white with higher-than-average income, and thus their generalizability to the larger US and beyond population is limited; nonetheless, these data are important in giving a picture of queer families. This study has an over 90% retention rate of family participation. When Gartrell’s cohort of children were 17-year-olds, parent reports on their children’s behavior were compared to an age-matched sample from heterosexual parents. The children of lesbian parents were reportedly less likely to engage in rule-breaking and aggressive behavior than children of heterosexual parents.⁵² When Gartrell’s participants were 25 years old they were assessed on mental health, and again compared to age-matched children of heterosexuals, there were no significant differences in measures of mental health between children of lesbians and children of heterosexual mothers.⁵³ Another study of 6- to 16-year-old children of same-sex or other-sex parents in the Netherlands examined the children’s mental health.⁵⁴ Researchers examined emotional problems, conduct problems, hyperactivity, anti-social behavior, and peer relations. Measures were completed by parents. Results showed that children in both family types showed similar levels of behavioral and psychological adjustment – there were no statistically significant differences on the dimensions measured.

Children of lesbian and gay parents are not free of psychological distress, however. Homophobic victimization of these kids plays an important role in their mental health and at-risk behavior. This is what was found in a Canadian study of 14- to 21-year-old youths raised by lesbian or gay parents.⁵⁵ These children reported more psychological distress than their peers and more use of hard drugs. However, they were less likely to have ideas of suicide, and their suicide attempts, self-esteem, soft drug use, and delinquent behaviors did not differ from peers. As hypothesized, many youth reported victimization related to their parents’ sexual orientation. Moreover, in accordance with the minority stress paradigm, there were significant correlations between homophobic victimization and psychological distress, delinquent behavior, consumption of alcohol, and drug use. When gender and homophobic victimization is taken into account, there are sadly predictable outcomes. Significant correlations were discovered with boys’ delinquent behavior, psychological distress, consumption of alcohol, and drug use. Conformity pressures to adhere to gender norms are stronger for boys than for girls. Thus, boys may experience higher levels of stress when they are targets of homophobic bullying. For girls, a significant correlation was found between homophobic bullying and hard drugs consumption only. It is true that girls seemed to be less affected than boys, yet still their hard drugs consumption is alarming. Nearly half of the sample of youth from lesbian and gay parent families reported experiences of homophobic bullying in the prior six months and these experiences were linked to their psychosocial problems, particularly for boys. Despite a more inclusive and open social context for sexual minorities compared to previous decades, these findings clearly show that negative attitudes toward queer families are still a challenge.⁵⁶

In addition to the implications discussed earlier, heterosexuals’ equating queer identity or “lifestyle” with only sexual behavior has implications for programs aimed at prejudice and discrimination reduction in schools. Many schools in the United States have programs, sometimes related to bullying and conflict resolution, aimed at reducing racial and gender prejudice and discrimination. These programs would obviously lend themselves to working against anti-queer prejudice. However, many of these programs do not include the topic of sexual orientation because some teachers and school administrators believe the discussion would automatically be part of “sex education” and so they fear parents and politicians will complain, or children will need signed permission slips in order to participate in such a curriculum. Significantly, Don’t Say Gay laws will likely prevent schools from addressing homophobic bullying.

The second area of concern about children of queer parents is social relationships and adjustment at school. A study of UK children raised by same-sex couples found that they did not differ in their family and school relationships from children with heterosexual parents.⁵⁷ However, children of same-sex parents have reported less support from school administrators and teachers, compared to their peers with heterosexual parents.⁵⁸ Gartrell’s cohort of lesbian mothers of 17-year-olds reported earlier also looked at social relations and found that these teens were rated significantly higher in social competence and school competence compared to same-age matched peers with heterosexual parents.⁵⁹

A third area of concern is whether children of queer parents will conform to gender stereotypes and rules as much as children of heterosexual parents do. Of course, this concern assumes that gender-stereotyped behavior conformity is a good thing – is good for the individual child and for society. I reject that notion but here we are. Charlotte Patterson’s early review of studies found that children of lesbian, gay, or bisexual parents are no different than children raised by heterosexuals in terms of gender-role behavior (the extent to which a person’s activities are gender stereotyped). The only exception found is a slight tendency for daughters of lesbian mothers to be more interested in rough-and-tumble play and masculine-stereotyped toys such as trucks (there were no comparable differences for sons).⁶⁰ Of course, many girls are tomboys regardless of who their parents are. As Patterson concluded in her summary of these studies, “In all these studies, the behavior and preferences of children in unconventional families were seen as falling within conventional limits.”⁶¹ The gender stereotyped behavior of children of lesbian, gay, and heterosexual parents was investigated in a more recent longitudinal study of 106 US families.⁶² Most of the parents in the study were white and 50% of the kids were white. The researchers observed kids and parents play with a variety of toys brought by researchers. Researchers visited the family two times over five years beginning when the kids were 4 years old. On average, scores for parent-reported, child-reported, and researcher-observations were more likely to reflect adherence to gender conformity than gender nonconformity. Like other studies, boys are more rigid about gender roles. Boys demonstrate significantly greater aversion than same-aged girls to describing themselves in gender-nonconforming ways with regard to traits, activities, and occupational aspirations. For preschoolers, girls played with gender-conforming and gender-nonconforming toys for approximately equal amounts of time, whereas boys spent more time with toys that fit their gender identity than with those that did not. The sexual orientation of parents did not predict how the children behaved. These researchers found that, “children’s gender-typing over time was predicted by gender, age, and earlier play styles, but not by parental sexual orientation.” They conclude: “Thus, it appears that having both a male and female role model in the home is not necessary for facilitating typical gender development among adopted children, nor does it discourage gender nonconformity.”⁶³ Personally, I am disappointed that children of lesbian and gay parents are as gender stereotyped as their counterparts with heterosexual parents, but these findings should set judges’ and politicians’ minds at ease if they fear that queer parents will raise gender outlaws. But it is worth noting that subverting rigid gender stereotypes can have benefits for girls and boys, especially when they grow up and form adult romantic relationships.⁶⁴

The fourth, and perhaps most significant concern by some is whether children of lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents are more likely to identify as LGBTQ+ than are children of straight and cisgender parents. Again, this concern is only legitimate if you believe that being LGBTQ+ is bad. The findings in this area are mixed. Patterson’s review of studies found that children of lesbian or gay parents are no different than children raised by heterosexuals in terms of their gender identity (a child’s self-identification as a girl or boy).⁶⁵ If we circle back to Gartrell’s longitudinal study of children of lesbian parents, we have some data about sexual orientation of these children. Gartrell and colleagues examined the sexual orientation of the kids when they were 25 years old and compared them to same-age children of heterosexuals.⁶⁶ Most of the children in both groups identified as heterosexual. Specifically, 70% of the lesbians’ and 90% of the heterosexuals’ adult children identified as straight. In addition, the adult children from lesbian parents were significantly more likely to report same-sex attraction and same-sex sexual experiences. Gartrell suggests that kids of lesbians might have more expansive perspectives on gender and sexuality because they were raised by parents who may be non-judgmental about their exploration of non-heterosexual relationships.

In her analysis of court cases involving lesbian and gay parents described earlier, Kimberly Richman found a consistent thread of concerns about “homosexual recruitment.” Judges fear that a child will model themself after a gay role model or that a parent’s “sexual disorientation”⁶⁷ will rub off on a child, catching it as if it’s a gay germ. If this were true, why wouldn’t the heterosexual parents of lesbians and gay children convert them to heterosexuality? If sexual orientation developed in a role-model fashion, there would be few lesbians and gay men in our society because of the clear social sanctions against it. And why would lesbians and gay men want to recruit children? Lesbians and gay adults are interested in relationships with other lesbian and gay adults, not heterosexuals and not children.

Pedophiles and Groomers?

In 2022, legislation was introduced in the US House of Representatives called the “Stop the Sexualization of Children Act.”⁶⁹ The name of the bill sounds innocent enough, even necessary. Who wouldn’t support such a law? Girls are routinely sexualized in advertisements, television and film,⁷⁰ and they have been trafficked across state and country lines. However, an examination of the bill’s language reveals very different goals from what the name of the bill suggests. The law would have prohibited the use of federal funding “to develop, implement, facilitate or fund any sexually oriented program, event or literature for children under the age of 10.” Sounds reasonable. However, the bill defines “sexually oriented” as “any depiction, description, or simulation of sexual activity, any lewd or lascivious depiction or description of human genitals, or any topic involving gender identity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual orientation, or related subjects.” That’s right. The bill compresses anything about sexual orientation and gender identity with pornography and sexual exploitation of children. Acknowledging that some people have two moms is the same as porn. Reporting from the Washington Post finds that the congressmember who introduced the bill is hyping the bill as a necessary step to fight back against the liberal agenda for public schools, echoing baseless but increasingly popular accusations from the political right that LGBTQ+ teachers in public schools are “grooming” children for sexual abuse. The representative posted on social media: “The Democrat Party and their cultural allies are on a crusade to immerse young children in sexual imagery and radical gender ideology at school and in public.”⁷¹

The fundamental notion that LGBTQ+ people are believed to flaunt their sexuality is rooted in some people’s belief that the difference between queerness and non-queerness can be reduced to sexual behavior. Queerness is all about sex. Let’s look at the manifestations and consequences of this tendency to reduce queer identity to sexual behavior. A common stereotype of gay men is that they are child molesters.⁷² Think about it. Would you rather entrust your child to a babysitter who is heterosexual or homosexual? In fact, most child sexual abusers are heterosexual men. When young boys are molested by men, this is often taken as evidence that the molester is a homosexual. However, many molesters are pedophiles, individuals who are sexually fixated on children. Sometimes the fixation is on boys, more often on girls,⁷³ and sometimes on both. Pedophiles do not develop mature sexual relationships with adults and some have never had an adult sexual relationship, either homosexual or heterosexual. For those adult perpetrators who do identify as heterosexual or homosexual, data from convicted sex offenders find that they are significantly more likely to identify as heterosexual than homosexual.⁷⁴ Carole Jenny and colleagues, in a study on child abuse, examined 269 child molestation cases and found that 82% of the alleged offenders were heterosexual partners of a close relative of the child, such as a stepfather.⁷⁵ In only two (0.7%) cases were the offenders identifiable as lesbian or gay. Jenny concludes, “In other words, in this sample, a child’s risk of being molested by his or her relative’s heterosexual partner is over 100 times greater than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual.”⁷⁶ Another study examined adult attraction to underage individuals through the records of 175 men convicted of child sexual abuse.⁷⁷ First, most victims were girls, a fact that is often lost in the face of anti-gay hysteria about child molestation. Second, in terms of the 175 perpetrators examined, none were gay. The researchers conclude their study by stating, “It appears, therefore, that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater sexual risk to underage children than does the adult homosexual male.”⁷⁸

In view of available evidence, the myth of the link between gay men and child molestation can be explained primarily by homophobia and anti-gay fearmongering, and also in part by the simplistic and inaccurate belief that if a boy is molested by an adult man, the man must be gay. In most such cases, the man is likely a pedophile, not a gay man. The myth that gay men are child molesters also contributes to the belief that queer people are sexual predators who set out and are able to “recruit” innocent children and unsuspecting adults into their “lifestyle.” According to Richard Mohr, the myth of the gay child molester serves an important societal function. Earlier, we examined the function of the stereotype about lesbians and gay men being confused about their gender and gender roles. Recall that Mohr tells us that this stereotype serves to constrain and contain everyone’s (gay and straight, cis and trans) gender-related behavior (keeping all of us in gender boxes so we are not read as queer), ultimately in order to maintain patriarchal male power. Mohr also offers a cogent analysis of the stereotype that LGBTQ+ people are child molesters and groomers:

Mohr’s point here is that bad things happen in some traditional, heteronormative families, but in order to shield this idealized family arrangement from scrutiny, it is easier to blame non-normative outsiders, in this case, queer people. Mohr’s description here might remind you of the definition of scapegoating offered in Chapter 2. The innocent are guilty and the guilty are innocent. In 2016, the United States began to see a proliferation of “bathroom bills” that prohibit transgender people from using public restrooms that match their gender identity – transgender women would have to use the men’s restroom, transgender men would have to use the women’s restroom. These laws are promoted as public safety measures to prevent sexual violence against women and children by transgender people. In reality, these laws do nothing to prevent sexual violence against women and children, which is most often committed by cisgender men. Of course, if a woman or girl is sexually assaulted, the gender identity of the perpetrator has no bearing on the criminality of the act. The bills distract from violence against transgender individuals because, in fact, it is transgender people who are targeted with violence when these bills are promoted, not cisgender people.⁸⁰ Transgender individuals are more likely to be targets of violence than are cisgender individuals.⁸¹ But bathroom bills conceal all of this. Raising fears about safety for women and girls in bathrooms is an effective strategy to generate fears about trans people, reduce trans individuals’ public access rights,⁸² and shield the main perpetrators of sexualized violence: cisgender heterosexual men.

Heterosexual Obsession with Gay Sex

In this exchange, queer advice columnist Dan Savage calmly responds to a social media post from Morgan Ariel, who identifies herself as “Lioness for Jesus Christ.”⁸⁵ Ariel’s post reflects the curious fascination, bordering on obsession, in popular culture and among some heterosexuals about homosexual sex, whereas there seems to be no parallel on the part of queer people about heterosexual sex.

Social scientists find some evidence of this fascination with lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals and sex. Sue Sharpe interviewed middle and high schoolers about their attitudes toward homosexuality.⁸⁶ Among other features of homosexuality, the physical aspects of queer relationships bothered the young people the most. A concern that lesbian and gay peers will try to seduce them was also expressed. But the fixation with gay sex isn’t only among teenagers. In Katherine Arnup’s analysis of child custody cases involving lesbian mothers, she found that some judges have a prurient interest in the subject of lesbianism.⁸⁷ Judges’ attempts to determine what precisely constitutes “homosexual acts,” when a mother identifies herself as a lesbian or bisexual, go beyond legitimate fact-finding. In Kimberly Richman’s analysis of court documents from lesbian and gay parent custody cases, she identified many disturbing patterns, and reported that in one case, the judge extensively questioned the mother and her partner about their sexual activities. After, the judge stated that he was “struck by the primacy that … the two lesbians … give to multiple organisms [sic]. They mean more to them apparently than the children.”⁸⁸ Perhaps they meant more to the judge than the children.

Psychiatrist Martin Kantor writes about homophobia in an intriguing population – clinical patients.⁸⁹ On the one hand, homophobia operates like other forms of bigotry. For instance, homophobia flourishes in a climate of ignorance. While some homophobes have met lesbians, gay men, or bisexual people personally, few have gotten to know them well, so their ideas about homosexuality rarely come from experience with actual queer people. Their ideas come from secondary sources such as mass media, fearmongering lawmakers, and other homophobes. Therefore, their ideas about queerness are based on stereotypes and myth. Kantor states that homophobes are not interested in the truth about homosexuality because that would require them to modify their beliefs and make adjustments for all the variety (and humanity) in individuals. Indeed, being bigoted virtually requires avoiding the objects of one’s bigotry, so that eventually there is no first-hand knowledge of the subject anywhere to be found. While there are certainly stereotypes about heterosexuals – for example, the hypersexual construction worker or the hyposexual nerdy intellectual – at least some of what straight people know about other straight people is based on direct observation.

On the other hand, homophobia operates differently from other forms of bigotry, according to Kantor.⁹⁰ As a psychiatrist in a clinical setting, Kantor’s discussion of homophobia emphasizes the pathological nature of homophobia. In Kantor’s analysis, one relevant characteristic of homophobes is that they can be histrionic and prone to excessiveness. They get overexcited about homosexuality and have a reaction to it as someone who is afraid of flying can only recall stories of plane crashes and cannot think about the fact that flying is one of the safest modes of transportation. Homophobes’ anxiety feeds on itself and spreads until panic takes over. Histrionic homophobes see queer people as part of a “homosexual problem” that could take over the world. This histrionic reasoning is central in anti-gay marriage rhetoric. Politicians have been successful at conveying anti-gay hysteria in the form of having to “defend” heterosexual marriage against lesbians and gay men who could take it over. Anti-gay marriage legislation in the United States was called the Defense of Marriage Act. Of course, how could two men who want to legally marry have anything to do with a woman and man who marry? Marriage equality isn’t a zero-sum game: if Elton John can get married, that doesn’t mean that Ted Cruz has to get divorced. Against whom were heterosexuals defending marriage? To use Kantor’s language, in the mind of histrionic homophobes, they are defending heterosexual marriage against homosexuals who want to steal it away from heterosexuals and convert them. Emotional and ideological factors overwhelm logic in this position. According to Kantor, understanding homophobia as a clinical phenomenon with clear social implications, homophobia is akin to paranoia. Paranoids feel that enemies are singling them out and persecuting them; homophobes often feel that LGBTQ+ people are out to seduce them. And also like those who are paranoid, homophobes may appear perfectly normal and rational until their fixation comes up – homosexuality – at which point they become agitated, irrational, and obsessed with their enemy. This pathological condition can partly explain why many homophobes appear overly fascinated with homosexuality, obsessed with gay sex in particular.⁹¹

It does seem curious that some heterosexuals think a lot about a type of sex they (presumably) neither engage in nor desire to engage in. Some of the fascination may be the taboo of homosexuality in their community or their own psychology. Perhaps it is simply a fascination with difference. But when the fixation is paired with hostile attitudes, and support for cruel policies, a personal, private fixation becomes everyone’s problem. Thus, a closer examination for understanding is necessary. Some social scientists, particularly those influenced by psychoanalytic theory, argue that some actively homophobic people are protecting their egos from their own homosexual tendencies. Psychoanalytic theory organizes defensive responses into defense mechanisms – unconscious, implicit, reflexive psychological strategies that individuals unknowingly deploy to protect themselves from unwanted thoughts or behaviors. Projection, sublimation, and displacement are some commonly recognized defense mechanisms. Reaction formation is another. It has been studied in the context of homophobia. Reaction formation occurs when a person adopts values or beliefs, or engages in behaviors that are in opposition to feelings or impulses experienced within oneself that are deemed unacceptable. Netta Weinstein and colleagues examined the role that reaction formation might play in sexual orientation.⁹² They examined the correspondence between people’s explicit and implicit sexual orientation – the sexual orientation one reports and the sexual orientation that can be measured unconsciously, automatically, and reflexively. They then connected these two types of sexual orientation with perceived parental support. Implicit sexual orientation was measured using reaction times and subliminal primes. Mostly white US and German respondents viewed words and images that are associated with lesbians or gay men and words and images associated with heterosexual people. For each word/image, respondents were to respond with keys indicating “me” or “others.” The speed and ease with which they associated themselves (vs. others) with either gay or straight stimuli measured their implicit sexual orientation. In addition to this implicit measure, respondents self-reported their sexual orientation (explicit measure) and completed some other survey items. Weinstein was interested in whether people’s perception of parental support predicted their explicit or implicit sexual orientation and attitudes toward lesbian and gay people.

Weinstein’s findings are intriguing and speak to those who may be conflicted about or ashamed of their sexual orientation. Here are the results. Individuals who perceived their parents as supporting their autonomy showed greater congruence between implicit and explicit indices of sexual orientation – in other words, their automatic and self-reported sexual orientation matched. On the other hand, participants who experienced their parents as not supportive of their autonomy evidenced greater discrepancies. This effect was more present for individuals who perceived their fathers to be homophobic as well as non-supportive. Consistent with reaction formation, respondents’ discrepancy between implicit and explicit sexual orientation measures predicted greater self-reported homophobia, implicit hostility toward gay targets, and endorsement of anti-gay policy positions. In other words, individuals whose implicit measure of sexual orientation indicated they were lesbian or gay, but self-reported that they were straight, had more anti-gay attitudes. And this pattern was especially the case if their parents were judgmental and controlling. In addition, those with less autonomy-supportive parents tended to have less stable self-esteem, which in turn was associated with less congruence in sexual orientation measures. Participants experiencing autonomy-supportive fathers were not impacted by their fathers’ homophobic attitudes, whereas those who saw their fathers as both controlling and homophobic exhibited more discrepant implicit and explicit indices of sexual orientation. Presumably, when fathers afforded their children the freedom for self-exploration, they were not motivated to suppress gay inclinations, even when these went against paternal attitudes. When parents were viewed as controlling, and especially when fathers were seen as both controlling and homophobic, respondents exhibited less congruency in sexual orientation measures and in turn demonstrated more anti-gay sentiments.⁹³ Outside of the lab context, defensive processes may take the additional forms of verbal and physical assault, including bullying, directed toward those perceived to be gay.

Another study employed a different methodology but yielded similarly intriguing findings also consistent with reaction formation. Henry Adams and colleagues divided a group of self-described heterosexual men into homophobes, defined as those with an irrational fear, hatred, and intolerance of lesbians and gay men, and non-homophobes, based on their responses on a survey about attitudes toward homosexuals.⁹⁴ Each man viewed three segments of video: sex between two women, sex between two men, and sex between a woman and a man. During viewing, each man’s penis was attached to a penile plethysmograph, an instrument that measures penile circumference (erections). After viewing the clips, each man was asked to report his degree of arousal to each clip. Thus, the study contained two measures of arousal: physiological as measured by the plethysmograph, and the men’s own self-report. The results revealed a startling disconnect between physiological and self-reported arousal among the homophobic men. Both groups of men reported feeling more aroused watching the lesbian sex and the heterosexual sex videos than the gay male sex. However, when it came to the men’s physiological arousal, the homophobic men showed significantly more arousal while watching the gay men having sex than the non-homophobic men did. In other words, the men who dislike homosexuals were aroused by the gay video while the men who are comfortable with homosexuals were not aroused. The easiest explanation for these paradoxical findings comes from psychoanalytic psychology: the homophobic men doth protest too much. Gay men’s sex threatens their own homosexual impulses. This explanation suggests that men who actively dislike gay men may have homosexual tendencies themselves that they are acting against – maybe they are in fact gay. While the men who do not have anything to prove, who are not aroused by other men, do not feel the need to express negativity toward gay men. The argument that homophobes-are-latent-homosexuals is intriguing to be sure. At the same time, it’s worth pointing out that sexual desire isn’t the only explanation for men’s erections. Erections can indicate other arousal states such as fear and embarrassment. Also, we must be cautious and not assume that every homophobe is a closeted homosexual – not everyone who is homophobic is gay just as not every closeted lesbian or gay man is homophobic. But this research does suggest that perhaps a segment of those men who are fearful and hateful toward gay men might in fact have same-sex desires themselves. Taken together, the Weinstein study and the Adams study do provide some intriguing explanations for some people’s extreme anti-gay attitudes.

In recent decades, the debate over queer rights has been dotted with instances of overtly anti-gay politicians being “caught” having a secret gay life. Anti-LGBTQ+ Republican US senator Larry Craig was arrested for lewd behavior with another man in a public restroom. Anti-LGBTQ+ Tennessee lieutenant governor Randy McNally was found to have corresponded with gay influencers and regularly commented on their sexually explicit social media posts. Roy Ashburn, anti-LGBTQ+ Republican state senator from California, was forced to announce that he is gay following a drunk driving arrest after leaving a gay nightclub.⁹⁵ Roberto Arango, who had bullied a gay politician previously, was forced to resign from the Puerto Rican Senate after his nude Grindr (a gay dating app) photos were made public.⁹⁶ Republican Ohio State representative Wes Goodman resigned after being found to solicit young men for sex.⁹⁷ The cofounder of the anti-queer extremist group “Family Research Council” George Rekers solicited male prostitutes.⁹⁸ Republican state representative from Washington, Richard Curtis, who had voted against domestic partnership rights for queer couples and against banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, resigned when he was accused of soliciting a gay escort.⁹⁹ In the 2020s, Hungary has one of the most anti-LGBTQ+ governments in Europe. József Szájer, a member of Hungary’s far right government who helped draft the change in Hungary’s constitution declaring that marriage can only be considered between a woman and man, was exposed as attending an “orgy” with 20 other men.¹⁰⁰ Such stories do not explain all anti-gay fervor, but they do offer an interesting lens into the complex relationship between overt bigotry and covert contradictions.

The Heterosexual Agenda: Who Grooms Children?

So, do LGBTQ+ people flaunt their sexuality? Not especially. Do heterosexuals flaunt their sexuality? Absolutely. Consider this. We are bombarded with conspicuous and extravagant heterosexual displays: wedding rings, holding hands and kissing in public, and coworkers who compulsively display pictures of their wives and husbands and girlfriends and boyfriends in their workplace. Such blatant exhibitions, however, generally do not register as flamboyance or as grooming; rather, they are unnoticed, everyday norms. The thing to deliberately notice here is the ubiquitous displays of heterosexual normativity, romance and sex that are placed front-and-center, with bright spotlights, on a daily basis: heterosexual celebrities sharing details about their other-sex partners on talk shows; heterosexual engagement and shower invitations from friends, relatives, and coworkers; bridal magazines and expos; nearly every scripted television show and film; nearly every reality TV show (whether the theme is dating or not); Valentine’s Day. Yes, your community may have an annual LGBTQ+ pride parade, but everyday life is a parade of heterosexual and cisgender sexuality.

Heterosexuality is groomed in children from birth. Young children, even infants, are described by their heterosexual parents as “flirts,” and grownups regularly make comments about which little kids are going to marry each other. Adults encourage little boys to kiss little girls and describe such violations as “cute” or “sweet.” Parents can buy infant onesies that say “Little Pimp,” “Future Pimp,” “Daddy’s Sweetest Valentine,” and “Playground Flirt.” This is not a gay or transgender agenda. This reflects a heterosexual agenda. Cross-gender daycare friendships are referred to as a boyfriend and girlfriend. High schools and colleges crown Homecoming Queens and Kings. Then there is the purity ball phenomenon. Purity balls are a remnant of the evangelical Christian-based abstinence-only sex education programs of the early 2000s. The purity ball centers on maintaining the virginity of girls and young women until marriage. Daughters pledge their virginity to their fathers at ceremonies that resemble a mashup of a debutante ball, prom, and mass wedding. These events usually include a formal dinner, father–daughter dance, posed father–daughter photographs, and a ceremony during which each daughter pledges her sexual purity to her father, who places a ring on the girl’s left hand that she wears as an ongoing symbol of the sexual promise she has made to her father.¹⁰¹ These events are heterosexual facsimiles of other heterosexual rituals. There is no space at these events for boys, queer girls, queer boys, non-binary people, or anyone else that disrupts the heterosexual cisgender binary performed by the father–daughter couples. This is grooming.

Lesbian poet Adrienne Rich describes this process of normative heterosexuality and grooming as compulsory heterosexuality. Sexual orientation differences are flattened; assimilation is necessary in a heterosexist system. Rich describes the historical continuity of lesbian existence alongside the coercion that keeps women in heterosexual structures:

Because heterosexuality is the normative sexual orientation and cisgender is the normative gender identity, adoption of those identities is supported – and mandated – by family members, friends, strangers, and popular culture.

Complicating Contact

In Chapter 2, “Those People All Look Alike,” we explored the role of intergroup contact in prejudice reduction. The contact hypothesis is the notion that contact between members of different groups will improve relations between them. The idea is that when one has contact with people they do not know much about and have a lot of assumptions about, interacting with them reduces schematic thinking about the person and one begins to see them as a person and not a cartoonish category. Intergroup contact has great potential in reducing prejudice against members of the queer community because a major reason non-queer people have negative ideas about queer people is that they haven’t met or gotten to know many actual LGBTQ+ people. This is particularly the case regarding transgender individuals. Trans identities are fewer in number than other identities associated with sexual orientation – lesbian, gay, bisexual – and those with less contact with trans people are more likely to be prejudiced against them.¹¹² The converse is true as well. The more contact cisgender people have had with transgender individuals, the lower they score on measures of transphobia.¹¹³ In middle and high schools in the United States, schools that have gay–straight student alliances are more likely to have positive mental health and physical health outcomes for queer students.¹¹⁴

Social psychologists have discovered four conditions under which contact between members of different groups can reduce prejudice.¹¹⁵ First, groups that are required to cooperate with each other often see reduced prejudice among group members. If members of a high school’s Campus Christians are required to work with the Gay–Straight Alliance toward some overarching goal that benefits both groups, a reduction in prejudice may result. Further, if members of a group are required to work with each other (e.g., project at work) rather than given a choice, a decrease in prejudice is more likely to result.¹¹⁶ Second, in order for prejudice reduction to take place, people who are coming into contact have to be on an equal footing. Picture a straight man and lesbian who are coworkers who have to produce a project together toward some specific goal. This interaction could result in prejudice reduction. Third, acquaintance potential, or contact over an extended period of time, is much more effective than a brief encounter between group members. Extended contact has the potential of getting to know someone personally, reducing some of the apparent significance of traits and characteristics that distinguish us from someone else, and, in the process, discovering that we really aren’t very different from each other. For instance, if a close relative brings home a same-sex partner, one’s acceptance of that particular person and their acceptance of homosexuality in general may increase more than if there is only occasional contact with an acquaintance. Recall Barry Goldwater, the conservative senator from Arizona, who, unlike many Repbublicans, supported gay rights. Prior to his death in 1998, he actively worked on behalf of lesbian and gay rights, folding gay rights into his libertarian beliefs. His progressive views in this one area may have been due to his having a gay grandson and other gay relatives.¹¹⁷ Fourth, the reduction of prejudice requires consistent institutional support, whatever the larger context happens to be. Intergroup contact works best as a prejudice reduction tool when it occurs in a setting in which existing norms explicitly favor group equality. Those in authority – CEOs, politicians, and others – must unambiguously endorse egalitarian norms. When influential leaders, whether they lead a country or a middle-school, take a public and vigilant stance in favor of equity, inclusion, and justice, this stance has tendrils throughout an organization and country. Of course, the opposite is true as well. When the Trump administration banned transgender soldiers from serving in the military, that declaration encouraged hostility toward trans people.¹¹⁸

Individual Strategies for Work, School, and Community

Homophobia and transphobia must be addressed on an individual basis; however, one must remember that individual acts of anti-trans and anti-gay bias do not happen in isolation, independent of a larger system that supports transphobia and heterosexism. What follows are some specific strategies for addressing transphobia and heterosexism in your community, at work, and in schools.

When you hear an anti-trans or anti-gay joke, just as when you hear a sexist or racist joke, if you laugh along with others or merely remain silent, you are supporting bigotry. It’s not enough to remain silent as a way to show your disapproval. Silence in these cases means support because when oppression is institutionalized (e.g., supported and enforced by laws and policies), all that is required to perpetuate it is for people to remain silent about it, for people to not object. Therefore, while you may not be that person who makes a dehumanizing joke in the break room, you support the joke-tellers with your silence by not actively disrupting the status quo. Your silence is interpreted as affirmation.

If you are cisgender or heterosexual, do not leave it to queer people to do the work of dismantling oppression. Transphobia, homophobia, and heterosexism are everyone’s problem. If for no other reason, heterosexuals should worry about it because if they step out of the rigid gender roles our society has in place, they risk being gay-baited themselves. If your son goes to pre-school with nail polish on his fingernails, he can be a target of anti-trans and anti-gay discrimination. Transphobia, homophobia, and heterosexism keep everyone in their narrowly defined place.

Do not make assumptions about others’ sexuality or gender identity. If someone doesn’t use a gender-specific pronoun when discussing a relationship, don’t assume one for them. Use non-gender-specific language when referring to others’ spouses or romantic partners. It never hurts to not assume, but it can hurt to assume. When people tell you their pronouns, use their correct pronouns. It’s not for you to decide what pronouns you want to use to describe someone any more than you would get to decide what name to call someone. If someone introduces themselves as Iris, you don’t get to call them Deborah. Don’t assume elders are cisgender or heterosexual. Respect someone’s loss of a same-sex partner as you would for a person who is heterosexual.

In your workplace, ask your human resources officer about same-sex partner benefits and policies that protect against anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination. You do not need to be a queer person yourself to care about this. If nothing else, asking these questions raises the awareness of the HR department. And it might make you think twice about whether you want to invest yourself in an organization that discriminates.

Have something related to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender community in your office or cubicle in a prominent place. A book, sticker, poster, or flyer can help make a queer person feel comfortable and safe. Normalize affirmation and acceptance. Only through such alliances and the actions of non-gay and cis people can homophobia and transphobia be undone at the individual and institutional levels. If you are a teacher or professor, use role models and examples of lesbian and gay people casually but consistently when talking about relationships and families. If you are a school teacher, administrator, or parent, respond to slurs that kids use such as “gay” and “fag.” Don’t dismiss or treat these words as general bad names such as “stupid” – they are more than that. They are a message about gender rules and are hurtful especially to children who are lesbian or gay, and even for children who are not. The unchecked use of these words leads to reinforcing and approving of discrimination and bigotry. Homophobic bullying tends to be normalized in many schools.

If you are a parent, ask the school administrators of your child’s school about anti-bullying policies that specifically address transphobia and homophobia. All parents should do this, not just LGBTQ+ parents or parents of a queer child. You do not want your child raised and educated in a school environment that systematically encourages or tolerates prejudice and discrimination. No one is safe in environments that disregard the social significance of these forms of bullying and disparagement. If you are a teacher, school counselor, or administrator, learn about, consult with, and refer to local LGBTQ+ community organizations. Familiarize yourself with resources and call them before encouraging a student to seek out these resources. Make sure they are ongoing and make sure they actually offer what your students and families need. Also, become aware of queer-themed bibliographies and refer to LGBTQ+-positive books. In your curriculum, make sure that you include and normalize the presence of and achievements of LGBTQ+ people. Show up to school board meetings in which books are being banned and teachers are being fired. Demand support for LGBTQ+ kids, families, and curricula.

If you are an active member of a religious community, take a leadership role at your place of worship for promoting affirmation of LGBTQ+ people that includes making a congregation a comfortable place of worship for all identities, one that values and respects all kinds of people, and one that practices the precepts of inclusion and equality in its own hiring and theological decisions. Ask religious leaders about their position and attitudes toward queer people and make clear to them your position. Reducing prejudice and the many forms of discrimination that result from it is in all our hands, and it is our responsibility to make the specific efforts that will raise awareness and transform attitudes.

Finally, as anti-LGBTQ+ bills sweep the nation, get educated about these measures, speak up when your local school board is banning diverse curricula or firing brave educators and librarians, show up at your congressmember’s office when they support bans on education and life-affirming health care. Take part in coalitions fighting hateful policies, and talk to your friends, neighbors, and coworkers about your efforts. Call out lawmakers when they say we need these policies to “protect the children.” And be proactive – join local efforts to advance LGBTQ+ rights, even if progressive measures are unlikely to pass in your community right now. We have to fight for the world we want and not just against the world we don’t want.