Subtle Discrimination 1

Running head: SUBTLE DISCRIMINATION TOWARD LGB PERSONS

“It’s like a bunch of mosquitoes coming at you...”: Exploring the Ubiquitous Nature of Subtle

Discrimination and its Implications for the Everyday Experiences of LGB Individuals

Lisa M. Jewell, PhD (candidate)

Jessica M. McCutcheon, MA (candidate)

Rebecca L. Harriman, PhD (candidate)

Melanie A. Morrison, PhD

University of Saskatchewan

Acknowledgements: This research was supported by the Institute of Gender and Health of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in the form of a research grant awarded to the Sexual and Gender Diversity: Vulnerability and Resilience Research team. Correspondence should be Subtle Discrimination 2 addressed to: Melanie A. Morrison, Department of Psychology, University of Saskatchewan, 9 Campus Drive, Arts Building, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, S7N 5A5, email: [email protected], telephone: (306) 966-2564. Subtle Discrimination 3

ABSTRACT

Emerging evidence suggests that, in addition to experiencing blatant forms of discrimination, sexual minority individuals are subjected to subtle homonegative behaviours. However, understanding the nature of subtle discriminatory behaviours, including the contexts in which they arise and their effects on lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals, is limited. In the current study, 19 Canadian LGB persons (11 men; 8 women) recruited from the community (i.e., non-students) participated in face-to-face interviews about their experiences of subtle discrimination. Results indicated that participants most commonly encountered subtle homonegative behaviours in their workplaces, health care settings, and family relationships. In addition, participants perceived that homonegativity was pervasive across all domains of life.

Implications of the subtle discrimination experienced by the participants included: experiencing feelings of isolation and invisibility, hyper-vigilance, fragmentation of self, and a desire to conceal one’s sexual orientation. The limitations associated with the study along with directions for future research on subtle forms of LGB discrimination are outlined.

Key words: discrimination, homonegativity, gay men, lesbian women, well-being Subtle Discrimination 4

Most research exploring sexual minority individuals’ experiences with victimization has focused on blatant, and often extreme, forms of discrimination, such as physical, verbal, and sexual assaults (D’Augelli & Grossman, 2001; Herek, Gillis, Cogan, & Glunt, 1997; Herek,

2009). In addition to these blatant manifestations of homonegativity (defined as negative cognitive, affective, and behavioural responses directed toward individuals perceived to be gay or lesbian; Hudson & Ricketts, 1980), emerging evidence suggests that sexual minority group members also face subtle types of discrimination (e.g., Jewell & Morrison, in press; Kitzinger,

2005; Morrison & Morrison, 2002; Peel, 2001; Speer & Potter, 2000). To date, less attention has been devoted to understanding the nature and impact of subtle discrimination on sexual minority persons. This gap in the literature is disconcerting for two reasons. First, the research which does exist pertaining to the perpetration of subtle homonegative behaviours suggests that, at least in some environments (e.g., universities), subtle behaviours may be more prevalent than blatant behaviours (Burn, 2000; Jewell & Morrison, in press). Second, there is evidence to suggest that subtle discriminatory behaviours may be just as harmful as blatant behaviours (Silverschanz,

Cortina, Konik, & Magley, 2008; Swim, Johnston, & Pearson, 2009; Waldo, 1999). Given the frequency with which subtle discrimination may be perpetrated and the detrimental effects thought to be associated with this form of discrimination, the dearth of research pertaining to subtle homonegativity reflects a critical omission. As such, the goal of the current study is to investigate Canadian lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals’ experiences with subtle discrimination across multiple environments (e.g., home, work, and health care) and from varied sources (e.g., family, friends, co-workers, and strangers). In the following sections, we will Subtle Discrimination 5 clarify the terminology employed throughout this paper and review relevant literature pertaining to the behavioural expression of subtle forms of homonegativity.

Subtle Prejudice and Discrimination: Background and Definitions

To date, several frameworks have been developed to characterize subtle prejudice and discrimination directed toward LGB persons. One such framework is the theory of modern homonegativity, developed by Morrison and Morrison (2002), which purports that some heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men and lesbian women are no longer rooted in religious and moral objections to homosexuality, but instead are based on abstract political concerns pertaining to the provision of rights to, and equality of, sexual minority persons. Core assumptions of this theory are: 1) gay men and lesbian women are making illegitimate demands for change; 2) discrimination against gay and lesbian individuals is a thing of the past; and 3) gay men and lesbian women exaggerate the importance of their sexual orientation which prevents them from assimilating into mainstream culture (Morrison & Morrison, 2002). According to this theory, individuals who endorse modern homonegativity typically perceive themselves to be egalitarian and, as a result, are only likely to act on their anti-gay/lesbian bias when additional (non-bias related) factors can be used to explain any behaviours that may be perceived as anti-gay/lesbian

(Morrison & Morrison, in press).

Another framework used to understand subtle discrimination is heteronormativity.

Kitzinger (2005) defines heteronormativity as “socio-legal (e.g., Phelan, 2001), cultural (e.g.,

Lancaster, 2003), organizational (e.g., Grace, 1999), and interpersonal (e.g., Blasius, 2000) practices that derive from and reinforce a set of taken-for-granted presumptions relating to sex and gender” (p. 478). Many of these presumptions centre on the ideas that there are only two Subtle Discrimination 6 sexes; heterosexuality and displays of affection between males and females are normal or natural

(whilst affection displayed by sexual minorities is not); and same sex couples are (potentially deviant) variations of opposite sex couples. On the basis of a conversation analysis examining sexual minorities’ interactions with their families and medical professionals, Kitzinger (2005) found there are myriad ways in which sexual minority persons living in the United Kingdom are excluded in everyday life. Kitzinger concludes that we live in a normative heterosexist culture where “all around us a heteronormative social fabric is unobtrusively rewoven, thread by thread, persistently, without fuss or fanfare, without oppressive intent or conscious design” (p. 478).

Thus, heteronormativity reflects everyday forms of discrimination that exclude or deny the realities of LGB persons.

Finally, heterosexism, defined by Chesir-Teran and Hughes (2009) as “a systematic process of privileging heterosexuality relative to homosexuality” (p. 964), also has been used to characterize some forms of subtle discrimination. As with heteronormativity, heterosexism can be manifested in many forms. Using a discursive approach, Peel (2001) examined the language used by heterosexual human service workers (e.g., social workers, psychologists, and university wardens) during lesbian and gay awareness training sessions over a two year period. Through her analysis, Peel (2001) identified three forms of mundane heterosexism, which she defines as

“unnoticed and (normatively) unnoticeable incidents of heterosexism” (p. 541). For instance, the belief that heterosexuals are subject to reverse discrimination was observed in the workers’ discourse. Non-heterosexuality as a deficit also was identified and refers to the idea that in order to be a “complete, fully functioning and ‘normal’ (p. 547)” person, one had to be heterosexual.

The last form of heterosexism discussed was refusing diversity, which refers to the participants’ Subtle Discrimination 7 tendency to deny the fact that gay men and lesbian women are different from heterosexual people. Other examples of how subtle, rhetorical arguments and acts of speech can be used to perpetuate heterosexism can be found in the extant literature (e.g., Land & Kitzinger, 2005;

Speer & Potter, 2000).

The frameworks presented thus far provide insight into the nature of subtle discrimination, but all are limited in their conceptualization of this construct. To date, research on modern homonegativity has focused primarily on the nature of prejudicial attitudes and considerably less attention has been devoted to understanding the ways in which these attitudes may translate into behaviour. In contrast, heteronormativity and heterosexism tend to focus on institutional structures and practices that lead to the expression of negativity toward LGB individuals and the privileging of heterosexuality over non-heterosexual orientations. However, research (Kitzinger, 2005; Land & Kitzinger, 2005; Peel, 2001; Speer & Potter, 2000) within these frameworks tends to focus on the practice of discrimination (i.e., how discrimination is manifested between individuals) and does not take psychological dimensions (e.g., intention and perceptions of harm) into account (i.e., why a certain act is considered to be discriminatory).

Therefore, in our current analysis, we propose terminology that takes into account perpetrators’ intentions when engaging in homonegativity, as well as targets’ perceptions of harm when they encounter homonegative behaviours. It should be noted that these proposed definitions do not exclude heteronormativity and heterosexism and have been adapted from ones established in the sexism literature (e.g., Benokraitis, 1997; Benokraitis & Feagin, 1995).

The term blatant discrimination refers to behaviours directed exclusively toward LGB individuals and purposefully intended to harm or derogate members of these social groups on the Subtle Discrimination 8 basis of their sexual orientation. It should be mentioned that, although these behaviours are typically directed exclusively toward the LGB target, at times, they may be indirect in nature

(e.g., if blatant anti-gay/lesbian comments are made in the presence of a sexual minority individual). Other examples of blatant anti-gay/lesbian behaviours may include physical assaults, verbal threats or harassment, chasing or following someone, and vandalizing one’s property.

These behaviours are often associated with the term homophobia; however, the term “blatant discrimination” more accurately describes these types of behaviours. Most individuals do not engage in homonegativity out of fear (as the term phobia suggests), but instead do so to express their negativity toward LGB persons (Herek, 2004). In contrast, the term subtle discrimination refers to behaviours that derogate LGB individuals and are perceived to be harmful, but are difficult to identify as being a result of anti-gay/lesbian bias due to an element of ambiguity associated with these acts. Two subcategories of subtle discrimination exist: intentional and unintentional subtle behaviours. Intentional subtle homonegative behaviours refer to behaviours deliberately directed toward LGB persons with the purpose of degrading or sabotaging these individuals, but purposefully hidden to make it difficult to identify these actions as discriminatory. Targets may be unaware that the perpetrator is engaging in this behaviour at the time the behaviour is perpetrated (e.g., in the case of spreading gossip), but find the action to be harmful when they learn about it. Alternatively, they may be uncertain about whether the perpetrator intended the action to be malicious (even though the perpetrator did intend harm). In contrast, unintentional subtle homonegative behaviours refer to behaviours that derogate lesbian and gay individuals, but are not deliberate, are often perceived to be normative, and generally go unrecognized. It is the absence of a conscious motivation to harm a gay or lesbian individual on Subtle Discrimination 9 the basis of his or her sexual orientation that distinguishes unintentional and intentional subtle homonegative behaviours. Examples of unintentional discrimination include using subtle prejudicial language (including heterosexist and heteronormative language), telling anti-gay/ lesbian jokes (when the perpetrator does not perceive these jokes as being harmful), and engaging in negative non-verbal behaviours or social distancing (if perpetrators are unaware of engaging in these actions).

In practice, it may be difficult to distinguish between intentional and unintentional discrimination, since knowledge about the perpetrator’s intentions is required. Thus, sexual minority persons may experience intentional and unintentional anti-gay/lesbian behaviours similarly. Further, it may be difficult to draw clear delineations between blatant and subtle homonegative behaviours since the context in which behaviours occur partly determines whether they are blatant or subtle. That is, factors such as the perpetrator’s intent, the intended target, and the intended audience must be taken into consideration to determine whether behaviour will be experienced as blatant or subtle. For example, a gay man may experience an anti-gay joke as subtle if he overheard a heterosexual person tell the joke to another heterosexual, whereas a derogatory joke may be experienced as blatant if it was purposefully directed toward, and intended to disparage, him. Finally, the definitions presented here reflect an initial attempt to classify the types of discriminatory behaviours directed toward LGB persons; these categories may need to be refined as additional research is conducted.

LGB Person’s Experiences with Subtle Homonegative Behaviours

It is important to examine LGB persons’ experiences with subtle discrimination because these individuals are the “true” experts of subtle anti-gay/lesbian behaviours, given their Subtle Discrimination 10

firsthand experiences with these forms of discrimination (Swim, Hyers, Cohen, & Fitzgerald,

2003). In an effort to shed light on the types of discriminatory behaviours routinely encountered by LGB persons, Swim, Pearson, and Johnston (2007) documented the frequency with which sexual minority individuals experience heterosexist hassles. Here, American LGB individuals

(N=69; most were university students) were asked to record the number of homonegative

“everyday hassles” they encountered during a one-week period. Results indicated that, on average, participants experienced two heterosexist hassles over the seven days. The majority of hassles were verbal comments (58% of the documented behaviours), including the use of language that draws upon existing stereotypes or makes assumptions about one’s sexual orientation, anti-gay/lesbian jokes, and hostile comments. Approximately 54% of these comments were explicitly directed toward the participants, while 37% of the comments were overheard. It is possible that many of the comments overheard reflected unintentional acts of discrimination. Additional heterosexist behaviours comprised 22% of the hassles reported, such as being excluded, receiving poor service, and being the recipients of aggressive or hostile behaviours (e.g., pointing, rude gestures, and hostile looks). Some of these behaviours (e.g., exclusion and poor service) also may reflect intentional or unintentional subtle discrimination.

Finally, 13% of the hassles were related to fear about having their sexual orientation revealed.

Thus, it seems that LGB persons regularly encounter a variety of blatant and subtle discriminatory episodes. However, since this study did not tease apart blatant and subtle homonegative behaviours, the frequency with which sexual minorities encounter subtle (versus blatant) discrimination remains uncertain. The diary approach also does not allow targets to Subtle Discrimination 11 describe salient incidents occurring outside of that particular week, suggesting there may be a range of experiences not captured by this “snapshot” approach.

Another study conducted by Rey and Gibson (1997) used focus groups with American gay and lesbian university students to briefly explore their perceptions of the relative severity of various anti-gay/lesbian behaviours. These ratings were then used to develop a questionnaire to assess heterosexuals’ participation in anti-gay/lesbian behaviours. The gay and lesbian students perceived that derogatory terms, statements, and jokes directed toward sexual minorities were minimally harmful, as was heterosexuals’ failure to befriend a gay or lesbian individual or their use of sexually explicit comments. The gay and lesbian students considered it to be moderately harmful to make derogatory anti-gay/lesbian statements and jokes in front of a gay or lesbian individual, as well as to purposefully ignore, exclude, or verbally harass a member of a sexual minority. It is important to note that participants found it more harmful to “overhear” homonegative comments (a behaviour which would be defined as a subtle anti-gay/lesbian behaviour if there was no intent to harm) than to have a homonegative comment explicitly directed toward them (which would constitute an act of blatant discrimination). Finally, behaviours such as ending a friendship with a gay or lesbian person, convincing others not to befriend someone who is gay or lesbian, and threatening violence, chasing or following, and/or vandalizing the property of a lesbian or gay individual were perceived to be very harmful, while physically or sexually assaulting a gay or lesbian individual was considered to be severely harmful. Many of the behaviours allocated the most severe ratings of harm were blatant in nature; however, some potentially subtle behaviours (e.g., the dissolution of a friendship and social exclusion) were perceived to be quite harmful. Unfortunately, minimal information was Subtle Discrimination 12 provided with regards to how the gay and lesbian students categorized the level of harm associated with these behaviours, leaving us with little insight into how harm was defined in this study and why some behaviours were considered more harmful than others.

A few studies have examined “homopositive” behaviours, referring to actions intended to reflect positivity toward gay and lesbian individuals, but which may be perceived as subtle indicators of prejudice (Conley, Calhoun, Evett, & Devine, 2001; Morrison & Bearden, 2007).

Conley and associates (2001) explored American LGB individuals’ perceptions about common

“mistakes” heterosexuals may make when interacting with sexual minorities to demonstrate they are not prejudiced. Some of the mistakes identified include explicitly stating that one is not prejudiced, relying on stereotypical assumptions, using subtle prejudicial language (e.g., “you people”), expecting a gay person to know (or want to know) another gay acquaintance, not avowing one’s discomfort with homosexuality, acting in line with stereotypes about LGB persons, and focusing too much on, or ignoring, the topic of homosexuality. Consequently, heterosexuals may unknowingly express prejudice toward, or discomfort with, sexual minorities when interacting with LGB persons.

Implications of Subtle Discrimination for the Well-being of Sexual Minority Individuals

The implications of subtle forms of discrimination on LGB individuals are not well understood. Most research has focused on the relationship between blatant forms of discrimination and the physical and psychological well-being of sexual minorities. These studies have consistently demonstrated that psychological distress (e.g., depression, anxiety, and lowered self-esteem) is related to victimization (D’Augelli & Grossman, 2001; Herek et al., 1997). The limited empirical evidence on the effects of subtle discrimination suggests this more insidious Subtle Discrimination 13 form of victimization also negatively affects well-being (Dovidio, 2001; Garnets, Herek, & Levy,

1990). For instance, Swim and colleagues (2009) examined the psychological sequelae of

American LGB individuals’ experiences with everyday heterosexist hassles documented via daily diaries (see Swim et al., 2007). The analysis of the diary text revealed that experiences with everyday hassles were associated with increased feelings of anxiety and anger, but not depressed mood. Heterosexist hassles also were associated with decreased collective self-esteem (i.e., feelings towards LGB individuals as a social group), but not personal self-esteem.

Silverschanz and colleagues (2008) also explored the psychological and academic outcomes of American sexual minority university students who had experienced blatant homonegative comments directed toward them personally (e.g., being called a “faggot”) and subtle comments directed toward LGB persons in general (e.g., anti-gay/lesbian jokes told in their presence). Homonegativity experienced directly and more subtly were both associated with a number of psychological and academic variables (e.g., anxiety, depression, school avoidance, and social acceptance); however, incidents of blatant discrimination exhibited slightly stronger correlations with these outcomes. Waldo (1999) also investigated the impact of direct (i.e., blatant) and indirect (i.e., subtle) homonegativity on American LGB employees’ job satisfaction, health conditions, and psychological distress. Results from this study indicated that both indirect and direct experiences of homonegativity led to decreased job satisfaction and greater psychological distress (e.g., increased depression and anxiety, and lowered self-esteem and life satisfaction). However, only direct homonegativity was associated with the presence of additional health conditions (e.g., severe headaches, ulcers, and feeling exhausted). Thus, there Subtle Discrimination 14 appears to mounting evidence suggesting that subtle discrimination negatively affects LGB individuals’ psychological well-being and overall satisfaction with various aspects of their lives.

As a means of assessing the implications of subtle discrimination beyond mental and physical health correlates, some research has explored how the presence of homonegativity may influence the degree to which an individual feels comfortable sharing his/her sexual orientation.

For example, Evans and Broido (2002) investigated the experiences of American lesbian and bisexual college students and found that these students often used subtle indicators (e.g., presence of LGB staff, LGB programming, lack of visible support, and LGB graffiti) to judge the social climate within their residence halls. Those who perceived the atmosphere to be non- accepting and hostile (even though homonegativity oftentimes had not been openly expressed) said they were hesitant to disclose their sexual orientation. Similarly, Hylton (2006) reported that, if a certain setting did not immediately appear to be LGB friendly, lesbian and bisexual

Master’s of Social Work students tended to be more careful about revealing their sexual orientation. The degree to which individuals feel compelled to manage or conceal their sexuality in public spheres may influence the extent to which they experience their identities as harmonious (Beatty & Kirby, 2006). While these studies have been helpful in advancing our understanding about the impact of subtle homonegative behaviours on sexual minorities, a majority (see Waldo [1999] as a notable exception) have examined the experiences of university students. In fact, most research exploring subtle discrimination toward gay and lesbian individuals in any capacity has tended to focus on this type of participant. It may be that the lives of LGB non-university students are affected by subtle homonegativity in ways that differ systematically from their university counterparts. Subtle Discrimination 15

Cultural Context of Research on Subtle Discrimination

Most research reviewed thus far has employed either American (e.g., Rey & Gibson,

1997; Swim et al., 2007, 2009; Waldo, 1999) or British samples (Kitzinger, 2005; Land &

Kitzinger, 2005; Peel, 2001; Speer & Potter, 2000). Little information about the nature of subtle discrimination in Canada is available; however, in comparison to the United States and the

United Kingdom, LGB persons have greater legal recognition. For instance, same sex marriage was granted federally in Canada in 2005 (Lannutti, 2005) and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited by the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms in the realms of employment, accommodation, and service provision (Hurley, 2007). Despite reduced institutional discrimination in Canada, it is unknown whether these policies serve to expel all forms of discrimination or inadvertently promote subtle anti-gay/lesbian behaviour. This study provides an initial understanding of how discrimination may be manifested in a more politically tolerant country.

Purpose of the Current Study

In sum, there is a small, but growing, body of literature assessing subtle homonegative behaviours and the effects of these behaviours on sexual minorities. Given the lack of research conducted in Canada, information about the experiences of LGB individuals residing in a country that offers greater formal protection to sexual minorities would be valuable. As well, to overcome researchers’ myopic emphasis on university students, our study investigated LGB non- students. Finally, studies that have attempted to examine the effects of subtle discrimination on

LGB individuals have tended to focus on the physical and psychological health correlates of these behaviours and have neglected to consider additional ways in which sexual minority Subtle Discrimination 16 persons may be affected (e.g., with respect to their sense of identity and personal behaviours).

Therefore, we employed a qualitative methodology that would allow us to more broadly explore

LGB individuals’ perceptions about the impact that subtle homonegative behaviours have on their lives. This study provides insight into the spectrum of subtle discriminatory behaviours that may be experienced in a variety of environments (such as work, health care, and the family), as well as the ways in which sexual minority individuals are affected by subtle homonegativity.

METHOD

Participants

To be eligible to participate in this study, interviewees had to: 1) self-identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or queer; 2) be a non-student; and 3) be able to meet with the interviewer in person. A purposive sample of 19 individuals identifying as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or queer (11 men; 8 women) was recruited from the community. Participants ranged in age from 28 to 76 years old and were employed in a variety of professions (e.g., teacher, writer, non-profit worker).

All participants resided in the province of Saskatchewan, Canada and, with the exception of one person who self-identified as Métis, were Caucasian. Pseudonyms were created to ensure participants’ anonymity. Table 1 provides specific details about each participant.

Procedure

Following ethical approval, participants were recruited from the community using a combination of approaches. Advertisements were distributed via an active listserv for a local gay and lesbian community organization, and through the Organizing Committee listserv of a local gay and lesbian conference. Further, some participants were informed of the study via word-of- mouth. Interested participants were directed to contact the first author by email or phone to verify Subtle Discrimination 17 their eligibility for the study and to arrange a time to meet with a researcher. Interviews were carried out by the first author and another graduate student research assistant.

Interviews were scheduled at a time and location that was convenient for the participant.

Most often, participants chose to be interviewed in their homes; however, two participants chose to meet the interviewer at their workplace, with five opting to meet at the city’s University campus. At the beginning of each interview, participants were asked for their written informed consent. All interviews were audio-recorded and, at the conclusion of the session, participants were offered the option of reviewing their interview transcript. Of the 19 interviewed, 8 chose to engage in this review process. Participants also were debriefed and provided with a list of resources they could contact if they felt distressed about anything discussed during the interview.

Interviews ranged in duration from 2 to 4 hours, with most lasting approximately 2.5 hours.

Interview Protocol

Our interview protocol was modelled after a qualitative approach used by Narvaez,

Meyer, and Kertzner (2009) in their investigation of how individuals’ sexual, ethnic, and gender identities intersect. In accordance with their protocol, participants were directed to write down on a sheet of paper up to 12 identities and roles that best defined “who they are.” Participants were then asked to complete an Attribute Rating Sheet for each identity or role they provided.

Specifically, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which a list of 70 characteristics

(e.g., talented, attractive, guilty, shy) applied to each identity. The purpose of having participants complete these rating sheets was to encourage them to think more deeply about their identities and to help them become aware of any overlap or discrepancies that may exist across the various identities provided (i.e., participants could observe whether they were using the same words to Subtle Discrimination 18 describe their various identities). After completing the attribute ratings, the semi-structured interview commenced. In the first part of the interview, participants were asked to briefly tell the interviewer about each of the identities or roles they provided. Participants were then asked to discuss how each of the identities related to one another, including whether their various identities were harmonious or in conflict with each other.

In the second part of the interview, which was pertinent to the present chapter, participants were asked to discuss any experiences they have had with discrimination in relation to their sexual orientation. Prompts such as “Have you experienced discrimination in relation to being (gay/lesbian/bisexual/queer)?” and “Do you think you’ve ever been treated badly because of your sexual orientation?” were used. Participants were asked to provide specific examples of any blatant and subtle (or indirect) forms of discrimination they experienced. (They were not provided with definitions of blatant and subtle discriminatory behaviours.) Participants also were asked if they had been discriminated against on the basis of one or more of their identities. In addition, they were provided with a sheet outlining different contexts in which they may experience discrimination (e.g., health, intimate relationships, neighbourhood/community, college, work/career, family, religious/spiritual life, and politics). The sheet was intended to help participants recall instances of discrimination. Finally, participants were asked: “What do you think your life would be like without homophobia, racism, and sexism?” The complete interview protocol is available from the authors.

Data Analysis

Each interview was transcribed verbatim. When analyzing the data, a process similar to the one that was used by Narvaez and colleagues (2009) was followed. For example, each Subtle Discrimination 19 participant’s interview was initially reviewed to acquire an understanding of his/her identities and roles and experiences with discrimination. Given that a large amount of data resulted from these interviews, the research team developed two general questions to guide a second reading of the transcripts: 1) What types of subtle (and indirect) forms of discrimination did the participants experience in relation to their sexual orientation?; and 2) What impact does the presence of subtle homonegativity have on the participants’ lives? The first and second authors then engaged in a process of open coding in which they categorized the interview data on the basis of the questions posed during their second reading of the transcripts. As more transcripts were analyzed, the codes were further refined, thus becoming more specific and reflective of the data.

Both “in vivo” codes (i.e., those derived from participants’ own words) and “sociological” codes

(i.e., those that reflect theoretical interpretations of participants’ words) were employed (Narvaez et al., 2009). This process of coding is in line with the grounded theory approach (Strauss, 1999).

After all transcripts were coded, the first and second authors reviewed each other’s coding and verified whether each instance coded belonged to that thematic category. All discrepancies were resolved through discussion. N-Vivo (QSR International, 2009) was used to organize the data.

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

After analyzing the participants’ narratives, it became clear there were three contexts in which subtle homonegative behaviours were encountered frequently: workplace, health care, and family relationships. In the following sections, we present our analysis of participants’ experiences with subtle discrimination in each of these contexts. However, since several participants commented that homonegativity is not relegated to certain environments (i.e., it is ubiquitous in all aspects of life), attention also was paid to understanding participants’ Subtle Discrimination 20 perspectives on the pervasiveness of homonegativity and the subsequent health consequences that occur when subtly discriminated against. Table 2 summarizes, and categorizes, the types of anti-gay/lesbian behaviours encountered by the participants.

Subtle Discrimination in the Workplace

Discrimination in the workplace was experienced in a variety ways by the participants.

Many (Bev, Brent, Denny, John, Meredith, Sean, and William) commented they often heard co- workers using anti-gay/lesbian slang words or telling derogatory jokes about sexual minorities.

Brent: Some of my coworkers are younger, so the popular expression is saying, “That’s

so gay,” that’s just one kind of thing that needles me.

Denny: The one that I guess I have the most problem with is...“That’s so gay.” And

generally most people who were saying that don’t realize that they’re saying it. So, more

often, I call them on it, right away, and generally they’re apologetic about it. And they

say, “Well, I don’t mean anything.” And I say, “Well, I know you may not mean anything,

but it still means something, you know? So don’t say it when I’m not around, and

understand when I’m around, I find it highly offensive.”

Denny’s confrontations with heterosexuals about their use of anti-gay/lesbian phrases reveal that they tend not to be cognizant of the meaning underlying them. Comparably, Burn (2000) found that, in a sample of American university students, 66% reported regularly telling anti-gay jokes and using anti-gay slang epithets, but the majority of these individuals did not perceive these actions to be offensive to sexual minorities. Thus, it appears this type of behaviour reflects a common form of unintentional subtle discrimination. Further, even though comments such as Subtle Discrimination 21

“that’s so gay” may be assumed to be innocuous by heterosexuals, they tend to be perceived as offensive by gay and lesbian individuals (Burn, Kadlec, & Rexer, 2005).

Research suggests that participants often rely on the amount of harm experienced when determining whether behaviour is bias-related (Swim et al., 2003). As a result, behaviours that are unintentionally negative or seemingly benevolent may be considered discriminatory if they cause a target to experience harm (Benokraitis, 1997; Benokraitis & Feagin, 1995). In line with these findings, several participants (e.g., Denny, Bev, and Brent) indicated that heterosexuals’ use of these phrases bothered them regardless of the perpetrators’ intentions, and characterized anti- gay/lesbian slang words/phrases as the subtle discriminatory behaviour with which they have

“the most problem.” One participant (Sean), however, indicated that if he perceives heterosexuals to inadvertently engage in anti-gay/lesbian discourse, he is not bothered by it: “I separate intention from what people say. Like, if they don’t mean to do harm by it, it doesn’t really bother me.” This comment suggests that not all sexual minority individuals experience equivalent levels of harm in response to particular anti-gay/lesbian behaviours and some may excuse discriminatory behaviours if they are perceived to be unintentional.

Derogatory comments in the workplace also dictated the extent to which some participants felt comfortable being open about their sexual orientation to co-workers.

Fred: I certainly have heard people make statements about gay people that they would

never have made, I don’t think, if they knew that I was gay. And it really made me cringe

inside; made me feel demeaned. I’ve been selective who I come out to... If I were in a

position where I was facing some blatant prejudice, anti-gay prejudice, I would speak out Subtle Discrimination 22

and possibly even reveal my own gay identity, but...a lot of times, it isn’t a crucial issue,

it’s not a central issue, but a peripheral one.

At the time that Fred’s coworkers were making homonegative comments about gay men, they were unaware that he was gay. Given his belief that his co-workers would not make those comments if they knew about his sexual orientation, Fred does not consider them to be blatantly discriminatory. Thus, this extract illustrates how acts of unintentional discrimination can contribute to what has been defined by Cortina (2008) as “general incivility” in the workplace (p.

55). Incivility refers to low-intensity conduct that produces an atmosphere of negativity in work settings as a result of the violation of norms related to mutual respect (Cortina, 2008). Moreover, the extract alludes to the powerful impact that derogatory comments and incivility may have on sexual minorities. As a result of overhearing these discussions, Fred felt demeaned and made the decision to keep his sexual orientation private. The decision to remain closeted is one that several participants (Bev, Danielle, Fred, Sue, Meredith, and William) made in the workplace. William indicated that he avoided disclosing his sexual orientation, because he thought that “many of the people there...would find it very uncomfortable to deal with me as a queer person.” This comment suggests he was concerned about his co-workers’ comfort; a concern which may be based on unfounded assumptions about his heterosexual peers’ discomfort with LGB persons.

Other participants indicated they were concerned about how their peers would treat them. Both

Sue and Meredith hid their sexual orientations to pre-emptively avoid being discriminated against.

Sue: I don’t feel I can be openly out at work. I mean, there are colleagues who know what

my situation is, but... I don’t feel I need to make a big announcement or anything because Subtle Discrimination 23

it impacts on my clients... I’m not saying that my employer discriminates, I mean they

can’t. They’re bound by the usual rules and everything. I mean we’re supposed to have a

respectful workplace for everyone’s choices, and lives, whatever they are. It’s kind of a

fine line there... it’s a form of discrimination in that I don’t really feel at times that I can

talk about... some of the things I’ve done on the weekend...because I know there are

certain people, my co-workers, who, would make judgments about it.

Meredith: I worked at a place for awhile where they were always making like, gay jokes

and stuff. And they didn’t know that I—that I had a girlfriend...And, you know, I could

have come out, I could have said something, but I knew that if I did, then I would be

dealing with that every single day... I couldn’t do it.

Both participants perceived that their co-workers or clients would treat them differently on the basis of their sexual orientation. Consequently, they chose to remain closeted to avoid additional stressors they assumed would result from disclosing their sexual orientation. For others, it was their employer who, through unspoken messages, insinuated they should remain closeted.

Danielle: I had two workplaces in a row where I was a well-known professional, very

reputable, made those firms good money and/or provided them with excellent service but

I couldn’t be out in those places despite the fact that the leadership knew I was gay, in

fact, most everybody knew I was gay. People figure it out. I mean, come on, it’s the

modern age... But I’m still not allowed to say it. You’re still not allowed to come out.

In her workplaces, Danielle encountered a double standard that was never explicitly stated: people were allowed to know she was lesbian, but she could not share this information about Subtle Discrimination 24 herself with others. At a certain point, Danielle could no longer work in this type of environment and began her own business where she is open about her identity as lesbian. Not surprisingly, unsupportive organizational climates have been associated with higher rates of perceived and reported discrimination, more negative attitudes toward work, exclusion from mentoring and networking opportunities, job dissatisfaction, fear, lower organizational commitment, greater job stress and dissatisfaction, higher levels of absenteeism, psychological distress, and limited disclosure of sexual orientation (Griffith & Hebl, 2002; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001; Waldo, 1999).

The three extracts discussed above also demonstrate that, even though laws exist which forbid organizations from engaging in discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, LGB persons continue to encounter subtle forms of discrimination from their supervisors, co-workers, and clients. In particular, it seems these individuals are silenced about their sexual orientation

(either under the implied direction of their employer or as a result of anticipated homonegative reprisals) and, consequently, edit or monitor their daily lives for others. While Meredith indicated that engaging in this act of editing helped her to avoid daily stressors, others (e.g., Sue and

Danielle) perceived engaging in this act of censoring as a significant stressor. In addition to self- editing, additional strategies that LGB individuals may use in the workplace to remain closeted include divulging fictitious personal details, using neutral pronouns, providing evasive answers to personal questions, and avoiding certain coworkers (Ellis & Riggle, 1996; Hylton, 2006).

According to Beatty and Kirby (2006), all of these strategies are energy-intensive and may result in the fragmentation of one’s identities. An extract from Bev illustrates how her perceived need to be closeted in certain roles results in the compartmentalization of her identities. Subtle Discrimination 25

Bev: I try to keep my life very separate…I keep things very compartmentalized. I’m

[closeted] at work [and] I’m queer when I’m not at work...I’m a student when I’m not at

work because the things I’m interested in studying would get me in trouble at work. And

I don’t talk about a lot of that stuff with my family because they just don’t want to hear it.

Bev later indicated that the constant effort she must expend to ensure that these distinctions remain intact causes her additional stress and anxiety.

In addition to being silenced about their sexual orientations, several of the participants

(Bev, Denny, John, Karl, Ken, Steve, and Sue) questioned whether they had inadvertently been

“let go” from their jobs or withheld opportunities as a result of being non-heterosexual.

Denny: It’s been a minor issue, but it’s always in the back of my mind, you know. Is it

going to cost me a promotion, is it going to cost me shifts?

Bev: My [gay friend] actually lost a job over it in a public school... basically [he] didn’t

get brought back because he was very, very vocal [about gay rights]...so, it does happen,

whether people think it does, or not. And it’s not labelled as: “you’re losing your job

because you’re gay”, it’s sort of a “we’re just not going to renew your contract and we’re

not going to give you a good reason.”

In line with the theory of modern homonegativity, which suggests that subtle discrimination is particularly likely to occur when additional (non-bias-related) factors can be used to explain any behaviours that may be perceived as anti-gay/lesbian (Morrison & Morrison, 2002; Morrison &

Morrison, in press), the participants felt vulnerable to discrimination in situations of ambiguity.

The presence of non-bias related factors may prevent heterosexuals from perceiving a conflict Subtle Discrimination 26 between their actions and egalitarian values (Morrison & Morrison, 2002). Alternatively, heterosexuals may consciously treat sexual minorities negatively in these situations because it is difficult to prove whether they were treated unfairly on the basis of their minority status. With respect to the situation identified by Bev, it is plausible that her friend may have been let go from his temporary contract because there was no longer a need for that position. However, from the target’s perspective, it seemed that it was his vocality about gay and lesbian issues that led the school board to not renew his contract. It is this state of “not knowing” or not being able to definitively determine whether one has been discriminated against that is a key factor that differentiates subtle from blatant discrimination.

Finally, Karl and Sue indicated the selection of places where they would be willing to work was limited by the extent to which a given organization was accepting of sexual minorities.

Sue: It would be really nice not to have that judgmental stuff hanging over your head and

not worrying about... in your job situation if anyone discovers anything about your

personal life that will impact you, or impact your job or whatever. So there may only be

certain jobs that you can get and certain places that you can even apply because...you

tend to have to check out what their attitude is… whether they’re ‘gay friendly.’

This extract illustrates the added stressors that occur in the lives of LGB individuals. In addition to considering their interest in a particular job, sexual minorities also may assess the likelihood of encountering discrimination when making decisions about employment. Thus, the range of jobs available to LGB individuals may be restricted by the perceived presence of homonegativity in an organization. Other research has found that sexual minorities tend to seek employment Subtle Discrimination 27 from organizations that support LGB persons (Griffith & Hebl, 2002; Morrison & Morrison, in press).

Subtle Discrimination in Healthcare Settings

Another context in which participants encountered pronounced forms of subtle homonegativity was the health care system. Numerous participants (Brent, Karl, Ken, Meredith,

John, and Sue) commented that either they or their friends had negative interactions with health care providers. In some cases, these negative interactions resulted from health care providers’ endorsement of heteronormativity (Röndahl, Innala, & Carlsson, 2006). In other situations, providers lacked knowledge about the sexual health of lesbian and gay individuals.

Brent: I went to the hospital with a dog bite, and the resident there said, “Tell your wife or

your girlfriend to bandage it up, every day, clean it, whatever.” And I looked at her and I

said, “Well, not all of us have a wife or a girlfriend.”

Meredith: But that’s kind of the common belief... that it’s harder to catch an STD for

lesbians...My ex, she had gone to the doctor. And we were asking her about like sexual

stuff, and like, STDs and then when she said she was a lesbian, then they were like, “Oh,

well, you’re okay.”...and didn’t bother to like—be concerned.

The extract from Brent provides an example of the way in which health care providers may express their heteronormative assumption that individuals will be partnered with someone of the opposite gender. In fact, Bonvicini and Perlin (2003) suggest that heteronormativity is common practice in health care domains. Moreover, participants were aware of a general tendency for people to assume their heterosexuality. According to George, “I think people just assume you’re Subtle Discrimination 28 straight, period, because it’s just—they do.” Research suggests that heteronormative assumptions often lead lesbian and gay individuals to feel invisible and socially excluded (Röndahl et al.,

2006; Wilton, 2000). Further, Wilkinson (2002) argues that the assumption of heterosexuality may lead to insensitive questions, irrelevant information, and inadequate treatment. Indeed,

Meredith’s experience suggests that some health care providers are ignorant about the (sexual) health concerns of lesbian women. A lack of awareness of lesbian health issues may result in suboptimal care or misdiagnoses (Barbara, Quandt, & Anderson, 2001; Wilkinson, 2002).

Participants took varied approaches in responding to the heteronormativity and ignorance present in the health care system. The extract from Brent indicates that he chose to directly correct his health care provider’s incorrect assumption. In contrast, Karl knows of several gay acquaintances who decided not to return to physicians who did not appear tolerant of sexual minorities: “They had went [sic] into the office, the doctor didn’t show any sign of gay recognition, and they felt uneasy, and they didn’t go back to that doctor.” Finally, some individuals choose not to reveal their sexual orientation to avoid possible negative repercussions.

John: I know several of my queer friends, their doctors don’t know that they are queer.

They don’t want the doctor to know.

Meredith: I’d be afraid to identify as the partner, because I wasn’t sure what the bias

would be of the person we were going there to get care from...you don’t want to sway

that person, because they’re helping you, right?

A survey by Mulé (1999) revealed that 44% of hospitalised sexual minorities felt uncomfortable disclosing their sexual orientation to hospital staff, suggesting this is a common struggle faced by gay and lesbian individuals seeking health care. Subtle Discrimination 29

In response to the lack of knowledge about sexual minorities among health care providers, some participants (Karl, Ken, and Sue) opted to participate in training opportunities for physicians. The goals of these programs are to increase medical students’ awareness about

LGB health, as well as to increase their comfort when interacting with sexual minorities.

Sue: I volunteer as a standardized patient for the medical college…. I want to bring the

orientation issue to the attention of these young people who are going to be the new

doctors because that’s another place where there’s been a fair bit of discrimination.

Karl: Maybe the doctor[s] never had any training in school about that [treating LGB

individuals]... and maybe the doctor is capable of learning, if somebody is willing to stick

their neck out and tell him. So when my partner and I went to the clinic, and our doctor

was Chinese…he probably never saw a gay person in his life, and he doesn’t know what

to make of it…And he’s not trying to get rid of us as patients, so he obviously is not

prejudiced, he’s just confused. And he’s a good doctor, why not just educate him?

Interestingly, it was the older participants (>50 years) who chose to address heteronormativity in the health care system. Karl commented that, due to his age, he may be more reflective about the underlying causes of physicians’ seemingly homonegative responses to LGB persons. He views physicians’ ignorance about LGB health and discomfort when interacting with sexual minorities as resulting from a lack of exposure to, and knowledge about, these issues, rather than prejudice

(which is the assumption he observed younger people making). As such, the way in which people interpret their experiences and perceived role in addressing discrimination may, to some extent, vary by age. Further, older LGB persons may be particularly motivated to address Subtle Discrimination 30 heteronormativity in the health care system, since health may be more salient to them (Fried,

Rosenberg, & Lipsitz, 1995). Hinchliff, Gott, and Galena (2005) also provide support for the idea that physicians’ discomfort with LGB persons may stem from a lack of experience, rather than prejudice. Here, physicians who lacked experience with LGB patients struggled to: 1) determine the appropriate terminology to use; and 2) avoid making stereotypical assumptions.

Subtle Discrimination from Family

Participants also indicated experiencing discrimination as a function of their familial relationships. The family plays a critical role in the socialization process, such as providing support (especially as individuals integrate into broader society or contend with change), a sense of belonging, traditions, and definitions of success and failure (Silverblatt, 2004). However, rather than being an unwavering source of support, family often becomes a source of tension or conflict for LGB individuals once they have revealed their sexual orientation. Denny describes how the unconditional love of family may turn to conditional love once one comes out.

Denny: You never know exactly how your family is going to take it. You don’t know if

your parents are going to turn their back on you, if their unconditional love will suddenly

have conditions to it. If there’s going to be restrictions [or] qualifiers. You can be gay, just

don’t have a boyfriend. You can be gay, just don’t tell my kids….Some of the family

don’t get it, but they’re tolerating it.

Many participants (Bev, Bonnie, Fred, Karl, Sean, Steve, Sue, John, and Danielle) struggled with homonegativity directed toward them by family members. Most were not faced with blatant discrimination, but instead experienced subtle changes in their relationships, such as the loss of Subtle Discrimination 31 close bonds with family members. For instance, some participants indicated that, after coming out, their non-heterosexual orientations were dismissed or not discussed in the familial context.

Bonnie: My mom, when I first came out she told me I was going through a stage...she

said “you’re just experimenting,” and I’m like, “Mom, I’ve been experimenting for a

while. Do you need me to tell you about it? No. Thank you.” So, you know, it’s hard for

her... she just kind of ignored it for a really long time.”

Bonnie’s words illustrate that, while Bonnie’s family did not openly reject her, they were not overly accepting of her sexual orientation. Given that certain aspects of Bonnie’s life were taboo to discuss, this inevitably affected the quality of the relationship she had with her mother. A lack of willingness to discuss one’s sexual orientation also has been documented as a subtle form of discrimination by other researchers (Conley et al., 2001).

In addition, some participants commented that even family members who, for the most part, were accepting of their sexual orientations made assumptions founded in stereotypical portrayals of LGB individuals. For instance, Meredith’s mother (and friends) assumed that because she is queer, she is hypersexual or would want to display her sexuality in front of others.

Meredith: And even my mom, too, like when my partner was going to move in, she was

like, “I’m really okay with it, as long as you’re not making out in front of me.” I was like,

why would I do that? Why would I want my mother to see me make out in front of her?

The assumption that Meredith would engage in public displays of affection in front of her mother is reminiscent of the tenet of modern homonegativity which suggests that gay men and lesbian women are perceived to exaggerate their sexuality (Morrison & Morrison, 2002). That is, even though Meredith’s mother claims she is accepting of Meredith’s sexual orientation, she seems to Subtle Discrimination 32 endorse the prejudicial notion that gay and lesbian individuals engage in sexual displays even in situations where social norms would dictate otherwise.

Participants also commented that, at times, they experienced a sense of isolation as a result of intolerance or a lack of understanding among family members. For instance, Sue has had diminished contact with her family since she came out, despite her own efforts to maintain these relationships. She voices her experience of isolation in the following extract.

Sue: My sister has never been out here...She goes on all kinds of trips but she’s never

come to visit us…so it’s hard to take that in a good way. Although she maintains that she

doesn’t have any problems with anything...I’ve tried through letters and personal contact

to sort these things out...I guess [my siblings] just don’t want to know sometimes what’s

going on but that means that they don’t understand how I’m feeling about things.

Thus, contrary to claims from Sue’s family that they are accepting of her sexual orientation, their behaviour suggests they are not as tolerant as they proclaim, causing Sue to experience a sense of isolation. Even when family members are accepting of homosexuality, Denny astutely points out that isolation may still be experienced, particularly when one’s parents are heterosexual.

Denny: [When] you [referring to a heterosexual person] go home, you can have that safe

haven. But gay people—we don’t necessarily have that. And even when our parents do

accept us, because they don’t understand—have never experienced what we experience,

it’s harder for them to relate to our choices, they only do what they can.

Denny’s words suggest that being LGB may create distance from one’s family members, and the family may no longer be able to meet certain needs, such as having a sense of safety, belonging, and understanding (Silverblatt, 2004). Subtle Discrimination 33

The lack of support from family also caused some participants to experience feelings of resentment. For instance, Fred finds it unfair that, as a result of some intolerance among his siblings, he feels obliged to minimize some aspects of his life as a gay man.

Fred: I accept my other brothers and sisters as they are, I feel. And I’m a little resentful

some of them don’t accept me entirely as I am... I think if I were more, flaunted my gay

life more, I’d certainly be ostracized by some....

The conflict between being open about one’s life and maintaining familial relationships is one with which many LGB individuals struggle and may enhance the sense of isolation experienced when interacting with heterosexual family members (Heatherington & Lavner, 2008).

Homonegativity as a Ubiquitous Factor in LGB Persons’ Lives

Several participants commented that since homonegativity is pervasive in society, it exerts influence over all aspects of their lives and it is necessary to consider how this ever- present force generally affects their lives. In this section, we discuss participants’ perspectives on the omnipresent nature of homonegativity and the perceived effect this social force has on them.

Pervasiveness of homonegativity. Nearly every participant commented on the ubiquitous nature of homonegativity. The following extracts from Ken and Steve illustrate this point.

Ken: Homophobia is incredibly powerful and it seeps into every crevice of our culture...

As queer people, we face discrimination almost on a daily basis...every time you hear this

bullshit, it has an impact, you know, and I don’t think heterosexuals have to deal with

that, you know? …It’s just little bites that get taken out of you all the time...it’s like a

bunch of fuckin’ mosquitoes comin’ at you and after a time it gets really, really annoying. Subtle Discrimination 34

Steve: It’s just constant. The whole life. “How does it affect you?” Well, which day? It’s

constant... you’re never out of the woods. It’s there all the time. It’s looking you in the

face, regardless of what you do.

The ubiquitous nature of homonegativity illustrates what theorists (Kitzinger, Wilkinson, &

Perkins, 1992; Rich, 1980) have referred to as the institution of heterosexuality: a set of standards or norms that restrict romantic and sexual relationships to people of opposite sexes.

Given that heterosexuality is expected and assumed, the consequences of violating these norms appear to be so extensive they become characteristic of sexual minorities’ experiences. In fact, homonegativity was so pervasive that, when asked what life would be like if homonegativity did not exist, most could not imagine such a world. Danielle comments, “I’ve lived with this for so long I can’t even imagine that anymore. It’s now hard-wired into my system to see it that way.”

Several participants (Bev, Denny, George, Meredith, Mabel, and Sue) noted that a lack of presence of sexual minorities in the media has contributed to their perception that LGB persons are frequently marginalized by society and relegated to an inferior position.

Bev: We’re [a] fairly excluded group of people in media. It’s pretty subtle, but it’s there.

And when you do see a gay person represented it’s so stereotyped.

Denny: Every song, every book, every TV show, reflects negatively my orientation, says

my orientation is less than [a heterosexual orientation].

Fisher, Hill, Grube, and Gruber (2007) conducted a content analysis of 2,700 television episodes over two years and found that the amount of program time devoted to non-heterosexual themes is minimal in comparison to the prevalence of heterosexual content. However, it should be noted Subtle Discrimination 35 that LGB media presence is much greater now than it has been in the past and portrayals of sexual minority persons are becoming more multifaceted (Barnhurst, 2007). Participants also stated that the constant barrage of negative messages they encounter in society affected the way they perceived themselves.

Mabel: I really believe that we're profoundly affected by the attitudes of the people

around us. If you hear negative messages all the time, even if you don't believe them,

they're in your brain, and you start hearing them without the person there.

Not surprisingly, numerous symptoms of psychological distress have been associated with the internalization of homonegativity, such as depression, anxiety, substance abuse, lowered self- esteem, and suicidal ideation (D’Augelli & Grossman, 2001; Igartua, Gill, & Montoro, 2003).

Hypervigilance. As a result of the pervasiveness of homonegativity, many participants

(Bev, Mabel, Meredith, Sean, Steve, and Sue) expressed a frequent need to censor their lives to avoid being discriminated against, as well as a tendency to be watchful for indicators of prejudice. Many participants indicated they were cautious about revealing any information about their sexual orientations to unknown others or individuals they suspect may be prejudiced.

Sue: I’ve become kind of hypersensitive now to what I can say and what I can’t, editing

my life every day because people will use things against you in a very cruel way...

sometimes if we have people coming in to do [house repairs] we have to ‘straighten up’

so to speak, and make it look, you know, just a regular house.

Thus, even in their own homes, some participants felt compelled to conceal aspects of their identities. At times, participants were unsure if their hypervigilance was warranted. For instance,

George comments that “gays bring the worst on themselves a lot of times by assuming the Subtle Discrimination 36 prejudice is there,” while Steve states, “maybe some of it’s in my mind, and it’s not real, but that’s how I see it.” Comments such as these suggest participants are aware that their fears of discrimination may be unwarranted. Regardless, the perceived threat of discrimination and the pervasive nature of homonegativity appear to have a profound impact on participants’ behaviours and feelings of safety and self worth. According to Meyer (1995), minority stress may lead sexual minorities to develop hypervigilant behaviours in order to cope with perceived stigma that is “chronic in that it is repeatedly and continually evoked in the everyday life of the minority person” (p. 41). Hypervigilance consumes a great amount of energy and may lead to the mistrust of heterosexuals, as well as feelings of fear, alienation, and fatigue (Meyer, 1995).

Invisibility. The insidious nature of homonegativity also led several participants (Bev,

Danielle, Karl, Ken, Mabel, and Sue) to experience feelings of invisibility, either personally or for the gay and lesbian community as a whole.

Sue: I don’t like being discounted. I don’t like doors being shut in my face. I don’t like

being excluded because I’m not the “traditional” spouse. I’ve felt pretty upset about all of

that and it’s not something that’s easily remedied because there’s a lot of bias...out there.

Mabel: Just kind of ignoring your existence, it's very powerful...it's an awful thing to

experience, because it's a very cruel way to treat other people.

Danielle: The discrimination of gays is so pervasive. It’s like you don’t exist... if you

aren’t even acknowledged as a lesbian you don’t need to put up any bigger barriers. What

bigger barrier would you want? In a way we’re pushed back even further in society as a Subtle Discrimination 37

whole. The discrimination against us is pervasive because we’re not given visibility, but

it’s not as active because we’re invisible.

These extracts suggest that the experience of being invisible is difficult for the participants. Sue feels as though it has resulted in her being discounted, while Mabel experiences it as an act of cruelty. Danielle’s words are particularly revealing in that she suggests that lesbian women may not be the frequent targets of blatant discrimination because they are not readily acknowledged by society. Previous research has focused primarily on gender norms to explain differential rates of negativity apportioned to gay men and lesbian women by heterosexuals (Kite & Whitley,

2003). It may be that a lack of visibility also accounts for lower levels of homonegativity being directed toward lesbian women. Regardless, it appears that, on the basis of these women’s comments, the denial of one’s existence can have an equally detrimental impact on one’s life.

Perceived need to explain sexual orientation. The invisibility of the LGB community and prevailing atmosphere of heteronormativity also resulted in participants being placed in positions where they were expected to explain their “otherness” to heterosexuals.

Bev: When you’re queer...you’re all of a sudden put in a position where you have to tell

people, because you’re not the same as everyone else... So when you’re queer you always

feel like you have to tell people, like you have to explain it somehow.

Brent: Another [example of discrimination] that...comes from a presumptuous, prejudicial

kind of thing, are patients who feel that they have the right, they’re impertinent, but

anyway, to ask you if you’re married, and if you say no, why not? So, once again, that’s

just kind of a hassle. Subtle Discrimination 38

Oftentimes, participants were subjected to heteronormative assumptions and, upon finding out that they were different, asked to explain personal aspects of their lives. In addition, participants often were placed in positions where they had to defend the choices they made in their lives.

Questions and comments of this nature were perceived by most to be an irritant or hassle, and reflect yet another way in which sexual minorities may be treated differently. Several researchers

(e.g., Brown, Smalling, Groza, & Ryan, 2009; Land & Kitzinger, 2005) have described the constant requirement of LGB persons to navigate their disclosures, particularly when sexual orientation becomes relevant because of the presumption of heterosexuality.

Implications of legalizing same-sex marriage. Finally, to reinforce the pervasive nature of homonegativity and the subtle ways in which it may be manifested, many participants cautioned that the legalization of same-sex marriage has not led to the eradication of homonegativity.

Ken: I think that we’ve gotten to the point in our community, we’re sort of assuming that

because we can get married everything’s fine, you know? And that’s far from the truth...

there’s still many, many people who are struggling with coming out, struggling with

addictions, you know, all kinds of issues.

Although same-sex marriage reflects a significant symbolic statement against homonegativity, the participants urge heterosexuals to avoid believing the modern homonegativity tenet that discrimination is a thing of the past (Morrison & Morrison, 2002).

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

This study offers insight into the subtle forms of discrimination that may be encountered by LGB individuals in contemporary society. In Canada, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the workplace is forbidden by law, yet the participants shared several instances in Subtle Discrimination 39 which they encountered homonegativity from employers, co-workers, and clients. The expression of derogatory comments in work settings constituted common acts of incivility that were frequently encountered (Cortina, 2008). In addition, participants were placed in positions where they did not feel free to disclose their sexual orientation because they thought it would affect their relationships with co-workers or clients or their occupational success. Others felt the range of jobs available to them was restricted to organizations tolerant of sexual minorities.

Finally, some perceived they may have missed out on opportunities or lost jobs because of their sexual orientation but, due to the ambiguous nature of these situations and decision-making, it was impossible for them to determine whether they had been discriminated against. In all of these situations, the subtle presence of homonegativity affected the extent to which participants felt comfortable, respected, free to express themselves, and protected in the workplace.

Participants also reported additional forms of subtle discrimination in other areas of their lives. In health care settings and the media, participants reported that frequent assumptions of heteronormativity and a lack of attention to issues pertinent to sexual minorities suggested that heterosexuality was privileged over their own sexual orientations (Röndahl et al., 2006). Further, ignorance about LGB health among health care providers caused some participants to feel uncomfortable when receiving health care. With respect to their interactions with family, the absence of certain actions was experienced as discrimination. For instance, family members’ unwillingness to openly discuss participants’ sexual orientations and a loss of closeness in relationships despite claims of acceptance were perceived to be subtle homonegative behaviours.

The experience of subtle discrimination also appeared to have a substantial impact on participants’ lives. Relatively little research has explored the effects of subtle forms of Subtle Discrimination 40 homonegativity on sexual minorities; thus, the current study provides valuable insight into the broader implications of these discriminatory acts for LGB persons. For instance, subtle indicators of prejudice dictated the extent to which participants felt comfortable revealing or discussing their sexual orientations. Specifically, in contexts in which they did not feel safe, participants engaged in considerable effort to hide their identities by editing the information they shared with family, friends, and colleagues. In some cases, this led to the compartmentalization of one’s roles and identities and the experience of additional stress and anxiety. Further, participants indicated they were hypervigilent and constantly watching for potential signs of prejudice. They also felt they were often required to explain their sexual orientations when others did learn about them.

Research (DiPlacido, 1998; Meyer, 1995) suggests the constant vigilance sexual minorities must engage in to identify possible threats to their well-being and manage the stigma associated with their sexual identity places additional stress (i.e., minority stress) on gay men and lesbian women. In addition, the constant, yet subtle, denigration of their sexual orientation led participants to experience feelings of social isolation, exclusion, and invisibility. In particular, the pervasiveness of homonegativity caused some participants to perceive that their existence is denied by society. Even in the face of significant legal reforms (e.g., same sex marriage), participants continued to feel that society is rife with subtle forms of homonegativity, which they feared will go uncontested if heterosexuals perceive these policy changes to signify that discrimination against sexual minorities no longer occurs. Similar fears were noted by participants in Lannutti’s (2005) study in which LGB individuals’ perceptions about the meaning of same-sex marriage for the LGB community were explored.

Finally, it seems that the proposed categories for distinguishing various types of anti-gay/ Subtle Discrimination 41 lesbian behaviours (i.e., blatant, intentional subtle, and unintentional subtle behaviours) adequately characterized the types of discriminatory behaviours experienced by the participants.

In line with this classification system, participants distinguished between discriminatory behaviours they perceived to be intentional (e.g., unofficial work policies requiring the concealment of one’s sexual orientation and family member’s lack of willingness to discuss or acknowledge sexual orientation), unintentional (e.g., overhearing anti-gay jokes or slang words and encountering heteronormative or stereotypical assumptions), and others they deemed to be subtle but of indeterminate intentionality (e.g., being let go from a job, having opportunities withheld, and loss of closeness in relationships). In general, it seemed that participants readily experienced both intentional and unintentional behaviours to be discriminatory. However, in some cases (as in the telling of anti-gay/lesbian jokes), a minority of participants did not consider behaviours to be discriminatory if the behaviour was not intended to be malicious. Researchers examining blatant and subtle homonegative behaviours are encouraged to continue examining the interplay between intent and perceived harm in defining behaviours as discriminatory. In addition, researchers should consider using a similar classification system to enhance the specificity at which we are able to speak about, and assess the implications of, various forms subtle anti-gay/lesbian behaviours.

Limitations and Future Directions

As mentioned previously, the interview protocol used in the present study was modelled after the qualitative methodology outlined by Narvaez et al. (2009) and was designed to examine the identities and roles participants deemed integral to their sense of self, as well as their experiences with discrimination in relation to their identities. However, when conducting the Subtle Discrimination 42 interviews, we found that participants were most interested in describing their identities and less readily able to speak about their experiences with homonegativity. Moreover, it seemed that participants felt most comfortable disclosing experiences that happened to them in their distant past or to other people. The challenge participants experienced with recalling discrimination may indicate that they do not readily encounter homonegative behaviours or they found it difficult to shift toward a discussion of their current discrimination experiences. Alternatively, it may reflect a defensive tactic. That is, participants may have found it threatening to recall their own experiences of discrimination, which corresponds with Crosby’s (1984) theory pertaining to the denial of personal discrimination. According to this theory, individuals tend to imagine themselves as being exempt from the injustices that affect their reference groups and find it difficult to infer discrimination from individual or isolated events. Given that subtle homonegative behaviours are, by definition, characterized by ambiguity, LGB persons may be especially reluctant to identify these types of behaviours as discriminatory. Further, Crosby argues that people are uncomfortable when confronting their own victimisation and, instead, may choose to perceive a just world. Swim et al. (2007) also suggest that subtle discriminatory behaviours may be immediately dismissed as a means of everyday survival because they occur so frequently. For these reasons, researchers are encouraged to consider alternative approaches when assessing subtle homonegativity. For instance, an interview protocol that focuses solely on experiences with discrimination might be considered. In addition, diary methods wherein participants can reflect on subtle homonegative behaviours immediately after they occur may be better equipped to explore these types of behaviours. Even so, Narvaez et al.’s (2009) protocol was useful for eliciting information about participants’ experiences in a variety of contexts. Subtle Discrimination 43

Some limitations associated with our sample should be mentioned. First, participants did not receive an honorarium for volunteering to be part of the study. Thus, the data presented in this study reflects the experiences of individuals who were highly motivated to share their experiences. In fact, most identified themselves as advocates for LGB rights. In addition, although an intersectional approach was adopted for data collection, there were few instances in which it was apparent that participants’ encountered discrimination on the basis of two or more identities simultaneously. This may be due to the homogeneity of the sample: with the exception of one individual who self-identified as Métis, all participants in our study were Caucasian.

Further, issues related to gender, age, or class did not seem to be at the forefront of the participants’ experiences. LGB individuals for whom other marginalized social identities are prominent may have unique experiences with subtle discrimination.

Despite these limitations, this study provides a significant contribution to the literature with its focus on exploring subtle forms of homonegativity from the target’s perspective.

It is important to increase our knowledge about the spectrum of discriminatory behaviours that may be experienced by LGB individuals for several reasons. First, a defining characteristic of subtle discrimination is that there is often some ambiguity associated with these acts of discrimination; therefore, research of this nature helps to validate the experiences of sexual minority group members. Second, by uncovering a more complete range of anti-gay/lesbian behaviours that may be perpetrated and assessing the appropriateness of a classification system for these behaviours, we can more accurately tease apart the effects of both blatant and more subtle forms of discrimination on the well-being of LGB persons. Finally, by understanding the way in which subtle discrimination manifests itself, including the contexts in which it occurs and Subtle Discrimination 44 the perpetrators of these behaviours, we can begin to develop interventions designed to target this form of homonegativity. Given that subtle manifestations of prejudice and discrimination may be more difficult to address than blatant forms, it is important for researchers to have as much information about this form of homonegativity as possible (Dovidio, 2001).

The present study also alludes to additional avenues for future research. Several of the extracts suggested that LGB persons may have pre-conceptions about the likelihood that heterosexuals will behave negatively towards them. It would valuable to further explore the nature of these preconceptions, as well as how they influence interactions between heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals. Second, given that many of the participants identified themselves as advocates, it would be helpful to explore how sexual minorities’ conceptualize advocacy. Finally, this research may be useful in efforts to develop scales that can be used to assess LGB persons’ experiences with discrimination. To date, several scales exist to measure discrimination in the workplace (e.g., Driscoll, Kelley, & Fassinger, 1996; Liddle, Luzzo, Hauenstein, & Schuck,

2004), with one measure including subscales pertaining to direct and indirect homonegativity

(e.g., Workplace Heterosexist Experiences Questionnaire; Waldo, 1999). However, the present study suggests a need to develop and validate scales in other environments in which subtle homonegative behaviours may occur (i.e., health settings and the family). In addition, researchers considering scale development pertaining to LGB individuals’ experiences with discrimination are advised to include (and differentiate) between blatant and subtle (including intentional and unintentional) homonegative behaviours. Moreover, a multidimensional approach that includes multiple facets of individuals’ lives may be warranted, given that participants tend to experience homonegativity as pervasive across all domains of life. In conclusion, the current Subtle Discrimination 45 study provides insight into the types of subtle homonegativity encountered by sexual minorities, the contexts in which it arises, and its implications for the lives of LGB persons. Subtle Discrimination 46

REFERENCES

Barbara, A. M., Quandt, S. A., & Anderson, R. T. (2001). Experiences of lesbians in the health

care environment. Women & Health, 34, 45-62.

Barnhurst, K. G. (2007). Media queered: Visibility and its discontents. New York: Peter Lang

Publishing.

Beatty, J. E., & Kirby, S. L. (2006). Beyond the legal environment: How stigma influences

invisible identity groups in the workplace. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal,

18, 29-44.

Benokraitis, N. V. (1997). Sex discrimination in the 21st Century. In N. V. Benokraitis (Ed. ),

Subtle sexism: Current practice and prospects for change (pp. 5-33). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Benokraitis, N. V., & Feagin, J. R. (1995). Modern sexism: Blatant, subtle, and covert

discrimination (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bonvicini, K. A., & Perlin, M. J. (2003). The same but different: Clinician-patient

communication with gay and lesbian patients. Patient Education and Counseling, 51,

115-122.

Brown, S., Smalling, S., Groza, V., & Ryan, S. (2009). The experiences of gay men and lesbians

in becoming and being adoptive parents. Adoption Quarterly, 12, 229-246.

Burn, S. M. (2000). Heterosexuals’ use of “fag” and “queer” to deride one another: A contributor

to heterosexism and stigma. Journal of Homosexuality, 40, 1-11.

Burn, S. M., Kadlec, K., & Rexer, R. (2005). Effects of subtle heterosexism on gays, lesbians,

and bisexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 49, 23-38. Subtle Discrimination 47

Chesir-Teran, D., & Hughes, D. (2009). Heterosexism in high school and victimization among

lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38,

963- 975.

Conley, T. D., Calhoun, C., Evett, S. R., & Devine, P. G. (2001). Mistakes that heterosexual

people make when trying to appear non-prejudiced: The view from LGB people. Journal

of Homosexuality, 42, 21-43.

Cortina, L. M. (2008). Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimination in organizations.

Academy of Management Review, 33, 55-75.

Crosby, F. (1984). The denial of personal discrimination. American Behavioral Scientist, 27,

371-386.

D’Augelli, A. R., & Grossman, A. H. (2001). Disclosure of sexual orientation, victimization,

and mental health among lesbian, gay, and bisexual older adults. Journal of Interpersonal

Violence, 16, 1008-1027.

DiPlacido, J. (1998). Minority stress among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. In G. M. Herek

(Ed.). Stigma and sexual orientation (pp. 138-159). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dovidio, J. F. (2001). On the nature of contemporary prejudice: The third wave. Journal of

Social Issues, 57, 829-849.

Driscoll, J. M., Kelley, F. A., & Fassinger, R. E. (1996). Lesbian identity management and self-

disclosure in the workplace: Relation to occupational stress and satisfaction. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 48, 229-242.

Ellis, A. L., & Riggle, E. D. B. (1996). Sexual identity on the job: Issues and services. New

York: Haworth Press. Subtle Discrimination 48

Evans, N. J., & Broido, E. M. (2002). The experiences of lesbian and bisexual women in college

residence halls: Implications for addressing homophobia and heterosexism. Journal of

Lesbian Studies, 6, 29-42.

Fisher, D. A., Hill, D. L., Grube, J. W., & Gruber, E. L. (2007). Gay, lesbian, and bisexual

content on television: A quantitative analysis across two seasons. Journal of

Homosexuality, 52, 167-188.

Fried, T. R., Rosenberg, R. R., & Lipsitz, L. A. (1995). Older community-dwelling adults’

attitudes toward and practices of health promotion and advance planning activities.

Journal of American Geriatrics Society, 43, 645-649.

Garnets, L., Herek, G. M., & Levy, B. (1990). Violence and victimization of lesbians and gay

men: Mental health consequences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 366-383.

Griffith, K. H., & Hebl, M. R. (2002). The disclosure dilemma for gay men and lesbians:

“Coming out” at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1191-1199.

Heatherington, L., & Lavner, J. A. (2008). Coming to terms with coming out: Review and

recommendations for family systems-focused research. Journal of Family Psychology,

22, 329-343.

Herek, G. M. (2004). Beyond “homophobia”: Thinking about sexual prejudice and stigma in the

twenty-first century. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 1(2), 6-24.

Herek, G. M. (2009). Hate crimes and stigma-related experiences among sexual minority adults

in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 54- 74.

Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., Cogan, J. C., & Glunt, E. K. (1997). Hate crime victimization among Subtle Discrimination 49

lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults: Prevalence, psychological correlates, and

methodological issues. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 195–117.

Hinchliff, S., Gott, M., & Galena, E. (2005). ‘I daresay I might find it embarrassing’: General

practitioners’ perspectives on discussing sexual health issues with lesbian and gay

patients. Health and Social Care in the Community, 13, 345-353.

Hudson, W. W., & Ricketts, W. A. (1980). A strategy for the measurement of homophobia.

Journal of Homosexuality, 5, 357-372.

Hurley, M. C. (2007). Sexual orientation and legal rights. Ottawa, ON: Library of Parliament.

Hylton, M. E. (2006). Queer in southern MSW programs: Lesbian and bisexual women discuss

stigma management. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 611-628.

Igartua, K. J., Gill, K., & Montoro, R. (2003). Internalized homophobia: A factor in depression,

anxiety, and suicide in the gay and lesbian population. Canadian Journal of Community

Mental Health, 22, 15-30.

Jewell, L. M., & Morrison, M. A. (in press). “But there’s a million jokes about everybody…”:

Prevalence of, and reasons for directing, negative behaviors toward gay men on a

Canadian university campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.

Kite, M. E., & Whitley, Jr., B. E. (2003). Do heterosexual women and men differ in their

attitudes toward homosexuality? A conceptual and methodological analysis. In L. D.

Garnets & D. C. Kimmel (Eds. ), Psychological perspectives on lesbian, gay and bisexual

experiences (2nd ed., pp. 165-187). New York: Columbia University Press.

Kitzinger, C. (2005). Heteronormativity in action: Reproducing the heterosexual nuclear family

in after-hours medical calls. Social Problems, 52, 477-498. Subtle Discrimination 50

Kitzinger, C., Wilkinson, S., & Perkins, R. (1992). Theorizing heterosexuality. Feminism &

Psychology, 2(3), 293-324.

Land, V., & Kitzinger, C. (2005). Speaking as a lesbian: Correcting the heterosexist

presumption. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38, 371-416.

Lannutti, P. J. (2005). For better or worse: Exploring the meanings of same-sex marriage

within lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered community. Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships, 22, 5-18.

Liddle, B. J., Luzzo, D. A., Hauenstein, A. L., & Schuck, K. (2004). Construction and validation

of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered climate inventory. Journal of Career

Assessment, 12, 33-50.

Meyer, I. H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal of Health and Social

Behavior, 36, 38-56.

Morrison, M. A., & Morrison, T. G. (in press). Sexual orientation bias toward gay men and

lesbian women: Modern homonegative attitudes and their associations with

discriminatory behavioural intentions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.

Morrison, M. A., & Morrison, T. G. (2002). Development and validation of a scale measuring

modern prejudice toward gay men and lesbian women. Journal of Homosexuality, 43,

15-37.

Morrison, T. G., & Bearden, A. G. (2007). The construction and validation of the

Homopositivity Scale: An instrument measuring endorsement of positive stereotypes

about gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 52, 63-89. Subtle Discrimination 51

Mulé, N. (1999). Social work and the provision of health care and social services to sexual

minority populations. Canadian Social Work, 1, 39-55.

Narvaez, R. F., Meyer, I. H., & Kertzner, R. M. (2009). A qualitative approach to the

intersection of sexual, ethnic, and gender identities. Identity: An International Journal of

Theory and Research, 9, 63-86.

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (2010). Nondiscrimination. Retrieved April 30, 2010 from

http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/nondiscrimination

Office of Public Sector Information (2010). Equality Act 2010. Retrieved April 30, 2010 from

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2010/ukpga_20100015_en_1

Peel, E. (2001). Mundane heterosexism: Understanding incidents of the everyday. Women’s

Studies International Forum, 24, 541-554.

QSR International (2009). NVivo qualitative data analysis software (Version 8). QSR

International.

Ragins, B. R., & Cornwell, J. W. (2001). Pink triangles: Antecedents and consequences of

perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 86, 1244-1261.

Rey, A. M., & Gibson, P. R. (1997). Beyond high school: Heterosexuals’ self-reported anti-gay/

lesbian behaviours and attitudes. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 7, 65-84.

Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Journal of Women in

Culture and Society, 5(4), 631-660.

Röndahl, G., Innala, S., & Carlsson, M. (2006). Heterosexual assumptions in verbal and non-

verbal communication in nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 56, 373-381. Subtle Discrimination 52

Silverblatt, A. (2004). Media as social institution. American Behavioral Scientist, 48, 35-41.

Silverschanz, P., Cortina, L. M., Konik, J., & Magley, V. J. (2008). Slurs, snubs, and queer jokes:

Incidence and impact of heterosexist harassment in academia. Sex Roles, 58, 179-191.

Speer, S. A., & Potter, J. (2000). The management of heterosexist talk: Conversational resources

and prejudiced claims. Discourse and Society, 11, 543- 572.

Strauss, A. (1999). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, England: Cambridge

University Press.

Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., Fitzgerald, D. C., & Bylsma, W. H. (2003). African

American college students’ experiences with everyday racism: Characteristics of and

responses to these incidents. Journal of Black Psychology, 29, 38-67.

Swim, J. K., Johnston, K. & Pearson, N. B. (2009). Daily experiences with heterosexism:

Relations between heterosexist hassles and psychological well-being. Journal of Social

and Clinical Psychology, 28, 597-629.

Swim, J. K., Pearson, N. B., & Johnston, K. E. (2007). Daily encounters with heterosexism: A

week in the life of lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 53,

31-48.

Waldo, C. R. (1999). Working in a majority context: A structural model of heterosexism as

minority stress in the workplace. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 218-232.

Wilkinson, S. (2002). Lesbian health. In A. Coyle & C. Kitzinger (Eds.), Lesbian and gay

psychology: New perspectives (pp. 117-134). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Wilkinson, S., & Kitzinger, C. (2006). Editorial. Lesbian & Gay Psychology Review, 8, 3-11.

Wilton, T. (2000). Sexualities in health and social care: A textbook. Philadelphia, PA: Open Subtle Discrimination 53

University Press. Subtle Discrimination 54

Table 1

Sexual Approximate Location of Pseudonym Orientation Profession Age Interview Steve Gay Retired Teacher 60s Home

Bev Queer Teacher 30s Home

George Gay Retired Teacher/ Landscaper 60s Home

Karl Gay Writer 70s Home

Brent Gay Medical Technologist 30s Work

Denny Gay Advocate 40s University

Charlie Gay Landscaper 50s Home

Jenny Queer Artist 30s Home

Michelle Bisexual Non-Profit Worker 30s Home

Meredith Queer Non-Profit Worker 20s Home

Sue Lesbian Caregiver 50s Home

Mabel Lesbian Massage Therapist 50s Home

Ken Queer Writer 50s Work

Sean Gay Not Available 30s University

Fred Gay Spiritual Advisor 60s University

William Bisexual Artist/ 50s Home Designer John Gay Teacher 40s University

Danielle Lesbian Human Resources Professional 60s Home

Bonnie Lesbian Aesthetician 30s University

Participant Characteristics. Subtle Discrimination 55 Subtle Discrimination 56

Table 2

Behaviour Type of Discrimination

Workplace

Derogatory jokes/slang words about sexual Unintentional subtle discrimination minorities Homonegative comments (excluding jokes) Blatant discrimination

Clients refusing service from a sexual minority Blatant discrimination

Unofficial “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies Intentional subtle discrimination

Being “let go” or having opportunities (e.g., Subtle discrimination (intentionality unknown) promotions) withheld Healthcare

Heteronormative assumptions Unintentional subtle discrimination

Ignorance about sexual minority health Unintentional subtle discrimination

Family

“Tolerance” of sexual orientation Unintentional subtle discrimination

Unwillingness of family members to address or Intentional subtle discrimination acknowledge sexual orientation Loss of closeness Subtle discrimination (intentionality unknown)

Stereotypical assumptions (e.g., hypersexuality) Unintentional subtle discrimination

Categorization of Anti-Gay/Lesbian Behaviours Experienced by Participants.