Approval Sheet

APPROVAL SHEET

Title of Thesis: “You Can Tolerate a Bee But You Can’t Tolerate a Swarm of Bees”: How Gay Latinos Experience Stigma, Chronic Othering, and Strangeness in Baltimore

Name of Candidate: Trevor Warren Rose Master of Arts, 2018

Thesis and Abstract Approved: (*Signature of Supervising Professor) Sarah Chard Associate Professor Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Health Administration and Policy

Date Approved: ______

NOTE: *The Approval Sheet with the original signature must accompany the thesis or dissertation. No terminal punctuation is to be used. ABSTRACT

Title of Document: “You Can Tolerate a Bee But You Can’t Tolerate a Swarm of Bees”: How Gay Latinos Experience Stigma, Chronic Othering, and Strangeness in Baltimore

Trevor Warren Rose, Master of Arts, 2018

Directed By: Associate Professor, Sarah Chard, Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Health Administration and Policy.

Gay Latino men are at risk of being stigmatized for dual marginalized identities. The present study is based on interviews with nine gay Latino men in the Baltimore region about their experiences with sexual, cultural, and ethnic-based stigma, and how these multiple forms of stigma intersect in their lived experiences. Participants indicated they are frequently discriminated against in gay spaces because of their ethnicity. Participants perceived Latino spaces to be homophobic and unwelcoming. Participants encountered racism and xenophobia in dominant culture spaces. A central theme is Latino, gay, and dominant culture space discrimination created a foreigner identity in participants in accordance with the stranger (Simmel 1908/2010). An intersectional framework is necessary to modernize the concept of the stranger and how it may be extended to dually marginalized individuals. Intersectionality can aid stigma researchers in creating a more nuanced stigma model.

“You Can Tolerate a Bee But You Can’t Tolerate a Swarm of Bees”: How Gay Latinos Experience Stigma, Chronic Othering, and Strangeness in Baltimore

Trevor Warren Rose

Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Applied Sociology 2018

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Dr. Sarah Chard for agreeing to be my thesis chair without reservation and for giving me the confidence to pursue a career in anthropology. Thank you to Dr.

Dena Smith for taking the time to serve on my committee while working on your own numerous projects. Thank you to Dr. Loren Henderson for agreeing to serve at the last minute and for showing me how to be an effective and compassionate educator. Also thank you to Dr. Kate Drabinski for initially being on my committee and providing feedback throughout the proposal stage of this project and during my independent study.

Without several individuals at Towson I would not have made it to this point in my life. Thanks to Dr. Elizabeth Clifford for making me passionate about immigration and immigrant voices. Thanks to Dr. Douglas Pryor for sparking an interest in deviancy and stigma research. A very special thank you to Dr. Paul Munroe. Your mentorship at

Towson and encouragement of my talents changed my life. Thanks for seeing something in me when few people would have.

Thanks to individuals who have helped at specific points in my life. To Keir,

Nathaniel, and Perkins, thanks for getting me through rough patches and being there even when I was not always a great person to be around. To Carlos, thanks for pushing me to do better and expect more from myself, listening to me vent, knocking some sense into me when necessary, and encouraging me to reach for greater dreams than I originally had upon entering grad school. Thanks to Mom for simply everything.

Most of all, thanks to the nine individuals who participated in this study. May you all, each in your own way, make America great again.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………..i

List of Tables……………………………………………………………………..v

List of Abbreviations...... vi

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background Information……………………………1

Background Review……………………………………………………….5

Latino Cultural Beliefs…………………………………………………….6

Machismo………………………………………………………………….6

Responses by Gay Latino Men to Machismo……………………………...9

Religion…………………………………………………………………….11

Familismo…………………………………………………………………..13

Gay Latinos Within the Larger Dominant U.S. Gay Culture………………17

Discrimination against Latinos in the United States………………………..21

Simmel, The Stranger (1908/2010) and Gay Latinos……………………….26

Theoretical Gaps…………………………………………………………….34

Chapter 2: Methodology……………………………………………………………..37

Recruitment of Participants………………………………………………….38

Inclusion Criteria……………………………………………………………..38

Human Subject Research Protections…………………………………………38

Interview Strategy……...... 39

iii

Participant Demographics…………………………………………………….40

Data Management and Analysis……………………………………………….41

Chapter 3: Discrimination of Gay Latinos in Ethnic-Majority Spaces………………...42

“Am I Too Latino at This Job Interview”: Stigmatization of Latino Identities

in Dominant Culture Spaces……………………………………………………42

“But I Know When I Walk You See a Gay Latino”: Physical Confrontations

Between Gay Latinos and Dominant Culture Members………………………..46

Discrimination for Being Gay in Dominant Culture Spaces……………………50

Chapter 4: Discrimination of Gay Latinos in Latino Spaces…………………………...52

“It’s a Burden On Your Soul”: Religious Discrimination Within The Latino

Household……………………………………………………………………….52

“So That The Gay Part Doesn’t Interact With The Family Part”: Managing

Dual Identities Within the Family Unit…………………………………………59

Latin American Culture and Its Relationship with Homophobia……………….62

Latino Neighborhoods and Ethnic Enclaves…………………………………….66

Chapter 5: Discrimination of Gay Latinos in Gay Spaces……………………………...69

“Lets Have Taco Night”: Discrimination Prior to Entering the Club…………..69

“I Don’t Wanna be Your Fucking Rosetta Stone”: Experiences of

Discrimination Within Gay Clubs……………………………………………….74

“I Once Had a Boyfriend That Was From Mexico”: Fetishization of Gay

Latinos’ Brown Bodies Within Gay Spaces…………………………………….78

“You’re Like Super Attractive, Not Because You’re You, But Because

You’re Latino”: Ethnoracialization and Fetishization on Gay Dating Apps……82

Chapter 6: Effects of and Responses to Stigma…………………………………………85

Foreigner Status………………………………………………………………….85

Resistance to Stigma……………………………………………………………..91

Humor……………………………………………………………………………92

Education………………………………………………………………………...94

Participants’ Political Economic Status………………………………………….95

Stigma’s Relationship with Psychological Distress…………………………….100

Chapter 7: Conclusion, Limitations, and Directions for Future Research……………...105

Gay Latinos as the Stranger (Simmel 1908/2010)……………………………..105

Intersectionality, Identity, and Stigma…………………………………………122

Applied Implications for Policy and Advocacy………………………………..123

Limitations……………………………………………………………………..125

Future Research………………………………………………………………..127

Appendices……………………………………………………………………………..131

Appendix I. Table I: Sample Demographics…………………………………..131

Appendix II. Code List………………………………………………………...132

References………………………………………………………………………………135

List of Tables

Table 1: Sample Demographics (located under Appendix I).

List of abbreviations

TWR: Trevor Warren Rose

SES: Socio-economic status

IRIS: Individuality, Respect, Integrity and Sexuality; the name of the LGBT Latino support and advocacy group operating in Baltimore, which also is taken from the Spanish word for rainbow, arcoiris (Baltimore City Mayor’s Office of Immigrant and

Multicultural Affairs 2016).

vii

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background Information

Gay Latinos 1 manage multiple minority identities as both sexual-minorities and ethnic-minorities (Manohar and Ryan 2007: 2-3). Gay Latinos are socialized into Latino culture and sometimes encounter discrimination because of their sexual orientation (see

Garcia, Gray-Stanley, and Ramirez-Valles 2008; Ocampo 2012; Pena-Talamantes 2013).

Gay Latinos also experience the racism and discrimination that is directed towards U.S.

Latinos in general (Branton et al. 2011; Johnson and Ingram 2013), along with facing additional discrimination and objectification within the gay community (see Diaz et al.

2001; Han 2007; Ocampo 2012; Teunis 2007). Although there is a substantial body of research on the stigma experiences of gay men, as well as discrimination of Latinos in the United States, few studies have explored the ways multiple cultural values can impact felt stigma among gay Latino men (Akerlund and Cheung 2000: 279-280; Manohar and

Ryan 2007: 2-3). Few studies have also addressed how intersectionality, or the process by which “multiple grounds of identity” such as ethnicity and sexuality converge and lead to discrimination in individual’s lives (Crenshaw 1991: 1245), can contribute to the

1 While recent literature has found Latinos to eschew a Latino Identity with each passing generation (Lopez, Gonzalez-Barrera and Rohal 2017: 2) and Latinos who possess lighter skin tones identify as white (Waterston 2006: 141-144), Latinos who are exposed to ethnic discrimination are less likely to adopt a white identity (Golash-Boza 2006: 45-51). Darker-skinned Latinos who possess more indigenous physical features are subjected to greater discrimination than lighter skinned Latinos and are more likely to embrace a Latino identity (Frank, Akresh, and Lu 2010: 389, 393; Golash-Boza 2006: 45-51). Additionally, while Latinos with greater political and economic capital are believed to have better pathways towards assimilation and crossing over Lee and Bean’s (2007) color line (Waterston 2006), literature also shows Latinos with college education and professional occupations to experience discrimination (Feagin and Cobas 2014: 46-66, 79-85). Because the men in this study possess darker physical features and experienced discrimination as a result of their physical features, and their own acceptance of an outsider status as a result (partially) of their ethnicity, Latinos are viewed in this study as a distinct racial category in contemporary United States society, concurrent with literature which does not find Latinos to monolithically becoming white in America (see Feagin and Cobas 2014; Frank, Akresh, and Lu 2010; Golash-Boza 2006; Waterston 2006).

creation of stigma, or how stigma arising from ethnic discrimination, familial and cultural discrimination, and sexual discrimination converge in the lives of gay Latinos (see

Akerlund and Cheung 2000: 279-280). This gap is noteworthy as intersectionality helps illuminate how persons’ multiple identities can converge to limit their life chances (see

Crenshaw 1991; Graham 2014; Hill-Collins 2000). This study examines how key cultural concepts, including machismo, familismo, and religion, contribute to felt stigma among gay Latinos in the Baltimore metropolitan region. This study also advances

Simmel (1908/2010)’s stranger and finds the men in the sample to be modern versions of the stranger, as stigmatization in gay, Latino, and dominant culture spaces has led them to adopt a foreigner identity in all spaces. Previous literature has sought to extend Simmel

(1908/2010)’s concept of the stranger to other groups such as immigrants (Davidson and

Garcia 2014), middleman minorities (Bonacich 1973), intellectuals (Pels 2000), and gay college students (Fine 2011), as well as social media (Feldman 2012) and cyberspace culture (Bogard 1999). However, these studies have focused on singular forms of oppression or isolation and have not sought to examine how multiple, intersecting, oppressed identities (see Crenshaw 1991) can converge to form a stranger status in multiple marginalized persons, in this case gay Latinos.

For the purposes of this study, stigma refers to the process by which cultural beliefs limit the ability of individuals to maintain social ties and alter an individual’s “moral experience and the stigmatized as a person with a moral status” (Kleinman and Hall-

Clifford 2009: 418). This definition incorporates conceptualizations of stigma created by

Goffman (1963), Link and Phelan (2001) and Orne (2013). While Goffman originally conceptualized stigma as a “deeply discreditable” characteristic (3), his critique that

stigma is a “situation of the individual who is disqualified from full social acceptance”

(1963: Preface) best encapsulates how stigma can limit the life chances of individuals through the process of exclusion from social groups. However, Goffman (1963) does not fully consider the impact of structural conditions, particularly structural and institutional discrimination (such as discrimination, directed towards ethnic-minorities. which occurs in white controlled gay spaces), and how such discrimination can stigmatize individuals.

Building on Goffman (1963), Link and Phelan (2001) argue for the recognition of structural discrimination’s ability to contribute to stigmatization of vulnerable populations (372-373, 375-376). While Goffman (1963) argues individuals who disclose a stigmatizing identity may be embraced or rejected and discriminated against because of their stigmatizing identity (or if they are discreditable they could be discriminated against if there stigmatizing identity were to become public knowledge) (4), Orne (2013) argues sexual-minorities may face additional reactions to their disclosure (240-247). Orne

(2013) does not consider though the additional complications that individuals who are ethnic and sexual-minorities face, with regards to managing stigma which arises out of racism and homophobia and in different social spaces. Therefore an enhanced stigma model is needed to better understand how multiple minorities conceptualize and experience stigma. In this study felt stigma describes the distress of being discriminated against because of a stigmatizing condition (see Scrambler 1998: 1054).

In this study, I used semi-structured interviews with nine participants to investigate experiences of stigma among gay Latino men in the Baltimore, Maryland region and how men responded to multiple forms of stigma in their daily lives. As an exploratory study, my research contributes to social science literature by providing greater insights

regarding how multiple forms of stigma (sexual, cultural, and dominant-culture) contributes to increased marginalization in a multiple-minority population. This research may also help clinicians who work with gay Latinos devise more culturally competent modalities for treatment and lead to a reduction in the harmful effects of stigma among sexual-minority Latinos, thereby enhancing the quality of life for gay Latinos.

In this chapter I review literature on issues that lead to stigmatization of gay Latino men. I begin by examining stigma originating from Latino cultural values. Then I address stigmatization of gay Latinos which occurs in gay spaces and the gay community, and finally I scrutinize stigma directed towards Latinos from the dominant culture as well as structural discrimination which affects Latinos regardless of sexuality. I also address theoretical gaps in the literature and suggest a model of how stigma impacted participants in this study. Chapter Two discusses the methodology used for data collection and analysis. I also review how the rights of participants were safeguarded. Chapter Three discusses experiences of stigma in ethnic-majority spaces. While discussing experiences of homophobia in a limited capacity, Chapter Three primarily examines participants’ encounters with racism and xenophobia in dominant culture spaces. It also explores physical confrontations between participants and dominant culture members. Chapter

Four discusses how gay Latinos experience stigma in Latino culture. Chapter Four explores how these men experience religious and familial stigmas in their lives, as well as stigma from Latin American and immigrant family members. Chapter Four also discusses experiences of stigma in ethnic enclaves and other Latino spaces. Chapter Five discusses experiences of stigma in gay spaces, which includes experiences with fetishization in gay nightclubs and on dating apps. Chapter Five also discusses how men

experience racialized sexuality and are devalued in gay spaces because of their sexuality.

In Chapter Six I turn to the effects of these multiple forms of stigmatization on the lived experiences of the men. Specifically, I discuss how stigmatization in gay, Latino, and dominant culture leads participants to construct a foreigner identity and see themselves as outsiders across spaces. I discuss participants’ stigma neutralization techniques and the effectiveness of these techniques. I also discuss how ongoing stigmatization and the construction of a foreigner identity is associated with ongoing distress in the lived experiences of the participants. Finally, in Chapter Seven I argue the participants are modern forms of Simmel’s stranger (1908/2010). I also discuss the inadequacies in current stigma modeling and argue for a greater intersectional conceptualization of stigma with regards to multiple minority populations. I examine implications for policy and advocacy and how this research may benefit gay Latinos in the Baltimore region. I also discuss limitations of my study and directions for future research.

Background Review

In this section I review literature on machismo, religion, and familismo and how these cultural beliefs can mitigate or worsen stigma in gay Latinos. I then examine literature on the experiences of stigma in American gay culture, followed by an analysis of discriminatory practices against Latinos in the United States, independent of sexuality.

Lastly, I discuss Simmel’s stranger (1908/2010) and how gay Latinos may be extension of the stranger.

Latino Cultural Beliefs

Machismo

Almaguer (1993) contends that machismo is best conceptualized as a belief that men must present to society and their communities as rugged, hegemonic 2 individuals in order to overcome both women and men’s own femininity (see also de la Cancela 1986).

Machismo idealizes manliness as not crying or showing emotion when in distress, projecting a deep voice, and being strongly anti-effeminate (see Arciniega et al. 2008;

Fallicov 2010; Gutmann 1996). Homosexual men in Latino culture are viewed as being unmanly and lacking the physical strength associated with hegemonic masculinity (Mora

2013: 347-352). Herek and Gonzalez-Rivera (2006) found in a sample of Mexican-

Americans in Northern California that men “expressed significantly more negative attitudes towards gay men than did female respondents” (128). Because gay Latinos are thought to violate the norm of machismo they are viewed by machos, or hegemonically masculine Latino men, as deserving of violence and labeled as sexually promiscuous

(Asencio 1999: 118-119). Such behavior is part of a collective masculine narrative which is asserted through the use of boundary establishment and informal sanctions (e.g. gossip, bullying) for individuals who violate the norm of machismo (Mora 2013: 347-352). Gay

Latinos are, in some cases, separated from full inclusion in their ethnic communities and are not seen by heteronormative Latino men as truly participatory members in Latino masculine identity frameworks (Asencio 1999: 118-119).

2 Kimmel (2012) contends the quintessential hegemonic masculinity is a manhood where men “make it clear-eternally, compulsively, decidedly- that they are unlike women” (118). By othering women in American culture- and Kimmel ((2012)) argues “the classic ‘other’ is, of course, women”- men establish clear rules about their emotions and how they should express themselves in society (118).

Machismo is regulated among peer networks (Asencio 1999: 118-119; Mora 2013:

347-352) and within the family unit (Esparza 2017: 154-158, 161-164, 166-167; Pena-

Talamantes 2013: 169-170, 172). Machismo is utilized by Latino youth in order to control each other’s behavior, with Latino youth employing verbal sanctioning events for offending youth who fail to abide by masculine ideals (Mora 2013; 347-352). This includes ridiculing and harassing youths for possibly being homosexuals (Mora 2013;

347-352). Some Latino adolescent males construct gays as weak and the “opposite of a macho” and use this as a justification for committing violence against homosexuals

(Asencio 1999:118). This attitude among peer networks does not abate with entry into emerging adulthood. Hirai, Winkel, and Popan (2014) surveyed Latino college students regarding their beliefs about gay men. Male survey respondents reported elevated levels of machismo when compared to female survey respondents, however, machismo positively correlated with prejudice towards gay men among both male and female survey respondents (107-109). Hirai et al.’s (2014) findings suggest that gay Latino men are susceptible to stigmatization from other Latinx3 individuals because of the prevailing cultural norm of machismo.

Families often reinforce the idea that being gay is incompatible with being macho

(Pena-Talamantes 2013; 169-170, 172). Latino youths are socialized by their parents to not be el maricon (which means sissy or faggot) and report being warned that they will be othered by their families should they behave in an effeminate manner (Pena-Talamantes

2013; 169-170, 172). Herek and Gonzalez-Rivera (2006) found that respondents who disclosed greater rates of formal education held more positive attitudes about

3 A gender-neutral form of Latino designed to reflect both male and female Latin Americans (Ramirez and Bley 2017).

homosexuals (128) 4. This finding suggests that the political economy of Latino families is also important: gay men who are raised by parents who have access to formal education may encounter less stigma than gay Latinos raised in a less educated, more traditional familial unit. This finding is also important because hegemonically masculine fathers often are unaccepting of homosexual sons (Esparza 2017: 149, 154-158, 161-164;

Guarnero 2007: 15). Latino fathers frequently blame themselves for having gay children and conceptualize a son’s homosexuality as a reflection of the father’s inability to raise heterosexual children who can abide by masculine cultural ideals, reproduce, and carry on the family’s legacy (Esparza 2017: 149, 154-158, 161-167). For devoutly Christian fathers, a son’s homosexuality is not only a sin, but indicates the father’s own moral failing (Esparza 2017: 149, 154-158, 161-167). Fathers who discover their sons’ sexual identities frequently employ verbal and occasionally physical sanctioning events in an effort to change their sons’ sexual behavior and identity (Esparza 2017: 154-158, 161-

164; Guarnero 2007: 15). Additionally fathers may exile their sons from the family, forcing the sons into a life of homelessness (Castellanos 2016: 612-615). However,

Esparza (2017) observes these fathers frequently lack political and economic capital to advance their knowledge of homosexuality as they work low-wage, physically demanding jobs and do not have access to formal education which might change their conceptualizations of homosexuality (158, 162-165). Employment as a blue-collar worker also can limit the availability of time or money for fathers to learn about more welcoming views of homosexuality (Esparza 2017: 158, 162-165).

4 See also Ellison, Acevado, and Ramos-Wada (2011) for an analysis of formal education’s positive association with views of sexual-minorities among Latinos (49).

Responses by Gay Latino Men to Machismo

Research indicates gay Latino men react to cultural masculine norms using multiple methods. These methods, rather than decreasing or eliminating stigma, are instead capable of further stigmatizing individuals. Socialization to behave in a culturally appropriate manner that is inconsistent with an individual’s sexual orientation is capable of placing individuals in a “masculine limbo” where gay Latinos do not feel that they belong as either a macho or a maricon (Pena-Talamantes 2013: 171). This tension at times leads gay Latinos to other effeminate gay Latinos and prioritize masculine behavior, e.g., cultivating a deep voice and projecting a controlling image (Pena-

Talamantes 2013: 172-174). The ideal is to pass as a macho but still be able to engage in a gay lifestyle and participate in gay culture (Pena-Talamantes 2013: 172-174). This

“machoflexible” strategy allows individuals to maintain identities as strong, willful men who happen to be gay (Pena-Talamantes 2013: 174).

For Latino gay men who are unable or unwilling to develop a “machoflexible” (Pena-

Talamantes 2013: 174) persona, however, such expectations can lead to further isolation and felt stigma. That is, the inability to join with culturally idealized in-groups may lead to being ostracized within both Latino culture and gay Latino culture. For example, men who are viewed as being too macho are deemed to be heterosexual (Girman 2004: 30-

35). Machos are also assumed to be the dominant partner, referred to as activo, during sexual intercourse because of their perceived hegemonic masculinity (Carballo-Dieguez et al. 2004: 163). Latino men who are viewed as effeminate are assumed to be effeminate and the passive partner during sexual intercourse (Carballo-Dieguez et al. 2004: 163), thus stigmatizing individuals because of their inability to comply with traditional gender

roles. Similarly, effeminate gay Latinos may be viewed as being inadequate for full participation in the gay Latino community as well as the larger Latino community

(Girman 2004: 30-35; Pena-Talamantes 2013: 174-175). This isolation threatens men’s sexual and ethnic-minority identities and ascribes an outsider status to effeminate gay

Latinos (Girman 2004: 30-35; Pena-Talamantes 2013: 174-175).

Machismo also has an impact on gay Latino willingness to be open about identity. In a study comparing gay Latinos with gay whites, Sanchez et al. (2016) found that gay

Latinos worried more than whites in the sample about how masculine they appeared to others (58). Sanchez et al. (2016) also observed gay Latinos had greater desires to maintain privacy surrounding their sexual identity and to be accepted for their sexual identity (58-59). These conflicting desires to keep their gay identity confidential but also to be accepted for their gay identity are due to Latino culture’s norm of collectivism and the needs of the community being prioritized over individual desires, though this cultural practice prevents some gay Latinos from finding acceptance in the Latino community as publicly known gay men (Sanchez et al. 2016: 60).

Because of machismo gay Latinos sometimes partner with overtly masculine men in order to comply with standards of acceptable behavior (Ocampo 2012: 461-465). Some sexual-minority Latinos choose not to identify as gay but instead use the identifier that they date or are intimate with other men, out of discomfort with effeminate (and in some cases, White) gay men and their dominance in gay culture (Ocampo 2012: 458-460).

Some Latinos have internalized Latino cultural beliefs that Latino men are more masculine, whereas gay whites are stereotypically gay. Ocampo (2012) describes this phenomenon: “Many of the men, particularly in the early stages of coming out of the

closet, associated White gay men (and their associated social scene) with femininity, while attaching notions of masculinity to being an ‘authentic’ Latino man” (Ocampo

2012: 449).

The literature is clear that machismo can have ill-effects on the life chances of gay

Latinos by exposing men to individuals who seek to inflict verbal or physical harm (Mora

2013: 347-352; Ascencio 1999: 118-119) and by limiting men’s ability to accept their gay identity due to beliefs about homosexuality being incompatible with masculinity

(Ocampo 2012: 449, 458-465; Pena-Talamantes 2013: 172-175).

Religion

Religion is an important institution in Latino communities with many Latinos belonging to either the Roman Catholic Church (CARA n.d.) or to evangelical churches

(Pew Research Center 2014). Nationally, 30.4 million Latinos, or fifty-seven percent of adult U.S. Latinos identify as Catholic (CARA n.d.). Twenty-two percent of U.S. Latinos report being Protestant and within this population, sixteen percent claim they are evangelical (Pew 2014: 5). Within the familial unit religion, specifically Roman

Catholicism, fosters strengthened kinship networks by encouraging the development of compadres (godparents) who are expected to aid in the socialization of children (Alvarez,

Jr. 1994: 150-151). Through the establishment of compadres at christening ceremonies the church supports the establishment of parentsco relationships, which are enhanced kinship relations whereby Latino family friends can be accepted as family members

(Alvarez, Jr. 1994: 150-151). The church also provides wraparound services to new immigrants, such as providing employment and housing services and assisting with the process of obtaining legal documentation status if necessary (Weaver 1994: 25).

Religion also provides emotional and psychological support to caregivers who need assistance with coping with the requirements of looking after loved ones (Koerner, Shirai, and Pedroza 2013: 100-103).

Despite the positive attributes of religion, conservative religious institutions and their congregants often support stigmatizing beliefs toward gay Latinos (see Ellison et al.

2011: 47-48; Garcia et al. 2008: 424, 426, 429; Herek and Gonzalez-Rivera 2006: 128-

129). Indeed, several studies have revealed the homophobic tenets of the Roman

Catholic and many evangelical faiths are reflected in the viewpoints of their congregations (Ellison et al. 2011: 47-48; Valenzuela 2014: 936-938). As an example,

Latinos who identify as evangelical express hostility towards gay rights (Ellison et al.

2011: 47). Latino Protestants, regardless of evangelical status, skew towards political and social conservativism, opposition to gay marriage, and identification as Republicans

(Valenzuela 2014: 938). In addition, regardless of denomination affiliation Latinos who report being devout are more likely to hold negative beliefs about gay men (Herek and

Gonzalez-Rivera 2006: 128-129). Likewise, Latinos who report attending religious services frequently, whether Catholic or Protestant, are more likely to disapprove of same-sex marriage and be socially conservative (Valenzuela 2014: 938). This finding is noteworthy as native-born Latinos do not frequently attend religious services when compared to foreign-born Latinos (Valenzuela 2014: 935). Gay Latino men are often raised in immigrant households (Esparza 2017: 154-158, 161-167; Ocampo 2014: 160-

162) and thus may be raised by Christian parents who regularly attend religious services

(Valenzuela 2014: 935) and are unsupportive of their sons’ sexual identities. In a survey of LGBT youth, Ryan et al. (2010) found that sexual-minority Latinos in their twenties

who disclosed being raised in a religious household also disclosed reduced familial acceptance compared to individuals in the sample who were not raised in a religious household (208). As church teachings stress the sinfulness of homosexuality, researchers have found these teachings to contribute to internalized homophobia and psychological distress among Gay Latinos (Figueroa and Tasker 2014: 285-287; Garcia et al. 2008:

423-424). Gay Latinos who remain Catholic report selectively disclosing their sexual identities or disengaging from church functions and teachings (Garcia et al. 2008: 425-

426). Gay Latinos are sometimes directly targeted by church officials for condemnation and stigmatization because of their sexual identities (Garcia et al. 2008: 424). Thus, religion directly impacts how gay Latino men feel stigma (Figueroa and Tasker 2014:

285-287).

Familismo

Another cultural belief that impacts the identity and behavior of gay Latinos is familismo or “the strong identification and attachment of Hispanic persons with their nuclear and extended families” (Smith-Morris et al. 2012: 1). Familismo can be effective at buffering individuals from the effects of racism, poverty, and other stressors (Finch and Vega 2003: 113-115; Ryan et al. 2010: 208-209; Turcios 2017: 111, 117-118).

However, familismo has also been shown to be a contributor to the stigmatization of gay

Latinos. Fankhanel’s (2010) study of 217 gay youth living in Puerto Rico found 40.1% of the youth believe they would have to face an ultimatum about living as out gay men or being disowned by their families (269). Roughly 33% of the respondents thought they would be discarded by their mothers and 40% of the respondents thought their fathers would discard them if their gay identity was known (270). Latino youth who disclose

their sexuality to parents are sometimes met with statements about their sinfulness and failure to live up to religious ideals (Potoczniak, Crosbie-Burnett, and Saltzburg 2009:

198). Similarly, Rosario, Scrimshaw, and Hunter’s (2004) finding that sexual-minority

Latino youth disclosed their sexual identities to fewer individuals than sexual-minority white youth is possibly indicative of Latino youth being raised in a culture where they are afraid to disclose their sexuality to family and community members, though Rosario et al.

(2004) venture that this finding is attributable to Latino culture socializing youth to respect elders and an effort by the Latino youth to not cause discomfort to their elders

(226). Thus the literature consistently demonstrates that gay Latino men often are stigmatized within their familial units and face cultural stressors when divulging their sexual orientation.

While gay Latinos may be leery of discussing their sexual orientations with their family members, literature indicates that those who have their sexual orientation discovered by family members are at risk of victimization. Gay Latinos are sometimes targeted by family members who are not supportive of homosexuality and who subject the men to insults, verbal threats, and nullifications of homosexual identity (Eaton and

Rios 2017: 460; Li et al. 2017: 111-116). Latino youth occasionally face exile from home and experience homelessness as a result of the disclosure of a gay identity

(Castellanos 2016: 612-615). At the same time, familial support is positively associated with sexual-minority Latinos being open about their sexuality (Pastrana 2015: 103).

Ryan et al. (2010) found that individuals who were accepted for their sexual identity as teenagers “scored higher on all three measures of positive adjustment and health: self- esteem, social support, and general health” (208). Individuals whose families accepted

their sexual orientations at greater levels also had fewer suicide attempts than survey respondents whose families were less accepting of their sexual identities (Ryan et al.

2010: 209-210). In another study with Latino adult males who engaged in sexual relations with other men, parental rejection due to the men’s sexual orientation was positively associated with higher levels of depressive symptomatology (Mitrani et al.

2017: 355). This finding is noteworthy as it carries Ryan et al.’s (2010) work forward and indicates sexual-minority Latinos are susceptible to the effects of stigma as adults.

Mitrani et al.’s (2017) data establishes that sexual-minority Latinos may not see a reduction in mental disorders as they progress through the life course but rather, may continue to suffer the effects of felt stigma throughout the lifespan and experience lowered life chances due to the onset of mental illness mediated by cultural stigma.

Individuals have described the lack of familial support because of a gay identity to be a contributing factor to the onset of mental illness, suicidal ideation, and withdrawal from family involvement (Ocampo 2014: 162-163, 166-168).

Outside of the family unit, gay Latino men experience isolation and stigmatization within Latino communities. Vega, Spieldenner, and Tang (2012) indicated Latinos in their sample found the Latino community to block manifestation of gay identities by discouraging open displays of homosexuality; sexual- minority Latinos in the study were unable to openly proclaim their gay identity in Latino ethnic enclaves and were unable to live as out homosexuals because of Latino cultural values (83). Vega et al. (2012) found sexual-minority Latinos valued attending gay businesses but in doing so had to choose between expressing their gay or Latino identities and thus had difficulty in achieving an insider status (84). Participants in this study described the difficulty in integrating their

sexual and ethnic-minority identities, because of cultural stigma and familismo and had to choose between which identity they felt comfortable expressing in certain arenas (83-

84). Participants disclosed that they believed “the Latino community does not embrace them because they are gay and this may impact Latino gay men’s feelings of inclusion”

(83). Thus, gay Latinos are experiencing stigma within Latino spaces, in addition to stigmatization in gay spaces (see Han 2007: 55-60; Teunis 2007:268-270).

Familismo does not operate distinctly but is intertwined with machismo. Gay Latinos have described their preference for dating masculine men because they anticipate that their families will be less hostile towards a masculine partner (Ocampo 2012: 461-465).

Latinos who have immigrant parents have also stated that their parents’ home countries are Catholic and homophobic, thus ensuring that the parents are unreceptive to a gay identity (Ocampo 2014: 160-162). Gay Latinos have also indicated that effeminate gender presentations are unacceptable to their parents who were raised in Latin America and have traditionally masculine expectations for their sons (Ocampo 2014: 160-162).

Such behavior is the othering of a child within the family unit due to cultural stigma.

Gay Latinos who fall under this umbrella may no longer be full members of their community but instead be outsiders within their familial unit and perhaps within the larger Latino community.

Familismo is more than an abstract cultural belief; it is able to reduce harmful behaviors and improve the life chances of gay Latinos (Ryan et al. 2010: 208). Sexual- minority Latinos who endure stigma as youths are more likely to participate in sexual- minority groups (Ramirez-Valles et al. 2014: 29), suggesting that individuals seek out in- group participation in order to reduce felt stigma about being a sexual-minority.

Gay Latinos Within the Dominant U.S. Gay Culture

Dominant gay culture glorifies whiteness and downplays individuals who cannot live up to the white ideal (Teunis 2007: 268-270). For example, positions of power and leadership within gay culture are primarily held by whites who determine political and social agendas (Chambers 2006: 4-5, 11, 16; Teunis 2007: 268-270). Quarrels over the repeal of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) and DADA (Don’t Ask Don’t Tell) are legislative battles that are crucial to many whites’ upper socioeconomic status (Teunis

2007: 268-270). These battles are framed as being for the benefit of all sexual-minorities though often only white gays see the economic and social benefit of these battles (Teunis

2007: 268-270). These agenda items are managed by white gays who are seen as the face of the modern LGBT community and thus can suggest white needs and concern are the only concerns of the gay community (Teunis 2007: 268-270). Indeed, equating gay with white, combined with a focus on issues which do not help ethnic-minorities or working- class gays, can imply the gay communities’ needs are the same as upper class white gays and disregard legitimate economic and social plights of gay persons of color (Teunis

2007: 268-270). The focus on these concerns ignores the predicament of ethnic-minority gay men who have distinct economic and social concerns, and reifies the narrative that gay equals white (Han 2007: 52-54; Teunis 2007: 268-270, 273-274). This narrative can prevent the needs of ethnic-minority gay men from being considered in gay spaces

(Teunis 2007: 268-270, 273-274). Collectively the gay rights movement and dominant gay culture has whitewashed ethnic-minority gay narratives in order to find mainstream acceptance within the greater dominant U.S. culture (Han 2007: 52-54; Chambers 2006:

4-5,11,16). Sexual-minorities are modern strangers in the United States and lack equal

protections under the law (Phelan 2001: 5-7). Sexual-minorities are United States citizens but are not given full citizenship rights such as anti-workplace and housing discrimination protections because of their sexual orientations (Phelan 2001: 5-7). This unequal access to resources motivates sexual-minorities to seek mainstream acceptance

(Phelan 2001: 5-8), though sexual-minority persons of color may not always find their needs to be in accordance with sexual-minority whites (Chambers 2006: 4-5, 11, 16; Han

2007: 52-54; Teunis 2007: 268-270).

In addition to the privileging of white upper class concerns and agendas and the downplaying of ethnic-minority wants and needs, the brown bodies of ethnic-minority gay men are often fetishized based on stereotypes about physical features or the physical prowess of ethnic-minorities (Brennan et al. 2013: 393-394; Callender, Holt, and

Newman 2016: 10-13; Han 2007: 55-60; Ro et al. 2013: 843-844). This fetishization occurs simultaneously as the ethnoracialization of brown bodies, whereby ethnic- minority gay men are stigmatized for not achieving dominant white culture standards of beauty and failing to possess white physical features (Brennan et al. 2013: 393-394;

Callender et al 2016.: 10-13; Han 2007: 55-60). Ethnic-minority gay men are also the victims of racism which is perpetrated by members of the gay community (Diaz et al.

2001: 930; Ibanez et al. 2009: 71-73; Ro et al. 2013: 839-842). This paradox of being attractive enough to lust after but not being considered attractive enough to value as full members of the gay community can lead to reduced well-being and psychological distress in ethnic-minority gays (Diaz et al. 2001: 930).

Within this paradigm is where gay Latinos find themselves. Gay Latinos are lusted after for their bodies but remain strangers within white gay culture as gay Latinos “like

other men of color, also fall into two categories within the gay community. Either they are invisible or exist only as props for white male consumption” (Han 2007: 56). In a study of gay and bisexual Latinos spanning three U.S. cities, Diaz et al. (2001) found nearly a third of the respondents had been the victims of racial slurs as children, more than a third of the respondents indicated that they had been victimized as adults because they were Latino, 26% of the respondents indicated that they had been made to feel uncomfortable in areas largely occupied by white gays, and 62% of respondents “had been sexually objectified owing to their race or ethnicity” (930). Latinos are shown to have lowered in-group belonging with the gay community (Reisen et al. 2013: 214).

Multiple interlocutors in Ocampo’s (2012) study of gay Latinos in Los Angeles felt that the gay nightclubs of West Hollywood (an affluent gay neighborhood and business district) were unreceptive and antagonistic towards Latinos (457-460). They describe clubs prioritizing the needs and values of white patrons with respect to music, acceptable attire, etc. (457-460). Clubs also replaced theme nights which were geared towards ethnic-minorities with events catering to the music and tastes of white attendees (457-

460). These examples indicate that stigma may be intersecting in the lives of gay Latinos as these gay spaces are spaces of discrimination and ostracization for these men while at the same Latino spaces are also unwelcoming.

In an example of intersectional, in-group othering Philen (2006) found middle-class gay Latinos describe the gay bars of El Paso, Texas to be “Mexican” (45) as an insult to

Gay Latinos of lower socio-economic status 5 who frequented these establishments. Also gay Latinos who are lighter-skinned and have more white physical features experience

5 Hereafter referred to as SES.

less racism than gay Latinos who have darker skin and possess more indigenous appearances (Ibanez et al. 2009: 72). Ibanez’s et al.’s (2009) finding indicate phenotypical traits are further dividing gay Latinos by adding an additional layer of discrimination based on one’s physical features. The intersection of race, class, and sexuality as a contributor to felt stigma among gay Latinos should be further explored.

In addition to an intersectional analysis, the political economy of gay Latinos in gay spaces should be explored. Harris et al. (2013) investigated the sociopolitical involvement of gay Latino men in queer organizations. Harris et al. (2013) found

“Latinos who felt more connected to the LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and

Transgender] community and who felt comfortable in their racial communities had higher levels of LGBT POC [Persons of Color] sociopolitical involvement. However, the level of comfort these men had with the LGBT community negatively affected their level of

LGBT POC sociopolitical involvement” (247). The Latino men in the study who believed their ethnic identity was a salient part of their gay identity “also had higher levels of LGBT POC sociopolitical involvement” (247). These findings indicate that gay

Latinos who have access to more supportive, inclusive gay spaces can develop a more fully formed gay identity; intersecting racism from the gay community and homophobia from the Latino community become structural barriers to a complete sense of self (Harris et al. 2013: 242, 248-249) and may contribute to stigma creation.

These multiple forms of discrimination as described in the preceding paragraphs, when analyzed in totality, suggest that gay Latinos face chronic othering in multiple social spaces. This consistent discrimination may prevent them from gaining acceptance and inclusion in these spaces and may lead gay Latinos to be outsiders. Stigmatization

from both gay whites and economically privileged gay Latinos may converge to lead to multiple forms of stigmatization and the lowering of individuals’ life chances. Aside from socioeconomic status, gay Latinos may be a modern form of the stranger (Simmel

1908/2010). As Manohar and Ryan suggest (2007), gay Latinos are discriminated against in gay culture for being brown, in Latino communities for being gay, and in the dominant

U.S. culture for being Latino (2-3). Such discrimination may lead to multiple situations whereby gay Latinos are located in cultures (such as being present at a family gathering or in a gay nightclub) but are not fully valued members of the culture because of their sexuality or ethnicity.

Discrimination against Latinos in the United States

Gay Latinos also are subjected to the stigma and discrimination found in the broader

U.S. culture towards Latinos regardless of their sexuality. Latinos face structural discrimination because of their ethnic identity. In particular they suffer lowered political economy and reduced mental health because of racist and xenophobic stigmatization from the dominant culture (see Choi et al. 2013; Diaz et al. 2001; Feagin and Cobas

2014; Foiles Sifuentes 2015; Hong, Zhang, and Walton 2014; Perez Huber 2011), which will be discussed in this section. This stigmatization in the dominant culture, coupled with discrimination in gay and Latino spaces, further marginalizes gay Latinos.

Latinos in the United States face multiple stressors as ethnic-minorities. Latinos are frequently assumed to be undocumented (Bloch 2014: 55-57), are the focuses of nativist fears (Branton et al. 2011: 672-676), and have been conceptualized to be apex-predators worthy of targeting by law enforcement (Romero 2001: 1081-1088). Latinos are at risk of being targeted for violence and hate crimes (Stacey, Carbone-Lopez, and Rosenfeld

2011: 292-293) and recent research has shown violence against Latinos to be on the rise

(Harris 2015; Johnson and Ingram 2013). For example, hate crimes in California, operationalized as incidents which directly targeted Latinos/as, were known to law enforcement entities and reported to district attorney’s offices, rose 35% to 81 incidents in 2015, compared to 60 incidents in 2014 (Harris 2015: 5). The Federal Bureau of

Investigation’s 2015 Hate Crime Statistics documented 299 instances of anti-Latino hate crimes known to law enforcement (FBI 2016). Latinos are assaulted due to their phenotypical features or pre-conceived beliefs about their immigration statuses (Johnson and Ingram 2013). Latino youth are often the targets of victimization and direct assaults though familismo has been shown to reduce the effects of violence in Latino youth

(Kennedy and Ceballo 2013: 673).

Gay Latinos experience these above mentioned stressors without regard to their sexuality. Racism directed towards sexual-minority Latinos can lead to lowered life chances. Choi et al. (2013) in a survey of Black, Asian and Pacific Islander, and Latino

Men who have Sex with Men (MSM) in the Los Angeles metropolitan region, found the

Latino survey respondents to have the most elevated rates of anxiety (e3). Latinos in the sample reported the most encounters with homophobia (e3). Additionally, Latinos in the sample frequently reported suffering racism from the dominant, sexual-majority culture and not the LGBT community (e3). Latinos who suffered racism from the dominant culture disclosed depressive and anxiety symptomatology (e4). This finding indicates that experiencing sexuality and ethnic-based discrimination can impact the mental health of Latino sexual-minorities and may reduce their psychological quality of life.

Latino-Americans frequently live in poverty and are stratified in the lower-classes

(Gradin 2012; Lichter and Landale 1995; South, Crowder, and Chavez 2005). This stratification occurs for multiple reasons: Latinos primarily work in the service industry which offers low wages and limited upward mobility, their lack of English proficiency and formal education/training inhibits upward mobility, and the shift in the U.S. economy from manufacturing to technology-based industries also limits upward mobility for unskilled workers (Kochhar 2005: ii). Lower-class Latinos are shown to cluster in lower-income neighborhoods which can have ill-effects on well-being (Hong et al. 2014:

121). Poverty in the Latino community has been shown to lead to exposure to violence

(Martinez, Jr. 1996: 138-140) and psychological disorders (Hong et al. 2014: 121).

Latinos also face discrimination in the educational system. The United States educational system utilizes nativist curriculums which prioritizes dominant culture ideology (Foiles Sifuentes 2015: 771; Perez Huber 2011: 389-394). These curriculums do not support or value Latino cultural beliefs or specific heritages of specific Latino cultures, and such a lack of cultural inclusion may give Latino youth the impression that their cultural identity is not valued in school (Foiles Sifuentes 2015: 771; Perez Huber

2011: 389-394). Educators are also susceptible to racism and xenophobia and may overtly or covertly discriminate against or victimize Latino youth (Foiles Sifuentes 2015:

772-778; Perez Huber 2011: 389-394). Such behavior may lead to lowered life chances among these youth by blocking the youth’s ability to succeed in k-12 schooling or gain admission to an institution of higher learning (Foiles Sifuentes 2015: 772-778: 389-394).

The above-listed stressors are capable of blocking Latinos from achieving educational success or economic mobility in the United States and may impact the identity of Latinos.

Gay Latinos, in addition to facing sexual-minority stressors, may have less access to the educational, and economic opportunities that can reduce their experiences of stigma. Gay

Latinos, in addition to navigating these stressors, must also face in-group and out-group stigmatization due to their sexual-minority and ethnic-minority identities, though it is unclear how multiple forms of stigma affect this multiple minority population (Manohar and Ryan 2007: 2-3). Gay Latinos, however, may be considered an outsider in multiple spaces because of their possession of multiple stigmatized identities (see Pena-

Talamantes 2013: 169-174; Vega et al. 2012: 83-84). Research has shown blacks to be othered by Whites and be extensions of Simmel’s stranger by virtue of their geographic proximity to racist whites but social exclusion from dominant culture groups (McVeigh and Sikkink 2005: 513-518). It is important for the literature going forward to determine if this concept applies to multiple ethnic-minority groups and if ethnic-minorities in the

United States should still be viewed through a Simmelian lens.

Latinos also have unequal access to resources in American society. Latinos frequently have structural barriers to healthcare access in the United States (Chavez and

Torres 1994: 226, 234). Latinos are often underemployed and work in industries which do not offer employer sponsored health coverage (Chavez and Torres 1994: 234). They may also not have access to comprehensive healthcare services in their neighborhoods or public transportation with which they can reach medical services (Chavez and Torres

1994: 234). Latinos also may not be able to afford co-pays and deductibles even if they have health insurance because of their being underemployed or unemployed and not having the financial resources necessary to afford doctor’s offices visits (Chavez and

Torres 1994: 234). Undocumented Latinos are not covered under government sponsored

medical programs and work in industries which do not provide private medical insurance

(Chavez and Torres 1994: 234). Latinos, regardless of sexuality, have lowered political economy of health and face additional drains on their economic resources when compared to whites in the United States (Chavez and Torres 1994: 233-234).

Latinos face structural socio-economic barriers in other arenas than healthcare utilization. Throughout the second half of the twentieth century, Latinos’ political economy was weakened as their wages declined (Hinojosa-Ojeda 1994: 118-120).

Latinos’ income is significantly less than the income of whites and Latinos have less educational opportunities when compared to whites (Hinojosa-Ojeda 1994: 118-120).

Latinos also have fewer degrees and do not possess secondary education degrees at the same levels of whites in the United States (Hinojosa-Ojeda 1994: 120). Among gay

Latinos it has been shown that they earn 6.7 percent less in income than gay white men

(Douglas and Steinberger 2015: 69). Gay Latinos earn 10.5 percent less than straight- identified, married white men (Douglas and Steinberger 2015: 69). This reduction in earnings may prevent gay Latinos from acquiring resources which can help them manage or neutralize stigma, such as having enough funds to move to a predominantly gay neighborhood and away from a stigmatizing home environment, pay for psychological counseling to learn modalities for combating stigma-related mental disorders, or pay cover charges at gay clubs to find a safe space to be gay (though gay clubs are not always a safe space for ethnic-minority gays; see Han 2007; Ocampo 2014; Thing 2010).

Stigma’s effect on the political economic status of gay Latinos will be further explored in

Chapter Six.

Simmel, The Stranger (1908/2010), and Gay Latinos

Simmel (1908/2010) classified the stranger as a type not through his own actions but through his “relationship to others” (Edles and Appelrouth 2010: 301). This taxonomy occurs through the process of nearness and remoteness (Simmel 1908/2010: 302-304).

While the stranger is near the in-group spatially, he is remote by virtue of his political capital in the group, as his geographic proximity to the in-group does not afford him in- group belonging and the rights this status conveys (Simmel 1908/2010: 302-305). The stranger is near in-group members because of an ascribed status (such as ethnicity, sexuality, or national origin) but is distant because of the connection of in-group members to each other (Simmel 1908/2010: 302-306; see also Edles and Appelrouth

2010; 301). Simmel (1908/2010) used the example of the Jew in Europe who “first of all was a Jew” despite being allowed to trade with gentiles to highlight how the stranger is close to but separate from the in-group (305). This categorization of individuals and isolation of their traits is seen in existing literature on gay Latinos. Brown gay men are seen in gay spaces as a type by white gays who despite sharing sexuality with these ethnic-minorities, do not conceptualize brown gays as their equals (Brennan et al. 2013:

393-394; Callender et al. 2016: 10-13; Diaz et al. 2001: 930 ; Han 2007: 55-60; Teunis

2007: 268-270). White gay men in corporal and digital gay spaces conceptualize gay

Latinos as either objects of lust (Brennan et al. 2013: 393-394; Callender et al. 2016: 10-

13; Han 2007: 55-60) or as unsuitable, ethnoracialized mates and stereotype Latinos for their physical features (Diaz et al. 2001: 930; Han 2007: 55-60; Ibanez et al. 2009: 71-73;

Ro et al. 2013: 839-842). In Latino familial units and ethnic enclaves gay men are conceptualized as effeminate, weak maricons (Ascencio 1999: 118-119; Mora 2013: 347-

352; Pena-Talamantes 2013: 169-174). Latin-American cultural values encourage separating gay Latinos from ethnic in-group belonging (Ascencio 1999: 118-119; Esparza

2017: 161-167; Girman 2004: 30-35; Guarnero 2007: 15; Mora 2013: 347-352). Latinos in the United States, irrespective of sexuality, become types to dominant culture members, who frequently conceptualize Latinos as illegal (Branton et al. 2011: 672-676;

Feagin and Cobas 2014: 22-23, 32-34, 38-40, 46-66, 74-85) and criminals (Romero 2001:

1081-1088). Native-born Latinos who are conceptualized as foreigners (Branton et al.

2011: 672-676; Feagin and Cobas 2014: 22-23, 38-40, 46-66, 74-85) and labeled as dangerous (Romero 2001: 1081-1088) by the dominant culture are also separated from the dominant culture’s conceptualization of what American phenotypical features are or what Americans should look like. This separation prevents Latinos from moving past a type and achieving in-group belonging and privileges. This inability to be seen as unique individuals by individuals in positions of power (including heterosexual Latinos who wield power in Latino spaces; see Figueroa and Tasker 2014: 285-287) may account for the multiple forms of stigmatization sexual-minority Latinos encounter in their lived experiences.

Gay Latinos’ typology (and responses to their typology) limits their ability to achieve full group belonging in any space they occupy, despite their possessing multiple statuses with multiple groups in multiple spaces. Gay Latinos share sexuality with dominant- culture gays but are othered in gay spaces (see Callender et al. 2016: 10-13; Diaz et al.

2001: 930; Han 2007: 55-60; Ocampo 2012: 458-465; Teunis 2007: 268-270). Gay

Latinos share ethnicity with Latinos, but are othered in Latino spaces via homophobia

(Asencio 1999: 118-119; Guarnero 2007: 15; Mora 2013: 347-352), religious stigma

(Figueroa and Tasker 2014: 285-287; Potoczniak et al. 2009: 198; Ryan et al. 2010: 208) and cultural expectations about manhood and masculinity (Ascencio 1999: 118-119;

Girman 2004; Mora 2013: 347-352; Ocampo 2012: 458-465; Pena-Talamantes 2013:

169-174; Sanchez et al. 2016: 58-60). Latinos share nationality with dominate culture members, but are othered by the dominate culture, both its members (Bloch 2014: 55-57;

Branton et al. 2011: 672-676; Harris 2015: 5; FBI 2016)Ro and its educational (Foiles

Sifuentes 2015: 771; Perez Huber 2011: 389-394), healthcare (Chavez and Torres 1994:

234), and criminal justice (Romero 2001: 1081-1088) institutions. Chronic othering originating out of dual marginalized identities may prevent gay Latinos as moving beyond a type and being seen by the in-group as fully formed, distinctive individuals in

American society.

Simmel (1908/2010) theorizes the stranger, “the man who comes today and stays tomorrow” as an individual located in a group to which he does not indigenously belong, either within a static geographical location “or within a group whose boundaries are analogous to spatial boundaries” (302). This description may be appropriate for an analysis of the experiences of stigma among gay Latinos. Their possession of multiple marginalized identities inhibits their full inclusion in any of the populations with which they come in contact. Gay Latinos suffer from racism and xenophobia in gay spaces

(Diaz et al. 2001: 930; Han 2007: 55-60; Ocampo 2012: 458-460; Ro et al. 2013: 839-

842). They are the targets of fetishization in these spaces (Brennan et al. 2013; Callender et al. 2016: 10-13; Han 2007: 55-60). This fetishization is often perpetrated by white gays (Han 2007: 52-60) who control gay spaces and have greater political and economic capital in these spaces when compared to gay Latinos (Chambers 2006: 4-5, 11, 16;

Teunis 2007: 268-270). Thus the indigenous, white population in gay spaces cannot accept gay Latinos as full members of gay culture (see Chambers 2006; Han 2007;

Teunis 2007). Similarly the dominant culture in America which occupies an indigenous, in-group role constructs Latinos as illegal (Bloch 2014: 55-57). By framing Latinos as foreign (Bloch 2014: 55-57) and criminal (Romero 2001: 1081-1088), dominant culture members other Latino ethnicity and prevent Latinos from gaining political capital in dominant culture spaces, such as educational (Foiles Sifuentes 2015: 771; Perez Huber

2011: 389-394) and economic (Douglas and Steinberger 2015: 69; Hinojosa-Ojeda 1994:

120, 124) systems. Lastly, in Latino spaces gay Latinos do not make up the indigenous population of heterosexual Latinos, in family units (Eaton and Rios 2017: 460; Esparza

2017: 161-167; Guarnero 2007: 15; Ocampo 2012: 461-465; Ocampo 2014: 162-163,

166-168; Pena-Talamantes 2013: 169-170, 172) or in ethnic enclaves (Asencio 1999:

118-119; Mora 2013: 347-352; Vega et al.: 83-84). Gay Latinos violate Latin American cultural norms of manhood (Asencio 1999: 118-119; Girman 2004: 30-35; Mora 2013:

347-352; Ocampo 2014: 162-163, 166-168). Gay Latinos also fail to comply with conservative Christian religious doctrine which regards homosexuality as a sin (Figueroa and Tasker 2014: 285-287; Garcia et al.: 423-426; Gibson and Hare 2012; Herek and

Gonzalez-Rivera 2006: 128-129; Liboro and Walsh 2016: 659; Ryan et al. 2010: 208;

Valenzuela 2014: 936-938). Cultural and religious discrimination may prevent gay

Latinos from procuring in-group membership in Latino spaces. Gay Latinos thus may be unable to be indigenous in any space and gain the political and social benefits of being indigenous in these spaces. This lack of full social inclusion, despite their existing in these spaces, may lead gay Latinos to feel marginalized within multiple spaces.

Gay Latino men’s inability to gain entre with any population with which they come into contact also limits their means to amass political and economic capital in any space.

Gay Latinos are shown across their dual marginalized identities to be “no owner of land”

(Simmel 1908/2010: 303) as their political economic status is weakened in all spaces.

While Simmel used the example of the medieval Jew in Europe to suggest how a ostracized person could offer a service to the dominant group (303, 305), gay Latinos in

Baltimore also lack the political and economic capital of other groups. As this project will show, the participants spoke of feeling powerless in all spaces they occupied.

Participants noted the lack of inclusive gay spaces for gay Latinos and control of these spaces by gay whites. Their narratives are consistent with research which finds dominant-culture gays to control gay spaces and prioritize the political and economic needs of whites over the needs of ethnic-minority gays (Chambers 2006: 4-5, 11, 16; Han

2007: 52-54, 55-60; Teunis 2007: 268-270). Independent of sexuality Latinos have lowered economic and educational capital (Hinojosa-Ojeda 1994: 118-120; Kochar: ii) and greater health disparities than whites (Chavez and Torres 1994: 233-234), indicating

Latinos are indeed “no ‘landowner’ in the eye of the other” (Simmel 1908/2010; 303).

Participants in the study noted their lack of in-group membership in dominant culture spaces. Participants associated their lack of privilege and political and economic power in these spaces to their ethnicity and stereotypes about being Latino as well as their sexuality. Within Latino spaces, sexual-minority Latinos cannot disclose their sexuality without risking ostracization (Castellanos 2016: 612-615; Fankhanel 2010: 269-271;

Guarnero 2007: 15; Hirari et al. 2014: 107-109; Ocampo 2014: 160-162, 166-168; Vega et al. 2012: 83-84) or outright violence (Ascenico 1999: 118-119 ; Guarnero 2007: 15).

Gay Latinos thus may not benefit from familismo’s ability to buffer from the effects of dominant culture othering and economic insecurity (Finch and Vega 2003: 113-115;

Turcios 2017: 111, 117-118). Gay Latinos thus may not be landowners in Simmel’s

(1908/2010) use of the term as they do not possess the same political capital in Latino spaces that straight Latinos do and are not automatically assumed to be insiders “in an ideal position within the social environment” (303).

Simmel (1908/2010) contends the stranger is an ambulatory individual who makes

“contact with every [italics original] single element but is not bound up organically through established ties of kinship, locality, or occupation, with any single one” (303).

This idea encapsulates the concept of the stranger as a person who is corporally present in a community and associates with members of the community, but lacks ties with the community. The stranger in particular lacks political and economic ties which can enhance his power in the community. This theoretical concept may extend to gay Latinos as they are shown to not be bound to any of the groups with which they have consistent interaction. Their lack of political and economic capital in gay spaces may make it difficult for gay Latinos to establish fictive kin in gay spaces (see Chambers 2006: 4-5,

11, 16; Han 2007: 55-60; Teunis 2007: 268-270). Gay Latinos may not be able to live in accordance with Latin American cultural values regarding homosexuality (Girman 2004:

30-35) or Christian teaching about homosexuality (Eaton and Rios 2017: 460; Figueroa and Tasker 2014: 285-287). Regular contact with Latinos in familial units and ethnic enclaves may prevent gay Latinos from establishing in-group bonds with their sanguine or fictive kin because heterosexual Latinos may sanction gay Latinos with violence and harassment for failure to live in accordance with Latino cultural values and Christian

teachings (see Castellanos 2016: 612-615; Esparza 2017: 154-158, 161-167; Ryan et al.

2010: 208; Vega et al. 2012: 83-84). Latinos may socialize with dominant culture members in their occupations and dominant culture spaces, but dominant culture concerns about the illegality (Bloch 2014: 55-57) and criminality (Romero 2001: 1081-

1088) of Latinos may thwart Latinos from merging with the dominant culture and gaining in-group rights (see Feagin and Cobas 2014: 46-66, 74-85). Because they possess multiple identities which are each at risk of not being welcomed into in-group spaces despite their having frequent contact with the in-group (either gay dominant culture members, heterosexual Latinos, or dominant culture members), gay Latinos may be the stranger in multiple spaces in their daily lives. Intersecting marginalized identities may prevent gay Latinos from being in-group members in spaces they occupy and instead may allow gay Latinos to become modern extensions of the stranger.

In the spaces mentioned in the preceding paragraph, gay Latinos shared a common identity with other individuals in these spaces (either an ethnic, sexual, or national identity). However, the shared identity may not serve to unify gay Latinos with others in these spaces. Simmel (1908/2010) observes in-group members may share features with the stranger, but sharing affinities serves to marginalize the stranger, as common features become so ubiquitous that they prevent in-group members from recognizing the uniqueness of the stranger (304). Thus, while the stranger is near not only in terms of spatial distance but also “more general qualities in common” he is distant from the in-group because shared qualities do not specify anything distinctive to the in- group about the stranger (304). Ethnicity or sexuality becomes a common factor when shared by in-group members, and in the absence of unique personal features which make

the in-group desire to know the stranger as a unique individual, the shared identity “will acquire an element of coolness” as it is not seen as unique, or so unique as to convince the in-group members to confer belonging to the stranger (304). Thus gay Latinos may not be able to deploy their sexual or ethnic identities in a manner which allows them to be seen as unique individuals in any space they occupy. In gay spaces such as nightclubs and dating apps, dominant culture gays are in the majority (see Brennan et al. 2013: 393-

394; Callender et al. 2016: 10-13; Diaz et al. 2001: 930; Han 2007: 52-60; Teunis 2007:

268-270). Being gay may become commonplace in these spaces and thus a shared sexuality may not unite gay Latinos and dominant culture gays. A shared sexuality may not allow gay Latinos to be conceptualized as unique, equal gay men in these spaces.

They may still be seen as Latinos first, with the Latino identity overriding the gay identity. Similarly, in Latino spaces such as familial units and ethnic enclaves where

Latino individuals are in majority, being Latino may not be seen as a unifying symbol, because Latino cultural values are not always accepting of homosexuality (see Asencio

1999: 118-119; Eaton and Rios 2017: 460; Esparza 2017: 154-158, 161-167; Figueroa and Tasker 2014: 285-287; Garcia et al. 2008: 424-426; Herek and Gonzalez-Rivera

2006:128 ; Hirai et al. 2014: 107-109; Mora 2013: 347-352; Ocampo 2012: 458-465;

Ocampo 2014: 160-163, 166-168; Pena-Talamantes 2013: 169-172; Valenzuela

2014:936-938 ). Thus in Latino spaces while the shared ethnic identity “provides a basis for unifying the members” (Simmel 1908/2010: 304) the existence of a gay identity, regardless of the identity being public knowledge in the space, may prevent heterosexual

Latinos from recognizing gay Latinos’ uniqueness. Gay Latinos are shown to be hesitant to disclose their sexuality identities in Latino spaces indicating they may not be able to

transition into full inclusion into the in-group (see Figueroa and Tasker 2014: 285-287;

Garcia et al. 2008: 424-426, 429; Ocampo 2014: 160-163; Vega et al. 2012: 83-84). In dominant culture spaces being American by birth or by naturalization may not allow gay

Latinos to be seen as distinctive individuals. The dominant culture conceptualization of

Latinos as foreigners (Bloch 2014: 55-57; Branton et al. 2011: 672-676) and dangerous

(Romero 2001: 1081-1088) may prevent gay Latinos from being recognized as equal citizens. Across all three of these identities (gay, Latino, and American) gay Latinos may be unable to be seen by individuals with whom they share common features as anything other than a category of person (see Simmel 1908/2010: 304 for an analysis of common features with the in-group preventing the stranger from joining the in-group).

Theoretical Gaps

Existing theoretical models of stigma have not discussed culture’s effect on the stigma creation or stigma management processes. Goffman (1963) conceptualized stigma as a process which focused on a mark or character trait used by society to delegitimize individuals (2-3). This concept of stigma does not consider how structural discrimination can adversely stigmatize certain groups of people (Kleinman and Hall-Clifford 2009:

418). Link and Phelan (2001) include in their conceptualization of stigma the sociological concept of structural discrimination and how structural discrimination can negatively impact the life chances of groups (372-373, 375-376). Link and Phelan’s

(2001) analysis does not consider how cultural values, in addition to structural discrimination, can affect stigmatization. Recognizing the limits of traditional models of stigma, Kleinman and Hall-Clifford (2009) proposed that researchers begin to study the proximal moral worlds of stigmatized individuals and how “the moral standing of

individuals and groups in local context affects the transmission and outcome of stigma”

(418). Anthropologists have investigated how stigma development is impacted by culture and the moral worlds of the stigmatized and have concluded that cultural beliefs can explain the construction of stigma (see Yang et al. 2007: 1527-1534; Yang and

Kleinman 2008: 402-407). The existing literature on stigmatization of gay Latinos, while useful in explaining background information on gay Latinos, centers around two primary fields. Much of the literature focuses extensively on sexual-minority Latinos’ sexual risk behaviors and risk of HIV/AIDS infection because of exposure to stigma (see Han et al.

2015) and/or lack of support from cultural and familial institutions (see Carballo-Dieugez

1989; Lo et al. 2011; Martinez et al. 2011; O’Donnell et al. 2002; Rhodes et al. 2010;

Salcedo 2009). Additionally literature focuses on gay Latino immigrants and the immigrant experience for this population (see Gilbert and Rhodes 2014; Gray,

Mendelsohn and Omoto 2015). Both of these research foci are not the point of this paper.

These foci are specific to sub-populations of gay Latinos and do not discuss the larger non-immigrant gay Latino population. Furthermore this literature does not address how

Latino and gay culture may intersect to create felt stigma in gay Latinos. Stigma modeling presently does not synthesize multiple forms of stigma to form an intersectional model which incorporates culture, sexuality, and ethnicity in order to investigate cultural, sexual, and ethnic-based stigma can intersect in multiple minority populations. Thus a gap in the literature has been identified and the goal of this exploratory study is to investigate how these multiple forms of stigma converge in the lived experiences of gay

Latinos.

In this project, I argue that multiple forms of stigma arising out of cultural, sexual, and ethnic discrimination lead gay Latino men in Baltimore to conceptualize themselves as foreigners 6. Specifically gay Latino men are perpetually othered because of their dual marginalized identities and are never insiders in gay, Latino, or dominant culture spaces.

This foreigner identity leads men to experience psychological distress as they are perpetually cognizant of their outsider status.

6 The term “foreigners” is primarily used in place of “outsiders” because of the men in this study referring to themselves specifically as foreigners or feeling as though they had been given a foreigner label in specific settings, such as gay nightclubs or Latino neighborhoods.

Chapter 2: Methodology

In this chapter I discuss the methods used in the collection and analysis of data for my study. I discuss my participant recruitment strategy, inclusion criteria for participation in the study, the interview strategy and topics covered in the interview, compliance with human subject protocols, descriptive characteristics of the participants, and data analysis techniques.

Data used in this study were collected through nine semi-structured interviews in the

Summer of 2017. Participants in this study were recruited from IRIS, multiple centers at a research university, and convenience sampling at a separate university. Two gatekeepers also assisted with gaining entre with IRIS 7 and with referring me to participants. I chose not to recruit individuals from organizations which primarily serve the Latino community independently of sexuality, as these organizations cater to first- generation Latinos and my Spanish language ability is insufficient to conduct an interview with non-English speakers. In addition, sexual-minority Latino immigrants usually do not publicly acknowledge their gay identities (Girman 2004: 293-294; Thing

2010: 813), Furthermore literature indicates non-Latino researchers can have difficulty establishing rapport with Latino immigrants (Martinez Jr. et al. 2012: 17, 21-23).

Interview locations included participants’ residences, offices, the atrium of an office building, and the study room of a library. Participants received a thirty dollar Amazon gift card for participating in the interview. I transcribed three of the interviews using

Wreally Transcribe in order to further my understanding of the tone of the interviews and gather a sense of the emotions involved in discussing experiences with stigma. Verb8tm,

7 A gay Latino advocacy and support organization headquartered in Baltimore (Charing 2016).

a professional transcriptionist company, transcribed the other six interviews. I listened to the audio recordings while reading the professionally completed transcriptions to ensure accuracy.

Recruitment of Participants

Initial contact with the majority of participants came through gatekeepers, online listservs, or postings on organizations’ social media accounts. Interested individuals either contacted me or I would reach out to them directly if their contact information was provided via a gatekeeper. I emailed copies of the recruitment flyer and information sheet to possible participants.

Inclusion Criteria

The primary inclusion criteria was that study participants self-identified a gay Latino man, which also could include gender-queer and Latinx or mixed Latino identity. For example, Juanito self-identified as gender-queer and Latinx, while Valero’s father is mestizo and his mother is white. Participants had to be open about their sexuality in their peer groups and other social networks. Participants also had to be fluent in English. All participants were eighteen years of age or older.

Human Subject Research Protections

The UMBC Institutional Review Board approved the study, including a waiver of written informed consent. The consent process involved providing participants with an information sheet on the study at the time they expressed interest in the study. At the outset of the interview I again provided the information sheet for the participant’s review and for his records. We discussed the information sheet and the participant’s questions.

Once the interview was over I provided participants with a list of legal, medical, and mental health resources for Latino and LGBT populations.

Interview Strategy

The semi-structured interview explored participants’ experiences of stigma and the impact of Latino cultural beliefs’ on their lived experiences. Participants were queried about their experiences with stigmatization due to their sexuality, ethnicity, or both. I asked participants about their perceptions of gay spaces, their experiences with eroticization/fetishization, and what they envisioned as current problems in gay and

Latino communities. Participants were also asked about their perceptions of religion, familismo and machismo, if they felt these cultural beliefs were prevailing factors in their lives, and if they believed these beliefs had perpetuated stigmatization. I inquired about the participants’ stigma management techniques. Demographic information was gathered from my participants including their occupation, highest level of education, age, and geographic locations where they were raised. Participants were not asked about their immigration or documentation statuses.

Interviews lasted approximately one hour. Interviews ranged from fifty minutes to one hour and fourteen minutes. I utilized probing questions to better understand participants’ explanations and to gather additional data when participants did not expand on a topic. I also repeated statements back to participants to ensure I understood their responses and to encourage elaboration. If participants had difficulty answering questions, I stressed that it was acceptable to not answer the questions and would move on to a different topic. I used information learned in later portions of the interview to return to previous sections in an effort to prompt the participant into re-analyzing a

previous section. At the end of the interview I would also return to previous statements if

I was unclear of what a participant meant or if I wanted to gather additional information on an aspect of his lived experience.

Participants were given the opportunity at the interview to select their own pseudonyms, with only one participant electing to select his own pseudonym. For the other participants an online name generator was used to generate pseudonyms. Surnames and rare names were removed from the name generator. Masculine names were used because of my sample’s self-identification as men, and Spanish names were used to reflect my sample’s self-identification as Latino.

Participant Demographics

Four participants were in their twenties, four were in their thirties, and one interviewee was in his forties. The youngest participant was 20 and the oldest was 49.

Eight participants (89%) lived in the Baltimore metropolitan region; the ninth resided in a

Maryland county adjacent to the District of Columbia.

All participants had some college experience or possessed technical employment skills

(see Appendix I for sample demographics). More specifically, all but two had obtained either a bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, or was in the process of earning a master’s degree. Of the two who did not have a college degree Juanito is currently a full-time undergraduate student and Pepe withdrew from college but is an administrative assistant for a healthcare organization in Baltimore. In addition, all but one of the participants

(Amador) were employed in full-time, white-collar positions. This skew towards higher

SES Latinos is not unexpected as the inclusion criteria established participants had to be open about their sexuality. The literature suggests lower SES Latinos tend to be less

likely to accept a gay identity and publicly disclose such an identity (Gonzalez 2007: 43-

45; Philen 2006: 45).

Data Management and Analysis

Data were systematically analyzed after the interviews were completed. I developed a codebook by carefully reviewing four of the interviews. The remaining interviews were checked to ensure the codebook was applicable. I used a combination of a priori and emergent codes. The codebook was comprised of a priori codes signifying concepts of importance, such as religion, familismo, etc. with emergent codes originating from transcript analysis. After analyzing the transcripts 25 codes were identified and I discussed the codes with my thesis committee chairperson. The complete codebook is provided in Appendix II. After generating the codebook I coded the transcriptions by hand. Using colored pencils I reviewed transcriptions for common themes and assigned different colors to different codes. The codes were grouped into similar, corresponding themes. These themes centered around experiences of stigma and reactions to stigmatization, which will be further explored in following chapters.

Chapter3: Discrimination of Gay Latinos in Ethnic-Majority Spaces

In this chapter I discuss participants’ experiences with racism, xenophobia, and homophobia in dominant culture spaces. While participants observed their marginalized identities intersected downstream in terms of the creation of a foreigner identity and psychological distress originating out of their foreigner identity, participants indicated in dominant culture spaces they constantly engage in a process of self-checking. This process involved their analyzing their presentations to determine if they presented in a manner which they feared was “too gay” or “too Latino” and deciding if they needed to dilute their identities to prevent stigmatization. This fear was justified for some participants as they spoke of experiences of being physically assaulted. Because of their multiple marginalized identities participants believed their risk of assault was heightened.

Justifications for assault ranged from participants’ phenotypical features to the use of the

Spanish language.

“Am I Too Latino at This Job Interview”: Stigmatization of Latino Identities in Dominant

Culture Spaces

All participants recounted experiencing stigmatization because of their ethnicity at some point in their lives. Several participants noted that their Latino identity had been the cause of discrimination in the workplace. Jeanro reported when he travels people are surprised he is a professional in higher education and that he has a master’s degree.

When he initially tells people he works in higher education, people frequently assume he is a service worker and are shocked when he discloses his educational attainment and his position. Valero described numerous occurrences of discrimination in the workforce. He stated in his interview he has a co-worker who will use a stereotypical Latino accent

when talking about Latinos. Valero found his co-worker’s behavior odd and believes that his Latino identity grants him the ability to understand how his co-worker feels about

Latinos, an ability which would be lacking if Valero were not Latino. Valero also advised that upon learning that his grandmother had passed away his supervisor expressed to Valero her condolences about his abuela. Valero indicated that this comment makes assumptions about his relationship with his grandmother. Furthermore, this was his white mother’s mother and thus not a grandmother who he would refer to as his abuela. Similarly, Loreto reported recent hostility from a client that appeared to be due to Loreto’s ethnicity, “But the way he looked at me. He was like talking down to me.” Loreto previously has had anxiety when he goes on job interviews because he is fearful that his sexuality and/or ethnicity will be used against him. He has worried that he presents in a manner which indicates that he is gay, in addition to having phenotypical features which identify him as not-white:

Even when I apply for jobs and if I go to an interview I'm still worried. What if they'll see me as gay and they're like “actually we don't need you here”….I would get very nervous about the job interview. Like, am I too gay at this job interview or am I too Latino at this job interview, how can I whiten this up….

These incidents highlight the discrimination Latinos can face in the workplace and the daily struggles they may face in the course of their careers, a point made by Feagin and

Cobas (2014: 48-53, 59-64). Loreto’s observation about his sexuality highlights an additional worry that gay Latinos face in the employment sector. Gay Latinos must navigate interviews and workplace challenges where they must contend not only with racism and xenophobia but also homophobia. From an intersectional perspective, the addition of the marginalized gay identity to the already marginalized ethnic identity

ensures that gay Latinos must consistently be worried about which of their identities will be discriminated against in the workplace. As Loreto indicated they must also be aware of how this double discrimination may lead to being passed over at a job interview or other possible lowered economic outcomes. Consistent worry over workplace discrimination for one of two marginalized identities is a scenario where psychological distress can develop in gay Latinos. Gay Latinos, like Loreto, have to manage concerns regarding both of their marginalized identities in the quest for securing employment and advancing socio-economically in America.

Other respondents discussed experiences with stigmatization outside of work.

Multiple participants reported their ethnicity was used against them in confrontations with strangers. Ignacio, who was adopted from Panama as a child by a non-Latino family, discussed wide-ranging situations where he is othered by individuals’ dominant culture spaces. Ignacio poignantly described how Social Security Administration officials anglicized the Panamanian spelling of the name intended by his parents. Officials asserted institutional power to “correct” his parent’s Hispanic spelling of his name. He explained:

Since I'm adopted from a Latin American country my parents wanted to give me a Latin American name. One that could be announced in Spanish. So that if I ever chose to identify more closely with Latin American roots than our familial last name then I would have the option of having a name that was given to me from the family but one would reflect the community that I would choose to be a part of. And then the Social Security Administration decided that that was a miscorrect spelling of my name and officially spelled my name the English way….so yeah, the Social Security Administration decided that the way my middle name was spelled was an incorrect spelling. And the clerk was, my dad reported that the clerk was even happy about that he had spotted a mistake. And he was like "oh, I see you misspelled your son's name. So we corrected it for you." And, like, you know, fully processed legal document.

Ignacio’s experience reveals how Latino culture is devalued in American society

(Feagin and Cobas 2014: 46-66, 74-85). His experience is consistent with literature which shows Spanish language and culture to be threatening to the dominant culture and used as a justification to conceptualize Latinos as foreign (Feagin and Cobas

2014: 38-40, 46-66).

Ignacio’s subsequent experience entering public schools at age four highlights how discrimination openly occurs within the education system:

With my last name sounding English, not knowing who I am, I was put in a classroom. And there was two classrooms in the public school. And the teacher was really shocked according to my mom, kind of irked her a little bit but she kind of moved on past it. And I was the only brown kid in a classroom of like 20 or so odd little white children. And then when she came by to pick me up at the end of preschool they had moved me out of that classroom into another classroom with only other brown and black children. And when she asked why, they couldn't really give her a reason. "Oh, we put them in the wrong classroom. He's in this one now. He'll be fine." And so I was homeschooled for like six years after that because to her that was very clear what kind of discrimination that was.

Ignacio’s story is consistent with literature documenting the stigmatization and harassment of Latino youths by racist and xenophobic school personnel (Foiles

Sifuentes 2015: 771; Perez Huber 2011: 389-394).

Ignacio experiences as an adult validate how everyday occurrences in public spaces can be opportunities for ethnic discrimination against Latinos. Briefly, at family gatherings which are held at restaurants he will frequently be mistaken by wait staff to not be part of his family, despite positioning himself in the middle of the group and engaging in conversation with his grandfather. The wait staff will actively attempt to seat his family without Ignacio. Ignacio believes that sometimes wait staff intentionally do this because they are confused why a man with phenotypical Latino features is with a

white family and this interpretation of the situation irritates him. When he is with his sister in public people have assumed that they are a couple which also annoys Ignacio as there is an assumption that he cannot be her brother due to their differing ethnicities.

During his mother’s hospitalizations, hospital staff assumed he is her Filipino nurse.

Along with revealing the indignities experienced in interpersonal interactions, Ignacio’s narrative illuminates the ways in which stigma and institutional racism shape the lives and identities of Latinos starting in childhood. Latinos must learn to contend with such discrimination early in their lives, before they have begun to conceive of a sexual identity. As gay Latinos approach adolescence they must also learn how to navigate sexual-orientation discrimination. Ultimately their progression through the life course requires them to contend with dual marginalized identities and learn how to navigate spaces where their gay and Latino identities may intersect and become weapons against them.

“But I know when I walk you see a gay Latino man”: Physical Confrontations Between

Gay Latinos and Dominant Culture Members 8

Other participants described instances where their ethnic identity was used against them. In particular participants divulged scenarios where they were discriminated against in public spaces where Latinos were not in the majority. In these dominant culture spaces, participants’ Latino identities were targeted by social control agents for discrimination and harassment. Pepe described multiple incidents where his ethnicity was weaponized in dominant culture spaces. While in a disagreement with a neighbor

8 Participants discussed physical confrontations which they attributed to their ethnicity rather than sexuality. For that reason this section discusses ethnic-based confrontations instead of sexual orientation-based confrontations.

Pepe was told to go back to his country. Pepe also told me while he was on vacation in

Ocean City he was accosted by bar patrons and an employee who threatened to call the police on Pepe because he was suspected of changing in the bathroom, an allegation which Pepe believes was due to him having brown skin as none of the other bar patrons were singled out for questioning by bar management. Pancho also indicated that employees have discriminated against him because of his skin tone. Pancho has been followed in stores by store personnel due to his ethnicity, though he noted his dress determined if he was followed. At the time of his interview he was dressed in a polo shirt, dress slacks, and loafers, as he was interviewed in his office after hours. Pancho indicated that if he goes to stores dressed in his professional attire he will not be followed by store personal. However, when he has run errands dressed in sweatpants and a hooded sweatshirt, he has been followed by store employees. Pancho feels that his clothing serves as a symbol which can either prevent or attract surveillance depending on the symbolism associated with his clothing. Pepe and Pancho being the unwelcomed recipients of increased supervision in retail spaces due to their skin tones is consistent with literature which finds Latinos are frequently targeted for surveillance and viewed with suspicion from dominant-culture agents (Bloch 2014: 55-57; Feagin and Cobas

2014: 79-82; Romero 2001: 1081-1088). Additionally, Pancho’s belief that dressing in business attire insulates him from racial profiling and direct confrontation with store personal is similar to the survival strategy employed by urban youth in Anderson’s

(2009) ethnographic fieldwork, who dressed in preppy, white-collar attire so as to decrease their odds of being racially profiled by the police and increase the perception that they were upstanding, law-abiding youth: “To avoid encounters with “the man,”

some streetwise young men camouflage themselves, giving up the urban uniform and emblems that identify them as “legitimate” objects of police attention. They may adopt a more conventional presentation of self, wearing chinos, sweat suits, and generally more conservative dress” (187).

These participants have felt stigma based on their identity as Latino men. The clothing they wear and their skin tones have in their analysis left them open to verbal harassment. Ignacio described to me that as a young child his next-door neighbor told his parents she would run him over with her car if she found him on her property. Ignacio also indicated that other neighbors on his street were discriminatory towards ethnic- minorities. Because of these occurrences Ignacio’s parents would not let him play with his friends unsupervised and guarded him when he played in the front yard. Ramon communicated multiple scenarios where he believed he was in physical jeopardy because of his Latino identity:

I remember years ago...Taco Bell commercials were really popular and this little dog. "Yo Quiero Taco Bell." And I remember walking past five guys, five white guys, and they yelled at me after I walked past them "Yo Quiero Taco Bell." I got offended, cause first of all there was like five of them so I was like "OK, you waited until after I walked past you." And I'm not Mexican, I had Mexican friends and my respect to them. So I turned around and said "you know I have more education than all of you sitting there, making fun of me." And I kept walking cause I also know it's five people and it's just one of me. But I was pretty sure I was more educated than all of them there. I keep my pride and dignity, of course. And then one time, I don't know if it was because of Latino, gay, or why. I remember somebody, out of their car, throwing a cup of soda, like the thing you would buy at a 7- 11 or a McDonald's. A big cup. And he just threw it at me. Like with everything they had. And I was walking with a friend of mine, he was a gay guy. He was American. He was visiting me from out of town. And that was like my first experience with being, somebody throwing something at me randomly, just because. So was it because I'm a gay Latino man? I'm not 100% sure. But I know when I walk you see a gay Latino man. So I could have been randomly targeted or TARGETED, you know? But that was the first time here in Baltimore I experienced it. It was many years ago when I

first came to Baltimore. That was a rude awakening. That was scary actually. It's almost like I can feel the pain right now to talk about it, cause it was just like who does that. I remember being angry. Even my friend was like "OK calm down." And I was like "no you don't understand. I would never think to do that to somebody. I don't know why somebody just randomly did it to me. We're just walking."

Ramon is not sure why he was targeted in this attack. But as he states when he is in a public space people are aware that he is both gay and Latino. His status as a multiple minority may be directly responsible for his being physically assaulted. Ramon possesses multiple marginalized identities, so his mere act of being in a public space may be increasing his odds of being stigmatized for either his sexual-minority or ethnic- minority identities.

Phenotypical features were not the only triggers for assault against Latinos. Language was also used as a justification for physically assaulting Latinos, specifically their use of

Spanish in public spaces was seen as a threat by individuals who wished them harm. .

Participants were in danger of having their or their loved ones’ use of the Spanish language weaponized as a justification for assault by nativist individuals. Pancho recounted to me an experience he witnessed as a child where his mother, a first- generation immigrant, was assaulted due to her use of Spanish:

When I was eight, like, this woman, like, we were at Walmart and I remember that she was like "you should be speaking English" and like, pushed, like pushed our shopping cart while my mom was pushing it and then like I understood what was happening, um, but I couldn't do anything about it because, this bitch was probably like 250 pounds, so she probably could have squashed me, um and I was probably like at eight years old, I was probably about like eighty-something pounds, not to fat-shame her but I mean at this point I was pretty pissed cause I knew that my mom was being bullied.

This topic was emotionally charged for Pancho as earlier in the interview he told me his parents are very important to him and their support when he initially came out as gay

was what mattered the most to him. Witnessing his mother being discriminated against and physically assaulted was a distressing event for him and he appeared to be quite emotional as he relayed this story, nearly crying as he discussed this incident. The topic of language usage was frequently associated with stereotyping among the participants.

Most of the participants indicated they had been stigmatized for the Spanish language, either through fetishization and the erotizing of their speaking Spanish or individuals making fun of their supposed English proficiency. Yet such a reaction by the woman who pushed the shopping cart is a common rejoinder to the use of Spanish by Latinx individuals in the United States, as many whites find Spanish threatening and assume that individuals speaking Spanish are scheming against whites (Feagin and Cobas 2014: 32-

34, 38-40, 46-66).

Discrimination for Being Gay in Dominant Culture Spaces

In a more limited capacity, some participants described discrimination due to their sexuality arising out of interactions with dominant culture members. Pepe described a situation where a man in his neighborhood was having a disagreement with a woman on a front porch. As Pepe walked by he looked at the two individuals due to the loud disagreement between them. The man looked at Pepe and asked “what are you looking at faggot?” Pancho disclosed he has also been called a faggot in parking lots by strangers.

Valero experienced stereotyping from his boss who also, as discussed earlier, stereotyped him by assuming he called his grandmother his abuela. One of Valero’s friends was transitioning into a role onto Valero’s team. Valero assured his boss that he and his friend would remain professional at work. His boss responded by telling Valero that he and his friend “could be girlfriends outside of work” which Valero found to be offensive.

To Valero, his boss made assumptions about Valero and his friend’s relationship based on common popular culture assumptions about gay men’s friendships.

In these scenarios the participants did not feel that their Latino identity had any impact on the type of discrimination they experienced. All participants experienced both sexual and ethnic discrimination, which was frequently attributed to being a minority in a space, based on whichever identity was in the minority (Latino or gay) in the space. These findings indicate that for men in the sample, sexual stigma occurs due to their sexual orientation and cultural stigma for being gay in Latino culture and racially based stigma for being Latino in the United States. These men experienced multiple forms of stigma which leads to multiple forms of marginalization as double minorities in the United

States.

Chapter 4: Discrimination of Gay Latinos in Latino Spaces

In Chapter Three I discussed how participants experienced ethnic-majority stigmatization within dominant-culture spaces. In this chapter I discuss gay Latino men’s experiences with stigmatization in Latino spaces. Primarily I discuss stigmatization which occurs within the familial unit and Latino ethnic enclaves. Nearly all participants experienced direct or indirect discrimination within primarily Latino spaces and because of Latino cultural beliefs, particularly beliefs surrounding faith/religion, machismo, and familismo. Participants had difficulty separating these three cultural values and found these values to be interconnected in their experiences of stigma and their thoughts on the tolerance of homosexuality in Latino culture. Although participants indicated that their families, many of whom were first generation immigrants and devoutly religious, were the sources of much of their distress over their sexual identities, discriminatory interactions stemming from participants’ identities as gay men also occurred with strangers in Latino spaces. In the following sections I discuss participants’ experiences with stigmatization within the familial unit, primarily due to religion and familismo. I discuss how participants attempt to manage their gay and Latino identities within these spaces. Finally, I briefly discuss discrimination which occurs in Latino spaces outside of the family.

“It’s a Burden On Your Soul”: Religious Discrimination Within The Latino Household

Religious dogma impacted eight of the nine participants. Only Ignacio indicated that he did not feel stigmatization from religion in his life. Hostile religious beliefs frequently served as justifications for family members’ stigmatization of participants’ sexual identities. For example, Pancho stated that initially after disclosing his sexuality to his

parents he was told by his father, an evangelical Christian, that Pancho was going to Hell.

Ramon’s father was told by the parish priest that Ramon was gay and therefore would not be able to serve as an altar boy. Distressed by this news, Ramon’s father refused to look at Ramon when he came home that day. Ramon’s father also felt stigmatized in their

Puerto Rican Catholic neighborhood for raising a gay son and refused to attend church out of shame that the priest and community knew his family’s secret. Prior to the disclosure of Ramon’s sexuality his father would attend church services two to three times a week, at a minimum. The stigma felt by Ramon’s father is consistent with literature which finds traditionally masculine Latino fathers experience stigma at a son’s public disclosure of a gay identity because fathers believe the gay identity is a reflection of the fathers’ ability to raise heterosexual, machista sons (Esparza 2017: 154-158, 161-

167; Guarnero 2007: 15). Ramon also indicated that he had a partner during this time frame, who his father believed was simply a best friend. Ramon’s partner and father had a very amicable relationship. When Ramon’s father was informed of his son’s homosexuality, he told Ramon’s partner to never come to their house again, adding “You disrespected me in my house.”

Along with the belief that a gay son reflects lapses by the father, generative concerns emerge regarding a gay son’s likelihood of having children to carry on the family name.

Pancho and Juanito, for example, both declared feeling pressure to reproduce. Pancho stated his mother has told him she gave up on her dream of being a grandmother, a statement which has caused Pancho distress and made him emotional during the interview. Juanito related that strong connections to Latin America and traditional, conservative family members heavily influenced family members living in the United

States who espouse more traditional values of manhood and reproduction. Juanito believes that this emphasis on reproduction keeps many gay Latino men in the closet.

Pancho’s mother is dismayed because he does not place the needs of the family to have grandchildren above his own sexual orientation. Juanito cannot disclose their sexual identity because they would indicate to their family that they will not continue on the family’s name and will not fulfill the family’s needs.

Even among participants who indicated their families “accepted” their gay identity, this verbalized acceptance could not hide their deep, religiously-grounded, opposition.

Amador informed me that his family claimed to accept his homosexual identity, but he is not allowed to bring a boyfriend to his mother’s home for dinner. In contrast, his sister lives in their mother’s home with her boyfriend. Amador described this sister as very homophobic and he is unable to discuss his life with her. In order to insulate himself from the painful effects of homophobia, Amador has separated himself from his family and made a new family out of gay friends. Amador’s choice to remove himself from his consanguine kin and make a family out of fictive kin is consistent with Weston’s (1991) work which found sexual-minorities replace blood ties with LGBT families because of felt or perceived homophobia. Participants were aware of religious stigma in their lives.

Participants further noted that these stigmatizing religious conditions directly impacted their ability to be open gay men. Amador noted in rich detail the difficulty in living as a gay man having been exposed to religious teachings which were homophobic:

I mean, the homophobia in church is so, so heavy. It's a burden on your soul. It doesn't allow you to feel free or happy with yourself because you can't accept yourself. You're always trying to fight that feeling….And then, you know, Latinos can be very religious sort of people. So that’s a problem as well. We’re taught that this is wrong. So we always feel bad about ourselves somehow.

Similar to Amador, Loreto grew up in a Catholic, one-parent household. His mother, a devout Catholic, has received significant support from her faith as a survivor of domestic violence. Though Loreto initially was raised in the Church he refused to be confirmed, a choice that led to an emotional distance between him and his mother.

Loreto related to me that he was fearful to discuss his private life with his family while he was economically dependent on his family as an adolescent and undergraduate. He believes that there would have been “direct, immediate” consequences had he come out or if his family had discovered his sexual orientation. Loreto separated himself from his family and passed as straight during his adolescence. He recognizes the cost of these defense mechanisms has been a decreased emotional bond with his family and his mother in particular. Though Loreto has now earned his college degree and is a working professional he has yet to disclose this sexual orientation to his family out of concern that he will lose standing within his family unit and not be able to contribute to the family’s needs. The emotional strain of religious stigma thus has tremendously affected Loreto’s interaction with his family. Loreto’s experience is consistent with the literature which finds gay Latino men raised in the Catholic faith frequently endure religious stigma and have family members who are intolerant of homosexuality (Figueroa and Tasker 2014:

285-287; Garcia et al. 2008: 424-426, 429; Liboro and Walsh 2016: 659).

Additionally, Loreto’s example highlights how cultural values intertwine. Loreto offers compulsory assistance to religious family members who, if he were to disclose his identity, may or may not discriminate against him for being gay. Indeed, for many of the participants machismo, familismo, and religion operate together to reinforce expected

sexual identity and gender roles. Without prompting they would frequently discuss all three of the values interchangeably and when asked about one cultural value, would frequently invoke the other two values in their answer. This inability to separate out cultural values demonstrates how interconnected these values are in the daily, lived experiences of gay Latino men and their experiences of stigmatization within Latino spaces.

For some participants their concerns were greater than being cut off financially by their family. They are concerned about their physical safety should their family discover they are not heterosexual. Religious doctrine could be used by family members to justify assaulting the participants. Juanito initially found their upbringing, in a devout, Mexican

Catholic family to be welcoming. Juanito was confirmed and was strongly considering becoming a priest in high school when they began to feel that they were queer and had same-sex attractions. Despite being aware of a burgeoning queer identity Juanito was

“super hardcore” Catholic and still wanted to be a priest. However, during the time when the Maryland proposition to legalize same-sex marriage was initiated, Juanito began to pull away from their faith. They conveyed to me in the interview that during this period they would attend Mass and listen to the priest state same-sex marriage was sinful. This rhetoric, and the belief that they were not accepted in the Catholic Church, led them to leave the Church. This response to religious stigma is consistent with literature (see

Garcia et al. 2008: 424-426). They have indicated, though, that their family is very religious and they do not feel that they can disclose their sexual identity to their family out of fear for their physical safety. Juanito further confided that they are scared to be in

gay clubs out of a concern over what would happen if they were injured in a club and their religious family discovered why they were there:

…especially after Orlando happened. There is a sense of fear that that could happen for my own and risk my safety, but also risk my relational ties with my family because they would find out if I would have been injured. They would have found out if, unless I'm like really good at hiding, which I'm not because I'm not. Just like "oh, what were you doing there? Oh, I was with a friend." It's not true. So there is the fear of safety and social safety with my family. And also, like, these clubs are targeted especially with this atmosphere. So, like, if you just walk out or start walking to your car, people will have a sense of like where you came from especially with how you look and how you're dressed and having the likelihood of a hate crime happening to you increase especially if I'm alone, which I haven't been yet. Which is why I don't go to the clubs alone. I'd rather be with someone who can at least witness or be with me if goodness forbid that ever happens.

Both Loreto’s and Juanito’s discussion illuminates how religion and familismo are intertwined: religiosity is a core component of the family unit. Although participants recognize that religious doctrine is the source of much of the stigma they experience, to separate from the church is to separate from the family. For many, their commitment of familismo is such that the family’s needs and expectations are placed above their own needs as gay men. Juanito, for example, worked full-time in high school to pay their family’s rent because they believed it was imperative to spend money on a resource which improved the lives of their parents and siblings rather than on a resource which only would benefit themselves. Juanito subordinated their own needs as a queer individual so that their family can survive economically. Similarly, Loreto indicated that he will, despite living in Baltimore, frequently assist his family in other parts of Maryland so that he can remain part of the family unit. While he is happy to do so, he feels that culturally he is expected to help his aunt and mother when they call him. He recounted to me in the interview that he felt guilty for moving out of his mother’s house as a working

adult and feels that he could not move to the District of Columbia because the geographical distance between him and his family would be too great. He feels the weight of familismo on his life, because he believes that were he to disclose his sexual identity he would lose his standing in the family unit and risk an emotional separation or being fully ostracized:

Because I feel also if I were to come out and there were some distance, I wouldn't be able to help them or be as integral or part of the family, as I've been raised to expect. So I feel like, I would be pushed away. And then I wouldn't have that fulfillment that I have now, at least.

TWR: By being able to assist your family?

Loreto: Yeah by being an active participant in the family. The decisions that are made in our family.

For Loreto, as with many participants, there is an ever present tension regarding his desire to full cultural roles and live as an openly gay man. If Loreto were to acknowledge his sexual orientation his family would sanction him, removing him from vital social roles if not all family contact. Such outcomes would be psychologically distressing thus leading Loreto to hide his sexual identity. Loreto conceals his discreditable identity

(Goffman 1963: 4) so he may avoid stigma and psychological distress. He has to create a

“machoflexible” identity (Pena-Telemantes 2013: 174) and pass as straight to avoid sanctioning by his family. Familismo and a gay identity cannot live in harmony in the local worlds of many gay men. One has to go, either being a socially normative Latino man/son or being an out and proud gay man. For many of the men in my study, their own well-being and public lives as gay men were subordinated so the family unit is maintained and may thrive. Thus, while familismo often is conceptualized as a social support mechanism for Latinos, for gay Latinos, familismo can be source of internal

conflict and social strain. Familismo can be both a coping mechanism and a stressor.

Whether it helps or hinders a participant depends on the identity in question. For the

Latino identity, familismo is a source of comfort against racism and xenophobia (see

Finch and Vega 2003: 113-115; Turcios 2017: 111, 117-118). For the gay identity, familismo can be a source of distress, as the expectation that the family’s needs should be prioritized prevents participants from having honest dialogues about their sexuality with their families. For individuals who are in the sexual majority and identify as straight, familismo can be a source of strength. For those Latinos with an additional layer of marginalization, familismo is not comforting. Familismo for gay Latinos becomes an originator of stigma. Familismo directly leads to stigma in their local worlds because their cultural upbringing discourages public disclosure of a gay identity in order to seek familial acceptance. For gay Latinos who accept familismo as natural and customary, they still recognize the stigmatizing effects of familismo on their lives.

“So That The Gay Part Doesn’t Interact With The Family Part”: Managing Dual

Identities Within the Family Unit

The participants described in detail efforts they and others undertook to protect their sexual identity from their family members. Ramon, Amador, and Jeanro advised that gay

Latino men all take efforts to minimize their exposure as gay men. Ramon remarked that he has friends who are married to one another, but will visit their relatives without their spouses so as to not attract attention to their sexual orientations, an observation echoed by

Amador who describes this compartmentalization occurring “so that the gay part doesn't interact with the family part.” Another technique is to develop multiple Facebook accounts, one for friends and one for family to avoid accidentally disclosing their gay

identity to family members. Jeanro communicated that he is very cautious of what he shares on Facebook because he is not out to his family members and he has to live a double life, open about his sexuality in Maryland but closeted to family members in

California. When he started dating his first boyfriend Jeanro made his boyfriend pick him up a block away from his house so that Jeanro’s parents would not know he was seeing a man. Jeanro recently shared an analysis he completed of LGBT rights with his sister. In sharing this major work accomplishment with his sister, Jeanro noted that he risks that his religious and conservative parents, cousins, and brothers will also see it and question his interest in the work. Jeanro indicated that he finds it distressing that he cannot share all the details of his job or explain why he is passionate about helping sexual-minorities. Indeed, he is even careful with his sister, who he describes as his

“biggest supporter,” explaining, “I’m not gonna go tell her about my whole… you know… non-existing, failure, dating life. So, I think it’s one of those things like they know about it, but we’re not gonna talk about it because of religion. So I think religion plays a big…is a big blocker in our family.” Jeanro is unable to share career accomplishments with his family out of a fear that he will be disrupting familial obligations and be subject to religious stigmatization, though in accordance with familismo’s prioritizing familial honor he should be able to share professional accolades with his family. For Jeanro and other participants religious discrimination (either real or anticipated) prevented individuals from sharing important details of their lives. At the same time participants felt obligated to support their family and live in harmony with their family, even though the family may not reciprocate these feelings if a gay identity were to become public knowledge. As a result of this religious and familial based

othering , these men must subjugate professional accomplishments. In doing so, these men allow themselves to be impacted by stigma. This stigma prevents these men from leading full lives when compared to heterosexual Latino men who are honored by family members for professional accolades.

For participants who did disclose their sexual orientation to their family members, they were met with hostility and disapproval of their sexual identity. Only Pancho,

Ignacio, and Valero voluntarily disclosed their sexual identity to their parents. Ignacio was the only participant who reported his parents were initially accepting of his sexual orientation. Pancho came out to his parents twice as an adolescent. He initially came out at fifteen and was told by his parents that he did not know he was gay because he was still a virgin. Two years later after being in a relationship with a man Pancho declared his sexuality to his parents, to which his mother responded by stating “not this stupid shit again.” Valero divulged his sexual orientation to his parents during his freshman year of college. While his father and extended family have been supportive, Valero’s mother does not approve of his homosexuality and has lectured him on sexual health risks which he would encounter as a gay man:

Yeah, I think, my mom is very sort of, she talks a lot about being careful out there when she found out I was gay. She was very worried about my health. Assuming I got a lot of, "don't date a lot of guys. Cause guys are dogs. I don't know, they'll give you things. And be very monogamous. Only have sex with people you love" sort of thing. Gay people are vectors of disease, stuff like that .

Valero interpreted this advice as being homophobic. He felt that this advice was based not on legitimate concerns his mother held but rather a stereotype about gay men being naturally promiscuous. His mother has also repeatedly asked him if he is sure that he is gay and has admitted that she wishes he is straight. While Valero’s mother has

started to ask him if he has a boyfriend and he believes that this is a sign that she is getting accustomed to having a gay son, his statements indicate that he is experiencing stigmatization within his family unit by having a mother who does not see his being homosexual as equal to a heterosexual son. Specifically Valero’s sexual identity is delegitimized by his mother who makes it clear that he is not living up to her standards.

Her declaration serves as a sanctioning event as does her refusal to accept him for being gay. Pancho’s mother also sanctioned her son for declaring a sexual identity which violated normative behavior. For both of these men their emerging gay identities violated their ethnic identities. They did not live in accordance with cultural or religious standards of behavior. After disclosing their sexual identities they both experienced stigmatization within the family unit. Again this pattern of behavior shows that for gay

Latinos (including in Valero’s case gay Latinos who have bi-racial parents) familismo can be detrimental to their well-being. A strong, well-organized family unit is threatened when these men divulge sexual identities which are incompatible with their families’ values. The strong family which protects against the distress of racism commonly associated with familismo becomes a source of stress rather than a coping mechanism for homophobia.

Latin American Culture and its Relationship with Homophobia

Multiple participants also discussed stereotyping due to family members’ cultural values about homosexuality. Multiple participants declared that family members used the word faggot as an insult towards them. Participants also reported family members equated being gay with being effeminate and wanting to be a woman or perform as a drag queen. Pepe, Ramon, and Pancho all had family members who asked them if they

wanted to be women, because according to my participants homosexuality in Central

America is associated with effeminity or being a drag queen. Pancho has a cousin who has mocked him for taking the receptive role in sexual intercourse. His family members have also used the word culero , which according to Pancho is a slang term for someone who takes the receptive role. Pancho has told family members that this term is offensive to him but they continue to use it. Pancho believes that his family members use this term because they are uneducated. He also divulged that he believes he presents as effeminate to Americans, but among his “Spanish-speaking only, Hispanic side” of his family he presents as masculine. His family members have told him that they expected him to be a woman and have difficulty separating gender expression from sexual orientation; his family members expect him to present as a effeminate gay man who wants to be a woman because of Central American norms surrounding homosexuality (see Girman 2004: 30-

35; Pena-Talamantes 2013: 169-174). Pepe’s family members believed, prior to his educating them, that all gay men took the receptive role in sexual intercourse. Pepe, who is a Salvadoran immigrant, advised that his family expected gay men to behave in a manner consistent with Central American cultural stereotypes about gay men:

I guess, we're coming from a very machista background. I guess the majority here being first generation in the U.S. even though they still have - they come with those conceived notions of oh, you're gay, you know, they think you're going to dress up in drag. That you're going to be feminine. And that becomes an issue with acceptance within the family sometimes because in the same issue that they, what they imagine a gay person being a person that dresses up as a woman. And that they're going to act feminine wise, which again is not the case for everybody. Again there are some that do just like there are some that you will see in the street and not know that they're gay at all. So that's one of the issues I think with especially Hispanics, I guess, with my background. I guess being Central American I know with my youth I ran into that issue. That pretty much you would, I would hear my family speak negatively about gay men. And me, you know,

say all these comments and would of course make me even more fearful of never ever saying anything even though they noticed.

These participants are stigmatized because of family members who are often immigrants and hold traditional beliefs about gay men. Pepe’s rich description of his family’s cultural beliefs indicates that these varying norms caused legitimate psychological suffering in his life. For individuals with Latin American family members who are not acculturated, cultural stigma is responsible for stigmatizing familial conditions. Acculturated gay Latinos are socialized to believe Global North values about homosexuality and develop gay identities in congruence with United States values of homosexuality and constructions of manhood. These gay Latinos must construct these identities while also confronting stereotypes in their families about their behavior. They are caught between the first generation and second generation worlds of what homosexuality means and what type of men they can be which causes distress. Amador also discussed stigma arising out of Latino cultural values, though he suggested machismo from gay Latinos was responsible for self-stigma:

But there's a lot of stigma even within the gay Latino community about gender and machismo, right? If you're a top you're not going to dress a certain way. If you're a bottom you should feminize yourself to make yourself more attractive to those men. I don't believe in any of that but that's what I've observed.

Amador’s observation raises the possibility of gay Latino men internalizing

Latin American cultural norms regarding appropriate gender roles and sexual intercourse. These norms may lead to self-stigma, the process of sexual-minorities internalizing society’s homophobic beliefs and labeling themselves as stigmatized individuals (Feinstein, Davila, and Yoneda 2012: 161). These gay Latino men may

be engaging in self-stigmatization because of cultural stigma which arises out of a perceived failure to abide by proscribed gender roles in the Latino community.

Throughout this and previous sections participants have described how familismo and sexual orientation are frequently incompatible. Participants have spoken at length about the stigmatizing local worlds they live in, with family members who are often highly religious and espouse traditional beliefs about gender roles. Participants are frequently exposed to stigma in their families and feel uncomfortable when confronted by family members who believe that gay men are sinners who fail to conform to machista expectations of masculinity. Participants are unable to discuss their homosexual identities with their family members because of concerns over direct discrimination. At the same time, men feel that they must downplay their sexual orientations and not divulge their true selves so they can continue to assist their families and have an equal say in decision making. Gay Latinos are fearful of being unable to abide by familismo and support their families in the culturally proscribed manner in which they have been raised

The cultural concept of familismo is leading to stigma in these participants because they are unable to live a fully open life as gay men and feel distress over their having to remain partially closeted. For gay Latinos they must choose between divulging their gay identities and risk losing social standing within their families, or remaining closeted so that they can continue to assist their families. As indicated in the lived experiences of participants they cannot abide by both familismo and gay culture’s standard of being publicly identifiable as gay in all spaces of their lives. They cannot abide by Harvey

Milk’s maxim to the gay community to come out (see Knapp 2014). To do so would jeopardize their role in the family which they have been socialized to protect above their

own gay identities. While they are stigmatized by familismo, because they feel stigma for being homosexual in families which do not approve of homosexuality, they cannot acknowledge this stigma in their family. To attempt to directly mitigate or end stigma from the family would risk their emotional and spatial exile from the family, even though some participants like Amador and Loreto have exiled themselves. These men’s lived experiences indicate that familismo and homosexuality are for many gay Latinos incompatible and the most likely stigma management strategy is to pass as straight or non-sexual so as to avoid familial stigma even if this strategy causes psychological distress and participants feel stigma from the family anyway. Their identities are not congruent. The men cannot have their dual identities in alignment with one another. The men must choose between complying with their Latino or gay identities. They can be fully out gay men and comply with their gay identity, or they can live in accordance with familismo and comply with their Latino identity. In this manner the participants are foreigners in Latino families, as one of their identities will always be othered . One of their identities always leads to them being a stranger in their family and to psychological distress.

Latino Neighborhoods and Ethnic Enclaves

In addition to experiencing tension within familial units participants also described

Latino spaces outside the home environment as hostile. Participants who discussed these

Latino spaces as antagonistic reported these spaces were homophobic and unwelcoming to gay men even though they were members of the same ethnic in-group. They did not perceive their ethnic identities to provide them any in-group belonging in these spaces, a factor which was attributed to the participants’ sexual identities.

Pepe announced he has experienced stigmatization in Latino restaurants. He has friends who are effeminate and when he is with his gay friends Pepe believes that people are aware, through mannerisms and tone of voice, that there are gay men in a Latino restaurant. In these spaces men who Pepe perceives as straight will give Pepe and his friends dirty looks or state in Spanish “there goes the girl.” Pepe said in Spanish this phrase is a colloquialism for “look at those faggots.” Pepe indicated that this occurs predominantly in Spanish rather than Anglo restaurants and that Latino patrons will continue to stare and make comments throughout the meal while Anglos will return to their private conversations. This behavior shows the hostility directed towards gay men in Latino spaces. In Pepe’s case spaces which should be safe for him as a Latino man are not safe because of his other identity as a gay man. He is othered in a Latino space because of his gay identity. Loreto richly described how his dual identity as gay and

Latino can place him in a foreigner status and lead to experiences of stigma while in an ethnic enclave:

Well, right here I don't. Here in Brewer’s Hill, not too much but that's because of the proximity to Highlandtown. So I will literally walk a block down. And it's like, there are more people, like, Latino folks than anyone else there. So I feel very comfortable there. Although, sometimes I do feel out of place. And I don't know if it's because I didn't grow up in Highlandtown. Or because I'm gay and Latino in Highlandtown. Sometimes I feel like the gayness is coming out more than being Latino especially in a high Latino neighborhood. I wonder how visible I am. And if I'm treated differently because of that. I feel like I do get looks going into the Highlandtown market. I don't know if that's because I'm gay or if they know that I'm not part of the neighborhood. I assume people - it's a neighborhood where people see people frequently. So they know who's from the neighborhood and who's not.

TWR: It sounds like this has been something that's been going on, you manage your gay identity both when you were an adolescent, but also, you talked about, if you're in a heavily Latino area like Highlandtown being aware of that or at least accounting for the possibility that people are

judging you for what you perceive to be them knowing your sexual orientation.

Loreto: Yeah, I would definitely agree. I still feel odd walking around in Highlandtown. And other parts of Baltimore. Even let's say I'm in West Baltimore. Let's say I'm in Holland's market, which is like even sometimes I still have to say I live in Canton because people don't know where Brewers hill is. I’m like next to Canton. But then all the way on the west side which is the heavily black neighborhood, I still feel awkward, like, “oh, am I still going to be discriminated against on this side of town.” Well, like the other side of town. [sighs ] But I still feel uncomfortable as a gay Latino. And even in Highlandtown where I feel like I should feel more comfortable being Latino because especially in the gay community. I mean not the gay community, the Latino community. There's still a lot of machismo. And especially here I feel like there's a lot of first generation families. And so that kind of… Expectations for masculinity and sexuality are still very high and strong.

Loreto’s description of his time in a Latino space indicates that he may be susceptible to multiple forms of stigma arising out of different spaces. Latino spaces make him feel uncomfortable because he cannot abide by the culturally appropriate form of masculinity as a gay man. However, Loreto also feels uncomfortable in white, gay spaces due to stereotyping and fetishization which occurs in these spaces. Sexual stigma from gay spaces and cultural spaces arising out of Latino spaces may be converging in the lives of

Loreto and other gay Latinos in this sample, leading to a multiple minority status with increased marginalization in their lives. I will now turn to this next topic, whereby I examine the experiences of stigma among gay Latino men in gay spaces.

Chapter 5: Discrimination of Gay Latinos in Gay Spaces

In this chapter I discuss the specific types of stigmatization experienced by the participants within gay spaces, primarily gay nightclubs and gay dating apps. Nearly every participant indicated that they believed these spaces were discriminatory spaces for gay Latinos. Additionally, most of the participants stated that they believed they had been discriminated against directly while in gay nightclubs. I argue that this discrimination, both fetishization of their skin tones as well as rejection and hostility because of their ethnicity, cause their sexuality to be racialized. By racializing their queerness, dominant culture gay men and gay institutions are able to other gay Latinos and bestow a foreigner identity upon them.

“Lets Have Taco Night”: Discrimination Prior to Entering the Club

Participants frequently offered analyses of club atmospheres in Baltimore. They spoke at length about a gay community which was not welcoming to Latinos and entertainment venues which had policies to limit the number of Latinos in these spaces.

Participants believed club management intentionally did not advertise their spaces to

Latinos because Latinos are not truly welcomed in these spaces. Valero, for example, declared that in his time in Baltimore he only saw advertising which was directed towards black and white gay men; no advertisements were aimed at enticing gay Latinos to patronize local clubs. Participants also described the difficulty of persuading club owners to actively court gay Latinos. Pancho informed me he did not believe the owners or management of these spaces cared about the needs of gay Latinos. This viewpoint was echoed by most participants, who felt economics, not a desire to build a more inclusive gay community, motivated club owners to cater to the needs of white patrons as

demographically they make up the majority of club patrons in Baltimore. This belief is consistent with literature indicting gay spaces are primarily maintained by whites for the interests of whites (Teunis 2007: 268-270).

Beyond the economics of catering to Latinos, gay venues in Baltimore are also believed to not desire the patronage of gay Latinos. Amador and Loreto both related to me that they believed it was known in the gay community that one of the owners of a prominent gay nightclub in Baltimore is racist and classist. Amador stated that the fact that ethnic-minority gays have continued to patronize this business despite it not being welcoming to ethnic-minorities “is a testament to it’s one of the only big places to go.

And I think a lot of white gay people aren’t thinking about these issues. So it doesn’t bother them that there isn’t a sense of inclusion so they continue to go there because they feel comfortable there. And that’s what they want.” This view highlights the difficulty gay persons of color have in finding welcoming sexual-minority spaces (see Han 2007:

52-54, 55-60; Teunis 2007: 268-270). As indicated in the previous chapters gay Latinos can experience discrimination in both dominant culture and Latino spaces and may desire a safe space to form social networks, date, and cope with racism and homophobia (see

Thing 2010: 820-822, 826). However, if these spaces are denied to Latinos, either by not making it known through advertising they are welcomed or by being actively racist, then these spaces are not safe for brown men but are a source of distress and a space where additional stigmatization can occur. Thus gay Latinos ethnic identities mitigate their access to gay resources. As an example of how these spaces can serve to reify discrimination instead of curtailing it, Jeanro described in rich detail the efforts of IRIS to

form a partnership with Baltimore gay clubs and how these efforts were either ignored, or when recognized were met with stereotypes by club owners:

The new GAY lounge that opened up, they're doing something but it’s like, fucking taco night Tuesdays? So I'm like, that's stereotypical. Not all Latin people eat tacos on Tuesdays. You know? So there's this well white intended space of "yeah, let's be more welcoming and lets have taco night and be like the gay Latino night" and I'm like "why the fuck do you have to equate it to tacos?" Like, you know? Um, so it’s kinda like but then how do you have that conversation? Like "oh, I didn't mean to be offensive" but you know, and they're not willing to do another night that is not taco night Tuesdays. And they're doing it on a Tuesday which is one, not a high- trafficking time. Most people are not going to go out. When you look at our Latinx population here they're working-class, so they're not just gonna go out on a fucking Tuesday to, you know, be Latino. So it's like we don't get that Thursday, Friday, Saturday night space.

Jeanro eloquently communicates the challenges of IRIS forming partnerships in the

Baltimore gay community. Organizations are frequently uninterested in partnering with ethnic-minority LGBT groups, perhaps out of a fear of lost revenue. Those organizations which do partner with ethnic-minority LGBT groups do so on evenings which are not high revenue times, minimizing risk to the bars’ reputations or cash flow, while also minimizing the effectiveness of gay Latino organizations outreach efforts. IRIS is not able to fully target its core population and is less powerful than if it was fully embraced by white gay spaces in Baltimore. By having limited access to gay spaces where gay men in Baltimore congregate, IRIS is unable to network and accrue significant human and social capital. This ultimately leads to a reduction in services offered to gay Latinos and a limited social network for gay Latinos in Baltimore. Gay spaces are thus minimizing the needs of a gay Latino organization for the needs of a white majority, which is

consistent with literature (see Chambers 2006: 4-5, 11,16; Han 2007: 55-60; Teunis 2007:

268-270).

Jeanro’s analysis also highlights the intersectional component to the problem of how

Latinos gain access to gay clubs. Because much of the Latino population in Baltimore is of a lower socio-economic class they find it challenging to get to and gain entre to the club. These clubs are overpriced and cater to higher class individuals who can afford high priced food and drinks, a critique offered by Amador. While these clubs may attempt to be inclusive, these clubs are excluding lower-class Latinos by pricing them out of these spaces. For gay immigrant Latinos or native-born Latinos who do not have disposable income they cannot afford the club. They also cannot be open in their families or ethnic enclaves about their sexual identities. For many gay Latinos both of their identities are stigmatized and this dual stigmatization prevents them from accessing coping resources (familial support in Latino spaces and gay social networks or an affirming gay community in gay spaces). The culmination of multiple originating points of stigma is that these men cannot find a space where they can be fully honest and fully accepted for their dual identities which can lead to psychologically distressing conditions and a lowered political economy by lacking the resources that white gay men and straight

Latino men obtain. If they are going to pay for a club entry fee they may want it to be on a weekend when the club would be at peak capacity so they can maximize their social experience. Lower SES Latinos may have intersecting difficulties in navigating gay spaces because they face economic challenges in gaining entre and when they do gain entre they are stigmatized by club owners who encourage Latinos business on low- volume evenings or by patrons who do not desire the racialized bodies and queer

identities of gay Latinos. When asked about barriers to Latino entry into gay spaces,

Amador divulged that much of the gay Latino population in Baltimore are blue-collar and immigrants. They are “avoided, snickered at” in gay spaces because of their socio- economic class and the assumption by white patrons that these men do not have money.

Amador believes these men are prevented from gaining entre to these spaces and when they do gain entre they are stigmatized because of xenophobic and racist assumptions about their class standing:

But I don't see Latino men there to even interact. I never invite some of my friends out. And they don't interact with anyone. No one comes up to them and talks to them. They're seen as poor, like, the class thing again. They're there like at the bottom of the rung.

Amador’s intersectional analysis shows that for gay Latinos in Baltimore race, class, and immigration status are converging to create multiple barriers to entry to gay spaces and to other lower-class gay Latinos. Amador is Latino and possesses phenotypical features commonly associated with Latinos (i.e. brown skin and dark hair). However, Amador is college educated and has worked white-collar professional jobs. His ethnicity alone does not determine his ability to gain entre to gay spaces, though as with the other men in my sample ethnic stigma from gay men in gay spaces dictates his level of comfort in these spaces. For gay Latinos in

Baltimore, economic capital can explain why they are made to feel uncomfortable in clubs. White patrons’ presumptions about Latinos’ economic backgrounds, documentation statuses, and English proficiency can further stigmatize individuals who are already marginalized in gay spaces because of their ethnicity. This increased stigmatization in gay spaces can lead to othering of poor gay Latinos who lack language and class attributes which allow them to resist being othered . Class

also precludes some gay Latinos from entering these spaces due to the cost of attending these nightclubs. Intersectionality may explain why some gay Latinos experience greater stigmatization than others in gay spaces in Baltimore.

“I Don’t Wanna be Your Fucking Rosetta Stone”: Experiences of Discrimination

Within Gay Clubs

Participants described multiple forms of discrimination once they entered the club.

Participants described how the use of music, specifically the type of music that was played, served as a symbol which indicated whether or not the gay club was welcoming to Latinos. Pepe does not believe Baltimore’s gay clubs play music which is welcoming to the Latino population but instead play music which is directed towards the primarily white and black clienteles’ tastes. In order to find a gay Latino club which plays authentic Spanish music Pepe, like other gay Latinos in Baltimore, must travel to

Washington DC or frequent a straight Latino space. Ramon also indicated that he has gay Latino friends who would rather socialize in a straight Latino bar than venture into a gay club in Mount Vernon because of perceptions of discrimination in the gay club.

When asked to elaborate on his preference for the Latino club, Ramon offered this explanation:

Culture, music, even alcohol options. Beer options. You can speak Spanish. You can put on the jukebox or the DJ's blowing some music in Spanish. They won't look at you like you're crazy. "Oh we don't have that. I don't play that." There's even music which moves us and connects us. When you go to gay clubs, the DJ's putting in like a song or two in Spanish, it's not going to ruin your night. But a lot of DJ's don't consider that….That makes me know that you’re more inclusive.

Ramon equates Spanish music and in particular a robust Spanish music selection with

Latino inclusion in gay spaces. These perceptions of nightclubs as being unresponsive to

the musical needs of Latino patrons is consistent with Ocampo’s (2012) finding that white gay nightclubs in Los Angeles are leery of playing Spanish music and cater instead to the needs of a white clientele (457-460). In this manner the ethnicity and culture of gay Latino men in Baltimore is othered . Their culture is constructed as foreign and they are seen as foreigners in gay spaces by dominant culture members who control these spaces. By not allowing DJs to play Spanish music or invest in prominent Spanish themes evenings, Baltimore gay clubs do not integrate the desires of gay Latino men or show appreciation for their cultural traditions. However, the use of a straight Latino club may be welcoming from an ethnicity point of view, but it does not provide these men the opportunity to socialize and network in a queer designated space. Gay Latinos who do not feel they can comfortably mingle in gay clubs and use straight Latino clubs for recreation are unable to live in a manner which promotes both of their identities. Just as they subjugated their sexual identity in the familial unit, they once again must subjugate their sexual identity in ethnic bars because their sexuality has been racialized in gay clubs. Also straight Latino clubs cannot be counted on to be safe havens for these men as these spaces can be maintained by hegemonically masculine, traditional men who do not approve of homosexuality. Ramon indicated that when he patronizes straight Latino bars because he is tired of racism and xenophobia in gay clubs, he does occasionally face homophobia in these spaces. For gay Latinos in Baltimore, no space is safe or truly accepting of their dual identities. This lack of safety in social spaces further contributes to their stigmatization and the realization that they are perpetual outsiders because one of their identities is always discreditable (Goffman 1963: 4).

Participants frequently described instances of overt discrimination in nightclubs.

Amador stated that he was asked by an acquaintance to translate pick-up lines so the acquaintance could hit on a Latino man who was not fluent in English. Amador felt that this experience reduced him to a “human dictionary” who was exploited for his bilingualism. Loreto described a scenario in Philadelphia which he felt was emblematic of Latinos in gay spaces. He was in a nightclub with two sections, one made up of whites and the other made up of ethnic minorities. When Loreto crossed the segregated club and entered the white section he was sanctioned by white patrons who gave him hostile looks for entering their space and a white bartender who was slow in responding to Loreto’s request for a drink. These examples show that for gay Latinos these spaces are often not safe spaces as they are frequently marketed to the wider gay community, but instead are spaces where their Latino identity is racialized and thereby subjugates their queer identity. These men suffer from racialized sexuality. Their ethnic identity is racialized and blocks them from engaging in full participation in the gay tribe in gay spaces.

Because they are racially othered and constructed as foreign in these spaces, gay Latino men do not experience full or equal access to resources, such as social networking and dating, that white gay men experience in these spaces. Their Latino identity prevents their full inclusion in gay spaces and ultimately detract from their political economy in gay spaces. They do not receive the same access to resources in these spaces that dominant culture gay men do. This unequal access to resources impact the ability of gay

Latinos to conceptualize gay spaces as non-hostile. An unequal, racialized queer political economy prevents gay Latinos from using these spaces as stress reducers or coping mechanisms from the homophobia experienced in Latino spaces and the racism and

xenophobia experienced in dominant culture spaces, because gay Latinos have been racialized in gay spaces and their sexuality is devalued because of their ethnicity. Their political economic status is reduced because of racialized sexuality and thus they do not experience a full or equal sexuality in these spaces.

Other participants indicated that customers made assumptions about participants’ nativity. Participants were the target of unfounded beliefs about their documentation status because they are Latino. Their ethnic identity was frequently used as a justification to question participants’ immigration histories. Their ethnic identity is weaponized by dominant culture gay men and used to other gay Latinos within spaces which should be welcoming to them. Their ethnic identity does not allow their sexual identity to be fully explored or welcomed in these spaces: because of racialized sexuality participants were unable to be seen as gay men first and instead were seen as primarily Latino. Pancho conveyed to me that gay men have assumed that he is a foreigner because of his ethnicity and have used broken English with him. Ramon told me that customers frequently asked him where he was from and if the response was only the city and state, customers would ask him where he was really from. Ramon also indicated that he has people approach him in the nightclub and expect him to be a foreigner with limited English proficiency, even though he is a native-born social worker. He has heard individuals in clubs state

“you can’t be Latino and born in America and speak English.” Valero described that because he is of mixed mestizo and white identity, people have difficulty racially categorizing him. This leads to him frequently being asked if he is a member of a particular racial/ethnic group. Valero gave the example of a man he found attractive in a club asking Valero if he was Lebanese, shortly after Valero introduced himself to this

man. Participants stated in the course of their interviews they are frequently judged by their phenotypical skin and hair features and are ascribed traits, such as their documentation status and level of acculturation, based on their skin tones. This experience of stigma is in keeping with research which has found the dominant culture has constructed Latinos to be undocumented regardless of their nativity (Bloch 2014: 55-

57). Additionally this judgment from gay culture again shows how these men are the targets of racialized sexuality and how their Latino identity, specifically characteristics associated with Latino identity, leads to a sexual identity which is not valued in gay spaces and thus these men are not able to network and promote a full sexual identity.

“I Once Had a Boyfriend That Was From Mexico”: Fetishization of Gay Latinos’ Brown

Bodies Within Gay Spaces

Participants frequently also described being eroticized and fetishized in gay spaces in addition to being pushed away because of their brown skin. However, in several cases participants had trouble describing specific instances of fetishization because they felt it was so commonplace specific examples of fetishization no longer registered in their memory. That is, they freely admitted they have been the targets of fetishization, but because of the sheer magnitude of its occurrence participants could not always provide specific examples of fetishization in gay spaces.

Ramon announced men in the club will make statements such as “I once had a boyfriend that was from Mexico” indicating to him that they want to be intimate with

Ramon solely due to perceived physical features. Jeanro divulged men have greeted him in gay nightclubs by stating “Hey, Papi” which annoys Jeanro because of the fetishization of white men wanting a Papi to dominate them as well as the failure to understand that a

Papi in Mexican culture is a father and is not a sexually-charged symbol. Jeanro also was annoyed when men assumed he spoke Spanish because of his phenotypical features (dark skin, black eyes, black hair) and devised a resistance strategy to this frequent pick-up line in the club:

The fetishizing, the most annoying thing is when someone comes, talks to you in Spanish, and I'm like "well, actually, I don't speak Spanish" and they're like "oh, sorry, I assumed because you're Latino." And I really do, it’s just I don't wanna be your fucking Rosetta Stone. So I think, for me, that's the type of thing I'm just here to have a good time, I don't need to be your teacher. And I think, for me, it could be being overly sensitive, but it’s more like "all right, like, I do this for work, I'm in education, the last thing I wanna do is be like an educator for you to do it.

Jeanro employs a resistance strategy of withholding information from individuals in the club out of a frustration with his dual language ability being sexualized. In doing so he mitigates stigma for being brown skinned in a predominately white space (see

Brennan et al. 2013: 393-394; Han 2007: 55-60; Teunis 2007: 268-270). Jeanro has also been described as spicy, which he attributes to the stereotype that Latinos are passionate lovers. A member of a couple who Valero was talking to stated “oh, yeah my partner really likes Latino guys.” Amador stated that he has tried to engage in intellectual conversations with men only to have men continue to tell him that he is attractive.

Amador has found that these men only desire him because of his brown skin and “they’re not interested in looking” at his intellectual curiosity. These participants’ experiences with brown skin lusting are consistent with literature which finds ethnic minorities to be eroticized (Brennan et al. 2013: 393-394; Callender, Holt, and Newman 2016: 10-13;

Han 2007: 55-60; Ro et al. 2013: 843-844). These stories also highlight how fetishization is used to makes Latinos foreign. Fetishization reduces men to their ethnicity and takes

away their individuality, a point Amador touched on when he observed that men are concerned with his physical attributes and not his intellectual talents. For gay Latinos they are reduced to their skin tones and are interchangeable, all that matters is their skin tone and not their individual accomplishments or distinct personality traits. Simmel

(1908/2010) observed the stranger becomes a “ ‘type’ of person whose particular (italics original) characteristics” reduce him to something “fundamentally different from the group” (Edles and Appelrouth 2010: 301). Gay men’s fetishization of gay Latinos’ brown skin separates Latinos from the gay in-group. While they are lusted after for their different characteristics (i.e. skin tone) and this lust makes them strangers, at other times they are racialized and discriminated against because of their ethnicity as discussed earlier. Gay Latinos are rarely seen the way they wish to be seen as indicated in the statements of participants, as complicated, unique individuals. To make them unique would make the strange familiar and allow these men to be seen as full human beings and not as foreigners. To see them as unique would take away their foreigner identity. In failing to achieve this, dominant culture gay men utilize fetishization as a device by which to other gay Latinos and make these men into strangers (Simmel 1908/2010) while still desiring their bodies.

Several participants also described physically threatening examples of fetishization.

Pancho confided that as a young man in gay clubs he was the target of predatory men who lusted after him for being young and brown skinned:

I want to be seen for more than like a body part. Um, because that kind of like, uhh ...what’s the word I'm looking for, objectives me. It’s weird when it’s just like, someone at the club, that weird, skeezy experience that I had like at Central, when someone fucking tried to finger me…. I want to say that younger men have gotten a lot better with like acknowledging that. But like a lot of older men do not understand the sense of boundaries. Like, me

dancing with you does not mean that I want to have sex with you or you’re fine to force kiss me or like jam your hand down my pants….My experiences of being 18, 19, were much more terrifying than like now.

TWR: Really?

Pancho: Oh, yeah! Cause I mean you're new to the club, you don't really know the scene, and you have all these men who are probably really late 20s/early30s, who are trying to hit you up, which is OK I guess, when you're first doing it, cause it’s nice that older men are paying attention to you, some of them....but then it’s very, it comes off as very predatory when they're trying to force themselves onto you....I've had to say stop several times...well not several times, maybe like three or four times in my life, from men, where I'm like "you're obviously not getting the fact that I’m telling you no. You're not allowed to pull me out of the club."

Pancho was harassed by older men who valued his youth and his phenotypical features in the club. This description is concurrent with literature which indicates brown skinned gay men are sexually valued for their skin tone, though they are not valued as autonomous beings and are denied full participatory rights in gay culture (see Han 2007:

52-60; Teunis 2007: 268-273). Loreto feels that he is a target not only for fetishization but also for physical assault if he rejects the unwanted fetishization:

I feel like, and maybe this is also why I close off in those spaces. This is why I don't like to accept free drinks either. Like if I were to say no to anything I would be in some kind of danger. Like you know, “hey look here's a free drink you have to talk to me now. I would rather not.” So maybe that goes back to like making myself less visible out of concern for my safety.

TWR: So if you were to say yes, if someone offered to buy you a drink at a club in one of those situations you feel that if you said yes that would be putting you in a…

Loreto: That if I were to say no at any point. I'm also not really big, so even if I got into a fight I don't think it would, I don't know what my chances would be.

Loreto has significantly increased his socioeconomic status since he has graduated from college and obtained full-time employment. Nonetheless, any socio-economic advantages he has earned do not insulate him from fetishization or reduce his fear of being assaulted should he refuse a drink. His political, economic, and educational capital may have given Loreto an ability to recognize fetishization when it occurs but he is not shielded from the fear of violence that arises out of his experiences with fetishization. An increase in political economy thus does not protect gay Latinos from being racialized sexually: they are always strangers (Simmel 1908/2010) in these spaces regardless of their educational or economic attainments.

"You're like super attractive, not because you're you, but because you're Latino":

Ethnoracialization and Fetishization on Gay Dating Apps

Many participants noted that outside of gay clubs, gay online dating apps are frequent arenas for fetishization. Participants observed online dating apps to be arenas where they could be fetishized or racialized. These observations again highlight how gay Latino men are frequently othered via men lusting after them. Cyberspace eroticization, as with corporal eroticization, reduces gay Latinos to caricatures of Latino culture. Men on digital dating apps who assume all Latinos are spicy or who state “no Latinos” place

Latinos in a foreigner status and in doing so, other Latinos in spaces where they should be welcomed in their sexuality. By racializing sexuality, dominant culture gays can turn gay Latinos into foreigners and rob them of inclusionary spaces. For example, Jeanro reported he frequently receives stereotypes on online dating applications, such as messages from men which state “oh hey, I love Latinos, they’re like my favorite, oh my god, you’re probably a passionate kisser, I need like a jealous type to dominate me.”

Jeanro has also received cyber communications which indicate men are interested in him solely because they believe all Latino men are uncircumcised and thus eroticize Jeanro and other Latinos based on presumed phallic features. Jeanro also indicated that men who have fetishized him online will blur fetishization between the digital and corporal worlds as they will approach him in clubs and ask why he has refused to communicate with them. This example highlights how for many gay Latinos they are exposed to discrimination in all gay spaces and cannot find a truly inclusionary space to embrace their gay identity. Pancho described his irritation with fetishization and the boundary politics of online dating, as he frequently encountered dating profiles which sought him out for being Latino or blocked him because of his Latino identity:

I hated when I was still on dating apps and people would say consistently, like, "white only" or even like "white and Latino only" or "no Latinos and no blacks" and it was just like...people don't realize how painful that ends up being after a while, because it’s just like am I not attractive because of how...like my skin tone? But what then does that say about society, but also fuck you, cause you’re an idiot and you shouldn’t be putting skin as a requirement into who you're attracted to. But then you meet other white men, and I've experienced this from black men too, umm, actually from black men, is, um, the whole, like, I've experienced that much more from black men than white men, have been like "you're like super attractive, not because you're you, but because you're Latino." Like, because of my physical features, um, and I don't know how I feel about that. Sure it’s nice to be wanted, but it’s not fun to be wanted because of just race or what you are. Would you like me if I'm darker or lighter? Does that play any role into it? Cause I know there's like white Latinos and black Latinos, but like, how does that play into this? Especially when you're like right in the middle of the road, of both colors?

Pancho is straddling both worlds. He is not wanted by some men because of his physical features, but he is only wanted by other men solely for his phenotypical traits and not for his personality traits. Pancho denotes being caught between the two views of

Latinos within the gay community is causing him psychological distress. After the

interview was over while I was talking to Pancho, he disclosed to me that he always feels like an outsider, due to both his sexual-minority and ethnic-minority identities. Pancho’s multiple minority status prevents him from finding full acceptance in gay or Latino spaces. He is never a full member of the community but is always excluded because of one of his marginalized identities. As indicated in this and preceding chapters participants experienced stigma in Latino, gay, and dominant culture spaces.

Chapter 6: Effects of and Responses to Stigma

In Chapters Three, Four, and Five I discussed how participants experienced stigma arising out of gay, Latino, and dominant culture. In this chapter I describe how these multiple forms of stigma triangulated in the participants’ lived experiences. The primary effect of multiple forms of stigma is conceptualization of the self as a foreigner.

Specifically, because of the racism, xenophobia, and homophobia they suffer in their routine experiences, participants indicated they were never insiders in any spaces they occupied and frequently saw themselves as foreigners. Participants tried to neutralize stigma through the use of humor, education, and the advancement of their political and economic power. Participants were able to temporarily mitigate the effect of stigma on their lived experiences but were not able to avoid being othered. Finally, I discuss how stigmatization contributed to ongoing distress 9, despite efforts to resist and neutralize stigma.

Foreigner Status

Multiple participants discussed how experiencing stigma due to their multiple marginalized identities created a foreigner status within them. That is, because of their gay and Latino identities they never felt completely welcomed or integrated in Latino, gay, or dominant culture spaces. At no point were participants able to fully express their full, intersecting identity, as a result they are perpetually foreigners.

Participants frequently observed they were stigmatized due to one of their identities being in the minority depending on the space they were in at any time. That is, the

9 Distress refers to Arvidsdotter et al. (2016)’s conceptualization of psychological distress as “a state of emotional suffering associated with stressors and demands that are difficult to cope with in daily life” (687).

identity they shared with the individuals surrounding them was never stigmatized, but rather it was the identity not shared by the other individuals in a space which led to participants being made to feel like foreigners. The stigmatized identity became activated when participants entered a space where the stigmatized identity was devalued and not in majority. When in a gay space or a dominant culture space, participants indicated that their Latino identity was stigmatized. When in Latino spaces, participants’ gay identities were stigmatized.

Pancho succinctly described the ever shifting landscape of discrimination at the end of his interview:

I’ve experienced both [racism and homophobia]. People like to discriminate against people who are different than them, so I’m more likely to be discriminated against an identity that I have that the other people don’t have, if that makes sense. It changes depending on the environment that I’m in.

Valero also conveyed that he received discrimination in environments where one of his marginalized identities was not in the majority. Valero grew up in an area of Texas which was predominately Latino; he indicated that he was never victimized for his ethnicity in Texas. Valero, however, was discriminated against as a gay teenager in

Texas and was stigmatized for being a sexual-minority in a predominately conservative, heteronormative region of the country. Valero left Texas after high school and attended college in New York City. Valero noted that at this point in his life, he was no longer stigmatized for being gay but was suddenly discriminated against for being Latino:

I guess while, as the last thing to say while the gay stuff, while the gay pushback subsided is when the Latino pushback started. So when I went to college people weren't so concerned about my gay identity but they were concerned more by my Latino identity. Having to make sense, I moved from a very heavily Latino community to a more accepting gay community but also a less dominate Latino community. And so I got more of what I described earlier, the pushback on my Latino identity.

These quotes illustrate that for many participants they are always an outsider.

Pancho’s explanation that gay Latinos are tolerated in moderation in all spaces by proclaiming “you can tolerate a bee but you can’t tolerate a swarm of bees” illustrates how participants cannot find full acceptance in any space which they occupy because one of their identities is always discredited, not discreditable

(Goffman 1963: 4). For these participants they are not at danger of becoming an outsider. They are always an outsider. While they may participate in gay and

Latino communities, the terms of participation are established by in-group members.

Building on Simmel (1908/2010: 302-305), participants represent modern strangers, physically in spaces but denied full participatory membership across social spaces. In contrast to Simmel’s discussion of Jews as archetypal strangers who faced widespread anti-Semitism and xenophobia but found solace in the

Jewish quarter, gay Latinos have few places of acceptance. Gay Latinos face othering within dominant culture and within their ethnic and sexual communities.

Few participants are able to express their intersecting identity in its totality at any point. They must constantly be attuned to which identity can be brought forward in any given setting. They are unable to express their identity in a gay space because their sexuality is racialized. They are rejected via dating profiles affirming “no

Latinos” and contemptuous glares in nightclubs, or they are desired not for their intellect but for their brown bodies. Their ethnic identity prevents them from being full participatory members in this space, a space which could provide them some solace from the homophobia they encounter in Latino spaces and the racism and

xenophobia they encounter in dominant culture spaces. If they disclose their sexual orientation to family members they are formally sanctioned by the family and othered . If they do not come out as gay they still are made to be strangers in their ethnic communities and families as they are afraid to disclose their sexual orientations to their families. Whether discredited or discreditable (Goffman

1963:4) their full membership in Latino spaces is revoked. They are everlasting strangers in each space because one of their identities is always used to other and discredit them.

The ethnicity of the participants also played an overarching role in the creation of a foreigner identity throughout daily life, regardless of citizenship or documentation statuses. Loreto described how he feels like a foreigner in multiple areas in his life:

I feel like in the Latino community we're still at least in the United States seen as foreigners. And I guess I'm a first generation or second generation Latino person here in the U.S. and I still feel like a foreigner sometimes by the way that I'm treated in the spaces that I'm at. It might be at work, even at work or just in the neighborhood where I live, or in Columbia where I grew up, sometimes. So not fully feeling like an integrated person even when you've grown up here your entire life.

As indicated in Chapter Four Loreto feels uncomfortable as a gay Latino. His neighborhood buttresses a Latino ethnic enclave. When he enters this enclave

Loreto feels that he is being watched and judged by machista, first-generation men who do not approve of Loreto’s sexuality or effeminacy. Because of his identification within this enclave as a homosexual, Loreto feels stigmatized and possibly threatened. Loreto’s Latino identity also leads him to feel like a foreigner in Columbia and other spaces because of his Latino identity. Loreto also has

experienced stigmatization in gay spaces (see Chapter Five). While growing up in

Columbia Loreto felt anxiety over the possibility of encountering a racist parent at one of his white friends’ homes. Over time this fear was replaced with a fear of encountering a homophobic parent as he became aware of his sexual orientation and the growing concern that “OK so maybe being Latino’s not the problem, but now

I’m also gay. How do I not come off so feminine or outwardly gay?’ In addition to already being brown in their white household.” Because of his multiple minority status Loreto is unable to find a space where he does not feel stigmatized and he conceptualizes himself as a foreigner in both gay and Latino spaces. This multiple marginalization is consistent with other participants who felt stigmatized for both their gay and Latino identities and never believed they were truly accepted in gay,

Latino, or dominant culture spaces.

Participants’ educational success and socioeconomic status ironically contribute to feelings of being a foreigner in everyday life. Participants feel judged within

Latino communities because of their educational attainment. Specifically participants see gay Latino men as condemning them for their social mobility and socio-economic achievements. Amador, who has trained as an interpreter, noted that he has felt like a foreigner with other Latino men because he avoids using colloquial terms. Although this linguistic practice is important professionally, ensuring his Spanish can be understood across Spanish language speakers, he has been told that he speaks Spanish “funny.” Latino men view him as “too American, too white.” Amador sees a direct connection between his educational status and his ability to connect with other Latino men:

So here's another example of class. The education part of class right? Class has all these strata. And it's the education part of that kind of makes me feel different….I think they feel uncomfortable around me because they can't always keep up with what I'm saying. And it's hard for me to dumb it down.

Amador’s political economic status, while affording him greater socio-economic opportunities, thus has limited his in-group belonging and contributed to him feeling stigma as a foreigner within the Latino community in Baltimore. Similarly

Jeanro observed Latino men in the Baltimore region have a parochial view of culture, because they are primarily from Central America or descended from

Central American immigrants and cannot appreciate Mexican culture or appreciate west coast Latinos’ differing culturally from Baltimore Latinos. Jeanro also felt that because Latinos in Baltimore are primarily from Central American they cannot understand the minority point of view compared to Jeanro who is Mexican-

American. Jeanro attributes his worldview to residing in several cities as a white- collar professional, though his inability to connect with the Latino population in

Baltimore has made it difficult for him to network socially or professionally.

Amador and Jeanro’s educational gains make it clear that Latinos who gather economic capital are at risk of being othered by gay Latinos who do not possess the same political economic status. At the same time the statements provided by

Amador and Jeanro indicate they are othering lower socio-economic class gay

Latinos and at times are patronizing towards gay Latinos without formal education.

Amador’s assertion that he cannot “dumb down” his language or thoughts or that working class gay Latino men “can’t always keep up” with his statements shows his own biases towards these men. Jeanro’s assertion that Latinos in Baltimore are comprised of Central Americans and thus they are a majority population without an

understanding of minority population concerns ignores their minority status as

Latino men in white culture or as Latinos in gay spaces. Earlier in his interview

Jeanro indicated the gay Latino population in Baltimore is working class and frequently undocumented, so it is unclear why he would suggest they do not suffer stigma as members of minority populations. Participants intersecting gay, Latino, and class identities and the economic othering which occurs within the gay Latino population is consistent with research which has found higher class gay Latino men to disparage lower class and immigrant gay Latinos (Philen 2006: 45).

As has been demonstrated through this section participants conceptualized themselves as foreigners in multiple spaces due to stigmatization which occurs in all spaces. These men are modern versions of the stranger (Simmel 1908/2010) and the compounding effect of multiple forms of discrimination is the creation of a permanent foreigner status within this multiple-marginalized population. Their lived experience extends Simmel by demonstrating in a modern context individuals who possess multiple minority identities experience totalizing otherness .

Because of their experiences with multiple forms of stigmatization, participants found ways to resist discrimination. These stigma management techniques are discussed in the next section.

Resistance to Stigma

Participants in the course of their lived experiences found multiple ways to counter ethnicity-based and sexuality-based stigmatization. The three forms of stigma management used most frequently by participants were humor, education, and accruement of political and economic power.

Humor

Multiple participants used humor as a means to lessen stigma and to combat stereotypical comments from individuals. Humor was used in multiple defensive ways.

First, participants used humor to make fun of individuals who invoke stereotypes. For example, Ramon stated that when he finds himself in a situation where someone is stereotyping him, he quickly thinks of a retort which can “put somebody in their place.

But in a humorous way.” Ramon indicated he does not use this type of humor to disrespect people but instead to provide commentary about their actions and hopefully aid the offending person with reconsidering his or her actions.

Other participants indicated that they will intentionally misdirect individuals who stigmatize, finding humor in embarrassing racist or xenophobic individuals. Jeanro stated when he is in a club and a man walks up to him and starts to speak in Spanish,

Jeanro will pretend not to speak Spanish even though he is bilingual. Jeanro believes by misdirecting these type of men he is resisting stigmatization and eroticization in gay spaces. Loreto intentionally misdirects people who ask him where he is from in an effort to prank them into understanding the xenophobic assumptions factored into that question:

And I always get the question, like, even on apps “Like where are you from?” And then my favorite answer is I'm from Columbia. They're like “oh, how long did you live there?” I'm like “Columbia, Howard County, Maryland. Not fucking the country Colombia.” So even then I still frequently feel that reinforces that people would consider me outwardly a foreigner. And not just someone who has lived here their whole life…. I don't know maybe part of me saying Columbia is to fuck with them. I'm from here and you should really rethink about asking that question. So even though I felt… I feel it, I feel like sometimes I give some kind of resistance and that's comforting.

Loreto receives satisfaction in using humor to resist labeling as a foreigner. By pushing back against the assumption that he must be an immigrant (see Bloch 2014:

55-57), Loreto neutralizes the stigma while providing a teachable moment to the individual who assumes he is foreign-born.

While some participants utilized humor to confront individuals or provide education other men in the study used humor to insulate themselves from the effects of stigma. Valero informed me that when people say offensive things (such as the offensive comments made by his boss described in Chapter Three) he uses humor to internally laugh off a comment. Valero stated he would ignore comments as a younger person but he now uses humor to insulate himself and joke with himself about the stereotyping: “…I don’t know it’s not really direct either it’s sort of also passive but just in a more joking way. Sort of laughing it off because I am confident or something. It’s fine that they feel that way but I won’t really engage them.” Valero thus uses humor to insulate himself from comments about his identity as a gay Latino man, though his acknowledgement that he will not directly engage with individuals who stigmatize him may suggest an unease about placing himself “in the line of fire” as Orne (2013: 229) suggested queer youth do when they directly confront homophobic individuals. Juanito noted a greater unease with directly confronting individuals who stigmatize them due to their sexuality and/or ethnicity. Juanito told me they use awkward laughter to try to deflect stigmatization. Juanito specifically noted they use this technique because they feel they would risk physical assault if they were to directly challenge stigmatization:

Like I'm not a confrontational person. I'm not going to confront them like “hey, that's not - that's not OK.” You don't know what you're saying because that puts me in a place of danger and vulnerability that I don't want to be in because I don't want to be killed or beat up or any of that because that has happened to people in the past. So I'd rather stay within my safe bubble and

let people run over me with their jokes and comments because I'm at least alive and healthy in that sense than in the hospital….

Juanito is afraid of what will happen to them if they actively try to resist stigmatization to one of their marginalized identities. Juanito believes that it is better to “deflect the bullet” (Orne 2013: 244) and avoid directly confronting discrimination because to do so risks a greater penalty than stigma. Juanito’s best option is to use awkward humor to try to deescalate discriminatory situations to the best of their ability. While Juanito’s use of humor is very different than Loreto’s, in both scenarios the participants use their humor to insulate themselves from discrimination.

Education

A small minority of participants discussed using experiences of stigma as opportunities to educate individuals about misconceptions of homosexuality.

Unlike humor, when participants would use sarcasm to educate individuals about the effects of stigma or why racism, homophobia, and xenophobia were harmful, participants would use education when they were sincerely trying to improve individuals’ understandings of how stigma is harmful. Education occurred with individuals who were already known to the participants and who the participant could expect to see on a recurring basis, such as family members and coworkers.

For participants it may not be practical to educate every single individual who discriminates against them and thus they may have to save their energy for individuals who they will have to engage with regularly. Pepe stated that he has earnestly educated his family on sexual role variations and incorrect assumptions about gay men’s effeminacy. Because of this he has helped his family understand

that not all gay men are effeminate or want to be women. Ramon stays informed about events and news in the LGBT community. He likes to discuss these issues with co-workers and friends and finds that he has helped people become more aware of issues in the LGBT community. He hopes that by educating individuals he is reducing discrimination against queer individuals. The use of education to reduce stigma is consistent with Orne’s (2013) findings that queer youth can at times directly challenge individuals who stigmatize queers in order to educate them and reduce ongoing discrimination (242-244).

Participants’ Political-Economic Statuses

Participants stated routinely that they viewed access to resources as a buttress to stigmatization, for themselves as well as for the greater gay Latino community.

Participants frequently asserted that their educational and employment opportunities provided them the means to recognize stigmatization and to fend off or limit the impact of stigmatization on their psyches. Indeed, participants with greater political and economic capital were better positioned to manage stigma, though they were not able to completely remove stigma from their lives and at best could temporarily protect themselves. Loreto disclosed he feels less vulnerable now, as a college graduate who works full-time in a healthcare organization, than as a financially challenged college student. He is more aware of discrimination and fetishization now than he was several years ago because he previously did not have the ability to remove himself from stigmatizing situations or spaces. Loreto believes that he can assert his power in these spaces now. As an example, he commented that because he has greater income he can call an Uber if he finds himself in a discriminatory

space and needs to leave quickly, and Loreto believes that he did not have this economic power when he was a lower-class college student. Similarly, Amador indicated that when he is discriminated against on social media and people suggest that he does not know proper English and should go back where he came from, he is able to use his college education to correct their grammar. Amador has a master’s degree and has worked in education. He has found that individuals online who insult him have worse grammatical skills than he does, so he uses his formal education to point out their grammatical mistakes. For example, he tells them where they should have used a comma in their sentence or why they should have used “too” instead of “two.” Amador declared that he derives power from these scenarios because he is able to use his formal knowledge as a means to resist racism and xenophobia. His greater political economy enables him to resist stigma, and as

Amador noted, hurtful comments such as these will be more effective against the majority of gay Latino men, who in his view are not as well educated and will not be able to resist comments about their English language ability.

Ignacio likewise observed individuals make assumptions about his English proficiency because of his being an ethnic-minority. When this happens he selectively code-shifts and uses more formal language to indicate his educational level:

If I feel like they're judging me intellectually, which is not a very common thing but it happens, periodically when people are assuming that I'm not as spoken at English that I am, I will be much more astute in my verb choices, pointed in my words. And clearly dictate to them that I have a much broader command of English than they most likely do.

Ignacio is college-educated, having obtained a bachelor’s degree and completing a master’s degree in the near future. He works in a white-collar field. Ignacio is able to use his formal education to resist stigmatization from individuals who assume that because he is Latino he is uneducated and possesses a poor command of the English language. As with other participants, access to formal educational resources enabled Ignacio to be more aware of stigmatizing experiences and develop stigma management techniques in order to resist discriminatory practices by racist or xenophobic individuals, though this awareness did not prevent the discrimination from occurring. Amador continues to be harassed online and

Ignacio is forced to continue to codeswitch when he inevitably encounters another racist or xenophobic individual. Loreto is able to call an Uber when someone discriminates him in a gay nightclub but he cannot prevent the discrimination from occurring unless he chooses not to enter the gay space which should be a sanctuary from a religious family structure and a dominant culture which assumes he is illegal because of his brown skin. For participants and other gay Latinos, resistance to stigma is a temporary fix. They can temporarily resist stigmatization but they are unable to win the war and be free of discrimination. Resistance neutralizes stigma and the painful effects of stigma in the moment, but participants are aware that they will continue to encounter racism, xenophobia, and homophobia. Throughout interviews participants observed they will continue to face discrimination and they consistently feel uncomfortable in spaces where they should be comfortable, such as gay clubs or family gatherings. While speaking for himself, Pancho’s statement that he always feels like an outsider is indicative of the sentiments of the rest of the

participants: they have accepted othering as part of their lived experience. While they would prefer not to face such stigmatization they understand their best course of action to be to fight back against the pain of these forms of discrimination while managing long-term expectations about being welcomed as insiders.

Other participants noted the lack of political economic resources in their lives increased their risk of being stigmatized. For example, Juanito lacks health insurance because they are an undocumented immigrant from a lower SES household and are not covered by Medicaid. They were unable to continue on their university’s student health insurance plan because of financial considerations.

Juanito is aware that they are at risk for additional healthcare problems as an uninsured queer person, because they are not able to receive yearly checkups or get tested regularly for sexually transmitted infections. Juanito noted that they may be exposed to a sexually transmitted infection but be unable to seek medical treatment, or may have to seek treatment and incur unpayable financial costs. Juanito used their real-life example as a vantage point into the situation that queer Latinx individuals routinely find themselves and how this community feels they are stigmatized for being undocumented:

….because the lack of health care comes from being an immigrant and to an extent also being Hispanic and Latinx, which coincide with one another because you have the lack of healthcare and being queer you have a greater risk of, you know, diseases and things happening to you and not being able to recover from whatever happens to you…. Especially if you're white then there's the stigma, at least from the community I grew up in that, you have money. So you're fine. You have health care. Without a doubt. And if you're black, then there's the stereotype that OK you may be not wealthy but you have social welfare programs that can help you because you're American, while being Hispanic and Latinx I'm not American so I'm not covered by the social welfare programs that would have been helpful to me than if I had been American.

Juanito lacks political economic power because they are unable to utilize healthcare in a proactive manner due to their documentation status. Their inability to access healthcare resources impacts their queer identity and their awareness of sexual risk as a queer individual. Juanito is unable to insulate their self from structural discrimination because of their documentation status, thereby leaving themselves vulnerable to sexually transmitted infections (STI) and STI-related stigma within the queer (see Berg and Ross 2014) and Latinx (see Dang, Giordano, and Kim 2012) communities.

Multiple participants chose to discuss the political economy of gay Latino immigrants rather than the participant’s own political economy. Both Pancho and

Ramon observed how identification cards can be an obstacle to gay immigrants gaining access to resources and gaining entre to gay spaces. Pancho indicated that immigrants know that the native-born gay Latino population frequents gay clubs and immigrants know that a government issued ID is required to gain entre to clubs.

Immigrants who do not have these IDs have less access to perceived safe spaces for building a gay social network (see Thing 2010: 822-826). Pancho also declared that immigrants without driver’s licenses are dependent on public transportation to navigate around Baltimore and that public transit is inconvenient. Individuals who work in the lower economic strata may have difficulty gaining access to spaces where they can mitigate stigma, though this may also protect them from stigmatization in gay spaces (see Han 2007: 55-60; Teunis 2007: 268-270) Ramon advised that he believes it is challenging for immigrants to connect to the gay community in Baltimore due to acculturation issues. He also finds identification to

be a complicated issue as those without ID do not have access to the safe spaces that individuals with ID do:

This is a weird thing, but ID. I've been to bars with some of my friends who don't have ID because they don't have a driver's license. I have a friend of mine, the only thing he has for ID is a passport from his country. And he doesn't want to carry it around cause he doesn't want to lose it. Cause replacing it is difficult to do. So having to pick and choose where you're going and you're 31, you know. You've been legal for a long time, but you know you can't get into some places because they'll make it very difficult on you…. So not to take it offensively but sometimes the whole ID thing can get in the way of being in versus being out. So I do see that as a barrier to find a safe space to be. And clearly if they're going to a gay bar, they're looking for a place they can feel free and have a different experience....

In Ramon’s view, an ID card is symbolic of an individual’s ability to lead a public life as a gay man. Those without an ID card may not have access to gay spaces and may remain closeted because of a lack of gay resources. Without access to gay spaces gay Latinos may feel greater familial and cultural stigma and not have a space to alleviate this stress and embrace a homosexual identity. As indicated in the next section stigma was referenced by participants as a source of psychological distress in their lives.

Stigma’s Relationship with Psychological Distress

As indicated in Chapters Three, Four, and Five participants frequently experienced stigmatization because of their multiple minority status. In the course of interviewing participants, many of them discussed how stigmatization was linked to experiencing psychological distress.

Participants described that psychological distress arose out of expecting to receive stigma because of one of their stigmatized identities. Participants in many scenarios anticipated pre-emptive discrimination gay or Latino spaces. This expectation of stigma,

100

sometimes based on prior discrimination, fostered distress in participants as they were unsure if they belonged in spaces and were apprehensive about their identity in spaces which they felt did not belong to them. Valero, who as mentioned in Chapter Two is bi- racial, told me that he has had to defend his Latino identity from individuals who comment that he is not Latino enough. Valero communicated that people not seeing him as Latino has led him to have anxiety about him “being Latino enough for people.”

Valero has anxiety about proving his Latino identity to people, including people who have stigmatized him by questioning if he, a bi-racial individual, can legitimately claim a

Latino identity. Valero further added that people trying to racially classify him contributes to his insecurities as a Latino man. He feels uncomfortable in gay spaces, which are supposed to be safe spaces for him as a gay man, because he anticipates that he will be racially stereotyped and have individuals question the legitimacy of his Latino identity:

And also reinforces what I said like my own insecurities with my own identity like yeah. So because I'm often misidentified then it like reinforces that and then I feel uncomfortable going to spaces that are technically OK to go to.

TWR: Your past experiences taught you that if you go there, someone's going to make that type of statement.

Valero: Yeah or even the idea of people thinking I shouldn't be there is repellent enough to not go there. Like even if no one said something I'm just like “everyone's thinking it” you know, super insecure about that kind of stuff.

For Valero, racial stigmatization in gay spaces causes anxiety and provokes his own insecurities about his core identities and if he projects a front-stage appearance (see

Goffman 1959: 22) in keeping with what gay men expect to be the identity of a Latino man. Loreto also reported experiencing anxiety because of his identities. For Loreto, he

101

found his identity as a gay Latino to be distressing when he was in Latino spaces. Loreto specifically mentioned when he is in the Latino ethnic enclave in Highlandtown, he feels that he could be physically or verbally assaulted by the enclave residents for being gay in a Latino space. In this space Loreto finds stigma from the ethnic enclave to be distressing and is anxiously aware of not fitting in with the machista men in the neighborhood due to his gay identity and his effeminate mannerisms. In this space

Loreto indicated he will adopt a “machoflexible” (Pena-Talamntes 2013: 174) identity and attempt to pass as someone who is not easily identifiable as gay, even if he is not received as straight by the Latino community in Highlandtown. Loreto is frustrated by his reliance on this defense mechanism and is irritated with himself for using this technique, though he recognizes that (for him) there is a legitimate need to pass as not gay: “But I also understand why I do it. So it’s not such an internal conflict. It’s more of just like a mechanism to navigate spaces.” Both Loreto and Valero face anxiety over the perceptions of others to their marginalized identity: whichever space is populated by individuals who do not comprise that identity (white gay spaces for Valero, straight

Latino spaces for Loreto) causes distress in the participants because they must preemptively manage their marginalized identity and anticipate verbal or physical discrimination.

Other participants did not discuss devaluation of their gay or Latino identities, but did observe that they have been distressed due to stigma in their lives. Pepe stated that he has been hurt by family members and society’s intolerance of gay people. In particular Pepe found his aunt and mother’s initial reaction to his sexual orientation to be distressing, as he was the recipient of hurtful comments and felt that there was an initial separation

102

between his loved ones and himself. Pancho told me that he found it upsetting when gay men on dating apps would make statements either eroticizing Latinos by stating “Latinos only” or racially stigmatizing Latinos by stating “no Latinos.” His distress stemmed from being told that his skin tone was not attractive or so attractive that it, and not he as a whole individual, was lusted after. He also stated that his parents were not initially accepting of his gay identity and were dismissive of his attempts to disclose his sexual orientation to them as an adolescent. Pancho divulged that this experience was so painful that his academic performance suffered senior year of high school and had he not already been accepted to colleges by the time of his grades suffering he may not have been able to continue his education:

It took a year after that, so when, um, around the time I graduated high school, they were becoming more accepting. But that fucked me up man. Even though I had, even though I had ....even though I did well academically in high school my freshman though junior years, my grades were starting to fall senior year. But fortunately by that time, um, colleges were already accepting me. Otherwise I would have been fucked, but, definitely my grades slipped when I felt that my parents weren't being supportive.

Pancho’s stigmatization within his familial unit led to increased psychological distress as he felt his parents, whose support he described earlier in the interview as paramount, were no longer empathetic towards him but instead had become judgmental over his disclosure of his gay identity. This psychological distress could have lowered Pancho’s political economy had he disclosed his gay identity earlier in his adolescence, as he used a strong academic performance to gain entry into higher education. Pancho’s experience also is indicative of the experience of many gay Latino men, in that Latino families are not safe spaces where they can receive solace from the racism and xenophobia of the

103

wider world. Instead, they must contend with these stigmatizing forces while also encountering homophobia in their family units. For gay Latinos who experience othering familismo is not the coping mechanism that it can be for straight Latinos (see Finch and

Vega 2003: 113-115; Turcios 2017: 111, 117-118). Rather, for gay Latinos familismo is a source of othering and adds an additional layer of stigma to their already stigmatized lives.

Stigma was a mediating factor in the construction of psychological distress in the lived experiences of the participants. The psychological distress experienced by the participants was in their minds the end result of hostile local spaces and communities which discriminated against individuals who were outsiders and not like in-group members.

104

Chapter 7: Conclusion, Limitations, and Directions for Future Research

This study used qualitative methods to investigate experiences of stigma among gay

Latinos in Baltimore. This research builds upon previous conceptualizations of cultural stigma (see Kleinman and Hall-Clifford 2009) to explore how sexuality and ethnicity are stigmatized within the worlds of multiple minority individuals. As I discussed in the preceding chapters gay Latino men experienced stigma originating in dominant culture,

Latino, and gay spaces. Participants routinely described being stigmatized for being

Latino in dominate culture and gay spaces and for being gay in Latino spaces.

Participants described feeling ethnic, sexual, and cultural stigma in various spaces. The multiple forms of stigma converged in individuals’ lived experiences. The convergence of these forms of stigma created a foreigner identity, in which they felt they were always an outsider in spaces because of one of their marginalized identities. This foreigner status, and individuals’ awareness of the foreigner status, led to psychological distress in individuals. In this chapter I discuss how Simmel’s (1908/2010) stranger is applicable to the stigma experiences of these men. I note the limitations of existing stigma models and argue for an intersectional stigma model which can better address the complexities of the lived experiences of gay Latinos. I address how this research can be applied to advocacy and policy to help reduce stigmatizing of gay Latinos. Finally, I offer imitations to this study and suggest directions for future research.

Gay Latinos as the Stranger (Simmel 1908/2010)

As indicated in Chapter 6 the men in my study frequently spoke of feeling that they were foreigners in gay, Latino, and dominant culture spaces. Across spaces either the

Latino or gay identity is always stigmatized. Because of this consistent stigmatization

105

they are unable to feel that they are insiders, even in spaces where they share an identity with the other individuals. This stigmatization formed in the participants a foreigner identity where they felt they were always an outsider.

Using a Simmelian lens I argue these men are extensions of Simmel’s stranger

(1908/2010). Simmel argued the stranger “is near or close to us insofar as we share with him general, impersonal qualities, such as nationality, gender, or race” (Edles and

Applerouth 2010: 301). However, in-group members do not believe they share commonalities with the stranger that would result in a human connection to the stranger

(Edles and Applerouth 2010: 301). Gay Latinos share ethnicity with Latinos, sexuality with other gay men, and nationality with other Americans, but they are still othered by

Latinos in Latino spaces, gay men in gay spaces, and dominant-culture Americans in the

United States.

As indicated in Chapters Three through Five participants were routinely discriminated against in multiple spaces, in many cases by individuals who share a common identity with the participants. This othering occurred because of the participants having an identity which robbed them of the ability to be seen as full participatory members in spaces (gay in Latino spaces, Latino in gay spaces, and Latino in dominant culture spaces). Participants were unable to be seen as unique persons and were seen as a type.

Simmel (1908/2010) argued the stranger while physically near in-group members and corporally present in in-group spaces, possesses an undesirable status which causes the stranger to be seen not as a distinctive person. Rather, he is seen as a type, a categorization which removes individuality from the stranger and makes him into a composite (302-305). This categorization does not block the stranger from being present

106

in a space. However, this categorization does use an identity which is not in majority, such as homosexuality in a Latino space or being Latino in a gay or dominant culture space, to block full inclusion in society (Simmel 1908/2010: 302-305). The men in this study were reduced to a categorization by the individuals in majority in the spaces the men occupied. Participants were othered because the majority in a space conceptualize participants’ identities as foreign, such as gay identities in Latino families and neighborhoods and Latino identities in gay clubs and on dating apps. The rejection of the participants’ brown bodies in gay spaces, both temporal and cyber, is indicative of

Latinos not being considered whole people deserving of respect. This lack of consideration of gay Latinos as distinctive persons may explain participants’ descriptions of being told “no Latinos” on dating apps. It may also explain the fetishization the participants endured. In gay spaces Latinos were typified as well-endowed men and passionate, jealous lovers, fluent in Spanish and willing to teach Spanish to others. They were not typified as well-educated or possessing disposable income or as distinctive individuals. Participants discussed feeling pigeonholed in these spaces, with gay men unwilling to see participants as unique men. Despite being in gay spaces and near other gay men, participants were unable to move past their typology and be seen as unique persons. In both scenarios gay Latinos are reduced to their physical features and prevented from being seen as whole individuals. In Latino spaces participants were reduced to Latin American cultural types of homosexuals (i.e. as weak, effeminate, gender queer individuals who wanted to be women). While the participants shared these spaces with other Latinos (in many cases with family members), the shared commonalities of ethnicity and culture did not allow participants to be seen as members

107

of the in-group. The participants were classified as maricons, or if they were not out to their families, participants were afraid they would be perceived as maricons and lose rights in Latino spaces. In these Latino spaces participants felt they were misunderstood.

Participants felt Latinos in these spaces devalued participants’ Latino identities; participants spoke not only of feeling unwelcomed in Latino spaces but of feeling they were judged for not being manly enough. Participants believed their queerness labeled them as effeminate in these spaces. This effeminacy was incompatible with the machismo expected of men in these spaces. This expectation of machismo prevented these gay men from being perceived as insiders in these spaces and is consistent with research on machismo’s relationship with homosexuality in Latino spaces (see Ascencio

1999: 118-119; Esparza 2017: 154-158, 161-167; Guarnero 2007: 15; Mora 2013: 347-

352; Pena-Talamantes 2013: 167-174). Similarly, participants discussed the difficulty of religious family members and of trying to combat the stigma that being homosexual was a sin. Participants who were out to family members frequently had experienced religious discrimination and did not believe they were treated as equals, suggesting participants’ gay identities were used to typify them by religious family members. Participants who were not out to their family members did not believe they could disclose their sexuality and continue to be seen as equal family members. For these participants, the presumption of future discrimination based on the classification of gays as sinful maricons, suggests these men were strangers in Latino spaces. In dominant culture spaces, despite all but one of the participants being American either through birthright or naturalization, they were typecast as dangerous foreigners who did not speak English, a widespread classification of Latinos in American society (Bloch 2014: 55-57; Feagin and Cobas

108

2014: 22-23, 38-40, 46-66, 74-85; Romero 2001: 1081-1088). Participants described overt occurrences of racism and homophobia in these spaces. Participants use of Spanish and their phenotypical features led individuals in dominant culture spaces to typify participants as non-American. Despite the majority of participants being American citizens or possessing documented status they were not conceptualized as in-group members (i.e. as equal Americans) in spaces such as grocery stores and the workplace.

Their lack of in-group belonging in dominant culture spaces, despite their consistent presence in these spaces, is indicative of these participants being extensions of Simmel’s

(1908/2010) stranger. Additionally the multiple forms of othering experienced by participants in gay, Latino, and dominant culture spaces prevented participants from securing in-group privileges and contributed to their acceptance of a foreigner identity, indicating gay Latinos may be modern extensions of the stranger (Simmel 1908/2010).

Simmel (1908/2010) observes that the stranger is temporarily located within a community, but does not gain the same privileges, notably in-group belonging, which valued members of the community acquire (302-305). Simmel (1908/2010) also perceives the stranger as providing a service to the community, though this service does not allow the stranger to cross over and become a full member of the community (303-

305). As Simmel (1908/2010) discerns, the stranger does not indigenously, by conferment of equal status or full social inclusion, belong to the in-group, though he is spatially located within the in-group (302-305). Participants provided services to both their ethnic and sexual-minority communities, yet these services were only valued because of their lesser status within the communities. As gay men participants were lusted after in gay spaces and provided a temporary, erotic fantasy to gay men. However,

109

participants were not desired for serious, long-term relationships. The coveting of participants’ brown skin for a fleeting fantasy but not coveting their intellect or personality for a serious relationship is consistent with research which finds ethnic minority gay men to be wanted solely for physical features and only as short-term sexual conquests (Brennan et al 2013: 393-394; Callender et al 2016: 10-13; Han 2007: 55-60).

The racializing of the participants’ gay identities blocked the participants’ full inclusion in gay spaces. Participants discussed being made to feel unwelcome in gay clubs and the targets of chronic fetishization in these spaces. As gay men the participants felt these spaces should be open to them with the full rights these spaces provide dominant culture gays. However, participants were unable to occupy these spaces without encountering ongoing racism and xenophobia in these spaces. In digital dating apps gay Latinos were discriminated against by dominant culture gay men, who would fetishize participants by asking about phallic features and other stereotypes regarding Latinos physical features, suggesting that men were attractive solely for their physical features. Dominant culture gay men would also racialize participants’ sexualities on dating apps by stating that they had no desire to be intimate or pursue a relationship with a brown man. By reducing participants to brown bodies to be lusted after or as brown bodies never deserving of love, dominant culture gays managed gay spaces to prevent gay Latinos from being valued as equal gay men in these spaces. Thus in these spaces gay Latinos were unable to become indigenous and enjoy the privileges of being indigenous, such as being valued for relationships and not having questions asked about their ability to speak Spanish. For example, Loreto indicated that he could not be on a dating app for more than ten minutes without a white gay man asking Loreto if he could teach the man Spanish. Loreto could

110

not use this app to talk with a man about his interests and determine if there was potential to find a long-term romantic partner. Similarly, Amador indicated he tries to intellectually connect with men in nightclubs and they only wish to tell him he is attractive because of his brown skin. Were he a white man, Amador might be able to utilize his indigenous rights in this space (being the coveted ethnicity for gay culture while also possessing a white collar graduate education) to find a long-term partner, instead of a man who covets Amador’s body for a time-sensitive liaison but not for a long-term relationship. The participants’ experiences highlight the challenge gay Latinos face in becoming indigenous in gay communities while they continue to maintain a corporal and digital presence in gay communities.

In Latino spaces participants continued to provide a service to their families because of the cultural significance of familismo. Participants frequently noted that they felt compelled to put the family’s needs before their own and support their family with their time, economic resources, or both. Participants subvert their own needs, including full expression of their sexual identities so they may fulfill this obligation. If they were to disclose their sexual identities they would risk sanctioning and exile from the family unit.

Thus they provide a service to their families while being unable to be full members of their families. At the same time these men do not receive the benefits of familismo which are offered to straight Latino men such as buffering from racism and xenophobia

(see Finch and Vega 2003: 113-115; Turcios 2017; 111, 117-118). For gay Latino men

Latino spaces are not safe spaces but are stressful spaces, where they are consistently reminded that they are outsiders because of their sexuality. In these spaces gay Latinos are not able to cross over and gain indigenous status as full members of the Latino in-

111

group. Their sexuality prevents them from being indigenous, though they are valued as economic contributors to the familial unit. Participants become the stranger (Simmel

1908/2010) when they provide their resources to Latino communities despite not being valued as equal members of the Latino community. They may trade their time and money with their family, similarly to how Jews served as traders to the gentile European communities of Europe (Simmel 1908/2010: 303, 305), but as the Jews were not allowed to become members of the gentile community and would face sanctioning for attempting to merge with the indigenous populations, gay Latinos find it difficult to merge with the indigenous heterosexual Latino community. If gay Latinos attempt to merge with the in- group by disclosing sexual identities, gay Latinos risk sanctioning which can include violence (Guarnero 2007: 15) and homelessness (Casstellanos 2016: 612-615).

Consistent with previous research the men in this study could not become indigenous by disclosing their sexual identities to their loved ones (Fankhanel 2010: 269-271; Guarnero

2007: 15; Pena-Talamantes 2013: 169-174; Potoczniak et al. 2009: 196, 198). Pancho,

Pepe, and Valero disclosed their sexual identities and had to endure comments about their sinfulness, inability to be machista, and stereotypes about their sexual role preferences and gender identities. Other participants could not discuss their identity with their families out of concerns about losing their emotional connection to their families or risking their physical well-being. Loreto is fearful of discussing his identity with his mother because he is concerned he will lose his close relationship with her. Juanito is fearful their family will physically assault them should they disclose their sexual identity to their family. Juanito is also concerned that if they are hurt in a hate crime at a gay club they will also be assaulted by their family once their family discovers Juanito is queer.

112

For these gay Latino men, their sexuality precludes their ability to become indigenous in

Latino spaces, despite being spatially located in Latino familial units and ethnic enclaves.

Participants also discussed their challenges in becoming indigenous in dominant culture spaces. Participants are spatially located in these spaces. All have attended college, with some participants currently enrolled in graduate school or having obtained graduate degrees. Participants also held full-time, white-collar employment and thus frequently came into contact with dominant culture institutions and agents. However, participants also did not conceptualize themselves as indigenous in these spaces, as participants felt they were made to feel like foreigners in these spaces and were discriminated against because of their ethnicity. Participants, despite the majority of them being citizens by birthright or by naturalization, did not believe they were viewed as

Americans in dominant culture spaces. Participants believed they were othered in spaces because their phenotypical features made it clear they were not white and their brown skin was used as a weapon against them for being in these spaces. Pancho indicated he has been followed in department stores when he is dressed in athletic wear. As a Latino man in a sweatshirt, his profile is consistent with research which shows Latinos are conceptualized in American culture as criminals who are deserving of punishment

(Feagin and Cobas 2014: 74-85; Romero 2001: 1081-1088). Loreto has been scared to be

Latino at job interviews and is afraid if he does not pass as white in his mannerisms he will not be selected for a job. As indicated in the preceding chapter participants frequently discussed being made to feel as foreigners in America. This fear is not unfounded, as research shows Latinos are conceptualized to be foreigners in modern

American society (Bloch 2014: 55-57; Feagin and Cobas 2014: 46-66, 74-85). These gay

113

Latinos are unable to become indigenous in American society as the in-group population of already established Americans assumes these men are foreigners and treats them accordingly. The participants are thus unable to gain any of the in-groups’ privileges of being considered citizens or non-criminal, such as not being subjected to heightened security in public spaces or of having to downplay their cultural and ethnic identities in the workplace. While they occupy these dominant culture spaces, these gay Latino men are not able to gain entre into the indigenous population and thus are seen to be extensions of one of the tenets of Simmel’s stranger (1908/2010).

Participants were aware that one of their dual marginalized identities would always be stigmatized and keep them from becoming indigenous in any space. Their possession of dual marginalized identities led to participants being chronically othered as they were never able to occupy a space as an in-group member. Their stigmatized ethnic and sexual identities are consistent with Simmel’s (1908/2010) conceptualization of the stranger as an individual with whom “a peculiar tension arises” between the individual and the in- group “since the consciousness of having only the absolutely general in common has exactly the effect of putting a special emphasis on that which is not common” (305).

Participants were unable to become in-group members because though they possessed an identity which was also possessed by the in-group, this identity was so familiar that the minority identity became the discredited identity (Goffman 1963: 4). As Pancho passionately described in his interview the identity he possesses with a majority of individuals is not used to stigmatize him, but rather whatever identity is in minority in a space is weaponized against him. Such was the case with other participants as they are discriminated against in gay spaces and dominate culture spaces for possessing a minority

114

Latino identity, despite sharing sexuality with gay men and American culture with dominant culture members, and in Latino spaces for possessing a minority sexual identity, despite sharing ethnicity with Latinos in these spaces. Stigmatization of minority identities in these spaces placed “special emphasis on that which is uncommon”

(Simmel 1908/2010: 305) and lead participants to construct a foreigner identity. Through this foreigner identity participants were aware that they were not viewed as insiders in these spaces and were alien in these spaces. By the discriminatory actions of indigenous members of these spaces, participants came to learn “what is stressed is again nothing individual, but alien origin, which he has, or could have, in common with many other strangers” (Simmel 1908/2010: 305). As strangers participants were aware that their ethnic and sexual identities made them outsiders in gay, Latino, and dominant culture spaces and precluded their acceptance as equal members of these spaces. Rather, participants’ sexual and ethnic identities were used not only to stigmatize but to typify participants. This process of using the minority, alien identity to categorize participants is consistent with the archetype of the stranger and suggests gay Latinos may be modern extensions of the stranger (Simmel 1908/2010).

Simmel (1908/2010) further acknowledged that the stranger often lacks political economic status and agency to resist being othered by dominant-culture individuals:

The stranger is by his very nature no owner of land---land not only in the physical sense but also metaphorically as a vital substance which is fixed, if not in space, then at least in an ideal position within the social environment. Although in the sphere of intimate personal relations the stranger may be attractive and meaningful in many ways, so long as he is regarded as a stranger he is no “landowner” in the eye of the other (Simmel 1908/2010: 303).

115

Indeed as this project has documented participants do not “own land” (Simmel

1908/2010: 303) in gay, Latino, or dominant culture spaces. Gay spaces in this study were seen by participants to be exclusionary and not catering to the needs of gay Latinos.

These spaces were also seen to be discriminatory and spaces where fetishization, racism, and xenophobia occurred. As research suggests (Chambers 2006:4-5, 11, 16; Teunis

2007: 268-270) these spaces are not controlled by ethnic-minorities but instead by whites and for the participants gay spaces in Baltimore are seen as spaces where ethnic- minorities are powerless though they are “attractive and meaningful” (Simmel

1908/2010: 303) as objects of fleeting desire. The gay Latino men who participated in my project are individuals who are corporally and digitally present in gay spaces, but are fetishized and ethnoracialized in these spaces. They are also discriminated against by management and institutional policies in these spaces (such as Jeanro‘s observation that a gay club in Baltimore used Taco Tuesdays in an attempt to draw Latinos to their club).

While present in these spaces the participants are nonetheless unable to gain in-group belonging and accrue political and economic power in these spaces. These men’s description of these spaces is consistent with Simmel’s (1908/2010) observation that the stranger is ambulatory and “makes contact with every [italics original] single element but is not bound up organically through established ties of kinship, locality or occupation, with any single one” (303). Because of the discrimination they experienced in these spaces, participants were unable to form fictive kin bonds or find long-term romantic partners with in-group members, suggesting that they are extensions of the stranger

(Simmel 1908/2010).

116

In Latino spaces participants lacked the ability to disclose their sexual identifies because of cultural stigma and hostile religious teachings. Participants often managed dual identities, one as open gay men with their friends and peers and another as closeted individuals when with their families. When in Latino spaces men who did display their sexuality were targeted by machismo individuals for sanctioning or were pre-emptively nervous about the risk of attack. The participants did not live in congruence with Latin

American cultural values (see Girman 2004: 30-35) or Christian religious teachings (see

Eaton and Rios 2017: 460; Figueroa and Tasker 2014: 285-287). By being unable to divulge their true selves in Latino spaces, participants were unable to form full and open bonds with their fictive and sanguine kin. Perceptions of machismo and expectations that

Latino men should not be effeminate or weak led participants to believe they were being judged by other Latinos in Latino spaces. This feeling of judgment led participants to feel that Latino spaces were not always open to them. This feeling of not being part of the in-group of Latinos in these spaces prevented participants from forming bonds in these spaces with other Latinos. Participants could not disclose their sexuality to family members without fear of sanctioning. This fear prevented most participants from being honest with family members about the participants’ lived experiences. Most participants used coping mechanisms, such as not discussing their private lives with family members, to avoid having to come out as gay. By remaining closeted to family members, the participants were able to continue to exist in the familial unit, but at the expense of their in-group belonging. Participants recognized they possessed a discreditable identity which if known to their loved ones would make participants discredited (see Goffman

1963: 4). While participants were in these spaces, they existed in Latino families as

117

Latinos and not as gay Latinos, thereby preventing the men from existing “organically through established ties of kinship” with their family (Simmel 1908/2010: 303).

In dominant culture spaces participants were discriminated against for their ethnicity and sexuality. These spaces were frequently hostile to participants and their loved ones.

These spaces were the sites of racist and xenophobic remarks and actions by individuals who were afraid of Latinos for being undocumented (Bloch 2014: 55-57) and criminals

(Romero 2001: 1081-1088). Participants existed in these spaces for their education, occupations, and socialization, but they were not welcomed as equal Americans in these spaces. They did not become fictive kin with dominant culture Americans in these spaces, in the sense that they were seen as equal, legitimate Americans in dominant culture spaces. Rather, presumptions about participants’ documentation and citizenship statuses and perceptions of racism made participants feel unequal and unwelcomed in these spaces. In dominant-culture spaces participants were aware of their status as ethnic minorities and how this status weakened their political economic power in these spaces.

Participants who possessed greater political economic power were not insulated from discriminatory actions. Their greater educational and employment capital simply made them aware that discrimination was occurring; it did not prevent the discrimination.

Participants with political economic power could not utilize their power to resist stigma in all three spaces. For example, Loreto was able to resist gay space discrimination because of his greater political economy and ability to access new resources, but he is still stigmatized in Latino neighborhoods and is not able to disclose his sexual orientation to his family for a fear of losing his bond with his family.

118

Simmel (1908/2010) argues the stranger possesses objectivity to observe the in-group

(304). Not being constricted “by ties which could prejudice his perception, his understanding, and his assessment of data” permits the stranger to independently analyze in-group problems (Simmel 908/2010: 304). The stranger by virtue of not being part of the in-group in a space has a freedom to observe the in-group and “experience and treat even his close relationships as though from a bird’s-eye view (Simmel 1908/2010: 304).

Participants did not discuss this in their interviews. Participants did not discuss what objectivity they had as a result of being near in-groups but not members of the in-group.

Participants were aware of their status within spaces, such as being considered inferior in gay and Latino spaces, and participants were keenly aware of the multiple forms of stigmatization they endure in their lives, but participants never offered in the course of the interviews what their objectivity allowed them to perceive about members of the in- group. Participants were aware of the double standards they endure when compared to individuals who did not possess the stigmatized identity, such as Amador observing the hypocrisy of his sister being allowed to be in their mother’s house with her boyfriend but

Amador not being allowed the same privilege, but participants did not discuss how freedom from in-group belonging provided them greater insight into the in-group. While participants offered their bodies and temporary fantasies in gay spaces, economic and temporal resources in Latino spaces, and served as scapegoats for xenophobic fears in dominant culture spaces, participants did not discuss what they could offer as individuals who possessed a minority status in each space they occupied. This component of the stranger (Simmel 1908/2010) may not fit these participants. Participants may possess advantages in being outside of the in-group but it is presently unclear if participants’

119

freedom from belonging allowed them to gain insights into the in-group. This concept may apply to these participants and to gay Latinos in a more broad capacity, but currently it is unclear to what degree this concept applies to the participants. A direction for future research may be to follow up with participants to determine what freedoms they believe they possess as outsiders in these spaces, in addition to the stigmatization they endure in these spaces.

By extending Simmel’s (1908/2010) concept of the stranger to gay Latinos, sociologists gain a more nuanced understanding of the stranger. Specifically this extension incorporates intersectionality and showcases how individuals who possess dual marginalized and intersecting identities can be strangers in multiple spaces in their lives.

Simmel (1908/2010) conceptualized the stranger as a person who encountered one in- group. He did not consider how persons with multiple marginalized identities can be conceived as strangers in multiple spaces depending on what identity is not in congruence with the identity of the in-group. While Simmel (1908/2010) did not conceive of the potential for othering which can occur when an individual possesses dual marginalized identities, this project seeks to incorporate the modern sociological concept of intersectionality (see Crenshaw 1991) and recognize the potential for decreased life chances when gay Latino men are stigmatized for both of their marginalized identities.

Participants are stigmatized in all three of the spaces they occupy and though they do not possess the objectivity of Simmel’s (1908/2010) stranger, they possess many of the other attributes personified by the form of the stranger. By recognizing how individuals who possess multiple marginalized identities may become the stranger in multiple spaces in

120

their lives, researchers may better understand how this othering in multiple spaces contributes to decreased life chances in these populations.

As Simmel (1908/2010) observed the stranger is not seen by the in-group as unique but is instead conceptualized as a type (302-305). Men in this study are seen as multiple types. At specific times and in specific spaces they are conceptualized as a gay, a Latino, or an illegal. If gay Latinos are types in every space they occupy, then policies can be implemented to deter categorization of gay Latinos and encourage in-groups to view gay

Latino men as unique persons. Efforts to reduce stereotyping and typifying, borne out of research which shows in-groups conceptualize gay Latinos as the stranger (Simmel

1908/2010), may improve the life chances of gay Latino men. For example, culturally competent training which encourages first-generation and religious family members to not categorize gay relatives as maricons may make Latino spaces less hostile and refuges from a racist and xenophobic society (see Bloch et al, 2014: 55-57; Feagin and Cobas

2014: 46-66, 74-85). Similarly, outreach programs for management and patrons of gay spaces could instruct these individuals about the hurtful consequences of fetishization and ethnoracialization. Programs like these may reduce lust in gay spaces and encourage individuals in gay spaces to see gay Latino men as unique, fully-formed individuals worthy of respect and not of lust, repulsion, or advertisements of Taco Tuesdays. This may also make gay spaces into safe spaces from homophobia encountered in Latino spaces. By extending Simmel’s (1908/2010) work to understand gay Latinos as modern representatives of the stranger, policymakers and advocates can work to reduce the categorization which stigmatizes men in gay, Latino, and dominant culture spaces and perhaps improve their quality of life.

121

The concept of gay Latinos being modern extensions of the stranger (Simmel

1908/2010) may be extended to other groups which possess dual marginalized identities.

For example, gay Asian men and gay Muslim men may also be modern strangers in the

United States. Research should also seek to determine how additional marginalized identities may impact gay Latinos. Gay Latinos who are undocumented and who are HIV positive may navigate additional forms of stigma in addition to the stigmatization they endure for being sexual and ethnic-minorities in America. In their interview Juanito noted that their political economy of health is lessened when compared to documented gay Latinos, as Juanito does not qualify for Medicaid or the health exchange which would provide them access to pre and post-exposure prophylaxis and HIV testing. As a result of their undocumented status Juantio faces additional stigma and barriers to treatment, in addition to the stigma they experience as a sexual and ethnic-minority.

Future research should investigate how documentation status and HIV serostatus further contribute to a stranger (Simmel 1908/2010) status in this population.

Intersectionality, Identity, and Stigma

Throughout the interviews it became clear that the participants’ sexualities, ethnicities, class backgrounds, and cultural values were all intersecting in their lived experiences.

These intersecting identities also shaped their experiences of stigma, how they felt stigma, and how they managed stigma. I turn next to a greater need for intersectionality in stigma research with gay Latinos.

Kleinman and Hall-Clifford (2009) conceptualized cultural stigma as the process by which stigma can affect “the moral standing of an individual or group” within their “local social world” (418). Culture in this conceptualization of stigma can impact how stigma is

122

felt because cultural values and experiences grounded in the “local social world” (418) of individuals, such as Latino cultural beliefs in family units or gay cultural beliefs in gay clubs, can impact how individuals conceptualize and respond to stigma. While this conceptualization of stigma is useful for examining how cultural norms can lead to different conceptualizations of and experience of stigma, it fails to consider how structural discrimination when combined with cultural stigmatization can impact multiple marginalized populations. A problem in stigma research is multiple stigma models only focus on one aspect of stigma and do not use an intersectional lens to identify how multiple entry points of stigma can adversely affect multiple minorities. This is inadequate to describe how participants felt these multiple forms of stigma in their lived experiences. An intersectional model of stigma, specifically for multiple minority individuals, should incorporate sexual, cultural, ethnic, and other forms of stigma. This model, tailored to the specific minority identities of a population, should theorize that these multiple forms of stigma converge in individuals as they have in the lives of my participants. This model should recognize that multiple marginalized individuals must contend with the net effect of stigma on their lives. They do not separate out their identities but have a holistic view of their multiple minority identities. My participants conceptualize themselves as gay Latino men, so it is inaccurate to use a stigma model which only focuses on one of their dual identities.

Applied Implications for Policy and Advocacy

The findings from this study highlight multiple avenues for improving the lived experiences of gay Latino men in Baltimore. One of the first recommendations stemming from this research is the need for gay spaces to be more inclusive for gay Latinos,

123

particularly culturally-based programming with gay Latino organizations. Gay spaces should be encouraged to become open to more inclusive and less stereotypical events

(such as Taco Tuesday) on evenings which are in high demand. For example, gay spaces could incorporate more Spanish music or DJs playing in-demand Spanish music on

Friday and Saturday evenings. Gay spaces should be prompted to partner with gay

Latino organizations, such as IRIS, to foster a greater dialogue about how to make gay spaces more inclusive for Latinos, including Latino immigrants. Spaces which can be educated about economic issues (such as men being unable to afford cover charges) may be willing to adjust their policies to make their spaces more welcoming to Latinos across class lines while also finding ways to generate revenue. Spaces which become more familiar with fetishization and stereotyping may also be able to educate their staff about how to confront racism and xenophobia.

The second recommendation is for Latino spaces to become more inclusive for gay

Latinos. Latino organizations should be encouraged to partner with gay Latinos and gay

Latino organizations to reduce homophobia in Latino families, neighborhoods, and ethnic enclaves. Because men in the study frequently spoke of the stigma which arose out of

Latino spaces, this study may be used to assist organizations develop programming which can reduce homophobia in Latino spaces, thereby leading to reduced psychological distress in gay Latinos. By reaching out to conservative family members and other individuals in Latino spaces, organizations can reduce homophobia in these spaces and improve the familial climate for gay Latinos.

Third, this research has implications for mental healthcare providers. Because gay

Latinos have been established to suffer from multiple forms of marginalization, it is

124

imperative for mental health professionals to develop culturally competent modalities which can assist gay Latinos reduce stigma arising out of gay and Latino spaces.

Unrelenting stigmatization in gay, Latino, and dominant culture spaces, leads gay Latinos to conceptualize themselves as foreigners. The long-term effects of a foreigner status may be at the minimum increased psychological distress. Interventions could be helpful to reduce this psychological distress and leading to a greater quality of life for gay Latino men.

Limitations

This study has several limitations related to my ethnicity and Spanish language skills, the overwhelming representation of college-educated Latinos in my study, and the lack of an immigrant voice.

My outsider status is a limitation of this study. As a white man I do not possess in- group belonging. This may have affected data collection as some individuals may have seen my recruitment flyer but not wanted to speak with someone who was not part of their ethnic community about their stigmatization experiences. Multiple participants did confront my white identity and ask why I would want to research gay Latinos as a white man. Had a Latino researcher interviewed these participants there may have been additional insights generated due to participant comfort with someone who was deemed to be part of the in-group or who may have been assumed to share similar experiences with stigmatization. However, participants may have not disclosed information to a

Latino researcher because of an assumption that an insider would automatically know what it means to be a stigmatized gay Latino. My status as an empathetic outsider allowed participants to disclose information to me and explain concepts to me because

125

they were aware that I do not instinctively conceptualize their lived experiences.

Participants also may have been willing to openly discuss their lives with me because they knew that we would not see each other again and as an outsider, I could be trusted with their sensitive information.

Second, my Spanish proficiency is limited thus all participants spoke fluent English.

Gay Latinos who were not fluent in English, which may be the case with recent Latino immigrants, were unable to participate. Indeed one person contacted me and asked if we could conduct the interview in Spanish as he felt more proficient in his native tongue.

This possible participant had to be turned away.

Third, the sample overrepresents college educated gay Latinos. As indicated in

Chapter Two only Juanito and Pepe did not possess a bachelor’s degree. The rest of my sample had obtained a bachelor’s degree with multiple participants having obtained a master’s degree. Gay Latinos who are college educated may be more willing to accept a gay identity. College education may expose gay Latinos to organizations such as gay- straight alliances and cultural programming which allows them to explore their identity construction in safe spaces. Uneducated gay Latinos also may lack social networks to assist them with their identity formation (see Cantu 2011: 157-164; Thing 2010: 814,

819-823). The men in my sample readily acknowledged college as a factor which improved not only their economic capital but also their ability to make other gay friends, learn about gay culture, Latino culture and intersectionality, and in general find a more accepting social network. This differing educational and economic capital may make college-educated gay Latinos more likely to discuss their identity. Ramon spoke about

126

the risk of identity disclosure in his interview when he hypothesized why sexual-minority

Latino immigrants avoid gay spaces:

People might suspect they're gay but going to a gay club will conform it. I've seen that. And kids go to gay bars because they don't want anyone to see them there. That always floors me….Also, I think when you come here as a single person, with no family attached to you, you can be out and about and be very visible. Versus if your here with your family or if there's a high concentration of people from your town, living in this area, which is funny how you start seeing that Latino immigrant community. It's almost like they're bringing that small town mentality, comes here to Baltimore with them. And they're still scared to be out and about, thousands of miles from their home country, because five people around them live in this whole country, live in the same town you do here in the United States. And they might see me. And report back to my family thousands of miles away. These men will likely not participate in the study due to their lack of resources in the gay community and the fear of being publicly identified as a gay man which can cause sanctioning events in the Latino community as described throughout this project.

The lack of any first generation immigrants in my sample was an additional limitation in my study’s findings. This is consistent with literature which finds first generation

Latino immigrants do not consistently disclose a sexual-minority status (Diaz 1998: 77,

131-134; Jarama et al. 2005: 520; Rhodes et al. 2010: 804). Because I did not interview first generation immigrants, I could not gather what the experiences of stigma are for gay first generation Latino immigrants and how their stigmatization and resistance to stigma may differ from native-born and/or acculturated Latinos. Future research which explores the different experiences of stigma among native-born and foreign-born gay Latinos may yield additional insights into the marginalization of these distinct populations.

Future Research

This current project highlights the need for future research on this population to explore the political and economic power of gay Latinos. Political economic status was a

127

recurring theme in the interviews, with many participants discussing how their access to

(or in some cases their lack of access to) resources determined their ability to resist stigmatization. Future research should focus on how this multiple minority population gains access to resources and multiple forms of capital (i.e. human, economic, cultural).

Future research should explore specific avenues of political capital. Research has shown gay Latinos make less money than gay whites (Douglas and Steinberger 2015: 69).

Research should explore how the political economy of gay Latinos is impacted by stigma and how their educational and economic capital affects stigmatization. The political economy of healthcare should also be investigated. Gay Latinos, particularly undocumented gay Latinos, may not have access to quality healthcare as Juanito described. Healthcare utilization among this population, and stigma’s relationship with healthcare utilization, should be explored.

Chronic othering and the creation of a foreigner identity in the participants contributed to experiences of distress. Future research should investigate in this multiple minority population how stigmatization which leads individuals to accept a status as a foreigner directly contributes to psychological distress and to what degree the self-acceptance of a foreigner identity is responsible for psychological distress in this population.

The tribalism of gay spaces should be further explored in the social science literature.

Multiple participants discussed gay spaces as being not only exclusionary but as being separated, with clear demarcations about what groups could interact with one another.

This tribalism at face value seems odd, given the fact that gay men in America historically have been marginalized by mainstream culture (see Abrahamson 1996). Gay men, including gay white men, would appear to be united by resistance to homophobia

128

and share an understanding of how it feels to be othered by heterosexuals. This project has shown gay spaces in Baltimore to be unwelcoming towards gay Latinos. The tribal separation of men in gay spaces because of their ethnicity, and the justifications for their separation, should be further explored. Researchers should speak to gay white men about their perceptions of racism and xenophobia in gay spaces. The beliefs and motivations of gay white men should be further explored so these spaces can be better understood as to the degree they are discriminatory so the climate of these spaces for gay Latinos can be improved.

Lastly, research should investigate how acculturation impacts experiences with stigmatization among gay Latinos. Participants noted that the lived experiences of native-born and documented gay Latinos differ from those of foreign-born and/or undocumented gay Latinos. Participants discussed how documentation status and political economic status can affect the ability of gay Latinos to navigate and gain entre to gay spaces. Differing cultural norms also impact the lived experiences of individuals.

Individuals who come from Latin America and have been raised in cultures with differing beliefs about homosexuality and effeminacy may experience stigmatization differently than native-born Latinos or one and a half generation Latinos whose beliefs about homosexuality are in accordance with Global North conceptualizations of homosexuality.

Thus acculturation’s impact on stigma and its ability to increase or mitigate stigma for being gay should be investigated.

Gay Latino men experience multiple forms of stigmatization and this stigmatization is enduring throughout their lives. The chronic othering leads men to conceptualize themselves as eternal foreigners in all spaces they inhabit . Conceptualization of gay

129

Latinos as modern extensions of Simmel’s stranger (1908/2010), would extend the stranger to incorporate intersectionality and recognize that individuals with multiple marginalized identities can be negatively impacted by multiple forms of marginalization.

Researchers can build on this extension and research how other dually marginalized populations, in addition to gay Latino men, can have adverse life effects via chronic othering . A modern, intersectional understanding of the stranger (Simmel 1908/2010) may lead to tailored efforts to reduce discrimination and encourage belonging and full acceptance in multiple spaces, thereby improving the quality of life of gay Latinos and other dually marginalized populations. Furthermore, stigma research would benefit from an enhanced stigma model which acknowledges intersectional othering and the ability of multiple forms of stigma to converge in the lives of multiple minorities. Intersectional research which examines how stigma arising out of gay, Latino, and dominant culture spaces can converge in the lives of gay Latinos is needed to better understand how this intersectional suffering limits the life chances of gay Latino men. Findings from intersectional stigma research may also help clinicians who work with gay Latinos establish treatment plans which recognize the harmful effects of othering in multiple spaces. These treatment plans may lead to a reduction in psychological distress and improve the life chances of gay Latino men.

130

Appendices

Appendix I: Sample Demographics

Pseudonym Age Highest Educational Level Occupation Raised In

Pancho 27 Graduate Degree Higher Education MD

Ignacio 30 Some Graduate School Higher Education South/MD

Loreto 26 Bachelor’s Degree Healthcare Navigator MD

Jeanro 33 Graduate Degree Higher Education Los Angeles

Region

Amador 37 Graduate Degree Unemployed PA

Ramon 49 Graduate Degree Social Worker NJ

Juanito 20 In College College Student DC Region

Pepe 37 Some College Administrative Manhattan/

Assistant DC Region

Valero 24 Bachelor’s Degree Research Coordinator/ Texas

HIV Tester

N=9

131

Appendix II: Code List

White

Gay Space

Gay Club

Drag

Fem

Racial/Ethnic Stigma

Familismo

“Where are you from?”

Religion

Machismo

Class

Profit

Psych Distress

Physical Safety

Eroticization/Fetishization

Phallic

Dating Apps

Foreigner

Passing

Humor

132

Education

Resistence

Political Economy

Definitions

White= anytime participant mention white people, white men, white areas

Gay Space= gay club, any space seen as predominantly gay

Gay Club= Gay nightclub/bar

DC= District of Columbia

Drag= cross-dressing, doing drag, expectation from Latino community member that being gay means being a cross-dresser or gender fluid

Fem= effeminate, seen as effeminate, engaging in effeminate behavior

Racial/Ethnic Stigma= stereotyping/discrimination for being Latino

Homophobia= references to being stereotyped/discriminated against for being gay

Familismo= bond with family, family stigma for being gay

“Where are you from?”= questioning a participant’s birthplace/nativity

ID= government issued identification card

Religion= any reference to religion, religious stigma Machismo= reference to cultural concept of machismo, masculinity, stereotyping due to machismo

Class=reference to economic class of either participants, other individuals, or gay establishments

Profit= reference to gay spaces’ profits

133

Psych Distress= any reference to feeling sad, anxious, depressed, mental illness

Physical safety= reference to being fearful of being assaulted

Eroticized/Fetishized=being sexualized/lusted after for being Latino, references to skin tone

Phallic=references to a participant’s supposed phallic features due to being Latino

Dating Apps=reference to online dating apps

Foreigner=anytime respondents mention feeling like a foreigner, outsider, etc.

Passing= pretending to be straight, hegemonically masculine, not acknowledging their homosexuality

Humor= using humor to deflect stigma

Education= using education to deflect stigma

Resistance= participants states how they resist stereotyping/discrimination

Political Economy= Participants mention access to, or lack of access to, resources (e.g. having income, having healthcare, having a driver’s license)

134

References

Abrahamson, Mark. 1996. Urban Enclaves: Identity and Place in America. New York:

St. Martin’s Press.

Akerlund, Mark and Monit Cheung. 2000. “Teaching Beyond the Deficit Model: Gay

and Lesbian Issues among African-Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans.”

Journal of Social Work Education 36(2): 279-292.

Alvarez Jr., Robert R. 1994. “Changing Patterns of Family and Ideology among Latino

Cultures in the United States.” Pp. 147-167 in Handbook of Hispanic Cultures in the

Unites States: Anthropology , edited by T. Weaver. Houston, TX: Arte Publico Press.

Almaguer, Tomas. 1993. “Chicano Men: A Cartography of Homosexual Identity and

Behavior.” Differences 3(2): 234-273.

Anderson, Elijah. 2009. “The Police and the Black Male.” Pp. 184-195 in

Constructions of Deviance: Social Power, Context, and Interaction , edited by P.A.

Adler and P. Adler. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Arciniega, G. Miguel, Thomas C. Anderson, Zoila G. Tovar-Blank, and Terrence J.G.

Tracey. 2008. “Toward a fuller conception of machismo: Development of a

Traditional machismo and caballerismo scale.” Journal of Counseling Psychology

55(1): 19-33.

Arvidsdotter, Tina, Bertil Marklund, Sven Kylen, Charles Taft, and Inger Ekman. 2016.

“Understanding persons with psychological distress in primary health care.”

Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences 30: 687-694.

Asencio, Marysol W. 1999. "Machos and sluts: Gender, Sexuality, and Violence among

a Cohort of Puerto Rican Adolescents." Medical Anthropology Quarterly 13(1): 107-

135

126.

Baltimore City Mayor’s Office of Immigrant and Multicultural Affairs. 2016. “July

Newsletter.” Baltimore, MD: Mayor’s Office of Immigrant and Multicultural Affairs.

Retrieved November 21, 2017 (https://mayor.baltimorecity.gov/july-newsletter )

Berg, Rigmor C. and Michale W. Ross. 2014. “The Second Closet: A Qualitative Study

of HIV Stigma Among Seropositive Gay Men in a Southern U.S. City.” International

Journal of Sexual Health 26: 186-199.

Bloch, Katrina R. 2014. “ ‘Anyone Can Be an Illegal’: Color-Blind Ideology and

Maintaining Latino/Citizen Borders.” Critical Sociology 40(1): 47-65.

Bogard, William. 1999. “Simmel in Cyberspace: Strangeness and Distance in

Postmodern Communications.” Space and Culture 2(4-5): 23-46.

Bonacich, Edna. 1973. “A Theory of Middelman Minorities.” American Sociological

Review 38: 583-594.

Branton, Regina, Erin C. Cassese, Bradford S. Jones, and Chad Westerland. 2011. “All

Along the Watchtower: Acculturation Fear, Anti-Latino Affect, and Immigration.”

Journal of Politics 73(3): 664-679.

Brennan, David J., Kenta Asakura, Clemton George, Peter A. Newman, Sulaimon Giwa,

Trevor A. Hart, Rusty Souleymanov, and Gerardo Betancourt. 2013. “ ‘Never

reflected anywhere’: Body image among ethnoracialized gay and bisexual men.” Body

Image 10: 389-393.

Callender, Denton, Martin Halt, and Christy E. Newman. 2016. “ ‘Not everyone’s gonna

like me’: Accounting for race and racism in sex and dating web services for gay and

bisexual men.” Ethnicities 16(1): 3-21.

136

Carballo-Dieguez, Alex. 1989. “Hispanic Culture, Gay Male Culture, & AIDS:

Counseling Implications.” Journal of Counseling & Development 68: 26-30.

Carballo-Dieguez, Alex, Curtis Dolezal, Luis Nieves, Francisco Diaz, Carlos Decena, and

Ivan Balan. 2004. “Looking for a tall, dark, macho man…sexual-role behaviour

variations in Latino gay and bisexual men.” Culture, Health, & Sexuality 6(2): 159-

171.

Cantu, Lionel. 2011. “Entre Hombres/Between Men: Latino Masculinities and

Homosexualities.” Pp. 147-167 in Gay Latino Studies: A Critical Reader , edited by

M. Hames-Garcia and E.J. Martinez. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

CARA n.d. “Fact Sheet: Hispanic Catholics in the U.S.” Washington, DC: Georgetown

University. Retrieved March 26, 2017

(http://cara.georgetown.edu/staff/webpages/Hispanic%20Catholic%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf )

Castellanos, H. Daniel. 2016. “The Role of Institutional Placement, Family Conflict,

and Homosexuality in Homelessness Pathways Among Latino LGBT Youth in New

York City.” Journal of Homosexuality 63(5): 601-632.

Chambers, Christopher. 2006. “Collective Identity and Race: A Preliminary Look at

Whiteness in the U.S. Gay and Lesbian Movement.” Paper Presented at the Annual

Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Charing, Steve. 2016. “LGBTQ Latino group launches meetings.” Washington blade ,

January 29 th . Retrieved November 21, 2017

(http://www.washingtonblade.com/2016/01/29/lgbtq-latino-group-launches-meetings/ )

Chavez, Leo R. and Victor M. Torres. 1994. “The Political Economy of Latino Health.”

Pp. 226-243 in Handbook of Hispanic Cultures in the Unites States: Anthropology ,

137

edited by T. Weaver. Houston, TX: Arte Publico Press.

Choi, Kyung-Hee, Jay Paul, George Ayala, Ross Boylan, and Steven E. Gregorich. 2013.

“Experiences of Discrimination and Their Impact on the Mental Health Among

African American, Asian and Pacific Islander, and Latino Men Who Have Sex With

Men.” American Journal of Public Health published online ahead of print : e1-e7.

doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.301052

Crenshaw, Kimberly. 1991. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics,

and Violence against Women.” Stanford Law Review 43(6): 1241-1299.

Dang, Bich N., Thomas P. Giordano, and Jennifer H. Kim. 2012. “Sociocultural and

Structural Barriers to Care Among Undocumented Latino Immigrants with HIV

Infection.” Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health 14: 124-141.

Davidson, Theresa, and Carlos Garcia. 2014. “Welcoming the Stranger: Religion and

Attitudes toward Social Justice for Immigrants in the U.S.” Journal of Religion &

Society 16: 1-21.

De la Cancela, Victor (1986). A Critical Analysis of Puerto Rican Machismo:

Implications for Critical Practice. Psychotherapy 23(2): 292-296.

Diaz, Rafael M. 1998. Latino Gay Men and HIV: Culture, Sexuality, and Risk Behavior .

New York: Routledge.

Diaz, Rafael M., George Ayala, Edward Bein, Jeff Henne, and Barbara V. Marin. 2001.

“The Impact of Homophobia, Poverty, and Racism on the Mental Health of Gay and

Bisexual Latino Men: Findings from 3 US Cities.” American Journal of Public

Health 91(6): 927-932.

Douglas, Jamie H. and Michael D. Steinberger. 2015. “The Sexual Orientation Wage

138

Gap for Racial Minorities.” Industrial Relations 54(1): 59-108.

Eaton, Asia A. and Desdamona Rios. 2017. “Social Challenges Faced by Queer Latino

College Men: Navigating Negative Responses to Coming Out in a Double Minority

Sample of Emerging Adults.” Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology

advance online publication: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000134

Edles, Laura Desfor and Scott Appelrouth, eds. 2010. Sociological Theory in the

Classical Era: Texts and Readings . Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Ellison, Christopher G. Gabriel A. Acevedo, and Aida I. Ramos-Wada. 2011. “Religion

and Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Marriage Among U.S. Latinos.” Social Science

Quarterly 92(1): 35-56.

Esparza, Rene. 2017. “Queering the Homeland: Chicanidad, Racialized Homophobia,

and the Political Economy of Homopatriarchy.” Feminist Formations 29(2): 147-176.

Falicov, Celia J. 2010. “ ‘The devil never sleeps’; Changing constructions of machismo

for Latino men in therapy.” Family Process 49(3): 309-329.

Fankhanel, Edward H. 2010. “The Identity Development and Coming Out Process of

Gay Youth in Puerto Rico.” Journal of LGBT Youth 7: 262-283.

Feagin, Joe R. and Jose A. Cobas. 2014. Latinos Facing Racism: Discrimination,

Resistance, and Endurance. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2016. Hate Crime Statistics, 2015. Washington, DC:

United States Department of Justice ( https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2015/topic- pages/victims_final.pdf )

Feinstein, Brian A., Joanne Davila, and Athena Yoneda. 2012. “Self-concept and self-

stigma in lesbians and gay men.” Psychology & Sexuality 3(2): 161-177.

139

Feldman, Zeena. 2012. “Simmel in Cyberspace.” Information, Communication, &

Society 15(2): 297-319.

Figueroa, Victor and Fiona Tasker. 2014. “ ‘I Always Have the Idea of Sin in My

Mind…’: Family of Origin, Religion, and Chilean Young Gay Men.” Journal of

GLBT Family Studies 10: 269-297.

Finch, Brian Karl and William A. Vega. 2003. “Acculturation Stress, Social Support,

and Self-Rated Health Among Latinos in California.” Journal of Immigrant Health

5(3): 109-117.

Fine, Leigh E. 2011. “Minimizing Heterosexism and Homphobia: Constructing

Meaning of Out Campus LGB Life.” Journal of Homosexuality 58: 521-546.

Foiles Sifuentes, A.M. 2015. “Performing the grade: urban Latino youth, gender

performance, and academic success.” Race Ethnicity and Education 18(6): 764-784.

Frank, Reanne, Ilana Redstone Akresh, and Bo Lu. 2010. “Latino Immigrants and the

US Racial Order: How and where do they fit in?” American Sociological Review

75(3): 378-401.

Garcia, Dalia I., Jennifer Gray-Stanley, and Jesus Ramirez-Valles. 2008. “ ‘The Priest

Obviously Doesn’t Know That I’m Gay”: The Religious and Spiritual Journeys of

Latino Gay Men.” Journal of Homosexuality 55(3): 411-436.

Gibson, Troy and Christopher Hare. 2012. “Do Latino Christians and Seculars Fit the

Culture War Profile? Latino Religiosity and Political Behavior.” Politics and Religion

(2012): 53-82.

Gilbert, Paul A. and Scott D. Rhodes. 2014. “Immigrant Sexual Minority Latino Men in

Rural North Carolina: An Exploration of Social Context, Social Behaviors, and Sexual

140

Outcomes.” Journal of Homosexuality 61: 1131-1151.

Girman, Chris. 2004. Mucho Macho: Seduction, Desire, and the Homoerotic Lives of

Latin Men . Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.

Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY:

Doubleday.

Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Golash-Boza, Tanya. 2006. “Dropping the Hyphen? Becoming Latino(a)-American

through Racialized Assimilation.” Social Forces 85(1): 27-55.

Gonzalez, M. Alfredo. 2007. “Latinos On Da Down Low: The Limitations of Sexual

Identity in Public Health.” Latino Studies 5: 25-52.

Gradin, Carlos. 2012. “Poverty among minorities in the United States: explaining the

racial poverty gap for Blacks and Latinos.” Applied Economics 44: 3793-3804.

Graham, Mark. 2014. Anthropological Explorations in Queer Theory . Surrey, UK:

Ashgate.

Gray, Nicole N., David M. Mendelsohn, and Allen M. Omoto. 2015. “Community

Connectedness, Challenges, and Resilience Among Gay Latino Immigrants.”

American Journal of Community Psychology 55: 200-214.

Guarnero, Peter A. 2007. “Family and Community Influences on the Social and Sexual

Lives of Latino Gay Men.” Journal of Transcultural Nursing 18(1): 12-18.

Gutmann, Matthew.C. 1996. The meanings of macho: Being a man in Mexico City .

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Han, Chong-suk. 2007. “They Don’t Want to Cruise Your Type: Gay Men of Color and

141

the Racial Politics of Exclusion.” Social Identities 13(1): 51-67.

Han, Chong-suk, George Ayala, Jay P. Paul, Ross Boylan, Steven E. Gregorich, and

Kyung –Hee Choi. 2015. “Stress and Coping with Racism and Their Role in Sexual

Risk for HIV Among African-American, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Latino Men Who

Have Sex with Men.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 44: 411-420.

Harris, Angelique, Juan Battle, Antonio (Jay) Pastrana, and Jessie Daniels. 2013. “The

Sociopolitical Involvement of Black, Latino, and Asian/Pacific Islander Gay and

Bisexual Men.” Journal of Men’s Studies 21(3): 236-254.

Harris, Kamala D. 2015. Hate Crime in California. Bureau of Criminal Information and

Analysis. Criminal Justice Statistics Center. Sacramento, CA: California Department

of Justice

(https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cjsc/publications/hatecrimes/hc15/hc15.pdf ):

Herek, Greogry M. and Milagritos Gonzalez-Rivera. 2006. “Attitudes Toward

Homosexuality Among U.S. Residents of Mexican Descent.” The Journal of Sex

Research 43(2): 122-125.

Hill-Collins, Patricia. 2000. “Gender, Black Feminism, and Black Political Economy.”

The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 568: 41-53.

Hinojosa-Ojeda, Raul. 1994. “The Political Economy of Latino Employment and

Income.” Pp. 107-128 in Handbook of Hispanic Cultures in the Unites States:

Anthropology , edited by T. Weaver. Houston, TX: Arte Publico Press.

Hirai, Michiyo, Mark H. Winkel, and Jason R. Popan. 2014. “The role of machismo in

prejudice toward lesbians and gay men: Personality traits as moderators.” Personality

and Individual Differences 70: 105-110.

142

Hong, Seunghye, Wei Zhang, and Emily Walton. 2014. “Neighborhoods and mental

health: Exploring ethnic density, poverty, and social cohesion among Asian

Americans and Latinos.” Social Science & Medicine 111: 117-124.

Ibanez, Gladys E., Barbara Van Oss Marin, Stephen A. Flores, Gregorio A. Millett, and

Rafael M. Diaz. 2009. “General and Gay-Related Racism Experienced by Gay

Latino Men.” Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 15(3): 215-222.

Jarama, S. Lisbeth, J. David Kennamer, Paul J. Poppen, Michael Hendricks, and Judith

Bradford. 2005. “Psychosocial, Behavioral, and Cultural Predictors of Sexual Risk

for HIV Infection Among Latino Men Who Have Sex With Men.” AIDS and

Behavior 9(40: 513-523.

Johnson, Kevin R. and Joanna E. Cuevas Ingram. 2013. “Anatomy of a Modern-Day

Lynching: The Relationship Between Hate Crimes Against Latina/os and the Debate

over Immigration Reform.” North Carolina Law Review 91(5): 1613-1656.

Kennedy, Traci M. and Rosario Ceballo. 2013. “Latino Adolescents’ Community

Violence Exposure: After-School Activities and Familismo as Risk and Protective

Factors.” Social Development 22(4): 663-682.

Kimmel, Michael S. 2012. “The Gendered Society.” Pp. 113-123 in The Meaning of

Difference: American Constructions of Race, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexual

Orientation, and Disability , edited by K. E. Rosenblum and T.M. C. Travis. New

York: McGraw Hill.

Kleinman, Arthur and Rachel Hall-Clifford. 2009. “Stigma: a social, cultural and moral

process.” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 63(6): 418-419.

Knapp, Jennifer. 2014. “ ‘You Must Come Out’: How Harvey Milk’s Challenge

143

Resonates With Gay Christians Today.” Huffpost The Blog , October 11 th . Retreived

November 26, 2017 ( https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-knapp/how-harvey- milks-challeng_b_5960258.html ).

Kochhar, Rakesh. 2005. The Occupational Status and Mobility of Hispanics .

Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.

Koerner, Susan Silverberg, Yumi Shirai, and Rosa Pedroza. 2013. “Role of

Religious/Spiritual Beliefs and Practices Among Latino Family Caregivers of

Mexican Descent.” Journal of Latina/o Psychology 1(2): 95-111.

Lee, Jennifer and Frank D. Bean. 2007. “Reinventing the Color Line: Immigration and

America’s New Racial/Ethnic Divide.” Social Forces 86(2): 561-586.

Li, Michale J., James P. Thing, Frank h. Galvan, Karina D. Gonzalez, and Ricky N.

Bluthenthal. 2017. “Contextualizing family macroaggressions and strategies of

resilience among young gay and bisexual men of Latino heritage.” Culture, Health, &

Sexuality 19(1): 107-120.

Liboro, Renato M. and Richard T.G. Walsh. 2016. “Understanding the Irony: Canadian

Gay Men Living with HIV/AIDS, Their Catholic Devotion, and Greater Well-Being.”

Journal of Religion & Health 55: 650-670.

Lichter, Daniel T. and Nancy S. Landale. 1995. “Parental Work, Family Structure, and

Poverty Among Latino Children.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 57: 346-354.

Link, Bruce G. and Jo C. Phelan. 2001. “Conceptualizing Stigma.” Annual Review of

Sociology 27: 363-385.

Lo, Serena C., Carol A. Reisen, Paul J. Poppen, Fernanda T. Bianchi, and Maria Cecilia

Zea. 2011. “Cultural Beliefs, Partner Characteristics, Communication, and Sexual

144

Risk Among Latino MSM.” AIDS & Behavior 15: 613-620.

Lopez, Mark Hugo, Ana Gonzalez-Barrera, and Molly Rohal. 2017. Hispanic Identity

Fades Across Generations as Immigrant Connections Fall Away. Washington, DC:

Pew Research Center.

Manohar, Namita and Maura Ryan. 2007. “ ‘De Vendida a Fiel’: Locating Queer

Latinos/as in Latinidad.” Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American

Sociological Association, New York City, New York.

Martinez Jr., Charles R., Heather H. McClure, J. Mark Eddy, Betsy Ruth, and Melanie J.

Hyers. 2012. “Recruitment and Retention of Latino Immigrant Families in Prevention

Research.” Prevention Science 13:15-26.

Martinez, Omar, Brian Dodge, Michael Reece, Phillip W. Schnarrs, Soctt D. Rhodes,

Gabriel Gonclaves, Miguel Munoz-Laboy, David Malebranche, Barbara Van Der Pol,

Ryan Nix, Guadalupe Kelle, and J. Dennis Fortenberry. 2011. “Sexual health and life

experiences: voices from behaviorally bisexual men in the Midwestern USA.”

Culture, Health, & Sexuality 13(9): 1073-1089.

Martinez, Jr. Ramiro. 1996. “Latinos and Lethal Violence: The Impact of Poverty and

Inequality.” Social Problems 43(2): 131-146.

McVeigh, Rory and David Sikkink. 2005. “Organized Racism and the Stranger.”

Sociological Forum 20(4): 497-522.

Mitrani, Victoria B., Joseph P. De Santis, Brian E. McCabe, Diego A. Deleon, Karina A.

Gattamorta, and Natalie M. Leblanc. 2017. “The Impact of Parental Reaction to

Sexual Orientation on Depressive Symptoms and Sexual Risk Behavior Among

Hispanic Men Who Have Sex With Men.” Archives of Psychiatric Nursing 31: 352-

145

358.

Mora, Richard. 2013. “ ‘Dicks are for Chicks’: Latino boys, masculinity, and the

abjection of homosexuality.” Gender and Education 25(3): 340-356.

Ocampo, Anthony C. 2012. “Making masculinity: Negotiations of gender presentation

among Latino gay men.” Latino Studies 10(4): 448-472.

Ocampo, Anthony C. 2014. “The Gay Second Generation: Sexual Identity and Family

Relations of Filipino and Latino Gay Men.” Journal of Ethnic & Migration Studies

40(1): 155-173.

O’Donnell, Lydia, Gail Agronick, Alexi San Doval, Richard Duran, Athi Myint-U, and

Ann Stueve. 2002. “Ethnic and Gay Community Attachments and Sexual Risk

Behaviors Among Urban Latino Young Men who Have Sex with Men.” AIDS

Education and Prevention 14(6): 457-471.

Orne, Jason. 2013. “QUEERS IN THE LINE OF FIRE: Goffman’s Stigma Revisited.”

Sociological Quarterly 54: 229-253.

Pastrana, Antiono Jay. 2015. “Being out to others: The relative importance of family

support, identity, and religion for LGBT Latina/os.” Latino Studies 13(1): 88-112.

Pels, Dick. 2000. The Intellectual as Stranger: Studies in spokespersonship . London:

Routledge.

Pena-Talamantes, Abraham E. 2013. “ ‘Defining Machismo, No Es Siempre Lo

Mismo’: Latino Sexual Minorities’ Machoflexible Identities in Higher Education.”

Culture, Society & Masculinities 5(2): 166-178.

Perez Huber, Lindsay. 2011. “Discourses of Racist Nativism in California Public

Education: English Dominance as Racist Nativist Microagressions.” Educational

146

Studies 47(4): 379-401.

Pew Research Center. 2014. The Shifting Religious Identity of Latinos in the United

States: Nearly One-in-Four Latinos Are Former Catholics. Washington, DC: Pew

Research Center ( http://www.pewforum.org/2014/05/07/the-shifting-religious- identity-of-latinos-in-the-united-states/ )

Phelan, Shane. 2001. Sexual Strangers: Gays, Lesbians, and Dilemmas of Citizenship.

Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Philen, Robert C. 2006. “A Social Geography of Sex: Men Who Have Sex with Men

(MSMs) and Gay Bars on the U.S./Mexican Border.” Journal of Homosexuality

50(4): 31-48.

Potoczniak, Daniel, Margaret Crosbie-Burnett, and Nikki Saltzburg. 2009. “Experiences

Regarding Coming Out to Parents Among African American, Hispanic, and White

Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning Adolescents.” Journal of Gay

& Lesbian Social Services 21: 189-205.

Ramirez, Tanisha Love and Zeba Blay. 2017. “Why People Are Using The Term

‘Latinx’: Do You Identify as ‘Latinx’?” HuffPost Latino Voices , October 17.

Retrieved January 9, 2018 ( https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-people-are- using-the-term-latinx_us_57753328e4b0cc0fa136a159 )

Ramirez-Valles, Jesus, Lisa M. Kuhns, Raquel Vazquez, and Gregory D. Benjamin.

2014. “Getting Involved: Exploring Latino GBT Volunteerism and Activism in AIDS

and LGBT Organizations.” Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services 26:18-36.

Reisen, Carol A., Kelly D. Brooks, Maria Cecilia Zea, Paul J. Poppen, and Fernanda T.

Bianchi. 2013. “Can Additive Measures Add to an Intersectional Understanding?

147

Experiences of Gay and Ethnic Discrimination Among HIV-Positive Latino Gay

Men.” Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 19(2): 208-217.

Rhodes. Scott D., Kenneth C. Hergenrather, Robert E. Aronson, Fred R. Bloom, Jesus

Felizzola, Mark Wolfson, Aaron T. Vissman, Jorge Alonzo, Alex Boeving Allen,

Jaime Montano, and Jaime McGuire. 2010. “Latino men who have sex with men and

HIV in the rural south-eastern USA: findings from ethnographic in-depth interviews.”

Culture, Health, & Sexuality 12(7): 797-812.

Ro, Annie, George Ayala, Jay Paul, and Kyung-hee Choi. 2013. “Dimensions of racism

and their impact on partner selection among men of colour who have sex with men:

understanding pathways to sexual risk.” Culture, Health, & Sexuality 15(7): 836-850.

Romero, Mary. 2001. “State Violence, and the Social and Legal Construction of Latino

Criminality: From El Bandido to Gang Member.” Denver University Law Review 78:

1081-1118.

Rosario, Margaret, Eric W. Scrimshaw, and Joyce Hunter. 2004. “Ethnic/Racial

Differences in the Coming-Out Process of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Youths: A

Comparison of Sexual Identity Development Over Time.” Cultural Diversity and

Ethnic Minority Psychology 10 (3): 215-228.

Ryan, Caitlin, Stepehn T. Russell, David Huebner, Rafael Diaz, and Jorge Sanchez.

2010. “Family Acceptance in Adolescence and the Health of LGBT Young Adults.”

Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing 23(4): 205-213.

Salcedo, Jared. 2009. “Deconstructing the Outreach Experience: Renegotiating Queer

and Latino Masculinities in the Distribution of Safe Sex Materials.” Journal of Gay &

Lesbian Social Services 21: 151-170.

148

Sanchez, Francisco J., F. Javier Blas-Lopez, Maria Jose Martinez-Patino, and Eric Vilain.

2016. “Masculine Consciousness and Anti-Effeminacy Among Latino and White Gay

Men.” Psychology of Men & Masculinity 17(1): 54-63.

Scrambler, Graham. 1998. “Stigma and disease: changing paradigms.” The Lancet 352:

1054-1055.

Simmel, Georg. 2010. “The Stranger.” Pp. 301-305 in Sociological Theory in the

Classical Era: Text and Readings , edited by L.D. Edles & S. Appelrouth. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Smith-Morris, Carolyn, Daisy Morales-Campos, Edith Alejandra Castaneda Alvarez, and

Matthew Turner. 2012. “An Anthropology of Familismo : On Narratives and

Description of Mexican/Immigrants.” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 35(1):

35-60.

South, Scott J., Kyle Crowder, and Erick Chavez. 2005. “Exiting and Entering High-

Poverty Neighborhoods: Latinos, Blacks and Anglos Compared.” Social Forces

84(2): 873-900.

Stacey, Michele, Kristin Carbone-Lopez, and Richard Rosenfeld. 2011. “Demographic

Change and Ethnically Motivated Crime: The Impact of Immigration on Anti-

Hispanic Hate Crime in the United States.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

27(3): 278-298.

Teunis, Niels. 2007. “Sexual objectification and the construction of whiteness in the gay

male community.” Culture, Health, & Sexuality 9(3): 263-275.

Thing, James. 2010. “Gay, Mexican, and Immigrant: intersecting identities among gay

men in Los Angeles.” Social Identities 16(6): 809-831.

149

Turcios, Carlos A. 2017. “Questioning the Hispanic Paradox: How Mexican and Central

America’s Northern Triangle Immigrants Describe the Difficulties of Immigration and

Life in the United States.” Master’s Thesis, Department of Sociology, Anthropology,

and Health Administration and Policy, University of Maryland, Baltimore County.

Valenzuela, Ali Adam. 2014. “Tending the Flock: Latino Religious Commitments and

Political Preferences.” Political Research Quarterly 67(4): 930-942.

Vega, Miriam Y., Andrew R. Spieldenner, and Jennifer Tang. 2012. “Sexo y la Ciudad:

Sexual, Ethnic, and Social Identity Intersections of Latino Gay Men in New York

City.” Californian Journal of Health Promotion 10: 78-87.

Waterston, Alisse. 2006. “Are Latinos Becoming ‘White’ Folk? And What That Still

Says About Race in America.” Transforming Anthropology 14 (2): 133-150.

Weaver, Thomas. 1994. “The Culture of Latinos in the United States.” Pp. 15-38 in

Handbook of Hispanic Cultures in the Unites States: Anthropology , edited by T.

Weaver. Houston, TX: Arte Publico Press.

Weston, Kath. 1991. Families We Choose: Lesbians, Gays, Kinship . New York:

Columbia University Press.

Yang, Lawrence Hsin, Arthur Kleinman, Bruce G. Link, Jo C. Phelan, Sing Lee, and

Byron Good. 2007. “Culture and stigma: Adding moral experience to stigma theory.”

Social Science & Medicine 64: 1524-1535.

Yang, Lawrence Hsin and Arthur Kleinman. 2008. “ ‘Face’ and the embodiment of

stigma in China: The cases of schizophrenia and AIDS.” Social Science & Medicine :

398-408.

150