The BIPOC LGBT Community and Microaggressions

Microaggressions against BIPOC LGBT

Lesbian, bisexual and Gay individuals who are ethnic or racial minorities (LGBT-POC) are marginalized populations subject to microaggressions accompanied by heterosexism and racism. An LGBTO individual living in a CIS normative, heteronormative world encounters discrimination like microaggressions that are a frustrating and unavoidable part of daily life. Microaggression is daily snubs, insults, or snubs, whether unintentional or intentional, that communicate derogatory, negative, or hostile messages to marginalized groups. Such microaggressions result in social oppression, which in most instances affects the health of an individual (Oliveria, 2020). Disparities in physical and mental health outcomes have been witnessed among the oppressed populations, including ethnic, sexual, and racial minorities. For instance, sexual minority groups are highly susceptible to mental health disorders such as anxiety, depression, suicidality. Such disparities are usually attached to stressful experiences of discrimination and stigma that associate minority social identity. According to minority stress theory, minority individuals experience unique stressors that contribute to mental health disparities. Such minority stressors can directly act upon health through chronic biological stress mechanisms. Therefore, this paper will argue how microaggressions cause lasting pain and why such actions should not be taken lightly (Spanierman et al., 2021). There is no ethical time frame as to when a BIPOC LGBT individual may experience microaggression. It may begin as quickly as early childhood, at the workplace, or by the family members of said individual.

Consequently, according to the recent research findings, African Americans have exhibited psychiatric symptoms due to heterosexism and racism. At the same time, Latino gay men and bisexuals have suffered stress due to discrimination. Such stressors directly relate to poor physical and mental health outcomes amongst the LGBT-POC group. For instance, according to Hughes et al. (2008), African American lesbians were more likely to smoke than white lesbians and African American heterosexual women. Besides, there are significant differences between LGBT-POC and White LGBT, with LGBT-POC found not being at specific risk of health outcomes. According to Consolacion et al. (2004), both white and African American same-sex attracted youths indicated high levels of depression than heterosexual participants.

On the other hand, according to Cochran et al. 2007, there are increased risks of depression and suicidality relative to heterosexual people of color and heightened risk for suicidality compared to White LGB people. While there have been significant strides at the workplace to enhance equality for the gay, lesbian, transgender, and bisexual (LGBT) identified Americans, there is still significant discrimination against LGBT employees at workplaces. According to the Williams institute publication report in 2011, around 42% of the survey’s respondents had experienced discrimination at their places of work based on their sexual orientation. However, on a worrying note is the report on transgender employees by the National Centre for Transgender Equality published in 2011 that indicated that around 90% of the transgender individuals surveyed had experienced mistreatment or harassment at their place of work.

Also, United States employees are protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights acts based on color, race, religion, national origin, gender, and religion. However, there is a lack of any federal legislation protecting LGBT employees from discrimination at their workplace. According to Gates 2011, LGBT has been evaluated to be around nine million people, thus, necessitating attention on their civil rights. So far, only 20 states have adopted non-discrimination policies based on gender identity and sexual orientation at the workplace. Therefore, the lack of federal policies relays a message of permissiveness or approval of discrimination towards LGBT employees at their workplace.

Nonetheless, according to a report by Badgett et al. (2013), policies that support LGBT from their colleagues are associated with significant changes that an LGBT employee will be more comfortable disclosing their sexual orientation, which indicates improved health among the LGBT workers. Also, the LGBT staff working for institutions with non-discriminatory policies exhibit higher job satisfaction. Equally, LGBT staff covered by non-discriminatory policies are associated with improved relationships with their supervisors and coworkers. However, even with the availability of non-discrimination policies in some workplaces, LGBT workers still undergo discrimination in microaggressions because they are not included under the non-discrimination and conventional policies. According to King et al. (2011), three types of microaggressions are exhibited in federal court cases. Micro assaults increase chances of favorable outcomes for the plaintiffs, thus concluding that microaggressions at workplaces are evidenced.

Furthermore, microaggressions have a heterosexist and hostile climate at workplaces. For instance, according to Nadal et al. 2010, 2012, there are content similarities between general LGBT microaggressions and workplace microaggressions. However, they are experienced differently due to their occurrence within the workplace context. For instance, employees describe their supervisors and coworkers exoticizing/tokenizing them and misgendering their identities using languages that are derogatory when general members of LGBT groups, not acknowledge the families and relationships of LGBT staff; thus, omitting LGBT workers from the workplace social environment.

Moreover, where a non-discrimination policy at the workplace does exist, microaggressions do take place in grey areas where the employees get offended, minus any policy covering the offense. For instance, many LGBT employees have expressed being excluded or left out of office events. While such events are not included under anti-discrimination policies, they directly relate to the organization’s values, mission, and vision. For example, during one of the surveys, an employee described their workplace motto as “hostile to none.” Nevertheless, the organization has failed to recognize or provide benefits to same-gender marriages. Such evident exclusions are considered hostile to LGBT staff who work for the organization (Houshmand et al., 2021). As a result, organizations should evaluate their stated policies concerning their mission, values, and vision to ensure a lack of disconnect because inconsistencies may relay confusing messages to employees.

Equally, in several instances, LGBT discrimination policies are generally like “We do not discriminate based on gender, race, sexual orientation...”, leaving discrimination on the reader’s dependent interpretation. According to Fahrenhorst & Kleiner (2012), non-discrimination workplace policies opt to be precise, comprehensive, and specific, and that the staffs have to be instructed on how to avoid discriminatory behaviors. In addition, explaining acts of microaggressions to employees with concrete examples can help in evaluating discriminatory acts that staff may not identify as offensive. Moreover, according to Brewster et al. (2014), an organization with transgender employees provides gender transition training to coworkers to heighten understanding and sensitivity. Also, the organizations should ensure their employees are conversant with existing policies and a way of enforcing them.

On the other hand, in 2018, Stonewall reported that 52 percent of BAME LGBT persons had gone through racism within the LGBT community. While for the black LGBT people, the number rose to 62 percent. Even though any form of racism is despicable, racial discrimination within the LGBTQ community strongly negatively affects QTIPOC. Within a society that does not usually accept LGBTQ individuals, QTIPOC has to manage discrimination within a society that supports them. This results in loneliness, poor mental health, isolation, violence, and discrimination. As a result, white people must become more vocal in challenging racist acts within the LGBTQ community, even if QTIPOC do not feel safe or can challenge it themselves. Usually, whenever QTIPOC speak about their experiences, they are faced with challenges, defensiveness, and doubts. It is also critical that allies conduct research and listen to the voices of QTIPOC whenever possible to educate themselves and others (Oliveria, 2020). Also, people must become receptacles whenever one illustrates why something is racist other than becoming defensive. Individuals should own their biases, privileges, and mistakes and believe the LGBT impacts them whenever they claim an issue.

Subsequently, according to Stonewall’s report, a third of LGBT people of faith are not open to anyone within their society as far as their sexual orientation is concerned. In multiple instances, the people of faith face many stigmas and are always assumed to be transphobic, biphobic, and homophobic by default. While for the Muslims, this is specifically heightened. Consequently, recent Islamophobic tropes have resulted in the thinking that being LGBTQ and being a Muslim is impossible; Thus, denying the Muslim LGBTQ the freedom to come out because people are usually told to choose one. Some vocal groups within faith communities have increasingly weaponized faith against LGBTQ individuals, creating division (Spanierman et al., 2021). This leads to hostility against LGBTQ Muslims. Moreover, Muslim LGBTQ people find it extremely difficult to find safe and accessible spaces in the LGBTQ society.

Besides, LGBTQ Muslims and LGBTQ individuals from other faiths face isolation and even lose their friends and family members. Even though a Muslim LGBTQ individual will undergo a unique experience from LGBTQ people from other faiths, it has to be known that Muslims are not a homogenous group (Houshmand et al., 2021). For example, they have a common faith, but their ways of practice, gender, race, class, sexual orientation, plus several other things are at play.

To conclude, microaggression is daily snubs, insults, or snubs, whether unintentional or intentional, that communicate derogatory, negative, or hostile messages to the marginalized groups. They can be exhibited as early as childhood, at the workplace, or by the religious members of said individual. Microaggressions have to heterosexist and hostile climate at workplaces. For instance, there exist content similarities of general LGBT microaggressions and that of Workplace microaggressions. Also, where a non-discrimination policy at the workplace does exist, microaggressions do take place in grey areas where the employees get offended, minus any policy covering the offense. Subsequently, LGBT people of faith are not open to anyone within their society as far as their sexual orientation is concerned. In multiple instances, the people of faith face many stigmas and are always assumed to be transphobic, biphobic, and homophobic by default. While for the Muslims, this is specifically heightened. Therefore, there is no ethical time frame as to when a BIPOC LGBT individual may experience microaggression.