Microaggressions Against BIPOC LGBT: Causes and Impacts

Introduction: Defining Microaggressions and Minority Stress

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 LGBTQ individual living in a cisnormative, heteronormative world encounters discrimination in the form of microaggressions — a frustrating and unavoidable part of daily life. Microaggression refers to daily snubs or insults, 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 physical and mental health of the individuals targeted (Oliveria, 2020).

Disparities in physical and mental health outcomes have been documented among oppressed populations, including ethnic, sexual, and racial minorities. Sexual minority groups, for example, are highly susceptible to mental health disorders such as anxiety, depression, and suicidality. These disparities are usually tied to stressful experiences of discrimination and stigma associated with minority social identity. According to minority stress theory, minority individuals experience unique stressors that contribute to mental health disparities, and such stressors can act directly on health through chronic biological stress mechanisms. This paper argues that microaggressions cause lasting pain and should not be taken lightly (Spanierman et al., 2021). There is no predictable timeframe for when a BIPOC LGBT individual may experience microaggression — it may begin as early as childhood, occur at the workplace, or come from family members.

Mental Health Disparities Among BIPOC LGBT Populations

Recent research findings indicate that African Americans have exhibited psychiatric symptoms resulting from heterosexism and racism, while Latino gay men and bisexuals have suffered stress due to discrimination. These stressors relate directly to poor physical and mental health outcomes among the LGBT-POC group. For instance, according to Hughes et al. (2008), African American lesbians were more likely to smoke than white lesbians or African American heterosexual women. Significant differences also exist between LGBT-POC and White LGBT populations, with research showing that LGBT-POC are not always at the same type of specific risk for particular health outcomes. According to Consolacion et al. (2004), both white and African American same-sex attracted youths reported higher levels of depression than heterosexual participants.

Furthermore, according to Cochran et al. (2007), there are increased risks of depression and suicidality among LGBT people of color relative to heterosexual people of color, as well as a heightened risk of suicidality compared to White LGB people. These compounding vulnerabilities underscore why intersectional approaches to mental health research and intervention are essential for this population.

Workplace Discrimination and the Policy Gap

While there have been significant strides in efforts to enhance workplace equality for gay, lesbian, transgender, and bisexual (LGBT) Americans, substantial discrimination against LGBT employees persists. According to a Williams Institute publication from 2011, approximately 42% of survey respondents reported experiencing workplace discrimination based on their sexual orientation. Even more concerning, a 2011 report by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that approximately 90% of transgender individuals surveyed had experienced mistreatment or harassment at their place of work.

United States employees are protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act on the basis of color, race, religion, national origin, and sex. However, there is a lack of comprehensive federal legislation protecting LGBT employees from workplace discrimination. According to Gates (2011), the LGBT population in the United States has been estimated at approximately nine million people, making the protection of their civil rights a pressing concern. At the time of the research surveyed in this paper, only 20 states had adopted non-discrimination policies based on gender identity and sexual orientation. The absence of federal policy sends a message of permissiveness toward discrimination against LGBT employees in the workplace.

Nonetheless, according to a report by Badgett et al. (2013), workplace policies that support LGBT employees are associated with meaningful improvements: LGBT workers in supportive environments are more comfortable disclosing their sexual orientation, which correlates with improved health outcomes. LGBT staff working for institutions with non-discriminatory policies also report higher job satisfaction and better relationships with supervisors and coworkers. Even so, LGBT workers continue to face discrimination in the form of microaggressions that fall outside the scope of formal non-discrimination policies. According to King et al. (2011), three types of microaggressions appear in federal court cases, and micro-assaults in particular increase the chances of favorable outcomes for plaintiffs — providing evidence that workplace microaggressions are legally documentable.

Conclusion

Microaggression refers to daily snubs and insults, whether unintentional or intentional, that communicate derogatory, negative, or hostile messages to marginalized groups. They can manifest as early as childhood, at the workplace, or through the religious communities of the individual affected. Microaggressions foster heterosexist and hostile climates in workplaces: content similarities exist between general LGBT microaggressions and workplace-specific ones, and such behavior frequently occurs in grey areas not covered by formal non-discrimination policies.

LGBT people of faith are often unable to be open about their sexual orientation within their religious communities. Those who are both LGBTQ and people of faith face pervasive stigma and are routinely assumed to hold transphobic, biphobic, or homophobic views by default — a burden that falls with particular weight on Muslim LGBTQ individuals. Across all these contexts — workplace, community, and faith — it is clear that there is no predictable or "acceptable" timeframe for when a BIPOC LGBT individual may experience microaggression. These experiences are pervasive, harmful, and demand serious attention from institutions, communities, and individuals alike.

References

Badgett, M. V., Durso, L. E., Mallory, C., & Kastanis, A. (2013). The business impact of LGBT-supportive workplace policies.

Brewster, M. E., Velez, B. L., Mennicke, A., & Tebbe, E. (2014). Voices from beyond: A thematic content analysis of transgender employees' workplace experiences. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1(2), 159.

Cochran, S. D. (2001). Emerging issues in research on lesbians' and gay men's mental health: Does sexual orientation really matter? American Psychologist, 56(11), 931.

Consolacion, T. B., Russell, S. T., & Sue, S. (2004). Sex, race/ethnicity, and romantic attractions: Multiple minority status adolescents and mental health. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 10(3), 200.

Fahrenhorst, R., & Kleiner, B. H. (2012). How to write effective anti-bias policies. Nonprofit World, 30(4), 6–7.

Gates, G. J. (2011). How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender?

Houshmand, S., & Spanierman, L. B. (2021). Mitigating racial microaggressions on campus: Documenting targets' responses. New Ideas in Psychology, 63, 100894.

Hughes, T. L., Johnson, T. P., & Matthews, A. K. (2008). Sexual orientation and smoking: Results from a multisite women's health study. Substance Use & Misuse, 43(8–9), 1218–1239.

Oliveria, J. P. (2020). RE: Amplify voices of Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour (BIPOC) and underrepresented trainees, and empower them to stay in academia.

Spanierman, L. B., Clark, D. A., & Kim, Y. (2021). Reviewing racial microaggressions research: Documenting targets' experiences, harmful sequelae, and resistance strategies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(5), 1037–1059.