Experiences of Online Racialized Sexual Discrimination among Sexual and Gender Minorities in the United States: Online Survey Data from Keeping It LITE

ABSTRACT

This study sought to analyze prevalence and correlates of online racialized sexual discrimination (RSD), or sexualized discriminatory treatment, in the context of sexualized encounters, among cisgender men and transgender individuals who have sex with men at risk for HIV. Data were collected as part of a baseline survey from a large national sample (N = 2,166). Among participants of color (N = 1,042), 84.9% had experienced RSD in the past 6 months, and transgender participants experienced similar levels of RSD as cisgender men. Experience of RSD was associated with older age and more frequent experiences of general discrimination, but not with geographic location, mental health symptoms, sexual risk behavior, or internalized homonegativity. These findings confirm that RSD is highly prevalent among sexual and gender minority individuals of color who have sex with men. Implications and areas for future research are discussed.

Racialized Sexual Discrimination (RSD) is sexualized discriminatory treatment of individuals of color that reflects racist attitudes or beliefs (Wade & Harper, 2020). RSD is typically conceptualized as an expression of racism, rather than a “sexual preference,” because of the negative impact it has on individuals of color (Callander et al., 2015). This negative impact has been extensively researched among men of color who have sex with men (MCSM) because of the combined impacts of heterosexism and racism on this community (Fattoracci et al., 2021). However, this research has primarily utilized qualitative methods and therefore little is known about the exact prevalence and correlates of RSD (Wade & Harper, 2020).

Based on existing research on MCSM, Wade (2018) hypothesized four types of RSD: Rejection involves being rejected as a sexual partner because of one’s racial identity or appearance. Objectification occurs when individuals are sexually objectified because of their phenotypic traits (i.e. skin color) or racial stereotypes about their sexual anatomy (i.e. large penis) or preferences (i.e. top, bottom, etc.). Exclusionary/inclusionary preferences involve explicit preference for or against individuals of certain racial groups. Finally, degradation involves intentionally harmful comments about a person’s race or overt expressions of racism. Development of an RSD scale using a sample of black MSM did not confirm this four-factor structure, instead finding eight factors that were more specific to racial identity (i.e. “white rejecting white,” “black rejecting black”; Wade, 2018). However, this four-factor structure nevertheless remains a useful conceptualization of the ways RSD can manifest in the larger population.

Limited quantitative research has investigated the prevalence of RSD experiences among MCSM. A recent study assessing a large sample (n = 448) of Black, Latino, and Asian MSM found 82% of participants reported at least one experience of RSD during adulthood (Hidalgo et al., 2020). Another study assessing experiences of racism among MCSM (not specific to RSD) found that 84% of Black, Asian, and Latino MSM had experienced racism within the gay community (Han et al., 2015). Studies examining RSD among MCSM have found that it is associated with depression symptoms (Balsam et al., 2011; Bhambhani et al., 2020; Chae & Yoshikawa, 2008; Han et al., 2015; Wade, 2018), anxiety symptoms (Bhambhani et al., 2020; Hidalgo et al., 2020), more severe stress (Balsam et al., 2011; Bhambhani et al., 2020; Han et al., 2015), body image disturbance (Bhambhani et al., 2019; Dua, 2021), suicidality and self injury (Hidalgo et al., 2020), lower self-esteem (Thai, 2020; R. Wade, 2018), lower life satisfaction (Thai, 2020), somatization symptoms (Hidalgo et al., 2020), problematic alcohol use (Souleymanov et al., 2020), stigma sensitivity (Balsam et al., 2011), and internalized homonegativity (Balsam et al., 2011). No studies have specifically examined these experiences in sexual minority women and transgender or nonbinary individuals of color.

Some studies have investigated whether certain racial/ethnic groups experience RSD more frequently than others, though findings are mixed. As would be expected, MCSM are more likely to experience RSD than white MSM (Thai, 2020), but findings are mixed as to which racial/ethnic MCSM groups experience the highest prevalence of RSD. Studies have variously reported that the highest rates of RSD are experienced by Black (Bhambhani et al., 2020; Hidalgo et al., 2020; Souleymanov et al., 2020), Asian (Balsam et al., 2011; Choi et al., 2013), Latino (Souleymanov et al., 2020), and multiracial (Hidalgo et al., 2020) individuals. Additionally, two studies have found that whiteness tends to be perceived as desirable among MSM, with MSM of all races perceiving white men as the most desirable and Black men as the least desirable (Raymond & McFarland, 2009), and Latino MSM reporting a preference for other Latino men with lighter skin and fewer African/mixed race physical features (Ibañez et al., 2012).

It is notable that limited research to date has specifically examined experiences of RSD in the context of online interactions (Wade & Harper, 2021). This research is needed given the prevalent use of Grindr and other social networking/hookup apps among MSM, and ongoing concerns that the anonymity provided by online platforms allows for the proliferation of racist attitudes and interactions (Wade & Harper, 2020). Though the apps Grindr and Scruff removed the ability to filter profiles by ethnicity in 2020, there is ongoing concern that these platforms do not do enough to police racist attitudes expressed by their users (Garel, 2020). There is also little known about how experiences of RSD relate to HIV risk. Experiences of minority stress in general are considered to be part of the syndemic factors associated with HIV risk among sexual and gender minority individuals (Pachankis, 2015), and it is therefore likely that RSD plays a role in this risk factor.

Given the relative lack of quantitative research in this area and the absence of research on online RSD and the relationship between RSD and HIV risk, the purpose of this study was to provide initial data on online experiences of RSD, including the four types described by Wade and Harper (2020), among a large sample of young cisgender men and transgender persons who have sex with men and who indicate elevated risk for HIV. This study aimed to 1) confirm and expand upon previous quantitative research on the prevalence and correlates of RSD among MSM of different racial/ethnic identities, and 2) provide preliminary data on how experiences of online RSD relate to mental health and HIV risk factors among young transgender persons who have sex with men (TPSM) and SGM youth and young adults.

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited for Keeping it LITE, a study examining HIV risk factors in young adults from December 2017 through December 2019 (N = 3,444; Gleason et al., 2021). All participants were located in the United States, identified as a cis- or transgender man, transgender woman, or non-binary person who has sex with persons assigned male at birth, were between the ages of 13 and 34, and reported being HIV-negative or receiving an HIV diagnosis in the last year. In addition, participants 18 and older were required to report at least one of the following in the last 6 months: 1) condomless anal sex; 2) sex with an HIV+ partner; or 3) a bacterial STI infection. Participants ages 13–17 were eligible if they reported engaging in unprotected oral sex.

This study assessed a subsample of participants who reported meeting a sexual partner online in the past 6 months (N = 2,166). A majority of participants in this subsample identified as cisgender men (81.7%) and gay (70.0%). Nearly half of participants identified as persons of color (48.1%). Full demographic characteristics of the sample are displayed in Table 1.

Table 1. Study sample demographics (n = 2,166).

	N, Col. (%)
Age M (SD) and Group	25.1 (4.7)
30–34 25–29 20–24 18–19 13–17	437(20.2) 714(33.0) 736(34.0) 183(8.4) 96(4.4)
Gender Identity
Cisgender man Non-binary, non-conforming, and other Transgender man Transgender woman	1,769(81.7) 244(11.3) 117(5.4) 36(1.7)
Orientation
Gay Queer, pansexual, and other Bisexual Straight	1,517(70.0) 387(17.9) 250(11.5) 12(0.6)
Race/Ethnicity
White Latina/x/o Black Asian/PI Other (including American Indian/Native Alaskan)	1,124(51.9) 438(20.2) 265(12.2) 102(4.7) 237(10.9)
HIV Status
HIV- HIV- using PrEP or PEP HIV+	1,455(67.2) 640(29.5) 71(3.3)
Urban-Rural County Type
Large central metro Large fringe metro Medium metro Small metro Micropolitan Non-core	1,321(61.0) 310(14.3) 286(13.2) 144(6.6) 71(3.3) 34(1.6)
U.S. Region
Midwest South Northeast West	1,116(51.5) 481(22.2) 276(12.7) 293(13.5)

Procedures

The study was advertised on several social media platforms, and print advertisements were distributed on public transportation and at community events. Study advertisements directed potential participants to an online pre-screening questionnaire assessing eligibility. Those who met inclusion criteria were prompted to read and sign informed consent. Those enrolling in the study were then required to provide HIV status verification via an at-home HIV test or by uploading their own HIV health record. Participants then completed a 30-minute online baseline assessment and were compensated with a $50 gift card after their HIV status was verified. Data from this baseline assessment were utilized in this study.

Measures

Online Racialized Sexual Discrimination

Online RSD was assessed with a single item, which was developed based on the initial conceptualization of RSD by Wade (2018). Participants were asked, “If you experience any of the following when online, which would you say is the most impactful to you personally?” They were given the option to choose between four types of RSD (Erotic Objectification, Exclusion, Rejection, and Degradation) or “I have not seen or experienced this online.” A brief description of each type of RSD was included next to each option (see Table 2 for full descriptive text).

Table 2. Experiences of Online RSD in the Past 6 Months By Race/Ethnicity and Gender (n=2166)

	Erotic Objectification: Been objectified online because of your race/ethnicity? n = 783; N Row (%)		Exclusion: Seen profiles that say that members of your race/ethnicity are not desired or preferred? n = 239; N Row (%)		Rejection: Been rejected or ignored online because of your race/ethnicity? n = 196; N Row (%)		Degradation: Seen online profiles that say something derogatory towards members of your race/ethnicity? n = 118; N Row (%)		I have not seen or experienced this online. n = 830 N Row (%)		Univariate, B(SE)/ OR (95% CI) Reported RSD vs Did Not Report (p <.001)
Race/Ethnicity & Gender
Cisgender Men White Latina/x/o Black Asian and Pacific Islander Other Transgender and nonbinary White Latina/x/o Black Asian and Pacific Islander Other	123 183 156 63 97 19 49 39 15 39	13.4 49.6 73.9 73.3 53.3 9.4 71.0 72.2 93.8 70.9	134 35 16 3 19 21 7 1 0 3	14.5 9.5 7.6 3.5 10.4 10.3 10.1 1.9 5.5	69 44 21 12 26 14 3 5 0 2	7.5 11.9 10.0 14.0 14.3 6.9 4.3 9.3 3.6	59 24 5 2 8 12 3 4 0 1	6.4 6.5 2.4 2.3 4.4 5.9 4.3 7.4 1.8	536 83 13 6 32 137 7 5 1 10	58.2 22.5 6.2 7.0 17.6 67.5 10.1 9.3 6.3 18.2	Ref. 4.80 21.20 18.56 6.53 0.67 12.33 13.64 20.88 6.26	(3.64-6.33) (11.92-37.73) (8.01-42.99) (4.36-9.77) (0.49-0.93) (5.58-27.24) (5.39-34.56) (2.75-158.76) (3.12-12.59)

The Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identity Scale (LGBIS)

Salient aspects of LGB identity and minority stress were measured with the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identity Scale (LGBIS; Mohr & Kendra, 2011). This scale measures eight dimensions: Acceptance concerns, concealment motivation, identity uncertainty, internalized homonegativity, difficult process, identity superiority, identity affirmation, and identity centrality. Participants respond to items on a 4-point Likert scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” The internal consistency across subscales was good (α = .71–.88).

Experiences of Racial Discrimination

General discrimination (not specific to sexual racism) was assessed with the Everyday Discrimination Scale (EDS). The EDS is a 9-item measure in which participants are asked to report how often they experience various aspects of discrimination in their day-to-day life on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from “almost everyday” to “never.” Items include “you are treated with less respect than other people are” and “you are threatened or harassed.” The internal consistency for this sample was excellent (α = .96).

Depression Symptoms

Symptoms of depression were measured with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale Revised (CESD-R10; Björgvinsson et al., 2013). This is a 10-item self-report scale designed to assess the primary symptoms of depression in the past week, with higher scores indicating greater symptoms. Items include “I was bothered by things that usually don’t bother me” and “I felt depressed.” Participants respond to items on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from “rarely or none of the time” to “all of the time.” The internal consistency for this sample was good (α = .88).

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms

Symptoms for the DSM-IV diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) were assessed with the Primary Care PTSD screen (PC-PTSD; Prins et al., 2003). This screener asks participants to identify whether they have experienced four primary symptoms of PTSD in the past month in response to a traumatic event: nightmares/intrusive thoughts, avoidance, hypervigilance, and dissociation. Participants respond “yes” or “no” to each symptom.

Sexual Behaviors

A series of yes/no questions assessed participants’ sexual behavior in the past 6 months. Three questions assessed specific HIV risk behaviors: anal or vaginal sex without a condom, sex with an HIV+ partner, and testing positive for an STI other than HIV. Participants were also asked whether most of their partners were of the same race/ethnicity as them and whether they had an emotionally or physically violent experience with a partner.

Demographic Measures

Demographic measures collected from participants included age, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, and location (e.g., U.S. region and urban density of county). Race and ethnicity were defined based on the U.S. census categories. For the purposes of this study, participants responding with multiple racial/ethnic identities were identified as “other” and participants indicating Hispanic or Latinx ethnicity were included in the “Latinx” group regardless of race.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were generated for the data, including frequencies, means, standard deviations, and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A logistic regression was conducted to evaluate differences in prevalence of online RSD between racial and gender identity groups. An exploratory analysis of demographic and mental health correlates of online RSD (dichotomized as a yes/no variable indicating whether the participant had ever experienced online RSD) among participants of color was conducted using a series of univariate logistic regressions. Finally, a multivariable logistic regression was conducted regressing the experience of online RSD on all demographic and mental health variables among participants of color. Multivariable analysis was used to account for potential intercorrelations among mental health and demographic factors. Analyses were run using JASP Version 0.14.1[26].

Results

Descriptive frequencies are presented in Table 1. Table 2 displays crosstabs of online RSD experiences in the past 6 months and racial and gender identity. The majority of participants of color (84.9%) had experienced online RSD, with objectification reported as the most impactful RSD type (61.5%). The highest prevalence of online RSD was noted among Black MSM (93.8%), Asian transgender participants (93.8%), Black transgender participants (90.7%), Asian MSM (93.0%), and Latinx transgender participants (89.9%).

Table 3 displays the results of univariate and multivariable logistic regressions assessing demographic correlates of experiencing online RSD for participants of color (N = 1,042). In the multivariable model, greater odds of experiencing online RSD were associated with greater frequency of experiencing everyday discrimination and older age. While PTSD symptoms and two subscales of the LGBIS were associated with experiencing online RSD in univariate analyses, these relationships did not remain significant in the multivariable model.

Table 3. Correlates of experiencing online RSD in the past 6 months (participants of color only; n = 1,042).

	Have Experienced Online RSD, n = 885, N Row (%)	Have Not Experienced Online RSD, n = 157, N Row (%)	Univariate, B(SE)/OR (95% CI)	Multivariable, B(SE)/OR (95% CI)
Demographics
Age M (SD)	24.8 (4.7)	24.1 (5.1)	0.03 (0.02)	0.04 (.02)
Gender Identity
Cisgender man Non-binary, non-conforming, and other Transgender man Transgender woman	714(84.2) 113(89.7) 42(85.7) 16(84.2)	134(15.8) 13(10.3) 7(14.3) 3(15.8)	Ref. 1.63 (0.89–2.98) 1.13 (0.50–2.56) 1.00 (0.29–3.48)	Ref. 1.21 (0.61–2.38) 0.46 (0.17–1.23) 0.35 (0.08–1.43)
Sexual Orientation
Gay Queer, Pansexual, etc. Bisexual Straight	588(83.9) 172(91.0) 117(81.8) 8(88.9)	113(16.1) 17(9.0) 26(18.2) 1(11.1)	Ref. 1.94 (1.14–3.33)* 0.86 (0.54–1.38) 1.54 (0.19–12.41)	Ref. 1.76 (0.94–3.33) 1.04 (0.61–1.77) –
Urban-Rural County Type
Large central metro Other county types	588(84.7) 297(85.3)	106(15.3) 51(14.7)	0.95 (0.66–1.37) Ref.	0.81 (0.55–1.21) Ref.
Mental Health Status
Everyday Discrimination Scale: M (SD)	10.2 (9.7)	5.2 (7.6)	0.07 (0.01)***	0.07 (.01)***
Primary Care-PTSD Screen: M (SD)	0.8 (1.4)	0.5 (1.2)	0.17 (0.07)*	0.05 (.08)
Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale Revised: M (SD)	10.4 (7.3)	9.4 (7.2)	0.02 (0.01)	−0.01 (.01)
Did you have an emotionally/physically violent experience with a partner?
Yes No	422(87.4) 463(82.8)	61(12.6) 96(17.2)	1.43 (1.01–2.03)* Ref.	1.07 (0.73–1.57) Ref.
The Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identity Scale (LGBIS)
Acceptance Concerns: M (SD)	4.3 (1.5)	4.0 (1.6)	0.14 (0.06)*	0.09 (.07)
Concealment Motivation: M (SD)	4.2 (1.5)	4.1 (1.4)	0.07 (0.06)	0.10 (.07)
Identity Uncertainty: M (SD)	2.4 (1.5)	2.5 (1.6)	−0.03 (0.06)	−0.09 (.08)
Internalized Homonegativity: M (SD)	2.7 (1.7)	2.8 (1.8)	−0.03 (0.05)	−0.06 (.07)
Difficult Process: M (SD)	3.9 (1.5)	3.7 (1.5)	0.08 (0.06)	0.03 (.07)
Identity Superiority: M (SD)	3.1 (1.6)	2.9 (1.7)	0.11 (0.06)*	0.06 (.06)
Identity Affirmation: M (SD)	3.9 (1.0)	3.8 (0.9)	0.08 (0.09)	0.05 (.12)
Identity Centrality: M (SD)	2.9 (0.8)	2.8 (0.9)	0.17 (0.10)	0.03 (.13)
Sexual Behaviors and Experiences
Level of Sexual Risk^a
High Low	401(85.5) 484(84.5)	68(14.5) 89(15.5)	1.08 (0.77–1.53) Ref.	0.91 (0.63–1.33) Ref.
Have most of your partners been the same race/ethnicity as yours?
Yes No	98(89.1) 787(84.4)	12(10.9) 145(15.6)	1.50 (0.81–2.81) Ref.	1.65 (0.85–3.19) Ref.

* p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001; ^aLevel of sexual risk determined by HIV-related Sexual Risk Behaviors reported at screening. High risk indicated by 2 or more of the following in the past 6 months: a) inconsistent condom use, b) HIV-positive sexual partner, and/or c) bacterial STI.

Discussion

This study aimed to assess the experience of online RSD among sexual and gender minority youth and young adults at risk for HIV. The findings confirm previous research indicating that experiences of RSD are highly prevalent among sexual minority persons of color (Thai, 2020), finding rates of RSD similar to those reported by Hidalgo et al. (2020). This study is also the first to confirm the high prevalence of online RSD among transgender persons of color who have sex with men and to examine the relative subjective impact of the subtypes of RSD. While objectification was reported as the most impactful form of RSD, it is unclear what made this form the most impactful. Objectification may have caused more harm to participants compared to other forms of RSD, or it may simply have been the most common.

Previous studies on differences in RSD experiences between racial/ethnic groups provided mixed findings, and the results of this study may help to clarify this relationship. Among sexual minority men in our sample, Black and Asian participants were more likely to report online RSD compared to Latinx and “other” participants. This differed from transgender and nonbinary participants, where Black and Latinx participants reported similar rates of online RSD, while Asian participants reported much higher rates. This confirms some previous findings while contradicting others. Because previous studies have used different measures of RSD and have assessed samples from diverse geographic locations, it is difficult to directly compare the findings of this study to previous studies. However, this study may be more generalizable than previous samples because of the large sample size and wide geographic distribution of participants.

This study did not confirm previous research indicating negative mental health correlates of RSD among MSM of color. While experiencing online RSD was associated with PTSD symptoms and aspects of LGBT minority stress (as measured by the LGBIS), these bivariate associations became non-significant in the multivariable model. This study also contradicts previous findings that RSD is associated with depression symptoms (Bhambhani et al., 2020; Chae & Yoshikawa, 2008; Hidalgo et al., 2020; Wade, 2018) and internalized homonegativity (Balsam et al., 2011). Given that a large majority of participants of color in this sample (84.9%) experienced online RSD, there may have been insufficient variability to properly assess the impact of RSD. In addition, experiences of online RSD were dichotomized to a binary variable for analyses, which is unable to capture variations in the frequency, severity, and type (e.g., objectification vs. exclusion) of RSD experiences.

Limitations and Future Research

Several limitations must be taken into account with this study. First, while the sample utilized for this study was large and racially diverse, it represents only a subsection of young SGM individuals at elevated risk for HIV and therefore does not reflect the larger SGM population. Notably, the sample did not include sexual minority cisgender women. Second, due to the need for brevity in the 30-minute baseline assessment, the RSD measure utilized in this study was a single-item measure developed for the purposes of this study. At the time of this study’s development, there was limited research on online RSD and no standardized brief assessment that could be utilized (e.g., Wade & Harper, 2021). Thus, data from this survey are not able to provide nuanced information on the experiences of RSD, including the context in which it was experienced, how distressing the experience was, or how frequently it is experienced. Additionally, because of how the online RSD question was asked, we were not able to make comparisons between those who did or did not experience each type of online RSD. Finally, the measure of online RSD utilized in this study was based on the initial conceptualization of RSD by Wade (2018). The survey was written before a validated scale had been developed, and before the results of Wade and Harper (2021) indicated that a 4-factor model of RSD may not fit the data.

Conclusion and Future Research

Despite these limitations, this study provides much-needed preliminary quantitative data on the experiences of online RSD in a large, diverse sample of SGM youth and young adults which can foster the development of further studies. Future research should assess RSD in a representative population sample to better understand its prevalence and mental health correlates. In addition, this research should examine potential causal pathways between experiences of RSD and mental and sexual health outcomes. Longitudinal or event-level research would allow for a more nuanced understanding of the direction of causality between these variables. Finally, future research should examine experiences of RSD among sexual minority women, who have been absent from the literature up to this point.

Disclosure Statement

The authors do not have any conflicts of interest to disclose.

Additional information

Funding

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (UG3 AI 133676 and UH3 AI 133676); National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [UG3 AI 133676 & UH3 AI 133676];