“Gay Equals White”? Racial, Ethnic, and Sexual Identities and Attitudes Toward LGBT Individuals Among College Students at a Bible Belt University

Abstract

While past research has certainly explored a variety of correlates of attitudes toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals, the current study is among the first in an emerging line of inquiry that examines attitudes toward each of these groups separately utilizing an intersectional framework with special attention to racial, ethnic, and sexual identities. Using a college sample of students from the Bible Belt of the United States (N = 1,940), I investigated the roles of racial and ethnic identities (Caucasian/White, African American/Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American/Alaskan Native, other race, and Hispanic/Latinx), religiosity, patriarchal gender norms, parental perspectives, and the intersections among these identities and experiences as they relate to attitudes toward LGBT individuals among heterosexual (n = 1,551) and LGB respondents (n = 389). This moves beyond explorations of White heterosexual people’s attitudes about “homosexuals” (i.e., away from a focus only on gayness and Whiteness) and expands to include non-White LGB people’s LGBT attitudes. Overall, results indicate that racial, ethnic, and sexual identities play a significant role in southern college students’ LGBT attitudes, and these patterns are further complicated by interacting cultural experiences with religiosity, patriarchy, and family dynamics. Campus policy and program implications are provided.

Funding

The author would like to acknowledge the University of Oklahoma Department of Sociology for contributing funding toward the data collection for this project.

Notes

¹ Throughout this article when referring to racial and ethnic identities in others’ research, I use the identity terms the authors utilized in their own work. In referring to the current study, I use the identity terms found in the current study’s survey items. This was done because the way identities are labeled affects how findings are interpreted. Thus, using the terms as originally used by the researchers best reflects their findings.

² Historically, this process can be seen in numerous instances, including the aftermath of the 1969 Stonewall uprising, which is often credited as the watershed demonstration that began the U.S. gay liberation movement. Although the uprising was instigated and supported by two trans women of color, Sylvia Rivera and Marsha P. Johnson, these women have been repeatedly erased from discussions about LGBTQ rights. This is likely because Stonewall and its accompanying activism became dominated by White gay cismen starting with the Gay Activists Alliance, while people of color (POC) were relegated to the margins of LGBTQ liberation. Today, we continue to see this type of erasure (Stryker, 2008).

³ According to Pastrana et al. (2017), “‘Latinx’ … is similar to ‘Latino,’ but the ‘x’ erases gender, making the category inclusive of men, women, agendered, trans*, gender-nonconforming, gender-queer, and gender-fluid people” (p. 4).

⁴ According to the U.S. Census Bureau, at the time of data collection the state was 51% female, 74% White, 7% Black or African American, 7% American Indian or Alaskan Native, 2% Asian, Native Hawaiian, or other Pacific Islander, 3% some other race, 8% indicated two or more races, and 9% Hispanic. The university population at the time of data collection was 49% female, 62% White, 5% African American/Black, 5% American Indian/Alaskan Native, 5% Asian/Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander, 5% indicated two or more races, and 7% Hispanic. The remainder include 5% who did not report their racial/ethnic identity and 7% who were classified by the university as “international students.” Over half (54%) of international students were from Asia, with the majority (56%) of these students being from China. Notably, the university population is composed of approximately 2% less African American/Black, Native American/Alaskan Native, and Hispanic students but about 3% more Asian/Pacific Islander students than the statewide population.

⁵ Notably, the sample was composed of approximately 3% less African American/Black and Native American/Alaskan Native students and 1% fewer Hispanic/Latinx students but 5% more Asian American/Pacific Islander students than the statewide population. The sample was very similar to the university population, varying by only about 1% for all racial and ethnic groups, except there were 2% more Asian American/Pacific Islander students in the sample.

⁶ Building from the one-drop theory of race (e.g., Davis, 1991); Anderson (2008) defined a “one-time rule of homosexuality,” whereby a single same-sex sexual experience is equated with a gay identity for men. This might be especially salient for African American/Black men due to their sociohistorical experiences with the one-drop theory of race coupled with heteromasculine norms in African American/Black communities.

⁷ Indeed, there was one significant effect for heterosexuals indicating “other race.” The interaction effect of “other race” and parent disapproval of homosexuality was related to negativity toward lesbian women in Model 3. Although the racial identities of these individuals is unknown, it is important to note there are significant cultural dynamics within racial and ethnic groups not identified in the current study that deserve further attention. For example, biracial/multiracial students (who may be more likely to self-identify as “other race”; Renn, 2004) have been found to be less biased toward bisexual men and women when compared to Black and Hispanic college students (Friedman et al., 2014).

Additional information

Funding

The author would like to acknowledge the University of Oklahoma Department of Sociology for contributing funding toward the data collection for this project