Violence against Queer People

Doug Meyer

• Publisher: Rutgers University Press
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9780813573175
• Topic: Ciencias sociales
• Subtopic: Estudios LGBT

Violence against lesbians and gay men has increasingly captured media and scholarly attention. But these reports tend to focus on one segment of the LGBT community—white, middle class men—and largely ignore that part of the community that arguably suffers a larger share of the violence—racial minorities, the poor, and women. In  Violence against Queer People, sociologist Doug Meyer offers the first investigation of anti-queer violence that focuses on the role played by race, class, and gender.
 
Drawing on interviews with forty-seven victims of violence, Meyer shows that LGBT people encounter significantly different forms of violence—and perceive that violence quite differently—based on their race, class, and gender.  His research highlights the extent to which other forms of discrimination—including racism and sexism—shape LGBT people’s experience of abuse. He reports, for instance, that lesbian and transgender women often described violent incidents in which a sexual or a misogynistic component was introduced, and that LGBT people of color sometimes weren’t sure if anti-queer violence was based solely on their sexuality or whether racism or sexism had also played a role. Meyer observes that given the many differences in how anti-queer violence is experienced, the present media focus on white, middle-class victims greatly oversimplifies and distorts the nature of anti-queer violence. In fact, attempts to reduce anti-queer violence that ignore race, class, and gender run the risk of helping only the most privileged gay subjects. Many feel that the struggle for gay rights has largely been accomplished and the tide of history has swung in favor of LGBT equality. Violence against Queer People, on the contrary, argues that the lives of many LGBT people—particularly the most vulnerable—have improved very little, if at all, over the past thirty years.
 

1

Introduction

Social Inequality and Violence against LGBT People

On a hot summer day in 2006, Latoya, a fifty-year-old Black lesbian, was holding hands with her girlfriend on the streets of New York City.1 As the lesbian couple walked and held hands, a man began whistling at them. When the couple ignored him, he approached Latoya’s girlfriend, Brianna, a Black woman Latoya described as “very girly.” The man, whom Latoya described as Black and heterosexual, then asked Brianna for her phone number because he “wanted to get in on that.” As he insisted, repeating “come on” several times, Latoya stepped between Brianna and the man and said, “Listen, she’s not interested, she’s with me.” He then became agitated and grabbed Brianna’s arm; this action caused Latoya to pull on the man’s shirt and insist, “Let her go.” He grasped Brianna’s arm tighter, causing her to scream in pain, but then he let go as Latoya yelled louder. As Brianna fell backward onto the ground, the man motioned toward Latoya as if he was going to hit her, but instead said that she should “take that white shit home” and nodded toward Brianna, saying, “You know that she just needed a dick.” Latoya laughed and said that “no woman would touch” him because he was “disgusting.” This comment prompted the man to punch Latoya’s arm and refer to her as a “dumb bitch.” As Brianna checked to see if her girlfriend was hurt, the man left the area.

Kevin, a sixty-two-year-old Black gay man, also experienced violence related to his sexuality. While in his forties, Kevin was approached after leaving a department store by two white male police officers who said that they had a report of someone who “matched his description” stealing something from the store. Kevin had not stolen anything—the officers did not find any merchandise on him—but he had some crack cocaine in his pockets, which resulted in him being arrested. At the police station, one of the police officers questioned Kevin in an interrogation room. Initially, Kevin said that the officer was trying to learn about his drug supplier, but then the questions turned to Kevin’s gender performance, as the policeman asked, “Why do you talk like that?” and “Why do you act like that?” Kevin said that he “wanted to go all ballistic,” but just kept “sitting there laughing.” The officer elevated his insults to the point of asking Kevin if he was “one of those faggots who liked to take it up the ass.” When Kevin said, “Wouldn’t you like to know?” the officer rose from his chair and slammed Kevin’s head into the table. The policeman then pushed over Kevin’s chair, causing him to fall backward onto his wrists, which were handcuffed together. Kevin spent the night in jail with what he thought was a broken nose and broken wrist. When receiving medical care three days later, he learned that his wrist was indeed fractured. He did not report the police officer’s violence to anyone, believing that his version of the events would not be believed and fearing that he would then experience more police violence during his time in jail.

Latoya’s and Kevin’s experiences reveal that some forms of violence occur because of prejudice and discrimination against lesbians and gay men—often referred to as “homophobia.” Indeed, it is possible—likely, even—that Latoya and Kevin would not have experienced violence had they been heterosexual. The man in the first incident became upset when a lesbian woman said that her girlfriend was not interested in him, while the police officer in the second incident used homophobic language to insult Kevin, referring to him as “one of those faggots who liked to take it up the ass.” Moreover, both Latoya and Kevin viewed the men as homophobic—as “having issues with gay people,” as Kevin described it. At the same time, Latoya’s and Kevin’s violent experiences were also considerably more complex than simply reflecting homophobia. In particular, racism and sexism were deeply implicated in their experiences. Sexism structured Latoya’s experience: gender norms in the United States permit men to approach and sexualize women in public space, and the man’s reference to Latoya as a “dumb bitch” reflects misogyny—hatred of women. Reversing the gender identities of the people involved demonstrates the role of gender: imagine a heterosexual woman approaching two gay men and insisting that one of the gay men give the woman his phone number. In the United States, that interaction seems very unlikely to occur, even though it is exactly what happened between the man and this lesbian couple. Further, racism likely played a role in Kevin’s experience, as Black men face the unwarranted suspicion of theft to a much greater extent than white men. The suggestion that he “fit a description” is racially coded—a statement a white LGBT person would be unlikely to hear and an indication that Kevin was approached by the police officers largely because of his race. Kevin’s racial identity, then, set the stage for the entire encounter. He likely never would have been arrested or ended up at the police station if he had been white. In this sense, racism and sexism make some forms of antigay violence possible.

This book focuses on incidents such as those experienced by Latoya and Kevin, which are based on interviews conducted with forty-seven people who encountered violence for being perceived as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT). Although most emphasis on anti-LGBT, or anti-queer, violence has focused on homophobia, many LGBT people confront violence based on other aspects of their identity, including race, class, and gender.2 Homophobia certainly plays a role in many forms of anti-queer violence, yet other dimensions of inequality are often equally significant. Many lesbians experienced forms of rape and sexual assault—violence undoubtedly shaped by their status as women in a male-dominated society. Moreover, lesbians were frequently called misogynistic insults such as “bitch” or “whore”—in fact, more lesbian respondents described being called these insults than homophobic ones such as “dyke”—and lesbians frequently spoke about violence as violating their sense of safety as women. Thus, given that sexism and misogyny are essential to many forms of antilesbian violence, homophobia offers an incomplete picture of lesbians’ violent experiences (Denissen and Saguy 2014; Perry 2001). Further, for many LGBT people of color, racism was as important as homophobia in shaping their violent experiences. To focus only on homophobia would obscure the racial dynamics of anti-queer violence; police violence against Black LGBT people cannot be understood solely through the lens of homophobia, since racism undoubtedly plays a role.

Although Violence against Queer People focuses on LGBT people, this book is written for readers hoping to learn about inequality based on race, class, gender, and sexuality. The overlap, or intersection, of these institutional power structures is especially important to consider. What are we to make of Latoya’s experience of being told to “take that white shit home” by a Black heterosexual man? These ideas stem from the association of homosexuality with whiteness. This association, however, can only be understood by examining the overlap of race and sexuality. Examining race on its own or sexuality by itself would prove insufficient—both need to be examined at the same time. I emphasize these intersections throughout this text, as I show that racism, sexism, and social class inequality continue to affect what individuals encounter in their daily lives, including forms of violence. In this regard, social inequality remains deeply embedded in the United States, as one’s social position—one’s location in society with regard to institutional power structures—shapes one’s life experiences. My social position, for instance, as a white and middle-class gay man affects what I encounter in my life, and these experiences are different from what other social groups face. Undoubtedly, one’s social position has a profound effect on a wide range of phenomena, including where one grows up, how likely one is to attend college, and whether one encounters violence (Jones 2010; Lareau 2003). Indeed, one of the main ideas of this book is that race, class, and gender profoundly affect individuals’ experiences and perceptions of violence. As such, I emphasize that the opportunities granted to LGBT people differ in significant ways based on where they are located in society and, more broadly, that racism, sexism, and homophobia continue to play an important role in the United States, as individuals encounter different experiences depending on their social position.

The Privileging of White and Middle-Class Gay Men’s Violent Experiences

Evidence suggests that gay men experience higher rates of physical violence than lesbian and bisexual people, yet rates of violence do not explain which LGBT people’s violent experiences have been emphasized (Ahmed and Jindasurat 2014; Herek 2009). Instead, power relations—the privileging of some groups over others—are considerably more important. To be sure, although significant evidence indicates that transgender people experience higher rates of violence than lesbians and gay men, much more attention has focused on homophobic violence.3 Moreover, as little emphasis has been placed on homeless LGBT people—who undoubtedly experience higher rates of violence than many other queer people—the frequency of anti-LGBT attacks explains relatively little about whose experiences have been emphasized (Gibson 2011). Rather, some LGBT people’s experiences—primarily those who are white, male, and middle class—have been emphasized more than others because these identities remain the most privileged in LGBT communities. The most privileged LGBT people have been favored by traditional understandings of anti-queer violence, while marginalized LGBT people, many of whom experience violence at higher rates, have been excluded. This trend, of course, reflects the privilege granted to white and middle-class men’s experiences in the dominant U.S. society, as whiteness, maleness, and middle-class positions are privileged throughout the United States. Thus, LGBT communities are not unique in privileging white and middle-class men, but reflect the norms of mainstream U.S. society.

While Violence against Queer People highlights the experiences of LGBT people marginalized in multiple ways, white and middle-class gay men’s experiences have figured most prominently in traditional understandings of anti-queer violence. Indeed, ideas about homophobic hate crime—that is, violence motivated by bias or hate—associate victims with white and middle-class gay men. The case of Matthew Shepard, the most famous and well-known antigay hate crime, occurred in 1998 and involved the brutal murder of a white and gay male college student. This case reflects the privileging of white and middle-class gay men’s experiences, as a Black transgender woman murdered several weeks prior to him received no comparable media attention (Spade and Willse 2000). More recent mainstream media representations have continued to position white and middle-class gay men as the victims of antigay bullying. Even though some media coverage has focused on gay teens of color such as Carl Joseph Walker Hoover, lesbian and transgender people have rarely featured in these media representations. The most high-profile victims of antigay bullying, including Tyler Clementi, have been gay men, who are often white and middle class as well, and fictional representations, including on the TV show Glee, have also focused largely on white gay men. This emphasis does not reflect the frequency with which LGBT people encounter violence, as considerable evidence indicates that white and middle-class gay men experience violence at lower rates than transgender people and low-income gay men (Ahmed and Jindasurat 2014; Kosciw et al. 2012; Stotzer 2008, 2009).

White and middle-class gay men certainly experience homophobia; my point is not to deny this reality. Nevertheless, traditional understandings of anti-queer violence have privileged this group’s experiences by viewing anti-queer violence as resulting from homophobia. According to this line of thinking, anti-queer violence occurs because the perpetrator “hates” lesbians or gay men. This perspective serves the interests of white, middle-class gay men, whose violent experiences occur largely because of homophobia and do not typically experience racist, sexist, or classist violence. For less privileged queer people, forms of inequality other than discrimination based on sexuality and gender identity are equally important, as their violent experiences are frequently implicated in more than homophobia.

Although white and middle-class gay men’s violent experiences have undoubtedly been privileged, a very particular formulation of their experiences has been advanced. Matthew Shepard, for example, was HIV positive at the time of his murder, yet many individuals remain unaware of this aspect of the attack because it went largely unreported (Loffreda 2000). Most likely, this detail has not been widely reported because it complicates his status as an ideal gay subject. In this sense, stigmatized aspects of LGBT people such as being HIV positive are frequently hidden from public view, while normative aspects such as being white, male, and middle class become part of the representation. When many people think of Matthew Shepard, they think of a white gay man, not an HIV-positive white gay man. Thus, representations of LGBT people do not simply focus on a particular type of victim—usually male, white, and middle class—but omit aspects considered less than ideal, such as being HIV positive, from the representation. Unfortunately, these depictions create types of violence that are viewed as the most worrisome and create categories of victims that are viewed as the most legitimate. Consequently, individuals with less privileged identities—poor, transgender, Black and Latino, and gender-nonconforming people—are less likely to be viewed as “real” victims, given that their experiences and identities do not align with the traditional representation.

Through informal discussions with other LGBT people, I have heard others defend this emphasis on the violent experiences of white and middle-class gay men by arguing that it is beneficial to show that even the most privileged LGBT people experience homophobic violence. According to this perspective, focusing on the most privileged LGBT people sells the seriousness of anti-queer violence to mainstream society; that is, homophobic abuse is clearly a widespread problem because even the most privileged gay subjects experience it. Presumably, if white and middle-class gay men such as Matthew Shepard experience violence, one can only imagine what is happening to less normative LGBT people. The problem with this approach is that it produces gains for a relatively small segment of LGBT people. This approach challenges homophobia, while privileging other characteristics—whiteness and maleness—that are already privileged. As a result, by emphasizing the experiences of white and middle-class gay men, dominant U.S. race, class, and gender norms remain in place. Whiteness, maleness, and middle-class respectability are still positioned as ideal.

I am critical of approaches that privilege white and middle-class gay men’s experiences, yet in many ways I embody, as a blue-eyed, white gay man in his thirties, the very identity so frequently privileged in LGBT communities. Consequently, even though I experience homophobia that white and middle-class heterosexual men do not confront, I remain privileged in comparison to many other LGBT people. It is my hope that by reading this text other LGBT people, as well as more general readers interested in social inequality, will think about their own privileges and work to challenge multiple forms of discrimination, not simply the one that affects them the most. Black and Latina lesbians have been calling for greater attention to inequality within LGBT communities for quite some time now (Hull, Bell-Scott, and Smith 1982; Lorde 1984; Moraga and Anzaldúa 1983); it would be ridiculous if these calls were only paid attention to now that a comparatively privileged white gay man such as myself has started making them. At the same time, Violence against Queer People should be viewed as contributing to this scholarship calling for more serious consideration of racism, classism, and sexism within LGBT communities (Carbado 2013; Hanhardt 2013; Moore 2011; Ward 2008). If advocacy and scholarly work hopes to benefit LGBT people in the broadest sense possible—not simply promoting lesbians and gay men who are already the most privileged in queer communities—then we must push beyond frameworks that focus solely on homophobia and instead emphasize the experiences of queer people who are marginalized in multiple ways.

While sexism, racism, and social class inequality continue to shape individuals’ life experiences, sociologists have described the appeal of colorblindness, in which individuals are discouraged from pointing out differences in opportunity based on race (Bonilla-Silva 2006; Gallagher 2003; Steinbugler 2012). This tendency to ignore racial differences remains widespread, even though racial disparities continue to exist in nearly every arena of American society, from health and education to job opportunities and treatment in the criminal justice system (Alexander 2010; Bonilla-Silva 2006). I argue that a similar process is happening with regard to sexuality—the rise of sexuality blindness—in which it is becoming increasingly frowned upon to point to unequal conditions based on sexual orientation. According to this line of thought, the struggle for gay rights has largely been accomplished and the tide of history has swung in favor of LGBT equality. I argue, in contrast, that the lives of many LGBT people—particularly those of the most vulnerable—have improved very little, if at all, over the past thirty years and that research can dispel these myths of equality by focusing on the lives of the most marginalized LGBT people. Although it has become less acceptable to express homophobia publicly, the larger structures of society continue to privilege heterosexuality. Thus, conditions have undoubtedly improved for LGBT people who benefit from the decline of public homophobia, but for LGBT people who must also concern themselves with racism, classism, and sexism it is much more debatable as to whether challenges to homophobia have substantially improved their lives.

At times, challenges to homophobia have reinforced racism and classism. Under these frameworks, discrimination against LGBT people has been characterized in negative terms because it is practiced by marginalized race and social class groups; that is, homophobia is bad because “certain groups” engage in it. These groups, not coincidentally, are often already marginalized by mainstream society: antigay prejudice and discrimination has been attached disproportionately to low-income heterosexual people and to Black, Latino, and Muslim Americans.4 Such strategies, while challenging homophobia, reinforce racism, classism, and Islamophobia. Although challenging homophobia while simultaneously reinforcing these other forms of inequality may benefit white and middle-class gay men, it does not help—and typically hurts—Black, Muslim, and Latino LGBT people. Homophobia certainly should be opposed, but doing so at the expense of marginalized race and social class groups is not helpful in combating inequality.

The point is not simply to include more low-income people of color into existing narratives but to pay attention to how race, class, and gender are already built into common sense understandings of anti-queer violence. When hearing of homophobic violence, most people probably think of street violence or bullying in schools. The victim that comes to mind is frequently a white and middle-class gay man. Yet the perpetrator is often raced and classed in problematic ways as well. In particular, ideas about homophobic violence typically focus on public attacks perpetrated by strangers. Hate crime, especially, calls forth notions of “stranger danger,” in which an implicitly innocent person is suddenly and randomly attacked by a highly prejudiced, out-of-control stranger. Hate crime is thought to occur because the perpetrator “hates” the victim’s social group. Race and social class are fundamental to these ideas: the victim, merely going about his or her business, has “not done anything wrong,” and is therefore associated with an innocent, implicitly middle-class white person, while the perpetrator is supposedly prejudiced, disruptive, and disorderly. Since low-income people of color, particularly poor Black men, have routinely been constructed as unruly and out-of-control throughout U.S. history, hate crime discourse reproduces problematic race and social class politics (Collins 2000; Hanhardt 2013; Mogul, Ritchie, and Whitlock 2011).

Focusing on LGBT people of color’s experiences of hate crime will not help to alleviate these concerns, as any discourse that emphasizes the wild, irrational, or demented aspects of the perpetrator will inevitably reinforce existing social hierarchies by encouraging the punishment of poor Black and Latino people (Alexander 2010; McCorkel 2013; Rios 2011). The bodies of Black men in particular have been pathologized as “naturally violent,” and hate crime discourse relies on classist and racist ideas of an excessively violent perpetrator to gain its meaning (Hanhardt 2013; Richardson and May 1999; Tomsen 2006). In this regard, traditional understandings of anti-quee...