Content uploaded by Gary Harper
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gary Harper on Mar 30, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
P1: GMX
American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp] pp860-ajcp-465916 May 12, 2003 15:47 Style file version May 31, 2002
American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 31, Nos. 3/4, June 2003 ( C
°2003)
Oppression and Discrimination Among
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered People
and Communities: A Challenge for Community Psychology
Gary W. Harper1,3 and Margaret Schneider2
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) people continue to experience various
forms of oppression and discrimination in North America and throughout the world, despite
the social, legal, and political advances that have been launched in an attempt to grant LGBT
people basic human rights. Even though LGBT people and communities have been actively
engaged in community organizing and social action efforts since the early twentieth century,
research on LGBT issues has been, for the most part, conspicuously absent within the very
field of psychology that is explicitly focused on community research and action—Community
Psychology. The psychological and social impact of oppression, rejection, discrimination, ha-
rassment, and violence on LGBT people is reviewed, and recent advances in the areas of
LGBT health, public policy, and research are detailed. Recent advances within the field of
Community Psychology with regard to LGBT research and action are highlighted, and a call
to action is offered to integrate the knowledge and skills within LGBT communities with
Community Psychology’s models of intervention, prevention, and social change in order to
build better theory and intervention for LGBT people and communities.
KEY WORDS: lesbian; gay; community psychology; oppression; discrimination.
INTRODUCTION
The gay and lesbian liberation movement (later
to be joined by bisexual and transgendered people)
is one of the significant social forces that has changed
the face of culture in North America, and throughout
the Western world, during the last several decades.
It has been an extraordinary movement, in that in-
dividuals who had historically been profoundly iso-
lated from their traditional sources of social support
(e.g., their families, friends, ethnocultural communi-
ties) because of their sexual orientation, forged com-
munities in which they could find acceptance, under-
standing, and a sense of belonging. The mobilization
1Department of Psychology, DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois.
2University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
3To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department
of Psychology, DePaul University, 2219 N. Kenmore Avenue,
Chicago, Illinois 60614; e-mail: gharper@depaul.edu.
of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT)
people has resulted in a proliferation of local, re-
gional, national, and international organizations and
agencies that have worked to improve the general
health and well-being of LGBT people. It has also
led to the creation of geographic communities and
neighborhoods where LGBT people can live and in-
teract without the immediate threat of persecution
and discrimination.
Since the beginning of the twentieth century gay
and lesbian communities, particularly in large urban
areas, not only have provided a safe haven for many
LGBT people, but also have served as a source for
needed LGBT resources, a focal point for socializ-
ing, and more recently, the heart of activism that
has resulted in many gains in the area of human
rights for LGBT people (Howe, 2001; Rosenthal,
1996; Woolwine, 2000). Increasing numbers of LGBT
people are becoming actively involved in sociopoliti-
cal movements and institutions, and as society begins
243 0091-0562/03/0600-0243/0 C
°2003 Plenum Publishing Corporation
P1: GMX
American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp] pp860-ajcp-465916 May 12, 2003 15:47 Style file version May 31, 2002
244 Harper and Schneider
to recognize and address the pervasive and myriad
forms of LGBT-related oppression and discrimina-
tion, the heretofore “hidden” or “silent” voices of
LGBT people and communities are being heard. In
fact, LGBT communities have been exemplars of the
way in which stigmatized and oppressed people can
work together toward multiple levels of empower-
ment. For example, even prior to the Stonewall riot
in New York in 1969, which is recognized as the be-
ginning of the modern gay rights movement, gay men
and lesbian women were engaged in a variety of com-
munity organizing and mobilizing efforts on social, or-
ganizational, and political fronts (Poindexter, 1997).
In fact, formal gay and lesbian organizations such as
the Mattachine Society, Daughters of Bilitis and ONE
existed early in the twentieth century, and the first for-
mally organized gay civil rights group in the United
States, the Society for Human Rights, was formed in
1924 in Chicago (Nardi, Sanders, & Marmor, 1994;
Poindexter, 1997). These early organizations served
as venues for affiliation and community organizing
around issues of oppression, harassment, politics, and
legal discrimination.
Despite this longstanding history of organized
community mobilization and social action that took
place amidst hostility and persecution, research on
LGBT issues has been, for the most part, conspic-
uously absent within the very field of psychology
that is explicitly focused on community research and
action—Community Psychology. This special issue
of the American Journal of Community Psychology
brings to Community Psychology a clearer voice and
a greater focus on LGBT communities. Our goal is
to link theory and research with practice in a way
that allows the reader to (a) understand the practi-
cal applications of theoretical and empirical research
to LGBT4issues including intervention, prevention,
community building, and policy development, and
(b) appreciate the ways in which community-based
work with these populations exemplifies the princi-
ples and theories of Community Psychology.
This special issue is a tribute to all of the lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgendered people who have sur-
vived, as well as those who have fallen victim to, the
4Originally we sought to include articles on all aspects of the
LGBT community—lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgen-
dered people—but we were unable to solicit any appropriate ar-
ticles that dealt specifically with the transgendered community.
Thus, throughout this article, the acronym “LGBT” will be used
when referring to the global LGBT movement and the acronym
“LGB” will be used when referring specifically to lesbians, gay
men, and bisexuals.
oppression and discrimination of a largely homopho-
bic and heterosexist society. It is also dedicated to
those who have been allies in the fight against LGBT-
related oppression and discrimination, regardless of
their personal sexual orientation.
LGBT RESEARCH AND COMMUNITY
PSYCHOLOGY
For more than a decade, Community Psychol-
ogists working in the area of LGBT research have
argued for an increased focus on LGBT issues in
community research and action (D’Augelli, 1989a;
Garnets & D’Augelli, 1994; Harper & Schneider,
1999). These authors have attempted to increase
awareness regarding some of the key issues that have
had an impact on LGBT people and communities. In
addition, they have demonstrated the ways in which
various principles central to the field of Commu-
nity Psychology have been, and are currently, utilized
by grassroots organizations and activists within the
LGBT community. An examination of the range of
community mobilization and social action efforts that
have occurred within LGBT communities through-
out history clearly demonstrates that LGBT people
and communities have participated in many of the
same activities as Community Psychologists, including
prevention planning and development, competency
building, community and coalition building, empow-
erment, policy development and change, and activism.
Just as with other numerical minority groups, soci-
etal oppression and discrimination have forced LGBT
people and communities to unite and participate in
these activities as a method of survival. Despite this
rich history of social action and change, Community
Psychology as a discipline has been largely silent on
the topic of LGBT people and communities.
The scarcity of published LGBT-related articles
in the primary Community Psychology journals is an
illustration. A review of articles published in three
major Community Psychology journals (American
Journal of Community Psychology,Journal of Com-
munity Psychology, and Community Mental Health
Journal) between the years of 1965 and 1985 revealed
only four papers across all three journals on LGBT
issues (D’Augelli, 1989a). A more recent review of
articles published in SCRA’s official journal, Amer-
ican Journal of Community Psychology, as well as
Journal of Community Psychology, revealed a dearth
of LGBT-focused publications (Harper & Schneider,
1999). Of the 2,140 articles published in total in these
P1: GMX
American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp] pp860-ajcp-465916 May 12, 2003 15:47 Style file version May 31, 2002
Oppression and Discrimination Among LGBT People and Communities 245
two journals between 1973 and 1998, only 22 (1.0%)
focused on LGBT issues. A majority of these articles
focused exclusively on gay males or a combination
of gay and bisexual males, and none focused on les-
bians, bisexuals, or transgendered people exclusively.
Over half (55%) of the articles included either HIV
or AIDS in the title and had some degree of focus on
either HIV risk/prevention, coping with HIV/AIDS,
or caregiving for someone with AIDS. Thus, not only
do these figures portray a neglect of LGBT issues,
but they also reify a male-centered bias in research
that has been characteristic of psychology in general.
Furthermore, the focus on distress, victimization, and
HIV status reinforces the negative image of LGBT
people by highlighting the weaknesses rather than
strengths in this population (Harper & Schneider,
1999).
In order to determine whether or not these jour-
nals have increased their publication of LGBT-related
articles, another review was conducted of all three
aforementioned journals (i.e., American Journal of
Community Psychology [AJCP],Journal of Com-
munity Psychology [JCP], and Community Mental
Health Journal [CMHJ]) as well as two additional
journals that publish articles related to the field of
Community Psychology (i.e., Journal of Prevention
and Intervention in the Community [JPIC] and Jour-
nal of Primary Prevention [JPP]). The same meth-
ods that were utilized in the prior review by Harper
and Schneider (1999) were implemented, namely
computer searches were conducted on PsychINFO
to determine the number of LGBT-related articles
published in these journals. All volumes of the jour-
nals that were included in the PsychINFO data base
were included in this investigation, and a separate
search was conducted using each of the following key-
words: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsex-
ual, homosexual, queer, and sexual orientation. After
all searches were conducted, duplications of articles
within each journal were deleted so as to determine
the number of unique articles in each journal that
addressed LGBT issues and/or populations. Not all
volumes of JPIC were available on PsychINFO, so
a trained research assistant reviewed copies of all
volumes individually. The entire review included vol-
umes through December 2000.
This review revealed little progress in increas-
ing the number of LGBT-focused articles in these
five Community Psychology journals, with AJCP still
publishing the majority of LGBT articles in the field.
Since D’Augelli’s review in 1989, no further articles on
LGBT-related issues have appeared in CMHJ. Since
Harper’s and Schneider’s 1999 review (which was ac-
tually conducted in 1998), the AJCP published one
article that included a partial focus on a narrative of
lesbian activism, but did not include any other LGBT
focused articles since. A search of all issues of the
JCP revealed that no new articles had been published
on LGBT-related topics since the review in 1998. The
new reviews of both JPIC and JPP revealed a dearth
of articles focused on LGBT-issues and/or people in
these journals. There were no articles found in JPIC
since its inception in 1981 (formerly Prevention in the
Human Services), but the editor did note that there
is a special issue that has been contracted on LGBT-
related issues (all of the volumes in this journal are
special issues). The review of the JPP articles revealed
only three articles on LGBT-focused issues, two of
which were HIV/AIDS focused and one was focused
on the mental health needs of lesbian and gay college
students.
The relative inattention to LGBT issues within
Community Psychology is a loss to the discipline in
that the LGBT population, and its various commu-
nities and subcultures, provide rich untapped settings
in which to conduct research in subject areas relevant
to Community Psychology. The articles in this spe-
cial issue provide intriguing examples of the ways in
which the techniques, principles, and values of Com-
munity Psychology have been implemented within a
range of LGBT communities. They illustrate the di-
versity of Community Psychology approaches that
have been used in various LGBT settings, and with
a range of LGBT populations from young gay and
bisexual men to older lesbian women. These articles
offer valuable information regarding the training of
future Community Psychologists to be more sensitive
to LGBT issues (e.g., Stanley, 2003), and show the
need for improvement in the ways in which we con-
duct research and evaluation with LGBT people and
communities, including the methodologies we use, the
variables and settings we choose to study, the ways in
which we conceptualize our variables of interest, and
the language we use in our research and evaluation
instruments (e.g., Chesir-Teran, 2003; Zea, Reisen, &
Diaz, 2003). The authors who have contributed to this
special issue illustrate how Community Psychologists
can work in collaboration with community members
and community organizations to provide needed pre-
vention services to LGBT populations and to provide
safe havens for community organization efforts (e.g.,
Hays, Rebchook, & Kegeles, 2003; Nystrom & Jones,
2003). They also illustrate the strength and resiliency
demonstrated by LGBT people in the face of major
P1: GMX
American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp] pp860-ajcp-465916 May 12, 2003 15:47 Style file version May 31, 2002
246 Harper and Schneider
societal homophobic attacks, and the ways in which
innovative community research can open our eyes to
new ways of viewing social issues and serve as a form
of empowerment for groups of LGBT people whose
voices have traditionally not been heard (e.g., Ristock,
2003; Russell & Richards, 2003).
In an attempt to offer a context for better under-
standing the significance of the articles in this issue,
we offer an overview of the role of oppression and
discrimination in the lives of LGBT people, and dis-
cuss how Community Psychologists can learn from
the ways in which LGBT people and communities
have managed this societal marginalization, and the
ways in which Community Psychologists can assist
in improving social conditions for LGBT people and
communities.
MENTAL HEALTH, SOCIAL JUSTICE,
AND PUBLIC POLICY
Like other marginalized groups, LGBT people
have historically experienced oppression in the form
of harassment and violence; discrimination in areas
such as employment, housing, access to education
and human services; and laws that have either ac-
tively discriminated against them or failed to protect
their basic human rights. These often daily affronts to
the lives of LGBT adolescents and adults have been
well documented (e.g., D’Augelli, 1989b; D’Augelli
& Hershberger, 1993; Garnets, Herek, & Levy, 1990;
Rosario, Rotheram-Borus, & Reid, 1996; Schneider,
1991; Travers & Schneider, 1997; Waldo, 1998). This
oppression served its purpose for many years by keep-
ing LGBT people in the closet, invisible. At the same
time, the prevailing images of LGBT people were per-
jorative stereotypes, which fueled homophobia and
heterosexism. Although the tide is slowly changing,
LGBT people still encounter multiple forms of soci-
etal oppression.
The threat of violence is part of the everyday lives
of many LGBT people, especially youth. Rivers and
D’Augelli (2001) document the astounding propor-
tion of LGBT youth who are subject to bullying, ha-
rassment and physical abuse in multiple settings in-
cluding their neighborhood, home, and school; and
from various groups of individuals such as peers, par-
ents, and teachers. Even in the absence of such re-
search, one only needs to read a newspaper or view the
evening television news to see the dramatic nature of
recent acts of hatred against LGBT young people. In
1998, 21-year-old Matthew Shepard, a gay University
of Wyoming student, was a victim of a fatal antigay at-
tack. He was brutally beaten, burned, and then tied to
a fence in a remote area where he remained for over
18 hours in nearly freezing weather and eventually
died. In 1993 Brandon Teena, who was born Teena
Brandon and raised as a girl, was living as a man in
Falls City, Nebraska. When two of Brandon’s male ac-
quaintances learned that he was biologically a female,
they brutally raped him. Brandon reported the rape
to the county sheriff who, instead of protecting him,
told the two rapists that Brandon had reported the
rape. These two men then shot and killed Brandon
Teena.
These atrocious violations of LGBT peoples’ hu-
man rights are not restricted to the United States. In
1999 in New Zealand, two men ages 25 and 27 vi-
ciously assaulted and murdered Jeff Whittington, a
14-year-old male adolescent who was assumed gay
because of his effeminate behavior. After brutally
beating his head, face, and body, the two men jumped
up and down on his head and left him in the middle
of the street and drove off. The boy died from brain
swelling and a perforated bowel. The two men accused
of killing Jeff Whittingtonlaughed about how much he
bled (Public Education Regarding Sexual Orientation
Nationally, 1999). In other countries the sheer vol-
ume of documented cases of anti-LGBT murders each
year is astounding. For example, a recent report from
Brazil demonstrated that in the year 2000, 130 gay
men, lesbians, and transgendered people were mur-
dered throughout Brazil (Mott & Cerqueira, 2001).
In the past decade there have been more than 1,200
antigay murders in Brazil alone (Mott, 1997).
Other forms of discrimination and oppression are
supported by legislation and other legal actions that
explicitly exclude LGBT people from enjoying the
rights and protection afforded most citizens. These
include enacting laws that prohibit same-sex mar-
riages, including same-sex sexual activity in the crimi-
nal code, prohibiting same-sex couples from adopting
children and prohibiting LGBT people from joining
the military. In addition, the failure to include sexual
orientation in human rights legislation leaves the door
open to discrimination on the basis of sexual orienta-
tion, including employers who refuse to hire LGBT
people or who wish to fire LGBT people, landlords
who refuse to rent to LGBT people, and courts which
take sexual orientation into account when deciding
child custody cases.
Oppression, rejection, discrimination, harass-
ment, and violence have been shown to have nega-
tive physical and mental health effects on both LGBT
P1: GMX
American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp] pp860-ajcp-465916 May 12, 2003 15:47 Style file version May 31, 2002
Oppression and Discrimination Among LGBT People and Communities 247
adult and adolescent populations (e.g., D’Augelli,
1993; D’Augelli & Hershberger, 1993; Garnets et al.,
1990; Meyer, 1995; Rosario et al., 1996; Waldo,
Hesson-McInnis, & D’Augelli, 1998). These are pri-
mary societal stressors that many LGBT people ex-
perience throughout their lives (Garnets et al., 1990),
and as a result, like other stigmatized minority groups,
LGBT people experience “minority stress” (Meyer,
1995). A study involving gay men has clearly linked
internalized homophobia, stigma (i.e., expectations
of rejection and discrimination), and actual experi-
ences of antigay violence and discrimination to nega-
tive mental health outcomes (Meyer, 1995).
Minority stress has particular manifestations for
LGBT people who cope with pervasive oppres-
sion, discrimination, and marginalization by remain-
ing closeted. But unlike other marginalized groups,
LGBT people often cannot find support in their fam-
ily and community of origin. While the “closet” is safe
it has its own problems—the increased stress of hiding.
Hiding means that ordinary daily interactions become
minefields; it requires constant vigilance to avoid
mentioning partners, same-gender attractions or dat-
ing experiences, as well as other activities that involve
a LGBT community. As a consequence, LGBT people
in the closet may appear to their friends, coworkers,
acquaintances, and family to be withdrawn and in-
sular. Studies have demonstrated that LGBT people
who are closeted are more likely than openly LGBT
people to experience symptoms of stress (Brooks,
1981).
However, the decision to be “out” to others is
also a problematic option, particularly for youth who
may fear expulsion from their home if parents be-
come aware of their sexual orientation, and who may
lack a supportive network of peers and/or mentors to
buffer the difficulties of juggling adolescent develop-
ment and LGBT victimization (Travers & Schneider,
1997). It becomes particularly difficult when individ-
uals are out in some aspects of their lives, but not in
others, creating a double life and identity. Managing
a double identity can become a preoccupation, and
some people report finding it so stressful that they be-
come introverted and lose their spontaneity for fear
of slipping and inadvertently revealing their sexual
orientation.
Society’s reaction to LGBT individuals varies
greatly depending on a range of factors such as gen-
der, ethnicity, age, and outward mannerisms and phys-
ical behaviors. In addition, LGBT peoples’ reaction
to stigmatization and minority stress may differ de-
pending on their identification with other numerical
majority or minority groups. Thus, it is important to
keep in mind that the category of “LGBT” includes
both a range of different types of sexual minority indi-
viduals (i.e., lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender),
and that within each of these categories there are a
diverse array of individuals who are also members of
other oppressed or marginalized groups with varying
levels of social power and influence (e.g., women, peo-
ple of color, people living with chronic illness, people
with disabilities). Even when people share member-
ship in some of these multiple identity groups, each
individual will have his/her own unique set of reac-
tions and experiences (Greene, 2000).
The “double” or “triple” minority status that
some LGBT people experience may increase their dif-
ficulties, both in terms of how society treats them, and
in terms of how they juggle the sometimes conflict-
ual nature of membership in these multiple identity
groups. Some ethnic-minority LGBT individuals even
feel that they must chose between being LGBT and
being a member of their own ethnic/racial group—
a belief that is reinforced by those within their eth-
nic/racial group who view a LGBT identification as a
rejection of “ethnic culture” and an assimilation into
“White culture” (Harper, Contreras, Correa, & Clack,
1999). Identity as a LGBT person also may change de-
pending on the cultural context, as illustrated by the
finding that some Latino men identify as “gay” when
they are in the context of a gay bar, but not when they
are with their families (Zea, Reisen, & Diaz, 2003).
Issues of power may further complicate the picture,
as switching or concealing LGBT and other identities
may result in varying levels of social power and op-
portunities for one’s individual or collective voice to
be heard.
There is little doubt that we are at a turning
point in Western society. LGBT people are enjoying
more visibility and acceptance than ever before
and slowly, discriminatory laws are being replaced
by human rights protections. But the day-to-day
lives of LGBT people are often punctuated with
both blatant and subtle reminders of the prejudice
that still exists. And if there is any doubt, the
vehemently anti-LGBT rhetoric of individuals and
organizations such as Laura Schlessinger, Paul
Cameron, and the Traditional Values Coalition,
which is broadcasted on a daily basis through
various media/communication sources (http://
www.drlaura.com;http://www.familyresearchinst.org;
http://hispowerportal.com/work/tvc) and is taken
seriously by a significant portion of the population,
will drive the point home.
P1: GMX
American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp] pp860-ajcp-465916 May 12, 2003 15:47 Style file version May 31, 2002
248 Harper and Schneider
Yet, while minority stress, as well as its impact
and the buffers against it, is of interest to Commu-
nity Psychologists, increasingly there is a call for fo-
cus on the positive aspects of LGBT life. Researchers
are looking at resiliency in the LGBT population,
rather than coping, and are turning to the richness of
LGBT communities as models of support and com-
munity building—all fertile ground for Community
Psychologists.
RECENT ADVANCES IN LGBT HEALTH,
PUBLIC POLICY, AND RESEARCH
Since the end of World War II, scientific interest
in sexual orientation has gone through several stages.
Early research focused on whether or not being gay
or lesbian constituted a mental illness. That body of
research culminated in the removal of homosexuality
from the American Psychiatric Association’s Diag-
nostic and Statistical Manual in 1973 (Bayer, 1981).
A second wave of research focused on the lesbian
and gay experience, while an awareness of bisexu-
ality emerged even later. It was not until 1990 that
both the first National Bisexual Conference was held
in San Francisco, and the first national bisexual quar-
terly magazine (“Anything That Moves: Beyond The
Myths Of Bisexuality”) was published by The Bay
Area Bisexual Network (http://www.bisexual.org).
The second wave of research with lesbian, gay,
and bisexual individuals (LGB) revealed information
about the coming-out process, about the effects of dis-
crimination and violence on LGB people, and about
the lives of LGB people in their various roles as fam-
ily members, partners, parents, members of the work
force, and citizens. This research richly illuminated
what it is like to be LGB, but has sometimes been
criticized for focusing predominately on the negative
aspects of the LGB experience rather than on the
strengths and resiliencies of LGB people. The AIDS
epidemic fostered a new wave of research beginning
in the 1980s that ultimately resulted in a greater focus
on the strengths of LGB communities and the way in
which those strengths could be harnessed for treat-
ment, management, and prevention of HIV/AIDS.
For better or for worse, it also focused more attention
on the LGB population as underserved and under-
studied, a point that LGB activists began to empha-
size. Much of this work has not explored these issues
with transgendered individuals.
Most recently, research and action related to
transgendered individuals are beginning to emerge.
Although some research was conducted on transgen-
derism in the early 1900s (referred to by Magnus
Hirschfeld as transvestisim and, later, transexualism),
subsequent early work lacked a solid basis in re-
search, consisting mostly of case studies conducted by
psychiatrists with a Freudian perspective (Bullough,
2000; Pfaefflin, 1997). Current work on transgen-
der issues echoes the early wave of gay and les-
bian research, which focused on the question of
psychopathology. Some authors are challenging the
inclusion of transvestic fetishism and gender identity
disorder as psychiatric disorders in the current DSM-
IV (e.g., Gainor, 2000), but there is a paucity of re-
search in this area to support the challenge.
In the context of a growing interest in health pro-
motion among helping professionals, there has been
increasing recognition of the unique issues that con-
front LGBT people in the area of health. In the United
States, these changes have come about through the
united efforts of LGBT activists, community mem-
bers, researchers, the American Psychological Asso-
ciation, and clinicians from various disciplines who
have provided federal public health officials with doc-
umentation regarding the need for an increased fo-
cus on the health-related needs of these populations.
Because of these united voices, on May 21, 2001,
the National Institutes of Health (NIH) released a
program announcement (PA-01-096) calling for re-
search on LGBT health. Three institutes within NIH
(i.e., National Institute on Mental Health [NIMH],
National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA], and Na-
tional Institute on Child Health and Human Devel-
opment [NICHD]) invited submissions of grant ap-
plications for behavioral, social, mental health, and
substance abuse research with lesbian, gay, bisex-
ual, transgendered, and related populations. This is
the first time that NIH has released a program an-
nouncement specifically focused on LGBT health is-
sues. These grants will provide needed funds to more
systematically investigate the unique factors that dif-
ferentially have an impact upon LGBT people. Fur-
thermore, they offer overt legitimization of LGBT
research by virtue of the commitment of the federal
government to secure funds specifically for these pop-
ulations.
Another major milestone in the national recog-
nition of the health issues of LGBT people is the re-
cent publication of the Healthy People 2010 Com-
panion Document for LGBT people. Every 10 years
a new Healthy People report is published by the
US federal government in order to set guidelines
and objectives for federal public health issues in the
P1: GMX
American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp] pp860-ajcp-465916 May 12, 2003 15:47 Style file version May 31, 2002
Oppression and Discrimination Among LGBT People and Communities 249
preceding 10 years. This is the first time that the U.S.
Healthy People public health agenda has ever in-
cluded a separate document that includes a compre-
hensive look at the unique needs of LGBT people.
The document includes approximately 120 objec-
tives and 12 focus areas that cover a range of pub-
lic health issues including mental health, substance
use, HIV and other infectious diseases, injury and
violence prevention, and immunization. In addition,
it includes specific recommendations regarding areas
that have been grossly neglected including improved
access to care for LGBT people, LGBT-specific pre-
ventive medicine initiatives, and cultural competency
for health care providers. The Gay and Lesbian Med-
ical Association coordinated this initiative, with input
from health care consumers, providers, researchers,
educators, government agencies, schools, clinics, ad-
vocates, and health professionals in all settings.
Major advances have also been made in the spe-
cific areas of lesbian health and gay men’s health. In
1999, the Institute of Medicine released the first na-
tional report on lesbian health issues, Lesbian Health:
Current Assessment and Directions for the Future. This
effort began in 1997 and was funded by NIH and the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to assess
the available scientific data on the physical and mental
health of lesbian women and to review the challenges
of conducting research on the health issues specific to
lesbian women (Institute of Medicine, 1999). In addi-
tion, in June 2001 the first National Lesbian Health
Conference was held in San Francisco with support
from the National Institutes of Health. In 1999, the
first Gay Men’s Health Summit was held in Boulder,
Colorado, and addressed diverse issues such as rural
gay men’s health, hepatitis, antigay violence, domestic
violence, and gay men of color. There was a second
Gay Men’s Health Summit in Boulder in 2000, and
there are currently over 15 different local and regional
gay men’s health summits planned.
With regard to legal issues, the United States has
made some important progress during the past several
years. As of October 2001, there were 13 states with
antidiscrimination laws, all of which protect lesbian
and gay employees, and some include additional dis-
crimination protection (Lambda Legal Defense and
Education Fund, 2001a). In addition, several munic-
ipalities across the United States have adopted civil
rights ordinances to cover lesbian women and gay men
in areas such as employment, public accommodations,
housing, credit, union practices, and education.
Although the US Supreme Court has only heard
three cases related to LGBT rights in the past 13 years
(Feldblum, 2001), the weight of their decisions has
had a tremendous impact on the way in which peo-
ple view gay rights. One significant case was the
Supreme Court’s 1996 ruling in Romer v. Evans which
struck down Colorado’s Amendment 2 which would
have removed the possibility that LGBT people
could be protected against discrimination in Colorado
(Feldblum, 2001; Russell & Richards, 2003). Support-
ers of Amendment 2 claimed that LGBT individ-
uals receive “special rights” because they received
discrimination protection under the law, not realiz-
ing that these laws merely allowed for the provision
of “equal treatment,” not “special treatment.” The
Romer v. Evans decision was considered by many to
be a legal victory for LGBT individuals, and some
LGBT civil rights groups such as the Lambda Legal
Defense and Education Fund considered it to be the
most important Supreme Court ruling in the history of
the gay rights movement (Lambda Legal Defense and
Education Fund, 1996). State Supreme Court rulings
have also been viewed as a measure of advances in the
growing recognition of the need to protect the rights
of LGBT people. For example, the Nebraska Supreme
Court recently held a County Sheriff accountable for
his failure to protect Brandon Teena in the case that
was previously discussed, where the sheriff’s failure
to protect Brandon based on his transgendered status
led to his tragic death. This ruling is seen as strength-
ening law enforcement’s duty to protect lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgendered crime victims (Lambda
Legal Defense, 2001b).
Despite the positive advances at the federal and
state Supreme Court levels, moral viewpoints re-
garding the acceptability of same-gender sexual be-
havior still have an impact upon these courts’ deci-
sions (Feldblum, 1999, 2001). For example, the U.S.
Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of the Boy
Scouts of America’s decision to exclude a gay scout-
master based on his sexual orientation in their 2000
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale decision. In this de-
cision the Boy Scouts were allowed to remove James
Dale from their organization to preserve their First
Amendment expressive rights to view “homosexual-
ity” as morally wrong (Feldblum, 2001). The under-
lying message in this decision is that it is logical and
acceptable to view LGBT people as “morally wrong.”
The recent legal and legislative advances in the
United States are paralleled in many other coun-
tries demonstrating a global change in the way that
LGBT people’s human rights are being viewed. For
example, in 1996 the Republic of South Africa of-
ficially adopted a new constitution that guaranteed
P1: GMX
American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp] pp860-ajcp-465916 May 12, 2003 15:47 Style file version May 31, 2002
250 Harper and Schneider
protection for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, mak-
ing it the first country in the world to include such
specific protections for sexual minorities. More re-
cently, the Netherlands and Belgium enacted a bill
that gives same gender couples the right to legally
marry, and provides for all of the same privileges
and conditions as heterosexual marriages including
divorce, and in the Netherlands but not Belgium,
adoption rights. In addition, the United Nation’s High
Commissioner for Human Rights recently moved to
increase their focus on human rights abuse and viola-
tions based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
This is the first time that a non-LGBT specific group
with such international presence and power has stated
publicly that they are going to make LGBT issues a
significant part of their international agenda (Interna-
tional Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission,
2001)
HOW FAR HAS COMMUNITY
PSYCHOLOGY COME?
Community Psychology’s primary professional
organization, the Society for Community Research
and Action (SCRA—Division 27 of the American
Psychological Association), has taken recent steps
in the direction of recognizing the struggles and tri-
umphs of LGBT people, and the need to increase
awareness of the unique issues that confront LGBT
people. In 1998, the SCRA Executive Council ap-
proved a proposal to form a Special Interest Group
(SIG) focused on the concerns of LGBT people. The
interest group was formed to increase recognition
among Community Psychologists of the importance
of issues that confront LGBT people and communi-
ties; to increase awareness of the need for increased
community research and action related to issues that
affect LGBT people and communities; and to serve as
a mechanism for communication, collaboration, and
support among community psychologists who are ei-
ther interested in research/service/policy related to
LGBT people and communities, and/or who identify
as LGBT.
Since its formation, the interest group has stim-
ulated awareness of LGBT issues within the society
and larger professional arenas as evidenced by sev-
eral accomplishments. These include increased num-
bers of presentations at the SCRA biennial confer-
ence as well as other professional meetings, informal
mentoring of LGBT students, publication of a special
issue of The Community Psychologist (official SCRA
newsletter) in Spring 1999 on LGBT community in-
terventions (Harper & Schneider, 1999), a new regu-
lar column in The Community Psychologist on LGBT
issues, appointment of LGBT SIG members to pri-
mary SCRA committees, involvement of SIG mem-
bers in the rewriting of the SCRA mission, inclusion
of sexual orientation on the survey given by the Coun-
cil of Directors of Community Psychology Programs,
and the publication of this special issue of the Ameri-
can Journal of Community Psychology (Schneider &
Harper, 2003). Although, in the past, Community Psy-
chology’s “indifference to lesbian and gay lives [was]
a serious lost opportunity for social action and com-
munity change,” (D’Augelli, 1989, p. 19) in a relatively
short time LGBT issues have established a palpable
presence within the SCRA.
ACTIONS FOR COMMUNITY
PSYCHOLOGISTS
Community Psychology developed as a new field
in 1965 against a backdrop of emerging social move-
ments including those involved with civil rights, fem-
inism, peace, the environment, and a nascent gay
liberation movement. In fact, Dalton, Elias, and
Wandersmann (2001) suggest that these movements
had a strong influence on the development of the field
of Community Psychology. They demonstrated the
importance of the social context of human experience
in understanding human problems, the need to work
for social change, a commitment to working collabo-
ratively, and a respect for diversity. Community Psy-
chologists can learn a great deal by observing how the
basic tenets of the field are operationalized and imple-
mented by activists within various social movements.
At the same time, community-based liberation move-
ments can benefit a great deal from collaboration
with Community Psychologists who often occupy a
“relatively privileged position in social change work”
(Mulvey et al., 2000, p. 893) and are therefore in a
position to conduct research, attract funding, and de-
termine the research questions.
The challenge now is to integrate the knowledge
and skills within LGBT communities with Commu-
nity Psychology’s models of intervention, prevention,
and social change to build better theory and better
interventions. What might those interventions look
like?
To answer that question it is important to rec-
ognize that homophobia and heterosexism are the
root of the problems for LGBT people, and not
P1: GMX
American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp] pp860-ajcp-465916 May 12, 2003 15:47 Style file version May 31, 2002
Oppression and Discrimination Among LGBT People and Communities 251
anything inherent in being a sexual minority. This
understanding is the cornerstone of the development
of a positive LGBT identity. It represents a perspec-
tive transformation that is fundamental to the em-
powerment of LGBT people. What comes with this
perspective is a conspicuous focus on primary pre-
vention aimed at changing society through education
and training. This highly politicized perspective is in-
formed by the best of what has been learned in other
liberation movements such as the second wave of fem-
inism and the civil rights movement in the United
States. Hence, community development, prevention,
and intervention with LGBT communities cannot be
separated from social activism.
Community Psychologists need to join with
LGBT people and communities in a collaborative
manner and work toward sharing our talents to fight
existing oppression and discrimination that LGBT
people must face on a daily basis. As D’Augelli
(1989a) pointed out over a decade ago, Community
Psychologists have been utilizing their talents with
other marginalized populations to do what needs to be
done now with LGBT-related communities, including
“modifying systems for providing help to individuals
and families, working to eliminate sources of insti-
tutional and de facto discrimination, and advocating
for social policy and legal reform” (D’Augelli, 1989a,
p. 20). Even in the absence of support from Com-
munity Psychologists and in reaction to years of op-
pression and discrimination from a heterosexist and
homophobic society, LGBT people and communities
have brought about social change through their com-
munity organizing efforts and grassroots activism. It
is our hope that this special issue will help to bridge
the gap between the community organizing and social
action work conducted by LGBT people and com-
munities, and the field of Community Psychology by
demonstrating the ways in which each entity can learn
from the other. We have a long way to go ...but every
journey begins with a single step.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank the many individuals who
helped to make this special issue a possibility, includ-
ing all of the people who submitted articles for consid-
eration and eventually contributed to the final prod-
uct, the more than 30 people who gave of their time to
review manuscripts, Craig Waldo for his editorial as-
sistance in the initial development of the special issue,
and Tony D’Augelli for serving as our liaison to the
Editorial Board and as our editorial advisor through-
out this process.
REFERENCES
Bayer, R. (1981). Homosexuality and American psychiatry. New
York: Basic Books.
Brooks, V. R. (1981). Minority stress and lesbian women. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books, D. C. Heath and Co.
Bullough, V. L. (2000, July–September). Transgenderism and the
concept of gender. International Journal of Transgenderism,
4(3). http://www.symposion.com/ijt/gilbert/bullough.htm
Chesir-Teran, D. (2003). Conceptualizing and assessing heterosex-
ism in high schools: A setting level approach. American Journal
of Community Psychology,31(3/4), 243–252.
D’Augelli,A. R. (1989a). The development of a helping community
for lesbians and gay men: A case study in community psychol-
ogy. Journal of Community Psychology,17, 18–29.
D’Augelli, A. R. (1989b). Lesbians’ and gay men’s experiences
of discrimination and harassment in a university community.
American Journal of Community Psychology,17(3), 317–321.
D’Augelli, A. R. (1993). Preventing mental health problems among
lesbian and gay college students. The Journal of Primary Pre-
vention,13(4), 245–261.
D’Augelli, A. R., & Hershberger, S. L. (1993). Lesbian, gay, and bi-
sexual youth in community settings: Personal challenges and
mental health problems. American Journal of Community Psy-
chology,21(4), 421–448.
Dalton, J. H., Elias, M. J., & Wandersman, A. (2001). Community
psychology: Linking individuals and communities. Belmont,
CA: Wadswoth/Thomson Learning.
Feldblum, C. (1999). The desexing of gay rights. The Harvard Gay
and Lesbian Review,6(3), 22–25.
Feldblum, C. (2001). Gay rights and the Rehnquist court: A mixed
bag since the heady days of Romer v. Evans. The Gay and
Lesbian Review,8(1), 11–15.
Gainor, K. A. (2000). Including transgender issues in lesbian, gay,
and bisexual psychology: Implications for clinical practice and
training. In B. Greene & G. L. Croom (Eds.), Education, re-
search, and practice in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered
psychology: A resource manual (pp. 131–160). ThousandOaks,
CA: Sage.
Garnets, L. D., & D’Augelli, A. R. (1994). Empowering lesbian
and gay communities: A call for collaboration with commu-
nity psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology,
22(4), 447–470.
Garnets, L. Herek, G. M., & Levy, B. (1990). Violence and victim-
ization of lesbians and gay men: Mental health consequences.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence,5, 366–383.
Greene, B. (2000). Beyond heterosexualism and across the cultural
divide: Developing an inclusive lesbian, gay, and bisexual psy-
chology: A look to the future. In B. Greene & G. L. Croom
(Eds.), Education, research, and practice in lesbian, gay, bi-
sexual and transgendered psychology: A resource manual (pp.
1–45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Harper, G. W., Contreras, R., Correa, C., & Clack, H. L.
(1999, June). Gay/lesbian/bisexual youth of color: Juggling
multiple identities. Paper presented at the biennial meet-
ing of the Society for Community Research and Action,
New Haven, CT.
Harper, G. W., & Schneider, M. (1999). Giving lesbian, gay, bi-
sexual, and transgendered people and communities a voice in
community research and action. The Community Psychologist,
32(2), 41–43.
Hays, R. B., Rebchook, G. M., & Kegeles, S. M. (2003). The
Mpowerment Project: Community-building with young gay
P1: GMX
American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp] pp860-ajcp-465916 May 12, 2003 15:47 Style file version May 31, 2002
252 Harper and Schneider
and bisexual men to prevent HIV. American Journal of Com-
munity Psychology,31(3/4), 243–252.
Howe, A. C. (2001). Queer pilgrimage: The San Francisco home-
land and identity tourism. Cultural Anthropology,16(1), 35–
61.
Institute of Medicine. (1999). Lesbian health: Current assess-
ment and directions for the future. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission.
(2001, June). Historic progress! UN officials move to ad-
dress human rights violations based on sexual orientation,
gender identity. Retrieved from http://www.iglhrc.org/world/
us canada/UnitedStates2001June.html
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. (1996, May). State-
ment of Lambda Staff Attorney Suzanne B. Goldberg on
U.S. Supreme Court’s striking down Colorado’s Amendment
2. Retrieved from http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/
documents/record?record=70
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. (2001a, October).
Summary of states which prohibit discrimination based
on sexual orientation. Retrieved from http://www.
lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/documents/record?record=185
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. (2001b, April). Ne-
braska’s Highest Court unanimously holds Sheriff account-
able for Brandon Teena’s death. Retrieved from http://www.
lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/documents/record?record=825
Meyer, I. H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior,36, 38–56.
Mott, L. (1997). Epidemic of hate: Violations of The human rights of
gay men, lesbians, and transvestites in Brazil. Salvador, Bahia:
Grupo Gay da Bahia.
Mott, L., & Cerqueira, M. (2001). Cause of death: Homophobia.
Salvador, Bahia: Grupo Gay da Bahia.
Mulvey, A., Terenzio, M., Hill, J., Bond, M. A., Huygens, I.,
Hamerton, H. R., et al. (2000). Stories of relative privilege:
Power and social change in feminist community psychol-
ogy. American Journal of Community Psychology,28(6), 883–
911.
Nardi, P. M., Sanders, D., & Marmor, J. (Eds). (1994). Growing up
before Stonewall. London: Routledge.
Nystrom, N. M., & Jones, T. C. (2003). Community building with
aging and old Lesbians. American Journal of Community Psy-
chology,31(3/4), 243–252.
Pf¨aefflin F. (1997, October–December). Sex reassignment,
Harry Benjamin, and some European Roots. Interna-
tional Journal of Transgenderism,1(2). Retrieved from
http://www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtc0202.htm
Poindexter, C. C. (1997). Sociopolitical antecedents to Stonewall:
Analysis of the origins of the gay rights movement in the
United States. Social Work,42(6), 607–615.
Public Education Regarding Sexual Orientation Nationally
(1999, November). Teen perceived as gay brutally murdered.
Retreived from http://www.youth.org/loco/PERSONProject/
Alerts/International/murder.html
Ristock, J. L. (2003). Exploring dynamics of abusive lesbian rela-
tionships: Preliminary analysis of a multisite, qualitative study.
American Journal of Community Psychology,31(3/4), 243–
252.
Rivers, I., & D’Augelli, A.R. (2001). The victimization of lesbian,
gay, and bisexual youths. In A. R. D’Augelli & C. J. Patterson
(Eds.), Lesbian, gay and bisexual identities and youth: Psycho-
logical perspectives. New York: Oxford.
Rosario, M., Rotheram-Borus, M. J., & Reid, H. M. (1996). Gay-
related stress and its correlates among gay and bisexual male
adolescents of predominately Black and Hispanic background.
Journal of Community Psychology,24, 136–159.
Rosenthal, D. B. (1996). Gay and lesbian political mobilization and
regime responsiveness in four New York cities. Urban Affairs
Review,32, 45–70.
Russell, G. M., & Richards, J. A. (2003). Stressor and resilience
factors for lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals confronting antigay
politics. American Journal of Community Psychology,31(3/4),
243–252.
Schneider, M. (1991). Developing services for gay and lesbian
adolescents. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health,
10(1), 133–150.
Schneider, M., & Harper, G. W. (Eds.). (2003). Lesbian, gay, bisex-
ual, and transgendered communities: Linking theory,research,
and practice [Special issue]. American Journal of Community
Psychology,31(3/4).
Stanley, J. L. (2003). An applied collaborative training program for
graduate students in community psychology: A case study of a
community project working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans-
gender, and questioning youth. American Journal of Commu-
nity Psychology,31(3/4), 243–252.
Travers, R., & Schneider, M. (1997). A multi-faceted approach to
reduce risk factors for lesbian, gay and bisexual youth. In
M. Schneider (Ed.), Pride and Prejudice: Working with les-
bian, gay and bisexual youth. Toronto: Central Toronto Youth
Services.
Waldo, C. R. (1998). Out on campus: Sexual orientation and aca-
demic climate in a university context. American Journal of
Community Psychology,26(5), 745–774.
Waldo, C. R., Hesson-McInnis, M. S., & D’Augelli, A. R. (1998).
Antecedents and consequences of victimization of lesbian, gay,
and bisexual young people: A structural model comparing ru-
ral university and urban samples. American Journal of Com-
munity Psychology,26(2), 307–334.
Woolwine, D. (2000). Community in gay male experience and moral
discourse. Journal of Homosexuality,38(4), 5–37.
Zea, M. C., Reisen, C. A., & Diaz, R. M. (2003). Methodologi-
cal issues in research on sexual behavior with Latino gay and
bisexual men. American Journal of Community Psychology,
31(3/4), 243–252.
