Not quite over the rainbow: the unrelenting and insidious nature of heteronormative ideology

Not

quite

over

the

rainbow:

the

unrelenting

and

insidious

nature

of

heteronormative

ideology

Jojanneke

van

der

Toorn

,

Ruthie

Pliskin

and

Thekla

Morgenroth

Heteronormativeideologyreferstothebeliefthattherearetwo separateandopposinggenderswithassociatednaturalrolesthat matchtheirassignedsex,andthatheterosexualityisagiven.Itis pervasiveandpersistent,carryingnegativeconsequences. Becauseitisembeddedinsocietalinstitutionsandpropagated throughsocializationandotherwidelyheldideologies,itis prevalentamongbothcis-heteroandLGBTQI+individuals.Inthe currentarticle,wediscusstheunrelentingandinsidiousnatureof heteronormative ideology, review some of the social-psychological mechanismsthatcontributetoitsmaintenance,andprovide directionsforfutureresearchthatcouldinformeffortstocombatit. Wearguethatthreatreactionstonon-heteronormativebehavior reinforce heteronormative beliefs and that interventions are needed toaddressbothprejudiceanditsunderlyingmechanisms.

Addresses

1_{LeidenUniversity,Wassenaarseweg52,2333AKLeiden,The} Netherlands

2

UtrechtUniversity,Heidelberglaan1,3584CSUtrecht,TheNetherlands 3_{UniversityofExeter,PerryRoad,Exeter,EX44QG,UK}

Correspondingauthor:

vanderToorn,Jojanneke(j.m.van.der.toorn@fsw.leidenuniv.nl)

CurrentOpinioninBehavioralSciences2020,34:160–165 ThisreviewcomesfromathemedissueonEmotion,motivation, personalityandsocialsciences*politicalideologies* EditedbyJohnTJost,EranHalperinandKristinLaurin ForacompleteoverviewseetheIssueandtheEditorial

Availableonline12thMay2020

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.03.001

2352-1546/ã2020TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.Thisisan openaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense(http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/).

"Seventypercentofthepeoplewhoraisedme,who

lovedme,whoItrusted, believedthat

homosexu-ality was a sin, that homosexuals were heinous,

subhuman,pedophiles.70percent!Andbythetime

I identified as being gay, it was too late, I was

already homophobic. And you do not get to just

flipaswitchonthat."

– HannahGadsby,Nanette [1]

The abovequote bythe AustralianentertainerHannah

Gadsby aptly illustrates the all-encompassing power of

heteronormativeideology,suchthat notonly doesit shape

the way individuals view others, it can also, through

internalization, shape the way individuals view

them-selves.Heteronormativeideologyreferstothebeliefthat

therearetwoseparateandopposinggenders(womenand

men)withassociatednaturalroles(masculineand

femi-nine),which arein linewith theirassigned sex(female

andmale),andthatheterosexualityisagiven,ratherthan

one of many possible sexualities [2]. Heteronormative

assumptions are ubiquitous in the daily experiences of

bothchildrenandadults,leadingthemtoroutinelyface—

and frequently reinforce—such expectations.

Accord-ingly, heteronormativity is the lens through which the

world is viewed and, importantly, through which it is

evaluatedandjudged[3].

Heteronormativity is both descriptive and prescriptive.

Peopleareassumedtoidentifywiththegenderthataligns

withtheirsexandbeattractedexclusivelytotheopposite

sex because this characterizes the majority of people.

Furthermore, they are often supposed to do so because

it is the proper thing to do, and may otherwise face

backlash(also knownas transnegativity and

homonega-tivity).Throughtheirdescriptiveandprescriptivenature,

heteronormativebeliefshavefar-reachingconsequences,

notonlybecausetheycommonlyleadtoan

underestima-tionofgenderandsexualdiversityandtobacklashagainst

peoplewhodeviatefromthesenorms,suchasLGBTQI+

people,1but also becausethey may serve as a

straight-jacket for those adhering to them. As an illustration, a

straightcis-gender man who endorsesthe

heteronorma-tiveviewthatchildrenneedabreadwinningfatheranda

caringmother,for example,willlikelyperceivea

same-sexcouple aslesserparents butalsofeel uncomfortable

takingup paternityleavehimself.Inthecurrentarticle,

wediscuss theunrelentingand insidious natureof

het-eronormativeideology,reviewsomeofthe

social-psycho-logical mechanisms that contribute to its maintenance,

and provide directions for future research that could

provideimportantinsighttowardscombatingit.Indoing

so,weprimarilyfocusonprescriptiveheteronormativity,

becauseitsconsequencesareparticularlyharmful,

includ-ingprejudice,discrimination, andevenviolence.

1

The

pervasiveness

and

ill

effects

of

heteronormative

ideology

in

society

Heteronormativitynotonlyexistsinthecollectiveminds

of people but isalso ingrainedin thevery fabricof our

social, legal, economic, political, educational, and

reli-gious institutions.Its ever-present, descriptivenatureis

evidentfirst-and-foremostinmarriage,pregnancy,

adop-tion,andrelatedsocio-legalpracticesthatinmost

socie-tiesarebeholdentodifferent-sexcouplesonly.

Encoun-teringheteronormativeassumptionsisadailyaffair,with

peopleroutinelyforcedtopickoneoftwooptionswhen

asked to indicatetheirgenderor sexin systemsandon

forms, and with their shopping experiences generally

organized along gender lines (e.g., with women’s and

men’s clothingandgirls’and boys’toysections).

While descriptive heteronormativity entailsno

assump-tionthatpeoplewhoarestraightandgender-conforming

are morally superior, it is likely related to prescriptive

heteronormativity.Theliteratureisunclearontheexact

process throughwhichnormativebeliefsbecome

moral-ized [4,5], but believing that the gender binary exists

appears to be a necessary precondition for people to

believe that it is desirable. Indeed, people have been

found to anchor their perceptions of what should be on

their view of what is (e.g., through processesof system

justification [6]).

Afar-too-commonmanifestationoftheprescriptivenature

ofheteronormativityisprejudicebasedonsexual

orienta-tion (i.e., homonegativity or heterosexism; e.g., against

bisexual,lesbian,andgayindividuals)andgenderidentity

(i.e.,transnegativity;e.g.,againsttranswomen,transmen,

andnon-binaryindividuals).Inotherwords,when

hetero-normative beliefsaremoralized(i.e., whentheyare

pre-scriptive), they can lead to the denial, denigration and

stigmatizationofqueerandnon-binaryformsofbehavior,

identity,relationship,orcommunity[7],whichcanrangein

form, frommoreblatantand explicitto moresubtleand

implicit[8,9].Theseincludeformalrestrictionson

behav-iorthatchallengesheteronormativity,withlawspresentin

atleast76countriescriminalizingconsensual,adult

same-sex relationships, cross-dressing, cross-gender behavior,

and/orevendiscussionof‘non-traditionalsexualrelations’.

Inextremecases,suchasinIran,Mauritania,andpartsof

Somalia,suchoffencesarepunishablebythedeathpenalty

[10].Theselegalrestrictionsareaugmentedbylessformal

formsofdiscrimination,withbullyingofnon-conforming

school-age children common across the globe [10] and

research suggesting thatthose who violate genderroles

face prejudiceand discriminationin social and employment

situations[11–15]

While it may be tempting to see these expressions of

prejudiceasanartefactoftraditionalsocieties,limitedto

thedevelopingworld,highlevelsofdiscriminationhave

alsobeenrecordedinregionsseenashighlyprogressive,

suchastheEuropeanUnion(EU).Infact,abouthalfofall

LGBTQI+individualsintheEUreportpersonal

experi-ences with discriminationor harassment based on their

non-heteronormative identities,with over 25% of them

havingexperiencedviolence,andabouttwothirdsfeeling

compelledtohidetheiridentitiestoavoidprejudiceand

discrimination [16]. Even in the Netherlands, widely

recognized as a pioneer in LGBTQI+ rights [17,18],

30% of LGBTQI+ individuals report experiences of

discrimination and/or harassment [16], and LGBTQI+

teens face, on average, four times as much bullying as

heteronormativeteens[19].

Therearealsosignsofprogress.CharlesworhandBanaji

[20],forexample,showedthatbetween2007and2016,

US respondents’ explicitand implicit prejudice on the

basisofsexualorientationshowedchangetowardattitude

neutrality.Thisshiftcorrespondstolegalchangesacross

theworld,withmanycountriesaroundtheglobeadopting

stronger anti-hate crime and discrimination laws and

procedures over the past decade (e.g., Albania, Cuba,

Georgia,Mexico,Nepal,andSouthAfrica),

decriminaliz-inghomosexualrelations(e.g.,MozambiqueandPalau),

andevenimplementingnationalplansofactiontotackle

discriminationagainstLGBTQI+individuals(e.g.,Brazil,

France,SouthAfrica,andUruguay)[10].Thishasledto

greatervisibilityandacceptance,withseveralopenlygay

andopenlylesbianpeoplenowservingasheads ofstate

(ofIreland,Luxembourg,andSerbia)andsame-sex

mar-riagebeinglegallyavailablein28countries.

Despitetheseexamplesofprogress,however,

heteronor-mativeideologyispervasiveandpersistent.Perhapsthe

bestillustrationofthisisthefactthatheteronormativityis

not just prevalent among those who adhere to it (i.e.,

sexual and gender majorities), but even among those

violating heteronormative assumptions in one way or

another (i.e., sexual and gender minorities). Gay men

and lesbian women have been found to show weaker

implicitingroupfavoritismthanheterosexualsdo[21,22],

andtosometimesevenagreewiththenegativeopinions

thatsocietyhasabouttheirgroup(i.e.,internalized

homo-negativity [23,24]). Heteronormativity can also be

observed in same-sexrelationships, withsomegaymen

and lesbian women either performing a feminine or

masculinerole(intermsofappearanceand/orbehavior),

anddatingpeopleperformingthe‘opposite’role[25,26].

Interestingly, this preference for a

gender-complemen-tarypartnerseemsparticularlypronounced amongthose

with high levels of internalized stigma whensociety is

perceived todisapproveof homosexuality[27].

Social

psychological

mechanisms

contributing

to

the

maintenance

of

a

heteronormative

Status

quo

The pervasiveness and persistence of heteronormative

psychologicalmechanismsthatcontributetoits

entrench-mentandmaintenance. Below,we delveintothe

struc-ture and workings of heteronormativity, addressing its

centralroleinsocialization,thecentralroleplayedbythe

genderbinaryinitsmanifestation,itsoverlapwithother

beliefsystems,and howthethreat thatnon-conforming

behavior and identities elicit in others facilitates the

maintenanceof aheteronormativestatus quo.

First,researchhasshownthatdescriptiveandprescriptive

heteronormativityaredeeplyingrainedinhowpeopleare

socialized.Socializationinthisregardrefersto the

iden-tities,behaviorandideologiesthatparentsandcaretakers

presenttotheirchildren.Morespecifically,

developmen-tal research has demonstrated that children’s gender

attitudesareinfluencedbythesexualorientationoftheir

parents and their parents’ gender ideologies, and even

moresobytheextenttowhichtheirparents’divisionof

labor conforms to normative gender roles [28]. Parents

with more traditional gender role attitudes were also

foundto morefrequently engagein attemptstochange

thegender-nonconformingbehaviorsoftheirchildrento

fitin withsocietalexpectationsfor gender[29].Beyond

the early formative years, heteronormative ideology is

furtherbolsteredbycommonrepresentationsinboththe

mediaand people’s immediate socialenvironment, and

reinforcedthroughtheprescriptionsandproscriptionsin

interactionswithsignificantothersandpeers[30,31].

Anotherreasonwhyheteronormativityissopervasiveand

persistent is that it incorporates various important and

centralaspectsoftheself:one’ssexcharacteristics,

gen-deridentity,genderexpression,andsexualorientation.In

additiontoformingacorepartoftheself,theseconstructs

areassumedtoberelatedinsystematicandmeaningful

ways, organized around the gender/sex binary, which

refers to the belief that there are, and should be, two

oppositionalandcomplementarygenders(inappearance

andbehavior),includingsexualandromanticattractionto

oneanother, thatfollowfrom biologicalsex[32].The

interdependenceofthese domainsmeansthatsomeone

whoisgendernon-conforminginonedomain(e.g.,being

afeminine-lookingman)maybeassumedtodeviatefrom

thegender/sexbinaryinotherdomains(e.g.,besensitive

and nurturing). In other words, the gender/sex binary

playsakeyrolewithinheteronormativity.Indeed,various

studiesindicatethatthe(apparent)deviationfrom

mas-culineorfemininegenderrolesisanimportantaspectof

negativejudgements aboutLGBTQI+people [8],and

heterosexualityisakeypartofgenderroles,particularly

formen[33].

Thequestionremains,however,whethersomeaspectsof

heteronormativity—such as the endorsement of binary

genderroles—aremorecentralthanothers,andwhether

prescriptionsand proscriptionsregardingsexual

orienta-tionstemfromtheendorsementofbinarygenderrolesor

causethem. Somearguethat heterosexuality isjust one

outofmanyaspectsofgenderroles[33].Inotherwords,

becausegenderrolesareconstructedascomplementary,

neitherwomen nor men are ‘complete’ without a

rela-tionship with the ‘opposite’ sex [34]. Others, however,

argue that gender roles have developed in response to

compulsoryheterosexuality.Forexample,inherseminal

bookGenderTrouble,Butler[30]arguesthatgenderroles

developed to uphold a patriarchal system in which

women’s purpose is to serve as means of reproduction

to men,as theirmothers, andas theirwives. Thus,she

arguesthat compulsory heterosexuality came first (as a

meanstogainandmaintainpowerbymen),andgender

normsandrolesdevelopedto maintainit.

Regardlessofwhichaspectofheteronormativityismore

central, prejudice against sexual minorities, prejudice

againstgenderminorities,andendorsementoftraditional

gender roles have close connections. Accordingly,

researchfindsthattheyaregenerallyrelated.For

exam-ple,sexualprejudiceisknowntobepositivelyassociated

withprejudiceagainsttranspeople[35],modernsexism

[36], hostile sexism, and the endorsement of gender

stereotypes [37]. Given how powerful and ubiquitous

thegender/sexbinaryis,itisnotsurprisingthat

hetero-normativityispervasiveandhardto combat.

Heteronormativityisfurthersupportedthroughreligious

ideologies,asmanyreligionsencouragetraditionalgender

rolesandincorporateexplicitheterosexism(atleastwith

regardtosexualactsbetweenmen[38]).Inlinewiththis,

religiosityisconsistentlyrelatedtoheteronormative

atti-tudes and beliefs such as prejudice against sexual and

genderminorities [39,40], as wellas benevolent sexism

[41].Itisthusclearthat(a)prescriptionsandproscriptions

regardingsexualorientationandgender

roles—conform-ingwith thegender/sexbinary—areclosely linked, and

that(b) predictorsofsexismandheterosexismareoften

thesame (e.g.,religiosity).

In a recent theoretical article, Morgenroth and Ryan

[32] proposethatdisruptions to thegender/sexbinary

canelicitdifferenttypesofthreat(personalthreat,

group-based and identitythreat, and system threat), which in

turnleadstoeffortstoalleviate thisthreatthrough

rein-forcementofthegender/sexbinary.Wearguethatsimilar

threat reactions contribute to the maintenance of the

heteronormativebeliefsystem.Forexample,by

challeng-ing the one-on-one relationship between maleness and

differentaspects of masculinity, LGBTQI+people can

cause personal threat to men’s perceived manhood,

which, according to the precarious manhood literature,

needstobeprovencontinuouslyandcanbelost[42].To

obtain and maintain their status, men must constantly

performmasculinity and avoidfemininity, especially in

front of other men. Being perceived as gay—or even

threatening, and research shows that men react more

negatively to gay men, particularly effeminate gay

men,whentheirmasculinityisthreatened[43].

LGBTQI+individuals can also elicit group-based and

identitythreats suchasdistinctivenessthreat.Members

ofgroups(e.g.,womenandmen)desiretoseetheirown

group as distinct and different from the outgroup [44].

LGBTQI+individuals(particularlynon-binaryandtrans

individuals) can threaten the clear distinction between

“women” and “men” [45] and elicit negative reactions

toward LGBTQI+individuals among women and men

who arehighlyidentifiedwiththeirgender[46].Recent

research examining bisexual prejudice among lesbian

women indicated that the perception that bisexual

women aremoresexuallyattractedtomenthanwomen

(making them a sexual outgroup) accounts for the

lesbians’negativeaffecttowardthem [47].

Lastly, LGBTQI+ individualscan elicit system threat.

Systemjustificationtheory[48]arguesthatindividuals

aremotivatedtodefendexistingsystems(suchas

politi-cal and socialstructures) because they help coordinate

social relationshipsandcreateasenseofsharedreality,

reducingfeelingsofuncertaintyandthreat.Importantly,

individuals maydefend such systems even if they

dis-advantage them, because it makes them feel better

about the status quo. Indeed, LGBTQ+ individuals

who minimized (versus acknowledged) the extent to

which their group is the target of discrimination

per-ceived the system as fairer and consequently reported

better well-being [49]. Above, we have demonstrated

howpervasiveheteronormativebeliefsareacrossawide

range of social systems. Not conforming to

heteronor-mative idealsthusthreatenthese systems.Inline with

this, conservatives (who are generally high in system

justification motives) strongly oppose pro-LGBTQI+

policies and practices such asgender-neutral language

[50],marriageequality[51],andunisexbathrooms[52],

and exhibit more sexual prejudice than liberals [53].

Conservative tendenciestouphold thestatusquo have

furthermore beenfoundtounderlieheterosexuals’

reli-gious opposition to same-sex marriage [38] and gay

men’s internalized homophobia and derogation of

same-sex parents’competence [54].

Conclusions

and

future

research

directions

Giventhattheexpressionofheteronormativityis

perva-sive, persistent and interwoven into the processes and

culture of institutions, combatingit is a real challenge.

The social psychological mechanisms outlined above

partly explain the unrelenting and insidious nature of

heteronormativity and pose challenges for reducing it.

Thesechallengesarecompoundedbythefactthatsexual

orientationandgenderidentityprejudiceisincreasingly

subtle [7,8,9,55].Furthermore, therelative invisibility

of sexual orientationand genderidentity[56]present a

unique challenge in combating heteronormativity, as

LGBTQI+individualscantosomeextentavoidpersonal

discrimination and negative reactions by staying

‘closeted’ [57]—achoicethat hasironically been found

to undermine the wellbeing of those who hide their

identity [58,59],and may harm theirsense of inclusion

[60].

Commonapproachestocombatingheteronormative

ide-ology are focused on reducing sexual orientation and

gender identity prejudice. A review of the literature

suggests that promising interventions are those aimed

atevokingempathyandperspectivetakingtowardsexual

andgenderidentityminorities,oratdevelopingalliances

betweenminority and majority members(suchas

Gen-der-SexualityAlliancesin High Schools[8]).However,

most interventions are neither based on research nor

scientifically evaluated for their effectiveness [8]. If

we want to effectively reduce sexual orientation and

gender identity prejudice, we need prejudice-reducing

interventionsthatarerobustacrosstimeandcontextsand

addressbothblatantandsubtleformsofprejudice,aswell

as their underlying mechanisms. To this end, more

research is needed on the causes of heteronormativity

and on the specific relationship between heterosexism

and sexism. While most theoretical perspectives view

heterosexismand sexismas twosides of thesamecoin,

noconsensushasbeenreachedonwhetherheterosexism

is rooted in binary gender (i.e., being queer is viewed

negatively because it is not in line with binary gender

roles) or rather gender prejudice is rooted in sexual

orientation prejudice (i.e., gender norm violations lead

to backlashbecausetheythreatenheterosexuality).Itis

important to knowthedirection oftheir relationshipin

ordertobeabletosuccessfullyintervene.Inaddition,we

needtonotonlyfocusonthesocial-psychological

mech-anismscontributingtotheendorsementof

heteronorma-tiveideologyamongcis-heteroindividualsbutalsoamong

thosemakinguptheLGBTQI+communitythemselves.

A careful analysis of the social psychological processes

thatshapeprejudicialattitudesandbehaviorstowardand

among LGBTQI+ individuals is critical for informing

theory and practice aimed at enhancing social justice,

so thatsexual andgender diversitycannot only be

nor-malizedbut celebrated.

Author

contributions

Jojanneke van der Toorn, Ruthie Pliskin and Thekla

Morgenroth conducted the literature review. Jojanneke

vanderToornledthewritingofthemanuscript,andall

authorsprovided feedbackatdifferentstages,reviewed,

edited, revisedand approvedthemanuscript.

Conflict

of

interest

statement

Acknowledgements

WewouldliketothankElvisHoxhajforhishelpwiththeliteraturereview inpreparationforthiscontribution,MarittOverkampforherhelpwiththe citations,andLexiSuppesforhervaluablefeedbackandsuggestionsfor improvingthemanuscript.

References

and

recommended

reading

Papersofparticularinterest,publishedwithintheperiodofreview, havebeenhighlightedas:

 ofspecialinterest ofoutstandinginterest

1. GadsbyH:Nanette. Sydney,NSW,Australia:H.Gadsby, Performer)SydneyOperaHouse;2018.

2. WarnerM:Introduction:fearofaqueerplanet.SocText1991, 29:3-17.

3. HerekGM:SexualstigmaandsexualprejudiceintheUnited States.Aconceptualframework.In Contemporary

PerspectivesonLesbian,Gay,andBisexualIdentities.Editedby HopeDA. NewYork:Springer-Verlag;2009:65-111.

4. SkitkaLJ,WisneskiDC,BrandtMJ:Attitudemoralization: probablynotintuitiveorrootedinperceptionsofharm.CurrDir PsycholSci2018,27:9-13.

5. RozinP:Theprocessofmoralization.PsycholSci1999, 10:218-221.

6. KayAC,GaucherD,PeachJM,LaurinK,FriesenJ,ZannaMP, SpencerSJ:Inequality,discrimination,andthepowerofthe statusquo:directevidenceforamotivationtoseetheway thingsareasthewaytheyshouldbe.JPersSocPsychol2009, 97:421-434.

7. WallsNE:Towardamultidimensionalunderstandingof heterosexism:thechangingnatureofprejudice.JHomosex 2008,55:20-70.

8.

 CramwinckeltoreduceblatantFM,ScheepersandsubtleDT,sexualVanderorientation-ToornJ:Interventionsandgender identityprejudice(SOGIP):currentknowledgeandfuture directions.SocIssuesPolicyRev2018,12:183-217

Focusingonprejudicereduction,thisarticleprovidesanimportantreview ofthesocialpsychologicalliteratureoninterventionsaimedatreducing sexualorientationandgenderidentityprejudice.Interventionsaimedat evokingempathyandperspectivetakingandinterventionsthatinvolve thebuildingofalliancesbetweenminorityandmajoritymembers(suchas Gender and Sexualities Alliances in schools) emerge as particularly promising.Moreresearchisneeded,however,totesttherobustness ofinterventioneffectsandtostudytheirunderlyingmechanisms, dura-tion,andboundaryconditions.

9. MorrisonMA,MorrisonTG:Developmentandvalidationofa scalemeasuringmodernprejudicetowardgaymenand lesbianwomen.JHomosex2003,43:15-37.

10. UnitedNationsHighCommissionerforHumanRights: DiscriminationandViolenceAgainstIndividualsBasedonTheir SexualOrientationandGenderIdentity(ReportNo.A/HRC/29/23). .Retrievedfromhttps://undocs.org/A/HRC/29/232015. 11. GordonAR,MeyerIH:Gendernonconformityasatargetof

prejudice,discrimination,andviolenceagainstLGB individuals.JLGBTHealthRes2007,3:55-71.

12. MishelE:DiscriminationagainstqueerwomenintheU.S. workforce:are´sume´ auditstudy.Socius2016,2:1-13.

13. RudmanLA,PhelanJE:Backlasheffectsfordisconfirming genderstereotypesinorganizations.ResOrganBehav2008, 28:61-79.

14. VanderToornJ:Naareeninclusievewerkvloer:seksuele orie¨ntatieengenderidentiteitophetwerk[Towardaninclusive workplace:sexualorientationandgenderidentityatwork. GedragOrgan2019,32:162-180.

15. WhiteHughtoJM,ReisnerSL,PachankisJE:Transgender stigmaandhealth:acriticalreviewofstigmadeterminants,

mechanisms,andinterventions.SocSciMed2015, 147:222-231.

16. EUAgencyforFundamentalRights:EULGBTSurvey.European UnionLesbian,Gay,BisexualandTransgenderSurvey..Main results.Retrievedfromhttps://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ fra-eu-lgbt-survey-main-results_tk3113640enc_1.pdf2014. 17. McCarthyJ:EuropeanCountriesAmongTopPlacesforGay

PeopletoLive..Retrievedfromhttps://news.gallup.com/poll/ 183809/european-countries-among-top-places-gay-people-live. aspx2015.

18. PewResearchCenter:Same-SexMarriageAroundtheWorld.. Retrievedfromhttps://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/ gay-marriage-around-the-world/2019.

19. KuyperL:Jongerenenseksueleorie¨ntatie.Ervaringenvanen opvattingenoverlesbische,homoseksuele,biseksueleen heteroseksuelejongeren. DenHaag:SociaalenCultureel Planbureau;2015.

20.

 Charlesworthattitudes:I.long-termTES,BanajichangeMR:Patternsandstabilityofimplicitfrom2007andtoexplicit2016. PsycholSci2019,30:174-192

Thispaperisimportantasitdocumentsareductioninimplicitsexual orientationprejudiceintheU.S.Thisrobusttest,employingmillionsof observationsemployingtheImplicitAssociationTest,setsthistypeof prejudice apart from others examined. While implicit attitudes also becamemorepositivefor raceandskin tone,thechangewas most pronouncedforsexualorientation.

21. JellisonWA,McConnellAR,GabrielS:Implicitandexplicit measuresofsexualorientationattitudes:ingrouppreferences andrelatedbehaviorsandbeliefsamonggayandstraight men.PersSocPsycholBull2004,30:629-642.

22. JostJT,BanajiMR,NosekBA:Adecadeofsystemjustification theory:accumulatedevidenceofconsciousandunconscious bolsteringofthestatusquo.PolitPsychol2004,25:881-919.

23. HerekGM,GillisJR,CoganJC:Internalizedstigmaamong sexualminorityadults:insightsfromasocialpsychological perspective.JCounselPsychol2009,56:32-43.

24. MayfieldW:Thedevelopmentofaninternalized

homonegativityinventoryforgaymen.JHomosex2001, 41:53-76.

25. PanesisCP,LevittHM,BridgesSK:Thesexualitywithinbutch andfemmesexualminoritywomen.HonorsThesis.Universityof MassachusettsBoston;2014.

26. RothblumED,BalsamKF,WickhamRE:Butch,femme,and androgynousgenderidentitieswithinfemalesame-sex couples:anactor-partneranalysis.PsycholSexOrientatGend Divers2018,5:72-81.

27. NapierJL,VanderToornJ,VialAC:ThePersonalisPolitical: Self-StigmaandtheDesireforGender-ComplementaryRelationship PartnersAmongGayMen..Unpublishedmanuscript2020.

28. SumonthaJ,FarrRH,PattersonCJ:Children’sgender development:associationswithparentalsexualorientation, divisionoflabor,andgenderideology.PsycholSexOrientat GendDivers2017,4:438-450.

29. SpiveyLA,HuebnerDM,DiamondLM:Parentresponsesto childhoodgendernonconformity:effectsofparentandchild characteristics.PsycholSexOrientatGendDivers2018, 5:360-370.

30. ButlerJ:GenderTrouble:FeminismandtheSubversionofIdentity. London:Routledge;1990.

31. EaglyAH,WoodW:Socialroletheory.In HandbookofTheories ofSocialPsychology.EditedbyVanLangePAM,HigginsAW, KruglanskiET.ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublicationsLtd.;2012: 458-476.

32.

 MorgenrothIntegratedTheoreticalT,RyanMK:FrameworkTheEffectsoftheofGenderPerpetuationTrouble:andAn DisruptionoftheGender/SexBinary..(inpress)2020

foregroundsbinarygender/sexperformance.Theydistinguishbetween character,costume,and scriptandargue that wheneverthese three dimensions are not aligned, the gender/sex binary is disrupted and gendertroubleensues.

33. HerekGM:Onheterosexualmasculinity:somepsychical consequencesofthesocialconstructionofgenderand sexuality.In ChangingMen:NewDirectionsinResearchonMen andMasculinity,sagefocuseditions,vol88.EditedbyKimmelMS. ThousandOaks,CA,US:SagePublications,Inc.;1986:68-82.

34. GlickP,FiskeST:Anambivalentalliance:hostileand benevolentsexismascomplementaryjustificationsfor genderinequality.AmPsychol2001,56:109-118.

35. NagoshiCT,CloudJR,LindleyLM,NagoshiJL,LothamerLJ:A testofthethree-componentmodelofgender-based prejudices:homophobiaandtransphobiaareaffectedby raters’andtargets’assignedsexatbirth.SexRoles2019, 80:137-146.

36. CunninghamGB,MeltonEN:Themoderatingeffectsofcontact withlesbianandgayfriendsontherelationshipsamong religiousfundamentalism,sexism,andsexualprejudice.JSex Res2013,50:401-408.

37. DaviesM,GilstonJ,RogersP:Examiningtherelationship betweenmalerapemythacceptance,femalerapemyth acceptance,victimblame,homophobia,genderroles,and ambivalentsexism.JInterpersViolence2012,27:2807-2823.

38. VanderToornJ,JostJT,PackerD,NoorbaloochiS,VanBavelJJ: Indefenseoftradition:religiosity,conservatism,and oppositiontosame-sexmarriageinNorthAmerica.PersSoc PsycholBull2017,43:1455-1468.

39. CragunRT,SumerauJE:Thelastbastionofsexualandgender prejudice?Sexualities,race,gender,religiosity,and spiritualityintheexaminationofprejudicetowardsexualand genderminorities.JSexRes2015,52:821-834.

40. HerekGM,McLemoreKA:Sexualprejudice.AnnRevPsychol 2013,64:309-333.

41. GlickP,LameirasM,CastroYR:EducationandCatholic religiosityaspredictorsofhostileandbenevolentsexism towardwomenandmen.SexRoles2002,47:433-441.

42. BossonJK,VandelloJA,CaswellTA:Precariousmanhood.In TheSAGEHandbookofGenderandPsychology.EditedbyRyan MK,BranscombeNR.London:Sage;2013:15-130.

43. GlickP,GanglC,GibbS,KlumpnerS,WeinbergE:Defensive reactionstomasculinitythreat:morenegativeaffecttoward effeminate(butnotmasculine)gaymen.SexRoles2007, 57:55-59.

44. BranscombeNR,EllemersN,SpearsR,DoosjeB:Thecontext andcontentofsocialidentitythreat.In SocialIdentity:Context, Commitment,Content.EditedbyEllemersN,SpearsR,DoosjeB. Oxford:Blackwell;1999:35-59.

45. OuttenHR,LeeT,LawrenceME:Heterosexualwomen’s supportfortrans-inclusivebathroomlegislationdependson thedegreetowhichtheyperceivetranswomenasathreat. GroupProcessIntergrRelat2019,22:1094-1108.

46. SchmittMT,BranscombeNR:Thegood,thebad,andthemanly: threatstoone’sprototypicalityandevaluationsoffellow in-groupmembers.JExpSocPsychol2001,37:510-517.

47. MatsickJL,RubinJD:Bisexualprejudiceamonglesbianand gaypeople:examiningtherolesofgenderandperceived sexualorientation.PsycholSexOrientatGendDivers2018, 5:143-155.

48.

 Jostquestions,JT:Aquarteranswers,centurycriticisms,ofsystemandsocietaljustificationapplications.theory:BrJ SocPsychol2018,58:263-314

Thisarticlereviews25yearsofresearchsupportingsystemjustification theory, according to which people are motivated to and justify and strengthen existing social, economic, andpolitical systems,andthat justifyingthesystemservestoincreasesatisfactionwiththestatusquo, thusgrantinganincreasedsenseofwellbeing.

49.

 systemSuppesA,justificationNapierJL,onVanthederhealthToornandJ:Thehappinesspalliativeofeffectslesbian,of gay,bisexual,andtransgenderindividuals.PersSocPsychol Bull2019,45:372-388

Thisarticledemonstrates,inthreestudies,thatLGBTQ+individualswho minimize(versusacknowledge)theextent towhich theirgroupisthe targetofdiscriminationreportbetterwell-beingacrossmyriadindicators. Thefindingssuggestthatthisrelationshipispartlyduetotheabilitythis providestomaintaintheperceivedfairnessofthesystem.

50. GustafssonSende´nM,Ba¨ckEA,LindqvistA:Introducinga gender-neutralpronouninanaturalgenderlanguage:the influenceoftimeonattitudesandbehavior.FrontPsychol2015, 6:893.

51. SherkatDE,Powell-WilliamsM,MaddoxG,DeVriesKM:Religion, politics,andsupportforsame-sexmarriageintheUnited States,1988–2008.SocSciRes2011,40:167-180.

52. BlumellLE,HuemmerJ,SternadoriM:Protectingtheladies: benevolentsexism,heteronormativity,andpartisanshipin onlinediscussionsofgender-neutralbathrooms.Mass CommunSoc2019,22:365-388.

53. WhitleyBEJr,LeeSE:Therelationshipofauthoritarianismand relatedconstructstoattitudestowardhomosexuality.JAppl SocPsychol2000,30:144-170.

54. PacilliMG,TaurinoA,JostJT,VanderToornJ:System justification,right-wingconservatism,andinternalized homophobia:gayandlesbianattitudestowardsame-sex parentinginItaly.SexRoles2011,65:580-595.

55.

 Nadalcommunities:KL:Adecadeanintroductionofmicroaggressiontothespecialresearchissue.andJHomosexLGBTQ 2019,66:1309-1316

Thisarticleintroducesaspecialissuereviewingtheliteratureon micro-aggressionsfacedbyLGBTQpeople.Byhighlightingtheinfluenceofthe changinglandscapeofheterosexismandtransphobiawithinsociety,as wellasnewdynamicsthathaveformedanddevelopedwithinLGBTQ communities, the special issue furthers MicroaggressionTheory and providesimportantnewinsightsintothesubtleformsthatsexual orienta-tionandgenderidentityprejudicemaytake.

56. ClairJA,BeattyJE,MacLeanTL:Outofsightbutnotoutofmind: managinginvisiblesocialidentitiesintheworkplace.Acad ManageRev2005,30:78-95.

57. CroteauJM:Researchontheworkexperiencesoflesbian,gay, andbisexualpeople:anintegrativereviewofmethodologyand findings.JVocatBehav1996,48:195-209.

58. BarretoM,EllemersN:Detectingandexperiencingprejudice: newanswerstooldquestions.AdvExpSocPsychol2015, 52:139-219.

59. NewheiserA,BarretoM,TiemersmaJ:Peoplelikemedon’t belonghere:identityconcealmentisassociatedwithnegative workplaceexperiences.JSocIssues2017,73:341-358.